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

Much has been written about social media but who has time to ponder all the analytical data to come up with trends and cool statistics? 

To that end, I was reading Dec/Jan edition of Forbes Small Business (FSB) magazine and I came upon some random social media tidbits that I thought were worth sharing.  I cannot vouch for the veracity of the information but sources were cited to confirm the facts.

35% of Americans 18 and over used social media of some type in 2008; only 8% were involved with social media in 2005 (source: Pew Internet and American Life Project)

95% of business decision makers worldwide use social networks (source: Forrester Research)

Of 2000 recent tweets that were analyzed by Peer Analytics:

• 4% were spam
• 6% were self promotional
• 9% were “moderately interesting”
• 38% were conversational
• 43% were “babble”

Finally (and not surprisingly):

87% of adults said they prefer dealing with others in person instead of via computers or smart phones (source: Centralvalleybusinesstimes.com)

I am not sure what it all means but I figured the info was worth a shout out.

Hat tip to FSB!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking

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

An annual survey conducted by Science magazine and the American Association has identified the 2008 top twenty life sciences employers in the world. The rankings were based on a company’s leadership, stability, social responsibility and treatment of its employees. Six of the top 10— Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Genzyme Corp., Schering-Plough Corp., Gilead Sciences are based in the US whereas the remaining four—Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, and Millennium are headquartered outside of the US. For the first time, eight of the top 20 are located outside the United States.

In case you were wondering, Genentech was ranked number 1. This is the fifth time out of the past 6 years that the San-Francisco based company made it to the number one slot (it fell to second last year). Another notable is Massachusetts-based Genzyme which made it to the number 3 spot (out of 575 companies) for the second consecutive year. Surprisingly, Monsanto, the company that makes genetically modified seed crops, was number 2—this despite all of the negative press about genetically modified foods. Let see whether or not Genentech can retain its number 1 ranking after the Roche takeover of the company is completed.

Until next time....

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

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

In his book, “Free: The Future of a Radical Price” Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine, asserts that the cost of DNA sequencing falls 50% each year. To that end, in February, a company called Complete Genomics based in Mountain View, California, announced it will read entire human genomes at $5000 a shot, starting in June this year. This will cost less than one-tenth of what companies charge today for genome sequencing. 

If you believe Anderson, in five years sequencing a human genome will be under $100. Based on these calculations, the window of opportunity for companies that sequence genomic DNA to make a profit is closing rapidly. So, if you were considering getting into the DNA sequencing biz, the right time may be now—before it is no longer a profitable biz model.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Sequencing!!!!!!!!!!!
 

• 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

Bruce Charlton, a professor of theoretical medicine at the University of Buckingham and Editor in Chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses recently published in Oxford magazine and his blog a provocative and controversial article entitled “Why Scientists Are So Dull”

The article, which caused a firestorm in the UK was crafted to get the scientific establishment to rethink its parochial approach to scientific training and career development for young scientists. Because of the blunt nature and in-your-face tone of the article, Dr. Charlton may have alienated some would-be supporters who unfortunately failed to see the intended humor and call-to-action of the article. Unfortunately, in my experience, the public perception of scientists is consistent with Dr. Charlton’s claim—that, we as a group, are dull.

Throughout my career, I have routinely been asked by non-scientists (after meeting them in social situations) “You’re not really a scientist—are you?” Invariably, they say something like “You are too funny and too much of a character to really be a scientist.”

I know that stereotyping is inherently dangerous and wrong, but stereotypes usually originate from commonly observed, shared characteristics (traits) exhibited by members of a particular group of people. That said, maybe it is time for us to let the lay public know that not all scientists are dull, “eggheads” types and that many of us are very insightful, creative people. In my opinion, the only way for us to lose the ‘dull’ moniker is to publicly promote the importance and creative aspects of science whenever we can. To that end, it is time for us to log off of our computers, leave our laboratories and let the world know that—contrary to public opinion—we aren’t DULL people!!!!

Until next time…

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

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