All these big biopharma buyouts are swiftly eliminating scientists from the top posts of the world's biggest--and most successful--drug developers.
Arthur Levinson at Genentech is assuming a second-tier job after the Roche buyout. And Fred Hassan, a trained chemical engineer, will be out of the CEO's office at Schering-Plough once that big company is gobbled up by Merck. The analysts and executive firm honchos say that trend is to be expected as a heavy emphasis is placed on legal and marketing expertise.
"The percentage of scientists who have the capability and inclination to run companies is limited," Jacques Bouwens, from Russell Reynolds Associates, tells the Financial Times. The rapid consolidation of drug development also spells an unstable time for scientists, he adds. A new survey indicates that pharma execs expect a big shakeup in R&D, with top research jobs at risk as demands grow for fresh alliances and marketing integration.
"I'm a rare bird among the large companies," says John Lechleiter, the CEO of Eli Lilly, who has a doctorate in organic chemistry. "It shows there's no one pathway [to the top]."
Of course, you could also make the argument that big pharma has been increasingly incapable of developing new therapies precisely because the top execs don't know much about science. Maybe instead of discounting that kind of expertise, shareholders should be demanding more of it.
- read the story from the Financial Times
Poll: Does having a non-scientist CEO negatively impact innovation at drug companies? Poll