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

Can getting high be more important than sex? Probably not if you are in your teens or early 20s, but if you are of  an age where managing the nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy or the pain of glaucoma then medical marijuana is likely to be more important than the need for sex! But, to be fair, despite the title of this post, Viagra will lose patent protection shortly (in some places it already has) and the drugs sales have been shrinking. Nevertheless, a report authored by See Change LLC, a Colorado company that provides investment advice to businesses found that the sale of  that medical marijuana has already reached $1.7 billion (in states where it is legal) as compared with annual Viagra sales of $1.9 billion!  

Unfortunately, See Change LLC is charging $1,150 for the report. And since I don't have the money to purchase  it, I cannot determine the veracity or accuracy of the report. But, according to comments made by the editor of the report roughly 1 in 4 Americans lives in a state in which medical marijuana is legal, and that nearly 25 million people in those states have medical problems for which the drug can be prescribed. The report suggests that medical marijuana sales will reach $8.9 billion in five years.

Despite repeated scientific findings that medical marijuana can be used to effectively treat a variety of clinical indications that include chronic pain, nausea and anxiety, the myth of marijuana as a gateway drug to more serious drug like cocaine, heroin and others has been indelibly burned into the American psyche—not withstanding the statistics that show that prescription drugs like OcyContin, fentanyl and methamphetamine are the most abused drugs in America.  

While marijuana hasn’t been a part of my life for over 35 years, there is no question that it has enormous therapeutic value and ought to be legally prescribed when appropriate. In my opinion, the only thing that is preventing marijuana from being legalized is a business model that allows corporate America and the US government to maximize profits  from sale of the "deadly weed." 

It is time for Americans to forever expunge the "unbridled horrors" of Refer Madness from their collective psyches!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (be careful out there)

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

In a first-of-its-kind study, researchers at the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group tracked the civil and criminal financial penalties levied against the pharmaceutical industry for wrongdoing over the past 20 years. 

The main findings of the study revealed:

1. Of the 165 settlements comprising $19.8 billion in penalties during this 20-year interval, 73 percent of the settlements (121) and 75 percent of the penalties ($14.8 billion) have occurred in just the past five years (2006-2010).
2. Four companies (GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Schering-Plough) accounted for more than half (53 percent or $10.5 billion) of all financial penalties imposed over the past two decades. These leading violators were among the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies.
3. The practice of illegal off-label promotion of pharmaceuticals has been responsible for the largest amount of financial penalties levied by the federal government over the past 20 years. This practice can be prosecuted as a criminal offense because of the potential for serious adverse health effects in patients from such activities.
4. Deliberately overcharging state health programs, mainly Medicaid fraud, has been the most common violation against state governments and is responsible for the largest amount of financial penalties levied by these governments. This type of violation is also the main factor in the considerable increase in state settlements with pharmaceutical companies over time.
5. Former pharmaceutical company employees and other “whistleblowers” have been instrumental in bringing to light the most egregious violations and have been responsible for initiating the largest number of federal settlements over the past 10 years. From 1991 through 2000, qui tam (whistleblower) cases made up only 9 percent of payouts to the government, but from 2001 through 2010, they comprised 67 percent of total payouts.

The companies, their missteps and the fines imposed are shown below:

The authors conclude:

"Over the past two decades, especially during the past 10 years, there has been a marked increase in both the number of government settlements with pharmaceutical companies and the size of the accompanying financial penalties. Given the relatively small size of current financial penalties when compared to the perpetrating companies’ profits, both increased financial penalties and appropriate criminal prosecution of company leadership may provide a more effective deterrent to unlawful behavior by the pharmaceutical industry."

Interestingly, about a month ago officials at the US Food and Drug Administration signaled that were willing to prosecute company executives to the fullest extent possible (including criminal prosecution) to reduce the incidence of fraud, off-label marketing and manufacturing violations that have become commonplace in the pharmaceutical industry in the past five years.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

I counsel a large number of foreign students as part of my career development activities. Over the years, I learned that questions regarding a job candidate’s personal information like nationality, religion, marital status etc are permissible and perfectly legal in countries other than the US. Consequently, I decided that it may be instructive for job candidates to learn what questions are acceptable and those that are not during a face-to-face interview for positions at US companies. 

Much of the information presented in the post was gleaned from an article written by Porcshe Moran of Yahoo Finance.

The following are examples of illegal questions that SHOULD NEVER be uttered by interviewers during a US job interview.

1. How old are you?

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), protects individuals who are 40 or older from being discriminated against in the workplace in favor of younger employees. There is no federal protection in place to protect workers younger than 40 from age discrimination. To determine if you are legally eligible to perform a job, employers are allowed to ask if you are over the age of 18.

2. Are you married?

Questions about marital status are prohibited. Employers might be tempted to ask this question to find out if your relationship could have a negative impact on your work. For example, if you are married you might be more likely to leave the company if your spouse gets a job transferred to a different city. Even a question as seemingly innocent as "Do you wish to be addressed as Mrs., Miss, or Ms.?" is not allowed.

3. Are you a U.S. citizen?

Citizenship and immigration status cannot be used against a potential employee during the hiring process according to The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Employers must wait until after a job offer had been extended to require a worker to complete the Employment Eligibility Verification (I-9) Form and submit documentation that proves identity and employment authorization. It is lawful for an employer to ask an interviewee if they are authorized to work in the US.

4. Do you have any disabilities?

This question might seem necessary to determine if a job applicant can perform the required duties, but it is illegal to ask under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Employers cannot discount anyone from a job because of a physical or mental disability. In fact, the law requires that they accommodate disabilities unless they can prove it would cause significant difficulty or expense to do so. Employers also cannot ask you if you have had any past illnesses or operations.

5. Do you take drugs, smoke or drink?

Concerns about drug, alcohol or nicotine addictions are valid as they can impact an employee's quality of work and the rates of a company's health insurance coverage. However, an employer might find themselves in legal trouble if they don't frame questions about these potential problems in a careful manner. They are allowed to ask if you have ever been disciplined for violating company policies about the use of alcohol and tobacco products. They can also ask directly if you use illegal drugs, but an employer can't inquire about your use of prescription medications.

6. What religion do you practice?

Inquires about religious beliefs are a sensitive issue. An interviewer might be curious for scheduling reasons such as holidays that an employee might need off, or if the candidate will be unavailable to work on weekends because of religious obligations. It is illegal to intentionally discriminate against an employee or harass them based on their religious beliefs. Employers are required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices in regards to things such as dress and grooming policy and flexible scheduling.

7. What is your race?

There is no situation in which questions about an employee's race or skin color should be use to determine their eligibility for a job. This protection is granted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Employers are permitted to ask an employee to reveal their race on a voluntary basis for affirmative action purposes.

8. Are you pregnant?

Questions about family status tend to affect women the most, but they can also pertain to men in certain situations. Employers might have concerns about an employee taking time off work for pregnancy leave or not having child care arrangements during work hours.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act states that an employer cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients or customers.

It is, however, lawful for employers to ease their nerves about an employee's availability or commitment to a position by asking about long-term career goals or the ability for an employee to work overtime and travel.

Click the link common interview questions for other examples of some questions that should not be asked.

The Bottom Line
It is important to know your rights as an employee. Unlawful questions are not acceptable on applications, during the interview process or in the workplace. Although improper questions by employers might be simple mistakes, they could also be intentional cases of discrimination. 

While it is good to know your “rights,” I wouldn’t be surprised if some of you may be asked these questions during a job interview. Whether or not you respond to the question(s) is up to you. However, if the personal questions that are asked make you uncomfortable, let the interviewer know as professionally as possible that he/she is treading in dangerous territory. After the interview is over, you may want to contact the company’s Human Resources department to report the incident so that future job candidates may avoid similar unpleasant and illegal experiences.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The public hearing held by FDA last week in Washington DC to address social media and promotional advertising in the pharmaceutical seems to have altered the agency’s perspective on all things digital. Today, according to a press release, marked the agency’s completion of a coordinated week long international effort called the International Week of Action (IIWA) that was intended to curb illegal actions involving medical and pharmaceutical products.

During the effort, the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI), in conjunction with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Enforcement, targeted 136 Web sites that appeared to be engaged in the illegal sale of unapproved or misbranded drugs to U.S. consumers. None of the Web sites are for pharmacies in the United States or Canada.

The agency issued 22 warning letters to the operators of these Web sites and notified Internet service providers and domain name registrars that the Web sites were selling products in violation of U.S. law. In many cases, because of these violations, Internet service providers and domain name registrars may have grounds to terminate the Web sites and suspend the use of domain names. Apparently, FDA has taken to sending warning letter en masse—it previously sent identical warning letters to 14 different pharmaceutical companies for improprieties associated with Google search ads.

Is there really a sea change taking place at FDA? Will a carefully and thoughtfully- crafted guidance document on the use of social media be next; now that the agency is no longer afraid to navigate the Internet? Only time will tell....hopefully sooner, rather than later!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Surfing!!!!!!!!!

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