Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« A Bad Assay: Better Than None? | Main | Underperforming Triple Bonds »

December 12, 2007

Med-Chem Layoffs, On the Front Page

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal ran a front-page article on the chemistry layoffs that have afflicted us in the drug industry. The piece (by Avery Johnson) focuses on a good example: Bob Sliskovic, the medicinal chemist who first synthesized Lipitor (as in largest-selling-drug-in-the-world Lipitor), and now finds himself laid off by Pfizer:

”Following that initial breakthrough some 20 years ago, Dr. Sliskovic worked on several other research projects, but none panned out. His losing streak mirrors the industry's. A byproduct of the late-19th-century chemical business, pharmaceutical research thrived for more than a century by finding chemical combinations to treat diseases. But after contributing substantially both to human health and drug-industry profits, it has failed to produce significant innovations in recent years.”

That’s a pretty harsh assessment, and I can’t say that I like seeing the past tense of “thrive”. But it’s true that the flow of new drugs has slowed, and now the arguments are all about why that’s happening (and what to do about it). These topics have come up more times than I can count on this site (and will again!), so I won’t go into them in any detail for the moment. But there are plenty of places to lay the blame: Easy drug targets all gone? Too much focus on molecular-level mechanisms and not enough on the end results? Bar now set too high for safety? Management too timid, or too afflicted by short-term thinking? Too much emphasis on blockbusters? Just not enough known about the diseases we’re now trying to treat?

The article makes grim reading for those of us who have been through a layoff or a site closure – I certainly didn’t enjoy mentally revisiting the period a year ago when I (as Sliskovic did) had to phone my wife and tell her that my job was disappearing. And outside of the immediate employment concerns, shutting down a lab is a very sad process:

”In August, Dr. Sliskovic's team stopped doing research and began transferring projects to other Pfizer sites. The labs are now being cleaned, inspected and sealed off. The 177-acre campus is a ghost town of empty rooms and boxed-up equipment.”

Boy, do I know what that looks like. The period before that is even less appealing, when they bring in shredder boxes for people to empty their office filing cabinets into. That’s when you see unusual stuff in the waste bins, such as small piles of plaques and awards that used to be on the desks and walls, since no one feels much like taking any of those home with them. No, I have no desire to relive any of that.

The article raises the question of how many chemists are employed in the drug industry. It’s hard to get a good read on that, but there’s a quote from the Bureau of Labor Statistic that the total number of chemists in the workforce went down from 140,000 to 116,000 over 2003-2006. That doubtless includes a lot of analytical chemists and researchers in other fields than pharmaceuticals, but it’s not a number than can be made to look good. I would think that the ACS would have more specific data, although I know that not all the readers here trust what the organization has to say about chemical employment.

What I can say is that almost all of my colleagues from the Wonder Drug Factory have been able to find jobs. The great majority of the chemists are still doing drug research. Some of them have, though, left the research end of the business, and are working for support companies and vendors. Others have moved over to clinical work or into the medical devices field. A substantial number have, like me, had to move to other parts of the country.

Unfortunately, I don’t see the wave of layoffs ending, although I can’t see them continuing at their current pace, either. There are more large drug companies with problems than there are large companies with secure positions. The WSJ article, for example, has a graph of total head count at Pfizer over the last few years – what’s that one going to look like after Lipitor goes off patent? But offsetting that, to some extent, will be the smaller companies. I continue to think that the pharma research workforce may be shifting away from the largest shops and toward younger companies. Perhaps that’s just because that’s the direction I’ve gone, but then again, I might just be a representative part of a trend. . .

Comments (44) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets | Closing Time | Drug Industry History


COMMENTS

1. tom bartlett on December 12, 2007 9:03 AM writes...

The irony is that this ought to be the golden age of Drug Discovery; we have more targets and better biological tools than ever before. I think big Pharma DOES suffer from some measure of "blockbuster-itis" and timidity.

The FDA deserves a good fraction of the blame. They are slow; riddled with political cronies (how long did it take to get "Plan B" OTC when 23 of 23 on the advisory committee gave it a "go"?); and infected with "CYA" syndrome (why'd they pull VIOXX, again-- it's safer than at least half of the drugs on the market, probably?).

Permalink to Comment

2. BlogReader on December 12, 2007 10:15 AM writes...

Tom Bartlett: are the costs of developing a Lipitor the same as a drug that has $10M a year in sales? If so that's probably a major reason for the blockbuster-itis. Why bother with small potatoes if it costs the same to potentially make a huge drug?

Permalink to Comment

3. Haggis on December 12, 2007 10:41 AM writes...

Having now read the WSJ article I have to say I find it amusing and scary that so many people have actually bought the idea that biologics represent the future. For sure they are part of it but no more so that good old fashioned compounds. There does seem to be sheep mentality at work here. All of Big Pharma is jumping on the bandwagon and spending huge somes of money on biologics primarily because everybody else is. I don't see anybody with any special insight. Only big chequebooks. Just a bunch of sheep. And isn't it amazing that the side effects of the TeGenero biologic have been forgotten about. The fact is, that discovering drugs is hard and there seems to be little justification for the concept that biologics are any different.

Permalink to Comment

4. Morten on December 12, 2007 10:48 AM writes...

Love you med chems but wasn't there a big article in Science about Pfizer hiring Goldman as their new head of Bioceuticals? Human treatments seem to be turning more towards big-molecule drugs.
Maybe organic chem just need a new productive/economic niche... And if I knew what it was going to be I could probably become quite rich ;)

Permalink to Comment

5. Bunsen Honeydew on December 12, 2007 11:06 AM writes...

I have to agree with a couple of things here. I'm an academic chemist so I come at this from a more neutral position. I'm a chemist so I have insight into the processes but I'd like to think that I am far enough removed to give an opinion as a member of society too. There is no question that the safety requirements are now too high. Vioxx should still be on the market. We are talking about helping people with crippling pain who have very little quality of life. So let's see...You could live for another 20 years with 10 to 20% quality of life or if you take Vioxx, you will have 70-90% quality of life but there's a 50% chance of a heart attack in the next 15 years. I'll take option number two, thank you very much!

My second thought is with respect to "blockbuster-itis". I think it is far easier to climb out of a hole with several small steps than one giant leap. If you keep trying to jump all the way out of the hole at once all you do is pack the ground under you and make the hole deeper.

Permalink to Comment

6. GATC on December 12, 2007 11:08 AM writes...

This is nuts and makes one ponder the competency of corporate PR departments. I've seen first hand how at the last minute certain individuals suddenly find other slots in the company right after a lay-off situation. Surely this guy could have been placed elsewhere. I wonder if Gertrude Elion was still around and in a similar position (post-Nobel of course)if she would have gotten the axe? She only had a Master's degree (subsequently a few honorary doctorates post-Nobel) but pretty much defined base metabolism and chemotherapy.

Permalink to Comment

7. FutureProf on December 12, 2007 11:13 AM writes...

Does anybody know what happens to all of this state-of-the-art equipment at pharmaceutical research labs upon closure? I used to work at a nuclear research reactor that ran almost entirely on free equipment from the DOE. I'm sure there would be countless academics (myself included) interested in equipment donations from these places. There may even be significant tax ramifications making such an arrangement attractive to the companies involved.

Permalink to Comment

8. George D. McCallion on December 12, 2007 11:48 AM writes...

I write this to offer my own $0.02-worth. Recently I too have been the subject of Pharma layoffs (termed *redundancy* in my company). Specifically, my role was within Med. Chem., but performing scale-up work on candidtaes for preclinical evaluation (safety assessment, efficacy, etc.) en route to being taken onto Chem. Dev.

Needless to say, our work is now being outsourced.

Among the potential problematic areas of R&D, I would like to add the very subject of synthesis. By this, I mean there is a lot of academia mentality involved at the industrial level. It is within this problem that many projects fail.

Without going deep into the topic, many projects fail on the outset due to the chemistry that will never go forward on a large (>500gm) scale within Chem. Dev.

Additionally, many of the academics will not explore other (and possibly sfaer & cheaper) routes; rather they stick to round-bottom methods and hope that Chem. Dev. will figure it out.

It's a bad situation indeed. And it will get worse if some cultures don't make some changes.

Cheers!

Permalink to Comment

9. Nick K on December 12, 2007 12:08 PM writes...

A comment on George D McCallion's observations: Are you sure about that? My experience is that the chemistry is the least of the problems in progressing a candidate, and that the real killers are inefficacy, tox, poor pharmacokinetics, etc.

Permalink to Comment

10. processchemist on December 12, 2007 12:24 PM writes...

Too much combichem? Really few people involved in finding interesting natural molecules?
High throughput=zero output?
For sure, I saw too much biaryls coming out from drug design/profiling/etc in last 3 years

#8: in my short experience (10 years) I met only two project managers involving process chemists in the hit2lead phase. Their idea was extremely simple: I can't go on with a non scalable lead.

The other PM usually come out of the blue with an "Hey can we take this synthesis on the pilot in few days? Are 250 l of diethyl ether and 25 Kg of tert-butyl lithium a problem?" or something like this...

Permalink to Comment

11. WC on December 12, 2007 12:24 PM writes...

#8: "By this, I mean there is a lot of academia mentality involved at the industrial level. It is within this problem that many projects fail."

I think you are absolutely right, especially with med. chem. types. It's like they think novel/cool synthetic chemistry equals a clinical candidate or they forget they're suppose to produce a clinical candidate.

Permalink to Comment

12. FormerBlueDevil on December 12, 2007 12:38 PM writes...

As long as the pharmaceutical industry continues to spend many multiples of investment on marketing rather than on research, the plight of med chem will continue to grow. The low-hanging chemical fruit have been plucked as targets for development; the target structures and chemistries of the future are going to be more complex and more difficult to make. Investment in drug discovery has to grow to maintain progress, not shrink. Such cut-backs are short-sighted and misguided.

Effective drugs can almost market themselves; look at patient demand by word of mouth for drugs, still in the IND phase, that have anecdotal efficacy. Safety is still the biggest hurdle, and one that has tripped so many companies on the increasingly rapid rush to market.

Permalink to Comment

13. MTK on December 12, 2007 12:46 PM writes...

Scale-up chemistry should rarely kill a compound. I wouldn't even want the med chemists worrying about it. I agree with Nick that there are more important issues then the synthesis. You can always change the synthesis of a particular compound. It's a lot harder to change the selectivity. Synthesis is not what ails pharma.

One other thing...I am a process chemist. That's what I'm paid to do. Fix the synthesis. If I can't remove a bad step or find an alternate more robust route, then I need to find another job, because either a) I stink at what I'm doing or b) someone is already doing what I'm supposedly hired for.

Permalink to Comment

14. Hap on December 12, 2007 1:14 PM writes...

Whining...

I have to wonder where the next set of drug chemists is going to come from if 6-10 years of education at low wages are expected while the years in which one might expect to make back the lost income are laid off/outsourced. People aren't going to want to be working 60+ hours a week in their 50's (though, before the 40 hour week lots did, though not probably with 10+ years in post-HS education), and unless small company wages come up (unlikely, since that would seem to be part of why drug chemistry is shifting to them), people aren't going to making much money anyway. Even people who love chemistry may find it hard to stay in the field if marketing and business people and lawyers with less education are making significantly more money than they are. Telling students that many chemists are needed in the future might encourage some until they realize that the situation guarantees lots of competition for jobs when there are jobs and no jobs (or lower wage ones) when there aren't, unless the industry is expecting students not to indulge in the business logic they use on a regular basis.

Permalink to Comment

15. LNT on December 12, 2007 1:54 PM writes...

There were several comments about shifting from small molecule drugs towards biologics. I wonder if this shift will continue if the FDA ever adopts a "generic" version of biologics? As it stands now, companies essentially have an infinite patent lifetime on biologic drugs. This sure beats the 20 year (5-9 year, realisticly) patent lifetime of small molecules.
I'm of the opinion that until this changes, we will continue to see a shift to biologics over small-molecules.

Permalink to Comment

16. Mark M on December 12, 2007 2:03 PM writes...

" He tells his two sons, who are both in college and love science, not to go work for a drug company."

I find this comment the most damning of all.

And yet I have heard this same sentiment from 98% of the PHD organic chemists I have known over the years. Some have even gone as far as forbading their sons and daughters from pursuing advanced degrees in chemistry, insisting that they will only pay their way if they go to medical school. Talk about disillusioned!

But then I think, synthesis chooses you, and not the other way around.

Permalink to Comment

17. CMC guy on December 12, 2007 2:17 PM writes...

MTK is dead on talking about the role of a process chemist and the rarity that it is chemistry that will kill a project (and then usually that involves COG economics rather than ability to make larger amounts).

The ills of Pharma are combination of factors mentioned: short sighted management (also many who lack sufficient scientific awareness), focus on blockbuster rather than smaller markets, difficult targets/diseases and greater scrutiny of safety (by regulators and class-action lawyers). Small companies dont automatically avoid all these issues (but typically better focused).

Certainly would be hard pressed to advise anyone to pursue chemistry (or most science) career these days even though I believe should do something you will be happy with. See more and more jobs heading off-shore and other degree fields earning power greater for less education and effort.

Permalink to Comment

18. emjeff on December 12, 2007 2:40 PM writes...

I think the FDA deserves a big share of the blame here. Look at the Critical Path - the document came out in Marh 2004 and was supposed to save us all. It is shocking to see how LITTLE has been done.

Many of the Industy Consortia may start to yield some fruitful results in the next 3-5 years, but if the FDA does not have a science-driven leader (instead of the political hacks it has had for the last 15 years), very little will come of it.

The other thing that the industry needs is increased patent life. When something costs $1.1B to develop, and you only get to sell it for 10 years, you either need to sell a lot of it, or you need to charge a lot. The second choice is not an option anywhere except the US, and it is increasingly not an option here. This is another reason why Pharma looks for the block-buster.

Finally, we need some sanity around drug safety. No one wants to kill anybody, but the simple truth is that there are no absolutely safe drugs - there never have been. If the FDA keeps driving the industry toward absolute safety, then productivity will drop to zero. Like other readers have pointed out with Vioxx, there are trade-offs that need to be made.

Permalink to Comment

19. burt on December 12, 2007 2:51 PM writes...

"" He tells his two sons, who are both in college and love science, not to go work for a drug company.""

I don't know WHAT to tell my kids; medicine, law, business, and academia seem to be the only things with any stability left, and, in a decade maybe only academia will be left...

Permalink to Comment

20. Skeptic on December 12, 2007 3:09 PM writes...

The following quote is all that is relevant:

"Dr. Sliskovic worked on several other research projects, but none panned out."

Cue the financialization(perceived risk reduction by clueless investors) of this traditional industry.

If the scientists can only offer investors higher levels of risk what else can one expect in this economic climate?

The finance people will now run the show.

Permalink to Comment

21. milkshake on December 12, 2007 4:15 PM writes...

When Paul Janssen was telling the big pharma CEOs that they were doing rotten job at managing research and that their party would end up in tears, they privately berated him as an old foggey who was getting decoupled from modern drug discovery.

It takes 10 years for the pipelines to dry up.

Sceptic: You are and arse, please shut up because you have no knowledge of the filed but you wanna sound importand, you imbecile. Finance people and pencil-pushing-bullshit spewing MBAs and the bloody lawyers have been in charge last 15+ year. Their dynamic management and research-metrics and five sigma shit brought us just right where we are now.

Permalink to Comment

22. Dan on December 12, 2007 4:24 PM writes...

Yes Bob Sliskovic, I worked with him back in the days of Parke Davis and we were on a bowling team. He would bowl like Fred Flintstone almost forgetting to let go of the ball and go flying down the alley. Fun times indeed. Now I too have been laid off. I'm not so down on our industry. It will come back, it always does.

Permalink to Comment

23. Wavefunction on December 12, 2007 4:24 PM writes...

Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein–protein interfaces p1001
James A. Wells and Christopher L. McClendon
doi:10.1038/nature06526

To be fair, Skeptic does call investors "clueless" which is accurate.

Permalink to Comment

24. Hap on December 12, 2007 4:29 PM writes...

Marketing is presumably making drug companies money - I don't think they're spending money on it because the companies like marketing people, though that it is a (slight) possibility. I think overmarketing is a least part of the safety problem, attempting to expand the market for drugs to people for whom the benefits don't outweigh the health costs, and sinking the drug for all in the process (*cough* Vioxx *cough*). It also may increase the expectations for drugs, which will bear ill fruit eventually, if not now.

I don't see any government action that would help to be likely. People and insurance companies already feel they're paying too much for health care and drugs, and the shrinking of employer-provided health care is only going to make that worse - neither group is likely to support patent term expansions or FDA restrictions that increase the costs (financial and health) that come with them. If anything, the push for gov't-managed health care will probably increase. If companies can't make money, they can't hire people, which is likely to mean that there will (should) be fewer chemists and biologists, which would imply that pharamceutical research will shift to elsewhere. Shifting research out of country means that drug companies are training their replacements and limiting their political power (without the jobs, their leverage in political arguments decreases).

Permalink to Comment

25. Hap on December 12, 2007 5:11 PM writes...

The more I think about it, the situation sounds too much like "Atlas Shrugged" to make me feel any comfort, particularly since 1) I'm probably on the wrong side, and 2) Rand was probably optimistic.

Permalink to Comment

26. R Holden on December 12, 2007 5:36 PM writes...

Wasn't there supposed to be a major increase in new jobs when congress allowed the drug companies to repatriate tens of billions of foreign funds at a lower tax rate?

www.iht.com/articles/2005/02/01/business/tax.php

This all seems to mean the Pharma can't be trusted. I suggest higher tax rates and MORE regulation, particularly on outsourcing. If they leave the country, so be it. Since they are doing that anyway, I think it's better to encourage businesses in other areas.

Sound pie in the sky?

No, all we are doing is creating coporate vacuum cleaners that suck in the cash then fly to the moon. We can always buy the drugs from them in China. Or is the problem that our leadership class is now completely self-centered and corrupt?

Permalink to Comment

27. R Holden on December 12, 2007 5:37 PM writes...

Wasn't there supposed to be a major increase in new jobs when congress allowed the drug companies to repatriate tens of billions of foreign funds at a lower tax rate?


This all seems to mean the Pharma can't be trusted. I suggest higher tax rates and MORE regulation, particularly on outsourcing. If they leave the country, so be it. Since they are doing that anyway, I think it's better to encourage businesses in other areas.

Sound pie in the sky?

No, all we are doing is creating coporate vacuum cleaners that suck in the cash then fly to the moon. We can always buy the drugs from them in China. Or is the problem that our leadership class is now completely self-centered and corrupt?

Permalink to Comment

28. zt on December 12, 2007 6:21 PM writes...

From the WSJ article:

"As pills like Lipitor made out of elements from the periodic table prove harder to come by, pharmaceutical research is being superseded by the newer field of biotechnology. The latter relies mostly on biologists who make proteins from live cells."

Does this imply that proteins are not made out of elements from the periodic table? Then I wonder what they're made out of....

Permalink to Comment

29. NJBiologist on December 12, 2007 6:36 PM writes...

@22: Any idea what happened to Roger Newton? The story I heard was that he was the biology counterpart to Sliskovic, got frustrated with PDWL's risk-averse management, left to found Esperion... and then Pfizer bought Esperion. Where is he now?

Permalink to Comment

30. srp on December 12, 2007 6:41 PM writes...

zt: Antimatter. Those cancer cells may have efflux pumps, but they just can't take total annihilation...plus, the gamma rays released provide instant radiation therapy to all the surrounding tumor cells. Zap!

Permalink to Comment

31. ChemSpiderMan on December 12, 2007 7:56 PM writes...

I had to take a prod, with sarcasm included, that the President of Chemical Abstracts Service, Bob Massie compared drug discovery to golf equipment manufacture. See http://www.chemspider.com/blog/?p=300

Is it really all over for drug discovery? He comments

“It’s like how coming out with metal drivers in golf was a huge innovation, but now it’s incremental. You’re just coming out with drivers that are a little longer or rounder,”

Have we got cures for all diseases and all we do is tweak them now? Tweak the cholesterol lowering medications from this point forward. What an ideal world that would be. Every disease has a treatment and we're tweaking them to eke out a little better performance. Ummm...no. We're not there yet.

I guess his analogy using golf might be indicative only of his interests rather than his knowledge and understanding.

Permalink to Comment

32. me on December 13, 2007 8:37 AM writes...

"@22: Any idea what happened to Roger Newton? The story I heard was that he was the biology counterpart to Sliskovic, got frustrated with PDWL's risk-averse management, left to found Esperion... and then Pfizer bought Esperion. Where is he now?"

Another example PFE's brilliant management savvy.

What was the compound PFE got in that deal.

Permalink to Comment

33. Kay on December 13, 2007 8:47 AM writes...

Derek: what if there's no financing system available to nurture the small companies?

Permalink to Comment

34. Derek Lowe on December 13, 2007 10:08 AM writes...

Well, that would clearly be disastrous. I hope we don't get to that point, since there's going to still be money to be made in health care (I hope), and investors should still want to get in on some of it. . .

Permalink to Comment

35. tom bartlett on December 13, 2007 10:39 AM writes...

Kay may be alluding to the Republican Sub Prime Mortgage crisis which is affecting credit markets-- and maybe VC funds-- enormously.

Permalink to Comment

36. tom bartlett on December 13, 2007 10:44 AM writes...

Kay may be alluding to the Republican Sub Prime Mortgage crisis which is affecting credit markets-- and maybe VC funds-- enormously.

Permalink to Comment

37. Anonymous Pharma Researcher on December 13, 2007 8:48 PM writes...


Derek wrote:

> What I can say is that almost all of my
> colleagues from the Wonder Drug Factory have
> been able to find jobs.

I interviewed several people from the Wonder Drug Factory who were seeking jobs at my shop; unfortunately none of the West Haven applicants happened to meet our specific requirements so the two people we ended up hiring came from elsewhere. I felt bad about that, but the fit simply wasn't there.

Derek -- or anybody else who worked at the Wonder Drug Factory in West Haven -- how did the Phd-level biologists from your site do overall? I expect as is usually the case the Masters-level folks got new jobs faster, but how long did the typical Phd-level biologist take to get his or her new job?

My interest in this question is hardly academic since I myself am a fairly senior biologist in Drug Discovery. Just now my own position looks reasonably secure for the next couple of years, but there have been several times in the last five years when it looked much less secure. And my company is one of many companies that will fall off the "Patent Cliff" in a few years...

(Note for readers unfamiliar with the Big Pharma world: do a Google search on "Patent Cliff" to learn how many really major blockbusters will be going generic from 2011 through 2016. It could get very ugly unless our pipelines do MUCH better than most of us expect).

Permalink to Comment

38. RKN on December 14, 2007 8:20 AM writes...

Yet another parallel between BigPharma & BigOil - layoffs, big layoffs. And recalling my experience in BigOil, a similar search for excuses ensued. Too much chasing "giant" discoveries, not focusing on smaller plays. Too much international focus, not enuf domestic. Too much spent on R&D. Too much spent on high risk exploration, not enuf on engineering, getting the most from existing fields. Etc. etc..

All that was back during $15/bbl oil. These days few people remember what that was like. Times are good again if you work in BigOil, or for any of the myriad contractors.

BigPharma, I predict, will similarly turn around, but it'll take a while.

Permalink to Comment

39. weirdo on December 14, 2007 1:26 PM writes...

It ain't just BigPharma.

Yesterday, Neurocrine laid off half its staff (about 100 or so) and Ligand just fired 25 more scientists. At least it you're laid off from BigPharma, your job pool includes just about any company. Not very many of the those ex-Neurocrine or ex-Ligand scientists will get a sniff at Pfizer or Merck (even if they were hiring).

And so it goes.

Permalink to Comment

40. Jay on December 14, 2007 7:13 PM writes...

Tom #35, #36. What "Republican" subprime mortgage crisis? I thought it was a "big business" or "Wall Street" crisis. As people have pointed out, Congress put pressure on banks to not "redline," so banks lent to less credit-worthy borrowers -- where is the surprise that many ended up defaulting? And how is the "big business" party at fault?

I sit here in Silicon Valley, and there's little evidence that the subprimes are affecting VC availability. They're killing the debt markets, which means LBOs and bridge loans are dying, but VC money is equity money from pension funds that still hope to make a huge return over a 5-10 year period.

Permalink to Comment

41. Anonymous Pharma Researcher on December 15, 2007 8:19 AM writes...


RKN wrote:
> Yet another parallel between BigPharma & BigOil

Interesting analogy -- a close relative of mine recently retired after some decades as a geologist with Exxon, where he survived NUMEROUS rounds of cutbacks. And of course their merger with Mobil -- when some of the Mobil R&D folks got transferred from Princeton, NJ, to Houston while others got laid off.

Not incidentally, Mobil's main R&D site was acquired by the R&D division of a Big Pharma company (BMS) where today lots of researchers are no doubt wondering whether -- if their jobs survive the 10%-plus headcount reductions BMS recently announced -- their jobs will also survive the looming Plavix patent expiration in a few years...

Permalink to Comment

42. tom bartlett on December 17, 2007 10:49 AM writes...

"Tom #35, #36. What "Republican" subprime mortgage crisis? I thought it was a "big business" or "Wall Street" crisis."

The crisis unfolded during the tenure of two GOP-appointed Fed chiefs; the infamous Alan Greenspan and "helicopter" Ben Bernacke.

Capitalism works best tightly regulated.

Permalink to Comment

43. Anonymous on December 28, 2007 12:04 AM writes...

Derek states-

"Unfortunately, I don’t see the wave of layoffs ending, although I can’t see them continuing at their current pace, either"

You ain't seen nothing yet!

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aic.D866rsMA&refer=home

Permalink to Comment

44. Money Quotes on February 26, 2014 7:53 AM writes...

The boy sighed with want as he stared at the ring Richard held
up, and he succeeded. Qantas charge upwards of GBP75
per person per long haul flight. The hoards of economy
linen determined sellers who flock to this market at this time.
However, a person can draw in retirement. Visiting economy linen
and supporting local farmers' markets. Selling economy linen a house for a fantastic weekend, and you will find that lending
corporations will be glad for years to come. It is a jungle out there and shop!

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
One and Done
The Latest Protein-Protein Compounds
Professor Fukuyama's Solvent Peaks
Novartis Gets Out of RNAi
Total Synthesis in Flow
Sweet Reason Lands On Its Face
More on the Science Chemogenomic Signatures Paper
Biology Maybe Right, Chemistry Ridiculously Wrong