2015年3月10日讯 /生物谷BIOON/--自从四年前，辉瑞公司宣布对其研发部门进行裁员，生物医药产业就掀起了一股裁员风暴，而作为每一家公司最烧钱的部门--研发部门则总是首当其冲。然而，四年过去了，这一趋势仍在持续，许多生物医药产业研发人员也时常担忧自己的工作是否能够长久。回顾最近几年生物医药产业的热门话题，医药产业裁员始终位于前五之列。
这股裁员风暴始于四年前辉瑞公司的裁员决定。随后罗氏公司宣布对其新泽西州纳特利市的研发机构进行精简，而赛诺菲、葛兰素史克等生物医药巨头纷纷采取了类似的措施。然而，四年过去了，生物医药产业是否达到了其内部调节的一个稳定状态？很遗憾，答案是否定的。
就在过去几个月，各大生物医药公司都有了裁员的新动作。葛兰素史克公司宣布裁减其在北卡罗来纳州的研发机构，诺华公司则更是彻底，直接出售了其肿瘤研发部门。就在昨天，默沙东公司传来消息，公司进行了新的裁员计划，削减了位于波士顿地区的120个研究岗位。这些都预示着未来生物医药产业调整仍将持续。
我们不禁要问，为什么会出现这种剧烈动荡？难道近年来生物医药领域不是正处于高速发展的时期？
业内人士分析，这其中原因有二。
首先，生物医药产业作为技术密集型产业，很容易受到热点研究的左右。例如近年来肿瘤的免疫治疗领域异常火爆，这一趋势导致几乎所有的生物医药巨头都加大了在这一领域的人力物力投入。这些都导致在短短几年内工作在肿瘤部门的研究人员队伍空前扩大。
然而，并不是所有公司都会在这一领域中取得进展。当许多公司的研发项目遭受滑铁卢时，都会不约而同的选择削减这一部门，以期降低损失。
众所周知，生物医药研究的失败率相当高，那么产业内部大量裁员的现象也就很好解释了。
其次，近年来生物医药产业中的并购竞争日趋激烈，一方面这种趋势有利于优质研究资源的汇集，另一方面，由于收购方和被收购方的资源不可能是完全互补，其中必定存在着重叠的部分。那么结果可想而知，被收购方的研发部门将不可避免的出现被裁掉的结局。
虽说这一趋势是生物医药产业发展的必经之路，但是我们不禁要问，这一过程是否真的是必要的？难道没有其他更好的解决措施？需知生物医药产业的核心是技术，一旦研发人员一直面临着被裁员的压力，又如何保证他们能够在自己的研究项目中发挥自己的才智？
详细英文报道：
Every year when I'm assessing the top trends in the industry, R&D restructuring can be relied on to make the top 5. Four years ago, Pfizer ($PFE) sent shockwaves through the industry when it announced plans to close its R&D complex in Sandwich--later it decided to keep some operations--while scaling back dramatically in Connecticut. Roche ($RHHBY) followed with its plan to close Nutley, NJ, and companies like Sanofi ($SNY) and GlaxoSmithKline ($GSK) set out to find some new approach to R&D that could justify their multibillion-dollar annual investments. Merck ($MRK) was one of the last to finally give in to the trend.
That period of intense Big Pharma turmoil, though, has failed to create a new normal that can offer investigators greater confidence that they'll be able to keep their jobs. And the disruption is continuing with a new wave of restructuring every bit as traumatic as the first tsunami of makeovers.
In just the last few months we've seen a troubled GlaxoSmithKline, which once touted small, biotech-like development units as the answer to its problems, rip into its R&D operations in North Carolina while prepping for a major asset swap with Novartis ($NVS) that will affect its entire oncology group. Pfizer has ordered unspecified layoffs in Cambridge, MA, and Collegeville, PA, just months after opening its shiny new R&D center in Massachusetts. Shire ($SHPG) recently warned about a "mass layoff" in Pennsylvania as it waits to see how many of up to 600 jobs--many in R&D--will be relocated to its facilities in Massachusetts or face the ax. Sanofi decided to cut back in cancer R&D, laying off about 100 in the Boston hub. AstraZeneca is bowing out of early-stage anti-infectives R&D, cutting a division in Waltham, MA that once employed 175 down to a biotech that willprobably be spun out with about 25 staffers. Merck KGaA has been making cuts in Billerica, MA, even as it prefers to discuss growth in oncology. And the pharma giant Merck demonstrated in recent days that the big M&A wave comes with major cuts in R&D--a prospect that drives Valeant's entire business model.
Today, biotech takeovers are hot. And the industry is paying for it with more R&D upheaval. Just ask anyone working for Pharmacyclics about their sense of job security in the wake of the AbbVie buyout. AbbVie's $21 billion premium price all but guarantees big cuts--fast.
And that's all new. Go back further into 2014 and you'll see rounds of layoffs at Amgen ($AMGN), Novartis and more. (Most of these more recent stories, by the way, were either broken or significantly advanced by FierceBiotech. Stay tuned for more.)
To be sure, a lot of this recent turnover has to do with the industry's unending need to reinvent itself. When one field--let's take immuno-oncology--becomes hot, then everyone rushes in. Priorities change. R&D budgets change. New people are hired. Old jobs are eliminated. Shire gets a new chief who wants to take a model that purposefully scattered operations around the world and centralize it in one location. Amgen also hears the call of concentrating resources in the big hubs.
But it's not all about the need for staying current. Companies like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are changing up organizations because they have failed to generate much excitement with their pipelines and research performance. When a big outfit like GSK gets a big approval for Breo, and gets little in return, something's going to change.
Roche invited me down to Nutley a few years ago to talk to the research survivors about to make the transfer into Manhattan. Walking through the deserted campus, I thought it would make a great set for a post-Apocalypse movie. The empty buildings, abandoned parking lots and lonely sidewalks make for a dramatic setting. It's too bad they're still shooting the same movie in biopharma. They're just using different locations.