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

After announcing its quarterly earnings and a 24 percent increase in 2011 profits, AstraZeneca (AZ) today made public its decision to eliminate another 7,300 jobs. Earlier this week there was speculation that job cuts were likely but the exact numbers were not disclosed. 

The reasons given for the layoffs despite increased annual profits? Government spending cuts for healthcare and stiff generic competition for several of its blockbuster drugs including Seroquel XR (depression), Atacand (hypertension) Crestor (cholesterol-lowering) and Symbicort (asthma); all of which have lost or will be losing patent protection in the near future. According to a company press release generic competition cut revenues by $2.0 billion in 2011 whereas government price interventions cost the company another $1.0 billion. The announced job cuts are expected to save AZ $1.6 billion by 2014—great news for shareholders but not so much for the employees who are losing their jobs!

Most of the cuts will take place in R&D. To that end, the company will close its facility in Montreal and layoff staff at its Soedertaelje site in Sweden. Interestingly, the company plans on focusing more on neuroscience and intends to hire 40 to 50 scientists in its new Innovative Medicine unit which is partly based in Boston, MA and Cambridge in England.

While layoffs at AZ were expected, the size of the current layoff does not bode well for other pharmaceutical employees. It is becoming increasingly clear that big pharma companies are getting out of R&D and focusing their efforts on M&A and licensing deals to fill their thinning pipelines. Also, while shedding R&D and sales jobs in developed markets, big pharma companies are investing heavily in building facilities and hiring thousands of R&D and sales personnel in emerging markets. From my perspective, it appears that big pharma has consciously decided to abandon developed Western markets where sales growth is in the single digits in favor of emerging ones where double digit growth is expected for the next decade.

Until next time...

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

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

Earlier this week, I suggested in a post that pharma layoffs were beginning to decline whereas biotech layoffs were rising. And wouldn’t you know it, just when big pharma employees thought that their jobs were safe, the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis today announced that it was laying off 2,000 US employees. According to a post on the Pharmalot blog, 1,630 sales reps and an additional 300 positions will be eliminated at Novartis’ Hanover, NJ US headquarters. Last fall, Novartis eliminated 1,100 jobs in Switzerland, 900 R&D and 1,400 sales reps in The US and another 550 jobs at a manufacturing site in the UK 

While the announced layoffs may be part of a global downsizing effort that began last year, many analysts believe Novartis decided to reorganize because its new hypertension drug, Tekturna, performed poorly in clinical trials (increased incidence of non-fatal stroke, renal complications, hyperkalemia and hypotension) to garner approval of the drug to treat patients with Type II diabetes who are a greater risk of cardiovascular and renal events. The company’s best-selling hypertension medicine Diovan lost patent protection in Europe earlier this year and it due to expire in the US next September.

Company executives were betting on Tekturna to replace hypertension sales lost to generic competition for Diovan. Tekturna, approved in Europe as Rasilez, generated sales of $449 million during the first nine months of the past fiscal year but the poor clinical trials results suggest that it may be difficult for the drug to generate the $1.4 billion in annual sales (by 2016) forecasted by many financial analysts.

Stay tuned for more big pharma layoff updates!

Until next time...

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

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

Merck today announced that it will establish an Asia Research and Development headquarters in Beijing, China as part of a $1.5 billion commitment the company made to invest in China over the next five years.

The new headquarters will be focused on new drug discovery and development. Merck’s Asian commercial operations (known as MSD outside of the US and Canada) are located in Shanghai, China and will remain a separate entity from the new R&D center in Beijing. In addition to these facilities, MSD possesses manufacturing capabilities at many other locations throughout China.

Merck joins a growing list of big pharma companies that are rapidly establishing R&D centers in China and other emerging markets. With this in mind, don’t expect US R&D jobs to return to the US anytime soon! Now, may be a good time for American students to reconsider an anticipated career in life sciences R&D. On the other hand, the future is bright for Chinese life sciences graduate students and postdocs who are training in the US.

While Horace Greeley may have gotten it right in his day, I think the saying “Go East young man/women” may be more apt for the 21^st century life sciences industry.

Until next time...

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

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

Despite a lull in layoffs over the past summer, this fall is shaping up to another bad one for pharmaceutical employees. Late last week Novartis announced that it was laying off about 2,000 employees. Prior to the Novartis announcement, Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Merck have all disclosed plans to eliminate thousands of jobs on a worldwide basis.  To add insult to injury, Sanofi Aventis told its employees today that the company would be shifting operations from New Jersey to Massachusetts and that hundred of employees would be losing their jobs. While a Sanofi spokesperson refused to specify the exact number of employees who may lose their jobs, estimates are in the hundreds, mainly in R&D and sales in the oncology and cardiovascular areas.

The announcement was not unexpected because several weeks ago the company announced that it would cut another $2.9 billion in costs to offset pending generic encroachment on its top selling medications Plavix and Avapro. Further, consolidation of Sanofi’s R&D operations and its early development work to the Boston area is mainly a result of its acquisition of Genzyme earlier this year. To that end, later-stage development work will remain at Sanofi’s headquarters in Bridgewater, NJ while pharmaceutical R&D, Sanofi Pasteur biologics and global oncology has already been moved to Massachusetts. At present, Sanofi employs about 3,000 people in New Jersey and 5,000 in Massachusetts (including Genzyme employees).

Interestingly, while job cuts are taking place in western markets, hiring is brisk in emerging like China and India. For example, several months ago Pfizer announced that it was closing down its antibiotic discovery program in the US and moving it to China. Likewise, Novartis plans on sending some medicinal chemistry and regulatory work overseas to India. If the downsizing and outsourcing trends continue at their current pace, it will become increasingly difficult for most Americans to find pharmaceutical R&D jobs in the US. Can anybody still wonder why we may be losing ground to countries like India and China?

Until next time...

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

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

Several years ago RNAi was hot and it was touted as a technology that would revolutionize modern pharmaceutical science. I never thought RNAi had much promise beyond being a research tool but what do I know? 

With this in mind, I felt exonerated today after reading that Roche had divested all of its RNAi assets to a small Madison, WI drug discovery company called Arrowhead Research. In exchange for the assets, Roche acquired an equity position in the company.  About a year ago Roche formally announced that it was exiting the RNAi business, but until now was unable to find a buyer. 

According to a press release, Arrowhead now owns the Roche Madison Inc facility (formerly the Mirus R&D facility in Madison, WI), which employs a team of 40 scientists. Arrowhead also gets licenses from several leading firms, including Tekmira Pharmaceuticals for RNAi drug delivery technology and Alnylam for RNAi intellectual property and short interfering RNA structures. Arrowhead was already in the RNAi delivery space.

Previously, Roche spent roughly a half-billion dollars to amass its position in RNAi, including $331 million paid to Alnylam Pharmaceuticals in 2007 for access to RNAi technology and $125 million for the purchase of Mirus Bio in 2008. Arrowhead, in contrast, is paying Roche no money for these and other assets; instead it is giving the Swiss firm an ownership stake of slightly under 10%.

Many other big pharma companies have also abandoned their efforts in the RNAi space. While RNAi works in the lab as a research tool, the inability to successfully deliver it to internal cellular targets has prevent companies from commercializing it. I hate to say it, but “I told you so.”

Until next time....

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

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

It seems that big pharma always waits for early Fall to announce pending job cuts. Novartis, Europe’s second largest pharmaceutical company, announced two days ago that it would eliminate 2,000 jobs mainly in the US and Switzerland but add new employees to operations in emerging markets like India and China. Novartis is just another addition to a growing list of big pharma companies that are slashing jobs in the US and Europe and hiring new employees in lower cost markets.

The announce cuts represent a 1 percent reduction in Novartis’ global workforce. The cuts will be implemented over the next three years and are predicted to save the company in excess of $200 million annually. 

According to a company spokesperson, Novartis will eliminate 1,100 jobs in Switzerland, with the balance in the U.S., Jimenez said. Some research will be moved to the U.S. from Switzerland, and reductions will be made in technical research and development, data management, clinical trial monitoring, drug safety and regulatory affairs. Novartis will add 700 positions in China and India in data management and trial monitoring.

As part of the reorganization and job cuts the company will close an over-the-counter drug manufacturing plant in Nyon, Switzerland and chemical production facilities in Basel and Torre, Italy.

The current cuts come after Novartis announced last November that it would eliminate 1400 U.S. sales jobs and more recently in March that it would reduce operations in the UK.

Although life science pundits recently suggested that job cuts in the pharmaceutical industry are slowing and may have hit rock bottom, it appears that the carnage is still taking place and will likely continue well into the future as more resources and monies are invested in emerging markets.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Over the past 10 years or so there has been an enormous amount of consolidation in the life science industry. While this activity has been very good for shareholders, it has had a devastating effort on pharmaceutical R&D says John  LaMattina PhD, a chemist, blogger, author and former President of Pfizer Global R&D.

In his article “The Impact of Merger on Pharmaceutical R&D," LaMattina asserts:

“Mergers and acquisitions of pharmaceutical companies over the past 15 years have had a major consequence on the internal research and development productivity of these organizations. Industry consolidation has eliminated a high degree of competition and resulted in the downsizing of internal research efforts. The execution of these mergers has caused a loss of momentum in the development pipelines of these companies along with loss of scientific talent.”

In addition, he believes that M&A and outsourcing of R&D operations has resulted in the loss of scientific talent required for innovation and development of novel new medicines. “Sadly, this loss of innovation comes at a time when we are trying to find treatments for challenging and difficult-to-treat diseases like Alzheimers and many cancers” says LaMattina.

While most life sciences executives believe that consolidation is good for business, LaMattina, along with John Lechleiter, the outspoken CEO of Eli Lilly& Co (who is also a PhD-trained chemist) believe that continued consolidation in the industry will have devastating consequences. “We are still very much opposed to a large-scale combination. We don’t think size is necessarily supportive of innovation.” says Lechleiter. 

LaMattina added “Downsizing R&D hinders the ability of companies to develop new drugs because they lack the scientific expertise required to make critical decision as a drug candidate makes it way through the pipeline.”

Unfortunately, most current pharmaceutical and life sciences executives don’t think like LaMattina. Since 2001, over 300,000 pharmaceutical employees, mostly R&D scientists and sales representatives have lost their jobs.

Until next time...

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

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

Last week, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner unveiled a “blueprint” that contained immediate and actionable steps that can be taken to spur innovation in the life sciences. The report’s proposals stem from a review of FDA’s current policies and practices, as well as months of meetings with major stakeholders nationwide, including key industry leaders, small biotech, pharmaceutical and medical device company owners, members of the academic community, and patient groups. Entitled “Driving Biomedical Innovation: Initiatives for Improving Products” the report focuses on seven major actions:

1. rebuilding FDA’s small business outreach services
2. building the infrastructure to drive and support personalized medicine
3. creating a rapid drug development pathway for important targeted therapies
4. harnessing the potential of data mining and information sharing while protecting patient privacy
5. improving consistency and clarity in the medical device review process
6. training the next generation of innovators
7. streamlining and reforming FDA regulations

The blueprint was issued in response to growing concerns that—despite record investments in biomedical R&D—the drug pipelines at many US life sciences companies has grown exceedingly thin. Not surprisingly, most life sciences companies blame the agency for the thinning pipelines but in reality both side have contributed to the problem. Hamburg’s bold plan seems reasonable. But, it can only be implemented if Congress provides sufficient funding to underwrite the new initiatives proposed in the plan. And, while these funds ought to be allocated, it is not clear whether or not it is likely given the poor economy and the current, unprecedented political divisiveness that exists in Washington these days.

Moreover, Mark Senak, author of the Eye on FDA blog, suggests that FDA can improve its effectiveness by learning how to communicate better with its stakeholders. Mark, a social media advocate provides this compelling insight into FDA’s communication problems and the agency’s inability to grasp that the Internet and social media can help to improve its communication skills:

"The extremely long track record of FDA in attempting to figure out the Internet (first public meeting held in October 1996) and social media (first public meeting held in November, 2009) has yielded no guidance, with little transparency into the process.  It is time for FDA to seek outside communications expertise to help the agency better formulate policy on a timely basis."

While I believe that Commissioner Hamburg’s blueprint for improvement is a good one, it isn’t clear whether she will get the necessary support to implement it.

Until next time...

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

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

The Pharmalot Blog today reported that a group of protesters aligned with the Occupy Wall Street movement will conduct a vigil at Pfizer's Groton,CT R&D facility to protests recent job cuts made by the company. 

Pfizer was targeted because it took tens of millions of dollars in local and state government subsidies to build an R&D facility in New London, Connecticut. But earlier this year, the company abandoned the facility and decided to transfer about 1,100 R&D job from Groton to Cambridge, Massachusetts.Also, the company jettisoned its antibacterial drug discovery efforts at the Groton facility and shipped those jobs overseas to China.  Roughly, 2,500 Pfizer jobs are leaving Connecticut which will likely have a negative impact on the state.

One protest leader quipped “When huge companies like Pfizer take tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in public money, and then pull up stakes as soon as the money disappears, that’s what wrong with our economy”

Also, Pfizer is one of the top US ten companies to shed employees despite an estimated $48.2 billion in offshore funds that the company does not pay any taxes on. Between 2004 and 2011, the company  laid off  58,071.

Don't be surprised if the Occupy Wall Street Movement spreads from the banking to the pharmaceutical industry.  At this point there appears to be little distinction between the two!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Remember when Amgen was the world’s largest and most profitable biotechnology company? That was way back in 2006 before its marketing and sales team got in trouble for “pushing” the sale of its erythropoietin (EPO) product Epogen and Aranesp beyond acceptable patient safety limits. This, along with a relatively thin new drug pipeline, has for the past five years or so relegated the company to second tier biotech company status.

To make matter worse, a company spokesperson mentioned its third-quarter earnings conference call today that the company is

 “...currently evaluating some changes within our Research & Development organization to improve focus and to reallocate resources to key pipeline assets and activities." This typically means that the possibility of layoffs is real. The last major restructuring of the company took place in 2007 and it resulted in the elimination of more than 2,000 jobs worldwide, including about 700 in Thousand Oaks.

This past June, Amgen announced plans to eliminate 134 jobs at two of its manufacturing sites in Colorado.

The company employs about 17,000 people, including about 6,200 in Thousand Oaks. Amgen also has research and development facilities in Thousand Oaks, South San Francisco,; Cambridge and Woburn, Mass.; Seattle; Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada; Abingdon, Cambridge and Uxbridge, Great Britain; and Regensburg, Germany.

In 2010, Amgen's revenue totaled $15.1 billion, while research and development cost $2.9 billion, according to the company. Its net profit last year totaled $4.63 billion, up slightly less than 1 percent from 2009.

Could this signal the beginning of the end of this once formidable biotechnology giant? If I was an Amgen employee I would be feverishly updating my CV right about now!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!

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

British pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca today announced that it would invest $200 million into a new manufacturing facility located in China Medical City in Jiangsu province in Eastern China. This is the company’s largest global investment ever in a single manufacturing facility. The new plant which will be completed by 2013 will manufacture intravenous and oral solid drugs. 

AstraZeneca was one of the first Western pharmaceutical companies to establish a presence in China (1993) and has fast become one of the leading biopharmaceutical companies in the country doing about $1.0 billion in business annually. 

Many of Astra Zeneca’s competitors including Novartis, Roche, Merck & Co. and others have also recently made large investments into Chinese R&D and manufacturing facilities. If this doesn’t eliminate anyone’s doubt that pharma is shifting its focus from the West to emerging markets, I am not sure what will!!! While this shift may be bad news for American life scientist seeking employment, it is certainly welcome news for Chinese Nationals who received their life sciences training in the US and other Western nations.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (there are openings in China!!!!!!)

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

From 2001 to present, roughly 300,000 pharmaceutical employees have lost their jobs. That is a massive number; second only to the job losses in the automotive and financial services industries. The main reasons for the layoffs have been a lack of return on investment on R&D activities and impending patent cliffs in 2013 for as many as 15 blockbuster drugs. 

Ed Silverman who runs the Pharmalot blog speculated in a post yesterday that the number of pharma layoffs may be dwindling. His assertions are based on an analysis of the annual number of pharma layoffs provided by the outplacement firm of Challenger, Gray and Christmas. Ed’s wrote:

 “So far this year, pharma layoffs have totaled 19,076, and this includes the 13,000 job cuts planned by Merck, which is actually eyeing many foreign positions, therefore, swelling the latest tally. Last year, pharma eliminated 53,636 jobs, down from 61,109 in 2009, when annual layoffs peaked. In fact, the 2009 bloodletting was outsized compared with every other year - the next highest annual layoff tally occurred in 2008, when 43,014 industry cuts were announced. Between 2003 and 2007, the number of jobs that were eliminated ranged from about 15,000 to 31,000 annually, according to the firm.”

This led Ed to posit that the worst may be over and those pharma employees who still have jobs may be able to relax a bit. However, it is important to note (as Ed also points out) that many big companies are still purchasing or opening new  R&D and manufacturing facilities in emerging markets like India and China and more and more R&D jobs are being outsourced. Further, while many US pharma reps have lost their jobs hiring reps in emerging markets continues to explode. Interestingly jobs that are in demand and still available to Americans include those in regulatory affairs, compliance, IT, clinical operations and marketing. Unfortunately, these are very specialized jobs and many of those pharma employees who have been layed off lack the requisite skills to compete for those jobs!

While I think we may have seen the last of massive layoff in big pharma, smaller and less publicized layoffs will likely continue at many US life sciences companies. The downsizing trend taking place in America will likely continue until drug pipelines are populated with new candidates and life science executive realize that outsourcing R&D job is not a viable solution for their productivity problems.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

By now, most BioJobBlog readers have heard that China is poised to become a world leader in the life sciences. As some of you may already know, over 80 per cent of the worlds active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) that are used to produce FDA-approved medicines are synthesized in China and exported to manufacturing facilities throughout the world. Further, not a day goes bye without a press release about a new partnership forged between multinational life sciences companies and a Chinese partner. Finally, the Chinese government is heavily investing in the life science industry in an attempt to manufacture medicines for internal use and to export. 

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Chinese life sciences companies are hiring. One such company is ShangPharma Corporation. ShangPharma was established in 2002 and has locations in Chengdu and Shanghai, China. It is one of China’s largest contract research organizations and employs over 1,600 persons. The company offers discovery and preclinical development services in both chemistry and biology including API and biologics manufacturing. 

The company is currently looking for a person with a PhD or Masters degree with expertise in CNS and/or cognitive subhuman primates (cymologous and/or rhesus monkeys) models. This is a Group Leader position and the ideal candidate will have a background in pharmacology and neurosurgery. Strong communication skills and the ability to speak and write reports in English are required. Please click here for more information or to apply for the position.

While working in China may not be the first choice for most Americans, it may be ideal for foreign students who trained in the US and have a good command of the English language. Whether you are Chinese or American, a sobering fact to remember is that almost 300,000 American pharmaceutical employees have lost their jobs since 2001; making this one of the worst life sciences job markets in history!

Until next time...

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

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

After a relatively quiet summer, big pharma companies are beginning to ramp up layoffs once again. Novartis recently announced that more job cuts were likely and last week I got wind of Merck’s impending reorganization and layoffs from a colleague whose partner works for the company. Today, Merck formally announced that it had sent e-mails to employees about the new round of layoffs. Last July, Merck said that it planned to cut 12 percent to 13 percent of its workforce of about 100,000 by 2015 as it adjusts to market conditions and its 2009 acquisition of Schering Plough.

The layoffs will be part of the company’s restructuring of “select HQ functions and field groups within the U.S. Market: Marketing & Customer Solutions; Managed Markets & Policy; Strategy & Commercial Model Innovation; and the Neuropsychiatric and Women's Healthcare specialty sales teams,"

While it is not clear how many workers will be layed off during the next round of downsizing, industry insiders are speculating that about 5,200 of the total cuts could be U.S. jobs, with from 3,000 to 4,000 in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A Merck spokesman would not comment on the state-by-state plans. The cuts through October won't be the end of the process, though.

In August, the company offered buyout packages to some employees, but it is unlikely that buyouts and voluntary retirements alone would meet the numbers that Merck executive expect to make. Interestingly, Merck spokespersons said that the company will continue to add new employees but cut jobs elsewhere. I suspect that most of the cuts will come in R&D and sales as they have in the past.

Until next time...

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

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

I attend this year's BIO meeting in DC and ran into an old friend, Stan Yakatan of Katan Associates.  For those of you who do not know Stan, he has been associated in a variety of capacities within the Life Sciences industry for the past 35 years.

The job titles that he has accrued over his career include CEO, Chairman, Managing Director, Board Member, Investor, Entrepreneur and Mensch!  Hanging out with Stan at life sciences meetings is always interesting, exciting, unpredictable and most often fun!  That said, Stan is a wealth of information about the life sciences industry and I was surprised to learn that he has an invterview video on YouTube!

To that end, I thought it would be interesting to post the interview @BioJobBlog.  Stan's historical and current perspective on the US life sciences industry is interesting to say the least!

If you want to contact Stan please click here!

Until next time...

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

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

The Pharmalot Blog today reported that a Wall Street Journal article indicated that Pfizer is planning to cut $1.0 billion from its operating budget by 2012. As many of you may recall (especially those who lost their jobs) the world’s largest pharmaceutical company cut 1,100 earlier this year at its research facilities in Groton CT. The new cuts are aimed at reducing Pfizer’s R&D expenses by up to $2.9 billion annually.

The $1.0 billion in cuts is primarily aimed at reducing administrative and management duplications at Pfizer’s headquarters in NYC and worldwide. Other expenses to be trimmed include those related to promotions, travel, entertainment, consultants, print materials and supplies and electronic equipment. While there is no doubt that these cuts will help to control costs, I suspect that substantially more money could be saved if pharma executive salaries and bonuses were also trimmed.

While it is unclear what the additional $1.0 billion in cuts will have on scientists, I suspect it won’t be good. In case you have not noticed by now, Pfizer like many of its competitors are getting out of the R&D business. This means that R&D jobs will continue to dwindle and scientists will continue to struggle to find jobs in a highly competitive job market.

Since Pfizer purchased rival Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in 2009, the company has shed over 20,000 jobs. The reason for the job cuts and massive cost cutting measures at Pfizer is the loss of patent protection in 2012 for its top selling cholesterol medication Lipitor ($10.7 billion in sales) and its ED drug Viagra ($1.9 billion in sales). Last year Pfizer lost patent protection the antidepressant Effexor (peak sales of $3.8 billion) and the Alzheimer’s drug Aricept ($417 million in sales). Also, when mergers take place there is much overlap and duplication of effort that takes several years to sort out.

Don’t be surprised if new Pfizer job cuts are announced late next fall! Now, would be a good time for Pfizer scientists to remove the dust from their CVs; if it is not already too late!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

There is no longer any doubt that big pharma companies are beginning to reduce their emphasis on internal R&D activities. Instead the companies will increasingly rely on outsourcing, partnerships, closer collaborations with academia, public private partnerships and M&A to keep their drug development pipelines full

Therefore it was not surprising when Merck’s new CEO, Kenneth Frazier recently mentioned in a conference call to financial analysts and investors that its multi-billion spending on new drug R & D will likely decline as a percentage of overall sales in the coming years. Merck is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world

According to an article on Nasdaq.com, in 2010, Merck spent $11 billion on R&D, or 24% of total sales. Adjusted to exclude certain acquisition-related and other costs, R&D spending was $8.1 billion. Merck has predicted 2011 adjusted R&D spending would be $8.1 billion to $8.5 billion for 2011.

Frazier, the first African American CEO of a major pharmaceutical company, came under pressure earlier this year after he decided to not substantially cut R&D as many of Merck’s rivals, most notably Pfizer, did. He noted that cuts in R&D spending would have jeopardized Merck’s long term product development pipeline.

While rumors persist that Merck may be seeking to jettison its non-pharmaceutical consumer health and animal health businesses, Frazier insisted that the two units are complementary to its core pharmaceutical and vaccine focus and are not for sale. That said, if I was a Merck employee in either of those divisions, I would be updating my resume just about now.

Until next time...

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

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

Over the past several weeks, I have participated in various online conversations and discussions about the wisdom of getting a PhD degree in the life sciences.  While the conversations have been wide reaching and, at times quite emotional, a common theme is beginning to emerge and I think that the time has come for me to weigh in on it.  To wit, getting a PhD degree is not the best decision a person can make if he/she wants a guarantee of employment upon completion of his/her training.

There is no longer any question that it is becoming increasingly difficult for PhD life scientists to find jobs. Further, there is no longer any doubt that the academic system responsible for the current glut of PhD life scientists on the market is broken and needs to be fixed. However, it is important to point out that the decision the get a PhD degree is a very personal one and, in most cases, is not based on the prospect of future long term employment.  In fact, most graduate students and postdoctoral scientists that I have talked to over the past 10 years, don't think about the need to find a job until they learn that their funding is running out.  The point  is, that just because you have a PhD degree it does not entitle you to a job. Further, looking for a job takes commitment, time and a lot of work and unfortunately some PhD scientists mistakenly  think that the "jobs will/should come to them."  Put simply, if you aren't willing to put in the work to find a job, which may mean additional training or a possible career change, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

In 1974, shortly after I was admitted to the graduate program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I received a congratulatory letter from my soon-to-be PhD adviser. In the letter he made a comment about "the blood, sweat and tears" that are required to earn a PhD degree.  At the time, I was a youthful, ambitious 21 year-old, who thought he could do anything and I had no idea what he was talking about!  Seven painful and often tearful years later, I finally understood what he meant by those words; because I had lived them!  I  have no doubt that many who are reading this post have had similar experiences. However, earning your  PhD degree is only the very beginning of your journey. And, like it or not,  the only thing that a PhD guarantees is that others will call you "doctor"and that you can add the letters "PhD" after your name!

For the past several months I have been following a question on a LinkedIn group that asked: "If you had to do it all over again, would you have still chosen to get your PhD degree". For me, the answer is an unequivocal YES!  And, like the first time, that decision would not have been based on the notion that there would or should be a job waiting for me at the end of my training.  My decision was a personal one based on my "love of microbiology" not the guarantee of future employment.

So,  to those of you who feel like the system has let you down and that you have been abused, I feel your pain but offer the following. If you wanted a guaranteed job at the end of your training than you ought to have considered a career in medicine, nursing, law, engineering, physical therapy, carpentry, plumbing or any other profession where a license is required to practice. These professionals offer a "service" to people and, in exchange for services rendered, they get paid for their efforts.  Like it or not, laboratory research is a not a service or fee-based industry and consequently has minimal short term personal value to people. And, not surprisingly, the demand for PhD life scientists, well trained or not, is not high.

In closing, nobody said getting a PhD degree was going to be easy. And, as somebody once said to me, "if getting a PhD degree was easy, then everybody would have one!"  That said, be proud that you earned your degree; but the hard work has only just begun!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

For the past three years or so, Eli Lilly CEO John Lechleiter has publicly criticized America’s lack of math, science and engineering preparedness. Further, he has lamented that this lack of preparedness has resulted in a lack of innovation and that it threatens the US standing as a leader in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Finally, Lechleiter squarely places the blame on American science educators. 

Therefore, it came as somewhat of surprise to me when I learned that Lilly (and many other pharmaceutical companies) are outsourcing an increasing amounts of drug discovery and development to Chinese contract research organizations (CROs pharma companies continue to outsource drug R&D to ostensibly lower development costs and get drugs to market faster. According to Chuan “Joe” Shih, a former Eli Lilly employee of 25 years and executive vice president of integrated drug discovery at Crown Bioscience a Shanghai-based CRO, the total annual cost for one researcher at Lilly might run $300,000 to $350,000 a year. The figure at Crown is one-third of that. Shih also disclosed that Pfizer was one of Crown’s clients.

In addition to Crown, Eli Lilly has outsourced R&D to other Chinese CROs that includeWuXi AppTec and ChemExplorer. It also operates its own research-and-development center in Shanghai and is building a diabetes research center here. Like Lilly, big pharma companies like Roche, Novartis and others have also established research centers in China.

Some analysts contend that the reasons given for the current R&D outsourcing trends—lower costs and faster market times—are red herrings. They suggest that establishing R&D in China helps position companies to sell into the huge, emerging Chinese market. Within the next decade or so, the Chinese market may eclipse the US as the major pharmaceutical market in the world.

Interestingly, in an interview in Shanghai Lilly’s Lechleiter said that he believed that CROs in China have more to offer than cost savings. “The skill level and the quality and the increasing availability of high-skilled and high-quality operations in the contract-research space render these firms globally competitive,” he said. Further, he added that in recent years, Lilly has had difficulty getting green cards or permanent resident visas for some of the Chinese people graduating from American universities it wants to hire. “So we need to follow the talent, and I expect there will be people recruited to the U.S. who will want to stay in the U.S. And there will be Chinese people and others who want to come back here. Our research center in Shanghai gives them a place to land.”

Does this mean that Lechleiter has given up on his quest to improve American science preparedness and American innovation? And, what will become of the 100,000 or so American pharmaceutical scientists who were laid off in recent years or those new minted American PhDs who cannot find work in the US? Is that the fault of the American education system or pharmaceutical companies that are trying to maintain profit margins at any cost or improving the likelihood of success in emerging markets in developing nations?

Until next time…

Good Look and Good Job Hunting (try the BRIC countries)

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

There has been some buzz on LinkedIn and Facebook about an article that appeared in the March 3, 2011 issue of Nature Magazine. The article entitled “Traditional Drug-Discovery Model Ripe for Reform” and basically chronicles the decline in emphasis being placed by most companies on traditional in-house drug discovery as a source for new candidate molecules. Also, it points out that most big pharma companies now agree that they are not good at drug discovery but excel in clinical development and marketing of new medicines. Industry’s new view of itself is supported by the fact that over 200,000 pharmaceutical and biotechnology workers—roughly 50% were discovery scientists—have their lost jobs in the past three years or so. This begs the question “who is going to discover the new molecular entities that large drug companies are going clinically evaluate and ultimately market? According to the article, academic researchers are likely to play a pivotal role in this newly emerging drug discovery paradigm. 

The new model proposed in the article goes something like this. First, all intellectual property rights for certain compounds will be lifted or removed. Compounds of interest would subsequently be evaluated in small clinical trials for safety and possible efficacy. And, interested drug makers would only compete with one another on specific molecules after they were deemed safe and potentially effective. Up until this point, all data on prospective drug candidates would be openly published and freely available to interested parties.

Proponents of the model contend that the approach would allow drug targets to be more quickly validated and developed less expensively because there would less duplication of research activities. Further, it would reduce the exposure of patients to experimental molecules that have already deemed to be ineffective. Interestingly, the new model would rely exclusively on academic scientists who would be supported by a global initiative that cost about $325 million per years— with half coming from the pharmaceutical industry and half from the public. Finally, drug candidates identified in the initial screening process would be available to companies that participate in the initiative (presumably to the company that invested the most?)

While the proposed model is clearly “wishful thinking” on behalf of academics who are struggling to win grant support, it is deeply flaw and was obviously proposed by academic scientists who lack a clear understanding of the industrial drug development process. First, intellectual property (IP) and patents are the life blood of the industry and are in fact what allows drug companies to prevent competition in certain therapeutic areas maximize their return on investment on the drugs that they develop. Therefore, it is highly  unlikely that any drug maker would agree to lift or suspend IP around a novel new molecule. Second, must academic scientists are not qualified nor trained to engage in industrial drug development. Unlike academic science, industrial research is highly regulated and must be performed according the regulations and guidelines established by various regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration. If the research is not conducted in a regulatory compliant manner, then the prospective new drug will not be able to win regulatory approval. Third, eliminating IP would prevent university tech transfer offices—which exist almost entirely to manage a university’s IP—from negotiating lucrative licensing deals with interested companies or other parties. This, in turn, would reduce the contribution of funds by technology transfer offices that is used to run many academic research centers. Finally, the model is based upon the assumption that academic scientists (unlike drug companies) willfully and freely share information with one another for the “common good.” However, based on my experiences as an academic for over 20 years, most scientists don’t subscribe to the level of altruism and philanthropy attributed to them in the article. In fact the ego-involvement and competition amongst academics is so fierce, that  many academic refuse to share important new information or breakthroughs with their colleagues until grants are funded or the data are published in peer reviewed journals. Put simply, most academics are trained to work by themselves in their own laboratories and are neither interactive nor collaborative by nature.

There is no question that the old industrial drug discovery model is in transition and a new one will ultimately emerge. However, the role of academics in the new model is likely going to be less than proposed in present article. Too many systemic changes would be required for this model to be effective. That said, providing graduate students and postdocs with training in regulatory affairs and new drug development could be a step in the right direction! Nevertheless, a better solution to the problem may be a greater role for government in new drug discovery and development. To that end, the UK Medical Research Council has established the Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme that supports the development of promising basic science research into new drugs and medical devices. Also, Francis Collins, the current head of the National Institutes of Health has proposed the creation of a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences to transform basic science into prospective new drugs and treatments.

Despite the good intentions of the article, the path forward for academic scientists is not going to be easy. To make matters worse, it is becoming increasingly difficult for PhD-trained scientists to find jobs. That said, if you are truly interested in industrial drug discovery and development I highly recommend that you take some regulatory affairs course or enroll in a certificate or MS degree program in biotechnology that teaches the business side of the life sciences industry.

Until next time...

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

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

Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis late yesterday announced that it would cut 550 jobs at it Horsham site West Sussex, England. At present, there are 950 workers at the Horsham site. The job cuts, 330 dedicated to respiratory research, will be made over the next two years.

This is more bad news for the UK pharma R&D workforce. In February, Pfizer said it would shut its Sandwich in Kent facility which employs 2,400 people. More job cuts are likely to take place in the US, UK and Europe as the pharmaceutical industry continues to scale back investment in R&D. 

Until next time..

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

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

The Japanese drug maker Eisai, Co announced that it will cut at least 900 jobs over the next five years to improve operating margins to offset the impending lost of patent protection for Aricept its blockbuster Alzheimer’s  disease treatment. The company did not specify where the cuts would take place.

In other news, based Eli Lilly & Co announced plans to outsource its R&D bioanalytical functions to Advion Biosciences a contract research organization that is building new laboratories Lilly’s home town of Indianapolis, Indiana. Ithaca NY-based Advion is building a 22,000 sq ft facility that will focus on ADME and toxicology experiments that are required for new molecules to enter human clinical testing.

Advion offers a range of Good Laboratory Practice-compliant and discovery bioanalytical services, including liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) for determining small-molecule drugs, macromolecule therapies and biomarkers; immunoassay services; ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) screening; cytochrome P450 inhibition and induction study support; metabolism profiling; metabolite identification; sample management; and sample storage.

According to a press release:

 “Lilly will transition its own drug discovery bioanalytical capabilities to Advion and will offer employees affected by the move the opportunity to join Advion. The new laboratory is expected to be fully operational by the end of May 2011.”

This is another example of big pharmaceutical companies exiting the R&D space. Because of the rampant downsizing and outsourcing of R&D functions to CROs, now could be one of the better times in years to start a biotech company. Big pharma is relying on starts up companies and academic laboratories to be the major source of new molecules that they develop. That said, the age of big “in-house” drug discovery operations at big pharmaceutical companies is drawing to an end. 

Until next time...

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

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

Ask any pharmaceutical industry pundits about the “next big thing” in life sciences R&D and most will invariably say neuroscience indications like Alzheimer's, Parkinson Disease and the like. Curiously, despite these prognostications, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) today announced that it would lay off 50 employees involved in neuroscience R &D.

The affected workers, all of whom are scientists working on late stage clinical development at various sites throughout the US, were first notified about the layoff on Valentine’s Day (nice gift). Interestingly, a GSK spokesperson was quick to point out that other neuroscience employees including marketing and sales would not be affected by the layoffs. Hm mm, I always thought you needed scientists to discover the drugs that will ultimately be marketed and sold by a company? In any event, no GSK operations outside of the US were affected by this round of layoffs.

The reason why the layoffs only affected clinical scientists is because GSK scaled back its investment into early stage research. And, according to the GSK spokesperson this means that “there’s not as much coming through that needs later stage clinical trials.” Also, last year, after GSK released fiscal 2009 results, the company announced it would “cease discovery research in selected neuroscience areas, including depression and pain.” I guess most of the layed off scientists worked on depression and pain (two emotions that layed off workers frequently suffer).

In case you haven’t noticed (because you spend too much time in the lab and on Facebook), most major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have slashed their investments into new drug discovery and development. This means that the demand for R&D scientists (in the US anyway) is much lower than ever before. Consequently, as I have stated numerous times in the past, now may be the time for graduate students and postdocs considering industrial R&D careers to re-evaluate their plans (unless R&D careers in emerging markets like Brazil, Russia, India and China are attractive).

Until next time ....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Aptuit, a drug discovery and development company announced that it will be cutting 340 jobs in Scotland over the next year. The company cited the worldwide economic downturn as the culprit. Likewise, the Austrian vaccine maker Intercell announced that it would be laying off an unspecified number of employees and dramatically cutting R&D expenses (by 40%) after it killed development of its enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli vaccine patch. The company pulled the plug on the vaccine after it failed to reduce the incidence of diarrhea in a randomized and placebo-controlled Phase III study involving 2036 participants.

On the bright side, PPD, a global contract research organization, announced that it plans to invest $28 million to expand its Lab Services Division in Henrico County, Virginia and add 190 new jobs over the next three years. 

Until next time...

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

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

Despite signs earlier this summer that job cuts at pharmaceutical companies were beginning to slow, it appears that the number of jobs lost in 2010 may come close to the roughly 61,000 pharmaceutical jobs that were eliminated in 2009. This is based on quarterly Job-Cut Announcement Report published by the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas. 

In past month or so, two big pharma companies, Roche and Novartis, announced that there will be major corporate reorganizations and deep job cuts to reduce spending, increase profits and bolster flagging stock prices. 

While things appear to be improving in other parts of the economy, the life sciences industry has been devastated by massive job layoffs in the past three years. Although pharma executives publicly blame the downsizing on the recession, massive R&D units, thinning pipelines and a failure to obtain a sufficient ROI on the huge sums of money poured into new drug development over the past decade are the real reason for the blood letting. Unfortunately, the US job market for life scientists won’t be improving anytime soon; mainly because it is more cost effective for companies to perform R&D and clinical testing in the emerging markets of China, India, Brazil and Russia (BRIC).

The ability of life sciences companies to successfully perform these activities outside of the US is in large part due to the lack of interest by American students in science careers and misguided immigration policies that prevented talented US-trained foreign nationals from remaining in the US after completing their training. This allowed many foreign countries to achieve a critical mass of US-trained life scientists and provide Western life sciences companies with a highly trained and well equipped scientific workforce.

With the holidays approaching, now may be a good time for those of you who work or considering careers in the life sciences industry to re-evaluate or consider alternate career options for life scientists.

Until next time...

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

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

Late last Friday, Sanofi-Aventis announced that it was restructuring it US pharmaceutical business to meet the demands of a more challenging American healthcare market. The company said that it will streamline U.S. Pharmaceutical Operations and reduce its workforce by an estimated 25 percent. This translates into eliminating approximately 1,700 positions. Decisions about the breadth and scope of the cuts will be finalized by mid-December.

Of the 13,000 US employees, 6,900 work in the Pharmaceutical Operations division. Other Sanofi-Aventis affiliates in the United States include its R&D group, Sanofi Pasteur Vaccines, BiPar and Chattem: its consumer healthcare business.

According to Gregory Irace, President of Sanofi-Aventis and CEO of Sanofi-Aventis US/.Canada Pharmaceutical Operations,

“Given the serious challenges facing our organization and the healthcare industry, it is important to act decisively now so that our organization has greater stability moving forward and that our resources are allocated to our strategic growth priorities. These changes will foster a renewed focus on the strong growth and pipeline opportunities that will drive our vision of being a diversified healthcare leader.” Sanofi faces a serious “patent cliff” in the very near future; mainly because its top selling anti-clotting drug Plavix is slated to lose patent protection in 2011. Also, the company lacks expertise in biotechnology: the discipline that most big pharma companies is going to drive future growth in the industry."

The lack of biotechnology prowess is largely responsible for Sanofi’s attempt to purchase Genzyme, one of the largest and profitable biotechnology companies in the world.

Last week, Sanofi confirmed that its bid for Genzyme had become hostile because its management team and board of directors failed to seriously consider a bid tendered at $69 per share or $18.5 billion. Genzyme’s management team and board of directors immediately rejected the hostile bid (as it did in the past when the offer was “friendly”). The hostile bid allows Sanofi-Aventis to bypass Genzyme’s Board and appeal directly to its shareholders to consider the offer.

Restructuring of its US pharmaceutical operations, may be a sign that Sanofi-Aventis is attempting to cut costs to finance the all cash deal.

I suspect that Sanofi-Aventis will prevail in its bid for Genzyme; but it will have to sweeten the offer to appease activist investor Carl Icahn who is likely seeking an offer in excess of $75 per share.

If I were a betting man, I would put my money on Icahn—a brilliant financial strategist who frequently gets what he wants

Stay tuned for more late-breaking Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme news!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

The Pharmalot Blog today reported that Abbott will be cutting about 3,000 jobs. The downsizing comes about a year after Abbott purchased Solvay Pharmaceuticals for about 6.2 billion but failed last month to find a buyer for the Solvay vaccine unit (which was expected to fetch about $600 million). 

According to the post, most of the jobs will be eliminated in R&D, manufacturing and commercial operations mainly at former Solvay Pharmaceutical sites in the Netherlands and Germany. Also, Solvay’s current US headquarters in Marietta Georgia will be closed in the near future.

Abbott has approximately 90,000 employees worldwide. While the recession may be officially over the job cuts continue and unemployment continues to rise.

Until next time...

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

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

Last week, the outsourcing firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas reported that layoffs at big pharmaceutical companies had slowed in August. However, while layoffs may have begun to slow at many big pharma companies, they are continuing at several biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies.

In a press release late last week, Roche CEO Severin Schwan announced that the company will review its business and cut costs to offset recent setbacks with some of its key drugs and rising healthcare costs. These setbacks include suspension of clinical trials for ocrelizumab, a mAb-based treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, a rejection of accelerated review of trasttuzumab-DM₁ a new breast cancer treatment and a delay in approval for a diabetes drug.

Many of the setbacks have occurred at its biotechnology subsidiary, Genentech. Consequently, much of the costs savings, including restructuring and layoffs will likely occur at Genentech over the next few years. The cutbacks are expected to save the company almost $1.9 billion per year. According to one biotechnology analyst:

"They will mainly be looking at the primary sales force and R&D for cuts, which will be mostly in the United States and Europe. There was overcapacity in the sales team -- numbering around 1,500 in the United States and Europe -- after a recent delay to its diabetes drug candidate taspoglutide and the fact Roche had one of the highest research and development spending rates in the industry offered scope for savings”

In related news, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, PhD, Genentech’s second in command for R&D, yesterday announced that he was leaving Genentech to become President of Rockefeller University. While Dr. Tessier-Lavigne contends that his decision to leave Genentech after 7 years has nothing to do with expected cutbacks and layoffs, his departure signals that big changes are likely at the company in the near future.

Also last week, Endo Pharmaceuticals announced that it would be cutting the size of its sales force. The announcement comes just one month after Endo agreed to purchase Penwest Pharmaceuticals for $144 million. Moreover, the $3.2 billion dollar merger between the biotechnology company Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Biovail is expected to result in a 25 percent reduction of its combined 4,000 employee workforce. Finally, Japanese drug maker Shionogi yesterday announced that it is cutting roughly 50 percent of its US sales force to 350 sales reps.

Although layoffs may have appeared to abate at many big pharma companies, don’t be surprised if new job cuts are announced around the beginning of the US holiday season this year. Also, layoffs will continue at biotechnology and specialty pharma companies as consolidation continues in these sectors.

Until next time...

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

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

Yesterday, I posted a piece on "hit'  throughput screening (see below).  At the time, I learned about  'hit" throughput screening, I mentioned that  I had never heard of "hit" throughput screening but I did know about high throughput screening.  As it turns out, there was a problem in translation and in fact, there is no such thing as hit throughput screening and it is actually high throughput screening.  Mea Culpa!  I apologize for the error and in the future I will be assiduous in my fact checking before I post (a lesson that the boneheads in the Obama administration learned the hard way in the recent Sherrod brouhaha)

The Growth of High Throughput Screening

No; this isn’t a typo! My colleagues at Meet the Boss sent me a press release today about efforts underway at Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline to redefine HTS to mean “hit” throughput screening rather than high throughput screening. As many of you may know, high throughput screening which began in the mid 1990s was supposed to revolutionize drug discovery and development—it did not! Nevertheless, after almost 15 years of refinement it appears that the technology may be paying off and can be used as an adjunctive tool to expedite and lower the cost of small molecule and protein-based drug discovery. While I don’t know much about this emerging technology, the press release presented below suggests that a meeting about HTS may be in the works. 

It is understood that huge amounts of money have been invested into drug discovery and the biggest problem faced by the industry is investing in drugs which may not make it onto the market. Europe has always been seen to trail behind the US when discussing drug discovery within the pharmaceutical industry, but with the biotechnology revolution they have begun to catch and becoming a driving force within the global industry.

The NGP EU committee has been celebrating the success of their pioneering roles in genome sequencing and the development of proteomic. Pfizer has recently announced to the NGP Drug Discovery committee that they plan to roll out a hit identification and screening file strategy. The process will offer a new flexible strategy for hit identification while sculpting a more reliable and efficient screening process. 

High throughput screening (HTS) has grown rapidly over the last ten years and Pfizer themselves noted the huge advances in both detection technology and laboratory automation. Pfizer believe that not only big Pharma but also smaller companies can implement HTS as well. By implementing HTS,  it can remove the indecision over which compunds will be profiles, many smaller companies agonize over the costs of conventional profiling sometimes only choosing between 10 and 20 compounds, this already removes other possibilities before true research can really begin. Pfizer among other members of the NGP EU Drug Discovery committee wish to discuss how they wish to implement large scale profiling at a lower cost, while maintaining the incredible biological, technological, and scientific advancements they are already demonstrating globally.

GSK have also joined Pfizer recently in encouraging the implementation of HTS. “We are now at a stage where we can exploit the benefits of cutting edge technology for increased quality, performance and capabilities. We also have the option to supply the same number of compounds, with the same level of quality at an affordable price”. 

Key to discussions will be representatives from AstraZeneca - Goran Wennberg, VP Discovery Information, Bayer Schering Pharma - Andreas Busch, Head of Global Drug Discovery & Member of the Board , Novartis - Olivier Grenet , Group Head of Genome Biology ,GlaxoSmithKline - Tino Rossi, VP of PreClinical Drug Discovery & Enabling Technologies and Pfizer - John Mathias, Head of High Through Put Screening all determined to firmly place Europe as the Drug Discovery capital.

The discovery and implementation of HTS not only offers an opportunity to smaller Pharma companies but also the consumer, if research and quality is increased and cost decreased this in turn will be passed onto the consumer.

Stay tuned for more details.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

The ever-increasing competition for faculty positions is forcing many graduate students and postdocs to consider careers outside of academia with a likely eye on industrial jobs. Unfortunately, many of these would be industrial scientists lack the appropriate training and qualifications for entry-level jobs at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This is because most undergraduate and graduate programs do not offer training to their students in drug development, quality systems and manufacturing. The reasons for this include: 1) lack of well informed and qualified faculty members to initiate and develop specialized curricula on these topics and 2) a belief that job training is the responsibility of prospective employers, not academic researchers. Unless substantive curricular change is made to existing academic programs, the road to employment for many students will continue to be bumpy and fraught with difficulty. 

In contrast with academic research, industrial research is highly regulated and guided by legally-enforceable rules and regulations, e.g., Current Good Laboratory Practices (cGLP), Current Good Clinical Practices (cGCP) and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). These rules and guidelines were created by regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the development of safe and efficacious products. In recent years, the FDA has begun to enforce these rules and regulations more strictly. As a result, many life sciences companies now require that prospective employees understand cGLP, cGCP and cGMP guidelines and how to apply them in industrial laboratory settings. Because these rules and regulations are specific to industry and relatively unknown in academia, most academically-trained job candidates fail to qualify for these industrial jobs. Finally, over the past five years, there has been a growing emphasize on the importance of so-called "soft skills" e.g., good oral written and communication skills, teamwork, professional behavior, etc. in existing and prospective employees. These skills are increasingly important as life sciences companies grow larger, more diverse, and increasingly multidisciplinary in their approach to drug discovery and development. Unfortunately, few academic programs develop these skills in a systematic way; this failure hinders the ability of students to obtain industrial jobs.

Although the transition from academia to industry can be difficult, students can do several things to improve their odds. First, take advantage of available resources in preparing your resume and learning how to interview for an industrial position. A well written, carefully crafted resume can result in an interview, and a professional interviewing style can increase the likelihood of a job offer. Working with a skilled and well-connected professional recruiter may also increase the probability of securing an industrial job.

Second, many community colleges and several companies now offer specialized training in quality systems, regulatory affairs (cGLP, cGMP and cGCP) and other areas. Finally, there is no better way to get an industrial job than to have previous industrial experience. To get industrial experience, seek out training opportunities that include an industry internship as part of the curriculum. Some biotech and pharmaceutical companies may offer volunteer opportunities,  paid internships and some still have postdoctoral positions available for qualified applicants.

Until next time...

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

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

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies like to distinguish themselves from companies that manufacture consumer products because their products have the potential to save the lives of patients suffering from a plethora of illnesses. While a life-saving cancer treatment may inherently be more valuable than a pair of snow tires, the goal of the companies that manufacture them is to sell enough products to remain profitable. To that end, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have an edge over consumer products companies because drug makers can use altruism and philanthropy to market their drugs. In fact, many drug manufacturers play up their commitments to altruism and philanthropy to justify high drug prices because of the enormous costs associated with drug discovery and development. This tactic begs the question: “Just how philanthropic are drug makers?”

To answer this question The Access to Medicine Foundation created the Access to Medicine Index .which provides a benchmark on the access to medicine policies and practices of the largest global pharmaceutical companies.The index is designed to offer stakeholder and prospective investor ways to compare pharma’s social responsibility records by measuring 106 indicators that examine activities across seven criteria such as philanthropy, patents, pricing and management (see more here)

The 2010 index (only the second of its kind) ranked 26 pharmaceutical companies on their efforts to provide access to medicines, vaccines and diagnostic tests to people living in 88 countries. The companies included 20 originator (branded) companies – those who primarily market patented drugs they have developed – andsix companies whose primary business is the production and sale of generic medicines. The results are shown below:

Branded Pharmaceutical Companies

1. GlaxoSmithKline
2. Merck
3. Novartis
4. Gilead Sciences
5. Sanofi-Aventis
6. Roche
7. AstraZeneca
8. Novo Nordisk
9. Johnson & Johnson
10. Abbott Labs
11. Pfizer
12. Boehringer Ingelheim
13. Eli Lilly
14. Bayer
15. Bristol-Myers Squibb
16. Eisai
17. Merck KGA
18. Takeda Pharmaceuticals
19. Astellas Pharma
20. Daiichi Sankyo

Generic Manufacturers

1. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited
2. Cipla Limited
3. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
4. Mylan, Inc
5. Sun Pharmaceuticals
6. Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

While the lists may seem impressive, Index founder Wim Leereveld cautions: “…the industry as a whole still has a long way to go.”

Ed Silverman, who runs the Pharmalot Blog, offered his insights about the list and the foundation’s findings: “The report, of course, will be used to defuse critics, such as non-governmental organizations and activist groups, who say not enough is done to make meds accessible in poor countries. The arguments often center on compulsory licensing and free-trade agreements, as well as intellectual property disputes, pricing and donations. Pharma, you may recall, has been on the defensive ever since they fought South Africa over HIV meds, and is now ramping up operations in so-called emerging markets, many of which are low-margin operations where incomes are lower. “

I don’t fault drug makers for aggressively marketing their products to generate revenues to insure profits and growth. After all, business is business. However, I think that it is disingenuous to use altruism and philanthropy as a means to market and sell high priced drugs. Ironically, this practice tends to limit the access of poor and disenfranchised patients who might benefit the most from these medicines.

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot

Until next time...

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

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

Pfizer today announced plans to set up a Rare Diseases Research Unit that will target the more-than-6000 global orphan diseases. For those of you who may not know, orphan diseases are classified by the US Food and Drug Administration as those that afflict 200,000 persons or less.

According to a press release, Pfizer’s new division will “pursue treatments across all therapeutic areas and modalities and will serve as the focal point for the company’s existing research on rare diseases”. It also intends to “work closely with patient advocacy groups, like the National Organization for Rare Diseases, as it develops and advances the unit’s research strategy. It will be lead by Edward Mascioli, most recently the head of Dapis Capital, a private equity firm. Previously he was vice president of clinical affairs at Peptimmune and senior medical director at Paraxel.

Pfizer’s decision to enter the orphan drug market signals that no markets are too small for big pharmaceutical companies to consider in an era where blockbuster drugs are few and far between. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that orphan drugs (which are generally biologics) offer drug maker several perks including: seven years of market exclusivity, tax breaks and credits, reduced clinical trials costs and expedited regulatory review. More importantly, perhaps, orphan drugs are highly priced and can yield impressive returns even though they are used to treat small patient populations. For example, several of Genzyme’s drugs such as Myozyme and Cerezyme—both designated as orphan drugs—have already reached over $1.0 billion in annual sales. 

While sales of orphan drugs may never reach those of Plavix, Lipitor, Epogen and other multibillion dollar blockbusters, garnering US regulatory approval for four or more (which cost much less than $1.5 billion to develop) will likely provide a substantial ROI to companies that develop them. Also, developing drugs that improve the quality of life for patients with no other treatment options will undoubtedly go a long way to improve tarnished reputation of the pharmaceutical industry.

Until next time...

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

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

For the past three years, I assiduously have attempted to track all of the major layoffs announced by big pharma and biotechnology companies. Quite honestly, it has been hard to stay on top of these almost weekly announcements. To date, over 200,000 life sciences employees have lost their jobs. And, I don’t think that job layoffs will abate for a year or more.

While pharma layoffs make sense in the short term—most notably to insure that stock share prices remain as inflated as possible—they are not going to solve pharma’s lack of innovation and the rising attrition rates for new molecular entities. On paper, outsourcing R&D make perfect fiscal and scientific sense. After all, there are literal thousands of US-trained scientists all over the world these days; mainly in China, India and Eastern Europe and it is much more cost effective to do research in these regions. However, in my opinion, outsourcing R&D, like layoffs, is a short term strategy that will likely backfire and not deliver the anticipated ROI. For example, many US technology companies that outsourced sizable portions of their operations in the early 2000 are now beginning to bring them back to the US as Asian labor costs continue to rise and product quality declines. This begs the question: what should big pharma companies do to regain their edge to bring new medicines to market?

Allan Haberman, of Haberman Associates, wrote a compelling post several months ago on his blog the Biopharmconsortium Blog where he offers some insights and strategies that may help big pharma out of its current lack of innovation and new product development.  Until that happens, I will continue to track pharma and biotech company layoffs as they are announced.

Until next time....

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

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

The fallout from Pfizer’s purchase of Wyeth last year continues to slog on. Today, Pfizer told 500 scientists who reside in one of three of the company’s office towers in New London, CT that they will be relocated within the next month.

An e-mail message sent to the 500 affected scientists explained that “a business entity with an immediate need for office space has expressed interest in the New London property.” While a Pfizer spokesperson refused the identify the prospective new renter, sources familiar with the situation believe that Electric Boat in Groton, a division of General Dynamics,  which previously expressed a need for 50,000 square feet to house a growing engineering department is the likely new client.

The move shouldn’t come as a surprise to the New London scientists because Pfizer announced last year that it would close the 700,000 square-foot former worldwide R&D headquarters by the end of 2011. Most of the company’s 1,400 drug-development employees in New London will move across the Thames River to the company’s research site in Groton. Nevertheless, the indignity of being evicted and forced to relocate by a bunch of engineers must really smart—not that there is anything wrong with engineers!

Until next time...

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

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

For the past year or so, I have been focusing on the downsizing and layoffs taking place at big pharmaceutical companies. The unprecedented size and scope of these massive layoffs have overshadowed the downsizing and job loss taking place at small to mid-size public and private biopharmaceutical companies. In contrast with most fully-integrated vertical pharmaceutical companies that are flush with cash, most biotech companies—even the likes of Amgen, Genentech, Gilead and others—don’t have the cash reserves to maintain operations in a down economy or when a drug candidate fails in clinical development. This coupled with the lack of venture and private equity capital has been causing biopharmaceutical employees to lose sleep in recent months.

Over the past few days, two CA-based biopharmaceutical companies announced major layoffs. The first, San Jose-based Xenoport, announced that it plans on cutting its 222 person workforce by 50% over the next few months. According to company executives, the layoffs are necessary because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) failed to grant approval to its lead drug candidate Horizant, a treatment for restless leg syndrome. This will allow the company to annually save about $15.6 million and focus its development efforts on other products that are in Phase II clinical development. 

San Francisco-based Exelixis today announced that it would cut about 40% of its workforce or 270 employees to focus on development of its late stage drug candidates. The biotechnology company, which expects to reduce its 2011 cash expenditures by about $90 million, said it would focus on the development of its anti-cancer drugs XL184, XL147 and XL765. These layoffs are occurring less than a year after the company announced a potential $1.0 billion deal with Sanofi-Aventis in which Sanofi invested $140 million upfront to license two of its oncology drug candidates.

Things are also not going well for the numerous small to midsize biotechnology companies in the Seattle area. According to Xconomy, a company that tracks layoffs in and around Seattle, the region has shed 4,500 biopharmaceutical industry jobs since 2008.

Finally, BNET compiled a top biotech layoff list for 2009. The notables that made the list are shown below.

1. Sepracor (530). The layoffs represented 20 percent of Sepracor’s workforce, and another 410 contract sales reps also got the axe. The restructuring apparently worked and Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma the company later in 2009.
2. Allergan (460). This represented a five percent reduction in the company’s workforce.
3. Genmab (300).  Arzerra (ofatumumab) the company’s leukemia drug won FDA approval a week before layoffs were announced (go figure). But Genmab wanted to cut manufacturing and late-stage clinical work to refocus on antibody discovery.
4. Oscient Pharmaceuticals (280). Oscient cut about 100 jobs in February, 2009 to entice acquisition partners. When that didn’t work, the firm cut another 180 in June as it dumped the sales force for its two marketed products. Cornerstone Therapeutics later picked up Oscient’s antibiotic Factive during bankruptcy.
5. Amylin Pharmaceuticals (200). After cutting 340 jobs at the end of 2008 amid declining diabetes drug sales and regulatory delays, Amylin eliminated 200 sales reps in mid-2009.

While these represent the largest layoffs that occurred in 2009, thousands of other biopharmaceutical employees also lost their jobs.  If the life sciences sector is the part of the economy that has been relatively unscathed during the economic downturn, imagine what life must be like for employees in other sectors that have been hard hit!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting ????

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

Ed Silverman, who runs the Pharmalot blog,reported today that AstraZeneca provided more details about its plan to layoff 8,000 employees or 12% of its workforce by 2014. 

According to the post, the company will R&D programs in thrombosis; acid reflux; ovarian and bladder cancers; systemic scleroderma; schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety; hepatitis C and vaccines (other than respiratory syncytial virus and influenza).

The company will shutter research facilities throughout the UK and Sweden and shed about 3,500 R&D jobs. About 550 jobs will be eliminated at AstraZeneca’s US headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware; adding to the massive numbers of unemployed pharmaceutical workers in the Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware region. The company is also looking for a buyer for its Arrow Therapeutics business.

AstraZeneca joins a growing number of big pharma companies that are jettisoning internal R& D programs in favor of licensing and merger and acquisition deals to sure up drug discovery pipelines. The lack of innovation in small molecule drug discovery and the loss in 2011 of patent protection for some of the industry’s largest blockbuster drug franchises is forcing big pharma companies to eliminate or outsource most of their R&D functions and capabilities to cut costs.  

I wish I could say that things will get better. But, the shift in the business model that has guided big pharma for close to 100 years is likely to be a permanent one. Now is the time to begin to consider alternative career paths!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (“Go West young man/man!”)

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

Many people, most notably GlaxoSmithKline employees, assumed that GSK management would disclose at its earning call yesterday how many people would lose their jobs in the company’s next round of job cuts announced earlier this week. Surprisingly, management decided not to announce the breadth and depth of layoffs ostensibly increasing the drama and anxiety of its employees about the cuts.

Management’s decision not to disclose the number of employees who would lose their jobs after publicly announced that it would cut up to 4,000 jobs means one of two things according to Jim Edwards of the BNET blog.

“Either that GSK itself has not finished calculating it; or that management believes there’s some sort of PR advantage to not actually saying out loud what everyone already knows.”  

Based on public statements made by GSK spokespeople, Edwards has identified several vulnerable areas where jobs are likely to be cut. These include R&D across the board and one therapeutic area, neuroscience. According to bloggers and insiders who leaked information to the public, the asthma drug Advair may be at risk, as well as metabolic disease product development and sales representatives. Also, there will be reporting structure changes and less emphasis will be place on new product launches in the US. The recent decision to not seek US regulatory approval for GSK’s new, pneumococcal vaccine Synflorix, despite garnering EU approval tends to substantiate this idea.

Elimination of neuroscience as a therapeutic area of interest for GSK was clearly enunciated when the company mentioned during the earnings call

 “Today, we have announced proposals to cease discovery research in selected neuroscience areas, including depression and pain.”

Today, GSK announced that it would close a research center in Verona Italy that specializes in neuroscience research. Approximately 500 workers will lose their jobs after the facility is closed. Unions representing the Italian workers also disclosed in an e-mail message that six facilities worldwide besides Verona will also be closed by GSK.

Less obvious, but clearly written between the lines was the statement made about R&D.

"We have ‘externalised’ approximately 30% of GSK’s discovery research. We are already conducting discovery research with 47 external partners. Our goal is to further increase the level of externally sourced compounds in our pipeline …"

"… We are also looking to reduce R&D infrastructure costs."

Perhaps what may be most troubling to GSK employees who ultimately lose their jobs is the $900 million or more spent on legal fees over the past year. GSK didn’t disclose why the company had incurred such enormous legal bills.

The recent spate of layouts doesn’t mean that any big pharma companies are in financial trouble. As previously mentioned, most of the layoffs are based on future economic predictions and projections which may or may not be realized. Companies are cutting staff and implementing cost savings measures simply to bolster their stock prices and give investors their expected ROI. The economic downturn has provided pharma companies with excellent cover to downsize at will without anybody asking any tough questions. While I feel the pain of workers who have either lost or soon will lose their jobs, the downsizing taking place over the past three years has been a long time in the making. I suspect that many well paid veteran employees turned a blind eye to the internal changes and cues that may have signaled their ultimate demise. 

While downsizing will likely have its anticipated short term effects i.e. bolster flagging stock share prices, it will ultimately hurt the future economic prospects of most big pharma companies. This is because pharma companies will lose many of the talented and experienced workers whose previous hard work and sacrifices contributed to their past successes.  When are the overpaid pharma executives going to realize that it is the rank and file, not them that bring creativity, innovation and ultimately financial rewards to their stakeholders?

Until next time...

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

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

While I never was involved in a corporate acquisition or merger, I have many friends who have lived through them and based on their experiences it is a never a “pretty sight.” Merger aftermaths usually feature massive layoffs, executive management disputes and turf wars and corporate culture clashes tha occur when two workforces are forced to merge as one. However, sometimes mergers may be a good thing for struggling companies. To that end, Pfizer may actually benefit from it $68 billion acquisition of Wyeth late last year.

The acquisition will cost at least 20,000 employees their jobs—not a good thing in a national economy where unemployment is well over 10 percent (despite claims to the contrary). However, this merger is strikingly different than Pfizer’s questionable past mergers and acquisitions which were primarily engineered to procure one or two drugs that had blockbuster potential e.g. Lipitor and Celebrex. This time around, Pfizer’s management team is actually re-evaluating its entire drug development portfolio and attempting to expand the company’s pipeline to include vaccines, therapeutic proteins and other biologics. As I previously noted, most major pharmaceutical companies believe that biologics will be the major driver of pharmaceutical markets in the not so distant future.

According to a post on PharmaLive, Pfizer announced that it will discontinue research and development on roughly 100 experimental new drug candidates. Pfizer officials revealed that the company will continue with 500 research projects in six areas of: 1) Alzheimer’s disease, 2) diabetes, 3) pain, 4) cancer and 5) mental illness (including schizophrenia).

Of the 500 projects, 30 drugs are being tested for cancer indications, 10 for Alzheimer’s disease, eight for pain and 11 for inflammation. Further,133 are in various stages of human clinical testing, including several that are awaiting regulatory approval in the US and elsewhere. 

On the biologics front, Pfizer has six vaccines and 27 biopharmaceutical drugs in development. Prior to the Wyeth acquisition, the company only had one vaccine and 16 new biologics that it was testing. Like most other pharmaceutical companies, Pfizer wants to be a major player in the biopharmaceutical and biologics markets by 2015.

Only time will tell!

Until next time,

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

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

Just when you thought things couldn’t get much worse for New Jersey, Merck and Pfizer today disclosed that it will eliminate 900 more jobs in NJ. While the job cuts were expected, it is still bad news for New Jersey’s life sciences workforce.

Based on information provided by the New Jersey Department of Labor website Pfizer will eliminate 400 jobs from Monmouth Junction, NJ where Wyeth previously maintained research offices. Similarly, Merck plans on cutting 500 jobs in Kenilworth, NJ where Schering Plough’s maintained its former headquarters. While it isn’t clear what types of jobs will be affected, cuts are expected in both R&D and sales continuing an ongoing trend that began almost three years ago. In case you haven’t been paying attention, most major American pharmaceutical companies have been eliminating R&D jobs in the US and either outsourcing those activities or building new research facilities in India, China, Brazil and Eastern Europe where there are lost cost, highly trained pharmaceutical scientists.

Until next time...

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

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

I think the economy must be improving because I am beginning to receive e-mail blasts from big pharma companies like Roche and AstraZeneca that they are hiring again (Please see the e-mail message below).  This may be a good sign for R&D scientists who have been struggling to find gainful employment.

In the spirit of full disclosure I have never worked nor am I am employed by AstraZeneca and I am not being compensated for this advertisement. I am simply a nice guy trying to help out my fellow scientists (hmm, I recall hearing something about nice guys.....)  However, I must warn you that just because companies advertise that they are hiring doesn't always mean that they really are.  Please keep that in mind when you apply for positions that AZ is advertising.

New R&D career opportunities at AstraZeneca. At AstraZeneca, your research and development experience can make a world of difference. That's because you'll be a part of a leading global pharmaceutical company with one of the most influential portfolios of innovative pharmaceutical brands. We continuously challenge, discover and develop new medicines in order to improve the quality of people's lives. It's an ongoing quest that involves the talent, ideas and growth of all our professionals, as we strive to advance the future of healthcare. Today, we're seeking qualified candidates to join our passionate culture in our Research and Development area. It's your opportunity to utilize your expertise for a greater purpose, while you're supported every step of the way. We encourage knowledge, respect growth and believe that there's always more to learn. It's one of the reasons why you'll become colleagues with some of the most talented and experienced professionals in the industry. As part of the Monster research and development professionals network, we invite you to learn more and apply for one of our research and development opportunities today. Sincerely, The AstraZeneca Human Resources team Learn More & Apply If you would like to stay current on AstraZeneca, you can sign up to receive more information here: www.IWantToAdvanceMyCareer.com AstraZeneca is an equal opportunity employer.

Good Luck!!!!!

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

After announcing yesterday that it will be reorganizing and closing 6 of 20 R&D sites worldwide, Pfizer/Wyeth announced today that as many as 2000 R&D scientists will lose their jobs. I suspect that others will lose their jobs in the next few months or so.

The Pfizer/Wyeth and Merck Schering Plough mergers signal the beginning of the end of the traditional vertically integrated pharmaceutical business model. It is evident that pharma is shifting away from its almost 100 year focus on R&D and manufacturing to less labor intensive and costly activities like advertising, marketing, sales and distribution—things that drug makers have excelled in the past decade or so. Innovation will likely no longer come from within but from external sources including academia, biotechnology companies and third party vendors including CROs and CMOs.   

While the loss of thousands of R&D scientists will have little impact on the productivity and operations of life sciences companies themselves, it has serious implications for academic institutions that train life sciences graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. In the past, PhD scientists who were unable to find academic jobs too refuge and found gainful employment in the life sciences industry. However, American industrial R&D jobs are becoming harder and harder to find as larger companies continue to outsource those activities, to Asia, South America and Eastern Europe. And, the competition for the remaining jobs is becoming increasingly fierce. Put simply, academic institutions have to begin to realize that we no longer need as many PhD-trained life scientists as we have in the past. At present, there is a glut of PhD life scientists in the US, many of whom can’t find jobs. Perhaps, this should be taken into account before graduate school admissions committees determine the number of new graduate students they will admit next year.

Until next time...

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

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

Employees of Pfizer/Wyeth were notified earlier today of impending changes and consolidation that will be taking place at the newly combined company. According to internal sources, Cambridge, MA, Groton, CT and Pearl River, NY will be the main centers of the combined company’s East Coast operations and San Francisco and La Jolla/San Diego CA will represent West Coast operations. In Europe, the research facility in Sandwich, England will be the main R&D center with a network of smaller sites, in locations such as Montreal, Ottawa, Cambridge UK, Aberdeen UK, and Dusseldorf, Germany providing expertise in vaccine production and biomanufacturing. The company’s China R&D Center in Shanghai will remain the focal point of operations in Asia,

There will be substantial reductions in headcount and the company’s R&D footprint. These include:

• The former Pfizer headquarters in New London, CT, which will be consolidated into the nearby Groton, CT site. Functions currently located at New London will be relocated to Groton
• Elimination of all R&D activities at Princeton, NJ; Sanford and the Research Triangle Park, NC; Chazy, NY; Rouses Point and Plattsburgh, NY; Gosport, Slough and Taplow, UK
• R&D activity will be substantially reduced at the Collegeville, PA and Pearl River, NY sites. Pearl River will remain a center for vaccine and biopharmaceutical development

I suspect that many of the employees who will lose their jobs as a result of the consolidation have already been or will be notified shortly of their fates. It is unfortunate that pharmaceutical companies continue to lay off thousands of employees when the US unemployment rate continues to rise and will likely hit 12 to 13 percent before it is all said and done. As expected, the combined company is reducing its US R&D operations and will likely outsource or purchase these activities from external sources. It is not a good time to be an American R&D scientist.

Until next time...

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

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

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

Taking the Path Less Traveled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

I was sitting around minding my own business (well sort of) and I received the following e-mail message. People must be reading BioJobBlog or something!

In the middle of the worst national job market since the early 1980's, Roche Pharma Research in Nutley, New Jersey is hiring. Specifically, this world class R&D center is seeking to hire 40 scientists to strengthen its research efforts to develop drugs to combat inflammatory diseases like arthritis and asthma.

In addition to Inflammation, Nutley continues to be the headquarters for Roche's Oncology Disease Biology Area, as well as RNA Therapeutics (an emerging area in understanding how genes are turned on and off in cells).

Focusing on drug discovery and non-clinical development, the site has a long tradition of discovering innovative new medicines.

Marcie Geremakis of Roche HR is available to discuss the efforts to recruit the new scientists and why Nutley is an outstanding environment for scientists.  A number of scientists are available to discuss the following:

• Roche's cutting edge scientific approaches to drug discovery focused on meeting the demands of the emerging need for personalized healthcare.

• Roche's intent to provide its scientists with the environment necessary to push forward novel ideas while challenging old paradigms.
• The ability to use state-of-the-art technology and collaborate with Roche's world class scientists across the globe engaged in biomarker discovery, novel biologics platforms, RNAi and diagnostics.

With well over 100 projects in research and more than 60 New Molecular Entities in development, Roche’s pipeline is among the best in the pharmaceuticals industry.

Please call me at 212-468-4306 or e-mail me at jillian.chertok@mslworldwide.com if you would like any additional information, or are interested in scheduling a time to speak with Marcie or one of the scientists at Roche. 

I must disclose that I have no financial arrangement with this agency nor have I ever done business with them before.  But, I figured if there are jobs to be had in this economy I ought to pass them on to folks who are looking.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Eli Lilly & Co. is offering buyouts to 4,000 U.S. sales representatives to eliminate several hundred jobs and restructure its operations. Sales representatives will be offered four months' pay in addition to the typical Eli Lilly severance package, which ranges from two to 18 months' salary depending on seniority. The company had a total of 40,500 employees at the end of 2008.

Lilly’s best-selling drugs include Zyprexa for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, Cymbalta for depression, Byetta for type 2 diabetes, and Evista for osteoporosis. The patent supporting Zyprexa, which bought in $4.7 billion in revenue last year, will expire in 2011. The patents on the company's next three top drugs —Cymbalta, Humalog insulin, and cancer drug Gemzar —are set to expire in 2013.

The restructuring is expected to start in mid-November and take effect in January.

Sales reps and R&D scientists have suffered the most during pharma’s recent three year downsizing binge. While many R&D jobs have been shipped overseas, pharma sales reps might consider a new career in biotechnology drug sales. Growth in biotechnology and personalized medicine drugs is expected to increase for the foreseeable future.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Yesterday, Sanofi-aventis (S-A) agreed to acquire a controlling stake in Indian vaccine maker, Shantha Biotechnics, for an undisclosed amount. And, recently, Abbott announced a definitive agreement to acquire the nutrition businesses of Wockhardt Limited, Carol Info Services Limited, and certain Wockhardt subsidiaries and group companies for consideration totaling approximately US$130 million in cash.

While these two recent acquisitions don’t appear to be particularly noteworthy, they speak volumes about growing Indian influence in biologics and, perhaps more importantly, in biosimilars. India, long known for its expertise in generic drug development and its ability to work with US-based companies, has expanded beyond generic pharmaceuticals into generic biologics aka biosimilars. Biosimilars have been on the Indian market for over a decade and by all accounts several Indian companies, most notably BioCon, might be able to steal biosimilar market share in Asia from the likes of Sandoz, Merck and Teva—companies expected to be major players in the emerging biosimilar market.

Both Shantha and Wockhardt possess substantial experience in biosimilar development and commercialization. To that end, Sanofi-aventis has publicly announced its desire to get into biotechnology and Abbot must expand its biotechnology pipeline beyond Humira to remain competitive. These acquisitions likely represent Sanofi’s and Abbott’s attempt to gain a foothold in the emerging Asian markets. Also, it gives both companies access to lower cost biologics R&D and manufacturing capabilities.

It will be interesting to see how things unfold over the next year or so!

Until next time...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

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

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

The drug maker Eli Lilly and Co quietly launched a new website today for a program dubbed Lilly Phenotypic Drug Discovery Initiative or PD². According to the company, “The PD² initiative is a unique opportunity for investigators from external institutions to submit proprietary compounds for potential screening in Lilly's phenotypic assay panel. This highly collaborative process is enabled by a web-based application that facilitates efficient transfer of information between Lilly and the investigator. The PD² screening panel is currently comprised of five modules which are relevant to therapeutic areas of long-term strategic interest, including oncology, neurological disorders, and metabolic diseases. This panel may change over time to reflect additional research interests.”

Company officials believe that program will allow it to evaluate and possibly license treatments from biotech companies and academic institutions "that are never fully evaluated as potential drug candidates." The launch of the PD² website—perhaps the first of its kind—clearly sends a signal that pharmaceutical companies are reducing their reliance on internal discovery programs to identify prospective new molecular entities and are eager to enter into licensing deals to find and acquire them. 

Membership in the PD² requires that a legal representative from the investigator's academic institution or biotech company executes a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA). Once the MTA is reviewed and approved by Lilly officials, the institution can create an account. Until that time, use of the site is limited to browsing only. I have no doubt that technology transfer offices at most major universities will be signing up for membership in short order.

I think the PD² initiative is an innovative and timely one given the massive reductions in R&D jobs that have taken place at many pharma companies over the past two years. Expect other pharma companies to follow Lilly’s lead.

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

By now, I think that most BioJobBlog readers understand that the job market for life scientists is lousy and that it isn’t likely to improve anytime soon. I know that many of you have spent close to 10 years training for a shot at an R&D job but the reality is that everybody needs to work to put food on the table—whether or not you find a job in your chosen profession. To that end, now may be a good time for those of you who are finding it difficult to land a job to consider one more year of training to get a certificate in a field that keeps you in science but not in R&D.

I came across interesting post today at the Resume Bear blog that discussed 10 certificate programs that can help people transition to new careers to find jobs. Interestingly, four of the programs are good fits for life scientists who are willing modify their careers to be gainfully employed. They are:

Clinical Trials Design and Management

“Pharmaceutical drug and medical device development is one of the premier industries of the 21st century, and the success of this vital industry depends upon the complex process of studying new products to verify their effectiveness and safety.”

Regulatory Affairs

“Professionals are needed to guide drug development and medical device companies through FDA imposed regulation issues pertinent to the pharmaceutical and biological industry.”

Project Management

“As project cycles get shorter – and budgets get leaner – project managers are vital to the success of organizations today.”

Copyediting

“Bridging the gap between writers and publishers – especially technical and nonfiction copyediting – is one of today’s most marketable skills for both full-time and freelance work.”

Another one that was not on the list biotechnology certificate programs in which students learn about product development, regulatory affairs and best business practices in the life sciences industry.

Not surprisingly, many certificate programs are offered at local community colleges and frequently online. For regulatory affairs training you might try the Drug Information Association and Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. The Project Management Institute offers training in project management and the Editorial Freelancers Association offers its members courses in copyediting. Mercer County College in West Windsor NJ in association with a local clinical research organization developed a “hands-on” certificate program in clinical trials design and management. 

In my opinion, certificate programs are worth checking out. They are designed for working professionals (courses are typically given in the evenings and weekends); usually only take 12 months to complete (what is one more year in the scheme of things) and improves the likelihood of finding a job because you now have a marketable skill set! It certainly beats collecting unemployment or sleeping in your old bed at your parent’s home—or not?

Hat tip to Resume Bear

Until next time...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• 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

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

Long rumored, Pfizer announced yesterday that it will eliminate another 800 research jobs outside of its six core therapeutic areas: cancer, pain, inflammation, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia. The new cuts represent 5 to 8 percent of Pfizer’s approximately 10,000 researchers worldwide. According to a company spokesperson, the company will continue to evaluate its current staffing to make decisions that are consistent with its future goals. In short, expect more layoffs to occur in the near future.

Industry analysts expect additional cuts to occur in R&D and Pfizer’s dwindling sales force. To date, Pfizer has eliminated about 10,000 jobs, mostly in R&D and sales. Pfizer became the world’s largest pharmaceutical after going on a 12 year buying spree that began in 1996 after its acquisition of Warner Lambert, the company that developed the blockbuster anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor. The company currently employs about 85,000 people worldwide.

Wall Street rewarded Pfizer’s decision to layoff more scientists by pushing its stock share price up 1.3% yesterday. Rewarding a company for eliminating one of its most important and valuable assets has never made sense to me. But, then again, I am a scientist not an MBA-toting Wall Street analyst—what do I know?

Until next time…

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

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

Did you know that the top ten pharmaceutical companies in the world spent close to $50 billion dollars last year on R&D? That sum could be used to purchase the entire US biotechnology industry except for the five largest companies—Genentech, Amgen, Gilead Genzyme and Celgene. Further, pharma’s R&D budget is about 4 times the R&D budget of all of the US biotechnology companies combined. According to a blurb in breakingviews.com, Pfizer alone spent $8 billion last year which was greater than the sum spent by biotech’s top five companies. What this tells us is that pharmaceutical companies are grossly unproductive when it comes to drug discovery and development. This would explain why nearly three-quarters of all new medicines approved for sale in the US last year originated at biotechnology companies.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that biotechnology companies are much more efficient at R&D than pharmaceutical companies. More importantly this suggests that something must change so that pharma can continue receive adequate ROI on internal discovery programs. Perhaps big pharma ought to spend a greater portion of its R&D budget on biotech mergers and acquisitions rather than continuing to invest in inefficient and failing internal R&D programs. While biotechnologynology companies are exceptional in drug discovery, they are severely lacking when it comes to clinical development of new drugs. This is largely due the high costs of conducting human clinical trials (which are required for regulatory approval of all new medicines). Most biotechnology companies are strapped for cash and don’t have sufficient funds to conduct clinical trials on their own.

Not surprisingly, given the recent financial downturn, there has been a recent spate of deals in which pharma has been willing to pay large sums of money for clinical development rights to promising new biotechnology drugs. Moreover, a majority of the almost 160,000 employees layed off by pharma companies in the past few years have been R&D scientists. This suggests that pharma is beginning to realize that its money may be better spent doing deals or buying biotech companies rather than continuing to invest large sums of money into it’s own unproductive R&D programs. Unfortunately, this paradigm shift doesn’t bode well for doctoral students and post-doctoral fellows who are training in the life sciences. This is because many entry-level biotech positions, traditionally filled by newly-minted PhDs and postdoctoral fellows will likely be filled by experienced, pharmaceutical employees who lost their jobs in the recent rounds of layoffs. As much as I hate to say this, if I were a life sciences graduate student or postdoctoral fellow considering an R&D career in industry, I would begin to explore alternative career options.

Until next time….

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

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

For those of you who haven’t been able to keep up with the latest pharma layoffs, I came across an article in the Philadelphia Business Journal that does an excellent job of recapping all of the major life sciences layoffs that have taken place in the past year or so. The recent massive pharma layoffs prompted William Ashton, Acting Dean of the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia PA to say “I was in the pharmaceutical industry for 28 years. I’ve never seen such a sea change as is occurring right now. This is really dramatic.” Further, Dr. Ashton predicted that drug companies will increase their use of contract sales forces (CSFs) and contract research organizations (CROs) to contain expenses and that staffing firms will be the winners.

This led to me to wonder what Dean Ashton has been doing for the past 10 years or so because the life sciences industry has already increased its reliance on CROs and CSFs. A quick perusal of the pharma and biotech employees who lost their jobs over the past few years reveals that a majority of them were in sales and R&D. I don’t know whether or not I should break the news to Dean Ashton, but the future is already upon us—another example of how out of touch academia is with industry in the 21^st century.

I think that it is time for industry executives and academicians to begin a serious dialog to determine the type of training that would be appropriate for individuals seeking jobs in the life sciences industry. A failure to do so will likely have a negative adverse effect on the continued growth and future success of the US life science industry.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Over the past few weeks, the blogosphere was rife with rumors and speculation that Pfizer would be laying off additional R&D personnel in December. However, it seems that the layoffs have been postponed and nobody at Pfizer seems to know when they will take place. Conventional wisdom suggests that job cuts will likely take place sometime after the holidays, probably in mid -January, 09.

Rod MacKenzie, Pfizer’s worldwide head of discovery research told reporters “Given the complexity of the changes within research, I have concluded that we will not be able to provide that clarity [for the layoffs] or communicate them by the end of the year." I suspect that he knows who will be getting pink slips but is reluctant to make the announcement until early next year because it would look awful if Pfizer lets people go right before the holiday season. 

Call me crazy, but I don’t think that publicizing lay offs (to be determined later) is good for employee productivity and morale. I have no doubt that rumors about the impending layoffs have been circulating at Pfizer for months. Unfortunately for Pfizer, one or more of its employees leaked the information and company executives are in damage control and spin modes. The inability of Pfizer executives to control internal information flow is just another example of why many industry analysts believe that Pfizer grew too quickly over the past decade. Nevertheless, hundreds and perhaps thousands of Pfizer employees will lose their jobs in the not so distant future.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget Groton, CT)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• 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 (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Pharmalot blog reported yesterday that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) will tell its US pharma employees today about a new reorganization plan that will include more job cuts. The restructuring will primarily affect sales reps and some R&D personnel. GSK, like most other pharma companies, has been steadily downsizing operations and headcount for the past year or so at its US locations in Research Triangle Park, NC and Philadelphia PA

Look for the layoffs to occur before Thanksgiving—just about the time when employee’s annual bonuses are calculated.

Until next time…

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

P.S.  It was learned today by the Phamalot Blog that 1,880 sales reps and sales support staff job will be eliminated over the next few months. Also, the company may consolidate its Philadelphia and Research Triangle Park headquarters.

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

According to the WSJ Health Blog “Wyeth is overhauling its early-stage research by slashing in half the number of therapeutic areas and diseases for which it will pursue new medicines. The idea is to concentrate on more innovative products and get them to market faster.” Whenever large companies restructure or announce reorganization plans, job cuts are soon to follow. So, if you are a Wyeth employee I recommend updating that resume as soon as possible!

People close to the R&D restructuring (part of a larger plan, dubbed Project Impact) said the overall number of scientific jobs won’t change under the plan but some scientists will be cut because their skills aren’t transferable to other areas. Wyeth will eliminate discovery work in women’ health, reduce its therapeutic areas from 14 to 6 and continue to focus vaccines and biologics, where it has had great success with its pediatric pneumococcal vaccine, Prevnar, and the anti-inflammatory biologic Enbrel.

Wyeth joins several pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, which have already decided to narrow the focus of their development efforts and focus more on biotechnology products. Don’t be surprise if other pharmaceutical companies announce similar restructuring plans. I predict that within 10 years or so, pharma companies will no conduct basic discovery research and abandon their internal pipelines. Instead, they will become drug “clearing houses” that specialize in developing products that were either purchased or in-licensed from smaller biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies.

Until next time…

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

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

The Pharmalot blog reported today that Pfizer will likely layoff large numbers of R&D personnel over the next few weeks and months. This should not come as a surprise to Pfizer employees because the company recently announced that it would eliminate research in certain therapeutic areas including heart disease and obesity as part of a global reorganization plan. According to the company, the reorganization is expected to be completed by year’s end and operational in 2009. Inside sources say that the job losses should be significant and far reaching.

In other news, BioJobBlog learned today that Bristol Myers Squibb plans to announce company-wide layoffs by December 1, 2008. As previously reported by BioJobBlog, BMS has been quietly downsizing since last spring because of the impending patent expiry (in 2011) of its blockbuster anticlotting drug Plavix. BMS, unlike Pfizer, has been extremely circumspect about its impending layoffs which is causing a great deal of anxiety among its employees. The recent sale of ImClone, BMS’s partner for the cancer drug Erbitux, to Eli Lilly will undoubtedly contribute to additional layoffs at BMS in the future. Currently, Erbitux is BMS’s top selling biopharmaceutical product.

It goes without saying that it is not a good time to be a pharma employee. Unfortunately, as the old adage goes “things are likely to get worse before they get better”. 

Until next time…

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

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

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
• Share Link

Genzyme announced today that it plans to build a research and development center in Beijing as part of its continued global expansion. When completed, the 200,000 square-foot facility (which is expected to cost $90 million to build) will be able to accommodate 350 employees.  The company, which wants to establish a long-term presence in China, expects the facility to open in 2010.

Genzyme said it already has 25 employees working in offices in Beijing and Shanghai and has a pilot program for its cell therapy MACI at Beijing Wujing Hospital. Like other American biotechnology companies, Genzyme see a bright future in China. 

And since I am talking about China, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that I will be in China in about three weeks to visit my friend who is an executive chef and will be managing food operations at the Beijing Olympics in August, 2008. I plan on visiting Beijing and Shanghai, so if you live in either of these cities and want to get together to chat about biotechnology, blogging or anything else, please feel free to drop me a line.

Until next time….

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

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