MRL October Lay Offs

[Anonymous]

Oh boy. What a blood bath last week! A rough estimate shows more than 20% of Kenilworth and Rahway R&D was let go. In biology, most of the numbers came from central teams. The franchises (at least disease area biology) was hit less severely. The exception was Diabetes - but the attitude and atmosphere there was toxic and the pipeline is bare, so drastic measures were called for. In chemistry, the process chemists were severely cut. Med Chem too, although the numbers are not clear to me. Like me, several people were offered a lower grade position in the same (or different) department or a separation package (but I will try and leave the effects of this on me personally out of the rest of this post).

It seems that consolidating New Jersey R&D on the KW site (primarily) has been a costly process from the employees' standpoint. The layoffs were disproportionately higher for legacy SP scientists, even though more than 80% of those (SP) who were eligible raised their hands, mainly because the separation packages will shrink substantially in 2012.

Boston has been largely unaffected by these changes, basically because the Respiratory / Immunology group from NJ is moving there and so they will need to expand the biology head count. Similarly, West Point will (more or less) maintain a constant head count since they have openings in the RNAi Group to replenish the numbers since Sirna in San Francisco closed.

The driver for most of the separations is the outsourcing of chemistry and (routine) biology research to China. But there are at least two problems with this strategy:

1. The quality (and speed of turnaround) of work is poor. I have heard from both chemists and biologists managing projects in China from the USA that QC is a major drain on their time and energy.
2. Financial savings are not as high as expected, especially when 'return on investment' is considered. It often takes more people in the US to manage fewer projects in China and the progress is slower.

The irony of all this is that management recognizes the issues with outsourcing and has held off many of the lay offs in the central biology teams until next spring (what a morale booster, eh?). Meanwhile in the Safety organization, many employees will be notified (probably next week) that they will be laid off or will have to be "rebadged" as employees of an external contract company.

The worst part of all this is the effect on morale and research productivity. In the past 5 years the fear of job losses has been the main driver for productivity at MRL. Now, I get the impression that the scientists have just had enough. They get no recognition for working hard under demanding circumstances, while moving labs / offices on a yearly basis. And management wonders why the pipeline is empty? It is almost impossible to find a researcher who is not ready to leave if the right opportunity came up (of course the grass always APPEARS to be greener!).

The sad fact is that real scientific productivity (i.e. drugs in the pipeline) cannot grow unless MRL is allowed to do it's job without constant changes to the strategy and the personnel pool. It's just too disruptive. Ironically, there are people left in MRL who are still passionate about drug discovery. Let's hope they get a chance to show what they can do in a more stable environment, at least for a while!

[Anonymous]

Oh boy. What a blood bath last week! A rough estimate shows more than 20% of Kenilworth and Rahway R&D was let go. In biology, most of the numbers came from central teams. The franchises (at least disease area biology) was hit less severely. The exception was Diabetes - but the attitude and atmosphere there was toxic and the pipeline is bare, so drastic measures were called for. In chemistry, the process chemists were severely cut. Med Chem too, although the numbers are not clear to me. Like me, several people were offered a lower grade position in the same (or different) department or a separation package (but I will try and leave the effects of this on me personally out of the rest of this post).

It seems that consolidating New Jersey R&D on the KW site (primarily) has been a costly process from the employees' standpoint. The layoffs were disproportionately higher for legacy SP scientists, even though more than 80% of those (SP) who were eligible raised their hands, mainly because the separation packages will shrink substantially in 2012.

Boston has been largely unaffected by these changes, basically because the Respiratory / Immunology group from NJ is moving there and so they will need to expand the biology head count. Similarly, West Point will (more or less) maintain a constant head count since they have openings in the RNAi Group to replenish the numbers since Sirna in San Francisco closed.

The driver for most of the separations is the outsourcing of chemistry and (routine) biology research to China. But there are at least two problems with this strategy:

1. The quality (and speed of turnaround) of work is poor. I have heard from both chemists and biologists managing projects in China from the USA that QC is a major drain on their time and energy.
2. Financial savings are not as high as expected, especially when 'return on investment' is considered. It often takes more people in the US to manage fewer projects in China and the progress is slower.

The irony of all this is that management recognizes the issues with outsourcing and has held off many of the lay offs in the central biology teams until next spring (what a morale booster, eh?). Meanwhile in the Safety organization, many employees will be notified (probably next week) that they will be laid off or will have to be "rebadged" as employees of an external contract company.

The worst part of all this is the effect on morale and research productivity. In the past 5 years the fear of job losses has been the main driver for productivity at MRL. Now, I get the impression that the scientists have just had enough. They get no recognition for working hard under demanding circumstances, while moving labs / offices on a yearly basis. And management wonders why the pipeline is empty? It is almost impossible to find a researcher who is not ready to leave if the right opportunity came up (of course the grass always APPEARS to be greener!).

The sad fact is that real scientific productivity (i.e. drugs in the pipeline) cannot grow unless MRL is allowed to do it's job without constant changes to the strategy and the personnel pool. It's just too disruptive. Ironically, there are people left in MRL who are still passionate about drug discovery. Let's hope they get a chance to show what they can do in a more stable environment, at least for a while!

Thanks for the information. What you describe is exactly what field sales has been going through. Morale is so low. We had promotions put on hold for years, and now most of us make less money because we are not a@@ kissers. I busted my butt last year, and finished in the top 20 %. What did I get? The opportunity to make less money via bonus, and a crappy raise. (A friend who finished in the bottom 10% got a raise....mine was 1.25% higher than hers). The message sent from Mother: we don't care how hard you work, it will not be rewarded. We are all looking, or hoping for a package so we can get out.

[Anonymous]

Great now Mrk is sending jobs to the communists and we all know about the quality of Chinese products. They kill us yet with our own products.

[Anonymous]

Oh boy. What a blood bath last week! A rough estimate shows more than 20% of Kenilworth and Rahway R&D was let go. In biology, most of the numbers came from central teams. The franchises (at least disease area biology) was hit less severely. The exception was Diabetes - but the attitude and atmosphere there was toxic and the pipeline is bare, so drastic measures were called for. In chemistry, the process chemists were severely cut. Med Chem too, although the numbers are not clear to me. Like me, several people were offered a lower grade position in the same (or different) department or a separation package (but I will try and leave the effects of this on me personally out of the rest of this post).

It seems that consolidating New Jersey R&D on the KW site (primarily) has been a costly process from the employees' standpoint. The layoffs were disproportionately higher for legacy SP scientists, even though more than 80% of those (SP) who were eligible raised their hands, mainly because the separation packages will shrink substantially in 2012.

Boston has been largely unaffected by these changes, basically because the Respiratory / Immunology group from NJ is moving there and so they will need to expand the biology head count. Similarly, West Point will (more or less) maintain a constant head count since they have openings in the RNAi Group to replenish the numbers since Sirna in San Francisco closed.

The driver for most of the separations is the outsourcing of chemistry and (routine) biology research to China. But there are at least two problems with this strategy:

1. The quality (and speed of turnaround) of work is poor. I have heard from both chemists and biologists managing projects in China from the USA that QC is a major drain on their time and energy.
2. Financial savings are not as high as expected, especially when 'return on investment' is considered. It often takes more people in the US to manage fewer projects in China and the progress is slower.

The irony of all this is that management recognizes the issues with outsourcing and has held off many of the lay offs in the central biology teams until next spring (what a morale booster, eh?). Meanwhile in the Safety organization, many employees will be notified (probably next week) that they will be laid off or will have to be "rebadged" as employees of an external contract company.

The worst part of all this is the effect on morale and research productivity. In the past 5 years the fear of job losses has been the main driver for productivity at MRL. Now, I get the impression that the scientists have just had enough. They get no recognition for working hard under demanding circumstances, while moving labs / offices on a yearly basis. And management wonders why the pipeline is empty? It is almost impossible to find a researcher who is not ready to leave if the right opportunity came up (of course the grass always APPEARS to be greener!).

The sad fact is that real scientific productivity (i.e. drugs in the pipeline) cannot grow unless MRL is allowed to do it's job without constant changes to the strategy and the personnel pool. It's just too disruptive. Ironically, there are people left in MRL who are still passionate about drug discovery. Let's hope they get a chance to show what they can do in a more stable environment, at least for a while!

Do you understand that when they hired Cuong Viet Do the game was over. He sits on the board of WuXiAppTec. All they do is outsource. Kenilworth and Rahway will be gone in 18 months. With everything that has happened to us, when this was announced, the game ended. R&D and QC will not exist as we know it. I actually like both departments and it's a stupid move. Expect another 30% in March and they are not done for the 2011 year.

[Anonymous]

Now, I get the impression that the scientists have just had enough



Where the hell will they go? Merck is not the only company doing this. Any job paying 100k that is not in the professional service sector will be going away. The government (democratic and republican) is the issue. They make it very hard for jobs not to be sent overseas. A bachelors and masters degree meant big $$$$$. Now those jobs are being shipped away. That in turn means those degrees in chemistry and engineering are becoming less valuable every day. When I was growing up (many centuries ago :)) those were the degrees to get.

glad I am retired.

[Anonymous]

Now, I get the impression that the scientists have just had enough



Where the hell will they go? Merck is not the only company doing this. Any job paying 100k that is not in the professional service sector will be going away. The government (democratic and republican) is the issue. They make it very hard for jobs not to be sent overseas. A bachelors and masters degree meant big $$$$$. Now those jobs are being shipped away. That in turn means those degrees in chemistry and engineering are becoming less valuable every day. When I was growing up (many centuries ago :)) those were the degrees to get.

glad I am retired.

It would be one thing if these so-called transportable jobs went overseas solely on the basis of wage costs. It is quite another that they have gone overseas largely due to tax benefits written into the US tax code that allows all profits to be transferred to low tax countries via transfer pricing schemes. So the corporations that make their living from products closely related to intellectual property will talk a big talk about wage costs, but it was their efforts, along with the collusion of your representatives in Congress, that set the table for the flood of job losses over the last 10-15 years. But to be unbiased, these companies should get gifts from your Congress since they have bought it, both parties included, fair and square and legal. Just ask the Supreme Court. Bribing Congress with lobbying money is nothing more sinister than free speach. Now you recently laid off professionals, please go see how much leverage your free speach gets you without the multiple millions of dollars that Congress wants to see walk through its doors. Its all about jobs, stupid, and the very politicians that today claim to not know how to create them here in the US have been busy selling them overseas by the multiple millions.

But there are always Perry Walmart jobs and Cain pizza delivery jobs, aren't there.

[Anonymous]

It would be one thing if these so-called transportable jobs went overseas solely on the basis of wage costs. It is quite another that they have gone overseas largely due to tax benefits written into the US tax code that allows all profits to be transferred to low tax countries via transfer pricing schemes. So the corporations that make their living from products closely related to intellectual property will talk a big talk about wage costs, but it was their efforts, along with the collusion of your representatives in Congress, that set the table for the flood of job losses over the last 10-15 years. But to be unbiased, these companies should get gifts from your Congress since they have bought it, both parties included, fair and square and legal. Just ask the Supreme Court. Bribing Congress with lobbying money is nothing more sinister than free speach. Now you recently laid off professionals, please go see how much leverage your free speach gets you without the multiple millions of dollars that Congress wants to see walk through its doors. Its all about jobs, stupid, and the very politicians that today claim to not know how to create them here in the US have been busy selling them overseas by the multiple millions.

But there are always Perry Walmart jobs and Cain pizza delivery jobs, aren't there.

A link to a site that tries to explain how the transfer pricing and financial complexity industry works.

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/google-double-dutch

[Anonymous]

I guess the researchers (and others) have never seen the route of Merck's supply chain. It's a maze around the world where drums of API lands in a place like, say, Bermuda worth pennies per pound but leaves worth multiple dollars per pound. And no, nothing happens to it in between - sometimes it doesn't even leave the airport, it just changes planes.

All this offshoring work to China, India, etc is just another tool in the box that is used to screw taxpayers and employees while preserving profits for the officers and shareholders.

[Anonymous]

I guess the researchers (and others) have never seen the route of Merck's supply chain. It's a maze around the world where drums of API lands in a place like, say, Bermuda worth pennies per pound but leaves worth multiple dollars per pound. And no, nothing happens to it in between - sometimes it doesn't even leave the airport, it just changes planes.

All this offshoring work to China, India, etc is just another tool in the box that is used to screw taxpayers and employees while preserving profits for the officers and shareholders.

Since when is it a crime to make a profit? All you are proposing here is class warfare. Just because the senior management and BoD can think of ways to make more money for the company, you whine. This is what is killing America-all the whiners trying to take away my hard earned (by accounting tricks) money. You're just jealous. Just like those whiners occupying Wall Street.

I bet you don't whine when you see the growth of your 401K!

Face it, we, the American people, made this mess because of our own greed. Every time you demand something cost less-there is a job that goes overseas to make it happen. Every time you ask for a better return on your investment, there is an accounting trick that makes it happen.

Go Walker, Ryan, Boehner and Cain!

[Anonymous]

Great now Mrk is sending jobs to the communists and we all know about the quality of Chinese products. They kill us yet with our own products.

Let's not start getting racist here. Chinese products can be high quality, pretty much all Apple products for the past ten years have been entirely made in China (and had an Apple logo slapped on it after). Low price doesn't always mean it's bad quality, it just means they are clueless about branding and price premiums.

[Anonymous]

Since when is it a crime to make a profit? All you are proposing here is class warfare. Just because the senior management and BoD can think of ways to make more money for the company, you whine. This is what is killing America-all the whiners trying to take away my hard earned (by accounting tricks) money. You're just jealous. Just like those whiners occupying Wall Street.

I bet you don't whine when you see the growth of your 401K!

Face it, we, the American people, made this mess because of our own greed. Every time you demand something cost less-there is a job that goes overseas to make it happen. Every time you ask for a better return on your investment, there is an accounting trick that makes it happen.

Go Walker, Ryan, Boehner and Cain!



"...growth of your 401K"...

Really? Please log on and have a look! I am open to knowing the funds you have selected in our plan? Most seem seriously underwater.

If I'm missing boomtimes in the 401K please give me some advice! I'm in like 8 funds, and only the money market and PIMCO LT bonds are not down!

[Anonymous]

Since when is it a crime to make a profit? All you are proposing here is class warfare. Just because the senior management and BoD can think of ways to make more money for the company, you whine. This is what is killing America-all the whiners trying to take away my hard earned (by accounting tricks) money. You're just jealous. Just like those whiners occupying Wall Street.

I bet you don't whine when you see the growth of your 401K!

Face it, we, the American people, made this mess because of our own greed. Every time you demand something cost less-there is a job that goes overseas to make it happen. Every time you ask for a better return on your investment, there is an accounting trick that makes it happen.

Go Walker, Ryan, Boehner and Cain!

Economics 101: you can not change one thing in the economy in isolation. The funniest part of your comment is "...when you see the growth of your 401k!" The boom/bust cycle of the stock market is so erratic right now most people have seen their 401k go flat save their stream of contributions and many have suffered a loss.

Yes, greed is at the heart of many of today's problem. I'm not an OSW supporter at all but the chasm that has opened up between the top and the bottom is frightening. Class warfare is here, but for the middle class, as usual, we're too busy trying to figure out how to do more with less to get involved in the idiocy of things like OWS. We have bills to pay and tax burdens to support all those people camped out downtown.

There are two places that are safe in this country - already be uber rich or uber poor. If you're either of these you'll never have to worry about a thing - you'll either take care of yourself with your fancy tax accountants and loopholes that your political contributions have bought you or you've never had to take care of yourself anyway and you're well entrenched on the public payroll. Who needs a job when you've been paid not to work for most, if not all, of your life?

What a great country this has turned into.

[Anonymous]

Why would anyone, other than the crooks that dream up these tax avoidance schemes, think that it is a social good to promote paying zero tax while moving jobs offshore. And why should 95% of the tax-paying population stand idly by while they are be made fools of by these schemers. Call it what you will, class warfare or whatever, let's bring it on. No jobs to lose and only those avoided taxes to be collected so that some social services aside from the defense industry can be funded by those that can afford it most. Honestly, why are so many American such stupid mothers acting like sheep. Get mad then get some justice.

[Anonymous]

Great now Mrk is sending jobs to the communists and we all know about the quality of Chinese products. They kill us yet with our own products.


Don't worry, if they are as talented as the former crew out of West Point there won't be anything in the Chinese pipeline either! No new discoveries, no revenue, no need for R&D in West Point. Hasta la Vista Baby!

[Anonymous]

There is a huge variability in the capabilities of off-shore contract research. Most suppliers of this product have several levels of capability, of which the true talent is retained by the parent company or applied as part of a joint venture. The average researcher in them isn't very expensive and also isn't very good. The very best gets charged out at prices not very diffferent than the scientists that they replace. But to the average pharma finance person, a researcher is a researcher. Same difference. What benefit is to an ambitious offshore company to merely provide labor when the prize is getting new ideas and products.

[Anonymous]

There is a huge variability in the capabilities of off-shore contract research. Most suppliers of this product have several levels of capability, of which the true talent is retained by the parent company or applied as part of a joint venture. The average researcher in them isn't very expensive and also isn't very good. The very best gets charged out at prices not very diffferent than the scientists that they replace. But to the average pharma finance person, a researcher is a researcher. Same difference. What benefit is to an ambitious offshore company to merely provide labor when the prize is getting new ideas and products.

This is a serious problem that will eventually result in major expenditures and failures before the pendulum swings back, I predict, to maintaining an excellent company run R&D operation.

Keep in mind that you MUST maintain a core company R&D just to perform due diligence on the crap that gets licensed in. In my experience, 90-99% of licensed IP, drug candidates, or vaccines are riddled with hidden problems compounded by (deliberately?) bad science, that eventually is uncovered by the company R&D efforts, and that results in terminating the programs with "extreme prejudice". I can't imagine offshore labs doing anything like that with the scientific sophistication that would entail. And think of the massive overhead of quality assurance and travel that needs to be factored in for offshore work.

Then there is the the separate issue of top level savants buying the "pet companies" of their buddies and enriching them by signing off on deals without the critical input of the entire R&D organization. At Merck, look at Rosetta, bought for $620 million in 2001, and eventually dumped for 10's of millions. The academic gene chippers were laughing about that from the outset and haven't stopped. Then there was Sirna, bought for $1.1 billion! in 2006 and can't even be sold now for much of anything. The RNA community laughed like tickled donkeys at that. Then there was Glycofi, bought for $400 million in 2006. The biosimilars community is still scratching their heads about that one.

And then there was the acquisition of Abmaxis for $80 million in 2006. This is interesting because Abmaxis was cofounded by Peter Kim's PhD thesis advisor Robert "Buzz" Baldwin in 2000 after he retired from Stanford in 1998. The company was shopped around for years with no interest, until Merck bought it. Nice retirement nut.

[Anonymous]

This is a serious problem that will eventually result in major expenditures and failures before the pendulum swings back, I predict, to maintaining an excellent company run R&D operation.

Keep in mind that you MUST maintain a core company R&D just to perform due diligence on the crap that gets licensed in. In my experience, 90-99% of licensed IP, drug candidates, or vaccines are riddled with hidden problems compounded by (deliberately?) bad science, that eventually is uncovered by the company R&D efforts, and that results in terminating the programs with "extreme prejudice". I can't imagine offshore labs doing anything like that with the scientific sophistication that would entail. And think of the massive overhead of quality assurance and travel that needs to be factored in for offshore work.

Then there is the the separate issue of top level savants buying the "pet companies" of their buddies and enriching them by signing off on deals without the critical input of the entire R&D organization. At Merck, look at Rosetta, bought for $620 million in 2001, and eventually dumped for 10's of millions. The academic gene chippers were laughing about that from the outset and haven't stopped. Then there was Sirna, bought for $1.1 billion! in 2006 and can't even be sold now for much of anything. The RNA community laughed like tickled donkeys at that. Then there was Glycofi, bought for $400 million in 2006. The biosimilars community is still scratching their heads about that one.

And then there was the acquisition of Abmaxis for $80 million in 2006. This is interesting because Abmaxis was cofounded by Peter Kim's PhD thesis advisor Robert "Buzz" Baldwin in 2000 after he retired from Stanford in 1998. The company was shopped around for years with no interest, until Merck bought it. Nice retirement nut.

No doubt that personal interests played a role but the major driver of this policy/paradigm is Wall-Street. Take a look, the 'next' hot topic by a biotech is touted as saving man-kind without real evidence, only preliminary work. But, then the pressure starts from the BoD/shareholders to get significant return on the stock. To do that, you have to be 'cutting edge.' If that happens to be siRNA, reseveratrol or whatever; the leaders have to buy it up. You can't go and do your own research, that is too slow to prove it right or wrong. Hence, a blow up in cost to acquistitions, loss of money on items unproven and then the cycle of layoffs to cut costs--all again to appease the BoD/shareholders.

Who are the shareholders? The big investment houses holding our/your 401Ks. When you see your portfolio tanking-what do you do? Move the assests to get a better return on your investment. Exactly the drive to cause more of the same. It gets even more magnified when you throw in the wealthy players and the greed of the market managers.

[Anonymous]

...the pressure starts from the BoD/shareholders to get significant return on the stock. To do that, you have to be 'cutting edge.' If that happens to be siRNA, reseveratrol or whatever; the leaders have to buy it up. You can't go and do your own research, that is too slow to prove it right or wrong.

I don't think that's entirely true. In my experience much of the work presented by potential licensing or takeover targets is so shoddy that it is patently untenable at almost first glance with good scientists reviewing it and getting original data if needed. Other high risk/high reward/high price acquisitions like Sirtris (resveratrol) by GSK have unraveled with further research, but the original work has been shown to be flawed on inspection, and that very likely could have been seen at the beginning with good due diligence. The Rosetta buy could have been averted if Peter Kim bothered to talk to the statistics microarray group at Stanford (where he hailed from) and other groups instead of listening to Stephen Friend who quite deliberately steered him away from listening to other skeptical experts. Friend pocketed about $20 million or more in the deal, and became an SVP at Merck.

But I agree that the pressure from Wall Street and institutional investors makes for sloppy buying decisions where if one company buys a hyped modality, then the Street says, "Pfizer bought this amazing stuff, what's wrong with Merck?"

[Anonymous]

Great now Mrk is sending jobs to the communists and we all know about the quality of Chinese products. They kill us yet with our own products.

this will bite them in the ass.

[Anonymous]

Oh boy. What a blood bath last week! A rough estimate shows more than 20% of Kenilworth and Rahway R&D was let go. In biology, most of the numbers came from central teams. The franchises (at least disease area biology) was hit less severely. The exception was Diabetes - but the attitude and atmosphere there was toxic and the pipeline is bare, so drastic measures were called for. In chemistry, the process chemists were severely cut. Med Chem too, although the numbers are not clear to me. Like me, several people were offered a lower grade position in the same (or different) department or a separation package (but I will try and leave the effects of this on me personally out of the rest of this post).

It seems that consolidating New Jersey R&D on the KW site (primarily) has been a costly process from the employees' standpoint. The layoffs were disproportionately higher for legacy SP scientists, even though more than 80% of those (SP) who were eligible raised their hands, mainly because the separation packages will shrink substantially in 2012.

Boston has been largely unaffected by these changes, basically because the Respiratory / Immunology group from NJ is moving there and so they will need to expand the biology head count. Similarly, West Point will (more or less) maintain a constant head count since they have openings in the RNAi Group to replenish the numbers since Sirna in San Francisco closed.

The driver for most of the separations is the outsourcing of chemistry and (routine) biology research to China. But there are at least two problems with this strategy:

1. The quality (and speed of turnaround) of work is poor. I have heard from both chemists and biologists managing projects in China from the USA that QC is a major drain on their time and energy.
2. Financial savings are not as high as expected, especially when 'return on investment' is considered. It often takes more people in the US to manage fewer projects in China and the progress is slower.

The irony of all this is that management recognizes the issues with outsourcing and has held off many of the lay offs in the central biology teams until next spring (what a morale booster, eh?). Meanwhile in the Safety organization, many employees will be notified (probably next week) that they will be laid off or will have to be "rebadged" as employees of an external contract company.

The worst part of all this is the effect on morale and research productivity. In the past 5 years the fear of job losses has been the main driver for productivity at MRL. Now, I get the impression that the scientists have just had enough. They get no recognition for working hard under demanding circumstances, while moving labs / offices on a yearly basis. And management wonders why the pipeline is empty? It is almost impossible to find a researcher who is not ready to leave if the right opportunity came up (of course the grass always APPEARS to be greener!).

The sad fact is that real scientific productivity (i.e. drugs in the pipeline) cannot grow unless MRL is allowed to do it's job without constant changes to the strategy and the personnel pool. It's just too disruptive. Ironically, there are people left in MRL who are still passionate about drug discovery. Let's hope they get a chance to show what they can do in a more stable environment, at least for a while!

In WP, about 10-15% of MRL (chem, biology, dmpk) was cut, depending upon department. How about SALAR, PharmSci?

[Anonymous]

Gentlemen, Mother Merck is sinking fast, don't waste your time analyzing it, just pack and leave to better horizons. Plenty of life after Merck. The folks in power at Merck nowadays are a bunch of greedy and incompetent senior managers, especially those in R&D whom I know quite well. They are only trying to prop their salaries and bonuses using every dirty tricks in the book, and outsourcing to China or India is just another stunt , another smoke screen to cover up incompetence.

I just hate to see good scientists going to waste at such sordid place as the current Merck R&D.

All the senior R&D managers at Merck should be fired, or sent back to the bench to learn ethics, humility and good science.

Scientists, rise up and Occupy Merck!

[Anonymous]

I don't think that's entirely true. In my experience much of the work presented by potential licensing or takeover targets is so shoddy that it is patently untenable at almost first glance with good scientists reviewing it and getting original data if needed. Other high risk/high reward/high price acquisitions like Sirtris (resveratrol) by GSK have unraveled with further research, but the original work has been shown to be flawed on inspection, and that very likely could have been seen at the beginning with good due diligence. The Rosetta buy could have been averted if Peter Kim bothered to talk to the statistics microarray group at Stanford (where he hailed from) and other groups instead of listening to Stephen Friend who quite deliberately steered him away from listening to other skeptical experts. Friend pocketed about $20 million or more in the deal, and became an SVP at Merck.

But I agree that the pressure from Wall Street and institutional investors makes for sloppy buying decisions where if one company buys a hyped modality, then the Street says, "Pfizer bought this amazing stuff, what's wrong with Merck?"

I don't think we're in disagreement. For the first point, imagine if you were one of the scientist on the due diligence team and you analyzed a potential program and found it deficient. But, it is a 'high profile' acquisition. If you speak up about the pitfalls a) you're telling the emperor he has no clothes b) not a team player and c) overly pessimistic. All you can do is express your thoughts but understand you may be marginalized, even if correct. Then when they buy the company-it takes a few years to reconfirm the information and maybe you're wrong. Out the door for you. Maybe you're right-no body likes a 'told you so.' Maybe you're right but didn't speak up loud enough-now we have someone to blame. You didn't do you're job-out the door for you.

I was invovled with S/P evaluation of Sirtris long before GSK made the purchase. My opinion then (and yes, sure it was) was too much hype. The claims for all the benefits couldn't be sustained-that's from a very basic assessment. It was the $ that stopped the purchase. I was part of several others-while science was involved, it was the $ that really drove the decision.

It is the same for the development of a drug candidate. It is the $ that drive it. Yes, science has to be there but, nowadays-it is all about the $

[Anonymous]

I don't think we're in disagreement. For the first point, imagine if you were one of the scientist on the due diligence team and you analyzed a potential program and found it deficient. But, it is a 'high profile' acquisition. If you speak up about the pitfalls a) you're telling the emperor he has no clothes b) not a team player and c) overly pessimistic. All you can do is express your thoughts but understand you may be marginalized, even if correct. Then when they buy the company-it takes a few years to reconfirm the information and maybe you're wrong. Out the door for you. Maybe you're right-no body likes a 'told you so.' Maybe you're right but didn't speak up loud enough-now we have someone to blame. You didn't do you're job-out the door for you.

I was invovled with S/P evaluation of Sirtris long before GSK made the purchase. My opinion then (and yes, sure it was) was too much hype. The claims for all the benefits couldn't be sustained-that's from a very basic assessment. It was the $ that stopped the purchase. I was part of several others-while science was involved, it was the $ that really drove the decision.

It is the same for the development of a drug candidate. It is the $ that drive it. Yes, science has to be there but, nowadays-it is all about the $

I agree. And now that you mention it, the internal politics can be much the same. Maybe science and money don't really mix. Sad.

[Anonymous]

science and money do mix. The problem is that the scientists at Merck do nothing and don't earn their paychecks. Science and money have always gone hand and hand for centuries. Look at all the great things science has provided for us. It's just that the scientists at Merck are a waste.

[Anonymous]

science and money do mix. The problem is that the scientists at Merck do nothing and don't earn their paychecks. Science and money have always gone hand and hand for centuries. Look at all the great things science has provided for us. It's just that the scientists at Merck are a waste.

No, big corporate money that corrupts the rational science does not mix.

[Anonymous]

It not a game. We put billions upon billions of dollars into R&D in the last few years and received 0.0 back with no pipeline. QA cannot do it's job properly. How can you not expect layoffs? Like merged with like and nothing happened. You had almost double the people, shallow pipeline, and drugs going generic. It's a business move, not a vendetta.

[Anonymous]

Why now and not 30 years ago? It comes down to talent. The great people who retired was no replaced with equal talent. Yes we picked up people with masters degrees and higher. That is just a piece of paper with no real world talent. Maybe China and India will have better luck. I keep hearing that innovation never comes from there. NEWFLASH: What the hell has our R&D done in the last 6 years? Where is the innovation? Now it's a domino effect where all departs will suffer.

[Anonymous]

Why now and not 30 years ago? It comes down to talent. The great people who retired was no replaced with equal talent. Yes we picked up people with masters degrees and higher. That is just a piece of paper with no real world talent. Maybe China and India will have better luck. I keep hearing that innovation never comes from there. NEWFLASH: What the hell has our R&D done in the last 6 years? Where is the innovation? Now it's a domino effect where all departs will suffer.

Hmmmmm, it's called JANUVIA (moron)! I can see you're a REAL MEMBER of the talent pool. Oh, and by the way, pretty soon it will be earning $5 Billion a year.

[Anonymous]

Januvia = Me too product.

[Anonymous]

Hay retard there is better and cheaper than JANUVIA. The cvs letter to doctors don't help thing.

[Anonymous]

Januvia = Me too product.

How can it be a MeToo when it was first in class?

[Anonymous]

That came out around 2006. We are approaching 2012. That is 6 years.

[Anonymous]

It not a game. We put billions upon billions of dollars into R&D in the last few years and received 0.0 back with no pipeline. QA cannot do it's job properly. How can you not expect layoffs? Like merged with like and nothing happened. You had almost double the people, shallow pipeline, and drugs going generic. It's a business move, not a vendetta.

It is largely the fault of Peter Kim. He fraudulently forced the buying of worthless technology companies and licensing crap candidates totalling $billions, forcing talent in MRL to vainly justify his purchases, then to leave in disgust. He feared and fired the legacy MRL talent who stood up to him. Now he is surrounded with a group of UK toadies. And no women. Welcome to the Matrix.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmmm, it's called JANUVIA (moron)! I can see you're a REAL MEMBER of the talent pool. Oh, and by the way, pretty soon it will be earning $5 Billion a year.

Your the moron because it has been 6 years since JANUVIA has been out. It's pretty sad that a R&D person needs to go back 6 years for a successful drug. Just do your job which is to fill the pipe. I could understand if we had some great stuff coming out but there is really nothing there. Also why do we sell JANUVIA at half the price to Canada than the USA?

[Anonymous]

"There is nothing more vulnerable than entrenched success."
Quote about the fate of General Motors in the 1980's

[Anonymous]

Why now and not 30 years ago? It comes down to talent. The great people who retired was no replaced with equal talent. Yes we picked up people with masters degrees and higher. That is just a piece of paper with no real world talent. Maybe China and India will have better luck. I keep hearing that innovation never comes from there. NEWFLASH: What the hell has our R&D done in the last 6 years? Where is the innovation? Now it's a domino effect where all departs will suffer.

AMEN! Thank You! The reason West Point was constantly expanding was due to all of the inept failures walking around with swollen heads. They all thought they were smarter than everyone else due to their degrees and the papers they had published but in the end Merck recognized their true accomplishments and rewarded them with exactly what they earned - their walking papers. Despite how smart they thought they were their total lack of productivity depleted the pipeline and drove the company to the dire straits that it finds itself. Guess what guys, Merck has confirmed the status of your career ... FAILURE! Good riddance!

[Anonymous]

That came out around 2006. We are approaching 2012. That is 6 years.

"October 19, 2006 — The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sitagliptin phosphate tablets for use with diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The once-daily agent can be used alone or in combination with metformin or the thiazolidinediones pioglitazone HCl and rosiglitazone maleate when treatment with either drug alone provides inadequate glucose control.

Sitagliptin Phosphate Tablets (Januvia) for First- and Second-Line Management of Type 2 Diabetes

On October 17, the FDA approved sitagliptin phosphate tablets (Januvia, made by Merck and Co, Inc) for use with diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The tablets are available in 25-, 50-, and 100-mg strengths."

Obviously, ANOTHER member of the talent pool - probably the Lifeguard. While complex, the math says that Januvia has been approved for 5 years (almost to the day). You must have missed 1st grade!!!

[Anonymous]

Yea. Merck got lucky with Januvia. Hopefully we'll get lucky again and "discover" another blockbuster soon or the next set of layoffs will be even more brutal.

[Anonymous]

Yea. Merck got lucky with Januvia. Hopefully we'll get lucky again and "discover" another blockbuster soon or the next set of layoffs will be even more brutal.

I was there...I watched it unfold...luck played, at most, a minor role. Instead, a great group of hardworking and dedicated MRL folks made this happen. Many have now had their positions eliminated. So shut your f----ing piehole and be happy you have something to sell. By the way, what was YOUR contribution to all this??????

[Anonymous]

We sell your products. You make them. The people who were let go in R&D deserved it because there is no pipeline. If they were hardworking and dedicated we would have a pipeline. plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

I though they cut everyone from R&D 6 years ago. Since then they have not done a single thing. You can't tell the difference if they did.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmmm, it's called JANUVIA (moron)! I can see you're a REAL MEMBER of the talent pool. Oh, and by the way, pretty soon it will be earning $5 Billion a year.

Yes Januvia that is true.......but we also have had Vioxx and an endless list of failures including Cordaptive. When you have dumbs working to synthesize compounds and the so called next blockbuster drugs you are setting yourself up for failure. Then when the drug does make it into Phase 2 clinical trials the operations group makes a mess of it with their philosophy that faster is better. They take shortcuts on safety and efficacy so that we can be first to market - hence the mess........

[Anonymous]

I though they cut everyone from R&D 6 years ago. Since then they have not done a single thing. You can't tell the difference if they did.

Why sure they did. Just look at all the Green Belt projects they've completed. Why, we spend far less money accomplishing nothing than we ever did back when we were discovering drugs!