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

I became a medical/science writer after a rather circuitous, unconventional and sometimes, checkered career. Along the way, I learned a few things that I thought would be important to share with other PhDs who are seeking to change careers, t broaden their horizons and or simply to bring home a paycheck! I am sure that I missed a few things but here are my top 10 reasons to consider a career in medical/science writing:

10. Academic and industrial jobs are scare 
9.   No postdoctoral training is required
8.   Previous industrial experience is not a prerequisite for employment
7.   No laboratory work must be done to publish
6.   Starting salaries range from $40-$50 per hour or $75-90K annually 
5    There is a growing need for therapeutic area content experts
4.   Assignments change regularly and there is an enormous of amount of flexibility in when    and how you work 
3    Although a writer doesn’t perform any laboratory work, there is an opportunity to utilize the scientific skill sets (data analysis, thinking and problem solving) that you learned during your graduate training
2.   Even when times get tough, writers are always in high demand because publishing is the life blood of science
1.  You enjoy writing, thinking creatively and working with an eclectic bunch of people who are not scientists!

Until next time..... 

Good Luck and Good Writing!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an attempt to assuage the jitters and financial concerns of investors who own stock in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies, the US Food and Drug Administration announced yesterday that it will be change the format of the letter received by companies whose products are not ready for approval.

In the old days (at least until yesterday), when the agency determined that drugs were not suitable for sale, it would send companies a so-called non-approval letter. This letter was designed to inform drug and device makers that their products had issues that needed to be resolved before the agency will approve them. Apparently, (at least according to drug and device manufacturers), receipt of non-approval letters by companies signaled to investors that the product in question would never, under any circumstances, be approved by FDA. This urban legend was born because most companies that receive non-approvable letters decide against investing more time and money into products that FDA has deemed “unapprovable” i.e. there isn’t enough of a financial inducement or upside to continue further development.

Now, when new products are not up to snuff, companies will receive something called a “complete response letter.” According to the agency, the new letters will describe what is missing from a new drug or device application and, when, appropriate, offer advice on how to fix or address the problem(s). However, because contents of FDA letters are not released to the public, investors may now be less informed about the prospects of a new drug than in the past when the agency was able to send “approvable” or “non-approval” letters to companies.  “While this new plan may provide more detailed information to a company regarding issues that need to be addressed, investors will likely be kept in the dark on the true status of a drug’s approvability” said a pharmaceutical analyst after learning about the format changes. He went on to say “Investors will no longer know whether a drug is truly dead in the eyes of FDA.”

In my opinion, this is another example of FDA cow towing to the whims and wishes of industry. Whether you call it, a “non-approvable” or “complete response letter”, it still means the same thing—the drug or device is not ready for prime time! I don’t think that the change in semantics will do anything to assuage concerns of jittery investors. What it WILL do is force investors to rely solely on the honesty of the management teams that receives these letters—Oy!

I think that FDA ought to stick to the business of evaluating the safety and efficacy of drugs and be less concerned with the political and economic needs of the drug and device industries. Finally, it would be prudent for FDA to allow appropriately trained professionals to provide psychotherapy to all of the frightened and jittery investors out there!!

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Siemens, the Germany engineering, electronic and healthcare company is planning to layoff more than 17,000 workers worldwide.  Although primarily known for its engineering and electronic products like cellphones, Siemans has a large healthcare practice primarily in medical devices and diagnostics. A good portion of the layoffs are likely to take place in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

The loss of this many jobs at one of the world's largest and most reputable companies may unfortuantely be a harbinger of things to come.

Until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Somebody once said “Jews know two things—suffering and where to find good Chinese food”. Since I am Jewish, it is not surprising that I have experienced a fair amount of suffering throughout my life and, wherever I go, I seem to know where to find “good” Chinese food.  That said, my interest was piqued when I found a post in Yahoo Science News entitled “Study finds Chinese food good for your heart”. Given my lifelong fondness and penchant for Chinese cuisine, I thought that all of that eating that I had done had finally paid off. Unfortunately, after reading the subtitle of the article; “Chinese red yeast rice reduces repeat heart attacks/mortality rates” I realized that my joy and optimism were somewhat premature.

According to the report, researchers at Jefferson Medical College found that a partially purified extract of Chinese red yeast rice, Xuezhikang (XZK), reduced the risk of repeat heart attacks by 45%, revascularization (bypass surgery/angioplasty), cardiovascular mortality and total mortality by one-third and cancer mortality by two-thirds. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical study was conducted on about 5,000 heart attack patients, ranging in age from 18-70 during a five-year period at over 60 hospitals in the People's Republic of China. Study participants were given 300-milligram XZK capsules or a placebo and tracked over a five-year period. The XZK extract used in the study contained a combination of lovastatin, lovastatin hydroxyl acid, ergosterol and several uncharacterized components.

Based on study results, the study’s authors believe that XZK may offer therapeutic benefits to people at risk of heart attack and cardiovascular disease. However, they cautioned that the active pharmacologic ingredient (API) of the red yeast rice is unknown and it isn’t clear how XZK works to fight cardiovascular disease.

Chinese medicine practitioners have long touted the benefits of red yeast rice for heart patients. Nevertheless, this is the first controlled clinical study of red yeast rice that tends to substantiate these claims. According to the study authors it is important to note that “the commercially available over-the-counter supplement found in your average health food store is not what was studied here. Those over-the-counter supplements are not regulated (by the US Food and Drug Administration), so exact amounts of active ingredient are unknown and their efficacy has not been studied yet.”

It is unfortunate that I didn’t know about the benefits of red yeast rice during my recent trip to China. I certainly would have gone out of my way to try some. That said, given the plethora of exotic foods that I tasted in China, maybe I ate some XZK without knowing it!

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Eating (Chinese of course)……

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

Much like Paul Revere back in the day, there have been repeated, urgent warnings about the impending recession that will strike the US economy. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has done its best to deny the notion that the moribund US economy is actually in recession. 

Today, it was reported that the US unemployment rate hit 5.5% and nearly 49,000 people lost their jobs last month. This is the biggest monthly rise in the unemployment rate since 1986. So far this year, the Unemployed people grew by 861,000 in May rising to 8.5 million. To keep things in perspective, a year ago, the number of unemployed stood at 6.9 million and the jobless rate was 4.5 percent

Last month employers sharply cut jobs in manufacturing, construction, retailing and professional and businesses services. The recent and highly publicized meltdown of the airline industry insures that as many as 10,000 others or more will lose their jobs in the coming weeks. These layoffs, coupled with $4.00 per gallon gasoline, will undoubtedly have a substantial and lasting ripple effect on the American travel and leisure industries. Can anyone still believe that the US economy isn’t in recession (I can think of at least one!).

Until very recently, many of my disgruntled corporate colleagues (who I eat lunch with from time to time) indicated that they were actively seeking new employment. At lunch the other day, a soft spoken but vocal woman who previously said that “she couldn’t take it anymore and was outta here the first chance that she got” quipped; “What’s with all the complaining. We should all consider ourselves lucky that we even have jobs!” I think that says it all….

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Holding!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Minnesota-based Medtronic, Inc., one of the world’s largest medical devices companies, announced  that it was cutting about 1,100 jobs; 350 of which will be in Minnesota. This is the first layoff at the medical devices manufacturer in over 5 years. According to a press release, slightly over a third of the layoffs will come from the company’s local operations, which has about 8,000 employees. The overall effect of the reorganization will be relatively small—affecting roughly 3% of the company’s worldwide workforce of 39, 500.

Medtronic attributes the realignment (not restructuring according to company executives) to slumping sales of its spinal and cardiac devices. Accordingly, the company’s cardiac rhythm and neuroscience businesses along with local operations will bear the brunt of the job cuts.

It looks as though the entire life sciences sector is under assault. Belt yourself in—it’s going to be a rough ride for the foreseeable future!

Thanks to Ed at Pharmalot for the heads-up!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (are there any left?)!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bristol-Myers Squibb announced today that it has sold its medical device and wound care business, ConvaTec, for approximately $4.1 billion to Nordic Capital and Avista Capital Partners. The divesture is part of BMS’s corporate restructuring that was announced late last year to become a “next generation biopharma” company—whatever that means.  

ConvaTec which became part of BMS after Bristol Myers bought Squibb back in the 1980s, will continue to operate as an independent entity according to analysts close to the deal.

I suspect that there may be some downsizing in ConvaTec’s future since it is no longer a part of the BMS.  This is not good news for New Jersey, which is already struggling with major pharma layoffs and ongoing corporate right sizing moves.

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As I mentioned in a post about a month or so ago, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) floated a proposal to ease the rules regarding promotion of off-label use of previously approved drugs. According to the newly proposed rules, FDA would allow drug makers to provide physicians with reprints of journal articles that conspicuously promote off-label uses for previously approved products. At present, drug companies are strictly forbidden to promote off-label use of their products.  A major proviso of the proposed rule changes is that the articles/reprints must be published in peer reviewed medical journals before they can be disseminated to physicians and other healthcare professionals. Apparently, FDA officials believe that peer review can take the place of the rigorous regulations and requirements that are currently in place for US approval of drugs, biologics and medical devices!

For those of you who don’t know, an editorial appeared in last week’sJournal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that took drug maker Merck to task for using alleged ghostwriters and ghost authors on clinical studies that were published about it painkiller Vioxx. As you all know, Merck voluntarily took Vioxx off the market in 2004 after it was revealed that the drug could lead to increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

The incendiary firestorm that has ensued since the appearance of the  Although I believe that the practices of ghostwriting and ghost authoring are not as widespread as the JAMA authors would like you to believe, I think that it is a good thing that FDA may scuttle its proposed new off-label drug promotion rules.

In my opinion (humble or otherwise), drug makers MUST be required to prove that off-label uses of previously approved products  don’t pose any serious safety or health risks before companies are allowed to promote them for new indications. As we have seen time and again in recent years, safety issues and serious health risks can arise for drugs even though they received FDA approval. With this in mind I ask: “Why would FDA allow drug makers to provide less rigorous proof for an off-label indication than that required for approval of the intended use of the original product?”  It makes little sense to me. However, looking more closely at the proposed rule changes,  it would obviate the need for companies to spend additional monies (possibly hundreds of millions) to garner FDA approval for a new product indication.  Hmmm….maybe I am beginning to see a pattern here!!!!!!!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There’s a ton of stuff online about what kinds of interview questions to expect, and how to answer them to impress the interviewer.  But, you have to remember (and it does wonders for your confidence if you do) that you’re interviewing them, also.  You need to find out if this is a medical sales company that you’re going to be happy working for.  So, what kinds of questions should you ask?  Here’s an article on 10 Questions to Dazzle Would-Be Employers to help you.  Some of my favorites:

“How do you see me benefitting the company?”  Find out what caught their eye about you in the first place, and then you can bring up those qualities for a better sell.

“Why did you choose this company?”  If they haven’t tried to sell you on the company already, this answer gives you some insight.

“When will a decision be made?”  Suprisingly, many people don’t ask that, and end up frustrated if it takes longer than they were expecting. 

Your questions about the company and the job will set you apart from other candidates and show how interested you are in the position.  Not to mention it will give you extra insight into your decision whether or not to work for them.

If you have any  questions for Peggy aka the Medical Sales Recruiter contac her  at: the medical sales recruiter blog!

Until next time.....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

People who become scientists spend many years learning how to design, conduct, collect and analyze data from the experiments that they conduct. The ultimate goal of this seemingly endless exercise is to craft peer-reviewed publications that either support or refute the underlying hypotheses used to initiate the experiments in the first place. As part of our training, we are repeatedly reminded that it is our obligation to fastidiously and accurately report the results of our experiments and to assume “full ownership of the manuscripts and publications" that we author. The idea of allowing a person who didn’t participate in the design or execution of the research, to craft a manuscript for peer review is something that is virtually unheard of in the scientific community and, in the minds of some scientists, tantamount to scientific misconduct or fraud.

Physicians, on the other hand, who don’t learn how to conduct research or write scientific papers during their medical training, are frequently poor writers and have a little or no time to spend on writing scientific or medical manuscripts. Because of this, it is not uncommon for physicians who conduct medical research on behalf of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices companies to hire medical writers to write manuscripts for them. In fact, many physicians who work with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies prefer and expect this arrangement. So, why the recent commotion over medical “ghostwriting”?

Drug companies typically hire medical communication agencies to develop and craft manuscripts that showcase the results of clinical or research studies that they have conducted. These companies will usually provide an agency with background information about a study, a research summary, clinical study reports, ideas or titles for proposed manuscript and a list of prospective authors (usually physicians who performed the studies on behalf of the company).  Medical writers, who are either employed by the agency or work as freelancers use these materials to craft a detailed outline for the proposed manuscript. After the outline is completed, the agency usually shares the outline with physicians who were named on the list to determine who may be interested in authoring the publication. After an author is identified, the medical writer works closely with the author to develop a first draft of the manuscript. After the draft is reviewed by the author, changes are made to the draft, a revised version is circulated and the process is repeated until all stakeholders are satisfied with the manuscript. Once the publication has been copyedited and undergone legal and regulatory review it is submitted for peer review.

For the record, in my five years as a medical writer, I have never encountered a situation where the primary author doesn’t have final say over what will and won’t appear in a manuscript. When scientific, medical or business disagreements do arise, the author(s), medical writer and company representatives usually negotiate mutually-agreed upon solutions. Rarely, have I seen a company remove an author from a publication because his/her views or interpretations of the data were not consistent with those of the company that sponsored the research. The reason why drug companies and medical communication agencies have recently come under fire for their “ghostwriting” practices is because they have repeatedly failed to disclose that many of their publications were written by medical writers —whose names didn’t appear anywhere on the publications. Although this practice still exists, it is no longer as widespread or commonplace as it once was. These days, the names of medical writers who author manuscripts routinely appear in the acknowledgement sections of many scientific and medical publications. Moreover, in some instances, a medical writer may be able to garner co-author status on a publication —depending upon his/her level of involvement in the project. 

In my opinion, there is little difference between graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and medical writers when it comes to preparing manuscripts for publication. It is not uncommon for the names of PIs, supervisors and others to appear as authors on publications even though their contribution to a project (or preparation of a manuscript) has been limited or nominal at best. Consequently, I fail to see any credible legal or ethical arguments against hiring a medical writer to write manuscript on behalf of an “author” as long as the “author” can demonstrate that he/she actively participated or was intimately associated with study design, conduct or analysis. Finally, to maintain the integrity and transparency of the medical writing process, it is imperative that medical writers who prepare manuscripts on behalf of study authors should be acknowledged or credited with “authorship” somewhere in a publication.

Until next time….

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

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

 A report on the state of the Massachusetts biotechnology industry suggests that global competition and shortages of trained workers might cause the state to loss its reputation as one of the world’s top life sciences cluster. The report points out that there simply aren’t enough trained workers to meet the growing demand from Massachusetts-based biotechnology companies-both because of a lack of adequate training programs and lack of interest from students.  

To help to remedy the situation, the study recommended that more job training programs ought to be created at two- and four-year state colleges and that Massachusetts should do more to encourage students to pursue careers in the life sciences. As usual, the report recommended that math and science education should be improved at the K-12 levels. Other suggestions included setting up a “summer bio camp” and launching an unpaid bioscience internship program.

Unfortunately, this report, which was prepared by Boston-based Mass Insight Corp and McKinsey & Co and was likely very expensive, is almost identical to other studies published over the past decade about ongoing workforce shortages in the life sciences industry. Like its predecessors, it contains the same tired and unimaginative recommendations that others have proposed to solve bioscience labor shortages. To learn more about some creative solutions to avert life sciences workforce shortages click here.

Despite what the experts and pundits would have you believe, the etiology of the workforce shortages in the life sciences industry is easy to decipher. Put simply, most universities and colleges don’t believe that job training or career development should be part of their academic initiatives or educational missions. Likewise, companies don’t feel that education or training should fall within their purview–according to industry executives, college and professional school graduates ought to be sufficiently prepared to enter the workforce after they complete their education.

Because neither academia nor industry wants to assume responsibility (financial or otherwise) to prepare or train students for careers in the life sciences, it should come as no surprise that there are workforce shortages in this industry. Although a number of federally-funded biotraining programs were initiated in the late 1990s, these programs were poorly promoted and are incapable of sustaining themselves without government support. Paradoxically, there are many more innovative, industry-focused biotechnology and bioscience training programs at the high school level as compared with the undergraduate and graduate levels. I suspect that many professors in undergraduate and graduate life sciences departments are more concerned about their own research programs than about the careers of their students. Go figure………!!!!!

There will continue to be workforce shortages in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical devices industry until either academia, industry or both claims ownership of bioscience training and career development.  I think that it time for academicians and industry professionals alike to put their heads together to solve this serious and ongoing problem. Failure to do so will result in the loss of America’s global dominance in the life sciences industry.

Until next time…

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

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

A Johnson & Johnson Co. plant in Bedford MA that manufactures medical devices was sold for $45 million in cash to an Indiana-based provider of orthopedic products used in arthroscopy, dental and other medical professions.

The plant’s 200 workers will keep their jobs, and additional jobs could be added in the future depending on customer demand, said Fred L. Hite, senior vice-president and chief financial officer of Symmetry Medical Inc.

Symmetry, a public company listed on the New York Stock exchange, purchased the 82,000 square-foot facility from DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., which is owned by Johnson & Johnson. Both Symmetry and DePuy are headquartered in Warsaw, Ind., known to some as the orthopedic capital of the country.

According to a release from Symmetry, DePuy is required to make minimum purchases from the New Bedford plant for four years following the acquisition, which is expected to be completed within 60 days.

Until Next Time.....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Fellow blogger, Jacob Goldstein, over at the WSJ Health Blog posted a story today about a prominent hypertension researcher who was approached by a medical communications agency about  putting her name on an abstract (she did not participate in the research) that was being prepared by the agency for a pharmaceutical client. According to the Health Blog, the researcher was so outraged by the offer that she decided to go public about the alleged “ghost writing” incident. I have no doubt that the story is accurate.  That said,  I think that a comment posted to WSJ’s blog about the story sums it all up nicely:

 “So, this is some new revelation for the WSJ? There are plenty of studies in the medical literature which have been ghost written by an industry-sponsored medical writer, that was then submitted under the name of a highly-recognizable leader in the field–always at a steep price”.

As much as I hate to admit it, the person who posted the comment is right--sort of. Although ghost writing was commonplace in the medical communications industry as recently as a few years ago, the practice is no longer tolerated at most medcom agencies, and, perhaps more importantly, by the would-be authors whose names ultimately appear on the publications. That said, medcom agencies and their clients must remain vigilant in their attempts to eradicate ghost writing entirely so that all medical communications are written (and published) in the most scientifically-sound and ethical manner.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Every major pharmaceutical company on the planet declares that it “invests billions of dollars into R &D to develop novel medicines to address unmet medical needs”. Further, pharmaceutical company advocates and lobbyists frequently justify the high costs of medicines by suggesting that they are necessary because companies must reinvest a portion of their profits into R & D to discover new drugs. After receiving several comments posted to BioJobBlog informing me that high drug prices are necessary in order for pharma companies to continue to meet unmet medical needs, I decided to delve a little deeper into what “addressing unmet medical needs” really means in the pharmaceutical industry.

My personal favorite that seems to fit pharma’s interpretation of “addressing unmet medical needs” is the development of no fewer than 3 medications (Viagra®, Levitra® and Cialis®, with several more in clinical trials) to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). For those of you who don’t know, all three drugs have almost identical mechanisms of action. Who knew that so many men had this serious, potentially life-threatening medical condition? Don’t get me wrong–there are men that must take these drugs to …well…rise to the occasion. That said, pharmaceutical marketers realized early on, that this class of drugs could yield billions of dollars–not necessarily as ED treatments (the number of men who actually suffer from ED is relatively small) – but as recreational drugs to enhance male sexual performance. The booming sales figures for these drugs indicate that the pharmaceutical marketers were absolutely spot on in their thinking. Thanks to these pioneering medical marketers men all over the world no longer have to fret about dying or succumbing to the perils of ED.

Another class of medications that warrants mention is the statins. This class of drugs is routinely used to lower blood cholesterol levels to reduce the risk of hypertension, heart attack and stroke. At present, there are 9 statins on the market (with almost identical mechanisms of action) and 3 combination products either marketed or being developed. Everyone knows (or should know by now) that high cholesterol is not good for your health. That said, is the unmet medical need in the cholesterol control market so large that it requires 12 different medications to deal with it? Or maybe (and I am just guessing here) that every company that developed a “new” statin in recent years did so to grab a piece of the $10 billion per year Lipitor® market that Pfizer created?

Finally, Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo are developing a new antiplatelet drug called prasugrel to treat thrombosis and related clotting disorders. Business analysts are extremely high on prasugrel and estimate that if approved, the drug could yield over $1.2 billion per year in sales. Prasugrel is touted to be more potent than Plavix®, the leading anti-clotting drug marketed by Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Not surprisingly, both clopidogrel (Plavix®) and prasugrel work in almost exactly the same way to prevent clotting (as their generic names indicate). However, in early clinical studies prasugrel caused 4 times as much uncontrolled bleeding than Plavix®. So, why are Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo willing to continue to spend billions of dollars to develop another clopidogrel-like molecule? Unfortunately, the answer is relatively simple– Plavix® will lose patent protection in 2011 and Lilly/ Daiichi Sankyo are betting that they can snatch a share of $6.0 billion dollar Plavix® market that will be eroded by generic competition. Why develop a new medication with a different, untested mechanism of action when a market for similar products has already been created for you by your competitors?

Paradoxically, pharmaceutical companies used to the most innovative companies in the world. However, in the past 20 years or so, pharmaceutical companies have jettisoned innovation in favor of a less risky “me too” approach to business. Simply put, it is less risky to develop drugs that work like previously approved drugs (and already have large established markets) than it is to invest larges sums of money to develop new unproven drugs that may actually address unmet medical needs. It is a good thing that the biotechnology industry came along when it did……!

Until next time…

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

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