BioJobBlog Surpasses the 2.0 Million Reader Mark!

I started BioJobBlog in 2007 primarily as a means for me to express myself about life science careers and issue and challenges confronting the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical devices industry. That said, I never thought that BioJobBlog would ever amount to much; it was simply a vehicle for me to rant and rave about things that were important to me! It is a daunting challenge to begin a blog with no readers and then realize that 5 years later over 2.0 million unique readers have visited to read my thoughts and ideas about a wide breadth of topics.

I want to thank the readers who continue to visit BioJobBlog. And, I hope that what I have written over the past five years has either helped or induced you to think about issues in the life sciences industry. While I have no plans to stop blogging; my schedule is becoming increasingly challenging and I can no longer post articles as frequently as I have in the past. Nevertheless, I will continue do what I can to keep the content at BioJobBlog interesting, fresh and thought-provoking. 

Please feel free to contact me with ideas, thoughts or comments about the blog (or anything else for that matter). 

Thanks for supporting BioJobBlog!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

 

BioJobBlogger Revealed

Ome Ogbru, Pharm. D, CEO and Founder of Rxeconsult, a new networking site for healthcare consulting and jobs, asked me if I would be interested in being interviewed about the companies and websites that I started.  Of course I could not refuse.  So here goes:

 

RxEconsult: What is BioInsights and why did you develop BioInsights?

BioJobBlogger:  BioInsights founded in 1998 was originally a bioscience training and education company.  The goal of the company was to help life scientists get the training that they need to get jobs at life sciences companies. Today, BioInsights, Inc is more of a career development company that provides individualized career development guidance and counseling for life scientists. This is because the life sciences job market has changed considerably since 1998 and jobs are harder to come by. However, we still offer bioscience training in drug development, regulatory affairs and biomanufacturing. Additionally, BioInsights also offer medical communications consulting services.

RxEconsult: How do you distinguish BioInsights from other Medical Communications companies? 

BioJobBlogger: Unlike traditional medical communications companies, BioInsights offers writing services that heavily focus on social media platforms like LinkedIn, Twitter and various blogging platforms.  We also offer medical writing, copywriter and website content development services.

RxEconsult: What are the main challenges in your business and how are you addressing them?

BioJobBlogger: Training and career development services are not high priorities for job candidates or life sciences companies until a scientist is looking for a job or a company needs to hire new employees.  Consequently, it is difficult to convince both companies and jobseekers to be proactive and engage us early in the process. We are beginning to address this problem by turning to various social media platforms to get the word out about our services. Paradoxically, the recent economic downturn has been good for our business activities!

RxEconsult: What attracted you to social media and blogging? How can professionals make a living or develop their career by blogging?

BioJobBlogger:  I enjoy writing and always have had a strong desire to share my ideas and opinions with others. Blogging seemed like a natural extension of what I like to do. So, about 6 years ago I launched BioJobBlog (www.biojobblog.com) which is focused on life sciences career development topics as well as opinion pieces and reports on the goings on in the life sciences industry. While blogging is exciting and extremely cathartic, it is difficult to make a living as a blogger. The days of individual bloggers selling their blogs for millions to large media outlets are over.   That said, blogging is useful in establishing yourself as a subject matter expert which can sometimes lead to paid opportunities.  At its peak last year, I was averaging between 65,000-70,000 unique visitors per month @ BioJobBlog.

I built traffic to the levels I mentioned by blogging 4-5 times per day and staying abreast of late breaking events in the life sciences industry.  I was able to maintain that pace for a couple of years but because I blog for free, I could not sustain the pace any longer. The original goal was to reach 100,000 unique visitors per month and then try to sell the blog or form an alliance with a media outlet. Obviously, that did not happen.  I am now happy to log between 30,000-45,000 unique visitors per month by blogging three times per week or whenever the urge strikes me.

As far as revenue is concerned, it has not been much.  It costs me about $2400 per year in hosting and management fees and I have been blogging for over 5 years.  In that timespan, I may have made several thousand dollars but not enough to break even or turn a profit.  Blogging is truly a personal medium that is driven more by desire and the need to be heard rather than a profitable enterprise; unless of course you can get a major media outlet and blog for them.  That is really my dream job right now!

RxEconsult: What are the top social media practices that professionals should use for developing their career?

BioJobBlogger: I think that LinkedIn, Twitter and a personal blog can really help in terms of career development for life scientists.  However, all of these platforms require daily monitoring and care. Sadly, most life sciences professional spend most of their time in the laboratory and fail to realize that career development is vital and cannot be ignored if one wants to find a job!

RxEconsult: What healthcare gaps can social media address? 

BioJobBlogger:  I believe that social media can be used in real time for adverse event reporting and educational outreach activities. Unfortunately, most drug makers view social media as means to bolster sales or look for specialized employees.  That said, these are early days for life sciences companies and social media and it will interesting to see how social media evolves in the life sciences industry.

RxEconsult: Why are biopharmaceutical companies struggling with leveraging social media and how can they best use social media? How can BioInsights help them?

BioJobBlogger:  The life sciences industry is very conservative and adverse to change.  Social media is clearly a game changing phenomenon and most life sciences companies don’t know what to make of it yet.  Over the past three years or so, more and more life sciences companies have experimented with various social media platforms and are beginning to realize their potential for their businesses.  

BioInsights can help companies navigate the social media jungle because of our experience using social media platforms and also developing life sciences websites and blog content.

RxEconsult: What feedback have you received and how are your websites performing?

BioJobBlogger: I recently redesigned the BioInsights website and traffic has been down. Most of my focus is on two other BioInsights web assets---BioJobBlog and BioCrowd (www.biocrowd.com) an online networking community for bioprofessionals.  

I frequently get comments @BioJobBlog about its content and how helpful it is to jobseekers and other bioprofessionals. BioCrowd was launched about three years ago and we are still growing the community. At present, joining BioCrowd is primarily through invitation only.  We are embarking on a mass membership drive early next spring.  At present there are 4,200 BioCrowd members.

RxEconsult: If you wrote a book about how to develop and run a business what pearls would you include?

BioJobBlogger: No matter how good the idea is, it is all about marketing! Good ideas with insufficient marketing power can easily fail whereas bad ideas with mega-advertising can succeed.  As a scientist myself, I failed to realize how important marketing and advertising are! In hindsight, I would have invested much more money and effort in marketing my business rather developing content and building sleek looking websites!

RxEconsult:BioJobBlogger, thank you for sharing your views and discussing your ventures. Hopefully, you can return to give us an update. I wish you success and I hope you find that dream job!

 To comment on this article or ask questions  join the RxEconsult community, a free business network for healthcare consulting, jobs, and more.

 

Is There Really a PhD Glut--You Betcha!

My colleagues over @ onlinephd.org sent me an infographic (these things are very popular these days) explaining why there is a glut of PhDs on today's job market and how it is affecting undergraduate education in the US. 

Surprisingly, the glut is not restricted to the life sciences; it appears to be universal!  At some point, the education bubble will burst and it is certain to have a marked effect on graduate programs. While I am proud of my PhD degree, I am not sure that getting a PhD degree is a wise career path unless you truly love what you are studying and cannot see yourself doing anything else for the rest of your life. If you have any doubts, I recommend finding a job or world travel before you decide to take the PhD plunge!  

The bottom line: earning a PhD degree is a very personal decision and it does not guarantee you employment at the end of your training!!!!!!!!!!

PhD Job Crisis
Created by: Online PhD

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

Mirror, Mirror On the Wall: Which Recent College Graduates Have the Highest Unemployment Rates of All?

It is no secret that recent college graduates are having a tough time finding work. However, not all college majors are created equal and the unemployment rates among different disciplines are likely to vary. To answer this question, a group of researchers at the Georgetown Center on Education and Workforce analyzed employment data for recent college graduates from an in-depth US census study entitled the American Community Survey conducted in 2009 and 2010. In the study, recent college grades were defined as workers (with college degrees of course) between ages 22 and 26.

The results of the study are shown in the graph below.

The data clearly show that among recent college grads, those who studied architecture have the highest unemployment rate at 13.9%. This finding was not that surprisingly given that the collapse of the housing and construction markets were mainly responsible for the ongoing recession that began in 2007. 

Unemployment rates were lowest among college graduates with training in education and healthcare. Again, these results are not that start. Again, these results were not startling because the US population continues to age (healthcare-related jobs) and the number of school-aged children skyrocketed in the past 20 years (education jobs).

Interestingly, the unemployment rate among engineering graduate, 7.4% is relatively high despite the fact that HR and employment experts contend that there is a shortage of engineers in the US.

Finally, unemployment rates among graduates with art degrees and those who possess degrees in the humanities and liberal art are still very high at 11.1% and 9.4% respectively. That said, maybe getting that MS or PhD degree in the life sciences was not such a bad idea after all!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!

 

More Resume Writing Tips: Things That Absolutely, Positively Should Not Appear on Your CV

There are differences of opinions regarding whether or not to include certain things on a resume or curriculum vitae (CV). Some career specialists contend that it is okay to include things like an objective statement, “references upon request”, telephone numbers and hobbies on a CV whereas others do not. That said, most career experts agree that the following SHOULD NOT appear on a resume or CV 

  1. Martial status, religious preference or social security numbers (it is illegal in the US to require this information)
  2. Graduation dates from high school, college or graduate/professional school (this allows employers to estimate your age)
  3. Current business contact information (do you want a hiring manager to contact you at work about a new position or monitor your e-mail and phone calls?)
  4. An unprofessional e-mail address (hottie@gmail.com does not send the right message to prospective employers)
  5. Writing in the third person (it is your career and life so write in the first person)

While these recommendations may be obvious to many, they are not so obvious to others, especially people who come from other countries where inclusion of personal information like martial status, nationality, religious preference etc are allowable and in some cases expected.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

Preparing For and Coping With Annual Performance Reviews

For many corporate employees, the annual performance review process is a bane to their existence. For those of you who may not be familiar with annual reviews, most corporate employees are required to undergo a review process that includes a synopsis of their accomplishments over the past year and new goals for the upcoming one. And, as all corporate employees understand, the quality of an annual review determines the size of the bonus that they can expect to receive and whether or not a salary increase is in order for the upcoming fiscal year. In other words, you never want to get a “less than stellar” annual review because your fiscal well-being depends on it!

Not surprisingly, preparing for the annual review can be nerve-racking and dealing with the results of the review can be equally challenge (especially if the review is a negative one). Although, most of the annual reviews for 2011 have been completed, Eilene Zimmerman who writes the Career Couch for the New Times posted a helpful article that deals with preparing for the dreaded annual review and how best to respond to either a positive or negative one.

I can tell you from personal experience, the annual review is probably one of the silliest and most inane things that was ever invented for corporate employees. That said, it is part and parcel of the corporate workplace game and to excel you need to get good at!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

 

Tips on How To Cope After Being Layed Off

Getting layed off is not uncommon in today's economy.  Nevertheless, it is a difficult experience even for the most season employees.  I found a video on YouTube that provides some ideas on how to manage being layed off and what you can do to get back up on your feet. 

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

Improving Employment Opportunities for Life Sciences Graduates

There are a variety of reasons why the life sciences job market has been so dismal in recent years. First and foremost, there are too many applicants for too few jobs; employers are ignoring resumes/CVs that previously commanded face-to-face interviews. Second and perhaps more pernicious, is the notion among corporate executives and hiring managers that current graduates (both undergraduate and graduate students) have been catered to and are so academically untested that they bring little or no value to today’s fast-paced and demanding workplaces. While this characterization may or may not be warranted, it is a prevailing attitude that is likely hindering employment opportunities for recent life sciences graduates.

According to an insightful article written by Robert W. Goldfarb, a management consultant, entitled “Help Graduates Find Their Footing” in the past, senior hiring managers were willing to hire applicants that thought outside of the box or were a bit unconventional to bring in new ideas and create some chaos in quiet office environments. But Goldfarb asserts, that long, painful and largely unsuccessful job searches “have sapped their daring, creativity and willingness to challenge old procedures.” Further he believes that older employees, once extremely resistant to change, are much more willing to reinvent themselves by adapting to a technically-challenging workplace and bringing mature problem solving skills to the job to protect their jobs and 401K plans. Because of this, Goldfarb contends that “managers have become far less tolerant of the missteps that once expected of any new hires” and not surprisingly older workers make mistakes. Finally, previously supportive hiring managers, criticize recent graduates for poor quality written and oral reports and the inability to recognize trends or draw conclusions from masses of data. 

So what can be done to ensure that the current generation of college graduates does not remain unemployed into perpetuity? Goldfarb suggests that mentoring and building partnerships between recent college graduates and companies that want to hire them would be an important first step toward fixing the problem. He suggests that companies should consider investing in training programs designed to shape the employees that they ultimately will need for their businesses. For example, Goldfarb suggests that:

 “high potential graduates for whom there isn’t an immediate opening could be hired, not as unpaid interns but as salaried trainees given three to six months to prove their value in a series of assignments. Those who don’t seize the opportunity can quickly be dismissed.

Also, he suggests that trainees must be mentored to help them avoid the “small missteps that can damage a career before it starts.” Interesting, back in the 70s and 80s most major corporation had training programs in place. These were largely abandoned in the 90s as a result of global competition and increasing US labor costs.

Goldfarb’s plan requires companies to think strategically, and plan for their employment needs of the future. Sadly, as many of you already know, must companies focus on the short term and are not mindful of future needs; after all they are someone else’s problems to solve). But, in response to this attitude, Goldfarb offers this dire warning:

“Employers can keep faulting overindulgent parents, ineffectual teachers, colleges without required subjects and graduates unsuited to today’s complex workplace or they can play a greater role in training and developing a generation longing to take its place in the American mainstream.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

Move Over China and India: Latin American Markets Are Sizzling

While China and India have gotten the most attention as emerging pharmaceutical markets, Latin American markets most notably Mexico and Brazil (okay, it is a South American country but it can be included in Latin America) have been quietly expanding as rapidly as the Indian and Chinese markets. To wit, Denmark-based, Novo Nordisk—the world’s largest insulin maker—recently announced that it will be beefing up its medical consultant (aka sales reps) presence in Latin America over the next two to three years. During this period, the company expects to increase its current headcount of 300 to 800 employees.

Novo currently holds a 50 percent share of the Latin American insulin market. The company currently generates annual sales in Latin America of approximately $360 million. But, its main rivals Sanofi Aventis and Eli Lilly & Co, which sell faster-acting insulins, are beginning to cut into Novo’s market share.  The solution: add more sales reps in the region. While this may be great news for Latin American sales reps, it is not good news for American sales reps. Unless, of course, these reps speak Spanish and are willing to relocate!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

Looking for a Chemistry Job? This Webinar May Help

I received a heads-up from the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) Sergio Lewis about a free webinar entitled “How to Secure and Nurture a Vibrant Chemistry Career in the 21st Century.” The webinar is scheduled for December 1, 2011 from 2:00-3:00 PM and will be led by Brian Fahie, PhD from Eli Lilly & Co. The presentation will be followed by a Q&A session.

For more information you can download the program here. To register follow this link.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Tis the Season: How to Ask for a Raise Without Getting Fired!

While many of you are happy just because you have a job, there are those individuals (deserving or not) who are going to “bite the bullet” and ask for a raise. This makes sense because over the past few years the cost of health insurance has gone up along with college tuition, gasoline price and a variety of other things while salaries have all but stagnated. Interestingly, only 9 percent of companies have put pay freezes in place over the past 18 months; a rate this is consistent with historical standards. That is down from the nearly two-thirds of companies that imposed pay freezes in January 2010. In other words, now may be a good time to ask for a raise as companies are trying to retain high value employees who presumably were too vital to lay off when companies were downsizing over the past three years. Sadly, merit raises (when they are meted out) have precipitously dropped in recent years from an average of roughly 4-5 percent to a paltry 2 percent on average today.

Whether or not economic times are good or bad, it is hard for most employees to “ask for a raise.” This is because it is difficult for employees to determine if they are ‘worthy” of a raise. To that end, there was a fantastic article in the NY Times business section last week helps employees determine whether or not they are deserving of a raise and it also provides a road map to actually prepare and ultimately ask for a raise.

It is a great read and provides great insights and ideas for those willing to risk asking their bosses for raises in difficult economic times.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

How to Determine If Laboratory Research Is The Right Career Choice For You

Most aspiring young scientists tell me that they love doing bench work and that they want to do it for their entire career. I am never certain whether they actually feel that way or they are simply telling me what they think I want to hear.  Nevertheless, I want to share my own feelings about bench work because I think it may be instructive for jobseekers who may not be entirely certain about their chosen career paths.

While I enjoyed doing research, first as a graduate student and then as a postdoc, bench work was not much fun for me and I found that the less I did it the happier I was. This should have been a warning sign but I ignored it because I believed that once I landed a tenure track position and had my own laboratory that I would be spending much less time at the bench. Much to my dismay that assumption was completely wrong and for the next seven years I was always at the bench when I was not writing grants, papers, serving on committees or teaching. And, not surprisingly, I resented it! But, then again, what did I expect? After all, I was a research scientist!

Interestingly, I have come to know that I am not the only card-carrying PhD life scientist who was not completely enamored with bench work. Many graduate students and postdocs share with me their aversion to bench work and their desire to get out of the laboratory. If you are one of those persons who feel this way, then I highly recommend that you eschew a career as a research scientist and pursue an alternate career path. Like it or not, you have to LOVE doing laboratory research to be a successful research scientist. In fact, not being able to be in the laboratory should be a disappointment rather than a time to rejoice! I believe this to be true because every single successful scientist that I know always talks about a time in their career when they were able to spend every waking minute in the lab and could think of no better place to be! To wit, in today’s NY Times Science Times, Michael S. Gazzaniga, PhD, a renowned psychologist, shared the following tidbit with his interviewer:

“I would be getting up at midnight and heading over to the lab — these experiments took great preparation, and that was the only really quiet time over there. It was busy, busy; I was up and around at all hours. I was totally lost in it, and those were the greatest years of my life. It just couldn’t have been better.”

If you do not feel this way, then a life long career as a research scientist may not be a wide career choice for you. Take it from someone who knows!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

BioCareer Development Symposium

Last week, BioJobBlog in association with BVS, a life sciences vendor management company, launched an inaugural three hour career development workshop called BioCareer Development Symposium at New York University School of Medicine. 

The event which featured seminar topics  including "Writing a Winning Resume," "Interviewing Tips and Advice" and "Social Media and Career Development for LIfe Scientists" was well attended by graduate students, postdocs and mid-career life scientists.  In addition to the seminars, nine life sciences companies were on site to showcase the latest life sciences reagents, equipments and kits.

Future BioScience Career Development Symposia are scheduled @ Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Alabama-Birmingham and the University of North Texas Health Sciences Center in Fort Worth, TX.

If your or your institution may be interested in hosting or learning more about our BioCareer Development Symposium offerings, please contact me.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

How Failure Can Help a Career

Conventional wisdom suggests that failure or negative comments can be harmful or potentially damaging to the career trajectory of most people. While in many cases this may be true, sometimes they may have an opposite and unanticipated positive effect or benefit. This is certainly true for me.

Back in 1970, when I was a freshman in a mandatory first semester English Composition class, I clearly recall the time when the instructor decided to read aloud some of our first essays. Mine was selected and I swell with pride when my name was mentioned. I had fancied myself an excellent writer and I thought that she was going to use my essay as an example of outstanding writing. After reading my essay aloud, I expected laudatory comments and how wonderfully written it was. Imagine my shock, humiliation and shame when she excoriated my essay and used it as example of poor writing. I never forgot that moment and recall that at the time, I decided to “show” the instructor how wrong she was and dedicated the next 40 years to become the best writer that I could be. As many BioJobBlog readers may know, I am currently a professional medical/science writer. Despite my ability to make a living as a writer and no matter how many times I publish something, I never forget that moment in that long ago freshman composition class.

Until today, I thought that my experience was not common and somewhat unique. In her article entitled “How Insults Spur Success” Peggy Payne—a journalist and author of several books—tell a similar story of rejection and how it helped rather than hurt her. In Peggy’s case she was rejected at age 16 from a renowned summer camp for “brainy” teenage students. Despite her obvious successes as a journalist and author, like me, she has never forgotten the incident and like me, it continues to drive her to succeed. Likewise, she reports that her husband received a “devastating” F on his first philosophy paper in college. He has been a tenured faculty member for 35 years in the philosophy department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

In all of our cases, we decided to “show’em that they were wrong about us. And, interestingly, I think that “we have been trying to prove them wrong our entire lives. While this may work for some of us, it may not be universally true for others. In any event, the thing that most of us fear the most is failure. However, as many successful persons will tell you is that it took failure for them to realize their true potential. This is certainly true in my case. While not getting tenure was an overwhelmingly devastating event, that one failure freed me to explore other opportunities and discover that I can do other things beside research and be happier doing them than I ever would have been if I had received a tenured faculty appointment!

The point that I am trying to make is that failure, while scary, can actually be a good thing and help to define a live more positively than success. So, the next time that things are not going well for you, take a moment and analyze your situation. Then, attempt to figure out how you can turn a negative comment or presumed failure into a potentially positive outcome. While it may take some time to accomplish this, it certainly gives you a goal to work towards and ambition generally breed success!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

 

Demand for Patent Agents and Attorneys Continues to Grow

Times are tough for many in the legal profession these days. However, the demand for patent experts including attorneys and patent agents is skyrocketing. According to an article in today’s NY Times, openings for patent attorneys account for more than 15 percent of law firm job openings while only 3 percent of lawyers in the US specialize in this area. The bottom line: it is a great time to be a patent attorney or agent in today’s tough economy.

Not surprisingly, many patent attorneys (and agents) usually have a background in science or engineering. And, because of the scarcity of qualified applicants many law firms are doubling their recruiting spending to meet the growing demand for specialists in intellectual property (IP) and patents.

One of the reasons for the growing demand is passage of the America Invents Act, the largest overhaul in the US patent system in the past 60 years. The legislation which changes how patents are reviewed and process is spurring competition between firms to higher IP specialist to ease the transition pain. At present, there are over 230 IP openings among more than 1400 lawyer positions nationwide. Many of the openings have been unfilled for over 90 days and more are added daily.

Currently, there are about 40,000 patent attorneys and agents registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In order to register with the USPTO agents and lawyers are required to pass the patent bar examination. While registered patent agents have taken and passed the exam, they are not lawyers who are required to pass state bar examinations to become licensed attorneys. For those of you who may not know, you don’t have to go to law school to take the patent bar exam nor is a law degree required to take individual state bar exams (however, person who are not law school graduate are likely not to pass the state tests). Patent agents can prepare patents and prosecute cases with the USPTO but cannot litigate in court or draw up contracts. There are roughly 1.2 million licensed patent attorneys in the US according to the American bar association.

The greatest demand for IP attorneys and agents is in information and computing technology and the life sciences. Persons with PhD degrees in the life sciences can sometimes find work at IP and patent law firms. Also, you may be able to find work at a patent examiner with the USPTO! PhD degree holders who have passed the patent bar are even more desirable. However a law degree plus a PhD degree will almost certainly guarantee you employment at most IP firms. That said, before you decide to go to law school, I high recommend that you talk with IP professionals or read a few dozen patent applications (they can all be found at www.uspto.org) in your spare time. If you find the reading interesting or manage to stay awake after reading the fifth application than patent law may be a good choice for you. If not, I suggest that you consider other alternate career options.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

New Group To Examine Ways to Help Graduate Students Move Into Careers

According to an article that appeared in the online version of The Chronicle of Higher Education website the Council of Graduate Schools and the Educational Testing Service  last Thursday that they are creating a commission to study and recommend ways to help graduate students move more easily through their training and into careers.

The commission aptly named The Commission on Pathways Through Graduate School and Into Careers, is composed of college officials and business leaders and will examine how much graduate students know about their career options once they obtain their degrees. Further it will also look into how students learn about their professional opportunities after graduation and the role of graduate programs in guiding students in their transition to a career.  The findings uncovered by the commission will likely be reported sometime next spring.

Ironically, the impetus for creating the commission was a report released in 2010 that urged the US to make it a national priority to improve graduate education and attract more students to pursue graduate degrees to prevent the country’s decline in global competitiveness. By 2018, the report estimated about 2.5 million more jobs will require graduate degrees. I am not sure what the authors of the report were smoking at the time that they prepared it, but I for one do not think we need more people with advanced degrees; especially in the life sciences. That being said, since the PhD-producing machine will not stop until tenure is abolished, the next best thing is for graduate programs to provide incoming students with a “real-life” perspective on career opportunities and the training necessary to pursue them. At present, career development programs and career counseling services are virtually non-existent at most universities and colleges. 

While formation of the commission is laudable, I am not convinced that it will accomplish anything except possibly assuage growing graduate student and postdoc discontent at many academic institutions. The reason why my expectations are low is a comment made by Patrick Osmer, the commission chair and vice provost for graduate studies and dean of the Graduate School at Ohio State University, who said

“It is important to create a dialogue with graduate students and with employers, and to listen to the students' concerns and expectations about career paths beyond academe.”

Personally, I don’t think that the lack of dialogue between graduate students and prospective employers is the problem. The real problem is the lack of care development discussions between graduate students and their advisors; many of whom don’t know or care about career options for the persons who they train. Until graduate programs recognize that career development counseling and training are in their bailiwick, then nothing is going to change regardless of findings of one or more “expert” commission run by individuals who are part of the problem!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!   

 

Pharma and Social Media: Lilly Launches A YouTube Channel

Mark Senak, author of the outstanding EyeonFDA blog, tweeted today, that Eli Lilly & Co had launched a YouTube Channel. According to a post on the company’s blog Lilly Pad, its new channel dubbed the “Lilly Health Channel” will “videos on health and wellness, employee and community outreach efforts, health innovation, Lilly programs and other non-product-branded initiatives.”

While the announcement of a launch of another pharma-sponsored YouTube channel is no longer new or novel, Eli Lilly has been trying to transform itself into a modern, social media and crowdsourcing-focused pharmaceutical company. For example, Lilly is one of only a handful of big pharma companies that sponsors its own corporate blog. Moreover, the company is a leader in using so-called crowdsourcing to discover and develop potential new drugs. It has spun off at least two ventures that utilize a crowdsourcing approach to new drug discovery. Finally, unlike most other big pharma CEOs, its chief executive John Lechleiter has been outspoken about the lack of innovation and available workforce talent in the US life sciences industry. 

Is Lilly truly the pharmaceutical company of the future? That remains to be seen! 

Until next time... 

Good Luck and Good Viewing!!!!

 

Jobseekers: Find New Jobs Through Entrepreneurship

There is no question that the US is lagging behind other nations in science, technology, engineering and math. While this may be troubling to some, Americans possess one skill that provides them with an unheralded advantage; that is entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial skills cannot be easily taught or learned. And while most Americans don’t know it, entrepreneurship is a passively acquired trait that most non-Americans would “kill for.” Unfortunately, the recent recession and increasing global competition had dampened Americans entrepreneurial enthusiasm to the point where risk-adverse business behavior is threatening to stifle US innovation.

Peter Sims addresses this issue in a NY Times piece entitled “Daring To Stumble on the Road to Discovery” where he laments “...our education system emphasizes teaching and testing us about facts that are already known. There is much less focus on our ability to discover, create and reinvent.”

He contends that Americans can no longer expect that jobs will be waiting for them and that everyone needs to think about “inventing” their own jobs. While this may seem unlikely for many jobseekers, he offers the following to those who may be willing to try.

“INVENTION and discovery emanate from the ability to try seemingly wild possibilities; to feel comfortable being wrong before being right; to live in the world as a careful observer, open to different experiences; to play with ideas without prematurely judging oneself or others; to persist through difficulties; and to have a willingness to be misunderstood, sometimes for long periods, despite the conventional wisdom.”

Further he offers:

“All these abilities can be learned and developed, but doing so requires us to unlearn many of our tendencies toward linear planning and perfectionism.”

In other words, take risks and dare to be different. The worst thing that may is happen is that you fail. And, if you ask many successful people what contributed most to their success, they will likely tell you about their failures and how they helped them to “get it right” the next time.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

 

Grad School Got You Down? You Gotta Watch This Video!

Adam Reuben, PhD is a molecular biologist who spent seven years@ Johns Hopkins earning his degree. While not in the laboratory pouring gels and analyzing DNA sequence data, he performed a stand up routine at open mike nights at local Maryland clubs.   He crafted the The Grad Student Rap as part of his routine.

After graduating, he got a job as a scientist at a biotech company where he is currently working on a malaria vaccine.  He also wrote a book entitled "Surviving Your Stupid Stupid Decision to Go to Grad School" which is likely an enlightening read for those of you who are still struggling with your decisions.  Also, he teaches an undergraduate class at Hopkins on the stand up comic and society (talk about an alternative career path).

Anyway, check out his video....it rocks but is sadly true!


Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Viewing!!!

The Inside "Poop" On the Life Sciences Industry

I attend this year's BIO meeting in DC and ran into an old friend, Stan Yakatan of Katan Associates.  For those of you who do not know Stan, he has been associated in a variety of capacities within the Life Sciences industry for the past 35 years.

The job titles that he has accrued over his career include CEO, Chairman, Managing Director, Board Member, Investor, Entrepreneur and Mensch!  Hanging out with Stan at life sciences meetings is always interesting, exciting, unpredictable and most often fun!  That said, Stan is a wealth of information about the life sciences industry and I was surprised to learn that he has an invterview video on YouTube!

To that end, I thought it would be interesting to post the interview @BioJobBlog.  Stan's historical and current perspective on the US life sciences industry is interesting to say the least!

 

 

If you want to contact Stan please click here!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

More Evidence That Big Pharma's Investment in R&D Will Continue to Wane

There is no longer any doubt that big pharma companies are beginning to reduce their emphasis on internal R&D activities. Instead the companies will increasingly rely on outsourcing, partnerships, closer collaborations with academia, public private partnerships and M&A to keep their drug development pipelines full

Therefore it was not surprising when Merck’s new CEO, Kenneth Frazier recently mentioned in a conference call to financial analysts and investors that its multi-billion spending on new drug R & D will likely decline as a percentage of overall sales in the coming years. Merck is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world

According to an article on Nasdaq.com, in 2010, Merck spent $11 billion on R&D, or 24% of total sales. Adjusted to exclude certain acquisition-related and other costs, R&D spending was $8.1 billion. Merck has predicted 2011 adjusted R&D spending would be $8.1 billion to $8.5 billion for 2011.

Frazier, the first African American CEO of a major pharmaceutical company, came under pressure earlier this year after he decided to not substantially cut R&D as many of Merck’s rivals, most notably Pfizer, did. He noted that cuts in R&D spending would have jeopardized Merck’s long term product development pipeline.

While rumors persist that Merck may be seeking to jettison its non-pharmaceutical consumer health and animal health businesses, Frazier insisted that the two units are complementary to its core pharmaceutical and vaccine focus and are not for sale. That said, if I was a Merck employee in either of those divisions, I would be updating my resume just about now.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

 

How NOT To Answer Tough Interview Questions

One of the more popular seminars that I present at national meetings is “Interviewing Tips and Insights.” The material that I present has been gleaned from over 25 years of interviewing for jobs. And, not surprisingly, many interview mistakes and guffaws that I point out to participant were made by me during actual job interviews. 

As part of the presentation, I put together a list entitled “The Top 10 Interview Questions That You Hate To Answer.” The list is composed entirely of questions that I have been asked during job interviews. I review the list and offer suggestions about crafting answers to those seemingly mindless and irrelevant questions. However, it is important to note, that while they may seem mindless and meaningless to you, they do offer insights into a person’s personality, ability to think on their feet and problem solving abilities. Consequently, it is vital to consider some the questions that you may be asked and to craft potential answers to them before your next face-to-face.  

To that end, I found a YouTube video produced by Careerbuilder.com that offers examples of frequently-asked interview questions and how NOT to answer them. While the video is hilarious (and a bit over-the-top at times) it offers some good insights and ideas on how to better prepare yourself for those difficult-to-answer interview questions.

 

 Until next time..

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

The Hidden Costs Of Prescription Drug Development That Nobody Likes To Talk About!

Depending upon the source, the cost of bringing a new prescription drug to market these days ranges from roughly $1.2 to 1.5 billion. While there is no question that clinical studies represent the most costly aspect of getting new drugs approved, the hidden costs—mainly promotion and marketing—are what actually inflate the costs of new drug development. Not surprisingly, drugmakers fail to disclose that these costs are included in the estimates for new drug development. If these costs were eliminated from the total, then the cost of developing new drugs will be significantly less than the current $1.2 to $1.5 billion price tag.

I suspect that many BioJobBlog readers—mainly those who work in the drug industry—will likely write me off as someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about. But, an interesting tidbit that I found in an article in today’s New York Times entitled “A Fight Over How Drugs are Pitched” suggests that my claims ought not be summarily dismissed simply because I am a “left-leaning histrionic democrat.” To wit, according to IMS Health (a competitive intelligence firm that tracks physician prescription rates) in 2009 alone, the branded prescription drug industry spent about $6.3 billion on marketing visits to doctors! This amount does not include costs associated with marketing and advertising that support direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising campaigns that are run by companies that sell approved prescription drugs. DTC costs are generally much higher than those spent on direct marketing to physicians.

It is important to remember that a drug maker’s main goal is to convince physicians to prescribe “their” drugs. After all, physicians not patients write prescriptions! That said, physician prescribing behaviors are vitally important to the success or failure of a marketed prescription drug. Consequently, it should come as no surprise that marketing costs are factored into the cost associated with new drug development. Obviously, if less money was spent on marketing than the cost of bringing new drugs to market would likely be substantially less.

Interestingly, the States of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine recently enacted laws to limit the uses of a doctor’s prescription records for marketing. On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case, Sorrell v. IMS Health that tests whether Vermont’s prescription confidentiality law violates the free speech protections of the First Amendment. The federal government, the attorneys general of several dozen states, AARP, professional medical associations, privacy groups and the New England Journal of Medicine have filed briefs in support of Vermont’s law. The National Association of Chain Drugstores, the Association of National Advertisers and news organizations like Bloomberg and The Associated Press have filed briefs aligning themselves with the data firm.

Although a Vermont federal district court upheld the law after a lawsuit challenging the statute brought by IMS Health and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an appellate court overturned the decision suggesting that it violates free speech provisions afforded by the First Amendment of the US constitution.

It will be interesting to see how the “Supremes” adjudicate the appeal given the growing recognition that laws and regulations designed to control medical costs and minimize safety risks associated with newly approved drugs are becoming increasingly necessary.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

A New Role for Academic Scientists in New Drug Discovery and Development?

There has been some buzz on LinkedIn and Facebook about an article that appeared in the March 3, 2011 issue of Nature Magazine. The article entitled “Traditional Drug-Discovery Model Ripe for Reform” and basically chronicles the decline in emphasis being placed by most companies on traditional in-house drug discovery as a source for new candidate molecules. Also, it points out that most big pharma companies now agree that they are not good at drug discovery but excel in clinical development and marketing of new medicines. Industry’s new view of itself is supported by the fact that over 200,000 pharmaceutical and biotechnology workers—roughly 50% were discovery scientists—have their lost jobs in the past three years or so. This begs the question “who is going to discover the new molecular entities that large drug companies are going clinically evaluate and ultimately market? According to the article, academic researchers are likely to play a pivotal role in this newly emerging drug discovery paradigm. 

The new model proposed in the article goes something like this. First, all intellectual property rights for certain compounds will be lifted or removed. Compounds of interest would subsequently be evaluated in small clinical trials for safety and possible efficacy. And, interested drug makers would only compete with one another on specific molecules after they were deemed safe and potentially effective. Up until this point, all data on prospective drug candidates would be openly published and freely available to interested parties.

Proponents of the model contend that the approach would allow drug targets to be more quickly validated and developed less expensively because there would less duplication of research activities. Further, it would reduce the exposure of patients to experimental molecules that have already deemed to be ineffective. Interestingly, the new model would rely exclusively on academic scientists who would be supported by a global initiative that cost about $325 million per years— with half coming from the pharmaceutical industry and half from the public. Finally, drug candidates identified in the initial screening process would be available to companies that participate in the initiative (presumably to the company that invested the most?)

While the proposed model is clearly “wishful thinking” on behalf of academics who are struggling to win grant support, it is deeply flaw and was obviously proposed by academic scientists who lack a clear understanding of the industrial drug development process. First, intellectual property (IP) and patents are the life blood of the industry and are in fact what allows drug companies to prevent competition in certain therapeutic areas maximize their return on investment on the drugs that they develop. Therefore, it is highly  unlikely that any drug maker would agree to lift or suspend IP around a novel new molecule. Second, must academic scientists are not qualified nor trained to engage in industrial drug development. Unlike academic science, industrial research is highly regulated and must be performed according the regulations and guidelines established by various regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration. If the research is not conducted in a regulatory compliant manner, then the prospective new drug will not be able to win regulatory approval. Third, eliminating IP would prevent university tech transfer offices—which exist almost entirely to manage a university’s IP—from negotiating lucrative licensing deals with interested companies or other parties. This, in turn, would reduce the contribution of funds by technology transfer offices that is used to run many academic research centers. Finally, the model is based upon the assumption that academic scientists (unlike drug companies) willfully and freely share information with one another for the “common good.” However, based on my experiences as an academic for over 20 years, most scientists don’t subscribe to the level of altruism and philanthropy attributed to them in the article. In fact the ego-involvement and competition amongst academics is so fierce, that  many academic refuse to share important new information or breakthroughs with their colleagues until grants are funded or the data are published in peer reviewed journals. Put simply, most academics are trained to work by themselves in their own laboratories and are neither interactive nor collaborative by nature.

There is no question that the old industrial drug discovery model is in transition and a new one will ultimately emerge. However, the role of academics in the new model is likely going to be less than proposed in present article. Too many systemic changes would be required for this model to be effective. That said, providing graduate students and postdocs with training in regulatory affairs and new drug development could be a step in the right direction! Nevertheless, a better solution to the problem may be a greater role for government in new drug discovery and development. To that end, the UK Medical Research Council has established the Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme that supports the development of promising basic science research into new drugs and medical devices. Also, Francis Collins, the current head of the National Institutes of Health has proposed the creation of a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences to transform basic science into prospective new drugs and treatments.

Despite the good intentions of the article, the path forward for academic scientists is not going to be easy. To make matters worse, it is becoming increasingly difficult for PhD-trained scientists to find jobs. That said, if you are truly interested in industrial drug discovery and development I highly recommend that you take some regulatory affairs course or enroll in a certificate or MS degree program in biotechnology that teaches the business side of the life sciences industry.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

 

Research Fads in the Life Sciences

Despite assertions to the contrary, scientists are pretty much like most other people. They eat, sleep, work, party and for the most part are social creatures. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that scientists are also susceptible to hype and succumb to research “fads.” In my former life as an academician, these fads were not so obvious and, for the most part, they unobtrusively helped to advance scientific research. However, after I abandoned academia for the private sector, these fads became blatantly obvious to me.  And, for the most part, were primarily driven by potential profits rather than advancing scientific knowledge for the common good.

First, there was combinatorial chemistry in the mid-1990s. Honestly, I never understood the hubris of the pioneers in this field who thought that by randomly mixing chemicals in a laboratory they could outdo nature when it came to creating new drugs. Nevertheless, the combinatorial chemistry fad over time resulted in high throughput screening, laboratory automation and sophisticated assay development technologies which serve as the foundation for modern drug discovery and development.

Next, there was the Human Genome Project that was supposed to provide drug developers with a plethora of previously undiscovered, potential new drug targets. While sequencing the human genome did provide scientists with a treasure trove of new biological targets, drug makers quickly ascertained that progress in drug discovery was not being hindered by the lack of targets but by a dearth of new drug candidates! Ironically, the lack of drug candidates resulted mainly from abandoning natural product drug discovery in favor of combinatorial chemistry. Like combinatorial chemistry, sequencing the human genome helped to improve DNA sequencing technology, sequence analysis and ushered in the fields of genomics and bioinformatics.

After the human genome was sequenced, scientists began to focus on the fields of computational biology and molecular modeling to help to discover and develop new drugs. While computational biology and molecular modeling yield some small successes, its use in drug discovery and development was limited. Ultimately, these fields morphed into something called translational science or medicine; a discipline that I don’t fully understand.

Finally, in the early 2000s, RNA interference (RNAi) became the technology du jour. RNAi was a powerful laboratory-based discipline that was sexy enough to garner its creators a Nobel Prize. Because of this, many drug companies had high hopes for RNAi and quickly jumped on the RNAi bandwagon. Billions of dollars were invested in the technology with the hope that RNAi would speed new drug discovery and also yield new drug candidates. At the outset, it was clear to many industry experts that RNAi molecules would be difficult to develop as new drug candidates. This is because RNAi molecules are difficult to deliver to cell-based targets and have short biological half lives. Despite these obvious shortcomings, many venture capitalists and large drug companies adopted a “damn the torpedoes, full-speed ahead” attitude and invested countless dollars and hours into RNAi research.  A doubter from the beginning (and pretty vocal about it too), I was not surprised to read an article in today’s Science Times entitled “Drugmakers’ Fever for the Power of RNA Interference Has Cooled” which describes the likely demise of RNAi as a source of new drug candidates.

Today, the new fad appears to be personalized medicine. While I don’t think that personalized medicine is yet “ready for prime time” I believe that it will become a commercial and medical reality in the next 10 to 20 years. Yet, despite lessons learned from past research fads, personalized medicine is being over hyped and oversold by the scientific and medical communities as well as the lay press.

Fads come and go in science as they do in real life. After all, we scientists are humans! That said, scientists are obliged to “go where the data takes you rather than where you (financially or intellectually) want it to go.  If scientists fail to live by this credo, countless research hours will be spent on ideas that cost a lot but yield little.

Until next time..

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

 

Merck Gets Serious About Biosimilars

Two years ago Merck formed a new division called BioVentures ostensibly to develop and manufacture biosimilar drugs. Interestingly, the announcement preceded creation of a regulatory approval pathway for biosimilars in the US.  While the approval pathway still isn’t in place, many regulatory experts expect the US government to issue the guidelines by mid-2011 after a meeting that was held on biosimilars by the US Food and Drug Administration last month.

Late last year, the company scuttled its plan to develop a PEGylated version of EPO which was to be its first so-called biosimilar. Unfortunately, PEG-EPO would not be allowed to be approved as a biosimilar via any existing or newly divined pathway because it is actually a new molecular entity and, therefore, would require numerous clinical trials to garner regulatory approval (maybe that is why Merck canceled development).

Nevertheless, Merck expects to have no fewer than 5 biosimilar molecules in clinical development by 2012. To that end, Merck  that it had created an alliance with Parexel International Corp—a global clinical research organization—to help to conduct the clinical trials necessary for regulatory approval of the biosimilars that Merck is developing. The financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Michael Kamarck, President of Merck BioVentures, declined to specify the products but did mention that the terms of the deal terms were intended to “motivate Parexel to enroll patients quickly and generally execute the clinical trials in a speedy fashion.” He also noted that the Parexcel deal is only “one of an number of strategic steps: that Merck is pursuing in the biosimilar field.

Let’s see whether or not Merck can meet the lofty goals that it has set for itself. Hopefully biosimilar legislation will be in place by 2012!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

More Downsizing

Aptuit, a drug discovery and development company announced that it will be cutting 340 jobs in Scotland over the next year. The company cited the worldwide economic downturn as the culprit. Likewise, the Austrian vaccine maker Intercell announced that it would be laying off an unspecified number of employees and dramatically cutting R&D expenses (by 40%) after it killed development of its enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli vaccine patch. The company pulled the plug on the vaccine after it failed to reduce the incidence of diarrhea in a randomized and placebo-controlled Phase III study involving 2036 participants.

On the bright side, PPD, a global contract research organization, announced that it plans to invest $28 million to expand its Lab Services Division in Henrico County, Virginia and add 190 new jobs over the next three years. 

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try Virginia)!!!!!!

 

BioJobBlog Makes a Top 10 Science Career Blog List

While I typically don’t subscribe to practice of unbridled self promotion, I could not pass on the opportunity to let my readers know that BioJobBlog made the "Top 50 Blogs About Careers in Science."

Rachel Stevenson, a co-founder of Clinical Research Masters sent me a link to the list. The top 50 sites are divided among four categories 1) General Science Career Blogs, 2) Tech Career Blogs, 3) Medical Career Blogs, and 4) Academic and Research Blogs.

I have no idea how the list was constructed nor do I understand how the rankings were calculated. That said, BioJobBlog was ranked number three in the General Science Career Blogs category (see below). The two blogs ranked ahead of BioJobBlog are run by major organizations with multiple contributors. BioJobBlog is written almost entirely by me...Just sayin’

Many of the blogs on the list are useful resources and I highly recommend visiting them all.

  1. Science Careers Blog: This great blog goes over career opportunities, and provides the latest news for job seekers.
  2. Jobs for PhDs: This blog from phds.org offers information on available jobs for scientists. The site also has access to helpful career information.
  3. BioJobBlog: You can find information about different jobs in the biological sciences.
  4. ScienceBlogs: This site offers interesting commentary on scientific issues, and includes information about careers in science.
  5. Science careers: This category at OITE Career Blog offers a look at different science careers, and provides tips for preparing for a science job.
  6. APECS: The Association of Polar Early Career Scientists offers news and information about the career opportunities to scientists interested in polar issues.
  7. Alternative Science Careers: Job openings and other resources for those looking for science careers.
  8. ScienceCareerSite: Tips, news and more related to science careers.
  9. American Biotechnologist: Information about careers, as well as news in science. Great tips about how you can enhance your career.
  10. Society of Physics Students: This site contains great posts that can help you with career development, and includes jobs as well.
  11. Careers: Physics.org offers a great look at different careers, and offers news and information about science.
  12. ACS Careers: Insights into what’s available in the world of chemistry careers.
  13. Career Development for Scientists: Lisa Balbes offers solid information and advice for scientists looking for tips to help their career development.
  14. CENtral Science: One stop for science news, career information, and trends in science jobs. A wide variety of posts on a number of interesting subjects.
  15. The Alternative Scientist: Jobs and career news related to alternative science.
  16. New Scientist: Science headlines, career information, science jobs and interesting discussions.

For a complete listing of all science career development blogs, please click here.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

Social Media and Microbiology Education

Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd founder and Professor of Microbiology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons published an article on PLOS Pathogens entitled “Social Media and Microbiology.”

Vincent, a virologist by training, has spent the past 30 years at Columbia where he has been recognized for numerous achievements including identification and characterization of the human polio virus receptor, the creation of transgenic mice to study the neural tropism of the polio virus and the identification of viral virulence factors that contribute to the pathogenesis of a variety of viral infections. His contributions to the field of virology have resulted in a number of honors including the Eli Lilly Award, a Harvey Lectureship, a 10 year Merit Award from NIH and editor of the Journal of Virology and other peer reviewed microbiology journals.

While not conducting laboratory research and teaching virology to undergraduates and graduate students, Vincent spends a considerable amount of time writing for his blog the Virology Blog and creating podcasts for his award winning show entitled TWIV (This Week in Virology). He is a committed educator and firmly believes that his role as a scientist is to improve the public understanding of infectious diseases and science in general. 

The introduction to his article aptly describes his philosophy about social media and science education.

“Social media consists of Internet technologies that allow users to create and share content, and to foster dialogues among other users. Examples include software applications for communication (blogging, social networking, discussion forums), collaboration (wikis, social bookmarking), and multimedia (sharing photographs, video, and livecasting). In the world of science, social media is becoming an increasingly integral component of both research and education. My experience with two types of social media, blogging and podcasting, has convinced me that scientists must embrace these applications to enhance research, and to better communicate their work to the public.”

If you want to learn more about Vincent or chat with him, he can frequently be found at BioCrowd interacting with undergraduates, graduate students, postdocs and even colleagues from time to time.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

Lilly Lays Off More Employees and Vows to Remain Lean

Despite assertions by its CEO that there isn’t enough scientific talent in the US, Eli Lilly announced that it will lay off a couple of thousand employees within the next 90 days. Most of the cuts will take place in Indianapolis at four different sites where the company currently employees about 13,000 workers. According to an article in today’s Indianapolis Star

“The struggling Indianapolis company, which has been cutting thousands of jobs in recent months, told the state on Monday that its downsizing is not temporary, but for the long haul.

The reductions in force at the Indianapolis sites of employment are expected to be permanent," wrote Kay Jackson, Lilly's senior director of human resources, in a letter to the Indiana Department of Workforce Development. She added that the cuts, when added up, are not expected to be more than 33 percent of the head count at any one site, or more than 500 workers at any site."

Like most of its rival big pharma companies, Lilly has cut the number of full-time equivalent workers by about 2,100 worldwide since last September. That's when it announced it would cut a total of 5,500 workers worldwide by 2011 to save $1 billion in annual costs. The reason for the cuts; an expected steep falloff in revenues over the next few years when the patents on Lilly's blockbuster drugs begin to expire and face low-priced generic competition  

John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D, Lilly’s CEO, contends that the lack of innovation and new product development at most American pharmaceutical companies can be explained by a dearth of qualified and adequately trained American scientists. Maybe this is why most pharma R&D job are currently being outsourced to China, India, Brazil and Eastern Europe? Alternatively, it may be cheaper to employ US-trained foreign nationals in these places rather than high priced American scientists who perform similar jobs in the US.  

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget Indiana-not there is anything wrong with it)

 

Yahoo News: "Warning on New Superbugs from S. Asia"--Another Example of Irresponsible and Sensationalistic Journalism

I read a post today on Yahoo News entitled “Warning on New Superbugs from S. Asia.” While I initially thought that this article may contain some important news on the real and growing of multiple drug resistant bacterial pathogens, I sadly learned that it was nothing more than an sensationalistic attempt to promote the discovery of a new metallo-beta-lactamase gene bla(NDM-1) in an Indian isolate of Klebsiella pneumoniae, a Gram negative bacterium. The work was performed by a group at Cardiff University in Wales and published almost a year ago in the journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

There is no question that morbidity and mortality from Gram negative infections is rising and will certainly continue to increase in the future. This is because most of the work in antibacterial drug discovery in the last decade was focused on Gram positive bacteria including methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE). Although new antibiotics have reached the market for these organisms, they are used judiciously, and mainly as a last resort, because of fears of emerging resistance to them among Gram positive clinical isolates. Unfortunately, developing new antibiotics against Gram negative pathogens as compared with Gram positive bacteria is much more difficult. To that end, no antibiotics of note have been discovered in recent years to treat multiple drug resistant strains of Gram negative bacteria. 

While identification of the bla (NDM-1) gene may be scientifically and biologically interesting, it will likely have little effect on the clinical treatment of Gram negative infections. This is because many Gram negative isolates are already resistant to most beta-lactam antibiotics and consequently these antibiotics are used only sparingly to treat many Gram negative infections. Regardless of the implications of the discovery of the NDM-1, what I find most troubling about the article is its title. It leads uninformed persons to believe that the world is in grave danger and that a pandemic of multiple drug resistant strains of Gram negative bacteria may be imminent.  While infections caused by multiple drug resistance strains of Gram negative bacteria are clearly on the rise, strains carrying the NDM-1 gene will not decimate the world population any time soon! In fact, the authors suggest that these strains may cause some problems in India which “already has high levels of antibiotic resistance.”

There is no doubt that informing people about the growing incidence of multiple drug resistant bacteria is a good thing. Maybe, if enough people get frightened they may be able to induce big pharmaceutical companies—many of which abandoned antibiotic drug discovery and development in the late 90s—to reinvigorate their programs. That said, it is not clear why this story got elevated to a lead story on Yahoo News since the discovery was made almost a year ago—maybe today is a slow news day? Nevertheless, the impending doom and sensationalistic tone of the article suggests that reporters who cover the life sciences need some training in microbiology. This is necessary to insure that the stories that they write about antibiotics are kept in the appropriate context and historical perspective. That said, don’t be surprised today if the sales of antibacterial products increase and the stock prices of biotechnology companies involved in antibacterial drug discovery and development spike!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Correction: High not "Hit" Throughput Screening

Yesterday, I posted a piece on "hit'  throughput screening (see below).  At the time, I learned about  'hit" throughput screening, I mentioned that  I had never heard of "hit" throughput screening but I did know about high throughput screening.  As it turns out, there was a problem in translation and in fact, there is no such thing as hit throughput screening and it is actually high throughput screening.  Mea Culpa!  I apologize for the error and in the future I will be assiduous in my fact checking before I post (a lesson that the boneheads in the Obama administration learned the hard way in the recent Sherrod brouhaha)

The Growth of High Throughput Screening

No; this isn’t a typo! My colleagues at Meet the Boss sent me a press release today about efforts underway at Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline to redefine HTS to mean “hit” throughput screening rather than high throughput screening. As many of you may know, high throughput screening which began in the mid 1990s was supposed to revolutionize drug discovery and development—it did not! Nevertheless, after almost 15 years of refinement it appears that the technology may be paying off and can be used as an adjunctive tool to expedite and lower the cost of small molecule and protein-based drug discovery. While I don’t know much about this emerging technology, the press release presented below suggests that a meeting about HTS may be in the works. 

It is understood that huge amounts of money have been invested into drug discovery and the biggest problem faced by the industry is investing in drugs which may not make it onto the market. Europe has always been seen to trail behind the US when discussing drug discovery within the pharmaceutical industry, but with the biotechnology revolution they have begun to catch and becoming a driving force within the global industry.

The NGP EU committee has been celebrating the success of their pioneering roles in genome sequencing and the development of proteomic. Pfizer has recently announced to the NGP Drug Discovery committee that they plan to roll out a hit identification and screening file strategy. The process will offer a new flexible strategy for hit identification while sculpting a more reliable and efficient screening process. 

High throughput screening (HTS) has grown rapidly over the last ten years and Pfizer themselves noted the huge advances in both detection technology and laboratory automation. Pfizer believe that not only big Pharma but also smaller companies can implement HTS as well. By implementing HTS,  it can remove the indecision over which compunds will be profiles, many smaller companies agonize over the costs of conventional profiling sometimes only choosing between 10 and 20 compounds, this already removes other possibilities before true research can really begin. Pfizer among other members of the NGP EU Drug Discovery committee wish to discuss how they wish to implement large scale profiling at a lower cost, while maintaining the incredible biological, technological, and scientific advancements they are already demonstrating globally.

GSK have also joined Pfizer recently in encouraging the implementation of HTS. “We are now at a stage where we can exploit the benefits of cutting edge technology for increased quality, performance and capabilities. We also have the option to supply the same number of compounds, with the same level of quality at an affordable price”. 

Key to discussions will be representatives from AstraZeneca - Goran Wennberg, VP Discovery Information, Bayer Schering Pharma - Andreas Busch, Head of Global Drug Discovery & Member of the Board , Novartis - Olivier Grenet , Group Head of Genome Biology ,GlaxoSmithKline - Tino Rossi, VP of PreClinical Drug Discovery & Enabling Technologies and Pfizer - John Mathias, Head of High Through Put Screening all determined to firmly place Europe as the Drug Discovery capital.

The discovery and implementation of HTS not only offers an opportunity to smaller Pharma companies but also the consumer, if research and quality is increased and cost decreased this in turn will be passed onto the consumer.

Stay tuned for more details.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

 

Post Merger: Are Things Getting Any Better at Pfizer?

Pfizer’s acquisition of Wyeth was supposed to provide the company with expertise—that was sorely lacking—in biologics and biotechnology products. While it is too early to ascertain whether or not the Wyeth acquisition will “bear fruit”, today’s announcement that Pfizer is suspending all clinical trials of tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody treatment for osteoarthritis, suggests that the company may need more help than expected to develop new biological products. According to a statement, Pfizer’s immediate worldwide suspension of the clinical trials followed a small number of reports of tanezumab patients experience worsening of osteoarthritis leading to joint replacement.

Things have not gone well for Pfizer lately. Earlier this year the company abandoned late stage clinical development of an Alzheimer drug called dimebon that it had licensed from a smaller specialty pharmaceutical company. Also in 2010, Pfizer halted clinical development of Sutent for breast and liver cancer after it failed to meet principal goals in two Phase III trials. Finally, several years ago, the company killed late stage clinical development of a highly touted new cholesterol drug torcetrapib (Lipitor’ successor) after it failed to meet clinical endpoints in a pivotal Phase III trial.

Not surprisingly, Wall Street analysts are not particularly enthusiastic about Pfizer’s future. Many consider Pfizer to have one of the worst pipelines among major pharmaceutical companies. Also, many believe that productivity at the company is lacking in almost all therapeutic areas. In defense of the productivity of Pfizer R&D scientists (those who still have jobs), it is extremely difficult to remain productive or focused when major acquisitions e.g. Warner Lambert, Pharmacia and Wyeth occur every few years. As I have stated numerous times before, bigger isn’t always necessarily better. Here’s hoping that the Wyeth acquisition can rescue Pfizer from its current “death spiral” and return some value to its shareholders.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

Pharma and Philanthropy?

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies like to distinguish themselves from companies that manufacture consumer products because their products have the potential to save the lives of patients suffering from a plethora of illnesses. While a life-saving cancer treatment may inherently be more valuable than a pair of snow tires, the goal of the companies that manufacture them is to sell enough products to remain profitable. To that end, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have an edge over consumer products companies because drug makers can use altruism and philanthropy to market their drugs. In fact, many drug manufacturers play up their commitments to altruism and philanthropy to justify high drug prices because of the enormous costs associated with drug discovery and development. This tactic begs the question: “Just how philanthropic are drug makers?”

To answer this question The Access to Medicine Foundation created the Access to Medicine Index .which provides a benchmark on the access to medicine policies and practices of the largest global pharmaceutical companies.The index is designed to offer stakeholder and prospective investor ways to compare pharma’s social responsibility records by measuring 106 indicators that examine activities across seven criteria such as philanthropy, patents, pricing and management (see more here)

The 2010 index (only the second of its kind) ranked 26 pharmaceutical companies on their efforts to provide access to medicines, vaccines and diagnostic tests to people living in 88 countries. The companies included 20 originator (branded) companies – those who primarily market patented drugs they have developed – andsix companies whose primary business is the production and sale of generic medicines. The results are shown below:

Branded Pharmaceutical Companies

  1. GlaxoSmithKline
  2. Merck
  3. Novartis
  4. Gilead Sciences
  5. Sanofi-Aventis
  6. Roche
  7. AstraZeneca
  8. Novo Nordisk
  9. Johnson & Johnson
  10. Abbott Labs
  11. Pfizer
  12. Boehringer Ingelheim
  13. Eli Lilly
  14. Bayer
  15. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  16. Eisai
  17. Merck KGA
  18. Takeda Pharmaceuticals
  19. Astellas Pharma
  20. Daiichi Sankyo

Generic Manufacturers

  1. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited
  2. Cipla Limited
  3. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
  4. Mylan, Inc
  5. Sun Pharmaceuticals
  6. Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

While the lists may seem impressive, Index founder Wim Leereveld cautions: “…the industry as a whole still has a long way to go.”

Ed Silverman, who runs the Pharmalot Blog, offered his insights about the list and the foundation’s findings: “The report, of course, will be used to defuse critics, such as non-governmental organizations and activist groups, who say not enough is done to make meds accessible in poor countries. The arguments often center on compulsory licensing and free-trade agreements, as well as intellectual property disputes, pricing and donations. Pharma, you may recall, has been on the defensive ever since they fought South Africa over HIV meds, and is now ramping up operations in so-called emerging markets, many of which are low-margin operations where incomes are lower. “

I don’t fault drug makers for aggressively marketing their products to generate revenues to insure profits and growth. After all, business is business. However, I think that it is disingenuous to use altruism and philanthropy as a means to market and sell high priced drugs. Ironically, this practice tends to limit the access of poor and disenfranchised patients who might benefit the most from these medicines.

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

Is Body Language That Important During Face-to-Face Job Interviews and Business Meetings?

If you would have asked me that question before I became a professional recruiter and hiring manager, I would have suggested that body language plays a minimal role in the success or failure of a face-to-face job interview or business meeting. However, over the years, I have come to realize that body language is extremely important; and it may be the deciding factor in whether or not a job offer is proffered or a business deal is consummated.

To that end, Celina Jacobsen from the Career Overview Blog sent me a link to one of their posts. While much of the post wasn’t germane to life sciences career development, parts of it were spot on with regard to the importance of body language during job interviews and business meetings. With this in mind, I reproduced parts of the post that I think would be useful to BioJobBlog readers for career development insights.

Body Language and the Job Interview

Pay attention to your body language using these tips to ensure you are giving the best impression during a job interview.

  1. Handshake. Everyone knows that a handshake is an important element of first impressions. Offer a firm handshake that shows confidence in yourself.
  2. Don’t cross arms and legs. Crossing your arms or legs is seen as a defensive position and is not what you want to present to your prospective employer.
  3. Sit or stand with legs slightly apart. When you sit or stand with your legs slightly apart, this gives the impression that you are self-confident.
  4. Keep your hands and legs still. Fidgeting exudes nervousness. Instead, keep your hands relaxed in your lap and be aware of what your legs are doing.
  5. Chair movement. If you are sitting in a chair that swivels, be sure you aren’t accidentally turning back and forth as it can be distracting and also makes you appear nervous.
  6. Voice tone. Be aware of your voice tone qualities. Don’t be monotonous, yet don’t let your voice tone vary to such extremes that you sound excited or nervous. One helpful tip is to take a deep breath before speaking.
  7. Be aware of the interviewer’s body language. Pay attention to what the person interviewing you is saying through her body language. Not only can you determine if she is interested in what you have to offer, you can also match your body language to the level of formality.
  8. Palms up. Use hand gestures that keep your palms up, which indicate you are open and friendly. Gestures with palms down tell the interviewer that you may be dominant or aggressive.
  9. Keep eyes focused. Shifty eyes moving all around the room will give your prospective employer the feeling that you are being dishonest, or at best, uncomfortable.
  10. Active listening. Be an active listener during the interview. Make eye contact, nod your head while others are speaking, and interject a few verbal acknowledgements such as "yes" or "I see."

Body Language in Business and Career Development

What you say with your body language can convey as much to your business colleagues as your words. Learn how to manage your body language in a business setting to help promote your career.

  1. Relax your shoulders. When many people feel tension, they pull up their shoulders. Be conscious of this and relax your shoulders. Not only will this help prevent neck and back pain, it makes you appear less stressed, too.
  2. Be mindful of your head position. Holding your head level both vertically and horizontally indicates confidence and asks others to take you seriously. If you want to show that you are listening and open to the other person, tilt your head slightly to one side.
  3. Use your hands. Hanging your hands down by your side during a presentation indicates depression. Instead, keep your hands active and use gestures to show involvement and energy.
  4. Remove the opportunity for eye contact in conflict. If negotiations have turned sour or co-workers are disagreeing, moving them to a different form of communication that does not involve eye contact, such as email or IM, may diffuse the situation and allow for a better flow of communication.
  5. Keep your hands out of your pockets. Standing with your hands in your pockets may send several signals to those around you, probably none of them what you intend. Unless you are trying to look less confident, as if you are holding yourself back, you are bored, or you are hiding something, then take your hands out of your pockets.
  6. Women, learn the "business gaze". For women, a key element to being taken seriously is the "business gaze" or holding your line of sight on the area from the eyes to the mid-forehead. A gaze held lower indicates a more "social gaze."
  7. Make eye contact with everyone. If you are in a meeting or giving a presentation, make it a point to make eye contact with each one of the people involved (unless it’s a packed house and physically impossible to do).
  8. Watch your stance. Standing in a commando stance, with legs spread and hands on hips, tells others you are feeling disapproving, superior or are arrogant.
  9. Keep your hands from behind your head. Sitting back with your hands clasped behind your head is another position that communicates arrogance or superiority.
  10. Interruptions. If you are in the middle of a conversation with a superior or in a meeting that has been interrupted, it is best to look away from the person dealing with the interruption in an effort to give them privacy and to indicate you have disengaged yourself from something that is not your business.

I hope that you found these tips useful and apply them to your next job interview or business meetings.

Hat tip to CareerOverview.com

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

 

The Job Hunt: Tips from a Hiring Manager

As a career development professional, I frequently offer job seekers tips on how to conduct a successful job search. However, my views on the topic are mainly derived from a five year stint as a professional recruiter and over 20 years as a job seeker. With this in mind, it may helpful for job candidates to hear the other side of the story; that is, what hiring managers expect from job seekers.

To that end, I found a great podcast (created by an HR professional) that briefly but cogently outlines a hiring manager’s views and expectations of job seekers who are applying and interviewing for positions at her company. 

If you want to learn more about job searches, the interviewing process and other job-related topics, I highly recommend that you visit the Secrets of the Job Hunt website. It contains hundreds of podcasts, videos and other information on a plethora of imaginative, career development topics.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!   

 

Experimental Biology 2010: Anaheim

I will be at the Experimental Biology meeting this year in Anaheim from April 22-27 doing my annual career development presentations and resume critiquing. Also, this year, I am bring my Flip camera this year to video interesting scientists, students and others who want to be featured in the Career Corner at BioCrowd.

In case you were wondering the titles of this year’s career development seminars include:

  1. Alternate Careers: Taking the Road Less Traveled
  2. Interviewing Tips and Insights
  3. How to Use Social Media to Find Gainful Employment in the Life Sciences Industry
  4. Career Opportunities in the Life Sciences Industry

Please feel free to drop in to listen to one of my talks or sign up for a resume critiquing session.

See you in Disney Land…oops I mean Anaheim!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

 

50 Useful Science Career Sites

Samantha Miller of the Medical Small Business blog sent me a list of 50 websites that may be useful for students interested in a career in science or scientists looking for jobs. The list is very comprehensive and worth a look for folks who, against all odds, are still considering careers or seeking gainful employment in the sciences.

 Science Job Sites

1. New Scientist Jobs : Register for free here to begin uploading your CV, get job alerts, and apply for them online. You can also search the database which has tons of jobs in science. There are also useful items such as career advice and who’s recruiting.

2. Nature Jobs : This science site stands out for its ability to let you search for jobs overseas. You can also search by employer, discipline, and title. There is also a career toolkit and information on fairs.

3. Job Science : If you feel like spending a little money to find a job, check out this site. It has loads of resources for science workers and students to find a job. You can view a demo, or try it out for free for 30 days.

4. Career Builder : A leading career site, it also has a special section for science and biotech jobs. You can search by type and/or location. There are also tons of other useful tools on Career Builder.

5. The Vault : With useful resources such as the top 25 firms, this site is worth a look. Here, you can choose from different science industries such as biotechnology, environment, and technology. They also have loads of blogs, videos, and much more.

6. Research Jobs : If your scientific expertise is in research, click here. This is a networking and job site dedicated to researchers and companies in the industry. You can register, search jobs, and more.

7. Career Cast : Although anyone in any profession can utilize this site, science workers can view jobs in life, physical, or social sciences. There are also tools, news, a blog, and more. They recently listed biologist as the top number four job in the nation and you can read why.

8. Glassdoor : Thinking of working for a specific company? Then visit here to see what actual employees have to say about it. You can also get salary, bonus, and other important information.

9. Dice : If technology is your area of scientific expertise, visit here. The site is a career hub for tech insiders and lets you browse jobs in the hottest cities for technology. You can also upload your resume, search agencies, get tips for resume writing, and more.

10. ChemJobs.net : If you are looking for a job in the chemistry industry, visit here. Categories include graduate, sales, clinical, and more. There is also a directory and more information.

11. Photonics Jobs : This science site is for those looking for work in optical, laser, and fiber optics employment. The latest jobs are featured on the homepage. You can also search by date or category.

12. Working for NASA : You don’t have to live in Texas or Florida to work for this science giant. They have thirteen facilities in states such as California, Ohio, and D.C. See what jobs are open and what they are looking for by visiting.

13. Engineer.info : This site searches through millions of jobs from many leaders to bring you solely jobs for engineers. With everything from entry level to advanced, this site is a one stop shop for engineers looking for a career. You can also search by type or location.

14. Think Resources : Get several sites for scientists looking to go into the energy field here. There is Energy Group, Power Plant Jobs, and others. There is also help with resumes and employment management services.

15. Just Windows Jobs : If you have knowledge of MS, developing, or related field, this is the science job site for you. It contains jobs featuring solely IT’s best in Windows. With over 15 million users getting jobs from 120 tech websites, it is a good choice.

16. Computer Jobs: Like the above, this science job site is for technology professionals. Choose jobs requiring skills such as Python, Cisco, Java, and many others. You can also do a simple Google like search.

17. Med Hunting : Get science jobs for the medical field by visiting here. Science orientated jobs include research, technology, and others. You can also post your resume or get salary information.

Career Development Sites

These sites can be used to help write a resume, prepare for an interview, and much more.

18. My Science Career : Provided by AAAS and the journal “Science,” get tons of tools specifically for science workers and students seeking a career. There is a how-to series with loads of advice, along with the other usual tools. You can also download “The Informed Job Search.”

19. Career One Stop : Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, the site provides tools to help job seekers, students, and all professionals. Choose from exploring careers, education, or even find services near you. There is also help for those in the military making the transition to civilian life.

20. Monster : This gigantic career site is full of advice for workers, students, and everyone in between. Choose from helpful resources such as resumes, interviewing, and negotiating salary. They also feature employers and have regular interviews with industry professionals.

21. WSJ Careers : Although meant for business professionals, the scientist can still get expert advice from “The Wall Street Journal.” They have news & trends, career strategies, columns on different careers, and the usual job search. You can also get information on different schools.

22. Free Resume Critique : If the first word of the title didn’t sell you the provider will: “The Wall Street Journal.” Simply enter your information and upload your resume to get started. If you choose to go with their services, they guarantee an interview within 30 days.

23. Career Mag : In addition to the usual tools, there is also a self-assessment section that most others don’t have. Other tools are on continuing education, an online portfolio, and reputation defender. There is even a mobile app with more.

24. The Riley Guide : In operation since 1994, they offer free career advice and employment information. Choose from subjects such as tips on the job search, cover letters, salary guides, and more.

25. Interview Smart : Is the interview the scariest part of getting a science career or into the school of your dreams? Then stop by this site to sharpen your skills and ace the interview. There is a free trial and they feature 35 different topics on every step of the process.

Science Majors and Post Baccalaureate Sites

Science students can use these sites to find an internship, entry level job, and more.

26. College Grad : Stop here to get jobs specifically for college graduates. You can find jobs in a variety of fields, including science. There is also help for paying off debts, top employers, videos, and more.

27. Campus Career Center : Stop here for a massive site with entry level jobs and internships specifically for both college students and graduates. They have an expert blog with tips on everything from resume building to advancing an existing career. Best of all, employers such as Shell, the CIA, and many others regularly hire from here.

28. College Center : Get a network just for college job seekers here. They have centers for students, alumni, and employers. There is also a job search kit to give you more help.

29. After College : Search over 200,000 jobs specifically for college graduates here. Popular jobs include teaching, pharmacy, imaging, and others. There is also help for scholarships.

30. Monster College : With a section for just about everything, Monster also has this resource to help you transition from the classroom to the workplace. You can learn, network, and share on the one site. There is also help with portfolios and finance.

31. Entry Level Jobs : Choose the scientific category here to get entry level jobs. You can also choose by locations across the country. Other categories include education, engineering, technology, and more.

32. Employment Guide : If you are a science student who needs to work from home, visit here. They have listings of legitimate business opportunities at many levels. There are also tools for other job seekers.

33. Diversity Working : If you are a science student and a minority, stop here. It offers over 500,000 jobs in diversity. Simply post your resume, choose from a community, or search for your dream job.

34. College Recruiter : If you need just a simple search engine for entry level jobs and internships, this is it. Simply type what and where to get your answer.

Science News

Don’t get scooped by a co-worker or other student by staying on top of the latest scientific breakthroughs.

35. Science Daily : Get nothing but science headlines by stopping here. They are updated every 90 minutes and include just about every topic imaginable. You can also choose by specialty, news videos, and book reviews.

36. Live Science : With sections like Cool Science and Tech News You Can Use, this site is worth a visit. You can also choose by specific topic or even the strangest in headlines. Be sure not to miss the videos with even more.

37. New Scientist : Stop here for in-depth articles for the serious scientist. They also offer the Last Word and opinions on many controversial scientific topics. You can also use the site to look for science jobs.

38. Scientific American : You don’t need a subscription to this leading publication to get science news. Online sections include fact vs. fiction, extreme tech, and ask the experts. Be sure not to miss the 60 Second Science Podcasts with loads more.

39. Science Blogs : Similar to Alltop, this site gathers all the headlines from science blogs onto one convenient place. Choose from life science, environment, medicine, and more. There is also a section for job seekers.

40. POPSCI : Also known as “Popular Science,” they cover gadgets and cars in addition to science. Get the latest on robots and other popular pieces of science with a visit. There are also galleries and videos.

41. Science Mag : Both scientific research and career information is listed here. There is also a community for networking and blogs. You can also get a science podcast.

42. EurekAlert! : Get the latest news by scientific subject here. Choose subjects from agriculture to technology. There is also information on grants, awards, and books.

Science Reference Sites

Whether writing a paper, report, or other scientific issue, use these sites as references and tools for the latest in science.

43. National Science Foundation : The NSF is a must visit site for all science students and workers. You can get the latest discoveries, info on awards, and statistics. You can also use the site to find funding opportunities in your area.

44. Research.gov : Led by the NSF, Research.gov is a partnership of federal research-oriented grant making agencies with a shared vision of increasing customer service for the research community, while streamlining and standardizing business processes amongst partner agencies. Scientists can use the policy library, apply for grants, and get the latest news. Be sure not to miss opportunities funded by the Recovery Act.

45. Library of Congress : One of the largest libraries in the world, the LOC has tons of free resources for all visitors. Click on Researchers to get more tools for scientists. Others can view massive collections on history, art, and much more.

46. NOAA : The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is charged with all sorts of environmental watches and reports. See what they are up to, read reports, or join forces by visiting. You can also get resources for students.

47. NASA : Explore the final frontier with the help of this massive site. Get mission updates, reports, live videos, and even interviews with top officials. With tons of resources, be sure and make time for this science site.

48. Discovery Channel : With shows like “Mythbusters” and “Man vs. Wild,” there are numerous scientific resources to utilize here. Get videos, interviews with hosts, and much more. There is also a health, science, and animal channel to choose from.

49. Nature.com : Get the world’s latest science and medicine reports on your desktop here. Choose from research, blogs, and special features. You can even submit your own manuscript.

50. PhysOrg : Similar to the above, this site focuses on physics, technology, and Nano science. Spotlight stories are featured on the home page. You can also see the top stories, choose by subject, or submit your own idea. 

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

 

BioCrowd New MultiMedia Upload Feature Is Up and Running

We previously announced that BioCrowd, an online bioprofessional networking site, was going to launch a new feature which allows members to upload any type of multimedia files ranging from videos to podcasts to poster presentations to their profile page and the BioCrowd network. Also, members can view  videos or listen to podcasts, comment on them and  let others know whether or not you liked them. Like most other websites that support videos, we offer an embed feature that allows you to copy the code of videos that you like and post them to other website, blogs or YouTube.

We hope to run contests for best video, podcast, PowerPoint or poster presentation in the very near future. If you are already a BioCrowd member, please visit the site and upload your favorite multimedia files to the network.  For those of you who are not members yet, please drop by, check us out and join if you like!  If you have any problems or identify any bugs with the new upload feature please e-mail me.

I hope to see you at the BioCrowd!!!!

Until next time.... 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

The New Bacterial Threat

For the past decade or more multiple drug resistant strains of bacteria such as methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), enterococci and other Gram positive cocci have been highlighted and showcased in the medical and lay press. While the incidence of infections caused by MRSA and other Gram positive cocci has steadily risen, antibacterial drug discovery experts have long known that the greatest disease threat in the future will be from emerging multiple antibiotic resistant strains of Gram negative bacteria including Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Serratia marcescens and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Last Spring, in an interview that I conducted with Barry Eisenstein, MD, Senior Vice President of Scientific Affairs at Cubist Pharmaceuticals and an antibacterial drug discovery expert, he indicated that there are currently no drugs in development to treat infections caused by antibiotic resistant Gram negative bacteria. He warned that this, coupled with the loss of interest in antibiotic development by large pharmaceutical companies, will cause infections caused by multiple drug resistant Gram negative bacteria to become a serious unmet medical need in the not so distant future. The appearance of an article in the New York Times this past Saturday chronicling the rise of infections caused by antibiotic resistant Gram negative bacterial suggests that the not so distant future may have already arrived! For the record: would newspaper and television reporters please refrain from identifying bacteria as “germs.” It is an anachronistic term which was coined in the 19th century before bacteria and viruses were conclusively identified as the cause of most infectious diseases.

Despite the media hype about antibiotic resistant Gram positive bacteria, a variety of new drugs have been developed to treat infections caused by these bacteria. Interestingly, because of greater public awareness about MRSA infections and improved hospital infection control and surveillance programs, the incidence of disease caused by MRSA and other Gram positive bacteria is finally beginning to wane. Unfortunately, the same is not true for infections caused by antibiotic resistance Gram negative bacteria.

For those of you who may not know, the cell wall architecture of Gram negative bacteria (and a multitude of antibiotic resistance mechanisms) makes it much more difficult and costly to develop new antibiotics to treat Gram negative infections. Consequently, research in this area has been largely ignored for the past 15 years or so. This means that in the future the morbidity and mortality associated with infections caused by antibiotic resistant Gram negative bacteria is certain to rise. With this in mind, persons at the greatest risk of developing these infections include patients in hospitals and long term care facilities and individuals receiving implantable medical devices.

Because most large pharmaceutical companies abandoned antibiotic drug discovery in the mid to late 1990s, it is unlikely that new Gram negative antibiotics will come from the pharmaceutical sector. While there are several small biopharmaceutical start ups working on antibiotics for Gram negative bacteria (KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Calixa Therapeutics and Novexel) the increasing regulatory scrutiny and rising development costs suggests that these companies may have trouble bringing new antibiotics to market. Sadly, this places the onus of new Gram negative antibiotic discovery squarely on the shoulders of the US government. To that end, as much as it pains me to say this, it will likely take the death of government official or family member before sufficient resources are allocated to address this rapidly growing unmet medical need. Maybe the Obama Administration ought to think about allocating stimulus monies to begin to address the problem!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

Looking for a Postdoctoral Position? Check Out the Top 40 List

While I don’t advocate postdoctoral positions for individuals unless they plan on doing bench science for the rest of their lives, postdoctoral training is a fact of life for those interested in pursuing academic careers. To that end, The Scientist.com conducts an annual survey that ranks the best 40 places for postdoctoral associates to work. The survey ranks the strengths and weaknesses of individual training institutions based on funding, facilities and infrastructure, benefits, training and mentoring and family and personal life. Surprisingly, institutions are also ranked on networking, career development and mentoring and training and mentor and training that they offer to their postdoctoral trainees.

The institution that snagged the top spot on the 2010 list was the Trudeau Institute in Saranac Lake, NY. Nestled in the Adirondack Mountains in Upstate NY, the not-for-profit Trudeau Institute has a deserved international reputation in immunology, infectious diseases and vaccinology. When I was a graduate students (back in the dark ages), some of the greatest minds in infectious diseases held positions at Trudeau. These days; not so much—but I bet the skiing is great! Interestingly, one of Trudeau’s strengths is networking opportunities (how much networking can take place at a secluded institute on a lake in the Adirondacks). Curiously, however, one of its major weaknesses is the lack of career development opportunities. Based on my life experiences, I always thought that networking was a crucial part of career development. But then again, what do I know?

The top 10 of the list featured a couple of Massachusetts-based institutions including the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (3) and the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research Institute in Cambridge (4) and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Woods Hole, MA (9). Two national laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA (8) and Rocky Mountain Laboratory, NIH Hamilton, MT (6) cracked the top ten. By all accounts, the fly fishing is outstanding in Hamilton.

As usual, there were some surprises. These included Samuel Robert Noble Foundation (2) in Ardmore, OK, the University of Colorado, Denver (7) and the Mayo Clinic (10) in Rochester, MN (not exactly cities on my top ten list). Not surprisingly, there were only two life sciences companies that made the Top 40 list; Genentech (5) in South San Francisco and as mentioned above at number 3, the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research. Once a mainstay, industrial postdocs are becoming increasingly scare and difficult to land. In many cases, these positions are not advertised and generally filled by word-of-mouth recommendations to principal investigators who are looking for postdoctoral fellows.

A quick perusal of the list revealed, as expected, that most of the 40 institutions excelled in categories that included funding, facilities and infrastructure, benefits and family and personal life. In marked contrast, many of the institutions on the list were disappointingly weak in the areas of networking, career development and training and mentoring. Of the top 40, six got kudos for networking (15%), 11 for career development (28%) and only 6 for training and mentoring (15%). These abysmal statistics are somewhat shocking given that postdoctoral fellowships are mainly intended to train and prepare aspiring individuals for lifelong careers as scientists. The fact that only 25% of the nation’s best places to perform postdoctoral research offer career development training and support for postdoctoral trainees suggests that the future of the American life sciences industry may be in serious jeopardy!

Hat tip Ed at Pharmalot.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

 

Rare Disease Day: FDA to Offer Orphan Drug Development Workshop

A rare or orphan disease is defined in the US as one that affects fewer than 200,000 at any given time. It is estimated that there are 6000 to 8000 rare diseases in the world today. Because the number of patients afflicted with orphan diseases is so small, drug companies have historically been reluctant to invest money to discover and develop new treatments for them. The dearth of treatments for rare diseases induced Congress to pass the Orphan Drug Act in 1983 which provided market exclusivity, tax breaks and incentives and regulatory help for companies to development new drugs for orphan disease indications.

While many current blockbuster drugs including recombinant human insulin, growth hormone and erythropoietin originally garnered regulatory approval after receiving orphan status in the late 1980s, most big pharma and biotechnology companies (except Genzyme) largely abandoned orphan drug development until recently. The renewed interest in orphan drug development has been primarily driven by the demise of big pharma’s blockbuster business model that began in the early 2000s. The search for new, non-blockbuster drugs and fresh markets is what induced Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, to recently inked a multimillion dollar deal with Protalix Biotherapeutics, a small biopharmaceutical company developing a new treatment for Gaucher disease—an orphan indication.

Because of renewed interest and the ever increasing need for new orphan drugs, the FDA’s Office of Orphan Products Development is offering an Orphan Drug Designation Workshop that will provide a unique opportunity for all potential drug sponsors—including biotechnology companies, pharmaceutical firms and academic institutions—to learn about the application process for orphan drug designation.

The National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) is a co-sponsor of the workshops, which will take place on February 25-26 at Keck Graduate Institute and August 3-4 at the University of Minnesota.

Participants are encouraged to bring specific product proposals for at least one candidate orphan drug that holds promise for the treatment of a rare disease. A significant portion of the workshop will be dedicated to preparing applications, including one-on-one guidance sessions with FDA staff members. FDA will keep product and disease information confidential.

Final applications can be submitted to the FDA at the close of each workshop. For information or to register:

FDA Workshop Brochure
Registration for the February Workshop

Finally, February 28th is Rare Disease Day. The event is sponsored by the EURODIS a European advocacy group that promotes awareness and research for rare diseases. NORD and Discovery Health are also sponsoring the day.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

 

How Social Media May Be Influencing Human Clinical Trials and Access to Potentially Life-Saving Investigational New Drugs

It’s no secret that pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are “not in love” with social media. However, whether life sciences company like it or not, social media is beginning to affect human clinical testing with an increasing number of patients demanding access to unapproved experimental drugs to treat life-threatening illnesses. 

In a recent article that appeared in the January 15, 2010 issue of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News entitled “Expanded Access to Investigational New Drugs”, Natalie Douglas, CEO of UK-based Idis Pharma wrote:

"...the trend toward greater transparency of drug development pipelines and the accessibility of powerful social media tools, have led us to a more informed empowered and vocal population of patients. This, in turn, has led to increased demands for access to unapproved drugs that are in various stages of human clinical testing. “Patients can easily access information about investigational drugs via the Internet and are leveraging social media tools such as YouTube, Twitter and blog to influence companies to garner access to them” Douglas added.

This can place enormous pressure on the companies that are testing investigational new drugs because the safety and efficacy of the drug candidates has yet to be determined. Understandably, companies are loath to provide patients who don’t meet clinical trial inclusion requirements access to experimental drugs with unknown safety and efficacy characteristics. Nonetheless, if requests for access to investigational drugs are denied, social media tools can easily be used to quickly and widely publicize the denial. According to Douglas, aggressive use of social media tools by patients seeking access to investigational drugs has helped their stories make national news. This can create gargantuan regulatory and public relations problems for companies with drugs in clinical development and put them at the center of an ethical and moral firestorm—despite their best intentions to develop new drugs that eventually may help millions of patients suffering from various diseases and conditions.

Many patient advocacy groups, consumers and shareholders understand the almost limitless reach of social media and its ability to influence public opinion, discussions and trends. Whether or not drug makers are willing to use social media, many have yet to understand that they are already part of the social media conversation that is taking place daily. And, as all social media enthusiasts have realized, if you are not part of the conversation then you don’t know what is being said about you on the Internet. More importantly perhaps, is that by choosing not to participate in the conversation, companies have lost all ability to influence and manage what is being said. In other words, life sciences companies that steadfastly choose not to use social media may, paradoxically, be setting themselves up for public relations and regulatory headaches that could have easily been avoided.

While the social media frenzy may be beginning to wane, there is no question that it has changed the way people interact and influenced the way business is transacted online and in real life. Companies that insist on clinging to past business practices that are exclusive, non-interactive and designed to promote opacity are likely to lose customers and market share as 21st century technology continues to unfold.

Hat tip to Natalie!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!

Share/Bookmark

 

Merger Aftermath: Pfizer Refocuses

While I never was involved in a corporate acquisition or merger, I have many friends who have lived through them and based on their experiences it is a never a “pretty sight.” Merger aftermaths usually feature massive layoffs, executive management disputes and turf wars and corporate culture clashes tha occur when two workforces are forced to merge as one. However, sometimes mergers may be a good thing for struggling companies. To that end, Pfizer may actually benefit from it $68 billion acquisition of Wyeth late last year.

The acquisition will cost at least 20,000 employees their jobs—not a good thing in a national economy where unemployment is well over 10 percent (despite claims to the contrary). However, this merger is strikingly different than Pfizer’s questionable past mergers and acquisitions which were primarily engineered to procure one or two drugs that had blockbuster potential e.g. Lipitor and Celebrex. This time around, Pfizer’s management team is actually re-evaluating its entire drug development portfolio and attempting to expand the company’s pipeline to include vaccines, therapeutic proteins and other biologics. As I previously noted, most major pharmaceutical companies believe that biologics will be the major driver of pharmaceutical markets in the not so distant future.

According to a post on PharmaLive, Pfizer announced that it will discontinue research and development on roughly 100 experimental new drug candidates. Pfizer officials revealed that the company will continue with 500 research projects in six areas of: 1) Alzheimer’s disease, 2) diabetes, 3) pain, 4) cancer and 5) mental illness (including schizophrenia).

Of the 500 projects, 30 drugs are being tested for cancer indications, 10 for Alzheimer’s disease, eight for pain and 11 for inflammation. Further,133 are in various stages of human clinical testing, including several that are awaiting regulatory approval in the US and elsewhere. 

On the biologics front, Pfizer has six vaccines and 27 biopharmaceutical drugs in development. Prior to the Wyeth acquisition, the company only had one vaccine and 16 new biologics that it was testing. Like most other pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer wants to be a major player in the biopharmaceutical and biologics markets by 2015.

Only time will tell!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

Share/Bookmark

 

Career Development for Life Scientists: An Ongoing and Disturbing Trend

For the past 10 years or so, I have been providing career counseling and development seminars and workshops for life scientists. In the early years, students, postdocs and a smattering of faculty members would attend to learn about industry trends, the job market and more recently, alternate careers for PhDs and postdoctoral fellows. However, over the last few years, a disturbing trend has emerged—the lack of faculty participation at these events

Yesterday, I was invited to participate as a panel member to moderate a career development event sponsored by the graduate student and postdoctoral associations at the University Of Rochester School Of Medicine. The event was well attended (over 85 participants) and the discussion lasted for more than 2 hours. Joining me on the panel was a PhD-trained scientist/manager from Bristol Myers Squibb and a healthcare company executive who received his PhD degree from the university about 16 years ago.

Many of the questions asked by the participants were spot on and revealed that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are extremely anxious about their futures. The panel did its best to describe what it takes to get a job in the life sciences, the process and steps required to successfully win jobs and some ideas for alternate career options for PhD-trained scientists. Unfortunately, not a single University of Rochester medical school faculty member attended the event. In fact, I met the PI of one of the postdocs who sponsored my visit and he said with all sincerity (I think) “Thanks for coming...the students are really looking forward to your talk.” Obviously, I don’t think that it ever crossed his mind that he, like his students and postdocs, might learn and benefit from a discussion about career options and hear (probably for the first time) how anxious and fearful his and other students are about future job prospects.

The fact that faculty members are routinely eschewing career development seminars and forums is troubling and extremely disturbing for a variety of reasons. First, as I have said many times before, I believe that PIs have moral and ethical obligations to help their students determine what careers that they are best suited for. I don’t think that it is too much to ask or very labor-intensive for PIs to learn about the job market outside of academia.

Despite an ongoing lack of tenured track faculty positions and the extremely fierce competition to win them, academicians continue to exclusively train and prepare students for academic careers. This makes absolutely no sense from a “supply and demand” perspective. Second, the lack of faculty support and participation sends a clear message to graduate students and postdocs that their anxieties, fears and concerns about job prospects simply isn’t that important to their PIs.  The mantra of most academicians —“just continue to do good science and everything will be okay”— is outdated, anachronistic and self serving (for PIs) at best.  

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the failure of  tenured faculty members to actively engage and participate in discussions about career options reveals the unbridled contempt that most academicians have for scientists who work outside of academia. Most academics choose to not concern themselves with non-academic and mundane issues like jobs and careers. And why should they? Once they win tenure, their lives are set because they are guaranteed jobs and benefits for life!

We are living in very challenging and troubling times. In the past three years, over 180,000 pharmaceutical workers have  lost their jobs and national unemployment will likely hit 15%. Academic and government jobs are hard to come by and the competition for these jobs is ferocious and extremely competitive. And, sadly, current academic training programs are woefully inadequate to prepare graduate students and postdocs for alternate career opportunities in the life sciences. 

As I have stated numerous times before, life science graduate training programs are in dire need of systemic change and must be overhauled to remain relevant. Unfortunately, systemic changes are unlikely because tenured faculty members can’t be forced or induced to change their attitudes or beliefs. While a minority of life sciences faculty members realizes that the system is broken, the majority doesn’t.  To that end, if graduate students and postdoctoral fellows want change to occur, than they must band together and collectively send a message to their PIs and mentors that “We are mad as hell and we aren’t going to take it anymore!” Anything short of a widespread, massive protest will be ineffectual!

To learn how to more effectively manage employees, please check out the 360 feedback solution.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

 

Yes--There Is Life After Being Denied Tenure!

Cliff Mintz, BioCrowd co-founder and the mastermind behind BioJobBlog, is featured today in an online article at the Science Careers website entitled “Life After Rejection.” The piece was expertly crafted by Siri Carpenter, PhD a free lance science writer based in Madison, Wisconsin— coincidentally, the institution that awarded me my PhD. 

Being denied tenure as an Assistant Professor of Microbiology and Immunology was one of the most devastating events in my professional life. It literally took me over 10 year to come to terms with the implications of the decision. But, I am here to tell you (and in the article) that there IS life after being denied tenure; and in many ways, it is quite liberating. My tenure denial empowered me to explore careers that were previously closed to me as an academician and perhaps, more importantly, to find out who I am and what I really wanted to do with the rest of my life!

Don't get me wrong; it still bugs me that I wasn’t awarded tenure—mostly because being refused tenure implies that you “weren’t smart enough” to make it in academia. Not surprisingly, the “not-being-smart-enough label” doesn’t do much for a person’s self esteem and, many who are denied tenure (including me) tend to view themselves as abject failures in the eyes of their colleagues and friends.

However, looking back, being denied tenure was probably one of the best things that had ever happened to me. Truth be told, I would have been a lousy academic. I am too social and entrepreneurial to have flourished in a system that is rigid, parochial and not conducive to change.  That said, if I sound bitter and a bit envious of those who were granted tenure, you are correct!  After all, who wouldn’t be envious of  people who come and go as they please, don’t have to answer to a boss and are guaranteed a job for life; regardless of their social skills, academic performance or contribution to education?

The point that I want to make is that being denied tenure is an emotionally devastating and traumatic event that nobody ought to experience. However,  if  you should to find yourself in the uncomfortable position of being denied tenure, please remember to continue to believe in yourself, don't give up and, as corny as it may sound, "follow the advice of your heart" when making your next career move!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

Pharma Investing Less in R&D: What Does the Future Hold?

It’s no secret that major pharmaceutical companies are no longer investing in internal drug discovery initiatives as much as they have in the past. However, I was unaware how drastic the decline in R&D spending was until I read an article entitled “Significant Change Predicted for Bioindustry” by Benjamin J. Conway in the July issue of Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. 

Mr. Conway notes that in 1989 more than 50% of the pharmaceutical industry’s budget was spent on preclinical drug discovery and development. During the 1990s, the percentage slowly declined and was approximately 44% by 1999. He asserts that beginning in 2000, “the drop became precipitous” as pharmaceutical companies spent increasing amounts of their R&D budgets on downstream activities including expanded clinical trials. By 2006, big pharma was spending about 25% of its budget on R&D. Strikingly, Mr. Conway contends that “when measured in terms of constant absolute dollars, spending on pre-clinical R&D activities actually declined 0.4% annually over the period, despite annual increases of nearly 7% in total R&D spending.” 

Not surprisingly, the almost decade-long decrease in pharmaceutical R&D spending is best reflected in the lack of new drug approvals over the past five years or so. According to Mr. Conway, throughout the 1990s more than 50% of all new drug approvals originated at big pharma companies. By 2001, these companies were responsible for approximately 60% of new drug approvals. However, since then, pharma’s new drug approvals have plunged to 25% to 30% of annual totals. Some analysts suggest that the figure has been as low as 15%. The decline in new drug approvals almost parallels the decrease in R&D spending at most major pharmaceutical companies. Many industry analysts and thought leaders contend that big pharma companies have gotten too big and unwieldy and can no longer innovate. The unprecedented drops in pharma’s new drug approval rates tend to support that assertion. Mr. Conway points out that the so-called “innovation gap” has been filled by biopharmaceutical companies that “today account for 75% or more of new therapeutics developed each year.”

These changing market dynamics suggests that big pharma must reconfigure the business model that it has clung to for the past 50 years to remain competitive. Not surprisingly, almost all of the major pharmaceutical companies have begun to do just that! For example, over the past three years more than 60,000 R&D scientists have lost their jobs with little likelihood that the vacated jobs will ever be resurrected. Further, big pharmaceutical companies have increasingly begun to outsource many R&D activities to Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Finally, most big pharma companies have publicly demonstrated—through mergers and acquisitions—that biotechnology products as well as small molecules are in their future.

While big pharma may be retrenching and evolving, don’t expect the pharmaceutical industry on internal drug discovery initiatives —or small molecules for that matter— to disappear any time soon. The industry is going through a transitional period and the companies of the future will look only slightly different than they do today. These companies will still be large and well capitalized, but likely more diversified in their product portfolios (which will surely contain biotechnology drugs). Also, they will continue to excel in new product development, marketing and distribution. However, unlike the past, much less emphasis will be placed on internal R&D programs to discover new molecular entities. This means that pharmaceutical R&D operations will remain lean and companies will increasingly rely on M &A and licensing deals (with smaller specialty pharma and biotechnology companies) to keep their pipelines full.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

 SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Social Media Internship at Science Magazine

I just learned from Diego Pineda who runs the Medical Writer Blog and Medical Writing social network about an interesting internship possibility at Science magazine. For those of you social media enthusiasts interested in the opportunity, here is a job description.

“Science, the world's leading journal of original scientific research and global news, seeks a three-month intern to help implement and manage social media projects for its news department. The candidate should be very familiar with Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking platforms, and should have experience creating content for these platforms. Other duties will include promoting news content on the internet, moderating comments on our daily news site, and repurposing news content for multimedia projects. Some writing and research assistance for our online news site is possible. The ideal intern will have a science background-or at least a strong interest in science-and some journalism experience. The internship will be at our Washington, D.C. headquarters.”

For consideration, send a resume and cover letter to AAAS, Human Resources Department, 1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite #101, Washington, DC 20005.  (Attn:  Requisition #1763) You may also reach us by Fax at 202-682-1630 and e-mail at jobs@aaas.org.

It appears that Science is finally getting into the social networking.  For those of you, who can’t wait for the Science network, please check out BioCrowd, a social networking community focused on career development for bioprofessionals.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!

 

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Alternate Career Ideas for Life Scientists

After yesterday's post about career planning for life scientists, one of my soon to be former students in the Fundamentals of Bioscience Program aptly pointed out that my readers might have benefitted more if I had, in fact, offered information about alternate career possibilities for bioscientists.  I don't want the student to get too overconfident but I had the same thought immediately after I uploaded the post.  

Rather than modify the previous post, I decided to upload the presentation that I gave to the U Penn Graduate Student Biomedical Association yesterday.  However, as many of my former (or soon to be former) students will tell you, my PowerPoint presentations, while informative, are not as complete as you might think.  To get the real skinny on alternate careers, you will have to attend one of my seminars on the topic where I provide attendees with additional pearls of wisdom and some funny stories about my own journey along an oft times circuitous career path!

Until next time.....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Career Planning for Life Scientists

Yesterday, I gave a lecture entitled “Alternate Careers: Taking the Road Less Traveled” to over 100 members of the University of Pennsylvania’s Biomedical Graduate Student Association. As always, there were many good questions and comments during and after the presentation. Some of the career anecdotes offered by several of the students reminded me of a conversation that I had several weeks ago with one of my Fundamentals of Bioscience students—I teach a Product Development and Regulatory Affairs course in the program—who refreshed my memory about a typical graduate student approach to career development and job searching. “We don’t think about jobs or our careers until we begin writing our PhD theses” she said. “Until then, our advisers don’t talk about careers or jobs and only bring it up because our funding will run out” she added. Admittedly, I had forgotten this because so many years have passed since my graduate student days. That said, it forced me to consider how much the life sciences job market has changed since I was graduate student and how vitally important it is for today’s graduate students to think about and possibly explore different career options throughout the course of their graduate training.

Historically, there were very few career options for life scientists—it was either a tenure track faculty appointment or, as a poor second choice, a job at a pharmaceutical or biotechnology. Unfortunately, academics jobs are hard to come by and since 2007 over 60,000 pharmaceutical R&D scientists have lost their jobs and more cuts are expected. Also, many of these jobs are likely come back after the economy improves because many of the R&D activities performed by these scientists are being outsourced to India, China and elsewhere. This suggests that a majority of life sciences graduate students who receive their PhDs within the next few years won’t be able to secure traditional life sciences jobs. While a majority of US life sciences graduate training programs recognize and understand the implications of the changing job market, many are reluctant to discuss alternate career options with graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Even fewer, encourage or support students or postdoctoral fellows who want to engage in “extracurricular activities” to explore alternate career options. In fact, several U Penn students told me that they have to obtain written permission from their adviser before they can take courses or participate in extra-departmental activities. As one student quipped “What I do on my own time should be my business not my boss's.”

I always conclude my alternate career talk by saying “Nobody ever guaranteed you a job after completion of your PhD or postdoctoral training.” And, “if you wanted a job after completing your education, you ought to have gone to medical school, dental school, law school or any other profession that requires licensure to practice your craft.” While this may sound harsh, I believe that the decision to get a PhD is a personal one and based on discussion with many of my colleagues, most didn’t enter graduate school expecting a job to be waiting them when they completed their training. Nevertheless, I contend that graduate departments that continue to train and prepare students for traditional academic careers —knowing that over 90% won’t find jobs (other than postdocs) after their training is finished —are being disingenuous and even deceitful. Why haven’t academician realized that there is a plethora of job opportunities for life scientists outside of academia?

Like it or not, the life sciences job market has undergone radical changes in the past decade. Unfortunately, academics continue to adhere to dogmatic and anachronistic ideas and practices that don’t prepare their students and postdoctoral fellows for jobs in “the real world.” I contend that informing and enlightening graduate students about alternate career paths and, allowing them to explore some of these opportunities will not impede or hinder laboratory research. Instead, I believe it would help to improve and expedite its progress. As one U Penn graduate student shared with me over a couple of beers “If they would just tell us the truth and give us some idea about our options, it would certainly improve morale, reduce our anxiety and allow us to focus on our research because we would know what is out there!” As the old adage goes”ignorance is bliss.” But, in my experience, knowledge is power!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

 SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Social Media and Career Development for Life Scientists

Unlike others, life scientists have been slow to use social media to look for jobs or network to enhance career opportunities.  Many scientists  have  Facebook accounts but view it and other social media tools like Twitter simply as a means to stay in touch with family and friends.  However, social media can be a very powerful tool for scientists who are looking for jobs or the next big career move.

To that end, I presented a seminar at Experimental Biology this past weekend in New Orleans entitled "Social Media and Career Development for Life Sciences" that offer suggestions on how to use social media to land a job or jumpstart a career in the life sciences industry.  For those of you who may be interested, I posted the presentation below:

social media, life sciences, career development
View more presentations from cliffmz.
Until next time...
Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

Life Scientists Should Learn To Be More Social If They Want to Find Jobs

While I was at the Experimental Biology meeting in New Orleans, LA this past week I presented a seminar entitled “Using Social Media For Career Development in the Life Sciences.” This was the first time that I presented this talk, and was expecting a large turn out given the popularity of Facebook and more recently Twitter, a microblogging platform.  Much to my surprise only 15 students showed up for the talk—many of whom hadn’t heard of Twitter and were only vaguely familiar with Facebook. Luckily, a few attendees had Facebook profiles and one or two were on Twitter so the talk wasn't a complete bust.  Nevertheless, the lack of interest in this talk was extremely puzzling to me—my other seminars, “Interviewing Tips” and “Alternate Careers for PhDs” were very well attended and I was booked solid for one-on-one resume critiquing sessions during the five days I was in New Orleans.

I started to wonder why bioscience graduate students in their mid to late 20s, many of whom will need to find jobs (postdocs otherwise) in the next few years, weren’t interested in learning how to use social media to advance their careers or conduct a job search.  I thought that the lack of interest in this topic might be explained if a majority of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows were already using Facebook, Linked In or Twitter to network or explore career opportunities. This proved not to be the case, after learning that only a small percentage of students (who sought career counseling) had considered using social media to network or look for jobs. While many had Facebook profiles, most students primarily used them to stay in touch with friends and family—not for professional or scientific purposes. 

The lack of interest in social media for career development  by many of these nascent GenY scientists was confounding. After all, I have been lead to believe that “GenY” is leading the Web 2.0 and social media charge and that aging boomers like me simply “don’t get it.” The fact that I get it and many  GenY scientists, don’t forced me to revisit what I learned about the social behavior of scientists over the past 30 years or so.

First, it is no secret that scientists aren’t the most  socially-adept individuals and when socializing it tends to be very “cliquish” and oft time exclusive.  Second, scientists are notoriously poor networkers and mostly engage in serious networking when alcoholic beverages are involved.  In other words, very little networking takes place in professional and scientific settings with the exception of  conferences and meetings. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, many of the academicians who train scientists don’t understand networking and often don’t offer any career guidance to their students and postdocs. Unfortunately, most academics have little or no understanding of the world outside of academia and, not surprisingly, there is little incentive for them to learn about it—mostly because of the anachronistic tenure system. Further, because PhDs are taught to be independent and self reliant, there is almost no emphasis placed developing social skills during their training.   In fact, many academics believe that being too social is the best way to be “scooped” by their competitors. Paradoxically, there are currently over 30 social networking sites for scientists (including BioCrowd, the career development networking site that and I started). I suspect that many of us who started these sites recognized an opportunity to use social media to bring scientists together on the Web in a less threatening way than IRL. Although several of these sites report high subscription rates, it is not clear how effective they are for networking and career development purposes.

The job market for life scientists has been extremely difficult and competitive for the past five years or so. Academic positions are still hard to come by and the recent downsizing that has taken place in the life sciences industry—about 85,000 jobs have been lost in the past three years— suggest that competition for life sciences jobs will remain fierce for the foreseeable future. Like it or not, graduate programs must begin to provide job counseling and offer career development training to their students and postdoctoral fellows—their lives may depend upon it. 

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Why Downsizing May Hurt Pharma

Since 2007, approximately 80,000 pharmaceutical jobs have been eliminated. The recent consolidation in the industry, e.g., Merck-Schering, Pfizer-Wyeth and Roche-Genentech suggests that many more life sciences jobs will be lost over the next year or so. Typically, to avoid law suits and possible discrimination claims, most companies will layoff a mixture of experienced and entry level employees that cover the racial, religious and age spectra. For those of you who may not know, Americans who are 40 and older constitute a “protected class of employees.” In other words, companies that layoff employees cannot disproportionately give pink slips to employees 40 years of age or older. This law was enacted because older employees typically have higher salaries and have accrued more benefits and vacation time than their more junior counterparts and eliminating them can drastically cut costs. While most companies are careful to layoff a mixture of junior and senior employees during large layoffs, a quick perusal of the demographics of employees who lose their jobs reveals that many of them are older, more experienced workers. Sacrificing a few entry level employees (to prevent any red flags) is worth it to the accountants who charged with cutting costs and orchestrating large corporate layoffs.

Unlike consumer goods, pharmaceutical and biotechnology drug development is arcane, complex and may take up to 15 years to complete. There are many “go” or “no go” decisions that must be made during the drug development process. Typically, these decisions are rendered by experienced employees who have been “down the road” many times before and are able to recognize the oft-time nuanced attributes of successful drug candidates. Without the benefit of these employee and their experiences, drug companies may struggle to make the “right decisions” for new products being developed. Also, the loss of experienced employees can disrupt the flow of essential “corporate knowledge” to entry level and more junior employees. This is important because— while most entry level and junior employees are academically and technically qualified—it usually takes them years (under the tutelage of mentors and senior employees) to understand a company’s best practices. Put simply, the unrelenting loss of experienced pharmaceutical workers can alter the standing or dominance of pharmaceutical companies in certain therapeutic areas. While massive layoffs of experienced pharmaceutical employees bolster drug stock prices in the short term, the long term effects of these layoffs on the overall health of the pharmaceutical industry remains uncertain.

Jeff Kindler, Pfizer’s CEO, mentioned yesterday during a CNBC interview, that eight Wyeth senior executives will keep their jobs after the Pfizer-Wyeth deal closes later this year. Not surprisingly, he failed to mention how many “rank and file” employees of the combined company would keep their jobs after the merger. Don’t be shocked when Pfizer-Wyeth announces massive layoffs after the deal closes—Pfizer’s stock price has fallen 21% since it announced the Wyeth acquisition late last fall.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

 

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

America's Competitive Edge in Science and Technology May be Waning

Over the past ten years or so, pundits have been warning that the US is losing its competitive edge and that it is no longer the world’s leading nation when it comes to innovation in science and technology. Measuring national competitiveness and innovation is very tricky business and until now, most of evidence to support these claims has been anecdotal. According to an article in today’s New York Times, a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation suggests that the US ranked sixth among 40 countries and regions based on 16 indicators that measure innovation and competitiveness including venture capital investment, numbers of per capita researchers, research spending and educational achievement. 

While the results of Foundation study may be troubling (if you are a US citizen), another recent study conducted by the World Economic Forum found that America ranked first in innovation and global competition. However the forum’s report was based entirely on opinion survey data.  Like the forum report, a study conducted by the Rand Corporation last year, also found that “the US was not in any imminent danger of losing its competitive advantage in science and technology.” The use of the word “imminent” is perhaps the most telling aspect of the Rand Corporation’s conclusion about American competitiveness.

The US lost ground to much smaller countries like Sweden, Finland, Taiwan, Singapore and also to one of it's main competitors, China.  Unlike the US, all of these countries are pursuing government-sponsored initiatives designed to promote innovation and global competitiveness. Some of the elements of these initiatives include education, workforce development training, intellectual property protection and immigration. Surprisingly, results from the foundation report (adjusted for population and size of each economy) showed that the US ranked sixth in venture capital investment (Sweden was first); fifth in corporate research and development spending (Japan was number one) and fourth in the number of science and technology researchers (again Sweden was first). Over all, Singapore ranked first in innovation and competitiveness. As some of you may know, Singapore--for the past 10 years--has heavily invested in the life sciences and has managed to induce some of world’s leading bioscientists to immigrate.

One of the main recommendations of the report suggests that the federal government ought to follow the lead of the individual states, many of which developed state government-sponsored programs designed to attract investment, talent and improve the work force skills of  local would be employees. Further, the report specifically recommends that the federal government offers tax breaks and incentives to induce American companies to innovate at home rather than outsource R&D activities abroad. Some of these incentives could include tax research tax credits  and increased federal funding or corporate tax breaks for workforce development programs.

Finally, one of the most shocking statistics that I heard in President Obama’s speech to Congress last evening was that 50% of American students drop out of high school and over 50% of college students never complete their education. This begs the question: How can America expect to remain competitive when a majority of its population is less educated than the rest of the developed world? 

A past commitment to education is what propelled the US to become a world leader in innovation and competitiveness.  To regain its past status as an innovator, the US must overhaul and vastly improve is primary, secondary and post secondary education system. This is something that cannot wait—the future of American depends on it!

Until next time...

 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting ( give teaching a shot)

 

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Pharma and Twitter

Twitter, the microblogging platform, is the current rage in social media. According to @Shwen, who writes the Med 2.0 Blog, it grew by 752% in 2008. Shwen is a social media enthusiast who is trying to convince the life sciences industry that Twitter and other social networks can be leveraged to improve drug development and deliver healthcare.

According to a recent post on Med. 2.0, there are currently three pharmaceutical companies that are actively using Twitter: Novartis (@novartis), Boehringer Ingelheim (@Boehringer) and Astra Zeneca (AstraZenecaUS). Also, it appears that Johnson and Johnson (@JNJcomm) launched an account last week. Tweets from @novartis and @Boehringer occur fairly regularly whereas AstraZenecaUS tweets are rare. Unlike YouTube, where pharmaceutical sponsors who create channels can regulate and control content, it is much more difficult to manage Twitter because tweets are in real time, uncensored (for the most part) and can be globally disseminated within seconds.

Despite these issues, Med 2.0’s Shwen muses “I can only imagine that more pharma companies are going to be jumping on board the Twitter-train sooner rather than later. How they use it to engage, on the other hand, is going to vary greatly from company to company. At the very least, I see companies setting up accounts as “listening posts”, but others may choose to engage, like @boehringer does in an informal manner. Whatever the case, Twitter is fast becoming the new dominant space for listening and/or engaging the life sciences community.”

Like Shwen, I believe that it a matter of time before pharma and biotech realize that they must embrace social media (in all of its various forms) to remain competitive in today’s increasingly interconnected marketplace.

For those of you who may be interested, you can follow BioJobBlog (@Biojobblog) and Biocrowd (@Biocrowd) on Twitter too!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Twittering

 

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Career Opportunities in Drug Development

Ever wonder how a drug makes it from the bench to the marketplace and what types of jobs are required to support the process? I created a PowerPoint presentation that describes the activities and the jobs required at each stage of the development process. I also listed the degree requirements that are necessary to secure various jobs from drug discovery through commercialization.

The Future of Pharmaceutical R&D

Did you know that the top ten pharmaceutical companies in the world spent close to $50 billion dollars last year on R&D? That sum could be used to purchase the entire US biotechnology industry except for the five largest companies—Genentech, Amgen, Gilead Genzyme and Celgene. Further, pharma’s R&D budget is about 4 times the R&D budget of all of the US biotechnology companies combined. According to a blurb in breakingviews.com, Pfizer alone spent $8 billion last year which was greater than the sum spent by biotech’s top five companies. What this tells us is that pharmaceutical companies are grossly unproductive when it comes to drug discovery and development. This would explain why nearly three-quarters of all new medicines approved for sale in the US last year originated at biotechnology companies.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that biotechnology companies are much more efficient at R&D than pharmaceutical companies. More importantly this suggests that something must change so that pharma can continue receive adequate ROI on internal discovery programs. Perhaps big pharma ought to spend a greater portion of its R&D budget on biotech mergers and acquisitions rather than continuing to invest in inefficient and failing internal R&D programs. While biotechnologynology companies are exceptional in drug discovery, they are severely lacking when it comes to clinical development of new drugs. This is largely due the high costs of conducting human clinical trials (which are required for regulatory approval of all new medicines). Most biotechnology companies are strapped for cash and don’t have sufficient funds to conduct clinical trials on their own.

Not surprisingly, given the recent financial downturn, there has been a recent spate of deals in which pharma has been willing to pay large sums of money for clinical development rights to promising new biotechnology drugs. Moreover, a majority of the almost 160,000 employees layed off by pharma companies in the past few years have been R&D scientists. This suggests that pharma is beginning to realize that its money may be better spent doing deals or buying biotech companies rather than continuing to invest large sums of money into it’s own unproductive R&D programs. Unfortunately, this paradigm shift doesn’t bode well for doctoral students and post-doctoral fellows who are training in the life sciences. This is because many entry-level biotech positions, traditionally filled by newly-minted PhDs and postdoctoral fellows will likely be filled by experienced, pharmaceutical employees who lost their jobs in the recent rounds of layoffs. As much as I hate to say this, if I were a life sciences graduate student or postdoctoral fellow considering an R&D career in industry, I would begin to explore alternative career options.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

 

Finding a New Job: It's All About Networking

Like it or not, the best way to land a new job whether or not there is a recession is to network. While career counselors and recruiters trumpet the virtues of networking to job seekers, many people really don't understand what it is or how to do it correctly. I found an outstanding article that demystifies networking and offers tips on how to excel at it. 

For many scientists, online networking is ideal because they frequently lack the requisite skills to effectively network in real life situations. Until recently, face-to-face networking at conferences or "professional social events" was the only way to effectively network. However, the advent of web-based social networks allows job seekers to eschew the awkwardness and time requirements for  one-on-one networking in favor of a more convenient and less-threatening online experience. BioCrowd, a new online social network for scientists and other bioprofessionals, was created to help scientists advance their careers and find new jobs. While BioCrowd and similar online networking sites can help scientists make connections, it is still the face-to-face networking experience that will ultimately  help them land new jobs!

Because networking is not taught or emphasized in graduate school, it is not surprising that many graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are notoriously poor “networkers.” That said, for those of you who recognize the importance of networking and want hone your networking skills, Contacts Count a Maryland-based network training company may be worth a visit. I have no doubt that there other organizations and companies out there that specialize in network training. If you find any, let me know and I will gladly post them!

Until next time…

 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

 

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Another Antibiotic Discovery And Development Company Is Downsizing

Targanta Therapeutics, a Cambridge, MA-based biopharmaceutical company, announced that it will lay off 85 of its 115 employees or almost 75% of its workforce. The news follows the FDA’s rejection of its application for oritavancin, an antibiotic it is developing to treat infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and other antibiotic resistant bacteria. The agency wants Targanta to conduct another Phase III clinical trial to further assess of oritavancin’s safety and efficacy.

The company estimates that the new clinical trial will cost about $20 million. Targanta CEO Mark Leuchtenberger said “We are no longer a pre-commercial company. We are back to being a Phase three company, and that requires us to right-size and to streamline our operations.”

Things are not going well for companies in the antibacterial drug discovery and development space. Late last month, FDA rejected Swiss-based Arpida’s NDA for iclaprim an antibiotic it was developing to treat complicated skin and soft infections caused by MRSA. Shortly after receiving the news, Arpida layed off roughly 72% of its employees and is down to about 30 employees like Targanta.

It is unfortunate that big pharma decided to abandon antibacterial discovery and development research about eight years ago. Consequently, development of  new, much-needed antibiotics has been relegated to financially-strapped, small biopharmaceutical companies whose likelihood of success is questionable.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

Jobseekers Beginning to Favor Social Networking over Online Career Sites to Find Jobs

Online career sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder.com and Yahoo Hot Jobs have gotten so big and over subscribed that they are no longer useful to most jobseekers. Many career development experts have discovered that the large career sites tend to overwhelm jobseekers because of the enormity of job possibilities that appear on them.  Unfortunately, this seemingly endless supply of job opportunities frequently induces jobseekers to spend too much time applying for online jobs and not enough time exploring non-internet based job possibilities. While applying for online jobs is facile and may be emotionally-gratifying, it usually doesn’t culminate in many face-to-face interviews or job offers for that matter. This is because most online job applications are screened by software programs looking for key words or phrases and, if your resume doesn’t contain them it will not be reviewed by a human. Further, many of the openings posted on job boards are actually placed there by recruiters and contract employment agencies—not actual companies seeking to fill positions. Often times, recruiters post expired or fictitious job descriptions on the boards to “pad” their candidate databases with qualified applicants who can be used for future job orders. Finally, sometimes unscrupulous people/companies place false or misleading ads on the big job boards. Unfortunately, these people have no qualms about taking financial advantage of job seekers who may be desperate or “down on their luck

The declining usefulness of the big online job boards has given rise to smaller career sites like Indeed.com and Simply Hired.com which are driven by powerful search engines and permit jobseekers to customize job searches based on industry, geography, salary and job availability. Other companies like BioInsights.com and OneScience.com have built niche job boards that specialize in industry-specific job listings (in this case pharma and biotech). While these new careers site are more focused, easier to navigate and frequently yield better results than the large job boards, they too can be exploited by recruiters and unscrupulous would-be employers. 

The growing popularity of social networking sites represents an important paradigm shift for jobseekers and employers. Belonging to popular social networks like LinkedIn, Facebook or Plaxo allows job seekers to cast a wider net by taking advantage of the contacts or connections that their “friends” may have at various companies and organizations. Further, it is not uncommon for people within a network to pass on resumes or put in a good word to hiring managers on behalf of friends or contacts from their network who are seeking employment.  However, it is important to also point out that recruiters and contract employment agencies have also recognized the potential and power of social networks. Recruiters and HR specialists now routinely troll social networks (particularly Linked In and Facebook) for qualified candidates and don’t hesitate to contact “qualified candidates” whether or not they are actively looking for a job. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, hiring managers and recruiters are becoming increasingly reliant on social networks to screen and gather personal information about job candidates to assess their suitability for certain jobs. According to a 2006 study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, recruiters use social networking sites 23 per cent more than they did in 2006 to verify resumes, screen applicants and fill vacancies. Also, the study found that possible negative information posted on social network profiles—personal views, alcohol or drug use, sexually-oriented pictures or social commentaries— have a greater impact on hiring decisions than any positive information that may also appear on job seeker profiles.

The growing use of social networks by job seekers to find employment and employers and recruiters to screen job applicants has profound implications for people who belong to these networks. With this in mind, if you currently have profiles associated with your legal name on social networks like Face Book, MySpace or Linked In, I strongly recommend that are completely devoid of the following: 1) sexually suggestive or explicit photographs, 2) posts or photos depicting excessive alcohol or drug use, 3) any rants that you may have posted about your boss or a current place of employment and 4) personal information about your age, marital status, children or sexual orientation. Also, if you are actively involved in a job search, it is a good idea to upload a short bio or resume to your profile and to post any bonafide recommendations or career award and honors that you may have received. However, if you find the prospect of having to sanitize your MySpace and Facebook profiles unpalatable, then I suggest that you remove your name from your current profile(s) and replace it with an alias (your friends will still  know who you are) and build another profile with your real name for professional use only.   

We live in a highly competitive, constantly-changing world where even slightly negative perceptions about a person may mean the different between employment or not. Ironically, while the Internet allows greater freedom of expression, it also permits people with decision-making powers to more easily scrutinize our daily activities and gain greater insights into our personal lives. Consequently, the onus is on jobseekers to regulate or control what prospective employers may learn about them online. Put simply, the success or failure of your career may literally be in your own hands. That said, the next time that you update your Facebook or MySpace profiles take a moment (before you hit the “send button”) and ask yourself whether or not the new information “is going to help or hurt my career?”

Until next time…

 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

 

How to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist

Last week, I had the great fortune to meet (on the Recruiting Animal Show) a career development expert who despite her young age, has seminal insights into today’s job market and how to break into it. Alexandra Levit, a self-avowed GenXer on the GenY cusp, is the author of several books, including They Don't Teach Corporate in College, How'd You Score That Gig? and Success for Hire.

In addition to her book writing activities, Alex’s career advice posts are featured monthly in the Huffington Post and have been showcased in more than 800 media outlets including ABC News, the Associated Press, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, National Public Radio, Fortune, Yahoo!, and MSN. She is recognized as one of her generations (X or Y?) preeminent career experts who regularly speak at universities and corporations on workplace issues facing young employees.

Alex and I got to talking after Animal' show and I learned that like me, she dabbles in the pharmaceutical career development arena. That said, she graciously agreed to allow me to post a piece that she wrote entitled “Want to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist? Here’s How!” (see below) that offers guidance for entry level scientist who are considering careers in the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries. Read and learn!

"Want to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist? Here’s How!"

Talk about a career with intriguing possibilities. People entering the pharmaceutical research field today may be the ones discovering the cure for cancer or Parkinson’s disease tomorrow. Although the United States’ pharmaceutical companies sometimes get a bad rap, they routinely make astounding advances that save lives, and from what I hear, aren’t bad places to work either. If you’re a data-head who wants to use your scientific background for the greater good, you might consider becoming a pharmaceutical scientist. Here’s some detail about what breaking into the field entails.

According to the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, the pharmaceutical sciences combine a broad range of scientific disciplines that are critical to the discovery and development of new drugs, therapies, and medical devices. Some of the more common specializations include drug discovery and design, whichdeals with the design and synthesis of new drug molecules and includes medicinal chemistry, combinatorial chemistry, and biotechnology; drug delivery, which is concerned with the design of dosage forms – such as tablets, injections or patches – that deliver the drug to the site of action within a patient; drug action, which examines how the drug works in a living system; clinical pharmacology, which is concerned with the use of drugs in the treatment of diseases and leverages human clinical trials to determine efficacy, adverse effects, and drug-to-drug interaction; and drug analysis, which involves separating, identifying, and quantifying the components of a sample.

Twenty-eight year old Matt, a senior research associate at Novartis, spends his days engaged in both drug action and drug analysis for the company’s wide range of prescription medications for ailments such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes. He’s responsible for testing animal organ and plasma samples to determine if a drug is working the way it’s supposed to. “It’s my job to quantify the drug’s efficacy in the body, to gather early support as it moves through the process of getting approved by the Food and Drug Administration,” he says. 

While the majority of pharmaceutical scientists are employed by private-sector pharmaceutical companies, others work as researchers and professors at universities, as regulatory scientists for government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or as researchers at national laboratories such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An undergraduate degree in chemistry, biology, pharmacy, or engineering is a prerequisite for the entry-level position of research assistant. The research assistant, who receives a broad-based introduction to the pharmaceutical world, records, stores and summarizes information and data, prepares technical reports, and develops laboratory skills and familiarity with equipment. “You should expect that your first job will be low level and the work very routine,” says Matt. “You won’t have much of a chance to be creative or innovative, and you have to be tolerant of that at the beginning of your career.” Adds Beth, 31, an R&D project director at a top pharmaceutical company in the Northeast: “Make the most of each opportunity, no matter how small. Success with smaller projects will directly lead to greater responsibility and rapid professional growth. Focus both on delivering results and on how you deliver the results: for example, through strong teamwork or a rigorous research approach.”

Recent college grads looking for research assistant jobs may want to start by educating themselves about the pharmaceutical industry in general. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Web site (www.phrma.org) and the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Web site (www.aapspharmaceutica.com) are great places to check out relevant publications, networking events, and internship and employment listings. Specific job opportunities can also be found on industry job portals including www.biospace.com, www.hirerx.com, and www.medzilla.com, and you might also take advantage of openings advertised through your college’s career center. “My first paying job was an internship at a medical device company,” says Beth. “I made the original contact at an MIT career fair and then interviewed on campus with the company’s recruiting team. I shared my passion for medical device engineering and my solid academic background and was hired after my sophomore year.”

Matt also suggests that you might get in the door by connecting with a temporary employment firm specializing in pharmaceuticals. “I signed on with Kelly Scientific right out of school,” he says. “Almost immediately, I got contract work doing clinical research studies that eventually resulted in a full-time job.” Women may find that they’re especially marketable, as the pharmaceutical industry is still predominantly male and most organizations are striving to even things out.

The typical pharmaceutical research career has ample room for growth. From the position of research assistant, you can progress to a research associate, an associate scientist, a scientist, a senior scientist, and a principal scientist. After you’ve reached a certain level, you may also have the option of taking on a cross-functional role in research management, regulatory affairs, pharmacoeconomics, or communications. At the moment, most people who reach the top levels of the profession get a Ph.D. along the way, but many say that’s changing and that experience in the lab is increasingly worth more than formal education. You’ll be happy to learn that compared to other industries, compensation is quite generous. According to a recent American Association for the Advancement of Science Salary Survey, pharmaceutical research assistants make more than $65K with just a bachelor’s degree, and six-figure incomes are standard after a few years.

Like other data-heads, pharmaceutical scientists are highly analytical and have had the math and science coursework to back up their natural talent. “You have to be anal about the details, because one small error can mess up a whole batch of samples,” says Matt. A cool-headed approach to troubleshooting is critical as well. “Development setbacks occur frequently,” says Beth. “When something goes wrong, my first step is to pull the team together to diagnose the situation. I do not try to lay blame but want to ensure that we learn and do not repeat the mistake or ignore the issue as we move forward.” Additionally, pharmaceutical research environments can be political and difficult to navigate at times. “Drug research isn’t always run like a well-oiled machine and loyalty to the company doesn’t always work in your favor,” says Matt. “You have to have a good sense of what you’re worth and what you have to offer.”

If you think pharmaceutical research might be for you, now’s a great time to test drive it as a career. A special supplement on hiring trends in the pharmaceutical space published in The Scientist in 2005 reported that the number of people employed in the U.S. industry is expected to grow from 413,700 to 536,000 in the next decade, and that Research & Development spending, which exploded in 2004, is still steadily increasing. “I love my job because I have the opportunity to impact patients with my daily work, collaborating with my fellow team members to solve complex problems,” says Beth. “And I feel very fortunate to work at a company where my personal values align very closely with the corporate culture.”

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

Academia: A Feudal System That Is Running on Empty

I just returned from my career development sojourn at this year’s FASEB meeting in San Diego, CA. Not surprisingly, all of my sessions were well attended. In fact, attendance at many of the presentations was standing room only. Again, this was not terribly surprising because the job market for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows for the last 5 years has been dismal. However, in contrast with past years, there was a noticeable and palpable difference in the attitudes of many of the students and postdocs who attended the sessions. In previous years, many career development participants seemed resigned to the possibility of a “jobless future”. However, this year there was a small but vocal group of participants who openly expressed their anger and resentment at the possibility of not finding a job after completing their training. I think that many graduate students and postdoctoral fellows have begun to realize that they are being exploited by a fundamentally flawed academic system and that they are “not going to take it anymore.”

 

Academia has always resembled a medieval, feudal system. Principal Investigators (PIs) are the kings because they hold all the power, money and authority and rule with impunity. Postdoctoral fellows are the lords or vassals who behave somewhat autonomously but have sworn oaths of allegiance and fealty to their kings. Research associates (technicians) are the indentured servants who rely on the king and his vassals for sustenance and protection. Finally, graduate students are the slaves whose lives and well being solely depend upon unquestioned obedience to their Kings. As we all know, feudal systems broke down when kings could no longer maintain control over their slaves and indentured servants. This culminated in rebellions and revolutions, the eventual demise of monarchies and ultimately gave rise to modern republics and democracies.

Although I am not necessarily advocating revolution (okay, so maybe I am), it is time that drastic and systemic changes be made to academia as we know it.  First, there needs to be a limit or moratorium on the number of students that are annually accepted into graduate programs. There are simply not enough academic, industrial or government jobs to justify the number of PhDs and postdoctoral fellows that are trained each year. Second, tenure should be abolished at all research universities and medical schools and be replaced with 5 year renewable contracts. This will force PIs, whose primary job is to do research (not teach), to remain competitive and productive. Further, it will reduce the likelihood that ego-centric PIs will be able to accumulate enough wealth and power to establish the “fiefdoms” that are prevalent in academia today. Third, PIs must increase their reliance on technicians (rather than postdoctoral fellows) to achieve their research objectives and goals. Allowing postdocs to work 5 or more years in the same laboratory because it is cheaper to hire them than technicians is, in my opinion, ethically and morally bankrupt. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is vital that PIs actually become mentors and play active roles in advising and shaping the careers of their students and postdoctoral fellows. Given the paucity and competitiveness of academic positions, it is disingenuous for PIs to promote academic careers for every person who passes through or works in their laboratories. As a former medical school tenure track Assistant Professor, I didn’t find it too difficult to identify which students and postdocs were “cut out” for academic careers. Further, it is incumbent upon PIs to take the time to

learn about and promote job opportunities for scientists outside of academia. Attending career fairs or introducing career development seminars into extant graduate programs would be an important first step in this direction.

After I come home from career development meetings, I sometimes lie awake at night and wonder whether many PIs can fathom what it must feel like when, a PhD who spent 5 or more years in their laboratories, can’t find a job to “put food on the table” for his or her family. Having been there, I can tell you that it is very unpleasant and emotionally devastating!

In my opinion, it will be difficult for academia to continue in its current incarnation. I think that academicians must begin to address and fix the problems that they created for this generation of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Failure to do so may result in a “revolution”– which in this case– may be required to bring about the changes that WE ALL KNOW are long overdue.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!! 

2008 FASEB Career Development Symposium

I am sitting in Newark Airport waiting for my flight to San Diego which, not surprisingly, has been delayed for about 2 hours.  As you might have guessed from the title of this post, I am on my way to the 2008 FASEB Career Development Symposium which is run every year at the annual FASEB meeting. 

As we have done in the past, my colleagues Eric Celidonio and Joe Tringali, and I  will be presenting seminars and resume writing workshops for graduate students and postdocs.  Our goal, as always is to offer these folks some advice and tips on how to find a job after they complete their training.  Unfortunately, the job market for PhDs has been depressed for the past 8 years or so.  There once was a time, circa 1994-2000, when finding a job for alife sciences or chemistry PhDs was a snap.  In those days, many jobs were left unfilled. Ironically, it  has been scientific advances and technological innovations that have made it more difficult for PhDs to find jobs over the past decade or so.

Anyway, if you are attending FASEB this year, please stop by.  Also, tell all your friends!  We like when it is busy.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

Part 1-Ask the Recruiter: Organizing a Successful Job Search

Many people think that organizing a job search requires little more than quickly throwing together a resume, applying for online jobs or answering print ads and then kicking back to wait for responses from prospective employers. While this scenario may have been accurate 10 years ago– when jobs were abundant and the economy was humming– it is no longer the case. In fact, the current science job market may be one of the most challenging in the past 20 years or so. This is likely due to shrinking government research spending, contraction of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries and the possibility that the American economy is slipping into recession. Nevertheless, there are still available jobs out there. But, in contrast with the past few years, getting them will require a carefully planned and well orchestrated job search.

The initial steps of any job search require answers to several key questions. These include:

  1. What do you think you want to do?
  2. What type of job are you likely to get (i.e. what jobs are you really
    qualified for)?
  3. What are your long-term career goals and aspirations?
  4. Where do you want/ need to live?
  5. What are your salary requirements? 

Although answers to these questions may, on the surface appear easy, I can assure you that they are NOT and require a great deal of thought!  First, not everyone knows what they truly want to do after completing 6 or more years of graduate and postdoctoral training. More importantly, many people are convinced that they know what they want to do (largely based on discussions with mentors and advisors) but are ill- informed or have little idea about the actual day-to-day responsibilities and specific duties of certain types of jobs. Therefore, before you apply for a particular job, you must critically assess whether you possess the requisite skill sets or experience to successfully compete for the job. For example, if you are protein biochemist and have no industry experience, it wouldn’t be prudent to apply for business development jobs that require a year or more of industrial experience. No matter what lab you trained in or how many publications you have, I guarantee that you will not get the job. Therefore, it is vitally important that you understand the requirements, qualifications and types of jobs that you will be able to compete for.  If you don’t understand these parameters, you are in for a long, frustrating and unsuccessful job search.

Second, it is important to have a clear understanding of the career path that must be traveled to achieve individual long-term career goals. If, for example, you are a PhD with postdoctoral training and are interested in a business development career –but lack a business background–it may be advisable to first attempt to get an entry level job as a research scientist at a large pharmaceutical or biotechnology company. After all, you were trained and have the qualifications for this type of job. Once you have your proverbial foot-in-the-door and, hopefully, picked up some business buzz words you can begin to apply for internally-posted business development jobs. The good news is that internal candidates always have a substantial edge over external candidates for these job openings. Sometimes you might not be able to exactly follow the career roadmap that you created for yourself. Not to worry, if you have a carefully crafted career plan it can easily be modified or amended to get back on track and ultimately achieve your career objectives and goals!

Because  most scientists subscribe to the notion that “no sacrifice is too great for science”, we frequently are willing to take jobs (because of a possible scientific upside) in geographical locations that are not commensurate with our personal needs or lifestyle. Taking a job solely based on the “no sacrifice is too great” adage is often misguided and, in my own experience, a BIG mistake. After receiving my PhD at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I decided to take a postdoctoral position in Portland, Oregon– a decision that was made almost exclusively on the prospect of upward scientific mobility. After arriving in Portland in early January, and experiencing my first Oregon rainy season (which really lasts until July no matter what the natives say) I realized that I had made a bad geographical decision. Nevertheless, I worked hard in the lab and published two or three papers in reputable journals. Unfortunately, I was miserable most of the time and lived in Portland for almost two more years. I subsequently secured a second postdoctoral position at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and had the time of my life– both inside and outside of the lab. After three more years of hard, painstaking and enjoyable postdoctoral work, I was able to secure a tenure track position at the University Of Miami School Of Medicine. I attribute my success to being happier (both socially and professionally) in Manhattan than I was in Portland.  To that end, I highly recommend that you identify, early in your job search, places where you won’t or cannot live. And, no matter how scientifically or financially enticing a job may sound, don’t even bother to apply if the location of the job is not right for you or your family.

Finally, it is essential before you begin a job search to determine what your minimum salary requirements are. Salary requirements can vary depending upon your family situation, the location of the job and your personal lifestyle requirements. For example, if you determine that $50,000 per year is sufficient to accommodate your needs, then it makes no sense to apply for jobs that advertise salaries less than $50 K per year. No matter how talents or skilled you are, you will not be able to get a company to pay you $50K per year if the job was advertised at a lower salary.  Also, it is never wise to accept a job when the salary that is offered is less than the salary that you expected to receive–you will always feel underpaid or undervalued and you will not be able to do your best work (because you will always be looking for a higher paying job).

I hope that you find the comments in the first installment of the Ask the Recruiter series insightful and helpful. In my next installment, I will attempt to provide some ideas about  how to conduct a highly- focused and targeted job search.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

"The Times They Are a Changing"

 I think by now that Americans realize that the economy is taking a sharp downward turn. Even the recession-proof pharmaceutical industry has taken a huge beating over the past year or so– and things seem to be getting worse! The biotechnology industry, which is highly dependent upon venture capital and private equity to remain healthy, is also trending downward and will be hit hard if the economy slides into recession. To make matters worse, the US Department of Labor recently released figures which showed projected growth (for 2006 to 2016) for the fastest-growing occupations in America (see below). Not surprisingly, scientists–industrial or academic– did not make the top 20 list.

 

 

Occupation

Median Wage (May, 2006)

% Expected Growth

Registered nurses

$57,280

587

Retail salespeople

$19,760

557

Customer service jobs

$28,330

545

Food preparation & serving (including fast food )

$15,050

452

Office and general clerical workers

$23,710

404

Personal and home-care aides

$17,770

389

Home health aides

$19,420

384

Post-secondary school teachers

$56,120

382

Janitors and cleaners (not maids and housekeeping)

$19,930

345

Hospital nursing aides, orderlies and attendants

$22,180

264

Bookkeeping, accounting and auditing clerks

$30,560

264

Waiters and waitresses

$14,850

255

Child care workers

$17,630

248

Executive secretaries and administrative assistants

$37,240

239

Computer software and application engineers

$79,780

226

Accountants and auditors (4 year college degrees)

$54,630

226

Landscaping and lawn workers

$21,260

221

Elementary school teachers (not special education)

$45,750

209

Receptionist and information clerks

$22,900

202

Truck drivers, heavy equipment and tractor trailer

$35,040

193

 Together, this suggests that finding jobs in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology or related industries will be tougher in the next few years than it has been in the past. I suspect that this is not welcome news for those of you who have tried but were unable to find jobs in the past few years. With this in mind, I decided to launch a series of weekly blog posts that will last for 6 to 7 weeks entitled: “Everything That You Ever Wanted to Know about Finding a Job in the Bioscience industry …and Then Some”

I will post these weekly installments on my blog in the “Ask the Recruiter” category. I hope that the folks who read my blog will leave comments or ask me questions that may arise after you have perused the posts. Topics will include:

  1. Creating a winning resume
  2. Networking
  3. Conducting a job search
  4. Interviewing tips
  5. Negotiating a job offer
  6. Tips on getting promoted
  7. How to ask for a raise…and get it!
  8. Alternative career options for scientists

Because this undertaking is going to require a bit of thought and a lot of work, I decide to invite my colleagues Eric Celidonio and Joe Tringali to help me out. Eric and Joe are professional recruiters and bioscience career development specialists who work with me at local and national science meetings where we present bioscience career development seminars and provide resume critiquing services to graduate students, post-doctoral fellows and industrial scientists. Eric, Joe and I have worked together for the past 4 years or so and we are affectionately known as “The Three Bioscience Amigos”. It is our goal to offer you some insights and tips to enable you to find gainful employment in the bioscience industry.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!!

FDA Jobs?

In the January 2007 issue of Drug Discovery & Development, Ted Agres authored an informative article called "FDA's Sweeping Changes" that outlined reforms that are slated to occur at the agency. One of these is an amendment to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA; which is up for renewal) to increase user fees for regulatory reviews. For those of you who are not familiar with PDUFA, it was passed in 1992 and it authorized FDA to collect fees from industry to hire additional staff to meet faster approval goals for Investigational New Drug (IND), New Drug (NDA) and Biological License Applications (BLA). Under PDUFA, user fees have grown from $9 million or 7% of FDA's drug review costs in FY1993 to ca. $ $280 million or more than 59% in FY 2007 which began on Oct. 1, 2007.  

In addition to being used to speed drug review, the new fees will support post-market surveillance and post-market evaluation of drug safety. Further, for the first time, drug manufacturerers have agreed to provide user fees to support FDA review of direct to consumer advertising (DTC). At present, FDA has no authority over DTC ads prior to drug launch; companies submit copies of broadcast and print ads when they begin running. FDA is seeking the authority to review DTC ads before they can be aired or printed.

Increases in user fees suggest that the agency ought to be looking for a few "good women and men" to review regulatory submissions and institute its new focus on drug safety and surveillance.

Until next time......

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!