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 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 think that 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 that they are best suited for. I don’t think that it is too much to ask or very labor-intensive for PIs to learn about 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 have  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 must be overhauled to remain relevant. Unfortunately, systemic changes are unlikely because tenured faculty members can’t be forced or induced to change their 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!

To learn how to more effectively manage employees, please check out the 360 feedback solution.

Until next time...

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

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

People frequently ask me why I decided to get a PhD degree to become a scientist. For the past 30 years, I have tried to explain to people why I decided to spend seven long years of “blood, sweat and tears” to attain that elusive degree. While anyone who has earned a PhD degree understands what drove them to do it, it is difficult to explain to others that the decision has little to do with career paths and salary considerations and is largely driven by passion— and perhaps more aptly—obsession. That is why Carole and Richard Rifkin’s film “Naturally Obsessed: The Making of Scientist”—an emotional and gritty film that follows the lives of three Columbia graduate students on their quest to obtaining their PhD degrees—is resonating with scientists, students and the public.

The film, which took five years to make and was launched in March 2009, follows the progress of three X-ray crystallography graduate students, Rob, Killington (Kil) and Gabrielle, who worked in Larry Shapiro’s laboratory at Columbia University Medical Center. Work in Larry’s laboratory focuses on elucidating the X-crystallographic structure of proteins that are thought to be involved in appetite control. While Rob, Kil and Gabrielle share a common goal—getting a PhD degree—they are very different people. Rob is a rebellious, boisterous, self-assured free thinker (who was thrown out of a previous laboratory) whereas Kil is a more staid, soft spoken pragmatist from the Midwest. Gabrielle, who returned to graduate school to pursue a PhD degree after a stint as a laboratory technician at a company, loves science but isn’t certain that she has the mettle to realize her dream. Each of them understands that time is of the essence and they work feverishly and unrelentingly  to insure that their competitors don't beat them to the punch and publish first!

Despite their obvious personality differences, each is driven and obsessed with producing perfectly-formed protein crystals that are suitable for X-ray crystallography analysis. The film accurately and painstakingly depicts the inevitable emotional “ups and downs” of laboratory research, the personal struggles and the often difficult life decisions that are made when pursuing a PhD degree. In the end, Rob, Kil and Laura find their own career paths as scientists and perhaps, more importantly. come to terms with the decisions that they made during their journeys.

Carole, a documentary filmmaker, and Richard, Chairman Emeritus of the Sloan-Kettering Institute and founding Chairman of the New York Structural Biology Center, made the film to portray the “reality of doing science” and raise awareness about scientific research. The film emphasizes that science, like art, requires creativity, persistence and unyielding commitment and dedication. The Rifkinds interviewed many NYC-based academic laboratories before choosing Larry Shapiro’s laboratory as the subject of their documentary film. Larry’s laboratory was chosen because X-crystallography is visual (and lends itself to film making) and Carol had a hunch that “there was a story to be told there.”

During a recent interview with the Rifkinds, I mentioned that if I had seen the film as a high school or undergraduate student, I probably would have skipped graduate school. Carole responded and said, “Yes, the hard work and emotional challenges portrayed in the film might turn some students off but we wanted to portray scientific research the way it is and remain true to its realities.” She added, "while the film focuses on science graduate students it is also relevant and accurately reflects the trials and tribulations experienced by PhD students in the humanities and the arts.” 

One of the more troubling moments of the film for me is when Larry mentions that scientists, like artists, “represent the fringe of society.” The fact that a prominent, successful scientist views himself as different, and on the fringes of society, doesn’t bode well for the public perception of science or scientists for that matter. Another troubling aspect of the film is that Rob, Kil and Gabrielle are clearly being groomed for academic careers despite the fact that roughly only 10% of life sciences PhDs secure academic positions at the end of their training. I pointed this out to Richard and he said that he agrees that it is a troubling trend and that “alternate career options for PhDs is the subject of Carole's  and his next film.”

Since it launch in March, the film has been screened at over 60 high schools, colleges, medical schools, professional science associations, government agencies and biotechnology companies. While the film may not be “right” for everyone, it is a must see for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and for members of the public who want a rare glimpse into the emotionally-charged and highly competitive world of scientific research. For those of you, who may be interested in arranging a screening, please visit the Naturally Obsessed: The Making of a Scientist website or contact Hayley

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

The compensation packages for CEOs of many publicly held companies have recently, (for obvious reasons), come under intense scrutiny. This has spilled over to the chief executive offices of many not-for-profit organizations including private colleges and universities. While the compensation packages for most university presidents and administrators are substantial in many instances, there are a few university employees who sometimes earn substantially more. 

According to an article in today’s New York Times, there were 88 private-college employees who made $1 million or more in 2007 (only 11 were college Presidents or chief executive officers). These were the results from an analysis conducted by The Chronicles of Higher Education of the compensation packages of more than 4,000 employees at 600 private colleges. The two top earners were Pete Carroll, the head football coach at USC and Dr. David N. Silvers, a Columbia University dermatologist both of whom made almost $4.5 million last years. Coach Carroll’s compensation packages was almost four times that of the university’s president whereas Dr. Silver’s salary of $4,332,759 compared with $1 411,894 earned by Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia’s president. Another Columbia professor, Dr. Jeffrey W. Moses, earned a paltry $2,532,713 last year. Check out the salaries of the top ten earners!

While the pay for college and university presidents has risen sharply in the last decade the same hasn’t been true for many faculty members. Not surprisingly, over the same period, the gap between administrator and professor salaries has substantially widened. This parallels what has been taking place in the private sector where CEOs typically earn hundreds of times more than their employees. The disparity in administrator and faculty salaries led Patrick M. Callan, the president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education to muse: “It may be reasonable for these people to be well paid but if faculty’s getting 2 per cent raises, I don’t see why senior administrators, who are already high-paid, should get much larger increases. It reflects a set of values that is not the way most Americans think about higher education.” The Chronicle survey found that on average, university and college presidents make about $500,000 annually.

This poses an interesting question: Unlike administrators, are most university and college professors overpaid? Based on my own experience as a medical school faculty member—absolutely not! Nevertheless, over the 10 years or more, there has been a growing disparity in the salaries of research faculty members as compared with teaching faculty. Typically, the researchers, who bring in large sums of money from grants and other extramural funding, command much higher salaries than faculty members whose primary function is teaching. While this may seem reasonable from a financial/business perspective, it raises a fundamental question about higher education: What is more important—making money or teaching? 

Set standards for your education at the Albertus Magnus College

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Training!

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