Pfizer's People Aren't to Blame

I wanted to highlight a comment that showed up recently in the latest Pfizer (PFE) post:

I would just like to point out that there is often mention of Pfizer as being a poorly productive R&D outfit on this blog, but there is rarely any mention of the scientists themselves. Having worked as a chemist at both Merck (MRK) and also at Pfizer, I would just like to point out that in my experience, the chemists at both are highly productive, extremely hardworking, and passionate individuals. It's a shame that the discussions here do not distinguish between those carrying out the research and the direction of the company overall.

That's true, and although I've put in disclaimers like that in the past, I haven't recently. There should be some sort of default blanket statement for cases like this. I know a lot of people at Pfizer, and they know their stuff. Pfizer's problems are not due to a shortage of smart, competent, hardworking people. Everyone in the industry is having a hard time keeping a good pipeline of drug candidates going these days, no matter how good they are.

But I think that the course that Pfizer has put itself on is making its problems worse, and doing damage to the entire industry at the same time. That actually makes it even more of a tragedy, the fact that they have so many good people there trying to make things work.

Comments

[Robert0713:]

Fact: working hard doesn't make for intellectual progress, working smart does. Making a work environment that encourages working smart goes against all that MBAs are taught (and innately believe). Brain work can be reduce to assembly line tasking, just look at India. But it doesn't produce new and better stuff, just more common stuff cheaper.

Small companies can, but not by nature either, support a smart working environment. Many of them, unfortunately, are run by the same MBAs who opt out of corporate, not because they disagree with the corporate method, but because they agree so wholeheartedly. They want *all* profit from the corporate method, not just a manager's stipend.

The other side of the working smart coin is the "superstar" method of compensation: the star gets 1,000X what everybody else does, thus encouraging social darwinism in the small. It is a difficult problem.

Marx describes the only way to structure an industrialized society which has long term stability. Rand describes one which has short term efficiency. How one gets from a Rand-ian state to a Marx-ian one is question for which I have not an answer. Well, other than Soylent Green.

Oct 22 01:50 PM

[dpp:]

Not sure what is meant about "MBA", I am assuming College Degree? Having worked for two large companies, one being Pfizer and the other one will not even be mentioned as not to disgrace this post. The problem with these big companies is upper management decisions. No one suffers more under bad management, then the general work force. The management team makes poor decisions and then when money is lost, lay off the general workers. This does not make sense. But then again, where to they teach common sense in schools today. If more decisions were made with the common sense approach and managment would listen to what the workers that actually know what is going on, things would be a whole lot better today. That also goes for our American Politicians and government today.

Oct 22 06:52 PM

[biopharmabull:]

OK---so I am still taken aback how people don't understand PFE & novel innovation, is and will remain, an oxymoron.

If PFE has such a solid group of scientists....how come so many ex-PFE management who moved to other big pharma companies--were stunned and skeptical when they announced that Oncology would be a core focus moving forward a few years back.

Pfizer doesn't produce break-through scientific compounds with meaningful therapeutic applications---because their culture is not about science---but on marketing---and their marketing people influence scientists to see it the same way....."We are the best marketers and scientists"....do you know how many molecules Pfizer abandoned in Sugen acquisition-->=5 promising cancer treatments--the reason--they pride themselves on completing acquisitions in record time (Sugen tech. transfer took 1 month) in order to incorporate companies into PFE regardless if they cut corners on diligence.

I can't wait until they try to set-up a presence in biologics on west coast---I can assure you that the talent pool will not flock to be part of PFE's machine.

Oct 23 07:21 PM

[BioGuy:]

To be clear, all of my comments, past and future, are meeant to be critical of PFE management and organization- not the scientists at the working level.

Special forces being led by Zeppo Markx.

Oct 30 12:56 PM