4 ms·
I do know something about the industry. A couple a of years ago Merk had a massive layoff. Basically there mission was to get rid of R&D because R&D wasn't cost
by samfisher83 10y ago
I do know something about the industry. A couple a of years ago Merk had a massive layoff. Basically there mission was to get rid of R&D because R&D wasn't cost effective. They would much rather just buy up startups when a drug looked promising. I think most of the other big pharmas are doing the same. I have friends who are phds doing stuff that a tech could do. Look at how many BMEs with BS degrees are getting jobs. A lot of these jobs don't need a phd.
- readhn 10y agoWho do you think is driving a lot of the research work at the biotech start ups that the Merc and others are buying up?
- 1_2__3 10y agoIndependent investment? Is this a trick question?
- samfisher83 10y agoI don't know that much about biotech startups. Maybe you can tell me who pays for them?
- readhn 10y agoRich guys, speculators, VCs
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- beachstartup 10y agothe scientists that got laid off, and then found funding elsewhere.
- randcraw 10y agoBiotech products are seen as harder to copy (me too drugs), require an expensive-to-validate pipeline (like vaccines), and look very attractive as a novel mechanism of action (as compared to traditional small molecule drugs). Most pharmas are inexpert in large bio-molecule mechanisms and drug design, and the fact that small molecule high-throughput-screening infrastructure cannot compete in that space makes it attractive as a game changer. (Since HTS has not shown the ROI that was hoped.) Many also see RNA-based or immune-based therapies as the next revolution in drugs.