Optimizing a LinkedIn Profile to Land a Job

Posted in BioEducation

Social media platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook and niche career development communities like BioCrowd are being used to identify job candidates by hiring managers, employers and professional recruiters. For those of you who may not have been paying attention, LinkedIn is the largest professional social networking site on the web today. Most companies allow their employees to post profiles on LinkedIn and many do not block access to the site during working hours. Like it or not, this means that if you are looking for a job you would be a fool not to have a complete and up-to-date profile on LinkedIn!

However, while you may think that your LinkedIn profile is sufficient to help a recruiter or hiring manager find you among the other 129 million or so LinkedIn members, it probably is not. This is because, in order to be found, your LinkedIn profile (much like your CV/resume) must contain key words that identify you as a person who possesses the right qualifications and skill sets after the hiring manager or recruiter searches the LinkedIn database using those words! This begs the question: what are the keywords to use in my LinkedIn profile so that I can be found?

The best way to identify keywords is to read as many job posting as you can with titles similar to the ones that you are interested in landing. Typically, they can be found in the qualifications and skills set requirements displayed in the ad. Many times these may be buzz words or jargon unique to your field of study. The point here is to identify the key words and then to artfully and judiciously incorporate them into your LinkedIn profile. But, most BioJobBlog readers will ask (because you are scientists) how do I know if the keywords I chose are the correct ones?

Ian Levine, who runs CareerBrander.com, offers a clever test (described below):

  1. Go to the peoples tab @ LinkedIn and hit advanced search.
  2. Now enter a keyword or keywords associated with your targeted position. Ex: regulatory affairs
  3. Now enter a geography zip code and a distance quotient.
  4. Then select an industry or multiple industries that apply to you. (Understand the broader you make your search the lower your ranking will be).
  5. Hit search. Can you find yourself in the first few pages of the LinkedIn results?

If your name appears at or near the top of the search page results (with the words that were used in the search highlighted) then your LinkedIn profile is optimized and you will likely be found. If your name is not near the top (or on the list) then you have some work to do. Not surprisingly, one way to optimize your profile is to visit the profiles of those whose names do appear on the top of the search list for the type of job that you want!

While it may take some time to fully optimize your LinkedIn profile, it will be time well spent! At present, over 80 percent of hiring managers and close to 100% of recruiters use social media platforms at some point in the hiring process.

Until next time…

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

 

Business Update: Biogen Idec and Samsung Biologics Announce Formation of Biosimilar Joint Venture

Posted in BioEducation

Last December, Biogen Idec and Samsung Biologics (who knew that Samsung makes proteins in addition to TVs and cell phones) announced that they would form a joint venture to develop and manufacture biosimilar products. The name of the new venture was announced today and it is a mouthful: Samsung Bioepis Co Ltd. While it is an okay name, Bioepis sounds a lot like sepsis to me and if you want to convey o prospective stakeholders that your company is producing high quality biosimilars than sepsis is not something you want people to think about. Too bad they did not hire me to help with their branding and customer awareness campaign.

In any event, Christopher Hansung Ko, previously Senior Vice President of Samsung Strategic Business development was named the CEO of Bioepis. According to a press release the Bioepis board will be made up of five members (the release did not stipulate how many directors would hail from Biogen Idec and Samsung Biologics) and one auditor.

Construction of Bioepis’ R&D center has begun and it will be located at Samsung’s Biologics campus in Songdo Incheon, Korea. The construction is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

Those of you interested in working in Korea should submit your CVs now.

Until next time…

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

So You Want To Be A Regulatory Affairs Professional?

Posted in BioEducation

As anyone who works in the drug development industry and they will invariably tell you how complex the environment has become in the past 10 years to get a new drug or medical device approved. While this increased regulatory scrutiny has been brought on by drug and device makers themselves (has there been a time over the past decade when there has not been some reports in the news media about drug recalls, tainted drugs or marketing scandals?), it does not obviate the growing need for more regulatory affairs professionals at drug and medical devices companies. To that end, people looking to break into the life sciences industry ought to consider whether becoming a regulatory affairs professional may be right for them.

Zachary Brousseau, who is Senior Manager of Communications for the trade group the Regulatory Affairs Professional Society (RAPS), alerted me to a recent annual survey conducted by the group entitled “Global Scope of Practice and Compensation Survey”. This survey which has been conducted by RAPS for the past 20 years provides insights into the regulatory affairs profession and the compensation persons interested in this career might expect.

I highly recommend those of you who are considering regulatory affairs careers to read the post below and to also look at the entire survey. Also, RAPS offers traditional classroom and online courses for those who are looking for training to break into the profession.

RAPS Scope of Practice Study: Tracking the Regulatory Profession

RAPS recently fielded the 2012 iteration of its ongoing research initiative on the regulatory profession, the RAPS Global Scope of Practice & Compensation Survey.

This research has been conducted by RAPS for more than 20 years, and it continues to be the largest, most comprehensive study of the healthcare product regulatory profession. RAPS Executive Director Sherry Keramidas, PhD, FASAE, CAE, recently spoke with Regulatory Focus about the study and its implications.

Regulatory Focus (RF): What is the goal of the Scope of Practice Survey?

RAPS Executive Director Sherry Keramidas (SK): The Scope of Practice Survey gives us a look at the development of the regulatory profession, monitoring trends and changes in what we call the scope of practice: the duties and responsibilities of regulatory professionals. It also gives us a look at their career progression and compensation.

RF: Why is it important?

SK: Like any profession, the regulatory profession must adapt and evolve. This research provides a way of seeing how it has adapted and changed over time, and gives us insight that helps regulatory professionals respond to the changing needs and anticipate what may be coming next. What we learn helps RAPS create and improve professional development initiatives to ensure regulatory professionals have the knowledge and skills to excel in their roles today and tomorrow. It also provides critical information for RAPS to help the world beyond the profession understand what regulatory professionals do and its importance.

RF: What have you learned about the regulatory profession from previous surveys and what do you expect to learn from the current survey?

SK: We have seen a number of important developments over the 20-plus years we have been conducting this research. We have seen increased movement of professionals across product lines—from more pharma-oriented jobs to medical device jobs and vice versa, and we have witnessed increased involvement in combination products. We have seen a trend away from country-specific specialization to more professionals who have multinational or worldwide responsibilities. And we see strong similarities in the scope of practice of professionals around the world, regardless of where they live and work. Today’s regulatory professionals have to be more familiar with regulations and requirements for many different global markets and different products. There is still specialization, certainly, but there is an increasing need for regulatory professionals to understand the broader regulatory landscape. Another interesting development has been that regulatory professionals have become more involved in business and strategic decision making. I would expect each of these trends to continue.

RF: What do you think is driving the increasing involvement in business?

SK: The shift toward more business involvement is something we started to see more than 10 years ago. I think the increasing number of regulatory professionals ascending to higher executive levels played a role in companies’ and organizations’ burgeoning recognition that regulatory expertise can provide valuable insight to drive more-effective organizational strategies. The fact that regulatory professionals were increasingly being called upon to influence business and strategy decisions led RAPS to launch its Executive Development Program in partnership with the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern University. That is a pretty good example of how this research helped RAPS identify and respond to a growing need within the profession.

RF: What other changes in the profession have you seen, and what do you think is driving them?

SK: Another trend and an important factor, I think, in the business involvement has been regulatory’s increasing engagement throughout the product lifecycle. This made regulatory professionals more important players in all aspects of healthcare products—from research and development through postmarketing. Regulatory has a role at every stage, whereas years ago, the emphasis for regulatory professionals was on submissions and compliance. This change aligns with what is going on in the overall the healthcare product sector. In recent years, we have seen industry’s focus shift a bit toward more postmarketing activities and keeping existing products on the market.

RF: Have there been any surprising results from past years’ surveys?

SK: I don’t think we expected to see the business involvement when it first emerged. Other interesting trends we have seen develop include increased engagement in reimbursement and health technology assessment. Issues of regulation and reimbursement are more often being considered in coordination with one another at earlier stages. A viable product needs to be both approvable and reimbursable, and regulatory professionals are increasingly being asked to help bridge the gap between the two areas.

RF: What new questions have been added to the survey this year? What do you hope to glean from these questions?

SK: We have refined the breakdown of where regulatory professionals spend their time based on feedback from those in the field, and we have added some new questions about what brought them into the profession in the first place and what factors help shape their career decisions. For organizations that employ regulatory people, there is a need to find the best way to recruit, develop and retain regulatory professionals. More information will help both professionals and employers better address career development and talent management.

RF: What can the Scope of Practice survey tell us about the importance of the regulatory profession?

SK: The profession continues to evolve closely in step with the overall healthcare product sector, including the pharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology industries. Translating scientific and technological breakthroughs in these areas into real, accessible patient treatments demands that regulation keeps pace. In many ways, the regulatory profession is on the cutting edge, at the intersection of innovation, regulation and business. There is a growing recognition of the critical role of regulatory professionals, even as work remains to help those outside the profession more fully understand what they do. Regulatory professionals do important work that, as RAPS’ tagline says, ‘helps make better healthcare products possible.’ The Scope of Practice Study helps us tell this important story.

The 2012 RAPS Global Scope of Practice & Compensation Survey is open now, and regulatory professionals can complete it online at www.raps.org/2012globalstudy.

Until next time

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

 

The Y Chromosome: It’s Official–Bigger Is Not Better!

Posted in BioEducation

New results by Jennifer F. Hughes and David C. Page from the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge MA published this week’s in Nature Magazine suggest that the Y chromosome, despite it diminutive size, is a well conserved example of genetic parsimony that has evolved to the point where is should not get any smaller! No doubt a few men will wipe their brows and issue a sigh of relief after contemplating the significance of that statement.

According to the report, the X and Y human chromosomes evolved from an ordinary pair of autosomal chromosomes during the past 200-300 million years. At, one point, both chromosomes shared roughly 800 common genes. However, through a series of genetic mutations and rearrangements, i.e. genetic decay the human Y chromosome has retained just three percent (ca 19) of its ancestral autosomal genes. In contrast, the X chromosome contains 790 of the ancestral genes. Put simply, so much DNA has been lost from the Y chromosome that is now a fraction of its original size!

The Whitehead team determined this by sequencing the male-specific region (MSY) of the rhesus macaque (an Old World monkey) and compared it to the human MYS. It is important to note that the MSY genes appeared roughly 320 million years ago and divergence of the Old World monkey lineage from human took place 25 million years ago. Based on their analysis, the researchers concluded that the most recent loss of genetic material from the Y chromosome took place about 30 million years ago and nothing has changed on the genotypic level in both humans and rhesus macaques in the past 25 million years. The authors suggested that the current size of the Y chromosome is about as small as it can get and that the Y chromosome may be one of the best examples of the power of strict genetic conservation through purifying selection.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these findings lay to rest the notion that bigger is always better!

Until next time….

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

 

Chlamydia Infections Are Ravaging Australia’s Koala Population

Posted in BioEducation

When most people think about Australia kangaroos and koalas (the word bear is a misnomer) immediately come to mind. While the kangaroo population is thriving and, in many places, rapidly growing out of control, Australia’s treasured koala population is being ravaged by Chlamydophila pecorum, a little known, obligate, intracellular bacterial pathogen related to Chlamydia trachomatis which can cause urethritis, pelvic inflammatory disease, conjunctivitis and pneumonia in humans. C .pecorum can infect goats, koalas, sheep, swine and cattle but it is not transmissible to humans. However, C. trachomatis can infect koalas and small percentage of koala infections in the outbreak have been found to be caused by this bacterium.

Surveys conducted in Queensland, a very large state in Australia’s northeastern corner that climatically is similar to Florida and home to large numbers of koalas; suggest that from 2001 to 2008, the size of the koala population dropped roughly 45 percent in urban areas and by about 15 percent in the bush. While climate change and habitat loss due to urban expansion has contributed to the decline in koala numbers, government officials believe that C. pecorum are hastening the koala demise. Recent reports suggest that almost 50 percent of Queensland koalas are infected with C. pecorum. As is the case with C. trachomatis infections in humans, infected animals frequently do not display symptoms making its spread even more insidious. Also, like C. trachomatis, transmission of C. pecorum mainly occurs via sexual contact during mating.

Like human infections, chlamydiae can cause a host of symptoms in infected koalas including eye infections (which can often lead to blindness and an inability to forage for increasingly scare eucalyptus leaves, their primary food source), respiratory infections and pneumonia and infertility among female koalas. To make matters worse, almost all of Queensland koalas are infected with a retrovirus similar to HIV which compromises their immunes systems (like HIV/AIDS) and makes them more susceptible to chlamydiae infection.

At present there are no good treatments to combat the spread of C. pecorum in the koala population. While Australian researchers are working feverishly to develop a vaccine, it is not clear whether or not they will succeed. Historically, it has been very difficult to develop effective vaccines against bacterial intracellular pathogens.

Despite the rapidly declining koala population through Australia, late last week, the Australian government delayed a decision to place the koala on the country’s endangered species list! Recent reports suggest that there may be as few as 43,000 koalas in Australia. If Australian officials don’t do something quickly they may be at risk of losing an iconic figure that defines Australia for the rest of the world. 

With this in mind, I think that everyone ought to consider joining the global “Save the Koala” campaign! After all, who doesn’t love koalas?

Until next time…

Good Luck and Save the Koala!

 

Why Many Scientists Have A PR Problem!

Posted in BioEducation

I apologize in advance for this rant but I have been participating in an almost six month long thread on LinkedIn discussing whether or not PhD-trained scientists lack the social discipline and knowledge necessary to favorably interact with the lay public. Not surprisingly, a majority of participants contend that most PhD-bearing life scientists lack social graces to the point where they come off as being aloof, condescending and enamored with their own intelligence and projects that they choose to work on.

While I tend to generally agree with this characterization, I contend that the lack of social discipline exhibited by many graduate students and postdocs is not a result of personality defects but can likely be attributed to the attitudes and behaviors learned from their mentors and PIs. Put simply, graduate students and postdocs would likely learn to behave differently in social situations if they were trained differently by their PIs and mentors.

Now: the reason for the rant. In yesterday’s Science Times, there was an article about a Princeton-based writer, Jeffrey Eugenides, who decided to write a novel using a life sciences researcher as its main character. Mr. Eugenides, who previously wrote a well received novel entitled “Middlesex,” does not possess a scientific background nor has he spent any time in a research laboratory. In fact, despite living in Princeton a bastion of life sciences research, he had no friends or even acquaintances who were scientists. His closest connect to science is his wife, an artist who spent a winter in Cold Spring Harbor (but not at the research center). Nevertheless, creating a main character who is a scientist required that he do a lot of internet research to learn about scientific research and what makes “scientists tick.” To that end, he read peer-reviewed yeast genetics papers to better understand the focus of the main character’s research—yeast mating genetics. It took him many years to collect the information necessary to write the novel. And a scientist—whose research laid the foundation for work described in the novel—was astounded that Eugenides got it exactly right!

Because Princeton University is home to one of the world’s leading yeast genetics programs, Eugenides decided to chat with yeast geneticists actively engaged in basic research to get an idea of what actually goes on in a research laboratory. To accomplish this he turned to one of the world’s leading experts on yeast geneticist at Princeton to ask for help. Although the geneticist thought that Eugenides needed an explanation of the research described in the novel, Eugenides simply wanted to spend a day in his laboratory and interact with “real” scientists. After hearing this, the geneticist handed Eugenides off to his laboratory manager and left the lab.

When interviewed for the story in the NY Times, the geneticist quipped “I never heard of the book, and I don’t remember talking to the guy.” Taken at face value his comments are not intentionally pejorative or demeaning. But, they do suggest an air of arrogance, indifference and most importantly disinterest. I suspect that this is because the visit had little to do with the geneticist’s work and, in the end, there was not much in it for him—so why waste his time?

Sadly this is exactly the attitudes and behaviors exhibited by many scientists. Is it any wonder why many lay people think that most scientists are arrogant, self absorbed and indifferent when it comes to social graces? Although the scientist mentioned in the post is world renown in scientific circles, he did not come off well (to me anyway) in the article. That said, he created a PR problem for himself.

While in the past it was convenient for academicians to “live in the ivory tower” the recession, an increasingly lousy job market for PhD-trained scientists and the advent of social media suggests that we have entered into a new age. Like it or not, social skills are absolutely required for gainful employment in today’s world. I think it is time for academics to realize this and change the way in which they train their graduate students and postdocs.

Until next time….

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

 

New Report: High Job Anxiety Amongst Pharmaceutical Employees

Posted in BioEducation

A post today on the fabulous Pharmalot Blog revealed that a recent poll conducted by Pharma IQ showed that about 44 percent of all pharmaceutical employee respondents worry that they may become redundant (corporate speak for dispensable) over the next year or so. Further, 50 percent believe that staffing levels will remain the same for 2012 whereas 32 percent expect more layoffs to occur. Only 19 percent of the 535 pharma employees surveyed believe that hiring will increase this year.

Roughly 48 percent of respondents indicated that their groups/departments had not been downsized. However, 61% of respondents—who indicated that downsizing had taken place in their department— reported that their job functions were being performed by fewer numbers of employees. Twenty-five percent report that the job functions performed by layed off employees were outsourced. Of those, 10 percent said that the jobs were outsourced to emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil etc.

Interestingly, a whopping 71 percent believe that the massive layoffs that have taken place in pharma are a result of the recession. While this is what big pharma wants its layed off employees to believe, the bottom line is that the pharma industry began shedding jobs in 2001 mainly because of anticipated lost of patent expiry for many of its blockbusters and the lack of new molecular entities discovered by internal R&D programs not because of cash flow problems. To wit, a quick perusal of cash reserves indicates that most major pharmaceutical companies have roughly $5 to 35 billion in short term cash reserves. Simply put, the recession conveniently provided pharma execs with a legitimate excuse to downsize.

To be fair, big pharma companies will be losing substantial revenue streams because of loss of patent protection for blockbusters like Lipitor, Zyprexa, and Plavix etc. And, that some belt tightening may be in order to remain competitive. However, most pharma execs realized way back in the mid 2000s that they could no longer justify such large workforces in the wake of thinning pipelines and a much lower than expect ROI from internal R&D activities. Consequently, they had to layoff large numbers of R&D and sales employees to keep their stock prices stable and in some cases to retain their jobs. The fact that a majority of the current pharma employees surveyed believe that the massive pharma layoffs that have taken place over the last decade are a result of the recession suggests that these employees are still drinking the Kool-Aid freely offered by their employers.

There are a lot of other interesting statistics and tidbits in the report that may be worth a look. However, it is important to note, that it is highly unlikely that pharma will ever replace many of the US and European employees who lost their jobs. Recent moves made by most major pharmaceutical companies clearly indicate that they are betting on their growth in both R&D and sales to take place in emerging markets. Sadly, the future of the US life sciences workforce is no longer bright. In fact, it is quite dim!

Until next time…

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

 

Job Search Strategies for the Unemployed

Posted in BioEducation

Many people lost their jobs during the recession for reasons that were unrelated to personal skills and performance. Nevertheless, many hiring managers cling to the wrong-headed notion that long term unemployed persons are unemployed or layed off because they were less than adequate or under performers in their previous positions. Therefore, it is important for unemployed persons to pursue strategies that ensure that they remain strong job candidates for prospective new employers.

An article by Eilene Zimmerman entitled “Out of Work but Staying a Strong Candidate” offers some good advice for the unemployed. First, unemployed persons may have to reconsider the way in which they network to look for new job opportunities. To that point, people in your old network may feel guilty that they are employed and you don’t have a job. Because of this, they may feel sorry for your or see you as injured or defeated and possibly avoid interacting with you or including you at industry events. To obviate this, it is a good idea when networking with them to offer an article or blog post that may be temporal and relevant to your industry or mentioning a professional opportunity that they may not know about. Also, it is a good idea to stay abreast of important and current things happening in your industry (or an industry that you are interested in breaking into). This shows people that you are still engaged and interested in other professional opportunities that may exist. Finally, maintain your membership in professional societies (even though you may not be flush with cash) and consider volunteering on committees in these organizations. This shows other industry professionals that you are active and engaged. Also, professional association members frequently hear about or learn of unadvertised jobs or career opportunities within an industry.

There is no question that losing your job can be devastating and emotionally distressing. However, just because you are unemployed, it doesn’t mean that your standing or stature in your industry needs to be negatively impacted. To that end, keep your certifications, professional credentials and licenses up to date and participate in other activities that make use of your professional skills. Finding part-time or contract work in your industry is also a plus as is volunteering or doing unpaid work for charitable organizations.

Another popular strategy is to start your own consulting firm. While your previous employer may have layed you off to cut costs, it does not mean that they will not considering hiring you as a consultant (they don’t have to pay benefits, bonuses or contribute to a 401K and can write off your services as 1099 work). Landing one or two small gigs may be able to tide you over until you find a new fulltime position.

Most unemployed people are rightly-concerned about the employment gap that will appear on their CV or resume. Unfortunately, there is no real way to hide it! One way to manage an employment gap is to add a Summary of Qualifications or Profile section to your resume. This section can be placed at the beginning of the resume (underneath your name and contact information) and should be crafted to extol your skills and qualifications for individual jobs. This means that every time you apply for a new position, the Summary of Qualifications section must be tailored and optimized to show prospective employers why you and not the other 1,000 applicants ought to be considered for the job. Also, as suggested in Ms Zimmerman’s article, you can change the title of the section “work experience” to “experience” and describe any contract, part-time or volunteer work (which was unpaid) using the same language; which focused on your results, strategies used to get there and your contributions to the organization during your tenure.

Finally, and perhaps most important, unemployed persons must learn to deal with and come to terms about unemployment history during job interviews. Nobody likes admitting that they were fired or layed off but, as a rule of thumb, it is best to be as honest (as possible) because most industries and networks are small and job candidates who are less than truthful almost always get caught! For example, if you were part of a large layoff at your previous employer, then it is a good idea to explain the circumstances to the interviewer and also indicate that you were not layed off for performance reasons. Further, it is not a good idea to apply for or interview for any job that may be available at a particular company or organization. If you are overqualified or not the right fit for a job, many employers will not even consider you for the job because they fear that you will leave as soon as something more appropriate comes along. That said, it is important to only apply for jobs within your industry that represent a good fit with your skill sets and experience. If that fails to yield positive results, then you may want to consider a different industry; but recognize that you may need additional training to acquire the skills or experience even to be considered for entry level positions in that industry!

Until next time…

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

 

FDA Finally Issues Some Biosimilar Guidance Documents

Posted in BioEducation

The US Food and Drug Administration finally released portions of the long-awaited guidance documents that will help to implement the development and approval of biosimilar molecules under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA)

Yesterday the agency issued three guidance documents which represent only a small portion of the total guidance package that will be necessary to develop and commercialize biosimilar products in the US

They are:

  1. Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product
  2. Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009
  3. Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Protein Product

For a more detailed analysis of the guidance documents please check out a post by James N. Czaban. According to Czaban (and many other in the biosimilar space) these first three guidance documents represent “baby steps” towards implementing the specifics of BPCIA. To that point, Czaban suggests that:

“These Guidances, while helpful in expressing some of the FDA’s general approaches, but will be of limited specific value with respect to any particular product”

Stay tuned for more updates.

Until next time…

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

 

GlaxoSmithKline Will Reorganize Its R&D Operations To Cut Costs

Posted in BioEducation

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) today announced that it will reconfigure its R&D operations to cut operating costs. Interestingly, the company hopes to reorganize and not lay off any of its employees—yeah right!

According to a press release, a small number of employees will be affected at Research Triangle Park, NC GSK’s US base of operations, although a spokesperson refused to be more specific. Further, those affected workers are expected to remain in R&D but in different capacities.

For all of 2011, GSK generated $44.09 billion in sales and net income of $8.14 billion. However, fourth quarter revenues dropped 2 percent to $11.24 billion.

It seems like there is announcement like this every day from a big pharmaceutical company. It is no longer a secret that investing in R&D has not provided many big pharma companies with their expected return on investment. Consequently, there have been massive layoffs in R&D at every major pharmaceutical company over the past five years. This strategy is seemingly paradoxical; to wit, how can companies that have to regularly discover and commercialize new molecular entities remain in business if they continue to shed the employees who are responsible for making the discoveries? Sadly, big pharma’s strategy to remedy the paradox is to outsource R&D, establish R&D centers in emerging markets where wages and operational costs are much lower than in the US and other part of the developed world and to look at purchasing companies that have new drugs in late stage preclinical or clinical development.

Until next time…

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