by varik » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:59 pm
Hi,
wow - you really put yourself out there for this question...
So, given that you are a lawyer, you should have spotless reasoning skills, or at least good enough to answer this rather rhetorical question. This fact, if indeed you are a lawyer, raises the interesting question as to why you are asking this specific question.
Let me make several parallels. You are a lawyer, and as such are in some modicum responsible for the enforcement of the law. Lawyers are plentiful, and seem to abound in America, yet crime is rampant in all forms. Is there too much crime, i.e. - too few lawyers, or is the abundance in crime due to too few good lawyers, with the offshoot of too many bad lawyers?
Free enterprise (and acquisition) and patent law would be the simple answer to your question regarding the number of the companies, and name changes within pharma and biotech, but of this, I am sure you already knew.
As far as too many scientists, you are making broad, general statements, much like my statement above regarding too many lawyers. Just as lawyers are involved in just about every layer of society, from patent lawyers, to defense attorneys, so are scientists. Again, I am sure you realize this fact.
To address your humorous speculation as to "hurting the market", you clearly do not understand the process by which most research takes place. Most "earth shattering" and "cutting edge" research takes place in academic settings (universities, academic research institutions, medical schools). This research is typically funded by the government (NIH, NSF, DARPA, etc.). Only the best ideas get funded, and survive. Generally, only once an idea/drug/breakthrough has been given merit via academic research, and there is legal consent from the academic institution, will a pharma/ biotech company pick it up for further development. Although pharma/ biotech companies can and will fund their own research, they still look over a shoulder. Those scientists who can't successfully find funding in academia, or those that have no desire to conduct academic research (vs. industry) still have an exceptional outlook, in numerous avenues ( pharma/ biotech industry, government panels, executive/ consulting positions, etc.) .
As another poster commented - scientists, specifically those with a Ph.D., are seldom truly unemployed. Chemists in particular (some even without a Ph.D.) are always in high demand. Period. Sorry to break the news to you.
Given your current thought process, we should all be afraid of too many lawyers becoming unemployed and legally assisting gangs, or other forms of organized crime/ terror.