I’m giving a talk at Pittcon on biotechnology training this spring. As many readers know, I have been very active in biotechnology education through my books and the classes I teach. So, I’ve got a strong sense of the supply-side of biotechnology education and training, and the academic side of biotechnology education, but would like some more perspective on the industry side of biotechnology education and training.

So, I’d like to post an open question:

How do you train your new biotechnology employees?

I want to learn more about the training systems used to bring new hires, with either scientific or business backgrounds, up to speed on the business of biotechnology. What are the methods and tools you use? You may post your response in the comments below, or if you’d rather be off the record, feel free to contact me directly.

Moira Gunn’s Tech Nation interview of Jeremy Abbate and I on the Scientific American worldView project is now available at IT Conversations. For more details, you can also see our video interview and the worldView website.

I’m honored to have been selected as one of the judges of the 2010 Biotech Humanitarian award. More details are available in a press release and blog post about the award.  The Biotechnology Industry Association created the Award to recognize an everyday hero who has helped to heal, fuel and feed the planet through their work in the broad biotech arena.

BIO is accepting nominations for the 2010 Award via www.iambiotech.org/award through January 31, 2010.

The January 2010 issue of the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology is now available. The links below will take you to the abstract for each paper:

Volume 16, Issue 1

Time for a new business model? (free full-text)
Yali Friedman

Why data exclusivity is the new patent protection
Peter Pitts

Follow-on biologic drug competition – No need for new marketing exclusivities
Michael S Wroblewski and Elizabeth A Jex

Pharmaceutical royalties in licensing deals: No place for the 25 per cent rule of thumb
Nigel Borshell and Adrian Dawkes

Exploring technology agglomeration patterns for multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms
Mark J Ahn, Michael Meeks, Sally Davenport and Rebecca Bednarek

Intellectual property landscape and patenting opportunity in biofuels
Ramasamy Mannan

Challenges and opportunities in the licensing of renewable technologies
Meredith Lloyd-Evans, Mike Gilbert and Ilian P Iliev

Ethiopia: Biotechnology for development
Desta Berhe Sbhatu

Innovation and commercialisation in the stem cell industries in Australia: State strategies and other opportunities to build a competitive position in the global stem cell economy
Olivia Harvey

Book Review: Health-care investing: Profiting from the new world of pharma, biotech and health-care services
Frank LaSaracina

Book Review: Aging, Biotechnology, and the Future
Harley King

Using IP audits to optimize IP assets
James G Cullem

Drug Patent Expirations in January 2010

*Drugs may be covered by multiple patents

Courtesy of DrugPatentWatch.com

This information is also available in an email newsletter: Subscribe to the DrugPatentWatch Patent Expiration Bulletin.

This is a guest post from Cliff Cramer, Director of the Healthcare and Pharmaceutical Management Program at Columbia Business School. Do you have a response to Cramer’s post? Post them in the comments section below.

• Multi-national pharmaceutical and medical technology companies will increase their investments in emerging markets, notably China and India, to access cost effective human capital and a growing middle class of consumers better able to afford more advanced medical products.

• Information technology will make greater strides in a healthcare industry which has been slow to adopt, driven by financial incentives (e.g., government subsidies) and employees and consumers demanding better and more accessible information (e.g., transportable e-records) as their share of healthcare spending increases.

• Healthcare reform will continue across developed (U.S. and EU countries) and developing (China) markets, focused on increasing access to affordable and quality patient care. These initiatives are likely to be incremental due to political and economic (budget) considerations.

• Consolidation will be a major theme in 2010 as insurers and hospitals seek additional leverage in contract negotiations, and pharmaceutical companies explore transformational mergers to broaden product lines, strengthen geographic breadth (emerging markets) and seek to manage earnings given major patent expirations in the near term.

About Cliff Cramer:

Cliff Cramer has spent more than 25 years in the healthcare / pharmaceutical and financial services sectors. He was managing director at Merrill Lynch in the Global Healthcare Investment Banking Group and managing director at JPMorgan in the Corporate Finance Group, where he served as head of M&A for the pharmaceutical sector. Earlier, Cramer was vice president, corporate planning & development, for Merck & Co., Inc., with worldwide responsibilities for strategic planning and business development. In addition, he was cofounder of American Health Capital / VHA Enterprises, Inc., a healthcare / financial services company serving the capital needs of multihospital systems.

This is a guest post from BiotechBlog reader Viren Konde. Do you have a response to Viren’s post? If so, you may respond in the comments section below.

The recent editorial on “Intellectual property and biotechnology innovation: To protect or not protect” by Dr Yali Friedman, Managing Editor of the Journal of Commercial Biotechnology was thought provoking and led to this write-up. The editorial emphasized on the intellectual property protection differences between the developing and developed countries, and their drug manufacturers on the issues of patents, price controls, and research & development investments in the biotechnology sector. The remarks indicate that, the developed countries, being the ‘technology producer’ have favored strong intellectual property protection to motive the innovation and apparently the trade; while the developing countries being the ‘technology consumers’ have exploited the benefits of it at much lower cost by building a weaker intellectual property protection system.

Although it is logical that all countries, whether, developing and developed, should offer the strongest intellectual property protection possible, it is believed that, there are no legal definitions of “developed” and “developing” countries. The WTO members have announced for themselves whether they are “developed” or “developing” countries, with an open option to challenge the decision of a member to make use of provisions available to the developing countries. It was also believed in the agreement that the developed countries need maximalist IP regimes, as they are highly innovative and strong IP regimes provide the requisite incentives in this regard. On the other hand, developing countries require minimalist IP regimes, as they are hardly innovative and are often net importers of technology. These norms have also formed the basis for the 1970’s Indian Patents Act for the ‘developing India’. The amendments to Indian Patent Act in a timely fashion [Indian Patent (Amendment) Acts of 1999, 2002, and 2005] have driven India to ‘innovative (Product Patents) regime’ in its intellectual property policy.

Today, although, India continues to remain a “developing” country; it is also considered a ‘technologically proficient’, and therefore as an innovative developing country. Therefore, in the present times, the older definitions of intellectual property based on the differences between developed versus developing countries can not relate to India. Some developing countries like India are more scientifically advanced than others as a result of decades of investments in education, medical infrastructure, and manufacturing capacity. India hosts more drug manufacturing facilities that have been approved by U.S Food and Drug Administration than any country other than the United States. India’s biotechnology industry is managing to position itself on the strength of contract research, clinical research and contract manufacturing services together with the sales of off-patent biologics in the local as well as lightly regulated markets in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Unfortunately, India’s patent regime does not appear to be satisfying to the developed world given that India, though “technologically competent” in certain technology sectors like software and pharmaceuticals have not yet witnessed any significant levels of “innovation” in the biomedical utility sectors like biotechnological products and processes. Recently, the US-based Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) criticized India’s patent law and the Office of the US Trade Representatives kept India (and some other countries) on the USTR’s “Priority Watch List” in order to bring India’s patent law more in line with Western IP protections. Clearly, there are some issues and concerns that need clarification and that will be discussed here, such as the patentability criteria under section 3(d), and the provision of compulsory licensing in the Indian Patent Act; the price control and the cost difference of the innovator verses generic biotechnology drugs; the TRIPS mandate on clinical data protection and exclusivity; and also the pre- and post-grant patent opposition provisions used by Indian biogeneric manufacturers.

- Viren Konde

Drug Patent Expirations for December 2009

Courtesy of DrugPatentWatch.com

This information is also available in an email newsletter: Subscribe to the DrugPatentWatch Patent Expiration Bulletin.