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

Last week, US unemployment dipped to 8.6%, it lowest level since 2008. Stock markets rose and everyone was buoyed by a possible economic recovery. What a difference one week can make. Today, Astra Zeneca announced that it will layoff 1,150 sales reps; a few short weeks after announcing plans to eliminate 400 jobs at is US headquarters in Wilmington, DE. The company currently employs about 61,000 workers worldwide, including 14, 000 in North America.

According to the president of Astra Zeneca US, today’s announcement is part of the larger layoff of 10, 400 employees announced back in 2010. These layoffs are largely the result of loss of patent protection for several of Astra Zeneca’s largest selling drugs including Crestor (cholesterol), Nexium (acid reflux) and Sereoquel (anti-pyschotic).  Today’s announcement brings the total of US pharmaceutical employees who lost their jobs this year to about 20,000 according to a post on the Pharmalot blog.

Tis the season, after all!

Until next time...

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

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

Fierce Biotech conducted its annual survey to identify top female executives in the biotechnology industry. After receiving 130 nominations, they compiled a Top 10 List for 2011.  While some notable women executives may not have made it onto the 2011list, there is always next year.

Their list is as follows:

1. Katrine Bosley—CEO, Avila Therapeutics
2. Susan Desmond-Hellman, MD—Chancellor of USCF (formerly @ Genentech)
3. Deborah Dunsire,MD—President and CEO, Millennium, the Takeda Oncology Company
4. Carol Gallagher—CEO, Calistoga Pharmaceuticals
5. Melinda Gates—Co-Founder and Co-Chair, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
6. Maxine Gowen, PhD, MBA—President and CEO, Trevna
7. Rachel King—CEO, GlycoMimetics
8. Tina Nova, PhD—CEO Genoptix Medical Laboratory
9. Gail Schulze—CEO& Executive Chair of the Board, Zosano
10. Daphne Zohar—Pure Tech Ventures

If you think that someone who is not on the list deserves to be there, add a comment to this post.

Congrats to the women who made the list!

Until next time...

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

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

Most aspiring young scientists tell me that they love doing bench work and that they want to do it for their entire career. I am never certain whether they actually feel that way or they are simply telling me what they think I want to hear.  Nevertheless, I want to share my own feelings about bench work because I think it may be instructive for jobseekers who may not be entirely certain about their chosen career paths.

While I enjoyed doing research, first as a graduate student and then as a postdoc, bench work was not much fun for me and I found that the less I did it the happier I was. This should have been a warning sign but I ignored it because I believed that once I landed a tenure track position and had my own laboratory that I would be spending much less time at the bench. Much to my dismay that assumption was completely wrong and for the next seven years I was always at the bench when I was not writing grants, papers, serving on committees or teaching. And, not surprisingly, I resented it! But, then again, what did I expect? After all, I was a research scientist!

Interestingly, I have come to know that I am not the only card-carrying PhD life scientist who was not completely enamored with bench work. Many graduate students and postdocs share with me their aversion to bench work and their desire to get out of the laboratory. If you are one of those persons who feel this way, then I highly recommend that you eschew a career as a research scientist and pursue an alternate career path. Like it or not, you have to LOVE doing laboratory research to be a successful research scientist. In fact, not being able to be in the laboratory should be a disappointment rather than a time to rejoice! I believe this to be true because every single successful scientist that I know always talks about a time in their career when they were able to spend every waking minute in the lab and could think of no better place to be! To wit, in today’s NY Times Science Times, Michael S. Gazzaniga, PhD, a renowned psychologist, shared the following tidbit with his interviewer:

“I would be getting up at midnight and heading over to the lab — these experiments took great preparation, and that was the only really quiet time over there. It was busy, busy; I was up and around at all hours. I was totally lost in it, and those were the greatest years of my life. It just couldn’t have been better.”

If you do not feel this way, then a life long career as a research scientist may not be a wide career choice for you. Take it from someone who knows!

Until next time...

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

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

In today’s tough economy, one of the more challenging things after graduating college or graduate school is finding a job. Many life sciences graduates are beginning to realize that skills and training that they received in college have not adequately prepared them for jobs in the real world. Furthering, “previous industrial experience” is almost always a requirement for most jobs at pharma and biotechnology companies. As many students ask me “How can we get previous industrial experience if nobody will hire us to get that experience?” 

While this may appear to be a typical “Catch 22” situation, it is not an insurmountable one A convenient way to acquire the requisite previous industrial experience is to volunteer or land an internship (paid or otherwise) at a small, local life sciences company. Many of these companies can use the help and will gladly give you an opportunity as long as they don’t have to pay you much. Another strategy is to seek employment contract research organizations (CROs) like Huntingdon Life Sciences. These companies conduct research for their pharmaceutical and biotechnology clients and are frequently willing to hire relatively inexperienced but talented scientists into entry level jobs. This is because the demand for well-trained scientists continues to grow at CROs as more and more pharma and biotechnology companies outsource R&D activities and continue to shed jobs. 

Another option is to look for entry-level jobs at local start up companies. Typically, most of these companies are venture-backed and have limited financial resources. Consequently, salaries offered by these companies to employees are generally lower than those at CROs, biotech and pharmaceutical companies. Nevertheless, while you may not get paid as much as you expected or like, working as a research scientist at a start up company definitely counts as industry experience and it may help to jump start your career in the life sciences industry. 

If you cannot get a job at a CRO or a local start up, you can always start your own company! However, while this may sound like an exciting idea, it is probably a good idea get some entrepreneurial training before you take the leap. For example, Washington University offers a program called the BioEntrepreneurship Core, which combines biomedical research methods with business and entrepreneurial skills. The program offers outreach programs that connect would-be entrepreneurs with business and financial leaders in the St Louis, MO area. Also, it frequently hosts networking events and has access to state resources that can be allocated for new ventures and start ups.

According to a recent article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the city of St Louis has many life sciences graduates, but lacks the businesses to employ them all. To that end, BioSTL, a local initiative backed by hospitals, research facilities, and private investors was recently created to build a life sciences industry in St Louis and provide jobs to its talented pool of life sciences graduates and scientists. Ultimately, BioSTL hopes that its efforts will allow the St Louis metro area compete with established biotechnology markets on the East and West Coasts.

Finally, it you cannot land a job at a CRO, a local start up or you are not interested in starting your own company, you can always go back to graduate school. However, if you choose this path, then I highly recommend that you do some research to determine which jobs are likely to be in high demand over the next 5 to 10 years! While going to graduate school may help to defer repaying your undergraduate students loans, you run the risk of incurring more debt and possibly not have a job after you graduate unless you choose your next career option wisely.

Until next time...

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

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

I just returned from the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) meeting in Washington DC where I gave three talks about biocareer development strategies. One of the talks, "Emerging Job Opportunities in the Life Sciences Industry" was reported on (see below) by a writer from Fierce Pharma.  While I don't usually "too my own horn." about my achievements, I thought a Number 2 ranking in the publications daily top 10 list was certainly worth a mention.  

 
New job opportunities emerging in Big Pharma
October 26, 2011 — 7:24am ET | By Maureen Martino

Since 2001, 300,000 pharma employees have lost their jobs, primarily in R&D and sales. That's according to Clifford Mintz, the founder of BioInsights, which develops and offers bioscience education and training. Mintz spoke at a session on new job opportunities in biotech and pharma at the annual AAPS meeting in Washington, D.C. While the losses have been steep, they're balanced by emerging, in-demand careers in the industry.

The industry's struggles are well-known: Many companies are facing loss of exclusivity on their biggest sellers but have little in the pipeline to pick up the slack. Productivity is dropping as the cost of bringing a new drug to market soars. Government and payors want more effective drugs for less money. The list goes on.

Developers are looking to new markets and new technologies to address these issues. But how do these trends play out for the pharma job seeker? Many people, particularly Ph.D.s, may have to consider getting additional training if they want to land their dream job. "Companies used to be willing to just hire smart people. But with the economic downturn and global competition, companies can no longer afford to invest in people who have promise. They need to see proven skills," Mintz explained. With the right blend of skills and experience, however, there still some pharma jobs that are in demand.

Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs

"Clinical research is the lifeblood of the industry," Mintz said. As developers expand in emerging markets, there's a particular demand for people to manage and organize overseas clinical trials. "There's a huge need for clinical research professionals worldwide," he said, noting that most Phase I and II trials are conducted outside of the U.S.

Another one of the industry's perennial needs is regulatory affairs professionals. "Regulatory affairs experience is a skill that all companies large and small would die to get their hands on," explained Mintz. The increasingly complex and uncertain world of FDA regulation--particularly when it comes to new technology and science--means that companies are always on the prowl for individuals with solid regulatory knowledge and ability to interact with the FDA. You can read more about the demand for clinical research and regulatory affairs jobs here.

Biomanufacturing

The pharma industry's interest in biologics remains strong--just look at Sanofi's buyout of Genzyme, or Roche's purchase of Genentech. They're lured by disease-altering biologics that are less likely to face generic competition than traditional drugs. As a result, there's been increased demand for professionals who can navigate the complex world of biomanufacturing. Those with a background in upstream and downstream processes, large-scale protein purification, fermentation technology and bioengineering can make the transition to biomanufacturing.

Healthcare Information Technology

The rise of bioinformatics and genomics coupled with the push for electronic medical records has created jobs in healthcare information technology. Health informatics--the intersection of healthcare and IT--is ideal for people with expertise in genomics, bioinformatics or software that understand how to work with and manipulate large data sets and databases. The Obama administration has made EHRs a priority, and there's a need for software engineers and biologists who are comfortable working with medical information.

Medical Devices

"The medical devices industry has been experiencing explosive growth for the past decade," Mintz said. Regulatory hurdles in the medical device industry are much lower than they are for biologics or small molecules, making the industry a more stable alternative to biotech and pharma. The demand for devices, which address problems that can't be treated with medicine, will continue to grow as the population ages. Job seekers with strong backgrounds in bioinformatics, genomics, engineering and translational medicine are best suited to this field.

Medical Communications

Medical communications--which includes medical writing, editing, graphic design and science journalism--continues to boom. The demand for these jobs has risen because companies need a slew of communication materials to send to patients, physicians, researchers, investigators and the general public about their products and business.

Patent Law and Technology Transfer

Recent changes to U.S. patent laws have increased the demand for patent agents and patent attorneys in the life sciences field. Pharma's growing reliance on basic research from learning institutions means that there's a need for technology transfer experts. These experts manage the patent estate and intellectual property of universities and colleges that may engage in licensing deals with the industry. A law degree is a must to compete in this field.

Until next time...

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

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

Earlier this week Roche Holding AG announced that it would pay $230 million to acquire the San Diego, CA-based biopharmaceutical company Anadys. The reason for the acquisition is to bolster Roche’s standing in the hepatitis C market which is projected to grow to as much as $15 billion annually by 2019.

Anadys has a fairly large experimental pipeline of hepatitis C drugs, the most advanced candidate being setrobuivr that is being clinically tested in combination with the generic antiviral drug ribavirin and Pegasys (PEGylated α-interferon) as a hepatitis C treatment.

The Anadys deal comes on the heels of an agreement last week between Roche and Merck & Co to jointly market hepatitis C treatments in the US. Merck recently won approval last May for Victrelis (boceprevir) the first new hepatitis C treatment in over a decade. Also, late last month Vertex Pharmaceuticals received approval for a new hepatitis C drug called Incivek (telaprevir). Anadys is also conducting early clinical trials on ANA773 as a possible treatment for hepatitis C infection, cancer and other chronic diseases.

In other news, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is rumored to be contemplating purchasing Maryland-based Human Genome Sciences (HGS), which recently received US approval for Benlysta a novel monoclonal antibody treatment for the autoimmune disease systemic lupus erythematous. 

Benlysta was the first new drug to be approved to treat lupus in over 50 years. GSK is HGS’s commercialization partner for Benlysta which is expected to be a blockbuster drug. The reason for the takeover rumors is likely HGS’s stock price which has fallen from 52-week high of $30 to its current value of $15 per share. 

Until next time...

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

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

As scientists, we all  subscribe to the notion that diversity is a critical component to the evolution of any species. While we this is a well known fact, the life sciences industry, like others, struggles with workforce diversity mainly in the area of research and development. For example the number of minority students—blacks and hispanics—who receive PhD degrees is miniscule as compared with their white counterparts.  Graduate schools struggle to promote diversity in their programs but their efforts to date have been lackluster.

One of the factors that contribute to the lack of representation of minority students in the life sciences may be the lack of access to equal educational opportunities. With this in mind, the folks over at onlinecolleges.net sent me a post that has a plethora of information about the state of minority education in the US. I culled relevant information from the list and reproduced it for this post.

Stereotyping impairs performance

A startling Ohio State University study exploring the effects of racial stereotyping uncovered some very unfortunate truths. Nearly 160 African-American students were asked to write an essay about an average college student, either named "Tyrone" or "Erik," with the implication being that the former is black and the latter white. Those assigned Tyrone scored an average of 4.5 on a standardized test, while Team Erik ended up with 6.2. Although possessing equal academic aptitude, researchers believe prevailing stereotypes negatively impact performance — thus creating an unjust cycle reinforced by students and teachers alike. 

Hispanic high school students had the highest dropout rate in 2009

The National Center for Educational Statistics shows that 17.6% of Hispanic high school students drop out before completing their diplomas or GEDs. Reasons vary from kid to kid, of course, and do not necessarily denote poor grades or discipline. On a positive note, however, Hispanic dropout rates decline steadily every year, with 2008 seeing 18.3% of the high school population leaving before graduating. 

Minorities comprise 32% of undergraduate enrollees

Undergraduate enrollment has actually increased among all racial and ethnic demographics, although minorities remain heavily underrepresented on American college campuses. Only 32% of postsecondary students are minorities as of 2004 statistics, but their numbers increase yearly — certainly a positive trend. Between 1976 and 2004, Asians and Pacific Islanders experienced the highest rate of increase, boasting a whopping 461%. So while the number still seems low these days, minorities are definitely catching up on campus and enjoy more opportunities to have their voices heard and heeded.

Minorities comprise 25% of graduate enrollees

With increased minority undergraduate enrollment came more representation in graduate programs, though at a slower pace. 2004 statistics showed that 25% of master’s and doctoral students were minorities, up from 11% in 1976. The most rampant increase occurred among Hispanics, at 377%. Once again, there’s absolutely nothing "scary" about more opportunities and representation in higher education. But the numbers could definitely be higher, especially since more enrollees means more imperative to address diverse needs.

Minorities comprise 10.2% of private school principals

In total, of course, as statistics vary rapidly depending on what — if any — denomination owns and operates the schools in question. Seventh-Day Adventist institutions lead the way, with 26.4% minority principals. Administrators of black, non-Hispanic or Latino descent are most prevalent, particularly in Seventh-Day Adventist (17.7%) and Pentecostal (14.7%) schools. They also make up 5.2% of total minority principals. When it comes to private education, more needs doing to ensure minority students and staff alike see their requests properly met.

The majority of black and Hispanic students attend high-poverty schools

Statistics from 2005 school year revealed that black and Hispanic students populate high-poverty schools more than any other minority. The National Center for Education Statistics considers "high-poverty schools," which are those with 75% or more attendees receiving free or reduced-price lunches. Forty-eight percent of black and 49% of Hispanic 4th graders hail from such desperately wanting institutions, while Asians and Pacific Islanders are more evenly distributed across economic demographics. 

Hispanic and black students are less likely to have internet access at home

Because of this, they adapt to classroom technology at a slower pace than their white, Asian and Native American peers. Twenty-six percent of Hispanic and 27% of black students use the internet at home, compared to 58% of Asian and 47% of Native American kids, resulting in a very unfortunate achievement gap. Numbers are improving, of course, but there’s still a ways to go before the gulf starts shrinking.

Schools with black or Hispanic majorities are more likely to hire underqualified or novice teachers

In fact, 25% of math educators at schools with 50% or more black students do not hold a degree or any other qualifications in the subjects they teach — probably the most egregious example. And once said teachers rack up the experience, they usually flee to more affluent (and white) areas. Such an unfortunate and enduring phenomenon plays a major role in perpetuating, if not outright widening, the achievement gap. Without knowledgeable, experienced and engaged teachers, students in affected schools typically lag behind and never receive the academic opportunities that should be afforded all youngsters. 

More black students repeat grades than any other racial or ethnic demographic

Both genders, too. In 2007, 25.6% of black males and 15.3% of black females between kindergarten and 12th grade had repeated at least one grade. These numbers, though, only reflect the issue as it relates to public school students. 

More black students receive suspensions and expulsions than any other racial or ethnic demographic

Between 6th and 12th grades, the 2007 school year saw 49.5% of black males and 34.7% of black females reporting that they had received at least one suspension in their academic careers. When it comes to expulsions, 16.6% of males and 8.2% of females said they had been dismissed from school at least once.

Hispanic teenagers have the highest pregnancy rate

In 2007, 81.7 out of every 1,000 Hispanic teenage girls gave birth — more than any other race or ethnicity. Across all demographics, however, the numbers are steadily decreasing.

This probably has something to do with improved sex education and easier access to necessary birth control devices, though the problem still requires considerable intervention. Especially since popping out babies as a high schooler is all trendy these days.

Clearly, until some of these problems are addressed, then it is likely that workforce diversity in the life sciences will continue to lag.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Workplace diversity, whether gender or racial, is critical to the success of any scientific or business venture. Yet, while the number of women entering graduate school in the sciences is now greater than the number of entering male students, tenured male scientists continue to outnumber female scientists at almost every US academic institution. The same is true at most science, technology and engineering companies where the number of male executives and managers far exceeds the number of female ones. Unfortunately, gender inequality in the sciences still exits despite years of concerted efforts to rectify and correct the problem.

With this in mind, Gina Kolata, a well known science writer for the NY Times, published an article in today’s Science Times that showcases five highly regarded and established female scientists who share their insights into what it takes to be a successful scientist in today’s highly competitive world.

Read and learn!

Until next time,

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

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

The world’s largest generic pharmaceutical company Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries LTD today announced that it has agreed to purchase Pennsylvania-based Cephalon, Inc for $6.8 billion. Teva will purchase Cephalon for $81.50 per share, a 12 percent premium to the $73-per share unsolicited offer tendered by Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc, on March 29, 2011. Cephalon’s board of directors rejected Valeant’s offer on April 5, 2011.

While most of Teva’s revenue comes from the sale of prescription generic medications, the company also sells several branded pharmaceutical products including the multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone and the Parkinson’s disease Azilect. Cephalon’s best selling drugs include Provigil for narcolepsy and the cancer drug Treanda. In addition to its marketed products, the Cephalon development pipeline contains potential cancer treatments, a tamper-resistant opioid painkiller, and an asthma treatment. The Cephalon acquisition is a pivotal part of Teva's strategy of growing branded drug revenue to $9 billion by 2015.

Teva currently has about 40,000 employees worldwide while Cephalon employs 4,000 persons. It is not clear what ever the acquisition will have on job layoffs or organizational structure.

Cephalon’s stock price rose $3.25 or 4.2 percent to $80.26 after the deal was announced.

Until next time...

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

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

There has been some buzz on LinkedIn and Facebook about an article that appeared in the March 3, 2011 issue of Nature Magazine. The article entitled “Traditional Drug-Discovery Model Ripe for Reform” and basically chronicles the decline in emphasis being placed by most companies on traditional in-house drug discovery as a source for new candidate molecules. Also, it points out that most big pharma companies now agree that they are not good at drug discovery but excel in clinical development and marketing of new medicines. Industry’s new view of itself is supported by the fact that over 200,000 pharmaceutical and biotechnology workers—roughly 50% were discovery scientists—have their lost jobs in the past three years or so. This begs the question “who is going to discover the new molecular entities that large drug companies are going clinically evaluate and ultimately market? According to the article, academic researchers are likely to play a pivotal role in this newly emerging drug discovery paradigm. 

The new model proposed in the article goes something like this. First, all intellectual property rights for certain compounds will be lifted or removed. Compounds of interest would subsequently be evaluated in small clinical trials for safety and possible efficacy. And, interested drug makers would only compete with one another on specific molecules after they were deemed safe and potentially effective. Up until this point, all data on prospective drug candidates would be openly published and freely available to interested parties.

Proponents of the model contend that the approach would allow drug targets to be more quickly validated and developed less expensively because there would less duplication of research activities. Further, it would reduce the exposure of patients to experimental molecules that have already deemed to be ineffective. Interestingly, the new model would rely exclusively on academic scientists who would be supported by a global initiative that cost about $325 million per years— with half coming from the pharmaceutical industry and half from the public. Finally, drug candidates identified in the initial screening process would be available to companies that participate in the initiative (presumably to the company that invested the most?)

While the proposed model is clearly “wishful thinking” on behalf of academics who are struggling to win grant support, it is deeply flaw and was obviously proposed by academic scientists who lack a clear understanding of the industrial drug development process. First, intellectual property (IP) and patents are the life blood of the industry and are in fact what allows drug companies to prevent competition in certain therapeutic areas maximize their return on investment on the drugs that they develop. Therefore, it is highly  unlikely that any drug maker would agree to lift or suspend IP around a novel new molecule. Second, must academic scientists are not qualified nor trained to engage in industrial drug development. Unlike academic science, industrial research is highly regulated and must be performed according the regulations and guidelines established by various regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration. If the research is not conducted in a regulatory compliant manner, then the prospective new drug will not be able to win regulatory approval. Third, eliminating IP would prevent university tech transfer offices—which exist almost entirely to manage a university’s IP—from negotiating lucrative licensing deals with interested companies or other parties. This, in turn, would reduce the contribution of funds by technology transfer offices that is used to run many academic research centers. Finally, the model is based upon the assumption that academic scientists (unlike drug companies) willfully and freely share information with one another for the “common good.” However, based on my experiences as an academic for over 20 years, most scientists don’t subscribe to the level of altruism and philanthropy attributed to them in the article. In fact the ego-involvement and competition amongst academics is so fierce, that  many academic refuse to share important new information or breakthroughs with their colleagues until grants are funded or the data are published in peer reviewed journals. Put simply, most academics are trained to work by themselves in their own laboratories and are neither interactive nor collaborative by nature.

There is no question that the old industrial drug discovery model is in transition and a new one will ultimately emerge. However, the role of academics in the new model is likely going to be less than proposed in present article. Too many systemic changes would be required for this model to be effective. That said, providing graduate students and postdocs with training in regulatory affairs and new drug development could be a step in the right direction! Nevertheless, a better solution to the problem may be a greater role for government in new drug discovery and development. To that end, the UK Medical Research Council has established the Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme that supports the development of promising basic science research into new drugs and medical devices. Also, Francis Collins, the current head of the National Institutes of Health has proposed the creation of a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences to transform basic science into prospective new drugs and treatments.

Despite the good intentions of the article, the path forward for academic scientists is not going to be easy. To make matters worse, it is becoming increasingly difficult for PhD-trained scientists to find jobs. That said, if you are truly interested in industrial drug discovery and development I highly recommend that you take some regulatory affairs course or enroll in a certificate or MS degree program in biotechnology that teaches the business side of the life sciences industry.

Until next time...

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

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

While US unemployment continues to hover around 9.4 percent, there appears to be a steady increase in the number of companies that are posting ads on job boards like Simply Hired and Indeed.com. According to an article in the NY Times “A Sign of Hope for More Hiring” job postings at Simple Hired roe over 50 percent last year over 2009 and increased almost 70 percent in December 2010 as compared with December 2009.

The situation at Indeed.com, a major competitor of Simply Hired, appears to be similar. That is, there has been a substantial and continual increase in the number companies posting jobs on the Indeed.com website.

However, while this is great news, it isn’t exactly clear what the increased job postings mean. For example, some industries are hiring at a greater rate than others (see below).

Not surprisingly, the greatest increases are occurring in some of the industries that were hit hardest by the recession, e.g. transportation, automotive, legal, manufacturing and financial services. Hiring in healthcare, technology and education remains steady and respectable. On the other hand, two industries that have actually lost ground are media and the military. For a more comprehensive analysis check out the white paper on 2010 Employment Trends created by Simply Hired. Although things look like they may be picking up, the sad reality is that workers who have been unemployed for months have a much harder time landing new jobs as compared with those who have been unemployed for weeks. Unfortunately, many of the workers that make up the 9.4 percent unemployed, have been out of work for six months or more. Further, the availability of jobs will vary by industry and perhaps more importantly geography. Data from Simply Hired suggests that employment opportunities are greater in Washington, D.C, Baltimore, Boston, Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St Paul, San Francisco and Denver as compared with Miami, Detroit, Sacramento and LA. The availability of healthcare jobs appears to be greatest in San Francisco and San Antonio. Interestingly, many of the new job postings are coming from smaller companies rather than those that constitute the Fortune 500 list. This means that former corporate employees may want to focus their job searches on smaller companies rather than continue to seek employment at big name companies.

Despite these encouraging and optimistic signs, the road ahead for most R&D scientists and pharmaceutical sales reps looks pretty bleak. That said, now may be a good time to consider alternate career options or possibly going back to school for retraining. To that end, data from Indeed.com suggests that learning HTML 5, the new, highly anticipated Web development language which may make Flash obsolete, may be the ticket to guaranteed employment. Knowledge of HTML 5 in addition to experience with mobile apps, the Android operating system and Twitter skills that are highly coveted by employers in many industries. Finally, if more school or retraining is not in your future, you may want to consider switching industries, moving to a different type of job in your discipline or, if possible, relocating!

Until next time...

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

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

In this economy, many BioJobBlog readers may find themselves in the unenviable position of having to consider changing careers to find gainful employment. While career counselors like me can offer job seekers ideas about possible alternate or non-traditional careers, actual navigating a career change can be daunting, painful and often times overwhelming. With this in mind, I came across an article on HelpGuide.org that helps to demystify career changes and offers helpful hints (and links to useful articles) that describes how would- be career changers can manage and shepherd the process. 

"Changing Careers: A Guide"

Overview

The first step in considering a career change is to think carefully about what really drives you. You might find it hard to get past thinking about “what pays the most” or “what is most secure,” especially in today’s economy. However, it’s important to first discover your primary interests and passions. This can open doors to careers that you might not have considered. Once you have that foundation, you can start fine tuning your search to the right career. You may be surprised at how you can fit your passions into a certain career!

Explore your options

• Focus on the things you love to do. What have you dreamed of doing in the past? What do you naturally enjoy doing? Jot down what comes to mind, no matter how improbable it seems.
• Look for clues everywhere. Take note of projects or topics that stir your compassion or excite your imagination. Reflect on stories of people you admire. Ask yourself why certain activities make you happy, and pay attention to times when you are really enjoying yourself.
• Be patient. Remember that your search may take some time and you might have to go down a few different roads before finding the right career path. Time and introspection will help you identify the activities you most enjoy and that bring you true satisfaction.

Overcome obstacles to happiness

It’s always challenging to consider a huge change, and there may be many reasons why you may think changing careers is not possible. Here are some common obstacles and how to overcome them:

• It’s too much work to change careers. Where would I ever begin? Changing careers does require a substantial time investment. However, remember that it does not happen all at once. If you sit down and map out a rough plan of attack, breaking down larger tasks into smaller ones, it is a lot more manageable than you think. And if the payoff is a happier, more successful career, it’s worth it.
• I’m too old to change careers. I need to stay where I am. If you have worked for a number of years, you may feel that you’ve put too much time and effort into your career to change midstream. Or you may be concerned about retirement and health benefits. However, the more you’ve worked, the more likely you are to have skills you can transfer to a new career. You may also consider planning a transition for after retirement if you are close to receiving a pension or other benefits after a number of years. 
• I don’t have enough skills to consider a new career. You may be unaware of the skills you have, or underestimate your marketability due to low self esteem. However, you probably have more skills than you think. Consider skills you’ve learned not only from your job but from hobbies, volunteering or other life experiences. And gaining skills is not an all or nothing proposition. You can volunteer once a week or take a night class to move forward, for example, without quitting your current job.
• In this economy, I’m lucky to have a job. I don’t want to rock the boat. In today’s climate, it might feel like too much of a risk to consider changing careers. However, if you’re unhappy in your current job, doing research on other options will only benefit you in the long run. You may discover a career with a more stable long-term outlook than your current career, for example. And you don’t have to quit your current job until you are confident of your new career path.

Dealing with underemployment and job loss

Being unemployed or underemployed can be tremendously stressful. You may be feeling the pressures of meeting mortgage payments or other financial obligations. You might be feeling ashamed with your family and friends. And a very real loss is that of your identity at work. This is especially true if you have been in the same field for a very long time.

However, unemployment also has a bright side. It gives you the chance to reflect on your career path where you might not have before. If you’ve been considering a new field, now is the time to research and see what might be the right fit for you. You may end up in a much stronger position than if you had originally kept your job.

To learn more, visit Job Loss and Unemployment Stress: Tips for Staying Positive During Your Job Search&

Identify occupations that match your interests

So how do you translate your interests into a new career? With a little research, you may be surprised at the careers that relate to many of the things you love to do. Many online tools can guide you through the process of self-discovery. Questions, quizzes, and temperament sorters can’t tell you what your perfect career would be, but they can help you identify what’s important to you in a career, what you enjoy doing, and where you excel. One example, frequently used by universities and the government, is the RIASEC/Holland interest scale. It identifies six common areas that people often feel especially drawn to, such as investigative, social, or artistic. Based on these areas, you can browse sample careers that match those interests.

The Career Decision-Making Tool

The Career Interests Game

The Motivated Skills Test

The Career Values Test

Research specific careers

If you have narrowed down some specific jobs or careers, you can find a wealth of information online, from description of positions to average salaries to estimated future growth. This will also help you figure out the practical priorities: How stable is the field you are considering? Are you comfortable with the amount of risk? Is the salary range acceptable to you? What about commute distances? Will you have to relocate for training or a new job? Will the new job affect your family?

Occupational Outlook Handbook (US Department of Labor)

Career Guide to Industries (US Department of Labor)

Best Careers (US News and World Report)

Get support and information from others

While you can glean a lot of information from research and quizzes, there’s no substitute for information from someone currently working in your chosen career. Talking to someone in the field gives you a real sense of what type of work you will actually be doing and if it meets your expectations.  What’s more, you will start to build connections in your new career area, helping you land a job in the future. Does approaching others like this seem intimidating? It doesn’t have to be. Networking and informational interviewing are important skills that can greatly further your career.

You may also consider career counseling or a job coach, especially if you are considering a major career shift. Sometimes impartial advice from others can open up possibilities you hadn’t considered.

Evaluate your strengths and skills

Once you have a general idea of your career path, take some time to figure out what skills you have and what skills you need. Remember, you’re not completely starting from scratch—you already have some skills to start. These skills are called transferable skills, and they can be applied to almost any field. Some examples include:

• management and leadership experience
• communication (both written and oral)
• research and program planning
• public speaking
• conflict resolution and mediation
• managing your time effectively
• computer literacy
• foreign language fluency

Identify transferable career skills

• Don’t limit yourself to experiences only at work. When you are thinking about your skills, consider all types of activities including volunteering, hobbies and life experiences. For example, even if you don’t have formal leadership or program planning experience, founding a book club or organizing a toy drive are ways that you have been putting these skills into practice.
• List your accomplishments that might fit in. Don’t worry about formatting these skills for a resume at this point. You just want to start thinking about what skills you have. It can be a tremendous confidence booster to realize all of the skills you’ve developed.
• Brainstorm with trusted friends, colleagues or mentors. They might remind you of transferable skills you might have forgotten, and help you think of how you might want to articulate these skills in the future.
• Learn more about your qualifications. Take the free online Transferable Skills Survey.

Develop new skills and acquire work experience

If your chosen career requires skills or experience you lack, don’t despair. There are many ways to gain needed skills.  While learning, you’ll also have an opportunity to find out whether or not you truly enjoy your chosen career and also make connections that could lead to your dream job.

• Utilize your current position. Look for on-the-job training or opportunities to do projects that develop new skills. See if your employer will pay part of your tuition costs.
• Identify resources in the community. Find out about programs in your community. Community colleges or libraries often offer low cost opportunities to strengthen skills such as computers, basic accounting, or how to start a business. Local Chambers of Commerce, Small Business Administrations, or state job development programs also are excellent resources.
• Volunteer or work as an intern. Some career skills can be acquired by volunteering or doing an internship. This has the added benefit of getting you in contact with people in your chosen field. Visit Volunteering and its Surprising Benefits: Helping  Yourself while Helping Others
• Take classes. Some fields require specific education or skills, such as an educational degree or specific training.  Don’t automatically rule out more education as impossible. Many fields have accelerated programs if you already have some education, or you may be able to do night classes or part-time schooling so that you can continue to work. Some companies even offer tuition reimbursements if you stay at the company after you finish your education.
• Consider starting your own business If you’re getting worn down by long commutes or a difficult boss, the thought of being your own boss can be very appealing. And it may be you can find your perfect niche even in a slower economy. Depending on the specialty, some companies prefer to streamline their ranks and work with outside vendors. However, it is especially important to do your homework and understand the realities of business ownership before you jump in.

Make sure you are committed and passionate to your business idea. You  will be spending many long hours getting started, and it may take a while for your  business to pay off.

Research is critical. Take some time to analyze your area of interest. Are you filling an unmet need? Especially if you are considering an online business, how likely is your area to be outsourced? What is your business plan, and who are your potential investors? Learn more in the resources section below.

Expect limited or no earnings to start. Especially in the first few months, you are building your base and may have start up costs that offset any profit initially. Make sure you have a plan on how you will get through that time.

Final thoughts             

• Pace yourself and don’t take on too much at once. Career change doesn’t happen overnight, and it is easy to get overwhelmed with all the steps to successfully change careers. However, you will get there with commitment and motivation. Break down large goals into smaller ones, and try to accomplish at least one small thing a day to keep the momentum going.
• Don’t rush into a change because of unhappiness in your current job. If you are stressed and unhappy in your current job, or unemployed, you might be feeling a lot of pressure to make a quick change. However, if you don’t do enough research, you might end up in an even worse position than before, with the added stress of a new position and new learning curve.
• Ease slowly into your new career. Take time to network, volunteer and even work part time in your new field before committing fully. It will not only be an easier transition, but you will have time to ensure you are on the right path and make any necessary changes before you are working full time in your new field.
• Take care of yourself. You might be feeling so busy with the career transition that you barely have time to sleep or eat. However, managing stress, eating right, and taking time for sleep, exercise and especially loved ones will ensure you have the stamina for the big changes ahead.

 Related Career Change Links

Overcoming obstacles

Taking the Fear Out of Career Change – Provides specific action steps to common fears in considering a career change. (University of Minnesota Office of Human Resources)

How Fear Can Stop a Career Change – Outlines five main stumbling points to considering a new career, and how to move past them. (Suite101, commercial site)

Career investigation resources

Best Careers- US News and World Report – Provides updated information on good careers based on future outlooks and job satisfaction, as well as future trends and jobs that may be overrated. (US News and World Report, commercial site)

Occupational Outlook Handbook – Provides information on different careers/occupations, including what workers do on the job, working conditions, training and education needed, earnings and job prospects. (US Department of Labor)

Career Guide to Industries – Provides information on careers available by industry groupings. Also gives outlook on industry, overall earnings and training information. (US Department of Labor)

Job Hunters Bible  – Gives web resources and advice from Richard Nelson Bolles,’ author of What Color is Your Parachute?, on finding the right job or career, including tests and advice, research, making contacts, finding a job, and creating a resume. (JobHuntersBible, commercial site)

Career tests

Career Decision Making Tool – A comprehensive tool that walks you through defining career interests, from identifying key areas of interest using RIASEC codes to finding the careers that match those interests. (America’s Career Resource Network)

The Meyers Briggs Temperament Indicator II  – Offers a short Meyers Briggs exam to assess your temperament. Answer all the questions for a 4-letter personality indicator and an explanatory document. Registration required. (Advisor Team, commercial site)

Queendom – Offers a collection of tests and resources designed to help you along your path of self-discovery. (Queendom, commercial site)

Evaluating transferable skills

Transferable Skills (PDF) – Provides an overview of transferable skills most desirable for employers, and how you can apply your experiences to those areas. (USC Career Planning and Placement Center)

Transferable Skills Survey - A survey to help you zero in on your transferable skills. Rate your skills in five broad transferable skill areas. (University of Minnesota Duluth Knowledge Management Center)

Career counseling, education and job placement support

Employment & Training Administration – Information about federal job training programs and a section of the site, Regions & States, lists state and local employment resources for all states and regions. Also has a function to search the Fastest Growing Occupations by State. (US Department of Labor)

Jobs for the Future – Nonprofit organization that helps young people and undereducated adults get the training and education they need to get jobs. (Jobs for the Future)

The Women's Alliance - Organization of community-based members who provide professional attire, career skills training and related services to low-income women seeking employment. (The Women's Alliance)

Starting your own business

How to start your own business and maintain your sanity – Learn about the pros and cons about starting your own business including entrepreneurship in a slow economy, what to expect with investors and managing slow beginnings. (US News & World Report)

Starting a business – Provides step by step information on what you should consider when starting a business, including necessary licenses and permits, state and federal requirements, and pros and cons of incorporation (Nolo)

Tips for career changers

Career Changers: Make the Job Market Care – Tips on changing your perspective on careers and how to reduce frustrations and anger during your job search. (Psychology Today)

The 10 step plan to career change – Provides a checklist of areas to review in changing careers, including special sections for seniors, women and minorities.

Until next time...

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

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

There is no question that losing a job or facing the prospect of long term unemployment can have severe emotional and psychological consequences. Sadly, I came across a post today on PharmaLive’s Daily Advantage that describes how an ex-Pfizer employee stabbed his wife two times in the chest November, 2009, 10 months after he lost his job as a research biochemist.

The employee had worked as a biochemist at Pfizer Inc. for 11 years, first in Ann Arbor, Mich., and more recently in Groton. He became increasingly ill, suffering from major depression with psychotic features and obsessive compulsive disorder after he was laid off from his position in January 2009. At his trial he found not guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to Connecticut psychiatric facility for a period not to exceed 10 years.

While this may be an extreme case, the emotional and psychological effects of unemployment can be devastating to even seemingly emotionally-well equipped persons. If you happened to be unemployed, and are feeling “out of sorts” I highly recommend that you seek out friends, clergy or mental health professionals who you can talk to! Your mental health is just as important as your physical health when it comes to job searching or life!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

An article in today’s New York Times business section loudly proclaimed that the number of people using Facebook had topped 500 million. Further, according to the article: “The company has grown at a meteoric pace, doubling in size from a year ago and each month, more than 30 billion photographs, links to Web sites and news articles are shared through the site, and its members spend roughly 700 billion minutes there.”  

While these statistics are mind boggling and represent an incredible business opportunity for any company, life sciences companies including most major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have largely shunned Facebook. In a post earlier this week on EyeonFDA, its author, Mark Senak rightly noted that:

 “When social media began to ebb from a media pathway for individuals to connect, to one where institutions and industry began to employ social media as a means of communicating with their constituencies Facebook has become an extremely important referral source - a driver of traffic - to Web pages.” Despite this, “the pharmaceutical industry, as a highly regulated industry, has lagged behind other sectors.”

The reasons for pharma’s reluctance to use social media to engage stakeholders are numerous. The most common ones offered include the lack of regulations guiding the use of social media and its possible effects on adverse event reporting for approved medicines. However, the lack of regulatory guidance and consequences for adverse event reporting didn’t prevent life sciences companies from building branded product websites, sponsoring patient communities or investing in social networks for physicians. Therefore, it is unlikely that the lack of regulatory guidance and fears of overwhelming adverse event reporting aren’t responsible for pharma’s reluctance to embrace social media. I suspect that the real reasons may have more to do with increasing transparency surrounding clinical testing, drug approvals and drug pricing and reimbursement. But, I digress....

Interestingly, despite the lack of regulatory guidance and concerns over adverse event reporting, some pharmaceutical companies have chosen to boldly go where no other life sciences companies have gone before on Facebook.  According to Mark, the following companies have created corporate or disease/cause-related fan pages on Facebook:

1. Labs Are Vital sponsored by Abbott Laboratories
2. AstraZeneca US Community Connections
3. AstraZenecaCareers
4. Bayer Karriere
5. Bayer Sustainability
6. Johnson & Johnson Network
7. Nursing Notes by Johnson & Johnson
8. Pfizer

While the number of person who are fans of these pages are minute (as compared with the total number of Facebook users) they likely represent highly committed and focused groups of user—any pharmaceutical marketer’s dream! Although Facebook still subscribes to the notion that “bigger is better, niche networking and social media sites are growing in popularity. This is because these sites may give marketers and advertisers a “bigger bang for their buck” as compared with larger, more unfocused and disparate user communities. In other words, penetration and uptake rates are likely to greater in focused niche populations as compared with the general population at large.

I have long contended that social media tools can be used for other than promotional purposes in the life sciences industry. To that end, the use of social media for clinical trial patient recruitment and retention is rapidly expanding and there are signs that pharmaceutical companies have finally recognized the power of social media for recruiting purposes e.g. AstraZenecaCareers .  

I have no doubt that the life science industry will eventually recognize the utility power of social media. It is no longer a question of “if” but rather ‘when” for social media and the life sciences industry?

Until next time...

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

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

The ever-increasing competition for faculty positions is forcing many graduate students and postdocs to consider careers outside of academia with a likely eye on industrial jobs. Unfortunately, many of these would be industrial scientists lack the appropriate training and qualifications for entry-level jobs at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This is because most undergraduate and graduate programs do not offer training to their students in drug development, quality systems and manufacturing. The reasons for this include: 1) lack of well informed and qualified faculty members to initiate and develop specialized curricula on these topics and 2) a belief that job training is the responsibility of prospective employers, not academic researchers. Unless substantive curricular change is made to existing academic programs, the road to employment for many students will continue to be bumpy and fraught with difficulty. 

In contrast with academic research, industrial research is highly regulated and guided by legally-enforceable rules and regulations, e.g., Current Good Laboratory Practices (cGLP), Current Good Clinical Practices (cGCP) and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). These rules and guidelines were created by regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the development of safe and efficacious products. In recent years, the FDA has begun to enforce these rules and regulations more strictly. As a result, many life sciences companies now require that prospective employees understand cGLP, cGCP and cGMP guidelines and how to apply them in industrial laboratory settings. Because these rules and regulations are specific to industry and relatively unknown in academia, most academically-trained job candidates fail to qualify for these industrial jobs. Finally, over the past five years, there has been a growing emphasize on the importance of so-called "soft skills" e.g., good oral written and communication skills, teamwork, professional behavior, etc. in existing and prospective employees. These skills are increasingly important as life sciences companies grow larger, more diverse, and increasingly multidisciplinary in their approach to drug discovery and development. Unfortunately, few academic programs develop these skills in a systematic way; this failure hinders the ability of students to obtain industrial jobs.

Although the transition from academia to industry can be difficult, students can do several things to improve their odds. First, take advantage of available resources in preparing your resume and learning how to interview for an industrial position. A well written, carefully crafted resume can result in an interview, and a professional interviewing style can increase the likelihood of a job offer. Working with a skilled and well-connected professional recruiter may also increase the probability of securing an industrial job.

Second, many community colleges and several companies now offer specialized training in quality systems, regulatory affairs (cGLP, cGMP and cGCP) and other areas. Finally, there is no better way to get an industrial job than to have previous industrial experience. To get industrial experience, seek out training opportunities that include an industry internship as part of the curriculum. Some biotech and pharmaceutical companies may offer volunteer opportunities,  paid internships and some still have postdoctoral positions available for qualified applicants.

Until next time...

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

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

The recession is clearly taking its toll on the biotechnology industry and continues to force it to consolidate. Today, Celgene announced that it would purchase Los Angeles, CA-based Abraxis Biosciences, Inc for $2.9 billion in cash and stock to expand its cancer drug pipeline. The company hopes to "re-energize" sales of Abraxis' only approved drug, the breast cancer treatment Abraxane, and also win approval for Abraxane as a treatment for skin, lung, and pancreatic cancer.  Sales of Abraxane began to tank after Astra Zeneca terminated a marketing agreement with Abraxis in 2008. Abraxane is an injectable medicine that is approved to treat breast cancer in patients who have failed all other treatment options.

New Jersey-based Celgene, the maker of Revlimid (multiple myeloma, and one type of the bone barrow disease myelodysplastic syndrome) and Vidazas (acute myeloid leukemia and five types of myelodysplastic syndrome) expects to seek approval of Abraxane as a treatment for lung cancer early next year. Celegene also sells Thalomid, a modified version of thalidomide, to treat mutliple myeloma and certain forms of leprosy.

Abraxis Biosciences employs about 900 people. While no layoffs or job cuts were announced, don’t be surprised when they happen shortly after the deal closes later this year.

Until next time...

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

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

It is becoming  increasingly difficult for undergraduate and graduate students to secure entry-level jobs at biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. This is because these students lack the appropriate training and qualifications for entry-level jobs at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Unfortunately, most undergraduate and graduate programs do not offer training to their students in drug development, quality systems and manufacturing. The is likely due to: 1) lack of well informed and qualified faculty members to initiate and develop specialized curricula on these topics and 2) a belief that job training is the responsibility of prospective employers, not academic researchers. Unless substantive curricular change is made to existing academic programs, the road to employment for many students will continue to be bumpy and fraught with difficulty.

In contrast with academic research, industrial research is highly regulated and guided by legally-enforceable rules and regulations, e.g., Current Good Laboratory Practices (cGLP), Current Good Clinical Practices (cGCP) and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). These rules and guidelines were created by regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the development of safe and efficacious products. In recent years, the FDA has begun to enforce these rules and regulations more strictly. As a result, many life sciences companies now require that prospective employees understand cGLP, cGCP and cGMP guidelines and how to apply them in industrial laboratory settings. Because these rules and regulations are specific to industry and relatively unknown in academia, most academically-trained job candidates fail to qualify for these industrial jobs. Finally, over the past five years, there has been a growing emphasize on the importance of so-called "soft skills" e.g., good oral written and communication skills, teamwork, professional behavior, etc. in existing and prospective employees. These skills are increasingly important as life sciences companies grow larger, more diverse, and increasingly multidisciplinary in their approach to drug discovery and development.

Unfortunately, few academic programs develop these skills in a systematic way; this failure hinders the ability of students to obtain industrial jobs. Although the transition from academia to industry can be difficult, students can do several things to improve their odds. First, take advantage of available resources in preparing your resume and learning how to interview for an industrial position. A well written, carefully crafted resume can result in an interview, and a professional interviewing style can increase the likelihood of a job offer.

Working with a skilled and well-connected professional recruiter may also increase the probability of securing an industrial job. Second, many community colleges and several companies now offer specialized training in quality systems, regulatory affairs (cGLP, cGMP and cGCP) and other areas.

Finally, there is no better way to get an industrial job than to have previous industrial experience. To get industrial experience, seek out training opportunities that include an industry internship as part of the curriculum. Some biotech and pharmaceutical companies may offer volunteer opportunities, and some have postdoctoral positions.

Until next time...

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

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

Ed Silverman who runs the Pharmalot Blog yesterday posted an article that reports the average salaries, employment rates and job opportunities for persons working in the life sciences industry. The figures reported in the post were gleaned from an industry -wide bi-annual report conducted by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the Battelle Institute.

Some of the report highlights:

1. Average annual wages in the U.S. biotech sector were tallied at $77,595, compared to the $45,229 average for total private sector employment
2. Total employment in the U.S. bioscience sector has exceeded 1.42 million, with another 6.5 million jobs indirectly supported by biotech.
3. The annual growth in the biotech was 1.4 percent during the first year of the recession, despite a decline in total private sector employment of 0.7 percent
4. Since 2001, more than 176,000 jobs have been added in the research, testing and medical lab sector, with total employment in the sector now topping 558,000
5. California leads the US in the total number of life sciences jobs with 221,096 followed by New Jersey with 88,854, Pennsylvania with 80,929, Massachusetts with 72,627, and Texas with 64,964

The report predicts an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent for the life sciences industry until 2018. While not great, the industry continues to grow while others like banking, financial services, business etc continue to decline.

Maybe a career in the life sciences industry isn’t a bad idea after all!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Carl Ichan, the billionaire, activist investor notified Genzyme that he will seek shareholder approval to seat four handpicked directors including himself to be appointed to the company’s board of directors in an attempt to remove embattled Chairman and CEO Henri Termeer who has led the company for the past 25 years.

The move was widely anticipated by industry analysts because Icahn own one percent of outstanding shares of Genzyme’s stock.  Icahn and other large shareholders believe the company would be better off under new leadership. Termeer has publicly stated that he has no intention of resigning.

Until recently, Genzyme’s standing and reputation in the biopharmaceutical and orphan drug industry was second-to-none. However, the company’s inability to quickly correct ongoing manufacturing problems at its biomanufacturing facilities for the past year has been extremely embarrassing and costly. Sloppy manufacturing and quality control problems this past year led to major shortages of two main products, Cerezyme and Fabrazyme. Consequently, in 2009 sales revenues dropped and company earnings were almost flat. Further, Genzyme shares lost 26% of their value in 2009, sinking to a five-year low.

Icahn is no stranger to hostile corporate takeovers and company sales. In spring of 2008, he unsuccessfully tried to gain control of the Biogen/Idec board to force the sale of the company (Ichan owns 5.6% of Biogen/Idec’s outstanding shares). Later that year, Icahn engineered the sale of ImClone to Eli Lilly for $7.0 billion; after getting into a very public and often acrimonious fight with Bristol-Myers Squibb CEO Jim Cornelius who tendered a “low-ball offer” (according to Icahn) to purchase ImClone.

According to my calculations, Icahn is batting .500 for his recent corporate takeover attempts. Do you think he will be able to go 2-for-3? I bet Henri Termeer is hoping that he can’t!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

I Am Biotech, the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s (BIO) outreach program is trying to promote the use of social media to spread the word about the importance of biotechnology and how it has changed the world for many individuals.

BioCrowd was invited to contribute to the social media section of the website. Like us, I Am Biotech believes that social media has an important role in promoting a better public understanding of biotechnology and other aspects of the life sciences industry.

Please check us out and learn more about the value of becoming a member of the BioCrowd by clicking here.

Until next time

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

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

As Jonathan Richman, author of the Dose of Digital blog focused on pharmaceutical marketing aptly put it, its time to “stop talking about social media.” “To recap, in 2009 we demanded the FDA call a hearing to discuss social media…and they did! We wrote and read hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on social media. We transformed (read: hijacked) every digital marketing conference into a social media conference. We launched a ton of social media programs even if they represent a conservative start.”

While I am still an ardent social media enthusiast and supporter, I agree with Jonathan that it may be time to sit back, relax and reflect a little bit until FDA enlightens us with their first round of guidance on social media and the life sciences industry. Having said that, I am certain that the agency’s first iteration will provide us bloggers with sufficient fodder to write about and ignite round 2 of the discussion. In the meantime, @Skypen of Ignite Health graciously created a website called Everything About the FDA, Internet & Social Media that provides updates, commentary and even tweets (#FDASM) about FDA progress or lack thereof.

I think that social media has a role to play in the life sciences industry. However, the role has yet to be defined mostly because of the lack of regulatory guidance in the area.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!!!!!!!

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

The generic drug industry didn’t exist until the passage of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Amendments). This piece of legislation, better known in the pharmaceutical industry as the Hatch-Waxman Act, was proposed and adopted by the US Congress because of the escalating costs of brand name drugs manufactured by large pharmaceutical companies (sound familiar?). The act provided the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with a regulatory pathway to approve and bring to market “generic” versions of branded drugs that lost patent protection. During the debate over the amendment, and for many years thereafter, branded pharmaceutical manufacturers tried to stifle the growth of the generic drug industry by suggesting that generic versions of their branded medications were unreliable and unsafe. This tactic was partly responsible for the stinted growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry until the mid 1990s when the price of branded pharmaceutical drugs began to skyrocket and insurance companies began to realize that something had to be done to manage rising drug reimbursement costs. To that end, insurers and third party payors began requiring patients to use generics (when available) instead of branded products to cap rising prescription drug costs. Because of this, the generic industry has grown by leaps and bound over the past decade and now threatens the stability of the branded pharmaceutical industry! 

Unfortunately, while increased generic drug use may be good for generic drug manufacturers and insurance companies, it isn’t always in the best interests of patients who use prescription medications. For example, there are a growing number of stories and complaints from patients who were forced to switch from a brand name drug to a generic one and had side effects, or found that their symptoms returned or may have been worse than before. In fact, this happened to my mother who was switched from a brand name pain reliever that worked to a generic version that no longer controlled her symptoms and induced some untoward side effects. Scientifically, there ought to be little difference in the efficacy, safety or tolerability profiles of a branded drug and its generic equivalent. This is because both medications contain the same active pharmaceutical ingredient. However, differences in the formulation of the branded and generic versions of the drugs may be responsible for reduced efficacy or safety and tolerability issues.

While clinical studies conducted by the insurance industry suggest there are no safety or tolerability differences between brand name and generic drugs and the American Medical Association’s assertion that, as a whole, generic drugs do work as well as branded drug, there is some evidence to suggest that some generic drugs may not be interchangeable or substitutable for certain branded medications. This appears to be the case for certain drugs that are used to treat neurological conditions and mental health diseases like seizures, depression and bipolar disease. Lesley Alderman, in an article she wrote in today’s New York Time business sections provides excellent examples of this.   

The problems with some generic drugs may arise as a result of the approval process for this class of drugs. According to provisions outlined in the Hatch Waxman Act which stipulate that a generic version must have the same active ingredient, strength and dosage form as the brand name drug or reference product. The generic version must also be demonstrated to be “bioequivalent” to the brand name drug. This means that the generic product must be shown to reach blood levels (drug concentration) that are very similar to the brand name product. This is usually determined by administering the generic and brand name drugs to a relatively small number (24 to 36) of healthy human volunteers. Generally speaking, once bioequivalence is established it paves the way for regulatory approval of the product. Typically, once approved, many generics receive what is known as an AB rating. Generics that are AB-rated can freely be substituted (by a licensed pharmacist) for a brand name product even though the physician may have written the prescription for the branded product.

In the past, patients were usually given a choice between a generic and a brand name drug —a decision that was largely based on the percentage of the cost of drug that would be covered by insurance. These days, patients no longer have a choice and are generally forced to use generic drugs rather than brand name products based on formulary lists compiled by insurance companies. While I am not practically or philosophically opposed to using generic drugs, there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that not all patients respond the same way to branded and for that matter generic drugs. Therefore, I contend that allowances ought to be made for these differences and patients who don’t respond to (or experience side effects) after taking generics shouldn't’t be denied access to the branded product that, in most cases, was originally prescribed by that patient’s physician. It is one thing to cut costs; it is another to increase a patients suffering or anxiety. If you are concerned about switching from a branded medication to a generic, please read this for some helpful tips and guidance.

Until next time...

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

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

Mark Senak who writes the EyeonFDA blog has compiled a list of the life sciences companies that presently have a Twitter account and use it. While there are only 12 companies on the list, he provides a nice commentary on their use and makes some recommendations for improvement.

Although I am a staunch supporter of the use of social media in the life sciences, it appears to me that the discussion about its use has been somewhat muted since the FDA convened a public hearing on the topic last month. I suspect that many of the companies and stakeholders who participated in the discussion prior to the FDA meeting are presently in “wait and see” mode. However, don’t be surprised if the social media guidance issued by FDA is lacking and excruciatingly wanting!!!! For those of you who may not be familiar with the ways in which the agency operates, its regulators tend to craft guidance and regulation that are broad, loosely defined and open to interpretation. The agency intentionally crafts its guidance and regulations this way because it doesn’t want its rules and regulations to be “literally interpreted” by companies and other stakeholders. Generally speaking, its regulations represent the “minimum” requirements that must be met in order to insure regulatory compliance. In other words, there is no upper limit on what companies can do to insure compliance but there certainly is a minimum requirement that must be met to avoid regulatory sanctions and penalties. As one lawyer who used to work for the agency shared with me recently, “FDA crafts the regulations but it is left to the companies and courts to interpret them.”

Most of the current discussions about social media and the life sciences industry primarily focus on its use as marketing and promotional vehicle. And, as many of you may already know, FDA isn’t exactly keen or pleased with the current marketing and advertising strategies and practices utilized by a sizeable number of life sciences companies. Perhaps a shift away from marketing and advertising discussions to more regulatory-friendly and practical applications like clinical trials recruitment and public outreach may lead to a more rapid uptake of social media by FDA and life sciences companies? Just sayin’

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!!

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

Unlike many of my social media colleagues, I’m not attending the FDA public hearing taking place in Washington, D.C today (Friday the 13^th oh my). I wanted to attend and actually testify but I didn’t understand how the process works and blew my opportunity. However, I will be prepared for rounds 2 and 3 and beyond. I can assure you that this will not be the last public meeting organized by the agency to develop guidance for the use of social media in pharmaceutical marketing and advertising. 

The brouhaha over social media and its use in the life sciences industry is purportedly taking place because of the lack of regulatory guidance on the topic. While I agree that FDA needs to craft a reasonable regulatory policy for the use of social media for promotional purposes, the discussion taking place has little to do with the medium and everything to do with the fair balance of ads that are used to promote drug sales. For those of you who may not know, fair balance (in regulatory parlance) means that drug manufacturers are required to fully disclose in print, television, radio and internet ads the benefits as well as the side effects and risks associated with a specific product. Unfortunately, too often, drug makers tend to promote the therapeutic benefits of a drug but downplay its side effects and risks. This isn’t surprising because drug makers, like other for-profit companies, must sell as much product as possible to generate sufficient revenues to remain profitable.  And, as we all know, consumers and physicians are more likely to use or prescribe drugs that have therapeutic benefits without many side effects or risks.

Since the inception of direct-to-consumer advertising, FDA and drug makers have been playing a cat-and mouse-game with the fair balance issue. Most drug makers understand the “balance” that FDA requires for traditional promotional ads, but rather than abide by the rules, many choose to determine how far they can bend the rules before they appear on FDA’s radar. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that drug companies have adopted the same strategy when it comes to Internet advertising and search result ads. To be fair, FDA hasn’t crafted any definitive guidance on Internet advertising or search ad fair balance requirements. However, rather than apply what they have learned over the years about fair balance in print and television advertising, many drug makers chose to ignore fair balance requirements for Internet advertising simply because there are no written regulations or rules. To that end, 14 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies recently received warning letters about their misuse of promotional drug ads that appeared with Google search results. FDA cited the lack of fair balance in the search ads as reasons for the warning letters. By issuing identical warning letters to 14 different drug companies, the agency was essentially saying “c’mon guys, who are you trying to kid—you ought to know better by now!”

Unfortunately, even when there are regulations, many companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to look for deficiencies and loopholes that can be exploited to increase and improve drug sales. Therefore, I contend, that regardless of the social media guidance that FDA ultimately issues, drug and device manufacturers will continue to look for work arounds to regulations that they perceive hinder product sales.  

Social media is all about transparency, accessibility and communications between participants. The guidance that FDA issues about the use of social media in the life sciences industry will likely be circumspect and open to interpretation as it usually is. As one FDA legal expert explained to me, “FDA crafts the laws but it is up to the judiciary  to interpret how they ought to be applied.”

I suspect little will change until drug manufacturers realize that full disclosure and transparency, not half-truths and opaqueness, will ultimately lead to improved drug sales in the future.

Until next time...

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

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

For the past 10 years or so, I have been providing career counseling and development seminars and workshops for life scientists. In the early years, students, postdocs and a smattering of faculty members would attend to learn about industry trends, the job market and more recently, alternate careers for PhDs and postdoctoral fellows. However, over the last few years, a disturbing trend has emerged—the lack of faculty participation at these events. 

Yesterday, I was invited to participate as a panel member to moderate a career development event sponsored by the graduate student and postdoctoral associations at the University Of Rochester School Of Medicine. The event was well attended (over 85 participants) and the discussion lasted for more than 2 hours. Joining me on the panel was a PhD-trained scientist/manager from Bristol Myers Squibb and a healthcare company executive who received his PhD degree from the university about 16 years ago.

Many of the questions asked by the participants were spot on and revealed that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are extremely anxious about their futures. The panel did its best to describe what it takes to get a job in the life sciences, the process and steps required to successfully win jobs and some ideas for alternate career options for PhD-trained scientists. Unfortunately, not a single University of Rochester medical school faculty member attended the event. In fact, I met the PI of one of the postdocs who sponsored my visit and he said with all sincerity (I think) “Thanks for coming...the students are really looking forward to your talk.” Obviously, I don’t think that it ever crossed his mind that he, like his students and postdocs, might learn and benefit from a discussion about career options and hear (probably for the first time) how anxious and fearful his and other students are about future job prospects.

The fact that faculty members are routinely eschewing career development seminars and forums is troubling and extremely disturbing for a variety of reasons. First, as I have said many times before, I believe that PIs have moral and ethical obligations to help their students determine what careers that they are best suited for. I don’t think that it is too much to ask or very labor-intensive for PIs to learn about the job market outside of academia.

Despite an ongoing lack of tenured track faculty positions and the extremely fierce competition to win them, academicians continue to exclusively train and prepare students for academic careers. This makes absolutely no sense from a “supply and demand” perspective. Second, the lack of faculty support and participation sends a clear message to graduate students and postdocs that their anxieties, fears and concerns about job prospects simply isn’t that important to their PIs.  The mantra of most academicians —“just continue to do good science and everything will be okay”— is outdated, anachronistic and self serving (for PIs) at best.  

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the failure of  tenured faculty members to actively engage and participate in discussions about career options reveals the unbridled contempt that most academicians have for scientists who work outside of academia. Most academics choose to not concern themselves with non-academic and mundane issues like jobs and careers. And why should they? Once they win tenure, their lives are set because they are guaranteed jobs and benefits for life!

We are living in very challenging and troubling times. In the past three years, over 180,000 pharmaceutical workers have  lost their jobs and national unemployment will likely hit 15%. Academic and government jobs are hard to come by and the competition for these jobs is ferocious and extremely competitive. And, sadly, current academic training programs are woefully inadequate to prepare graduate students and postdocs for alternate career opportunities in the life sciences. 

As I have stated numerous times before, life science graduate training programs are in dire need of systemic change and must be overhauled to remain relevant. Unfortunately, systemic changes are unlikely because tenured faculty members can’t be forced or induced to change their attitudes or beliefs. While a minority of life sciences faculty members realizes that the system is broken, the majority doesn’t.  To that end, if graduate students and postdoctoral fellows want change to occur, than they must band together and collectively send a message to their PIs and mentors that “We are mad as hell and we aren’t going to take it anymore!” Anything short of a widespread, massive protest will be ineffectual!

To learn how to more effectively manage employees, please check out the 360 feedback solution.

Until next time...

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

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

Over the past year or so, more graduate students and postdoctoral fellows have been asking me about management consulting careers in the life sciences. I spent several years working as an independent management consultant and while it was a great experience the revenue stream was unreliable at best and the ability to work was highly contingent upon the economy. However, I can assure that my experiences as an independent management consultant were marketing different than those of consultants who work at the consulting firms like McKinsey or the Boston Consulting Group. For those of you interested in life style of a high-powered management consultant I highly recommend you visit their websites for more info. 

I invited Susan Colilla, PhD, MPH, President of the consulting firm Integrative Epidemiology LLC describe her experiences about becoming a life sciences consultant so that BioJobBlog job readers (who may be considering this as a career option), might get an idea and appreciate what it takes to get into and be successful in this line of work.

My Life as a Life Sciences Management Consultant

by Susan Colilla

After doing a second postdoc at University of Pennsylvania as an Instructor (nebulous junior non-faculty type position) and becoming frustrated with all the extensive work requirements for a tenure-track position, I started searching for a job in pharmaceutical industry.

While searching for a position, a potential employer, who didn’t have an opening at the time, asked if I would be interested in consulting.  As I was interested in this area, I started consulting for industry and realized that I enjoyed working on different projects in epidemiology and genetics, and loved that I could work from my home office and give up a commute. 

The flexibility in consulting is great.  I plan the work around my schedule, and the pay has been rewarding as well.  Last year, I formally incorporated my business, Integrative Epidemiology, LLC.  I offer services in literature reviews, study planning/design, data analysis and grant or manuscript writing in the areas of human genetics or epidemiology. 

As I build my business, I have learned about how to run a business, bookkeeping/billing, taxes, legal issues/contracts, and marketing.  Moving from academia to pharma/industry is tricky unless you have connections with those who hire in the industry.  One of the biggest challenges for me as a self-employed consultant is dedicating a good proportion of my time to networking with others and marketing my services, rather than doing science-related work.  It helps that I am very social by nature and enjoy meeting new people.

 I am also fortunate to be married to someone who makes a good income and receives benefits as this helps support our family.  There can be a sporadic flow of income with consulting, especially during a recession and new business slows down.  I have also partnered up with another consulting group (Venebio, LLC, based in Richmond, VA) to expand the pool of potential clients and work with a group of scientists to offer a broader range of services. 

For those of you who want to learn more about getting into the consultant business, Susan highly recommends an article that recently appeared in the Scientist. She shared with me that the article offers a great list of things to consider before starting a consultancy and that she “wished that she had seen it a couple years ago when I started out in this business!”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!  

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

By now, most of you have heard or read how vital networking is to either advance your career or find a job. Like it or not, learning to network is another skill that everyone must master (including scientists) to insure a successful career trajectory. Not surprisingly, most scientists are notoriously poor at networking—mostly because they haven’t been taught to network or perhaps more egregiously they have been told that it isn’t worthwhile or necessary to find a job. For example, in 1974, during a seminar  series required of all incoming graduate students in the Department of Bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin, a very famous and influential microbiologist sanguinely quipped: “your science should speak for itself and that’s all that matters!” In other words, if we graduate students do “good science” then others will recognize it and we shouldn’t have difficulty finding a job upon completion of our training. How wrong he was—it took me over five years (and two post docs) before landing a faculty position at the University Of Miami Shcool Of Medicine in 1987!

Unfortunately, this “networking isn’t necessary” attitude is still pervasive among life sciences faculty members in many graduate departments throughout the US; despite an acknowledgement that there continue to be dwindling numbers of job opportunities for PhD scientists. Nevertheless, in the real world—especially during  tough economic times—networking is a vital component of all job searches. That said, you never know who you may meet when networking at a conference, a seminar or even at a social event who might be helpful in your job search. However, before you begin networking, it is vitally important to understand networking rules and basics.  To that end, I found an informative article that showcases 13 common networking mistakes and blunders to avoid making. I highly recommend that you read this article before your next (or first) networking event!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Networking!!!!!

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

It’s no secret that major pharmaceutical companies are no longer investing in internal drug discovery initiatives as much as they have in the past. However, I was unaware how drastic the decline in R&D spending was until I read an article entitled “Significant Change Predicted for Bioindustry” by Benjamin J. Conway in the July issue of Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. 

Mr. Conway notes that in 1989 more than 50% of the pharmaceutical industry’s budget was spent on preclinical drug discovery and development. During the 1990s, the percentage slowly declined and was approximately 44% by 1999. He asserts that beginning in 2000, “the drop became precipitous” as pharmaceutical companies spent increasing amounts of their R&D budgets on downstream activities including expanded clinical trials. By 2006, big pharma was spending about 25% of its budget on R&D. Strikingly, Mr. Conway contends that “when measured in terms of constant absolute dollars, spending on pre-clinical R&D activities actually declined 0.4% annually over the period, despite annual increases of nearly 7% in total R&D spending.” 

Not surprisingly, the almost decade-long decrease in pharmaceutical R&D spending is best reflected in the lack of new drug approvals over the past five years or so. According to Mr. Conway, throughout the 1990s more than 50% of all new drug approvals originated at big pharma companies. By 2001, these companies were responsible for approximately 60% of new drug approvals. However, since then, pharma’s new drug approvals have plunged to 25% to 30% of annual totals. Some analysts suggest that the figure has been as low as 15%. The decline in new drug approvals almost parallels the decrease in R&D spending at most major pharmaceutical companies. Many industry analysts and thought leaders contend that big pharma companies have gotten too big and unwieldy and can no longer innovate. The unprecedented drops in pharma’s new drug approval rates tend to support that assertion. Mr. Conway points out that the so-called “innovation gap” has been filled by biopharmaceutical companies that “today account for 75% or more of new therapeutics developed each year.”

These changing market dynamics suggests that big pharma must reconfigure the business model that it has clung to for the past 50 years to remain competitive. Not surprisingly, almost all of the major pharmaceutical companies have begun to do just that! For example, over the past three years more than 60,000 R&D scientists have lost their jobs with little likelihood that the vacated jobs will ever be resurrected. Further, big pharmaceutical companies have increasingly begun to outsource many R&D activities to Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Finally, most big pharma companies have publicly demonstrated—through mergers and acquisitions—that biotechnology products as well as small molecules are in their future.

While big pharma may be retrenching and evolving, don’t expect the pharmaceutical industry on internal drug discovery initiatives —or small molecules for that matter— to disappear any time soon. The industry is going through a transitional period and the companies of the future will look only slightly different than they do today. These companies will still be large and well capitalized, but likely more diversified in their product portfolios (which will surely contain biotechnology drugs). Also, they will continue to excel in new product development, marketing and distribution. However, unlike the past, much less emphasis will be placed on internal R&D programs to discover new molecular entities. This means that pharmaceutical R&D operations will remain lean and companies will increasingly rely on M &A and licensing deals (with smaller specialty pharma and biotechnology companies) to keep their pipelines full.

Until next time...

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

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

Mark Sendak, a social media enthusiast and author of the Eye on FDA blog, wrote a great post today about an article he saw in the Washington Post entitled “Drug Firms Jockey for Space Online.”

Mark wrote: “Flock?  Flock?  FLOCK?  The only way you could use the term "flock" in connection with pharmaceutical firms and social media is to say that companies are a scared flock of geese.” He goes on to castigate FDA’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) for a lack of a coherent regulatory framework and guidance for the use of social media in the life sciences industry.

Mark aptly describes DDMAC’s guidance surrounding social media and the pharmaceutical industry this way. “No one knows, and DDMAC apparently makes this stuff up as they go along. That is the kind of Whack-a-Mole game DDMAC plays.  We won't tell you what is off limits, until you do it and then WHACK! Is this anyway to run a pharmaceutical industry?

I am in total agreement with Mark on this issue. Despite the rapid adoption of social media by other industries, FDA has consistently been reluctant to issue any regulatory guidance what so ever on the topic despite assertions to the contrary. Unfortunately, when it comes to social media and the pharmaceutical industry, FDA’s usual approach to regulatory guidance—reactive rather than proactive—is still alive and well. As you may recall FDA previously sent warning letters to no fewer than 14 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies admonishing them on their placement of product ads on search engine results pages. The fact that 14 different companies received warning letters on this issue reflects the confusion and lack of guidance offered by FDA on social media and the use of Web 2.0 technologies to promote or support the sale pharmaceutical products.

The growing popularity and inevitability of social media suggests that DDMAC officials along with industry representatives must begin to consider crafting a preliminary regulatory framework for its use in the life sciences industry. Like it or not, social media is here to stay!

Hat tip to EyeonFDA!

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

As many of you know, the life sciences industry, one of the most highly regulated industries of the economy has been hesitant and reluctant to embrace social media to reach out to patients, physicians and the lay public. This is because the US Food and Drug Administration, specifically Division for Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC), has been mute on the subject and hasn’t issue one iota of guidance on the use of social media in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology or medical devices/diagnostic industries.

Mark Senak, a regulatory affairs lawyer and owner of the blog eyeonfda.com, invited Dr. Jean Ah Kang, Special Assistant at DDMAC in charge of Web 2.0 policy development to talk about FDA’s views and ideas about social media and its use in the life sciences industry. Listening to the 15 min podcast would be, according to Mark, “time well spent” for social media advocates in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices/diagnostics sectors.

Hat tip and much “love” to Mark who wrote “BTW, I absolutely expect waves of love for this (the podcast)."

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Listening!!!!!!!!!! 

• 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

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

Recently, I have come across posts on blogs and websites reporting on lay offs and cost-cutting measures that are taking place at some biotechnology companies. A good example of this is a post that appeared yesterday on the Fierce Biotech Web Site. The headline read: “New round of layoffs, cost-cutting at biotechs.”  I thought “OMG this can’t be happening—not the biotechnology industry too!”

However, I am happy to report that many  of my concerns were assuaged after I read the post and realized that the reported downsizing was taking place at small companies, most of which were on shaky ground before the recession even began. Some of the companies that were mentioned included: Titan Pharmaceuticals, Pressure BioSciences, Insite Vision, WuXi PharmaTech Cayman and Targeted Genetics—not exactly titans (pardon the wordplay) of the biotechnology industry. 

There is no question that the current economic downturn will hurt some biotechnology companies (mostly because debt financing is so difficult to secure these days). That said, I think that the biotech industry may struggle a bit over the next couple of years but it will survive because it is in much better financial shape than most other American industries. 

It is important to note that the downsizing and cost-cutting taking place at many pharmaceutical companies is based almost exclusively on projected lost revenues that may occur 2-5 years two years from now—when many blockbusters drugs begin to lose patent protection— not on immediate cash concerns (most pharma companies have plenty of cash on hand). Pharma companies began downsizing in earnest about two years ago because they realized that they had gotten too big and their empty pipelines could no longer justify employing large numbers of unproductive employees. In my opinion, the current economic downturn provided pharmaceutical companies with a good excuse to continue to lay off employees, slash costs and maintain their stock prices. 

Many of the companies mentioned in the Fierce Biotech post have been around for 5-10 years and haven’t been profitable since their inception. As a former business partner once said to me “You don’t really have a business unless you have a product to sell and are profitable.” I suspect that many of these so-called biotechnology “companies” will go out of business—not because of the recession—but because they were unable to develop financially-viable products or services.

 Until next time…  

 Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Last week, I had the great fortune to meet (on the Recruiting Animal Show) a career development expert who despite her young age, has seminal insights into today’s job market and how to break into it. Alexandra Levit, a self-avowed GenXer on the GenY cusp, is the author of several books, including They Don't Teach Corporate in College, How'd You Score That Gig? and Success for Hire.

In addition to her book writing activities, Alex’s career advice posts are featured monthly in the Huffington Post and have been showcased in more than 800 media outlets including ABC News, the Associated Press, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, National Public Radio, Fortune, Yahoo!, and MSN. She is recognized as one of her generations (X or Y?) preeminent career experts who regularly speak at universities and corporations on workplace issues facing young employees.

Alex and I got to talking after Animal' show and I learned that like me, she dabbles in the pharmaceutical career development arena. That said, she graciously agreed to allow me to post a piece that she wrote entitled “Want to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist? Here’s How!” (see below) that offers guidance for entry level scientist who are considering careers in the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries. Read and learn!

"Want to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist? Here’s How!"

Talk about a career with intriguing possibilities. People entering the pharmaceutical research field today may be the ones discovering the cure for cancer or Parkinson’s disease tomorrow. Although the United States’ pharmaceutical companies sometimes get a bad rap, they routinely make astounding advances that save lives, and from what I hear, aren’t bad places to work either. If you’re a data-head who wants to use your scientific background for the greater good, you might consider becoming a pharmaceutical scientist. Here’s some detail about what breaking into the field entails.

According to the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, the pharmaceutical sciences combine a broad range of scientific disciplines that are critical to the discovery and development of new drugs, therapies, and medical devices. Some of the more common specializations include drug discovery and design, whichdeals with the design and synthesis of new drug molecules and includes medicinal chemistry, combinatorial chemistry, and biotechnology; drug delivery, which is concerned with the design of dosage forms – such as tablets, injections or patches – that deliver the drug to the site of action within a patient; drug action, which examines how the drug works in a living system; clinical pharmacology, which is concerned with the use of drugs in the treatment of diseases and leverages human clinical trials to determine efficacy, adverse effects, and drug-to-drug interaction; and drug analysis, which involves separating, identifying, and quantifying the components of a sample.

Twenty-eight year old Matt, a senior research associate at Novartis, spends his days engaged in both drug action and drug analysis for the company’s wide range of prescription medications for ailments such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes. He’s responsible for testing animal organ and plasma samples to determine if a drug is working the way it’s supposed to. “It’s my job to quantify the drug’s efficacy in the body, to gather early support as it moves through the process of getting approved by the Food and Drug Administration,” he says. 

While the majority of pharmaceutical scientists are employed by private-sector pharmaceutical companies, others work as researchers and professors at universities, as regulatory scientists for government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or as researchers at national laboratories such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An undergraduate degree in chemistry, biology, pharmacy, or engineering is a prerequisite for the entry-level position of research assistant. The research assistant, who receives a broad-based introduction to the pharmaceutical world, records, stores and summarizes information and data, prepares technical reports, and develops laboratory skills and familiarity with equipment. “You should expect that your first job will be low level and the work very routine,” says Matt. “You won’t have much of a chance to be creative or innovative, and you have to be tolerant of that at the beginning of your career.” Adds Beth, 31, an R&D project director at a top pharmaceutical company in the Northeast: “Make the most of each opportunity, no matter how small. Success with smaller projects will directly lead to greater responsibility and rapid professional growth. Focus both on delivering results and on how you deliver the results: for example, through strong teamwork or a rigorous research approach.”

Recent college grads looking for research assistant jobs may want to start by educating themselves about the pharmaceutical industry in general. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Web site (www.phrma.org) and the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Web site (www.aapspharmaceutica.com) are great places to check out relevant publications, networking events, and internship and employment listings. Specific job opportunities can also be found on industry job portals including www.biospace.com, www.hirerx.com, and www.medzilla.com, and you might also take advantage of openings advertised through your college’s career center. “My first paying job was an internship at a medical device company,” says Beth. “I made the original contact at an MIT career fair and then interviewed on campus with the company’s recruiting team. I shared my passion for medical device engineering and my solid academic background and was hired after my sophomore year.”

Matt also suggests that you might get in the door by connecting with a temporary employment firm specializing in pharmaceuticals. “I signed on with Kelly Scientific right out of school,” he says. “Almost immediately, I got contract work doing clinical research studies that eventually resulted in a full-time job.” Women may find that they’re especially marketable, as the pharmaceutical industry is still predominantly male and most organizations are striving to even things out.

The typical pharmaceutical research career has ample room for growth. From the position of research assistant, you can progress to a research associate, an associate scientist, a scientist, a senior scientist, and a principal scientist. After you’ve reached a certain level, you may also have the option of taking on a cross-functional role in research management, regulatory affairs, pharmacoeconomics, or communications. At the moment, most people who reach the top levels of the profession get a Ph.D. along the way, but many say that’s changing and that experience in the lab is increasingly worth more than formal education. You’ll be happy to learn that compared to other industries, compensation is quite generous. According to a recent American Association for the Advancement of Science Salary Survey, pharmaceutical research assistants make more than $65K with just a bachelor’s degree, and six-figure incomes are standard after a few years.

Like other data-heads, pharmaceutical scientists are highly analytical and have had the math and science coursework to back up their natural talent. “You have to be anal about the details, because one small error can mess up a whole batch of samples,” says Matt. A cool-headed approach to troubleshooting is critical as well. “Development setbacks occur frequently,” says Beth. “When something goes wrong, my first step is to pull the team together to diagnose the situation. I do not try to lay blame but want to ensure that we learn and do not repeat the mistake or ignore the issue as we move forward.” Additionally, pharmaceutical research environments can be political and difficult to navigate at times. “Drug research isn’t always run like a well-oiled machine and loyalty to the company doesn’t always work in your favor,” says Matt. “You have to have a good sense of what you’re worth and what you have to offer.”

If you think pharmaceutical research might be for you, now’s a great time to test drive it as a career. A special supplement on hiring trends in the pharmaceutical space published in The Scientist in 2005 reported that the number of people employed in the U.S. industry is expected to grow from 413,700 to 536,000 in the next decade, and that Research & Development spending, which exploded in 2004, is still steadily increasing. “I love my job because I have the opportunity to impact patients with my daily work, collaborating with my fellow team members to solve complex problems,” says Beth. “And I feel very fortunate to work at a company where my personal values align very closely with the corporate culture.”

Until next time…

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

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

According to a press release by IMS, a company that tracks pharmaceutical sales, growth of the US pharmaceutical market shrank from 8% in 2006 to a meager 3.8% in 2007–the slowest growth rate since 1961. Total U.S. prescription sales in 2007 only reached $286.5 billion. The 2007 slowdown in sales was attributed to:

• Loss of patent exclusivity for branded products
• Fewer new drug approvals
• Effect of Medicare Part D on annual growth
• Renewed focus on safety issues by US Food and Drug Administration

Industry officials place the blame for the slow down on FDA because fewer newer drugs were approved in 2007 as compared with years past. However, I believe that the slow down has more to do with:

• Higher prices of branded medications as compared with generic drugs
• Lack of public confidence in the pharmaceutical industry
• Increased scrutiny by regulators on direct to consumer advertising and continuing medical education (CME)
• Fewer and less innovative drugs in company pipelines

Bashing FDA is easy. The willingness of the pharmaceutical industry to assume ownership of some of its own shortcomings and missteps is substantially more difficult to do!

Until next time….

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

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