This isn't surprising. Now that its acquistion of Wyeth is complete, the big drugmaker will "significantly reduce" R&D in various locations, and an undisclosed number of jobs will be gone (here's thepress release).
Various functions will be moved from Collegeville, Pa; Pearl River, NY; and St. Louis to other locations. Meanwhile, operations will no longer take place in Princeton, NJ; Chazy, Rouses Point and Plattsburgh, NY; Sanford and Research Triangle Park, NC; and Gosport, Slough/Taplow, UK. Pfizer will also consolidate R&D functions from its New London, Ct., site to its nearby research facility in Groton, Ct. As a result of these changes, Pfizer will reduce its global R&D square footage by 35 percent.
R&D activities will now be conducted at five main sites and nine specialized units around the world as compared with 20 R&D sites at the time the Wyeth deal closed on Oct. 16 (here's a list of what work is done where). Research sites that will serve as central hubs are located in Cambridge, Ma; Groton, Ct; Pearl River, NY; La Jolla, Ca; and Sandwich, UK. R&D work also continues in San Francisco, Cambridge, UK, and Shanghai, China.
In its recent quarterly SEC filing, Pfizer noted that it plans to reduce its workforce by 30,900 employees, mostly in manufacturing, sales and research, and, so far, about 26,300 jobs have already been eliminated (see page 9).
13 Comments
They are absolutely bratalizing Wyeth research. From what we could tell today they are only keeping about 25% of the scientists associated with early stage Wyeth research. They are completely closing 50% of the Wyeth legacy R&D centers and 1 of the legacy Pfizer R&D centers. We expected it to be bad -- but this exceeded almost everyone's worst nightmare. I don't know how a few thousand pharmaceutical researchers are suddenly supposed to find employment...
They will go work for the government or in academia were most innovations come from anyway....it pays a bit less, but the benefits are great and there is more stability....
Disagree with Former. Academia is downsizing almost everywhere. It will be a rare person who finds a job there in the current context. I doubt that government is much better.
It is a nightmare, indeed. I know people from Ann Arbor who relocated to a number of the facilities now closing. It makes us almost seem lucky by comparison. The majority of people here "only" lost their job once. The "survivors" are losing theirs again and again.
God awful.
FPME, under normal circumstances I would vociferously disagree with you point about most innovations coming from academia. But I really don't have the energy. Either way, JiM is right: Academia can't suddenly soak up thousands of displaced researchers.
I'm in small molecule research. The bottom line is that companies are running away from small-molecule drugs because of Teva (and other generics). In the case of Wyeth, the Protonix case just killed us. When Teva sued to invalidate our Protonix patent they instantaneously took away about $1.5 billion of income. Then they came in and did the same for Effexor - wiping out another few billion from our net worth. In doing so, they made us "cheap" enough for a Pfizer to come in and buy us out.
What is Pfizer's response? They don't want the same thing happening to them -- so they are fleeing as quickly as possible to biologics (antibodies, vaccines, etc). There is currently no path for biogenerics - so they no longer have to worry about Teva. Even when there IS a path for biogenerics, the "technology bar" will be so high that only a very select few will be able to compete. Frankly, it's a lose-lose situation for society: Fewer cheap generics, cost of goods dramtically higher, and less research going into drugs that can potentially be "inexpensively" made.
So for those of us who specialize in small-molecule drug research, there just aren't a lot of options. Sure, a handful will go into academic labs. Maybe a handful into government research centers. But unless trends change, the majority will simply leave the field maybe becoming high school teachers, technical writers, etc.
Nathan,
Do not get me wrong, I sympathize with what you are going through. I was hit years ago, it is survivable, but I am glad to be away from it. While I hope you get to stay in the field, if you wind up leaving, something tells me you will find you are much better off.
Having worked in many areas, including pharmacoeconomics, and working with some very smart people I would have to say that in the last fifteen years, certain things got out of hand. This horse is out of the barn already, we all face an uncertain future. But we will inevitably meet and go beyond our own expectations, because there is no other option....
I have been there.
What is disturbing is the disparity between the upper echelons and you and I the people who actually make things happen. Wall street cannot continue to reward this type of management style that passes the buck. These people do not see that their actions affect them as well as us.
Trying to strive to become what "they" are now is a waste of time for any of us. We should all just realize that their examples are the ones not to follow.
Justice,
Tell your friends to go to "Academic Keys" website.
I am too busy to keep counting, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of jobs posted in Academia in the sciences alone. They seem to be all "new" postings....
No sense staring at closed doors, you miss all the other ones opening up....
In a few years, if we do it right, we might have an efficient industry with their integrity restored...
I'll check the site, Former. (Not my area, but for interest.) However, I know that, in general, there are hiring freezes at a number of large universities--both public and private--and cuts in existing FTEs that range from about 6% to 25% at some schools.
Perhaps the bio sciences are exceptions. It would be good news.
Took a quick peek. In pharm specifically, 27 current listings, globally. Of course, that doesn't include chem, engin, etc. that may be available.
I wonder how that compares to what the list would have looked like 2-3 years ago.
Justice,
Yes, it would be interesting to see what that would have looked like a few years ago.
We need "real growth and expansion" built on solid bases, not change built on house of cards modeling... Just like there are no quick fix drugs, there are no quick fix changes. We need our long term vision reinstated and we need to build a system that rewards sustainable growth and vision, not quick fixes of the "wham bam thank you Mame type"....We need to challenge CEO's to meet the expectations and needs. We need to question the disparity between the various levels. We need to defend and support the free market capitalist ideas while still making the market interesting for all to participate in it, after all that is how it works right?
Dear "Former Pharma Marketing Director,"
You have some really great insights. If you have not already, check out my blog (http://blog.pharmaconduct.org?src=phltcmtfpmd20091110), as we share many similar positions.
Don't bother checking out the high school chemistry teaching jobs. That market is already saturated by ex pharma PhD scientitts. I could argue that we don't need ethical pharmaceutical companies for the most part since 95% of common diseases are handled by generics. Since we're inexorably moving towards universal health care anyway, here's how it could work: 1) government will hire ex pharma people and together they will define the unmet medical needs requiring anything more than nominal reimbursement, 2) government will buy up the huge excess research capacity cheaply and direct research activity per #1, 3) universities will once again become predominant in clinical research, giving them a needed money stream.. They will use existing CRO's to monitor studies. No need for pharma monitors, 4) Government will designate university Centers of Excellence to each work on a different unmet need, per #1, 5) the CDC will hire ex pharma safety people to monitor adverse events; they will also handle post-marketing surveillance. 6) there will be no need for pharma marketing since the government will only need to publicize a limited number of products, per #1 and generics dont promote anyway, 7) governemt will own a limited number of excess manufacturing sites to handle stability, packaging, manufacturing, etc.
Thus virtually every corporate function could be "outsourced" to government. Given the sorry state of corporate R&D productivity the last 2 decades, I would say that the Feds could hardly do worse.
pharmavet, I think you've been reading too much Goozner.
I don't foresee a big sea change like that--change happens far too slowly and inefficiently for your scenario.
I'm guessing we'll have more of the same. Consolidation, outsourcing and fewer parties fighting over smaller and smaller margins. Employees squeezed to maximize falling shareholder value. International competition, generics, and incremental government meddling (comparative effectiveness) limiting reimbursement.
International markets become more attractive, so more development and sales will happen outside U.S. borders. Teva and others develop their own drugs. Like Nathan said, biologics will be the last attractive pharma-type remedy (and possibly combination products) for U.S. companies.
Eventually, Daiichi acquires Pfizer or some such similar event.
Business as usual.
Question for people in R&D (or formerly there because of job cuts). I hate the thought of so many people losing their livelihoods.
How about if, instead of slapping suicidal ideation warnings (for example) on everything to protect manufacturers and regulators from legal recourse, it were required that those issues be removed from medications. Seems to me the perfect opportunity to keep people in R&D working while protecting the public at the same time.
Is it doable?
Would it be doable if the requirement exists and might preserve thousands of jobs?
I think there are industry people who have done themselves a serious injustice by insisting on doctor or patient error when things go badly. By making those claims you might have traded a law suit against your employer for your own positions.
See where I'm going here?
Not meant as an accusation- just pondering. Can changes in regulation mean you are held more highly? I really am so sorry to hear this sad news. There must be a remedy.