Time to shut down NIBR

Quote
You raise a good point. This big pharma corporate research model does not work at NIBR, or elsewhere. The problem is NIBR has become a retirement home for Marks Fishmans academic friends/roommates, all of whom have had careers that are like my son's elementary school- surrounded by a 100-yard drug-free zone. All I'm saying is its time to clean the house, scale down middle management who care more about matrix organisation styles and org charts then science and believe touching a pipette is beneath them, and depend more on acquiring leads from small biotechs. The ROI is better- period. the few commercial successes came from this route anyway. The attitutde "well its not successful anywhere" is no justification for continuing down a dead end path, so why continue to feed the bloated overhead associated with NIBR?
 




Anonymous said:
You raise a good point. This big pharma corporate research model does not work at NIBR, or elsewhere. The problem is NIBR has become a retirement home for Marks Fishmans academic friends/roommates, all of whom have had careers that are like my son's elementary school- surrounded by a 100-yard drug-free zone. All I'm saying is its time to clean the house, scale down middle management who care more about matrix organisation styles and org charts then science and believe touching a pipette is beneath them, and depend more on acquiring leads from small biotechs. The ROI is better- period. the few commercial successes came from this route anyway. The attitutde "well its not successful anywhere" is no justification for continuing down a dead end path, so why continue to feed the bloated overhead associated with NIBR?
Click to expand...

So when you write, "This big pharma corporate research model does not work at NIBR, or elsewhere." you really mean that over the last ??(10?) years these models have failed to produce any (or many) marketable drugs. But if you look that the market, it has been almost 20 years since Pharma research has produced any drugs other than "me too" drugs that can and should be replaced by Generics. Pharma develops, patents then markets these drugs through sales reps because they would have no revenue in these markets if they didn't. In another thread on Cafe Pharma a study in a peer reviewed journal from an organization that is the 2nd largest representing board certified family practice docs found that 72% by count or 64% by costs of drugs in a clinic could and should be replaced by generics.

So, these research models have produced mostly "me too" drugs that are then marketed unethically when they should be replaced by generics and then this research model has not even produced those in the most recent years.

Obama Care will put even more pressure on this and after a time, the Fed Govt and all Private Insurance will refuse to pay for any branded drug where their is a generic substitute. As this becomes apparent then why would Pharma continue to fund research models that can't produce anything marketable and when they have over the last 20 years those will now not be able to be paid for?

Basically, the Pharma Research model was extended by the development of "me too" drugs and when the ability to find and patent the 2nd Generation of "me too" drugs, call them, "me too, me too" drugs or new drugs to better treat those conditions Pharma extended the gravy train by finding ways to market these drugs, waste US Healthcare spending, using immoral techniques.

With Obama Care the gravy train is over baby!
 




Anonymous said:
So when you write, "This big pharma corporate research model does not work at NIBR, or elsewhere." you really mean that over the last ??(10?) years these models have failed to produce any (or many) marketable drugs. But if you look that the market, it has been almost 20 years since Pharma research has produced any drugs other than "me too" drugs that can and should be replaced by Generics. Pharma develops, patents then markets these drugs through sales reps because they would have no revenue in these markets if they didn't. In another thread on Cafe Pharma a study in a peer reviewed journal from an organization that is the 2nd largest representing board certified family practice docs found that 72% by count or 64% by costs of drugs in a clinic could and should be replaced by generics.

So, these research models have produced mostly "me too" drugs that are then marketed unethically when they should be replaced by generics and then this research model has not even produced those in the most recent years.

Obama Care will put even more pressure on this and after a time, the Fed Govt and all Private Insurance will refuse to pay for any branded drug where their is a generic substitute. As this becomes apparent then why would Pharma continue to fund research models that can't produce anything marketable and when they have over the last 20 years those will now not be able to be paid for?

Basically, the Pharma Research model was extended by the development of "me too" drugs and when the ability to find and patent the 2nd Generation of "me too" drugs, call them, "me too, me too" drugs or new drugs to better treat those conditions Pharma extended the gravy train by finding ways to market these drugs, waste US Healthcare spending, using immoral techniques.

With Obama Care the gravy train is over baby!
Click to expand...

Gowd, this post really shut up all the whiners!
 








Sooner the better for shareholders. Mark just has a few more former med school roommates to which he needs to pass out golden parachute nibr department head positions to and we"ll be all set. Job well done, mark...well done indeed good sir!
 












Anonymous said:
Dismiss NIBR Basel top and middle management
Click to expand...

I don't think that would address the fundemental problem. The lack of a pipeline full of marketably visble drugs is industry wide. NIBR, as a concept (a very expensive bet), was an attempted soultion to this and has also failed. The Sr Mgmt has put a good spin on it but that is all.

The fundemental problem is that science and the instituions can no longer produce drugs / treatments that can successfully address diseases / conditions in an affordable way.

In effect, the failure of NIBR is a symptom and not a root cause.
 




Anonymous said:
I don't think that would address the fundemental problem. The lack of a pipeline full of marketably visble drugs is industry wide. NIBR, as a concept (a very expensive bet), was an attempted soultion to this and has also failed. The Sr Mgmt has put a good spin on it but that is all.

The fundemental problem is that science and the instituions can no longer produce drugs / treatments that can successfully address diseases / conditions in an affordable way.

In effect, the failure of NIBR is a symptom and not a root cause.
Click to expand...



I disagree that the NIBR concept has failed, we still might have a chance – but managers in middle and especially top management (right to the top) in Basel are incapable to implement it. Look at the outcome of the GES and Marc`s comments to the situation.
 




I disagree that the NIBR concept has failed, we still might have a chance – but managers in middle and especially top management (right to the top) in Basel are incapable to implement it. Look at the outcome of the GES and Marc`s comments to the situation.
 




The one's in cambridge are no better than basel, I can assure you. Nibr has failed as a system in that look who has managed to rise within the organization, its the fishman's butt buddy club of thoroughly average scientists who want to play manager. We will continue to hemmorage quality talent, as top notch scientists who see fishman and his roommates for the self-serving arrogant hacks they are want nothing to do with them.
 




Anonymous said:
The one's in cambridge are no better than basel, I can assure you. Nibr has failed as a system in that look who has managed to rise within the organization, its the fishman's butt buddy club of thoroughly average scientists who want to play manager. We will continue to hemmorage quality talent, as top notch scientists who see fishman and his roommates for the self-serving arrogant hacks they are want nothing to do with them.
Click to expand...

pharma research and development has failed in general. Over 80% of the branded drugs now sold in the US could be replaced by generics. That means that the drug pipleline has been basically dry for 20 plus years. NIBR as a concept has changed that. As scientists, how long can we run the same experiment, get the same results, not only over time with our own experiment but that basically replicates the results of others.
 




Anonymous said:
The one's in cambridge are no better than basel, I can assure you. Nibr has failed as a system in that look who has managed to rise within the organization, its the fishman's butt buddy club of thoroughly average scientists who want to play manager. We will continue to hemmorage quality talent, as top notch scientists who see fishman and his roommates for the self-serving arrogant hacks they are want nothing to do with them.
Click to expand...

NIBR is a job bank for the well-connected at the top, and young good-looking smooth-talkers at the bottom/middle. I have never seen so many inexperienced kids in their mid to late 20's in management level positions at this company. For people under 30 in this field, this place has an outside reputation as an "easy-in" and a rocket to high paying no-show management job if you look/dress well and know how to schmooze with the right men. No talent staying, no talent coming in.

Has anyone noticed how they felt the need to put up huge posters along the walls at the NIBR Cafeteria? Trying to advertise that they've actually semi-accomplished something in proof of concepts, but yet nothing beyond it?
 




Anonymous said:
NIBR is a job bank for the well-connected at the top, and young good-looking smooth-talkers at the bottom/middle. I have never seen so many inexperienced kids in their mid to late 20's in management level positions at this company. For people under 30 in this field, this place has an outside reputation as an "easy-in" and a rocket to high paying no-show management job if you look/dress well and know how to schmooze with the right men. No talent staying, no talent coming in.

Has anyone noticed how they felt the need to put up huge posters along the walls at the NIBR Cafeteria? Trying to advertise that they've actually semi-accomplished something in proof of concepts, but yet nothing beyond it?
Click to expand...

so, is there a research org in pharma where all the researchers are old and ugly, where it has actually suceeded?

The entire research model has hit a wall. I repeat, 80% of the current branded drugs can, and will be under Obama Care, replaced by generics. Under the new law, Pharma havbe to pay a surcharge back to the govt, everyime a Doc writes a script for a branded drug where a generic substitute, is available.

Since producing branded drugs is about all the pharma research has done over the last 30 years and that is now much less profitable, the research model that has existed for the kast 20 plus years is doomed.

So how does the youth and lack of experience fit in with thiose facts?
 




NIBR Ophthalmology is populated by a bunch of well-meaning juveniles who have impressive tech skills, but a scary lack of pharmaceutical experience. I cannot speak for other NIBR divisions, but dialogue from colleagues indicates this seems to be an overall problem.

The lack of experience might be less of an issue IF upper management were doing their job, Sadly, this is not so. Management, instead, appears to be enthralled with maintaining their status quo and with providing cushy positions for their BFF's. Crony'ism is alive and well. The result is no real progress and no viable drug candidates for the foreseeable future.
 




It is funny how in Oncology Translation Medicine, the Clinical Trial Leaders are considered entry level positions in Clin Ops, and when they try to transfer into OGD they are told that they lack experience to lead a Phase II trial. Moreover, many of these CTL's have been recruited from small bio-techs or our monitoring organizations where the science of drug development is not practiced or taught.
This is demonstrated by their inability to understand such simple concepts as "blinding", data validity, sample selection, bias, objectivity and protocol deviations.
The result has been numerous remediation processes to teach clinical professionals how to write a simple query to the investigative site, how to properly implement a protocol amendment or how to determine a positive response in a patient.
If we are basing the future of this company on such incompetents to attempt to validate our pre-clinical work, I hope I never need one of our drugs.....
 




Anonymous said:
It is funny how in Oncology Translation Medicine, the Clinical Trial Leaders are considered entry level positions in Clin Ops, and when they try to transfer into OGD they are told that they lack experience to lead a Phase II trial. Moreover, many of these CTL's have been recruited from small bio-techs or our monitoring organizations where the science of drug development is not practiced or taught.
This is demonstrated by their inability to understand such simple concepts as "blinding", data validity, sample selection, bias, objectivity and protocol deviations.
The result has been numerous remediation processes to teach clinical professionals how to write a simple query to the investigative site, how to properly implement a protocol amendment or how to determine a positive response in a patient.
If we are basing the future of this company on such incompetents to attempt to validate our pre-clinical work, I hope I never need one of our drugs.....
Click to expand...

I see all the complaints noted here but as an empiricist I will ask again, where within all of Pharma is the industrial research model working? We may be addressing an issue but is it a root cause issue?
 








Anonymous said:
I would posit where is the scientific model?
Click to expand...

even a good scientist is reluctant to give and answer to a question that he knows will jeopardize, not only his chosen career, but the entire field.

we are all avoiding the issue - the payoff in terms of the treatment of human diseases from basic since has been declining for 30 years. The more obvious, more costly afflictions most all have treatments and science has not been effectively producing results for those diseases that done have effect treatments for a long time.

the risk / reward equation for medical research is not positive any longer.
 




There is no doubt that successful drug development became more and more difficult – NIBRs answer to the challenge was the hiring of less and less experienced (management) and qualified (applied science) people, firstly the DA heads. Look at the decline of the Basel site over the last 8 years and the GES 2013 – the problems are on the table, the solutions proposed are minor modifications to stay in power.
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote