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

« How's All That Cost-Cutting Working Out? | Main | Senator Hatch And His Wonderful Industry »

June 20, 2011

Not Looking So Good At Eli Lilly (or AstraZeneca)

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

You hear a lot of talk about the "patent cliff" in the industry these days. Patent expirations you shall always have with you, but there are a number of big-selling drugs that are all coming out of patent protection in a fairly short period. The biggest single drug in this category is, of course, Lipitor, and that expiration has been looming up on Pfizer year after year.

But Eli Lilly has even worse problems: they're not losing their single biggest seller; they're losing up to 50% of all their sales. AstraZeneca's not in much better shape, it should be added. Jim Edwards at BNET goes into the numbers, courtesy of a Bernstein study. Here, from the analyst's work, is the estimate of "base" revenues (from currently existing drugs) normalized to 2010, (via Edwards and BNET):
patent%20cliff.jpg

Not too encouraging. And Lilly doesn't have enough coming online to offset this (who would?) If you read Edwards' post, you'll find a graph that attempts to show the same group of companies, with projected revenues for new drugs factored in as well. GSK and Novartis come out looking pretty good - AZN and LLY, well. . .have a look and see what you think.

What I found very interesting was the Bernstein analyst's comments on the plan that Pfizer's CEO Ian Read has been floating, to divest everything except the core drug business. That post took off from a piece by Matthew Herper at Forbes, who spoke with an analyst who was surprised at how serious Read seemed to be. The reason he was surprised is that this is the same analyst we're talking about - Tim Anderson of Bernstein. When he runs the numbers on a "core Pfizer" strategy, it actually makes things look even worse.

So Pfizer has options, but it had better think them through carefully. Lilly and AstraZeneca, on the other hand, seem as if their backs are inexorably being pushed to the wall. The only way out, as the BNET headline has it, would seem to be to acquire someone or be acquired in turn. It's hard to see how either company makes it through in their current state.

Comments (57) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Business and Markets


COMMENTS

1. You're Pfizered on June 20, 2011 12:38 PM writes...

Lilly is in deep, deep trouble.

A report from Morningstar in February did an analysis on M&A in the healthcare industry. Under the Big Pharma heading, Lilly and BMS were the two they felt were most likely to be acquired in the next few years. The company that they had as a good partner for either was Abbott, but more so for Lilly than BMS.

The next few years are going to be painful for this industry.

Permalink to Comment

2. PharmaHeretic on June 20, 2011 12:58 PM writes...

I am shocked.. shocked.. that their pipelines are dry.

This is what happens when those running the show are playing zero-sum games. In all of these cases they ignored reality and did "things" to simply push up stock prices (for a short time) and executive compensation.

Did they ever read about how most first-in-their-class drugs were discovered? Did those mergers ever provide "synergy"? Why were they so interested in showing a huge number of pre-clinical and phase I, II candidates? Why did they push so hard to sell drugs to patient population who did not benefit from them?

Ultimately it comes down to short-sighted greed, and this is the result.

Permalink to Comment

3. got real on June 20, 2011 1:56 PM writes...

No more complicated than the need for simple steady state inflow, outflow finance model.....something even hard-core, dedicated, PhD scientist techno-geeks must be able to comprehend.

How can there not be still more need and expectation for spend containment & cost cutting coming to the industry?

Full Stop.

Permalink to Comment

4. Anonymous on June 20, 2011 2:02 PM writes...

So I guess those cuts that people were hoping would be slowing down (or even stopping) will be picking back up again. Good news all around.

Permalink to Comment

5. TRL on June 20, 2011 2:07 PM writes...

Notably missing from this list is J&J. Analysts are predicting them to have strong growth in pharmaceuticals in the next ~5 years. They already passed their "patent cliff" (Risperdal, Topamax, etc.)

Permalink to Comment

6. darwin on June 20, 2011 2:12 PM writes...

Vertex better start running faster...

Permalink to Comment

7. processchemist on June 20, 2011 2:19 PM writes...

@TRL

There's something I don't get about J&J. I was expecting many genericists active on topamax when the patent expiration was near: not at all. They must have some kind of winning commercial strategy about it.

Permalink to Comment

8. lillyjokers on June 20, 2011 2:32 PM writes...

Guess Lilly's snotty elitist attitudes haven't served them all that well after all. Having had phone interviews over the years with every big pharma player, these guys were the biggest clowns by far. Sure, I'll admit they never called me in for a face to face, but like many elitists in the industry, they failed to recognize talent that could run circles around them in the lab.

Permalink to Comment

9. Hap on June 20, 2011 3:38 PM writes...

1) The steady state inflow-outflow model doesn't work - pharma products don't come continuously. Sorry. We knew that awhile ago, but you finance guys keep pushing it like the more you insist that reality follow your models, the more strongly reality will be compelled to do so.

When a model doesn't work, perhaps the fault doesn't lie with reality, but with your model, or your interpretation of it.

2) If fantasy is required to sustain reasonable yields for your investments, perhaps you should be in a more appropriate field, like adult entertainment, where fantasy has much more utility.

Permalink to Comment

10. GreedyCynicalSelfInterested on June 20, 2011 3:45 PM writes...

Guess I was prescient when I dropped out the lab in the mid-90's. I'm enjoying watching this whole industry crash and burn as they thought that they were gods' gift to humanity, especially when interviewing people.

Just another, mismanaged, over-priced dying American industry.

Well, gotta get going to truck driving school.

Permalink to Comment

11. Daniel Haszard on June 20, 2011 4:16 PM writes...

Zyprexa Diabetes connection conflict of interest.
Eli Lilly paid billions in fines for the scam.Thousands got diabetes as Zyprexa side effect and have to take Lilly insulin to treat the diabetes that was caused by their Zyprexa.
---
Daniel Haszard Zyprexa victim activist and patient who got diabetes from it.

Permalink to Comment

12. Studstudulos on June 20, 2011 4:32 PM writes...

In an ironic twist of fate LLY will be bought by WuXi.

Permalink to Comment

13. Mark on June 20, 2011 4:33 PM writes...

Even after acquiring Genentech, Roche (ROG) doesn't look much better in 2020 than it does now.

Interesting....

Mark

Permalink to Comment

14. Studstudulos on June 20, 2011 4:33 PM writes...

In an ironic twist of fate LLY will be bought by WuXi.

Permalink to Comment

15. Innovorich on June 20, 2011 4:37 PM writes...

People should note that this analysis is totally for current marketed drugs and assumes that none of these companies makes any revenue from any new drugs that might come to market in the next 10 years. Drugs have always gone off patent. So (#2) it says nothing about their pipelines (not that I'm saying it would look much better if it did!), but if you had done this analysis, in this way, at any time in these company's history, it would look similar to this.

Permalink to Comment

16. Hap on June 20, 2011 4:59 PM writes...

If their pipelines were full, or had a short gap between patent expiration and the likely introduction of new drugs, people would probably not be wearing sackcloth and ashes. However, that doesn't seem to be true - lots of P3 failures (so that even drugs you figure for leadpipe cinches aren't - torcetrapib?), not so many new potential drugs, and high expectations from previous drugs would seem to make this cliff look worse than others.

Permalink to Comment

17. Innovorich on June 20, 2011 5:30 PM writes...

Well in a way it's semantics, but the point is that it's not the "patent cliff" that's the issue (it's no bigger/steeper than it ever was), more the "FDA/R&D-productivity wall" (lack of new drugs) - and this analysis doesn't actually tell us anything about that.

Permalink to Comment

18. Inbedlam on June 20, 2011 9:19 PM writes...

"divest everything except the core drug business."

Does anyone remember a company called Hoechst?

Permalink to Comment

19. anonymous on June 20, 2011 9:20 PM writes...

Curious why GSK looks so "good" - anyone know???

Permalink to Comment

20. Still Scared of Dinosaurs on June 20, 2011 11:35 PM writes...

"FDA/R&D-productivity wall"

BS. It's not FDA's fault. Industry failure is to blame.

Permalink to Comment

21. lalaland on June 20, 2011 11:44 PM writes...

GSK looks good possibly because they have 50% cut of the potential blockbuster lupus drug from Human Genome Science.

Permalink to Comment

22. petros on June 21, 2011 2:08 AM writes...

GSK looks good because their biggest blockbuster is an inhaled combination, and is much less readily replaced by a generic for various reasons.


Another factor in the shape of the chart is that the industry decided it only wanted blockbusters thus magnifying the impact of patent expiries.

Permalink to Comment

23. anon on June 21, 2011 3:19 AM writes...

Yes GSK has a hard-to-copy device. It has nothing to do with the drug itself. But, if some of this projected future for GSK has to do with "future new product sales"....hand tight guys. It will continue to be a downward ride. They have not delivered for more than 15 years, as SB, GW, or GSK, in terms of their projections of new launches or new compound actual sale value. And it won't be coming from the Sirtris portfolio...that's for sure.

Permalink to Comment

24. got real on June 21, 2011 3:29 AM writes...

# 9: Reference to inflow / outflow in this context is very very simple, as they say: cain't spend what ya don't got. Hap is obviously one of those people who take ever statement way too literally, trying to be way to intellectual about it all. I've read these statements before, always the same....need to still spend (even as the check book becomes empty), need more investment for more innovation (when there's no evidence that more money accomplishes anything), job losses are destroying the industry (when, maybe, the playing field and rules are changing...as they really need to do) etc, etc, blah, blah.


Guess the challenge that techno-geek guys would 'get it' is even too assumptive. By the way, I'm not even close to being a business type. Wrong assumption again, bucko.

Permalink to Comment

25. Anonymous on June 21, 2011 4:16 AM writes...

@got real

"cain't spend what ya don't got"

wow. I bet that this can be extended to leveraged financial operations, naked short selling and so on.
Innovation in this field doesn't come from open air just because you're a genius, without any investment. Let's say (and this is crystal clear) that MBAs can be good in many fields (maybe), but NOT in managing R&D. The results of the last decade speaks by themselves. Our do you think that only the cannon fodder is to blame, because the commanders are without fault?

Permalink to Comment

26. Innovorich on June 21, 2011 9:02 AM writes...

#20 - there's a "/" there and after "FDA" it says "R&D productivity".

#25 - maybe the MBAs have it right for the "playing field" as it now is.

Permalink to Comment

27. got real on June 21, 2011 9:03 AM writes...

#25: What's your point? That those "financial genius types" on Wall Street can continue to create artificial paper business to screw people out of more money to inflate bonuses? And the other businesses should or are capable or running the same scam?

You sound to be one of those people who are trying to confuse today's business world of greed, "have to have it now" mentality with a need to actually run a balanced budget. Which continues to be part of the problem with Pharma in the first place. And, if it were so easy to simply "invent" new drugs by how much is spent.....where's today's beef after the last decades of spends?

Permalink to Comment

28. Hap on June 21, 2011 9:04 AM writes...

24: If you have no products, you won't have any money to spend, ever. Without R+D, what do you have, exactly? You sold your companies' reputations, so their brand names aren't worth much - without products that don't suck, what do you have? Supplements, here we come, perhaps?

I thought even third-graders understood the "If you eat the seed corn, there'll be no crops next year" analogy. I guess they don't teach that in B-school, either.

A relevant and less catty analogy might be to real estate. If you're (or were, even when the market was good) looking for houses for quick turnover, real estate is probably hard. You can't sell a house quickly without taking a bath on the sale. The obvious response would be not to invest in real estate if you have to be liquid, because it will not work out well for you.

So now, you get into a business (pharma) with lots of unpredictability (FDA - enhanced by drug overselling - thanks guys!) and very long time frames and complain that you need to make money now. If you don't understand the constraints of your business and don't have any good ways to change those constraints (measuring and improving R+D productivity or P2/3 failure rates), why the hell are you giving anyone financial advice?

Permalink to Comment

29. Innovorich on June 21, 2011 11:10 AM writes...

Yes but R&D doesn't need to be done with the overhead of an extra 100,000 people! This is not about eating the seedcorn, it's about changing the cost structure, the risk alignment, and the business model for the industry.

Permalink to Comment

30. Cellbio on June 21, 2011 11:40 AM writes...

Interesting debate and lots of passion.

I wonder if a lot of what we are going through now is due to prior, 90's, belief that we needed scale in R&D. i remember the MBAs at the successful growing company I was with running numbers that showed the attrition rate of compounds, the percentage of blockbusters etc with calculations back to the earliest stage of the pipeline to claim we needed some unsupportably (scientifically and operationally) large number of projects to fuel our success. Despite pointing out that aggregating all of industry at that time to model that scale did not reveal a basis for the value of the argument, off we went. Fueled by stock and capital markets and product growth and the hubris that success brings, the company I was with grew by more than 10x. Profit from new products grew by about 10%. Executive compensation also grew by crazy percentages, so as long as the roof didn't collapse, the game went on. But at some point, cutting budgets, taking one time charges for "redundancies" stops being able to manage the EPS, and then we get changes to the business model. My fear is that in few cases these will be proactive changes that people really believe in as opposed to desperate moves by the so called leaders to continue to hold their seats next to the trough. You can't spend what you ain't got, so makes sure you take enough with you before the game is up.

Permalink to Comment

31. Hap on June 21, 2011 12:08 PM writes...

I don't know how the risk alignment is going to change - it doesn't seem like the rewards for lots of drugs were known or were "known" wrongly (Viagra? Lipitor?) and without knowing that, how do you know when risks and investments are worth it? In addition, the risks getting drugs through trials seem to have increased (as have the costs of trials) and we don't know how to delete that (or to lower trial costs). I guess we'll find out if outsourcing/inlicensing (OSIL) will work better to generate drugs or generate them with fewer risks.

Cutting R+D doesn't help make research productive unless you know who's productive and who's not, or unless you have a new model that performs R+D better (which means you have to know when it's working and when not) and is likely to make some of them worse. At minimum, you have to have some idea of what you can most afford to cut (which, as in the previous post, doesn't seem to be a concern) and since (unless OSIL works) it's where your drugs (and your revenue) come from. It is the seed corn - if you don't have it, there won't be products in the long run (again, unless OSIL works, and that point, there probably won't be products in the real long run - 30 years? - because there won't be people here to do drug discovery and the costs for doing so elsewhere will approach ours)

You don't fix cars by cutting out pieces until they work better, and while no analogy is entirely accurate, I'm not certain why one would think that would be a good model for fixing a company, or an industry.

Permalink to Comment

32. got real on June 21, 2011 2:33 PM writes...

#31: It's great to pontificate about what should work, what needs to be done for greater success, how refocussing on the "right stuff" is the better way to go. Not to be too rude, as my teenager (or maybe Homor Simpson) would say "BUT WELL DAHHHH".

Let's see....the railroad industry could not be fixed to it's greater glory with advent of national highways and air travel, US steel companies have never come back, shoe and textile manufacturing in New England dried up (surely, Shirley, there must have been a way), the old BELL Research Labs that were so innovativate for many years could not be maintained. Businesses & industries change, evolve for all sorts of reasons....maturation of the area, changing economics & demographics, politics, and very much risk/cost/reward.

The Pharma industry is in an evolution. It will continue to move to a different thing, a different place, still trying to sell new, innovative patentable profitable drugs, but finding it less easy for getting the financial gain to the current expectation of risk, with increasing pressure on containment of costs and some balance of benefit to individuals and total group society. The pressure in the US, that has been building in other countries aleady for 20+ years, cannot be relieved until there is better overall containment of rising health care costs, including the pressure to relieve new expenses coming from expensive new therapies.

It remains inevitable. HAP's pretty world of utopia from the past is gone.

Permalink to Comment

33. Innovorich on June 21, 2011 3:14 PM writes...

"You don't fix cars by cutting out pieces until they work better, and while no analogy is entirely accurate, I'm not certain why one would think that would be a good model for fixing a company, or an industry."

Yes but commuting to work in an 18-wheeler truck, with a payload of rocks, and towing a boat, might be replaced with a Toyota Prius with admirable improvements in travel costs.

It's not about knowing who - it's about moving EVERYONE out to biotechs, CROs, and universities, then contracting/buying in their results.

Permalink to Comment

34. Hap on June 21, 2011 3:59 PM writes...

That's what the OSIL model is about, whose success is an open question. If it actually works, there are some other questions. First, how much cannon fodder can you get to fill those jobs? In the short term, there's a lot of people to choose from. In the long term, I'm thinking that it will be much harder to convince people to spend ten years in school to make not extravagant salaries for uncertain jobs. There hasn't been an easy time convincing people to do that already, based on the fraction of foreign students needed for graduate schools. At some point, China and India will get pricier. Then what?

Next, you can't evaluate research productivity well and don't know how to improve it - while that won't be pharma's problem under OSIL, it will be someone's (with costs reflected accordingly). Third, you still have to figure out which compounds won't flame out in P3 - the most expensive part of development, which you still have and have to pay for.

Finally, if the same people are driving the (smaller) truck, why do you expect to end up in a different place? In attempting to get people together, someone commented, "The solution to money problems isn't more money." If you don't know what's going on, then cutting things and making the process cheaper won't make the process give you what you want.

Permalink to Comment

35. Anonymous on June 21, 2011 4:27 PM writes...

All this stupid bickering..........

One point that seems to have escaped everyone is that all of those wonderful companies in that graph above generate ~50% of their sales and/or profits in the US which is 300 million of the world's population. You want to fix the industry? Have those people (or their governments) in the emerging markets, the place where all our jobs went, pay what we pay here in the US. Then you'll fix this ridiculous mess.

Why should the US support the rest of the world? China has or soon will have the biggest economy in the world. Until they can discover their own drugs (and that's a long way off), let them pay their damn share.

Permalink to Comment

36. DevicesRUs on June 21, 2011 4:59 PM writes...

I guess I am a bit confused by all this. How much did R&D actually get cut (in $ spent) over the last 10 to 15 years? Compared to the golden years (whenever that really was) when lots of compounds go to the market aren't we doing lots more R&D. If R&D as a percent of sales has remained pretty much flat isn't the problem that the "easy" drugs have been found and that we are trying to treat harder and harder problems? Many folks here seem to think that the MBAs have ruined the pharma business, yet R&D budgets seem to not have shrunk anywhere near as much as marketed product approvals. Are we dumber? Not likey. Are we being forced to work on stupid problems (maybe). Maybe someone can come up with a reasonable answer on how to "fix" pharma but mostly I hear lots of discussion how the business guys killed the industry and I am not convinced on why that is. Peter Kim is not a business guy, did they cut out his brain when Merck hired him, is he going after the wrong things?

From the device side of the world where stuff moves a lot faster but lives a lot shorter the whole question of WHY pharma is dying is not at all clear.

Permalink to Comment

37. Hap on June 21, 2011 5:26 PM writes...

#32: In the case of railroads, steel, textiles, cars, etc., there were either people/countries who could demonstrably make those things better and/or cheaper than we could, or things that were better than could replace them and us - hence we were replaced. Pharma doesn't have that - neither China nor India have produced drugs or have drug industries to replace ours. So what are you proposing to replace current pharma structure with? "Cut-and-trust" from people who can tell me how to go bankrupt like the banking industry doesn't seem like a good plan to get more drugs.

#35: There's holes in patents for need (S. Africa and HIV drugs, for example) and if you tried to get everyone else to pay up, that's probably what would be invoked. It'd be a good jump start for Indian and Chinese drug producers, but probably not much else.

#36: There's lots more R+D in pharma, and not more drugs. (See this post here.) I don't know if business people did that, and I don't know how to fix it. It's just that "slash-and-burn" (the current firing model - the management method of fixing it) seems like a bad way to increased R+D efficiency. (At least some of the problem can be tied to the business people - overselling drugs has led to big fines and has probably helped to make the FDA much more risk-averse in approving drugs and thus lowered R+D output.)

Permalink to Comment

38. Groundhog Day on June 21, 2011 6:00 PM writes...

Hap - I usually agree with your comments on this site but I feel I have to pipe up here. You say "...Pharma doesn't have that - neither China nor India have produced drugs or have drug industries to replace ours". For goodness sake, there's barely anything to replace! Big western companies have staffs of 80,000, 90,000, 100,000(!) people, are spending billions on R&D and for many years have produced next to NOTHING significant to replace fast disappearing blockbusters. Surely you must agree that this is unsustainable?

Your comments are bang on for c.1992. 2012 is a very different matter as we're all finding out to our cost.

Ps I'm not a 'business guy' either

Permalink to Comment

39. Terry Liu on June 21, 2011 7:18 PM writes...

During the past two years, it is so exciting for Chinese and India pharmaceutical companies who are focus on the generic drugs, the truth is, and there are around 70-100 billion dollars patent drugs expired in the near future. Such generic drug companies, big or small, will cut a piece of cake from the avenues of multinational pharmaceutical companies. Now there are around 6000 small pharmaceutical companies in China, most of them are not able to reach an avenue to 10 million dollars. It is really good news these patents finally expiated and went to public domain. I can’t wait to go back home to work as a scientist to explore the synthesis of these generic drugs and commercialization of them. The whole situation of the pharmaceutical companies will change, let’s wait and see after 10 years. It is similar like toy industry, a human intense industry, will finally be outsourced to developing countries.

Permalink to Comment

40. SteveM on June 21, 2011 8:18 PM writes...

Re: #39 Terry Liu "It is really good news these patents finally expiated and went to public domain"

Since when have patents ever been an impediment to the Chinese stealing Intellectual Property?

When Mr. Liu goes back home, if he can't find work using stolen Pharma IP, he could always burn bootleg copies of Microsoft Office in his communal room and still make a good buck...er...yuan...

Permalink to Comment

41. Hap on June 21, 2011 10:12 PM writes...

Pharma companies didn't start out at 90-100K workers - they got that way because they were able to produce drugs and thus to attempt to increase revenue by increasing scale. On one hand, it means that you could discover drugs with fewer people - if you could know (and cared) who to cut and who to keep. China and India don't have the number of people working in drugs because they haven't yet generated the products or revenue to support them. If you're going to replace US pharma with something else, it would be a good idea if you knew that the something could produce them.

The problem isn't that firing people is necessarily bad - if you don't have money, you have to cut somewhere, and pharma R+D spending has increased massively with not much to show for it. But layoffs aren't magical - if you can't evaluate research productivity and have no idea how to solve your productivity or late-stage trial failures, layoffs aren't going to help. You need to have a plan - I don't like OSIL, but is at least a plan that might work. Without a plan, layoffs look great to finance people but damage your ability to develop products (what ability you do have) and make your long-term survival less likely. Get started living (try to figure what's wrong and cut costs accordingly) or get started dying (liquidate to people who can use your assets more intelligently).

Permalink to Comment

42. got real on June 21, 2011 11:37 PM writes...

Thanks for the clarity, insight, direction, and wisdom, Hap. I'm sure everyone must feel so much better about Pharma's future, how to get there, and individual job security from your insighful wishy, washy, here and there lecture.

With Hap, it's now een pressed to great clarity in getting whatever you want to hear....and if you don't, just wait for another time, another grand prouncement, and you'll get something else that you must agree with, since it's the opposite of what was said before!

Just like Annie Hall....laudi dah, oh laudi, dahhh....

Permalink to Comment

44. Anonymous on June 22, 2011 7:43 AM writes...

Plavix is going off patent for BMS (2nd in sales only to lipitor). That is the main reason for the ~20% loss in revenue shown on the chart. If you look at the chart in the article that includes the base + pipeline BMS is ~10% gain in revenues over the next 10 years. How can people keep saying that the pharma industry is not producing drugs to replace loss of patent protection for blockbusters. BMS is pure pharma and is doing quite well in my opinion.

Permalink to Comment

45. Hap on June 22, 2011 9:29 AM writes...

I guess sanity is too much of an expectation for financial people. I know sane people who got MBA's (and appear to be sane afterwards) and the more I hear GR go on, the more I wonder how they managed to do it.

Permalink to Comment

46. got real on June 22, 2011 10:12 AM writes...

Hap, there you go again. So, so, so, presumptuous. PhD in chemistry with post-doc. Group of over 50 technical people in R*D in Pharma. But able to see beyond the tip of my nose, know how to balance a check book and run a budget, know that companies can't exist if the income just ain't there. Not just interested in being Dr. know it all techno geek, but rather, known "to get it done", pretty or not.

Frankly, Frank, it's fine, to me if you think the world of Pharma should continue on the path for free wheeling spending, increased loss-leading investing in hopes of getting a breakthrough to keep the doors open & pay the bills. But, if you believe in it so strongly, become a private investor, do the VC thing, and get your just rewards in trying to match some "exit strategy" (who said anything about making drugs?) to some futuristic buyer. Do it, Shirley, for surely you must know how.

Permalink to Comment

47. MedChem on June 22, 2011 11:02 AM writes...

As much as I hate to say this, I don't know much of the firing of scientists at big pharma is unjustified.

I've seen firsthand how "big pharma" arrogant, narrow minded, rigid, assembly line thinking managers ruin an otherwise successful culture. Couple that to your typical big pharma 6-hour work days, you've got super expensive people who aren't good at much else other than destruction of creativity. Oh yeah, did I mention the politics. It's a rude awakening to any naively stubborn scientist who believes science should tromp everything else, which couldn't be further from the sorry reality.

Sadly the industry deserves the state it's in.

Permalink to Comment

48. Hap on June 22, 2011 11:43 AM writes...

GR: You don't appear to know drugs, or finance, or management, though you do have foaming at the mouth down well. You don't have the basics of logic, or any ideas (no, that's not fair - financial suicide is an idea, I guess.) So your competency is...? (as before, magic and wishful thinking do not count).

Permalink to Comment

49. got real on June 22, 2011 12:27 PM writes...

47, MC: INDEED.

Permalink to Comment

50. Anonymous on June 22, 2011 3:21 PM writes...

Hap, don't feed trolls

Permalink to Comment

51. Anonymous on June 22, 2011 3:57 PM writes...

Got Real: You have over 50 R&D people under you and you have the time to post seven times on a single blog entry? Must be nice. Must be real hard at the top. You just couldn't make your point and shut up, could you? I wonder what you would think of anyone of your minions having the time to post that many times rather than doing their job. There's been a lot of critism of R&D management on this site. I can't imagine why.

Permalink to Comment

52. Processator on June 22, 2011 8:53 PM writes...

Kiddos, if you are doing a PhD in Chemistry you better get a different plan. The R&D in the United States will fade away until it is all done in China, India and at some point even Brazil. I think we will witness small groups of highly trained chemists in US to act as project managers and make sure projects are run as needed in low cost countries.

Organic Chemistry as we have studied has little if any future. Most faculty can start thinking about closing down the shop as well.

Permalink to Comment

53. Jose on June 23, 2011 1:59 AM writes...

My take on the whole thing: drug discovery/development in the mid-90's (pre combichem) was a crazy, Rube Goldberg-MacGyver contraption which no-one fully understood, but still managed to creak along and produce drugs in the end. The post combi-chem mania of lopping off all the bits which looked redundant or useless, simply managed to destroy the entire essence of the highly complex pharma machine....

Permalink to Comment

54. got real on June 23, 2011 9:36 AM writes...

51:
Despite what is put on blog sites like this when grumpy people do their anonymous grumping, not all management is incompetent...some are actually pretty good. Not all technical staff are excellent...some are terrible at even the simplest activities.

And, got to love how folks take on personal attacks when they see debates they've lost. And then complain about someone having time to post, when all you need to do is stop wasting your time in reading this nonsense. Lot's of entertainment provided along with a lot of nonsense. Just like in real life, have to know when, what, how to filter. The most fun in this is often to see what response can come from someone you don't even know face to face, but know exactly what they are like from their postings, absolutely predictable, dedicatedly oblivious to being manipulated within an on-line blog site, BUT necessary to show others just how little they really have to say that is of value to any REAL future that the industry might have.

Details are important in my job..like pointing out inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Hap's verbage. Many mistakes are made in Pharma decisions because such errors are made, stated, derived, assumed, but not corrected ... and all too often because people don't either know, know how, can't due to local politics, or simply don't have the guts or integrity. That's why so many people, like Hap, pronounce on sites like this, as it provides their means of escape, lashing out. You are in the wrong business, the very wrong business, if you can't take that feedback.

Permalink to Comment

55. provocateur on June 23, 2011 7:13 PM writes...

I am not as pessimistic as you guys are here.
I think th pharma industry is set to grow but slowly.I never bought into the 'genome hype' nor the 'outsourcing' hype.Personalized medicine will take over and living long will always will be a priority for all..The current economic crises has made it costly to outsource and the political stability issues will make sure that R&d depts remain in Europe and the USA.I have very close ties with India and its getting damn costly there.I am sure all these QE2's and other 'Easings' will drive down the US Currency and then we will remain the best that we were and I am not kidding!

Permalink to Comment

56. Anonymous on July 3, 2011 11:24 AM writes...

Well, looks like the folks at Lilly haven't read your post and are digging in their heels to go it alone no matter what:

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110701/BUSINESS03/107010337/CEO-Lilly-resisting-merger-banking-pipeline?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|IndyStar.com|s

Good luck guys, hope the pipeline pans out!

Permalink to Comment

57. provailen on August 8, 2012 5:07 PM writes...

I would also like to add that if you do not surely have an insurance policy or else you do not take part in any group insurance, chances are you'll well benefit from seeking aid from a health insurance agent. Self-employed or people with medical conditions ordinarily seek the help of one health insurance dealer. Thanks for your short article.

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
How Not to Do It: NMR Magnets
Allergan Escapes Valeant
Vytorin Actually Works
Fatalities at DuPont
The New York TImes on Drug Discovery
How Are Things at Princeton?
Phage-Derived Catalysts
Our Most Snorted-At Papers This Month. . .