Social Media: Pharma's Continuing Web 2.0 Inertia
I came across a recent post on Adage.com entitled “Pharma Drops Search Advertising After FDA Warning” that revealed that paid search ads by pharmaceutical companies dropped a 84% between March 26 of this year and the end of June. As you may recall, March 26 was when 14 companies received warning letters from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicating that they had violated marketing guidelines for search ad advertising. The letters stated that sponsored-link advertisements for specific drugs were misleading due to the exclusion of risk information associated with the use of the drug -- even though the regulatory agency's guidelines are for print and broadcast, not online or social media. Pharma companies that believed they were in compliance with the unwritten "one-click rule"— taking the consumer from the ad to a site that offered fair balance and the risk information by clicking on the ad. What? Did I read that correctly; the words “unwritten and FDA” in the same sentence? This is very surprising since anybody who has worked with the agency is well aware of the “if it isn’t written it didn’t happen” principle. But I digress....
The post went on to say that pharmaceutical companies are “fearful of running afoul” of the agency again. Say what? The words “pharma and fearful” used in the same sentence? The point that I am trying to make is that pharma chose to keep things vague about web-based advertising to see how far they can push the envelope with FDA instead of taking the proverbial “bull by the horns” and directly asking FDA for guidance on web 2.0 technologies and their uses. Wouldn’t it be in everyone’s best interest if companies took a more active role to help craft new rules on the use of new media technologies rather then rely on and wait for FDA to do it for them? While the old “cat and mouse” game worked for old media, it is no longer tenable when it comes to Web 2.0 and related technologies.
The FDA is holding public hearings next month to begin the process of establishing internet advertising guidelines and the use of social media in the life science industry. This offers drug and devices companies an opportunity to show FDA that they no longer want to be part of the problem but part of the solution. I have always subscribed to the notion that “you don’t get if you don’t ask!”
Until next time...
Good Luck and Good Surfing (on the Internet that is)
blog comments powered by Disqus
.jpg)
I previously posted an 
.jpg)
By now, most of you have heard or read how vital networking is to either advance your career or find a job. Like it or not, learning to network is another skill that everyone must master (including scientists) to insure a successful career trajectory. Not surprisingly, most scientists are notoriously poor at networking—mostly because they haven’t been taught to network or perhaps more egregiously they have been told that it isn’t worthwhile or necessary to find a job. For example, in 1974, during a seminar series required of all incoming graduate students in the Department of Bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin, a very famous and influential microbiologist sanguinely quipped: “your science should speak for itself and that’s all that matters!” In other words, if we graduate students do “good science” then others will recognize it and we shouldn’t have difficulty finding a job upon completion of our training. How wrong he was—it took me over five years (and two post docs) before landing a faculty position at the University Of Miami Shcool Of Medicine in 1987!.jpg)
The whole world is atwitter about Twitter (pun intended). One of the reasons why social media tools like Twitter are so effective is that information can reach very large audiences almost instantaneously.
Back in the late 1990s, applying for jobs online was all the rage! The technology was new and fresh and applying for jobs online was fast and easy. Companies raced to build corporate websites for prospective job applicants, major job boards like Monster and Careerbuilder were launched and human resources professionals though they were ushering in a “new era of employee recruitment and retention.” While applying for jobs online once seemed like a panacea for both job seekers and corporate employers, it never has lived up to all the fanfare and hype!.jpg)
Over the past few years, a number of search engines designed for the life sciences have appeared. I thought it might be informative for BioJobBlog readers to list some of the more popular ones and how they are used. I want to warn you in advance that this is not a comprehensive list. That said, if I’ve inadvertently omitted your favorite search engine, please feel free contact me or simply list it in the comments section for this post..gif)
Another useful post for job seekers from Job Profiles.org.
Mark Senak, who writes the outstanding .jpg)
Today's New York Times reported that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued warning letters and ordered 14 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to stop running what it calls misleading ads on internet search pages displayed by search engines like Google. The agency faulted the companies for failing to identify product names (brand) and not listing potential side effects (only benefits) for the drugs. In other words, the ads lacked “fair balance” something that FDA stresses and that all drug makers are very familiar with. .jpg)
I’ve blogged on this topic many times in the past. However, I came across a.jpg)
.jpg)
No matter what you may think of Google, you gotta love the brilliance and innovative moxy of the guys who run that company. .png)
e I present seminars to students and postdocs who are desperately seeking employment. I talk about resume writing, interviewing techniques and designing and managing job searches. While all of these things are helpful, in the end, finding a job really comes down to one thing—networking or perhaps more aptly put —self promotion. Yes, I said it—you really do have to SELL yourself when trying to land a job! This is very difficult for scientists because we are taught (and it is hammered into us) that self aggrandizement is a cardinal sin if you are to be taken seriously as a serious scientist. While this may have been true in the past, it is no longer the case in today’s highly competitive and shrinking job market.
.jpg)
As much as I hate to admit it, I have been fired at least three times (usually for insubordination or rabble rousing) from jobs in my long and illustrious career. My guess is that anybody who has worked in the private sector has been fired at least once! Of course, nobody ever admits (unless asked) that they have been fired from a job. The point is that many people get fired and if you’re one of the unlucky people who get does fired; you will need to know how to deal with a “termination” on your resume. After all, once you are fired, you will likely need to look for a new job!
Many people think that organizing a job search requires little more than quickly throwing together a resume, applying for online jobs or answering print ads and then kicking back to wait for responses from prospective employers. While this scenario may have been accurate 10 years ago– when jobs were abundant and the economy was humming– it is no longer the case. In fact, the current science job market may be one of the most challenging in the past 20 years or so. This is likely due to shrinking government research spending, contraction of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries and the possibility that the American economy is slipping into recession. Nevertheless, there are still available jobs out there. But, in contrast with the past few years, getting them will require a carefully planned and well orchestrated job search.
