Oh, THIS is a good idea

Yeah, I'll get right on that. (Click)
Photo credit: abagond.wordpress.com

In the comments to Derek Lowe's two threads on the further adventures of the HR Angel of Death at Pfizer, there was this little gem:

At Cambridge North we were told today that there wont be any "wet chemistry" going forward. The only chemists at the site will be what are known around here as "designers" for Inflammation/Immunology, CVMED and Neuroscience. The later two will be moved from Groton to Cambridge. Get rid of the hoods (and of course the chemists) and move in the cubicles! This will most definitely increase productivity and save the company.

Further explanation from another commenter:

Pfizer recently went to a model that separated out the medicinal chemists into two "bins" - designers and synthetic chemists. These are not computational chemists or modelers (by and large) they are the traditional medicinal chemists. The "designers" are now just charged with designing compounds for their projects (just like a traditional medicinal chemist would be expected to do) - but they do not then go make the compounds. They hand the "designs" off to the synthetic chemists to make. One SVP from Pfizer "tried" to explain this model and how it made sense because not everyone wants to design and some just want to be synthetic chemists and work at the hood (Ph.D. level). I think everyone in the room during this explanation could see the writing on the wall that the synthetic chemists had a very short shelf life and would be out-sourced very quickly. There was also talk about reward systems for both, yada, yada, yada.

In a nutshell, new hires (if there were any) would come in at the synthetic chemist level and would then have to work up to the designer level (if they so chose). This clearly was a model based upon outsourcing the synthetic portion of the equation - although based on yesterday's news it may not matter at all if you work for Pfizer.

Has anyone at Pfizer ever played telephone? Physically separating the 'designers' and the 'chemists' by 108 miles is lunacy; sometimes it's occasionally difficult to communicate between two chemists separated by 30 feet (distance from office to lab.) Assuming this is actually happening, this is proof that Pfizer senior management has completely lost their marbles and are just rearranging deck chairs.

Once again, I am reminded of the many, many comments that people have made about what makes a successful drug discovery team (not that I've ever truly been part of one): lots of communication and collaboration (and downtime out-of-meeting talks) between the relevant scientists, both chemists and biologists. I am curious when larger pharma companies will relearn these truths.

What are the chances to make it to Big Pharma from a small company?

I'm heading straight for Big Pharma after
I bust this guy's head open and break
out of this developmental league.
Credit: Ryan Wolf/Phoenix New Times

There are a lot of talented new graduates and postdocs who are finding their ways to smaller pharma companies and startups these days; there are also the various new academic drug discovery centers. The same assumption is that some percentage of these people would have been part of the traditional campus recruiting hires for Big Pharma.

Will they ultimately transition to the large pharmaceutical companies, as older entry-level employees or lower-to-mid-level management? I've covered this once before, when I said:

If smaller companies are like the minor leagues in baseball (where future talent is grown and developed over time) and assuming that there is a more-than-likely chance (unlike the minor leagues) that your experience will translate into a better-paying job in the future, then it's worth it. 

If taking a job at a smaller startup or a CRO is more like joining an independent league American football team* (where the chances of joining the NFL are vanishingly small), then no, it's not worth it and we're just keeping our jobs because we want to keep doing chemistry.

To which beloved commenter bbooooooya said:

...there is little transition from biotech to the big boys, though it does happen. The opposite transition seems more favored. A few years as a director or group leader at a big pharm makes it easier to slide into a VP role at a small biotech with, I assume, a jump in salary (at least while the company is around). I'm assuming non-executive salaries in big pharms tap out near $200K for group leaders, maybe a bit more for directors(but really don't know)?

I assume that bbooooooya would probably stick to his now year-old statement. 

Lower in the hierarchy, if Pfizer (and other big pharma companies) are going to stick to their designer/synthesizer motif, then I don't see why designers at small organizations can't become designers at large organizations. (Apart from the typical nepotism networking reasons, of course.) At the same time, I don't see the Big Pharmas deciding to hire lots of synthesizers (entry-level or otherwise) any time soon. 

I'm sure there's a pony in here somewhere. Readers, your thoughts? 

*Or an independent wrestling league (as pictured?)