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

« Lack of Experience, You Know | Main | Qi Gong and Placebo Effects »

January 13, 2009

More on Pfizer's Layoffs

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Pfizer's made an announcement about the dimensions of its research cuts - 5 to 8%, which means about 500 to 800 scientists this year. These are (for the most part, I presume) the "not in our current research areas" people from the company's recent re-work of their therapeutic areas.

What I don't know is if they're finally actually telling these people anything. Now, many biologists with a specialization in an abandoned therapeutic area knew instantly that they had to seek a new job when the earlier news came out. But there are plenty of chemists on the block, too. Chemists are sort of vaguely associated with therapeutic areas, as compared with biologists, so that makes it much harder to guess who's going to go.

So, is Pfizer telling anyone today? Or is this just another bizarre chance to whistle the blade over everyone's heads?

Update: yep, it's today, going on right now.

Comments (71) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets


COMMENTS

1. Ironman on January 13, 2009 2:30 PM writes...

This is for real...chemistry in La Jolla was notified this morning. Exact numbers are unclear, but cuts appear substantial.

Permalink to Comment

2. pfiz alum on January 13, 2009 3:53 PM writes...

heard from several at groton today....they have been going through meeting requests all day...quite a few have been let go...don't know if they are giving packages or not...

Permalink to Comment

3. RandDChemist on January 13, 2009 3:57 PM writes...

Every time these happen, I cross my fingers and hope some good friends are not caught in this mess.

One analyst hammered them for these cuts:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011301300.html

Apparently the people affected are being told today. Happy New Year.

I wonder what Pfizer is doing to improve productivity? From the outside it does not look like an environment I'd want to be in right now.

If there are people who are performing poorly, then if they do not improve they should be let go. However, eliminating people solely on therapeutic area is myopic. The loss of talent is never good. A good scientist can and will learn.

Permalink to Comment

4. Hap on January 13, 2009 4:15 PM writes...

New Year sucks, but there's almost never a good time to be laid off. In this environment, and with the emphasis on cost-cutting, it seems a particularly bad time to be anyone but a recent graduate.

I am wondering (but don't know if there is an available answer) how this optimizes their discovery capacity. Is there reason to believe that it isn't just cost-cutting/outsourcing and is instead an actual attempt to optimize their drug discovery/production capacities? (The changes in areas of concentration things has been played often enough that it sounds like an evil game of musical chairs with cost-cutting intent, and not an actual productive change).

Permalink to Comment

5. Linda Raber on January 13, 2009 4:27 PM writes...

The layoffs at Pfizer are going on now. Please, please chemists and other chemical scientists going through layoffs, contact me at Chemical & Engineering News Magazine.

I am looking for readers to share their experiences for inclusion in upcoming stories. I am seeking personal stories of those laid off, the psychological and financial impacts, severance issues, and ideas for helping others to make it through tough times.

Confidentiality is assured; C&EN will not reveal your identity unless you consent. Please contact Assistant Managing Editor Linda Raber at L_Raber@acs.org or linda.raber@gmail.com; phone (202) 872-4506.

I so much want to tell your story. Please help me do so.---Linda Raber

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/staff/biolr.html

Permalink to Comment

6. The Pharmacoepidemiologist on January 13, 2009 4:59 PM writes...

Rumor on Wall Street is that this is Round 1 of four rounds this year for the researchers. (And this is supposed to be the smallest of the cuts.) Other cuts coming in other parts of the company, too. Expect a lot of pain, and don't be surprised if many of the researchers employed by PFE now aren't so employed by this time next year. Death by a thousand cuts?

Permalink to Comment

7. Hap on January 13, 2009 7:21 PM writes...

If #5 is correct then I guess Pfizer is going to try the "let's just do clinical studies and marketing" model of pharmaceutical development, which may answer #4 above. Otherwise, the obvious question would be "where do they think drugs come from exactly, or where do they think they will come from when they're done?"

Permalink to Comment

8. Todd on January 13, 2009 7:40 PM writes...

Hap, to play devil's advocate, they might be willing to gamble that their huge pile o' cash along with the distressed credit situation may be a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get a lot of prime candidates at cut-rate prices from outside. I'm not sure what they'll do after that, but from a pure business perspective, it just might work. Either way, we're going to see the clinical-trials-and-marketing-big-pharma model get a real-world tryout.

Permalink to Comment

9. milkshake on January 13, 2009 8:05 PM writes...

I think Pfizer will acquire yet another mid-sized company with a solid pipeline (in bio-area this time so that they have less problems with generic competition later). I suppose the best people from the said company quit, and the rest of the research decays soon, because of imbecility of the new management. Eventually the site gets closed. (Da Capo al fine).

Permalink to Comment

10. scienceguy on January 13, 2009 10:46 PM writes...

Very sad story. Pfizer still makes good money even with the loss of Lipitor. Maybe not enough to keep shareholders happy I suppose, but Pfizer is not in the dire position of GM or other industry. So now what? Where will all these very talented people get jobs? Is there really enough jobs out there to absorb so many people? Thinking beyond Pfizer and also considering the tens of thousands of job losses in the industry in the last two years I am left to ponder what science in america will look like in ten years. My heart goes out to friends and scientists who are impacted by this decision.

Permalink to Comment

11. Anonymous BMS Researcher on January 13, 2009 11:47 PM writes...


http://www.cafepress.com/pfired

Anybody know of an equivalent BMS shirt? Some folks I know who WE sacked in December might appreciate such a thing...

Permalink to Comment

12. LFree on January 13, 2009 11:56 PM writes...

You can envision DL rubbing his hands together in glee warranting 2 blog entries (in contrast to other 2008 company layoffs). Bring 'em on.

Permalink to Comment

13. procresschemist on January 14, 2009 4:48 AM writes...

"Drug firms have spent the year adopting new business models aimed at igniting innovation, protecting profitability"

That was on the first C&EN of december. No need for comments.
Apart from collecting personal experiences maybe the magazine should dedicate a cover story to this topic, with the correct label: "Biggest research cuts in pharma history"

Permalink to Comment

14. Kevin Hogan on January 14, 2009 7:30 AM writes...

I live in the shadow of Groton's R&D Center and many of my neighbors are/have been gainfully employed at Pfizer. As a broadcast journalist, it would be interesting to see and hear the other side of the story from a Pfizer scientist getting laid off.

Permalink to Comment

15. Tot. Syn. on January 14, 2009 8:02 AM writes...

The BBC just announced that 280 of the jobs to go will be at the Sandwich site. I know a few folks there; best of luck to them...

Permalink to Comment

16. burt on January 14, 2009 8:26 AM writes...

Contest: Write next week's C&EN front cover:

"Economy weak, but exciting opportunities abound in many parts of asia"

"ACS travels to Viet Nam to meet with business leaders"

"More chemist needed to solve 21st century challenges," says new ACS president with bow tie.

Permalink to Comment

17. Don B. on January 14, 2009 8:41 AM writes...

Please do not blame Derek for reporting the news.

Decades ago this type of event would be buried in a single small article in C&EN. It would usually cover another Dow Chemical 10% firing along with 3 or 4 other smaller firings.

The failings (for non- professorial chemists) of C&EN and the ACS have been detailed by many other writers not just here.

The term "layoffs" is particularly irritating because it usually meant rehiring when times got better.

Permalink to Comment

18. startup on January 14, 2009 9:18 AM writes...

It seems to me Pfizer has adopted the strategy of the aliens from the Independence Day - acquire an entity, suck it dry, move on, leaving rubble and dead bodies behind. The same holds true, as #17 correctly noted, for Dow.

Permalink to Comment

19. burt on January 14, 2009 9:53 AM writes...

"It seems to me Pfizer has adopted the strategy of the aliens from the Independence Day"

Where's Jeff Goldblum when you need him?

Permalink to Comment

20. Lee Howard on January 14, 2009 11:18 AM writes...

Any scientists who want to talk about their situation in the Groton-New London area should contact me at l.howard@theday.com or call (860) 701-4356. Your information will be handled in the strictest of confidence.
-- Lee Howard, business reporter, The Day

Permalink to Comment

21. Darjeeling on January 14, 2009 11:25 AM writes...

Derek, congratulations! With multiple journos (from mainstream and specialty media outlets) openly trolling your comments section, it's obvious that you and "In the Pipeline" have arrived!

--Darjeeling

Permalink to Comment

22. Hap on January 14, 2009 11:34 AM writes...

I don't think people are angry at Dr. Lowe for talking about the layoffs (though some people don't like the free market/free employment response, but YMMV) - it's more of a general frustration with the situation (or a particular frustration, if you're the one laid off), a lack of rational understanding of why layoffs are occurring (or are a beneficial solution to the problems of pharma), and a lack of coherence between the incentives and pay of employees and those of management that seem to make layoffs likely and profitable.

Permalink to Comment

23. Pfizer Layoffs 2009 on January 14, 2009 11:35 AM writes...

I've had a hard time finding out whether the Pfizer layoffs actually were handed down yesterday, so I've put together a list of the facts we know thus far and included some insider info about how Pfizer's method of picking which scientists to lay off. There are some rumors about heavy layoffs later this month, but so far it looks like 800 researchers, 500 sales reps in Italy, and 1,000 sales reps in France.

Pfizer Layoffs 2009: New Details Emerge and Rumors Abound
http://www.thedailyanchor.com/2009/01/14/pfizer-layoffs-2009-new-details-emerge-and-rumors-abound/

Permalink to Comment

24. Mikey on January 14, 2009 12:07 PM writes...

I hope the youngins reading these comments realize that chemistry has been outsourced (through both Asia as well as the h1b and l-1 visas).

There are no jobs, except for tenured faculty and of course our friends at the American Chemical Society.

I just read in Science how Bruce Alberts is applauding the financial crisis and how it will redirect the Ivy League graduates who pursued careers in finance back to careers in science.

So now we'll have ten times the number of people competing for 1/4 fewer jobs! (Finance is probably 10x larger a field than the sciences.)

It shows you what a disgusting and corrupting influence academic tenure has on the thought process. He's actively blowing the whistle, in the hopes that another crop of young people will throw themselves 'over the top', only to be machine gunned down by greedy executives and manipulative professors.

Waste your youth, get a science degree, head to the unemployment line, re-train as refrigerator repairman.

So let's open the paper and hear again about that shortage of scientists again!

Permalink to Comment

25. SRC on January 14, 2009 12:53 PM writes...

Kudos to Burt for perfectly capturing the tenor of C&EN headlines.

Am I the only one hoping C&EN itself feels the ax? I'm tired of their smarmy "where will the next generation of chemists come from?" shtick (answer: China and India), their vapid chemistry boosterism, their fairly blatant political slant, and, last but not least, their endless series of articles entitled "Women in Chemistry." Enough already! Get a real job!

Permalink to Comment

26. Ty on January 14, 2009 1:06 PM writes...

What seems pathetic to me is that Pfizer hasn't learned anything from its own vice and failure. Layoffs may be inevitable (guess 10,000 researchers are a little one too many..), but the way they draw the line, namely focusing on a handful of therapeutic areas, appears purely business-driven, still the blockbuster model. It goes to tell you how big a gap there is between the upper management and the real drug hunters.

Permalink to Comment

27. Jose on January 14, 2009 1:57 PM writes...

Pfizer 2009- "The Great Leap Forward!"

Permalink to Comment

28. Conflicted on January 14, 2009 1:59 PM writes...

I'm a recent chemistry program MS graduate (performed mostly organic synthesis - ran some biological assays as well). I did not stay for the PhD because 1)I didn't feel it would make me more marketable and 2)Also for personal and career reasons. I felt I would have a more enjoyable life with a MS degree.

I do not have a job immediately lined up, but, I have some interviews. I would like to do chemistry in some fashion, but, the volatility of it does worry me as of late. I have thought of retraining for another career - as I am relatively young.

In the past - MS folks in industry were in decent demand. Has that gone to the wayside now? I am just wondering if I should stick it out and keep going down this career path, or do something else.....some of the comments here are disheartening, and I wonder if I can still make a go of it in chemistry, or if I should look to other walks of life.

Permalink to Comment

29. Don B. on January 14, 2009 3:28 PM writes...

To conflicted:

I don't think you "love chemistry". Try something that can't be outsourced like: plumbing/electrician/auto repair etc.

nursing is pretty stable.

Sorry I can't be more positive, but educstion is never wasted (IMO).

Permalink to Comment

30. burt on January 14, 2009 4:10 PM writes...

"Am I the only one hoping C&EN itself feels the ax?"

Madeline Jacobs made about $ 1 miilion on 2006 working for the ACS. Google "ACS executive salaries". But, I think we would all wholeheartedly concur she is more deserving than, say, Boston Chicken man, who puts his future golden parachute ahead of all other concerns, particularly treating human afflications.

Heart patients take note: all cardiovascular problems have been solved. They must be; the world's largest pharmaceutical company just said as much. I wonder if they've looked at inhalable statins yet.....?

Permalink to Comment

31. milkshake on January 14, 2009 6:05 PM writes...

Conflicted: I suggest you try patent law - it can be very lucrative, your MS in chemistry + lab experience will be a great asset. But it means for you going back to school.

Also a fellow BS colleague chemist at my previous company took the 6-month severance that Pfizer gave to most us* and he went into wine-making school. Imagine, a summer-internship in Tuscany...

*Note: the rest of employees that did not get the originally promised severance class-action sued Pfizer, and eventually got their money in a settlement

Permalink to Comment

32. SRC on January 14, 2009 6:39 PM writes...

A million bucks for editing C&EN? Good God! It's People magazine for the pocket protector set.

On Googling this a bit I now realize that the million bucks was for being CEO of ACS, whatever that entails. I also see that her "fields of interest" include employment and gender, which explains the 500 part series of articles on "women in chemistry."

Permalink to Comment

33. Pete on January 14, 2009 8:17 PM writes...

SRC:

Hearing Ms: Jacobs make a Million dollars per year at ACS, I have decided not to renew my membership in ACS, after two decades of being a member. $100 is much too valuable to me.

Pete

Permalink to Comment

34. Kenneth on January 14, 2009 9:37 PM writes...

Hearing Ms: Jacobs make a Million dollars per year at ACS, I have decided not to renew my membership in ACS, after two decades of being a member. $100 is much too valuable to me."

She's paid that much to keep her mouth shut! She knows what a load of crap the ACS is. They say they represent all US chemists!! The ACS is one big outsourcing agency.

Baloney!!

Permalink to Comment

35. Dr. Manhattan on January 14, 2009 10:16 PM writes...

Spoke with former colleagues at Pfizer (left 2 years ago myself). It was a blood bath, and many senior and very experienced people were cut. Further, experienced biologists in the new focus areas such as diabetes were let go, and biology scientists from other areas with no background in diabetes were transferred in. Sounds like a great plan for future success...

My tenure at Pfizer was relatively brief, as it became apparent that the senior scientific leaders were extremely light weight. I decided to go elsewhere. The new head of the metabolic area (diabetes) has no experience or publications in the area (in fact, checking PubMed, his expertise in the past was improving meat quality in pigs). It is clear that Kindler has no idea how to run a pharmaceutical company, and is relying on very poor advice from his leadership.

Permalink to Comment

36. BCP on January 14, 2009 10:38 PM writes...

Conflicted: don't give up all hope. IMHO, there's still a place for talented, inquisitive medicinal chemists, but the landscape has shifted. I'd offer two pieces of advice based on 16+yrs in pharma med chem.

1) Consider a big company to begin with, but only as a stepping stone. Real opportunity will lie with smaller, innovative companies who provide inlicensing opportunities for the big boys.

2) As soon as possible, start learning about the "med" in med chem. Talented synthetic chemists are of course valuable, but readily outsourced. The folks with the ideas and insight can still find a place.....in a small company where they are visible and acknowledged (not big pharma).

Good luck.

Permalink to Comment

37. Jose on January 15, 2009 1:09 AM writes...

Conflicted- give up hope. Expend your time and energy in better directions than biotech or pharma. We are all wishing we had... things WILL turn around, but the time scales for that have very large error bars right now, and many, many careers are being crushed by PFE, LLY and others. 2008 was a bloodbath, and 2009 looks no rosier.

Permalink to Comment

38. Chemjobber on January 15, 2009 3:52 AM writes...

Assuming that this is the only layoff for the year, I have to agree with the analyst in the NYT who said this is a lot of pain for not much gain.

I was in the same room as the outgoing John LaMattina (mid-2007) when he said that Pfizer is "right-sized" for the Lipitor LOE; I didn't believe it then and I don't believe this is the end. God, their senior management is moronic.

Permalink to Comment

39. anon on January 15, 2009 7:26 AM writes...

conflicted: If you have the chance to train to get into a more stable field without dealing with the constant anxiety of possible layoffs, then do so.

I am grateful to still be employed, but there is no way in hell that I would have chosen chemistry as a career if I had known what was going to happen with the industry back when I was a student. (I also have a MS in chemistry.)

Permalink to Comment

40. Thomas McEntee on January 15, 2009 7:33 AM writes...

The ACS isn't the cause of these layoffs and isn't the cause of the decline of the US chemical industry from its halcyon days. It's been many years since I last paid ACS dues so that I could get my weekly C&EN...after my own bout with a layoff in the mid-1980s and the pain associated with the the Jobs sessions at a national ACS meeting in NYC (me, a 45-year old PhD, gets no interviews. Only the cheap newly-minted PhDs get interviews),I pretty much came to accept the fact that the ACS preferred to put a pretty face on whatever aspect of chemistry was 'up' and that it swept under the rug whatever aspect of chemistry was 'down.' So be it.

Pharma and chemistry in general are global enterprises, subject to all the vagaries of supply and demand...and competition. Compounds protected by patents avoid some of the messiness of competition. After that, your ability to be a low-cost producer of pharmaceuticals means attention to cost-cutting. I do not regard it at all surprising that companies are outsourcing R&D and production from the US to other countries. Now, the fact that this leaves US scientists in the lurch is unfortunate for the nation. For the scientists, it's painful and can be traumatic for them and their families. Been there, done that.

Attempts to guarantee lifetime employment have a sorry record. Socialism and communism have tried and we know how well those systems have worked. The 'blood and tooth' of capitalism weeds out weak and inefficient companies...it often isn't pretty but it's efficient.

Any organic chemist with an advanced degree has been exposed to lots of flavors of chemistry. Chemistry is the basis for all materials of construction of our world and I believe that a chemist can thrive in the world in fields well-removed from pharma. It probably will mean that people are going to have to uproot their families, climb on board a ship sailing to a new world, and take some chances.

Permalink to Comment

41. Peter on January 15, 2009 12:16 PM writes...

Conflicted: I was in a similar place as you recently. I left with a MS for the same reasons, and have worked at a big pharma company for a year now. Here's my perspective: people like you and me, who are competent and enjoy our jobs but aren't incredibly talented and/or passionate, will be among the casualties of the relentless quest for efficiency. An honest question: if there's someone out there who will work a lot harder than I do (e.g. by working longer hours) or is simply a better chemist, then why -shouldn't- he have my job?

Practically speaking, if you get a job offer that's reasonable, take it. Live cheaply, save as much as you can (pay off debts if you have them), make a good impression on your bosses, and use the time to figure out what else you can do besides chemistry.

Permalink to Comment

42. Tyrosine on January 15, 2009 5:28 PM writes...

Conflicted,

I would enter the industry and make the most of any opportunities that come your way to grow. Education is never wasted, and the same can be said about work experience. Be focused on growing skills that are transferable to other fields and you'll be fine.

My opinion is that "job stability" in any industry, is a concept of the past. The new reality is that we will be constantly shifting jobs, and shifting fields. Ask around, no one thinks they're job is safe, and picking a "permanent" industry is ludicrous given how fast the world is changing.

The answer is to develop transferable skills and knowledge. I have met many individuals that have adopted this paradigm and you'd be surprised how well they've done for themselves, how much they enjoy their jobs, but most of all, just how easy it is for them to switch fields. People, leadership, learning, problem solving, analysis, communication,...etc. are skills that will ALWAYS be valued.

Permalink to Comment

43. burt on January 15, 2009 8:44 PM writes...

"My opinion is that "job stability" in any industry, is a concept of the past. "


Maybe so, but the problem is that (the time to market for a drug) >> than (the patience of snotty-nosed, pea-brained MBA's). Drug Discovery is HARD-- and that's part of why we love doing it-- but the economy is in "dot.com" time-- idea to product in a few months.

Permalink to Comment

44. SRC on January 15, 2009 10:05 PM writes...

Tyrosine makes some good points. Scientists, like medics, now face the problem that they've invested so much time and effort to get to their position that they pretty much have to use it, which inhibits their ability/willingness to shift to other fields.

It's a cliche that nimbleness is now the ultimate virtue for survival, but anyone spending 10+ in education has built an economic Maginot Line.

Contrast a chemistry Ph.D. (or an M.D.) with, say, a "communications" major. To take a sanguine view, the latter is equally qualifed (or, more accurately, equally unqualified) to do anything. Opportunities abound. Secretary, regional manager, CEO, nothing is ruled out.

A chemist, on the other hand, will only be considered for a job that involves chemistry, and not just chemistry generally, or even a field of chemistry, but often a subdiscipline of that (e.g., not just chemistry, but organic chemistry, not just organic chemistry, but, say, carbohydrate chemistry).

And that chemist will end up reporting to a communications major, because he's a "generalist."

Permalink to Comment

45. KT on January 16, 2009 4:56 AM writes...

Folks I have read all of these comments with great interest, and wanted to add my thoughts/experience. Tyrosine, in my opinion you have hit the nail on the head my friend. Industry (with all it's faults, problems, bureaucracy etc) is a FANTASTIC place to develop yourself. I started working for a large pharmaceutical company as a chemist 4 years ago, and much like conflicted (#28) had plenty of doubts. But I see it as the best decision I ever made. Whilst I have worked hard as a chemist, I have looked to develop new tranferable skills for the inevitable day redundancy comes knocking. Face up to it. Expect it to come. BE PREPARED and PROACTIVE. I was under threat at the end of last year, got my CV in order and had great success with interviews in a range of industries because of the skills I have been fortunate enough to develop in my time here. I got lucky and kept my job this time, but next time it might be a different story...

It's very easy to sit and complain, but gets you nowhere fast. Unfortunately if you want to be a chemist, and a chemist alone in the Western world it's going to be a tough few years. However if you're willing to learn some new stuff, polish your communication and management skills and not be intimidated by different industries you will never be out of a job

Permalink to Comment

46. burt on January 16, 2009 10:15 AM writes...

On the subject of transferable skills, med chemists now and then move to chem sci, to regulatory, to EHS, or to teaching. Academia, per se, is hard, because they want young, perky dweebs right out their Corey postDoc. Sometimes they edit cheezy trade magazines and obsess about "gender issues".


None of the options is nearly as fun as med chem, IMHO, and SOME of the changes are harder to make in hard times (e.g. med chem to regulatory--best done internally).

Permalink to Comment

47. Pfizer Insider on January 16, 2009 10:55 AM writes...

800 confirmed scientists were let go on Jan 13. Sales force reductions will be 50-60% including management chain within sales (also getting hit 50-60%). Those announcements happen on January 30.

Permalink to Comment

48. Finding a Job in a Recession on January 16, 2009 12:06 PM writes...

I've been covering the Pfizer layoffs on The Daily Anchor (see #23 above), and in light of surge of layoffs in the past week (at Pfizer, Oracle, Ogilvy, Google...) I wrote a follow-up article... "What to Do if You've Been Laid Off: Finding a Job in a Recession."

By no means is there a 'secret trick' to finding a job right now - it's damn tough - but there are certainly some things you can do to increase your chances of landing an interview.

http://www.thedailyanchor.com/2009/01/15/what-to-do-if-youve-been-laid-off-finding-a-job-in-a-recession/

Permalink to Comment

49. Kerry on January 16, 2009 12:32 PM writes...

"Whilst I have worked hard as a chemist, I have looked to develop new tranferable skills for the inevitable day redundancy comes knocking."

You have to work hard and 24/7 as a chemist. Much more if you have a family (which is not part of the MBA business plan).

Chemistry is a dead end with a ten year life span. Just try and get transferable skills within a company and pretty soon someone just off the boat will show the exec manager he's willing to work harder than that gal whose 'not really interested in what they're supposed to be doing'.

So your comments are well taken, but not very practical in our hyper productivity driven society.

The only cure for chemistry is to not take the poison in the first place. This will be fine with the MBAs, since they were going to China anyway!

Permalink to Comment

50. SRC on January 16, 2009 1:20 PM writes...

KT, look around your lab. How many chemists do you see that are, say, 45? You might reflect on that.

Permalink to Comment

51. drug_hunter on January 16, 2009 2:10 PM writes...

I wonder why all the fatalists hang around this blog? You've all decided that chemistry is a waste of your life, a horrible career path, etc. and you feel you are doing a public service for Derek's other readers by pointing out how dreadful life is as an industrial chemist? Sheesh.

BTW, in the last year I personally have hired 3 excellent scientists over the age of 40, and am currently negotiating with 2 others in the hopes of hiring them too.

Permalink to Comment

52. silverlining on January 16, 2009 3:01 PM writes...

Drug_hunter could you please provide me your email id. I would like to send you my resume . Background : Pharmaceutics. Thanks

Permalink to Comment

53. RTW on January 16, 2009 3:16 PM writes...

Drug Hunter, I would be willing to bet that these new hires of yours are all PHD's, not BS/MS scientists. Also I bet they are at the early end of 40. No one wants us extremely experienced bench chemists with a BS, that are nearing 50 or beyond. Those generally being displaced right now.

I was told I was obsolete by a young director because I didn't whole sale adopt the most bleeding edge technologies. On my exit interview with the department head, he understood that was a CROCK. And didn't need to be reminded that I had introduced technologies to the department. I was targeted and it seemed to me and others that it had more to do with our age and pay grade than anything else.

Why should any company that can outsource not do so when they can more cheaply hire out that kind of labor to groups with high turnover, and little experience. Never mind that those new hands generally throw away more reactions than they manage to get to work. They also waste valuable expensive resources - starting materials that might have taken months to make. But hey when all you do is measure productivity based on reaction counts, and stuff put in bottles it doesn't matter if they are relevant reactions, or even well thought out candidates. Lets throw methyl butyl futile at the problem. Putting 200 Chinese PHD's ill equipped and not having much invested in a particular project is the way Big Pharma management see labor. Production line assembly of molecules.

I loved doing Heterocyclic chemistry toward the synthesis of biologically active compounds, (my def of Med Chem), and would go back into the lab in a second if I could have continued to be paid what I was getting until some MBA decided that outsourcing was more cost effective. I now work in Cheminformatics and Knowledge management, making nearly as good money, but I would much rather be working at the bench doing interesting chemistry research. I loved making new molecules! Its a trip really!

Those folks here perhaps advising young folks interested in chemistry careers are probably bitter. I know I am. Once upon a time someone with a BS/MS in chemistry was a respected member of the research community. The degree has become devalued to little more than a trained set of monkey hands. Somewhere between then and now something happened to research managements attitude towards these people. Not all of us could afford to go on to graduate school, or had other reasons for not persuing that path. When we started out the future was much brighter I think.

Permalink to Comment

54. RTW on January 16, 2009 3:24 PM writes...

Same as Silverlining, please let us know where to send CV's. I have plenty of friends at all degree levels still VERY under employed or unemployed. Still looking for situations since last years round of downsizing. I would pass that info on to them.

Thanks

Permalink to Comment

55. drug_hunter on January 16, 2009 9:27 PM writes...

I realize life is unfair and some people catch a bad break, and I too have many friends at big pharmas (and biotechs) who have been slammed in the past few years with layoffs through no fault of their own.

One of the three I've hired is around 55 and not a Ph.D. but to be fair is not a synthetic chemist either. The other two are, yes, Ph.D. but in their mid-40s I'd guess.

If I get a resume from a 50-year old synthetic chemist with great skills and experience and wisdom that resume gets a very close look! And I think that's true of many colleagues I know at other companies.

Some of our most senior synthetic MS-level people are highly recognized and rewarded, because they do excellent work.

We have a few "cheminformatics" or "modeling" people who do synthesis once in a while. (I wish they'd do more.) Something to think about, for those of you in RTW's situation. An excellent way to bring the experimental and computational people closer together.

Best of luck to all.

Permalink to Comment

56. nopfe on January 17, 2009 1:33 AM writes...

When I stepped into Pfizer some time ago as a scientist, I realized this is a company going down the abyss. Most hard working scientists are not the best treated people and those who are good at bullshitting often get promoted very quickly. I understand this happens everywhere, but I found nowhere else is like Pfizer. The technical advices I got from my boss were just ridiculous and I think my skills acquired by my 2nd year graduate school were more than enough to beat the most senior scientists in my group. A bunch of politicians, not many real scientists, at Pfizer R&D. I consider my laidoff from Pfizer not really a bad thing.

Permalink to Comment

57. Anonymous on January 17, 2009 1:06 PM writes...

56.nofe - For the first 14 years of my career at Parke Davis everything was going fine. I enjoyed what I was doing. Was respected and sometimes a director threw me a complement every now and then as being one of the few people in the department that consistently thought outside the box. Wasn't until PFE management took charge, that things started to change for the worse and I was considered obsolete.

As you observed politics and telling management what they wanted to hear got young PH D's into directorships. People that threatened their position (meaning those with experience) and questioned their decisions where soon targeted.

Although many of us with BS/MS had attained a level within the organization equivalent to that of a new PHD with post doc experience, or even beyond, we where still treated like second class citizens by that time. I likened the performance appraisal process as being a creative writing competition. The better the creative writer you where the better the rewards. Unfortunately being a scientist, I was more of a realist, not a writer of fiction.

Also - Sometimes good scientists are tapped to become managers. Many would rather not be, and want to continue to be scientists. I have known a couple that where promoted into management only to turn around and ask to be returned to the scientific ladder and allowed to work at the bench. Conversely sometimes great scientists can't manage people and make really bad managers.

Drug_Hunter: My move into Cheminformatics was a sideline of interests and the needs of the department. Early on I noticed that a lot of managers where spending WAY too much time managing data, and not enough time doing science. Being an observant scientist that had a long history within one TA I also saw where a lot of work was being duplicated between restarts of old projects where prior art and knowledge was not readily available, or had been shall we say misplaced. So I started to build electronic systems after hours and on the side that could be easily used to share gathered knowledge. I was fortunate to have done this because it enabled me to move into this area as a second career. Like I said however I would much rather be doing chemistry. There are opportunities for scientists in non traditional careers, but they will take you out of the lab.

Permalink to Comment

58. jgault on January 18, 2009 12:43 PM writes...

I am struck by the rumors I am hearing that Pfizer is letting go many of its top ranked scientist (level 8 and 9, which I understand to be something like Senior Research fellow in my organization, confession: I know little of Pfizers advancement ladder). These are the people who make drugs happen (at least in my company). Having been a part of a smaller layoff in my organization a couple of years back the thing that really disturbs me is the way scientific management is lead by the ear by lawyers wrt who is let go. Pfizer is loosing 12 B in sales, people are going to get let go, but it is the who that I have a problem with. Given my experience and what I am hearing from Pfizer, lawyers are dictating the productivity of research organizations by there irrational fear of law suits and I think this will eventually take us all down. Would love to hear if Pfizer is actually letting go the least productive scientists.

Permalink to Comment

59. Dr. Manhattan on January 18, 2009 1:49 PM writes...

"Would love to hear if Pfizer is actually letting go the least productive scientists."

In this round, the inventor of Geodon and co-inventor of Zyvox. Last time around, inventors of Lipitor. Current two top positions in scientific management (CSO and Head of Drug Discovery) have no drugs to their names.

Permalink to Comment

60. Skeptic on January 18, 2009 11:10 PM writes...

The reason the "inventors" of Lipitor were dismissed is because they couldn't "invent" anything else besides Lipitor.

Therefore the perception being Accidental Drug Discovery by management.

Permalink to Comment

61. KT on January 19, 2009 10:03 AM writes...

#50 SRC - I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at. I look around my lab and see zero chemists who are ~45. Is that your point? If so, then I have reflected on it long and hard! I will not be a working chemist when I am 45, that's obvious and something I have to accept. So that means I will be doing something else. Whatever that 'something else' is I'm doing my best right now to give me as much choice as possible when the day comes that I either get the push or walk... Should I be apologising for that?

#49 Kerry 'You have to work hard and 24/7 as a chemist. Much more if you have a family' - Really?!?! Without wanting to sound rude I'm not sure you're doing quite the right experiments

Permalink to Comment

62. Jose on January 19, 2009 10:53 AM writes...

KT- I suspect your views will temper themselves when you move well past 4 yrs of working.
Yes, there are times many posters (myself included) veer towards defeatism, but these are dark days for the industry. Certainly, some percentage of chemists can transitions into other careers, but with the sheer numbers that are being laid off....

Permalink to Comment

63. KT on January 19, 2009 11:03 AM writes...

Jose, yes you are probably right. I guess my original comment was aimed at 'confused' as to his/her quandary about entering pharma in the first place. I stand by my comments regarding the industry being a fine place to learn and develop. And when I see the state of some other industries at the moment is it really as bad as some make it out?

Oh well time will tell. I'll keep trying to be positive for as long as I can manage!

Permalink to Comment

64. MMM on January 19, 2009 3:05 PM writes...

For a bit of levity regarding the depressing closing of the Pfizer Ann Arbor Labs see the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02krhNFfEq4

Permalink to Comment

65. Debra on January 19, 2009 4:08 PM writes...

Interesting comment on Mark Huckman's website Pharma's Market over at cnbc. Jan 13, 2009.

From "A tale of Two Industries"

Mark Huckman said-

This morning while killing time before my live interview with Vertex Pharmaceuticals [VRTX 30.75 -0.11 (-0.36%) ] CEO Joshua Boger, he told me that his company took in 11,000 applications last year for 300 positions. "It's tougher than getting into Harvard," said Boger whose company is headquartered in Harvard's home town of Cambridge, MA. And VRTX, which is ramping up for its hepatitis C drug, is still hiring a few people a week.

- So why do we need more chemists?

Permalink to Comment

66. Rob Stehlin on January 30, 2009 2:20 AM writes...

I am sad to hear so many reps are loosing their job. If you are an un-employed drug rep - highly motivated and would like to profit from youR book of business, we have an opportunity to make 6 figures from the same doctors while helping the community. We are looking for reps all across the country and Puerto Rico. if you are interested in this unique opportunity, send your resume to rob@cashdoctor.com and I will contact you.

Permalink to Comment

67. Anonymous on April 6, 2009 3:17 PM writes...

Life is on the rocky road since 2003 lay off from R&D site from Skokie, IL. Dear Pfizer comrades welcome to the cliff.

Permalink to Comment

68. Jake Woodin on March 1, 2012 3:06 PM writes...

Hello there! Do you know if they make any plugins to safeguard against hackers? I'm kinda paranoid about losing everything I've worked hard on. Any recommendations?

Permalink to Comment

69. Rossie Santangelo on March 14, 2012 7:10 AM writes...

You actually allow it to become seem simple with you were presentation even so fully grasp this topic to be really a component which i think A complimentary certainly certainly not understand. It looks like it's too complicated as well as incredibly broad for me. I will be excited for the post, I most certainly make an effort to help get the hang up the phone of the usb ports!

Permalink to Comment

70. adlawdlkajdlakwdj ladkjalwdjaljd on March 24, 2012 8:04 AM writes...

The electronic cigarette uses a battery and a small heating component the vaporize the e-liquid. This vapor can then be inhaled and exhaled

Permalink to Comment

71. free download apk files on August 29, 2012 4:39 AM writes...

This is the punish More on Pfizer's Layoffs. In the Pipeline: diary for anyone who wants to attempt out out nearly this substance. You observance so such its near debilitating to fence with you (not that I real would want…HaHa). You definitely put a new aerobatics on a content thats been codified roughly for eld. Good block, simply eager!

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
Scripps Update
What If Drug Patents Were Written Like Software Patents?
Stem Cells: The Center of "Right to Try"
Speaking of Polyphenols. . .
Dark Biology And Small Molecules
How Polyphenols Work, Perhaps?
More On Automated Medicinal Chemistry
Scripps Merging With USC?