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

At lunch the other day, I was telling a bunch of people about how brilliant Roche’s biotechnology strategy has been for the past 20 years or so. All of this changed for me on Monday, when Roche announced that it wanted to buy the remaining shares of Genentech that it already doesn’t own for $ 43.7 billion —Roche currently owns 56% of Genentech’s stock. More importantly, Roche doesn’t have control of Genentech’s board of directors nor does it influence corporate strategy or product development.

Unlike many other pharma companies who have historically purchased  biotechnology companies and then integrated them into existing corporate structures, Roche previously opted to buy controlling interests in companies and then allowed them to continue to operate independently with little corporate input or guidance. Unlike pharma culture, which is very structured and inherently conservative, the most successful biotechnology companies have been built on cultures that promote creativity and “thinking outside the box”.   If Roche buys Genentech and attempts to integrate it into the existing Roche family of companies, I suspect that all of this will change dramatically.

For the past 30 years or so, Genentech has been one of the brightest stars in the biotechnology universe.  Genentech’s management team worked long and hard to implement and maintain a vision that was formulated way back in the late 1970s when the company was first formed. Even though it is the world’s largest and most financially successful biotechnology company, Genentech has steadfastly resisted the temptation to go “corporate” and has worked diligently to maintain its “biotechnology identity” —symbolized by innovation, creativity and employee-centric policies.

I have no doubt that if the Roche-Genentech deal is approved, there will be a mass exodus of talent from the company. Based on my experience, a publicly-treaded biotechnology employee’s greatest fear is the dreaded corporate takeover! I have yet to meet a biotechnology company employee who is willing to sacrifice freedom and creativity (despite a possible financial upside) for more structure, discipline and an endless plethora of rules! 

In my opinion, the deal makes sense for Roche—competition in the cancer space is intense and they want to hedge their future success on Genentech’s oncology franchise. In the best case scenario, Roche will buy Genentech but allow it to operate as a wholly owned subsidiary with an independent management team that spends as little time in Basel as possible. I think the old adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is particularly apt here!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A post today on the Pharmalot blog suggests that Israeli generic manufacturer Teva is in talks to acquire US-based Barr Pharmaceuticals for  $7.0 -7.5$ billion. Barr’s present market cap is approximately $5.0 billion.

The acquisition would make sense for Teva to broaden its reach into the generic and branded generic markets in the US. Also, Barr recently acquired PLIVA which has active research programs on biosimilars and is currently selling its version of EPO in Croatia and other parts of Eastern Europe.

Teva has been trying to get into the biosimilar/follow-on biologics market for the past eight years or so. The company previously bought several early stage biogenerics manufacturers but have yet to advance their plans to formally enter the biosimilar/follow-on biologics market. This may be the opportunity that Teva has been looking for!

Check back for updates.

Until next time…

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

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

First, King Pharmaceuticals posted a non-branded high blood pressure video on YouTube in early 2007. Next, Novartis added a 60-second commercial (as part of its Fluflix campaign) asking people to submit videos about what it's like to have the flu. Earlier this year, Insmed upped the ante by posting a video lobbying for new legislation for the approval of follow-on biologics in the US. However, these pharma assaults on YouTube pale in comparison to the launch of Johnson & Johnson’s health channel on YouTube earlier this week.

The channel currently showcases a small selection of health information videos created by NBC News chief medical editor Nancy Snyderman while she worked J&J. Video sites, like YouTube and Vimeo, offer pharma companies a place to feature expensive off media advertising assets (that are currently collecting dust) and to post ads for new drugs and products that are ready for launch.  J &J is the first pharma company to recognize that it can leverage the current social media craze to increase its visibility, sell more drugs and bolster its stock price!

While companies could host videos on their own websites,YouTube’s massive traffic of more than 80 million users offers companies a much larger and diverse audience. And unlike blogs or forums, pharma companies have complete control over the content of the videos that they post on video websites. Moreover, they don't have to worry about negative comments being left after a post (YouTube comments can be turned off), and they can brand and edit video content to target a particular demographic or audience. Finally, videos can be changed or removed by companies as needed.

The bad news is, that like all other forms of media on the Internet, there are currently no regulations for videos posted by pharma companies on video websites sites like YouTube. In other words, pharma companies can do or say whatever they want in the videos that they post—never a good thing! I suspect that at some point FDA will draft a guidance document or two on the topic. But pharma companies need not worry, it will likely be many years before the agency divines regulations guiding the messaging and content of online pharmaceutical videos.

The appearance of pharma videos on YouTube, and the growing number of pharma profiles on social networking sites indicates that pharma is ready to embrace social media as the next best thing since DTC advertising. I was wondering what took them so long?

I hope that J&J doesn’t start following me on Twitter!

Hat tip to Eye on FDA for the story!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

Despite a recent report heralding the ascendancy of the Welsh biotechnology industry, the majority of biotech companies in Britain are in danger of fading away according to a report in London's  Financial Times. According to the Times; “Over the past year the sector has witnessed a string of high-profile drug failures, share prices have plunged and there have been almost no public listings. The sector is shrinking as private biotech companies are bought by cash-rich pharmaceutical companies, most of which are based abroad”.

“The quality of British science has never been in question. Commercial biotech’s perennial problem, say the pundits, is instead a lack of financing, management expertise and commercial savvy. “The UK has always labored under the yoke of not having enough venture capital around and not having the people prepared to take risks” said one analyst.” Nevertheless, the UK is currently  responsible for more than one-third of the European Union’s total drug pipeline.

The British biotechnology industry isn’t alone. Consolidation of the US biotechnology industry has been quietly going on for the past 5-10 years. Many successful American companies have been acquired by major pharmaceutical companies. For example, MedImmune and Millennium Pharmaceuticals were recently purchased by Astra Zeneca and Takeda Pharmaceuticals respectively. That said, I don’t think that what is happening in the UK is unique to the British biotech industry. The bottom line is this; Biotech is a capital-intensive, briskly paced, risky business that is, at most, 35 years old. More companies than not are expected to fail. Pharma, on the other hand, is a conservative and experienced cash-rich industry that is over 100 years old. Therefore, it follows that pharma companies, when possible, will buy successful biotech companies to bolster their thinning pipelines to stabilize their stock prices.

In my opinion, the seminal underpinning and essence of the biotech industry is to harness scientific originality to create innovative l technologies and products. That said, I believe that the biotechnology industry has finally become an integral part of the life sciences ecological food chain (think of biotech as a producer and pharma as a consumer).  I can’t think of many biotechnologies company executives (with the exception of Biogen) that wouldn’t consider acquisition or merger with a major pharmaceutical company as an ideal exit strategy for their stakeholders!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

No doubt that many of you already know that DTC advertising is an effective way for pharmaceutical companies to “push” their drugs. However, when I saw the amount of money that was spent on DTC in 2007 I was shocked! In 2007 alone, drug companies spent $5,375,117,382 on advertising. Yes, that's $5.375 billion dollars (think of how many research grants could have been funded or how much money could have been spent on universal healthcare!).  The aggregate ROI for 25 pharma companies examined was impressive–totaling about $32 billion or roughly 7-fold!

A table published by Consumer Reports AdWatch highlights 25 of the biggest spenders along with their sales, giving an indication of how much their ad spending has paid off —or not! The drugs that received the biggest bang for the buck are bolded. Despite the conflict of interest and false advertising DTC flap over Lipitor, it still managed to have the third best return among the 25 products analyzed.

Drug	Approved for1	DTC advertising 20072	Retail sales 20073	Sales per ad dollar spent
Lunesta	Insomnia	$294,180,616	$712,740,000	$2.42
Ambien CR	Insomnia	$204,065,972	$876,028,000	$4.29
Cymbalta	Anxiety, depression, diabetic neuropathy pain	$183,336,687	$1,732,827,000	$9.45
Lipitor	High cholesterol	$180,866,960	$6,165,531,000	$34.09
Plavix	Stroke risk reduction	$174,942,656	$3,082,712,000	$17.62
Rozerem	Insomnia	$171,466,210	$116,658,000	$0.68
Cialis	Erectile dysfunction	$151,649,663	$453,233,000	$2.99
Vytorin	High cholesterol	$140,715,035	$1,938,882,000	$13.78
Nasonex	Seasonal allergies	$131,220,183	$892,534,000	$6.80
Advair Diskus	Asthma	$121,197,100	$3,390,766,000	$27.98
Boniva	Osteoporosis	$112,958,755	$404,109,000	$3.58
Zetia	High cholesterol	$110,357,144	$1,405,066,000	$12.73
Requip	Restless Legs Syndrome, Parkinson's disease	$106,271,994	$407,665,000	$3.84
Abilify	Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia	$105,768,412	$1,781,562,000	$16.84
Flomax	Enlarged prostate	$100,969,013	$1,002,163,000	$9.93
Nexium	Heartburn and GERD	$96,960,417	$4,355,901,000	$44.92
Valtrex	Herpes and shingles	$88,409,332	$1,395,313,000	$15.78
Spiriva	Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease	$84,002,514	$868,226,000	$10.34
Yaz	Contraceptive pill	$83,566,746	$254,592,000	$3.05
Viagra	Erectile dysfunction	$83,064,378	$824,946,000	$9.93
Lyrica	Fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain	$70,663,685	$1,000,069,000	$14.15
Chantix	Smoking cessation	$63,979,755	$764,723,000	$11.95
Singulair	Asthma and seasonal allergies	$63,289,786	$2,863,326,000	$45.24
Celebrex	Pain from conditions like osteoarthritis	$55,230,236	$1,416,084,000	$25.64
Zyrtec	Seasonal allergies	$38,476,595	$1,302,807,000	$33.86

¹Consumer Reports Consumer Drug Reference, 2008.
²Data compiled by Nielsen Media research, March 2008.
³Data provided by Drug Topics and Verispan, March 2008.

No wonder why everybody wants to work for a pharmaceutical company–despite the downsizing there is still substantial money to be made!

Until next time….

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

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

It’s summertime during a recession. What better time is there to give employees an extended vacation by announcing job cuts at the start of summer?  

Generic manufacturer Mylan announced that it is cutting jobs at a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant in central Puerto Rico. According to a company spokesperson, 100 jobs will be eliminated in coming weeks. Mylan had announced in February that it would be eliminating jobs at five locations as part of a companywide restructuring. The Pittsburg, PA-based company is the latest pharmaceutical company to announce cuts in Puerto Rico. The industry has eliminated more than 3,000 jobs here since mid-2006.

In other news, Palo Alto, CA-based Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc. said Wednesday it plans to cut 8 percent of its work force -- or 33 employees -- primarily in research and development and administrative areas, and delay development of two drugs.

Finally, according to Ed Silverman over at Pharmalot, New Jersey-based Schering Plough has begun the massive layoffs it announced last April. As you may recall, CEO Fred Hassan still reeling from the Vytorin and Zetia flap, assured analysts and shareholders that he can right the ship by laying off about 5,500 employees or 10% of Schering’s workforce. He vowed to “consolidate management; use more shared staff support and services; reduce travel; cut sales and marketing; slash R&D; consolidate product lines, particularly in the animal health unit; and close some of the 60 manufacturing plants.” The previously announced job cuts are in addition to the 400 jobs that were eliminated after Schering Plough acquired Organon Biosciences.

Unfortunately, I guess it is going to be a long, hot, summer for the folks who lost their jobs.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Try to Hold On To Your Job (if you have one)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Avandia debacle is still ravaging the employee ranks at GlaxoSmithKline especially at its Research Triangle Park, North Carolina and in Philadelphia locations. According to a post at Pharmalot, the UK-based drug manufacturer is cutting as many as 350 jobs (2.0% of its workforce) at both locations. This represents an almost 40% reduction in drug discovery and development activities that take place at both sites.

These cuts come after GSK closed a factory and drastically cut its sales force late last year. To make matters worse (particularly for those folks who lost their jobs) GSK purchased an early-stage drug discovery company called Sirtris Pharmaceuticals for about $720 million earlier this year. Clearly, company executives have more faith in external rather than internal drug discovery at GSK.

The saga continues……

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget North Carolina)!!!!!

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

Daiichi Sankyo will buy a controlling interest (50.1%) of Ranbaxy, India’s third largest generic manufacturer.  Daiichi will pay as much as $4.6 billion for the opportunity.

The deal will put Daiichi Sankyo into ninth place in the $120 billion generic-drug market behind leaders Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Novartis AG's Sandoz unit. According to the report “Daiichi Sankyo is mimicking strategies pursued by Novartis and Johnson & Johnson to weather turbulence in the branded-drug industry by diversifying into other markets. The acquisition also gives the Japanese company more reach in emerging regions including India, China and Eastern Europe. “

I think after this deal, that other pharmaceutical companies may consider buying profitable generics businesses. I am not sure why it has taken innovator companies so long to realize that it is much easier to join (buy??) rather than compete with generic manufacturers. It just seems so obvious to me—and I don’t even have an MBA!  Maybe there is some truth to the age-old aphorism “missing the forest for the trees.”

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Much like Paul Revere back in the day, there have been repeated, urgent warnings about the impending recession that will strike the US economy. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has done its best to deny the notion that the moribund US economy is actually in recession. 

Today, it was reported that the US unemployment rate hit 5.5% and nearly 49,000 people lost their jobs last month. This is the biggest monthly rise in the unemployment rate since 1986. So far this year, the Unemployed people grew by 861,000 in May rising to 8.5 million. To keep things in perspective, a year ago, the number of unemployed stood at 6.9 million and the jobless rate was 4.5 percent

Last month employers sharply cut jobs in manufacturing, construction, retailing and professional and businesses services. The recent and highly publicized meltdown of the airline industry insures that as many as 10,000 others or more will lose their jobs in the coming weeks. These layoffs, coupled with $4.00 per gallon gasoline, will undoubtedly have a substantial and lasting ripple effect on the American travel and leisure industries. Can anyone still believe that the US economy isn’t in recession (I can think of at least one!).

Until very recently, many of my disgruntled corporate colleagues (who I eat lunch with from time to time) indicated that they were actively seeking new employment. At lunch the other day, a soft spoken but vocal woman who previously said that “she couldn’t take it anymore and was outta here the first chance that she got” quipped; “What’s with all the complaining. We should all consider ourselves lucky that we even have jobs!” I think that says it all….

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Holding!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Novartis announced today that it intends to purchase Malvern, PA-based Protez Pharmaceuticals for $400 million. Protez is developing a novel spectrum carbapenem antibiotic that is active against variety drug-resistant Gram positive (most notably MRSA )and Gram negative bacterial pathogens. Its lead compound, PZ-601, is in Phase II human clinical testing. Protez acquired PZ-601 (formerly SMP-216601) in 2005 from Dainippon Sumitomo Pharmaceuticals.   

Novartis is buying Protez to sure up its antibacterial drug pipeline. Novartis already sells Cubicin, (manufactured by Massachusetts-based Cubist Pharmaceuticals Inc.,) in Europe and is developing other antimicrobials including Aurograb and Tifacogin to treat infections.

Like many of the newly marketed antibiotics, PZ-601 is injected and not orally bioavailable. Nevertheless, it is likely that PZ-601 will provide much needed help against the ever increasing number of drug resistant bacterial isolates. Swiss companies Basilea Pharmaceutica AG and Arpida Ltd. are also working on experimental medicines to treat MRSA.

It is not clear how the acquisition will affect Protez employees.  I suspect that most of the employees will keep their jobs except for Company officers.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As a self-anointed career development professional, I frequently read blogs and online articles dealing with jobs and career development advice. That said,  I happened upon a piece in Yahoo Education entitled “Risky Business: Finding Job Security in Tough Times”. The article featured careers that may provide greater than average job security to employees. Everything was going great until I read the no. 4 career on the list–Medical Scientist– I kid you not. This is what the author had to say about medical/life scientists:

 “With increases in funding for treating cancer, AIDS, mental illness, and other diseases, corporate pharmaceutical, biotech, and university research labs need more people to develop vaccines and treatment drugs. Depending on your medical specialty, you'll typically need a master's degree or PhD. Often M.D.-holders choose research work over medical practice. You can begin traveling this path by earning a bachelor's degree in a biological science, and focusing on chemistry, biology, statistics, and research methods. Salaries in private sector biotech firms are typically higher than those offered at the college research level. There are also jobs with government medical-research agencies. Median salary range: $44,830 to $88,130.”

I ‘m not sure where the author has been or what she has been smoking but it seems to me that she is not in sync with industry trends. Maybe I ought to write to her and ask her to send me a list of companies that are currently hiring. I guess you really can’t believe everything that you read!

Until next time….

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

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

Over the past few days, many drug companies have been reporting their earnings for the first quarter of 2008.  Few, if any, (except for Biogen/IDEC),  met the numbers that Wall Street analysts had expected and most reported that profits were "way down." Unfortunately, this means that more layoffs at drug manufacturers can likely  be expected in the coming months and that drug prices may rise.

Of course, the poor performances of these companies had little bearing on the compensation packages that many of the CEOs of these companies received in 2007.  It never ceases to amaze me that companies can lay off thousands of workers to cut cost s and then turn around and give CEOs who performed horribly (which led to the layoffs) tens of millions or more in compensation.  Just think how many workers could have kept their jobs and been able to feed their familiies if mediocre CEOs, who didn't do their jobs were paid what they are worth!

Ain't capitalism great?

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As I mentioned in a post about a month or so ago, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) floated a proposal to ease the rules regarding promotion of off-label use of previously approved drugs. According to the newly proposed rules, FDA would allow drug makers to provide physicians with reprints of journal articles that conspicuously promote off-label uses for previously approved products. At present, drug companies are strictly forbidden to promote off-label use of their products.  A major proviso of the proposed rule changes is that the articles/reprints must be published in peer reviewed medical journals before they can be disseminated to physicians and other healthcare professionals. Apparently, FDA officials believe that peer review can take the place of the rigorous regulations and requirements that are currently in place for US approval of drugs, biologics and medical devices!

For those of you who don’t know, an editorial appeared in last week’sJournal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that took drug maker Merck to task for using alleged ghostwriters and ghost authors on clinical studies that were published about it painkiller Vioxx. As you all know, Merck voluntarily took Vioxx off the market in 2004 after it was revealed that the drug could lead to increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

The incendiary firestorm that has ensued since the appearance of the  Although I believe that the practices of ghostwriting and ghost authoring are not as widespread as the JAMA authors would like you to believe, I think that it is a good thing that FDA may scuttle its proposed new off-label drug promotion rules.

In my opinion (humble or otherwise), drug makers MUST be required to prove that off-label uses of previously approved products  don’t pose any serious safety or health risks before companies are allowed to promote them for new indications. As we have seen time and again in recent years, safety issues and serious health risks can arise for drugs even though they received FDA approval. With this in mind I ask: “Why would FDA allow drug makers to provide less rigorous proof for an off-label indication than that required for approval of the intended use of the original product?”  It makes little sense to me. However, looking more closely at the proposed rule changes,  it would obviate the need for companies to spend additional monies (possibly hundreds of millions) to garner FDA approval for a new product indication.  Hmmm….maybe I am beginning to see a pattern here!!!!!!!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

People who become scientists spend many years learning how to design, conduct, collect and analyze data from the experiments that they conduct. The ultimate goal of this seemingly endless exercise is to craft peer-reviewed publications that either support or refute the underlying hypotheses used to initiate the experiments in the first place. As part of our training, we are repeatedly reminded that it is our obligation to fastidiously and accurately report the results of our experiments and to assume “full ownership of the manuscripts and publications" that we author. The idea of allowing a person who didn’t participate in the design or execution of the research, to craft a manuscript for peer review is something that is virtually unheard of in the scientific community and, in the minds of some scientists, tantamount to scientific misconduct or fraud.

Physicians, on the other hand, who don’t learn how to conduct research or write scientific papers during their medical training, are frequently poor writers and have a little or no time to spend on writing scientific or medical manuscripts. Because of this, it is not uncommon for physicians who conduct medical research on behalf of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices companies to hire medical writers to write manuscripts for them. In fact, many physicians who work with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies prefer and expect this arrangement. So, why the recent commotion over medical “ghostwriting”?

Drug companies typically hire medical communication agencies to develop and craft manuscripts that showcase the results of clinical or research studies that they have conducted. These companies will usually provide an agency with background information about a study, a research summary, clinical study reports, ideas or titles for proposed manuscript and a list of prospective authors (usually physicians who performed the studies on behalf of the company).  Medical writers, who are either employed by the agency or work as freelancers use these materials to craft a detailed outline for the proposed manuscript. After the outline is completed, the agency usually shares the outline with physicians who were named on the list to determine who may be interested in authoring the publication. After an author is identified, the medical writer works closely with the author to develop a first draft of the manuscript. After the draft is reviewed by the author, changes are made to the draft, a revised version is circulated and the process is repeated until all stakeholders are satisfied with the manuscript. Once the publication has been copyedited and undergone legal and regulatory review it is submitted for peer review.

For the record, in my five years as a medical writer, I have never encountered a situation where the primary author doesn’t have final say over what will and won’t appear in a manuscript. When scientific, medical or business disagreements do arise, the author(s), medical writer and company representatives usually negotiate mutually-agreed upon solutions. Rarely, have I seen a company remove an author from a publication because his/her views or interpretations of the data were not consistent with those of the company that sponsored the research. The reason why drug companies and medical communication agencies have recently come under fire for their “ghostwriting” practices is because they have repeatedly failed to disclose that many of their publications were written by medical writers —whose names didn’t appear anywhere on the publications. Although this practice still exists, it is no longer as widespread or commonplace as it once was. These days, the names of medical writers who author manuscripts routinely appear in the acknowledgement sections of many scientific and medical publications. Moreover, in some instances, a medical writer may be able to garner co-author status on a publication —depending upon his/her level of involvement in the project. 

In my opinion, there is little difference between graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and medical writers when it comes to preparing manuscripts for publication. It is not uncommon for the names of PIs, supervisors and others to appear as authors on publications even though their contribution to a project (or preparation of a manuscript) has been limited or nominal at best. Consequently, I fail to see any credible legal or ethical arguments against hiring a medical writer to write manuscript on behalf of an “author” as long as the “author” can demonstrate that he/she actively participated or was intimately associated with study design, conduct or analysis. Finally, to maintain the integrity and transparency of the medical writing process, it is imperative that medical writers who prepare manuscripts on behalf of study authors should be acknowledged or credited with “authorship” somewhere in a publication.

Until next time….

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

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

Millennium employees find themselves in an enviable position that most pharmaceutical and biotechnology employee would die for!  Shortly after Takeda announced that it would buy Cambridge MA-based Millennium Pharmaceuticals for $8.8 billion, it offered many Millennium employees retention bonuses to stay at the company for 12 to 24 months until the acquisition is completed. These bonuses will be in addition to cash that many of Millennium’s 1,000 employees will get by exercising their stock options (Takeda is paying a premium to purchase all of Millennium outstanding shares of stock).

While offering retention bonuses to employees of a company that is going to be acquired is unusual it is not unheard of.  Retaining key employees during an acquisition typically makes the transition a lot smoother.  Further, it signals to extant employees that management values their services and that their continued presence at the company is vital to its success.  Finally, it serves to reduce the stress and uncertainty felt by many employees when a company is sold.

In my opinion, offering Millennium employees retention bonuses is a very bold and smart move by Takeda.  Unlike other pharmaceutical companies who have acquired biotechnology companies for their approved drugs or investigational medicines in their pipelines, this is Takeda’s first foray into the biotechnology business. Put simply, Takeda executives lack the expertise and requisite skill sets necessary to successfully compete in the biotechnology arena.  Encouraging and retaining employees who helped to make Millennium a success is a brilliantly crafted strategy that will permit Takeda to quickly learn how to compete in the biotechnology space in a fiscally-responsible manner.

One of the biggest hurdles to overcome after an acquisition is merging the corporate cultures that existed at the two companies prior to acquisition. One possible solution to this problem is to restructure the acquired company and terminate many or all of its employees. Another solution is to determine (over time) which employees are or aren’t vital to operation of the company. Although this approach is not as draconian as the first option, it requires an inordinate amount time and money to implement. Ask any Pfizer executive about this the utility of this approach (I think that they are still trying to recover from the Warner Lambert and Pharmacia acquisitions that took place in the mid to late 1990s).  

I think the Japanese got this one right.   Maybe we Americans can learn a thing or two from them?

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Japan’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturer, announced that it has agreed to buy Cambridge MA-based Millennium Pharmaceuticals for $8.8 billion. Millennium, founded in 1993 by high profile MIT researchers and once heralded as one the most innovative American biotechnology companies, never lived up to analyst’s expectations. That said, the company did develop and win regulatory approval for an anti-cancer drug, Velcade, which is expected to garner additional approval for wider use in oncology later this year.

Velcade, which is used to treat relapsed multiple myeloma after other drugs fail generated more than $800 million last year. Millennium anticipates U.S. approval by June to promote Velcade as an initial therapy to treat these disorders. Millennium markets Velcade in the US and shares revenue with Johnson & Johnson which markets Velcade in 85 other countries. Analysts predict that the Takeda acquisition will help to propel Velcade to blockbuster status.

The Takeda-Millennium deal follows Eisai Co.’s (another Japanese company) agreement in December to buy the U.S.'s MGI Pharma Inc. for $3.9 billion as Japanese companies, aided by a weak dollar against the yen, seek growth abroad. Japanese companies have been hampered by government-ordered price cuts, weak pipelines and a lack of new products  As one financial analyst put it ``There's no doubt the weak dollar against the yen is making U.S. biotech very attractive right now to potential Japanese buyers,''

Takeda’s best seller is the diabetes drug Actos which is slated to lose patent protection in the near future. Acquisition of Millennium provides Takeda with an entrée into the oncology and cardiovascular markets both of which are poised for expansive growth in the next five years. Analysts also believe that the Millennium acquisition will boost Takeda’s drug discovery and development flow. Millennium is conducting human trials with experimental drugs for cancer, heart disease, gastrointestinal disorders and rheumatoid arthritis.

The ongoing acquisition of American biotechnology companies by Japanese pharmaceutical companies reminds me of  the Japanese foray into the US real estate market in the early 1990s. Only time will tell whether the Japanese will be able to hang on to their acquisitions this go around (they weren’t the last time).  Earlier this week, Switzerland's Novartis AG agreed to buy 77 percent of eye-care company Alcon Inc. in a two-step transaction totaling $39 billion. Does anybody else see a troubling trend developing here as a result of the recession that we are in or heading into?

Don’t be surprised to see some “asset reallocation” and downsizing at Millennium. The Japanese are well recognized for increasing efficiency and work output with smaller numbers of employees.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (not in Cambridge MA)!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I have been following the trials and tribulations of New Jersey-based Enzon Pharmaceuticals for the past decade. My interest in Enzon was kindled because of a friendship with Abe Abuchowski, Enzon’s former Chairman, CEO and Founder.  For those of you who may not know, Abe is sometimes called the “father of protein PEGylation” because he was first to harness the commercial power of the technology (he played a pivotal role in creating the technology as a graduate student in Frank Davis’ lab at Rutgers University).

Abe left Enzon in the early 1990s (after shepherding the US regulatory approval for Adagen®, Oncospar®, and PEG-Intron®) and in 2004, he (along with my help) founded Prolong Pharmaceuticals, a biopharmaceutical company that specializes in PEGylation of biogenerics. Prolong is also using protein PEGylation to create new antimicrobial and blood replacement products.

Over the years, Enzon has had its share of “ups” and “downs.” Although profitable through much of the 1990s, Enzon is now a company riddled with huge debt– mostly because of bad decisions made company executives in the post-Abuchowski era.  Since 2004, Enzon’s Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Buchalter, has worked diligently to “right” the company. He realigned and focused the company’s strategic objectives and, through some creative financing, reduced some of Enzon/s more onerous debt obligations. To that end, he was able to restore shareholder confidence and stabilize Enzon’s stock price. Unfortunately, Jeff’s efforts may not be enough to save the company from acquisition or merger.

Many industry insiders believe that Buchalter was hired four years ago to prepare the company for sale. Yesterday, Enzon disclosed in a SEC filing, that the self-proclaimed biotech maven, Carl C. Icahn, increased his Enzon stock position from 1,760,001 to 3,072,103 shares. After the purchase, Icahn owns about 6.93% of the company’s outstanding shares and is one of its largest, single shareholders. Not surprisingly, Icahn now wants the company to consider putting itself up for sale. Maybe the insiders were correct in their thinking?

Stay tuned for more details.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget New Jersey)!!!!!!!

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

As the cost of prescription drugs continues to spiral upward, the affordability and accessibility to prescription drugs and healthcare will likely be fiercely debated and may influence the outcome of the presidential election next November. Despite growing public concern over the cost of prescription drugs in the US, Eli Lilly has vowed to fight federal legislation that will allow Americans to import lower-priced prescription drugs from Canada, Japan, Australia and many European nations. Lilly spokespeople and their lobbyists in Washington DC argue that the policy would put consumers at huge risk of consuming dangerous and unsafe counterfeit drugs. Big pharma has been using the drug safety argument for the past decade or so to stifle drug importation legislation. That said, blocking prescription drug importation legislation has very little to do with drug safety and everything to do with profit margins and corporate stock prices.

The stakes of prescription drug importation are high for drug makers. In contrast with the US, most other countries keep drug prices low through government distribution programs and strict price controls. Because the US government does not control prescription drug prices, American typically pay two-thirds more than Canadians, 80% more than Germans and 100 per cent more than French residents for identical prescription drugs. Lilly and other big pharma companies contend that price controls for prescription drugs stifle innovation and competition (tell that to the European and Japanese drug companies). Currently, according to government and industry surveillance data only a tiny fraction of counterfeit drugs (about 5 per cent) actually enter the US market. But Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies argue that there could be enormous increases in the number of counterfeit drugs that enter the US annually if Congress relaxes the federal ban on imported prescription drugs.

Pharma’s counterfeit drug argument is a convenient scare tactic that it has been using to lobby against relaxing current drug importation legislation. What the drug makers don’t tell you is that they routinely import and sell drugs in America that are manufactured in foreign production facilities. Further, many of drugs that are sold in Canada, Europe, Japan and Australia are manufactured in the same production facilities that supply drugs that are sold in the US. This begs the question —if drugs are manufactured in the same foreign production facilities and one lot is sold in the US and the other in Canada, would American consumers really be at a greater risk if they bought a Company’s drug in Canada or the US? The answer to the question is a resounding NO–unless you believe that the Canadian Regulatory Agency is less competent at monitoring and approving drugs than the US FDA The real story is this–.counterfeiters stand to make much more money selling bogus prescription drugs in the US than in other countries because there are no price controls in the US (which means much larger profit margins for the counterfeiters–duh!)

Let me propose a solution to the prescription drug counterfeiting that is plaguing and threatening the safety of American–reduce the price of American prescription drugs to prices that are consistent with prescription drug prices in the rest of the world. This would provide greater access of prescription drugs to all Americans and reduce the need for some Americans to purchase prescription drugs from dubious sources because they can’t afford to buy them at their local pharmacies. Further, price controls would certainly reduce the incidence of counterfeit drugs in American because counterfeiters would no longer be able to command high prices for their products which, in turn, would seriously cut into their profit margins.

Despite the logic and simplicity of my proposal, don’t expect there to be any changes in prescription drug importation policies any time soon! Profits not drug safety or open access to life-saving drugs is what drives big pharma-this is American after all!!!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Just what the market needs—another cholesterol control medication. That said you can always count on Genzyme to bring its unique approach to drug development to an already overcrowded marketplace.  

The New York Times reported today that Genzyme inked a deal with Carlsbad CA-based Isis Pharmaceuticals, an early pioneer of anti-sense technology. Genzyme has agreed to pay at least $325 million to win the hotly contested rights to Isis’ potentially powerful cholesterol-lowering drug called mipomersen. Genzyme beat out at least another 10 companies that were interested in the deal. Genzyme, one of the world’s most successful biotechnology companies, primarily creates drugs that are used to treat small numbers of patients with rare genetic diseases like Fabry disease and Type I Gaucher disease.

Mipomersen is in Phase III clinical trials as a treatment for a rare genetic disease that causes people to have astronomical cholesterol levels, raising their risk of premature cardiovascular disease and death. There are only about 10,000 people in the world with the most severe form of the disease, which can cause heart attacks even in young children. According to Isis, the drug lowered levels of cholesterol and other blood lipids more than 40 percent beyond reductions achieved by statins and other existing drugs alone. Isis and Genzyme believe that the drug might also be used for 1.5 million people in the United States and Europe with less severe forms of the genetic disorder and also for millions of people who have high cholesterol that is not controlled sufficiently by statins like Lipitor.

Genzyme appears to be a logical partner for Isis because of its focus on developing medications to treat rare genetic disorders. However, Genzyme’s ability to penetrate the broader cardiovascular market may be hindered by its lack of a large sales force which is typically required to call on general practice physicians who frequently prescribe cholesterol-lowering medications.

Isis and Genzyme hope to submit a new drug application to the US Food and Drug administration in 2009 for approval of mipomersen.

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Geneva-based Covalence published its third annual ethical reputation ranking, giving the best ranked companies as well as those companies which have made the most progress in 2007.

Best EthicalQuote Score and Best EthicalQuote Progress are given by confronting positive and negative news. Best Reported Performance is calculated by quantifying positive news only – it shows how companies report on their ethical performance without considering criticisms and demands.

Best EthicalQuote Score

1. GlaxoSmithKline
2. Johnson & Johnson
3. Bristol Myers Squibb
4. Abbott
5. Novartis
6. Roche
7. Boehringer Ingelheim
8. Astra Zeneca
9. Pfizer
10. Sanofi Aventis

Best EthicalQuote Progress

1. GlaxoSmithKline
2. Abbott
3. Johnson & Johnson
4. Sanofi Aventis
5. Boehringer Ingelheim
6. Schering Plough
7. Takeda
8. Astra Zeneca
9. Bristol Myers Squibb
10. Amgen

Best Reported Performance

1. GlaxoSmithKline
2. Abbott
3. Novartis
4. Wyeth
5. Merck & Co Inc
6. Pfizer
7. Johnson & Johnson
8. Eli Lilly
9. Sanofi Aventis
10. Astra Zeneca

Finally, some good news for GSK in 2007!!!!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

According to Ed Silverman at Pharmalot the newly-formed executive steering committee at Sanofi-Aventis sent a letter to its R &D employees it will take care of implementing “strategic moves,” apportioning resources, overseeing overall management.

A Sanofi spokesman said “is a condensed structure, designed to facilitate quick decision making.” Yeah right–look for some corporate right sizing, allocation of strategic resources and job cuts at the French drug maker.

On another note, West Pharmaceutical Services, a Lionville, PA-based Company announced that it would shed 250 jobs or 13% of its work force as part of a restructuring program. A company spokesperson said it will reduce spending throughout the segment by consolidating two tool production operations into one facility, in Scottsdale, Ariz., and by reductions and consolidations at other production, engineering and administrative operations in North America.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Massachusetts-based biotechnology company, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, announced late yesterday that FDA refused to approve its ANDA filing for M-Enoxaparin, a generic version of Sanofi-Aventis' Lovenox®. The agency cited that Momenta had failed to provide data in its application on the potential immunogenicity of M-Enoxaparin. I find this oversight to be extremely perplexing because Momenta’s management team had to know that regulatory approval of a product –considered to be a follow-on biologic (M-Enoxaparin is a synthetic version of low molecular weight heparin which is a polysaccharide) – would require a rigorous assessment of the product's  potential immunogenicity. If Momenta did not know about the immunogenicity requirements, then Sandoz (its co-development partner) had to be keenly aware of them because Sandoz had to provide immunogenicity data to FDA to garner approval last year of Omnitrope®, a follow-on version of human recombinant growth hormone (rHGH).

Although FDA’s refusal to approve M-Enoxaprin is a setback for the follow-on biologics movement in the US, it is about time, in my opinion, that Momenta’s stock price truly reflects the real market value of the company. Much to my surprise, Momenta’s stock price was over $30 a share about two years ago– presumably founded in the notion that the company’s innovative carbohydrate technology platform could be used to create a generic version of Sanofi’s multi billion dollar a year Lovenox® . I have no doubt that Momenta’s technology platform is one of the more innovative ones in the carbohydrate synthesis biz. However, as a former employee of 2 biotech companies founded on revolutionary carbohydrate synthesis platforms, I think that Momenta’s elevated stock price had more to do with the pedigree of scientists who started the company and the ROI that these scientists previously provided to the VCs who are currently backing Momenta. Further, cutting a deal with Sandoz, a company whose name is now synonymous with follow-on biologics may also have contributed to the elevated stock price.

If I was one of Momenta 100 or so employees I would be dusting off that resume right about now.

Unitl next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks