Time to shut down NIBR

[Anonymous]

If you search pubmed there are lots of papers published by NIBR scientists in high profile journals (including the topmost journal Nature) that are reviewed by scientists in organizations with lots of scientific credibility.

it's easy to publish when you don't have to write grant requests and then not to produce anything commercial viable.

the mission of an academic is to publish - we are laughing at you.

 

[Anonymous]

it's easy to publish when you don't have to write grant requests and then not to produce anything commercial viable.

the mission of an academic is to publish - we are laughing at you.

Absolutely spot on. The majority of preclinical industrial publications only happen in the first place because the project FAILED- if there was inherent commercial value, do you think the lawyers would allow public disclosure and start the patent expiration clock ticking so far removed from filing????

So nibr management, keep managing, nibr keep failing, and do keep on publishing your turds for all the scientific community to enjoy and have a laugh about.

 

[Anonymous]

Absolutely spot on. The majority of preclinical industrial publications only happen in the first place because the project FAILED- if there was inherent commercial value, do you think the lawyers would allow public disclosure and start the patent expiration clock ticking so far removed from filing????

So nibr management, keep managing, nibr keep failing, and do keep on publishing your turds for all the scientific community to enjoy and have a laugh about.

-------------------------------
ALL RIGHT FOR FUN SAKE AND FOR SAKE OF CIVILIZED DISCUSSION - let us share our thoughts on improving Novartis.

Any respected pharma has to has a robust research program and recruit smart scientists. Question is how to do it. Let us say NIBR is shut down. Then what ??????

Let us share our thoughts on what to do with research money (unless you are totally against in investing in Research)

 

[Anonymous]

Absolutely spot on. The majority of preclinical industrial publications only happen in the first place because the project FAILED- if there was inherent commercial value, do you think the lawyers would allow public disclosure and start the patent expiration clock ticking so far removed from filing????

So nibr management, keep managing, nibr keep failing, and do keep on publishing your turds for all the scientific community to enjoy and have a laugh about.

NO Nature cell science dont publish failed data. You hire the best by offering them that they can spend 20% of time and resources on pet project in addition to spending 80% of time on company's interest. If you propose that they are doing only 20% work sincerely I am with you, they should be fired. but you CAN NOT hire a good scientist and expect him to work on directions of weekly productivity. You have to give them the lollypop of freedom to get ideas. I think one way is to hire more and better support staff like technicians and increase some pressure on scientists to come up with more data.

One problem I see is unfortunately that it takes years to see if data is valid in vivo. So for that more rigorous quality control on scientific ideas and discovery is required and scientists (especially senior investigators) should be evaluated every five years. If their data is not robust for five years they should be asked to leave. You can not control the direction of data but a good scientist should be able to control the robustness of experimental design.

 

[Anonymous]

-------------------------------
ALL RIGHT FOR FUN SAKE AND FOR SAKE OF CIVILIZED DISCUSSION - let us share our thoughts on improving Novartis.

Any respected pharma has to has a robust research program and recruit smart scientists. Question is how to do it. Let us say NIBR is shut down. Then what ??????

Let us share our thoughts on what to do with research money (unless you are totally against in investing in Research)

Large, dedicated, centralized industrial research centers in the model of Bell Labs is a flawed concept. If all, a majority of or even more that a portion of, a company's research is spent in it's own research center then there isn't enough left over to go out into the wider academic research world, sponsor research there and even left over to acquire licenses, technologies or even entire companies with promising new treatments.

The discussion should be what is the ratio of spend 30:40:30 - internal:external:buy?

The scientists who are recruited to sit in a beautiful new NIBR facility may feel good but that is hubris as they cannot compete successfully alone gainst the rest of the world.

NIBR is to Vasella as PARC was to IBM - the only difference is IBM had a virtual monopoly for 40 plus years and could afford such a fanciful conceit.

The ideas from PARC made Apple.

 

[Anonymous]

Large, dedicated, centralized industrial research centers in the model of Bell Labs is a flawed concept. If all, a majority of or even more that a portion of, a company's research is spent in it's own research center then there isn't enough left over to go out into the wider academic research world, sponsor research there and even left over to acquire licenses, technologies or even entire companies with promising new treatments.

The discussion should be what is the ratio of spend 30:40:30 - internal:external:buy?

The scientists who are recruited to sit in a beautiful new NIBR facility may feel good but that is hubris as they cannot compete successfully alone gainst the rest of the world.

NIBR is to Vasella as PARC was to IBM - the only difference is IBM had a virtual monopoly for 40 plus years and could afford such a fanciful conceit.

The ideas from PARC made Apple.

but now apple or google hire scientists and do research internally. Genentech flourished entirely on internal research. it is valid to criticize the management and scientists recruited by them but i think idea of internal research and that too a robust high standard research is the key to pharma/biotech. you can make it decentralized in one building...

 

[Anonymous]

Large, dedicated, centralized industrial research centers in the model of Bell Labs is a flawed concept. If all, a majority of or even more that a portion of, a company's research is spent in it's own research center then there isn't enough left over to go out into the wider academic research world, sponsor research there and even left over to acquire licenses, technologies or even entire companies with promising new treatments.

The discussion should be what is the ratio of spend 30:40:30 - internal:external:buy?

The scientists who are recruited to sit in a beautiful new NIBR facility may feel good but that is hubris as they cannot compete successfully alone gainst the rest of the world.

NIBR is to Vasella as PARC was to IBM - the only difference is IBM had a virtual monopoly for 40 plus years and could afford such a fanciful conceit.

The ideas from PARC made Apple.

PARC was from xerox, and it was not established truly corporate research center but just a think tank, open to all.

 

[Anonymous]

Large, dedicated, centralized industrial research centers in the model of Bell Labs is a flawed concept. If all, a majority of or even more that a portion of, a company's research is spent in it's own research center then there isn't enough left over to go out into the wider academic research world, sponsor research there and even left over to acquire licenses, technologies or even entire companies with promising new treatments.

The discussion should be what is the ratio of spend 30:40:30 - internal:external:buy?

The scientists who are recruited to sit in a beautiful new NIBR facility may feel good but that is hubris as they cannot compete successfully alone gainst the rest of the world.

NIBR is to Vasella as PARC was to IBM - the only difference is IBM had a virtual monopoly for 40 plus years and could afford such a fanciful conceit.

The ideas from PARC made Apple.

Big fancy building not required but its ok to have it. Centralized facilities are must but research groups be diversified with leadership that is expert in the field. Generalization of Biomedicine should be avoided but specific research areas like Immuno group headed by a ladder of good immuno scientists to the top, neuro groups headed by ladder of neuroscientists to the top etc. and on the top there should a be board of directors without giving too much power to the Big boss of research.

BTW Bell labs did outstanding work. If you understand and know their inventions. You cant hire best minds by making them feel like slave to corporate profits. PERIOD.

 

[Anonymous]

Big fancy building not required but its ok to have it. Centralized facilities are must but research groups be diversified with leadership that is expert in the field. Generalization of Biomedicine should be avoided but specific research areas like Immuno group headed by a ladder of good immuno scientists to the top, neuro groups headed by ladder of neuroscientists to the top etc. and on the top there should a be board of directors without giving too much power to the Big boss of research.

BTW Bell labs did outstanding work. If you understand and know their inventions. You cant hire best minds by making them feel like slave to corporate profits. PERIOD.

Isn't the key point that "they DID outstanding work?" Where are they now and where is the company that now owns them? Oh, isn't the vestiges of what is left now owned by a company that has declared bankruptcy at least once?

Xerox and PARC - how'd that work out for Xerox? Oh ya, now they are an ~ $8B / yr company while IBM is now a Fortune 1-20 (depends upon year) with a vaunted research performance with research facilities all over the world. But guess what? They follow the model above = what you see as dedicated proprietary research is but a portion of what they spend on research.

Genentech was hot, for a while, but then had to be acquired in order to stay in business. In the beginning, when it was developing a new set of therapies and needed new science and to develop new technology and were almost ALONE in the field it worked well.

If Vasella and NVS's vision for research using NIBR was a stand alone dedicated research facility then I think that the intellectually honest consensus is that it has failed. You can add the caveat of "as of yet" which implies that we haven't waited long enough to see the results. Or you can say that it has succeeded in publishing scientifically significant papers which is changing it's stated goals (second one could be compatible with the first) or it can and has been argued that it hasn't had the right leaders (which is also compatible with the first two and notice that I didn't use the judgement laden term of "bad").

Or, you could argue that even if all of these were true it is because the "business model" is flawed. If it is and it is decided that it NVS needs to adopt the IBM model (mixture of dedicated:collaborative:acquisition) then unless NVS is willing ti expand it's research budget by 2-3 times (depending upon what the current ration is) and after it expands in CAM and China etc.

Think of the exercise as an experiment used to generate the required results and the current NIBR structure as one result. I don't think that no NIBR is an answer but less NIBR in relation to other research efforts is.

 

[Anonymous]

Isn't the key point that "they DID outstanding work?" Where are they now and where is the company that now owns them? Oh, isn't the vestiges of what is left now owned by a company that has declared bankruptcy at least once?

Xerox and PARC - how'd that work out for Xerox? Oh ya, now they are an ~ $8B / yr company while IBM is now a Fortune 1-20 (depends upon year) with a vaunted research performance with research facilities all over the world. But guess what? They follow the model above = what you see as dedicated proprietary research is but a portion of what they spend on research.

Genentech was hot, for a while, but then had to be acquired in order to stay in business. In the beginning, when it was developing a new set of therapies and needed new science and to develop new technology and were almost ALONE in the field it worked well.

If Vasella and NVS's vision for research using NIBR was a stand alone dedicated research facility then I think that the intellectually honest consensus is that it has failed. You can add the caveat of "as of yet" which implies that we haven't waited long enough to see the results. Or you can say that it has succeeded in publishing scientifically significant papers which is changing it's stated goals (second one could be compatible with the first) or it can and has been argued that it hasn't had the right leaders (which is also compatible with the first two and notice that I didn't use the judgement laden term of "bad").

Or, you could argue that even if all of these were true it is because the "business model" is flawed. If it is and it is decided that it NVS needs to adopt the IBM model (mixture of dedicated:collaborative:acquisition) then unless NVS is willing ti expand it's research budget by 2-3 times (depending upon what the current ration is) and after it expands in CAM and China etc.

Think of the exercise as an experiment used to generate the required results and the current NIBR structure as one result. I don't think that no NIBR is an answer but less NIBR in relation to other research efforts is.

PLEASE DONT twist the facts. Genentech was not acquired by Roche so that Roche can stay in the business. Roche had ~ 40% stake in Genentech but when Genentech was a science powerhouse delivering blockbusters Roche became greedy and went to buy it out ....I have been following Genentech for years. PLEASE DO NOT DISTORT THE FACTS for sake of making arguements. It was Genentech and Amgen that inspired many companies to take biomedical and genetic research seriously. Now pfizer has adopted this model and hired a prof from duke to discover medicines for neuropsych disorders and he is bringing in people from academia. Experiment with Genentech and Amgen was a successful one and shows the promise of investing in serious research.

 

[Anonymous]

PLEASE DONT twist the facts. Genentech was not acquired by Roche so that Roche can stay in the business. Roche had ~ 40% stake in Genentech but when Genentech was a science powerhouse delivering blockbusters Roche became greedy and went to buy it out ....I have been following Genentech for years. PLEASE DO NOT DISTORT THE FACTS for sake of making arguements. It was Genentech and Amgen that inspired many companies to take biomedical and genetic research seriously. Now pfizer has adopted this model and hired a prof from duke to discover medicines for neuropsych disorders and he is bringing in people from academia. Experiment with Genentech and Amgen was a successful one and shows the promise of investing in serious research.

Sorry I meant to say that Genentech was not acquired by Roche so that Genentech can stay in the business.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry I meant to say that Genentech was not acquired by Roche so that Genentech can stay in the business.

Who can argue with such a well reasoned argument based on refutable empirical facts like that?

All the research success from organizations like NIBR, Genentech (before they saved Roche and allowed a company multiple times their size to acquire them) and Amgen must be the reason for the "white hot" jobs markets for newly misted PhDs? After all, with commercially successful drugs and treatments flooding out of these places there must be big competition for these guys and gals huh?

The Ph.D Bust: America's Awful Market for Young Scientists—in 7 Charts

"Now let's break out the science and engineering fields. In life sciences, such as biology, graduates now have a far better chance of being unemployed when they get their diploma than of having a full-time job."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ket-for-young-scientists-in-7-charts/273339/#

 

[Anonymous]

Can anyone sincerely help me, no pun or sarcasm. I am applying for a job. Anybody working at NIBR has rough idea of organization in terms of how are Research Investigators ranked. How senior a senior investigator I is ?

I know in other places it is Senior Scientist then Principal Scientist and then senior principal scientist and then director. but NIBR seems to have so many different ranks at the level of investigator. PLEASE HELP.

 

[Anonymous]

Can anyone sincerely help me, no pun or sarcasm. I am applying for a job. Anybody working at NIBR has rough idea of organization in terms of how are Research Investigators ranked. How senior a senior investigator I is ?

I know in other places it is Senior Scientist then Principal Scientist and then senior principal scientist and then director. but NIBR seems to have so many different ranks at the level of investigator. PLEASE HELP.

If you are a decent scientist - STAY AWAY from NIBR. We are very good at perception management, but the nucleus is empty. I am surprised that we keep hiring - our model just does not work out and the place will be shut down pretty soon. But hey, join us and your hiring manager will get his bonus. Keep your resume current, because you will not last long!

 

[Anonymous]

If you are a decent scientist - STAY AWAY from NIBR. We are very good at perception management, but the nucleus is empty. I am surprised that we keep hiring - our model just does not work out and the place will be shut down pretty soon. But hey, join us and your hiring manager will get his bonus. Keep your resume current, because you will not last long!

Can you please also share the ranking of investigators. On linkedin I see lots of people at NIBR for years. It seems stable. I am novice so not claiming anything. But one has to has a job for today.

I am PhD with 6 years of postdoc experience. decent publication, Big boss's lab, well versed with cutting edge technologies. Not interested in academic position because NIH funding scenario. Can any kind senior please guide me sincerely at what level NIBR will be willing to hire me ? Senior investiagtor I ? If not NIBR, what company you think is better option. I heard scary stories about pfizer already..

 

[Anonymous]

Can anyone sincerely help me, no pun or sarcasm. I am applying for a job. Anybody working at NIBR has rough idea of organization in terms of how are Research Investigators ranked. How senior a senior investigator I is ?

I know in other places it is Senior Scientist then Principal Scientist and then senior principal scientist and then director. but NIBR seems to have so many different ranks at the level of investigator. PLEASE HELP.

Sure- I can help with the way hiring works at NIBR. If you are applying for senior level position, you need to have been roommates with the head of NIBR or have family ties to vasella. Middle level management, having been a good friend, or a former academic colleague in good standing will suffice. oh wait...you said NO sarcasm. Sorry, I can not help you then.

 

[Anonymous]

Sure- I can help with the way hiring works at NIBR. If you are applying for senior level position, you need to have been roommates with the head of NIBR or have family ties to vasella. Middle level management, having been a good friend, or a former academic colleague in good standing will suffice. oh wait...you said NO sarcasm. Sorry, I can not help you then.

What is the salary of middle level investigator ?

 

[Anonymous]

What is the salary of middle level investigator ?

you have to include more info - like is that mli related or not to someone sr at nibr?

 

[Anonymous]

Sure- I can help with the way hiring works at NIBR. If you are applying for senior level position, you need to have been roommates with the head of NIBR or have family ties to vasella. Middle level management, having been a good friend, or a former academic colleague in good standing will suffice. oh wait...you said NO sarcasm. Sorry, I can not help you then.

i thought that the incestuous relationships needed for gaining entry to and success in the organization was peculiar the nvd? but in nvd it seems that being a former member of a big consulting company was what it took.

 

[Anonymous]

i thought that the incestuous relationships needed for gaining entry to and success in the organization was peculiar the nvd? but in nvd it seems that being a former member of a big consulting company was what it took.

Anyone sincere can help ? I want to have an idea of lab head salary at NIBR .....