Pfizer CEO Ian Read, in the Wall Street Journal about his moves with Pfizer research sites:
WSJ: Cutting costs is also part of your growth strategy. You're shutting down Pfizer's laboratory in Sandwich, U.K. Was it inefficient?
Mr. Read: Sandwich was working in areas where I don't think we were competitive enough. It was in areas of allergy and respiratory and urology, and other areas where I didn't think we had the science, or the competition was ahead of us. And it was better to redirect those resources.
WSJ: You're also moving scientists from Pfizer's long-time research and development center, in Groton, Conn., up to Cambridge, Mass. Why?
Mr. Read: Historically, Big Pharma was driven by manufacturing, and very often they put manufacturing sites up on rivers because there was fermentation involved and they needed access [to water]. Now, I think you need to be in centers of innovation and hubs of innovation that are represented by La Jolla, Calif; Boston, Mass; and also in the U.K. in Cambridge.Rivers? I'm really flummoxed by this answer, even though I (sort of) understand what he is getting at: Groton is where it is (historically) because of now-irrelevant geographical features. That being said, I'm afraid this sort of "we need to be there" logic isn't really historically supported. While geographical isolation isn't good, I'm unconvinced that Pfizer chemists from Groton will somehow be magically more productive or innovative in Boston. Color me unconvinced.
CJ : We have mighty Mississippi river in the mid-west and we all here are salivating with the prospect of Pfizer moving here. Yippie! Seriously, what a cockamamie story form the Mr. Read.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, Pfizer opens up a site on the part of Memorial Drive that still touches the Charles River. Then it'd be cruel irony when, in 10 years, they announce a move to the banks of the Mississippi. Hey, we have to dump our aqueous washes SOMEWHERE, right, right?
ReplyDeleteMore serious note: how can Pfizer's chemists be magically more productive in Cambridge short-term (to please investors) when they'll all have TO MOVE? I'd think that'd be a big drain on company relo and time just to go 100 miles away.
Arr Oh,
ReplyDeleteHow many of those chemists will be offered to move? Site closures are about cost cutting through job reduction, not moving scientists to 'magical' innovation environments.
With Harvard and MIT nearby, why would Pfizer pay to relocate its current employees? Due to their deep respect for their employees and understanding that they need experienced chemists?
@Anon(4:30) - You make a great point, and drive a hard bargain. Sure you'e not a Pfizer Restructuring VP? : )
ReplyDeleteMoney Saving Strategy: Pfizer won't have to pay for transportation, hotel, and food costs when it interviews candidates from Harvard, MIT, and maybe BU or BC.
ReplyDeleteHades was next to a river, too. Just saying...
ReplyDeleteHmmm... Pfizer's San Franscisco site isn't located properly to be mentioned as a hub of innovation?
ReplyDeleteBut they have closed the SF site once already (SUGEN) and transfered the projects to San Diego even though the former Agouron site in SD had no useful kinase compounds. Once they consolidated SUGEN site into nonexistence, Pfizer was stuck with a long term lease on our 3 new research buildings. After quite a long time they managed to off-load them onto a start up company. Soon after they purchased the same startup company so now they have it back, paid for twice. Lets hope they will be more merciful to them than they were to us - the unbelievable waste of Pfizer research transfer and site closure was an experience that obliterated my illusions about the industry.... I think they are a spectacular bunch of bunglers.
ReplyDelete@ See Arr Oh--
ReplyDeleteno not a PFE VP... just a cynical bench chemist who was 'restuctured' before.
monkey see, monkey do.
ReplyDelete