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

I am attending the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS) in sunny Phoenix, AZ where I will be providing career development guidance to undergraduate and graduate students. Ironically, given the dismal job prospects in the life sciences industry for entry level employees, I will be giving a talk on how to find a job!  Last year's meeting in Orlando was a great one and I expect this one to be just as good.

While I am on the road, it doesn't mean that I won't be keeping track of the goings on back in my neck of the woods. To that end, Merck announced today that it will keep Schering Plough's corporate headquaters in Kenilworth, NJ open. Merck announced the decision today after closing on the $7 billion deal yesterday. This is good news for the NJ residents who currently work at the Kenilworth site. New Jersey has been extremely hard hit by all of the pharmaceutical layoffs in the past few years. Unemployment continues to rise and things will not get any better since conservative Republican Chris Christie was elected governor on Tuesday (he plans on laying off massive numbers of state employees) once he takes office in 2010.

Johnson and Johnson, on the other hand, announced that it was closing research & development facilities in Radnor and Chesterbrook, PA and consolidating those operations at the company's Spring House site. The New Brunswick, N.J., company would not say how many jobs are at those locations now or how many would remain in Spring House after the move, which is to be completed by 2012. These closure come shortly after JnJ announced earlier this week that is was elimating ca 8,200 employees or roughly seven percent of its global workforce.

Let's hope that things begin to improve soon. 

Hat tip to the Pharmalot blog!

Until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a previous blog post, I suggested that there was much speculation about whether or not there would be substantial job losses at the various Wyeth sites throughout Pennsylvania after the Wyeth-Pfizer merger closes. As you may recall, company representatives were assuring Pennsylvania legislators that major job cuts and site closure weren’t likely. 

Yesterday, Bernard Poussot, president of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, sent a message telling employees the company’s Collegeville Headquarters, which employs about 4,000 people, would remain open after the deal closes on October 15, 2009. The fate of employees at other Pennsylvania-based Wyeth facilities remains uncertain.

While this may be good news for some employees at the Collegeville site, it is likely that a substantial number of jobs will be shed after the deal closes. Previously, Pfizer suggested that the combined company intends to shed about 20,000 jobs. I guess the good news is that all 4000 Wyeth employees won’t be losing their jobs!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported today that Pennsylvania state legislators, spearheading efforts to retain jobs in the state after the $68 billion Pfizer-Wyeth merger closes next month, said they were fairly confident many positions would remain at Wyeth's regional operations in Collegeville, Great Valley and other sites. Wyeth employs about 4,500 people in the region - about 3,600 in Collegeville and 900 in Great Valley and elsewhere.

One legislator told the Inquirer that "Representatives of both Pfizer and Wyeth have continued to assure us that we should not worry and they have continued to listen to the case that we have made for as many jobs as possible remaining in Pennsylvania." Pfizer, which plans to cut about 20,000 of the combined companies' 130,000 jobs, would not comment yesterday on the statement or the job situation in Pennsylvania. Gee, what a surprise!

If I were a betting man, I would say that there will be massive layoffs in Pennsylvania and elsewhere after the deal closes. Don’t be surprised if Wyeth’s Madison, NJ headquarters and its research facilities in Princeton NJ are first to get the ax. Finally, I am now firmly convinced that you can never trust a thing that a politician says.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As expected, Merck announced today that it would eliminate an additional 16,000 job after the merger with Schering Plough is completed. The combined company is trying to get its headcount down to around 90,000 employees. The new job cuts represent a 15% reduction in the workforce of the combined company.

While the merger may have made business sense, it doesn’t bode well for future employment for life scientists in New Jersey.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since 2007, approximately 80,000 pharmaceutical jobs have been eliminated. The recent consolidation in the industry, e.g., Merck-Schering, Pfizer-Wyeth and Roche-Genentech suggests that many more life sciences jobs will be lost over the next year or so. Typically, to avoid law suits and possible discrimination claims, most companies will layoff a mixture of experienced and entry level employees that cover the racial, religious and age spectra. For those of you who may not know, Americans who are 40 and older constitute a “protected class of employees.” In other words, companies that layoff employees cannot disproportionately give pink slips to employees 40 years of age or older. This law was enacted because older employees typically have higher salaries and have accrued more benefits and vacation time than their more junior counterparts and eliminating them can drastically cut costs. While most companies are careful to layoff a mixture of junior and senior employees during large layoffs, a quick perusal of the demographics of employees who lose their jobs reveals that many of them are older, more experienced workers. Sacrificing a few entry level employees (to prevent any red flags) is worth it to the accountants who charged with cutting costs and orchestrating large corporate layoffs.

Unlike consumer goods, pharmaceutical and biotechnology drug development is arcane, complex and may take up to 15 years to complete. There are many “go” or “no go” decisions that must be made during the drug development process. Typically, these decisions are rendered by experienced employees who have been “down the road” many times before and are able to recognize the oft-time nuanced attributes of successful drug candidates. Without the benefit of these employee and their experiences, drug companies may struggle to make the “right decisions” for new products being developed. Also, the loss of experienced employees can disrupt the flow of essential “corporate knowledge” to entry level and more junior employees. This is important because— while most entry level and junior employees are academically and technically qualified—it usually takes them years (under the tutelage of mentors and senior employees) to understand a company’s best practices. Put simply, the unrelenting loss of experienced pharmaceutical workers can alter the standing or dominance of pharmaceutical companies in certain therapeutic areas. While massive layoffs of experienced pharmaceutical employees bolster drug stock prices in the short term, the long term effects of these layoffs on the overall health of the pharmaceutical industry remains uncertain.

Jeff Kindler, Pfizer’s CEO, mentioned yesterday during a CNBC interview, that eight Wyeth senior executives will keep their jobs after the Pfizer-Wyeth deal closes later this year. Not surprisingly, he failed to mention how many “rank and file” employees of the combined company would keep their jobs after the merger. Don’t be shocked when Pfizer-Wyeth announces massive layoffs after the deal closes—Pfizer’s stock price has fallen 21% since it announced the Wyeth acquisition late last fall.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

The old baseball adage which says that  “you can’t tell the players apart without a program” is particularly apt when it comes to tracing the M &A activity that led to the creation of some today's largest pharmaceutical companies.

I used to be able to keep track of all of the moving parts  of most of these mergers but advancing age and unprecedented M&A activity in the pharma industry prevents me from successfully doing this any longer. To that end, about a week ago, the New York Times published a pretty cool and informative chart that historically traces the corporate mergers that lead to creation of Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis and others.

Check it out!!!!!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Some of you may have been wondering why the$41.1 billion Merck-Schering Plough merger announced yesterday was designed as a reverse merger. For those of you who are not familiar with the reverse merger strategy, this is how it works. Generally speaking, a failing or failed publicly traded company that is listed on one stock exchange or another merges with a privately held company. The privately held company takes over the public stock listing and manages the day-to-day operations of the new business. Private companies that engage in reverse mergers are usually looking for cash infusions for product development or a stock listing (without going through an initial public offering) which offers it shareholders immediate cash value.  Investors who previously held stock in the public company are either compensated for their shares in cash or given shares (at a negotiated price) in the new entity. Any cash (or assets) left in the public company can be used to develop the formerly private company’s product(s) and if successful, shareholders in the old public company can eventually benefit. 

If reverse mergers are designed to bolster the prospects of private companies in need of cash why was the Merck-Schering Plough deal structured as a reverse merger? As I mentioned in a post yesterday, Schering-Plough markets Remicade outside of the US under an agreement with Johnson and Johnson which sells the drug in America. A termination clause in the original marketing agreement stipulates that the ex-US rights to Remicade (and another drug being developed) would revert to Johnson and Johnson if control or ownership of Schering Plough changes. Remicade, a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, developed by Johnson and Johnson’s subsidiary Centocor, represented $2.1 billion in sales for Schering in 2008. Further, about 70% of Schering Plough’s revenue comes from outside the US. That said, the success or failure of the deal really hinges on whether or not Johnson and Johnson will challenge the change-in-control clause for Remicade. To obviate that possibility, Merck devised an unusual reverse merger strategy in which ownership of Schering Plough will not change hands—at least on paper anyway. Instead, even though Merck is putting up the money to purchase Schering, and Richard Clark, Merck’s Chairman and CEO, will run the newly combined company, Merck would technically become a subsidiary of Schering Plough and consequently there would be no change in Schering Plough management! Recall that Fred Hassan, Schering Plough’s CEO will remain with the newly formed entity during the transition. After the deal closes, Fred would step down as CEO, Merck’s current CEO—Richard Clark—would assume leadership and quietly change the name of the company from Schering Plough to Merck.

Of course, Johnson and Johnson could challenge the deal anyway, and if Merck was to lose in arbitration, it could possibly jeopardize the entire financial upside of the deal. Merck contends that even if it loses the rights to Remicade, the deal still makes sense.  Not so, said one Wall St analyst, “I think that is a lot of malarkey. You don’t take out 20 percent of a company’s revenue and their core international growth driver and say it is not worth anything,” he said. Other analysts think that the uncertainty over Remicade puts Schering Plough shareholders at a disadvantage and one response may be for Johnson and Johnson to make a higher bid for the company.  Still others believe that, while sale of Schering Plough makes sense, the $41.4 billion price offered by Merck is too low. Johnson and Johnson didn’t comment on the deal.

Schering Plough employees who I talked with yesterday after the deal was announced are not pleased with it either. They feel that Johnson and Johnson would be a more suitable partner and that Fred Hassan, who was under enormous shareholder pressure, had no choice but to sell the company as quickly as possible. It is not surprising that many Schering Plough employees would rather have the company sold to Johnson and Johnson rather than Merck. Unlike most pharmaceutical companies, Johnson and Johnson tends to leave the companies it purchases alone and runs them as wholly-owned after it purchases them.  Another reason why a merger with Johnson and Johnson makes more sense than one with Merck is that Johnson and Johnson has a very profitable consumer products division. This would be a better fit for Schering which has several highly visible and profitable consumer products like Coppertone and Dr. Scholl’s. In contrast, Merck sold its consumer products division years ago and will almost certainly divest itself of Schering’s consumer products division after the deal closes.

Now that Schering Plough is no longer in play, all eyes are on Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). BMS is about the same size as Schering Plough, has plenty of cash on hand and is thought to have a robust biotechnology pipeline. And, like Schering Plough,  it has been rumored to be a takeover target for the past 20 years!

Until next time...

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

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

Merck announced today that it was buying Schering Plough, the Kenilworth-New Jersey based drug maker, for $41.1 billion. The deal comes only six weeks after Pfizer said that it would purchase NJ-based Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Superficially, the deal may make sense for the two struggling drug makers—they co-market the cholesterol-lowering drug Vytorin and also have collaborations in the respiratory diseases area. Also, Schering Plough has the European rights to the anti-arthritis drug Remicade and its 2007 purchase of the Dutch biopharmaceutical company Organon Biosciences NV provides access to several potential biotechnology drugs. Nevertheless, the impending merger will ultimately result in job losses and higher unemployment in the state of New Jersey.

Merck currently employs 55,200 workers and Schering-Plough—which grew significantly with its purchase of Organon—also has about 55,000 employees. While no immediate job cuts are planned, a company spokesperson acknowledged that the size of the combined workforce will be reduced by approximately 15%-20% over the next year or so. This means that as many as 20,000 pharmaceutical employees may lose their jobs—a time when unemployment in NJ is approaching 10 percent! My sources tell me that Merck employees are already on edge because of surprise layoffs that occurred in early September, 2008. I suspect that employee anxiety will be extremely high at both companies for the foreseeable future—never a good thing from a productivity point of view.

According to press releases, Schering-Plough's shareholders will get $10.50 in cash and 0.5767 Merck shares for each Schering-Plough share they own. That's a 34 percent premium to Schering-Plough's closing stock price on Friday. Merck's top executive, Chairman and CEO Richard Clark, will lead the combined company, which will attempt to remain a dominant player in treatment areas including cholesterol, respiratory, infectious disease and women's drugs, as well as vaccines. Schering-Plough's CEO, Fred Hassan, will participate in planning integration of the two companies until the close of the deal, which is expected in the fourth quarter. The transaction is to be structured as a reverse merger. Schering-Plough will be the surviving corporation but will take the name Merck. The new company will remain at Merck's headquarters in Whitehouse Station, N.J. and a company spokesperson indicated that a "substantial majority" of employees of Schering-Plough will remain with the newly-formed company. The combined revenue of both companies in 2008 was $47 billion.

Mr. Hassan, a talented, “turn-around” pharmaceutical executive, took over Schering-Plough six years ago as chairman and CEO—a time when the company was struggling with a $500 million fine (the largest ever at the time) imposed by the US Food and Drug Administration because of chronic manufacturing problems. While Schering-Plough is now in much better financial shape than when Mr. Hassan first arrived at the company, its stock price is currently almost identical to the price when he took over (it lost 50% of its value in the past 18 months). Let’s see whether or not Richard Clark, Merck’s current Chairman and CEO, has the mettle to run the combined company. While Schering-Plough has long been rumored to be a takeover target, I don’t think that the Merck-Schering Plough deal is a particularly good or strategic one. Both companies have been struggling of late because of near empty drug pipelines and the ongoing brouhaha over Zetia, Vytorin and Merck’s Vioxx. Further, both companies face price reductions and slumping sales in the next year or so because several blockbuster drugs will lose patent protection and face stiff competition from generic drug manufacturers.

Like the Pfizer-Wyeth deal, the Merck-Schering Plough merger may little more than a red herring. I still fail to see how merging two oversized, struggling pharmaceutical companies can possibly result in the creation of a single successful one. The only upside of the deal is that it allows the newly-formed company to restructure operations, eliminate tens of thousands of jobs and cut costs to bolster its stock share price. That said, I don’t think that an artificially-inflated stock share price necessarily translates into the innovation that historically has been required to create new drugs to treat unmet medical needs!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid NJ at all costs)!!!!!!!

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

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

I believe in free enterprise and that publicly-traded companies ought to be able to buy one another if a deal makes sense. In any other financial market, Pfizer’s impending acquisition of Wyeth would be a noteworthy event but not extraordinary. However, we are living in unprecedented and uncertain financial times and Pfizer’s possible purchase of Wyeth has serious implications for American taxpayers.

As you may recall, the US government has pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into American banks so that they remain “solvent.” This was done to unfreeze credit markets and to purportedly provide relief, albeit indirectly, to American taxpayers many of whom are in financial trouble. However, the government’s infusion of TARP money didn’t unfreeze the credit markets and banks are still reluctant to lend to one another or to small business owners and consumers who need financing to keep their business and homes.

The Pfizer-Wyeth deal began about a year ago when Pfizer’s CEO floated the idea of a merger or acquisition. Negotiations between the two companies were on and off over the past year mostly because Pfizer and Wyeth couldn’t agree on an acceptable purchase price. The financial meltdown of last October changed all that and it became economically feasible for Pfizer to purchase Wyeth at a sharply discounted price.  However, one of the missing variables in the equation (that might kill the deal) was the availability of credit to complete the transaction. Because US banks are currently flush with TARP cash (because they stopped lending) and the Pfizer-Wyeth deal represents a safe deal with a substantial financial upside, it was not surprising that four of the largest US banks were willing to finance the deal.

According to the NY Times, “Pfizer’s bid is being financed by four banks that received bailout money: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America.” Ironically, last week the US government agreed to give Citigroup and Bank of America an additional TARP infusion to prevent them from “failing.” Amazingly, these very same banks (that have been teetering on the brink of insolvency for the past several months) can find the cash (taxpayer money) to finance Pfizer’s purchase of Wyeth. And, what can the American taxpayers expect to receive in return for investing in the deal—massive job layoffs— if Pfizer’s past purchases of Warner Lambert and Pharmacia are used as harbingers of things to come.

In better financial times, these layoffs would be noteworthy but not insurmountable jobs—there were always jobs at rival pharmaceutical companies and smaller biotechnology companies. However, over the past three years, the pharmaceutical industry has shed over 160,000 jobs and the biotechnology industry, the usual refuge for former pharma employees, has also layed off tens of thousands employees. Put simply, there is no longer a place for these highly skilled and experienced pharmaceutical employees to go to seek employment.

Wyeth shareholders and the banks will undoubtedly benefit financially from the impending deal. On the other hand, while Pfizer may garner some short term benefits from the Wyeth purchase, I think the ROI from the deal will be nominal over the long haul. Ironically, the people who stand to lose the most from the deal are the very same people who made the deal possible—the American taxpayers!  Imagine how you might feel if a deal made on your behalf using your hard-earned money resulted in your eventual unemployment!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Pfizer's board of directors voted on Sunday evening  to acquire Wyeth for $65 billion.  While this may help to assuage some of Pfizer's short term financial problems, like the loss of  Lipitor in 2011,the deal will not help the combined company in the long run. 

The deal will undoubtedly lead to massive layoffs at both Pfizer and Wyeth--a time when our economy cannot afford much more job loss.  Further, it will diminish competition, reduce the need for more scientists and ultimately diminish America's standing in the life sciences. 

If I were a Pfizer or Wyeth employee the first thing that I would do on Monday morning would be: update my resume, contact as many  recruiters as I can and find a new job before the layoffs begin. I think the era of severance packages is over!

Until next time... 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. It was able to garner that distinction by going on a decade-long buying spree that began in the mid 1990s. To date, Pfizer has acquired Warner Lambert, Pharmacia and a host of smaller specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Despite these acquisitions, which yielded top selling blockbuster drugs like Lipitor and Celebrex, Pfizer’s stock has never performed up to analyst’s expectations. In fact, while it’s smaller and more nimble pharmaceutical competitor’s stock prices were soaring, Pfizer’s stock price was either flat or falling. While conventional wisdoms suggest that “bigger is always better” this has proven not to be the case when companies, like Pfizer, attempt to win greater market share through mergers and acquisition and also loss sight of their core business.

In my opinion, Pfizer’s acquisition of Warner Lambert in the mid 1990s was a well executed, strategic move—the transaction gave Pfizer rights to Lipitor, currently the world’s top selling prescription drug. At that time, Pfizer’s internal drug discovery pipeline was essentially running on empty and it needed a blockbuster to insure its future growth. Despite the benefits of the Warner Lambert deal, it took Pfizer many years and hundreds of millions of dollars to fully integrate the two companies into a fully functional one.

Several years later, Pfizer acquired Pharmacia to gain access to Celebrex, a Cox-2 inhibitor that had the potential of becoming a blockbuster drug to treat inflammation and chronic pain. Unfortunately, Pfizer’s ROI on Celebrex hit a sales-stopping road block when the safety of Cox-2 inhibitors was called into question after Merck withdraw its Cox-2 inhibitor, Vioxx from the market in 2005. While Pfizer directly benefited from Celebrex sales, it again took the company many years, at great expense, to fully integrate Pharmacia into Pfizer’s day-to-day operations.

During its decade long expansion, Pfizer’s internal drug discovery programs were largely ignored and had begun to fail largely because of management’s inexorable focus on acquiring blockbuster drugs rather than developing them internally. In the early 2000s, recognizing that blockbuster drugs were becoming harder to purchase, the company bet its financial future on a new cholesterol-lowering drug called torcetrapib (which, by the way, was developed by Pfizer scientists). The buzz surrounding torcetrapib—a potential blockbuster drug that was expected to replace Lipitor—reached a fever pitch in 2006 as Pfizer’s stock price soared. Unfortunately, Pfizer was forced to abandoned clinical development of torcetrapib in late 2006 because it exhibited potential life-threatening side effects in pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials This failure, coupled with the impending loss of  patent protection for several of its top selling drugs, most notably Lipitor, has placed Pfizer in its current precarious financial situation.

Like many of its competitors, Pfizer believes that biotechnology is the “next big thing” and its executives have publicly disclosed their intentions to get into “protein-based therapeutics.” While this strategy may represent a way for Pfizer to correct its current downward trajectory, the company, as a whole, lacks the requisite biopharmaceutical experience and expertise to commercially compete in this space. To obviate this, Pfizer has hinted that it would consider purchasing a large biotechnology company or a pharmaceutical company that has biotechnology products on the market.  Enter Wyeth—another pharmaceutical company that is trying to reinvent itself as a biopharmaceutical company. However, unlike Pfizer, Wyeth markets and sells two successful biotechnology products—Enbrel, a treatment for rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis and Prevnar a blockbuster anti-pneumococcal vaccine. However, it is important to note that neither Enbrel nor Prevnar were developed at Wyeth. Further, while Wyeth has achieved commercial success with both Enbrel and Prevnar, several of its non-biotechnology drugs have recently hit regulatory snags and their future approval is uncertain.

On the surface, a Pfizer-Wyeth merger may make sense—both companies are struggling, Pfizer needs an entrée into biotech and Wyeth has marketed biotechnology products and biomanufacturing capability. However, a closer examination of the deal reveals some major flaws. First, Wyeth’s internal biotechnology discovery pipeline is sparse (although it does have a few, niche protein-based products in early stage clinical development). While Enbrel sales are increasing and consistently have topped $1 billion in annual sales in recent years, Wyeth only owns the non-US rights to Enbrel (Amgen owns the US rights). Second, Prevnar is coming off patent soon and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has developed a competing vaccine that is expected perform as well or better than Wyeth’s next generation version of Prevnar. Finally, Prevnar has been a huge money maker for Wyeth because there are currently no other approved pneumococcal vaccines on the market. The introduction of GSK’s competing vaccine will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the sale of Prevnar and its successor. If neither company has strong internal drug discovery pipelines and both lack sufficient expertise in biopharmaceutical product development, why are Pfizer and Wyeth actively engaged in M&A discussions?

For the past several months, rumors have been circulating that Pfizer might acquire Amgen. While a Pfizer-Amgen deal makes more sense to me that a Pfizer-Wyeth one, I don’t think that acquiring another large pharmaceutical company is in the best interests of Pfizer shareholders (they are still paying for the past two mergers!). That said, if Pfizer does acquire Wyeth, the combined entity will still hold the distinction of being the world’s largest pharmaceutical company—at least there is that!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (hope that a merger doesn’t take place—there will be layoffs!)

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

The consolidation trend in the US life sciences industry continues. Carlsbad, CA-based Invitrogen, a provider of cells, molecular and biochemical probes and reagents used in life sciences research,announced on Thursday that it will acquire (merge) with automated DNA sequencer manufacturer Applied Biosystems (ABS).  Invitrogen will pay $6.7 billion in cash and stock to buy ABS which is an independent unit of Applera Corporation.

As most of you know, ABS supplied hundreds of automated DNA sequencing machines ($300,000 per machine) that were used to sequence the human genome. The advent of automated DNA sequencers in the mid to late 1990s helped (along with Craig Venter) to speed up efforts to complete the Human Genome project which officially began in 1990. The first draft of the human genome was published in 2001. Unfortunately for ABS, it was unable to refocus and adjust to changing business conditions after the government-sponsored human genome project ended in the early 2000s.  Attempts to reinvent the company included moving into commercial businesses like selling equipment to test food for pathogens or DNA from crime scenes.

The deal, if approved by regulators, would create a giant supplier of machines and materials used by academic and pharmaceutical industry research laboratories, with about $3.5 billion in annual sales. Although the deal makes sense from a business perspective, it is likely that there will be a “reallocation of corporate resources” once the merger is approved by European and US regulators.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try Carlsbad, it is a great place)!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link