• Thurs news: Lilly’s weight-loss drug prevents diabetes. Merck pays $588M for bispecific. Amgen speaks out about bone density issues with obesity drug. PTC gets gene therapy approval. JNJ’s 340B legal fight. See more on our front page

Time to shut down NIBR

Quote
Anonymous said:
don't worry, it looks like Joe is sending McKinsey with a plan to fix all of this. Wasn't it a McKinsey plan that started all this mess?

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showthread.php?t=511074
Click to expand...

Thank for the link. Now, for you POS NIBR better-than-thou scientists who have been crapping on Sales for months......how does it feel to be WRONG? Yeah, you were wrong all along. I told you this is a business, and not an unlimited fund like some prom girl's daddy. You were having fun telling Sales to get lost. Guess what? Better go spruce up the resume. Oh wait, you call it a CV. Here's the good part: you spent the last decade producing nothing, so what the hel will you put in your curriculum vitae? NIBR-boy...go eat shit.
 




Anonymous said:
don't worry, it looks like Joe is sending McKinsey with a plan to fix all of this. Wasn't it a McKinsey plan that started all this mess?

http://www.cafepharma.com/boards/showthread.php?t=511074
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if NIBR was born of McKinsey or not. The sad thing about the consultant approach is that they are no smarter than the rest of us, but somehow top management think they have the magic answer. Sometimes, they make mistakes too. This would be a big one.

They need to think about a couple of things. What should they do internally? Do we really want to do the basic research, or as the link says, partner with academia for that part and use those leads for traction. The other option is to focus more heavily on product/company acquisition (for pipelines). We have a lot of ground to make up for. But thankfully, the 1st big step was taken: a public admission that NIBR is not working:

"The 2013 initiatives in NVD's Research division will be in line with and will mirror the reductions in the research facility NIBR in Cambridge, MA. The results from both organizations have never lived up to expectations and reductions here must be made so that the savings can be shifted to invest in the research in new efficient production methods."
 




Anonymous said:
I'm not sure if NIBR was born of McKinsey or not. The sad thing about the consultant approach is that they are no smarter than the rest of us, but somehow top management think they have the magic answer. Sometimes, they make mistakes too. This would be a big one.

They need to think about a couple of things. What should they do internally? Do we really want to do the basic research, or as the link says, partner with academia for that part and use those leads for traction. The other option is to focus more heavily on product/company acquisition (for pipelines). We have a lot of ground to make up for. But thankfully, the 1st big step was taken: a public admission that NIBR is not working:

"The 2013 initiatives in NVD's Research division will be in line with and will mirror the reductions in the research facility NIBR in Cambridge, MA. The results from both organizations have never lived up to expectations and reductions here must be made so that the savings can be shifted to invest in the research in new efficient production methods."
Click to expand...

The only pipeline NIBR supplies is incompetent and inexperienced leadership dumped to clinicl
 




Anonymous said:
The only pipeline NIBR supplies is incompetent and inexperienced leadership dumped to clinicl
Click to expand...

if NIBR had supplied anything to that pipeline it would be a test to your hypothesis so your claim here, along with the fact that you seem to be part of the failure at NIBR, both prove that you are a disgrace as a scientist
 
















Having been in this type of situation, both on the business side and research side, I realize it can be hard to leave. But it seems like some people are really really unhappy. Why are you staying? The money, momentum, loyalty to peers? Or is there another reason, like the person who said
"[The competition for jobs in the market] makes me feel stuck and dependent on the company. The battered wife who keeps on going back and won’t leave, sometimes I feel like that." http://idolbuster.com/archives/1867
 




Re: NIBR= catastrophic failure

Anonymous said:
Mark Fishman is ruining company. He forced dave to put tim. tim has NO experience in drug development and he's head of development

no good pocs from nibr
worst department ever
Click to expand...

Did you see Mark,s note telling David to leave him alone about not producing marketable drugs? Classic arrogance
 








As the receiver of NIBR "goods" in DEV, I can firmly state that there is very little substantive quality "research" that is being produced. The pathetic data that is being utilized to support PoC declarations is appaling. And the fact that NIBR management expects DEV to go to regulators with straight faces to support development plans to further evaluate these data-extrapolations says to me that no one with common sense is at the helm. I have watched our BD&L colleagues tear apart better data and quality research for possible compounds, than we appear to do for our own NIBR produced compounds.
 




I guess ultimately the name of this post is right ... It's time to shut down nibr ... Cut the head of the beast off and put NPC out of its misery.

MBAs are responsible for the demise of what was a great company ...
 




I am dumbfounded. Wasn't it NIBR that developed Fingolimod? That is a great success, no? And was Novartis R&D productivity any better before the creation of NIBR? So why are you guys so venomous about NIBR productivity? I should say that I am not at NIBR (I am a scientist though).
 




Anonymous said:
I am dumbfounded. Wasn't it NIBR that developed Fingolimod? That is a great success, no? And was Novartis R&D productivity any better before the creation of NIBR? So why are you guys so venomous about NIBR productivity? I should say that I am not at NIBR (I am a scientist though).
Click to expand...

one marketable product from #billions of dollars of spend is not a sustainable model. it wasn't sustainable before nibr now it is less so.
 








I am deliberately taking the opposite stand. NIBR is the most innovative experiment in pharma - at a time when R&D in essentially all big pharma is failing (small biotech is a different story though). By removing discovery from daily business, and from the control of sales/Marketing/McKinsey types who know nothing of drug discovery, NVS has created an amazing and unique engine of innovation. NIBR exists since 8-9 years, and that is not enough to judge its success: it may take 20 years to get from target-to-blockbuster.

If Big Pharma is to ever emerge from the gloom of dried-up pipelines and failed drugs, the NIBR way is the most promising one. Having said that, I still worry that NIBR may fail, but I am quite convinced that all alternatives are worse.
 




Anonymous said:
I am deliberately taking the opposite stand. NIBR is the most innovative experiment in pharma - at a time when R&D in essentially all big pharma is failing (small biotech is a different story though). By removing discovery from daily business, and from the control of sales/Marketing/McKinsey types who know nothing of drug discovery, NVS has created an amazing and unique engine of innovation. NIBR exists since 8-9 years, and that is not enough to judge its success: it may take 20 years to get from target-to-blockbuster.

If Big Pharma is to ever emerge from the gloom of dried-up pipelines and failed drugs, the NIBR way is the most promising one. Having said that, I still worry that NIBR may fail, but I am quite convinced that all alternatives are worse.
Click to expand...

as discussed above, the phds at nibr didn't invent the bathtub curve argument, "it will take a few more weeks until the new marketing plan takes affect", "a few more quarters and the new sales techniques will kick in", etc. the only problem with this analogy is that new marketing plans and sales techniques don't normally cost billions and take years to see an effect.

and speaking of 8-9 years and pipelines, has nibr got any thing clinically effective through one or have anything close? if the answer to the first part is anything other than "yes, 3 significant products" then the answer to the last part has to be "yes, 2-3 block busters 1 -2 years out". if not, the only answer that makes intellectual sense is, "nibr has a general cure and prevention of all human cancers 5 years away".

we are all familiar with the pharma research issues but if the nibr model isn't the answer (and after 9 years it isn't) then it will be one of the largest lost bets in the history of world corp history.
 




Anonymous said:
I am deliberately taking the opposite stand. NIBR is the most innovative experiment in pharma - at a time when R&D in essentially all big pharma is failing (small biotech is a different story though). By removing discovery from daily business, and from the control of sales/Marketing/McKinsey types who know nothing of drug discovery, NVS has created an amazing and unique engine of innovation. NIBR exists since 8-9 years, and that is not enough to judge its success: it may take 20 years to get from target-to-blockbuster.

If Big Pharma is to ever emerge from the gloom of dried-up pipelines and failed drugs, the NIBR way is the most promising one. Having said that, I still worry that NIBR may fail, but I am quite convinced that all alternatives are worse.
Click to expand...

The concept of NIBR is good, the people put in place in the last 5 –7 years to realize it (at least in Basel) at unit head level and above are too incompetent to put it in place.
 












Top Bottom
Back
Quote