Reactions have run the gamut from the near hysterical to the more soberly measured. Colin Blakemore, professor of neuroscience at the University of Oxford, called the news “a shocking wake-up call.” He added: “We must respond to this signal that one of our most important industries no longer has confidence in the future of British science.” A spokesperson for the Unite trade union said the closure would be “devastating” for the local economy, and Royal Society of Chemistry head Richard Pike said: ‘This rips out a major part of the UK’s scientific infrastructure. Even Prime Minister David Cameron called it “depressing news”.

But generally the UK government has been at pains to point out that the decision to close the Sandwich,Kent-based plant does not reflect disillusionment with UK pharma. Government Business Secretary Vince Cable said: “The company has been clear that this decision was part of its global programme of change and not based on a judgement of the UK as a location for pharmaceutical research.”

Still, the move has to be a bit of an embarrassment for the Cameron administration, given Pfizer head Ian Read, when he was heading the company’s European operations, represented the US on several key UK government advisory committees looking at the industry’s future role in the UK.

Pfizer’s site in Sandwich was opened in 1954 and saw massive expansion in the 1950s and 60s. The site covers 80 acres and employs 2,400 staff. The company has reported that its exit strategy will take 18 to 24 months to complete, as part of its wider plan to focus and sustain R&D.

The UK BioIndustry Association, while expressing its disappointment at the decision, was quick to emphasize that the news “does not change the fundamentals” of the UK as a location for R&D. More immediately critical for Pfizer employees affected by the exit, said Nigel Gaymond, BIA’s Chief Executive, “are the discussions, which Government has committed to, exploring options for continuing research and development activities at the Sandwich facility.” He added: “The Government must now do all in its power to retain these talented and skilled individuals in the UK.”

Of course, Pfizer has confronted closures before — in Ann Arbor, MI, Nagoya, Japan and in France.  In each case some re-purposing of the facilities was achieved in cooperation with local governments — but the employment rolls never really came back. And with Wall Street reacting enthusiastically to the latest closure news, the company is likely to find new areas to cut on the administration side.

Although Pfizer claimed the first and third spots on the league table, AZ emerged as the industry’s digital powerhouse with three brands in the top ten—Nexium, Crestor, and Symbicort—and four in the top 20.

While AZ maybe innovating online, L2 founder and NYU marketing professor Scott Galloway said that the industry as a whole disappoints. “Most brands offer obsolete technology, anemic content and scant social media programs.” Summing up the challenge facing pharma, PHD Network CEO Scott Hagedorn said, “Right now, there are millions of unregulated conversations taking place online regarding prescription drugs, from which the voice of pharmaceutical companies is mostly absent.

While I’m not 100 percent positive, it looks like this might have been the first time FDA actually name-dropped a social networking service in a warning letter. Which poses the question: Is FDA watching YouTube, and what does this mean for pharma?

Ignite Health’s Fabio Gratton told me that this ramification could go one of two ways. Pharma could view it as the feds are now treating YouTube with the same degree of importance as television and other media outlets, thereby validating the online service. Or it could scare pharma away from posting videos on YouTube, because that could warrant a warning letter.

So where does FDA stand?

I sent an email to FDA spokesperson Felicia Stewart with one question: Are you guys watching YouTube for pharma ads?

She missed the deadline for the article, but lo and behold, this morning I got a nice, concise answer from the feds.

DDMAC has been and continues to monitor the many vehicles that companies use to promote their prescription drug products. Our monitoring includes magazine ads, TV ads, promotional exhibits at medical conferences, Internet, sales brochures, journal ads, and consumer mailers and brochures. Internet monitoring includes promotion done by or on behalf of drug companies such as companies’ own product Web sites and their placement of promotion on others Web sites. The action addressing promotion by the company on YouTube is one example. Another example is the action addressing Pfizer’s promotion on cnn.com for Viagra.

There you have it. FDA is watching YouTube, and boy, do I wish I was the guy or gal being paid to troll the Web all day looking for errant pharma ads or remixes of the Rozerem beaver singing the Tay Zonday classic “Chocolate Rain.”