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

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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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 (2)
• 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 (1)
• 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
• 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
• 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 (2)
• 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
• 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

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. In this post, I provide several interviewing tips, when followed, will likely reduce your stress level and 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, BLACKBERRY DEVICES and PAGERS 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

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