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

For many corporate employees, the annual performance review process is a bane to their existence. For those of you who may not be familiar with annual reviews, most corporate employees are required to undergo a review process that includes a synopsis of their accomplishments over the past year and new goals for the upcoming one. And, as all corporate employees understand, the quality of an annual review determines the size of the bonus that they can expect to receive and whether or not a salary increase is in order for the upcoming fiscal year. In other words, you never want to get a “less than stellar” annual review because your fiscal well-being depends on it!

Not surprisingly, preparing for the annual review can be nerve-racking and dealing with the results of the review can be equally challenge (especially if the review is a negative one). Although, most of the annual reviews for 2011 have been completed, Eilene Zimmerman who writes the Career Couch for the New Times posted a helpful article that deals with preparing for the dreaded annual review and how best to respond to either a positive or negative one.

I can tell you from personal experience, the annual review is probably one of the silliest and most inane things that was ever invented for corporate employees. That said, it is part and parcel of the corporate workplace game and to excel you need to get good at!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

The Internet and print media were buzzing this past week about the decision by a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel of expert medical reviewers to not recommend approval of Boehringer Ingelheim flibanserin; a new medication to treat female sexual dysfunction or perhaps more apt lack of sexual interest.

Flibanserin was originally developed as an antidepressant but while it failed to treat depression women who participated in clinical trials reported increased sexual interest. The lack of drugs to treat female sexual dysfunction propelled Boehringer to continue to develop flibanserin to treat low libido in women. Previously, drug makers attempted to develop Viagra-like drugs and testosterone patches (testosterone increases sexual desire) to increase female libido—neither worked (without substantial side effects) to warrant approval. The FDA panel decided to not recommend flibanserin for approval because its modest effects on heightening female sexual desire did not outweigh side effects like dizziness and nausea.

A 2005 article in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery suggested that the size of the female sexual dysfunction market in the US could exceed $4 billion annually with only about 15 per cent of patients receiving treatment. Not surprisingly, many pharmaceutical companies have invested billions to develop new drugs to treat this indication.

There is no question that quality of life drugs like Viagra, Latisse and Botox generate billions of dollars in sales each year. While these drugs may help small numbers of patients who truly suffer from serious medical conditions, they are mainly used for so-called recreational purposes (sexual performance and beauty enhancement) by a majority of “patients.” That said, pharmaceutical companies have the right to develop whatever drugs or treatments that they choose. However, I contend that there are more serious medical conditions out there than failure to achieve orgasm or the need to not apply mascara on a daily basis.

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot for some outstanding investigative reporting!

Until next time...

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

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