"The pharmaceutical companies are the worst!" sneers Sir A, with the air of a man who knows he's got his opponant on the mat and is going to get the throat "The pills cost pennies to make and the NHS pays millions for them", or something similar to that was said in a suitably derisive tone of vioce of course. Sophie can't argue - how can she possibly explain that one to Sir Alan and the viewers within the time span of the show?

Well she can't, so I'll try because that annoyed me. Part of what he said was true, purely from a materials point of view. What does he think scientific researchers do??? Sit in a boardroom and have a little brainstorming session such as

"Well, we need a new pill to sell to the public, what shall we come up with?"
"Oh, I don't know, there's this HIV thing about, shall we do a pill to sort that one out?"
"Oh yeah, great idea! We've got a theme now, so how are we going to market it?"
"I know, the pill should be pink with a little flower on it"
"Oh I don't think so, that sounds a bit too much like an illegal narcotic to me!"

...and so forth...?

NO! Sir Alan! It takes years of research to get a pharmaceutical product on the market. You do NOT just botch it up over night and sell it to a gullible public with a generous smothering of B*llsh*t! That's how you've made your millions, by taking the public for mugs. I'm on Sophie's side on that one. She's not naive, she sees things exactly as they are, but she would clearly like to change them. She's honest enough to want a change for the better, I think.

Just out of interest, I think it was right to sack Sophie, she does have far too many scruples to work for someone like that. I think he was paying her a compliment. I don't like the way he patronised her about atoms and the pharmaceutical companies. Her knowledge of sales is astronimical in comparison to his knowledge of science so he should jolly well shut up. However, the general public on average know little about sales but even less about science so he can get away with it. He's been getting rich from spouting (oh, and producing) rubbish all of his life.

Having said that, I produced my final year undergraduate science project on an Amstrad PCW9512, but only because my mum won it on a TV game show in the days when they could only give them away. It was an amusing, if noisy, toy.

Sir Alan knows the public are stupid, it's his field of expertise. He's only one step and a couple of lucky breaks up the evolutionary ladder from Del Boy.

However, I'm kind of glad Sohpie's gone. Sir A was always going to bully her about her scientific background because he is a blinkered and small minded bigot. Or perhaps that's just his show brief - to make it "good telly" or something.

And before anyone else sneers at the role of scientist vs the Sir Alans of this world - which would you rather give up? Anaesthetic or one of Sir A's rather unecessary gadgets?

Ok, rant over. Despite that, and excellent episode
Last edited by pammi_i : 18-04-2007 at 22:25

Do I take it that we are a little annoyed!!!

hahahahahahah lol ur just mean!!!

He is a bit crackers, In The Times, he was quoted as saying Apple would be broke in a few years when the iPod fad is over.

Apple have been written off so many times only a fool or a madman would think this. Although given their market share it does seem amazing they get by so well.

They put their success down to investing in R&D all the time, especially in the lean years when the competition cut back their R&D spending. I believe R&D is what the pharmaceutical companies know a lot about.

I think this is Sir Del-Boy Sugar's Achilles heel.
Last edited by minimalistmatt : 18-04-2007 at 22:47

o// an excellent rant Pammi. Feel better ?
>>>passes a cup of tea


I think Sir A may have been talking about the original big name brands to the generic ones? There are some big differences in the prices. Like Hedex - just paracetamol, available a lot cheaper from a company who produces their own or buys them in from abroad.

Anyhoo I agree he's small minded, even though he donates his Ad appearance fees to G.O.S.H; you would think that the novelty of ripping people off and lining his own pockets would have worn off by now.
Last edited by trixiehobbit : 18-04-2007 at 22:59

It's my imagination then that the top pharmeceutical companies are making huge profits.

pammi i can uinderstand you ranting bout alan sugar

of course he knows nothing about the pharmaceutical world he isnt in in any sense unless he is going to start producing the Amstrad flu buster

but he has 800 million fortune so i wouldnt call SAS a total idiot and i really think when he made that point it was more to address sophies remark about selling a product that is value for money (he knows his stuff is tat but doesnt care and sells it anyways)

and lets face it the pharmaceutical comnpanies are hardly angels now are they

That's not strictly true. Pfizer for example cut several thousand jobs a couple of months back. With research as advanced as it is now, and complex diseases such as HIV, arthritis and Cancer being key targets, it is increasingly difficult to find new drugs. Only 1 in 100 projects that are started by pharma companies results in a functioning drug, and that's before safety assessment. And every drug that gets on the market will have had an average of £1 billion of research and marketing. Not to mention problems with short patients. It is only the big pharma that are able to stay afloat, small biotech companies are going bust all the time because they don't have the vast amount of time and cash to put into projects.

sorry that was supposed to say patents!

Ooops! It's so obvious when it's pointed out

Thank you.

Frankly he's just not very bright. The idea that a some goods may be marketable at a higher price than their unit production cost is hardly sophisticated - its basic microeconomic theory. Drug costs reflect R and D costs and marketing costs and an element of monopoly pricing as well as having life or death impacts that defy costing. It has nothing to do with the morality of selling something you know isn't worth the price you are asking for it when you know its rubbish, unneccessary or in this case sugar laden.

Sophie missed the opportunity to turn things back on him. The question was " but you wouldn't sell anything to the public you thought was nasty, overpriced or potentially harmful or exploit children to make a sale would you? He can't continue his line of reasoning at that point by saying he would and if he agrees with her, he looks dishonest if he sacks her.

i like alan sugar but thought he was talking crap!

No, I think you were right first time - Small Man Syndrome is a major problem in today's society.

AS is very anti 'scholarship'. He fired that great lawyer girl from the previous series. Sophie's days were obviously numbered after his snidey remarks to her about protons and neutrons (yes, I know we only see the deliberately edited clips). He does not like what he would call 'brainy' people and he likes nothing better than shooting them down - in effect saying that 'brainy' people have no place in his cut and thrust commercial world.

I liked the Woolies CEO on the follow-up show! But I bet AS doesn't!

Take a look here.

In 2004 Pfizer made a worldwide profit of $11.4 billion from a turnover of $52.4 billion - that a ratio of 22%, which is higher that most manufacturing industries that I know of.

SAS is right.

OK - what about earlier this year Woolies issuing a major profit warning? They are not looking in a very healthy position at the minute - maybe they should ask the CEO about that?

HEAR HEAR!! Fantastic post and exactly what I wanted to shout at the screen!

Also, not to be pedantic SirAlan but why throw the pharmaceutical industry back as a 'reasoning' tool with Sophie...she's a physicist!

She seems really nice too

I agree. I don't know how the final candidates are picked for the series, and how much influence if any AS has over it, but it seems obvious to me that there are some professions he can't stand, and applicants from those professions are viewed by him as representives of their (former) work, rather than individuals applying for his job.

Karen, the lawyer, was a great example - she put in a brilliant performance IMO, but was forced to listen to AS's long diatribe against lawyers in general before being kicked out fairly early on in series 2.

As a scientist, Sophie was used by Sugar as a whipping boy for pharmaceutical companies, which was hugely unfair. Although, unlike Karen, I don't think Sophie had the potential to go all the way to the final, I do think it would be more honest for the programme's makers to tell candidates from the outset that nobody too posh or too highly educated need bother to apply.

I was a bit amazed what Alan Sugar said that last night. Okay, the pills cost pennies to make, but they are far more expensive to develop.

Sir Alan was just talking about the cost of production, we all know the cost of research and development that goes into drugs. I just think Sir Alan just doesn't like anyone who already has a professional qualification - the lawyer last year was fired in a similar way. I suppose he has a point, what does she want to change career for?

Jeez , are you all upset scientists on here??
SAS is a businessman, a very successful one, he wants a leader for a arm of his empire, he employs all types in his corporations from cleaners to engineers, he wants a leader with savvy, last night he worked it out well and acted accordingly.That is why he's a multi millionaire.

He does'nt have to like anyone, was the lawyer smarter than him ??, i bet he'd compare CV'S anyday.

Perhaps 'doesn't like' was the wrong term, he doesn't understand why they would want to change career after spending time and effort studying for a different profession. I don't think at all he considers them any smarter so 'get them out' - just what do they have to offer?

Yes, I couldn't work out why he thought it was so relevant. (I also thought it a bit naff that Sophie calls herself 'Dr' - I've got a PhD but I'd feel uncomfortable if someone called me that outside of an academic context - I agree, though, that she seemed quite nice in the post-show interview.)