Surviving The Hard Times In Biotechnology Requires A Broad Outlook

Rumors of impending layoffs began swirling around the Langford division of Cyanamid Canada Inc. in Guelph, Ontario, last July. As molecular microbiologist Lori L. Burrows recalls it, the Toronto-area veterinary vaccine manufacturer was a small pawn in a battle among three pharmaceutical titans. At first it seemed as if diplomacy would avert a bloodletting: Langford's parent company, American Cyanamid Co. of Princeton, N.J., planned to swap its human pharmaceuticals subsidiaries to SmithKline Beecham, Philadelphia, in return for Smith-Kline's animal-health interests. This apparently didn't sit well with a third firm, American Home Products Corp. of New York. Fearing intensified competition, American Home Products executed a hostile acquisition of American Cyanamid before the SmithKline deal could be finalized. LOOKING AHEAD: Despite current industry difficulties, researchers may take solace in the fact that the future still looks strong in biotechnology, says BIO president Carl B. Feldbaum. The very real concern for Burrows and her colleagues, of course, was that the acquisition of their company would lead to their joining the ranks of scientists who have lost their jobs, victims of larger changes in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries (see story on page 1). During the fight over American Cyanimid, no one knew what would happen to the 130 people employed at Langford. "The managers called a company meeting in September, but they told us nothing but what we had already read in the papers," Burrows recounts. "Morale was very bad because of the uncertainty. There was a lot of misery that just got progressively worse as the end of the year approached." Burrows, who was on maternity leave at the time, recalls that the scuttlebutt intensified and its content became a lot more precise just before Christmas: The rumor was that layoffs would start the first week in January. "On Friday, the sixth of January, I went in, ostensibly to check my mail," she says. "I got there late in the afternoon, and about a third of the people had already been laid off that day. Everyone was scurrying around, waving their hands in the air and moaning and groaning." The remaining two-thirds of the employees in Burrows's division received only a temporary reprieve. They were scheduled to be retained through March, although for some that period has been extended to June. And two lucky scientists, working on particularly important projects, were offered transfers to American Home Products' Fort Dodge, Iowa-based laboratories. Burrows was among those in the most unlucky group, those laid off in January. Although the situation for newly released researchers like Burrows and her colleagues is always a stressful one, they can take an active, constructive approach to confronting it, according to scientists, company executives, and employment experts. There are moves they can make to help themselves, both while still employed and after they are laid off, if that comes to pass. Despite the difficulty of the situation in which Burrows and other scientists have found themselves in recent years, however, observers say the future remains bright for biotechnology as a whole. "In the near term, which I define as a year or two, there will be a great deal of fluidity as to which companies survive, and which companies get absorbed into other biotech or pharmaceutical entities," predicts Carl B. Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) in Washington. "In terms of the effects of that on the employment market, there will be some near-term perturbation, some dislocation of the work force. The long-term prospects are excellent. The industry will continue to grow in terms of employment through this transformation." Indeed, despite the widespread perception that employment conditions in the industry are poor, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports biotechnology's 1994 unemployment rate as just 2.8 percent, compared with around 7 percent for the U.S. work force as a whole. But these encouraging statistics mean little when the rumors start swirling. "They're always a lot of rumors, so it's important for [scientists] to verify what they hear, to know whether they need to be concerned or take any special action," says employment consultant Ed Bocko, Jr., who heads PROTRAN Resources Inc., a Sharon, Mass., consulting firm that works closely with New England biotechnology companies. "If they're in the good position of having an excellent relationship with either immediate supervisors or the management of the company, they'll probably be able to elicit good information about what the situation really is. If they're not, they should probably do some external scanning of the marketplace." Bocko recommends that scientists in this volatile industry anticipate the possibility that their company may suffer a downsizing. One of his suggestions (see accompanying list) is that scientists do their best to maintain "a clear line of sight" across all the activities of their organization, to better view their own contributions in terms of the company's broader needs. "Everyone should be able to see from the input side to the output side of their company all the way down the line," says Bocko. "The better people understand the larger picture, the better they are able to respond to any threats to the organization." DEVELOPING NEW SKILLS: Employees with diverse skills are more likely to be retained in a crisis, according to Paul G. Abrams, president of NeoRx Corp. Paul G. Abrams, president and CEO of NeoRx Corp., a Seattle-based biotechnology firm, says that another kind of breadth can also help make employees layoff-resistant. Several years ago, during a financial crisis, NeoRx was forced to reduce its work force from 210 people to just 75. "We retained people who had special skills and, for the most part, who had some training in other areas than their own. If a researcher is working on a project and he has a keen understanding of what it's going to take to manufacture, or what some of the quality-assurance issues are, or what some of the marketing problems might be, he's likely to design a much better product." According to Abrams, NeoRx has economized on employees by cross-training them: "Instead of having a full-blown group in manufacturing, some researchers who have been trained in good manufacturing practices will, under the guidance of a small, permanent manufacturing staff, actually do a manufacturing run and then go back to research." Sometimes, despite cross-training and other preparation, the news is bad. Fortunately, many companies will provide generous severance packages, which can include cash, the continuation of health benefits, and professional outplacement assistance. And scientists may be able to negotiate a decent severance package even if the company doesn't offer one at first. Says Bocko, "It may be that [the company] is not aware of the kind of services available, or it may be that it is aware of them but does not feel that it can offer them to everybody. They may offer them to people who politely ask." Scientists shouldn't feel shy about asking for a better package: "After all, what are they going to do, fire you?" Having worked for Langford for only nine months, Lori Burrows found her 13 weeks of severance pay to be quite generous. She learned that, for others, there was a good deal of variation in the size of their so-called golden parachutes: "There was variance according to people's financial circumstances as well as their length of service, their position in the company, their age, and their reemployment capacity." Once severance pay is secured, "the first step is for scientists to do a strong introspection, not to launch themselves into the job market immediately," Bocko says. "If they can, I would recommend that they spend some significant time--anywhere from a week to a month--doing a self-assessment, an inventory of their skill sets, their knowledge sets, and what they have to offer the marketplace. I also recommend that they think about the 'fun factor,' the 'happiness quotient.' What's going to bring a smile to their face and make it worthwhile getting up in the morning and going to their job?" All employees at Langford were offered the services of a professional outplacement firm, whose activities incorporated some of these considerations. Burrows, for example, took advantage of a three-day workshop that included self-assessments and advice on rsum writing, interviewing skills, and networking skills. They were also allowed three months' use of an office staffed with a secretary and equipped with computers, phones, and fax machines for use in their job search. Although Burrows recalls that she didn't take advantage of the office herself, "a lot of people told me they enjoyed having a place to go in the morning because they felt cut adrift when they were laid off. And it was a good place for networking." If the company does not offer outplacement assistance, Bocko recommends trying to obtain similar services from a state unemployment office. "Massachusetts has an outstanding set of support devices in place for people who have been laid off," at no cost to the job seeker, he offers as an example. "Another place would be the career offices of your alma mater." A third alternative would be to contract with an outplacement firm as an individual, but Bocko does not encourage this option, except as a last resort. "I'm not impressed with the way most retail outplacement firms are run," he contends. "They do not provide the level of service a person deserves, and they're extremely expensive," usually costing several thousand dollars. Scientists are often required to be flexible or make accommodations in searching for new employment. Burrows was forced to restrict her search to a two-hour radius of Toronto, because her husband's work keeps them from relocating. Despite contacting every likely company in the area-- including the Labatt's beer brewery--she was unable to find work in industry and was forced to give up a two-year industrial fellowship from Canada's National Science and Engineering Research Council. She's currently doing a postdoc at the University of Guelph, at a far lower rate of pay. Despite the turmoil in biotech, NeoRx's Abrams emphasizes that employees of the industry shouldn't feel as if they have been singled out for bad times. "Just look at the newspapers," he says. "From very large pharmaceutical companies to companies in other industries, what's happening is an attempt to decrease the total permanent work force so companies can become leaner and more competitive. The most important thing to realize is that change is going to be a part of all of our lives. One has to be careful of getting oneself too 'niched,' too specialized. If we plan our careers in such a way that change is an enemy, it's going to be tough for us." While the present biotech job environment is a challenging one, scientists may be able to take some comfort in the view held by many that the industry, as a whole, continues to have a bright future. "If you're a trained scientist in the biotech industry, I think the first thing you do is thank your lucky stars that, circa 1995, you found yourself here," says BIO president Feldbaum. "You're in better shape than workers in a lot of other industries. There's no such thing as absolute security, but there's also no limit to people's desire for good health. So, this is an industry that has an infinite demand for its services and potential products. Very few industries can say that." In spite of the current biotech downsizings, Bocko, too, sees reasonably promising possibilities for researchers. He maintains that "overall, there's still a fairly active market. Most of the people I've been in contact with who have been affected by the downsizings find reasonably good activity in the employment marketplace--not as good as you would have seen in '92 or '93, but it's still a fairly strong market. "Of the people who are good and current with what they do in their science, and who work the process of job search, I'd say that 80 or 85 percent get fairly quick results--somewhere in a two- to three-month time period. The higher up they go in salary and in the organizational chart, the longer they may be looking." Robert Finn is a freelance science writer based in Long Beach, Calif.

Surviving The Hard Times In Biotechnology Requires A Broad Outlook

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of