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 sure that many BioJobBlog readers have heard the old adage that money can’t buy happiness. The corollary to this statement is that it [money] sure helps! However, in a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton, two Princeton University economists determined that there may indeed be something of a relationship between income and happiness. 

After analyzing more than 450,000 responses to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, a daily survey of 1,000 US residents conducted by the Gallup Organization the authors concluded that:

When plotted against log income, life evaluation (thoughts that people have about their life when they think about it) rises steadily. Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ∼$75,000. Low income exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill health, and being alone. We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being.

According to an article authored by Phyllis Korkki of the New York Times, Kahneman asserts that

“Many people want to make a lot of money, but the benefits of having a high income are ambiguous,” When you are wealthy you are able to buy more pleasures, he said, but a recent study suggests that wealthier people “seem to be less able to savor the small things in life.” He added, “Wanting money is not a recipe for disaster, but wanting money and not getting it — that’s a good recipe for disaster”

Many job and career counselors contend that working at a high paying but unsatisfying job may not be the best approach to life. For example, Korkki reported that Daniel Pink author and career advisor said that “Looking at lists of careers with the highest salaries tends to be a fool’s game.” Generally, people flourish when they’re doing something they like and what they’re good at” he added. Also, Nicholas Lore, a founder of a successful career coaching firm said “It all depends on priorities. Some people are willing to make lifestyle changes because the intrinsic rewards of following a passion or making a difference are more important than a high salary in an unenjoyable career.”

I think that the true relationship between money and happiness is best described by Lore when he said “Many people equate success with a high income, but, “How can someone say they’re successful if they’re not happy doing their work? To me, that’s not success.”

Until next time...

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

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

While I was pleased that President Obama and the Democrats were finally able to deliver much needed reform to an ailing American healthcare system, the compromises that were made to pass the bill are troubling. First, language allowing reimportation of lower cost drugs from Canada and other developed nations was eliminated from the bill. Second, the provisions allowing the contentious 12 year data exclusivity provision for generic versions of biologic and biotechnology drugs remained in the final bill. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, any language alluding to or implying that the US government, may, in the future, be able to negotiate or regulate drug prices was obliterated. In short, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries received all of the assurances and guarantees that were in the deal brokered by Billy Tauzin, the former head of the lobbying group PhRMA, between the White House and PhRMA over a year ago. Surprisingly, Tauzin was fired by PhRMA several weeks ago because its leadership mistakenly thought that Tauzin conceded “too much” to the Obama Administration when he brokered the original health reform package with the White House. (At the time that Tauzin was fired, health care reform legislation appeared to be on life support and all but dead).

In the final analysis, big pharma and biotech will give back $85 billion over ten years —largely by agreeing to give back some of the profits it was allowed to collected from the egregiously flawed Medicare Part D legislation passed during the odious Bush Administration. While $85 billion may seem like a lot (to the average American citizen) to give back, it is important to note, that the size of the global pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets is over $600 billion per year. Although growth in these markets is beginning to slow in developed nations like the US and Japan (to high single digits), it is beginning to explode in heavily populated developing nations like China, India and Brazil where it is roughly $12-18%. Put simply, despite assertions to the contrary, business in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical markets is booming and likely to continue for the foreseeable future. In other words, the newly passed healthcare reform legislation is a “sweetheart deal” for the US life sciences industry.

Ironically, while the healthcare reform bill insures that almost all Americans will be entitled to healthcare coverage and that insurance companies cannot deny healthcare benefits to persons with pre-existing medical conditions, the legislation may actually limit the access of Americans to potentially life-saving biotechnology drugs. This is because the 12 year data exclusivity period for generic versions of branded, biotechnology drugs (otherwise know as follow-on biologics or biosimilars) remained in the final version of the healthcare reform bill.

As I previously mentioned, this provision disallows approval of follow-on biologics for a period of 12 years from the data that the original biologic received US regulatory approval. For example, if a branded biologic or biotechnology product garners US regulatory approval in 2010, the earliest date that a generic version of this product would be able to appear on the US market would be 2022. Moreover, in some instances, the 12 year data exclusivity provision may extend the so-called patent life of a product. Using the example above, if the patents protecting the product happen to expire in 2019, the innovator company is guaranteed an additional three years of marketing exclusivity before generic versions of the product can appear on the US market. Finally, the 12 year data exclusivity provision effectively prevents foreign biosimilar manufacturers from competing in the US biotechnology market until about 2018; a strategy designed to allow the US to maintain its dominance of the global biotechnology market. Interestingly, despite the approval of six or more biosimilars in Europe, these products have failed to catch on and are not able to compete with their branded, innovator counterparts.

In conclusion, I laud President Obama’s persistence and give him props for his ability to deliver (as promised) health reform to the American public. I have no doubt that the legislation will help to improve the delivery of healthcare in the US and hopefully improve the overall health of Americans. However, while the new healthcare reform legislation is a first, positive step, the American healthcare system will never entirely be “fixed’ until US drug prices are regulated—like they are in the rest of the world. Then, and only then, will the US government be able to control and contain healthcare costs in America.

Until next time…

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

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