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 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner unveiled a “blueprint” that contained immediate and actionable steps that can be taken to spur innovation in the life sciences. The report’s proposals stem from a review of FDA’s current policies and practices, as well as months of meetings with major stakeholders nationwide, including key industry leaders, small biotech, pharmaceutical and medical device company owners, members of the academic community, and patient groups. Entitled “Driving Biomedical Innovation: Initiatives for Improving Products” the report focuses on seven major actions:

1. rebuilding FDA’s small business outreach services
2. building the infrastructure to drive and support personalized medicine
3. creating a rapid drug development pathway for important targeted therapies
4. harnessing the potential of data mining and information sharing while protecting patient privacy
5. improving consistency and clarity in the medical device review process
6. training the next generation of innovators
7. streamlining and reforming FDA regulations

The blueprint was issued in response to growing concerns that—despite record investments in biomedical R&D—the drug pipelines at many US life sciences companies has grown exceedingly thin. Not surprisingly, most life sciences companies blame the agency for the thinning pipelines but in reality both side have contributed to the problem. Hamburg’s bold plan seems reasonable. But, it can only be implemented if Congress provides sufficient funding to underwrite the new initiatives proposed in the plan. And, while these funds ought to be allocated, it is not clear whether or not it is likely given the poor economy and the current, unprecedented political divisiveness that exists in Washington these days.

Moreover, Mark Senak, author of the Eye on FDA blog, suggests that FDA can improve its effectiveness by learning how to communicate better with its stakeholders. Mark, a social media advocate provides this compelling insight into FDA’s communication problems and the agency’s inability to grasp that the Internet and social media can help to improve its communication skills:

"The extremely long track record of FDA in attempting to figure out the Internet (first public meeting held in October 1996) and social media (first public meeting held in November, 2009) has yielded no guidance, with little transparency into the process.  It is time for FDA to seek outside communications expertise to help the agency better formulate policy on a timely basis."

While I believe that Commissioner Hamburg’s blueprint for improvement is a good one, it isn’t clear whether she will get the necessary support to implement it.

Until next time...

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

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

I started my career as a PC guy and have since become an enthusiastic Apple fan.  After purchasing my first iPod five or so years, I was immediately convinced that Apple got it. I now own an iPhone and an Ipod and if I could afford it would junk my PCs in favor of Apple computers. 

Admittedly, I was not a Steve Jobs fan—not because I didn’t like but because I did not really know much about him. I just thought his company’s products rock. After his passing last week, my wife happened to hear on NPR snippets of his commencement address at Stanford University in 2005. She came and immediately said I should listen to it! And, I finally did! It was one of the most insightful, passionate and prosaic speeches that I have ever heard. 

I heartily recommend that those of you who may be at a crossroads in their lives or suffering the financial impact of the recession listen to his speech. Steve Jobs got it and it may help you get it too!   

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Karma!

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

A report in Bloomberg News today suggested that Eli Lilly & Co. Chief Executive Officer John Lechleiter, PhD told a technology conference today that unfavorable US permanent resident (green card) laws are to blame for declining US innovation in the life sciences. With this in mind, Lechleiter plans on calling for US immigration officials to issue more green cards and adopt a shorter and simpler process for highly skilled foreign nationals to gain permanent residence in the US. According to Dr. Lechleiter, one of only a handful of big pharma CEO who is also a PhD-trained scientist, current green card regulations are so-called job killers and force many talented foreign nationals to return to their native countries to work with firms that directly compete with American life sciences companies. Unlike most of his peers, Lechleiter has been very outspoken about the lack of US life sciences innovation.

While Lechleiter comments may have been appropriate five or more years ago, they are no longer germane to America’s waning innovation in the life sciences. There is little doubt that many bright and talented foreign nationals were denied permanent residency during the Bush era (2000 to 2008) because of stringent immigration policies and limits on the numbers of green cards allotted for persons from certain parts of the world; mainly China, India and the Middle East. This, in turn, forced many life scientists—many of whom desperately wanted permanent residency in the US—to return to their home countries to look for work and gainful employment.

As Lechleiter rightly asserts, these scientists found work with companies that began to directly compete with US life sciences. This phenomenon, coupled with the rapid assent of the middle class in many of these nations, made it possible to begin to conduct Western style research at a much lower costs in these countries. To that end, by 2007, most big pharma companies—many of whom had dwindling pipelines and monstrous overhead costs—realized that it would be more cost effective to outsource or move R&D to countries with emerging pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets and a well trained R&D workforce. And, for the past four years downsizing and outsourcing of R&D are exactly what have been taking place at many American big pharma and biotechnology companies.

In my opinion, the larger question that must be addressed, as far as US innovation in the life sciences is concerned is: why are so few Americans willing to pursue scientific careers? To wit, the main reason why so many foreign life scientists were educated and trained in the US over the past 20 years was because there weren’t enough American students to fill the incoming roster at most American graduate training programs. Put simply, America’s growing lack of innovation in the life sciences over the past decade can be directly attributed to far fewer Americans pursuing scientific careers and an increased reliance on foreign nationals—who were unable to stay in the US—to innovate! While changing US immigration laws may allow some foreign nationals to more easily remain in the US, there simply aren’t enough life sciences jobs left in the US to make it worth their while! In fact, the likelihood of them finding life sciences jobs in their home countries is now greater than it is in the US. In my opinion, the only way to restore American innovation in the life sciences is to convince American students that pursuing scientific careers is worthwhile and that the requisite training for industry jobs is available to them.

Interestingly, after leading with changes to US immigration laws, Lechleiter also suggested that America’s innovation problem could be solved by lowering US corporate tax rates and American companies should not be forced to pay taxes on oversea earnings. Also, he asserted that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should stop putting off decisions or erring on the side of avoiding risk when considering new drug applications. 

This begs the questions, how do lower taxes, no overseas taxes and expedited drug approvals help to spur American innovation when most life sciences R&D is conducted outside of the US?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Innovating!!!!!!!!

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

For the past three years or so, Eli Lilly CEO John Lechleiter has publicly criticized America’s lack of math, science and engineering preparedness. Further, he has lamented that this lack of preparedness has resulted in a lack of innovation and that it threatens the US standing as a leader in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Finally, Lechleiter squarely places the blame on American science educators. 

Therefore, it came as somewhat of surprise to me when I learned that Lilly (and many other pharmaceutical companies) are outsourcing an increasing amounts of drug discovery and development to Chinese contract research organizations (CROs pharma companies continue to outsource drug R&D to ostensibly lower development costs and get drugs to market faster. According to Chuan “Joe” Shih, a former Eli Lilly employee of 25 years and executive vice president of integrated drug discovery at Crown Bioscience a Shanghai-based CRO, the total annual cost for one researcher at Lilly might run $300,000 to $350,000 a year. The figure at Crown is one-third of that. Shih also disclosed that Pfizer was one of Crown’s clients.

In addition to Crown, Eli Lilly has outsourced R&D to other Chinese CROs that includeWuXi AppTec and ChemExplorer. It also operates its own research-and-development center in Shanghai and is building a diabetes research center here. Like Lilly, big pharma companies like Roche, Novartis and others have also established research centers in China.

Some analysts contend that the reasons given for the current R&D outsourcing trends—lower costs and faster market times—are red herrings. They suggest that establishing R&D in China helps position companies to sell into the huge, emerging Chinese market. Within the next decade or so, the Chinese market may eclipse the US as the major pharmaceutical market in the world.

Interestingly, in an interview in Shanghai Lilly’s Lechleiter said that he believed that CROs in China have more to offer than cost savings. “The skill level and the quality and the increasing availability of high-skilled and high-quality operations in the contract-research space render these firms globally competitive,” he said. Further, he added that in recent years, Lilly has had difficulty getting green cards or permanent resident visas for some of the Chinese people graduating from American universities it wants to hire. “So we need to follow the talent, and I expect there will be people recruited to the U.S. who will want to stay in the U.S. And there will be Chinese people and others who want to come back here. Our research center in Shanghai gives them a place to land.”

Does this mean that Lechleiter has given up on his quest to improve American science preparedness and American innovation? And, what will become of the 100,000 or so American pharmaceutical scientists who were laid off in recent years or those new minted American PhDs who cannot find work in the US? Is that the fault of the American education system or pharmaceutical companies that are trying to maintain profit margins at any cost or improving the likelihood of success in emerging markets in developing nations?

Until next time…

Good Look and Good Job Hunting (try the BRIC countries)

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

I know that I have been blogging a lot lately about science and it importance in American innovation and global competitiveness. And, not surprisingly, some of you may be sick of hearing me drone on about it! But, if you want to get another perspective on the critical role that science plays in the lives of everyday Americans, you absolutely must read Tyler Cowen’s article in this Sunday’s NY Times Business Section entitled “Innovation Is Doing Little for Incomes.”

Cowen, a Professor of economics at George Mason University and a regular contributor to the NY Times, astutely points out the impact scientific innovations have had on economic growth and perhaps, more importantly on the median incomes of Americans over the past 65 years. He points out that from 1947 to 1973—a period of just 26 years—inflation-adjusted median income for Americans more than doubled. But, in the 31 years from 1973 to 2004, median income grew only 22 percent. And, over the last 7 years it actually declined! 

In the article, Cowen asserts that the lack of income growth in recent years can be attributed to the ongoing dearth of truly game-changing technological innovations. Sure, there are computer, the Internet and wireless technologies but as Cowen points out these innovations have not markedly changed the lives of Americans as much as “electricity, the automobile, flush toilets, antibiotics and small household appliances.” While the latter advances impacted ALL Americans, the former have mostly had an effect on the well-educated, curious and often more economically well off. And, while these technologies have yielded measurable monetary gains, they often have been concentrated among a small number of company founders. Put simply, recent innovations have not been “game changers” for the economic well being of most Americans!

So what are we to do about this troubling trend? Cowen rightly suggests that:

“Science should be encouraged with subsidies for basic research, as well as private charity, educational reform, a business culture geared toward commercializing inventions, and greater public appreciation for the scientific endeavor. A lighter legal and regulatory hand could ease the path of future innovations.”

Further, he contends that:

“Sooner or later, new technological revolutions will occur, perhaps in the biosciences, through genome sequencing, or in energy production, through viable solar power, for example. But these transformations won’t come overnight, and we’ll have to make do in the meantime. Instead of facing up to this scarcity, politicians promote tax cuts and income redistribution policies to benefit favored constituencies. Yet these are one-off adjustments and, over time, they cannot undo the slower rate of growth in average living standards.” In other words, it is time for the US to seriously address its waning proficiency in science technology, engineering and math. "

To that end, he states that:

“Until science has a greater impact again on average daily living standards, the political problem will be in learning to live within our means. Because neither major party seems to support a plausible path to fiscal balance, or to acknowledge how little control politicians actually have over future income growth, we unscientifically keep living in an age of denial.”

Call me crazy, but what Cowen says makes complete sense to me!

Until next time...

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

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

In 2005, The National Academy of Sciences issued a worrisome report entitled “Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” that warned that America is slipping in competitiveness in all areas of science.

While this ought to have been a wake-up call for all Americans, in 2010, the Academy issued an update entitled “Rising above the Gathering Storm: Approaching Category 5." Not surprisingly, the findings in the update indicate that the US is still lagging in its capacity to innovate and compete and that the trend continues to move in a downward direction. For example, in 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available) 16 percent of American college students received undergraduate degrees in natural sciences or engineering as compared with 47 percent in China, 38 percent in Korea and 27 percent in France. Recommendations in the original report called for creation of 25, 000 undergraduate scholarships per year in math, science and engineering. Although the updated report indicated that Congress had taken some steps to implement the recommendation, progress has been severely lacking in this area.

Almost all US colleges and universities require that undergraduate students have some instruction in science. Unfortunately, most of these courses are lecture driven and lack a laboratory component (mainly because laboratory instruction is costly and time intensive). This is problematic because science is a laboratory driven discipline that requires data collection and analysis; neither of which is taught in most lecture settings. Recognizing the growing lack of science literacy among American undergraduate students, Leon Botstein—music director and conductor of the American Symphony Orchestra and President of Bard College an artsy liberal arts college in NY—decided to do something about it. To that end, he created a program at Bard called Citizen Science; a mandatory science course conducted during winter break that all Bard freshmen are required to take for graduation.

Citizen Science is a two and a half week long program in which students spend six hours per day immersed in laboratory science. The 2011 program taken by 480 students focused on the molecular biology of infectious diseases. Using laboratory equipment, computer modeling and classroom discussions, student explored various aspects of infectious disease research including bacterial and viral detection, creation of vaccines and techniques that can be used to manage global disease outbreaks. The students were taught by two dozen scientists who were recruited from all over the country. There are no grades or credits received by program participants. This was done to promote learning for learning sake according to Brooke Jude an assistant professor of biology and the director of Citizen Science.

Botstein, who incidentally is the brother of David Botstein a world renowned geneticist at Princeton University, has been an outspoken critic about deficiencies in American education. He previously has taken many of his colleagues to task for “shirking their responsibility to create a well-rounded citizenry.” Botstein, with help from his brother, decided to “put his money where is mouth is” by creating Citizen Science. 

According to Botstein, “The most terrifying problem in American university education is the profound lack of scientific literacy for the people we give diplomas to who are not scientists or engineers.” He added, “The hidden Achilles’ heel is that while we’ve found ways to educate scientists in the humanities, the reverse has never really happened. Everybody knows this, but nobody wants to do anything about it.”

Not surprisingly, the Citizen Science Program has received mixed reviews from the 480 Bard freshmen who participated in the inaugural program. After all, a majority of the students who chose to attend Bard have a decided bent toward music and the arts, not science. Nevertheless, many students suggested that their two and half week scientific sojourn has taught them to think more critically about science. Next year’s theme for the Citizen Science program may be energy or climate change.

While Bard’s Citizen Science program is a fantastic idea, not all colleges or universities have the financial largess or scientific connections necessary to create similar programs at their institutions. Perhaps Congress ought to establish funding mechanisms (in addition to the 25,000 math and science scholarships each year) for post secondary institutions interested in replicating the Bard program.

Government officials can no longer deny what the data are showing them; science literacy in the US is plummeting and we are REALLY at risk of losing our competitive and innovative edges in math, engineering and science. Put simply, it is no longer a question of “if” but “when.”

Until next time....

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

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

Mark Senak, a pharmaceutical social media advocate and the author of the EyeonFDA blog, today reported that the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche published on its website a document entitled Social Media Principles. The document outlines Roche’s rules and regulations guiding the company’s use and commitment to social media.

In an accompanying statement, Roche officially affirmed the role of social media as part of its Communication Policy.

Roche actively uses Social Media to communicate with its stakeholders. As committed in our Communication Policy we want to be a transparent company and thus welcome this new form of communication.

Further, while the company recognizes the use and benefits of social media, it acknowledged the regulatory risks associated with the new medium

Roche recognizes the ubiquity and benefits of social media and welcomes its use - however, we also acknowledge that certain risks are associated with these new channels. We have therefore developed this guideline to help our employees use these new platforms in a responsible way.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, Roche appointed Sabine Kostevc as Head of
Corporate Internet and Social Media. 

Contact

Sabine Kostevc

Head of Corporate Internet and Social Media

• http://twitter.com/skoko
• global.social_media @roche.com
• Media Team

She may be the first communication executive to hold an official title that has the phrase ‘social media” associated it. Surprisingly, this may be the biggest development of all; mainly because once one pharmaceutical company does something new, they all similar to follow!

Roche’s willingness to publicly commit to the use of social media is a bold and calculated move by a company that recognizes its power and the major role it will likely play in the future of the pharmaceutical industry. Further, it suggests that Roche, unlike most of its competitors, it willing to take a proactive role in helping to shape the social media regulatory guidelines being developed by the US Food and Drug Administration. Finally, Roche executives realize that increased transparency and open communications with its stakeholder may help to improve the public image of big pharma companies and perhaps rekindle the innovation that has been sorely lacking in the industry.

The bottom line: Rather than remaining part of the problem, Roche has boldly proclaimed that it wants to be part of the solution!

Hat tip to Mark and Roche!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting err Facebooking err Blogging!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Despite assertions by its CEO that there isn’t enough scientific talent in the US, Eli Lilly announced that it will lay off a couple of thousand employees within the next 90 days. Most of the cuts will take place in Indianapolis at four different sites where the company currently employees about 13,000 workers. According to an article in today’s Indianapolis Star

“The struggling Indianapolis company, which has been cutting thousands of jobs in recent months, told the state on Monday that its downsizing is not temporary, but for the long haul.

The reductions in force at the Indianapolis sites of employment are expected to be permanent," wrote Kay Jackson, Lilly's senior director of human resources, in a letter to the Indiana Department of Workforce Development. She added that the cuts, when added up, are not expected to be more than 33 percent of the head count at any one site, or more than 500 workers at any site."

Like most of its rival big pharma companies, Lilly has cut the number of full-time equivalent workers by about 2,100 worldwide since last September. That's when it announced it would cut a total of 5,500 workers worldwide by 2011 to save $1 billion in annual costs. The reason for the cuts; an expected steep falloff in revenues over the next few years when the patents on Lilly's blockbuster drugs begin to expire and face low-priced generic competition  

John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D, Lilly’s CEO, contends that the lack of innovation and new product development at most American pharmaceutical companies can be explained by a dearth of qualified and adequately trained American scientists. Maybe this is why most pharma R&D job are currently being outsourced to China, India, Brazil and Eastern Europe? Alternatively, it may be cheaper to employ US-trained foreign nationals in these places rather than high priced American scientists who perform similar jobs in the US.  

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget Indiana-not there is anything wrong with it)

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

John Lechleiter, PhD, chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly & Co. today told members of the Detroit Economic Club that the US is losing its competitive edge and that “evidence is mounting for an innovation crisis in the life sciences”

Lechleiter blamed the crisis on US tax and immigration policies over the last 10 years that have reduced research and investment funding and driven away foreign-born, U.S.-trained scientists.

He also attributed the problem to the US Food and Drug Administration’s new emphasis on drug safety.  “The FDA approved 92 drugs the last five years. That is the lowest of any five-year period,” he said. “We lose patent protections (on brand name drugs) and that is $100 billion less revenue for the industry and less for research and development” said Lechleiter. Further, he said that “American drug companies still spend 40 percent more on research in development in the U.S. than in other parts of the world.”

To avert the crisis, Lechleiter suggested the following: 

1. Increase and improve education for students in math and science
2. Change immigration laws to allow more H1-B visas for scientists and ease the process that allows immigrants to gain green cards to work in the U.S. The last time the H1-B visa cap was raised was in 1990
3. Increase federal funding for pharmaceutical and basic science research, which has declined over the last five years
4. Change tax policies to provide more incentives for research and development. The U.S. lags behind the rest of the world in offering R&D tax credits, he said. Moreover, the U.S. should not tax foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations

Lechleiter, who was trained as a chemist, is the only CEO of a major pharmaceutical company who holds a PhD degree. Therefore, his ideas resonate more for me than those of his business-only CEO counterparts. To that end, his suggestions regarding improving math and science education, immigration reform (which I have long contended is killing US competitiveness) and increasing federal funding for research make sense. However, the notion that US tax laws and lack of corporate tax incentives is stifling American innovation and competitiveness is pure hogwash.

While corporate tax rates may be higher in the US than elsewhere, there are so many loop holes that most corporations pay less than their share fair. Further, let’s not forget that the personal income tax rate is much higher in the rest of the developed world than it is in the US. It is just so “American” to not want to pay taxes and then demand and expect government services at no cost to the taxpayer (at least in Europe they pay high taxes and get good services).  And, let's not forget that despite their heavy tax burden it was American corporations not foreign ones that caused the recent global recession.

That said, I gotta give John some credit for his suggestions; three out of four (or a .750 average) isn’t bad in baseball or the pharmaceutical industry!

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot

Until next time...

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

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

Merck of Germany announced on Sunday that it had agreed to purchase Millipore, an American supplier of laboratory products and reagents for biotechnology companies for $7.2 billion. The offer comes in the wake of the $6.0 billion offer made last week by Thermo Fisher Scientific one of the largest supplier in the world of laboratory reagents, supplies and equipment. While somewhat of an unconventional move for a healthcare company, Merck executives hailed the acquisition as a strategic move for customers, stakeholders and share holders of both companies.

In other news, Astellas Pharmaceuticals, Japan’s second largest pharmaceutical company said today that it tendered an offer to acquire all outstanding shares of Long Island, NY-based OSI Pharmaceuticals for $52.00 per share or approximately $3.5 billion in cash. OSI, which manufactures and sells Tarceva (erlontinib) a treatment for non-small cell lung and pancreatic cancer (which it co-markets by Genentech in the US and globally with Roche), has a strong oncology pipeline and is also developing treatments for diabetes and obesity. Despite early success with Tarceva, cash-starved OSI has been struggling of late. The acquisition of OSI provides Astellas with a strong pipeline and entrée into the growing US oncology market. OSI would also complement Astellas’ existing strength and franchises in urology and immunology.

While mergers and acquisitions were largely anticipated in the US biopharmaceutical sector over the past few years, the acquisition of American companies like Millipore and OSI Pharmaceuticals by foreign companies suggests that there may be chinks in the armor of once dominant US biotechnology companies. The economic crisis coupled with America’s waning innovation in the life sciences sector suggests that other US-based biopharmaceutical companies may be at risk. Although most foreign governments stumbled when attempting to develop the own internal biotechnology expertise, many cash-rich foreign companies recognize that purchasing US companies with marketed products offers them an opportunity to quickly and strategically gain a foothold in the ever-expanding biotechnology market.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Buying!!!!!!!!!

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

Politicians, educators and business leaders love to complain about the America’s dwindling competitiveness in math and science and the growing lack of innovation that seems to be pervasive among many American high school and college-aged students. This is the same mantra that I have been hearing for the past 20 years. Unfortunately, while the powers at be like to complain about these things, no government agencies, educational groups or private sector businesses seem to be able to come up with approaches or solutions to these problems (talk about lack of innovation!). 

Luckily, as Thomas Friedman pointed out in an Op-ED in this past Sunday’s New York Times, there are individuals and not-for-profit entities that have come up with two possible approaches to improve science and math preparedness and American innovation. 

The first of these novel ideas is called National Lab Day (NLD). It was introduced last November by a coalition of educators and scientific and engineering associations. NLD’s goal is to inspire future scientists, engineers and innovators by pairing experienced scientists and engineers with students in grades K-12 to work on hands-on science project around the US. Participating organizations that have pledged support for NLB include pledged support for National Lab Day are the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the National Science Teachers Association, the National Science Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Jack D. Hidary Foundation, the American Chemistry Society, the National Institutes of Health; and the Business Roundtable.

Conspicuously absent from the list are large organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Medicine, the American Society of Microbiology and others. Moreover, no academic institutions or research foundations or life sciences companies have offered to participate. See what I mean about lots of complaining and no action? To learn more about the program or offer support visit NationalLabDay.org. 

Another program that Friedman mentioned was the Network for Teaching Entrepreneurship or NFTE. NFTE works with middle and high school teachers to help them teach entrepreneurship. The centerpiece of the program is a national contest for start-ups with 24,000 low-income students participating. Each student has to invent a product or service, write up a business plan and then implement it.

While the scope of NFTE is limited to only low income students, I learned first hand what an important skill entrepreneurship is on the world stage. In the early 2000s while working as a management consultant, I was invited to dinner by the CEO of an Australian life sciences company. During dinner, I candidly asked her why an Australian biotech company was interested in hiring an American as a management consultant. She told me that while Australians do great science they are awful when it comes to translating the science into a viable business. “We simply don’t have the entrepreneurial understanding and spirit that most of you Americans seem to have. Our society doesn’t focus on individualism and innovation, we like to maintain the status quo” she said. After the meeting, I realized that we Americans take our entrepreneurial skills for granted and if we can no longer excel in this area than the US is truly doomed.

Finally, since this post is about science literacy and improving the public understanding of science, I wanted to mention a cool website called Sense About Science that you ought to check out. Although it is a UK-based organization, what it is trying to promote has global relevance. According to the website:

“Sense About Science is an independent charitable trust promoting good science and evidence in public debates. We do this by promoting respect for evidence and by urging scientists to engage actively with a wide range of groups, particularly when debates are controversial or difficult.

We work with scientists to

• respond to inaccuracies in public claims about science, medicine, and technology
• promote the benefits of scientific research to the public
• help those who need expert help contact scientists about issues of importance
• brief non-specialists on scientific developments and practices

Sense About Science is governed by a Board of Trustees and run by a small office staff. We are supported by an Advisory Council and over 2,000 scientists and other specialists, ranging from Nobel Laureates to postdoctoral fellows, who are signed up to our database, Evidence Base. We also work with younger scientists in our VoYS (Voice of Young Science) programme, which you can read more about here.”

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Learning!!!!!!!!

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

After months of complaints by university officials and scientific organizations, the US State Department announced on Tuesday that it is taking action to speed up the delay-plagued visa process for foreign graduate students and post-doctoral researchers.

For the past few years, foreign science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral seeking to obtain or renew visas have routinely experienced long delays sometimes taking as long as several months. The problem became so acute that students and researchers who left the US often found themselves stranded abroad, not knowing when their visas might be approved.  Not surprisingly, the delays have caused enormous problems for American universities, which heavily rely on foreign nationals to fill slots in graduate and post-doctoral science and engineering programs. Over the last year or so, visa difficulties having discouraged many scientific organizations from holding meetings in the United States. Some life sciences researchers said the apparent reluctance of the United States to accept them encouraged them to seek work in other countries.

The State Department has hired additional personal to deal with the visa backlog but will not say how long it will take to correct the problem. A state department official indicated that they hope to handle routine visa requests within a two week time frame.

While never officially acknowledged, the Bush Administration intentionally slowed the visa process for foreign researchers to “guard against proliferation of science and technical information.” In other words, the visa backlog was likely intentionally created to prevent foreign drug companies and national scientific agencies from infringing on American intellectual property and patent rights—an ongoing practice that clearly frightened many of the jingoistic officials running the Bush State Department.

However, what the Bush administration failed to understand was that a majority of foreign students who train in the US want to remain here after completion of their studies. The visa backlog and its protectionist intent forced many foreign nationals to forgo their US training and return to their home countries to seek employment. This was beginning to threaten scientific and technical innovation in US laboratories because for the past decade or longer American students have shied away from science and engineering to pursue careers in business and computer science. Ironically, the Bush Administration’s protectionist leanings may have contributed—more than they care to admit—

 to the massive job cuts that have taken place at American life sciences companies in the past few years because of availability of a US-trained work forces in countries like India and China. This provides American life sciences companies with reasonable assurances that preclinical and clinical research outsourced to these countries will be conducted according to US standards. Further, it also provides foreign companies with unbridled access to a growing cadre of US-trained scientists that will enable them to compete on a head-to-head basis with American life sciences companies.

Fortunately, the Obama Administration, unlike the previous one, delivers on its promises and appears to be willing to work hard to restore science and technology to its rightful place in American society.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (it may now be possible for many foreign students!)

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

Over the past ten years or so, pundits have been warning that the US is losing its competitive edge and that it is no longer the world’s leading nation when it comes to innovation in science and technology. Measuring national competitiveness and innovation is very tricky business and until now, most of evidence to support these claims has been anecdotal. According to an article in today’s New York Times, a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation suggests that the US ranked sixth among 40 countries and regions based on 16 indicators that measure innovation and competitiveness including venture capital investment, numbers of per capita researchers, research spending and educational achievement. 

While the results of Foundation study may be troubling (if you are a US citizen), another recent study conducted by the World Economic Forum found that America ranked first in innovation and global competition. However the forum’s report was based entirely on opinion survey data.  Like the forum report, a study conducted by the Rand Corporation last year, also found that “the US was not in any imminent danger of losing its competitive advantage in science and technology.” The use of the word “imminent” is perhaps the most telling aspect of the Rand Corporation’s conclusion about American competitiveness.

The US lost ground to much smaller countries like Sweden, Finland, Taiwan, Singapore and also to one of it's main competitors, China.  Unlike the US, all of these countries are pursuing government-sponsored initiatives designed to promote innovation and global competitiveness. Some of the elements of these initiatives include education, workforce development training, intellectual property protection and immigration. Surprisingly, results from the foundation report (adjusted for population and size of each economy) showed that the US ranked sixth in venture capital investment (Sweden was first); fifth in corporate research and development spending (Japan was number one) and fourth in the number of science and technology researchers (again Sweden was first). Over all, Singapore ranked first in innovation and competitiveness. As some of you may know, Singapore--for the past 10 years--has heavily invested in the life sciences and has managed to induce some of world’s leading bioscientists to immigrate.

One of the main recommendations of the report suggests that the federal government ought to follow the lead of the individual states, many of which developed state government-sponsored programs designed to attract investment, talent and improve the work force skills of  local would be employees. Further, the report specifically recommends that the federal government offers tax breaks and incentives to induce American companies to innovate at home rather than outsource R&D activities abroad. Some of these incentives could include tax research tax credits  and increased federal funding or corporate tax breaks for workforce development programs.

Finally, one of the most shocking statistics that I heard in President Obama’s speech to Congress last evening was that 50% of American students drop out of high school and over 50% of college students never complete their education. This begs the question: How can America expect to remain competitive when a majority of its population is less educated than the rest of the developed world? 

A past commitment to education is what propelled the US to become a world leader in innovation and competitiveness.  To regain its past status as an innovator, the US must overhaul and vastly improve is primary, secondary and post secondary education system. This is something that cannot wait—the future of American depends on it!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting ( give teaching a shot)

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