Slashdot Mirror
Offshoring Trends Net Biotech Firms
Makarand writes "According to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, BioTech, once considered to be
the next innovative sector to help offset the jobs losses from IT offshoring, is
showing
signs of riding an
offshoring wave of its own. Foreign governments with a national
priority to attract biotech businesses with highly trained research workers and new
research centers are the new forces to reckon with in preventing the
exodus of biotech
jobs. Drug developers are looking at ways to cut costs of drug development as Americans and their employers are starting to constantly worry about the high price of prescription drugs. The lower costs of clinical trials and the ease with which human subjects can be recruited for drug tests in other countries are making biotech jobs susceptible to offshoring."
Is anyone else not surprised at all?
Businesses outsource, even tech ones, even biotech ones now.
Shocking.
Oh, and f1r57 p057!
But do they ever stop to think that these people may be the best suited to the job?
The point is they do the work for cheaper than most would, and you'll find the majority do it just as well as a local. I guess we wouldn't have this problem though if our culture wasn't so based around the evil that is money.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't outsourcing a shining example of capitalism working exactly as it should? People always get so bent out of shape about it, but fundamentally it's rewarding the people/countries who are willing and able to do the same work for less. If you look at the unequal distribution of wealth as a problem (which I do), then the good news is that poor countries will get richer, as will the uber-rich that now have to pay their workforce less. The bad news is for the middle class. American left-wingers would do well to remember that the people receiving out-sourced jobs probably need them more than Americans. And American right-wingers would do well to remember that unless they're very rich, they're likely getting shafted.
Sometimes there are subtle differences between the label and generic drug(s) that can justify the label drug.
One particular case is thyroid hormone replacement therapy, where it is generally accepted practice to not switch product, whether it be generic->label (synthroid) or label->generic. Doing so requires recalibrating your thyroid hormone levels...
Many times, patients want the label drug...
Doctors tend to leave the decision of what drug to actually fulfill the prescription with to the pharmacist...
Some health insurance plans have acceptable formularies that only include generics where possible or policies that pharmacists must provide generic instead of label, where possible.
This has always happened. Any industry will have cheap bits that can be outsourced. It would be a negative for the US to try to hang on to the cheap bits. Tht doesn't mean more well paid high tech jobs for US citizens - it means more low paid production line jobe which will be filled, if at all, by immigrants.
Be elitist. The US can do R&D like no other. Yes, other coutries will try, and set up science parks which look just as pretty as US science parks. But it is not pretty science parks that make inventions, it is grade A researchers in an environment which stimulates innovation. Which crucuilly includes, in the US more than anywhere else, the freedom to be wrong.
Of course, yesterdays leading edge is todays mainstream. And therefore that which only the US could do yesterday, others can do today - and will, for less money. If you stop a US company outsourcing he things that can be done cheaply overseas, you will actually have a negative effect: a wholly overseas compay will outcompete them and put them nout of business.
But the US has a 100 year record of finding new things to do. In the old things, all the overseas contries are competing with each other: in the new, the US has the field to itself
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I see one of the big reasons for offshoring as the current medical system. The ridiculous costs of attempting healthcare for workers is one of the costs of employing people.
Offshoring doesn't carry that burden. Health care should be 100% unrelated to employer packages
Ironic
RST
Explain to me why drug costs are cheaper in Canada if they get their drugs from the same sources as Americans. Why do American pharmaceutical firms need to send their development offshore?
The lower costs of clinical trials and the ease with which human subjects can be recruited for drug tests in other countries are making biotech jobs susceptible to offshoring.
Does anybody else finds this... well... horrible and sinister? So, just because consumers want a modicum of security -- and security means more expenses -- big pharma is outsourcing human testing?
As in, testing potentially dangerous new products on poor (non caucasian, perhaps?) people is sooooo much cheaper in [insert favourite country here]?
So, on one hand these big companies are making tons of dough off their rich consumers. Then, they refuse to sell certain drugs *cough cough* AIDS *cough cough* in poor countries (no enough profits to be made in Africa, mate!). Then, they put pressure on third-world countries (Brazil, India, etc) who decide to copy these products anyway.
Then , they simply outsource human testing, because "we big corporations have a God-given right to make even more profit ". Even if it means less security and more unemployed.
Is this sick or what?
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Drug developers are looking at ways to cut costs of drug development as Americans and their employers are starting to constantly worry about the high price of prescription drugs.
Countries like Brazil have taken to producing drugs like tri-therapy drugs for AIDS without paying the license, to make them affordable for their population, as a matter of national emergency. Others, like India, have made an entire industry out of producing generic drugs.
These medicines are cheap, yes, but the cost is offset onto the newer meds, those that are still produced exclusively, or under license, that aren't in the public domain yet. That's why, when countries hurt the bottom line of pharmaceutical companies, said companies jack up the price of the top line.
Combine that with the cost of doing any sort of medical-related business in the US, due mainly to insurance costs, due in turn to ligitation-happy Americans, and you know why certain silly little pills can cost hundreds of dollars.
I'm not saying pharmaceutical labs aren't also part of their own problem (it's in great part their very greediness that made the generic knockoffs industry the huge success it is in the first place), but with their margins reduced all the time, it's not wonder they try to cut cost and practice off-shoring. And time has shown that it's not their sense of morals that will compel them to hire local workers...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
"According to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, BioTech, once considered to be the next innovative sector to help offset the jobs losses from IT offshoring
I know this is sometimes hard for Americans to understand, but the US is not the only nation with advanced research and development. And just because the US likes to think of biotech and computers as "American" technologies industries, they have always been, and continue to be, international efforts.
Note, also, that European and Asian companies have been "off-shoring" to the US for decades: a lot of their R&D, marketing, and financial services have been located in the US.
Foreign governments with a national priority to attract biotech businesses with highly trained research workers and new research centers are the new forces to reckon with in preventing the exodus of biotech jobs.
After decades during which the US has siphoned off the best and brightest from all around the globe ("brain drain"), with high-paying jobs and a good standard of living, it is only natural that other nations are finally trying to do something about it. The real question is why this hasn't happened earlier. Maybe nations like Britain will finally pay their researchers a decent salary, and maybe nations like Japan will finally pay respect to their researchers.
Of course, the implications for the US are not so good: US R&D is based on highly-skilled immigrants. If that flow stops, it may temporarily create a little more demand for US workers, but it will primarily make the US overall far less competitive.
Compared to the rest of the world. In the global market it's that simple.
China and India have very well educated, very intelligent engineers, scientists, developers and they can do as good a job, cheaper.
We keep hearing the argument, "When all the jobs have been offshored, who will buy the products?". Well, duh. The Chinese and Indians will. This means BTW that they are going to be large markets.
We're going to have to start competing on price and that basically means devaluation of the currency.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I worked for a bank for a few years (in a country far away, where they have numbered accounts and you're actually looking at jail time for revealing customer data) and something like this was just unheard of.
The absolute main security issue was customer data. Not that they would have fancied embezzlement or theft but this was looked upon far less serious then compromising customer data, period.
In the data centers (which you had to physically access in order to query real customer data, safe for the front office and also there it was very restricted what you could look at) you had to go through multiple layers of security and where not permitted to even remove a printout.
Computers where dismanteled and disks shredded, they where never for resale. This was applicable for every last computer from every last branch and office
Now, I agree shit happens. Probably in their case it started with outsourcing such a critical tasks to "ACMEs chep disk blanking operation" in order to save a few bucks. This is not really excusable, but it happens.
But what really gets my blood boiling are statements like the one from that PR bimbo, which are just utter bullshit.
Maybe she should apply for a job at Microsoft to sell "trustworthy computing".
Interesting discussion: http://gigaom.com/archives/2004/04/dark_side_of_ou tsourcing.html
How does the US prescription system work? Are doctors prescribing branded drugs over cheaper, generic drugs in order to receive funding from drug companies?
Actually, it's more the case that doctors, faced with a bewildering choice of new drugs to keep up with every single year, end up prescribing the drug that they're most familiar with. This ends up usually being the drug that they're given the most free samples of.
As far as HMOs are concerned, they have a list of drugs and their generic equivalents, and if you use the brand name, you'd better have a damn good reason for doing so.
The only people getting funding from drug companies are researchers, and clinical test sites. For regular folks (ie, doctors, interns, etc.) they get a lot of swag and free drug samples (as well as seminars, etc.), but they're not supposed to get cash.
Frankly, high drug costs (at the counter, not high development costs) leading to offshoring is a red herring. The trend toward offshoring has to do more with escaping regulatory hurdles which prevent certain types of research (stem cells, anyone?), the lousy payoff in domestic drug research, and the rise of very competitive research and testing labs overseas.
that once Lawyers jobs start getting outsourced, we will see changes in government priorities.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But considering I work for a startup pharmaceutical company, I feel I gotta say something. Lots of people here seem to think that the HIGH costs of drugs are related to pure profit. Working as a techie in the field myself, I'm really surprised people don't know that the high costs has more to do with spending $10-20 MILLION dollars to get a drug through the FDA then it does with trying to make a profit on it.
It's no wonder people go overseas...drugs are a LOT easier to produce there..
And yes, $10 million is usually the minimum amount of money needed to get APPROVAL to get a single drug into the marketplace in the US. Anyone else knows of a better way to sell a product that costs $10 million + production costs to produce BEFORE they see a profit?
Honestly, you have better luck with a Krispy Kreme donut.....
Given that some of the best minds are overseas, isn't it a tad arrogant to view it all as 'outsourcing'? In some cases, the US is probably buying overseas expertise, which is not available in the US? Consequently, the US is benefiting and learning from India (and others), not the other way around.
The problem for the Empire was that it gradually outsourced everything to the provinces - the grain supply (Egypt), mining, other agriculture. Like the US it imported the most able provincials and gave them citizenship to encourage them to support the system. But eventually the focus of power moved to the provinces, Rome itself became decadent (who needed to earn a proper living?) Even most of the army was recruited abroad. And the Empire collapsed. The remains of the Empire that survived - in Byzantium - was a statist civilisation in which capitalism was rigorously controlled, based around many small artisans and companies of very limited size, in which the Government interfered in production, distribution and exchange. Sound like anywhere?
Endless outsourcing may be capitalism, but what happens on the day when R&D is carried out abroad, manufacturing is all done abroad, the Internet, cheap broadcasting and cheaper film making has destroyed the US dominance in media, the US army is too small to control even a small dissident country (look at the problems posed by Iraq...we could kill everybody, but imagine the backlash), the rest of the world sees that the Emperor has no clothes, and the dollar collapses?
Live off intellectual property? Can you imagine the rest of the world agreeing to observe US patents which frequently would not get through the assessment stage in European countries?
At that point the super-rich will be sitting on piles of worthless dollars, and farming may look like the smart option again.
OK, it probably won't be that bad. But too much policy at the moment seems to be predicated on the idea that the US can control the rest of the world financially or militarily, and the example of Rome shows that unrestricted capitalism is likely to destroy the very factors that make that possible.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Or are you the kind of person that wants to have his cake and eat it, resell it, outsource it, etc...?
Sure, why not? America doesn't owe the rest of the world a damned thing. Other countries are perfectly free to pass their own laws in that regard, if that's what they wish to do. But as an American, I'm not obliged to look out for the interest of any other nation or people. I can if I like, as an individual, but I'm not *obligated* to - nor is my government.
The government of America is for Americans, and no one else. It's that simple. If corporations wish to essentially become foreign entities by moving jobs and resources to foreign nations, then they should be treated as such. In fact, so far as I'm concerned they should simply move their entire operation to that nation, register as a corporation of that nation, and be treated as such by the American government. They deserve no handouts, no tax breaks, no protection under American law, and no benefit from American trade agreements with other nations.
Let's see how long those former American companies last when they're wholly Indian in both name and law. Let's see how well they do when they have to operate on the other side of a tariff barrier.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
No, the right question is: what jobs can't be offshored? And the answer is damned few of them -- only those that truly require a physical presence.
And guess what? Technology reduces the number of jobs that require a physical presence. You think the fact that offshoring is happening right now is an accident? No, it's because we now have the communications technology to make it practical.
So the only question left is what all the extra competition is going to do. I think it's going to destroy the global economy, as corporations take the extra profit and distribute it to those who already have the most money: executive staff, board members, and investors.
In short, I think this will destroy what little middle class the world has left, and put us squarely back in the middle ages when people were either insanely rich or dirt poor.
In fact, because offshoring forces entire economies to compete with each other with the price of labor, and thus the standard of living, being the only variable, I think we'll start to see some countries start to use prison labor to compete. That'll definitely take us back to the dark ages.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Sure, from the safety of the upper class, and with most of your income being from investments, outsourcing looks great - all that cheap stuff available at Target, eh? But if you're 50, have two kids and a mortgage, and happen to, say, be an engineer for a telcom, hearing that your getting laid off "will be good for the American economy in the long run" isn't much solace.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
The idea that all people are just as suited for testing drugs is very incorrect. For a drug trial to truly translate to an American population, it would have to be performed on a population with roughly the same ethnic mix and environment. It is not at all unusual for drugs and poisons to effect various populations differently.
An example of this is PCBs. The original tests on PCBs back in the 50s and 60s were performed on an Indian (as in from India) population. They found a fairly high risk of cancer and that is why we started working to reduce and eventually nearly eliminate PCB usage in America. Interestingly, later tests on other ethnic groups found that ethnic groups of European and African descendency demonstrated virtually no cancer response to PCBs. Indians were the worst with other Oriental groups showing decreased, but still present cancer responses. The cancer response amongst the Japanese was the least of the Oriental groups, though still present. This in no way says that we shouldn't have reduced our usage of PCBs since there are people of Oriental descendency in our society, but it does demonstrate that medical tests do not always translate even at a gross level from one group to another. If we had never tested PCBs on people of Oriental origin, we wouldn't have banned them.
In many ways, there is a more disconcerting flip side to this that has been largely ignored by the so-called "medical science" (I put that in quotes because they ignore so many factors, it is hard to say that they are a legitimate science). The flip side is that because we ignore ethnic origin and many "how they live their life" type factors of the people involved in tests and we don't work hard to identify the factors that cause failure in a drug for the typically small percentage that do have adverse effects with many otherwise beneficial drugs, we are very likely missing out on many drugs that might be very beneficial. Biology is not blind to these factors and we shouldn't be either if we truly want to call it or make it a science.
The genetic sciences are probably the answer. Eventually, we should see a process evolve of prescribing drugs according to genetic tests that determine precisely how a particular individual will respond. At that point in time, they can hide the ethnic factor by talking about the gene that interferes with the test instead of the ethnic groups that typically have that gene.
I've read several posts across several threads on slashdot on this topic defending outsourcing.
Many of the posters are self assured to the point of smuggness, arrogance, and condescension.
I haven't seen any facts from them or other people who support offshoring.
Anyone who has had a decent education knows that what academia knows is not always as solid as academia would like everyone to think.
Add to that Economics is not a hard science and that there is disagreement among economists as to the value of outsourcing.
Where are the jobs?
How will outsourcing create jobs for Americans?
Will enough jobs be created for Americans?
Will the assumed forthcoming jobs come before a large number of people experience economic ruin?
Will the assumed forthcoming jobs be quality jobs that people can support famlies on and enjoy doing?
Will the assumed forthcoming jobs stimulate students to study subjects that will keep America competitive?
How....will outsourcing generate these jobs?
So far I haven't even seen attempts at these answers from anyone. At the most you some smugness with a statement that pretty much boils down to
"Don't, worry it will work out".
Most people would not accept that answer from a mechanic when they hear loud clanking noises from their car without a detailed explanation.
Yet, many people are willing to accept that answer for their careers and the future of their country.
I don't get a sense that these people are stupid.
Maybe the whole thing stresses people out so much they just assume what rich people tell us and what other people parrot is the truth to free themselves from having to worry about it.
Maybe it is just the high school football rivalarly mentality of party loyalty in American politics that leads to people parroting all of this stuff without finding answers to those questions.
Where's the beef?
If you are not working through no fault of your own you should consider whether or not the president should be working after this January.
Steve