Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

For the past 10 years or so, I have been providing career counseling and development seminars and workshops for life scientists. In the early years, students, postdocs and a smattering of faculty members would attend to learn about the industry trends, the job market and more recently alternate careers for PhDs and postdoctoral fellows. However, over the last few years, a disturbing trend has emerged—the lack of faculty participation at these events. 

Yesterday, I was invited to participate as a panel member to moderate a career development event sponsored by the graduate student and postdoctoral associations at the University Of Rochester School Of Medicine. The event was well attended (over 85 participants) and the discussion lasted for more than 2 hours. Joining me on the panel was a PhD-trained scientist/manager from Bristol Myers Squibb and a healthcare company executive who received his PhD degree from the university about 16 years ago. Many of the questions asked by the participants were spot on and revealed that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are extremely anxious about their futures. The panel did its best to describe what it takes to get a job in the life sciences, the process and steps required to successfully win jobs and some ideas for alternate career options for PhD-trained scientists. Unfortunately, not a single University of Rochester medical school faculty member attended the event. In fact, I met the PI of one of the postdocs who sponsored my visit and he said with all sincerity (I think) “Thanks for coming...the students are really looking forward to your talk.” Obviously, I don’t it ever crossed his mind that he, like his students and postdocs might learn and benefit from a discussion about career options and hear (probably for the first time) how anxious and fearful his and other students are about future job prospects.

The fact that faculty members are routinely eschewing career development seminars and forums is troubling and extremely disturbing for a variety of reasons. First, as I have said many times before, I believe that PIs have moral and ethical obligations to help their students determine what careers they are best suited for. I don’t think it is too much to ask or labor-intensive for PIs to learn about what is going on with the job market outside of academia. Despite an ongoing lack of tenured track faculty positions and the extremely fierce competition to win them, academicians continue to exclusively train and prepare students for academic careers. This makes absolutely no sense from a “supply and demand” perspective. Second, the lack of faculty support and participation sends a clear message to graduate students and postdocs that their anxieties, fears and concerns about job prospects simply isn’t that important to their PIs.  The mantra of most academicians —“just continue to do good science and everything will be okay”— is outdated, anachronistic and self serving (for PIs) at best.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the failure of  tenured faculty members to actively engage and participate in discussions about career options reveals the unbridled contempt that most academicians have for scientists who work outside of academia. Most academics choose to not concern themselves with non-academic and mundane issues like jobs and careers. And why should they? Once they win tenure, their lives are set because they are guaranteed jobs and benefits for life!

We are living in very challenging and troubling times. In the past three years, over 180,000 pharmaceutical workers lost their jobs and national unemployment will likely hit 15%.  Academic and government jobs are hard to come by and the competition for these jobs is ferocious and extremely competitive. And, sadly, current academic training programs are woefully inadequate to prepare graduate students and postdocs for alternate career opportunities in the life sciences. 

As I have stated numerous times before, life science graduate training programs are in dire need of systemic change and be overhauled to remain relevant. Unfortunately, systemic changes are unlikely because tenured faculty members can’t be forced or induced to change their practices, attitudes or beliefs. While a minority of life sciences faculty members realizes that the system is broken, the majority doesn’t.  To that end, if graduate students and postdoctoral fellows want change to occur than they must band together and collectively send a message to their PIs and mentors that “We are mad as hell and we aren’t going to take it anymore!” Anything short of a widespread massive protest will be ineffectual!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Cliff Mintz, BioCrowd co-founder and the mastermind behind BioJobBlog, is featured today in an online article at the Science Careers website entitled “Life After Rejection.” The piece was expertly crafted by Siri Carpenter, PhD a free lance science writer based in Madison, Wisconsin— coincidentally, the institution that awarded me my PhD. 

Being denied tenure as an Assistant Professor of Microbiology and Immunology was one of the most devastating events in my professional life. It literally took me over 10 year to come to terms with the implications of the decision. But, I am here to tell you (and in the article) that there IS life after being denied tenure; and in many ways, it is quite liberating. My tenure denial empowered me to explore careers that were previously closed to me as an academician and perhaps, more importantly, to find out who I am and what I really wanted to do with the rest of my life!

Don't get me wrong; it still bugs me that I wasn’t awarded tenure—mostly because being refused tenure implies that you “weren’t smart enough” to make it in academia. Not surprisingly, the “not-being-smart-enough label” doesn’t do much for a person’s self esteem and, many who are denied tenure (including me) tend to view themselves as abject failures in the eyes of their colleagues and friends.

However, looking back, being denied tenure was probably one of the best things that had ever happened to me. Truth be told, I would have been a lousy academic. I am too social and entrepreneurial to have flourished in a system that is rigid, parochial and not conducive to change.  That said, if I sound bitter and a bit envious of those who were granted tenure, you are correct!  After all, who wouldn’t be envious of  people who come and go as they please, don’t have to answer to a boss and are guaranteed a job for life; regardless of their social skills, academic performance or contribution to education?

The point that I want to make is that being denied tenure is an emotionally devastating and traumatic event that nobody ought to experience. However,  if  you should to find yourself in the uncomfortable position of being denied tenure, please remember to continue to believe in yourself, don't give up and, as corny as it may sound, "follow the advice of your heart" when making your next career move!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It’s no secret that major pharmaceutical companies are no longer investing in internal drug discovery initiatives as much as they have in the past. However, I was unaware how drastic the decline in R&D spending was until I read an article entitled “Significant Change Predicted for Bioindustry” by Benjamin J. Conway in the July issue of Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. 

Mr. Conway notes that in 1989 more than 50% of the pharmaceutical industry’s budget was spent on preclinical drug discovery and development. During the 1990s, the percentage slowly declined and was approximately 44% by 1999. He asserts that beginning in 2000, “the drop became precipitous” as pharmaceutical companies spent increasing amounts of their R&D budgets on downstream activities including expanded clinical trials. By 2006, big pharma was spending about 25% of its budget on R&D. Strikingly, Mr. Conway contends that “when measured in terms of constant absolute dollars, spending on pre-clinical R&D activities actually declined 0.4% annually over the period, despite annual increases of nearly 7% in total R&D spending.” 

Not surprisingly, the almost decade-long decrease in pharmaceutical R&D spending is best reflected in the lack of new drug approvals over the past five years or so. According to Mr. Conway, throughout the 1990s more than 50% of all new drug approvals originated at big pharma companies. By 2001, these companies were responsible for approximately 60% of new drug approvals. However, since then, pharma’s new drug approvals have plunged to 25% to 30% of annual totals. Some analysts suggest that the figure has been as low as 15%. The decline in new drug approvals almost parallels the decrease in R&D spending at most major pharmaceutical companies. Many industry analysts and thought leaders contend that big pharma companies have gotten too big and unwieldy and can no longer innovate. The unprecedented drops in pharma’s new drug approval rates tend to support that assertion. Mr. Conway points out that the so-called “innovation gap” has been filled by biopharmaceutical companies that “today account for 75% or more of new therapeutics developed each year.”

These changing market dynamics suggests that big pharma must reconfigure the business model that it has clung to for the past 50 years to remain competitive. Not surprisingly, almost all of the major pharmaceutical companies have begun to do just that! For example, over the past three years more than 60,000 R&D scientists have lost their jobs with little likelihood that the vacated jobs will ever be resurrected. Further, big pharmaceutical companies have increasingly begun to outsource many R&D activities to Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Finally, most big pharma companies have publicly demonstrated—through mergers and acquisitions—that biotechnology products as well as small molecules are in their future.

While big pharma may be retrenching and evolving, don’t expect the pharmaceutical industry on internal drug discovery initiatives —or small molecules for that matter— to disappear any time soon. The industry is going through a transitional period and the companies of the future will look only slightly different than they do today. These companies will still be large and well capitalized, but likely more diversified in their product portfolios (which will surely contain biotechnology drugs). Also, they will continue to excel in new product development, marketing and distribution. However, unlike the past, much less emphasis will be placed on internal R&D programs to discover new molecular entities. This means that pharmaceutical R&D operations will remain lean and companies will increasingly rely on M &A and licensing deals (with smaller specialty pharma and biotechnology companies) to keep their pipelines full.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I just learned from Diego Pineda who runs the Medical Writer Blog and Medical Writing social network about an interesting internship possibility at Science magazine. For those of you social media enthusiasts interested in the opportunity, here is a job description.

“Science, the world's leading journal of original scientific research and global news, seeks a three-month intern to help implement and manage social media projects for its news department. The candidate should be very familiar with Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking platforms, and should have experience creating content for these platforms. Other duties will include promoting news content on the internet, moderating comments on our daily news site, and repurposing news content for multimedia projects. Some writing and research assistance for our online news site is possible. The ideal intern will have a science background-or at least a strong interest in science-and some journalism experience. The internship will be at our Washington, D.C. headquarters.”

For consideration, send a resume and cover letter to AAAS, Human Resources Department, 1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite #101, Washington, DC 20005.  (Attn:  Requisition #1763) You may also reach us by Fax at 202-682-1630 and e-mail at jobs@aaas.org.

It appears that Science is finally getting into the social networking.  For those of you, who can’t wait for the Science network, please check out BioCrowd, a social networking community focused on career development for bioprofessionals.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After yesterday's post about career planning for life scientists, one of my soon to be former students in the Fundamentals of Bioscience Program aptly pointed out that my readers might have benefitted more if I had, in fact, offered information about alternate career possibilities for bioscientists.  I don't want the student to get too overconfident but I had the same thought immediately after I uploaded the post.  

Rather than modify the previous post, I decided to upload the presentation that I gave to the U Penn Graduate Student Biomedical Association yesterday.  However, as many of my former (or soon to be former) students will tell you, my PowerPoint presentations, while informative, are not as complete as you might think.  To get the real skinny on alternate careers, you will have to attend one of my seminars on the topic where I provide attendees with additional pearls of wisdom and some funny stories about my own journey along an oft times circuitous career path!

Until next time.....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, I gave a lecture entitled “Alternate Careers: Taking the Road Less Traveled” to over 100 members of the University of Pennsylvania’s Biomedical Graduate Student Association. As always, there were many good questions and comments during and after the presentation. Some of the career anecdotes offered by several of the students reminded me of a conversation that I had several weeks ago with one of my Fundamentals of Bioscience students—I teach a Product Development and Regulatory Affairs course in the program—who refreshed my memory about a typical graduate student approach to career development and job searching. “We don’t think about jobs or our careers until we begin writing our PhD theses” she said. “Until then, our advisers don’t talk about careers or jobs and only bring it up because our funding will run out” she added. Admittedly, I had forgotten this because so many years have passed since my graduate student days. That said, it forced me to consider how much the life sciences job market has changed since I was graduate student and how vitally important it is for today’s graduate students to think about and possibly explore different career options throughout the course of their graduate training.

Historically, there were very few career options for life scientists—it was either a tenure track faculty appointment or, as a poor second choice, a job at a pharmaceutical or biotechnology. Unfortunately, academics jobs are hard to come by and since 2007 over 60,000 pharmaceutical R&D scientists have lost their jobs and more cuts are expected. Also, many of these jobs are likely come back after the economy improves because many of the R&D activities performed by these scientists are being outsourced to India, China and elsewhere. This suggests that a majority of life sciences graduate students who receive their PhDs within the next few years won’t be able to secure traditional life sciences jobs. While a majority of US life sciences graduate training programs recognize and understand the implications of the changing job market, many are reluctant to discuss alternate career options with graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Even fewer, encourage or support students or postdoctoral fellows who want to engage in “extracurricular activities” to explore alternate career options. In fact, several U Penn students told me that they have to obtain written permission from their adviser before they can take courses or participate in extra-departmental activities. As one student quipped “What I do on my own time should be my business not my boss's.”

I always conclude my alternate career talk by saying “Nobody ever guaranteed you a job after completion of your PhD or postdoctoral training.” And, “if you wanted a job after completing your education, you ought to have gone to medical school, dental school, law school or any other profession that requires licensure to practice your craft.” While this may sound harsh, I believe that the decision to get a PhD is a personal one and based on discussion with many of my colleagues, most didn’t enter graduate school expecting a job to be waiting them when they completed their training. Nevertheless, I contend that graduate departments that continue to train and prepare students for traditional academic careers —knowing that over 90% won’t find jobs (other than postdocs) after their training is finished —are being disingenuous and even deceitful. Why haven’t academician realized that there is a plethora of job opportunities for life scientists outside of academia?

Like it or not, the life sciences job market has undergone radical changes in the past decade. Unfortunately, academics continue to adhere to dogmatic and anachronistic ideas and practices that don’t prepare their students and postdoctoral fellows for jobs in “the real world.” I contend that informing and enlightening graduate students about alternate career paths and, allowing them to explore some of these opportunities will not impede or hinder laboratory research. Instead, I believe it would help to improve and expedite its progress. As one U Penn graduate student shared with me over a couple of beers “If they would just tell us the truth and give us some idea about our options, it would certainly improve morale, reduce our anxiety and allow us to focus on our research because we would know what is out there!” As the old adage goes”ignorance is bliss.” But, in my experience, knowledge is power!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Unlike others, life scientists have been slow to use social media to look for jobs or network to enhance career opportunities.  Many scientists  have  Facebook accounts but view it and other social media tools like Twitter simply as a means to stay in touch with family and friends.  However, social media can be a very powerful tool for scientists who are looking for jobs or the next big career move.

To that end, I presented a seminar at Experimental Biology this past weekend in New Orleans entitled "Social Media and Career Development for Life Sciences" that offer suggestions on how to use social media to land a job or jumpstart a career in the life sciences industry.  For those of you who may be interested, I posted the presentation below:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While I was at the Experimental Biology meeting in New Orleans, LA this past week I presented a seminar entitled “Using Social Media For Career Development in the Life Sciences.” This was the first time that I presented this talk, and was expecting a large turn out given the popularity of Facebook and more recently Twitter, a microblogging platform.  Much to my surprise only 15 students showed up for the talk—many of whom hadn’t heard of Twitter and were only vaguely familiar with Facebook. Luckily, a few attendees had Facebook profiles and one or two were on Twitter so the talk wasn't a complete bust.  Nevertheless, the lack of interest in this talk was extremely puzzling to me—my other seminars, “Interviewing Tips” and “Alternate Careers for PhDs” were very well attended and I was booked solid for one-on-one resume critiquing sessions during the five days I was in New Orleans.

I started to wonder why bioscience graduate students in their mid to late 20s, many of whom will need to find jobs (postdocs otherwise) in the next few years, weren’t interested in learning how to use social media to advance their careers or conduct a job search.  I thought that the lack of interest in this topic might be explained if a majority of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows were already using Facebook, Linked In or Twitter to network or explore career opportunities. This proved not to be the case, after learning that only a small percentage of students (who sought career counseling) had considered using social media to network or look for jobs. While many had Facebook profiles, most students primarily used them to stay in touch with friends and family—not for professional or scientific purposes. 

The lack of interest in social media for career development  by many of these nascent GenY scientists was confounding. After all, I have been lead to believe that “GenY” is leading the Web 2.0 and social media charge and that aging boomers like me simply “don’t get it.” The fact that I get it and many  GenY scientists, don’t forced me to revisit what I learned about the social behavior of scientists over the past 30 years or so.

First, it is no secret that scientists aren’t the most  socially-adept individuals and when socializing it tends to be very “cliquish” and oft time exclusive.  Second, scientists are notoriously poor networkers and mostly engage in serious networking when alcoholic beverages are involved.  In other words, very little networking takes place in professional and scientific settings with the exception of  conferences and meetings. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, many of the academicians who train scientists don’t understand networking and often don’t offer any career guidance to their students and postdocs. Unfortunately, most academics have little or no understanding of the world outside of academia and, not surprisingly, there is little incentive for them to learn about it—mostly because of the anachronistic tenure system. Further, because PhDs are taught to be independent and self reliant, there is almost no emphasis placed developing social skills during their training.   In fact, many academics believe that being too social is the best way to be “scooped” by their competitors. Paradoxically, there are currently over 30 social networking sites for scientists (including BioCrowd, the career development networking site that and I started). I suspect that many of us who started these sites recognized an opportunity to use social media to bring scientists together on the Web in a less threatening way than IRL. Although several of these sites report high subscription rates, it is not clear how effective they are for networking and career development purposes.

The job market for life scientists has been extremely difficult and competitive for the past five years or so. Academic positions are still hard to come by and the recent downsizing that has taken place in the life sciences industry—about 85,000 jobs have been lost in the past three years— suggest that competition for life sciences jobs will remain fierce for the foreseeable future. Like it or not, graduate programs must begin to provide job counseling and offer career development training to their students and postdoctoral fellows—their lives may depend upon it. 

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since 2007, approximately 80,000 pharmaceutical jobs have been eliminated. The recent consolidation in the industry, e.g., Merck-Schering, Pfizer-Wyeth and Roche-Genentech suggests that many more life sciences jobs will be lost over the next year or so. Typically, to avoid law suits and possible discrimination claims, most companies will layoff a mixture of experienced and entry level employees that cover the racial, religious and age spectra. For those of you who may not know, Americans who are 40 and older constitute a “protected class of employees.” In other words, companies that layoff employees cannot disproportionately give pink slips to employees 40 years of age or older. This law was enacted because older employees typically have higher salaries and have accrued more benefits and vacation time than their more junior counterparts and eliminating them can drastically cut costs. While most companies are careful to layoff a mixture of junior and senior employees during large layoffs, a quick perusal of the demographics of employees who lose their jobs reveals that many of them are older, more experienced workers. Sacrificing a few entry level employees (to prevent any red flags) is worth it to the accountants who charged with cutting costs and orchestrating large corporate layoffs.

Unlike consumer goods, pharmaceutical and biotechnology drug development is arcane, complex and may take up to 15 years to complete. There are many “go” or “no go” decisions that must be made during the drug development process. Typically, these decisions are rendered by experienced employees who have been “down the road” many times before and are able to recognize the oft-time nuanced attributes of successful drug candidates. Without the benefit of these employee and their experiences, drug companies may struggle to make the “right decisions” for new products being developed. Also, the loss of experienced employees can disrupt the flow of essential “corporate knowledge” to entry level and more junior employees. This is important because— while most entry level and junior employees are academically and technically qualified—it usually takes them years (under the tutelage of mentors and senior employees) to understand a company’s best practices. Put simply, the unrelenting loss of experienced pharmaceutical workers can alter the standing or dominance of pharmaceutical companies in certain therapeutic areas. While massive layoffs of experienced pharmaceutical employees bolster drug stock prices in the short term, the long term effects of these layoffs on the overall health of the pharmaceutical industry remains uncertain.

Jeff Kindler, Pfizer’s CEO, mentioned yesterday during a CNBC interview, that eight Wyeth senior executives will keep their jobs after the Pfizer-Wyeth deal closes later this year. Not surprisingly, he failed to mention how many “rank and file” employees of the combined company would keep their jobs after the merger. Don’t be shocked when Pfizer-Wyeth announces massive layoffs after the deal closes—Pfizer’s stock price has fallen 21% since it announced the Wyeth acquisition late last fall.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Over the past ten years or so, pundits have been warning that the US is losing its competitive edge and that it is no longer the world’s leading nation when it comes to innovation in science and technology. Measuring national competitiveness and innovation is very tricky business and until now, most of evidence to support these claims has been anecdotal. According to an article in today’s New York Times, a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation suggests that the US ranked sixth among 40 countries and regions based on 16 indicators that measure innovation and competitiveness including venture capital investment, numbers of per capita researchers, research spending and educational achievement. 

While the results of Foundation study may be troubling (if you are a US citizen), another recent study conducted by the World Economic Forum found that America ranked first in innovation and global competition. However the forum’s report was based entirely on opinion survey data.  Like the forum report, a study conducted by the Rand Corporation last year, also found that “the US was not in any imminent danger of losing its competitive advantage in science and technology.” The use of the word “imminent” is perhaps the most telling aspect of the Rand Corporation’s conclusion about American competitiveness.

The US lost ground to much smaller countries like Sweden, Finland, Taiwan, Singapore and also to one of it's main competitors, China.  Unlike the US, all of these countries are pursuing government-sponsored initiatives designed to promote innovation and global competitiveness. Some of the elements of these initiatives include education, workforce development training, intellectual property protection and immigration. Surprisingly, results from the foundation report (adjusted for population and size of each economy) showed that the US ranked sixth in venture capital investment (Sweden was first); fifth in corporate research and development spending (Japan was number one) and fourth in the number of science and technology researchers (again Sweden was first). Over all, Singapore ranked first in innovation and competitiveness. As some of you may know, Singapore--for the past 10 years--has heavily invested in the life sciences and has managed to induce some of world’s leading bioscientists to immigrate.

One of the main recommendations of the report suggests that the federal government ought to follow the lead of the individual states, many of which developed state government-sponsored programs designed to attract investment, talent and improve the work force skills of  local would be employees. Further, the report specifically recommends that the federal government offers tax breaks and incentives to induce American companies to innovate at home rather than outsource R&D activities abroad. Some of these incentives could include tax research tax credits  and increased federal funding or corporate tax breaks for workforce development programs.

Finally, one of the most shocking statistics that I heard in President Obama’s speech to Congress last evening was that 50% of American students drop out of high school and over 50% of college students never complete their education. This begs the question: How can America expect to remain competitive when a majority of its population is less educated than the rest of the developed world? 

A past commitment to education is what propelled the US to become a world leader in innovation and competitiveness.  To regain its past status as an innovator, the US must overhaul and vastly improve is primary, secondary and post secondary education system. This is something that cannot wait—the future of American depends on it!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting ( give teaching a shot)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Twitter, the microblogging platform, is the current rage in social media. According to @Shwen, who writes the Med 2.0 Blog, it grew by 752% in 2008. Shwen is a social media enthusiast who is trying to convince the life sciences industry that Twitter and other social networks can be leveraged to improve drug development and deliver healthcare.

According to a recent post on Med. 2.0, there are currently three pharmaceutical companies that are actively using Twitter: Novartis (@novartis), Boehringer Ingelheim (@Boehringer) and Astra Zeneca (AstraZenecaUS). Also, it appears that Johnson and Johnson (@JNJcomm) launched an account last week. Tweets from @novartis and @Boehringer occur fairly regularly whereas AstraZenecaUS tweets are rare. Unlike YouTube, where pharmaceutical sponsors who create channels can regulate and control content, it is much more difficult to manage Twitter because tweets are in real time, uncensored (for the most part) and can be globally disseminated within seconds.

Despite these issues, Med 2.0’s Shwen muses “I can only imagine that more pharma companies are going to be jumping on board the Twitter-train sooner rather than later. How they use it to engage, on the other hand, is going to vary greatly from company to company. At the very least, I see companies setting up accounts as “listening posts”, but others may choose to engage, like @boehringer does in an informal manner. Whatever the case, Twitter is fast becoming the new dominant space for listening and/or engaging the life sciences community.”

Like Shwen, I believe that it a matter of time before pharma and biotech realize that they must embrace social media (in all of its various forms) to remain competitive in today’s increasingly interconnected marketplace.

For those of you who may be interested, you can follow BioJobBlog (@Biojobblog) and Biocrowd (@Biocrowd) on Twitter too!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Twittering

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Ever wonder how a drug makes it from the bench to the marketplace and what types of jobs are required to support the process? I created a PowerPoint presentation that describes the activities and the jobs required at each stage of the development process. I also listed the degree requirements that are necessary to secure various jobs from drug discovery through commercialization.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Did you know that the top ten pharmaceutical companies in the world spent close to $50 billion dollars last year on R&D? That sum could be used to purchase the entire US biotechnology industry except for the five largest companies—Genentech, Amgen, Gilead Genzyme and Celgene. Further, pharma’s R&D budget is about 4 times the R&D budget of all of the US biotechnology companies combined. According to a blurb in breakingviews.com, Pfizer alone spent $8 billion last year which was greater than the sum spent by biotech’s top five companies. What this tells us is that pharmaceutical companies are grossly unproductive when it comes to drug discovery and development. This would explain why nearly three-quarters of all new medicines approved for sale in the US last year originated at biotechnology companies.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that biotechnology companies are much more efficient at R&D than pharmaceutical companies. More importantly this suggests that something must change so that pharma can continue receive adequate ROI on internal discovery programs. Perhaps big pharma ought to spend a greater portion of its R&D budget on biotech mergers and acquisitions rather than continuing to invest in inefficient and failing internal R&D programs. While biotechnologynology companies are exceptional in drug discovery, they are severely lacking when it comes to clinical development of new drugs. This is largely due the high costs of conducting human clinical trials (which are required for regulatory approval of all new medicines). Most biotechnology companies are strapped for cash and don’t have sufficient funds to conduct clinical trials on their own.

Not surprisingly, given the recent financial downturn, there has been a recent spate of deals in which pharma has been willing to pay large sums of money for clinical development rights to promising new biotechnology drugs. Moreover, a majority of the almost 160,000 employees layed off by pharma companies in the past few years have been R&D scientists. This suggests that pharma is beginning to realize that its money may be better spent doing deals or buying biotech companies rather than continuing to invest large sums of money into it’s own unproductive R&D programs. Unfortunately, this paradigm shift doesn’t bode well for doctoral students and post-doctoral fellows who are training in the life sciences. This is because many entry-level biotech positions, traditionally filled by newly-minted PhDs and postdoctoral fellows will likely be filled by experienced, pharmaceutical employees who lost their jobs in the recent rounds of layoffs. As much as I hate to say this, if I were a life sciences graduate student or postdoctoral fellow considering an R&D career in industry, I would begin to explore alternative career options.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Like it or not, the best way to land a new job whether or not there is a recession is to network. While career counselors and recruiters trumpet the virtues of networking to job seekers, many people really don't understand what it is or how to do it correctly. I found an outstanding article that demystifies networking and offers tips on how to excel at it. 

For many scientists, online networking is ideal because they frequently lack the requisite skills to effectively network in real life situations. Until recently, face-to-face networking at conferences or "professional social events" was the only way to effectively network. However, the advent of web-based social networks allows job seekers to eschew the awkwardness and time requirements for  one-on-one networking in favor of a more convenient and less-threatening online experience. BioCrowd, a new online social network for scientists and other bioprofessionals, was created to help scientists advance their careers and find new jobs. While BioCrowd and similar online networking sites can help scientists make connections, it is still the face-to-face networking experience that will ultimately  help them land new jobs!

Because networking is not taught or emphasized in graduate school, it is not surprising that many graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are notoriously poor “networkers.” That said, for those of you who recognize the importance of networking and want hone your networking skills, Contacts Count a Maryland-based network training company may be worth a visit. I have no doubt that there other organizations and companies out there that specialize in network training. If you find any, let me know and I will gladly post them!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Targanta Therapeutics, a Cambridge, MA-based biopharmaceutical company, announced that it will lay off 85 of its 115 employees or almost 75% of its workforce. The news follows the FDA’s rejection of its application for oritavancin, an antibiotic it is developing to treat infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and other antibiotic resistant bacteria. The agency wants Targanta to conduct another Phase III clinical trial to further assess of oritavancin’s safety and efficacy.

The company estimates that the new clinical trial will cost about $20 million. Targanta CEO Mark Leuchtenberger said “We are no longer a pre-commercial company. We are back to being a Phase three company, and that requires us to right-size and to streamline our operations.”

Things are not going well for companies in the antibacterial drug discovery and development space. Late last month, FDA rejected Swiss-based Arpida’s NDA for iclaprim an antibiotic it was developing to treat complicated skin and soft infections caused by MRSA. Shortly after receiving the news, Arpida layed off roughly 72% of its employees and is down to about 30 employees like Targanta.

It is unfortunate that big pharma decided to abandon antibacterial discovery and development research about eight years ago. Consequently, development of  new, much-needed antibiotics has been relegated to financially-strapped, small biopharmaceutical companies whose likelihood of success is questionable.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Online career sites like Monster.com, CareerBuilder.com and Yahoo Hot Jobs have gotten so big and over subscribed that they are no longer useful to most jobseekers. Many career development experts have discovered that the large career sites tend to overwhelm jobseekers because of the enormity of job possibilities that appear on them.  Unfortunately, this seemingly endless supply of job opportunities frequently induces jobseekers to spend too much time applying for online jobs and not enough time exploring non-internet based job possibilities. While applying for online jobs is facile and may be emotionally-gratifying, it usually doesn’t culminate in many face-to-face interviews or job offers for that matter. This is because most online job applications are screened by software programs looking for key words or phrases and, if your resume doesn’t contain them it will not be reviewed by a human. Further, many of the openings posted on job boards are actually placed there by recruiters and contract employment agencies—not actual companies seeking to fill positions. Often times, recruiters post expired or fictitious job descriptions on the boards to “pad” their candidate databases with qualified applicants who can be used for future job orders. Finally, sometimes unscrupulous people/companies place false or misleading ads on the big job boards. Unfortunately, these people have no qualms about taking financial advantage of job seekers who may be desperate or “down on their luck

The declining usefulness of the big online job boards has given rise to smaller career sites like Indeed.com and Simply Hired.com which are driven by powerful search engines and permit jobseekers to customize job searches based on industry, geography, salary and job availability. Other companies like BioInsights.com and OneScience.com have built niche job boards that specialize in industry-specific job listings (in this case pharma and biotech). While these new careers site are more focused, easier to navigate and frequently yield better results than the large job boards, they too can be exploited by recruiters and unscrupulous would-be employers. 

The growing popularity of social networking sites represents an important paradigm shift for jobseekers and employers. Belonging to popular social networks like LinkedIn, Facebook or Plaxo allows job seekers to cast a wider net by taking advantage of the contacts or connections that their “friends” may have at various companies and organizations. Further, it is not uncommon for people within a network to pass on resumes or put in a good word to hiring managers on behalf of friends or contacts from their network who are seeking employment.  However, it is important to also point out that recruiters and contract employment agencies have also recognized the potential and power of social networks. Recruiters and HR specialists now routinely troll social networks (particularly Linked In and Facebook) for qualified candidates and don’t hesitate to contact “qualified candidates” whether or not they are actively looking for a job. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, hiring managers and recruiters are becoming increasingly reliant on social networks to screen and gather personal information about job candidates to assess their suitability for certain jobs. According to a 2006 study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, recruiters use social networking sites 23 per cent more than they did in 2006 to verify resumes, screen applicants and fill vacancies. Also, the study found that possible negative information posted on social network profiles—personal views, alcohol or drug use, sexually-oriented pictures or social commentaries— have a greater impact on hiring decisions than any positive information that may also appear on job seeker profiles.

The growing use of social networks by job seekers to find employment and employers and recruiters to screen job applicants has profound implications for people who belong to these networks. With this in mind, if you currently have profiles associated with your legal name on social networks like Face Book, MySpace or Linked In, I strongly recommend that are completely devoid of the following: 1) sexually suggestive or explicit photographs, 2) posts or photos depicting excessive alcohol or drug use, 3) any rants that you may have posted about your boss or a current place of employment and 4) personal information about your age, marital status, children or sexual orientation. Also, if you are actively involved in a job search, it is a good idea to upload a short bio or resume to your profile and to post any bonafide recommendations or career award and honors that you may have received. However, if you find the prospect of having to sanitize your MySpace and Facebook profiles unpalatable, then I suggest that you remove your name from your current profile(s) and replace it with an alias (your friends will still  know who you are) and build another profile with your real name for professional use only.   

We live in a highly competitive, constantly-changing world where even slightly negative perceptions about a person may mean the different between employment or not. Ironically, while the Internet allows greater freedom of expression, it also permits people with decision-making powers to more easily scrutinize our daily activities and gain greater insights into our personal lives. Consequently, the onus is on jobseekers to regulate or control what prospective employers may learn about them online. Put simply, the success or failure of your career may literally be in your own hands. That said, the next time that you update your Facebook or MySpace profiles take a moment (before you hit the “send button”) and ask yourself whether or not the new information “is going to help or hurt my career?”

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, I had the great fortune to meet (on the Recruiting Animal Show) a career development expert who despite her young age, has seminal insights into today’s job market and how to break into it. Alexandra Levit, a self-avowed GenXer on the GenY cusp, is the author of several books, including They Don't Teach Corporate in College, How'd You Score That Gig? and Success for Hire.

In addition to her book writing activities, Alex’s career advice posts are featured monthly in the Huffington Post and have been showcased in more than 800 media outlets including ABC News, the Associated Press, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, National Public Radio, Fortune, Yahoo!, and MSN. She is recognized as one of her generations (X or Y?) preeminent career experts who regularly speak at universities and corporations on workplace issues facing young employees.

Alex and I got to talking after Animal' show and I learned that like me, she dabbles in the pharmaceutical career development arena. That said, she graciously agreed to allow me to post a piece that she wrote entitled “Want to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist? Here’s How!” (see below) that offers guidance for entry level scientist who are considering careers in the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries. Read and learn!

"Want to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist? Here’s How!"

Talk about a career with intriguing possibilities. People entering the pharmaceutical research field today may be the ones discovering the cure for cancer or Parkinson’s disease tomorrow. Although the United States’ pharmaceutical companies sometimes get a bad rap, they routinely make astounding advances that save lives, and from what I hear, aren’t bad places to work either. If you’re a data-head who wants to use your scientific background for the greater good, you might consider becoming a pharmaceutical scientist. Here’s some detail about what breaking into the field entails.

According to the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, the pharmaceutical sciences combine a broad range of scientific disciplines that are critical to the discovery and development of new drugs, therapies, and medical devices. Some of the more common specializations include drug discovery and design, whichdeals with the design and synthesis of new drug molecules and includes medicinal chemistry, combinatorial chemistry, and biotechnology; drug delivery, which is concerned with the design of dosage forms – such as tablets, injections or patches – that deliver the drug to the site of action within a patient; drug action, which examines how the drug works in a living system; clinical pharmacology, which is concerned with the use of drugs in the treatment of diseases and leverages human clinical trials to determine efficacy, adverse effects, and drug-to-drug interaction; and drug analysis, which involves separating, identifying, and quantifying the components of a sample.

Twenty-eight year old Matt, a senior research associate at Novartis, spends his days engaged in both drug action and drug analysis for the company’s wide range of prescription medications for ailments such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes. He’s responsible for testing animal organ and plasma samples to determine if a drug is working the way it’s supposed to. “It’s my job to quantify the drug’s efficacy in the body, to gather early support as it moves through the process of getting approved by the Food and Drug Administration,” he says. 

While the majority of pharmaceutical scientists are employed by private-sector pharmaceutical companies, others work as researchers and professors at universities, as regulatory scientists for government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or as researchers at national laboratories such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An undergraduate degree in chemistry, biology, pharmacy, or engineering is a prerequisite for the entry-level position of research assistant. The research assistant, who receives a broad-based introduction to the pharmaceutical world, records, stores and summarizes information and data, prepares technical reports, and develops laboratory skills and familiarity with equipment. “You should expect that your first job will be low level and the work very routine,” says Matt. “You won’t have much of a chance to be creative or innovative, and you have to be tolerant of that at the beginning of your career.” Adds Beth, 31, an R&D project director at a top pharmaceutical company in the Northeast: “Make the most of each opportunity, no matter how small. Success with smaller projects will directly lead to greater responsibility and rapid professional growth. Focus both on delivering results and on how you deliver the results: for example, through strong teamwork or a rigorous research approach.”

Recent college grads looking for research assistant jobs may want to start by educating themselves about the pharmaceutical industry in general. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Web site (www.phrma.org) and the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Web site (www.aapspharmaceutica.com) are great places to check out relevant publications, networking events, and internship and employment listings. Specific job opportunities can also be found on industry job portals including www.biospace.com, www.hirerx.com, and www.medzilla.com, and you might also take advantage of openings advertised through your college’s career center. “My first paying job was an internship at a medical device company,” says Beth. “I made the original contact at an MIT career fair and then interviewed on campus with the company’s recruiting team. I shared my passion for medical device engineering and my solid academic background and was hired after my sophomore year.”

Matt also suggests that you might get in the door by connecting with a temporary employment firm specializing in pharmaceuticals. “I signed on with Kelly Scientific right out of school,” he says. “Almost immediately, I got contract work doing clinical research studies that eventually resulted in a full-time job.” Women may find that they’re especially marketable, as the pharmaceutical industry is still predominantly male and most organizations are striving to even things out.

The typical pharmaceutical research career has ample room for growth. From the position of research assistant, you can progress to a research associate, an associate scientist, a scientist, a senior scientist, and a principal scientist. After you’ve reached a certain level, you may also have the option of taking on a cross-functional role in research management, regulatory affairs, pharmacoeconomics, or communications. At the moment, most people who reach the top levels of the profession get a Ph.D. along the way, but many say that’s changing and that experience in the lab is increasingly worth more than formal education. You’ll be happy to learn that compared to other industries, compensation is quite generous. According to a recent American Association for the Advancement of Science Salary Survey, pharmaceutical research assistants make more than $65K with just a bachelor’s degree, and six-figure incomes are standard after a few years.

Like other data-heads, pharmaceutical scientists are highly analytical and have had the math and science coursework to back up their natural talent. “You have to be anal about the details, because one small error can mess up a whole batch of samples,” says Matt. A cool-headed approach to troubleshooting is critical as well. “Development setbacks occur frequently,” says Beth. “When something goes wrong, my first step is to pull the team together to diagnose the situation. I do not try to lay blame but want to ensure that we learn and do not repeat the mistake or ignore the issue as we move forward.” Additionally, pharmaceutical research environments can be political and difficult to navigate at times. “Drug research isn’t always run like a well-oiled machine and loyalty to the company doesn’t always work in your favor,” says Matt. “You have to have a good sense of what you’re worth and what you have to offer.”

If you think pharmaceutical research might be for you, now’s a great time to test drive it as a career. A special supplement on hiring trends in the pharmaceutical space published in The Scientist in 2005 reported that the number of people employed in the U.S. industry is expected to grow from 413,700 to 536,000 in the next decade, and that Research & Development spending, which exploded in 2004, is still steadily increasing. “I love my job because I have the opportunity to impact patients with my daily work, collaborating with my fellow team members to solve complex problems,” says Beth. “And I feel very fortunate to work at a company where my personal values align very closely with the corporate culture.”

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I just returned from my career development sojourn at this year’s FASEB meeting in San Diego, CA. Not surprisingly, all of my sessions were well attended. In fact, attendance at many of the presentations was standing room only. Again, this was not terribly surprising because the job market for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows for the last 5 years has been dismal. However, in contrast with past years, there was a noticeable and palpable difference in the attitudes of many of the students and postdocs who attended the sessions. In previous years, many career development participants seemed resigned to the possibility of a “jobless future”. However, this year there was a small but vocal group of participants who openly expressed their anger and resentment at the possibility of not finding a job after completing their training. I think that many graduate students and postdoctoral fellows have begun to realize that they are being exploited by a fundamentally flawed academic system and that they are “not going to take it anymore.”

Academia has always resembled a medieval, feudal system. Principal Investigators (PIs) are the kings because they hold all the power, money and authority and rule with impunity. Postdoctoral fellows are the lords or vassals who behave somewhat autonomously but have sworn oaths of allegiance and fealty to their kings. Research associates (technicians) are the indentured servants who rely on the king and his vassals for sustenance and protection. Finally, graduate students are the slaves whose lives and well being solely depend upon unquestioned obedience to their Kings. As we all know, feudal systems broke down when kings could no longer maintain control over their slaves and indentured servants. This culminated in rebellions and revolutions, the eventual demise of monarchies and ultimately gave rise to modern republics and democracies.

Although I am not necessarily advocating revolution (okay, so maybe I am), it is time that drastic and systemic changes be made to academia as we know it.  First, there needs to be a limit or moratorium on the number of students that are annually accepted into graduate programs. There are simply not enough academic, industrial or government jobs to justify the number of PhDs and postdoctoral fellows that are trained each year. Second, tenure should be abolished at all research universities and medical schools and be replaced with 5 year renewable contracts. This will force PIs, whose primary job is to do research (not teach), to remain competitive and productive. Further, it will reduce the likelihood that ego-centric PIs will be able to accumulate enough wealth and power to establish the “fiefdoms” that are prevalent in academia today. Third, PIs must increase their reliance on technicians (rather than postdoctoral fellows) to achieve their research objectives and goals. Allowing postdocs to work 5 or more years in the same laboratory because it is cheaper to hire them than technicians is, in my opinion, ethically and morally bankrupt. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is vital that PIs actually become mentors and play active roles in advising and shaping the careers of their students and postdoctoral fellows. Given the paucity and competitiveness of academic positions, it is disingenuous for PIs to promote academic careers for every person who passes through or works in their laboratories. As a former medical school tenure track Assistant Professor, I didn’t find it too difficult to identify which students and postdocs were “cut out” for academic careers. Further, it is incumbent upon PIs to take the time to

learn about and promote job opportunities for scientists outside of academia. Attending career fairs or introducing career development seminars into extant graduate programs would be an important first step in this direction.

After I come home from career development meetings, I sometimes lie awake at night and wonder whether many PIs can fathom what it must feel like when, a PhD who spent 5 or more years in their laboratories, can’t find a job to “put food on the table” for his or her family. Having been there, I can tell you that it is very unpleasant and emotionally devastating!

In my opinion, it will be difficult for academia to continue in its current incarnation. I think that academicians must begin to address and fix the problems that they created for this generation of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Failure to do so may result in a “revolution”– which in this case– may be required to bring about the changes that WE ALL KNOW are long overdue.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I am sitting in Newark Airport waiting for my flight to San Diego which, not surprisingly, has been delayed for about 2 hours.  As you might have guessed from the title of this post, I am on my way to the 2008 FASEB Career Development Symposium which is run every year at the annual FASEB meeting. 

As we have done in the past, my colleagues Eric Celidonio and Joe Tringali, and I  will be presenting seminars and resume writing workshops for graduate students and postdocs.  Our goal, as always is to offer these folks some advice and tips on how to find a job after they complete their training.  Unfortunately, the job market for PhDs has been depressed for the past 8 years or so.  There once was a time, circa 1994-2000, when finding a job for alife sciences or chemistry PhDs was a snap.  In those days, many jobs were left unfilled. Ironically, it  has been scientific advances and technological innovations that have made it more difficult for PhDs to find jobs over the past decade or so.

Anyway, if you are attending FASEB this year, please stop by.  Also, tell all your friends!  We like when it is busy.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many people think that organizing a job search requires little more than quickly throwing together a resume, applying for online jobs or answering print ads and then kicking back to wait for responses from prospective employers. While this scenario may have been accurate 10 years ago– when jobs were abundant and the economy was humming– it is no longer the case. In fact, the current science job market may be one of the most challenging in the past 20 years or so. This is likely due to shrinking government research spending, contraction of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries and the possibility that the American economy is slipping into recession. Nevertheless, there are still available jobs out there. But, in contrast with the past few years, getting them will require a carefully planned and well orchestrated job search.

The initial steps of any job search require answers to several key questions. These include:

1. What do you think you want to do?
2. What type of job are you likely to get (i.e. what jobs are you really
   qualified for)?
3. What are your long-term career goals and aspirations?
4. Where do you want/ need to live?
5. What are your salary requirements? 

Although answers to these questions may, on the surface appear easy, I can assure you that they are NOT and require a great deal of thought!  First, not everyone knows what they truly want to do after completing 6 or more years of graduate and postdoctoral training. More importantly, many people are convinced that they know what they want to do (largely based on discussions with mentors and advisors) but are ill- informed or have little idea about the actual day-to-day responsibilities and specific duties of certain types of jobs. Therefore, before you apply for a particular job, you must critically assess whether you possess the requisite skill sets or experience to successfully compete for the job. For example, if you are protein biochemist and have no industry experience, it wouldn’t be prudent to apply for business development jobs that require a year or more of industrial experience. No matter what lab you trained in or how many publications you have, I guarantee that you will not get the job. Therefore, it is vitally important that you understand the requirements, qualifications and types of jobs that you will be able to compete for.  If you don’t understand these parameters, you are in for a long, frustrating and unsuccessful job search.

Second, it is important to have a clear understanding of the career path that must be traveled to achieve individual long-term career goals. If, for example, you are a PhD with postdoctoral training and are interested in a business development career –but lack a business background–it may be advisable to first attempt to get an entry level job as a research scientist at a large pharmaceutical or biotechnology company. After all, you were trained and have the qualifications for this type of job. Once you have your proverbial foot-in-the-door and, hopefully, picked up some business buzz words you can begin to apply for internally-posted business development jobs. The good news is that internal candidates always have a substantial edge over external candidates for these job openings. Sometimes you might not be able to exactly follow the career roadmap that you created for yourself. Not to worry, if you have a carefully crafted career plan it can easily be modified or amended to get back on track and ultimately achieve your career objectives and goals!

Because  most scientists subscribe to the notion that “no sacrifice is too great for science”, we frequently are willing to take jobs (because of a possible scientific upside) in geographical locations that are not commensurate with our personal needs or lifestyle. Taking a job solely based on the “no sacrifice is too great” adage is often misguided and, in my own experience, a BIG mistake. After receiving my PhD at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I decided to take a postdoctoral position in Portland, Oregon– a decision that was made almost exclusively on the prospect of upward scientific mobility. After arriving in Portland in early January, and experiencing my first Oregon rainy season (which really lasts until July no matter what the natives say) I realized that I had made a bad geographical decision. Nevertheless, I worked hard in the lab and published two or three papers in reputable journals. Unfortunately, I was miserable most of the time and lived in Portland for almost two more years. I subsequently secured a second postdoctoral position at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and had the time of my life– both inside and outside of the lab. After three more years of hard, painstaking and enjoyable postdoctoral work, I was able to secure a tenure track position at the University Of Miami School Of Medicine. I attribute my success to being happier (both socially and professionally) in Manhattan than I was in Portland.  To that end, I highly recommend that you identify, early in your job search, places where you won’t or cannot live. And, no matter how scientifically or financially enticing a job may sound, don’t even bother to apply if the location of the job is not right for you or your family.

Finally, it is essential before you begin a job search to determine what your minimum salary requirements are. Salary requirements can vary depending upon your family situation, the location of the job and your personal lifestyle requirements. For example, if you determine that $50,000 per year is sufficient to accommodate your needs, then it makes no sense to apply for jobs that advertise salaries less than $50 K per year. No matter how talents or skilled you are, you will not be able to get a company to pay you $50K per year if the job was advertised at a lower salary.  Also, it is never wise to accept a job when the salary that is offered is less than the salary that you expected to receive–you will always feel underpaid or undervalued and you will not be able to do your best work (because you will always be looking for a higher paying job).

I hope that you find the comments in the first installment of the Ask the Recruiter series insightful and helpful. In my next installment, I will attempt to provide some ideas about  how to conduct a highly- focused and targeted job search.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 I think by now that Americans realize that the economy is taking a sharp downward turn. Even the recession-proof pharmaceutical industry has taken a huge beating over the past year or so– and things seem to be getting worse! The biotechnology industry, which is highly dependent upon venture capital and private equity to remain healthy, is also trending downward and will be hit hard if the economy slides into recession. To make matters worse, the US Department of Labor recently released figures which showed projected growth (for 2006 to 2016) for the fastest-growing occupations in America (see below). Not surprisingly, scientists–industrial or academic– did not make the top 20 list.

Together, this suggests that finding jobs in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology or related industries will be tougher in the next few years than it has been in the past. I suspect that this is not welcome news for those of you who have tried but were unable to find jobs in the past few years. With this in mind, I decided to launch a series of weekly blog posts that will last for 6 to 7 weeks entitled: “Everything That You Ever Wanted to Know about Finding a Job in the Bioscience industry …and Then Some”

I will post these weekly installments on my blog in the “Ask the Recruiter” category. I hope that the folks who read my blog will leave comments or ask me questions that may arise after you have perused the posts. Topics will include:

1. Creating a winning resume
2. Networking
3. Conducting a job search
4. Interviewing tips
5. Negotiating a job offer
6. Tips on getting promoted
7. How to ask for a raise…and get it!
8. Alternative career options for scientists

Because this undertaking is going to require a bit of thought and a lot of work, I decide to invite my colleagues Eric Celidonio and Joe Tringali to help me out. Eric and Joe are professional recruiters and bioscience career development specialists who work with me at local and national science meetings where we present bioscience career development seminars and provide resume critiquing services to graduate students, post-doctoral fellows and industrial scientists. Eric, Joe and I have worked together for the past 4 years or so and we are affectionately known as “The Three Bioscience Amigos”. It is our goal to offer you some insights and tips to enable you to find gainful employment in the bioscience industry.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In addition to being used to speed drug review, the new fees will support post-market surveillance and post-market evaluation of drug safety. Further, for the first time, drug manufacturerers have agreed to provide user fees to support FDA review of direct to consumer advertising (DTC). At present, FDA has no authority over DTC ads prior to drug launch; companies submit copies of broadcast and print ads when they begin running. FDA is seeking the authority to review DTC ads before they can be aired or printed.

Increases in user fees suggest that the agency ought to be looking for a few "good women and men" to review regulatory submissions and institute its new focus on drug safety and surveillance.

Until next time......

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link