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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I wonder how that compares to what the list would have looked like 2-3 years ago.

Perhaps the bio sciences are exceptions. It would be good news.

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…

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.

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.