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

An article in today’s NY Times entitled “New Ways to Exploit Raw Data May Bring Surge of Innovation, a Study Says” suggests that persons with quantitative skills and a firm grasp of the scientific method will be in high demand in the near future. This is because there is a current data surge coming from “sophisticated tracking of shipments, sales, suppliers and customers, as well e-mail, Web traffic and social network comments.” And, the quantity of business data has been estimated to double every 1.2 years!

According to the report “Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition and Productivity” put together by the McKinsey Global Institute, harvesting, managing, mining and analyzing “big new data sets” can lead to a new wave of innovation, accelerated productivity and economic growth. And, the place where this may be felt first is the US healthcare system. The report asserts that better management of big data sets can lead to as much as $300 billion in savings. Also, American retail companies could possibly increase their operating profit margins by as much as 60 percent. However, one of the major hurdles to this paradigm shift is a talent and skills gap. The US alone will likely need 140,000 to 190,000 with expertise in statistical methods and data-analysis skills. McKinsey also notes that an additional 1.5 million data-literate manages will be required. Accordingly, “Every manager will really have to understand something about statistics and experimental design going forward,” noted one of the report’s authors.

As far as jobs for scientists in the healthcare realm are concerned, the report suggests that

“....the biggest slice of the $300 billion gain is expected to come from more effectively using data to inform treatment decisions. The tools include clinical decision support to assist doctors, and comparative effectiveness research to make more informed decisions on drug therapy.” That said, life scientists with backgrounds in statistical analyses, bioinformatics, genomics, public health, epidemiology and quantitative analysis will be ideal candidates for these new job opportunities."

While these types of jobs (mainly health informatics) are certain to available in the future, it isn’t clear how soon. This is because the big-data trend has just begun and, according to economists, it may take years to recognize its financial advantages and benefits. In any event, it is something for life scientists who may be considering alternate career options, to think about. To that end, if you begin to train for these opportunities now, you may find yourself in the right place at the right time in the not-to-distant future.

Until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

In his State of the Union Address last week, President Obama acknowledged that US global competitiveness in science, technology engineering and math is at an all time low and that now may be America’s “sputnik moment” to turn this trend around. While I was pleased to hear the President say that we have a problem, neither political rhetoric nor turning the lack of science literacy into a challenge that resembles an arms race is going to solve the problem. What is needed are better trained science teachers who can engage science-minded students and a repeal of the No Child Left Behind Act that forces schools to focus limited financial resources on bolstering math and reading scores to maintain public funding. Sadly, neither of these things is going to happen any time soon. But I digress...

Historically, an option for science-minded students who wanted to be “engaged” was local, regional and national science fairs where students competed with one another for recognition of innovative scientific achievement. According to an article in the NY Times, science fairs grew in popularity after World War II and were intended for those who may not have considered themselves science fanatics but were interested in general science. Michele Glidden, director at the Society for Science & public, a nonprofit organization that administers 350 regional fairs contends that “Science fairs develop skills that reach down to everybody’s lives, whether you want to be a scientist or not. The point is to breed science-minded citizens.” Unfortunately, the number of high school students and high school participating in science fairs is waning. For example, in Indiana participation in the state’s science fairs plummeted 15 per cent in the last three years.

Experts contend that declining participation may be linked to competing demands placed on high school students for other extracurricular options like sports, music, and volunteering. Yet many science educators contend that meeting mandated state standards that usually require teaching fact-based knowledge rather than the scientific method leaves little time for them to stimulate students who may be interested in participating in science fairs. Further, many high school teachers lack the training or subject matter expertise to help students who want to enter science fear. Some have reached out to scientists in industry or local colleges and universities to help interested students but these types of connections are frequently difficult to make. 

Yet, despite these challenges, several hundred thousand American high school students will participate in over 350 science fairs during the next three months or so. If now is truly a “sputnik moment” for America, than President Obama and perhaps more importantly Congress ought to “put its money where its mouth is” and provide support to improve US science literacy.

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

Sunday marks the beginning of “American Education Week”, the observance which was started back in 1921. It was created by the National Education Association (NEA) and other groups because 25% of World War I draftees were illiterate.

While a lot has change in the US since 1921 and the literacy rate has drastically improved, the quality of the American education system, especially in math and science, continues to be suspect and in many instances is failing its citizens. Much of this failure is rooted in skyrocketing college tuition costs which prevents many Americans access to an adequate post secondary education. 

Most politicians contend that education costs are too high and spending on education must be capped. However a quick look at some facts (provided by an article in USA Today written by its founder Al Neuharth) paints a much different picture

• Families are spending an average of $64 billion annually to send 13.9 million students to public colleges and universities
• For the past 10 years, the US has spent $1.1 trillion per year on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; an annual average of more than $110 billion

As Mr. Neuharth aptly points out: $64 billion annually for higher education versus $110 billion per year for wars!

Is it any wonder that American students continue to lag in science and math preparedness as compared with much smaller countries where higher education is free or heavily subsidized by their respective governments? Think about this the next time you hear politicians and conservative talk show hosts about America’s dwindling competitiveness in math and science.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

While I believe that tenure ought to be abolished and the cost of a college education is way too high these days, I cannot fault non-profit post secondary educational institutions for the job that they do educating students and preparing them for life. Most do a pretty good job despite the outrageous price tag.

Because of the recession and high unemployment, many displaced workers have chosen to “go back to school.” This has resulted in a booming business for many for-profit post secondary education companies. Because there are no perquisites at many of these schools, the main criterion for admission is the ability to pay tuition and fees. Not surprisingly, the quality of the education at many of these institutions is somewhat deficient and the attrition rates are exceedingly high. More egregiously, however, is the little known fact that much of the financial aid available to low income and minority college students is “eaten up” by for-profit education companies. And ironically, the tuition to earn certificate or associate degrees at these schools is 4-5 times higher than that required to earn comparable degrees at local community colleges.

Admittedly, I don’t think near enough about for-profit secondary education companies and their impact on students. However, my eyes were recently opened, after reading an article entitled “Degrees of Debt" by Jeremy Dehn; a journeyman adjunct instructor who works at both non-profit and for profit post secondary education institutions. Because he works at both non- and for-profit institutions he is in a unique position to compare the two educational experiences. This is a MUST READ article.

The notion that education can be accurately and adequately delivered based on the free enterprise system and unbridled capitalism is bogus. While non-profit education institutions leave a lot to be desired, relying for-profit companies (and prevailing market trends) to educate Americans is certain to continue to diminish American competitiveness on the world stage.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• 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

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