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

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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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 (1)
• 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
• Trackbacks
• Share Link