Statisticians and "Big Data" Analysts in High Demand

When I was a graduate student back in the dark ages, I took an advanced statistics course and then briefly worked in a laboratory where statistical analysis of data derived from animal models of disease (in this case the guinea pig model of tuberculosis) were essential. After leaving that lab, I developed an appreciation for the power of statistics (when appropriately designed according the laws of parametric statistics) and actually used statistical analyses of in vitro data for my PhD thesis. Unlike me, most of my contemporaries never understood statistics and thought that statistics can be used to manipulate data to confirm any hypothesis put forth by an investigator.

Imagine my surprise when I read in today’s NY Times that statistics are one of the hottest new career opportunities in technology and related industries. This is because billions of bytes of data (aka "big data sets")are generated daily and someone (usually a statistician or a person with knowledge of some arcane statistical analyses) is regarded to tease out trends and interpret the data. Companies like Google, Facebook, as wells as marketers, risk analysts, spies and companies that engage in competitive intelligence are desperately seeking new employees who understand applied statistic, analytics and trend analysis.

According to a recent LinkedIn survey, from 2009 to 2011 the number of new jobs with titles related to analytics grew 53%. Unfortunately, there are not enough trained or qualified persons available to fill these positions at most of these companies. Because of workforce shortages, universities like Stanford, Harvard and North Carolina State (NC State) have created graduate programs to train students in statistics and advanced analytics. 

Ninety per cent of NC State advanced analytic students (a 10 month program created in 2006) annually found jobs. The average graduate’s starting salary for an entry-level job is $73,000. Stanford and Harvard statistics department graduates head to Google, Wall Street and in many instances bioscience companies and start with salaries of over $100,000.

Not surprisingly, competition for entry to these programs is getting fierce. NC State takes only 40 new students per year in its program (185 applicants last year). Moreover, this year, Stanford received over 800 applications for 60 openings in next’ years class; nearly twice the number of applications that it received three years ago.

Like it or not “big data” and analytics are de rigueur and persons with advanced analytics training may be the new rock stars. That said if you like statistics or love to look for trends in large data sets then a career in analytics may be right for you. Now, you have to figure out where to get the training.

Until next time...

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

 

Creating Better Bosses--The Google Way

A common complaint amongst many employees is how awful the boss is! Sure, this may result from a bit of employee envy; after all who wouldn’t want the power and salary afforded to most “bosses.” But, the bottom line is that most bosses don’t go to “boss school” and many are elevated or placed in those positions without much formal training. In other words, there clearly room for improvement for many bosses. Unfortunately, the qualities and attributes of a “good” boss remain unclear.

Google, the ultimate masters and purveyors of analytical data have attempted to make them more clear by creating an algorithm that it thinks can help to decipher and identify the often time intangible qualities and attributes that most good bosses possess. The program dubbed Project Oxygen analyzed years of performance reviews, feedback surveys and awards nomination correlating words and phrases to create a list of so-called good behaviors and possible pitfalls of managers and executive. Project Oxygen took over a year and resulted in the following list.

Reprinted from the NY Times

While some of the positive behaviors on Google’s list may appear to be obvious, the fact that they were created based on analytical rather than entirely anecdotal data suggests that may be instructive and helpful. Interestingly, I think that the list of managerial pitfalls that Google identified may be more useful; mainly because these behaviors they are quite destructive and frequently the cause of low employee morale and corporate productivity.

Hat tip to Google!

Until next time...

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

 

 

Online Networking Sites Have Changed the Job Seeking Paradigm

Before the advent of social media, the only way job candidates could communicate to a hiring manager why they—rather than other applicants—were the right fit for a job was through a face-to-face interview. Conventional wisdom suggests that a skilled candidate who can also demonstrate a legitimate enthusiasm for a position is generally the applicant who wins out. However, the online world, specifically the social web, has changed all that.

Numerous studies suggest that over 70% of hiring managers screen prospective job applicants by trolling social networking sites like BioCrowd, Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. While some hiring managers do this to make sure that a potential new hire hasn’t done anything untoward or unseemly, the plethora of blogs, forums, Facebook and LinkedIn profiles and Twitter feeds enable them to get to know job applicants better than ever before. In some cases, a well-crafted and carefully managed Facebook or LinkedIn profile or blog can make the difference between a new job and unemployment.

This is not to say that jobseekers are required to have Facebook or LinkedIn page or Twitter feed to get hired. But, if executed correctly, they can help. That said, there are certain cardinal rules that must be followed to not run afoul of prospective new employers. These include:

  1. No swearing or use of foul language
  2. Do not post party or sexually-explicit photos
  3. Don’t say bad things about past employers or current co-workers
  4. Keep posts and status updates to a minimum and make sure that they are posted before or after working hours
  5. Avoid posting opinions about religion, sexual orientation and politics

Also, it is a good idea to Google yourself from time to time to see what the search results look like. Most employers routinely Google job applicants to acquire more information about prospective hires. As many social media gurus like to say “Google never forgets.”

Until next time...

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

 

Good News for Jobseekers: German Law Will Limit Employer Use of Facebook to Vet Job Candidates

Over 70 percent of hiring managers and HR professionals routinely use Google to find out more about prospective job candidates. While many jobseekers know this and do everything possible to expunge deleterious and compromising information from a Google search on their names, some don’t know that Facebook profiles are a routine target of all Google searches. Consequently, hiring managers may have access to some personal information (including photos) that may jeopardize a job candidate’s prospects.  

Today, German government officials proposed a new law that would place restrictions on employers who want to use Facebook profiles to recruit and vet job candidates. The bill would allow hiring managers to search for publicly accessible information about prospective employees on the Web and to view pages on job networking sites like LinkedIn, BioCrowd and Xing.  But it would not allow employers to access or use information about job candidates on purely social networks like Facebook. The proposed law would also prohibit companies from secretly videotaping employees except in certain areas as long as they disclosed the fact.

The idea of crafting legislation to limit company access to personal information of job candidates found on social networks like Facebook, Ning and others reveals the underlying paradox of the social media phenomenon. That is that people publicly, voluntarily and willingly offer private and intimate information about themselves as part of their right to freedom of expression and then that information can be used against them! In other words, the transparency and inherent freedom of expression offered by social media can in reality hinder, restrict or inhibit the professional and social opportunities of those who use it. I highly doubt that legislation similar to the proposed German law would ever see the light of day in the US.

For now, I highly recommend that jobseekers continue to routinely Google themselves to see what information is “out there” about them. Also, continue to limit access to personal profiles on Facebook and any other “purely social” online networking sites that you may belong too. Both activities will help to insure that the photo of you in a compromising position or with a beer bong in your hand won’t eliminate you as a prospective job candidate.

Until next time....

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

 

Pharma Beware: Google Sidewiki is Spreading Like...... H1N1 (not)!

For the past several weeks, the EyeonFDA blog has been reporting on the possible regulatory impact of Google’s Sidewiki on life sciences companies. For those of you who may not be familiar with Sidewiki  (released in late September) it is a new feature of the Google toolbar which can turn a static web 1.0 website into an interactive web 2.0 experience by allowing website visitors to leave comments behind.

When you use side-wiki, you have the ability to leave your comments and associate them with a website whether or not the website owner has enabled commenting.  Since the comments are maintained by Google, there is no direct relationship with the website.  Basically, anybody who visits a website that has Sidewiki enabled can say or comment on whatever they like and immortalize it (until Google removes it) for the entire world to see. Apparently, this doesn’t sit well with many website owners and Google purportedly recently release code to disable Sidewiki at websites that don’t want to support it. However, it isn’t clear how robust the anti-sidewiki code is!

While I haven’t formulated an opinion on Side Wiki yet (mostly because it isn’t that interesting to me), it does represent a regulatory dilemma for life sciences companies with marketed drugs and devices. According to today’s EyeonFDA post “If someone writes of an adverse event on a Sidewiki, or promotes an off-label use, it is now on the company's home page.  Is the company under a duty to monitor and correct such misinformation or if they do, do they incur liability for doing so?  It is a conundrum - and there is no insight apparent from the FDA on the matter.” Further, most life sciences companies have yet to craft a legal or regulatory policy for Sidewiki usage. 

EyeonFDA has been assiduously monitoring life sciences company websites for the appearance of Sidewiki. To date EyeonFDA has found it on the following company websites:

  1. Abbott
  2. Amgen
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Bayer
  5. Baxter
  6. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  7. GSK
  8. Johnson & Johnson
  9. Lilly
  10. Novartis
  11. Novo Nordisk
  12. Pfizer
  13. Roche
  14. Sanofi-Aventis
  15. Takeda

While Google would like everyone to believe that Sidewiki is taking the Internet by storm and spreading like the H1N1 virus, a show of hands at yesterdays e-Patient Connections 2009 meeting in Philly, which was attended by many computer geeks and social media enthusiasts, revealed that about4 out of about 150 had heard of it! Nevertheless, it is out there and life sciences companies would be well advised to formulate internal legal and regulatory guidelines despite the fact that FDA hasn’t issued any guidance on its use.

P.S. Shortly after I posted this, @pharmaguy alerted me to an article that appeared on the today's online PharmaExec.com entitled "SideWiki: What's Pharma To Do"?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Commenting

 

Social Media: Pharma's Continuing Web 2.0 Inertia

I came across a recent post on Adage.com entitled “Pharma Drops Search Advertising After FDA Warning” that revealed that paid search ads by pharmaceutical companies dropped a 84% between March 26 of this year and the end of June. As you may recall, March 26 was when 14 companies received warning letters from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicating that they had violated marketing guidelines for search ad advertising. The letters stated that sponsored-link advertisements for specific drugs were misleading due to the exclusion of risk information associated with the use of the drug -- even though the regulatory agency's guidelines are for print and broadcast, not online or social media. Pharma companies that believed they were in compliance with the unwritten "one-click rule"— taking the consumer from the ad to a site that offered fair balance and the risk information by clicking on the ad. What? Did I read that correctly; the words “unwritten and FDA” in the same sentence? This is very surprising since anybody who has worked with the agency is well aware of the “if it isn’t written it didn’t happen” principle. But I digress....

The post went on to say that pharmaceutical companies are “fearful of running afoul” of the agency again. Say what? The words “pharma and fearful” used in the same sentence? The point that I am trying to make is that pharma chose to keep things vague about web-based advertising to see how far they can push the envelope with FDA instead of taking the proverbial “bull by the horns” and directly asking FDA for guidance on web 2.0 technologies and their uses. Wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest if companies took a more active role to help craft new rules on the use of new media technologies rather then rely on and wait for FDA to do it for them? While the old “cat and mouse” game worked for old media, it is no longer tenable when it comes to Web 2.0 and related technologies.

The FDA is holding public hearings next month to begin the process of establishing internet advertising guidelines and the use of social media in the life science industry. This offers drug and devices companies an opportunity to show FDA that they no longer want to be part of the problem but part of the solution.  I have always subscribed to the notion that “you don’t get if you don’t ask!”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Surfing (on the Internet that is)

 

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

The Importance of Digital Communications During Infectious Diseases Oubreaks

As we all know, the H1NI pandemic has been raging on for close too 10 ten days now. Curiously, “Fear & The Flu: The New Age of Pandemics” is the title this week’s cover story in Newsweek magazine. From an informational standpoint point, “this may be too little, too late”—as the old saying goes. While the Internet has been around for over twenty years now, government agencies, most notably the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) continue to rely almost exclusively on old media to communicate with the American public during infectious disease outbreaks. Apparently, the administrators who run these government agencies haven’t been listening closely enough to President Obama’s assertion that “we live in the digital age.”

Communications between the public and government health officials is vital when trying to manage and control infectious disease outbreaks. “Every single government agency as well as companies and non-profits need to be digitally literate and competent in a time of pandemic” asserts Eye on FDA blogger Mark Senak. For their performances in recent infectious disease outbreaks, Mark gives CDC an “A” for effort—although there is substantial room for improvement. FDA on the other hand didn’t fair as well. “The FDA is not nearly as sophisticated in terms of digital. Their only Twitter account is for food recalls.  And their YouTube channels are all confusing and unorganized. They have a long way to go.”

The Internet was originally designed as a digital tool to transmit and move large amounts of information from one place to another. That said, it is also a powerful communication vehicle that can be used to broadcast valuable, scientifically-accurate information during infectious disease outbreaks by leveraging social media tools like Twitter, Facebook and instant messaging. To that end, it’s time for public health agencies to recognize the power of digital media and craft communication plans that can be implemented in the next infectious disease outbreak.

Until next time...

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

 SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

The Swine Flu Epidemic: It Isn't The First and Won't Be the Last!

Do you lie awake a night overwhelmed by the possibility of another infectious disease outbreak? Well, if you want to get a good night’s sleep, I highly recommend that you take a look at a brief history of American epidemics that was published in this past Sunday’s New York Times. According to the article, history shows that the number of American epidemics has been relatively small. In fact, the author suggests that there were only nine major epidemics in the US since 1892. 

While there were several major outbreaks in the early to mid 1900s (Spanish flu, 1918; smallpox, 1947 and polio, 1952), the US has been relatively unscathed in recent years—with the possible exception of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and possibly the herpes and HPV epidemics. This is because of America’s outstanding infectious diseases surveillance networks, its comprehensive vaccination programs and modern medical and hospital infrastructures.

However, no matter how vigilant we are, there is no way to prevent infectious disease outbreaks unless the pathogens that cause the diseases are eradicated from the planet as was the case for the smallpox virus. That said, the best way to manage infectious disease epidemics is to be prepared for all contingencies.  In my opinion, the recent swine flu outbreak—this was its second appearance, the first taking place in 1976—was a practice run. And I think the world did “pretty, pretty good” as Larry David, my former NYC softball teammate and co-creator of Seinfeld would say!

Until next time...

 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

 

New Technology: Using Google to Track the Flu

No matter what you may think of Google, you gotta love the brilliance and innovative moxy of the guys who run that company. In today’s New York Times, there was a story about a new web tool called Google Flu Trends. This tool is being evaluated as a new early warning system for fast-spreading flu outbreaks in the US.

Tests of Google Flu Trends, suggest that it may be able to detect regional outbreaks of the flu a week to 10 days before they are reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It works by tracking and quantifying number of Americans who enter search phrases like “flu symptoms” into Google and other search engines. By analyzing these searches as they come in, Google Flu Trends creates graphs and maps of the country that show where the flu is spreading.  For example, in early February the CDC reported that the flu cases had recently spiked in the Mid-Atlantic States. But Google says its search data showed a spike in queries about flu symptoms two weeks before the CDC report was released.

According to public health experts “The CDC reports are slower because they rely on data collected and compiled from thousands of health care providers, labs and other sources. The Google data could help accelerate the response of doctors, hospitals and public health officials to a nasty flu season, reducing the spread of the disease and, potentially, saving lives.” Researchers have long contended that information published on the Web amounts to a form of “collective intelligence” that can be used to spot trends and make predictions.

Google Flu Trends appears to be the first public project that uses the powerful database of a search engine to track a disease. This could be the beginning of a new trend in epidemiology. Google hopes to publish the results of its study in Nature.

Until next time…

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

 

Is Google Health Really Different?

Karen Ventii is a science/ medical writer and blogger—Science to Life blog—based in Atlanta GA. She is currently working on her Ph.D. in the field of cancer biochemistry at Emory University. Karen has posted some really cool stuff on her blog. I thought it would be fun to bring a younger perspective to my blog (especially on topics that I know very little about). So, let me know what you think about the following post!

Google Health, the latest service from Google, was launched about three weeks ago as a beta version. Online personal health services have been around for a while (including Revolution Health and Microsoft's HealthVault) but here's what Google says is different about theirs:

1. Portability: Through Google Health, you will be able to have access and control over your health data from anywhere. People who travel will be able to move health data between their various health providers seamlessly and with total control.

2. Ease of use: Clean, easy-to-use user experience that makes managing your health information straightforward and easy.

3. Partnerships: Due to the integration of third-party services you'll be able to automatically import information such as your doctors' records, your prescription history, and your test results into Google Health in order to easily access and control your data. In the future you will be able to do things like schedule appointments and refill prescriptions.

4. Security: Google Health will protect the privacy of your health information by giving you complete control over your data.

I was particularly curious about the security issue. Google Health is not regulated by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)-the national policy on health information privacy-because Google does not provide health care services.

In an Associated Press article, Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, said that by transferring records to an external service, patients could unwittingly make it easier for the government, a legal adversary or a marketing concern to obtain private information.

Google has provided a chart describing how their data confidentiality practices compare to those mandated by HIPAA. I am no expert on health information security but based on this chart, Google's policies appear fairly similar to HIPAA's.