Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

American competitiveness in engineering, technology and science. Unfortunately, while American competitiveness and innovation in these areas continues to wane, little has been done (except talking) about it! Yesterday, Intel and 24 venture capital funds announced that they plan to invest $3.5 billion in American startups and early stage ventures over the next two years. Further, in addition, several of America’s leading technology companies including Google, Cisco Systems, Intel Microsoft and 13 others pledged to add as many as 10,500 jobs into 2010—mainly by hiring Americans graduating from colleges with degrees in computer science and engineering.

The initiative, named the Invest in America Alliance was formed in response to “steadily declining long-term investments in education, technology and human capital” that has been taking place in the US for past 20 years or more. Put simply, the American education system is not training enough qualified individuals to allow the US to compete with other emerging technology and engineering powerhouses that include China, India Finland, Korea and the Netherlands. 

According to Robert Compton, a venture capitalist, entrepreneur and education enthusiast “Fewer than 10 percent of college graduates in the US have engineering degrees, compared with more than one-third in India and China and more foreign-born graduates of US universities are returning to their home countries.” For those of you with degrees in math and science (and you base your calculations on population size), the magnitude of the problem (for Americans anyway) is glaringly obvious. Compton went on to say what many others have been thinking for a while, “Early indicators are that we are not the center of innovation anymore. It is shifting to the East.” And he may be right! Based on surveys conducted by the World Intellectual Property Organization in the last year, patent filings increased 30 percent in China while declining 11 percent in the US.

While the Invest in America Alliance appears to be a great public relations opportunity for the companies and venture firms that are participating in it, its critics doubt whether investing more money in technology startups is going to fix the ongoing problem. Education analysts contend that a better and cheaper solution may be changing US immigration laws so that foreign students who train in the US are allowed to remain in the country after they complete their training. Other naysayers contend that most of the venture money committed by the alliance would have likely gone to American startups anyway (US based venture firms already invest 70 percent of their money in American start ups) and that 10,500 new jobs isn’t enough to make a dent in the US unemployment rolls.

Like the technology industry, a decade of wrong-head immigration policies coupled with a waning American interest in science has begun to jeopardize the US dominance in the life sciences. Further these trends are largely responsible for the massive layoffs and unrelenting outsourcing of pharmaceutical R&D jobs to foreign countries.

Toothless or not, the Invest in America Alliance shows that engineering and technology industry leaders are willing to cooperate with one another and get behind an initiative that raises public awareness about America’s waning competitiveness in these fields. Perhaps,   pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostic companies ought to take a page out of the Alliance’s play book to similarly insure the future innovation and competitiveness of the American life sciences industry.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My father was an elementary school teacher who eventually became an elementary school principal, a position that he retired from about 15 years ago. As you might imagine, education was an important part of the lives of my three siblings and me. Like my father, three of four of us eventually pursued careers in education: my sister teaches art to high school students in California; my brother is a professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University of Vermont and I have been a science educator for most of my adult life.

When I first entered graduate school in the Department of Bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I intended to pursue a teaching career at a small liberal arts institution. My career goals changed during my graduate school experiences, and ultimately I chose to pursue a career in academic research rather than teaching. Despite that decision, my first and perhaps only love has always been teaching. Ironically, it was my love of teaching that prevented me from winning tenure at the University Of Miami School Of Medicine. While I have reinvented myself no fewer than 10 times during my admittedly circuitous career path, the one common and constant element that links together some of my seemingly disparate career choices has been my love of teaching.

No matter what the experts may say, there is no middle ground in teaching—you either love it or hate. Put simply, there are those who were born to teach and others who were not!

When I give my Alternate Careers for PhDs talk to graduate and postdoctoral fellows who are looking for career options, I always mention teaching. Not surprisingly, I wax romantically about how noble a profession teaching is and the acute need for qualified science teachers. However, I always temper my remarks by emphasizing that “unless you are passionate about teaching, then becoming a teacher may not be an appropriate career choice. In other words, unless you are “all in” you never be an effective teacher. To that end, I came across an article in this Sunday’s New York Times by Peter Wilson; a former executive who decided to eschew a successful public relations career in his mid-30s to become a middle school English teacher. 

If after reading Peter's story, you find yourself energized or “moved” by his story, then I believe that you possess the “right stuff” to pursue a career in education. As the old Nike ads urge: “Just Do It!”

Hat tip to Peter Wilson!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Politicians, educators and business leaders love to complain about the America’s dwindling competitiveness in math and science and the growing lack of innovation that seems to be pervasive among many American high school and college-aged students. This is the same mantra that I have been hearing for the past 20 years. Unfortunately, while the powers at be like to complain about these things, no government agencies, educational groups or private sector businesses seem to be able to come up with approaches or solutions to these problems (talk about lack of innovation!). 

Luckily, as Thomas Friedman pointed out in an Op-ED in this past Sunday’s New York Times, there are individuals and not-for-profit entities that have come up with two possible approaches to improve science and math preparedness and American innovation. 

The first of these novel ideas is called National Lab Day (NLD). It was introduced last November by a coalition of educators and scientific and engineering associations. NLD’s goal is to inspire future scientists, engineers and innovators by pairing experienced scientists and engineers with students in grades K-12 to work on hands-on science project around the US. Participating organizations that have pledged support for NLB include pledged support for National Lab Day are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the National Science Teachers Association, the National Science Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Jack D. Hidary Foundation, the American Chemistry Society, the National Institutes of Health; and the Business Roundtable.

Conspicuously absent from the list are large organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Medicine, the American Society of Microbiology and others. Moreover, no academic institutions or research foundations or life sciences companies have offered to participate. See what I mean about lots of complaining and no action? To learn more about the program or offer support visit NationalLabDay.org. 

Another program that Friedman mentioned was the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship or NFTE. NFTE works with middle and high school teachers to help them teach entrepreneurship. The centerpiece of the program is a national contest for start-ups with 24,000 low-income students participating. Each student has to invent a product or service, write up a business plan and then implement it.

While the scope of NFTE is limited to only low income students, I learned first hand what an important skill entrepreneurship is on the world stage. In the early 2000s while working as a management consultant, I was invited to dinner by the CEO of an Australian life sciences company. During dinner, I candidly asked her why an Australian biotech company was interested in hiring an American as a management consultant. She told me that while Australians do great science they are awful when it comes to translating the science into a viable business. “We simply don’t have the entrepreneurial understanding and spirit that most of you Americans seem to have. Our society doesn’t focus on individualism and innovation, we like to maintain the status quo” she said. After the meeting, I realized that we Americans take our entrepreneurial skills for granted and if we can no longer excel in this area than the US is truly doomed.

Finally, since this post is about science literacy and improving the public understanding of science, I wanted to mention a cool website called Sense About Science that you ought to check out. Although it is a UK-based organization, what it is trying to promote has global relevance. According to the website:

“Sense About Science is an independent charitable trust promoting good science and evidence in public debates. We do this by promoting respect for evidence and by urging scientists to engage actively with a wide range of groups, particularly when debates are controversial or difficult.

We work with scientists to

• respond to inaccuracies in public claims about science, medicine, and technology
• promote the benefits of scientific research to the public
• help those who need expert help contact scientists about issues of importance
• brief non-specialists on scientific developments and practices

Sense About Science is governed by a Board of Trustees and run by a small office staff. We are supported by an Advisory Council and over 2,000 scientists and other specialists, ranging from Nobel Laureates to postdoctoral fellows, who are signed up to our database, Evidence Base. We also work with younger scientists in our VoYS (Voice of Young Science) programme, which you can read more about here.”

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Learning!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As part of their licensure requirements, all physicians and other healthcare providers (HCPs) in the US must participate in continuing medical education (CME). CME requirements are established on a state-by-state basis HCPs who fail to meet annual quotas face reprimand, censure and possibly loss of their medical licenses. As you may imagine, CME is a big business and, not surprisingly, there is no dearth of CME content developers and providers. Unfortunately, CME course development costs are high and, despite state mandated licensure requirements, no one seems to want to sponsor or underwrite the CME development programs except drug and devices companies. Obviously, this creates the potential for monumental conflicts of interest mainly because physicians and other HCPs are drug and device company primary customers.

While I don’t profess to be an expert on CME rules and regulation, I know that the rules and regulations that guide CME content development have become increasingly restrictive over the past few years. In the past, drug and devices manufacturers were able to identify relevant product-related topics within certain therapeutic areas, engage a CME provider to create a curriculum and then offer a product-focused program to physicians. Today, drug companies aren’t allowed to create CME program built around specific products. Instead, CME developers compete for grant monies from drug and device manufacturers and are asked to create CME around relevant issues in certain therapeutic areas. Of course, most of the companies that award the grants have products in those therapeutic areas; but i digress. Companies that award the grants cannot participate or influence the content that appears in the CME programs. Of course this is impossible!

For example, several years ago I was working at an agency that received a “grant” from a client that was developing a new treatment for a virus-associated metabolic syndrome. While we weren’t allowed to highlight or suggest specific treatment options we did receive in direct and subliminal guidance (through various company channels) regarding messaging around content development. To that end, while the company wasn’t directly involved in content development, its medical affairs and marketing departments were “aware” of the content that we were developing. While this was appropriate and well within regulatory guidelines, it is not difficult to see that potential conflicts of interest and bias may have existed in this instance.

Over the last year or so, questionable medical writing practices and conflict of interest concerns about CME course development have come under intense scrutiny in the US Congress. Consequently, there have been ongoing and repeated calls to prohibit industry participation in CME content development. While this may be a great idea, if drug companies no longer are allowed underwrite or sponsor CME course development, there isn’t likely to be any CME in the future. And, if there is no CME, physicians and other HCPs won’t be able meet state-mandated CME requirements to maintain their licenses to practice? What a conundrum!

One solution to the problem is to require state governments, the American Medical Association, university medical schools, hospitals and other organizations (insurance companies?) to underwrite CME development costs! After all, these are the entities that require CME for HCPs to retain their licenses. While this is a perfectly logical solution to a vexing problem, don’t expect any of them to step up to the plate anytime soon. The bottom line: drug companies support and underwrite CME because they recognize that it is a viable marketing vehicle—albeit a subtle one—that is certain to improve product awareness and ultimately sales. For example, if Pfizer sponsors a CME program on erectile dysfunction at a high end resort in some exotic locale and, its logo or mention of a grant to develop the curriculum is acknowledged, it is not unreasonable to assume that physicians attending the course may possibly choose to prescribe Viagra over a competitor’s product. To make matters worse, CME sponsors often time help to defer costs of hotel accommodations, provide support for meals, and even sponsor receptions for physicians who attend CME training programs.

I suspect that some of you may be wondering why I am ranting and raving about CME today. Well, there was an article in today’s New York Times about Stanford Medical School receiving an unrestricted, three-year $3.0 million grant from Pfizer to develop unspecified new CME curricula for physicians. Philip Pizzo, MD, dean of Stanford’s medical school lauds this as the beginning of a new age in CME and suggests that Pfizer will have no say on how the grant monies will be spent. 

Dr. Pizzo contends that the “no-strings-attached” provisions of the grant will insure that the new curricula will be devoid of drug industry influence that has permeated CME courses in the past. Stanford plans to set up “unbiased programs” of postgraduate education on the Stanford campus rather than the industry-selected topics of the past that have been presented to rooms full of doctors at hotels and resorts.” While the new grant sounds promising, I wonder whether or not Stanford is going to disclose the amount of research funding it annually receives from Pfizer. Further, will faculty members who receive or previously have received research monies from Pfizer be prohibited from contributing to content development?  The point I want to make is that, despite Stanford’s good intentions and assertions to the contrary, there is no way to insure that there will be no bias or conflicts of interest in the new curriculum that is developed. 

Finally, I don’t think that there is any question that CME is essential to insure that Americans receive the latest and best possible medical treatments that are available. However, to insure farness and no bias, drug makers and device manufacturers should not be allowed to underwrite or participate in CME content development. This activity should be in the purview of not-for-profit entities (that don’t receive drug industry money) and state government agencies. Like it or not, we live in a quid pro quo society and drug and devices companies (like all “for profit” companies) don’t make investments unless there is an anticipated or guaranteed return on the investment!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

William Shakespeare wrote: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." While Shakespeare apparently believed that names aren’t important, David Anderegg, a professor of psychology at Bennington College in Vermont feels otherwise. He contends that the mere mention of the words geek or nerd tend to perpetuate a stereotype. “The words are damaging, much like racial epithets and should be avoided” he said in a recent New York Times interview. He suggests that while the words are often used interchangeably, the connotations are a bit different. In today’s lexicon, the word geek usually suggests a person with special expertise, e.g., a computer geek, whereas the word nerd suggests social ineptness. Nevertheless, he contends that neither is perceived as a “cool” moniker.

Anderegg further asserts that in the US, math, science and computer science are courses that younger people too often associates with nerds and geeks. He adds that the negative connotations of these words are taking a toll on the US workforce. And, he may be right! Fewer college-aged Americans are majoring in science and engineering and US competitiveness in math and science has been steadily declining for the past 20 years or more. According to Dr. Anderegg the best way to combat these trends is to attempt to eliminate the words geeks and nerds from the American lexicon and “banish them to the linguistic dustbin.” To that end his most recent book, “Nerds: Who They Are and Why We need More of Them” may be a step in the right direction to convince young Americans that more engineers and scientists will be required for the US to remain competitive in today’s rapidly changing global economy. 

Not surprisingly, I think that science, engineering and technology are pretty cool and mistakenly get a bad rap because of the way in which science and math are taught at the primary and secondary educational levels. Put simply, many of the teachers’ currently teaching math and science don’t have sufficient breadth or depth to teach the subjects that they are asked to teach! One way to begin to change this is to convince some very hip, newly minted PhDs (you know who you are) that pursuing careers as high school biology and biotechnology teachers is—despite assertions to the contrary—a pretty cool thing to do! Call me crazy but I think this is what it is going to take to reinvigorate America’s competitiveness in science and technology! After all, nerds will be nerds, geeks will be geeks and scientists will be scientists....not that there is anything wrong with that!

Hat tip to David Anderegg!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Alan Alda, a well known actor and science enthusiast, is doing his share to improve the science literacy of Americans. His was the host of the Science Frontiers (which ran for 15 seasons on PBS until it was cancelled in 2005) and more recently the host of Wired Science which failed to catch on and was also canceled. Alda’s approach to science education is asking questions that nonscientists could understand while throwing in a bit of humor as well. In a recent interview he stressed that he always tries to “keep it a conversation.” Sometimes, he added, scientists and researchers would “lapse into lecture mode, and I’d have to bring them back into a conversation. This isn’t surprising because many scientists are unfamiliar or lack the necessary training to engage in conversational science. For the most part, scientists are trained didactically and exchange information via formal traditional channels which include: seminars, oral and written presentations at scientific meetings and congresses and publication of research findings in peer reviewed journals. In other words, science education has historically resembled a one way conversation rather than a dialog. Unfortunately, web 2.0 and social media is all about conversations and one way conversations are becoming less acceptable, even in science circles! To that end, Alda just finished teaching a six-week course of workshops at Stony Brook University on Long Island instructing scientists how to use improvisational acting techniques to express themselves more clearly. “The idea is you can’t really communicate ideas unless you know what’s going on in the other person’s mind,” he said. 

Despite many incredible scientific advances in the past decade, the science gap in America continues to widen. Science is becoming increasingly complex and fewer Americans are capable of understanding it. Therefore, it is incumbent upon scientists to begin to understand that they have a critical role to play in improving the public understanding of science. This responsibility can no longer be relegated to primary and secondary school teachers nor should nonscientists like Alda,Ira Flato of NPR’s Science Friday, Robert Krulwich and Jad Abumrad of RadioLab (a great show), be expected to carry the banner and lead the charge! 

Interestingly, while listening to this week’s Science Friday, I learned of educational initiatives being sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundations that are aimed at bringing more science into the entertainment fields. While this is an important first step, it may be too little; too late. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve it: scientists need to step out of their comfort zones and learn how to better communicate and interact with the lay public. To that end, by way of a sport’s analogy “we scientists control our own destiny” We can choose to collectively learn how to better inform the American public about what we do and how we do it or allow the science literacy gap to ultimately become a chasm in the 21^st century.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Learning and Listening!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week, Mark Senak who writes the EyeonFDA blog, offered his insights and analysis of pharma’s relationship with Twitter. Today, he tackled YouTube and Pharma. While YouTube has been around a lot longer than Twitter, pharma’s use (with the exception of Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi-Aventis and Tibotec) of the popular video-sharing site has been extremely limited despite the ability of the entity that posts the video to eliminate or regulate the ability of users to leave and share comments after viewing it. 

I suspect that the industry’s reluctance to use YouTube may be related to the lack of regulatory guidance for this medium. Nevertheless, I don’t completely understand why drug makers have chosen not to use the widely popular video site to increase patient awareness about certain medical conditions or to promote patient wellness. These types of videos would likely be appreciated by the public and quite possibly help to repair tarnished image of the pharmaceutical industry held by many consumers and stakeholders.

Hat tip to Mark!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Viewing!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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 the 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 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 they are best suited for. I don’t think it is too much to ask or labor-intensive for PIs to learn about what is going on with 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 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 be overhauled to remain relevant. Unfortunately, systemic changes are unlikely because tenured faculty members can’t be forced or induced to change their practices, 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!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There has been a growing reliance on the use of online tools to teach science to primary, secondary and college students. This makes sense because anybody who has pursued a science career will tell you that using web-based programs, applications and searches is absolutely essential when conducting scientific research. To that end, Amber Johnson at onlinecourses.org sent me an article that details some really cool educational add-on tools that are available for the Firefox browser.

I highly recommend that science educators at all levels check out the post and evaluate some of these interesting tools!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I took a group of Seattle researchers to task about issuing a press release about isolating methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) from sand samples taken from public beaches in Washington State. Their findings were neither remarkable nor news worthy and likely did more harm than good. Sadly, another article about MRSA—designed to alarm rather than inform and educate the American public—appeared in today’s Science section of the NY Times.

The article, “Ties to Pets Has Germ Jumping To and Fro” in which the word “germ” appeared several times, reports on the possible transmission of MRSA between humans and their pets, most notably dogs and cats. Much of the article focuses on the “strong link between animal to human transmission,” offers several frightening examples of serious zoonotic cases that have been recently reported and suggests that cats are eight times more likely than other pets to transmit MRSA to their owners. After reading the first part of the article, readers would rightfully believe that we are in the midst of a massive zoonotic MRSA epidemic with family pets at its epicenter.  However, on the second page of the article the author mentions an epidemiological survey study conducted by Dr. J. Scott Weese, a veterinarian from the University of Guelph in Ontario Canada which showed  that only “two to three percent of pets carry MRSA on their fur or skin or in their saliva.” Further, the study suggests that healthy animals that are transiently colonized by MRSA eliminate them “in a manner of weeks.” Compare the 2 to 3 per cent carrier rate in pets with an almost 70% human carriage rate of MRSA. While I am a PhD-trained infectious disease microbiologist, I don’t think it requires a PhD to quickly realize that pets really aren’t a major source or cause of MRSA infections for humans. That said, raising awareness among veterinarians about MRSA might aid in the development of appropriate disease surveillance, diagnostic testing, andinfection control to lessen the impact of MRSA on smallanimals.

I have no doubt that many people will look at and possibly treat their pets differently after reading the Times article. Further, many will unnecessarily spend money to have their pets tested for the presence or absence of MRSA. While informing the American public that pets (like humans) might unknowingly transmit MRSA is a good thing, turning the rare transmission of MRSA from animals to humans into a major epidemiological brou-ha-ha is misleading, scientifically disingenuous and reckless. Good journalism should inform and educate, not alarm and frighten people by presenting misleading and wrong-headed information. 

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good petting your pets (it will do more good than harm)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There was another article in today’s New York Times lamenting the marketing practices utilized by drug companies to inform physicians about their products. While these practices may be troubling to legislators and the American public, everybody who works in the life sciences industry including regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) understands the “rules of the game” and how it is played. However,

over the past three years, there has been a full frontal assault on direct-to-consumer advertising and marketing and sales practices used by drug makers to hawk their products to physicians and the American public. This has largely been an over reaction to the lack of regulatory oversight of drug manufacturers during the Bush administration. The new regulations have severely limited what sales representatives can offer physicians e.g. gifts and free lunches and dinners, for more face time to sell their products. Consequently, the only means left available to drug makers to reach large numbers of physicians is marketing through medical education.

This is how it works. Companies annually budget monies to pay highly recognized physicians aka key opinion leaders (KOLs) to give lectures to physicians that might influence their prescribing habits. These lectures often take the form of informational seminars that focus on treatment options for certain therapeutic indications which often times subliminally highlight the advantages of the sponsor’s product over its competitors. Not surprisingly, the effectiveness and success of these programs is usually directly proportional to the sums of money invested in them. For example, in 2004, Forrest Laboratories (the subject of the NY Times article) planned on spending “$34.7 million to pay 2000 physicians to deliver 15,000 marketing lectures about Lexapro (an antidepressant) to their peers in one year.” The investment appears to have paid off; sales Lexapro reached $2.3 billion in 2008 even though a lower cost generic version of the drug is available. And, while the Forrest investment in medical education may appear to be a large one, it pales in comparison to the sums invested in medical education programs by much larger companies like Pfizer, Merck and others.

While certain members of Congress may be “shocked and outraged,” these practices are sanctioned by FDA. And, as long as drug makers are compliant and adhere to the rules they shouldn’t be faulted or penalized for their efforts. The point that I am trying to make is that drug makers, like all other for-profit entities, must maximize sales to generate sufficient profits remain in business. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to legislators or the American public for that matter, that drug makers use all legally available means to maximize the sale of their products. If Congress doesn’t like what drug makers are doing, then they ought to stop complaining and legislate changes to the rules. Put simply, it’s time for Congress to “put up or shut up.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Amber Johnson of Accredited College Online thought that BioJobBlog readers might be interested in an article that she authored entitled “10 Big Ways that the Recession is Hitting Higher Ed.”  It is an informative piece that might be of interest to high school and undergraduate students and parents who have kids in college.

10 Big Ways the Recession is Hitting Higher Ed

From elementary to college, schools around the nation have felt the recession in many different ways. As the economy sinks, the educational demands rise. Teachers are holding on to dear life for their jobs, students are struggling to pay for college and the states are running out of school funding. But even with all of these economic woes, there are still people eager to teach and happy to learn.

1. Budget Cuts. Since the beginning of the fiscal year, the U.S. has suffered a 5 percent drop (about $4 billion) from the amount of money state governments apportioned for higher education, according to a U.S. News & World Report article. This is directly affecting universities across the country, who’ve seen larger class sizes, less professors and counselors, as well as canceled courses, which experts say could "threaten the quality of education."
2. Spike in Tuition. College tuition has been an inevitable hurdle for many students and families for years, but in this recession, it stings that much more. Since 1982, college tuition and fees have increased 439 percent, which is about three times higher than the increase in family incomes, according to an ABC news report. In some cases, tuition increases are the school’s response to more financial aid requests, but these scholarships may not be enough to cover soaring prices.
3. Decline in Aid. Many states are cutting college financial aid programs when students need it most. An increase in unemployment and financial losses has caused 620,000 more students to apply for federal aid in the first quarter compared to last year. An Associated Press article reports that without financial assistance, students may be forced to drop out, transfer or be laden with debt.
4. Decline in Endowments. A major factor in these educational downturns is the decline in college endowments. Big and small donors simply aren’t giving back right now, which has caused hiring freezes, cutbacks on financial aid and halted construction projects, according to a Wall Street Journal article.
5. Graduate in Three Years.Graduating in three years is a surefire way to slash college costs. American colleges are now starting to offer three-year college degrees, which is the normal time frame for many British and Canadian students. It’s an upcoming trend, according to CBS MoneyWatch, that could make "elite education" more affordable.
6. More Kids Are Going Public. According to a CBS News report, private school enrollments have declined as many students make the switch from private to public schools. While some continue to pay top dollar for private school tuition payments, others have had to transfer to less prestigious schools to save money.
7. Arts Programs Suffer. With devastating budget cuts on the agenda, college art departments are the first area to be altered. According to a New York Times article, students can expect to see fewer teachers, programs and courses in the arts when they return to campus in the fall. While some colleges are phasing out programs altogether, others, like Louisiana State University, are holding off on new computers, production technology and traveling for conferences to lessen their demand for funding.
8. Growth and Decline of Majors. For college students, choosing the right major during the recession may secure a stable career in the future. Certain industries, such as journalism, entertainment and finance should be avoided, according to a report by College Finance 101, because they have seen the most turmoil during the recession.
9. Higher Community College Enrollment. With the recession at its peak, many college students have opted for the more affordable institutions — community colleges, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. However, this influx of students has caused some community colleges to turn them away, claiming there’s not enough room, teachers and accommodations at these campuses.
10. Distance Learning is More Desirable. A big thing hitting the economy is online education. Whether people have lost a job, are fearful of losing one or want a degree, online colleges have open seats. A CNN report, titled "Riding out the recession in a virtual classroom," touches on the idea of investing in education during troubled times to have a back-up plan and find the right career path for you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Public Library of Science (PLOS) announced that it has launched a new website called PLOS Currents that is intended to serve as a vehicle for the rapid publication of scientific research and new ideas and themes. Not surprisingly, the first theme for PLOS Currents is influenza. On his Virology blog, Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd cofounder and prominent virologist, discusses why PLOS Currents is important and timely for scientist actively engaged in influenza research and vaccine development.  

The opening of PLoS Currents: Influenza was announced by Harold Varmus, Chairman and Co-Founder of PLoS. He wrote about the reasons for starting this website at The Official Google Blog:

The key goal of PLoS Currents is to accelerate scientific discovery by allowing researchers to share their latest findings and ideas immediately with the world’s scientific and medical communities. Google Knol’s features for community interaction, comment and discussion will enable commentary and conversations to develop around these findings. Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.

Contributions that will be welcome at PLoS Currents: Influenza include research into influenza virology, genetics, immunity, structural biology, genomics, epidemiology, modeling, evolution, policy and control. The manuscripts will not be subject to peer-review, but unsuitable submissions will be screened out by a board of expert moderators. This policy will enable rapid publication of research.

The path to publishing original scientific research is often long and tortuous.  A manuscript describing the findings is prepared and submitted to a scientific journal (such as Nature, Cell, Journal of Virology). The manuscript is assigned to two or three expert reviewers, generally scientists involved in the same area of research. If their reviews are favorable, the paper is published. Usually additional experiments are called for, which may require additional time to complete. Many months to a year may pass before the paper is published, although some manuscripts (e.g. those on 2009 pandemic influenza) may be expedited. The point is that PLoS Currents: Influenza will allow everyone – including non-scientists – to read about research soon after the authors have prepared the paper.

PLoS Currents: Influenza is a terrific idea, and I welcome this venture with great enthusiasm. I hope that PLoS Currents will grow to include other areas of science. But Varmus warns:

Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.

During peer review of submitted manuscripts, new experiments may be suggested that change some of the conclusions of the research. Hence, the papers that appear in PLoS Currents: Influenza may be different from final versions that are published elsewhere.

I wonder how other scientific journals will react to submissions of manuscripts that have appeared in PLoS Currents. Many journals do not accept manuscripts that have already appeared elsewhere. For example, the instructions to authors for the Journal of Virology state:

By submission of a manuscript to the journal, the authors guarantee that they have the authority to publish the work and that the manuscript, or one with substantially the same content, was not published previously, is not being considered or published elsewhere, and was not rejected on scientific grounds by another ASM journal.

It’s time for scientific journals to change this policy, and allow for preliminary publication at sites such as PLoS Currents.

Rapid and open-access publication will drive research forward and help inform and educate the public about science.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several weeks ago, I blogged about a growing need to improve the American public’s perception and understanding of the life sciences if the US wants to remain competitive in science and technology. Much to my delight, there was an article this Sunday’s NY Times entitled “Microbes R Us” which explores the evolutionary relationship with bacteria and humans. It was written by Dr. Olivia Judson an evolutionary biologist and author of “Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex,” which was made into a three part television program.

While the evolutionary relationship between bacteria and humans isn’t as titillating as the biology of sex, the article sheds light on the importance of bacteria and how genetic changes in bacteria that normally inhabit the human intestinal track can have a positive impact on human nutrition and health. Many lay people believe that bacteria are “bad” because certain species can cause serious and potentially life threatening diseases. However, the benefits, advantages and uses of bacteria e.g., to make food, antibiotics and other medicines, far outweigh their negative impact on society. 

Articles like the one written by Ms. Judson, offer the public unqique insights into  the amazing and often fascinating world of microbiology. I hope that a few aspiring young scientists read the article and tell all their friends about it!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Reading!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a report released by the president’s Council of Economic Advisers the biggest gains in job growth by 2016 will be in the areas of healthcare and education services. Moreover, most of these jobs will require postsecondary education degrees mainly in the form of certificates and associates degrees. To meet this demand, the report argues for ways to improve the US education system so that American workers can more easily adapt to a more skilled-base economy.

The report also notes that manufacturing will continue its long term decline and that small growth will occur in the business and financial sectors of the US economy. Construction and transportation are likely to begin to grow once the economy improves. However, the largest demand and increases will occur in healthcare services, environmental-related occupations and in education service providers. Whereas other sectors of the economy have been battered by the recession, growth in the healthcare and educational services sectors have remained robust.

In the past, emphasis has been placed on obtaining a baccalaureate degree to garner gainful employment. While this trend will likely continue, explosive growth is expected for occupations that require only an associate’s degree or postsecondary education certificate. Growth in these types of jobs is predicted to outpace occupations that require a bachelor’s degree or higher.

The report also describes goals that must be met to improve the American postsecondary education system. These include: improving early childhood, elementary and secondary education; better school curriculums; closer collaboration between employers and educational institution to ensure that students learn the skills that they need on the job, better financial aid; and accountability for education and workforce programs that don’t work. I have long contended that both undergraduate and graduate programs in the life sciences introduce skill-based workforce development activities into their curriculums. Unfortunately, my attempts have fallen upon deaf ears. Perhaps this report will induce the administrators who can institute this type of change to take their “heads out of the sand”and take notice.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Learning!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Despite its humble beginnings in the late 1970s, the biotechnology industry has transformed itself into one of the most vibrant sectors of the American economy. Pharmaceutical companies, once the bell weather of the life sciences industry, have finally conceded that biotechnology and not small molecules are the industry’s future!

While growth of the biotechnology industry has slowed somewhat in the past couple of years—mainly because of the recession—it still represents a viable career option for students interested in the biological sciences. Contrary to popular belief, a PhD degree is no longer required to gain employment in the biotechnology industry. The PhD degree option is slowly being replaced by biotechnology masters and undergraduate degrees and certificate programs readily available at many two year colleges. Put simply, there is a decreasing demand for PhDs at many life sciences companies—mostly because of technological advances and a growing reliance on outsourcing to carry out drug discovery and development. However, the demand for non-PhD employees with solid biotechnology backgrounds particularly in the areas of regulatory affairs, licensing, business development, medical communications, health informatics and biomanufacturing is rising.

For many students (especially high school and undergraduates), the plethora of biotechnology degree and certificate programs can be overwhelming. With this in mind, I came across a cool website called Biotechnology Degree Guide which helps students decide which program is right for them. The site is run by Webster Jorgensen who sent me the following information about the site.

“Biotechnology Degree Guide was developed to be a complete and comprehensive guide for finding colleges, universities and technical schools offering biotech and related programs. The site also features a rating system that allows registered users to rate various biotechnology programs. This feature was added to help separate the great programs from the not-sop-great ones. In the future, we plan to start highlighting "Hidden Gem" programs section that helps schools with lower profiles and great programs receive more exposure. The sites members section is open to prospective students, students, professionals, teachers and biotech hobbyists.  A social media component is planned for the future.”

While the Biotechnology Degree Guide may not answer all of your questions, it certainly is a good place to start when considering a career in biotechnology!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The economic crisis is having an adverse effect on enrollment at four year colleges and universities. Most four year institutions are reporting record low enrollments. While things are spiraling downward at many four year colleges and universities, business is booming at two year technical schools and community colleges. Seemingly, this ought to be good news for two year institutions. Unfortunately, statewide funding cuts and faculty shortages are making it difficult for community colleges and technical schools to accommodate burgeoning enrollment.

The rising enrollment at community colleges can almost exclusively be attributed to the current cost of attending 4 year colleges and universities. The cost differential between attending four year institutions and community college is stunning. For example, tuition at Miami Dade Community College, the largest community college in the US, is $1,000 per semester for Florida residents. In marked contrast, tuition at the University of Florida—a public institution— is roughly $5,000 per year and a whopping $42,000 at the University of Miami which is private.

Undergraduates are flocking to community colleges simply because many can’t afford to pay tuition for 4 or more years at most colleges and universities. The new paradigm for undergraduate education is to complete the first two years of college at a community college and then transfer to a 4 year college to finish a degree. Unlike other post secondary education institutions, there are no entry requirements at community colleges—open enrollment is the norm. This means that these schools are obliged to allow anybody with a high school diploma or GED to register for classes. In marked contrast, four year colleges and universities can regulate the size of their incoming freshman classes to deal with financial difficulties. For example, because of budget cuts in Florida, the state's 11 public universities have imposed caps on freshman enrollment. This has put increasing pressure on community colleges in Florida and other stacks to “pick up the enrollment slack.”

While attending community college may be an economical way for students to earn undergraduate degrees, two year colleges have been overwhelmed by the massive enrollment increases. "As it stands right now, we have almost 39,000 students registered for the fall term, and we began fall registration only two weeks ago," says Dulce Beltran, registrar at Miami Dade College. "And a quarter of the courses are already closed with almost two months to go before fall term begins." Not surprisingly, Miami Dade officials say that enrollment is 60 per cent higher than last year’s pace. School officials have been hiring new instructors and adding new courses to handle the enrollment surge.

Unfortunately, school officials estimate that 20,000 to 30,000 students won't get all the classes they need; 5,000 may not be able to sign up for any classes in the fall. Similar scenarios are playing out in other states including Arizona, California, Washington and others. Officials in those states are fearful that hundreds of thousands of prospective new students will be turned away this year.

There is no question that the recession is taking a toll on the ability of American students to attend college. However, the cost of an undergraduate education has been steadily increasing for the past decade. Rising overhead costs, higher faculty salaries and over expansion have all contributed to the increases. Something will have to give soon. Don’t be surprised if the education bubble is the next one to burst!

Hat tip to NPR!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Learning!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A survey involving 2000 members of the public and 2500 scientists conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) revealed that almost two-thirds of Americans hold scientists and engineers (and their contributions to society) in high regard. However, in marked contrast, 85% of the scientists surveyed said that public ignorance of science was a major problem. And, not surprisingly a majority of the scientists surveyed feel that American media coverage of science is “fair or poor.”

While the reasons for this disconnect in opinions aren’t readily apparent, perhaps some insights into the public’s understanding of scientific concepts like evolution and climate might be informative. For example, almost 35% of Americans believe that “humans existed in their current form since the beginning of time” whereas only 2% of scientists hold this belief. Further, only about 50 percent of Americans agree that humans are behind climate change and a whopping11 percent believe that there isn’t global warming at all. These beliefs trouble many scientists because there is no credible scientific evidence to refute the theory of evolution and there is incontrovertible data which shows that humans are a major contributor to global warming. So, what’s the deal with Americans?

There is little doubt that American science education is lacking. For the most part, this deficiency has been blamed on poorly trained and uninformed primary and secondary school science teachers. While this may be partly true, scientists and engineers also bear much of the responsibility.  According to the report, only 3 percent of the scientists surveyed said that they “often” spoke to reporters and the media. In other words, a majority of scientists don’t feel that it’s important to engage the public in fundamental discussion about evolution and climate change.  A facile and convenient way for scientists to eschew any responsibility for the problem is to label the American public as “ignorant about science” and not do anything about it. If scientists truly want to improve the public understanding of science, it will be necessary to roll up our sleeves and do some work to better inform and educate them!  New social media tools like blogs, videos, podcasts and social networking sites like BioCrowd represent ideal vehicles to begin to make headway against this vexing problem! 

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While surfing the web, I came upon a cool website called Foldit. Foldit is an online competitive, interactive protein folding game that showcases the principles and properties of protein biochemistries.

The game, originally created by David Baker, Zoran Popović and David Salesin, works like this. Players are given a ribbon model of a protein made up of amino acids. Players use the cursor to grab, bend, pull, and wiggle the chain of amino acids anywhere along its length, folding the protein into its optimum shape. The only rules are based on physics—opposite charges attract, atomic bonds have limited angles of rotation, and the parts of the molecule that stick to water tend to point outward. The closer your model's properties adhere to those rules, the more points you get. The goal of the game was to get large numbers of players to work on potentially difficult protein folding problems to come up with possible solutions. And it seems to be working. More than 100,000 people have downloaded Foldit since its release in 2008, turning the game into a large, worldwide, multiplayer competition.  

Check out the YouTube Foldit video to learn how it works!

Please visit the Foldit site and blog for more information.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Protein Folding!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) kicked off its annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia today and shortly thereafter, issued a press release detailing an education study (that it commissioned) which suggests that American high school students are continuing to fall behind in life sciences education and competitiveness. The timing of the BIO education report is curious, given that over 100,000 life sciences employees have lost their jobs over the past several years and more job cuts at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are expected in the next six months or so.

The report concluded that “middle and high school students across the country are generally falling behind in life sciences, and the nation is at risk of producing a dearth of qualified workers for the life sciences industry. Students are showing less interest in taking life sciences and science courses, and high schools are doing a poor job of preparing students for college-level science, The deficiencies will hurt the country's competitiveness with the rest of the world in the knowledge-based economy.”

Some of the report's finding include:

• 52 percent of 12th graders are at or above a basic level of achievement in the sciences as measured by the NAEP science test
• Average scores on the NAEP for 12th graders in the sciences and life sciences declined from 1996 to 2005
• Only 28 percent of high school students taking the ACT reached a score indicating college readiness for biology.

The report also found a deficiency in the number of well-qualified biology teachers available in high school, with one-in-eight biology teachers not certified to teach biology. To improve U.S. competitiveness in the biosciences industry, the report recommends that states incorporate biotechnology into their science standards, make sure students are ready to take college biosciences courses and focus more on professional development for teachers.

While BIO ought to be commended for the study, the results and the conclusions of the report are nothing new and have been known for over a decade by industry thought leaders and life sciences industry executives. The crux of the problem is that neither academia nor industry is willing to provide funds or invests in ways to find a solution to this vexing, ongoing issue. Also,while high school science curriculum experts and teachers are typically cited as the cause of the problem, most of the blame more aptly lies with life science educators at the undergraduate and graduate school levels.

Today, many US high schools and community colleges already offer life sciences and biotechnology training to their students. In fact, biotechnology curriculum development and outreach has been ongoing in US for well over a decade. For example, Bio-Link, an NSF-funded consortium of community colleges that began in the late 1990s, has diligently worked to create a network of community colleges and high schools that offer biotechnology education and training ranging from biomanufacturing to bioinformatics to forensic DNA sciences. Further, a quick perusal of many high schools and science academies in biotechnology-rich locales like the Northeast, California, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina and others reveals that life sciences education and training are readily available to many students interested in biology and bioscience.

In my opinion, the system doesn't break down at the high school level but at the undergraduate and graduate school levels. This is because for the past 15 years, many undergraduate life sciences courses have jettisoned their hands on laboratory components in favor of more lecture driven and e-based learning experiences. This is because these laboratories are costly to run and extremely labor intensive. Further, many undergraduate students may choose not pursue science careers because of the mistaken perception that life sciences jobs require a PhD. Ironically, there are many more jobs in the life sciences industry for students with undergraduate or masters' degrees than for those with PhD. This is because there is a glut of PhDs in today's market and the number of jobs in academia and the life sciences industry are growing smaller. I believe that academia and industry are responsible for the rapidly declining job market for PhD-life sciences.

First, let's look at academia. Most academicians who are charged with training PhDs and postdoctoral fellows have little appreciation or understanding of the technical and regulatory skill sets required in the life sciences industry. Second, many academics don't feel that it is their responsibility to prepare students and postdoctoral fellows for jobs in industry because that is tantamount to job training—a big no-no in academic circles. Finally,and perhaps most important, graduate programs are reluctant to provide career counseling or job-specific training for their students because it might interfere with their productivity, which in turn may reduce the amount of data principal investigators have to write papers and win grants to fund their laboratories. In other words, there is little or no incentive for education and training to change at the graduate level because there is no benefit or upside to principal investigators and tenured faculty members.

While the American life sciences industry has loudly and repeatedly complained about a lack of qualified job candidates to work at its companies, they have done little to support and fund efforts to reform US life science education and training. This is likely because many life sciences executives contend that they are in business not education and the responsibility to prepare students for careers in science should not fall on them. Rather, it rightfully belongs in the purview of secondary and post secondary educational institutions. And, rather than train new employees without previous industrial experience (to inject new talent and ideas into their organizations), companies typically only hire job candidates with previous industrial experience. As many newly minted PhD and postdoctoral students frequently ask: “How are we suppose to get industrial experience if nobody will hire us without previous industrial experience?” Good question! 

The BIO report warns that the US is falling behind in bioscience education and American life science companies may experience workforce shortages in the future. The fact that about 100,000    (many of whom were scientists) pharmaceutical employees have lost their jobs over the past several years, suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, American science education and training needs to be improved and reformed if the US wants to maintain its dominance in the life sciences. The piecemeal approach that has been pursued for past decade or so hasn't worked. And why should it? Neither academia nor industry, the two main players in the story, don't really have any “skin in the game.” In other words, they have nothing to lose right now!

I believe that its time for academia, industry and government to come together to craft a cohesive, national life science curriculum that meets the needs of all stakeholders. We have a President in the White House who believes in science, the ingenuity of the American people and change. The time is now!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

A quick perusal of the media coverage of the swine flu outbreak of 2009 would lead many to conclude that this outbreak has the potential to rival or surpass the 1918 flu pandemic—widely regarded as the worst influenza outbreak in history. While the emergence of a new H1N1 swine flu variant is significant note worthy— and has possible public health implications— the unrelenting, often scientifically-inaccurate media coverage did little to quell the fear and anxiety of many Americans.  Once again, the media—rather than physicians, public health officials and influenza experts—“got out in front of the story” and managed to create enough panic, fear and anxiety, the likes of which haven't been seen since the 2003 SARS pandemic. It wasn't until last Friday, when the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Dr. Peter Palese—a leading scientific expert on influenza A infections— did a clearer picture emerge about the severity and public health implications of the current swine flu pandemic.

According to Dr. Palese, there are several reasons why people and public health officials ought to be optimistic about the current pandemic:

• In 1976 there was a an outbreak of an H1N1 swine virus in Fort Dix, New Jersey, which showed human to human transmission but did not go on to become a highly virulent pandemic strain
• The presently circulating swine virus is most likely not more virulent than the other seasonal strains we have experienced over the last several years
• The current swine virus lacks an important molecular signature (the protein PB1-F2) which was present in the 1918 virus and in the highly lethal H5N1 chicken viruses.  If this virulence marker is necessary for an influenza virus to become highly pathogenic in humans or in chickens, then the current swine virus doesn’t have what it takes to become a major killer
• Since people have been exposed to H1N1 viruses over many decades, we likely have some cross-reactive immunity against the swine H1N1 virus. While it may not be sufficient to prevent becoming ill, it may very well dampen the impact of the virus on mortality.  I would postulate that by virtue of this “herd immunity” even a 1918-like H1N1 virus could never have the horrific effect it had in the past.  The most likely outcome is that the current swine virus will become another (fourth) strain of regular seasonal influenza

The landscape of vaccines and anti-influenza drugs has dramatically improved over what it was just a few years ago. Based on what we know of the structure and sequence of the swine virus, these FDA-approved drugs and FDA-licensed vaccines (modified to include the swine strain) would be highly effective against this new virus.  Also, present technologies as well as manufacturing capacities will allow us to make sufficient quantities of a swine virus vaccine for the winter 2009-10 influenza season in the US.

In other words, there is reason for concern but no need to panic beyond typical public health precautions that are taken during “normal” influenza outbreaks.

Dr. Vincent Racaniello, a viral disease expert who writes the Virology Blog, reported that as of Monday there have been laboratory confirmed cases of H1N1 infections in 30 US states with a total of 226 cases and one death in Texas. Globally, 20 countries had reported 985 cases of infection. The highest numbers are in Mexico, with 590 cases and 25 deaths. While there have been 26 deaths to date, the severity of the infection appears to be waning and person-to-person transmission appears to be low.

Unfortunately, there has been some fallout from the news media’s oft times “over the top” coverage of the pandemic. Many US hospital emergency rooms (most notably in Texas and California) have been overwhelmed and overburdened by visits from people who think they may have swine flu. Also, while some schools and daycare center closures were warranted, others may not have been. Finally, and perhaps most important, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the lay public's understanding of infectious agents and the outbreaks that they cause is grossly deficient and must be improved. 

We live in a world where viral pandemics, food poisoning outbreaks and infections caused by multiple-antibiotic resistant bacteria are becoming commonplace. While vaccines, antivirals and antibiotics can afford some protection against many viral and bacterial disease, the best way to fight infectious diseases is to understand what causes them, how they are spread and what public health measures can be implemented to prevent or control their transmission. Until the world becomes better educated about infectious diseases, we will continue to be overly-dependent on the news media during future outbreaks and epidemics.

Until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over the past several years, I have publicly called for fundamental changes in graduate education and training for life scientists. To that end, I was delighted to read an OP-ED piece in today’s New York Times entitled “End Universities as We Know It” written by Professor Mark C. Taylor, Chairperson of the religion department at Columbia University. 

In his post, Professor Taylor recommended several fundamental and systemic changes that ought to improve the likelihood that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows find jobs at the end of their graduate education. While some of Dr. Taylor’s ideas are novel and innovative, two in particular; 1) expanding the range of career opportunities for graduate students and postdocs and 2) abolishing tenure and mandatory retirement; are ones that I have suggested many times in the past few years. Rather than paraphrase, I decided to repost what Dr Taylor said about these two very important, seminal issues.

Expand the range of professional options for graduate students

Most graduate students will never hold the kind of job for which they are being trained. It is, therefore, necessary to help them prepare for work in fields other than higher education. The exposure to new approaches and different cultures and the consideration of real-life issues will prepare students for jobs at businesses and nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the knowledge and skills they will cultivate in the new universities will enable them to adapt to a constantly changing world.

Impose mandatory retirement and abolish tenure

Initially intended to protect academic freedom, tenure has resulted in institutions with little turnover and professors impervious to change. After all, once tenure has been granted, there is no leverage to encourage a professor to continue to develop professionally or to require him or her to assume responsibilities like administration and student advising. Tenure should be replaced with seven-year contracts, which, like the programs in which faculty teach, can be terminated or renewed. This policy would enable colleges and universities to reward researchers, scholars and teachers who continue to evolve and remain productive while also making room for young people with new ideas and skills.

For many years now, I have been struggling with the moral and ethical obligations of graduate education. Recently, I came to the conclusion that it is our role as educators to selflessly impart knowledge and training to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows so that they can pursue the careers (and lives) that many have trained for a decade or more. I think Professor Taylor’s view of the role of an educator says it best: “Do not do what I do; rather, take whatever I have to offer and do with it what I could never imagine doing and then come back and tell me about it.” This is the attitude that must be by academicians if America wants to remain competitive in the life sciences.

Until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The compensation packages for CEOs of many publicly held companies have recently, (for obvious reasons), come under intense scrutiny. This has spilled over to the chief executive offices of many not-for-profit organizations including private colleges and universities. While the compensation packages for most university presidents and administrators are substantial in many instances, there are a few university employees who sometimes earn substantially more. 

According to an article in today’s New York Times, there were 88 private-college employees who made $1 million or more in 2007 (only 11 were college Presidents or chief executive officers). These were the results from an analysis conducted by The Chronicles of Higher Education of the compensation packages of more than 4,000 employees at 600 private colleges. The two top earners were Pete Carroll, the head football coach at USC and Dr. David N. Silvers, a Columbia University dermatologist both of whom made almost $4.5 million last years. Coach Carroll’s compensation packages was almost four times that of the university’s president whereas Dr. Silver’s salary of $4,332,759 compared with $1 411,894 earned by Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia’s president. Another Columbia professor, Dr. Jeffrey W. Moses, earned a paltry $2,532,713 last year. Check out the salaries of the top ten earners!

While the pay for college and university presidents has risen sharply in the last decade the same hasn’t been true for many faculty members. Not surprisingly, over the same period, the gap between administrator and professor salaries has substantially widened. This parallels what has been taking place in the private sector where CEOs typically earn hundreds of times more than their employees. The disparity in administrator and faculty salaries led Patrick M. Callan, the president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education to muse: “It may be reasonable for these people to be well paid but if faculty’s getting 2 per cent raises, I don’t see why senior administrators, who are already high-paid, should get much larger increases. It reflects a set of values that is not the way most Americans think about higher education.” The Chronicle survey found that on average, university and college presidents make about $500,000 annually.

This poses an interesting question: Unlike administrators, are most university and college professors overpaid? Based on my own experience as a medical school faculty member—absolutely not! Nevertheless, over the 10 years or more, there has been a growing disparity in the salaries of research faculty members as compared with teaching faculty. Typically, the researchers, who bring in large sums of money from grants and other extramural funding, command much higher salaries than faculty members whose primary function is teaching. While this may seem reasonable from a financial/business perspective, it raises a fundamental question about higher education: What is more important—making money or teaching? 

Set standards for your education at the Albertus Magnus College

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Training!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

My oldest son is a high school sophomore and is currently taking “honors” biology. While he is generally an “A” student, it is obvious that he is neither interested in biology nor motivated to perform to his ability in the class. Many of his “A-student friends” are also not doing well in biology class. This gave me pause for concern as a life-long science educator (and certified high school biology teacher). With this as a backdrop, I decided to meet with his teacher to determine why so many good students are underperforming in her class. After meeting with his teacher on two separate occasions, it was readily apparent why so many talented students were performing poorly in her class—she lacks the requisite educational and scientific skills to be an effective biology teacher.  This was confirmed by the head of curriculum development in my school district who told me that the last time that the district had an opening for a high school biology teacher he had two applicants (neither of which had strong biology credentials)—this in the state of New Jersey which is touted to have one of the best public school systems in America.

It is no secret that there is a nationwide dearth of qualified science and math teachers. US officials have been angsting over this problem for about 20 years and have been unable or unwilling to come up with solutions. To that end, I propose the following: induce some of the many currently unemployed life sciences PhDs to consider teaching at the middle and high school levels. While this may sound unorthodox and unappealing to most card-carrying PhDs, there are many benefits to becoming a middle or high school teacher.

1. Starting salaries for public school teachers with PhDs are very competitive
2. The school year is only 10 months long and your summers are free
3. The healthcare and 401 K/pension benefits are better than those in academia and industry (and contributions are usually paid by the school district)
4. There are guaranteed, negotiated yearly raises and longevity pay
5. Tenure is awarded after only three years
6. Curricula requirements and guidelines exists but teachers can run their classes any way that they like
7. Motivated and innovative teachers are encouraged to create new courses, apply   for grants for curriculum development and sometimes—depending upon facilities—offer students an opportunity to conduct independent research projects
8. School districts like to hire PhDs because it implies scientific excellence

While there are many benefits to being a teacher, it is not for everybody who holds a PhD degree.  I don’t recommend taking a teaching job (out of desperation) if you don’t like to teach—you, your supervisor and your students will be miserable And, you likely will have frustrated and unhappy parents— like me—visiting your regularly.

We PhDs are enormously invested in the ways that we are perceived by our peers. And, I suspect that the mere mention of teaching high school to your friends, colleagues and supervisors will likely result in surprised looks and lot’s of head shaking. Unfortunately, it is this parochial thinking that has caused America to lose it competitive edge and scientists who chose to teach rather than do research are generally perceived as being less intelligent or competent than their peers. Ironically, it is this close-mindedness and pejorative thinking that has contributed to America’s two-decade long slide in science and technology. Perhaps it is time for PhDs to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

P.S. Please contact me if you are interested in teaching biology in the East Windsor Regional School District in New Jersey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Convincing students and adults that science can be fun and even cool at times can be a very challenging proposition. This is mostly because science is perceived as “being hard” and in many cases, the people who teach science are not appropriately trained. Consequently sciences classes are frequently boring and unimaginative. Nevertheless, creative scientists can sometimes figure out ways to overcome these negative perceptions of science. One of the best examples of this is the use of the Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) in some so-called consumer products.  While this application of GFP may pose ethical dilemmas for some, I haven’t met many children or adults who don’t think that transgenic mice, fish or flowers that glow green, red, blue or yellow (or a combination of these colors) in dark aren’t cool! While this wasn’t GFP’s intended use—the scientists who first demonstrated GFP’s utility as a genetic engineering application won a Noble prize last year—it certainly exposed the lay public to wonders and powers of modern day scientists.

With this in mind, researchers at the University of Tokyo’s Institute of Industrial Science (IIS) announced that they had created a 5-millimeter tall doll composed of living cells to demonstrate a new method for fabricating three-dimensional living biological structures. The researchers created the tiny figurine by cultivating 100,000 cell capsules — 0.1-millimeter balls of collagen, each coated with dozens of skin cells — together inside a doll-shaped mold for one day. After the cells had fused to form the doll-shaped structure, it was placed in a culture solution and survived for more than 24 hours. The researchers hope to use the method to create tissues and organs with complex cellular structures, which may prove useful in the fields of regenerative medicine and drug development.

While this new technology may never rival GFP and its multitude of applications, it shows that scientists like to have fun from time-to-time and can introduce complex scientific ideas to the lay public.  In my opinion, many kids get turned off to science at an early age because we scientists take ourselves too seriously and rarely explore ways to inject fun into sometimes tedious and boring material. After all, nobody made it fun for us and we became scientists anyway! We live in a different world now and I can see from watching my own children grow, that today’s  kids today are inquisitive, creative, comfortable with sophisticated technologies and open to new ideas—requisite traits for all scientists!

Unlike the past eight years, a new window of opportunity exists to challenge and convince young people that science is fun and can be very cool at times. To accomplish this, we science educators must step outside of our comfort zones and begin to inject some fun and wonderment into science. The kids will love it and I suspect so will we!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The relationship between science, education and industry has always been a tenuous one. To learn more about the complexity of this relationship check out this article that was recently published in a local New Jersey business publication.

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was originally written by Vincent Racaniello, a long time friend and colleague, who runs the Virology Blog. 

Here is what Vincent had to say:

My colleagues (generally the older ones) often ask me why I blog or podcast. They believe that I am wasting my time. After all, I am a scientist, and it is my job to carry out research. In order to do this I must publish papers and obtain grants. The grant funds are used to pay salaries (mine and those in my laboratory) and purchase the supplies needed for research. In my institution, nothing matters except raising money for research. Teaching, mentoring, and other community services mean very little. Blogging and podcasting do nothing to help fund my laboratory.

Here are my answers. Why did I go into science? Because my parents (physician and teacher) and my teachers inspired me. But for many other children, the only inspiration they have is their teachers. They need input from other sources. I believe I can help provide that input over the internet.

Most people - kids, teens, adults - don’t understand science. Their teachers can provide only a very rudimentary, often flawed view of some of the fundamental concepts. While I cannot cover all of science, I can do a good job of teaching what I know. I have been studying and thinking about viruses for over 30 years, so I understand them quite well. I am also able to talk and write about them clearly and concisely, a gift I probably received in part from my teacher parent. These qualities put me in a unique position to educate the public about viruses. 

Early in my career, I didn’t think much about teaching. I focused on research. Later I realized I had a reasonable ability to communicate what I knew, which turned into a love of teaching. My blogging and podcasting about viruses represent part of the effort to impart some of my knowledge to the public. 

As I have read and heard many times on the web, if you want to blog or podcast, do it about something you are passionate about. And that is what I am doing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Vincent Racaniello, Professor of Microbiology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and co-founder of BioCrowd ,has created a weekly series called This Week In Virology (TWiV). Each week Professors  Racaniello and Dickson Despommier (another Columbia virologist) discuss the latest developments and public health concerns for a variety of viral diseases.

The weekly discussions are packaged as podcasts, posted on TWiV and Science Podcasters.org and can be downloaded from iTunes. Dr. Racaniello eventually wants to offer TWiV in a vcast format and use it to inform the public and teach students about viral diseases.

So far, Vincent and Dick have created nine TWIV podcasts. Some of viruses that they have discussed include: HIV, Polio, Lassa fever, Rabies, West Nile Virus and even video game viruses. The podcasts are interesting, informative and a good way to learn something about virology—something that may liven up your daily commute!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bruce Charlton, a professor of theoretical medicine at the University of Buckingham and Editor in Chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses recently published in Oxford magazine and his blog a provocative and controversial article entitled “Why Scientists Are So Dull”

The article, which caused a firestorm in the UK was crafted to get the scientific establishment to rethink its parochial approach to scientific training and career development for young scientists. Because of the blunt nature and in-your-face tone of the article, Dr. Charlton may have alienated some would-be supporters who unfortunately failed to see the intended humor and call-to-action of the article. Unfortunately, in my experience, the public perception of scientists is consistent with Dr. Charlton’s claim—that, we as a group, are dull.

Throughout my career, I have routinely been asked by non-scientists (after meeting them in social situations) “You’re not really a scientist—are you?” Invariably, they say something like “You are too funny and too much of a character to really be a scientist.”

I know that stereotyping is inherently dangerous and wrong, but stereotypes usually originate from commonly observed, shared characteristics (traits) exhibited by members of a particular group of people. That said, maybe it is time for us to let the lay public know that not all scientists are dull, “eggheads” types and that many of us are very insightful, creative people. In my opinion, the only way for us to lose the ‘dull’ moniker is to publicly promote the importance and creative aspects of science whenever we can. To that end, it is time for us to log off of our computers, leave our laboratories and let the world know that—contrary to public opinion—we aren’t DULL people!!!!

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Beginning in 2009, Eli Lilly and Merck will post in online databases all payments made to doctors for speaking and consulting services. According to an article in today’s New York Times, the postings will “likely include” the names of the doctors, or will provide some other identifying information about them, along with the reason for the payments.

The lack of disclosure by physicians about their relationships with drug and medical devices companies have  plagued medical journals and continuing medical education programs for many years. For those of you who may not know commercial and business relationships (including consulting and speaker fees) are common between leading medical thought leaders and drug companies. In the last two decades alone, drug and device makers have made payments to tens of thousands of doctors and researchers in all medical specialties and areas of research. Critics of these practices (including the US Congress) are worried that this money could taint doctors’ research plans or clinical judgment when it comes to new drug/device approval. These concerns have prompted government agencies, medical journals and universities to look more closely at the deals. Many medical journals and granting agencies now require that physicians disclose all of their relationships to drug and device companies before their manuscripts and grants are reviewed.

Lilly and Merck’s decision to publicly disclose which physicians are on their payrolls is a step in the right direction. Full disclose and more transparency about the relationships between physicians and drug/devices makers is an important first step to limit subjectivity and conflict of interest issues when it comes to new drug/device approvals.

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As you all know, the brackets for this year’s NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament were revealed Sunday evening. As I have done for the past 20 years, I waited until this morning to find a detailed, printed version of the brackets to use for my office pool. That said, I was pleasantly surprised this morning to see that the sports editor of the NY Times decided to arrange the teams that did (and didn’t) make the tournament in a “basketball version” of the periodic table of the elements!

I want it on record that I am not a big fan of inorganic chemistry. However, I must admit that the New York Times rendering of team participation in this year’s tournament was innovative, creative and refreshing. Why, I bet that even Mendeleev – the guy who is credited with creating the first periodic table in 1869– would have been very pleased and proud of the NY Times’ effort! Does anybody know whether basketball was invented by 1869?

I say BRAVO to the NY Times for divining a creative way to make a connection between sports and science. I think that similar efforts ought to be attempted to convince American children (and possibly “grown ups”) that science can be “cool” and as much fun as sports! American science literacy is trending to an all time low. This trend must be reversed so that America can regain a  global competitive edge in science and engineering.

Again, kudos to the NY Times!

Until next time…

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The US has fallen further behind in science education. According to a report in my local paper, “A recent test of 15-year-old students from around the world showed that U.S. students ranked 29th out of 57 countries when it comes to science literacy. Worse yet, the U.S. ranked below the international average score, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The international study, conducted every three years by the Programme for International Student Assessment, tested 400,000 15-year-olds on literacy in science, math and reading last year. This most recent study placed a special emphasis on science because, as the report stated, solving scientific problems in today's society is "more important than ever."

The students from Finland scored the highest in the study, followed by students from Hong Kong/China, Canada and Estonia. The poor performance by the United States should not be taken simply as more bad news. Instead, it should be used as a rallying point for educators and politicians to begin to develop and implement strategies to improve science and math education.

If the current trends are not reversed, American students may have difficulty competing in science with international students, the result of which will mean fewer jobs for Americans in science-related fields in the coming years and a long- term negative impact on the American economy.”

This is nothing new. Others and I have been talking about the lack of science preparedness in the US for the past decade. Unfortunately, when it comes to education nobody really pays attention except to pass numbskull educational initiatives like “No Child Left Behind.” Sure, why not spend hundreds of million on standardized testing so that we can assess the effectiveness of primary and secondary education in the US. And then, let’s pat ourselves on the back when test results indicate that students are passing the tests at higher rates each year. I am sure that the rest of the world is quite impressed!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (if we can compete)!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link