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

While I don’t advocate postdoctoral positions for individuals unless they plan on doing bench science for the rest of their lives, postdoctoral training is a fact of life for those interested in pursuing academic careers. To that end, The Scientist.com conducts an annual survey that ranks the best 40 places for postdoctoral associates to work. The survey ranks the strengths and weaknesses of individual training institutions based on funding, facilities and infrastructure, benefits, training and mentoring and family and personal life. Surprisingly, institutions are also ranked on networking, career development and mentoring and training and mentor and training that they offer to their postdoctoral trainees.

The institution that snagged the top spot on the 2010 list was the Trudeau Institute in Saranac Lake, NY. Nestled in the Adirondack Mountains in Upstate NY, the not-for-profit Trudeau Institute has a deserved international reputation in immunology, infectious diseases and vaccinology. When I was a graduate students (back in the dark ages), some of the greatest minds in infectious diseases held positions at Trudeau. These days; not so much—but I bet the skiing is great! Interestingly, one of Trudeau’s strengths is networking opportunities (how much networking can take place at a secluded institute on a lake in the Adirondacks). Curiously, however, one of its major weaknesses is the lack of career development opportunities. Based on my life experiences, I always thought that networking was a crucial part of career development. But then again, what do I know?

The top 10 of the list featured a couple of Massachusetts-based institutions including the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (3) and the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research Institute in Cambridge (4) and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Woods Hole, MA (9). Two national laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA (8) and Rocky Mountain Laboratory, NIH Hamilton, MT (6) cracked the top ten. By all accounts, the fly fishing is outstanding in Hamilton.

As usual, there were some surprises. These included Samuel Robert Noble Foundation (2) in Ardmore, OK, the University of Colorado, Denver (7) and the Mayo Clinic (10) in Rochester, MN (not exactly cities on my top ten list). Not surprisingly, there were only two life sciences companies that made the Top 40 list; Genentech (5) in South San Francisco and as mentioned above at number 3, the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research. Once a mainstay, industrial postdocs are becoming increasingly scare and difficult to land. In many cases, these positions are not advertised and generally filled by word-of-mouth recommendations to principal investigators who are looking for postdoctoral fellows.

A quick perusal of the list revealed, as expected, that most of the 40 institutions excelled in categories that included funding, facilities and infrastructure, benefits and family and personal life. In marked contrast, many of the institutions on the list were disappointingly weak in the areas of networking, career development and training and mentoring. Of the top 40, six got kudos for networking (15%), 11 for career development (28%) and only 6 for training and mentoring (15%). These abysmal statistics are somewhat shocking given that postdoctoral fellowships are mainly intended to train and prepare aspiring individuals for lifelong careers as scientists. The fact that only 25% of the nation’s best places to perform postdoctoral research offer career development training and support for postdoctoral trainees suggests that the future of the American life sciences industry may be in serious jeopardy!

Hat tip Ed at Pharmalot.

Until next time....

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

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

Ed Silverman, over at the newly reinvigorated Pharmalot Blog, today reported that a recent study publicized in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that, after a decade of doubling, the rate of increase in biomedical research funding slowed from 2003 to 2007, and after adjusted for inflation, the absolute level of funding from the National Institutes of Health and industry appears to have decreased by 2 percent. The NIH remains the largest federal contributor to biomedicalresearch, accounting for 84% of total federal funding in 2007 

Further, the report indicated that research funding provided by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and medical devices and diagnostics manufacturers rose from $40 billion in 2003 to $58.6 billion in 2007; an increase (adjusted for inflation) of roughly 25 percent. Most of the funding came from large pharmaceutical companies. Interestingly, however, the sector of the life sciences industry that exhibited the greatest increase in growth over the same period was diagnostic and device makers (59 percent), followed by biotechnology (41 per cent) and lastly, pharmaceutical companies (25 per cent).

While the results of the study are not surprising, it is clear that the life science sector is beginning to focus more on device and diagnostics than on small molecules and even biotechnology products. Further, reductions in federal funding are forcing researchers to increasingly rely on grants and contracts from private sector companies. This suggests that an ever expanding percentage of the research conducted at many academic institutions will be financed and underwritten by for profit companies. Although more product-focused academic research is not necessarily a bad idea, it does call into question the direction and possible breadth of academic research and the availability and sharing of important scientific information, data sets and discoveries. 

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Grant Writing!!!!!!!!!

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

The competition for National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding has been intensifying over the past five years or more. In the past, NIH had gone to extraordinary lengths to insure that senior investigators didn’t lose their funding so as to not hinder the progress of long standing research programs. However, in recent years, NIH funding managers have eschewed the unwritten policy of preferentially funding established investigators in favor of younger ones!  According to an article in today’s New York Times, NIH grant managers are increasingly ignoring the advice of study sections and funding scientists whose projects receive less favorable reviews than those denied money. Many of the favored funding recipients are “new investigators,” or scientists who had never before received a grant from NIH. Further, in 2007, the last year for which figures are available, “19 percent of the grants awarded to individual scientists were made as exceptions, or given outside of rankings by scientific reviewers, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. Nearly all of the increase in exceptions in 2007 went to new investigators, with the young scientists’ share rising from 20 percent of all exceptions in 2003 to half in 2007.”

Not surprisingly, many senior investigators are calling “foul” despite the fact that the median age at which scientists win their first NIH grant has risen steadily, to 41 years, from 35 in 1980. While all meritorious grant proposals ought to be funded, the reality is that there simply isn’t enough money to around. As a former tenure track faculty member, I believe that new investigators deserve something of a handicap or edge when it comes to competing for their first grants. After all, how can an overwhelmed, newly minted faculty member be expected to successfully compete with established investigators who have mastered their jobs and more importantly, the art of grant writing? Sadly, the old practice of preferentially funding established investigators over new ones tended to stifle innovation and reward scientists who liked to play it safe!

We live in an increasingly competitive world where innovation is at a premium. American scientists and granting agencies must abandon their old practices if they want to remain competitive on the world stage. To that end, funding some young, innovative investigators over a few established faculty members who have enjoyed long successful scientific careers doesn’t seem like a bad investment to me! After all isn’t all about retun on investment these days?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

The appearance of the Swine Flu aka H1N1 last spring not only created a worldwide panic, it demonstrated to Albert Osterhaus, head of virology at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands how uninformed the lay public was about viral outbreaks, epidemiology and public health. This prompted Dr. Osterhaus and his colleagues to create a free, online video game called the “The Great Flu” which challenges players to control a new viral pandemic.

As the virus has spread worldwide, countries have tried different methods to slow it down and pharmaceutical companies are now racing to produce a swine flu vaccine (sound familiar?). To fight the emerging outbreak, players use public health measures including setting up surveillance systems, stockpiling antivirals and vaccines, and closing schools and airports. Players also have a limited budget and are warned that "your actions to control the virus cost money, so keep an eye on it." In other words, while the goal is to control the pandemic, there may not be sufficient funds and resources to accomplish those goals!

A running tally of the numbers of people infected and those who have died are displayed above the budget. Newspaper stories about the deadly virus and the global response to it — like riots breaking out worldwide — pop up to help players monitor the outbreak and plan their next moves. Messages from governments mirror the difficulties faced by international agencies like WHO that are responsible for containing worldwide epidemics. For example, when players set up costly surveillance systems, sometimes participating governments will send a message "we will comply with your directions...but we must inform you that the political support for this action is low in this region. Therefore, the effectiveness of the system to control the outbreak may differ from your expectations."

The goal of the game is make the lay public aware of the difficulties that public health officials encounter during pandemics and the tight rope they sometimes must walk to insure that the virus is contained and doesn’t continue to spread. To test your skill level at controlling pandemics, you can choose different viruses (which range from easy to difficult to manage) at the beginning of the game.

I think “The Great Flu” is a great way to educate the public about infectious diseases and epidemiology and have fun at the same time. If you are interested in more sinister online swine flu games check this out.  Who said learning science has to be tedious and dull?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Virus Hunting!!!!!

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

Despite dire predictions, the biotechnology industry appears to be weathering the recession better than most. According to a CNN Money.com post “Biotechnology leapt ahead as the biggest recipient of U.S. venture capital money in the second quarter, but first-time venture investments in companies overall dropped to a 15-year low.”

Biotechnology funding grew 54% to $888 million in 85 deals, software came in flat at $644 million in 135 deals and Internet companies fell 15% to $524 million in 124 deals. While biotechnology company investments are leading the pack, the current funding levels pale in comparison to those of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Also, it is important to note that many of the biotechnology company investments were in mid to late stage ventures. Fewer investments were made in seed or early stage companies which historically have outpaced funding in late stage ones.

Venture capitalists may be favoring biotechnology investments because there is a clear exit strategy—there are more acquisitions and initial public offerings in life sciences as compared with other industries.

Look for continuing investments in the biotechnology sector—especially in molecular diagnostics and medical devices.

Until next time...

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

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

For those of you interested in the Canadian biotechnology scene I want to mention a good resource that I came across recently. The Canadian BioTechnologist 2.0 Blog (http://cbt20.org) has its sights set on helping to advance the development of the Canadian Biotechnology sector and the people who study biotechnology and life sciences at the college and university level and bench scientists and technicians who work in the field across the country.   

Readers are invited to contribute content: posters, tools, research and presentations, articles white papers, multimedia, music downloads and entertainment, conference announcements, videos.

The site is sponsored by the Canadian operation of Bio-Rad so it has a good selection of non-commercial content from the company including papers, tools, workshops and for fun some of their recent music videos. The blog manager, Howard Oliver of What If What Next  a Toronto based  Web 2.0-PR firm has done a great job of collecting content that covers Canadian biotechnology news and useful tools and career information for bench scientists and technicians and students.

Do drop by The Canadian BioTechnologist2.0 Blog (http://cbt20.org) to learn about the Canadian scene and get your voice heard.

 Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Jo

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the February issue of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, J. Leslie Glick a former CEO of Genex and veteran of the biotechnology industry put forward a novel solution to financial crisis that is currently gripping the life sciences industry and the rest of the US economy. Dr. Glick proposed that the US government ought to consider injecting taxpayer monies into venture capital firms (VC) which, he believes, would foster creation of new companies, create more jobs, stimulate the ailing economy and also provide the government with an outstanding return on its investment.

According to Dr. Glick, “historical results reported by the National Venture Capital Association for the 20 year period ending December 31, 2007, show an annualized return of 16.7% to investors in some 1,860 U.S. venture capital and private equity partnerships. If the U.S. government had made annual investments of $10 billion in VC firms throughout the U.S. during that 20year period, the $200 billion total investment would have yielded a total return of almost $1.5 trillion.” Further, he asserts that according to the  International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce, from 1970 to 2000, U.S. VC firms invested over $270 billion in more than 16,000 companies. In 2000, the surviving VC-backed companies employed 7.6 million people, representing 5.9% of all U.S. jobs, and generated sales of $1.3 trillion, accounting for 13.1% of the U.S. GDP.

This financial upside sound enticing but who is going to keep track of the money and keep an eye on how and what the VCs are investing in? Dr. Glick proposes creation of a non-partisan funding mechanism, possibly overseen by an independent panel of business people that would disburse $10 to $25 billion annually of taxpayer’s dollars to vetted and certified VC firms. Because of its investment, the US government would become a limited partner in these firms and could direct them to invest in technologies that would help to reduce health care costs, develop energy alternatives or improve food production capacity. While this proposal is unprecedented and controversial, we are living in extremely uncertain financial times that may necessitate innovative and out-of-the-box solutions to restore normalcy to the US economy. That said, all proposals—no mater how unconventional or outrageous—ought to be carefully evaluated and vetted to determine whether or not they have merit to help overcome our deepening recession.

Kudos to Dr. Glick!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Investing!!!!!!

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

For the past 60 years, American science was second to none. However, the US is perilously close to losing that distinction. Put simply, American science, like its economy, is in free fall.

Federal funding, primarily through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the lifeblood of American life sciences research. Between 1998 and 2003, the federal government doubled NIH’s budget every year—almost 25% of all grant applications were funded and life was good! However, since 2003, budget increases have vanished and the NIH remains trapped in a five year run of flat funding. Research funding rates have fallen to 10% or less and many academic scientists are voluntarily leaving or being forced out of their jobs.

This is not the first time that funding levels have plummeted. From 1989 to about 1994 (when I was a tenure track Assistant Professor), funding rates fell from about 20% to less than 10%. However, back then, there was little global research competition and American was able to recover to retain its scientific dominance. However, the world is a very different place now and the supremacy of American science, particularly in the life sciences, is clearly at risk.

According to an article in the Trenton Times, (my local paper), science and engineering have accounted for close to half of the growth in the American economy since World War II. Analysts suggest that without adequate research funding and ready access to research grants fewer scientists will enter the profession. “Already Asian countries are graduating 10 times the number of scientists and engineers as the United States. If the current trends continue in about a decade 90% of the world’s scientists and engineers will be in Asia” According to Elias Zerhouni, current director of NIH “In 10 to 15 years we’ll have scientists older than 65 than those younger than 35. This is not a sustainable trend in biomedical research.” Unless federal funding for research is increased this ominous trend will continue. That said, it may be too little too late. As you all know, finding science jobs in the US these days is becoming increasingly difficult even for qualified applicants. With this in mind, one of the most well attended talks that I give at career development symposia is entitled “The Road Less Traveled: Alternate Career Paths for Life Scientists”. As much as I hate to admit it, traditional career pathways for most life scientists may be things of the past.

Clearly, something must be done to fix the problem in order to maintain the quality of American science. The easy fix, which has been used ad nauseam for the pasts two decades, is to increase short term federal research spending. However, history indicates that this approach fosters the boom and bust cycles that have continually plagued American academic science. Although the boom and bust approach is quintessentially American, I don’t think that it will enable American science to sustain its scientific dominance in today’s increasingly competitive world.

The number of young people interested in or entering science continues to plummet in the US. Ironically, the quality and access to American science education has never been better! So, why the disconnect? It’s simple—science jobs are scare, the pay is not great and life as an academician has become almost unsustainable. In my opinion, something has to change very soon or America will almost certainly lose its status as the preeminent purveyor of science in the world.

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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