Chemist Who Helped Invent Lipitor Gets Laid Off
17 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 11th, 2007 // 9:03 am
His name is Bob Sliskovic and he got a job with Warner-Lambert in 1984. For nearly two decades, his career seemed to mirror the prosperity enjoyed by the overall pharmaceutical industry. Now, though, he’s getting the boot as Pfizer, which bought Warner-Lambert in 1999, closes down its research labs in Ann Arbor, Michigan. And The Wall Street Journal uses Sliskovic to illustrate the rough ride big drugmakers are enduring these days.
Chemists such as Sliskovic are apparently feeling their share of the pain. Although the Journal writes that it’s not clear how many chemists have lost pharma jobs, the paper cites Bureau of Labor Statistics data - overall, 116,000 chemists were employed in 2006, down from 140,000 in 2003. During the same period, employment of biologists rose to 116,000 from 112,000. Just as the rise of biotech is contributing to an economic boom in Northern California, the paper notes that the decline of chemical-based research is hurting Michigan, along with some regions of New Jersey and Illinois.
But his tale is especially poignant. Lipitor may have become the world’s biggest seller, but Sliskovic eventually moved on to the next project, a different type of cholesterol drug, the paper writes. There were obstacles, although he and his team were able to persuaded Warner-Lambert management to take the compound into human testing. For a while, it looked like the drug could be a contender to succeed Lipitor. But it failed in an intermediate stage of clinical testing, and was abandoned. “You’ve got to develop the hide of a rhino,” he tells the Journal.
Now, the acting head of the chemistry lab will help turn the lights off, but chose not to pursue a transfer to another Pfizer location, citing family concerns. The irony, as the paper points out, is that the drug he helped discover will bring in nearly $13 billion for Pfizer this year, although as a staff scientist, Sliskovic earned no bonus or royalties for his work on Lipitor. He tells the Journal that he dreams of being involved in another blockbuster and sometimes lies in bed at night wondering if it will happen.
“If the best thing I did was Lipitor in 1988,” he tells the Journal, “it’s like being the high-school athlete who was on the football team and that was that.”
To read the full story, you can look here (but subscription may be required).
Nathan
I like the fact that you point out that he didn’t get any bonus or royalties for his discovery of Lipitor. I think that most people are under the impression that scientists in this business can get rich if their drug succeeds. That just simply isn’t true. Both companies that I have been employed at have made me sign an agreement that all my inventions are the SOLE property of the company I work for — not mine. If my drug makes it, I might get some praise and recognition, but I won’t get a penny more than my salary. Academic scientists on, on the other hand, directly own their invention and can bring in big profits if the drug succeeds.
It goes to show you: who has the greater incentive to be dishonest? Academic scientists. Contrary to many of the posts on this site, industrial scientists have nothing to gain and everything to loose by being dishonest.
I can certainly corroborate, at least anecdotally, that industrial employment of chemists is shrinking. Generally any expansion in chemistry R&D is taking place via outsourcing in India and China. This is especially true of chemical process (scaleup) work. Early stage drug discovery seems to be largely staying here in the US — for now.
Bubba
…So I should go to India or China to get me my crystal meth? I say boy, what state is that in?
Jack
I want to add to Nathan’s point as well. I worked in academic research and switched to industry research. I find an inherent distrust in industry research in relation to academic research by most scientists and journals. For example, my company recently submitted a trial to a journal, which wanted to actually review the full data set and redo all the statistics. I don’t know if they do this for academic studies - but I never saw that before. However, consider these points:
1. Incentive. People commonly assume that because industry studies can mean the difference between hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars the incentive to cheat/lie becomes tremendous. Since academic studies often don’t carry the same economic weight you will find less potential to cheat/lie. But consider it at the personal level. A grad student usually needs to publish to graduate - and the more publications (s)he has, hopefully in the best journals of his field, increases the his graduation speed and helps him land his next job. And journals like positive results - everyone finds positive results more interesting, so you get an incentive to produce positive results. Their next job (a postdoc) will probably pay them about 2x the salary. Similarly, when working as a postdoc they still need as many papers as possible in the highest quality journals possible to become an assistant professor (and again, approximately increase pay by x2). From there they need tenure and it goes on and on through professor and full professor as the individual tries to become the chair of a department (and again, double salary). In industry, a study from my company may help my company, but I personally stand to gain much less from positive results from this study. I certainly won’t double my salary. I personally know I could have graduated sooner if I fudged/invented results in grad school, and probably never would have gotten caught. My ultimate point though, is don’t assume academics don’t have any incentive to lie.
1. Size. Academic studies (especially basic science studies) are usually planned and conducted by a small number of people (
Jack
It got cut off there…..
1. Size. Academic studies (especially basic science studies) are usually planned and conducted by a small number of people (
Jack
Cut off again … FYI: I think the less than sign may end your post
1. Size. Academic studies (especially basic science studies) are usually planned and conducted by a small number of people (less than 10), with one person doing most of the work, and no one else repeating or directly verifying that work. Industry studies involve a large number of people. For an industry study to out-and-out lie you require a lot of people to silently agree to not blow any whistles - sort of a conspiracy. It can happen, but imagine how much easier it is in an academic study. One lone wolf could potentially get away with it, and the other people on the paper may not even know it, since double-checks are rare.
I don’t want people to just trust industry studies at face value. They employ tricks too. For example, in a head-to-head comparison of drugs, look closely at the doses, the dosing regimens, and the outcomes analyzed. Usually these will all exploit the subtle advantages and downplay the disadvantages of the sponsoring company’s drug. But as for out and out lying (which I think is rare in both industry and academic studies), or exaggeration/optimistic data interpretation (which I think is much more common than data fabrication), I personally recommend you read a small academic study much more skeptically. Academics know this too. When a new paper comes out with some new method from another lab, people can be distrustful and then try to repeat the results. Many times in grad school I tried to build off of other lab’s results only to meet frustration. Maybe I just do experiments poorly…or maybe the other lab’s method isn’t as sound as you were led to believe. Most people never hear about this because it doesn’t involve a billion dollars or public health - but it does happen.
ol cranky
I hate to say it but, in the US, even academic studies are suspect if any bio/pharma company has provided support or funding. Some companies are willing to provide an inordinate amount of funding for small studies to support a publication plan for off-label use as a means to increase sales for the non-approved indication.
It’s gotten really ugly to the point that even “case-studies” of a marketed product in a non-approved indication may have been purchased by the manufacture who sample off-label calling the product “study drug” and may even pay the physician for some data and/or producing a case study report.
Curious
I’m curious, how many blockbuster drugs have actually come out of academia? Given the sheer cost of development, clinical trials, etc. I find it hard to imagine that academic researchers actually benefit beyond their research incorporated into industrial research.
Nathan
Academic researchers do not carry drugs all the way through development. But there are several examples of professors who have discovered and patented small molecules which are then licenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Typically the professor may get a few percent of any money generated, along with “milestone” payments for major hurdles such as clinical trials, FDA approval, etc.
Mike
As the saying goes: everything you read in the paper is true unless you know a little about the story. The title is used for sensationalism since it mentions in the story that Bob opted to take the package and not seek a transfer and so was not really “laid off”. Similarly, the WSJ article mentions that the entire site was laid off but later states that half were offered jobs. I do agree however, that it would be nice for those responsible for the discovery of a blockbuster drug were taken care of financially. The flip-side to that though is that it takes hundreds of people to discover and develop a drug. In addition, scientists want a piece of the profits, but what about the drugs that fail, or worse cause harm once on the market. You can be sure that no one wants to share in millions or billions of dollars of losses. Lets face it, the vast majority of us drug discovery scientists cost our employers much more than we make for them.
Ed Silverman
Hi Mike,
I understand your point, but the chemist is, unfortunately, losing his job - unless he accepts a transfer, which he reportedly declined to pursue, and that’s a result of the layoffs. You may consider this to be lawyerly parsing, but it’s not the same thing as getting to keep your job. This fellow is out the door, because that door will not remain open.
As someone who worked at a tabloid in the past - New York Newsday, until it was closed in 1995 - I enjoy using saucy headlines. However, I try to keep those within the bounds of accuracy. You obviously disagree, but I was not attempting to stretch the truth for the sake of sensationalism.
As to your last point, I’m not sure I agree. The expenses associated with employing the scientific staffs - and there are many expenses, of course - are accounted for on the financial statements and balanced against revenues, which are generated by product sales. Granted, more products are the result of deals with smaller companies that provide compounds. But despite the difficulties facing the industry of late, the companies continue to report profits. We may be closer, though, to the time when pharma fully adopts the Hollywood model and farms out nearly all development work. In that case, it may then be easier to identify the cost associated with remaining scientific staff. But are we at that point? I guess we need a cost accountant to weigh in here.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by.
ed at Pharmalot
CMC guy
Ed,
I am not an accountant and am certain Pharma has continued to make profits to cover research expenditures. Mike may be applying the fact that most med chemists end up working on compounds that never make it far in clinical or more so to the market where the earnings come. It a reflection of times demonstarting are going to be harder for such chemists as more and more is directed to “cheaper” countries.
Eugene
Is there a possibility that there are more natural alternatives right now that can offer a good solution to the medical challenges we have in the world right that is causing all these?
Allan Marinelli
This also proves that no matter how one passionately does a great job for an organization, everyone is just a number. One should attain personal satisfaction more than a job, at least in theory, but if one has the opportunity to either travel to China or India or own their own company, one can grow fundamentally within.
wsonnenberg
It is incredible that Pfizer uses Dr. Robert Jarvik as the spokesperson for Lipitor. He did not want to be a doctor, and has little expertise in Lipids. Bob Sliskovic must look bad on television, even though he developed the drug. From rules over substance again.
RTW
I use to work in the department with Bob and many others at the facility in Ann Arbor who are now out of work. Bob was part of a team that developed Lipitor. Bruce Roth formerly the head of the department prior to that also played a pivitol role in the discovery of Lipitor. Roger Newton who left(sic) Parke-Davis just as Lipitor was to become a comercial success had as much if not more to do with the drug making it out the door, than anyone. It takes a team.. and the Ann Arbor Parke-Davis facility had some of the most talented people in the Pfizer after the hostile takeover of Warner Lambert all for the revenue stream the drug produced. Same thing happened to Pharmacia over Celebrex. I predicted that takeover 9 months before it happened.
Internal politics played a big part in AA facility closing. The scientific achievements where not relavant to Pfizer - only meeting head count numbers. Prior to the takeover Parke-Davis was second only to Merck in drug patents and publications. Parke Davis indirectly paved the way for many other companies research programs because they published so much so quickly, when they could not afford to capitalize on every avenue of research. They where afterall about the 8th largest drug company in the US in the 1980s/90s Well behind the likes of Merck and Bristol Myers.
I spent 20 years in that industry doing drug research, and I can tell you for every compound that makes it to Phase I clinical trials 10’s of thousands of compounds fail. Few still ever make it past Phase I. It is an enormously expensive undertaking frought with liabilities. Every drug that comes to market has safety concerns. Tylenol and asprin today would not make it to the marketplace. Its a pretty thankless job, with little recognition or reward to the men and women actually working in the labs. I had been fortunate to know a couple people in my career that had actually been involved closely with the discovery of a couple of sucess stories. But these are really in the minority. They are the heroes we would all like to be.
Joe
Can RTW say more about the internal politics as he saw them that related to Pfizer closing the Ann Arbor facility? As someone not too far away, that was always the sense. I know some of the scientists you mention, so I’ve heard versions of the story, but earlier - when Roger first left.
RTW
Joe - At best its mostly hear say, but quite probable. From the beginning Pfizer kept setting higher and tougher goals for the various sites to fill after the merger. Ann Arbor year after year beat them and usually exceeded those set at the other facilities. I had heard that there was a lot of fear in Groton for example that AA was setting the bar to high. By every measure of productivity the AA facility was the most productive in the Pfizer system. But NY management were hoping AA would fail… But that little facility was always much better able to do more with less, as it had weathered difficult times as Parke-Davis…
From what I understand originally the plan was to close the La Jolla and St Louis Facility in addition to the Nagoya site. Groton and Sandwich were untouchable. I understand a member of the board didn’t like the plan and felt very strongly that Pfizer needed a facility in southern CA. To make the numbers AA got the axe instead. Problem was as usual they did not take into account the other costs involved with closing a facility like AA, where tax breaks where given the company by the city.. Parts of the facility where quite unique (a cyclotron) that would cost millions to mothball etc…. Additionally few scientists over the age of 40 where offered jobs at the other facilities. Almost no middle managers or upper level people. People with 20 or more years of experience got a severance, and perhaps lip service at best Especially people from the old PD days.. Even people I think Pfizer thought would be willing to move decided to take the package instead and move on rather than stay with a company they felt betrayed them. So that cost them more as well. I was glad I had an opportunity and left earlier.
What most people don’t know about the Lipitor story is the events leading up to Roger leaving PD. For a couple years prior management wanted to kill the project. At the time it looked like it would have been about the 6th statin on the market and would not get much of a market share or return on investment. What no one could guess at the time was that it was truly a superior statin, proven over and over again by expensive post marketing studies. Only Roger had that kind of faith.. Also no one knew how well Pfizer’s marketing would prove to be when WL decided to co-market the drug with them. Events leading up to this though where rough on Roger. Management started to take away his staff so that by the end he had no one reporting to him. Of course he laughed all the way to the bank when Esperion was purchased by Pfizer.
Out of this process I think PD learned valuable lessons that helped it become a better research organization, prior to the Pfizer take over. Managers that have left to head smaller organizations have taken these lessons with them and are applying them at other institutions now.