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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

e-Patients Connections 2009 (#epatcon) was held this past Monday and Tuesday at the Park Hyatt hotel in Philadelphia, PA. BioCrowd was one of several co-sponsors of the event. The theme of the conference, organized by Kevin Kruse a veteran medical communication and training expert, who now runs Kru Research, was to “reach, engage and educate empowered digital health consumers.” And, boy, did it deliver! While this was Kru Research’s first official conference, it was well organized, extremely interactive and the quality of the speakers was second to none! Topics that were featured included social media and the life sciences industry, technological advances in e-based healthcare delivery, the relationship between the news media and healthcare information and the continuing evolution of online and e-based healthcare communities.

Conference attendees included representatives from the life sciences industry, medical communications experts, advertising and marketing professionals and a multitude of social media enthusiasts and consultants who kept the Twitter screen humming throughout the meeting (a big shout out to the “troublemaking table”). And, surprisingly, there was a representative from the Division of Drug Marketing and Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) at the US Food and Drug Administration, who I believe, was one of the most sought after individuals at the meeting. CNN reporter Elizabeth Cohen who writes the Empowered Patient and racecar driver Charles Kimball, a type I diabetic and company spokesperson for Novo Nordisk also gave talks.

My favorite talks were those presented by online patient community organizers including Tricia Geoghegan of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals who created the Facebook ADHD Allies community, Lisa Tate of WomenHeart and Robert Schumm of Bayer Consumer Care who created Facebook Strong@ Heart and Rachel Lewinson of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Organization and Susan Harrow Rago of Novo Nordisk who created Juvenation.org a website dedicated to those with Type I diabetes. These communities are outstanding examples of how partnerships between pharmaceutical companies and advocacy groups can help to better educate the public and heighten awareness about potentially life-altering diseases. Another example of a great online community and healthcare portal is Insomnia 123.com. This website was conceived and constructed by Christine Macadams and her partners’ one of whom is a practicing physician. Unlike the other online communities, which are sponsored and mainly supported by consumer healthcare division of large pharmaceutical companies, Insomnia 123.com was exclusively created by a group of concerned individuals who wanted to better educate and improve the lives of people with insomnia—a largely unreported and self-medicated condition.

On the technical side, the talks presented by Lee Segal of Klick, Kevin Durr of Avantera , Ian Kelly of Red Nucleus and Scott Ballenger of ListenLogic were illuminating and extremely informative. Some of the innovations taking place in digital media are exciting and almost overwhelming at times (even for a social media enthusiast like me). I think the company to watch is ListenLogic which uses semantic search engines to collect real time data and “chatter” on the web. This technology may provide a cost-effective solution to assuage the concerns of many life sciences companies that claim that collecting and analyzing overwhelming amounts of data is one of the main reasons why they are reluctant to entry the social media space.

Marc Monseau of Johnson and Johnson gave an illuminating talk on his experiences as a corporate blogger and Twitter user and described some of the challenges that had to be overcome before his company was able to break the “social media barrier.” Janice McCallum, an economist by training and a healthcare communications and media expert gave an informative talk about the growing role and impact of patient-generated healthcare content on patient awareness and education.

Finally, the novel and innovative Pecha Kucha sessions were outstanding and extremely well done! While all were expertly crafted, Dr. Val’s and Jonathan Richman’s Pecha Kucha were memorable. Dr. Val’s, which was extremely powerful and moving, was performed entirely in verse and Jonathan’s was—well, one of Jonathan’s always entertaining and informative presentations.

In summary, the “e-Patient Connections 2009” was a resounding success and in my opinion reached its goal to “reach engage and educate empowered digital health consumers.” That said, I can’t wait for “e-Patient Connections 2010” meeting!!!

Hat tip to @ellenhoenig and @eileenobrien for inviting me to my first tweetup (great fun) and finally meeting @janice McCallum, @christianeTrue, @stevewoodruff and Silja aka @whydotpharma! 

Until next time...

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

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

The Public Library of Science (PLOS) announced that it has launched a new website called PLOS Currents that is intended to serve as a vehicle for the rapid publication of scientific research and new ideas and themes. Not surprisingly, the first theme for PLOS Currents is influenza. On his Virology blog, Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd cofounder and prominent virologist, discusses why PLOS Currents is important and timely for scientist actively engaged in influenza research and vaccine development.  

The opening of PLoS Currents: Influenza was announced by Harold Varmus, Chairman and Co-Founder of PLoS. He wrote about the reasons for starting this website at The Official Google Blog:

The key goal of PLoS Currents is to accelerate scientific discovery by allowing researchers to share their latest findings and ideas immediately with the world’s scientific and medical communities. Google Knol’s features for community interaction, comment and discussion will enable commentary and conversations to develop around these findings. Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.

Contributions that will be welcome at PLoS Currents: Influenza include research into influenza virology, genetics, immunity, structural biology, genomics, epidemiology, modeling, evolution, policy and control. The manuscripts will not be subject to peer-review, but unsuitable submissions will be screened out by a board of expert moderators. This policy will enable rapid publication of research.

The path to publishing original scientific research is often long and tortuous.  A manuscript describing the findings is prepared and submitted to a scientific journal (such as Nature, Cell, Journal of Virology). The manuscript is assigned to two or three expert reviewers, generally scientists involved in the same area of research. If their reviews are favorable, the paper is published. Usually additional experiments are called for, which may require additional time to complete. Many months to a year may pass before the paper is published, although some manuscripts (e.g. those on 2009 pandemic influenza) may be expedited. The point is that PLoS Currents: Influenza will allow everyone – including non-scientists – to read about research soon after the authors have prepared the paper.

PLoS Currents: Influenza is a terrific idea, and I welcome this venture with great enthusiasm. I hope that PLoS Currents will grow to include other areas of science. But Varmus warns:

Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.

During peer review of submitted manuscripts, new experiments may be suggested that change some of the conclusions of the research. Hence, the papers that appear in PLoS Currents: Influenza may be different from final versions that are published elsewhere.

I wonder how other scientific journals will react to submissions of manuscripts that have appeared in PLoS Currents. Many journals do not accept manuscripts that have already appeared elsewhere. For example, the instructions to authors for the Journal of Virology state:

By submission of a manuscript to the journal, the authors guarantee that they have the authority to publish the work and that the manuscript, or one with substantially the same content, was not published previously, is not being considered or published elsewhere, and was not rejected on scientific grounds by another ASM journal.

It’s time for scientific journals to change this policy, and allow for preliminary publication at sites such as PLoS Currents.

Rapid and open-access publication will drive research forward and help inform and educate the public about science.

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

BioCrowd co-founder, Vincent Racaniello, and I were chatting the other day with Crowdvine’s Tony Stubblebine (the guy who created the BioCrowd software platform) about the reluctance of scientists to embrace social media. Both Vincent and I, both scientists ourselves, posited that scientists are simply asocial or at the very least not comfortable engaging in social activities whether they be online or IRL. Tony, a self-anointed software geek, wasn’t buying into to our argument and noted that even software geeks are social!

This prompted me to do a little research and I found a blog post written by Nachiket Vartak a blogger and doctoral student at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Physiology. While the blog post focused mainly on reasons why bioscientists won’t use Twitter, I think that many of his observations can be used to generally describe the chilly relationship between many scientists and social media. Before you read on, I must inform you that I paraphrased and embellished some of Nachiket’s original ideas on the subject. That said, here are some of the reasons why bioscientists may not use social media.

1. The reputation of social networking sites
Many scientists disdain social networks because they believe that social networking sites and microblogging platforms like Twitter are nothing more than places to waste time. Those scientists who use social media usually do it in-between experiments and when planning activities which usually involve copious quantities of alcohol, for after laboratory hours fun. In other words, social media is for fun not for work. Also, many so-called serious scientists contend that “real science discussions” only happen on closed e-mailing lists or forums and not in the “open” on social networking sites.

2. The social activation barrier
According to Nachiket, the stereotype that scientists are asocial is well.....err...true! He asserts that many scientists feel more comfortable focusing on themselves (and their research) rather than interacting with others to learn what they have to say or what they may be thinking. And, many times, unless an individual can demonstrate that they are “smart” they probably aren’t worse listening to anyway. Finally, scientists train for years to become independent investigators. Not surprisingly, there is very little emphasis and importance placed on teamwork or social interactions with others scientists or lay people for that matter. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that many scientists aren’t particularly social or inclined to participate in extracurricular social activities.

3. Privacy aka “secrecy”
Science is a highly competitive endeavor and, in many cases, the discoveries that are made represent many years of sacrifice, blood, sweat and tears. With this in mind, nobody wants to be scooped or beat out by their competitors. Consequently, scientists are generally instructed to be very hush-hush when it comes to sharing any information or data that might give the competition a “leg up” in the competition. Any leak, large or small, could mean the difference between fame and failure and, perhaps more importantly, a successful career as a scientist.

In marked contrast, the success of social media is contingent upon its openness, sharing and transparency. Thus, as Nachiket aptly pointed out social media is antithetical to the very nature of science and scientists.

4. Legitimate channels of communication
The only acceptable and legitimate means of scientific communications are presentations at meetings and publications in peer reviewed journals. These forms of communication are the lifeblood of scientific community and critical to the success of all scientists. If you aren’t published, you have no credibility as a scientist. The scientific publishing and communication industry is big business and “the rules of engagement” in the industry have been well established and institutionalized. Unfortunately, social media threatens to destabilize the science publishing world both financially and philosophically and possibly change the way science information is communicated. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is little support for social media in scientific publishing world and the science community in general.

While the number of science blogs and podcasts continue to increase daily, scientific social networking sites continue to struggle. This is because the information flow in blogs and similar forms of social media can be easily monitored and controlled. This is not the case for social networking sites like BioCrowd and microblogging platforms like Twitter.
However, if scientists are truly asocial beings then none of the existing science social networking sites will gain traction and be successful. Call me crazy, but I think social networking is an ideal medium for scientists to exchange information, ideas and develop relationships that can help them jumpstart their careers!

Until next time...

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!

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

For those of you interested in the Canadian biotechnology scene I want to mention a good resource that I came across recently. The Canadian BioTechnologist 2.0 Blog (http://cbt20.org) has its sights set on helping to advance the development of the Canadian Biotechnology sector and the people who study biotechnology and life sciences at the college and university level and bench scientists and technicians who work in the field across the country.   

Readers are invited to contribute content: posters, tools, research and presentations, articles white papers, multimedia, music downloads and entertainment, conference announcements, videos.

The site is sponsored by the Canadian operation of Bio-Rad so it has a good selection of non-commercial content from the company including papers, tools, workshops and for fun some of their recent music videos. The blog manager, Howard Oliver of What If What Next  a Toronto based  Web 2.0-PR firm has done a great job of collecting content that covers Canadian biotechnology news and useful tools and career information for bench scientists and technicians and students.

Do drop by The Canadian BioTechnologist2.0 Blog (http://cbt20.org) to learn about the Canadian scene and get your voice heard.

 Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Jo

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

This morning, while doing my usual Twitter review, I came across a tweet from the Scientist.com about John McCain’s recent anti-science Twitter rants.  Based on his tweets (and snarky comments) he considers the following projects blatant examples of pork barrel spending:

"$209,000 to improve blueberry production and efficiency in GA"

"$819, 000 for catfish genetics research in Alabama"

"$900,000 for fish management - how does one manage a fish"

Older McCain tweets include:

"$1,427,250 for genetic improvements of switchgrass - I thought switchgrass genes were pretty good already, guess I was wrong."

"$250,000 to enhance research on Ice Seal populations"

"$2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York - quick peel me a grape."

"$650,000 for beaver management in North Carolina and Mississippi"

McCain’s tweets underscore how little politicians—especially republicans(what do you expect from a party that endorses intelligent design over evolution) —understand about how science works. That said, some of the proposed projects cited by McCain may require additional scrutiny (by science experts not him) and may turn out to be projects that don't warrant funding.  Nevertheless,I believe that McCain's tweets are part of a well crafted Republican-led initiative intended to publicly discredit  these earmarked projects so that he and other Republican's can redirect public monies to their own pork barrel initiatives. Shame on McCain and his cronies for attempting to hijack Twitter to discredit worthy scientific, environmental,agricultural and conservation projects. 

Let’s try to disrupt McCain’s plan by tweeting that he is anti-science! 

Tweet away peeps!

Hat tip to the The Scientist!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Twittering!

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

For the past decade or so, I have worked as a career counselor at national scientific meetings where I present seminars about resume writing, interviewing techniques and other career related issues. About two years ago, I started to hear about the fierce competition for H-1 and J-1 visas that foreign students must obtain to remain in the US to continue their studies and research. Many of the foreign students that I talked with sounded more like immigration lawyers than graduate students or postdocs—I was amazed at how well informed they were about visa availability and the changes and loopholes in US immigration law that can be exploited to obtain visas.

Since that time, it has become increasingly apparent that the visa problems experienced by most foreign students are beginning to wreak havoc on US science and engineering. Curiously, nobody at the US State Department seems to know why these visa problems exist. According to an article in today’s NY Times, a State Department official claims that visa delays can be attributed to “unfortunate staffing shortages.” Many of the students (and some immigration lawyers) that I talked with believe that it is annual visa limits and quotas not staffing issues that make it so difficult to obtain them.

It is no secret that American middle and high school students are no longer interested in pursuing careers in science and engineering. Because of this, American universities have come to rely on foreign students to fill open slots in graduate and postdoctoral sciences and engineering programs. With this in mind, it should come as no surprise that, over the past decade or more, foreign talent has been largely responsible for much of the technical and scientific innovation in the US.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, American universities can no longer assume that the US is the first choice or destination for many foreign undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral students—teaching and research at many foreign universities have vastly improved in recent years and can now compete with the best research institutions in the US.  In the past, it was largely assumed that when given a choice foreign student would choice a US university over all others. Together these findings beg the question: “If foreign students and postdocs are largely responsible for maintaining America’s competitive edge in science and technology, why would the US government make it so difficult to recruit the world’s best and brightest?”

There is no doubt that the US government, in a post-September 11^th world ought to carefully scrutinize foreign students before they are issued visas to study or work in the US. But, why has it become increasingly difficult for foreign students to renew their visas to continue to study or work in the US? Interestingly, visa availability and renewal problems are not only restricted to foreign nationals from likely places like China, India, the Middle East or Russia.  Many students and postdocs from Australia, Europe and elsewhere are also experiencing major delays and difficulty obtaining student or work visas.

While the visa issues facing foreign students may not seem like a big one to most Americans (most of who are not involved in science and engineering), its effects on American science and engineering are beginning to become apparent. For example, conference organizers are reluctant to hold international meetings in the US because they fear that many students and scientists will not be able to attend because of limited visa availability. Further, many talented foreign nationals, who want to remain and work in the US, are frequently forced to return to their home countries (to find employment) because they are unable to renew or extend their US visas. There is no question that America has grown increasingly dependent upon foreign students to conduct research in science and engineering.  I contend, that without these students, America’s competitiveness in science and engineering will continue to wane as it has over the past 20 years.  I believe that America has two choices to prevent this from happening. First, we can somehow convince larger numbers of American high school students to pursue careers in science and engineering. Second, the US government can improve and simply the visa process so that talented foreign students can continue to study and do research in the US. Nevertheless, something must be done soon—the future competitiveness of American science and engineering depends on it!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Visa Hunting!!!!!!

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

The compensation packages for CEOs of many publicly held companies have recently, (for obvious reasons), come under intense scrutiny. This has spilled over to the chief executive offices of many not-for-profit organizations including private colleges and universities. While the compensation packages for most university presidents and administrators are substantial in many instances, there are a few university employees who sometimes earn substantially more. 

According to an article in today’s New York Times, there were 88 private-college employees who made $1 million or more in 2007 (only 11 were college Presidents or chief executive officers). These were the results from an analysis conducted by The Chronicles of Higher Education of the compensation packages of more than 4,000 employees at 600 private colleges. The two top earners were Pete Carroll, the head football coach at USC and Dr. David N. Silvers, a Columbia University dermatologist both of whom made almost $4.5 million last years. Coach Carroll’s compensation packages was almost four times that of the university’s president whereas Dr. Silver’s salary of $4,332,759 compared with $1 411,894 earned by Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia’s president. Another Columbia professor, Dr. Jeffrey W. Moses, earned a paltry $2,532,713 last year. Check out the salaries of the top ten earners!

While the pay for college and university presidents has risen sharply in the last decade the same hasn’t been true for many faculty members. Not surprisingly, over the same period, the gap between administrator and professor salaries has substantially widened. This parallels what has been taking place in the private sector where CEOs typically earn hundreds of times more than their employees. The disparity in administrator and faculty salaries led Patrick M. Callan, the president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education to muse: “It may be reasonable for these people to be well paid but if faculty’s getting 2 per cent raises, I don’t see why senior administrators, who are already high-paid, should get much larger increases. It reflects a set of values that is not the way most Americans think about higher education.” The Chronicle survey found that on average, university and college presidents make about $500,000 annually.

This poses an interesting question: Unlike administrators, are most university and college professors overpaid? Based on my own experience as a medical school faculty member—absolutely not! Nevertheless, over the 10 years or more, there has been a growing disparity in the salaries of research faculty members as compared with teaching faculty. Typically, the researchers, who bring in large sums of money from grants and other extramural funding, command much higher salaries than faculty members whose primary function is teaching. While this may seem reasonable from a financial/business perspective, it raises a fundamental question about higher education: What is more important—making money or teaching? 

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Training!

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

Vincent Racaniello, a pioneer in RNA virology and world class researcher on the pathogenesis of polio, believes that social media can be used to enhance scientific research and improve science education. Vincent recently blogged about this on his virology blog and graciously allowed me to repost it to BioJobBlog. It is an interesting perspective from an innovative and creative scientist.

Science and the Social Web

In a previous post about why I blog and podcast, I discussed how these activities allow me to think more about virology and to teach far more people than I ever could in a laboratory or classroom. Is there even more value in the web for scientists?

There are three different web activities, besides blogging and podcasting that enhance science in new ways. The first is the ability to post comments on blogs and podcasts. In so doing, people can interact in ways that were not previously possible. Scientists who have never met, or students hoping to learn, all can connect and create an instructive and creative dialog. Don’t understand something in a post? Just ask. Have something different to contribute? Post it. Science can only benefit from interactions not limited by geography or time.

The second powerful web tool for science is the social networks. We know how MySpace and Facebook made it easy to meet and interact with new people. These networks also allow scientists to connect and talk about their profession. There are various groups on Facebook that enable focused, productive discussions among scientists. Even more useful are the social networks that have been developed specifically for scientists - well over 20 according to this  blog post. These networks exist to foster interactions - meeting other scientists, looking for jobs, troubleshooting experiments, finding answers to thorny questions. The value of scientific social networks is that they enable dialogue far beyond what you could achieve on your floor, in your building, by telephone or email. The result is scientific interactions at unprecedented levels.

The third web tool for scientists is Twitter. This microblogging platform restricts users to posts of 140 characters or less - the end result is concentrated information. For scientists, Twitter can be either a distraction or a gold mine. If you choose to follow individuals who are interested in science, you will, in the course of a day, find tweets with links to interesting science - news or journal articles; comments on science; questions about science or science methods - in brief, the kind of exchange originally facilitated by email but far more immediate and pithy. Follow the right people on Twitter, and receive useful information. I keep an eye on Twitter to find tips on how scientists use the web, the latest science news, and comments on science in general. In turn, when I learn of an interesting science news event or article, I tweet it. Mr. Tweet’s discussion of  the evolution of a twitter user crystallizes this concept.

There is also great value for scientists at FriendFeed. No, it’s not a fourth category - it’s an aggregator of the three activities described above, one-stop for all your blogging, podcasting, social networking, and twittering.

These three aspects of the social web are revolutionizing science. By using them, I am learning more about my field than I ever have before. Those who choose not to take advantage of the social web will miss the opportunity to become more creative and productive scientists.

• 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

A European friend of mine sent me a link to a video of Sarah Palin espousing her understanding of the relationship between basic research and it application to solving human disease. Along with the video (see below) she sent the message "Please ,please don't tell me they (McCain and Palin) are going to win..."  I hope for science's sake they don't....

Until next time...

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

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

There was an article in today’s NY Times biz section which suggests that the recent financial crisis is starting to have an effect on the growth of the biotechnology industry, once thought to be a recession-proof sector. The article contends that the lack of available institutional cash and venture money is causing extant biotechnology companies to “tighten their belts.” And, if the trend continues, this lack of capital will stifle innovation, which in turn, will threaten and undermine the stability and future of the entire biotechnology sector. While times are certainly tough, the biotechnology industry, in my opinion, is alive and well and will continue to expand well into the 21^st century.

It is important to note that many biotechnology companies that are struggling today are publicly-traded companies not privately held ones. Unlike publicly-traded companies, privately-held ones don’t have to answer to millions of shareholders or worry about their price per share on a daily basis.  Further, the expectations for privately held companies are much less than those for publicly traded entities. Based on recent discussions with venture capitalist friends and institutional investment bankers (those that still have jobs) there is still substantial funding out there for start-ups and companies that are trying to advance their products from development into clinical testing. Many of the financially-troubled public companies mentioned in the Times article were struggling (and on the verge of failing) before the recent financial meltdown. The recent financial crisis is simply hastening their demise. The reason why many of these companies are on the brink is that they went public in the late 1990s—a time when writing a business plan on the back of a napkin was sufficient for investment bankers to underwrite a company’s IPO. Unfortunately, many of these companies were little more than research or tool box driven companies whose founders failed to understand that products not technology would make their companies successful. Put simply, these companies should have never gone public in the first place!

Not surprisingly, almost all of the companies cited in the Times article fit the ‘product-less biotechnology company’ profile. For example, Maxygen, a company originally founded as a “molecular evolution” company (that went public in 1999) didn’t identify a lead product until a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, after spending millions of dollars on preclinical development, the company no longer has sufficient funds to move the product into human clinical testing. Late last week, Maxygen announced that it would layoff 30% of its workforce and consider selling itself.

Another example cited in the article is Iceland’s DeCode Genetics, once a high flying genomics and bioinformatics company that regularly made headlines for discovering new genes for cancer, cardiovascular and hereditary diseases. While DeCode has a great genomic and bioinformatics platform (and “did outstanding science”—largely because of the genetic purity of the Icelandic population) it was never able to use its technology to identify a lead therapeutic product. DeCode’s stock price has fallen more than 90% in the last year to 29 cents per share and will likely fail given the horrendous state of Iceland’s banking industry and economy.

The impending failure of many financially-strapped biotechnology companies in the current financial environment should come as no surprise to biologists—is very consistent with Darwin’s theory of natural selection which says “only the strongest and the fittest will survive. To survive in the biotechnology industry, companies must be single-mindedly product-driven. Companies that lack a product focus, in this or future economies will be able to survive for a short while but ultimately they are doomed to fail. That said, while there may be fewer companies as the biotechnology industry continues to evolve, the companies that do survive will undoubtedly be extremely robust and fiercely competitive.

Until next time….

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

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

Novartis announced today that it will open a new research facility and hire an additional 150 people by the end of 2009 for a Research Center of Excellence in Virology in Cambridge, MA. That will increase the number of people employed by the company in Cambridge to more than 1,800 workers. Researchers at the new center will study vaccines for HIV/AIDS influenza, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and respiratory syncitial virus (RSV). 

The vaccine business once avoided like the plague by most pharma companies, has been growing by leaps and bound over the past five years and is sizzling hot these days. According to analysts, vaccines generated about $16 billion dollars last year. For example, Merck’s anti-human papilloma virus vaccine Gardasil generated $1.5 billion in sales in 2007.

Novartis clearly sees an upside in the vaccine business and is willing to make a wise investment for the future.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Over the past year or so, social networking has taken the Internet by storm. This is largely  because social networking software purveyors like CrowdVine and Ning have provided out-of-the-box solutions that allow people to easily create social networks that strike their fancy. That said, will the advent of social networks do anything more than allow musicians to sell records or provide an easy place for people to hook up? To that end, Jessica a regular BioJobBlog reader sent me a story (see below) about a survey that was performed to gauge the possible impact of social networking on scientific research.

Social Applications to Play Deeper Role in Future Research

The future of social media will not just build friendships but support groundbreaking scientific discoveries.

Scientists and researchers are using social media… but mostly for professional reasons. A recent survey from 2collab reveals that over half of science, medical and technical information specialists working in academia and government institutions believe social networking will play a key role in shaping the future of research. Additionally, the study suggests tomorrow’s university faculty (respondents aged 25 - 44 in academic research positions who have published 1-10 articles) are already heavily using social media and are eager for the applications to be further developed for use in their work.

According to the survey which included 1,800 respondents, the top areas where social applications will have a major influence on research in the next five years include:

1.      Professional networking and collaboration (34.4%)

2.      Career development (26.4%)

3.      Critical analysis and evaluation of research data (25.3%)

4.      Dissemination of research output (24.5%)

5.      Conducting primary research (23.4%)

6.      Grant application and funding (22.7%)

Much to my delight, the results from the survey confirmed my belief that social networking among scientists would stimulate and be a boon to scientific research. This strengthened my conviction to move forward with the bioscience networking site, BioCrowd, that Vincent Racaniello and I plan to launch by the end of September, 2008. Rumor has it that their may be gifts for the first 100 people who join after launch.

So, don’t wait and become part of the BioCrowd today.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Social Networking (it will help you get a job!)

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

 I previously wrote a piece which suggested that being perceived as smart is typically what separates the great scientists from the mediocre ones. To that end, whenever a former postdoctoral mentor (who I think is really smart) wanted to “motivate me” he would invariably say “C’mon Cliff, you’re a smart guy…..” Of course, the implication was that I wasn’t being smart enough or —as I heard it — “if you want to be as smart as me you better think harder and better”. According to a post by Karen Ventii at the Science to Life Blog, I wasn’t the only fledging scientist who was treated this way.

Does making a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow feel stupid motivate or hurt them? To learn more, read this provocative article by Martin Schwartz, PhD a professor at the University of Virginia that appeared in the April 28, 2008 issue of the Journal of Cell Science.

Until next time...

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

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

For the past 60 years, American science was second to none. However, the US is perilously close to losing that distinction. Put simply, American science, like its economy, is in free fall.

Federal funding, primarily through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the lifeblood of American life sciences research. Between 1998 and 2003, the federal government doubled NIH’s budget every year—almost 25% of all grant applications were funded and life was good! However, since 2003, budget increases have vanished and the NIH remains trapped in a five year run of flat funding. Research funding rates have fallen to 10% or less and many academic scientists are voluntarily leaving or being forced out of their jobs.

This is not the first time that funding levels have plummeted. From 1989 to about 1994 (when I was a tenure track Assistant Professor), funding rates fell from about 20% to less than 10%. However, back then, there was little global research competition and American was able to recover to retain its scientific dominance. However, the world is a very different place now and the supremacy of American science, particularly in the life sciences, is clearly at risk.

According to an article in the Trenton Times, (my local paper), science and engineering have accounted for close to half of the growth in the American economy since World War II. Analysts suggest that without adequate research funding and ready access to research grants fewer scientists will enter the profession. “Already Asian countries are graduating 10 times the number of scientists and engineers as the United States. If the current trends continue in about a decade 90% of the world’s scientists and engineers will be in Asia” According to Elias Zerhouni, current director of NIH “In 10 to 15 years we’ll have scientists older than 65 than those younger than 35. This is not a sustainable trend in biomedical research.” Unless federal funding for research is increased this ominous trend will continue. That said, it may be too little too late. As you all know, finding science jobs in the US these days is becoming increasingly difficult even for qualified applicants. With this in mind, one of the most well attended talks that I give at career development symposia is entitled “The Road Less Traveled: Alternate Career Paths for Life Scientists”. As much as I hate to admit it, traditional career pathways for most life scientists may be things of the past.

Clearly, something must be done to fix the problem in order to maintain the quality of American science. The easy fix, which has been used ad nauseam for the pasts two decades, is to increase short term federal research spending. However, history indicates that this approach fosters the boom and bust cycles that have continually plagued American academic science. Although the boom and bust approach is quintessentially American, I don’t think that it will enable American science to sustain its scientific dominance in today’s increasingly competitive world.

The number of young people interested in or entering science continues to plummet in the US. Ironically, the quality and access to American science education has never been better! So, why the disconnect? It’s simple—science jobs are scare, the pay is not great and life as an academician has become almost unsustainable. In my opinion, something has to change very soon or America will almost certainly lose its status as the preeminent purveyor of science in the world.

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

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

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

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

This is more good news for Ireland!

Until next time….

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

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