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

Much has been written about how supportive the pharmaceutical industry has been about US healthcare reform. Prior to the debate, the Obama administration gleefully announced that pharma will give $80 billion in drug discounts in exchange for certain assurances that weren’t publicly disclosed. As most of us know, the US House of Representatives passed historic healthcare reform legislation last week and in addition to a public option it stipulates that pharma will be required to give $140 billion in drug discounts. According to Ed Silverman over at the newly reinstated Pharmalot blog, AstraZeneca CEO David Brennan, who is also this year’s chair of the industry trade group PhRMA, vowed that pharma would fight the house healthcare reform legislation. 

While Brennan’s statement isn’t surprising nor particularly noteworthy, his comments explaining pharma’s position on healthcare reform are revealing and important to understand. He told the Huffington Post “We said there were principles we didn’t want to see violated. And if those principles - price controls, Medicare rebates, moving dual eligibles back from Medicare and back into the Medicaid discount program - if those things happen, I can’t see how we could be supportive of the program.” In other words, we will support anything you propose— and may even be willing to kick in another $60 billion or so to support healthcare reform— but any discussion about government regulation of drug prices is a deal breaker! 

To my knowledge, this is the first public mention of price controls by any pharmaceutical executive during the almost year long debate on healthcare reform. The reason that I find Brennan’s statement interesting is that I have long contended that pharma will give the Obama administration and Congress anything it wants in exchange for assurances that the government will not attempt to control drug prices. For those of you who don’t know, the US is one of the only countries in the world where the government is prohibited from setting drug prices. This means that US drug makers in concert with insurance companies and third party payors can set drug prices based on what the American pharmaceutical market can bear. Not surprisingly, the profit margins on drugs sold in the US are the highest in the world. Obviously, pharma doesn’t want the US government hindering or limiting their profits by setting or capping drug prices. 

I am glad that pharma has finally decided to publicly “come clean” on the price control issue. The public option and issues surrounding data exclusivity for follow-on biologics pale in comparison to the financial havoc that price controls would wreak on the pharmaceutical industry. And, I suspect that pharma and its lobbyists will do whatever it takes to insure that price controls never become a reality in the US. However, at the end of the day, government regulation of drug and device prices will ultimately be required for any meaningful changes to take place to the US healthcare system.

Hat tip to Ed!

Until next time...

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

Addendum: After writing this post this weekend, an article appeared in Monday's New York Times that revealed that the drug industry has quietly been raising its wholesale prices on prescription drugs over the past year.  This, of course, was done in anticipation of possible federal legislation that might impose some government controls on drug pricing.  According to the Times article: "In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year.  Not surprisingly, the US pharmaceutical industry justifies the practice because as an industry spokesperson put it  "they are having to raise prices to maintain the profits necessary to invest in research and development of new drugs as the patents on many of their most popular drugs are set to expire over the next few years."  Hmmmm, interesting comment considering the US pharmaceutical industry has layed off over 180,000 employees over the past three years, a majority of whom are R&D scientists...go figure!

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

The bad news is that the US unemployment rate is close to 10 percent. The good news is that the government is looking for scientists at FDA, NIH, USDA, CDC, EPA and other agencies. For those of you who haven’t applied for a government job, the process can be daunting and overwhelming. To alleviate some of the pain, Cyndi Fischer, MSA at the BioCareer Center has written a post on the salient features of filling out a job application for a government job!

Capturing Your Worth in a Government Job Application 

You’d like to consider government employment but are not sure where to start. You know the government has a generous compensation and benefit plan, can offer long term employment stability, and in most cases its employees do not need to seek research grants or funding to continue their rewarding scientific work. Sounds like a dream, so why haven’t you applied? Perhaps you’ve heard that it’s hard to get a government job, that the hiring process is mysterious, slow and a confusing maze of information. While some of those concerns are valid some of the time, government employment has such positive benefits it is indeed a career path you don’t want to overlook. The most important thing to remember about applying for a government position is that all the items that appear to be drawbacks to you in the application phase, are really set in place to ensure that the most qualified candidate, hopefully you, will get the job!

So what do you need to know to ensure that you have the best shot at being considered for a coveted research position within the government? First you must apply to a vacancy announcement published by the government in order to be considered, and subsequently offered employment. Almost all government entities now use an automated system to post vacancy announcements and receive applications. The most widely used website to post vacancy announcements is USAJOBS.opm.gov. Once you have established an account on the site and placed your resume in the space available, you are ready to apply for any vacancy announcement you would like. Be keenly aware though, this is where attention to detail separates the candidates to be interviewed from the resumes in the scrap pile. The government hiring system revolves around merit. Specifically, the candidate who has the most knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) to be successful in the vacant position should be offered the job, as the desired KSA’s for an opening are derived from the position description itself. Your role is to ensure that you capture your KSA’s as accurately as possible so that you are considered for the positions you are most qualified to hold.

If KSA’s are the key to government employment, how do you ensure you include everything that needs to be considered? In many cases this will be easy to discern as the vacancy announcement will list specific KSA questions prompting your response. If there are questions that seek specific answers, it is a requirement that you answer them or your application will not even be considered. In the event there are not specific questions presented, you must ensure you cover the likely KSA’s for that position within the body of your resume. Knowing what the KSA’s are for the position being advertised is one

aspect of being qualified for the position you are seeking. Let’s take a quick look at each element of the KSA’s so you know how to present your talents.

Knowledge covers the body of intellectual information you possess that will assist you in the position. This knowledge is not limited to your academic knowledge, though critical, but encompasses all aspects of what you know that pertain to the position. Included in your mental reference library are federal, state and local regulations that govern the work you will be doing, policies and procedures that apply to the work environment, industry standards and cutting edge technology that you are current in that would make you a good fit for the position. Essentially any knowledge that you possess and can articulate in your resume that is pertinent to the job you are seeking is something you should capture in your resume or the KSA questions presented as part of the announcement.

Skills represent the manipulation of systems, processes, people and things that will allow you to be competent in the position in question. They can include specific skills that require you to operate technical equipment or work with particular software or hardware systems or they may be more generic such as the skills required to communicate effectively. These skills are often the core competencies of the position and are incredibility important. Conversely, some of them are areas that professionals often under-report in their resumes as they take many of these skills for granted such as problem solving, creative thinking, decision making and stress tolerance. In most cases, government application software systems allow you a very generous amount of character space to document your KSA’s or resume, so leave no skill uncaptured!

Abilities refer to your capabilities as they apply to the work environment. Your ability to manage people and programs; to organize, plan, implement, and evaluate; to analyze, supervise or otherwise effectively impact the mission of the organization. One of the unique aspects of this element is that you do not have to have a vast work history to quantify what you can offer an employer in this category. You may have organized a large volunteer effort or been part of a regional political campaign. Any quantifiable information that depicts your role in a challenging environment which allows you to capture the results of your efforts is value added in this element.

Government employment has many rewarding aspects – not the least of which is that the infrastructure of the whole civil service is based on merit. Now that you know a little more about how to present yourself and what you have to offer in the three key government consideration areas (KSA’s) you are one step closer to accepting your first federal research position. Remember it’s not what you know and what you can do that counts in a job application; it’s what the selecting official knows you can do that matters. Good luck!

Cyndi Fischer, MSA is the Director of Strategic Recruitment for STG International. As a Human Capital Management specialist her work concentrates on agency level recruitment strategies and workforce planning. During her tenure at STG, Mrs. Fischer has designed and implemented recruitment strategies, branding techniques, and succession plans for many federal agencies seeking Phd/MD level candidates for research, managerial, and professional opportunities. Mrs. Fischer has a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice and Psychology and a Master of Science in Administration degree in Human Resources. www.stginternational.com

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

Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, announced on Thursday that it is unveiling a new program that will let people who have lost their jobs and health insurance to keep taking Pfizer medications — for free, and for up to a year. The company will provide more than 70 of its prescription drugs ranging from Viagra to Lipitor at no costs to unemployed and uninsured Americans who lost their jobs since Jan. 1 and have been taking Pfizer drugs for me than three months. It is not clear how much Pfizer will spend on the program and whether or not costs will be capped.

The announcement comes amid massive job losses caused by the recession and a campaign in Washington to rein in health care costs and extend coverage. The move could earn Pfizer some goodwill in that debate after long being a target of critics of drug industry prices and sales practices. The program also likely will help keep those patients loyal to Pfizer brands. Don't be surprised if other pharmaceutical companies announce similar program over the next few weeks.

Pfizer and the rest of the drug industry wants is trying to have a voice in the debate over how to overhaul the U.S. health care system, partly by joining in a pledge this week to help hold down inflation of health costs. In the mean time, drug companies have been raising prices on their drugs, partly to offset declines in revenue as the global recession reduces the number of prescriptions people can afford to fill.

Pfizer ought to be commended on the program and its concern for the health and well being of unemployed and uninsured Americans. However, it is important to point out that this is little more than a high profile, marketing campaign designed to improve the image of drug makers. More important, it is the first public acknowledgement that drug makers are willing to engage legislators in discussions about how to reform healthcare to reduce costs and cut expenditures. 

What really is at stake here is whether or not the US government will begin regulating drug prices as part of a comprehensive healthcare reform package. As many of you may know, the US government, unlike most other governments in the world, cannot negotiate or set prescription drugs prices. Not surprisingly, the US prescription drug market is the largest and most profitable in the world. It will be interesting to see how the US healthcare reform discussion unfolds—clearly a lot is at stake for the American prescription drug industry.

Until next time...

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

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

The US economy has lost about 7.1 million jobs since December 2007 and nationwide unemployment is hovering around 8.5 percent. Despite the lost of  about 80,000 pharmaceutical jobs over the past three years and unprecedented consolidation taking place in the life sciences sector—Merck-Schering Plough, Pfizer-Wyeth and Roche-Genentech—the job prospects for scientists at biotech companies, medical devices and diagnostics, and government appear to be stronger than anticipated. While drug discovery and sales jobs may be scare, there are rapidly emerging opportunities in the fields of medical communications, regulatory affairs, biomanufacturing, clinical trials management , bioengineering, medical devices/diagnostics and website development and management.

President Obama’s promise to restore science to its rightful place, his reversal of the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and an unwavering commitment to alternate energy technologies suggest that the future may be very bright for bioscientists. For example, there are massive hiring initiatives at federal agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Unites States Department of Agriculture (UDSA) — as the Obama administration attempts to overall these agencies— and funding levels at the National Institutes of Health are on the rise (aided in part by a $200 million Challenge Grant stimulus program).

While the road to economic recovery may be a long one, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who are currently engaged in life sciences research should “stay the course and not jump ship just yet.” The life sciences industry is more recession proof than others and it will be one of the first to experience an economic turn around. And, when it does it is best to prepared to find a job!

Until next time…

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

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

In the February issue of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, J. Leslie Glick a former CEO of Genex and veteran of the biotechnology industry put forward a novel solution to financial crisis that is currently gripping the life sciences industry and the rest of the US economy. Dr. Glick proposed that the US government ought to consider injecting taxpayer monies into venture capital firms (VC) which, he believes, would foster creation of new companies, create more jobs, stimulate the ailing economy and also provide the government with an outstanding return on its investment.

According to Dr. Glick, “historical results reported by the National Venture Capital Association for the 20 year period ending December 31, 2007, show an annualized return of 16.7% to investors in some 1,860 U.S. venture capital and private equity partnerships. If the U.S. government had made annual investments of $10 billion in VC firms throughout the U.S. during that 20year period, the $200 billion total investment would have yielded a total return of almost $1.5 trillion.” Further, he asserts that according to the  International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce, from 1970 to 2000, U.S. VC firms invested over $270 billion in more than 16,000 companies. In 2000, the surviving VC-backed companies employed 7.6 million people, representing 5.9% of all U.S. jobs, and generated sales of $1.3 trillion, accounting for 13.1% of the U.S. GDP.

This financial upside sound enticing but who is going to keep track of the money and keep an eye on how and what the VCs are investing in? Dr. Glick proposes creation of a non-partisan funding mechanism, possibly overseen by an independent panel of business people that would disburse $10 to $25 billion annually of taxpayer’s dollars to vetted and certified VC firms. Because of its investment, the US government would become a limited partner in these firms and could direct them to invest in technologies that would help to reduce health care costs, develop energy alternatives or improve food production capacity. While this proposal is unprecedented and controversial, we are living in extremely uncertain financial times that may necessitate innovative and out-of-the-box solutions to restore normalcy to the US economy. That said, all proposals—no mater how unconventional or outrageous—ought to be carefully evaluated and vetted to determine whether or not they have merit to help overcome our deepening recession.

Kudos to Dr. Glick!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Investing!!!!!!

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

It seems that every day a new American industry asks the US government for a bailout because of impending financial exigency. That said, I was somewhat surprised to learn today that the biotechnology industry is planning to ask Congress for a bailout. The plan calls for Congress to temporarily changes tax laws to allow unprofitable biotech companies to get cash now, in exchange for tax credits that they would pledge not to take if they eventually become profitable. The companies that receive the cash would pledge that the money would be used ONLY for research and development activities. The reasoning behind the proposed government bailout is that the infused capital would allow struggling biotech companies to keep their current employees, stay in business and help to stimulate the US economy. It is not clear whether or not all biotechnology companies—publicly traded or privately held—would be eligible for the bailout package.

Currently, there are 327 publicly traded and roughly 1,000 privately held biotechnology companies in the US. A majority of these companies are not profitable and operate almost exclusively on institutional and private venture capital funds. According to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), 125 of 327 public companies currently have less than 6 months of cash on hand—nearly double the total last year. It is not surprising that the biotechnology industry like most other US industries is struggling and feeling the impact of recent financial meltdown—there simply isn’t enough liquidity in the system to keep all companies afloat. While I am not opposed in principle to government bailouts, there are several reasons why the proposed rescue plan for the biotechnology industry doesn’t sense to me.

First, unlike the automobile industry which employs millions of workers, the biotechnology industry only employs about 200,000 workers, many of whom have advanced degrees and possess specialized technical skills. And, studies show that during recessionary periods workers with specialized skills are more likely to find employment after losing a job than their unskilled counterparts. This suggest that it may be better for the American economy in the long run if the government bails out the auto industry before it even considers a bailout for biotech. Nevertheless, BIO is actively lobbying for a government bailout because it believes that a bailout will not only stimulate the American economy but also help to “preserve American innovation and competitiveness.” Of interest, the pharmaceutical industry which shed over 123,000 jobs in the last year or so is not asking for government assistance. As one Washington lobbyist aptly quipped after hearing about the proposed biotech bailout: saving “research-based companies that employ 30 people won’t necessarily stimulate the economy.”

Second, the biotechnology business is inherently a very risky one. The failure rate among biotech companies is roughly 90%. And, as many of you know, biotechnology companies are always started with venture capital from investors who are willing to invest in risky projects because of possible financially-lucrative returns. Because of this, biotechnology executives are generally beholden to their investors rather than their shareholders, stakeholders or employees. Unfortunately, important business decisions are frequently made at venture-backed biotech companies for financial reasons rather than scientific or medical ones. Further, many financially-challenged, biotechnology companies that would benefit from the bail out started up almost a decade ago when venture capital was abundant and IPOs were daily events. In retrospect, many of these companies shouldn’t have been started in the first place because their technology platforms were either inadequately vetted or their business models were fundamentally flawed. I believe that these financially troubled companies ought to be allowed to fail just like the technology companies that had to close down in the early 2000s after the Internet bubble finally burst.

Third, why should unprofitable companies without products or revenues be bailed out and rewarded for failure? As I posited in a previous post, a company really isn’t a business until it has a product, generates revenues and turns a profit (or at least break even). If a company cannot create a viable business after 5-10 years of capital investments then it wasn’t a good value proposition at the outset. Perhaps a better use of the proposed bailout money would be for the US government to create public funding vehicles for companies that have developed promising new drugs that already have proof of concept in humans and are ready for clinical testing.

Finally, over the past decade, the biotechnology industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against the reimportation of drugs from foreign companies and the development of so-called follow-on biologics (potentially cheaper versions of blockbuster biotechnology drugs that have lost patent protection). This decade-long lobbying effort was undertaken to preserve America’s biotechnology monopoly and to insure that biotech drug prices remain high. Maybe BIO and its member companies should have considered using some of those monies to help struggling biotechnology companies rather than using it to influence politicians for tax breaks and pork barrel legislative initiatives.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, why should taxpayer dollars be used to bailout an industry that has actively opposed and steadfastly refused to provide ALL Americans with access to reasonably priced, potentially life-saving biotech drugs? Because the biotechnology industry isn’t fundamentally different than any other American industry, I believe that the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest ought” to be applied to it. Unless, of course, you work on Wall Street or in Detroit—but don’t get me started!

Until next time…

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

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

For the past 60 years, American science was second to none. However, the US is perilously close to losing that distinction. Put simply, American science, like its economy, is in free fall.

Federal funding, primarily through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the lifeblood of American life sciences research. Between 1998 and 2003, the federal government doubled NIH’s budget every year—almost 25% of all grant applications were funded and life was good! However, since 2003, budget increases have vanished and the NIH remains trapped in a five year run of flat funding. Research funding rates have fallen to 10% or less and many academic scientists are voluntarily leaving or being forced out of their jobs.

This is not the first time that funding levels have plummeted. From 1989 to about 1994 (when I was a tenure track Assistant Professor), funding rates fell from about 20% to less than 10%. However, back then, there was little global research competition and American was able to recover to retain its scientific dominance. However, the world is a very different place now and the supremacy of American science, particularly in the life sciences, is clearly at risk.

According to an article in the Trenton Times, (my local paper), science and engineering have accounted for close to half of the growth in the American economy since World War II. Analysts suggest that without adequate research funding and ready access to research grants fewer scientists will enter the profession. “Already Asian countries are graduating 10 times the number of scientists and engineers as the United States. If the current trends continue in about a decade 90% of the world’s scientists and engineers will be in Asia” According to Elias Zerhouni, current director of NIH “In 10 to 15 years we’ll have scientists older than 65 than those younger than 35. This is not a sustainable trend in biomedical research.” Unless federal funding for research is increased this ominous trend will continue. That said, it may be too little too late. As you all know, finding science jobs in the US these days is becoming increasingly difficult even for qualified applicants. With this in mind, one of the most well attended talks that I give at career development symposia is entitled “The Road Less Traveled: Alternate Career Paths for Life Scientists”. As much as I hate to admit it, traditional career pathways for most life scientists may be things of the past.

Clearly, something must be done to fix the problem in order to maintain the quality of American science. The easy fix, which has been used ad nauseam for the pasts two decades, is to increase short term federal research spending. However, history indicates that this approach fosters the boom and bust cycles that have continually plagued American academic science. Although the boom and bust approach is quintessentially American, I don’t think that it will enable American science to sustain its scientific dominance in today’s increasingly competitive world.

The number of young people interested in or entering science continues to plummet in the US. Ironically, the quality and access to American science education has never been better! So, why the disconnect? It’s simple—science jobs are scare, the pay is not great and life as an academician has become almost unsustainable. In my opinion, something has to change very soon or America will almost certainly lose its status as the preeminent purveyor of science in the world.

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time….

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

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