Much of the drive for this addition labor sculpting stems from AZ’s desire to streamline its R&D; the company will focus on fewer disease targets and expects to cut up to 3,500 jobs in that sector, which currently employs about 12,000.

But it’s not all bad news. Some jobs might survive via relocation, and because the company wants to expand its work in biologics, the net loss could end up in the 1,800 range. This should save AZ at least $1 billion a year, money they need for pipeline projects close to launch, such as the highly anticipated motavisumab, which aims to prevent respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. AstraZeneca’s pipeline contains over 100 projects, about 30 percent of which were acquired by licensing, according to CEO David Brennan.

The company has not disclosed which disease areas it will leave behind during this streamlining process, but it’s unlikely they’ll drop ones diabetes (with seven compounds in the works and a rapidly growing patient population) or cancer.

According to the Times of London, GlaxoSmithKline is also expected to have unpleasant news for employees during Thursday’s release of its 4Q figures: They’ll be cutting 4,000 jobs, mostly in Europe and America. A similar bloodletting took place last February, when an estimated 6,000 got the axe. This is all part of Glaxo’s plan to save $2.7 billion by 2011.

“The one area we’re trying not to engage is specific questions about disease state,” said Earl Whipple, senior director in AstraZeneca’s corporate communications group and author of the blog.

Strict corporate control by pharma companies engaged in social media essentially destroys what makes the space so dynamic: the ability for users to express controversial information and personal opinions. Therefore, it’s no wonder that company-controlled blogs struggle to develop active communities, especially as they are pitted against private blogs and message boards where users can freely express their views.

The true downside of such close corporate scrutiny is that it drives patients to Web sites with imperfect or erroneous information that can adversely affect their healthcare decisions. Yet because pharma companies are leery of risking an FDA violation for offering incomplete information amid unclear Internet regulations, that is where patients go.

Luckily, FDA seems to recognize that there is a problem. On November 12–13, the agency will convene in Washington, DC, to discuss regulations governing pharma communications on the Web; it’s possible that relaxed regulations (should they emerge from the November meetings) will encourage companies like AstraZeneca to offer more social media content. Until then, however, it’s impossible for pharma companies to create an online community with the most comprehensive information available.

For instance, AZ Healthcare Connections’ comments policy may create a chilling effect on potential commenters—though it is the standard policy for pharma-produced blogs. It reads, in part, “We may not publish comments that could be misleading or confusing, or thinly disguised sales pitches for other products or services… We want to hear your stories, viewpoints and opinions—even if they are contradictory to ours.”

“In order to share accurate and relevant information on our company and key issues, we need to be part of the conversations [that are] happening,” said Whipple.

The question is: How exactly do you correct misconceptions about a product if they can’t be mentioned?

So far there have been no comments on the AZ blog. Besides the introductory post, the blog offers only company-line stances on FDA social media regulation and healthcare reform. If content can’t generate the type of product discourse pharma companies are looking for, perhaps a new approach to social media is needed to educate customers in an ethical and productive way.