Log in | Jump |
Biomedical investment and business development chatter





Archives

This post was commissioned on June 10, 2008, and it was categorized as Company Shakeups.

Feel free to leave a comment below. Eben loves comments. You may also subscribe to comments through this RSS Comments feed or trackback here.

BROOKLYN, NY - JANUARY 22:  The logo on Pfizer's oldest production plant founded in 1849 hangs at its corner January 22, 2007 in Brooklyn, New York. Pfizer, the world's largest pharmaceutical company, announced today that they will be laying off 10,000 workers and closing several facilities, including their Ann Arbor, Michigan Global Research and Development facility and also their Brooklyn plant in an effort to cut costs.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

GSK to shake-up research strategies (Financial Times)
UCSF, Pfizer sign collaborative research deal (San Fransisco Chronicle )

Both Via Pharmalot

It’s no secret that big pharma players have some work to do on their late-state pipeline and that they are collectively grasping at straws trying to bring in revenue.

Clearly, deciding to reorganize your entire R&D structure isn’t a small undertaking. Head of drug discover at GSK, Patrick Vallance, told a conference in London yesterday (from FT.com article):

GSK would increasingly try to become “more biotech-like” in its efforts to stimulate innovation.

He said drug discovery would be split into “smaller units with a very clear focus on single [disease] areas . . . and reward people based on successful value creation”, with “disincentives” against destroying value.

Wait, reward people based on value creation and discourage people against destroying value? What a crap line. Just say you are shaking things up. I commend GSK for at least making drastic changes to combat a vicious problem.

Pfizer, on the other hand, isn’t being so dramatic. Paying UCSF to do some research is hardly a novel idea; a baby step compared to GSK.

I think the problem isn’t with big pharma though, I think it’s with our expectation. These companies bring in tens of billions of dollars revenue. To sustain a 10% annual growth rate is like adding a blockbuster drug ever year at a minimum (not counting patent expirations). I hope I’m not the only one that thinks this standard might be a bit unreasonable.

Theoretically Related Posts

This post was constructed by .

Eben is a highly caffeinated business development associate at a small, cash sensitive pharmaceutical company somewhere in Massachusetts. He enjoys cliche-less banter, compartmentalization, non-equilibrium thermodynamics and NPV analysis. Agree or disagree with what he's posted? He encourages comments.

If one were so inclined, one could follow him at any of these fine web 2.0 establishments:
_blank _blank _blank _blank _blank _blank _blank

Feel free to leave a comment below. Eben loves comments. You may also subscribe to comments through this RSS Comments feed or trackback here.

 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus