A devoted reader asks if process chemistry is more stable than medicinal chemistry. To be frank, I really don't know.
Let's not pretend that medicinal chemistry is not slowly being pushed overseas. While some "high-value" medchem might be kept here, it doesn't really appear as if there are plans for large pharmaceutical companies to keep armies (as opposed to regiments or battalions) of senior scientists and associates busy cranking out compounds and submitting them for testing in the United States. I am (as yet) unaware of any Big Pharma CEOs saying, "Oh, yes, we're done outsourcing and it's time for us to make big pushes in drug discovery." So the baseline comparison is looking pretty dire.
At the same time, process chemistry is manufacturing-related and thus much closer to the global trends of offshoring manufacturing. It seems that (for whatever reason) much pharmaceutical manufacturing is done overseas already -- will the process development be far behind? I don't know, but there is one sobering thought: what organization doesn't wish that the medicinal chemists talk earlier and more often with the process R&D folks? Which is easier: coordinating teleconferences across time zones or setting up process R&D in international locations?
The turbulence of the last ~8 years doesn't seem to be ending any time soon in the pharmaceutical industry and it seems that there isn't any "safe" place. Best wishes to all of us.
 |
| It's a cliché -- sorry. (Photo credit: greatermindz) |
Let's not pretend that medicinal chemistry is not slowly being pushed overseas. While some "high-value" medchem might be kept here, it doesn't really appear as if there are plans for large pharmaceutical companies to keep armies (as opposed to regiments or battalions) of senior scientists and associates busy cranking out compounds and submitting them for testing in the United States. I am (as yet) unaware of any Big Pharma CEOs saying, "Oh, yes, we're done outsourcing and it's time for us to make big pushes in drug discovery." So the baseline comparison is looking pretty dire.
At the same time, process chemistry is manufacturing-related and thus much closer to the global trends of offshoring manufacturing. It seems that (for whatever reason) much pharmaceutical manufacturing is done overseas already -- will the process development be far behind? I don't know, but there is one sobering thought: what organization doesn't wish that the medicinal chemists talk earlier and more often with the process R&D folks? Which is easier: coordinating teleconferences across time zones or setting up process R&D in international locations?
The turbulence of the last ~8 years doesn't seem to be ending any time soon in the pharmaceutical industry and it seems that there isn't any "safe" place. Best wishes to all of us.
The process chemists will be where the manufacturing is located I think. So if the manufacturing goes overseas, so will the chemists.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. At the same time, you don't see process R&D being conducted in Puerto Rico or Ireland. (Or. Do. You? dun-dun-dun)
ReplyDeletePuerto Rico? I recognize quite a few of the names on this list...Abbott, Merck, BMS, Lilly...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.piapr.org
I mean, who ISN'T manufacturing in PR?
My instinct is that process chemistry will be safer for now. Because it's closer to manufacture/filing, you need to be very, very sure you've got high quality work being done - not just on the synthesis, but analytics, formulation, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe first level of outsourcing is to CRO's in the West, but whether the guaranteed quality is available further afield yet is up for debate. I wouldn't say it particularly needs to be co-located with the manufacturing site either - as long as you know what kit you have available at the latter, you can plan accordingly.
I tend to think medchem is becoming more a case of a few guys in the west saying "Make this", and armies of workers shipping it over from somewhere else a few weeks later.
I find outsourcing process development quite easy and for a biotech really the only viable option. Every manufacturer I used around the world (England, France, India, Demark, and Switzerland) has done excellent process development work for me. I find chemical process work is far less art than medchem as it is only organic chemistry. I’m not so sure about doing medchem by phone where my experience 15 years ago was not so good, but doing process development offshore at a CRO is a no brainer as far as I can see.
ReplyDeleteTurn this around and ask how much Process Development is still being conducted in the US? I would suggest there are less opportunities in process to begin with and trends likely as highly unstable as med chem positions. I view what is happening to med chem now already largely occurred 10-15 years ago to Manufacturing/Process chemist in most of Pharma. Much of the work was initially outsourced to smaller US and EU CMOs then limited manufacture in Asia but now a greater portion of all goes directly to Asia. The one advantage for process over med chem is they may be able to open shift to QA, Reg or Materials/Project Outsourcing Management roles that could have longer potential lifespans.
ReplyDelete"doing process development offshore at a CRO is a no brainer as far as I can see" must mean either have little brain or dealt with easy process. I grant is doable with different and can be less complex than discovery that takes more constant evaluation and intervention however managing process development remotely is difficult and inefficient. To do it right one has to be highly skilled and/or deal with CMOs who have matured, mostly guided by others or learned via hard lessons.
CMCguy
I tend to think that when working in process research your job prospects when getting laid off are a bit better than doing MedChem. Like CMCguy said, you are bound to get a very broad knowledge of the whole manufacturing process, including sourcing, Quality Assurance, cost calculation, project management and your fair share of basic engineering.
ReplyDeleteI can also second CMCguys observation that Asian CMOs are equally well equipped regarding challenging chemistry, I still see a slight but decreasing advantage for Western firms with regard to high production standards and sharing the same cultural background/time zone as your main customers (which can make a difference if you can match the Indian/Chinese pricing)
Life is tough, I have a lot of colleagues rambling about the good ol` days where your "Aromatenverbund" really was top of the crop...
CMC guy,
ReplyDeleteI have done 5 process development projects with 14 CROs from around the world over the past 15 years and I would not describe any of these processes as easy. On the other hand, I always hired very talented chemists because it was my ass on the line if they screwed-up. I have only had to fire two CRO for incompetence over the years (and I did not hire one of them, and they were both in this country. Frankly I don't see process chemistry as that challenging. It is more like engineering and paperwork. It certainly is not the risky business that is medicinal chemistry.
Manufacturing raw materials in my field has all gone to China. While there is some internal process development, much of that work is being outsourced to China as well.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have seen if you want to be involved in process scale, your chances for employment are much higher if you are doing process formulation rather than process synthesis. Learning about regulatory, toxicology, and import/export laws would help.
When your looking at crappy versus sucky, does it really matter?
ReplyDelete