[magellan]

Badaboom, badabing. Sometimes the best opportunities come out of economic downturns.

It's official: University of Michigan buying former Pfizer facilities for $108M
by The Ann Arbor News
Thursday December 18, 2008, 5:22 PM

The University of Michigan has made it official, announcing plans this afternoon to purchase the former Pfizer facilities for $108 million.

U-M touted the decision in a press release as a move that will directly create at least 2,000 jobs during the next decade and accelerate expansion of U-M's research activities critical to the state's economic development.


It's official: University of Michigan buying former Pfizer facilities for $108M - Ann Arbor News - The Ann Arbor News Online - Michigan Newspaper - MLive.com

http://www.mlive.com/businessreview/...isis_turn.html


Merry Christmas!!

[Dexterguy]

It's good news, it's just to bad a private company could not invest in the area/building, beacuse the City of Ann Arbor has now lost all hope to get taxes from that property.

Oh well, beggers can't be choosers.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Dexterguy

It's good news, it's just to bad a private company could not invest in the area/building, beacuse the City of Ann Arbor has now lost all hope to get taxes from that property.

Oh well, beggers can't be choosers.

From one of the articles I read, it sounded like UofM was going to continue marketing the place for potential institutional/private partnerships to bring research to market (translational science). If that's the plan, I think it could potentially be a boon to the A2 and Michigan economy.

I really don't see what private company would buy such a massive facility in the current pharmaceutical/biotech environment, especially now that the international economy is on ice for a few years.

[Bhaalspawn]

I don't think it's a bad move but I wonder where they'll get the funding to support the researchers who will use that space. After all, there's only so much NIH and NSF money to go around. Also, before people fall all over themselves about its creating 2000 "jobs", it would be nice to know if those numbers include $15,000/year graduate students and $35,000/year postdocs (lowly paid, overworked, gypsy Ph.D. scientists who couldn't find worthwhile jobs since we have a huge oversupply of Ph.D. scientists) without benefits or whether those would be solid middle and upper middle class jobs (say $50,000+/year) with benefit.

[actinic]

Whenever I read about academic expansion during a tough recession I wonder if the day will ever come when universities are held accountable for towing the budget line or even <GASP> cutting back on payroll to a degree similar as private enterprise.

I asked this to a prominent dean at a well known MI university and he went blank.

[Cliffie]

I didn't realize we were over-supplied with PhD scientists. Where did you get that information? I would be interested to read up on it.

People, it's NOT REALISTIC to believe that just because you have a PhD that you're going to slide straight into a highly-paid, groovy, mad-scientist job. Every field has entry-level positions, and if you're a scientist, you have to build a reputation by running studies and publishing results before you get past that level. That takes years of time and effort.

With my Master's degree and something like 5 years' hands-on experience, after 5 raises in the field of my choice, I was making a little over $23,000 a year. With a $15,000 student loan coming due. That is not that unusual, people.

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by Cliffie

I didn't realize we were over-supplied with PhD scientists. Where did you get that information? I would be interested to read up on it.

I have a Master's degree in one of the life sciences and I have been following this issue of Ph.D. overproduction and the academic science research pyramid scheme/scam for years. The universities and the federal government need abundant cheap labor, hence the reason for having large amounts of graduate students and the pumping out of more scientists than our economy really needs or can support. (Foreigners (who are nice folks) are even imported to work as grad students and postdocs to help keep wages down.) I have known and talked to numerous postdocs so I know that these underemployed, overworked, and underpaid people actually exist.

Most Americans accept it as a matter of faith that we cannot possibly have a large oversupply of Ph.D's in the life sciences field and the ignorant media and politicians continue to sell them on that point, which is part of the problem. In the trenches of science this notion is sometimes referred to as "The Myth".

Now let me see if I can find some references for you:

How Safe Are Career Jobs for Scientists?
How safe are science careers for scientists?

Contemporary Problems in Science Jobs and other essays by Arther Sowers
Career Development Center at NanoOnline.net

Reading list at PhDs.org. Has links to many interesting titles including:

Ph.D.'s and Unemployment on NPR's Talk of the Nation (audio clip)
The Big Crunch
Slaves to Science
The Postdoc's Plight
The Great Ph.D. Scam
Malthus and Graduate Studnets: Checks on Burgeoning Ranks of Ph.D.'s

I'm sure this is just a tiny fraction of the material available on this subject and of course there must be hundreds and thousands of anecdotal stories about people who would have been far better off going to medical school or business school or into some other field where they could have actually forged a solid middle class career.

People, it's NOT REALISTIC to believe that just because you have a PhD that you're going to slide straight into a highly-paid, groovy, mad-scientist job. Every field has entry-level positions, and if you're a scientist, you have to build a reputation by running studies and publishing results before you get past that level. That takes years of time and effort.

I agree that it is too often unrealistic, which is by definition part of the point that I am trying to make. Being able to start a career job (one with advancement potential) that would pay at least $50,000/year doesn't seem unreasonable when you consider that your average science Ph.D. has invested at least nine years in college (and in the cases of those with postdocs, 11-12 years).

With my Master's degree and something like 5 years' hands-on experience, after 5 raises in the field of my choice, I was making a little over $23,000 a year. With a $15,000 student loan coming due. That is not that unusual, people.

What's your degree in? I don't think it would be possible for anyone to recommend a student follow that same path in good faith. $23,000/year isn't too far removed from fast food wages.

[Bhaalspawn]

Oops. Here's the link to the aforementioned reading list at PhDs.org:

Required Reading &mdash; PhDs.org: Science, Math, and Engineering Career Resources