s********s
发帖数: 579 | 1 What Sanofi Thinks About You （＝号引号中的内容是Ｃｈｒｉｓ说的，中间的是Ｄｅｒｅｋ评论）
Posted by Derek
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/03/01/what_sanofi_thi
In case you're a scientist, and especially if you're a scientist at Sanofi,
their CEO Chris Viehbacher would like you to know some things. What things
are those, you ask? Well, how about your position in the world, and
especially your position at Sanofi itself?
＝＝＝"What Sanofi is doing is reducing its own internal research capacity. The
days when we locked all of our scientists up in a building and put them on a
nice tree-lined campus are done. We will do less of our own research. We’
re not going to get out of research. We believe we do certain things well in
research but we want to work with more outside companies, startup biotechs,
with universities."＝＝＝
You know, people with real ideas, innovative stuff, that kind of thing. When
asked if this was cheaper, Viehbacher replied:
＝＝＝"It is cheaper. But research and development is either a huge waste of money
or too, too valuable. It’s not really anything in between. You don’t
really do things because it’s cheaper. The reality is the best people who
have great ideas in science don’t want to work for a big company. They want
to create their own company. So, in other words, if you want to work with
the best people, you’re going to have go outside your own company and work
with those people … And, you want to work with them, why do they want to
work with you? The reality over the last 10 years is, (a small biotech)
wouldn’t get caught dead working with one of these big cumbersome pharma
companies. Once you have a funding gap, suddenly there’s a much greater
willingness of earlier-stage companies to work with Big Pharma. We’re
looking earlier and people who are early need help.”＝＝＝
So, if you're one of Sanofi's dwindling number of internal scientists, at
least now you know what you're being treated the way you are. It's because
you're, well, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. If your company
really wants something to happen, they'll need to bypass you and find
someone good. Sticking you in a nice building and telling you to discover
stuff hasn't worked out, clearly, and blame must be attached somewhere.
Right?
At least Viehbacher has enough self-knowledge to know what people outside
his company thinks of it (and its ilk). But hey, now that the people who can
actually discover things are desperate, opportunity knocks! This is a
business plan known as "So, you need a deal real bad? Well, here's a really
bad deal!" And it's the sort of arrangement that just makes everyone happy
all around. When asked about working with venture capital firms (as Sanofi
recently did with the unfortunately named Warp Drive Bio), the response was:
＝＝＝"There’s two reasons I like (working with venture capital firms). One is,
they can sometimes bring competencies we don’t have, like for instance in
how to help a startup company. The second thing is to give you a second
opinion. Somebody in your company is going to love the science and be
championing this internally. But you want to have a second opinion. If you
have a venture capital company that’s willing to put money in, that kind of
gives a little validation of that."＝＝＝
Those people in his own company again! Nothing but trouble. You wonder,
though, what happens when someone inside Sanofi thinks that some hot startup
deal might not be a good idea. I wonder if everyone was in love with Warp
Drive Bio, for example? No matter - a VC firm was willing to put actual
money into the thing, so that's pretty much all the validation anyone needs.
Investors in the public markets, though, are apparently fools, because they
think that because a big pharma company is interested, that means that a
small company might have something going for it:
＝＝＝"The new model, where we’re trying to go, we believe that Big Pharma has
competencies in validation. So, if a Big Pharma company does a deal with a
smaller company, the smaller company’s share price goes up because people
believe that Big Pharma has depth of competencies to judge whether this
science is any good or not. Now big companies, and not just Big Pharma, big
companies I believe, are not any good at doing innovation. There has to be
some element of disruptive thinking to have innovation and I can tell you
that big companies do everything to avoid any disruptive thinking in their
companies."＝＝＝
Hah! The investors should read Viehbacher's interview, and realize that the
sort of scientists who work inside a big company like his wouldn't know an
innovation if it slithered up their leg.
Now, there are points to be made about large organizations, and about
disruptive thinking, and about various models for drug discovery and for
funding ideas. But you know, at the moment, I'm too disgusted to make them.
Update: comments have been disabled now, due to the large volume of them and
the follow-up post. Any thoughts can be directed over there - thanks! | s********s
发帖数: 579 | 2 做个总结：
Ｃｈｒｉｓ说出了很多大公司ＣＥＯ的想法，他是会计ｂｙ ｔｒａｉｎｉｎｇ
１。内部的Ｒ＆Ｄ太浪费钱，风险高
２。内部的科学家，不知道这些家伙行不行，也看不出来
３。最能，最行的牛人，不会待在大公司，肯定在外面的小公司或者学校
这就是为什么Ｐｈ．Ｄ越来越难找工作啊 | k****o
发帖数: 589 | 3 谢谢Chris，看来我不需要给大pharma投简历了。 | L*******a
发帖数: 824 | 4 问题其实大家都知道在哪里 关键是出路在哪里啊 谁上来说两句 | s********s
发帖数: 579 | 5 What Sanofi Thinks About You （＝号引号中的内容是Ｃｈｒｉｓ说的，中间的是Ｄｅｒｅｋ评论）
Posted by Derek
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/03/01/what_sanofi_thi
In case you're a scientist, and especially if you're a scientist at Sanofi,
their CEO Chris Viehbacher would like you to know some things. What things
are those, you ask? Well, how about your position in the world, and
especially your position at Sanofi itself?
＝＝＝"What Sanofi is doing is reducing its own internal research capacity. The
days when we locked all of our scientists up in a building and put them on a
nice tree-lined campus are done. We will do less of our own research. We’
re not going to get out of research. We believe we do certain things well in
research but we want to work with more outside companies, startup biotechs,
with universities."＝＝＝
You know, people with real ideas, innovative stuff, that kind of thing. When
asked if this was cheaper, Viehbacher replied:
＝＝＝"It is cheaper. But research and development is either a huge waste of money
or too, too valuable. It’s not really anything in between. You don’t
really do things because it’s cheaper. The reality is the best people who
have great ideas in science don’t want to work for a big company. They want
to create their own company. So, in other words, if you want to work with
the best people, you’re going to have go outside your own company and work
with those people … And, you want to work with them, why do they want to
work with you? The reality over the last 10 years is, (a small biotech)
wouldn’t get caught dead working with one of these big cumbersome pharma
companies. Once you have a funding gap, suddenly there’s a much greater
willingness of earlier-stage companies to work with Big Pharma. We’re
looking earlier and people who are early need help.”＝＝＝
So, if you're one of Sanofi's dwindling number of internal scientists, at
least now you know what you're being treated the way you are. It's because
you're, well, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. If your company
really wants something to happen, they'll need to bypass you and find
someone good. Sticking you in a nice building and telling you to discover
stuff hasn't worked out, clearly, and blame must be attached somewhere.
Right?
At least Viehbacher has enough self-knowledge to know what people outside
his company thinks of it (and its ilk). But hey, now that the people who can
actually discover things are desperate, opportunity knocks! This is a
business plan known as "So, you need a deal real bad? Well, here's a really
bad deal!" And it's the sort of arrangement that just makes everyone happy
all around. When asked about working with venture capital firms (as Sanofi
recently did with the unfortunately named Warp Drive Bio), the response was:
＝＝＝"There’s two reasons I like (working with venture capital firms). One is,
they can sometimes bring competencies we don’t have, like for instance in
how to help a startup company. The second thing is to give you a second
opinion. Somebody in your company is going to love the science and be
championing this internally. But you want to have a second opinion. If you
have a venture capital company that’s willing to put money in, that kind of
gives a little validation of that."＝＝＝
Those people in his own company again! Nothing but trouble. You wonder,
though, what happens when someone inside Sanofi thinks that some hot startup
deal might not be a good idea. I wonder if everyone was in love with Warp
Drive Bio, for example? No matter - a VC firm was willing to put actual
money into the thing, so that's pretty much all the validation anyone needs.
Investors in the public markets, though, are apparently fools, because they
think that because a big pharma company is interested, that means that a
small company might have something going for it:
＝＝＝"The new model, where we’re trying to go, we believe that Big Pharma has
competencies in validation. So, if a Big Pharma company does a deal with a
smaller company, the smaller company’s share price goes up because people
believe that Big Pharma has depth of competencies to judge whether this
science is any good or not. Now big companies, and not just Big Pharma, big
companies I believe, are not any good at doing innovation. There has to be
some element of disruptive thinking to have innovation and I can tell you
that big companies do everything to avoid any disruptive thinking in their
companies."＝＝＝
Hah! The investors should read Viehbacher's interview, and realize that the
sort of scientists who work inside a big company like his wouldn't know an
innovation if it slithered up their leg.
Now, there are points to be made about large organizations, and about
disruptive thinking, and about various models for drug discovery and for
funding ideas. But you know, at the moment, I'm too disgusted to make them.
Update: comments have been disabled now, due to the large volume of them and
the follow-up post. Any thoughts can be directed over there - thanks! | s********s
发帖数: 579 | 6 做个总结：
Ｃｈｒｉｓ说出了很多大公司ＣＥＯ的想法，他是会计ｂｙ ｔｒａｉｎｉｎｇ
１。内部的Ｒ＆Ｄ太浪费钱，风险高
２。内部的科学家，不知道这些家伙行不行，也看不出来
３。最能，最行的牛人，不会待在大公司，肯定在外面的小公司或者学校
这就是为什么Ｐｈ．Ｄ越来越难找工作啊 | k****o
发帖数: 589 | 7 谢谢Chris，看来我不需要给大pharma投简历了。 | L*******a
发帖数: 824 | 8 问题其实大家都知道在哪里 关键是出路在哪里啊 谁上来说两句 |
|
