Big R&D cutbacks at Pfizer
Me
Me
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, morris croy wrote:
> On Nov 9, 10:01 pm, Me <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> It's on thewww.reuters.comnews site now (if anyone cares [no, I didn't
>> think so]).
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if their solution is to just buy up several
> smaller companies which already have several drugs in the pipeline.
> They just let some venture capitalist firms take all the risk in the
> startup phase.
Several stories over the years has these companies just waiting for
incubator labs to spend 2-3-5 years showing proof of concept and patent,
then buying up that specific product. Otherwise, you're right about the
venture capitalist input.
Basically, more and more of the underling lab work is high risk and
temporary. But, also, I'm still reading more and more stories about
corporations investing in so-called "emerging markets" (again, the cheap
currency problem) where just about everyone under the sun is doing this
and it means no more careers for anyone born in the USA (or other first
world) unless they get into niche areas.
And, I've been reading that most of the time you can't even get venture
capital anymore unless even as a start-up, you don't have offshoring as
part of the business plan.
All because of the exchange rates.
Oh, yes, I saw a curve of exchange rates in Financial Times a couple weeks
ago: All the SE Asian countries (except China) devalued their currencies
by a lot when the US stock market tanked last fall. India devalued the
Rupee by another 4-5 Rs per USD, too.
So, if you are in the USA, and not rich, not in a high job security job,
or don't have a lot of good irons in the fire, you could be very screwed.
Add to that the fact that any and all companies out there are doing
everything they can to lay off employees, cut back salaries and time, or
otherwise replace warm bodies with anything mechanical, automatic, or
cheaper, then the future is going to get worse. In other words, more and
more people are going to have trouble finding even high crap jobs. Its the
jobless recoveries that are going to be part of the economic future here
maybe until the US really does become a third world country (even though
people in high-roller finance and corporate excecutives make more money
than ever before).
Aging_Recycled_Scientist
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, morris croy wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 10:01 pm, Me <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
Thanks for showing the link to reuters... There is a very interesting
article about food production to day. (I used to be a plant molecular
physiologist in stress physiology. The backlash against GMO
negatively impacted my career,, as well as other problems such as
little interest in R and D , my own failings, as well as poor career
training, and the PhD Glut.
Pfizer sucks .. I used to work at Pfizer via Manpower. They closed
the Pharmaceutical packaging operations fired all the techs, and moved
to fucking India where the morons there did not perform the right FDA
mandated quality controls. No wonder your drugs from India have so
much pill to pill variability. (Generally acknowledged by
GPs in the US, including my own),
The money harvesting mentality as Art says, is driving our economy
into the toilet..
New book to read "The Selling of America".
BMJ
<snip>
It isn't any better up here.
Canada's had a long history of being a branch-plant country or a place
where subsidiaries of foreign companies operate. As well, much of our
economy is based on the extraction and processing of natural resources
ranging from metals to oil and lumber. Unemployment, therefore, fluctuates
with the price of those commodities.
There are some companies that are involved with R & D but they tend to be
in niche markets or produce unique products. Right now, the tech darling
is the company Research In Motion, which produces the Blackberries, but its
market dominance might not last as competitors are bringing similar
products on to the market. Formerly, it was Nortel, but it's close to
finished as it's being picked over by buyers interested in specific
divisions and capabilities.
Yet, our universities keep cranking out people with brand-new science and
engineering degrees. Go figure.
BMJ
> On Nov 10, 9:57 am, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yet, our universities keep cranking out people with brand-new science and
>> engineering degrees. Go figure.
>
> games.
>
> In England, the A levels exams for high school kids vary
> considerably. The A-levels in math, chemistry, physics, etc ... are
> considered "real" courses while most of the other ones are considered
> dumbed down courses.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wear/3626496.stm
I've noticed a trend in engineering towards courses oriented away from
technical topics. Drafting, for example, was mandatory for all engineering
undergrads in the early '70s at my alma mater. More recently, I believe
that at least one department abolished that requirement. On the other
hand, there were fewer faculty with hard industrial experience. I'm sure
that there is a correlation.
BMJ
> On Nov 10, 11:10 am, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I've noticed a trend in engineering towards courses oriented away from
>> technical topics. Drafting, for example, was mandatory for all engineering
>> undergrads in the early '70s at my alma mater. More recently, I believe
>> that at least one department abolished that requirement. On the other
>> hand, there were fewer faculty with hard industrial experience. I'm sure
>> that there is a correlation.
>
> covered in undergraduate engineering. It will probably resemble a
> crappy degree in information technology offered by the school of
> business.
It's already not far from being chartered accountancy with an iron ring. A
lot of management malarkey which has infested business and industry has
contaminated undergraduate engineering.
>
> In some computer science programs, it's been going that way very fast
> with the more "theory" oriented courses being made optional (ie.
> discrete math, algorithm analysis, etc ...).
In favour of fads like extreme programming?
BMJ
> On Nov 10, 12:21 pm, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> It's already not far from being chartered accountancy with an iron ring. A
>> lot of management malarkey which has infested business and industry has
>> contaminated undergraduate engineering.
>
> traditional "core" curriculum anymore, that all the engineering majors
> had to take for freshman and sophomore year (1st + 2nd years) back in
> the day. If I recall correctly, the "core" engineering curriculum
> courses were: statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics,
> circuits, electronics, control theory, mechanics of materials,
> engineering ethics, computer programming, etc ...
Don't forget heat transfer. When I was an undergrad, that was the basic
curriculum for majority of engineering students for most of the first two
years. That doesn't appear to be the case any more.
I don't even recognize much of what the mechanicals are taught any more.
Too much touchy-feely rubbish.
These days, the
> only required "core" courses that are still mandatory is the
> engineering ethics course, and maybe computers.
Some maths as well, such as linear algebra, differential equations, and,
probably, Fourier analysis.
>
> Now it is possible for engineers to know nothing about other areas of
> engineering they're not a specialist in.
This is something new? Most of my managers were engineers and they didn't
know much about their own disciplines. ;-)
>
>>> In some computer science programs, it's been going that way very fast
>>> with the more "theory" oriented courses being made optional (ie.
>>> discrete math, algorithm analysis, etc ...).
>> In favour of fads like extreme programming?
>
> For the most part. They just covered whatever trendy techniques and
> languages of the days. The computer science departments have been
> taken over by IT and other less "theoretical" types.
While I was teaching, I noticed a lot of computing students carrying books
on subjects like database management and SQL. I sometimes wonder why
formal credit courses are required in those areas. Much of the material
could be learned in a few days if one sat down in front of a computer with
a half-decent book or manual.
Maybe it's due to the current obsession with credentials and a tendency for
educational institutions to squeeze out money whenever and wherever
possible. I only took one course in programming (WATFOR/WATFIV) and the
rest I taught myself by tinkering.
>
> Quite a number of the "theory" computer science professors have either
> retired, or they're just not hiring theory guys anymore. These days,
> such computer science theory researchers have to find a job in the
> math department instead.
Or computer engineering.
>
> I found it quite surprising that courses in assembly language are
> almost nonexistent these days, for computer science majors. The few
> that are still around, they're optional courses.
The electrical department at my alma mater offered one for the Motorola
MC68000 microprocessor in the mid-'90s. I'm not sure if it was an option.
There isn't much call for assembly programming any more unless one is
building hardware, such as for dedicated controllers.
BMJ
> On Nov 10, 1:13 pm, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Been noticing quite a number of programs don't even require the
>>> traditional "core" curriculum anymore, that all the engineering majors
>>> had to take for freshman and sophomore year (1st + 2nd years) back in
>>> the day. If I recall correctly, the "core" engineering curriculum
>>> courses were: statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics,
>>> circuits, electronics, control theory, mechanics of materials,
>>> engineering ethics, computer programming, etc ...
>> Don't forget heat transfer. When I was an undergrad, that was the basic
>> curriculum for majority of engineering students for most of the first two
>> years. That doesn't appear to be the case any more.
>
> many places, besides to make space for "Dilbert" style courses.
Exactly. While I was still teaching, I saw a lot of that going on, even
with students from other departments. Lots of happy-style team-building.
Even in my own department, the term started off with some flummery like
that, too. I thought better and refused to take part. The kiddies would
find out who I was and what I was like soon enough. Why waste a day in
playing cutesy games?
>
>> I don't even recognize much of what the mechanicals are taught any more.
>> Too much touchy-feely rubbish.
>
> Wonder how exactly the "Dilbert" stuff crept into the curriculum.
It began with the student-as-customer movement. Some department heads,
never missing opportunities to get themselves recognized, became rabid
enthusiasts for whatever nonsense was introduced.
>
>> Some maths as well, such as linear algebra, differential equations, and,
>> probably, Fourier analysis.
>
> Maybe in the future they will drop these courses too, and make them
> optional.
There's little call for determining transposes of matrices or
characteristic functions. Fourier analysis, however, is useful for things
like vibration analysis and digital signal processing.
>
> Heh. An engineering that knows very little math.
Many of us hated the math courses, and with good reason. The math profs we
had generally taught them badly because they had little respect for
engineering students.
I made the mistake of taking a numerical analysis course offered by the
computing department during my final year of undergrad. A lousy textbook
and a lousier prof. I barely passed it--did a lot of damage to my GPA
because of it. I still managed to get into grad studies, though.
>
>> Most of my managers were engineers and they didn't
>> know much about their own disciplines. ;-)
>
> How did they even get their engineering degrees in the first place,
> besides getting barely passable grades or paying somebody else to
> write their exams for them?
Those of my undergrad classmates who are now managers were, on the whole,
bright enough. Some even convocated with distinction.
As for my former bosses, who knows?
>
>> While I was teaching, I noticed a lot of computing students carrying books
>> on subjects like database management and SQL. I sometimes wonder why
>> formal credit courses are required in those areas. Much of the material
>> could be learned in a few days if one sat down in front of a computer with
>> a half-decent book or manual.
>
> Some kids are too lazy to figure things out from reading a book?
Thus ensuring that post-secondary institutions maintain a stream of revenue.
>
>> Maybe it's due to the current obsession with credentials and a tendency for
>> educational institutions to squeeze out money whenever and wherever
>> possible. I only took one course in programming (WATFOR/WATFIV) and the
>> rest I taught myself by tinkering.
>
> Microsoft MCSE and other semi-useless credentials seems to have been
> the craze about a decade ago.
They may still be.
These days quite a number of those
> certifications are considered worthless.
To be replaced by other certifications which will eventually prove to be
worthless?
>
>>> I found it quite surprising that courses in assembly language are
>>> almost nonexistent these days, for computer science majors. The few
>>> that are still around, they're optional courses.
>> The electrical department at my alma mater offered one for the Motorola
>> MC68000 microprocessor in the mid-'90s. I'm not sure if it was an option.
>> There isn't much call for assembly programming any more unless one is
>> building hardware, such as for dedicated controllers.
>
> I remember back in the day, one of the freshman computer science
> courses involved doing assembly language. Back then, this assembly
> language course was frequently used as a "weedout" course for computer
> majors. Lots of computer science majors changed their majors after
> taking the course.
I found it harder to grasp than other programming methods.
BMJ
> On Nov 10, 3:55 pm, BMJ <owlstretchingt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Even in my own department, the term started off with some flummery like
>> that, too. I thought better and refused to take part. The kiddies would
>> find out who I was and what I was like soon enough. Why waste a day in
>> playing cutesy games?
>
> sections with "easier" instructors, etc ...).
Early on, in a student evaluation, someone hinted that this might happen.
I brought it to the attention of my department head at the time. He asked
me if anybody was missing. When I answered no, he told me not to worry
about it.
Had this happened with the second (and final) department head, there would
have been an investigation as to how and why, ending, no doubt, in me being
blamed for it. I think he was more concerned about how it might make *him*
look bad, but he was always looking for some excuse to try and make my life
miserable.
<snip>
>> Many of us hated the math courses, and with good reason. The math profs we
>> had generally taught them badly because they had little respect for
>> engineering students.
>
> Of the math courses for pure math majors I took, many were taught
> poorly too. The professors had little respect for even pure math
> students. They saw teaching any courses as a "chore" of some sort,
> infringing on their research time.
That was different from when I was an undergrad. Aside from the disdain
shown us by some profs who taught us the service courses or, in one case,
an arts option, most were generally cordial towards us. I'm sure many saw
it as a necessary duty that needed to be performed but there was no open
hostility or disdain.
There were occasions, though, when we, collectively, got out of hand and
were given a well-deserved dressing-down by the prof. After those
reprimands, we rarely gave them any grief.
Nowadays, of course, it's open season on profs and instructors, and guess
whose fault it is?
>
>>> How did they even get their engineering degrees in the first place,
>>> besides getting barely passable grades or paying somebody else to
>>> write their exams for them?
>> Those of my undergrad classmates who are now managers were, on the whole,
>> bright enough. Some even convocated with distinction.
>>
>> As for my former bosses, who knows?
>
> Maybe they just bought a fake engineering degree from one of those
> degree mills?
I don't think so. They didn't exist in those days, at least not to the
extent they do today. One could always check their "pedigree", so to
speak, by looking up their names in the professional register. Each entry
showed not only their employer, job title, and professional status but also
their educational background.
>
>>> Some kids are too lazy to figure things out from reading a book?
>> Thus ensuring that post-secondary institutions maintain a stream of revenue.
>
> Endless spoonfeeding.
>
>> To be replaced by other certifications which will eventually prove to be
>> worthless?
>
> For the most part. The endless treadmill of certifications which
> become useless.
But isn't education with built-in obsolescence the point?
Me
And, same story was in WSJ, print edition, today. Sad story. 35% cutback
in budget. PhDs, MDs, lab techs, office support, supply budgets. About one
third of all labs (like 6 out of 20) are just being closed down.
There is a very interesting
> article about food production to day. (I used to be a plant molecular
> physiologist in stress physiology. The backlash against GMO
> negatively impacted my career,, as well as other problems such as
> little interest in R and D , my own failings, as well as poor career
> training, and the PhD Glut.
> Pfizer sucks .. I used to work at Pfizer via Manpower. They closed
> the Pharmaceutical packaging operations fired all the techs, and moved
> to fucking India where the morons there did not perform the right FDA
> mandated quality controls. No wonder your drugs from India have so
> much pill to pill variability. (Generally acknowledged by
> GPs in the US, including my own),
And, something else I read recently: Ranbaxy (the Indian pharma
company) which had quality control problems last year with the FDA, is
still having them now.
So, you see, I keep fighting these idiots like Kamal Prasad, where all
these Indian pharma companies are getting all these US drugs coming off US
and other patents, handed to them on a silver platter. No R&D costs, no
advertising/marketing costs, no patent costs. Just mix up the stuff and
put it in bottles and sell it back to the USA, etc.
> The money harvesting mentality as Art says, is driving our economy
> into the toilet..
>
> New book to read "The Selling of America".
Its all part of that greedy-selfish mindset. I hate it.
Me
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, morris croy wrote:
> On Nov 10, 6:11 pm, Me <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> So, you see, I keep fighting these idiots like Kamal Prasad
>
> Why exactly does this individual annoy you greatly?
He is so wrong about so many things and he doesn't know he is so wrong
about them.
> Doing a google search on "Kamal Prasad", this individual doesn't have
> much if any political or financial power. There appears to be very
> little this individual can do, with respect to destroying the world
> politically or financially. (ie. He's not like a Ben Bernanke or a
> Vladimir Putin type of person). If nothing else, he appears to be
> some random individual online that is a loudmouth of some sort.
> Basically not much more than an internet troll.
>
> No offense, but this "Kamal Prasad" character seems to really enjoy
> getting under your skin and you're letting him do it every time. In
> reality, this "Kamal Prasad" guy is some insignificant little squirt
> on a computer with no power whatsoever, except over you.
Nah, it is an excellent chance to excercise my brain and come up with
counter arguments to his arguments, and I think most of my
counter-arguments are better than his arguments.
None of my arguments will ever convert him, but at least I can wear him
out.
Many other examples on a.p.e newsgroup.
BMJ
>> curriculum for majority of engineering students for most of the first two
>> years. That doesn't appear to be the case any more.
>
> mandatory course anymore in the core engineering curriculum. I recall
> some of the heat transfer stuff was tacked on to the thermodynamics
> course, such as the simple 1-dimensional heat conduction stuff and
> something else (ie. the first few chapters from a typical heat
> transfer textbook). The heat transfer course the mechanical
> engineering majors took in senior year, covered the remaining topics
> like radiation and more convection stuff.
>
> Why exactly they dropped the heat transfer course from the core
> curriculum, I have no idea.
Mechanical engineering is slowly mutating into a discipline concerned with
manufacturing. In other words, students learn how to design cheap junk
which can be sold at ridiculously high prices, can be assembled from even
cheaper components by people with an elementary school education using few
tools (if any), and which have to be thrown out at the first sign of the
slightest defect.
Me
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, morris croy wrote:
> On Nov 11, 8:35 am, Me <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> None of my arguments will ever convert him, but at least I can wear him
>> out.
>
> Irrational individuals simply cannot be worn out by debating
> arguments. Not even physical torture can wear them out.
Since he does not show up any more, _MY_ conclusion is that _I_ wore _him_
out.
> In practice, they can only be "worn out" by death.
My view on this is that _we_ are all "worn out" -- sooner or later, and
absolutely and permanently -- by death. Otherwise, most human beings have
thresholds for fatigue, after which a period of rest will allow us to
recuperate (for another day of battle with "X").
Physical torture? History shows that a few people undergoing inquisitions
decided to "convert" and "recant" and they were spared. Same deal with
witchcraft trials (I can provide titles if you want).
There are circumstances under which I would consider that being a live
coward might be more important than a dead hero.
You are free to have any other opinion, differing from mine, if you want
to.
Me
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, morris croy wrote:
> My experience has more to do with hanging out and/or dealing with
> fanatics in the past. Such belligerent individuals are completely
> beyond incorrigible. Quite a number of these specific individuals
> I've known in the past, never made it past their 30th or 35th birthday.
>
My "take" on this general subject (of fanatics) is that my approach to
them depends on circumstances, venue, and whether they have a gun or a
sword. If they have a gun or a sword, then my reaction would involve two
strategies: i) run like hell, and ii) CYA.
Me
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, morris croy wrote:
> On Nov 12, 10:24 am, Me <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>>
>> My "take" on this general subject (of fanatics) is that my approach to
>> them depends on circumstances, venue, and whether they have a gun or a
>> sword. If they have a gun or a sword, then my reaction would involve two
>> strategies: i) run like hell, and ii) CYA.
>
> The ones I knew and hung out with decades ago, were largely wannabe
> "revolutionaries". They just talked a good game, but never carried
> out anything other than drinking a lot and being stoned all the time.
Ask yourself about ALL social contacts you ever had, including here on
src. 99.9999999% talk. No action. I spent 10-12 years trying to get
scientists together, and put up a website, spent a lot of time.
What came of it? zip.
> They were largely harmless to the political and financial system,
> other than walking around drunk on the streets yelling their heads off
> like maniacs to deaf ears. They were more harmful to themselves,
> where a few of them ended killing themselves at their own hands, or
> died from health problems from so many years of constant alcohol and
> narcotics consumption.
>
> In hindsight, they were largely spoiled brats who never grew a spine.
>
Me
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009, morris croy wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2:23 pm, Me <arthu...@mv.com> wrote:
>> Ask yourself about ALL social contacts you ever had, including here on
>> src. 99.9999999% talk. No action. I spent 10-12 years trying to get
>> scientists together, and put up a website, spent a lot of time.
>>
>> What came of it? zip.
>
> This seems to be the case for life in general.
>
> Even the most physically violent fanatics I knew of back in the day,
> were largely duds in the end who were more interested in personal self
> interest and hedonism. Their "revolutionary" talk was largely a
> figment of their own fantasy world imaginations, with themselves as
> king or emperor.
>
And, Robert Ardrey, author of "The Territorial Imperitive" explained that
the reason birds sing is to establish their territory. I guess hot air is
cheaper than bloodshed.
Me
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, morris croy wrote:
> Possibly the same reasons why Saddam kept up the "front" of possessing
> tons of weapons on mass destruction,
I think you got that mixed up. It was Bush 2 and the CIA that built that
"front".
even if he hardly had any left by
> the time Iraq was invaded in 2003. Essentially it was him putting up
> a "beware of dog" sign, but with no with dog around. In the end it
> was all image and hot air, propping up his own power on the
> international state.
Saddam never wanted any war. If he had anything going it was a "police
state" with thousands of political prisoners and not much else.