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 want to state at the onset of this post that I am an ardent supporter of online patient communities because I believe that the exchange of information between people who suffer from the same or similar medical conditions is vital to their health and well being. Further, I believe that social media will force physicians, the medical community and the US healthcare system to become more transparent, open and interactive. That being said, in this past Sunday’s New York Times, Natasha Singer wrote an extremely revealing article about some possible, unforeseen “side effects” associated with membership in online patient communities.

The reason why these online communities exist is for patients to commiserate with one another and exchange personal stories and medical information. While personal stories may be emotionally satisfying for patients, it is their medical information and demographic data that is extremely valuable to drug makers. To that end, many online patient communities inform their members that they reserve the right to share information and data for research purposes. And many of them do!

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the people who create or manage online patient communities have avaricious, nefarious or otherwise unsavory ulterior motives for the medical and patient demographic data that they collect. However, these communities need to generate revenue in order to stay in business and drug makers are willing to pay for access to it.

According to Singer, the popular PatientsLikeMe community admits that it sells health and medical data gathered from member profiles (but with certain identifying information removed) to pharmaceutical companies and others for scientific and marketing research purposes. Further, a large number of unbranded “disease awareness” pages have recently begun to appear on Facebook and YouTube. In her article, Singer contends that “drug companies may pay people to moderate patient forums [in the community] or give testimonials but might not prominently display that fact to participants. Other sites collect consumer health data to help drug makers’ aim at specific kinds of consumers, using psychological cues.” At a medical communications meeting that I attended several years ago, a MySpace sales rep freely admitted to me that it allow pharmaceutical companies to mine profile data in order to develop targeted marketing campaigns. Is Facebook next?

Finally, while the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) restricts the way health care providers use and disseminate patients’ information, consumer health websites and online patient communities aren’t subject to its privacy provisions. In other words, there are no regulations guiding the privacy and use of medical information and data collected using social media tools! Essentially, this means that the persons who run online patient communities can do pretty much whatever they like with the medical and personal information that they collect!

As I stated at the beginning of the post, I am a social media enthusiast who subscribes to the notion that if used correctly, social media can help to better inform and improve the lives of people suffering from various disease. That said, I also believe that people who choose to participate in online communities MUST be fully informed about the potential uses of the personal information and data that they contribute. Until the Food and Drug Administration provides some regulatory guidance on the use social media to collect and disseminate medical information patients will be at the mercy of the entities that run online patient communities. Let’s hope that they see fit to “do the right thing.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Be Careful What You Say Out There!!!!!!!!!

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

When Rupert Murdoch, the owner of New Corporation (Fox News), bought MySpace for $580 million in 2005 it was viewed by many as one of his savviest acquisitions ever. At that time, MySpace was arguably the most successful social networking site on the Web and its financial future was extremely bright. Shortly after the acquisition, a young, upstart college social networking site called Facebook began operations without much fanfare. Back in 2005, MySpace had 14 million monthly users and Facebook was still raising capital. Now, MySpace has 126 million users whereas Facebook’s user base has grown to over 200 million. Facebook continues to expand while MySpace’s growth appears to be stagnant. This led to the dismissal last week of one of MySpace’s co-founders and the appointment of a former Facebook executive as CEO.

Since 2005, MySpace has generated about $1.6 billion in revenues and earned 200 million last year alone. However, it is important to note that a major portion of its operating capital comes from $900 million that Google guarantees every year. That agreement comes up for renewal next year and the likelihood of Google agreeing to the original terms is questionable. This is probably why Murdoch is shaking things up at MySpace. While it is likely that Google will attempt to renegotiate the terms of the original agreement, I seriously doubt that it will severe all financial ties with MySpace. That would be a bad business decision and Google doesn’t make many of those!

While many social networking pundits attribute Facebook’s ongoing success to its connectivity rather than its content, I still contend that “content is king” and social networking sites built around user-generated content are great investment opportunities. After all, status updates, pithy wall comments and photo tagging tend to “get old” quickly after a few months.

While the possible loss of Google’s annual cash infusion will hurt MySpace, I don’t think that MySpace is on its “deathbed” yet and rumors of its demise are premature. The social networking universe is vast and niche networks—not large unfocused ones—will ultimately prosper because of targeted advertising and other business opportunities. That said, I believe there will always be a place for MySpace in the social networking world.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking!!!!!!!!!! 

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

About a year ago, I was eating lunch and bunch of pharma executives were at the table next to me. I inadvertently overhead bits of their conversation and I heard the words, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube mentioned. This suggested to me that pharma was more aware of social media (and its business implications) than pharma publicly cared to admit. Pharma has been reluctant to embrace social media because of possible legal and regulatory ramifications. Nevertheless, a few companies have decided to boldly go where no pharma company has gone before—to YouTube.

The Eye on FDA blog, which is very bullish on social media, has been keeping aof pharma companies that have created channels on YouTube, the video site owned by Google. To date, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, Abbot and JNJ have taken the YouTube plunge (see SanofiPasteurTV , GSKVision, AbbottChannel, andJNJHealth).  I suspect that pharma companies are willing to take a risk on YouTube, because unlike other social media platforms, they can disable the functionality that allows viewer to leave comments, kudos or kvetches after viewing videos. This shields the companies from unwarranted claims, misinformation about its products and negative publicity.

At present, the US Food and Drug Administration, has issued little or no guidance on the use of social media by drug makers. This means that drug makers are in uncharted territory and can experiment with social media without fear of much regulatory oversight or scrutiny.  Now that pharma has broken the social media barrier, I wonder whether MySpace, Facebook and Twitter (the hottest new social media tool at the moment) will be next. Interestingly, I learned yesterday that Novartis uses twitter and can be followed @Novartis.

Off the record conversations with MySpace representatives suggest that a number of pharmaceuticals have quietly created branded product pages on MySpace for years.  As the MySpace rep put it, how can you ignore an audience of 60 million people?  Further, Facebook’s fan pages are growing in popularity and don’t be surprise to see pharma pages begin to appear there. It will be interesting to see how pharma will incorporate social media into its business and marketing models in the future.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Video Watching!!!!!!!!

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

Online career sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder.com and Yahoo Hot Jobs have gotten so big and over subscribed that they are no longer useful to most jobseekers. Many career development experts have discovered that the large career sites tend to overwhelm jobseekers because of the enormity of job possibilities that appear on them.  Unfortunately, this seemingly endless supply of job opportunities frequently induces jobseekers to spend too much time applying for online jobs and not enough time exploring non-internet based job possibilities. While applying for online jobs is facile and may be emotionally-gratifying, it usually doesn’t culminate in many face-to-face interviews or job offers for that matter. This is because most online job applications are screened by software programs looking for key words or phrases and, if your resume doesn’t contain them it will not be reviewed by a human. Further, many of the openings posted on job boards are actually placed there by recruiters and contract employment agencies—not actual companies seeking to fill positions. Often times, recruiters post expired or fictitious job descriptions on the boards to “pad” their candidate databases with qualified applicants who can be used for future job orders. Finally, sometimes unscrupulous people/companies place false or misleading ads on the big job boards. Unfortunately, these people have no qualms about taking financial advantage of job seekers who may be desperate or “down on their luck

The declining usefulness of the big online job boards has given rise to smaller career sites like Indeed.com and Simply Hired.com which are driven by powerful search engines and permit jobseekers to customize job searches based on industry, geography, salary and job availability. Other companies like BioInsights.com and OneScience.com have built niche job boards that specialize in industry-specific job listings (in this case pharma and biotech). While these new careers site are more focused, easier to navigate and frequently yield better results than the large job boards, they too can be exploited by recruiters and unscrupulous would-be employers. 

The growing popularity of social networking sites represents an important paradigm shift for jobseekers and employers. Belonging to popular social networks like LinkedIn, Facebook or Plaxo allows job seekers to cast a wider net by taking advantage of the contacts or connections that their “friends” may have at various companies and organizations. Further, it is not uncommon for people within a network to pass on resumes or put in a good word to hiring managers on behalf of friends or contacts from their network who are seeking employment.  However, it is important to also point out that recruiters and contract employment agencies have also recognized the potential and power of social networks. Recruiters and HR specialists now routinely troll social networks (particularly Linked In and Facebook) for qualified candidates and don’t hesitate to contact “qualified candidates” whether or not they are actively looking for a job. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, hiring managers and recruiters are becoming increasingly reliant on social networks to screen and gather personal information about job candidates to assess their suitability for certain jobs. According to a 2006 study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, recruiters use social networking sites 23 per cent more than they did in 2006 to verify resumes, screen applicants and fill vacancies. Also, the study found that possible negative information posted on social network profiles—personal views, alcohol or drug use, sexually-oriented pictures or social commentaries— have a greater impact on hiring decisions than any positive information that may also appear on job seeker profiles.

The growing use of social networks by job seekers to find employment and employers and recruiters to screen job applicants has profound implications for people who belong to these networks. With this in mind, if you currently have profiles associated with your legal name on social networks like Face Book, MySpace or Linked In, I strongly recommend that are completely devoid of the following: 1) sexually suggestive or explicit photographs, 2) posts or photos depicting excessive alcohol or drug use, 3) any rants that you may have posted about your boss or a current place of employment and 4) personal information about your age, marital status, children or sexual orientation. Also, if you are actively involved in a job search, it is a good idea to upload a short bio or resume to your profile and to post any bonafide recommendations or career award and honors that you may have received. However, if you find the prospect of having to sanitize your MySpace and Facebook profiles unpalatable, then I suggest that you remove your name from your current profile(s) and replace it with an alias (your friends will still  know who you are) and build another profile with your real name for professional use only.   

We live in a highly competitive, constantly-changing world where even slightly negative perceptions about a person may mean the different between employment or not. Ironically, while the Internet allows greater freedom of expression, it also permits people with decision-making powers to more easily scrutinize our daily activities and gain greater insights into our personal lives. Consequently, the onus is on jobseekers to regulate or control what prospective employers may learn about them online. Put simply, the success or failure of your career may literally be in your own hands. That said, the next time that you update your Facebook or MySpace profiles take a moment (before you hit the “send button”) and ask yourself whether or not the new information “is going to help or hurt my career?”

Until next time…

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

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