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

By now, most of you have heard that tough economic times are forcing more students to enroll at community colleges because they can no longer afford the staggeringly-high tuition costs at most American four year  public and private colleges and universities. While this may be a financial boon for community colleges, technical schools and for-profit educational institutions, flagging enrollment numbers at second and third-tier public and private colleges has induced some admissions officers at these four year institutions to lower academic standards to admit students who can pay full tuition to attend them. In other words, rather than admit deserving academically-qualified and competitive students who may need financial aid to attend their institutions, admission officers will sometimes admit less academically qualified students to offset rising financial costs.

As the father of a college freshman, I had inkling that this practice was real but I had no formal proof or data to verify my suspicions. That all changed today after reading a troubling article in the NY Times entitled “Universities Seeking Out Students of Means.”

Based on a survey of 462 admissions officers conducted in August and early September, the article states

“More than half of the admissions officers at public research universities, and more than a third at four-year colleges said that they had been working harder in the past year to recruit students who need no financial aid and can pay full price.” 

Moreover,

“22 percent of the admissions officials at four-year institutions said the financial downturn had led them to pay more attention in their decision to applicants’ ability to pay.” Finally, “10 percent of the admissions directors at four-year colleges — and almost 20 percent at private liberal-arts schools — said that the full-pay students they were admitting, on average, had lower grades and test scores than other admitted applicants.”

So, why is this trend so troubling? And, what does it portend for future US competitiveness in the global economy? For one thing, admitting less qualified “wealthy” students will help to continue to “dumb down” the quality of the education currently offered at these institutions. To wit, over 50 percent of incoming freshman at most US colleges and universities already require remedial help in language arts and math. Second, this practice clearly hinders diversity because many minorities (and many middle class students) are either financially disadvantaged or struggling because of the economic downturn and cannot attend these institutions because they are simply out of their financial reach. Third, and perhaps most troubling, is that this practice clearly demonstrates that educational institutions are operating not on educational or academic principles but on business and financial ones. Put simply, generating revenue has replaced the educational and academic mission that all of these institution were founded upon.

Knowing this, is it any wonder why the US is losing it educational edge to lesser nations; many of whom are considered to be emerging countries? Unless the “pay-to-play” practices exhibited by many college admissions offices are eliminated, it is likely that US global dominance and world competitive will continue to wane. Money may “make the world go round” but it requires intelligent, motivated and competitive individuals to generate it! 

Until next time...

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

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

For the past two decade or so, government officials, business executives and many education “thought leaders” have publicly lamented the deteriorating quality of the American educational system. While K-12 educators and administrators have unduly taken much of the heat for our educational shortcomings, the real problem may lie with the quality of undergraduate education in America. To wit, while a growing percentage of  American high school students are attending college, many of today’s college graduates today are noticeable deficient in communication skills and, perhaps more importantly, in their problem solving abilities. And, unfortunately, this troubling trend is beginning to takes its toll in life sciences graduate programs where a growing number of life sciences PhDs are great technicians but fail miserably as independent science investigators. This is because colleges and university administrators and faculty members are driven more by financial considerations as compared with their obligations as teachers, educators and mentors. Put simply, despite their non-profit status, many colleges and universities act like “for profit” companies where, in many cases, financial gains are more important than the products that they produce! 

With this in mind, Richard Arum, a professor of sociology and education at New York University and Josipa Roksa an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Virginia detail the decline of the American undergraduate education experience in a book entitled “Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses.”  While I have read the book, I did read an extremely revealing and troubling article that the authors penned in this past Sunday’s New Times Opinion section entitled “Your So-Called Education.” 

In the articles, Arum and Roksa describe their findings from a four-year long study in which they followed the progress of several thousand students in more than two dozen diverse colleges and universities. Students were evaluated by taking the Collegiate Learning Assessment test (an officially recognized academic assessment tool). Based on their research a whopping 45 percent of students after two years and 36 percent after four years showed no improvement in learning. Their conclusions:

“Large numbers of the students were making their way through college with minimal exposure to rigorous coursework, only a modest investment of effort and little or no meaningful improvement in skills like writing and reasoning.”

In the past, high school teachers and even the students themselves would have been blamed for their pitiful lack of academic progress. However, Arum and Roksa contend that the problems do not lie not with the students but with college presidents, administrators and in many cases faculty members. For example, the authors note that:

“While some colleges are starved for resources, for many others it’s not for lack of money. Even at those colleges where for the past several decades tuition has far outpaced the rate of inflation, students are taught by fewer full-time tenured faculty members while being looked after by a greatly expanded number of counselors who serve an array of social and personal needs. At the same time, many schools are investing in deluxe dormitory rooms, elaborate student centers and expensive gyms. Simply put: academic investments are a lower priority.”

Perhaps even more troubling the authors contend that:

“The authority of educators has diminished, and students are increasingly thought of, by themselves and their colleges, as “clients” or “consumers.” When 18-year-olds are emboldened to see themselves in this manner, many look for ways to attain an educational credential effortlessly and comfortably. And they are catered to accordingly. The customer is always right.”

Finally, a change in federal student loan legislation has contributed to the problem:

“The funds from Pell Grants and subsidized loans, by being assigned to students to spend on academic institutions they have chosen rather than being packaged as institutional grants for colleges to dispense, have empowered students — for good but also for ill. And expanded privacy protections have created obstacles for colleges in providing information on student performance to parents, undercutting a traditional check on student lassitude.”

Although the authors provide a couple of “self help” ideas to begin to address the problem, in my opinion, the only effective solution is to place higher academic standards and demands on undergraduate students and a greater premium on learning as compared with student convenience and satisfaction. Like it or not, the notion that the “customer is always right” should have no place at institutions of higher learning.  Finally, college and university administrators must seriously reconsider what the REAL mission of their institutions is: to place learning ahead of financial gain.

Until next time...

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

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

While I was pleased that President Obama and the Democrats were finally able to deliver much needed reform to an ailing American healthcare system, the compromises that were made to pass the bill are troubling. First, language allowing reimportation of lower cost drugs from Canada and other developed nations was eliminated from the bill. Second, the provisions allowing the contentious 12 year data exclusivity provision for generic versions of biologic and biotechnology drugs remained in the final bill. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, any language alluding to or implying that the US government, may, in the future, be able to negotiate or regulate drug prices was obliterated. In short, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries received all of the assurances and guarantees that were in the deal brokered by Billy Tauzin, the former head of the lobbying group PhRMA, between the White House and PhRMA over a year ago. Surprisingly, Tauzin was fired by PhRMA several weeks ago because its leadership mistakenly thought that Tauzin conceded “too much” to the Obama Administration when he brokered the original health reform package with the White House. (At the time that Tauzin was fired, health care reform legislation appeared to be on life support and all but dead).

In the final analysis, big pharma and biotech will give back $85 billion over ten years —largely by agreeing to give back some of the profits it was allowed to collected from the egregiously flawed Medicare Part D legislation passed during the odious Bush Administration. While $85 billion may seem like a lot (to the average American citizen) to give back, it is important to note, that the size of the global pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets is over $600 billion per year. Although growth in these markets is beginning to slow in developed nations like the US and Japan (to high single digits), it is beginning to explode in heavily populated developing nations like China, India and Brazil where it is roughly $12-18%. Put simply, despite assertions to the contrary, business in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical markets is booming and likely to continue for the foreseeable future. In other words, the newly passed healthcare reform legislation is a “sweetheart deal” for the US life sciences industry.

Ironically, while the healthcare reform bill insures that almost all Americans will be entitled to healthcare coverage and that insurance companies cannot deny healthcare benefits to persons with pre-existing medical conditions, the legislation may actually limit the access of Americans to potentially life-saving biotechnology drugs. This is because the 12 year data exclusivity period for generic versions of branded, biotechnology drugs (otherwise know as follow-on biologics or biosimilars) remained in the final version of the healthcare reform bill.

As I previously mentioned, this provision disallows approval of follow-on biologics for a period of 12 years from the data that the original biologic received US regulatory approval. For example, if a branded biologic or biotechnology product garners US regulatory approval in 2010, the earliest date that a generic version of this product would be able to appear on the US market would be 2022. Moreover, in some instances, the 12 year data exclusivity provision may extend the so-called patent life of a product. Using the example above, if the patents protecting the product happen to expire in 2019, the innovator company is guaranteed an additional three years of marketing exclusivity before generic versions of the product can appear on the US market. Finally, the 12 year data exclusivity provision effectively prevents foreign biosimilar manufacturers from competing in the US biotechnology market until about 2018; a strategy designed to allow the US to maintain its dominance of the global biotechnology market. Interestingly, despite the approval of six or more biosimilars in Europe, these products have failed to catch on and are not able to compete with their branded, innovator counterparts.

In conclusion, I laud President Obama’s persistence and give him props for his ability to deliver (as promised) health reform to the American public. I have no doubt that the legislation will help to improve the delivery of healthcare in the US and hopefully improve the overall health of Americans. However, while the new healthcare reform legislation is a first, positive step, the American healthcare system will never entirely be “fixed’ until US drug prices are regulated—like they are in the rest of the world. Then, and only then, will the US government be able to control and contain healthcare costs in America.

Until next time…

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

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

The competition for National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding has been intensifying over the past five years or more. In the past, NIH had gone to extraordinary lengths to insure that senior investigators didn’t lose their funding so as to not hinder the progress of long standing research programs. However, in recent years, NIH funding managers have eschewed the unwritten policy of preferentially funding established investigators in favor of younger ones!  According to an article in today’s New York Times, NIH grant managers are increasingly ignoring the advice of study sections and funding scientists whose projects receive less favorable reviews than those denied money. Many of the favored funding recipients are “new investigators,” or scientists who had never before received a grant from NIH. Further, in 2007, the last year for which figures are available, “19 percent of the grants awarded to individual scientists were made as exceptions, or given outside of rankings by scientific reviewers, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. Nearly all of the increase in exceptions in 2007 went to new investigators, with the young scientists’ share rising from 20 percent of all exceptions in 2003 to half in 2007.”

Not surprisingly, many senior investigators are calling “foul” despite the fact that the median age at which scientists win their first NIH grant has risen steadily, to 41 years, from 35 in 1980. While all meritorious grant proposals ought to be funded, the reality is that there simply isn’t enough money to around. As a former tenure track faculty member, I believe that new investigators deserve something of a handicap or edge when it comes to competing for their first grants. After all, how can an overwhelmed, newly minted faculty member be expected to successfully compete with established investigators who have mastered their jobs and more importantly, the art of grant writing? Sadly, the old practice of preferentially funding established investigators over new ones tended to stifle innovation and reward scientists who liked to play it safe!

We live in an increasingly competitive world where innovation is at a premium. American scientists and granting agencies must abandon their old practices if they want to remain competitive on the world stage. To that end, funding some young, innovative investigators over a few established faculty members who have enjoyed long successful scientific careers doesn’t seem like a bad investment to me! After all isn’t all about retun on investment these days?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Losing a job is a BIG deal whether you were layed off, fired or right-sized out of it. Not only do you have to worry about health insurance, bills and paying rent or making a mortgage payment, you must also deal with a myriad of self esteem and emotional issues that frequently arise after losing a job. While there are many articles and books that describe how to functionally conduct a job search after being layed off, there are only a handful that discuss how to cope with the stress and negative emotions that frequently accompany job loss.

Many people who lose their jobs frequently experience emotions like anger, desperation, hopelessness and even depression. These feelings must be acknowledged and then addressed and managed because they not particularly useful when looking for a new job. Further, when left unattended, these feelings can exact both a financial and an emotional toll on the unemployed.

In this Sunday’s New York Times, Phyllis Korkki, who writes “The Search” column describes how to manage the negative emotions and financial problems commonly associated with losing a job. She also provides tips on how to minimize “the pain” and accentuate the positive after experiencing a job loss.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

This morning, while doing my usual Twitter review, I came across a tweet from the Scientist.com about John McCain’s recent anti-science Twitter rants.  Based on his tweets (and snarky comments) he considers the following projects blatant examples of pork barrel spending:

"$209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in GA"

"$819, 000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama"

"$900,000 for fish management - how does one manage a fish"

Older McCain tweets include:

"$1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass - I thought switchgrass genes were pretty good already, guess I was wrong."

"$250,000 to enhance research on Ice Seal populations"

"$2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York - quick peel me a grape."

"$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi"

McCain’s tweets underscore how little politicians—especially republicans(what do you expect from a party that endorses intelligent design over evolution) —understand about how science works. That said, some of the proposed projects cited by McCain may require additional scrutiny (by science experts not him) and may turn out to be projects that don't warrant funding.  Nevertheless,I believe that McCain's tweets are part of a well crafted Republican-led initiative intended to publicly discredit  these earmarked projects so that he and other Republican's can redirect public monies to their own pork barrel initiatives. Shame on McCain and his cronies for attempting to hijack Twitter to discredit worthy scientific, environmental,agricultural and conservation projects. 

Let’s try to disrupt McCain’s plan by tweeting that he is anti-science! 

Tweet away peeps!

Hat tip to the The Scientist!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Twittering!

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

While I have never been layed off, I understand how awful and painful it must be. After all, unlike people who were fired for cause or otherwise, most people who are layed off are performing well but they simply became too expensive or expendable to remain with a company facing financial exigency.

Most of us feel for employees who have been layed off—anyone who has experienced a layoff will tell you that it can be a life altering or changing event. But, what about the people who are charged with delivering the bad news to the employees who will be layed off? How do you think they feel and what impact does it have on their lives? 

There was a poignant and heartfelt piece in this past Sunday’s New York Times that was written by a company executive who made the decision to layoff workers and then delivered the news to them himself. While his plight doesn’t compare with that of the employees who lost their jobs, it shows how difficult and disruptive layoffs can for companies that are forced to downsize.

Until next time…

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

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

There was an article in today’s NY Times biz section which suggests that the recent financial crisis is starting to have an effect on the growth of the biotechnology industry, once thought to be a recession-proof sector. The article contends that the lack of available institutional cash and venture money is causing extant biotechnology companies to “tighten their belts.” And, if the trend continues, this lack of capital will stifle innovation, which in turn, will threaten and undermine the stability and future of the entire biotechnology sector. While times are certainly tough, the biotechnology industry, in my opinion, is alive and well and will continue to expand well into the 21^st century.

It is important to note that many biotechnology companies that are struggling today are publicly-traded companies not privately held ones. Unlike publicly-traded companies, privately-held ones don’t have to answer to millions of shareholders or worry about their price per share on a daily basis.  Further, the expectations for privately held companies are much less than those for publicly traded entities. Based on recent discussions with venture capitalist friends and institutional investment bankers (those that still have jobs) there is still substantial funding out there for start-ups and companies that are trying to advance their products from development into clinical testing. Many of the financially-troubled public companies mentioned in the Times article were struggling (and on the verge of failing) before the recent financial meltdown. The recent financial crisis is simply hastening their demise. The reason why many of these companies are on the brink is that they went public in the late 1990s—a time when writing a business plan on the back of a napkin was sufficient for investment bankers to underwrite a company’s IPO. Unfortunately, many of these companies were little more than research or tool box driven companies whose founders failed to understand that products not technology would make their companies successful. Put simply, these companies should have never gone public in the first place!

Not surprisingly, almost all of the companies cited in the Times article fit the ‘product-less biotechnology company’ profile. For example, Maxygen, a company originally founded as a “molecular evolution” company (that went public in 1999) didn’t identify a lead product until a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, after spending millions of dollars on preclinical development, the company no longer has sufficient funds to move the product into human clinical testing. Late last week, Maxygen announced that it would layoff 30% of its workforce and consider selling itself.

Another example cited in the article is Iceland’s DeCode Genetics, once a high flying genomics and bioinformatics company that regularly made headlines for discovering new genes for cancer, cardiovascular and hereditary diseases. While DeCode has a great genomic and bioinformatics platform (and “did outstanding science”—largely because of the genetic purity of the Icelandic population) it was never able to use its technology to identify a lead therapeutic product. DeCode’s stock price has fallen more than 90% in the last year to 29 cents per share and will likely fail given the horrendous state of Iceland’s banking industry and economy.

The impending failure of many financially-strapped biotechnology companies in the current financial environment should come as no surprise to biologists—is very consistent with Darwin’s theory of natural selection which says “only the strongest and the fittest will survive. To survive in the biotechnology industry, companies must be single-mindedly product-driven. Companies that lack a product focus, in this or future economies will be able to survive for a short while but ultimately they are doomed to fail. That said, while there may be fewer companies as the biotechnology industry continues to evolve, the companies that do survive will undoubtedly be extremely robust and fiercely competitive.

Until next time….

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

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

Oh, what a difference a couple of years or results from a pivotal clinical trial can have on a company’s financial outlook. As you may recall in 2005, Merck was in a shambles after the Vioxx scandal broke. Its CEO was ousted, its stock was trading at less than $35 per share and employee morale was at an all time low. After two short years, Richard Clark, a life-long Merck employee, was able to turn the company around. Merck’s stock reached a high of almost $61 last December and many of its employees were dancing in the streets of Rahway because their stock options were now worth more than the paper that they were printed on. But, like many things in life, all good things must come to an end.

Since December Merck’s stock price has plummeted to $40 and appears to be headed downward. What sparked the retreat was the release of results from the now infamous ENHANCE clinical trial which showed that Vytorin, which is co-marketed by Merck and Schering Plough, offered no greater benefit than a cheaper, generic version of Zocor (one of the two active ingredients of Vytorin) to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke. The fallout from this revelation has been intense and dramatic. Both Merck and Schering Plough are being investigated by Congress for marketing violations and the financial maneuvers’ of several senior executives from both companies are under intense scrutiny. 

Many industry analysts believe that Merck may be on the ropes again and are afraid that the company may slip back into the morass it found itself in after the Vioxx debacle.

I have always held Merck in high regard–no fewer than 15 people who I went to graduate school have worked at Merck at one time or another. Further, the Merck name used to be synonymous with “second to none” science and outstanding pharmaceutical products. Sadly, over the past decade Merck’s leadership has consistently placed profits before good science causing the American public to lose confidence in one of its flagship pharmaceutical companies. Maybe Dick Clark, who was around during Merck’s glory days, can restore Merck’s reputation by insisting that from now on, good science will always come before corporate profits. Time will tell….

Until next time….

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

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