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

Over the past year or so, more graduate students and postdoctoral fellows have been asking me about management consulting careers in the life sciences. I spent several years working as an independent management consultant and while it was a great experience the revenue stream was unreliable at best and the ability to work was highly contingent upon the economy. However, I can assure that my experiences as an independent management consultant were marketing different than those of consultants who work at the consulting firms like McKinsey or the Boston Consulting Group. For those of you interested in life style of a high-powered management consultant I highly recommend you visit their websites for more info. 

I invited Susan Colilla, PhD, MPH, President of the consulting firm Integrative Epidemiology LLC describe her experiences about becoming a life sciences consultant so that BioJobBlog job readers (who may be considering this as a career option), might get an idea and appreciate what it takes to get into and be successful in this line of work.

My Life as a Life Sciences Management Consultant

by Susan Colilla

After doing a second postdoc at University of Pennsylvania as an Instructor (nebulous junior non-faculty type position) and becoming frustrated with all the extensive work requirements for a tenure-track position, I started searching for a job in pharmaceutical industry.

While searching for a position, a potential employer, who didn’t have an opening at the time, asked if I would be interested in consulting.  As I was interested in this area, I started consulting for industry and realized that I enjoyed working on different projects in epidemiology and genetics, and loved that I could work from my home office and give up a commute. 

The flexibility in consulting is great.  I plan the work around my schedule, and the pay has been rewarding as well.  Last year, I formally incorporated my business, Integrative Epidemiology, LLC.  I offer services in literature reviews, study planning/design, data analysis and grant or manuscript writing in the areas of human genetics or epidemiology. 

As I build my business, I have learned about how to run a business, bookkeeping/billing, taxes, legal issues/contracts, and marketing.  Moving from academia to pharma/industry is tricky unless you have connections with those who hire in the industry.  One of the biggest challenges for me as a self-employed consultant is dedicating a good proportion of my time to networking with others and marketing my services, rather than doing science-related work.  It helps that I am very social by nature and enjoy meeting new people.

 I am also fortunate to be married to someone who makes a good income and receives benefits as this helps support our family.  There can be a sporadic flow of income with consulting, especially during a recession and new business slows down.  I have also partnered up with another consulting group (Venebio, LLC, based in Richmond, VA) to expand the pool of potential clients and work with a group of scientists to offer a broader range of services. 

For those of you who want to learn more about getting into the consultant business, Susan highly recommends an article that recently appeared in the Scientist. She shared with me that the article offers a great list of things to consider before starting a consultancy and that she “wished that she had seen it a couple years ago when I started out in this business!”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!  

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

I suspect by the growing numbers of people who read BioJobBlog, that some of you may be beginning to wonder who I am. While nobody has taken me to task about my credentials or musings to date, I figured it may be worthwhile to share my “story” with those BioJobBlog readers who may be at a crossroads in their careers. I credit my graduate school experiences and PhD degree for the tenacity, perseverance and the ability to reinvent myself during an eclectic, and oft times, circuitous career path.  

Taking the Path Less Traveled

I had always liked science but by age 10, I had already decided that I wanted to be a veterinarian. However, after seeing the film Ben Hur at age 11—during which two of the main characters who have leprosy are miraculously cured—I fantasized what it might be like to be able to discover cures for infectious diseases. As corny as it may sound, the movie convinced me that my true calling in life wasn’t veterinary medicine but microbiology. Nevertheless, I attended Cornell University as a pre-veterinary medicine undergraduate with a dual major in animal science and microbiology. During my senior year at Cornell, Dr. Brooks Naylor, my food microbiology professor at the time, invited me to do a senior research project in his laboratory. After several weeks in the laboratory I was hooked and knew that graduate school and not veterinary school was in my future.

I entered graduate school in 1974 and did my PhD work in Bob Deibel’s laboratory in the Department of Bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison studying the pathogenesis of Salmonella gastroenteritis. Because Bob was Chairman of the Department and a food microbiology consultant, he wasn’t around much. This forced me to become self reliant and an independent investigator very early in my scientific career. Interestingly, when I started graduate school, my goal was to earn a PhD degree and teach microbiology at a small liberal arts college. However, after three years at Wisconsin, I decided to eschew a career as a science educator in favor of becoming a tenure track faculty member at a prestigious research institution.

I received my PhD degree in 1981and chose to do a postdoctoral fellowship with Stephen Morse in the Department of Microbiology at Oregon Health Sciences University where I investigated the pathogenesis of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. After two years in Stephen’s lab, I realized that the field of molecular biology had finally taken off and I needed to develop molecular biological skills to compete for my coveted tenure track faculty position. In 1984, I joined Howard Shuman’s laboratory as a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Microbiology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University in New York City where I studied the molecular pathogenesis of Legionella pneumophila, the causative agent of Legionnaires Disease.

In 1987, after spending three more years as a postdoctoral fellow, my newly acquired molecular biology training coupled with a respectable publication record helped me to land a tenure track faculty position in the Department of Microbiology at the University Of Miami School Of Medicine. I spent the next seven years feverishly doing laboratory research, teaching medical and graduate students, publishing papers and mainly writing grants to establish an independent research program on the role of lipopolysaccharide in the molecular pathogenesis of L. pneumophila. While I was a productive researcher, who regularly published and was recognized on several occasions for teaching excellence, I failed to consistently win grant support to run my laboratory. Consequently, in 1994, I was denied tenure and forced to leave academia—an emotionally devastating event that that ended a life-long dream of becoming a world class research scientist.

Luckily, at that time, the American biotechnology industry had finally hit its stride and I landed a job as a scientist at a New Jersey-based biotechnology company where I managed an antibacterial drug discovery program. My time in industry—which lasted only two years—provided me a firm understanding of the business side of science and perhaps, more importantly, convinced me that industrial research wasn’t for me. This, coupled with a yearning desire to teach again, prompted me to successfully apply for a job as Chairperson of Biology at a local community college. While a good idea at the time, I quickly realized that while I still loved to teach, administration wasn’t my strong suit and I left the community college job after a year.

Unfortunately, by 1998, I had effectively exhausted most traditional career options for scientists with PhD degrees and I desperately needed a job—mainly because I had a wife and three young children to support. Fortunately, while working at the community college, I successfully helped several professional recruiters place new hires into jobs at biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. This prompted me to seriously consider professional recruiting as a career option and in early 1999 I landed a job as a recruiter at a local recruiting firm. As a new hire I had to attend recruiter school for six weeks. Surprisingly, this training would prove to play a pivotal role in subsequent decisions that helped to shape my career.

After three successful years as professional recruiter, an Australian biotechnology company recruited and hired me as a science and business consultant to help guide their antibacterial drug discovery program. The new job led to an almost four year stint as an independent management consultant advising private and publicly-traded biotechnology companies on business, scientific and financial matters. Also during this time, I decided to indulge my own entrepreneurial fantasies and in 2001 I founded BioInsights (www.bioinsights.com), Inc, a bioscience education and training company. In 2003, Abe Abuchowski and I founded Prolong Pharmaceuticals (www.prolongpharmaceuticals.com) a drug delivery company with two drugs in early stage clinical development. Unfortunately, the rigorous demands of running BioInsights and starting Prolong ultimately led to the demise of my consulting practice and by 2004 I was forced to consider another career move.

Luckily, in 2002, I had begun to write for several biotechnology industry trade publications. Although I wasn’t getting paid to write, it enabled me to hone and polish my writing skills. In late 2004, a medical communications expert who I knew suggested that I take a stab at medical writing. At the time, I didn’t know much about medical writing but I quickly learned that it pays well and medical writers are always in demand. I took her advice and landed my first medical writing job in 2005. Since then, I have worked at a variety of medical communications agencies and pharmaceutical companies preparing manuscripts, posters, slide presentations and other work. Currently, I am freelance science and medical writer, blogger (www.biojobblog.com) and social media enthusiast who, along with Dr. Vincent Racaniello, started an online social networking site for bioscientists called BioCrowd (www.biocrowd.com)

Unlike most scientists, my career path has taken many unexpected twists and turns. I never intended it to be as eclectic or convoluted as it has turned out to be. Nevertheless, I believe that my unusual career trajectory has transformed me into a better rounded scientist than I would have been if I had been able to pursue my intended academic career. In retrospect, I attribute my career successes to solid problem solving skills, an unrelenting desire to continue to learn and an unwavering ability to take risks. Finally, and perhaps most important, I learned that there is no right or wrong career path in the life sciences—only the one that you choose for yourself!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

In a previous post I lauded health information technology (HIT) aka health informatics as a possible new career choice for scientists with life sciences PhD degrees who also have a proclivity for software development and data base management. Shortly after I posted the piece, I happened to read an article in a local publication about a NJ-based company called the MISI Company that is at the forefront of the HIT field and developing software to help digitize American healthcare records. 

I invited Dave Roth, an MISI executive, to share his views on the future of HIT and what ought to be done to insure that e-medical records are appropriately and successfully created. BTW, for my bioinformatics and genomics friends, MISI is looking to hire a few talented men and women who are interested in HIT careers.

HIT: The Other Missing Link

by Dave Roth

Health information technology (HIT) is hot. There’s every reason to believe that HIT will play a major role in the reforms envisioned for our health care system. From President Obama announcing $5B in grants to aid medical research, to bioinformaticists developing tools for predicting genetic predisposition to diseases, to software developers working on electronic medical records (EMR) systems, HIT is a burgeoning field. What concerns people like me – read: people who are users of technology rather than the developers of it – is that all this HIT talk seems to have very little mention of us in it.

Not long ago, I wrote an article called The Missing Link in Healthcare IT: The Consumer. In it I pointed out that none of the current government definitions being proposed for "meaningful use" of electronic medical record (EMR) systems define meaningful from the healthcare consumer's perspective. I also noted that whatever rules the government establishes for receiving stimulus money for the development of HIT solutions, none of them will exclude technologists from collaborating with consumers in the development of their solutions. I posited that technologists would be doing us all a favor if they would stop to consider for a moment how their systems will affect the consumer’s experience of health care services.

I was encouraged when David Goldhill, in his cover story in the September 2009 issue of Atlantic Monthly, How American Health Care Killed My Father, wrote, “[A] guiding principle of any reform should be to put the consumer, not the insurer or the government, at the center of the system.” Goldhill’s prescription for a better health care system begins with advocating for the consumers of services and focusing on how to get the best outcomes for those consumers at a reasonable cost. He was channeling the views of many people, such as Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger, who believe consumer-driven health care is the only reform that will truly be meaningful.

The growing visibility of the consumer in this debate has gotten me to thinking there is real opportunity in the HIT job market for another missing link: Consumer-centric Health IT Developers. It is a rare developer who brings to his/her craft an appreciation of the importance of understanding who you are developing for. Rarer still is the developer who is aware of and employs tools and techniques for capturing end-users’ feedback during the development process. More often than not, user-centered design (UCD) is considered a luxury that burns up time and precious dollars. This misconception is largely the result of development teams typically waiting until they are too far into the development cycle before engaging with those who will be using their creation. Inevitably, problems are discovered with the usability or utility of the system that will hinder adoption. But the problems are discovered too late to be fixed by the target launch date and/or within budget. Users/Consumers become the enemy in this scenario.

There is another way. HIT technologists should understand how and why to engage their target audience at the beginning of the development process, long before anything is actually developed. They should begin by understanding who they are developing for, what these people are looking to accomplish, and how they can best help them accomplish it. Using such techniques has been shown to actually reduce downstream development work and increase adoption. I believe technologists schooled in the techniques of consumer-centered design will be central to any successful, long-term health care reform.

Dave is Vice President and  heads MISI Company's Experience Design (XD) group - a group of strategists, experience architects, visual designers and technologists whose mission is to help ensure the success of every interaction between a business and its target audience. His career spans 30 years and includes award-winning work in documentary and corporate film/video, print advertising, and interactive software application development for computers and the Internet. Dave is a Stanford University grad, a SF 49ers fan and a member of the Single Malt Scotch Whiskey Society.

• 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

According to a recent report issued by the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a record 861 new cancer treatments are being developed by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Many of these treatments, which include vaccines and immunomodulators, are in clinical development or awaiting regulatory approval.

The breakdown of the treatments based on therapeutic areas is: 122 for lung cancer, 107 for breast cancer, 70 for colorectal cancer and 103 for prostate cancer. Additional treatments target brain, kidney, pancreatic and other forms of cancer.

While there are many other unmet medical needs that must be addressed by the life sciences industry, the burgeoning and ever-increasing numbers of cancer patients suggests that there is a dire need for development of improved anti-cancer treatments. To that end, if you are contemplating graduate school, already enrolled or trying to determine what therapeutic area makes sense for a postdoctoral fellowship, I highly recommend that you consider oncology. Job opportunities in this field (and neuroscience) will continue to outstrip all others in the near future.

Until next time...

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

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

Despite its humble beginnings in the late 1970s, the biotechnology industry has transformed itself into one of the most vibrant sectors of the American economy. Pharmaceutical companies, once the bell weather of the life sciences industry, have finally conceded that biotechnology and not small molecules are the industry’s future!

While growth of the biotechnology industry has slowed somewhat in the past couple of years—mainly because of the recession—it still represents a viable career option for students interested in the biological sciences. Contrary to popular belief, a PhD degree is no longer required to gain employment in the biotechnology industry. The PhD degree option is slowly being replaced by biotechnology masters and undergraduate degrees and certificate programs readily available at many two year colleges. Put simply, there is a decreasing demand for PhDs at many life sciences companies—mostly because of technological advances and a growing reliance on outsourcing to carry out drug discovery and development. However, the demand for non-PhD employees with solid biotechnology backgrounds particularly in the areas of regulatory affairs, licensing, business development, medical communications, health informatics and biomanufacturing is rising.

For many students (especially high school and undergraduates), the plethora of biotechnology degree and certificate programs can be overwhelming. With this in mind, I came across a cool website called Biotechnology Degree Guide which helps students decide which program is right for them. The site is run by Webster Jorgensen who sent me the following information about the site.

“Biotechnology Degree Guide was developed to be a complete and comprehensive guide for finding colleges, universities and technical schools offering biotech and related programs. The site also features a rating system that allows registered users to rate various biotechnology programs. This feature was added to help separate the great programs from the not-sop-great ones. In the future, we plan to start highlighting "Hidden Gem" programs section that helps schools with lower profiles and great programs receive more exposure. The sites members section is open to prospective students, students, professionals, teachers and biotech hobbyists.  A social media component is planned for the future.”

While the Biotechnology Degree Guide may not answer all of your questions, it certainly is a good place to start when considering a career in biotechnology!

Until next time...

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

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

While life sciences companies are still reluctant to take the “social media plunge,” many other companies (with active social media programs) frequently hire employees known as social media managers who oversee and run their social networks.  This is because successful social media websites require daily attention and are extremely time consuming and labor intensive. In general, employees who are hired for these jobs have strong backgrounds in social media and technology but frequently possess little expertise in the industry that they are working in. Because social media is so new, many hiring managers believe that the social media and technology skills of these managers are more important than an understanding of the industry that they work in. However, while this practice may be acceptable in other industries, it won’t be the case for the social media managers who oversee pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostics social media websites. These managers will likely be required to have a firm understanding of current rules and regulations guiding drug development and marketing and advertising of approved life sciences products. This will be necessary if the drug makers who hire these managers want to steer clear of regulatory scrutiny by the US Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies.

Based on my experiences as an industrial scientist and more recently as a social media manager, a person with a PhD degree with at least one course in regulatory affairs, good oral and written communication skills and an interest in social media ought to be an ideal candidate for these positions. To that end, those of you who may be interested in this newly, emerging career path option ought to begin training as soon as possible—these jobs will be in high demand at life sciences companies, medical communications agencies and conference organizers in the next year or so!

Until next time....

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

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

The medical  science  liaison  (MSL) professional focuses on providing scientific and educational  support  and collaboration between healthcare stakeholders like physicians, patients and and  bipharmaceutical companies.

PhDs have faced tremendous entry barriers to the MSL career for two major reasons. First, most PhDs lack clinical (or patient care) experience that are inherent in PharmD and MD training programs. Most PhD research projects deal with cells and mice — considered preclinical by industry standards. Second, and perhaps more insidious, is the perception that "PhDs lack people skills". People conjure stereotypes of scientists in white lab coats as eccentric, antisocial or lacking in social graces. Unfortunately, this perception also exists within biopharma, and PhDs aiming for alternative careers beyond the bench have to be prepared to "explain themselves".

PhDs who want to become a MSL can maximize their chances of breaking into this highly competitive career by doing the following:

Understand the mindset of MSL hiring managers

The biggest complaint I've heard over the years of coaching and mentoring aspiring MSLs is "they want MSL experience, but I can't get that unless I become a MSL". I've heard this so many times that I titled my MSL career book, "All MSLs Started with No MSL Experience!"  This catch-22 situation has evolved because many entry level MSL candidates don’t possess many of the basic skill sets that hiring managers are looking for. Consequently, hiring managers prefer experienced MSL candidates because they can be reasonably assured that person understands the “ins” and “outs” of what it takes to be an MSL.

Invest in tools, resources, and coaching
Perform due diligence and read everything you can about the MSL role. This six -figure career niche is extremely small, which makes the job market fiercely competitive. There is a dearth of "free" MSL resources because service providers in this niche make their living by focusing on the biopharma clients with big budgets.

Become a master networker

Networking is your only option to get into the minds of hiring managers or learn what you need to know if you can't or aren't willing to invest in tools, resources, or coaching related to the MSL career. You can start with your school's career center or the local postdoc association and see what resources may be available related to an MSL career.

Scientific complexity is increasing in treatment options as biologics are entering markets long dominated by small molecules. This is matched with cross-sector collaboration complexity, as biopharmaceutical companies navigate regulatory and public scrutiny. The MSL profession is only 40 years old, but the MSL role is becoming one of the "rising stars" of biopharma's career offerings. Look for the life sciences industry to hire increasing numbers of MSLs as more biotechnology products enter the market.

To learn more about the MSL career pathway please check out Jane’s new book, "All MSLs Started with No MSL Experience! The Guide to Becoming a Medical Science Liaison" or visit the MSL Jobs website to look for employment opportunities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• 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

Over the past three years, more than 90,000 pharmaceutical employees have been layed off. While many of these former employees were drug reps, a majority who lost their jobs were R&D scientists. If drug makers have already jettisioned tens of thousands of R&D jobs, how is the next generation of medicines going to be discovered and developed? Like it or not, pharmaceutical and biotechnology R&D is beginning to be outsourced—much like information technology (IT) was in the late 1990s. And, like the IT industry much of R&D is being outsourced to countries like India and China. This should not be surprising because for the past 20 years or so, most of the people receiving PhDs in the life sciences were foreign nationals—many of whom were unable to stay in the US because of post-9/11 immigration policies and visa quotas. Without many options, many had no choice but to return to their home countries to seek employment and in some at contract research organizations (CROs) that specialize in pharmaceutical and biotechnology R&D.

According to a recent article written by J B Gupta Senior Vice President Collaborative Research GVK Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. India, for the last five years or so, Indian CROs like GVK Biosciences, Aurigene, Syngene, Advinus, Jubilant, Suven Life Sciences, Sai Lab, Accunova, iGate etc. have been positioning themselves as purveyors of R&D services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. These efforts have apparently paid off! Companies like Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Forrest Laboratories, Eli Lilly & Co, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Serono, Wyeth, Bristol Myers Squibb and others have entered into strategic R&D partnerships with many of India’s leading CROs. 

A recent study by the Kauffman Foundation suggests that India better positioned and ahead of China in R&D outsourcing. Further, the pace at which discovery collaborations are being established in India suggests that the western pharmaceutical industry is looking to Indian CROs not only to cut costs but to innovate as well.

Unfortunately, while this doesn’t bode well for American scientists, the US has nobody to blame but itself. Wrong-headed immigration policies coupled with inadequate training for life scientists who want to pursue industrial careers are largely responsible for the current R&D outsourcing activities. Like IT, I suspect that outsourcing will work for some companies but not others. Nevertheless, I think that outsourcing is here to stay and like it or not American life scientists will have no choice but to adapt to the “new normal.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try India or China)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• 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

Are you a life sciences or healthcare professional with a passion for computers, IT or software development? If so, you might want to consider a career in health informatics—one of the hottest, new fields in the life sciences and healthcare industries. Health informatics specialists typically have expertise in medical records and claims, clinical care and programming. In other words, they have a foot in two worlds— medicine and technology — and can easily bridge the often daunting gap between them. It is important to point out that there is a difference between healthcare IT and informatics personnel. The health IT people run the servers and install software, but the informatics people are the ones who analyze and interpret clinical/ medical information and work with clinical and other healthcare staff to advise and help them.

According to an article in this Sunday’s NY Times, health informatics specialists usually start as computer programmers or as doctors, nurses, pharmacists or health record administrators. After earning a graduate health informatics degree, they find jobs as mid level or senior employees at hospitals, doctor’s offices, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or other organizations concerned with health data. Mid level jobs, like those for clinical analysts or informatics analysts, are usually about $70,000 a year, but salaries can be much higher for more senior level positions.  Senior level jobs, which sometimes require a Ph.D., include chief clinical information officer or other management/leadership roles at medical devices, life sciences or insurance companies. Consulting firms are also hiring health informatics experts to serve many of their health care clients who frequently don’t have the resources to hire permanent informatics staff.

At present there are no educational, licensing or credential requirements to become a health informaticist. However, a growing need for health informaticists has resulted in the creation of a number of degree programs at two and four year colleges and universities. For example, within the past four years, Columbia University, St. Louis University, the University of Minnesota and Oregon Health and Science University have all added master’s programs or certificates in health informatics. Other schools offer short courses or part-time certificate programs to healthcare employees or programmers. Still others are adding undergraduate majors or associates degrees programs to their curricula.

While many schools are beginning to offer health informatics programs, not all informatics programs are “created equal.” Generally speaking, “medical” or “biomedical” informatics programs focus on data that doctors need for treating patients. Bioinformatics” programs concentrate on biological or genetic data, while “health informatics” programs often emphasize clinical data and health records. Even among programs with the same name, the emphasis and expertise may vary at different institutions that offer the training.

By all accounts, health informatics —despite some early confusion—is one of the fastest growing careers in the bioscience and healthcare fields. Unlike other fields in the shrinking life sciences industry, there are plenty of jobs out there for health informaticists. Ironically, the failing US economy is what is driving the growth of the health informatics industry. The US government’s economic stimulus package has allocated $19 billion to hastening the adoption of electronic health records, so demand for health informatics specialists is skyrocketing. “My rough estimate is that we need about 70,000 health informaticists,” said Don E. Detmer, president and chief executive of the American Medical Informatics Association, a nonprofit industry group.

However, as a word of caution, it usually takes more than technical skills and an understanding of health care to succeed as a health informaticist. Diplomacy and conflict resolution skills are crucial when dealing with two potentially contentious groups: healthcare workers and programmers. Nevertheless, healthcare informatics is an ideal field for bioscientists and healthcare workers who also like to work with technology, computers or develop software. Based on my recent experiences as a bioscience career counselor, I know that there are thousands of you out there that fit this description. Now be the time to take a closer look at the exciting, new field of health informatics to determine whether or not it may be a career option for you!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Salmonella enteriditis, an organism dear to my heart (luckily not my posterior small intestine) is a common cause of food poisoning. As some of you may know, I did my PhD thesis work on Salmonella gastroenteritis (aka food poisoning) and I like to think that I am something of an expert on the topic. 

Typically, Salmonella food poisoning outbreaks are localized and rarely reach epidemic proportions. However, there have recently been two major nationwide Salmonella outbreaks in the US —one in 2007 and now in early 2009.

The current outbreak has afflicted 388 people in 42 states and may be caused by the same strain (Saint Paul) that was responsible for the 2007 outbreak. Ultimately, the 2007 outbreak was linked to contaminated tomatoes. The jury is still out on the cause of the most recent outbreak. Needless to say, CDC scientists are scurrying to quickly identify the source of the current outbreak because it took the agency over 5 months to conclusively identify the culprit in the 2007 epidemic. Not surprisingly, many grocery stores and restaurants suffered financially because of the outbreak.

Many of you may be wondering why Salmonella food poisoning is becoming such a problem in the US. I don’t believe that the strains responsible for the most recent outbreaks are more virulent than the ones that have traditionally caused more localized outbreaks. Instead, the reliance of food manufacturers and grocery store chains on one or two major food distributors (rather than multiple suppliers) is likely responsible for the severity and breadth of these nationwide outbreaks. This suggests that regulatory agencies ought to more closely scrutinize the microbiological quality of the operations of the major distributors. I believe that those efforts would greatly reduce the likelihood of future major outbreaks of food poisoning.

Until next time.

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid raw vegetables, undercooked poultry and raw eggs)
 

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

I became a medical/science writer after a rather circuitous, unconventional and sometimes, checkered career. Along the way, I learned a few things that I thought would be important to share with other PhDs who are seeking to change careers, t broaden their horizons and or simply to bring home a paycheck! I am sure that I missed a few things but here are my top 10 reasons to consider a career in medical/science writing:

10. Academic and industrial jobs are scare 
9.   No postdoctoral training is required
8.   Previous industrial experience is not a prerequisite for employment
7.   No laboratory work must be done to publish
6.   Starting salaries range from $40-$50 per hour or $75-90K annually 
5    There is a growing need for therapeutic area content experts
4.   Assignments change regularly and there is an enormous of amount of flexibility in when    and how you work 
3    Although a writer doesn’t perform any laboratory work, there is an opportunity to utilize the scientific skill sets (data analysis, thinking and problem solving) that you learned during your graduate training
2.   Even when times get tough, writers are always in high demand because publishing is the life blood of science
1.  You enjoy writing, thinking creatively and working with an eclectic bunch of people who are not scientists!

Until next time..... 

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

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

The social development of the web 2.0 has largely bypassed science. Hugely popular websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Digg, Delicious and the like have millions of members and generate huge amounts of traffic. But those who use these sites come from all walks of life. None are devoted solely to science.

With this in mind, it would seem that social networking sites that cater to scientists would have special value and appeal. A few have been launched —but there is certainly room for improvement.

This fall, Vincent Racaniello at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and I will launch BioCrowd.com, a new social network designed by scientists (Vincent and me) for bioscientists (and others in the life sciences) who wish to connect with others to advance, promote or shape their careers.

Please visit the home page to sign up to be notified when we launch. BioCrowd will combine the interactivity of sites like Facebook and the networking capabilities of LinkedIn to help to advance your career in the biosciences.

Be part of  "The BioCrowd" !!!!!!!!

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

Yes, even the Ivy League isn’t immune to food poisoning outbreaks from time-to-time. There are currently 10 confirmed cases of Salmonella food poisoning at Princeton U. Another 50 people or so have also fallen ill with gastrointestinal symptoms consistent with Salmonella food poisoning.  As a precaution, university officials have temporarily discontinued doing business with their produce suppliers. For those of you who don’t know, Princeton is famous (infamous?) for its so-called dining clubs. These clubs take the place of sororities and fraternities which are not allowed at this august institution of higher education. Obviously, there is more than eating that goes on at these “dining clubs.”

The reason I am blogging about the outbreak is two-fold. First, I live about seven miles from Princeton and it has been all over the local news. Second, I did my PhD work on the pathogenesis of Salmonella gastroenteritis. So, Salmonella food poisoning is dear to my heart (thankfully, not my gastrointestinal tract). Many infectious disease experts tend to dismiss the seriousness of Salmonella gastroenteritis. This is likely because it is usually not as devastating as shigellosis or infections caused by enteroinvasive strains of Escherichia coli (which is actually Shigella masquerading as E. coli). As my major professor once put it “You know when you have Salmonella gastroenteritis—if you can’t decide than it is not salmonellosis.”

I am happy to report that I never came down with gastroenteritis while working for over three years with enteroinvasive Salmonella strains (even though I was routinely mouth pipetting and eating lunch in the lab; practices which aren’t acceptable by today’s standards). I like to think that “the bugs” were afraid of me. Alternatively I had either a great immune system or extremely good aseptic techniques. Whatever the reason, it is always embarrassing when card-carrying microbiologists come down with the disease(s) that they are studying. Luckily, I never came down with the disease caused by the bacterium that I was studying during my first postdoctoral fellowship—Neisseria gonorrhoeae. That would have been extremely difficult to explain!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (remember to wash your hands)!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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