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

The US is slipping and emerging markets are growing in competitiveness according to an annual list compiled by the World Economic Forum. Perhaps even more troubling is that the same group found that the US is lagging in the adoption of internet, computing and mobile communication technologies. After all, adopting of new technologies has been widely viewed as a means to improve competitiveness.

According to the report, the US, which topped the list in 2008, slid from number 4 last year to number 5. Surprisingly, for the third year in a row, Switzerland ranked first. The list is compiled by assessing 12 categories that include innovation, infrastructure and the world economy. The fact that many EU countries continue to improve in their ability to compete on a global scale, suggests that socialist-leaning governments may not be as bad as many free market US zealots would have you believe!

Singapore replaced Sweden for the number 2 position in this year’s list. Behind Sweden (no. 3), Finland was ranked fourth, and Germany was ranked sixth. Germany was followed by the Netherlands and Denmark. The UK was 10, France was 18^th and China moved up one place to 26 this year. Among other major Asian economies, Japan ranked ninth and Hong Kong 11^th. 

Among other major emerging economies, South Africa was 50^th, Brazil 53^rd, India 56^th and Russia 66^th.

The weaker performance of the US was attributed to economic vulnerabilities and low public trust in politicians and concerns about government inefficiency. The loss of US competitive coupled with fewer students opting for careers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) and poorer adoption rates of new technologies suggests that the US decline will continue.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

A recent report issued by the US Department of Commerce reported that job opportunities in science technology, engineering and math fields (STEM) are increasing in America. The report contends that over the past decade the number of people employed in STEM jobs has increased three times as much as the growth rate for non-STEM jobs growing by approximately 7.6 million workers. Further, the report predicts that between 2008 and 2018 that STEM jobs will grow by about 17 percent as compared with roughly 10 percent for non-STEM jobs. On average, in 2010 STEM employees earned about $25 per hour almost $9 more per hour than non-STEM workers.

While this may appear to be good news, a report published last year by the President’s Council on Science and Technology indicated that less than one-third of US eighth graders are considered proficient in math and science. Further, the report also found that there is a lack of qualified STEM teachers at most schools even those that are otherwise successful. Consequently, this has resulted in a student population that is not only unprepared to fill those predicted 1.3 million STEM jobs but also uninterested in STEM subjects. In other words, unless something changes, there won’t be enough trained American workers to meet future US STEM needs; thereby reducing US global competitiveness in STEM fields like biotechnology, computing and engineering.

However, it is important to note that previous reports predicting future shortages of science and technology employees have been flat-out wrong! Nevertheless, there is no doubt that America is lagging in STEM competitiveness. However, this is likely because of the way in which STEM subjects are taught in primary and secondary schools. There is more emphasis placed on memorizing STEM concepts rather than teaching and honing problem solving skills which is the most important factor when participating in real-life STEM endeavors.

The same conclusion was reached by an 18-member National Research Council committee that recently issued a report outlining a new framework to improve science curriculums in the US. The head of the committee that issued the report, a retired physicist said “kids are expected to learn a lot of things but not expected to be able to use them.” The last time the National Research Council—the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering—weighed in on STEM preparedness was 1996.

One way to improve STEM education in the US is to hire more PhDs as middle and high school science, math and engineering teachers. After all, problem solving skills are what the PhD degree is all about and most PhDs ought to be content area experts in the subjects that they teach. Unfortunately, in most PhD and postdoctoral programs the mere mention of possibly becoming a high school teacher is invariably “the kiss of death” and may result in a student or postdoc being thrown out of a laboratory. The irony of the US STEM conundrum is stark; there is a need for more problem solvers in the class room but the people who train the problem solvers refuse to empower them to become teachers! Go figure!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try teaching)

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

The clinical trial phase of the drug development process is labor intensive, costly and usually takes the largest amount of time to complete. In the past, most human clinical trials for new molecular entities discovered by American scientists were conducted in the US. However, growing healthcare costs and shortages of “treatment-naive” trial participants have forced drug makers to take the effort global. To that end, many companies now routinely conduct Phase I (safety) and Phase II (proof of principle) trials in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia. Moreover, a growing number of pharmaceutical companies are beginning to conduct pivotal Phase III trials in which a majority of participants come from outside of the US.

Last year, a report from the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services revealed that in 2008 a whopping 78 percent of all subjects participating in trials to support drug applications submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration were enrolled in foreign sites. Likewise, in Europe, approximately 61 percent of patients in human trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2005-2009 were from developing countries. Additionally, 11 percent of the participants were enrolled in studies conducted in Eastern Europe. Poland and Hungary appear to have benefited the most from this trend; the number of Poles involved in trials rose fivefold over the period while Hungary was up almost fourfold.

According to a recent article from Reuters, ClinicalTrials.gov—a public website managed by the National Institutes of Health that tracks current US clinical trials—lists roughly 106,000 human clinical trials that are underway around the world. Approximately 50 percent of these trials are being conducted in the US. Interestingly, at present, only 43 percent of all pivotal Phase III trials are being conducted in the US.  Not surprisingly, China is the beneficiary of the trend and is experiencing exponential growth in the number of clinical trials conducted within its borders. To date, over 2,700 clinical trials have been performed in China and that number is likely to drastically increase over the next five years as Chinese medical and healthcare infrastructure continue to improve.

While outsourcing human clinical trials may be favorable to drug makers, the trend is beginning to anger many American physicians who previously benefited from managing US-based clinical trials. These physicians blame their misfortune on the life sciences industry’s endless pursuit to lower costs and the increasing regulatory bureaucracy and red tape surrounding clinical trial procedures in the US.

In addition to physician anger, outsourcing human clinical trials poses several other problems. First, there is a question of ethics. For example, is it right to test an expensive new drug in a country where locals may never be able to afford it if approved? And, are foreign patients always adequately informed or educated about the potential risks and side effects associated with experimental medicines? Second, can ethnic differences between patients contribute to differences in drug effectiveness and safety? In other words, will Caucasian patients respond to a new drug in the same ways as Asian patients? Finally, in the absence of rigorous regulatory inspections can Good Clinical Practices be routinely maintained across all global clinical trial sites? To that end, as pointed out in the Reuters article from 2005 to 2009 EMA inspectors only conducted 44 good clinical practice inspections (outside of the US and Europe) from a total of 44,034 clinical sites. Meanwhile, during the same period, the US FDA inspected only 0.7 percent of foreign clinical trial sites as compared with 1.9 percent of domestic sites.

Like it or not, outsourcing of human clinical trials in emerging markets is a trend that is likely here to stay. Hopefully, in the future, regulatory agencies will be able to better oversee foreign human clinical trials to insure that the drugs that they approve continue to be safe and efficacious.

Until next time...

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

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

I know that I have been blogging a lot lately about science and it importance in American innovation and global competitiveness. And, not surprisingly, some of you may be sick of hearing me drone on about it! But, if you want to get another perspective on the critical role that science plays in the lives of everyday Americans, you absolutely must read Tyler Cowen’s article in this Sunday’s NY Times Business Section entitled “Innovation Is Doing Little for Incomes.”

Cowen, a Professor of economics at George Mason University and a regular contributor to the NY Times, astutely points out the impact scientific innovations have had on economic growth and perhaps, more importantly on the median incomes of Americans over the past 65 years. He points out that from 1947 to 1973—a period of just 26 years—inflation-adjusted median income for Americans more than doubled. But, in the 31 years from 1973 to 2004, median income grew only 22 percent. And, over the last 7 years it actually declined! 

In the article, Cowen asserts that the lack of income growth in recent years can be attributed to the ongoing dearth of truly game-changing technological innovations. Sure, there are computer, the Internet and wireless technologies but as Cowen points out these innovations have not markedly changed the lives of Americans as much as “electricity, the automobile, flush toilets, antibiotics and small household appliances.” While the latter advances impacted ALL Americans, the former have mostly had an effect on the well-educated, curious and often more economically well off. And, while these technologies have yielded measurable monetary gains, they often have been concentrated among a small number of company founders. Put simply, recent innovations have not been “game changers” for the economic well being of most Americans!

So what are we to do about this troubling trend? Cowen rightly suggests that:

“Science should be encouraged with subsidies for basic research, as well as private charity, educational reform, a business culture geared toward commercializing inventions, and greater public appreciation for the scientific endeavor. A lighter legal and regulatory hand could ease the path of future innovations.”

Further, he contends that:

“Sooner or later, new technological revolutions will occur, perhaps in the biosciences, through genome sequencing, or in energy production, through viable solar power, for example. But these transformations won’t come overnight, and we’ll have to make do in the meantime. Instead of facing up to this scarcity, politicians promote tax cuts and income redistribution policies to benefit favored constituencies. Yet these are one-off adjustments and, over time, they cannot undo the slower rate of growth in average living standards.” In other words, it is time for the US to seriously address its waning proficiency in science technology, engineering and math. "

To that end, he states that:

“Until science has a greater impact again on average daily living standards, the political problem will be in learning to live within our means. Because neither major party seems to support a plausible path to fiscal balance, or to acknowledge how little control politicians actually have over future income growth, we unscientifically keep living in an age of denial.”

Call me crazy, but what Cowen says makes complete sense to me!

Until next time...

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

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

Previously, BioJobBlog reported on the race between two groups led by the Mars and Hersey companies to sequence and decode the cacao (chocolate) tree genome. It should come as no surprise that the world’s two largest chocolate companies have pitted themselves against one another to decode the wonders of the cacao bean. After all, chocolate is big business and learning how to maximize yields, improve flavors and optimize the levels of cacao bean chemical components would be a boon to the company that was able to obtain the genetic information first!

Currently, most cacao farmers earn about $2 per day, but producers of fine cacao earn more. Increasing the productivity and ease of growing cacao can help to develop a sustainable cacao economy. The trees are now also seen as an environmentally beneficial crop because they grow best under forest shade, allowing for land rehabilitation and enriched biodiversity. Today, many growers prefer to grow hybrid cacao trees—rather than the original variety Theobroma cacao, Criollo)—that produce chocolate of lower quality but are more resistant to disease. Roughly five percent of the world’s current cocoa production is derived from Criollo cacao beans because of increased susceptibility to fungal diseases which results in higher costs and lower yields.

At the last installment of this ongoing saga, the Mars group, September 2010, released a statement that that they had beat the Hershey group and unraveled DNA sequence of the most common cacao bean variety that is used to manufacture most commercial chocolate.

The Mars researchers constructed a preliminary genomic map that covered over 70 per cent of the total cacao bean DNA sequence which is distributed over 10 chromosomes. These data were uploaded to The Cacao Genome Database which is publicly available as long as persons who access the data sign an agreement that stipulates that they “will not seek any intellectual property protection over the data, including gene sequences contained in the database. The Information Access Agreement allows any cacao breeders and other researchers to freely use the genome information to develop new cacao varieties.”

While the Mars group may have beat the Hersey group to the popular press, their research has not yet appeared in an academic journal for scientific scrutiny. Interestingly, the Hersey group yesterday announced that their version of the cacao genome was published in the most recent edition of Nature Genetics. According to the authors,

We sequenced and assembled the draft genome of Theobroma cacao (Criollo), an economically important tropical-fruit tree crop that is the source of chocolate. This assembly corresponds to 76% of the estimated genome size and contains almost all previously described genes, with 82% of these genes anchored on the 10 T. cacao chromosomes.

Analysis of this sequence information highlighted specific expansion of some gene families during evolution, for example, flavonoid-related genes. It also provides a major source of candidate genes for T. cacao improvement.

While Theobroma is often used to manufacture gourmet chocolates that particular variety of cacao tree often remains vulnerable to disease. Information gleaned from this study could be used to breed bioresistant varieties of Theobroma.

Further the authors noted:

Our analysis of the Criollo genome has uncovered the genetic basis of pathways leading to the most important quality traits of chocolate--oil, flavonoids and terpene biosynthesis […] It has also led to the discovery of hundreds of genes potentially involved in pathogen resistance, all of which can be used to accelerate the development of elite varieties of cacao in the future.”

Other genes that were identified include those for the production of cocoa butter, natural antioxidants, hormones, pigments, and aromas. BTW, for those of you who may be interested, cocoa was thought to be domesticated about 3,000 years ago in Central America; making it one of the world’s oldest domesticated tree crops.

It isn’t clear yet how the cacao genomes deciphered by the Mars and Hersey groups match up against one another. Regardless, the big winners here are chocolate lovers. What to you think the world stance will be on genetically engineered chocolate? 

Oy!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Eating!!!!!

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

About 10 to 20 Americans are afflicted with bubonic plague each year, and 1 to 3 die from the infection according to statistics compiled by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA. The natural reservoir of Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes plague, are  prairie dogs and ferrets, and fleas that infest those colonies can transfer it to squirrels, rats and mice, who like to live close to humans and their flea-carrying pets. Most of the reported cases of plaque occur in the so-called Four Corners, where Utah, Arizon, New Mexico and Colorado meet, and most victims live in rodent-infested rural dwellings. 

A study in this month’s issue of The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene tracked climatic conditions in 195 counties in 13 Western states, from Washington to Texas, that reported even one plague case since 1950. Cases have dropped over time, and the study concluded that rising nighttime temperatures since 1990 had helped. Warmer nights melt winter snowpacks earlier, leading to drier soil in rodent burrows. When the soil gets too dry, fleas die and transmission of Y. pestis is much reduced. 

While a reduction in the incidence of bubonic plague may be a good thing, it certainly doesn’t offset the potential catastrophic effects that may result if global warming is not kept in check! 

Despite the fearsome reputation the disease earned in the Dark Ages, plague can be easily treated with antibiotics if it is caught early enough. Also, improvements in sanitation and urban livings conditions has relegated plague to be classified as an endemic and ancient disease.

Until next time...

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

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

Ed Silverman, who runs the Pharmalot blog,reported today that AstraZeneca provided more details about its plan to layoff 8,000 employees or 12% of its workforce by 2014. 

According to the post, the company will R&D programs in thrombosis; acid reflux; ovarian and bladder cancers; systemic scleroderma; schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety; hepatitis C and vaccines (other than respiratory syncytial virus and influenza).

The company will shutter research facilities throughout the UK and Sweden and shed about 3,500 R&D jobs. About 550 jobs will be eliminated at AstraZeneca’s US headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware; adding to the massive numbers of unemployed pharmaceutical workers in the Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware region. The company is also looking for a buyer for its Arrow Therapeutics business.

AstraZeneca joins a growing number of big pharma companies that are jettisoning internal R& D programs in favor of licensing and merger and acquisition deals to sure up drug discovery pipelines. The lack of innovation in small molecule drug discovery and the loss in 2011 of patent protection for some of the industry’s largest blockbuster drug franchises is forcing big pharma companies to eliminate or outsource most of their R&D functions and capabilities to cut costs.  

I wish I could say that things will get better. But, the shift in the business model that has guided big pharma for close to 100 years is likely to be a permanent one. Now is the time to begin to consider alternative career paths!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (“Go West young man/man!”)

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

I just received a phone call from UK-based Meettheboss.TV to give me advance notice of an interview that was conducted with Fred Hassan, the former CEO of Schering Plough, that will be shown tomorrow at the Meettheboss.TV website. Hassan stepped aside as CEO after Merck acquired Schering Plough for $41.1 billion late last year.

Mr Hassan is arguably one of the most respected and highly visible pharmaceutical executives in the industry. He sat down with Meettheboss.TV to share how he was able to turn around a dysfunctional and failing Schering Plough and restore its tarnished image.

“I joined a company in 1997 that was in great difficulty.  There has been a merger between a Swedish company and a U.S. company, and that merger had resulted in a lot of difficulties, I was brought in as a CEO from the outside to try to make this merger work.  I realized that the future growth product of this company has been compromised in a deal that had to be untangled.” Fred told Meettheboss.tv

In an uncharacteristically candid interview, Hassan also offers his personal insights and views on the challenges that the pharmaceutical industry faces in the future as traditional business models begin to change and new players enter the pharmaceutical industry space. 

To watch the full interview, please visit Meettheboss.TV

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Viewing!!!!!!!!

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

The loss of over 200,000 pharmaceutical jobs over the past three years has been mainly driven by the anticipated loss of revenue from blockbuster drugs that will lose patent protection by 2013. While drug makers frequently cite blockbuster patent expiry as the reason for the need to downsize, they rarely provide the business and economic metrics, numbers and statistics that have influenced their decisions. 

Patricia Van Arnum, Senior Editor of Pharmaceutical Technology wrote a fascinating article in this month’s issue of Pharmaceutical Technology Europe that skillfully outlined the economic forces that are driving branded pharmaceutical companies to downsize and reorganize. According to the article, in October 2009 the pharmaceutical intelligence firm IMS estimated that the global pharmaceutical market is expected to growth 4-6% in 2010 and reach $825 billion. Market growth at an annual rate of 4-7% is expected to continue through 2013 and the size of global pharmaceutical market is projected to exceed $975 billion. The US pharmaceutical market, the largest in the world, is expected to drive much of this growth. However, the growth of the American market is only expected to be 3.5% in 2010. In market contrast, China’s pharmaceutical market is expected to increase by a staggering 20% per year and contribute 21% to the overall growth of the global pharmaceutical market by 2013. 

While prospects for the US market are better than originally anticipated, the loss of nearly $137 billion in revenues in 2013— because of patent expiry of blockbuster products—coupled with fewer new drug approvals are the factors that will limit the growth of the global pharmaceutical market to single digits through 2013 and likely beyond. Some of the drugs slated to lose patent protection by 2013 include Lipitor (atorvastatin) by Pfizer, Plavix (clopidogrel) by Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Seretide/Advair (salmeterol and fluticasone) by GlaxoSmithKline. Lipitor, Plavix and Seretide were the number one-, two- and foruth best-selling drugs in 2008 with global sales of $13.7 billion, $8.6 billion and $7.7 billion respectively.

The increasing growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry is best reflected in the concomitant growth of merchant active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturing industry. In the API world, there are two types of manufacturers; the so-called captive API producers or companies that exclusively manufacture APIs for finished, branded products and merchant manufacturers which are third party providers of APIs. Over the past four years or so, the growth of the merchant API market for generic products has substantially outpaced the growth of the API for innovator products. For example, from 2004-2008 the merchant market for generics grew at an average annual rate of 9.1% from $12 billion in 2004 to $17 billion in 2008 according to a recent report by the Chemical Pharmaceutical Association (CPA). In contrast, the CPA determined that the merchant market for innovator/branded APIs only increased at an average annual rate of 4.4% from $16 billion in 2004 to $19 billion in 2008. Looking ahead, the worldwide market for merchant APIs is projected to grow at an average annual growth rate of 6.8% through 2013 to about $50 billion. During this period, growth of innovator APIs is expected to be about 1.8% whereas the growth of generic API is expected to be a robust 11.4%.

The US is currently the largest market for generic APIs and consumed roughly 22.9% of the total global demand for generic APIs in 2008. China, which is the second largest consumer of generic APIs, consumed 19.2%. While the US is expected to remain the largest consumer of both innovator and generic APIs, China is projected to become the largest consumer of generic APIs in 2013 capturing a 26% share of the total generic API market (the US will be number 2 with 20.5% market share).

According to industry analysts, China, India, Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe (most notably Russia), represent attractive growth opportunities for generic APIs. India and China now account for roughly 25% of the global generic market and demand in these countries is expected to remain strong for the foreseeable future as the middle class continues to emerge. To that end, China is projected to have the highest average annual growth rate at 18.4% and India’s market will grow by 14% through 2013. Similar growth is expected for the Eastern European, Russian and Brazilian generic API markets.

While the economic size of emerging generic markets is still small compared with those of the US, Western Europe and Japan, it signals that generic drugs will likely drive the future growth of the pharmaceutical industry. The lack of innovation and rising costs of branded, prescription drugs in developed nations is the main driving force behind the rapid emergence of the generic drug industry. That said, is it any wonder why Pfizer is thinking about entering the generic pharmaceutical business and that Western drug companies are shedding scientists and sales people in the US and Europe and growing the sizes of their R&D and sales force staffs in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America? Honestly, if I had any money left to invest, I would seriously be considering traded generic pharmaceutical manufacturers—their future success is almost guaranteed!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Johnson & Johnson announced today it would eliminate as many as 8,200 jobs, or 7% of its work force, to help the company cope with what it expects will be a slow economic recovery amid damped demand for drugs, medical devices and consumer products. J&J employs about 117, 000 workers globally. While the job cuts will be global, many losing their jobs will be outside of the US. 

J & J joins a growing list of pharmaceutical and life sciences companies that have announced new layoffs. Pfizer Inc., the world’s biggest drugmaker, plans to fire 19,000 workers following its acquisition of Wyeth and had already cut 10,000 positions since 2007. J&J began firing as many as 4,400 employees from its pharmaceutical and stent divisions in late 2007. Finally, Merck recently announced that it will be eliminating 16,000 workers after its merger with Schering Plough closes later this year.

J&J’s announcement is more bad news for New Jersey which is still reeling from the earlier loss of tens of thousands of pharmaceutical and life sciences jobs.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget New Jersey)

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

From time to time, I come across some interesting facts and statistics that are worth noting. This month’s issue of Pharmaceutical Technology Europe offered several things that were blog-worthy. Here they are: 

• IMS Health has readjusted the growth of the pharmaceutical industry in 2009 from 4.5-5.5% to 2.5-3.6% with sales expected to exceed $820 billion
• The size of the US pharmaceutical market is expected to contract by 1-2% in 2009
• Emerging markets like China, India and Brazil are expected to contribute to more than half of the global market growth in 2009 and sustain an average growth rate of 40% by 2013
• The size of the Middle East pharmaceutical market is predicted to exceed $18 billion by 2014

As one industry analyst put it “This high level of growth in emerging markets, combined with the contraction of the US market and ongoing low single-digit growth in other developed markets, is driving the pharmaceutical market to a new world order.” If I had money, I would be investing in generic pharmaceutical companies and follow-on biologic manufacturers!

Until next time...

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

• 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

Mention the word “scientist” to most people and they will likely conjure up an image of a socially-inept, nerdy individual who cannot talk to “normal everyday folks” because they are either “too smart” or out of touch with the “real world.” I have been fighting that stereotype for as long as I can remember. I believe that, along the way, I have convinced a few people otherwise and hope that they have learned that “one size does not fit for all scientists”—or any other professional group for that matter. The public perception of scientists was improving until George W Bush, an inveterate anti-science and anti-intellectual advocate became President in 2001. I hope that America’s attitude toward science (and scientists) will change over the next four years as President Obama tries to “restore science to its rightful place.” Nevertheless, I felt compelled to write this post after reading a New York Times review of a television drama called “Breaking Bad” (AMC, Sundays, 10 EDT) which, in my opinion, reinforces the negative stereotypes of scientists held by many members of the lay public.

Breaking Bad centers on a former Caltech chemistry genius named Walt, who failed to live up to the legend of his graduate school days. At 50, he is teaching high school chemistry in Albuquerque, NM. Although he contributed to work of a Nobel-winning team, the teaching job in New Mexico is inexplicably the best that he can get. To make matters worse, his best friend at Cal Tech has amassed a fortune (based largely on Walt’s graduate school work) and is married to Walt’s beautiful ex-wife. Walt learns  after attending a lavish party thrown by his friend, that most of his graduate school classmates (unlike him) are famous world class scientists who live in big homes and make enough money to purchase guitars that previously belonged to Eric Clapton. On top of his devastating psychic and emotional pain, Walt is also suffering from stage 3A lung cancer—even though he never smoked! To save his life, Walt partners with one of his former high school students in the crystal methamphetamine business. Walt’s chemical genius allows him to synthesize the meth from scratch—unlike his scientifically-challenged competitors who must extract the starting materials from over the counter cold remedies—earning him the reputation as one of the best meth ‘cookers” in the US. Walt uses the drug money to pay for his chemotherapy to stay alive and care for 15 year old son with cerebral palsy.  

While the show sounds intriguing, and by all accounts is well acted and provides a glimpse into the lives of people struggling with chronic illness and unrealized career aspirations, it sends the wrong messages to the American public about scientists, their motivations and their lives. First, it portrays Walt’s classmates as wealthy, elitist dilettantes who live lavish lives and don’t think twice about flaunting their status and power as world class scientists. Aside from Craig Venter and several other high profile scientists who are sometimes featured on 60 Minutes, I don’t think that there are many scientists who enjoy the luxurious and opulent lifestyles depicted in Breaking Bad. To the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of us are struggling, like others, to make ends meet to put food on the table. And, perhaps more importantly, I don’t think that money, fame and fortune induced most of us to become scientists in the first place. Portraying scientists as ego-maniacal, thoughtless, self-absorbed dilettantes sends the wrong message to an American public that is already suspicious and distrustful of science.

Second, Walt’ colleagues view him as a “failed scientist” who, despite his brilliance, has been humiliated and reduced to teaching chemistry (at a low wage) to high school students. Listen to an exchange between Walt and his oncologist “I am an extremely overqualified high school chemistry teacher. When I can work I make $43,700 per year. I have watched all of my colleagues and friends surpass me in every way imaginable....” Unfortunately, Walt’s view of himself—as a lowly, underpaid high school chemistry teacher —is consistent with the attitudes of many academicians who feel that teaching is far less important or valuable than laboratory research. In my previous life as a medical school faculty member, it wasn’t uncommon to see a prominent researcher cringe or shake his/her head in disbelief at the mere mention of a teaching career by a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow. I contend that we ought to encourage (and not dissuade) some of our best and brightest students to pursue teaching instead of research careers. Further, academic researchers must begin to recognize that PhDs who choose to pursue careers in teaching are not less competent or failed scientists—they are simply individuals who want to teach! Given the 20-year long decline in American science and technology preparedness, the scientific community can no longer afford to continue to exclusively promote research over careers in teaching and education.

Finally, the American public has long been suspicious and distrustful of science. In support of this, scientists are often portrayed in literature, movies and in the news as dark, and sometimes mad people who, when left unchecked, will unleash scientific “horrors” on the world.  I am old enough to remember the public fears about the secret bio-warfare programs in the Soviet Union and US during the cold war and more recently, the rumor that was circulating after the HIV/AIDS epidemic was disclosed, that the virus was created by the US government. The brouhaha that erupted over genetic engineering in the 1980s and continued suspicions surrounded genetically modified foods and human cloning are other examples of the public’s distrust of science. Sadly, the decision of the Breaking Bad’s creators to turn Walt, whose chemistry brilliance is unrivaled, into a crystal meth cooker perpetuates the myth about “evil misguided scientists” who are willing to jeopardize the safety of others for their own motives or self gain. The creators of Breaking Bad want us to believe that Walt is justified in turning to the dark side because his power hungry, egomaniacal, scientific colleagues have derailed his career and forced him to become an overqualified, underpaid chemistry teacher. In other words, he had no choice but to use his scientific talents to survive, and perhaps, more importantly, prove to his colleagues (and himself) that he truly is a gifted chemist and not a failed scientist.

Admittedly, while the plot line of Breaking Bad is a little over the top, it tends to reinforce the public’s negative perceptions of scientists and does little to assuage suspicions about the dark underside of modern science.  Like most other people, we scientists are human and have made our share of mistakes. Nevertheless, I think that we  must challenge ourselves to make an effort to educate the American public about who we are and what scientists do on a day to day basis.  If we fail to meet this challenge, I think that President Obama will continue to struggle to “restore science to its rightful place in America.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try public education-schools are hiring!)

• 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

Vincent Racaniello, my partner at BioCrowd, and I were chatting the other day about how cool it would be to develop a web-based map that was able to track infectious diseases outbreaks in real time. After a spirited chat, we both thought that we were on to something REALLY big. And, as is frequently the case, somebody else also had the very same idea.

For those infectious disease aficionados out there, you must check out the Health Map: A Global Disease Alert Map. The map was developed by Clark Freifeld and John Brownstein and is based on an algorithm that is beyond my comprehension. It is not as robust as the map that Vincent and I envisioned, but it is pretty cool and it works very nicely.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Disease Hunting!!!!!!!

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

Unlike many other countries with national healthcare systems, US healthcare and prescription drug costs are primarily shouldered by employers. As healthcare costs continue to rise, many American employers are calling for the US government to assume more of the costs through nationalized healthcare. The opposite situation is unfolding in the rest of the world, where overburdened nationalized healthcare systems are forcing employers to pay for workers supplemental health care costs.

A recent survey conducted by Watson Wyatt found that in countries like India, China and Russia healthcare is the number 1 benefit desired by a majority of workers. Globally, companies are projecting large year-to-year increases in medical and healthcare costs. In many places, medical and healthcare costs are rising faster than inflation.

Contrary, to popular belief, it appears that the US is not the only country struggling with skyrocketing healthcare and prescription drug costs. The graph below shows the expected increases in national healthcare costs from 2007 to 2008 (source Watson Wyatt).

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