Overall it was a good place to work. It's still a relatively small company so job duties are varied and the work environment is very dynamic. Many of the people working there are refugees from the Pfizer/Wyeth merger, so people there are generally very competent and easy to work with.
However, there are some exceptions. There are account managers who don't consult with scientists on projects and end up giving clients unrealistic expectations for budgets and timelines. This causes issues for everyone down the chain because the company stance is that it's more important to keep clients happy than it is to retain talent. Functionally this means that some employees have been used as a scapegoat and fired for circumstances outside of their control or influence. Management then tells the client that the reason for the delay/failure was due to a particular employee, but it's okay now since that employee has been replaced. The 'official' causes for these firings are allegations of vaguely defined personality traits. But I suppose that's the consequence of working in an "At Will Employment" state.
Some managers also delegate a disproportionate chunk of their duties to underlings who lack the skill and understanding to properly fulfill those duties. This in turn leads to more scapegoating and firings. So as an employee it's simply not enough to be competent at your own job, you must also cover for your boss's shortcomings and the unrealistic timelines set by account managers, or else you risk being fired once their failures come under scrutiny. Since such a distance exists between managers and people on the ground, more confidence is given to the opinions of the incompetent underlings than to the people they're accusing.
Again, it wasn't a bad place to work overall; but it only takes a couple bad apples to ruin the whole experience.