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

The public hearing held by FDA last week in Washington DC to address social media and promotional advertising in the pharmaceutical seems to have altered the agency’s perspective on all things digital. Today, according to a press release, marked the agency’s completion of a coordinated week long international effort called the International Week of Action (IIWA) that was intended to curb illegal actions involving medical and pharmaceutical products.

During the effort, the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI), in conjunction with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Enforcement, targeted 136 Web sites that appeared to be engaged in the illegal sale of unapproved or misbranded drugs to U.S. consumers. None of the Web sites are for pharmacies in the United States or Canada.

The agency issued 22 warning letters to the operators of these Web sites and notified Internet service providers and domain name registrars that the Web sites were selling products in violation of U.S. law. In many cases, because of these violations, Internet service providers and domain name registrars may have grounds to terminate the Web sites and suspend the use of domain names. Apparently, FDA has taken to sending warning letter en masse—it previously sent identical warning letters to 14 different pharmaceutical companies for improprieties associated with Google search ads.

Is there really a sea change taking place at FDA? Will a carefully and thoughtfully- crafted guidance document on the use of social media be next; now that the agency is no longer afraid to navigate the Internet? Only time will tell....hopefully sooner, rather than later!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Surfing!!!!!!!!!

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

Much has been written about how supportive the pharmaceutical industry has been about US healthcare reform. Prior to the debate, the Obama administration gleefully announced that pharma will give $80 billion in drug discounts in exchange for certain assurances that weren’t publicly disclosed. As most of us know, the US House of Representatives passed historic healthcare reform legislation last week and in addition to a public option it stipulates that pharma will be required to give $140 billion in drug discounts. According to Ed Silverman over at the newly reinstated Pharmalot blog, AstraZeneca CEO David Brennan, who is also this year’s chair of the industry trade group PhRMA, vowed that pharma would fight the house healthcare reform legislation. 

While Brennan’s statement isn’t surprising nor particularly noteworthy, his comments explaining pharma’s position on healthcare reform are revealing and important to understand. He told the Huffington Post “We said there were principles we didn’t want to see violated. And if those principles - price controls, Medicare rebates, moving dual eligibles back from Medicare and back into the Medicaid discount program - if those things happen, I can’t see how we could be supportive of the program.” In other words, we will support anything you propose— and may even be willing to kick in another $60 billion or so to support healthcare reform— but any discussion about government regulation of drug prices is a deal breaker! 

To my knowledge, this is the first public mention of price controls by any pharmaceutical executive during the almost year long debate on healthcare reform. The reason that I find Brennan’s statement interesting is that I have long contended that pharma will give the Obama administration and Congress anything it wants in exchange for assurances that the government will not attempt to control drug prices. For those of you who don’t know, the US is one of the only countries in the world where the government is prohibited from setting drug prices. This means that US drug makers in concert with insurance companies and third party payors can set drug prices based on what the American pharmaceutical market can bear. Not surprisingly, the profit margins on drugs sold in the US are the highest in the world. Obviously, pharma doesn’t want the US government hindering or limiting their profits by setting or capping drug prices. 

I am glad that pharma has finally decided to publicly “come clean” on the price control issue. The public option and issues surrounding data exclusivity for follow-on biologics pale in comparison to the financial havoc that price controls would wreak on the pharmaceutical industry. And, I suspect that pharma and its lobbyists will do whatever it takes to insure that price controls never become a reality in the US. However, at the end of the day, government regulation of drug and device prices will ultimately be required for any meaningful changes to take place to the US healthcare system.

Hat tip to Ed!

Until next time...

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

Addendum: After writing this post this weekend, an article appeared in Monday's New York Times that revealed that the drug industry has quietly been raising its wholesale prices on prescription drugs over the past year.  This, of course, was done in anticipation of possible federal legislation that might impose some government controls on drug pricing.  According to the Times article: "In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year.  Not surprisingly, the US pharmaceutical industry justifies the practice because as an industry spokesperson put it  "they are having to raise prices to maintain the profits necessary to invest in research and development of new drugs as the patents on many of their most popular drugs are set to expire over the next few years."  Hmmmm, interesting comment considering the US pharmaceutical industry has layed off over 180,000 employees over the past three years, a majority of whom are R&D scientists...go figure!

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

Unlike many of my social media colleagues, I’m not attending the FDA public hearing taking place in Washington, D.C today (Friday the 13^th oh my). I wanted to attend and actually testify but I didn’t understand how the process works and blew my opportunity. However, I will be prepared for rounds 2 and 3 and beyond. I can assure you that this will not be the last public meeting organized by the agency to develop guidance for the use of social media in pharmaceutical marketing and advertising. 

The brouhaha over social media and its use in the life sciences industry is purportedly taking place because of the lack of regulatory guidance on the topic. While I agree that FDA needs to craft a reasonable regulatory policy for the use of social media for promotional purposes, the discussion taking place has little to do with the medium and everything to do with the fair balance of ads that are used to promote drug sales. For those of you who may not know, fair balance (in regulatory parlance) means that drug manufacturers are required to fully disclose in print, television, radio and internet ads the benefits as well as the side effects and risks associated with a specific product. Unfortunately, too often, drug makers tend to promote the therapeutic benefits of a drug but downplay its side effects and risks. This isn’t surprising because drug makers, like other for-profit companies, must sell as much product as possible to generate sufficient revenues to remain profitable.  And, as we all know, consumers and physicians are more likely to use or prescribe drugs that have therapeutic benefits without many side effects or risks.

Since the inception of direct-to-consumer advertising, FDA and drug makers have been playing a cat-and mouse-game with the fair balance issue. Most drug makers understand the “balance” that FDA requires for traditional promotional ads, but rather than abide by the rules, many choose to determine how far they can bend the rules before they appear on FDA’s radar. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that drug companies have adopted the same strategy when it comes to Internet advertising and search result ads. To be fair, FDA hasn’t crafted any definitive guidance on Internet advertising or search ad fair balance requirements. However, rather than apply what they have learned over the years about fair balance in print and television advertising, many drug makers chose to ignore fair balance requirements for Internet advertising simply because there are no written regulations or rules. To that end, 14 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies recently received warning letters about their misuse of promotional drug ads that appeared with Google search results. FDA cited the lack of fair balance in the search ads as reasons for the warning letters. By issuing identical warning letters to 14 different drug companies, the agency was essentially saying “c’mon guys, who are you trying to kid—you ought to know better by now!”

Unfortunately, even when there are regulations, many companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to look for deficiencies and loopholes that can be exploited to increase and improve drug sales. Therefore, I contend, that regardless of the social media guidance that FDA ultimately issues, drug and device manufacturers will continue to look for work arounds to regulations that they perceive hinder product sales.  

Social media is all about transparency, accessibility and communications between participants. The guidance that FDA issues about the use of social media in the life sciences industry will likely be circumspect and open to interpretation as it usually is. As one FDA legal expert explained to me, “FDA crafts the laws but it is up to the judiciary  to interpret how they ought to be applied.”

I suspect little will change until drug manufacturers realize that full disclosure and transparency, not half-truths and opaqueness, will ultimately lead to improved drug sales in the future.

Until next time...

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

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

For the past 10 years or so, I have been providing career counseling and development seminars and workshops for life scientists. In the early years, students, postdocs and a smattering of faculty members would attend to learn about the industry trends, the job market and more recently alternate careers for PhDs and postdoctoral fellows. However, over the last few years, a disturbing trend has emerged—the lack of faculty participation at these events. 

Yesterday, I was invited to participate as a panel member to moderate a career development event sponsored by the graduate student and postdoctoral associations at the University Of Rochester School Of Medicine. The event was well attended (over 85 participants) and the discussion lasted for more than 2 hours. Joining me on the panel was a PhD-trained scientist/manager from Bristol Myers Squibb and a healthcare company executive who received his PhD degree from the university about 16 years ago. Many of the questions asked by the participants were spot on and revealed that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are extremely anxious about their futures. The panel did its best to describe what it takes to get a job in the life sciences, the process and steps required to successfully win jobs and some ideas for alternate career options for PhD-trained scientists. Unfortunately, not a single University of Rochester medical school faculty member attended the event. In fact, I met the PI of one of the postdocs who sponsored my visit and he said with all sincerity (I think) “Thanks for coming...the students are really looking forward to your talk.” Obviously, I don’t it ever crossed his mind that he, like his students and postdocs might learn and benefit from a discussion about career options and hear (probably for the first time) how anxious and fearful his and other students are about future job prospects.

The fact that faculty members are routinely eschewing career development seminars and forums is troubling and extremely disturbing for a variety of reasons. First, as I have said many times before, I believe that PIs have moral and ethical obligations to help their students determine what careers they are best suited for. I don’t think it is too much to ask or labor-intensive for PIs to learn about what is going on with the job market outside of academia. Despite an ongoing lack of tenured track faculty positions and the extremely fierce competition to win them, academicians continue to exclusively train and prepare students for academic careers. This makes absolutely no sense from a “supply and demand” perspective. Second, the lack of faculty support and participation sends a clear message to graduate students and postdocs that their anxieties, fears and concerns about job prospects simply isn’t that important to their PIs.  The mantra of most academicians —“just continue to do good science and everything will be okay”— is outdated, anachronistic and self serving (for PIs) at best.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the failure of  tenured faculty members to actively engage and participate in discussions about career options reveals the unbridled contempt that most academicians have for scientists who work outside of academia. Most academics choose to not concern themselves with non-academic and mundane issues like jobs and careers. And why should they? Once they win tenure, their lives are set because they are guaranteed jobs and benefits for life!

We are living in very challenging and troubling times. In the past three years, over 180,000 pharmaceutical workers lost their jobs and national unemployment will likely hit 15%.  Academic and government jobs are hard to come by and the competition for these jobs is ferocious and extremely competitive. And, sadly, current academic training programs are woefully inadequate to prepare graduate students and postdocs for alternate career opportunities in the life sciences. 

As I have stated numerous times before, life science graduate training programs are in dire need of systemic change and be overhauled to remain relevant. Unfortunately, systemic changes are unlikely because tenured faculty members can’t be forced or induced to change their practices, attitudes or beliefs. While a minority of life sciences faculty members realizes that the system is broken, the majority doesn’t.  To that end, if graduate students and postdoctoral fellows want change to occur than they must band together and collectively send a message to their PIs and mentors that “We are mad as hell and we aren’t going to take it anymore!” Anything short of a widespread massive protest will be ineffectual!

Until next time...

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

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

I just returned from the 2009 Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS) that was held in Phoenix last week. I attended ABRCMS for the first time last year and decided that it was a meeting not to be missed in 2009. Once again the students (mainly undergraduate life sciences majors) were outstanding, knowledgeable and exceedingly professional—something that is frequently missing or absent in their non-minority counterparts. Like last year, every major academic institution, professional society and research organization attended the meeting to recruit minority students to their programs. However, despite the similarities to last year’s meeting, there were several noticeable differences that are worth pointing out.

First, the number of women undergraduate life sciences major who attended the meeting was substantially greater than the number of men in attendance. This shift is indicative of enrollment changes that are taking place in medicine, law and life sciences graduate programs where women now outnumber men. Second, many more students were seeking career development counseling and resume critiquing this year as compared with last year. This likely has much to do with the ongoing financial crisis and rising unemployment which now exceed 10% nationally. Third, many more students I talked with this year were interested in attending graduate school rather than medical school. This shift may have something to do with anticipated changes to the US medical profession that may result from healthcare reform. Alternatively, more minority students are interested in research as compared with medicine and related healthcare professions. 

Finally, the conference keynote address offered by Mae C. Jemison, MD a former astronaut and life science entrepreneur was one of the most inspirational and informative talks that I have ever heard about career opportunities in the life sciences. Dr. Jemison clearly articulated her belief that society ought to stop differentiating between artists and scientists. Further, she added that the two professions are not mutually exclusive from one another! This is likely because, she, in addition to her medical interests, is a professional dancer/choreographer and also a fashion designer. Coincidentally, earlier that morning I was talking with several female scientists who also happened to be life long dancers and choreographers.  I urged them to continue to draw on their dancing experience to channel that creativity to their research. It was humbling to learn that someone as successful and talented as Dr. Jamison shares many of my beliefs and ideas.

On the plane trip back to New Jersey, I happened to sit next to a young assistant professor from Princeton University who will likely earn tenure next year (he was invited to apply for an early decision). Like most other scientists, he initially challenged my notion that PhD students and postdoctoral fellows ought to be offered courses— or at the very least some information about non-academic careers—before they complete their training. After all, only about 10% to 15% of US life sciences PhDs are able to land tenure track positions upon completion of their training. Initially, many of his remarks were expected: “If you want a job you should go to medical school or law school or do something else...nobody said that getting a PhD would help you find a job” and “we train students for academic jobs because it is a way for us to ensure and preserve our legacy as scientists.” It was a good thing that I had my seat belt on at the time because I almost bolted out of my seat after hearing that!  I tactfully (which isn’t easy for me as those who know me will tell you) suggested to him that that kind of thinking is blatantly self-serving and extremely egotistical. Further, I suggested that it is ethically and morally disingenuous for tenured faculty members to continue to train students for jobs that they know don’t exist anymore.  Luckily, he is young and open minded and ultimately conceded that the system is kind of broken and perhaps things need to change. He also offered that he, (unlike most of the people who I trained with the exception of my PhD advisor) discusses career options with his students (some of whom aren’t interested in academic careers) and helps them in any way he can to realize their goals and dreams. Finally, I suggested to him that offering students and postdoctoral fellows some formal courses or training in alternate career options will likely have better performance and outcomes for students and faculty members as compared with continuing to keep them in the dark about career choices and job prospects.

While there is still much work to be done, it appears that younger faculty members are finally recognizing that traditional academic training paradigms may be anachronistic and changes may be necessary for the US to continue to train the best and the brightest!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Over the past year or so, more graduate students and postdoctoral fellows have been asking me about management consulting careers in the life sciences. I spent several years working as an independent management consultant and while it was a great experience the revenue stream was unreliable at best and the ability to work was highly contingent upon the economy. However, I can assure that my experiences as an independent management consultant were marketing different than those of consultants who work at the consulting firms like McKinsey or the Boston Consulting Group. For those of you interested in life style of a high-powered management consultant I highly recommend you visit their websites for more info. 

I invited Susan Colilla, PhD, MPH, President of the consulting firm Integrative Epidemiology LLC describe her experiences about becoming a life sciences consultant so that BioJobBlog job readers (who may be considering this as a career option), might get an idea and appreciate what it takes to get into and be successful in this line of work.

My Life as a Life Sciences Management Consultant

by Susan Colilla

After doing a second postdoc at University of Pennsylvania as an Instructor (nebulous junior non-faculty type position) and becoming frustrated with all the extensive work requirements for a tenure-track position, I started searching for a job in pharmaceutical industry.

While searching for a position, a potential employer, who didn’t have an opening at the time, asked if I would be interested in consulting.  As I was interested in this area, I started consulting for industry and realized that I enjoyed working on different projects in epidemiology and genetics, and loved that I could work from my home office and give up a commute. 

The flexibility in consulting is great.  I plan the work around my schedule, and the pay has been rewarding as well.  Last year, I formally incorporated my business, Integrative Epidemiology, LLC.  I offer services in literature reviews, study planning/design, data analysis and grant or manuscript writing in the areas of human genetics or epidemiology. 

As I build my business, I have learned about how to run a business, bookkeeping/billing, taxes, legal issues/contracts, and marketing.  Moving from academia to pharma/industry is tricky unless you have connections with those who hire in the industry.  One of the biggest challenges for me as a self-employed consultant is dedicating a good proportion of my time to networking with others and marketing my services, rather than doing science-related work.  It helps that I am very social by nature and enjoy meeting new people.

 I am also fortunate to be married to someone who makes a good income and receives benefits as this helps support our family.  There can be a sporadic flow of income with consulting, especially during a recession and new business slows down.  I have also partnered up with another consulting group (Venebio, LLC, based in Richmond, VA) to expand the pool of potential clients and work with a group of scientists to offer a broader range of services. 

For those of you who want to learn more about getting into the consultant business, Susan highly recommends an article that recently appeared in the Scientist. She shared with me that the article offers a great list of things to consider before starting a consultancy and that she “wished that she had seen it a couple years ago when I started out in this business!”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!  

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

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
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I suspect by the growing numbers of people who read BioJobBlog, that some of you may be beginning to wonder who I am. While nobody has taken me to task about my credentials or musings to date, I figured it may be worthwhile to share my “story” with those BioJobBlog readers who may be at a crossroads in their careers. I credit my graduate school experiences and PhD degree for the tenacity, perseverance and the ability to reinvent myself during an eclectic, and oft times, circuitous career path.  

Taking the Path Less Traveled

I had always liked science but by age 10, I had already decided that I wanted to be a veterinarian. However, after seeing the film Ben Hur at age 11—during which two of the main characters who have leprosy are miraculously cured—I fantasized what it might be like to be able to discover cures for infectious diseases. As corny as it may sound, the movie convinced me that my true calling in life wasn’t veterinary medicine but microbiology. Nevertheless, I attended Cornell University as a pre-veterinary medicine undergraduate with a dual major in animal science and microbiology. During my senior year at Cornell, Dr. Brooks Naylor, my food microbiology professor at the time, invited me to do a senior research project in his laboratory. After several weeks in the laboratory I was hooked and knew that graduate school and not veterinary school was in my future.

I entered graduate school in 1974 and did my PhD work in Bob Deibel’s laboratory in the Department of Bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studying the pathogenesis of Salmonella gastroenteritis. Because Bob was Chairman of the Department and a food microbiology consultant, he wasn’t around much. This forced me to become self reliant and an independent investigator very early in my scientific career. Interestingly, when I started graduate school, my goal was to earn a PhD degree and teach microbiology at a small liberal arts college. However, after three years at Wisconsin, I decided to eschew a career as a science educator in favor of becoming a tenure track faculty member at a prestigious research institution.

I received my PhD degree in 1981and chose to do a postdoctoral fellowship with Stephen Morse in the Department of Microbiology at Oregon Health Sciences University where I investigated the pathogenesis of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. After two years in Stephen’s lab, I realized that the field of molecular biology had finally taken off and I needed to develop molecular biological skills to compete for my coveted tenure track faculty position. In 1984, I joined Howard Shuman’s laboratory as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Microbiology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University in New York City where I studied the molecular pathogenesis of Legionella pneumophila, the causative agent of Legionnaires Disease.

In 1987, after spending three more years as a postdoctoral fellow, my newly acquired molecular biology training coupled with a respectable publication record helped me to land a tenure track faculty position in the Department of Microbiology at the University Of Miami School Of Medicine. I spent the next seven years feverishly doing laboratory research, teaching medical and graduate students, publishing papers and mainly writing grants to establish an independent research program on the role of lipopolysaccharide in the molecular pathogenesis of L. pneumophila. While I was a productive researcher, who regularly published and was recognized on several occasions for teaching excellence, I failed to consistently win grant support to run my laboratory. Consequently, in 1994, I was denied tenure and forced to leave academia—an emotionally devastating event that that ended a life-long dream of becoming a world class research scientist.

Luckily, at that time, the American biotechnology industry had finally hit its stride and I landed a job as a scientist at a New Jersey-based biotechnology company where I managed an antibacterial drug discovery program. My time in industry—which lasted only two years—provided me a firm understanding of the business side of science and perhaps, more importantly, convinced me that industrial research wasn’t for me. This, coupled with a yearning desire to teach again, prompted me to successfully apply for a job as Chairperson of Biology at a local community college. While a good idea at the time, I quickly realized that while I still loved to teach, administration wasn’t my strong suit and I left the community college job after a year.

Unfortunately, by 1998, I had effectively exhausted most traditional career options for scientists with PhD degrees and I desperately needed a job—mainly because I had a wife and three young children to support. Fortunately, while working at the community college, I successfully helped several professional recruiters place new hires into jobs at biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. This prompted me to seriously consider professional recruiting as a career option and in early 1999 I landed a job as a recruiter at a local recruiting firm. As a new hire I had to attend recruiter school for six weeks. Surprisingly, this training would prove to play a pivotal role in subsequent decisions that helped to shape my career.

After three successful years as professional recruiter, an Australian biotechnology company recruited and hired me as a science and business consultant to help guide their antibacterial drug discovery program. The new job led to an almost four year stint as an independent management consultant advising private and publicly-traded biotechnology companies on business, scientific and financial matters. Also during this time, I decided to indulge my own entrepreneurial fantasies and in 2001 I founded BioInsights (www.bioinsights.com), Inc, a bioscience education and training company. In 2003, Abe Abuchowski and I founded Prolong Pharmaceuticals (www.prolongpharmaceuticals.com) a drug delivery company with two drugs in early stage clinical development. Unfortunately, the rigorous demands of running BioInsights and starting Prolong ultimately led to the demise of my consulting practice and by 2004 I was forced to consider another career move.

Luckily, in 2002, I had begun to write for several biotechnology industry trade publications. Although I wasn’t getting paid to write, it enabled me to hone and polish my writing skills. In late 2004, a medical communications expert who I knew suggested that I take a stab at medical writing. At the time, I didn’t know much about medical writing but I quickly learned that it pays well and medical writers are always in demand. I took her advice and landed my first medical writing job in 2005. Since then, I have worked at a variety of medical communications agencies and pharmaceutical companies preparing manuscripts, posters, slide presentations and other work. Currently, I am freelance science and medical writer, blogger (www.biojobblog.com) and social media enthusiast who, along with Dr. Vincent Racaniello, started an online social networking site for bioscientists called BioCrowd (www.biocrowd.com)

Unlike most scientists, my career path has taken many unexpected twists and turns. I never intended it to be as eclectic or convoluted as it has turned out to be. Nevertheless, I believe that my unusual career trajectory has transformed me into a better rounded scientist than I would have been if I had been able to pursue my intended academic career. In retrospect, I attribute my career successes to solid problem solving skills, an unrelenting desire to continue to learn and an unwavering ability to take risks. Finally, and perhaps most important, I learned that there is no right or wrong career path in the life sciences—only the one that you choose for yourself!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

I received a call today from GDS International, a UK-based b2b publishing company, alerting me to its annual, event called the Next Generation Pharmaceutical Summit (NGP) currently taking place at the Ritz Carlton on Amelia Island in FL. This invitation only event is supposed to bring pharmaceutical and life sciences executives to discuss problems facing the industry and what thing ought to be implemented to insure continued progress and growth.   This is the news coming out of the conference attended by over 50 pharmaceutical and biotechnology executives

Big Pharma concludes that M&A is not the New R&D

With large firms seeking synergies to drive down R&D costs, M&A deals can aid in the transfer of technical knowledge, scalability and reduce time to market. However, previous M&A periods have not alleviated the productivity crisis. “While short term gains emerge from these deals, in the mid to long term, R&D innovation, organic growth, and internal drivers are still key facet’s behind creating a successful company and providing an organization with sustainability.” So says, an executive committee composed of  50 pharmaceutical executives including Jeffery Nye, Chief Medical Officer at Johnson & Johnson, Reinilde Heyrman—VP of Clinical  Development at Daiichi Sankyo, Oscar Laskin—VP of Early Development at Celgene are leading the debate, joined by Ann Wang—VP of Clinical Operations at Human Genome Sciences. These sentiments confirm the notion that the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are in transition and suggest that life sciences companies still face many serious challenges in the not too distant future.

While increasing mergers and acquisitions isn’t likely to reinvigorate R&D, newly emerging economic pressures have recently triggered another wave of M&A activity in both sectors. But is this the solution for long-term sustainable growth?  “The willingness for the industry to unite in such a way clearly demonstrates long-term strategies for improved business processes so long-term investment in R&D can be secured” said Drew Contessa the NPG director.

The NPG will reconvene in April 2010 to review recommendations and actionable items.

The realization that M&A is not a solution to correct waning productivity in R&D was a long time coming. It cost about 150,000 pharmaceutical employees their jobs over the past three years. The idea that companies are beginning to recognize that buying or merging with another company is not a panacea or long term fix is a good thing. 

Hopefully, the life sciences industry can learn from its past mistakes.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!! 

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

For the past several weeks, the EyeonFDA blog has been reporting on the possible regulatory impact of Google’s Sidewiki on life sciences companies. For those of you who may not be familiar with Sidewiki  (released in late September) it is a new feature of the Google toolbar which can turn a static web 1.0 website into an interactive web 2.0 experience by allowing website visitors to leave comments behind.

When you use side-wiki, you have the ability to leave your comments and associate them with a website whether or not the website owner has enabled commenting.  Since the comments are maintained by Google, there is no direct relationship with the website.  Basically, anybody who visits a website that has Sidewiki enabled can say or comment on whatever they like and immortalize it (until Google removes it) for the entire world to see. Apparently, this doesn’t sit well with many website owners and Google purportedly recently release code to disable Sidewiki at websites that don’t want to support it. However, it isn’t clear how robust the anti-sidewiki code is!

While I haven’t formulated an opinion on Side Wiki yet (mostly because it isn’t that interesting to me), it does represent a regulatory dilemma for life sciences companies with marketed drugs and devices. According to today’s EyeonFDA post “If someone writes of an adverse event on a Sidewiki, or promotes an off-label use, it is now on the company's home page.  Is the company under a duty to monitor and correct such misinformation or if they do, do they incur liability for doing so?  It is a conundrum - and there is no insight apparent from the FDA on the matter.” Further, most life sciences companies have yet to craft a legal or regulatory policy for Sidewiki usage. 

EyeonFDA has been assiduously monitoring life sciences company websites for the appearance of Sidewiki. To date EyeonFDA has found it on the following company websites:

1. Abbott
2. Amgen
3. AstraZeneca
4. Bayer
5. Baxter
6. Bristol-Myers Squibb
7. GSK
8. Johnson & Johnson
9. Lilly
10. Novartis
11. Novo Nordisk
12. Pfizer
13. Roche
14. Sanofi-Aventis
15. Takeda

While Google would like everyone to believe that Sidewiki is taking the Internet by storm and spreading like the H1N1 virus, a show of hands at yesterdays e-Patient Connections 2009 meeting in Philly, which was attended by many computer geeks and social media enthusiasts, revealed that about4 out of about 150 had heard of it! Nevertheless, it is out there and life sciences companies would be well advised to formulate internal legal and regulatory guidelines despite the fact that FDA hasn’t issued any guidance on its use.

P.S. Shortly after I posted this, @pharmaguy alerted me to an article that appeared on the today's online PharmaExec.com entitled "SideWiki: What's Pharma To Do"?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Commenting

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

Whenever I do resume critiquing at scientific meetings, someone always asks about how to negotiate a job offer.  Most of the people that ask the question aren't even close to receiving a job offer and I do my best to deflect the question.  However, at a recent meeting, I spent 30 minutes with a PhD student who had received an offer advising him on how to get a better deal from his prospective new employer.  This got me thinking and I invited Joe Tringali, a veteran recruiter with lots of negotiating experience to write a blog post about strategies and things to consider when negotiating a job offer.

The "Dos" and "Don'ts" of Negotiating a Job Offer

by Joe Tringali

Invariably, the topic of salary negotiations in the interview process makes its way to the surface and, as a seasoned professional recruiter, I have a few thoughts that I would like to share with jobseekers.  During the course of my almost 30 year career, I have work as a traditional “headhunter” and also as on onsite contract recruiter for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, shifting gears and mindset as warranted by the particular client and the task at hand. In other words, I have been on both sides of the negotiating table either on behalf of a job candidate or a client company.

Fundamentally, job seekers need to understand the “economics” surrounding their search; who—the candidate or employer—has the most leverage in the relationship? Is there more demand than there is supply for a candidate with a specific set of skills or is there an excess of talent allowing an employer to choose the absolute best candidate for job. That said, consider the following:

A candidate who has received an offer can always try to negotiate to see how far they can push  the employer. As a rule of thumb, the initial offer that is proffered is usually not the best offer and if you aren’t satisfied with it, try and negotiate for a better deal.  If you ask and you don’t get what you want, the initial offer will likely still stand but you won’t have any regrets or say to yourself “I should have asked” if you eventually accept the offer. On the other hand, if the offer IS negotiable, it’s most likely only negotiable within a finite range. To that end, you must “come to the table” knowing your worth and what the compensation and benefits standards are for comparable positions in the industry. Rest assured that the prospective employer is at least as prepared as you are (usually more so) when it comes to negotiating offers. After all, most companies have dedicated compensation departments that spend a good portion of their workweek establishing fair compensation ranges. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t ask and attempt to negotiate, but simply that you must temper your expectations and not “expect the world.” Typically, employers are limited with what is negotiable in an offer. Things that are typically not negotiable are base salaries and healthcare and financial benefits. Other things like vacation time, sign on bonuses, relocation costs etc are. The reasons why base salary and benefits are not negotiable are because companies try to maintain internal equity among its employees.

When to negotiate? The obvious answer is to negotiate from a position of strength—when a formal offer has been extended (but never before). The offer signals that a company “wants you” and the candidate ought to consider the offer as it stands. Assuming the offer is fair (and the candidate SHOULD know his/her worth as part of the search process), accept it and move on with your career. Should you feel it isn’t quite up to par based on your understanding of your skills and marketplace demand, you might consider a conversation that sounds something like the following:

“I’m thrilled to receive the offer and am trying to find a way to make this work for both parties. My understanding of the market ( from online research, university career services, friends with similar experience, in similar roles, in similar geography,  is that an offer of 2k more might be more in line. IF there is any way you can bump the offer up by 2K, I will accept it and start on XXX date”

In other words, you are offering something back (acceptance/start date) in exchange for a possibly bump in the offer (most companies want you to start sooner rather than later). The worst case is that the employer comes back and says they cannot do any more with regard to compensation. Depending upon your assessment of the situation, you might then try to negotiate additional vacation days or an increase in relocation costs to offset the $2K that you need to feel comfortable to accept the offer. If the answer is still no, the original offer stands until you either accept or reject it—the decision is yours. Generally speaking, most offers are fair and in the range you might expect given your background and years of experience in the industry. But, only you can determine whether or not an offer is right for you. Ultimately, that decision ought to be based on compensation requirements, job responsibilities, geography, and whether or not an offer will meet your needs at this particular time in your life.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

Joe Tringali is a Principal with Tringali & Associates, Inc., a recruitment consulting practice based in Manchester, New Hampshire. He has over 30 years of progressive experience in the field of Human Resources and is particularly well-qualified in the design and implementation of creative staffing programs and executive search practices within the Life Sciences. Some his clients include Pfizer, Eisai Pharmaceuticals, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Biogen Idec, Genzyme , TKT/Shire , Harvard University and Infinity Pharmaceuticals.

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

The fourth quarter is over, earnings are being announced and new budgets for the upcoming fiscal year are being evaluated and tweaked. This means that we have officially entered layoff and closure season. Isn’t it great that big companies wait until right before the holiday season to let employees know whether or not they will have a job next year?

That said, two companies, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) and Pfizer/Wyeth are the first to kickoff the 2009-2010 season.

BMS announced that it will lay off 25% of its Abilify sales force. This comes only six months after the drugmaker extended its contract with Otsuka Pharmaceutical to market the anti-psychotic and depression drug. Abilify is BMS’s second best selling medication after Plavix that is co-marketed with Sanofi-Aventis. Otsuka developed the drug and BMS markets and distributes it in the US and several European counties.

Abilify loses patent protection in 2012 and faces stiff generic competition in the anti-psychotic and depression markets. A BMS spokesperson declined to say exactly how many reps would be losing their jobs. However, according to a post on the sorely missed and recently resurrected Pharmalot blog there is speculation that Otsuka may hire some of the layed off BMS reps.

In other news, Pfizer/Wyeth announced that it will be closing its facility in Bridgewater, NJ but expanding operations at its Peapack-Gladstone, NJ location. The Bridgewater facility employs 300 people, 100 of which are involved in technology.  The company announced yesterday that it wouldn't be shutting down Wyeth's Collegeville, PA headquarters.

Over 120,000 employees have been laid off by pharma companies in the past three years, many of whom lived and worked in New Jersey.  Unemployment in NJ is hovering around 10%.

Stay tuned for more updates.

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

I don’t want to brag but I have been touting career options in health informatics and health information technology (HIT) for the past year or so. Today, I came across a post by CareerBuilders declaring health informatics and HIT are the hottest new career trends to hit the market in recent years. As the drive towards digitizing medical and healthcare records continue, there will be literally thousands of job opportunities for people with the right skill set. This is what the post had to say about health informatics and HIT careers and job opportunities. 

Health Informatics
Health informatics will put technology in place that provides hospitals and other health-care providers with access to an electronic network of vital patient information such as like medical histories and prescriptions. The information age finally meets healthcare administration.

The facts
The health informatics initiative won’t succeed unless employees — that’s you! — bring the specialized skills needed to build and expand the network. All other pieces are in place:

• The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes $20.6 billion to help providers drive adoption and development of the IT infrastructure needed
• The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects health information management employment to grow nearly 18 percent by 2016
• The BLS projects a need for more than 6,000 new professionals each year through 2014 — but only 2,600 graduates have entered the field this past year 

Your opportunity
To succeed, health informatics (HIM) will demand a wide variety of specialized positions across IT and health care. It will engage conventional experience from both areas — such as registered nurses and LPNs/LVNs, or IT implementation specialists and IT project managers — if you’re looking for a new twist on your current career.

But new positions will also thrive in this hybrid field. Look for new HIM job titles in your next job search, like health IT professionals, HIM coders, HIM medical records professionals and various health informatics specialists, including trainers, researchers and analysts.

Get online to check out the job titles mentioned above and listed below for related descriptions, and see if you might need any additional training to meet requirements: 

Nursing
- Telemedicine clinical professionals

- Chief nursing information officers

- Clinical IT liaisons 

Health-care administration
- Medical and health services managers

- Document scanners

- Data entry clerks

- File clerks

IT specialists
- Senior programmers

- Senior clinical analysts

- Database analysts

- Developers

- Business analysts

- Software engineers

- Data integration specialists

Not too shabby of a list! In a previous blog post I identified a variety of training options for people interested in pursuing careers in health informatics and HIT. Check it out!

Until next time....

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

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

An annual survey conducted by Science magazine and the American Association has identified the 2008 top twenty life sciences employers in the world. The rankings were based on a company’s leadership, stability, social responsibility and treatment of its employees. Six of the top 10— Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Genzyme Corp., Schering-Plough Corp., Gilead Sciences are based in the US whereas the remaining four—Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, and Millennium are headquartered outside of the US. For the first time, eight of the top 20 are located outside the United States.

In case you were wondering, Genentech was ranked number 1. This is the fifth time out of the past 6 years that the San-Francisco based company made it to the number one slot (it fell to second last year). Another notable is Massachusetts-based Genzyme which made it to the number 3 spot (out of 575 companies) for the second consecutive year. Surprisingly, Monsanto, the company that makes genetically modified seed crops, was number 2—this despite all of the negative press about genetically modified foods. Let see whether or not Genentech can retain its number 1 ranking after the Roche takeover of the company is completed.

Until next time....

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

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

In a previous post I lauded health information technology (HIT) aka health informatics as a possible new career choice for scientists with life sciences PhD degrees who also have a proclivity for software development and data base management. Shortly after I posted the piece, I happened to read an article in a local publication about a NJ-based company called the MISI Company that is at the forefront of the HIT field and developing software to help digitize American healthcare records. 

I invited Dave Roth, an MISI executive, to share his views on the future of HIT and what ought to be done to insure that e-medical records are appropriately and successfully created. BTW, for my bioinformatics and genomics friends, MISI is looking to hire a few talented men and women who are interested in HIT careers.

HIT: The Other Missing Link

by Dave Roth

Health information technology (HIT) is hot. There’s every reason to believe that HIT will play a major role in the reforms envisioned for our health care system. From President Obama announcing $5B in grants to aid medical research, to bioinformaticists developing tools for predicting genetic predisposition to diseases, to software developers working on electronic medical records (EMR) systems, HIT is a burgeoning field. What concerns people like me – read: people who are users of technology rather than the developers of it – is that all this HIT talk seems to have very little mention of us in it.

Not long ago, I wrote an article called The Missing Link in Healthcare IT: The Consumer. In it I pointed out that none of the current government definitions being proposed for "meaningful use" of electronic medical record (EMR) systems define meaningful from the healthcare consumer's perspective. I also noted that whatever rules the government establishes for receiving stimulus money for the development of HIT solutions, none of them will exclude technologists from collaborating with consumers in the development of their solutions. I posited that technologists would be doing us all a favor if they would stop to consider for a moment how their systems will affect the consumer’s experience of health care services.

I was encouraged when David Goldhill, in his cover story in the September 2009 issue of Atlantic Monthly, How American Health Care Killed My Father, wrote, “[A] guiding principle of any reform should be to put the consumer, not the insurer or the government, at the center of the system.” Goldhill’s prescription for a better health care system begins with advocating for the consumers of services and focusing on how to get the best outcomes for those consumers at a reasonable cost. He was channeling the views of many people, such as Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger, who believe consumer-driven health care is the only reform that will truly be meaningful.

The growing visibility of the consumer in this debate has gotten me to thinking there is real opportunity in the HIT job market for another missing link: Consumer-centric Health IT Developers. It is a rare developer who brings to his/her craft an appreciation of the importance of understanding who you are developing for. Rarer still is the developer who is aware of and employs tools and techniques for capturing end-users’ feedback during the development process. More often than not, user-centered design (UCD) is considered a luxury that burns up time and precious dollars. This misconception is largely the result of development teams typically waiting until they are too far into the development cycle before engaging with those who will be using their creation. Inevitably, problems are discovered with the usability or utility of the system that will hinder adoption. But the problems are discovered too late to be fixed by the target launch date and/or within budget. Users/Consumers become the enemy in this scenario.

There is another way. HIT technologists should understand how and why to engage their target audience at the beginning of the development process, long before anything is actually developed. They should begin by understanding who they are developing for, what these people are looking to accomplish, and how they can best help them accomplish it. Using such techniques has been shown to actually reduce downstream development work and increase adoption. I believe technologists schooled in the techniques of consumer-centered design will be central to any successful, long-term health care reform.

Dave is Vice President and  heads MISI Company's Experience Design (XD) group - a group of strategists, experience architects, visual designers and technologists whose mission is to help ensure the success of every interaction between a business and its target audience. His career spans 30 years and includes award-winning work in documentary and corporate film/video, print advertising, and interactive software application development for computers and the Internet. Dave is a Stanford University grad, a SF 49ers fan and a member of the Single Malt Scotch Whiskey Society.

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

I came across a recent post on Adage.com entitled “Pharma Drops Search Advertising After FDA Warning” that revealed that paid search ads by pharmaceutical companies dropped a 84% between March 26 of this year and the end of June. As you may recall, March 26 was when 14 companies received warning letters from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicating that they had violated marketing guidelines for search ad advertising. The letters stated that sponsored-link advertisements for specific drugs were misleading due to the exclusion of risk information associated with the use of the drug -- even though the regulatory agency's guidelines are for print and broadcast, not online or social media. Pharma companies that believed they were in compliance with the unwritten "one-click rule"— taking the consumer from the ad to a site that offered fair balance and the risk information by clicking on the ad. What? Did I read that correctly; the words “unwritten and FDA” in the same sentence? This is very surprising since anybody who has worked with the agency is well aware of the “if it isn’t written it didn’t happen” principle. But I digress....

The post went on to say that pharmaceutical companies are “fearful of running afoul” of the agency again. Say what? The words “pharma and fearful” used in the same sentence? The point that I am trying to make is that pharma chose to keep things vague about web-based advertising to see how far they can push the envelope with FDA instead of taking the proverbial “bull by the horns” and directly asking FDA for guidance on web 2.0 technologies and their uses. Wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest if companies took a more active role to help craft new rules on the use of new media technologies rather then rely on and wait for FDA to do it for them? While the old “cat and mouse” game worked for old media, it is no longer tenable when it comes to Web 2.0 and related technologies.

The FDA is holding public hearings next month to begin the process of establishing internet advertising guidelines and the use of social media in the life science industry. This offers drug and devices companies an opportunity to show FDA that they no longer want to be part of the problem but part of the solution.  I have always subscribed to the notion that “you don’t get if you don’t ask!”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Surfing (on the Internet that is)

blog comments powered by Disqus

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

For the first time in history, more people are searching the Internet for health information than asking doctors. Web 2.0 and social media tools are allowing people to discover new ways to connect, learn and engage one other in search of healthcare and drug information.

e-Patient Connections 2009 which will be held in Philadelphia, PA on  October 26 and 27 will feature a number of leading authorities on social media and digital health  Some of the featured speakers include Wired Magazine’s Thomas Goetz, Jay
Bernhardt of the CDC, and Lee Aase of the Mayo Clinic. The conference also offers case studies, 1:1 coaching sessions with industry experts and the latest products from digital health companies.

BioJobBlog readers can use the discount code kru500 to save $500 off the current price.

See you there!

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

Mark Senak at the EyeonFDA blog reported yesterday that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seeking public input on the use of social media in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices/diagnostic industry. Meetings to solicit input will be held in Washington DC on November 12 and 13^th.  This will be the first opportunity for industry representatives and the public to begin a discussion with FDA on the policies that will guide the use of social media in the life sciences industry.

According to EyeonFDA, on Monday, the agency will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing this historic event (see excerpt below)

Questions have arisen regarding the application of the prescription drug and device advertising and labeling provisions, regulations, and policies of promotion on the Internet, especially with regard to the use of emerging technologies such as blogs, microblogs, podcasts, social networks and online communities, video sharing, widgets, and wikis. This section briefly discusses the issues the agency has identified as most frequently raised by regulated companies and other interested parties. It should be noted that although a question may raise a particular issue, that does not necessarily mean that the agency will issue guidance or a regulation on that issue. The agency invites comment at the public hearing on the general concept of Internet promotion, positive or negative; on any aspect of Internet promotion that is of interest to the presenter; and on the topics outlined in the following paragraphs. We are specifically interested in data and research on the use of social media tools in promotion, including data from companies on their own experiences, the extent to which health care professionals and consumers are using and are influenced by various social media tools, and the impact of Internet and social media promotion on the public health.

For the past year or more, many bloggers and other social media enthusiasts have taken FDA to task for not taking action on the topic. Finally, the agency realized that something had to be done given the growing use and popularity of social media tools and strategies in other less regulated industries. Earlier this week, in an unexpected move, FDA launched its first Twitter feed. Perhaps this was a hint that FDA is beginning to emerge from the dark ages into the digital world of Web 2.0 and social media.

Hat tip to Mark!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Twittering !!!!!!!

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

I previously posted an article on BioJobBlog about biomedical and scientific search engines. One of them called Novoseek, which is mainly geared for life scientists, has recently launched a new set of features known as  My Novoseek

My Novoseek allows users to create a personal account to store and manage indiviudal Novoseek searches. Its functionalities include:

• Search history
• Saved searches
• Search labeling and indexing
• New publication alerts
• Account filtering and management

These newly introduced features improve Novoseek’s search capabilities, content management and convenience. For example, saving searches and creating alerts offers users a facile and convenient way to be alerted when new papers are published in your areas of interest. Also, Novoseek’s indexing and content management features makes creating and labeling collections of papers really easy. Finally, the ability to customize and manage account settings and view search histories makes searching for new information easier, less time consuming and prevents search redundancy.

While I haven’t spent much time evaluating other biomedical search engines, my experience with Novoseek has positive and I recommend that you check it out. Also, unlike other biomedical search engines, Novoseek has a distinctive social media bent and is using it to constantly add new features to meet new and exisitng user demands. To that end, Novoseek maintains its own blog to keep user abreast of happenings in the biomedical search engine world and can be found on Facebook and Twitter.

Signing up for Novoseek is easy, requires only three steps and only takes five minutes or less.

Please visit the Novoseek website and let me know what you think.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Searching!!!!!

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

Mark Senak who runs the EyeonFDA blog reported yesterday that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had launched a Twitter account. As Mark aptly points out, FDA’s unexpected leap into social media is ironic given that the agency has been steadfastly reluctant to craft any guidance whatsoever on the use of Web 2.0  technology or social media by drug and device manufacturers. Maybe, the agency was tired of being overshadowed by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA whose rapid adoption and use of social media for public health and related issues has been outstanding. 

For those of you FDA aficionados, FDA can be found on Twitter at @FDA_Drug_Info. Despite its very recent launch, the agency already has over 1,700 followers. Not surprisingly, FDA_Drug_Info is following only six individuals and is largely a one-way informational channel. Maybe somebody ought to tell the agency that social media, most notably Twitter, is suppose to be interactive and conversational? Also, couldn’t FDA staffers come up with a better Twitter handle? I mean the use of underlines to separate words in FDA_Drug_Info is so ......Web 1.0!!!! Finally, most of the information tweeted by the agency has to do with drug approvals, workshop announcements, safety warnings, etc. Maybe somebody also should tell them that most life sciences companies block Twitter and other forms of social media. Nevertheless, based on some recent tweets, it appears that the agency is targeting healthcare providers and consumers as their main audiences.

Despite FDA’s Twitter presence, I wouldn’t expect any Web 2.0 guidance or a drug and device social media policy any time soon. I say this because the agency yet to craft guidance on website design and Google Ads—two very ancient internet tools!!!! Maybe they ought to appoint a social media czar at the agency?

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!!

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

Eli Lilly & Co announced today that it is eliminating another 5,500 jobs or roughly 14% of its global workforce over the next two years. This would reduce to size of Lilly’s worldwide workforce from 40,500 to 35,000 by 2011. In addition to the job cuts, the company is reorganizing itself into 5 business units and hopes to save about $1.0 billion in annual costs.

These newly announced job cuts come after the company eliminated 4,000 sales representative jobs this past August and restructured its sale force. Also, prior to the recent cuts, Lilly launched the Lilly Phenotypic Drug Discovery Initiative or PD² a new program to ostensibly strengthen relationships with academic institutions to speed drug discovery and thereby reduce its reliance on internal drug discovery efforts to keep its pipeline full.

Unlike other major pharmaceutical companies that conducted massive layoffs over the past two years, Lilly was content, until the past few months, to lay off small numbers of employees and offer others retirement packages. Unfortunately, the loss of patent protection on several of its blockbuster drugs coupled with generic encroachment on several brands and impending health care reform, forced Lilly to take more draconian action.

Layoffs have been something of rarity in the life sciences sector over the past eight months or so, but this is usually the time that marks the beginning of the corporate “layoff season.” Don’t be surprised if other large life sciences companies announce similar layoffs in the coming months. Luckily, the economy seems to be improving and there are signs that hiring is beginning to ramp up in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and devices industries.

Speaking of pink slips, those of you who have been downsized or find yourself out of a life sciences job may be interested in a new organization called Pink Slip mixers. According to a description on the group’s website:

“Our Pink Slip Mixers are about hundreds of professional, mid- to upper-level executives who are (might be) victims of the "economic downturn" of 2008. Our parties are about banding together, networking and bonding with the recently "Pinked". We will share our experiences of why we were let off, what companies are hiring, and the "buzz words" that specific hiring managers want to hear. Aside from the usual imbibing, commiseration and fun that every pink slip party brings, headhunters, direct-hire companies, and recruiting firms will also on-hand to learn a little bit more about what you do. Maybe you'll meet a new contact, or find a new job!” 

Sounds like these mixers might be good networking opportunities and a place to kick back and commiserate with others who are no longer gainfully employed. I am planning to attend a Pink Slip Mixer when one is organized in the NYC metropolitan area. Like many of you, I lost my full time contract copywriting job over a year ago!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Sepracor shareholders may be able to sleep better at night without the aid of the company’s top selling insomnia drug Lunesta after agreeing to be purchased on Thursday by Dainippon Sunmitomo Pharma of Japan. Dainippon will pay $2.6 billion for the rights to Lunesta and other drugs in Sepracor’s pipeline. 

This is the third deal in the last two year involving the purchase of American pharmaceutical companies by Japanese drug makers seeking to aggressively expand their reach into the US drug markets. Last year, Takeda Pharmaceutical purchased Cambridge, MA-based Millenium Pharmaceuticals for $8.8 billion and Eisai brought MGI Pharma of Minnesota for $3.9 billion. 

Sepracor, a specialty pharmaceutical company founded in 1984 focused on strategy of developing single isomers or chiral drugs and active metabolites of top selling drugs with the goal of developing a pipeline of proprietary pharmaceutical products. The company’s most successful product is Lunesta, a prescription sleep aid that had sales of almost $500 million in 2008.

Last January, the company layed off 20% of its workforce (350 sales reps, plus 410 contract sales reps) as Lunesta sales slumped because of competition from generic versions of Ambien and branded Ambien CR and revenue losses from its Xopenex COPD franchise. It isn’t clear whether or not more Sepracor will shed more jobs after the Dainippon deal closes sometime next year. 

Stay tuned for updates!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

There was another article in today’s New York Times lamenting the marketing practices utilized by drug companies to inform physicians about their products. While these practices may be troubling to legislators and the American public, everybody who works in the life sciences industry including regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) understands the “rules of the game” and how it is played. However,

over the past three years, there has been a full frontal assault on direct-to-consumer advertising and marketing and sales practices used by drug makers to hawk their products to physicians and the American public. This has largely been an over reaction to the lack of regulatory oversight of drug manufacturers during the Bush administration. The new regulations have severely limited what sales representatives can offer physicians e.g. gifts and free lunches and dinners, for more face time to sell their products. Consequently, the only means left available to drug makers to reach large numbers of physicians is marketing through medical education.

This is how it works. Companies annually budget monies to pay highly recognized physicians aka key opinion leaders (KOLs) to give lectures to physicians that might influence their prescribing habits. These lectures often take the form of informational seminars that focus on treatment options for certain therapeutic indications which often times subliminally highlight the advantages of the sponsor’s product over its competitors. Not surprisingly, the effectiveness and success of these programs is usually directly proportional to the sums of money invested in them. For example, in 2004, Forrest Laboratories (the subject of the NY Times article) planned on spending “$34.7 million to pay 2000 physicians to deliver 15,000 marketing lectures about Lexapro (an antidepressant) to their peers in one year.” The investment appears to have paid off; sales Lexapro reached $2.3 billion in 2008 even though a lower cost generic version of the drug is available. And, while the Forrest investment in medical education may appear to be a large one, it pales in comparison to the sums invested in medical education programs by much larger companies like Pfizer, Merck and others.

While certain members of Congress may be “shocked and outraged,” these practices are sanctioned by FDA. And, as long as drug makers are compliant and adhere to the rules they shouldn’t be faulted or penalized for their efforts. The point that I am trying to make is that drug makers, like all other for-profit entities, must maximize sales to generate sufficient profits remain in business. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to legislators or the American public for that matter, that drug makers use all legally available means to maximize the sale of their products. If Congress doesn’t like what drug makers are doing, then they ought to stop complaining and legislate changes to the rules. Put simply, it’s time for Congress to “put up or shut up.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Mark Sendak, author of the incisive EyeonFDA blog and social media enthusiast, has been keeping a watchful eye (pun intended) on the growing number of pharmaceutical companies that are adding channels and videos to YouTube. 

On his blog today, Mark reviews several new channels developed by Novartis, Johnson and Johnson, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. While a growing number of pharmaceutical companies continue to add new channels on YouTube, Mark contends that the “success of these channels has varied greatly and several companies have obviously developed the channels without any idea of what they would like to do with them and some of the channels show obvious signs of neglect.”

To learn more about pharma’s incursion on YouTube, read Mark’s post!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Video Watching

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

Twitter is arguably the hottest new platform to hit the social media scene is the past five  years. Twitter devotees are convinced that anything is possible if the microblogging platform is used correctly. In today’s economy, the most pressing need for many people is finding a job. While Twitter is effective for branding, marketing and occasionally some witty intellectual exchanges, its usefulness for jobseekers has yet to be demonstrated. To that end, there was a recent instructional case study on TwiTip—“5 Methods I Used To Get a Job Through Twitter”— that describes how Twitter can be used to find gainful employment. Although the case study focuses on non-science jobseekers, many of the suggestions and recommendations are relevant to those seeking jobs in the life sciences.

Read and learn!!!

Until next time...

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

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

Losing a job is a BIG deal whether you were layed off, fired or right-sized out of it. Not only do you have to worry about health insurance, bills and paying rent or making a mortgage payment, you must also deal with a myriad of self esteem and emotional issues that frequently arise after losing a job. While there are many articles and books that describe how to functionally conduct a job search after being layed off, there are only a handful that discuss how to cope with the stress and negative emotions that frequently accompany job loss.

Many people who lose their jobs frequently experience emotions like anger, desperation, hopelessness and even depression. These feelings must be acknowledged and then addressed and managed because they not particularly useful when looking for a new job. Further, when left unattended, these feelings can exact both a financial and an emotional toll on the unemployed.

In this Sunday’s New York Times, Phyllis Korkki, who writes “The Search” column describes how to manage the negative emotions and financial problems commonly associated with losing a job. She also provides tips on how to minimize “the pain” and accentuate the positive after experiencing a job loss.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Under ideal circumstances, job interviews can be very stressful and emotionally draining. After all, how you perform on a job interview will likely determine whether or not you get an offer for a position. Unfortunately, unless you are an experienced jobseeker, who has has participated in many job interviews, you will likely be taken by surprise at your next one.  To that end, the following tips, when adhered to, will likely help to reduce your stress level at your next job interview and possibly increase your chances of getting a job offer.

• Allow yourself an ample amount of time to arrive on time at your interview; if, for some reason, you are running late (never a good thing) call ahead ASAP and let your host know that an "emergency" or "traffic problem" is responsible for your tardiness. In general, it is a good idea to arrive at an interview 10-15 min early or right on time. Arriving early allows you to relax, assess the interview space and collect your thoughts before the interview begins.
• Bring extra copies of your resume with you. In my experience, most of the people who you meet will not have read or misplaced your CV. By bringing extra copies with you, your prospective employer is likely to think that you are organized, thoughtful and reliable.
• Regardless of what is happening in your life, it is always a good idea to be personable, upbeat and “positive” on a job interview.  I recommend that you greet everyone (no matter what their standing is with the organization) with a smile and a comment that goes something like “It’s a pleasure to meet you”.  Nobody wants to talk (or possibly work with) a disgruntled or unhappy person.
• Always make eye contact when talking with anyone. We are, by nature, social creatures and a lack of eye contact (or an inability to look directly at a person during a conversation) may cause the interviewer to think that you may lack the requisite interpersonal communication skills necessary for the job.
• Don’t offer an interviewer more information than is necessary. Direct and concise answers are appropriate. Also, these types of responses show the interviewer that you can think quickly, clearly and decisively.  Don’t waste an interviewer’s time with rambling, unfocused answers or stories that are not relevant to the question that was asked. They are busy people and have other things that must be accomplished in additional to interviewing you.
•  Answer all questions as honestly and forthrightly as possible.  If you don’t know the answer to a question, don’t hmmm and haw simply say so!  However, I recommend that you soften the “I don't know response” with verbiage that resembles: “Pause ….hmmm.....That is a very good question …..Pause....I don't know the answer to that one!  Or you can say: Gee I don't know the answer but perhaps you can give me your ideas on the topic?” Also, by pausing, you may sometimes be able to come up with an answer that originally eluded your when the question was first asked.
• Never interrupt an interviewer when he/she is talking or in the middle of a thought. When appropriate, always allow the interviewer to control the flow and pace of the conversation. This signal to the interviewer that you can act professionally, are a team player and can be easily managed or supervised if you decide to join the organization.
• When eating lunch or dinner with prospective co-workers always act professionally and don't "let it all hang out."  This isn't meant as a time for you to kick back and "level" with the guys and gals. This is a chance for current employees to assess your social skills and offer them  a glimpse of how you may represent the organization if hired. Everything you say or do will ultimately be reported or  find its way to the person who will be your immediate supervisor. Remember; although you are in a social setting, you are still being scrutinized for your professionalism. So, always act responsibly and professionally when dining with prospective co-workers or managers.
•  Never drink alcoholic beverages at lunch (even if your host(s) does) and only at dinner when your host(s) orders a drink first. Also, if you cannot “hold your liquor”, I highly recommend that you don’t drink alcoholic beverages at any during your interview.
•  Ask questions about the company when appropriate. Prospective employers love when job candidates ask questions about the company or their roles in the organization. This shows prospective employers that you have done your homework and are interested in possibly joining the company. Also, it gives you an opportunity to assess a company’s culture and whether or not you will be able to fit in if you decide to join the organization.
• TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES, PAGERS, BLACKBERRY DEVICES and iPHONES when the interview begins and leave them off.  Nobody likes being interrupted during a conversation by a ringing cell phone, blackberry, or pager. If you are so important that you need to be electronically-connected at all times, then you probably don’t need the job that you are interviewing for!
•  Never say anything derogatory or pejorative about anyone when interviewing. In case you haven’t noticed, the scientific community is a small one and chances are that one or more of people you meet will know some of the same people that you do!  Everyone loves to gossip so be careful about what you say and how you say it!
• Interview to win! Receiving one or more job offers likely indicates that you are qualified for a job and your interviewing skills are good. Multiple interviews without offers signal that something may be wrong with your interviewing skills or technique. If this is the case, I urge you to seek a career coach who specializes in mock interview training.

Like everything else in life, practice makes perfect. That said, the more job interviews that you go on, the more experienced you will become and the more job offers you will likely receive.  

Until next time….

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

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

During my recent trip to Vermont and Woodstock, NY I had several conversations about Twitter. Surprisingly, I was being asked to explain Twitter to my nephews, both of whom are in their early 20s and to family friends who are in their late 40s and beyond. Also, at several recent science career fairs that I attended many graduate students and postdocs had never heard of Twitter or it they had, they don’t use it. Initially, this was puzzling but after considering the most recent Twitterverse demographics –I think the average age of Twitter users is around 35 to 40—it made more sense to me.

Anyhow, I have found that it is time consuming to explain Twitter to people who have heard about it but don’t quite understand how it works. To that end, several people— who I follow on Twitter— (@ LaurieDesAutels and @Recruiting Animal) tweeted about an article by John C. Dvorak that offers an excellent review of Twitter and several practical ways to use it.

I hope that the article provides some insights into Twitter and how scientists might be able to harness its incredible power and reach. You can follow me on Twitter @biojobblog!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!

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

Reuters reports that French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis (S-A) beat analysts second-quarter earning forecasts and that next year’s earnings will likely benefit from increased demand for its new H1NI swine flu vaccine. The company is the largest flu vaccine manufacturer in the world. Yet, despite surging profits, S-A continues to restructure and cut jobs in an effort maintain its stock share price. —and an “impeccable source”— that US managers are in France discussing cuts to American operations. The cuts are expected to be announced during the first week of August. More bad news for the US economy and  tens of thousands of American pharmaceutical employees who have already lost their jobs.

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting????????

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

Back in the late 1990s, applying for jobs online was all the rage! The technology was new and fresh and applying for jobs online was fast and easy. Companies raced to build corporate websites for prospective job applicants, major job boards like Monster and Careerbuilder were launched and human resources professionals though they were ushering in a “new era of employee recruitment and retention.” While applying for jobs online once seemed like a panacea for both job seekers and corporate employers, it never has lived up to all the fanfare and hype!

There is no question that applying for jobs online is quick, easy and most importantly emotionally gratifying. Paradoxically, these are the very qualities that have almost rendered the practice useless when it comes to finding a new job. Before applying for jobs online became de rigueur, large numbers of qualified, prospective employees were hired into new jobs. Unfortunately, these days’ most corporate websites and job boards are swamped by unqualified applicants who submit their resumes when ever and where ever they can! This has prompted many companies and job board site to automate their applicant screening processes—which, in many cases, fail to discriminate between qualified and unqualified job applicants. Frequently, because of the sheer volume of applicants, many companies no longer acknowledge receipt of job applications. While this practice is unprofessional in my opinion, it sends a subliminal—if not obvious message—to applicants that the likelihood of winning the job is remote. It is not uncommon for job applicants to never hear from a company after they have hit the send button to submit a job application.

So, if applying for jobs online isn’t the answer, what should jobseekers do to find gainful employment? Like it or not, the best way to find a new job is through networking. The advent of social networking sites like Facebook, Linked In and BioCrowd makes networking less daunting than it used to be. However, it is important to note, that online networking alone won’t be sufficient! Unfortunately, (for some of you anyway), interacting with people in real life will be required! The best way to begin networking is to use Google (or your favorite search engine) to identify companies or institutions that are looking for applicants with your skills and qualifications. Next, work hard to find a contact at a company who is willing to support your application or at least, forward it to an appropriate hiring manager. If you don’t know anybody at the company ask friends or relatives if they do. If this doesn’t work, post a notice on Facebook or Linked In asking if anybody in your network can provide a contact name or phone number of a hiring manager at the company you are interested in. If this also proves to be unsuccessful, you can run at Internet search on a particular advertised position or go to a company website to find the name of a hiring manager. However, to avert an avalanche of inquiries about online job postings, many companies no longer list the names of hiring managers on their websites. If all else fails, you can always put in a call into human resources and ask for more information about a job with the hope of getting the hiring manager’s name.

Once you obtain the name of a hiring manager, send an e-mail message indicating your interesting the position along with an attached resume/curriculum vitae. One note of caution; managers are usually inundated with e-mail messages (many which remain unanswered) and often have their spam filters set on high. Consequently, it may be prudent to also send a hiring manager an old fashioned cover letter and curriculum vitae authority using traditional or overnight mail delivery.

While networking to get an employee referral for a job remains the best way to get your “foot-in-the-door” at most companies, the referral channels, like almost all others, are also extremely clogged. This may require a direct phone call to a hiring manager to inquire about whether or not to apply for a job or to check on the progress of an application. That said, use this approach wisely—some managers may think that this shows initiative (and will pull your resume from the resume heap) while others may be offended or annoyed by your boldness. Nevertheless, once you make the call, DO NOT call back unless you are advised to do so. If the company is interested in you as a job candidate, they will contact you after they have had sufficient time to review your application.

While companies continue to advertise positions, the best way to land a new job is through word of mouth. This is because many companies don’t advertise all open positions and some companies run ads even though they are not hiring. Nevertheless, building a solid network of contacts and friends (both online and in real life) is critical for successful job searches.

In today’s difficult economy it may be prudent to employ a multifaceted job search strategy that includes a mix of networking, job boards and online applications. Also, it is important to cast as wide a job net as possible and not limit your search to a specific job type—especially if you have skills  and qualifications that cut across disciplines. Finally, I always tell prospective job candidates that looking for a new job must be a “full time endeavor.” Devoting less than a full time effort to your job search will likely yield disappointing results!

Until next time….

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

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

It’s no secret that major pharmaceutical companies are no longer investing in internal drug discovery initiatives as much as they have in the past. However, I was unaware how drastic the decline in R&D spending was until I read an article entitled “Significant Change Predicted for Bioindustry” by Benjamin J. Conway in the July issue of Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. 

Mr. Conway notes that in 1989 more than 50% of the pharmaceutical industry’s budget was spent on preclinical drug discovery and development. During the 1990s, the percentage slowly declined and was approximately 44% by 1999. He asserts that beginning in 2000, “the drop became precipitous” as pharmaceutical companies spent increasing amounts of their R&D budgets on downstream activities including expanded clinical trials. By 2006, big pharma was spending about 25% of its budget on R&D. Strikingly, Mr. Conway contends that “when measured in terms of constant absolute dollars, spending on pre-clinical R&D activities actually declined 0.4% annually over the period, despite annual increases of nearly 7% in total R&D spending.” 

Not surprisingly, the almost decade-long decrease in pharmaceutical R&D spending is best reflected in the lack of new drug approvals over the past five years or so. According to Mr. Conway, throughout the 1990s more than 50% of all new drug approvals originated at big pharma companies. By 2001, these companies were responsible for approximately 60% of new drug approvals. However, since then, pharma’s new drug approvals have plunged to 25% to 30% of annual totals. Some analysts suggest that the figure has been as low as 15%. The decline in new drug approvals almost parallels the decrease in R&D spending at most major pharmaceutical companies. Many industry analysts and thought leaders contend that big pharma companies have gotten too big and unwieldy and can no longer innovate. The unprecedented drops in pharma’s new drug approval rates tend to support that assertion. Mr. Conway points out that the so-called “innovation gap” has been filled by biopharmaceutical companies that “today account for 75% or more of new therapeutics developed each year.”

These changing market dynamics suggests that big pharma must reconfigure the business model that it has clung to for the past 50 years to remain competitive. Not surprisingly, almost all of the major pharmaceutical companies have begun to do just that! For example, over the past three years more than 60,000 R&D scientists have lost their jobs with little likelihood that the vacated jobs will ever be resurrected. Further, big pharmaceutical companies have increasingly begun to outsource many R&D activities to Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Finally, most big pharma companies have publicly demonstrated—through mergers and acquisitions—that biotechnology products as well as small molecules are in their future.

While big pharma may be retrenching and evolving, don’t expect the pharmaceutical industry on internal drug discovery initiatives —or small molecules for that matter— to disappear any time soon. The industry is going through a transitional period and the companies of the future will look only slightly different than they do today. These companies will still be large and well capitalized, but likely more diversified in their product portfolios (which will surely contain biotechnology drugs). Also, they will continue to excel in new product development, marketing and distribution. However, unlike the past, much less emphasis will be placed on internal R&D programs to discover new molecular entities. This means that pharmaceutical R&D operations will remain lean and companies will increasingly rely on M &A and licensing deals (with smaller specialty pharma and biotechnology companies) to keep their pipelines full.

Until next time...

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

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

Over the past few years, a number of search engines designed for the life sciences have appeared. I thought it might be informative for BioJobBlog readers to list some of the more popular ones and how they are used. I want to warn you in advance that this is not a comprehensive list. That said, if I’ve inadvertently omitted your favorite search engine, please feel free contact me or simply list it in the comments section for this post.

Scirus

Searches over 450 million scientific items, and allows researchers to search for not only journal content but also scientists’ homepages, courseware, pre-print server material, patents and institutional repository and website information. This site is owned and managed by Elsevier.

Novoseek

Search engine for biomedical literature in medline, grants and full text publications that will help you to: 1) retrieve meaningful documents related to your search, 2) narrow your search to find results in the relevant scientific journals and 3) identify the most relevant biomedical concepts for your query.

Mednar

Mednar is a free, publicly available medical research run by Deep Web Technologies.

Valdo 

A search engine that caters to all branches of life sciences. VADLO allows users to search within five categories: Protocols, Online Tools, Seminars, Databases and Software.

Life Sciences Search Engine

A customized search engine developed for the benefit of researchers in life science.

ScienceHack

BioPages

Australian web portal and life sciences search engine.

Science Bucket

Specialized search engine that filters biology sites.

GoPubMed

Knowledge-based search engine for biomedical texts. It allows users to identify experts in the biomedical field.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Searching!!!!!!!!

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

Back in the day—when the economy was sound and jobs were plentiful—an adequately written resume with a sprinkling of keywords and strategically-placed human resources clichés were sufficient to get your foot in the door at most companies. However, in today’s troubled economy where unemployment is rampant, there are certain buzz words and phrases that no longer resonate with hiring managers. According to Liz Ryan, an experienced  corporate career advisor who writes for Yahoo Hot Jobs, the following phrases must never appear in a resume if you are a job seeker in today’s market. 

• Results-oriented professional
• Cross-functional teams
• More than [x] years of progressively responsible experience
• Superior (or excellent) communication skills
• Strong work ethic
• Met or exceeded expectations
• Proven track record of success
• Works well with all levels of staff
• Team player
• Bottom-line orientation

She contends (and rightfully so) if old and tired phrases (like the ones mentioned above) appear in you resume you run the risk of being marked as “uncreative and vocabulary challenged.” Further Ms. Ryan suggests that you “can make your resume more compelling and human-sounding by rooting out and replacing the boring corporate-speak phrases that litter it, and replacing them with human language— things that people like you or I would actually say.” 

This language change is being driven by the informal nature of social media and a growing emphasis on truthfulness and transparency in the business. Nevertheless, well written resumes—with or without buzz words or key phrases—have always been and remain the first step in the sometimes long and tedius process of landing a new job!

Until next time...

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

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

Amber Johnson at Job Profiles suggested that BioJobBlog readers might be interested in this post about Twitter and job searches. While I can’t personally speak to the utility of using Twitter as a job search tool, it certainly can’t hurt to give it a try in today’s challenging economy. 

100 Useful Twitter Tools and Feeds for Your Job Search

If you're searching for a job, surely you've learned about the extensive amount of tools available online to help you land your perfect position. But did you know that Twitter is the hottest job search tool out there today? It's true -- employers, recruiters, and job search sites are flocking to the service. Check out this list to find tools and feeds on Twitter that can be a great help to your job search.

Search

Use these tools to search for the jobs being posted on Twitter.

1. TwitterJobSearch: With TwitterJobSearch, you'll be able to find tweets about jobs posted on Twitter.
2. TwitterTroll: TwitterTroll is a really useful real-time Twitter search engine.
3. Twitter Job Finder: Find fresh jobs on Twitter from the last 7 days on Twitter Job Finder.
4. Tweet Scan: Perform searches and register for email alerts using Tweet Scan.
5. TwitterJobCast: TwitterJobCasts' local job search will help you see who is hiring on Twitter in your area.
6. NearByTweets: You can search Twitter by keyword and location with NearByTweets.
7. TwitHire: This Twitter-based job board broadcasts a variety of listings.
8. JobMotel: Search for Twitter web developer jobs on this site.

Connections

With these tools, you'll be able to find and manage connections with others on Twitter.

9. TwitterMind: With TwitterMind, you can seek out Twitter users from the companies you'd like to work for and ask them for referrals.
10. Twellow: Use Twellow to identify the leaders you should connect with in your industry or community.
11. Workhound: Find a directory of the best Twitter job feeds on Workhound.
12. Just Tweet It: Find other Twitter users with similar interests on Just Tweet It.
13. TwitDir: Find some of the top Twitter users in this Twitter directory.
14. Twubble: Twubble will help you find more people to follow, reflecting on who your followers are following.
15. Twollo: With Twollo, you'll be able to automatically follow users with similar interests to yours.
16. FriendOrFollow: Find people you need to ditch, or followers you've overlooked with FriendOrFollow.
17. Find People: With Twitter's Find People tool, you can find or invite the people in your email address books to join you on Twitter.
18. Tweepsearch: Search Twitter bios and find recruiters using this tool.

Organization

Stay organized in your Twitter job search with these tools.

19. TweetDeck: Use TweetDeck to categorize your Twitter feeds, separating contacts with job listing feeds, and more.
20. Twuffer: Use Twuffer to compose and schedule future tweets.

19. Flock O'Tweets: This Twitter tool allows you to get feeds of multiple Twitter users sent to you by RSS.
20. Tweepler: Organize your followers and friends with the help of this app.
21. Splitweet: If you're using separate Twitter accounts for different functions, Splitweet can help you out.
22. Twit.io: Twit.io offers a social micro database that works as a solution to list jobs and more.
23. twtjobs: twtjobs is a simple career manager Twitter app.

Monitoring & Research

Stay on top of job alerts with the help of these tools.

26. TweetBeep: Set up alerts to find out about jobs as soon as they're tweeted with the help of TweetBeep.
27. TweetMyJobs: Subscribe to Twitter channels for jobs types and major cities, then get instant notification of new jobs on Twitter from TweetMyJobs.
28. TwitterHawk: Find people talking on Twitter about your chosen topic and location using TwitterHawk.
29. Twilert: Use this Twitter application to get regular email updates about tweets containing your brand, name, keyword, and more.
30. Twitter Job Alerts: Get direct messages sent to your Twitter account that match your CareerBuilder searches by setting up alerts with Twitter Job Alerts.
31. ConnectTweet: Learn about what's going on inside companies using ConnectTweet.
32. Monitter: Monitter can be used to find information about companies and find conversations about them.
33. Tweet Tag: Browse popular topics on Twitter and join in the conversation with Tweet Tag.

Your Message

Make the most of your Tweets by using these tools.

34. VisualCV: Link your online resume created on VisualCV on your Twitter bio.
35. PingVine: Use PingVine's service to automatically post an RSS feed from your blog to Twitter.
36. HashDictionary: Become a part of a group by using their hashtag. You can find the most popular and usable ones on HashDictionary.
37. HelloTXT: Make the most of your tweets by simulcasting them to Facebook, LinkedIn, and more.

Advice & Professionals

Learn all about job searching on Twitter and beyond from these professionals and advice feeds.

38. @exectweets: @exectweets will help you find and follow business executives on Twitter.
39. @cbsalary: @cbsalary shares news and tools for job seekers who want to learn about salaries.
40. @jobsearchnews: Here you'll find tweets full of the latest job search news.
41. @JobAngels: The guardian angels on @jobangels can help you find a job, and assist you when you help others find a job as well.
42. @PinkSlipParty09: Network with Pink Slip Party to help others find jobs, and find one for yourself as well.
43. @theonlinebeat: Use @theonlinebeat as a meta-engine for finding a job on Twitter.
44. @careertips: Get tips on your career with the help of Career Opportunities Broadcast.
45. @workerswork: @workerswork shares career, job, and work related news.
46. @JobHuntOrg: Susan Joyce is the owner of an award winning employment portal, Job-Hunt.org.
47. @jobwisdom: Get tips and advice for job hunting on @jobwisdom.
48. @PRjobs: Learn about Public Relations recruiting from Lindsay Olson.
49. @MonsterCareers: Get career advice and discussions from Monster.com.
50. @SimplyHired: Simply Hired works to make your job search simple and effective.
51. @CAREERALISM: Get advice from top career experts and be alerted about opportunities through @CAREEREALISM.
52. @snagajob: Get help with your part time or hourly job search from @snagajob.
53. @jobhunting: Jim Stroud shares happy news from the job market.
54. @ResumeBear: Follow @ResumeBear to learn how you can advance your career and improve your resume.
55. @jobnob: Learn about real salaries and find a job with Jobnob.
56. @jobshouts: Jobshouts is a great tool for finding a job through social media.
57. @workhappynow: @workhappynow encourages people to be happier with their work.
58. @BrazenCareerist: Get inspired to define your career and control your life by @BrazenCareerist.
59. @microjobs: @microjobs works to connect people with new opportunities on Twitter.
60. @applicants: @applicants shares information about jobs, freelancing, and more.
61. @cheezhead: Joel Cheesman stays on top of Internet recruiting here.
62. @tferriss: Tim Ferriss can teach you about loving your work more.
63. @twtjobs: Use @twtjobs, a simple Twitter career management app.
64. @CBforJobSeekers: Follow CareerBuilder's top job search experts here.

Job Listing Feeds

These feeds offer a direct line to job postings on Twitter.

65. @Elance_Jobs: Find out about the latest featured jobs on Elance.com here.
66. @freelance_jobs: Learn about fresh freelance jobs straight from @freelance_jobs.
67. @doscareers: @doscareers lists careers in Foreign Affairs.
68. @rocketjobs: Follow @rocketjobs to get updates about the best jobs in Ireland.
69. @thejobsguy: Ken Horst shares online recruiting and job search resources as well as new postings every day.
70. @hiremymom: @hiremymom works to connect at-home professionals with jobs and projects.
71. @RecruitDirect: Find direct jobs in Ireland on this Twitter account.
72. @HRCrossing: Check out @HRCrossing for the latest in HR jobs.
73. @media_pros: Find out about jobs for media professionals through @media_pros.
74. @joblister: Find work throughout the US and Canada from @joblister.
75. @myfirstpaycheck: Check out @myfirstpaycheck to find listings, resources, and more for teen job seekers.
76. @jobsitejobs: @jobsitejobs will send you personal job tweets to help you find work.
77. @travelnursejob: Follow @travelnursejob to learn about travel nursing opportunities throughout the US.
78. @37jobs: Get listings from the 37signals job board on @37jobs.
79. @elance: Learn about freelance opportunities through @elance.
80. @web20jobs: Check out @web20jobs for a real time tracker of Web 2.0 jobs.
81. @authenticjobs: Learn about savvy, authentic jobs available through @authenticjobs.
82. @journalism_jobs: @journalism_jobs will alert you to jobs in journalism, editorial, PR, and media sales.
83. @twitjobsearch: @twitjobsearch is the first semantic job search engine for Twitter.
84. @euractivjobsite: Follow the EurActiv JobSite to get an EU job of the day.
85. @execSearches: @execSearches connects talent with perfect positions.
86. @odesk: Follow @oDesk to be a part of the marketplace for online workteams.
87. @socialmediajob: Find your social media job on social media through @socialmediajob.
88. @newretailjobs: Get the hottest retail job opening leads every 30 minutes from major cities through @newretailjobs.
89. @juicyjobs: With @juicyjobs, you'll learn about green jobs in the UK.
90. @execjobs: ExecJobs finds six figure jobs for executives on Twitter.
91. @indeed: @indeed is a job search engine that aggregates all of the most important job sites.
92. @jobsearch: Emurse's Twitter feed offers listings, advice, and more.
93. @manpower: Find out what Manpower is recruiting for on this feed.
94. @Joblighted: @Joblighted offers a feed of Twitter tech jobs.
95. @publishingjobs: This feed will alert you to jobs in publishing available on Twitter.
96. @startuphire: @StartUpHire will alert you to jobs available at startups backed with venture capital.
97. @seojobs: Check out @seojobs to learn about SEO/SEM jobs available in the US.
98. @WorkInSports: Make your passion your career by finding a job through @WorkInSports.
99. @JobWire: Follow @JobWire to learn about the best jobs in Australia.
100. @krop_jobs: @krop_jobs updates on the latest creative and tech jobs.

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

Mark Senak, who writes the outstanding Eye on FDA blog, posted an interesting article today that tracks the number of warning letters issued by DDMAC (the center that oversees life sciences marketing and advertising) over the past 12 years. Not surprisingly, the number of warning letters issued by DDMAC fell precipitously during the Bush Administration, after reaching a high during the waning years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. In fact, the number of warning letters issued by DDMAC during the first two quarters of 2009 exceeds the yearly total of warning letters issued in the past 4 of five years. However, as Mark clearly points out, the 2009 year to date number of warning letters may be artificially inflated because of 14 identical ones issued on the same day (April 2) to 14 different companies regarding internet search engine advertising. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the agency is beginning to emerge from a long slumber and that US regulatory oversight may be entering a new, more scrutinizing era. 

While increasing regulatory scrutiny may be appropriate after 8 years of no regulation at all, it is important that FDA doesn’t overreact and unnecessarily stifle new drug and product development. To that end, I believe that the agency needs to be reorganized, revamped and revitalized to replace its traditionally “reactive” way of doing business with a more “proactive” one.  For example, there is a burgeoning need for regulatory guidance on the use of social media by companies in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostics industries. Unfortunately, FDA has been unwilling or unable to enunciate a cogent regulatory strategy or any meaningful guidance on this topic. Consequently, many life sciences companies have refrained from using social media because they simply don’t know how to implement it in the current regulatory environment. I believe that FDA, not the companies it regulates, should take the lead on this issue.

Finally, it is becoming increasingly apparent that many companies will continue to refrain from using social media and other Web 2.0 tools until FDA crafts some useful guidance on these topics. Sadly, Web 3.0 is just around the corner and the agency is still struggling with regulatory guidance for corporate websites. Maybe Congress needs to craft some new FDA modernization legislation—it has been 12 years since the last modernization bill was passed!

Until next time....

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

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

Word on the street suggests that Roche has severed its relationship with the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) the trade group that represents and lobbies on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. The recent purchase of Genentech must have convinced the venerable 100 year old pharmaceutical company that proteins not small molecule drugs are the key to its future.

According to published reports, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) has already sent an emissary to Roche's headquarters in Basel to talk to Severin Schwan, its CEO, about the benefits of BIO membership. Will Roche really eschew its membership in RhRMA and join BIO? And,will the loss of Roche's financial contributions substantial reduce PhRMA's influence and lobbying power in Congress? I guess only time will tell!

 Until next time...

 Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

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

While life sciences companies are still reluctant to take the “social media plunge,” many other companies (with active social media programs) frequently hire employees known as social media managers who oversee and run their social networks.  This is because successful social media websites require daily attention and are extremely time consuming and labor intensive. In general, employees who are hired for these jobs have strong backgrounds in social media and technology but frequently possess little expertise in the industry that they are working in. Because social media is so new, many hiring managers believe that the social media and technology skills of these managers are more important than an understanding of the industry that they work in. However, while this practice may be acceptable in other industries, it won’t be the case for the social media managers who oversee pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostics social media websites. These managers will likely be required to have a firm understanding of current rules and regulations guiding drug development and marketing and advertising of approved life sciences products. This will be necessary if the drug makers who hire these managers want to steer clear of regulatory scrutiny by the US Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies.

Based on my experiences as an industrial scientist and more recently as a social media manager, a person with a PhD degree with at least one course in regulatory affairs, good oral and written communication skills and an interest in social media ought to be an ideal candidate for these positions. To that end, those of you who may be interested in this newly, emerging career path option ought to begin training as soon as possible—these jobs will be in high demand at life sciences companies, medical communications agencies and conference organizers in the next year or so!

Until next time....

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

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

From time to time, I come across some interesting facts and statistics that are worth noting. This month’s issue of Pharmaceutical Technology Europe offered several things that were blog-worthy. Here they are: 

• IMS Health has readjusted the growth of the pharmaceutical industry in 2009 from 4.5-5.5% to 2.5-3.6% with sales expected to exceed $820 billion
• The size of the US pharmaceutical market is expected to contract by 1-2% in 2009
• Emerging markets like China, India and Brazil are expected to contribute to more than half of the global market growth in 2009 and sustain an average growth rate of 40% by 2013
• The size of the Middle East pharmaceutical market is predicted to exceed $18 billion by 2014

As one industry analyst put it “This high level of growth in emerging markets, combined with the contraction of the US market and ongoing low single-digit growth in other developed markets, is driving the pharmaceutical market to a new world order.” If I had money, I would be investing in generic pharmaceutical companies and follow-on biologic manufacturers!

Until next time...

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

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

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) inked a deal yesterday with the Indian generics manufacturer Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories giving it access to over 100 future generic drugs and a gateway to Asia’s emerging pharmaceutical markets. The therapeutic areas covered under the agreement include diabetes, cardiovascular, pain management, gastroenterology and oncology. Dr Reddy’s Laboratories is one of India’s largest generic drug manufacturers. Like many of its competitors, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories also have active development programs for new biotechnology drugs and biosimilar products.

UK-based, GSK joins a growing number of pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck and others that have entered into deals with major generic drug manufacturers—or purchased smaller generics companies—to gain access to generics pipelines and an ability to compete in emerging  non-branded pharmaceutical markets. Impending US healthcare reform and downward pricing pressures (resulting from increased global competition) have forced drug makers to reevaluate the role that generic drugs will likely play in future pharmaceutical revenue streams.

While generic drug makers have outstanding manufacturing capabilities, they generally lack the marketing, sales and distribution channels necessary to penetrate foreign markets and quickly ramp up drug sales. I suspect that the number of deals between pharmaceutical companies and generic manufacturers will continue to increase as many of the patents for multibillion, blockbuster drugs continue to expire in the next few years.

Until next time....

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

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

As many of you may know, I attend national science meetings where I offer resume critiquing services and give career development seminars on topics ranging from resume writing to alternate career opportunities for life scientists. Frequently, I critique the resumes of foreign PhD students and postdocs who want remain in the US but cannot for a variety of reasons related to visa status. I usually tell them that there are more job opportunities for them in their home countries; usually India and China, than there are in the US which no longer has a great demand for R&D scientists. 

Until recently, I hadn’t heard of any Asian recruiting firms or organizations that would help to find jobs for US-trained life scientists. Much to my surprise, I heard from Shyam Suryanarayanan, an entrepreneur who started a recruiting organization called ABLE C-Drive that helps place US-trained Indian nationals into life science jobs at Indian pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.   I asked Shyam to send me a description of the services offered by ABLE C-Drive. Here is what he wrote:

"ABLE C-DRIVE (www.cdrivejobs.com) is a specialist Life Science Career Platform for the Indian Life Science Industry.  It is an initiative launched by C-DRIVE ( a specialist Life Science Career Solutions Company), in collaboration with ABLE - (Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises), the Industry Association and the face of the Indian Biotech sector. The company is a pioneering initiative in the Indian Life Science Careers space to help Life Science Professionals be accessible/visible to a whole host of hiring organizations in a discreet manner, with a view to getting hired.  The 'Returning Indian' Community is a preferred group, given their strong training and experience in World Class research labs.

The list of companies hiring from this platform includes a mix of large global home grown leaders, as well as exciting small and medium-sized outfits across pharma, biotech, agricultural sciences (nutraceuticals), bioinformatics, clinical research, contract research and manufacturing." 

Our platform is a boon to hiring companies, because it is a single destination for pre-screened, quality life science professionals which significantly lower the cost, time and effort required for hiring. For additional information, please visit www.cdrivejobs.com or send your resume to lifejobs@cdrivecareers.com”

Those of you who are seeking life sciences jobs in India ought to check ABLE-C Drive out!

Until next time...

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

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

A much-anticipated Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report was released on Wednesday that will likely help House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman bolster support for his fledgling follow-on biologics (FOB) bill. For those of you who haven’t been closely following the debate over proposed legislation to create a regulatory framework for approval of FOBs in the US, I provide a brief synopsis.

The Promoting Innovation and Access to Life-Saving Medicines Act (H.R.1427) introduced by US Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Nathan Deal (R-GA) calls for an abbreviated development pathway (at the discretion of the agency), the possibility of substitution or interchangeability (if the follow-on biologics manufacturer can prove a high degree of structurally similarity and an identical mode of action) and five years of data exclusivity. In contrast, The Pathways for Biosimilar Act (H.R. 1548) introduced by US Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Joe Barton(R-TX) requires clinical data, rigorous immunogenicity testing and limits on interchangeability and substitution provisions for follow-on biologics. Further, it calls for a minimum of 12 or up to 14 years of data exclusivity for innovator companies—a period during which FDA can’t rely on innovator data to approve follow-on biologics. For example, if a biotechnology drug was approved in 2009, the earliest that FDA could consider and approve an application for a competing follow-on product is 2021.

The FTC report concluded that a 12- to 14-year wait is unnecessary because follow-on biologics will not be offered at the same steep discounts as traditional generic drugs. It also pointed out that no evidence exists that biologic patents will not hold up. The agency estimates follow-on biologics would be sold at discounts ranging from 10 percent to 30 percent. Not surprisingly, the FTC did not recommend a specific number of exclusivity years. This allows legislators to continue to squabble and debate the point ad nauseum, until concessions are made by both innovator and follow-on biologics proponents.

The measure by Eshoo and Barton has garnered 88 co-sponsors, while Waxman and Deal's bill has 11. In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reached a bipartisan compromise on follow-on biologics in 2007 that allowed for 12 years of exclusivity, but that deal seems unlikely. Democrats are trying to address generic firms' concerns that brand companies could make slight changes to their products and start the exclusivity period over again. Some senators introduced a more generic-friendly bill like Waxman's earlier this year.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the data exclusivity provisions in the final legislation will be five years—a period identical to that provided stipulated in the 1984 Hatch Waxman Act, which created the US generic pharmaceutical industry. 

Stay tuned for new updates on this unfolding drama!

Until next time...

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

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

After yesterday's post about career planning for life scientists, one of my soon to be former students in the Fundamentals of Bioscience Program aptly pointed out that my readers might have benefitted more if I had, in fact, offered information about alternate career possibilities for bioscientists.  I don't want the student to get too overconfident but I had the same thought immediately after I uploaded the post.  

Rather than modify the previous post, I decided to upload the presentation that I gave to the U Penn Graduate Student Biomedical Association yesterday.  However, as many of my former (or soon to be former) students will tell you, my PowerPoint presentations, while informative, are not as complete as you might think.  To get the real skinny on alternate careers, you will have to attend one of my seminars on the topic where I provide attendees with additional pearls of wisdom and some funny stories about my own journey along an oft times circuitous career path!

Until next time.....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Yesterday, I gave a lecture entitled “Alternate Careers: Taking the Road Less Traveled” to over 100 members of the University of Pennsylvania’s Biomedical Graduate Student Association. As always, there were many good questions and comments during and after the presentation. Some of the career anecdotes offered by several of the students reminded me of a conversation that I had several weeks ago with one of my Fundamentals of Bioscience students—I teach a Product Development and Regulatory Affairs course in the program—who refreshed my memory about a typical graduate student approach to career development and job searching. “We don’t think about jobs or our careers until we begin writing our PhD theses” she said. “Until then, our advisers don’t talk about careers or jobs and only bring it up because our funding will run out” she added. Admittedly, I had forgotten this because so many years have passed since my graduate student days. That said, it forced me to consider how much the life sciences job market has changed since I was graduate student and how vitally important it is for today’s graduate students to think about and possibly explore different career options throughout the course of their graduate training.

Historically, there were very few career options for life scientists—it was either a tenure track faculty appointment or, as a poor second choice, a job at a pharmaceutical or biotechnology. Unfortunately, academics jobs are hard to come by and since 2007 over 60,000 pharmaceutical R&D scientists have lost their jobs and more cuts are expected. Also, many of these jobs are likely come back after the economy improves because many of the R&D activities performed by these scientists are being outsourced to India, China and elsewhere. This suggests that a majority of life sciences graduate students who receive their PhDs within the next few years won’t be able to secure traditional life sciences jobs. While a majority of US life sciences graduate training programs recognize and understand the implications of the changing job market, many are reluctant to discuss alternate career options with graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Even fewer, encourage or support students or postdoctoral fellows who want to engage in “extracurricular activities” to explore alternate career options. In fact, several U Penn students told me that they have to obtain written permission from their adviser before they can take courses or participate in extra-departmental activities. As one student quipped “What I do on my own time should be my business not my boss's.”

I always conclude my alternate career talk by saying “Nobody ever guaranteed you a job after completion of your PhD or postdoctoral training.” And, “if you wanted a job after completing your education, you ought to have gone to medical school, dental school, law school or any other profession that requires licensure to practice your craft.” While this may sound harsh, I believe that the decision to get a PhD is a personal one and based on discussion with many of my colleagues, most didn’t enter graduate school expecting a job to be waiting them when they completed their training. Nevertheless, I contend that graduate departments that continue to train and prepare students for traditional academic careers —knowing that over 90% won’t find jobs (other than postdocs) after their training is finished —are being disingenuous and even deceitful. Why haven’t academician realized that there is a plethora of job opportunities for life scientists outside of academia?

Like it or not, the life sciences job market has undergone radical changes in the past decade. Unfortunately, academics continue to adhere to dogmatic and anachronistic ideas and practices that don’t prepare their students and postdoctoral fellows for jobs in “the real world.” I contend that informing and enlightening graduate students about alternate career paths and, allowing them to explore some of these opportunities will not impede or hinder laboratory research. Instead, I believe it would help to improve and expedite its progress. As one U Penn graduate student shared with me over a couple of beers “If they would just tell us the truth and give us some idea about our options, it would certainly improve morale, reduce our anxiety and allow us to focus on our research because we would know what is out there!” As the old adage goes”ignorance is bliss.” But, in my experience, knowledge is power!

Until next time....

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

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

After months of complaints by university officials and scientific organizations, the US State Department announced on Tuesday that it is taking action to speed up the delay-plagued visa process for foreign graduate students and post-doctoral researchers.

For the past few years, foreign science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral seeking to obtain or renew visas have routinely experienced long delays sometimes taking as long as several months. The problem became so acute that students and researchers who left the US often found themselves stranded abroad, not knowing when their visas might be approved.  Not surprisingly, the delays have caused enormous problems for American universities, which heavily rely on foreign nationals to fill slots in graduate and post-doctoral science and engineering programs. Over the last year or so, visa difficulties having discouraged many scientific organizations from holding meetings in the United States. Some life sciences researchers said the apparent reluctance of the United States to accept them encouraged them to seek work in other countries.

The State Department has hired additional personal to deal with the visa backlog but will not say how long it will take to correct the problem. A state department official indicated that they hope to handle routine visa requests within a two week time frame.

While never officially acknowledged, the Bush Administration intentionally slowed the visa process for foreign researchers to “guard against proliferation of science and technical information.” In other words, the visa backlog was likely intentionally created to prevent foreign drug companies and national scientific agencies from infringing on American intellectual property and patent rights—an ongoing practice that clearly frightened many of the jingoistic officials running the Bush State Department.

However, what the Bush administration failed to understand was that a majority of foreign students who train in the US want to remain here after completion of their studies. The visa backlog and its protectionist intent forced many foreign nationals to forgo their US training and return to their home countries to seek employment. This was beginning to threaten scientific and technical innovation in US laboratories because for the past decade or longer American students have shied away from science and engineering to pursue careers in business and computer science. Ironically, the Bush Administration’s protectionist leanings may have contributed—more than they care to admit—

 to the massive job cuts that have taken place at American life sciences companies in the past few years because of availability of a US-trained work forces in countries like India and China. This provides American life sciences companies with reasonable assurances that preclinical and clinical research outsourced to these countries will be conducted according to US standards. Further, it also provides foreign companies with unbridled access to a growing cadre of US-trained scientists that will enable them to compete on a head-to-head basis with American life sciences companies.

Fortunately, the Obama Administration, unlike the previous one, delivers on its promises and appears to be willing to work hard to restore science and technology to its rightful place in American society.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (it may now be possible for many foreign students!)

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

Over the past three years, more than 90,000 pharmaceutical employees have been layed off. While many of these former employees were drug reps, a majority who lost their jobs were R&D scientists. If drug makers have already jettisioned tens of thousands of R&D jobs, how is the next generation of medicines going to be discovered and developed? Like it or not, pharmaceutical and biotechnology R&D is beginning to be outsourced—much like information technology (IT) was in the late 1990s. And, like the IT industry much of R&D is being outsourced to countries like India and China. This should not be surprising because for the past 20 years or so, most of the people receiving PhDs in the life sciences were foreign nationals—many of whom were unable to stay in the US because of post-9/11 immigration policies and visa quotas. Without many options, many had no choice but to return to their home countries to seek employment and in some at contract research organizations (CROs) that specialize in pharmaceutical and biotechnology R&D.

According to a recent article written by J B Gupta Senior Vice President Collaborative Research GVK Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. India, for the last five years or so, Indian CROs like GVK Biosciences, Aurigene, Syngene, Advinus, Jubilant, Suven Life Sciences, Sai Lab, Accunova, iGate etc. have been positioning themselves as purveyors of R&D services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. These efforts have apparently paid off! Companies like Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Forrest Laboratories, Eli Lilly & Co, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Serono, Wyeth, Bristol Myers Squibb and others have entered into strategic R&D partnerships with many of India’s leading CROs. 

A recent study by the Kauffman Foundation suggests that India better positioned and ahead of China in R&D outsourcing. Further, the pace at which discovery collaborations are being established in India suggests that the western pharmaceutical industry is looking to Indian CROs not only to cut costs but to innovate as well.

Unfortunately, while this doesn’t bode well for American scientists, the US has nobody to blame but itself. Wrong-headed immigration policies coupled with inadequate training for life scientists who want to pursue industrial careers are largely responsible for the current R&D outsourcing activities. Like IT, I suspect that outsourcing will work for some companies but not others. Nevertheless, I think that outsourcing is here to stay and like it or not American life scientists will have no choice but to adapt to the “new normal.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try India or China)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced on Wednesday that it was creating a new program aimed at “finding treatments for some of the 6,800 rare diseases that collectively affect about 25 million Americans.” 

According to NIH officials, the NIH would work with researchers and patient advocacy groups to identify new molecular entities (NMEs) that represent potential treatments for rare disorders. Once identified, NMEs will be turned over to private companies for further development. Information about molecules that failed to make the cut for further development will be published in scientific and medical journals. The NIH stressed that the goal of the program is to work with the drug industry not compete with it to develop new treatments.

Because many rare diseases only affect a few hundred or a few thousand people, there are little financial incentives or profit motives for companies to develop treatments for them. To stimulate drug development for rare diseases, the US Congress passed The Orphan Drug Act (1983) that offers companies that develop drugs for diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people tax incentives, financial support for clinical development and seven years of US market exclusivity, i.e. the company can sell the product without competition for seven years. Since its passage, the Orphan Drug Act has been a boon to many biotechnology companies, most notably Genzyme, a profitable biotechnology company whose business model is built almost exclusively on orphan drug development.

NIH’s entry into the orphan drug development arena ought to help speed discovery and development of potential new treatments for orphan indications. It will undoubtedly help to reduce some of the cost, time and risks typically associated will corporate drug discovery. Industry experts suggest that drug discovery can sometimes cost well over $10.0 million and take between two to four years to complete. However, the program is starting with only $24 million this year and is expected to receive the same level of funding each year until 2013. While this may limit the overall effectiveness of the program, it will likely bring government and the drug industry closer to forge new relationships with the common goal of discovering much needed new treatment for orphan indications.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Research!!!!!!!!

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

Medtronics, the world's largest medical-device company, announced today that it will lay off 1,500-1,800 employees after posting a fiscal fourth-quarter profit that plunged 69 percent on slipping sales,restructuring and other charges. About 400 employees already have accepted buyout offers and will leave the company by the end of the month.

Until now, the medical devices and diagnostic industries, unlike pharma and biotech had had remained unscathed by the current economic downturn. Medtronic’s financial woes are mainly a result of questions about its implantable devices which have come under fire recently because of safety concerns. Nevertheless, don’t be surprised if you see other medical devices and diagnostic companies begin to layoff workers as the financial crisis deepens and medical and healthcare costs continue to rise.

Hat tip to Iguana Bio.

Until next time...

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

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

Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, announced on Thursday that it is unveiling a new program that will let people who have lost their jobs and health insurance to keep taking Pfizer medications — for free, and for up to a year. The company will provide more than 70 of its prescription drugs ranging from Viagra to Lipitor at no costs to unemployed and uninsured Americans who lost their jobs since Jan. 1 and have been taking Pfizer drugs for me than three months. It is not clear how much Pfizer will spend on the program and whether or not costs will be capped.

The announcement comes amid massive job losses caused by the recession and a campaign in Washington to rein in health care costs and extend coverage. The move could earn Pfizer some goodwill in that debate after long being a target of critics of drug industry prices and sales practices. The program also likely will help keep those patients loyal to Pfizer brands. Don't be surprised if other pharmaceutical companies announce similar program over the next few weeks.

Pfizer and the rest of the drug industry wants is trying to have a voice in the debate over how to overhaul the U.S. health care system, partly by joining in a pledge this week to help hold down inflation of health costs. In the mean time, drug companies have been raising prices on their drugs, partly to offset declines in revenue as the global recession reduces the number of prescriptions people can afford to fill.

Pfizer ought to be commended on the program and its concern for the health and well being of unemployed and uninsured Americans. However, it is important to point out that this is little more than a high profile, marketing campaign designed to improve the image of drug makers. More important, it is the first public acknowledgement that drug makers are willing to engage legislators in discussions about how to reform healthcare to reduce costs and cut expenditures. 

What really is at stake here is whether or not the US government will begin regulating drug prices as part of a comprehensive healthcare reform package. As many of you may know, the US government, unlike most other governments in the world, cannot negotiate or set prescription drugs prices. Not surprisingly, the US prescription drug market is the largest and most profitable in the world. It will be interesting to see how the US healthcare reform discussion unfolds—clearly a lot is at stake for the American prescription drug industry.

Until next time...

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

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

Are you a life sciences or healthcare professional with a passion for computers, IT or software development? If so, you might want to consider a career in health informatics—one of the hottest, new fields in the life sciences and healthcare industries. Health informatics specialists typically have expertise in medical records and claims, clinical care and programming. In other words, they have a foot in two worlds— medicine and technology — and can easily bridge the often daunting gap between them. It is important to point out that there is a difference between healthcare IT and informatics personnel. The health IT people run the servers and install software, but the informatics people are the ones who analyze and interpret clinical/ medical information and work with clinical and other healthcare staff to advise and help them.

According to an article in this Sunday’s NY Times, health informatics specialists usually start as computer programmers or as doctors, nurses, pharmacists or health record administrators. After earning a graduate health informatics degree, they find jobs as mid level or senior employees at hospitals, doctor’s offices, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or other organizations concerned with health data. Mid level jobs, like those for clinical analysts or informatics analysts, are usually about $70,000 a year, but salaries can be much higher for more senior level positions.  Senior level jobs, which sometimes require a Ph.D., include chief clinical information officer or other management/leadership roles at medical devices, life sciences or insurance companies. Consulting firms are also hiring health informatics experts to serve many of their health care clients who frequently don’t have the resources to hire permanent informatics staff.

At present there are no educational, licensing or credential requirements to become a health informaticist. However, a growing need for health informaticists has resulted in the creation of a number of degree programs at two and four year colleges and universities. For example, within the past four years, Columbia University, St. Louis University, the University of Minnesota and Oregon Health and Science University have all added master’s programs or certificates in health informatics. Other schools offer short courses or part-time certificate programs to healthcare employees or programmers. Still others are adding undergraduate majors or associates degrees programs to their curricula.

While many schools are beginning to offer health informatics programs, not all informatics programs are “created equal.” Generally speaking, “medical” or “biomedical” informatics programs focus on data that doctors need for treating patients. Bioinformatics” programs concentrate on biological or genetic data, while “health informatics” programs often emphasize clinical data and health records. Even among programs with the same name, the emphasis and expertise may vary at different institutions that offer the training.

By all accounts, health informatics —despite some early confusion—is one of the fastest growing careers in the bioscience and healthcare fields. Unlike other fields in the shrinking life sciences industry, there are plenty of jobs out there for health informaticists. Ironically, the failing US economy is what is driving the growth of the health informatics industry. The US government’s economic stimulus package has allocated $19 billion to hastening the adoption of electronic health records, so demand for health informatics specialists is skyrocketing. “My rough estimate is that we need about 70,000 health informaticists,” said Don E. Detmer, president and chief executive of the American Medical Informatics Association, a nonprofit industry group.

However, as a word of caution, it usually takes more than technical skills and an understanding of health care to succeed as a health informaticist. Diplomacy and conflict resolution skills are crucial when dealing with two potentially contentious groups: healthcare workers and programmers. Nevertheless, healthcare informatics is an ideal field for bioscientists and healthcare workers who also like to work with technology, computers or develop software. Based on my recent experiences as a bioscience career counselor, I know that there are thousands of you out there that fit this description. Now be the time to take a closer look at the exciting, new field of health informatics to determine whether or not it may be a career option for you!

Until next time...

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

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

Earlier this week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent warning letters to 14 different pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to advise them that their approach to Internet advertising is violating federal pharmaceutical advertising and marketing guidelines and regulations. While the agency’s attempt to regulate Internet-based drug advertising is laudable, the fact that warning letters were sent to 14 different life sciences companies means that there is a poor understanding of the regulations regarding use of Internet—and more recently, social media—to market and advertise drugs, medical devices and diagnostics. This isn’t surprising because FDA has yet to issue any meaningful guidance on the use of the Internet and social media to market life sciences industry products. The reluctance of the agency to issue guidance is very puzzling—the use of web based-advertising and social media by life sciences companies has exploded in the past few years.

In a post today on the EyeOnFDA blog, Mark Sendak pointed out that Twitter is fast becoming the medium of choice for life sciences messaging, branding and product promotion. Despite FDA’s lack of guidance on the use of social media, an increasing number of life sciences companies and organizations are using it to stay in touch with their stakeholders and constituents. For example, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Lancet, the New Scientist, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Cell Therapeutics and Novartis and others have Twitter accounts. Many of these companies also have fan pages or accounts on Facebook. 

It is becoming increasingly evident that the agency will have to issue guidance on social media sooner rather than later. The wide reach, immediacy and highly interactive nature of social media suggest that the current wait-and-see attitude of FDA is no longer feasible. To jump start the discussion, Social Pharmer, a group of life sciences social media enthusiasts are holding an “unconference” in Boston on April 21, 2009. I hope that FDA sends representatives to this grassroots meeting!!!

Until next time....

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

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

Using Facebook and Twitter to find jobs is becoming routine in many industries including healthcare. However, the life sciences industry is lagging behind most others when it comes to social media and recruitment. Nevertheless, many companies and academic institutions are beginning to realize that Facebook (FB), Twitter and other science social networks are good source of qualified candidates for  those difficult-to fill job openings. 

Lindsey Pollak, a GenY career guru who, writes on the use of social media for job searching, alerted me to a post (via Twitter @biojobblog) that describes how to effectively use FB to find a job.  While FB may be useful to scientist looking for work, there are many other bioscience social networks like BioCrowd (@biocrowd) that regularly post jobs and career opportunities for life scientists.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting 

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

The US economy has lost about 7.1 million jobs since December 2007 and nationwide unemployment is hovering around 8.5 percent. Despite the lost of  about 80,000 pharmaceutical jobs over the past three years and unprecedented consolidation taking place in the life sciences sector—Merck-Schering Plough, Pfizer-Wyeth and Roche-Genentech—the job prospects for scientists at biotech companies, medical devices and diagnostics, and government appear to be stronger than anticipated. While drug discovery and sales jobs may be scare, there are rapidly emerging opportunities in the fields of medical communications, regulatory affairs, biomanufacturing, clinical trials management , bioengineering, medical devices/diagnostics and website development and management.

President Obama’s promise to restore science to its rightful place, his reversal of the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and an unwavering commitment to alternate energy technologies suggest that the future may be very bright for bioscientists. For example, there are massive hiring initiatives at federal agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Unites States Department of Agriculture (UDSA) — as the Obama administration attempts to overall these agencies— and funding levels at the National Institutes of Health are on the rise (aided in part by a $200 million Challenge Grant stimulus program).

While the road to economic recovery may be a long one, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who are currently engaged in life sciences research should “stay the course and not jump ship just yet.” The life sciences industry is more recession proof than others and it will be one of the first to experience an economic turn around. And, when it does it is best to prepared to find a job!

Until next time…

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

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

Previously, the US Congress proposed legislation to create a regulatory approval process to allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve generic versions of blockbuster biotechnology drugs known as follow-on biologics (FOBs). While a regulatory pathway exists for approval of generic versions of small molecule drugs (as outlined in the Hatch-Waxman Act) there is no legally-approved regulatory pathway to bring FOBs to market in the US. In contrast with the US, the European Union crafted legislation five years ago that allows biosimilars —the name given to FOBs in Europe—to be approved and sold in EU member states. Since 2004, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), the EU regulatory body, has approved the sale of six biosimilar drugs with many more in the queue awaiting regulatory review.

The debate over FOB legislation started in the US about 10 years ago when patent expiry of many  multi-billion blockbuster biotechnology drugs was fast approaching. From the beginning, many so-called innovator companies (the companies that produced the original branded biotechnology drugs) and the trade associations that represent them on Capital Hill, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association (PhRMA), aggressively lobbied against any form of FOB legislation. However, late last year, several senators introduced legislation that would permit FDA to approve generic versions of many blockbuster biopharmaceutical products following patent expiry. The proposed legislation stipulated that FOB manufacturers would have to wait 12 years —after patent expiry of previously approved biotechnology drugs—before generic versions of those drugs could be sold in the US. That legislation, which unabashedly favored innovator drug manufacturers, passed the Senate health committee but died without being voted on. The new measure, introduced Thursday, cuts by more than half — to 5 years, from 12 — the time allowed before cheaper versions of biotechnology drugs could compete with the originals. A similar bill was introduced two weeks ago in the House by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

While the proposed reduction in the so-called “FOB waiting period” is commendable, I don’t think that any waiting period is necessary before FOBs can be sold in the US. It is difficult to understand why innovator companies require an additional patent protection—beyond the 20 years already afforded to them under US patent law—to continue to sell their blockbuster products! To that end, Jeff Joseph, a spokesman for the BIO said that the FOB waiting period reduction, “.... Would jeopardize patient safety and undermine our ability to develop future cures and therapies.” I believe that the FOB waiting period being championed by innovators companies is nothing more a thinly veiled attempt by them to continue to maintain monopolistic control over lucrative multibillion dollar biopharmaceutical drug franchises. Biotech executives have vowed to vigorously fight the new legislation, saying it could result in unsafe medicines, fewer cures and fewer jobs in biotechnology centers like Boston, California and elsewhere. Interestingly, similar arguments were put forward by the pharmaceutical industry before the Hatch-Waxman act was passed by Congress in 1984..

Despite the claims that FOBs will stifle innovation and may jeopardize the safety of Americans, the current high costs and lack of access to affordable healthcare will almost certainly leave Congress no choice but to pass legislation that permits the marketing and sale of FOBs in the US. While FOB legislation is a likely fait accompli, US drug manufacturers remain steadfastly opposed to any FOB legislation. I believe that innovator company opposition to FOB legislation is really a “red herring” that serves to detract attention away from the real issue that the drug industry is deathly afraid of federal regulation of drug prices. Interestingly, the US is one of the only countries in the world where drug prices are not regulated or controlled by the government. This permits drug manufacturers to set prices based exclusively on “what price the US market will bear.” In other words, they can charge as much as they want for their drugs, as long as third party payors, insurance companies and Medicare and Medicaid agree to continue to cover the costs of the drugs that they manufacture (it should come as no surprise to anyone that the American pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets are the largest and most financially lucrative in the world).

I have no doubt that innovator companies will continue to fight hard and as long as possible prevent adoption of legislation regulating the approval of FOBs. After all, there are huge sums of money and corporate profits at stake. Like it or not, FOBs will ultimately be sold in the US—the current costs of drug and healthcare are simply too high to sustain. Despite a fierce decade-long struggle, most American drug makers will privately concede that sale of FOBs in the US is inevitable. Nevertheless, innovator companies will likely not publicly endorse FOB legislation until the US government provides them with assurances that it will not seek to regulate American drug prices for the foreseeable future.

Until next time...

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

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

As many of you know, the life sciences industry, one of the most highly regulated industries of the economy has been hesitant and reluctant to embrace social media to reach out to patients, physicians and the lay public. This is because the US Food and Drug Administration, specifically Division for Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC), has been mute on the subject and hasn’t issue one iota of guidance on the use of social media in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology or medical devices/diagnostic industries.

Mark Senak, a regulatory affairs lawyer and owner of the blog eyeonfda.com, invited Dr. Jean Ah Kang, Special Assistant at DDMAC in charge of Web 2.0 policy development to talk about FDA’s views and ideas about social media and its use in the life sciences industry. Listening to the 15 min podcast would be, according to Mark, “time well spent” for social media advocates in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices/diagnostics sectors.

Hat tip and much “love” to Mark who wrote “BTW, I absolutely expect waves of love for this (the podcast)."

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Listening!!!!!!!!!! 

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

Facebook contends that it has over 175 million members, making it the largest social network in the world! Interestingly, according to an article in today’s New York Times, most US members are “still relatively young.” “Facebook offers advertisers a target of 54.4 million members of all ages. But if an advertiser wants to narrow its target audience to those 25 or older, the number drops to 28.8 million. Narrow it to those 30 or older, and Facebook has 20.3 million to offer.” However, this is not surprisingly because people 30 and over weren’t allowed to join Facebook until 2006. In fact, many over-30 individuals have yet to sign up! In support of this, I am increasingly getting friend requests from my contemporaries—most of whom are in their 40s and 50s.

Each week, a million new members are added in the United States and five million globally—the 30-and-older group is its fastest-growing demographic (and the one with the most money to spend).  Further, Facebook members are becoming increasingly social and gregarious. In December the average number of “friends” per member was 100. Since then, it has grown to 120 per member according to a Facebook spokesperson. If Facebook continues to grow at its current rate, it will likely experience unprecedented and astonishing growth in the next few years. And, when it comes to monetizing social networks, bigger is always better!

Until next time...

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

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

A team of researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (my alma mater) genetically engineered a strain of Streptomyces platensis to overproduce the antibiotics platensimycin and platencin. They accomplished this by deleting a regulatory gene (ptmR1, whichencodes a putative GntR-like transcriptional regulator) in the antibiotic synthetic pathway that controls production. The newly engineered strain has been reported to overproduce platensimycin and platencin with yieldsof 323 ± 29 mg/L and 255 ± 30 mg/L, respectively. This represents a 100-fold increase in the yields observed with corresponding S. platensis wild type strains.

Platensimycin is the first of a new class of natural product antibiotics (with a novel mode of action) to be discovered in the past 40 years.  It exhibits strong, broad-spectrum Gram-positive antibacterial activity by selectively inhibiting cellular lipid biosynthesis. Treatment with platensimycin eradicates Staphylococcus aureus infection in mice. Because of its unique mode of action, platensimycin shows no cross-resistance to other key antibiotic-resistant strains tested, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus, vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci.

Platencin, also a natural product, is chemically and biologically related but different from platensimycin. Like platensimycin, it exhibits a broad-spectrum Gram-positive antibacterial activity through inhibition of fatty acid biosynthesis. And, it doesn’t exhibit cross-resistance to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. Moreover, platencin shows potent in vivo efficacy without any observed toxicity.

Both antibiotics show promise for commercialization. While we need new antibiotics, both platensimycin and platencin target only Gram positive bacteria. Infections caused by multiple drug resistant Gram negative bacteria are threatening to overtake those caused by Gram positive in the very near future. At present, to the best of my knowledge, there are no new antibiotics in the pipeline directed against multiple drug resistant Gram negative strains.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Antibiotic Hunting!!!!!!!!

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

How many of you read the printed ingredients and nutrition fact boxes found on packaged foods to help you decide which of two similar products you ought to buy? What if the same concept was applied to direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads? Do you think that it would be easier to determine which of two similar medications may be best for you? Well, researchers at Dartmouth Medical School think so! And, they are urging the US Food and Drug administration to adopt a similar concept for all DTC advertising.

Based on results from two randomized, clinical studies, the Dartmouth team proposed that numerical tables that quantify the benefits of a drug (compared with placebo) and also the odds of developing certain side effects should be included on DTC advertisements including television, print and web-based ads. In those studies, patients were shown drug ads that did and did not include a fact box. Participants looked at ads (with and without fact boxes) for two similar prescription heartburn medications and two widely prescribed cardiovascular drugs. The trial using the heartburn medications was designed to evaluate consumer decision-making about drugs that are used to treat symptoms whereas the cardiovascular medications trial was used to evaluate decision-making about the use of preventative medications that reduce the risk of future events, e.g., heartache or stroke.

Overall, the researchers said, the addition of facts boxes to prescription drug ads allowed consumers to make better decisions about the choices of drugs for their symptoms and were better informed about the benefits of drugs that could be used for prevention. For example, when asked which drug they would choose for heartburn 68 percent of those who had seen ads with facts boxes picked what the researchers referred to as "the superior drug," as compared with 31 percent of those who had seen ads without facts boxes. Also, about 80 percent of the facts-box group, as compared with 38 percent from the non-fact-box group, knew that both drugs had similar side effects. After looking at cardiovascular drug ads with or without fact-boxes, 72 percent of those who saw ads with facts boxes correctly described the risk reduction associated with both drugs whereas only 9% of non-fact-box participants were able to do this.

DTC advertising is big business—last year the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $4.8 billion on television and print ads alone. While DTC advertising is known to influence prescription drug sales, it is also somewhat controversial suggested Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine "Direct-to-consumer drug advertising is controversial in medical circles, largely out of concern that drug companies will talk patients into preferences not in their best interest, "But I often encounter the opposite problem in my patients. After hearing the litany of potential side effects of a drug, they absolutely refuse to take it," Katz said. Nevertheless, he and the Dartmouth researchers agree that better-informed patients make better drug choices.

Drs. Woloshin and Schwartz, leaders of the Dartmouth team, are scheduled to present their findings tomorrow to an FDA advisory panel on “risk communication.” The panel is tasked with examining how best to provide consumers with data about prescription drugs using printed matter. 

Adding fact-boxes to print, television or web-based ads won’t substantially increase the cost of creating and producing them. Also, rather than hurt prescription drug sales—what most pharmaceutical companies are worried about—the new approach may be good for the industry. According to Robert Ehrlich, who heads DTC Perspectives, a company that specializes in pharmaceutical marketing, “If there is high benefit and low risk, doctors will prescribe more of the drugs. If there is low benefit and high risks than the drug should probably not be on the market,” said Ehrlich.

Stay tuned for updates.

Until next time...

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

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

I have been accumulating anecdotal information about companies,organizations and institutions that use social media tools like Facebook, Twitter YouTube etc.  I decided to attempt to conduct an informal survey  to determine whether or not the life sciences sector is adopting and embracing social media to meet its objectives (whatever they may be). 

To that end, I constructed a Google Docs spread sheet to collect information for the survey.  Please take a look at the survey and fill in the requested information. I will publish the results of the survey if enough people response to this request.

I look forward to hearing from as many of you as possible. Don't be shy, everything is anonymous!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!!!

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

The Eye on FDA blog reported today that AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Aventis have joined the ranks of Abbott, GSK, J&J and SanofiPasteur on YouTube. Pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of the power of YouTube and other social media sites because regulatory guidance hasn’t been issued on its use to promote products or brand awareness. In other words, this is uncharted territory and companies can essentially 'test the waters' to see how far regulatory agencies will let them go.  I suspect that early life sciences company adopters of social media will garner substantial ROI before regulatory guidance is issued.

A lack of regulatory oversight, the ability to manage and control content and the low costs associated with creating Internet videos make YouTube and other social media sites attractive to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The life sciences sector is just beginning to recognize the power of social media and the role that it may play in promoting products and brand awareness to consumers.  Expect many more life sciences companies to experiment with social media in the near future--its a veritable goldmine!

Until next time…

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

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

Ever wonder how a drug makes it from the bench to the marketplace and what types of jobs are required to support the process? I created a PowerPoint presentation that describes the activities and the jobs required at each stage of the development process. I also listed the degree requirements that are necessary to secure various jobs from drug discovery through commercialization.

• 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

Today is a sad day in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology blogging world. Pharmalot, a two year old, pioneering blog created by the intrepid Ed Silverman and the Star Ledger News has decided to call it quits. Unfortunately, the Star Ledger is in dire financial straits and it could no longer provide Ed with the support he needed to continue to run the Pharmalot blog. Please read Ed’s last blog post for the full story.

Pharmalot was a well crafted and informative blog. I frequently (more times then I care to admit) used Pharmalot as source material for many of my posts at BioJobBlog. I am not sure how I will fill the void left by Pharmalot’s untimely  demise!

I first met Ed about 8 years ago when he did a story about a biopharmaceutical company that I founded (along with Abe Abuchowski) called Prolong Pharmaceuticals.  His coverage was outstanding and I am pleased to report that Prolong is still in business today. Ed and I reconnected a little over a year ago at a panel discussion about scientific integrity and journalism. Ed shared the podium with the WSJ Health Blog, the New York Times, Advanstar Publications and several well known authors who write about pharma and biotech. I was truly impressed with his understanding of the pharmaceutical industry (he is a journalist not a scientist) and his commitment to telling people the truth regardless of the consequences. I took his message to heart and have attempted to apply the same philosophy to my posts at BioJobBlog.

I want to personally thank Ed for his unwavering commitment to journalistic integrity and his help in ferreting out the truth. I wish him the best for whatever the future may hold for him—he will be sorely missed.

Until next time…

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

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

BioCrowd, a new social networking site for bioprofessionals was officially launched today.  We are still making last minute fixes and cosmetic changes so please bear with us over the next few weeks.

BioCrowd's main goal is to provide a venue for career development and business interactions for students, scientists and other bioprofessionals.  We plan on adding new applications and functionality as the network evolves.  That said, please let us know what you think, what you like and don't like and how we can improve BioCrowd to meet your needs.

Thanks and I hope that you become a member of the BioCrowd!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

In a  previous post,  I suggested that more layoffs would occur at Bristol-Myers Squib (BMS) by December, 1, 2008. The Pharmalot Blog reported today that 800 more BMS employees ( including scientists) would lose their jobs before the end of 2008. Okay, so I was off by about two weeks.

A company spokesperson told the Pharmalot folks that “We are reducing the global Bristol-Myers Squibb workforce as part of our previously announced second wave of productivity initiatives designed to enhance our ability to address the significant challenges and uncertainties our company faces in the short- and long-term. Headcount reductions associated with the second wave of productivity initiatives will continue through 2010, with a goal of a 10 percent reduction in our global workforce. This [layoff of 800] is in addition to the 10 percent workforce reduction previously announced in December 2007.” 

Things are obviously not going well at BMS these days. Look for more layoffs in early 2009 and beyond. Who do you think is going to buy BMS?

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (Try Lilly I hear ImClone is looking for a few good men and women)

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

The relationship between science, education and industry has always been a tenuous one. To learn more about the complexity of this relationship check out this article that was recently published in a local New Jersey business publication.

Until next time…

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

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

I know this is kind of odd, but I have recently begun to wonder which life sciences companies have layed off the most employees this past year. Well, for those of you out there who were also wondering we don't have to wonder any longer because Ed Silverman over at the Pharmalot blog has conveniently compiled a list of the top offenders for us. For those of you who may be wondering which company was number one on the list, it’s name begins with a “P” and ends with an “r.”

Until next time…

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

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

It seems that every day a new American industry asks the US government for a bailout because of impending financial exigency. That said, I was somewhat surprised to learn today that the biotechnology industry is planning to ask Congress for a bailout. The plan calls for Congress to temporarily changes tax laws to allow unprofitable biotech companies to get cash now, in exchange for tax credits that they would pledge not to take if they eventually become profitable. The companies that receive the cash would pledge that the money would be used ONLY for research and development activities. The reasoning behind the proposed government bailout is that the infused capital would allow struggling biotech companies to keep their current employees, stay in business and help to stimulate the US economy. It is not clear whether or not all biotechnology companies—publicly traded or privately held—would be eligible for the bailout package.

Currently, there are 327 publicly traded and roughly 1,000 privately held biotechnology companies in the US. A majority of these companies are not profitable and operate almost exclusively on institutional and private venture capital funds. According to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), 125 of 327 public companies currently have less than 6 months of cash on hand—nearly double the total last year. It is not surprising that the biotechnology industry like most other US industries is struggling and feeling the impact of recent financial meltdown—there simply isn’t enough liquidity in the system to keep all companies afloat. While I am not opposed in principle to government bailouts, there are several reasons why the proposed rescue plan for the biotechnology industry doesn’t sense to me.

First, unlike the automobile industry which employs millions of workers, the biotechnology industry only employs about 200,000 workers, many of whom have advanced degrees and possess specialized technical skills. And, studies show that during recessionary periods workers with specialized skills are more likely to find employment after losing a job than their unskilled counterparts. This suggest that it may be better for the American economy in the long run if the government bails out the auto industry before it even considers a bailout for biotech. Nevertheless, BIO is actively lobbying for a government bailout because it believes that a bailout will not only stimulate the American economy but also help to “preserve American innovation and competitiveness.” Of interest, the pharmaceutical industry which shed over 123,000 jobs in the last year or so is not asking for government assistance. As one Washington lobbyist aptly quipped after hearing about the proposed biotech bailout: saving “research-based companies that employ 30 people won’t necessarily stimulate the economy.”

Second, the biotechnology business is inherently a very risky one. The failure rate among biotech companies is roughly 90%. And, as many of you know, biotechnology companies are always started with venture capital from investors who are willing to invest in risky projects because of possible financially-lucrative returns. Because of this, biotechnology executives are generally beholden to their investors rather than their shareholders, stakeholders or employees. Unfortunately, important business decisions are frequently made at venture-backed biotech companies for financial reasons rather than scientific or medical ones. Further, many financially-challenged, biotechnology companies that would benefit from the bail out started up almost a decade ago when venture capital was abundant and IPOs were daily events. In retrospect, many of these companies shouldn’t have been started in the first place because their technology platforms were either inadequately vetted or their business models were fundamentally flawed. I believe that these financially troubled companies ought to be allowed to fail just like the technology companies that had to close down in the early 2000s after the Internet bubble finally burst.

Third, why should unprofitable companies without products or revenues be bailed out and rewarded for failure? As I posited in a previous post, a company really isn’t a business until it has a product, generates revenues and turns a profit (or at least break even). If a company cannot create a viable business after 5-10 years of capital investments then it wasn’t a good value proposition at the outset. Perhaps a better use of the proposed bailout money would be for the US government to create public funding vehicles for companies that have developed promising new drugs that already have proof of concept in humans and are ready for clinical testing.

Finally, over the past decade, the biotechnology industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against the reimportation of drugs from foreign companies and the development of so-called follow-on biologics (potentially cheaper versions of blockbuster biotechnology drugs that have lost patent protection). This decade-long lobbying effort was undertaken to preserve America’s biotechnology monopoly and to insure that biotech drug prices remain high. Maybe BIO and its member companies should have considered using some of those monies to help struggling biotechnology companies rather than using it to influence politicians for tax breaks and pork barrel legislative initiatives.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, why should taxpayer dollars be used to bailout an industry that has actively opposed and steadfastly refused to provide ALL Americans with access to reasonably priced, potentially life-saving biotech drugs? Because the biotechnology industry isn’t fundamentally different than any other American industry, I believe that the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest ought” to be applied to it. Unless, of course, you work on Wall Street or in Detroit—but don’t get me started!

Until next time…

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

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

Recently, I have come across posts on blogs and websites reporting on lay offs and cost-cutting measures that are taking place at some biotechnology companies. A good example of this is a post that appeared yesterday on the Fierce Biotech Web Site. The headline read: “New round of layoffs, cost-cutting at biotechs.”  I thought “OMG this can’t be happening—not the biotechnology industry too!”

However, I am happy to report that many  of my concerns were assuaged after I read the post and realized that the reported downsizing was taking place at small companies, most of which were on shaky ground before the recession even began. Some of the companies that were mentioned included: Titan Pharmaceuticals, Pressure BioSciences, Insite Vision, WuXi PharmaTech Cayman and Targeted Genetics—not exactly titans (pardon the wordplay) of the biotechnology industry. 

There is no question that the current economic downturn will hurt some biotechnology companies (mostly because debt financing is so difficult to secure these days). That said, I think that the biotech industry may struggle a bit over the next couple of years but it will survive because it is in much better financial shape than most other American industries. 

It is important to note that the downsizing and cost-cutting taking place at many pharmaceutical companies is based almost exclusively on projected lost revenues that may occur 2-5 years two years from now—when many blockbusters drugs begin to lose patent protection— not on immediate cash concerns (most pharma companies have plenty of cash on hand). Pharma companies began downsizing in earnest about two years ago because they realized that they had gotten too big and their empty pipelines could no longer justify employing large numbers of unproductive employees. In my opinion, the current economic downturn provided pharmaceutical companies with a good excuse to continue to lay off employees, slash costs and maintain their stock prices. 

Many of the companies mentioned in the Fierce Biotech post have been around for 5-10 years and haven’t been profitable since their inception. As a former business partner once said to me “You don’t really have a business unless you have a product to sell and are profitable.” I suspect that many of these so-called biotechnology “companies” will go out of business—not because of the recession—but because they were unable to develop financially-viable products or services.

 Until next time…  

 Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

According to a recent report from the consulting firm Ernst and Young, cost cutting and downsizing are no longer the primary objectives for most pharmaceutical companies. Instead, they are mulling over the new challenges that universal health care may bring and how to better reach consumers in emerging markets. 

In a recent interview, Carolyn Buck Luce, one of the paper’s co-authors said “in our previous report, cost containment was one of the most important initiatives. In this report we found more of a balanced approach where optimizing cost was [just] one the many objectives. Only 40 percent of the executives said optimizing costs was their most important initiative, compared to a similar study in 2007 where 92 percent of those surveyed ranked cost reduction as their main initiative. In the latest survey, 66 percent of executives said the most important strategic initiative was reinvigorating the R&D pipeline, while 40 percent said expanding into new markets and restructuring their marketing and sales programs to become more customer-centric were their main areas of focus. “

One of the most telling quotes in the piece is: “There was an awful lot of focus on costs a year ago, when companies realized there was a lot of fat in their companies and a lot of opportunity to cut costs.” Does that mean that pharma really didn’t have to lay off tens of thousands of employees over the past year? It kind of makes you wonder doesn’t it? And, if you believe that pharma is truly finished with downsizing--would you be interested in a great deal on some land in Florida?

Until next time…

Good Luck and Try to Hang On to Your Job!!!!!!!!

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

I first thought about starting a social network for life sciences professionals about a year ago after joined I Facebook and LinkedIn and then learned about SciLink, one of the first social networks for scientists. Apparently, others had the same idea and today, there are currently, by my reckoning, no fewer than 20 social networks for scientists—each promoting a unique approach to networking for scientists.

David Bradley, a UK-based science writer who can be followed on Twitter as sciencebase, did me a favor by posting a piece oh his blog in early November that reviews many of these networks. Surprisingly, most of them were designed almost exclusively for academic scientists! I was thrilled to learn this because we created BioCrowd , our new social network, for ALL life science professionals not just academicians and industry scientists. David has graciously agreed to allow me to repost his article entitled "Social Media for Scientists" below.

Social Media For Scientists

Towards the end of October, I received a flurry of emails asking me to check out new social networking sites for scientists, I’ve already reviewed the nanoscience community, of course. I suspect that, the academic year having moved into full swing, there were a few scientists hoping to tap into the power of social media tools and the whole web-two-point-ohhhh thing.

This from Brian Krueger:

“I came across your blog during my weekly Google search for “science social network.” I thought you might be interested in my website, LabSpaces.net. It’s a social network for the sciences that I’ve had on-line for the last two years and I recently got my University to send out a press release about it. I think you should stop by and check it out. Let me know what you think, I’m always looking for suggestions on how to improve the site.”

LabSpaces has all of the features of a social-networking site with the addition of a daily science newsfeed, lab profiles, a science forum, blogs, and a science protocol database. Apparently, the site provides space for researchers to create their own user profile, add their publication history, upload technical research protocols, blog about science, and share research articles with the community. The site will soon host a free video conferencing service to facilitate long distance collaborations and journal clubs.

New Zealander Peter Matthews who works in Japan emailed:

“I am a full-time researcher from NZ, working in Japan, at a museum with many international research visitors. This multilingual environment made me very aware of: (1) the difficulties that non-English based researchers face when using English, and (2) the difficulties that English mono-linguals face when trying to access or publish research in other important research languages, such as Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, French, and so on. Hence my website: The Research Cooperative - http://cooperative.ning.com. Please have a look, join if you want, and please tell any friends and colleagues about this site if you think they might find it useful.”

Pascal Boels, Managing Director of SurgyTec.com emailed with a medical tale:

“Our website is for and by medical professionals. It’s a video-sharing site for surgeons and medical professionals to show off their newly minted skills. It makes it easy for medical professionals to upload videos or slideshows and share those with the community. You can search for videos by specialty, organ/region, tissue, etiology, operation type, or technique. Many surgeons perform original and high-quality techniques in their operating room and equally many surgeons would like to learn from these new and inspiring techniques. Up till now it was very difficult, time consuming and expensive to take a look in each others operating room and share practical knowledge, tips and tricks. Surgytec.com provides the solution for this problem. We are currently serving over 4000 surgeons from more than 124 countries, sharing over 400 procedures

Priyan Weerappuli had long been interested in scientific research but felt that applied research was guarded by private institutions while basic research was held within the confines of colleges and universities by overpriced journals and an oversimplification that occurred whenever research results were translated for more general audiences. His forum/platform will attempt to open this research to a general audience - http://www.theopensourcescienceproject.com

Some correspondents are claiming they’re approaching web 3.0 nirvana:

“ResearchGATE is proud to announce a major update: We greatly improved our search functionality and called it ReFind. The name symbolizes the importance of an efficient and result-driven search functionality within research in general and within our network in particular. ReFind is one of the first search engines based on semantic, “intelligent” correlations. It enables you to find groups, papers, fellow researchers and everything else within and outside of ResearchGATE without having to read through dozens of irrelevant results. Just type a few sentences into ReFind or simply copy and paste your abstract. Our semantic algorithm will then search the leading databases for similar work, providing you with truly relevant results.” [Sounds like my Zemanta/ResearchBlogging.org idea, DB]

One observer pointed out, however, that ResearchGate’s semantic search is maybe not the greatest thing to happen to search in a decade (especially, when we have the likes of True Knowledge Ubiquity, and Zemanta. Indeed, some users have said it is not much of an improvement on conventional search.

Then there was:

“ScienceStage.com - Science in the 21st century - A wide forum for science - on an interdisciplinary, international and individual level. ScienceStage.com, the only universal online portal for science, advanced teaching and academic research, bridges a major gap in scientific research and learning. ScienceStage.com is a virtual conference room, lecture hall, laboratory, library and meeting venue all in one.”

But, perhaps the best is saved for last. An Oxford graduate student, who has completed his PhD, Richard Price, has launched Academia.edu, which he says does two things:

“It displays academics around the world in a ‘tree’ format, according to which institution/department they are affiliated with. And, it enables researchers to keep track of the latest developments in theirfield - the latest people, papers, and talks.”

Price wants to see every academic in the world on his tree and already has Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Paul Krugman, and Noam Chomsky as members. But, that’s the hype what about its potential? It resembles BioMedExperts because both use a “social” publishing tree, but is that enough to engage scientists?

It will be interesting to see whether any of these sites gain the traction their creators hope for and how things will pan out as the credit crunch bites harder. “There are a bunch of them out there,” Krueger told me, “It’s kind of scary how many came out after Nature and I went on-line in 2006. There’s definitely a lot of competition out there, it seems like a new one appears every month. I wonder how the economy and loss of tech funding is going to affect the larger start-ups.”

Then, there are those perhaps more well-known social media sites and networks for scientists, that are listed in no particular order:

Nature Network - uber network from the publishing giant

BioMedExperts - Scientific social networking

BioWizard - Blogged up Pubmed search

Mendeley - Digital paper repository and sharing

Labmeeting - Ditto

YourLabData - socialised LIMS

SciLink - Sci-Linkedin

Myexperiment.com - mostly workflows.

Laboratree.org similar to Researchgate. Not particularly social beyond groups and sharing documents with collaborators, but email is better, and arguably more secure.

scitizen.com - collaborative science news publishing

SocialMD - Med-Linkedin

Ozmosis - Ditto

DNA Network - network of DNA/genetics bloggers

ResearchCrossroads - Socialised grant databases

MyNetResearch - Socialised LIMS at a price

SciVee - YouTube for scientists (see also Watch with Sciencebase page

Scientist Solutions - science chat

There are so many, I can barely keep up, but if you have any you think I should add to the list, let me know via the comments box below. Or, more importantly, if you have used any of these systems please leave your thoughts.

Meanwhile, my apologies if you were expecting a lesson in how to use the likes of Twotter, FiendFreed, Ding, Pyuke, or Facebok’s feeble science apps, to help you get on in science socially, but I thought it was about time I did some linking out to the web 3.0 brigade in the world of science, so here they are.

Addendum: Since David published this piece in early November, BioJobBlog learned about several other social networks for scientists including labroots, beaker, scientistsolutions and wizfolio.

Until next time…

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!!!!

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

The other day I was chatting with Tony Stubblebine of CrowdVine (the social networking company building BioCrowd for us) and I was lamenting the possible burst of the social networking bubble before BioCrowd is launched. Tony reassured me and said that “Everyone thinks that after the dot-com bubble burst that almost all Internet-based businesses failed. However, when you look more closely, you will find that this simply isn’t true—there were many survivors who were able to build robust business as the Internet matured.”  While I felt a bit better after hearing that (Tony generally knows what he is talking about) I wasn’t totally convinced that he was right. After all, I am one of his customers who are building a new social network. That said, the very next day after my chat with Tony, I found an unusually. insightful article in the New York Times entitled “Lessons of Survival, From the Dot-Com Attic.”

The authors of the article suggest that based on their analysis of existing data that 48% of dot-com companies founded in 1996 were still in business in 2004 (more than four years after the Nasdaq’s peak in March 2000 and the so called dot-com bubble burst). According to the authors, “most people are stunned by this figure: they tend to guess that about 90% of the companies failed.” Further they suggest that “the dot-com survival rate is as good as or better than that for technologies like automobiles, tires and televisions during their formative years.”

How did the dot-com survivors do it? Instead of trying to a make a big splash in high profile market sectors, they identified niche markets that didn’t offer ROIs of hundreds of millions of dollars returns but represented viable Internet-based, business opportunities that could flourish if nurtured correctly. This largely assuaged most of my concerns about a possible impending social network bubble bust and proved to me that Tony knows his stuff! So, whether or not the social network bubble is going to burst, BioCrowd will be launched and we hope that like any new member of a species that it will be strong and fit enough to survive! 

Until next time.

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

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

I want to let my readers know that a beta-version of BioCrowd is ready for review. For those of you who may not know about BioCrowd, it is a social network for life sciences students and professionals that was created by Vincent Racaniello a Professor at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and me. 

The reason we started BioCrowd was that Vincent and I both perceived a need for undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to more effectively network with established scientists and life sciences professionals to further advance their careers or find jobs. The social interactivity of Facebook and the business connectivity of LinkedIn are what led to the creation of BioCrowd.

We are looking for a few brave women and men who want to help to beta-test BioCrowd before we launch.  If you are interested, please visit us at www.biocrowd.com and drop us a line.   For those of you who don't want to participate at the moment, but want to learn about our progress, you can follow us on Twitter and FriendFeed ,

Until next time...

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

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

I never truly understood the power and reach of Twitter until I caved in and started using it about a month ago. Over the past couple of weeks, I realized that Twitter is an ideal tool for networking and job hunting. Apparently, I am not alone. Miriam Salpeter from Keppie Careers has graciously agreed to shares some tips on using Twitter to help you search for a Job. Follow Miriam on Twitter @Keppie_careers. 

Tweeting Your Way to a Job

Would you believe that you can tweet yourself to a job opportunity 140 characters at a time? It’s been done! Statistics show that job search networking is much more effective when you make “loose” connections - touching base with people beyond your immediate circle whose networks and contacts are much different from your own. With over 3 million users, Twitter offers an unparalleled opportunity to create an extended network.

Not convinced that Twitter is actually a high-powered job search tool? Read on to learn how Twitter can uniquely position you for job-hunting success!

What Can Twitter Do For You?

1. Afford access to other professionals in your field. When you follow industry leaders, you’ll know who spends time with them, what conferences they attend (and what they think of the speakers!), what they’re reading and what is on their minds. This is great information to leverage for your search.
2. Provide exposure and credibility as well as personal and professional relationships when you connect to others in your industry.
3. Offer you a venue to demonstrate your expertise and share information in quick, pithy bursts of wisdom. This is perfect if you don’t have the time or energy to create a blog.

Unique Aspects of Twitter

1. It is casual and immediate and a great place to “meet” informally.
2. You’ll find an array of people on Twitter, including CEOs, top-level executives, hiring managers, recruiters and everyone in-between! It’s one-stop shopping for your networking needs. You’ll be surprised to find that stars in your field (mentors) may follow you if you reach out to them!
3. Unlike Facebook, where it is kind of creepy if you start trying to “friend” people who are connected to your contacts, it is acceptable (and expected) to follow people on Twitter because another friend or colleague does.
4. It forces you to be brief. Coming up with your “Twit-Pitch” - what you have to offer in 140 characters or less - will help you clarify your value proposition. Remember: less is more!

 It Really Does Work!

1. Kyle Flaherty used Twitter to find a job that moved him and his family to Austin, TX from Boston. He tweeted to approximately 650 contacts that he had left his job. He included a link to a blog post outlining his interest in connecting. He explains, “Within hours I had several emails, IMs, phone calls and tweets about the topic and it actually ended up that I took a new job.” Follow this link for an interview with Kyle’s new boss, Pam O’Neil, who explains how she and Kyle used Twitter to fill the position.
2. Heidi Miller, the “Podcasting Princess,” found a freelance project using Twitter by tweeting updates about her job hunt. Many of her colleagues questioned the wisdom of being so open about her search; they worried she look desperate or foolish. However, the ends justified the means.

As more and more get involved (dare I say addicted?) to Twitter, opportunities to leverage this tool for job search networking will grow exponentially. Don’t be the one left behind! Get on board and start connecting for success!

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

As you all know by now, American pharmaceutical companies have been intermittently laying off thousands of employees for the past two years or so. Many of the employees who have lost their jobs are R& D scientists, marketing personnel and sales representatives. This seemingly makes sense—because fewer drugs are being discovered and brought to market, fewer people are required to market and sell them. That said, isn’t discovering new drugs the currency and lifeblood of the pharmaceutical industry? How do these companies plan to stay in business if they continue to layoff employees who are seemingly responsible for developing new sources of revenue for them? Taking their cues from the IT and software industries, many US drug makers are beginning to either transfer R&D operations to foreign, company-owned research facilities or outsourcing some or all R&D activities to foreign contract research organizations (CROs).

For those of you who may not know, US pharmaceutical companies have been routinely outsourcing various aspects of R&D and drug manufacturing for many years. For example, a majority of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and excipients found in many drug sold in the US are routinely manufactured in places like China, India and elsewhere. Until recently, many pharmaceutical companies were reluctant to outsource many critical R&D activities, e.g., screening, medicinal chemistry, pre-clinical testing, etc. for fear of inferior quality. However, the increasing costs of conducting US-based R&D coupled with a worldwide glut of American-trained, foreign scientists (who were unable or not permitted to find jobs in the US) has made the practice of outsourcing R&D operations less risky and more economically feasible. After all, many of the scientists who work in company-owned foreign research facilities or foreign-owned CROs were trained by American scientists who work at some of America’s pre-eminent academic and government research institutions.

From a business perspective, it makes complete sense that pharmaceutical companies might opt to transfer or outsource R&D operations to foreign countries—the quality is good and it is much cheaper! That said, don’t expect the price of pharmaceutical drugs to plummet anytime soon as more drug makers outsource or expand their R&D operations in foreign countries. Put simply, pharmaceutical companies are outsourcing R&D to cut costs, drive up stock share prices and insure financial growth by preserving the staggering product profit margins that they currently enjoy. Take Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) for example. Late last Wednesday, its CFO told a group of financial analysts and investors that the company plans on trimming $2.5 billion by 2012 from its operating budget through US job cuts and revamping operations. Shortly after the announcement, I read with amazement that BMS is expanding its R&D operations in Bangalore, India and that they are looking to hire no fewer than five new Department heads—America’s loss is India’s gain!

While outsourcing or expanding R&D operations in foreign countries at the expense of American workers may help the bottom line of many US drug makers, it will do precious little to reverse the decade-long, decline of America’s global competitiveness in science and technology.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try India)!!!!!!

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

Pharmaceutical Technology Europe published a list last month called the Pharma Exec 50 for 2008. To qualify for the list, companies had to have more than $510 billion in sales.  Unlike other lists of this ilk, it is easy to read, visually appealing and mentions each company’s top selling drugs and their annual R &D spending.  It is definitely worth a read by people who need or like to stay abreast of the life sciences industry. And for a change, the list was compiled by a European rather than an American publication. Not that there is anything wrong with that!

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

I was reading Karen Ventii’s Science to Life blog today and she “turned me on” to a couple of new web-based tools that I think might be useful to people who work in the biosciences. I added Karen’s recommendations to a list that I was building and decided that it had reached enough of a critical mass to share it with you.

The first of these new tools is called graduatejunction.com, a research community primarily aimed at graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. According to its founders—a team of UK graduate students at Durham and Oxford universities—the intent of graduatejunction.com is build a community of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows so that members can stay abreast of research activities within in the community and to connect with other community members who share common research interests. Not a bad idea, considering that many graduate students and postdocs frequently operate in intentional mentor-induced research vacuums.

The second is called labmeeting.com. It is a novel, web-based tool that helps researchers organize (and search) personal PDF collections, share laboratory protocols, Powerpoint presentations and other scientific data with their lab mates. The software was created by graduate students at Stanford University and it aims to organize laboratory research so that it can be conducted more efficiently and at a faster pace (time is money after all). I think that this concept has legs and might be a big winner downstream (although security will be of paramount importance).

Another new tool that warrants praise is biomedexperts.com that was created by Collexis, Inc. In my opinion, biomedexperts.com is the “mother of all” publication search tools and literature management systems. Billed as the first literature-based social network, it allows users to quickly perform personalized literature searches (based on authorship and research interests) and then identify potential collaborators or competitors who have published in the same research areas. Unfortunately, while biomedexperts.com is a “monster” web-based, literature search application, the communication and interactivity between community members is extremely limited and almost non-existent.

Finally, for those of you who are tired of using PubMed’s arcane Boolean search algorithm to find relevant publications, you might consider trying a new free search engine (semanticmedline.com) that allows users to search MEDLINE using phrases or “conventional sentences." Cognition Technologies, creator of the site, says its “semantic natural language processing technology "incorporates word and phrase knowledge to comprehend the meaning and nuances of the English language." Although early reviews suggest that semanticmedline.com might not powerful enough for doing comprehensive science literature searches, it may be useful in situations when you are working on a time-sensitive project or you need to quickly find an article for this afternoon’s journal club meeting (that you failed  to enter into your blackberry or iPhone).

Check them out—they are all pretty cool (for scientists anyway-not that there is anything wrong with that)!

Until next time

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

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

Just when the medical device industry is gaining steam and poised to challenge pharma and biotech companies for market share and profits, some lawmakers have begun to question the medical devices industry’s direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising practices. Last year, the medical device industry spent about $193 million for DTC advertising on television and the Internet—a mere fraction of what was spent on DTC consumer advertising for prescription drugs sold by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

One reason given by lawmakers to justify its current scrutiny of medical devices DTC advertising practices is that “medical devices can have more of an impact on a patient’s well-being than a drug because devices often require surgery to implant and may remain inside the body for years.” However, in response, a representative from the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical devices trade group said, “While an advertisement may stimulate a patient to ask a doctor about device, the process of receiving one involves a discussion of its benefits and risks.” He went on to say “You may take a pill because it doesn’t involve very much. But you don’t undergo surgery unless you think you have a serious need for it.” 

Another reason cited by Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin is “The medical device industry is just beginning to get into the game.” Yes, Mr Kohl’s assertion is absolutely correct. Unlike most pharma and biotechnology companies, which have engaged in unregulated DTC advertising for the past 10 years or so—and literally made billions— the medical devices industry was slow to recognize that DTC advertising could be used to effectively hawk its products. I guess the thought here is: “to head ‘em off at the pass!”

The current call for an investigation into the DTC practices of some medical devices companies raises several interesting questions. First, is the investigation simply a red herring to distract FDA from crafting new regulations to rein in and more tightly control DTC advertising by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies? (While FDA has recently revised some of its DTC advertising guidelines, the changes are still not rigorous enough). Second, could the call for increased scrutiny of the medical devices industry simply be an attempt (by pharma and biotech lobbyists) to stifle the recent, explosive growth of the medical devices industry?  Finally, why are lawmakers rather than the agency (which oversees the device industry) investigating the DTC advertising practices of medical devices companies?

On a personal note, I support tighter regulations and increased scrutiny of the DTC advertising practices for all  life sciences companies. Although DTC ads are directly aimed at consumers, their real purpose is to influence prescribing practices of physicians by inducing patients to ask questions about whether or not the drugs or devices that they “saw on TV” are appropriate for them. That said, I believe that it is up to FDA to insure that all DTC ads are fairly balanced (risks vs. benefits) and medically accurate before they are viewed by the American public.

Until next time…

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

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

Last week, I had the great fortune to meet (on the Recruiting Animal Show) a career development expert who despite her young age, has seminal insights into today’s job market and how to break into it. Alexandra Levit, a self-avowed GenXer on the GenY cusp, is the author of several books, including They Don't Teach Corporate in College, How'd You Score That Gig? and Success for Hire.

In addition to her book writing activities, Alex’s career advice posts are featured monthly in the Huffington Post and have been showcased in more than 800 media outlets including ABC News, the Associated Press, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, National Public Radio, Fortune, Yahoo!, and MSN. She is recognized as one of her generations (X or Y?) preeminent career experts who regularly speak at universities and corporations on workplace issues facing young employees.

Alex and I got to talking after Animal' show and I learned that like me, she dabbles in the pharmaceutical career development arena. That said, she graciously agreed to allow me to post a piece that she wrote entitled “Want to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist? Here’s How!” (see below) that offers guidance for entry level scientist who are considering careers in the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries. Read and learn!

"Want to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist? Here’s How!"

Talk about a career with intriguing possibilities. People entering the pharmaceutical research field today may be the ones discovering the cure for cancer or Parkinson’s disease tomorrow. Although the United States’ pharmaceutical companies sometimes get a bad rap, they routinely make astounding advances that save lives, and from what I hear, aren’t bad places to work either. If you’re a data-head who wants to use your scientific background for the greater good, you might consider becoming a pharmaceutical scientist. Here’s some detail about what breaking into the field entails.

According to the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, the pharmaceutical sciences combine a broad range of scientific disciplines that are critical to the discovery and development of new drugs, therapies, and medical devices. Some of the more common specializations include drug discovery and design, whichdeals with the design and synthesis of new drug molecules and includes medicinal chemistry, combinatorial chemistry, and biotechnology; drug delivery, which is concerned with the design of dosage forms – such as tablets, injections or patches – that deliver the drug to the site of action within a patient; drug action, which examines how the drug works in a living system; clinical pharmacology, which is concerned with the use of drugs in the treatment of diseases and leverages human clinical trials to determine efficacy, adverse effects, and drug-to-drug interaction; and drug analysis, which involves separating, identifying, and quantifying the components of a sample.

Twenty-eight year old Matt, a senior research associate at Novartis, spends his days engaged in both drug action and drug analysis for the company’s wide range of prescription medications for ailments such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes. He’s responsible for testing animal organ and plasma samples to determine if a drug is working the way it’s supposed to. “It’s my job to quantify the drug’s efficacy in the body, to gather early support as it moves through the process of getting approved by the Food and Drug Administration,” he says. 

While the majority of pharmaceutical scientists are employed by private-sector pharmaceutical companies, others work as researchers and professors at universities, as regulatory scientists for government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or as researchers at national laboratories such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An undergraduate degree in chemistry, biology, pharmacy, or engineering is a prerequisite for the entry-level position of research assistant. The research assistant, who receives a broad-based introduction to the pharmaceutical world, records, stores and summarizes information and data, prepares technical reports, and develops laboratory skills and familiarity with equipment. “You should expect that your first job will be low level and the work very routine,” says Matt. “You won’t have much of a chance to be creative or innovative, and you have to be tolerant of that at the beginning of your career.” Adds Beth, 31, an R&D project director at a top pharmaceutical company in the Northeast: “Make the most of each opportunity, no matter how small. Success with smaller projects will directly lead to greater responsibility and rapid professional growth. Focus both on delivering results and on how you deliver the results: for example, through strong teamwork or a rigorous research approach.”

Recent college grads looking for research assistant jobs may want to start by educating themselves about the pharmaceutical industry in general. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Web site (www.phrma.org) and the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Web site (www.aapspharmaceutica.com) are great places to check out relevant publications, networking events, and internship and employment listings. Specific job opportunities can also be found on industry job portals including www.biospace.com, www.hirerx.com, and www.medzilla.com, and you might also take advantage of openings advertised through your college’s career center. “My first paying job was an internship at a medical device company,” says Beth. “I made the original contact at an MIT career fair and then interviewed on campus with the company’s recruiting team. I shared my passion for medical device engineering and my solid academic background and was hired after my sophomore year.”

Matt also suggests that you might get in the door by connecting with a temporary employment firm specializing in pharmaceuticals. “I signed on with Kelly Scientific right out of school,” he says. “Almost immediately, I got contract work doing clinical research studies that eventually resulted in a full-time job.” Women may find that they’re especially marketable, as the pharmaceutical industry is still predominantly male and most organizations are striving to even things out.

The typical pharmaceutical research career has ample room for growth. From the position of research assistant, you can progress to a research associate, an associate scientist, a scientist, a senior scientist, and a principal scientist. After you’ve reached a certain level, you may also have the option of taking on a cross-functional role in research management, regulatory affairs, pharmacoeconomics, or communications. At the moment, most people who reach the top levels of the profession get a Ph.D. along the way, but many say that’s changing and that experience in the lab is increasingly worth more than formal education. You’ll be happy to learn that compared to other industries, compensation is quite generous. According to a recent American Association for the Advancement of Science Salary Survey, pharmaceutical research assistants make more than $65K with just a bachelor’s degree, and six-figure incomes are standard after a few years.

Like other data-heads, pharmaceutical scientists are highly analytical and have had the math and science coursework to back up their natural talent. “You have to be anal about the details, because one small error can mess up a whole batch of samples,” says Matt. A cool-headed approach to troubleshooting is critical as well. “Development setbacks occur frequently,” says Beth. “When something goes wrong, my first step is to pull the team together to diagnose the situation. I do not try to lay blame but want to ensure that we learn and do not repeat the mistake or ignore the issue as we move forward.” Additionally, pharmaceutical research environments can be political and difficult to navigate at times. “Drug research isn’t always run like a well-oiled machine and loyalty to the company doesn’t always work in your favor,” says Matt. “You have to have a good sense of what you’re worth and what you have to offer.”

If you think pharmaceutical research might be for you, now’s a great time to test drive it as a career. A special supplement on hiring trends in the pharmaceutical space published in The Scientist in 2005 reported that the number of people employed in the U.S. industry is expected to grow from 413,700 to 536,000 in the next decade, and that Research & Development spending, which exploded in 2004, is still steadily increasing. “I love my job because I have the opportunity to impact patients with my daily work, collaborating with my fellow team members to solve complex problems,” says Beth. “And I feel very fortunate to work at a company where my personal values align very closely with the corporate culture.”

Until next time…

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

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

As the old saying goes, nobody is indispensable.  On the heels of Friday's report about US unemployment reaching 6.1 per cent, I learned that my contract medical writing position would be ending 4 months sooner than expected.  I worked at the company for 1.5 years and was excepting to finish out a two-year stint.

Of course, given the precarious financial state of the pharmaceutical industry, I had been looking and was able to find several opportunities that may translate into freelance gigs or possible employment. That said, if anybody out there is looking for an experienced medical/science/promotional writer, please feel free to contact me by sending a comment to this post or via e-mail: cmintz@bioinsights.com.

I hope that your luck is better than mine!!!!!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (I will be looking too)!!!!!!!!!

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

Astellas, a company formed in 2005 following the merger of Japanese-based pharmaceutical giants, Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, announced that it is hoping that 200 pharmaceutical workers in its production facility in Norman, OK will take early retirement to cut labor costs. The downsizing is in response to impending patent expiry of the company’s blockbuster urology product Flomax.

A company spokesperson said “The early retirement program seeks to reduce the workforce by about 30 percent, which would leave about 140 people at the Norman plant.” The loss of these jobs is likely to have a substantial economic impact on the small Oklahoma town many of whose residents have worked at the plant for over 20 years.

Astellas employees around 17,000 workers worldwide. When pharmaceutical jobs are cut in OK, you know the industry is in bad shape.

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot

Until next time…

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

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

On the heels of yesterday’s announcement that it wants to buy Genentech, Roche, in a surprise move, announced today that it will move its Nutley, NJ-based US corporate headquarters to California. According to a report, research and development activities in oncology and metabolism at the Nutley site will be expanded. However, the company will consolidate all Nutley-based finance and information-technology operations and close manufacturing facilities on the site by 2010. It is not clear how many of Roche’s 3,240 New Jersey employees will be affected by the proposed move to South San Francisco. Suffice it to say, more than a few Roche employees are likely to lose their jobs after the company’s headquarters heads west.

Once dubbed the”nation's medicine chest”, New Jersey has steadily been losing pharmaceutical jobs since 1990 when 20% of all US pharmaceutical jobs were in NJ—at present 13.7% of  American pharmaceutical jobs reside in NJ. It has been a long, slow burn for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology workforce in the Garden State.

The Roche announcement comes as several other New Jersey drug makers, including Schering-Plough and Johnson & Johnson's Ortho Biotech unit, have been laying off workers because of the economic downturn and tough times in the industry. It also comes several days after Barr Pharmaceuticals, headquartered in Montvale, announced that it is being acquired for $7.5 billion by Israeli generics giant Teva.  

The growing scarcity of pharmaceutical and biotechnology jobs coupled with the highest property taxes in the US may cause a mass migration from the state. Not that there is anything wrong with that!!!!!!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

The social development of the web 2.0 has largely bypassed science. Hugely popular websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Digg, Delicious and the like have millions of members and generate huge amounts of traffic. But those who use these sites come from all walks of life. None are devoted solely to science.

With this in mind, it would seem that social networking sites that cater to scientists would have special value and appeal. A few have been launched —but there is certainly room for improvement.

This fall, Vincent Racaniello at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and I will launch BioCrowd.com, a new social network designed by scientists (Vincent and me) for bioscientists (and others in the life sciences) who wish to connect with others to advance, promote or shape their careers.

Please visit the home page to sign up to be notified when we launch. BioCrowd will combine the interactivity of sites like Facebook and the networking capabilities of LinkedIn to help to advance your career in the biosciences.

Be part of  "The BioCrowd" !!!!!!!!

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

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
• Share Link

Last year was a banner year for the pharmaceutical lobby (the largest in Washington DC). It spent over $168 million to inform Congress about issues that its members thought were in the best interest of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. So what were the main issues that occupied a majority of the lobby’s time?

• blocking the importation of inexpensive drugs from other countries
• protecting pharmaceutical patents both within the United States and abroad
• ensuring greater market access for pharmaceutical companies in international free trade agreements

You are probably wondering which company was the top spender—it was Amgen! As you may recall, Amgen’s EPO franchise was under intense medical, regulatory and congressional scrutiny because of safety issue that resulted from over prescription. In my limited understanding of how things work in Washington, I have been told by lobbyist friends of mine that there is no better way to solve nagging problems than by paying influence peddlers to make them go away.  That said, Amgen’s lobbying costs paled in comparison with the $23 million spent by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America a pharmaceutical industry trade group.  You Go PhRMA!!!!

A quick perusal of the top lobbying list reveals that all major US pharmaceutical companies invested heavily to influence members of Congress to allow them to preserve their stranglehold on the American healthcare system. Not surprisingly, all of the major foreign pharmaceutical manufacturers were also on list.  Much to my surprise, Teva, the Israeli generic manufacturing giant made the list this year—so it goes!

I guess altruism is out and avarice is still in! Hat tip to Pharmalot.

Until next time….

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

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any stranger, a new pharmaceutical assessment tool called the Access to Medicine Index (ATMI) was unveiled earlier this week. The ATMI is the brainchild of Wim Leereveld, a former pharmaceutical marketing entrepreneur who is CEO of the  based in the Netherlands. 

According to Leereveld, the ATMI can be used to evaluate, rate and rank a pharmaceutical company’s commitment and ability to deliver, drugs, vaccines and other medicines to patients in poor countries. In other words, the ATMI helps analysts and interested parties determine whether or not a company is doing its share to be a good corporate citizen.

The rankings are based on eight, sometimes difficult-to- interpret variables that include; 1) management; 2) influence (huh?); 3) patents (access to?) 4) R& D, 5) pricing, 6) drug donations, 7) philanthropy (isn’t this what the index is really measuring?) and 8) capacity (for what?). At present, GSK has the highest ranking and Schering Plough is dead last.

Whether or not you believe the analysis or think that the ATMI has any socially-redeeming value (remember it was developed by a former marketing executive), it is still a pretty fun tool to monkey around with. Check it out….

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try non-profits) !!!!!!!

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

Peggy McKee, the medical sales recruiter, offers some words of wisdom and advice on finding a job in today’s challenging job market. Read and learn….Hat tip to Peggy for the insights!

We’re in some tough economic times right now, and that can make it that much harder to find a job.  To help you out, Fortune magazine has 7 tips for job hunting in a tougher market.  They include:

1.  Request more face-to-face meetings.  Get your face in front of recruiters and your network instead of relying on e-mails and phone calls.  It will make more of an impression. 

2.  Step up your job-search activity.  This makes sense.  In many ways, a job search (like sales calls) is a numbers game.  Increase your odds by increasing your activity.

3.  Try to be as flexible as you can.  Consider contract work, part-time work, or starting at a lesser salary than you were hoping for.  It gets your foot in the door for other opportunities later.  Besides, less money is better than no money, right?

4.  Consider relocating.  Top jobs aren’t always where you are.  I love the idea of relocating and expanding your horizons…trying something new. 

5.  Scour the hidden job market.  Many jobs aren’t advertised.  Be proactive.  Use your network.  Or contact employers directly.  They might appreciate your initiative.

6.  Spend very little of your time on Internet job boards and help-wanted ads.  Look, but don’t focus.  Everyone’s looking here. 

7.  Take advantage of social networking sites.  Personally, I love LinkedIn.  But also, use MySpace or Facebook as part of your networking tactics.  Just be careful to keep it professional. 

Here are some more great tips to heat up your job search.  One last great idea (from the Sales Hub):   

You never know when or where you may meet a prospective employer. Memory sticks, flash-drives, or email versions of your resume on your Blackberry, Treo or iPhone are must-haves in today’s volatile employment market.

Until next time,

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

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

I was contacted by the Recruiting Animal to see whether I would be interested in joining him on his show, to talk about recruiting in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields. Although I am a recovering recruiter and have not placed a single candidate in the past 5 years, I decided what the heck—what do I have to lose?

For those of you who are interested you can hear my pearls of wisdom by clicking the icon below.

Until next time…

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

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

This is the first installment of Kevin Ahern’s Best of the Web at BioJobBlog. This month’s selection contains several technical sites that many practicing bioscientists will find useful. These include: Real Time PCR Primer Sets and RTPrimerDB. The selection that I found most interesting was Blogging the Biotechnology Revolution—although Kevin didn’t like the navigation features of this blog.

If you know of any websites, blogs, etc that you think are useful or interesting, please let me know.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Web Hunting!!!!!!!

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

Peggy McKee wrote an interesting piece on her Medical Sales Recruiter blog about personal branding and developing an online presence to find a job. For those of you who haven’t heard about personal branding, it is de rigueur and the hottest thing on the net these days. Put simply, you, the jobseeker, are the brand and to be successful (get a job), the brand must be vigorously promoted! Personal branding can be easily achieved by creating profiles on social networks like MySpace, Facebook or Linked In or creating your own promotional website using your name as the domain name.  However, there are a few things that you ought to consider before you embark on your personal branding campaign. Peggy offers a few pointers and recommendations when it comes to both personal branding and your online persona.

Employers and recruiters research prospective candidates online to get more information about them before an interview is scheduled or an offer is extended.  This can work against you if your MySpace page is filled with “party” pics (or worse), but it can work for you if you have an effective online persona. 

Web Worker Daily rounds up several tips for developing an effective online presence:

• Check your Google profile.  What comes up when your name gets typed in?  Know what’s out there so you don’t get suprised.

• Own your domain name.  Even if you don’t want to do something with it now, you might later.

• Develop your personal brand.  Set up a LinkedIn profile.  Write a blog.  Be a guest writer on blogs specific to your industry (maybe you could write a post for me - describing your job, etc).   If you’re not sure what personal branding is or how to do it, there’s a lot available out there.  Here’s 3 articles to get you started:

The 6 P’s of Personal Branding (Persona, Positioning, Packaging, Presentation, Promotion, and Passion)

Three Keys to Building a Strong Personal Brand.  “A good brand has 3 main features:  clarity, consistency, and constancy.”

Dan Schwabel’s podcast, Top Social Media Tools for Turning Your E-Brand into a Powerhouse.  Let Dan show you how to choose what to use.

 Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (personal branding can’t hurt)!!!!!!!

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

When I was working as a recruiter, I always called my candidates a day before a scheduled face-to-face job interview. I did this to reassure them, build confidence and provide them with any insights that I may have had regarding the hiring manager or the job. But, more importantly, I called to insure that they were adequately prepared to go on the interview. I typically talked with them about dress, interview etiquette, cell phone usage, body language etc. Sometimes, when I was concerned about particular candidates, I even sent (via fax or e-mail) an interview preparation checklist. 

Although I am not a big fan of checklists, many people find them useful! To that end, I discovered this . The notion of taking an online interview preparedness quiz may seem silly to many of you, but I can tell you with certainty that I had more than one highly qualified candidate fail to get a job offer because they were poorly dressed, didn’t turn off cell phones or incapable of making eye-contact during their face-to-face. 

The quiz takes about 5 minutes to complete and there are interview tidbits embedded in every answer. You can even take it on your Blackberry, Sidekick or cell phone of choice! It may make the difference between a job offer or not.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Much has been said (and written) about the impact and power of a firm handshake in business settings. Are the urban legends and "old wives tales" really true? Peggy McKee the medical sales recruiter , weighs in on the subject in a recent post.

According to Peggy, a recent study suggests that, all other factors being equal, a firm handshake will give you the edge you need in getting the job.  The Fine Art of the Handshake gives you several pointers to remember on grip strength, eye contact, where to stand, and what to say.  But mostly, just remember to be firm, friendly, and confident. The firm handshake thing is appropriate for both men and women!  Also, remember that the firm handshake applies to both men and woman!

For more information about handshakes and other networking strategies please contact Peggy!

Until next time....

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

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

I came across this excellent article written by Carol Martin a professional career coach.  The tips that she provides are useful and have stood the test of time!  So read and learn!!!!

Not getting a follow-up call when promised is a very common occurrence. Candidates are sometimes sure that they aced the interview and are perfect for the position, in fact they are anticipating a call and an offer. But instead they get "nothing." No offer; no call. They never hear from the company. This is not only frustrating, but reflects poorly on the company. In fact it is rude. What can you do about this situation? Here are some tips on how to handle the follow up that may save you from some anxiety.

1. Try to find out about the decision-process before you leave the interview. Ask when you could expect to hear back. Take that date and then add a few days before you start to worry.

2. Always send a follow up addressing any concerns you may have picked up or any thoughts you had about the position since the interview. Think of this as one more chance to put yourself in front of them.

3. After you have waited for a reasonable period beyond the date they stated, call and inquire as to the status of the position and whether you are still in the running.

4. As a general rule, don't call on Mondays - bad day to market anything. 5. If you leave a message inquiring about the status of the job, and no one calls you back after a couple of attempts - move on and forget about it. Don't call back more than a couple of times. There is a fine line between being persistent and being a pest. 6. If you are told you are no longer under consideration, try asking for feedback (most of the time they won't give you any, but still worth a try). Ask if there is any additional information that you can supply that will convince them that you are the right person for the job.

7. Don't rely on one job interview. No matter what was said in the interview – continue your search. There have been too many bad examples of those who thought they were a shoe-in - only to get a reject letter.

8. Don't take it personally! There are about a thousand reasons that could have affected your chances.

9. Accept the fact that not all companies are right for you. Just like blind dates - they are checking you out and you are checking them out. Sometimes it's chemistry – and sometimes it wasn't right for you – for whatever reason.

10.Try not to get discouraged by the rejects. It's a numbers game and your turn will come if you hang in there.

Copyright (c) 2007 Carole Martin, The Interview Coach

Until Next Time….

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

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

Peggy McKee, a regular guest blogger at BioJobBlog has created a series of podcasts for her readers. The one that I posted here has to do with learning how to network—an essential skill that scientists are notoriously poor at!   Because this is the first EVER podcast on BioJobBlog, please let me know whether it worked (I am a neophyte at this) and whether you thought it was useful.  That said, listen and learn!!!!!!!!

Networking is critically important in the business world–and in the rest of the world, too, if you think about it.  There are several keys things to consider when networking.  Examples of these are:

• How to make yourself available to people and provide value to them and become the kind of person other people want in their network.  (Here’s a quick extra link for how to use networking as a marketing tool.)
• Who to keep in your network…customers, co-workers, and especially former managers.How to keep in touch, and what to say when you do.
• Ways to network beyond the traditional, like using LinkedIn.

The information in this podcast, will hopefully provide you with new insights into networking.

Click on: Peggy McKee - the medical sales recruiter… #4 - Networking - now and forever  to listen to Peggy's podcast.

Until next time....

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

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

Brand name pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have been quietly spending millions to lobby Congress for changes in US patent law. Specifically, these companies want to overhaul the intellectual property rules dealing with the doctrine of “inequitable conduct”. When a company or individual engages in inequitable conduct, it means that the company or individual has misrepresented or concealed information with the intent to deceive the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In such cases, a federal judge has the legal authority to void the patent and declare that it is unenforceable. Not surprisingly, brand-name drug companies are lobbying Congress to eliminate or curtail inequitable conduct penalties. 

According to the New York Times, in the last 15 years the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which handles appellate patent litigation) have ruled in the affirmative on 40 cases of inequitable conduct–14 of which involved pharmaceutical or healthcare companies. Similar rulings have been issued by federal district judges in an indeterminate number of cases that were not appealed (and never reached the Federal Circuit court). The article contends that some drug makers knowingly submitted false statements to the USPTO, inaccurately described experiments in patent applications or concealed information (usually prior art) that contradicted their claims. In one high profile case, the appeals court ruled that the Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk failed to disclose that it had not performed an experiment described in a patent application for human growth hormone. In another notable case, the court contends that Pharmacia (now Pfizer) used an “inaccurate and misleading” affidavit to win a patent for a new glaucoma drug.  Personally, I am aware of several instances in which companies willfully and knowingly failed to disclose prior art in patent applications that were ultimately approved.

Those of us in the biz know that patents are valuable commodities and that the financial stakes surrounding patent estates and intellectual properly are extremely high. A robust patent estate can either make or break a company. Nevertheless, in my opinion, if a company (or individual) cheats by falsifying, concealing or omitting pertinent information in a patent application, they ought to be penalized for it.  As one former USPTO commissioner, who served under George HW Bush puts it: “Patents can be very valuable. There are strong incentives to want to get them. Cheating occurs from time to time. The inequitable conduct doctrine says that if you cheated to get a patent, you should not be able to enforce it.”

Brand name drug manufacturers contend that generic drug makers routinely attack their patents by accusing them of inequitable conduct, whether they are guilty or not. Further, they claim that unwarranted and endless patent litigation impinges on their ability to discover and bring new drugs to market. Consequently, brand name drug markers argue that the inequitable conduct doctrine should be eliminated from US patent law. Not surprisingly, this would seriously hinder or curtail the ability of generic drug manufacturers to bring their products to market—something that brand name drug makers desperately want to protect their multibillion dollars drug franchises from generic encroachment.

The number of patent applications submitted to the USPTO has doubled in the past 10 years and more than tripled since 1987. According to Jon Dudas, the current undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property “We are getting more and more unpatentable ideas and worse and worse quality applications”. Historically, the annual number of patents that are allowed (approved) ranges from 62 to 72%. After reaching a high of 72% in 2000, it dropped to 43% in the first quarter of 2008. These data suggest that, the probability of getting new patents allowed is diminishing. This is making brand name drug companies anxious and extremely competitive when it comes to patent applications. And, when competition increases, it is not uncommon for companies and individual to resort to unorthodox (and sometimes overtly unethical or illegal methods) to insure success. In my opinion, the doctrine of inequitable conduct and the penalties associated with it are what keep illegal and unethical behaviors in check. With this in mind, I think it would be extremely unwise for Congress to eliminate or severely curtail the penalties for inequitable conduct.

Based on the small number of inequitable conduct cases that have reached the Federal Circuit, it appears that the current system is working the way it was designed to function. This begs the question: “Why fix something that isn’t broken? “ Oh wait, this debate isn’t really about ethics or legality–it is about making money–silly me!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try intellectual property law)!!!!!!!!

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

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
• Share Link

Pfizer the world’s largest and least innovative pharmaceutical company  announced yesterday that its profits dropped by 18% last year. The company attributed the loss to reductions in the sale of its blockbuster anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor, which is slated to lose patent protection in the next few years.

Pfizer, which has about $25 billion in cash, has been on something of a buying spree the past couple of years. The company is desperately trying get into biotechnology (too little, too late?) and believes, as it always has, that the best way to enter a new therapeutic area is to buy its way into it! To that end, Pfizer has already purchased two “biotech” companies in 2007 (more purchases are likely on the way) and entered into financially-lucrative, long term research collaborations with several others. Although this strategy has previously worked for Pfizer in the short term, it has proved to be financially disastrous for the company in the long term. Nevertheless, Pfizer said it still expects earnings this year to grow about 11%, due largely to a cost-cutting program that has eliminated 25,000 jobs, or 23% of its work force since 2004.

Until Pfizer executives realize that a robust internal drug discovery and development program is the key to success, Pfizer will continue to be the world’s biggest pharmaceutical company with a constantly flagging stock price.

Until next time….

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

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

About five years ago, a friend of mine and I had an idea to form a non-profit dedicated to providing consumers with information regarding the safety of marketed pharmaceutical and biotechnology medicines.  At the time, we observed that consumers were repeatedly being misinformed about the safety and efficacy of many products, most notably follow-on biologics aka biogenerics. Unfortunately, we could not garner enough interest or financial support to get the organization off the ground. I guess that  we had a good idea, but, as usual, were a little ahead of our time. A new organization called The Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Market has recently set up shop with the same concept in mind.

Members of the coalition include insurance companies (Aetna, Humana, United Health Care and Blue Cross Blue Shield), pharmacies and drug distributors (CVS, Medco, Express Scripts, Rite Aid and Wallgreens), generic manufacturers (Barr Laboratories, Hospira, Teva, Mylan Laboratories and Watson Pharmaceuticals) and a large roster of Fortune 500 companies including General Motors, Ford, Caterpillar, Chrysler, Dow and Eastman Kodak. Think of the lobbying power–how cool is that?

I guess the time has come for rational drug pricing for the US. Big pharma and biotech beware–a nationalized healthcare system may not be far behind!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

I just returned from my career development sojourn at this year’s FASEB meeting in San Diego, CA. Not surprisingly, all of my sessions were well attended. In fact, attendance at many of the presentations was standing room only. Again, this was not terribly surprising because the job market for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows for the last 5 years has been dismal. However, in contrast with past years, there was a noticeable and palpable difference in the attitudes of many of the students and postdocs who attended the sessions. In previous years, many career development participants seemed resigned to the possibility of a “jobless future”. However, this year there was a small but vocal group of participants who openly expressed their anger and resentment at the possibility of not finding a job after completing their training. I think that many graduate students and postdoctoral fellows have begun to realize that they are being exploited by a fundamentally flawed academic system and that they are “not going to take it anymore.”

Academia has always resembled a medieval, feudal system. Principal Investigators (PIs) are the kings because they hold all the power, money and authority and rule with impunity. Postdoctoral fellows are the lords or vassals who behave somewhat autonomously but have sworn oaths of allegiance and fealty to their kings. Research associates (technicians) are the indentured servants who rely on the king and his vassals for sustenance and protection. Finally, graduate students are the slaves whose lives and well being solely depend upon unquestioned obedience to their Kings. As we all know, feudal systems broke down when kings could no longer maintain control over their slaves and indentured servants. This culminated in rebellions and revolutions, the eventual demise of monarchies and ultimately gave rise to modern republics and democracies.

Although I am not necessarily advocating revolution (okay, so maybe I am), it is time that drastic and systemic changes be made to academia as we know it.  First, there needs to be a limit or moratorium on the number of students that are annually accepted into graduate programs. There are simply not enough academic, industrial or government jobs to justify the number of PhDs and postdoctoral fellows that are trained each year. Second, tenure should be abolished at all research universities and medical schools and be replaced with 5 year renewable contracts. This will force PIs, whose primary job is to do research (not teach), to remain competitive and productive. Further, it will reduce the likelihood that ego-centric PIs will be able to accumulate enough wealth and power to establish the “fiefdoms” that are prevalent in academia today. Third, PIs must increase their reliance on technicians (rather than postdoctoral fellows) to achieve their research objectives and goals. Allowing postdocs to work 5 or more years in the same laboratory because it is cheaper to hire them than technicians is, in my opinion, ethically and morally bankrupt. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is vital that PIs actually become mentors and play active roles in advising and shaping the careers of their students and postdoctoral fellows. Given the paucity and competitiveness of academic positions, it is disingenuous for PIs to promote academic careers for every person who passes through or works in their laboratories. As a former medical school tenure track Assistant Professor, I didn’t find it too difficult to identify which students and postdocs were “cut out” for academic careers. Further, it is incumbent upon PIs to take the time to

learn about and promote job opportunities for scientists outside of academia. Attending career fairs or introducing career development seminars into extant graduate programs would be an important first step in this direction.

After I come home from career development meetings, I sometimes lie awake at night and wonder whether many PIs can fathom what it must feel like when, a PhD who spent 5 or more years in their laboratories, can’t find a job to “put food on the table” for his or her family. Having been there, I can tell you that it is very unpleasant and emotionally devastating!

In my opinion, it will be difficult for academia to continue in its current incarnation. I think that academicians must begin to address and fix the problems that they created for this generation of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Failure to do so may result in a “revolution”– which in this case– may be required to bring about the changes that WE ALL KNOW are long overdue.

Until next time….

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

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

I am sitting in Newark Airport waiting for my flight to San Diego which, not surprisingly, has been delayed for about 2 hours.  As you might have guessed from the title of this post, I am on my way to the 2008 FASEB Career Development Symposium which is run every year at the annual FASEB meeting. 

As we have done in the past, my colleagues Eric Celidonio and Joe Tringali, and I  will be presenting seminars and resume writing workshops for graduate students and postdocs.  Our goal, as always is to offer these folks some advice and tips on how to find a job after they complete their training.  Unfortunately, the job market for PhDs has been depressed for the past 8 years or so.  There once was a time, circa 1994-2000, when finding a job for alife sciences or chemistry PhDs was a snap.  In those days, many jobs were left unfilled. Ironically, it  has been scientific advances and technological innovations that have made it more difficult for PhDs to find jobs over the past decade or so.

Anyway, if you are attending FASEB this year, please stop by.  Also, tell all your friends!  We like when it is busy.

Until next time....

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

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

Genzyme Corp announced yesterday that it plans to expand it research and manufacturing facilities in Waterford, Ireland. Genzyme originally set up the facility in 2001 and plans to add another 170 employees, expanding its Irish workforce to 600.

This is second time in less than a year that Waterford (internationally known for its crystal manufacturing) has received an investment from a foreign drug manufacturer. Israeli generic drug manufacturer TEVA made a $100 million dollar to expand its Waterford operations and boost its Irish workforce from 650 to 815.

The Irish government said it was offering assistance to subsidize the $200 million Genzyme expansion at the Waterford site. The amount and terms of the subsidiary were confidential and not disclosed. At present, drug companies with operations in Ireland  employ 25, 000 people.

Genzyme, with expertise in developing drugs to treat rare disorders, kidney disease and cancer, employs more than 10,000 people worldwide.

This is more good news for Ireland!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (in Ireland)!!!!!!!

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

The hard work you that invested in your resume has finally paid off–you just received a call from the ACME Biotech’s Human Resources Department inquiring about your availability for a face-to-face interview with the company. After about 30 seconds of elation and joy, fear and anxiety begin to creep into your psyche-“OMG, an interview, this is my first one, what am I going to do?” 

As you all should know by now, a job interview is typically the pivotal event in any job search. Your performance on a job interview will likely be the different between a job offer or not. That said, you must be adequately prepared for all of yourjob interviews (even the ones that you think you don’t want) if you expect to receive job offers. Unlike stand-up comedy where improvisation has its place, ad libing or “shooting from the hip” during a job interview is dangerous and can yield disastrous results. Like everything else in life–practice makes perfect! So how does one prepare for a productive and successful job interview?

Scheduling An Interview

Typically, during your initial phone call, an HR representative will offer you several dates and times for an interview. I highly recommend that you refrain from verbally accepting the first date and time that the representative offers. Instead, thank him/her for the proffered dates and times and indicate that you will get back to them shortly regarding your availability. It is wise to use this approach because, at this stage of the job search process, there is a huge imbalance in the relationship between an employer and job candidate. Put simply, at this point, the employer has the power–without an offer you cannot work at the company! By delaying your response, you are signaling to the company that you (like their employees) are a busy person with a full schedule. Further, it suggests to a hiring manager that you may have other job interviews and that you’re “not desperate” for the job. Whether your level of desperation is high or low is irrelevant. The purpose of this tactic is to attempt to tip the balance of power in your favor–something that will be important in negotiations if a job offer is extended.

After you have decided which of the proposed interview dates and times is most convenient for you, call the company back to schedule the interview. Obviously, if there are scheduling conflicts surrounding the date that you chose, you must be flexible enough to accommodate the company. If your interview requires air travel, I highly recommend that you arrive a day before your interview. Arriving the evening before is okay but if you flight is delayed or cancelled you may be out of luck! Likewise, if the interview requires that you drive more than 2 hours, I highly recommend that you arrive at the interview destination the evening before. Again, if you wait until the day of the interview to travel, heavy traffic, weather conditions, road closures or car problems may prevent you from arriving to your interview on time.

Interview Preparation

Once the interview date has been scheduled, you must begin to prepare, in earnest, for the actual face-to-face. This will require a fair amount of work on your part. That said, you must allocate a sufficient amount of time from your otherwise busy schedule to accomplish this task. Leaving it to the day before your interview is not a good idea!

First, you must thoroughly research the company to find out: 1) what they do, 2) how they do it and 3) who is in charge. A facile way to accomplish this is to visit company websites, read press releases and blog posts and chat with current or former employees. Another way, if the company is publicly traded, is to read a company’s annual stock holders report. 

Typically, during a job interview, you will meet and chat with a variety of individuals ranging from co-workers to managers to company executives. It is vitally important that you craft a list of questions that you can ask all of interviewers that you will meet. This signals to a prospective employer that you “did your homework” and that you are interested in the job that you are interviewing for. It also provides them with insight into your work habits, skill sets and the level of detail that you might bring to the company if you are offered a job. If you don’t ask any questions, it might appear that you are not seriously interested in the job or the company. Nevertheless, it is critically important to remember that a job interview is a fact finding mission for the both the company and job candidate. Both parties need to be convinced that they are a fit before a job offer is extended.

I have listed below several questions that you might ask various individuals during a face-to-face job interview:

Hiring Manager (your future boss)

• What are the most important skills for the job?
• What type of person are you looking for?
• What is the typically career path for individuals hired into this position?

Company Executives (the big kahunas)

• Why does this company have an edge over competitors?
• Where do you see the industry moving in the next five years?
• When do you anticipate that your lead product will hit the market?
• What are the company’s biggest challenges and how will the company meet them?

Coworkers (the guys in the trenches)

• What is a typically day like for you?
• What is the company culture like?
• What do you like most about your job?
• What challenges do you face at the company?

In addition to the questions that you will ask, you must prepare answers to a serious of questions that company representative will undoubtedly ask you during your interview.   I will cover those in my next post.

Interview Appearance and Wardrobes

Surprisingly, choosing what to wear for an interview is not as easy at it might seem. The bioscience industry is a very conservative one–not as traditional or “stuffy” as the banking industry but not as free-wheeling at the advertising biz. When in doubt, it is better to trend toward the conservative rather than the flamboyant. Like many other things in life, interview appearances and wardrobe choices are much simpler for men than women. Listed below are some of my recommendations on how to look and what to wear on a job interview.

For Men 

• Always wear a sports jacket or suit and tie to the interview and dinners that you may attend (never wear shorts, blue jeans or other informal attire)
• Get a haircut
• Shave (unless you have a full beard) the morning of the interview
• Don’t wear an overpowering deodorant or cologne
• Make sure that your shoes are polished and match your outfit (do not wear sandals or Birkenstocks)
• Take off your earrings, nose studs and other piercings
• Cover all tattoos and other body art

For Women

• Wear a suit (with pants or skirt)
• If you wear a skirt, make sure it is an appropriate length (miniskirts may get you looks but usually not the job)
• Don’t wear low cut blouses (again, you might get looks but not the job)
• Wear an appropriate amount of make up
• Decide on a hairstyle (don’t wait until the morning of the interview to decide!)
• Make sure that your shoe choice is appropriate (4”-6 “heels may not be a good idea)
• Wear a subtle (not overpowering) perfume
• Don’t wear nose studs or rings or other piercings (earrings are, of course, acceptable)
• Cover all tattoos and other body art

Look for my next post on interviewing to learn how to behave, act and react on the day of your interview!!!!

Until next time….

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

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

Cambridge, MA-based Alkermes announced today that it is restructuring its operations following the termination by Eli Lilly and Company of its inhalable AIR Insulin program (Alkermes manufactured the inhaler delivery device). The company is reducing its workforce by approximately 150 employees and closing its AIR commercial manufacturing facility in Chelsea, MA. The company is taking these actions based on its current expectations of the financial impact of Lilly's termination of the AIR Insulin program.

The job cuts, effective this week, represent almost 18% of Alkermes’ total workforce. Employees affected by the restructuring will be eligible for a severance package that includes severance pay, continuation of benefits and outplacement services. The company expects cost savings from the restructuring in the range of $15 million to $20 million in fiscal 2009.

In other news from across the pond, the trade group, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), reported today that the UK pharmaceutical industry lost about 8.000 pharmaceutical jobs or about 10% of its workforce over the past three years. The ABPI asserts that there is a direct link between job cuts and changes to the British government’s pricing mechanisms for medicines. A spokesperson for the group said “Every time a new PPRS (Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme) comes into force there is a decline in the number of jobs”. Not surprisingly, the group is urging the government to not make any changes in the PPRS.

The UK pharmaceutical workforce has taken a number of big hits of late– Pfizer recently closed a manufacturing plant in Kent, while British drug makers AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline both announced substantial global job cuts many of which were located in Britain.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

FDA approvals of biopharmaceutical products have decreased in recent years. This includes recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies and cancer therapeutics. In the decade from 1996-2005, an average of 16.6 new drugs were approved each year. In marked contrast, there were only 11 and 12 new medications approved in 2006 and 2007, respectively.

Last year was an unusually unproductive year for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. The combined sales for products approved in 2007 are projected to be less than $1.0 billion dollars–the benchmark for drugs that receives blockbuster status. Further, most or the approved drugs were similar to ones that were previously approved (so called “me too” drugs) and none will significantly improve healthcare for large numbers of patients.  Finally, only two recombinant protein drugs were approved in 2007–a level more representative of the 1980s.

Most analysts agree that it is unclear why FDA approval of new drugs has decreased over the past few years and who, if anybody (FDA and/or industry), deserves the blame for the approval drop-off. Regulatory filings for a number of new products are either expected or currently pending. To that end, it is likely that there will be more new approvals in 2008 and 2009 as compared with previous years. To learn more about the drug approval conundrum please read this article recently written by Ronald A Radar.

The rate of new approvals must increase in order for the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries to remain economically healthy and viable. Industry and the FDA must work more closely with one another to continue to insure that the American public has ready access to innovative, safe and efficacious, new biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical products. 

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

According to a press release by IMS, a company that tracks pharmaceutical sales, growth of the US pharmaceutical market shrank from 8% in 2006 to a meager 3.8% in 2007–the slowest growth rate since 1961. Total U.S. prescription sales in 2007 only reached $286.5 billion. The 2007 slowdown in sales was attributed to:

• Loss of patent exclusivity for branded products
• Fewer new drug approvals
• Effect of Medicare Part D on annual growth
• Renewed focus on safety issues by US Food and Drug Administration

Industry officials place the blame for the slow down on FDA because fewer newer drugs were approved in 2007 as compared with years past. However, I believe that the slow down has more to do with:

• Higher prices of branded medications as compared with generic drugs
• Lack of public confidence in the pharmaceutical industry
• Increased scrutiny by regulators on direct to consumer advertising and continuing medical education (CME)
• Fewer and less innovative drugs in company pipelines

Bashing FDA is easy. The willingness of the pharmaceutical industry to assume ownership of some of its own shortcomings and missteps is substantially more difficult to do!

Until next time….

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

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

Teva Pharmaceuticals announced  yesterday that it will invest €65 million in its facility in Waterford, Ireland, and that it is creating an additional 165 new jobs over five years. Teva has three pharmaceutical plants and a research and development facility on its Waterford campus which was previously owned by IVAX Corporation. The expansion has been helped by grants from Ireland’s inward investment promotion agency, IDA Ireland. 

The existing facility supplies Teva's European respiratory products and also makes a range of treatments for the US market. The site is also Teva’s main research centre for respiratory products. The investment is expected to double the production capacity of both its inhaler and tablet manufacturing capacity. Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. acquired the respiratory products business as part of its acquisition of the IVAX Corporation in January 2006. 

This is good news for the Irish pharmaceutical manufacturing industry which has been experiencing something of a slow down over the past year or so.

Until next time….

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

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

Is it luck or good planning that has prompted many pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to set up manufacturing and research operations in Ireland? In my opinion, the recent Irish pharma and biotech explosion has little to do with luck and everything to do with strategic vision, excellent planning and a well trained, inexpensive workforce.

Currently, 28 out of the 50 top pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies in the world have facilities in Ireland. Some of these companies are Merck, Wyeth, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, Schering-Plough and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Seven out of 10 of the world’s top selling blockbuster drugs are now manufactured in Irish production facilities. 

Pharmaceutical companies were the first to set up shop in Ireland. However, biotechnology is growing rapidly and biomanufacturing is starting to over shadow traditional small molecule production. Companies including Wyeth, Centocor, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Organon Biosciences (now part of Schering Plough) and Allergan manufacture biologics and biotechnology products in Ireland. In fact, Ireland is home to the world’s largest biomanufacturing facility, Wyeth’s € 1.3 billion Grange Castle near Dublin.

So why pharma and biotech are companies flocking to Ireland? First, the Irish labor force is well trained, everyone speaks English (albeit with an Irish lilt) and wages are still low. Second, Ireland has the lowest corporate taxes in the entire European Union. Further, there are R&D tax credits and financial support for start ups.  For example, there is financial support to purchase consultancy and innovation vouchers worth €10,000, a substantial amount of money for any startup! Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Irish government had the foresight to create a public/private enterprise known as the National Development Plan (2000-2006) that invested € 2.5 billion to create an Irish R&D infrastructure.

The Irish strategy–“built it and they will come”– has certainly paid off handsomely for Ireland. Another country that has embraced a similar strategy is Singapore–which through a public/private initiative has been building a vibrant life sciences and biotechnology industry since 1999. Both countries now compete for pharma and biotech business. For example, in late 2007, Merck decided to build a € 200 million vaccine facility at Carlow Town in Southeast Ireland. Novartis, on the other hand, opted for Singapore to build a new $180 million pharmaceutical tabletting facility along side of its API production plant.

Unlike Ireland, the American pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries are in trouble and losing their competitive edge. Perhaps the US can learn a thing or two from the Irish to give its bioscience industry a much needed shot-in-the arm.

Until next year….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try Ireland)!!!!!!!!!!

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

 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
• Share Link

Bristol-Myers Squibb announced today that it will close a 37-year-old pill manufacturing plant in the city of Barceloneta in Puerto Rico. The company plans to shut down operations at the facility over the next 12 months, eliminating about 225 jobs. The reasons for the closing were slowing demand for drugs manufactured at the facility, including two AIDS treatments and an antibiotic and a general need to cut corporate manufacturing costs. As you may recall, Bristol-Myers recently announced a restructuring to eliminate 4,300 jobs and save $1.5 billion.

This is the second time in the past few months that Bristol-Myers has announced plans to close a Puerto Rican production plant.  Last October, BMS announced that it intended to close a manufacturing facility in Mayaguez that made Pravachol (cholesterol-lowering), the Abilify (schizophrenia) and Glucophage (diabetes) that cost 400 employees their jobs. Not to worry–the company said it will continue to operate two other plants in the Puerto Rican cities of Humacao and Manati. About 3,000 high-paying pharmaceutical manufacturing jobs have been lost in Puerto Rico over the past year–given this growing trend, I think that the Puerto Rican government ought to begin to worry about its economic future.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try China, India and Singapore)

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

 I think by now that Americans realize that the economy is taking a sharp downward turn. Even the recession-proof pharmaceutical industry has taken a huge beating over the past year or so– and things seem to be getting worse! The biotechnology industry, which is highly dependent upon venture capital and private equity to remain healthy, is also trending downward and will be hit hard if the economy slides into recession. To make matters worse, the US Department of Labor recently released figures which showed projected growth (for 2006 to 2016) for the fastest-growing occupations in America (see below). Not surprisingly, scientists–industrial or academic– did not make the top 20 list.

Together, this suggests that finding jobs in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology or related industries will be tougher in the next few years than it has been in the past. I suspect that this is not welcome news for those of you who have tried but were unable to find jobs in the past few years. With this in mind, I decided to launch a series of weekly blog posts that will last for 6 to 7 weeks entitled: “Everything That You Ever Wanted to Know about Finding a Job in the Bioscience industry …and Then Some”

I will post these weekly installments on my blog in the “Ask the Recruiter” category. I hope that the folks who read my blog will leave comments or ask me questions that may arise after you have perused the posts. Topics will include:

1. Creating a winning resume
2. Networking
3. Conducting a job search
4. Interviewing tips
5. Negotiating a job offer
6. Tips on getting promoted
7. How to ask for a raise…and get it!
8. Alternative career options for scientists

Because this undertaking is going to require a bit of thought and a lot of work, I decide to invite my colleagues Eric Celidonio and Joe Tringali to help me out. Eric and Joe are professional recruiters and bioscience career development specialists who work with me at local and national science meetings where we present bioscience career development seminars and provide resume critiquing services to graduate students, post-doctoral fellows and industrial scientists. Eric, Joe and I have worked together for the past 4 years or so and we are affectionately known as “The Three Bioscience Amigos”. It is our goal to offer you some insights and tips to enable you to find gainful employment in the bioscience industry.

Until next time…

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

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

Over the past 30 years or so, the vast majority of chief executives in the drug business have made their way to the top via the sales and marketing departments. Few senior executives have toiled in a research laboratory or for that matter, know the difference between NMR and protein purification. However, things may be changing in the industry. A quick perusal of the CEOs of the top 20 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies (see below) reveals that 11 of 20 have degrees in engineering (4), medicine (2) and science (5). The remaining 9 have degrees in business and finance (3), sales and marketing (4) or law (2). Several of the scientists (2), engineers (3) and one physician also earned MBA degrees.

Conventional wisdom suggests that scientists usually do not make good CEOs (they are not formally trained in business). However, doesn’t the lack of scientific sensibility put non-scientist CEOs at a disadvantage when it comes to making strategic and operational decisions about R &D?  One would think so….!!!!

A careful examination of my top 20 list suggests that some of the most successful companies are run by scientist CEOs, e.g. Genentech, Gilead, Novartis and Lilly. Expect to see more scientist CEOs at large biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in the future–R&D have become way too complex for non-scientist to truly understand its nuances and potential pitfalls. Plus, we scientists know that obtaining a MBA degree is a “piece of cake” as compared with the PhD degree! Hmmm, I wonder what business people think about PhDs?

Until next time….

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

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

The Wall Street Journal Online published an insightful article today on the future of the pharmaceutical industry.  The article did not contain anything that we didn’t already know–pharma is in deep doo-doo. Starting in 2010, the pharmaceutical industry faces one of the biggest waves of patent expirations ever, affecting dozens of top-selling drugs.

The WSJ was kind enough to put together a great table showing the drugs that will be losing patent protection in the near future, their manufacturers, the clinical indications for which the drugs were approved and the size of the current market for each product.

Don’t you just love the resources that high impact newspapers have at their disposal? Check it out…..

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (if you can find one)!!!!!!

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