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

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 (1)
• 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 (2)
• 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 (3)
• 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