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

As the old saying goes, nobody is indispensable.  On the heels of Friday's report about US unemployment reaching 6.1 per cent, I learned that my contract medical writing position would be ending 4 months sooner than expected.  I worked at the company for 1.5 years and was excepting to finish out a two-year stint.

Of course, given the precarious financial state of the pharmaceutical industry, I had been looking and was able to find several opportunities that may translate into freelance gigs or possible employment. That said, if anybody out there is looking for an experienced medical/science/promotional writer, please feel free to contact me by sending a comment to this post or via e-mail: cmintz@bioinsights.com.

I hope that your luck is better than mine!!!!!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (I will be looking too)!!!!!!!!!

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

 I previously wrote a piece which suggested that being perceived as smart is typically what separates the great scientists from the mediocre ones. To that end, whenever a former postdoctoral mentor (who I think is really smart) wanted to “motivate me” he would invariably say “C’mon Cliff, you’re a smart guy…..” Of course, the implication was that I wasn’t being smart enough or —as I heard it — “if you want to be as smart as me you better think harder and better”. According to a post by Karen Ventii at the Science to Life Blog, I wasn’t the only fledging scientist who was treated this way.

Does making a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow feel stupid motivate or hurt them? To learn more, read this provocative article by Martin Schwartz, PhD a professor at the University of Virginia that appeared in the April 28, 2008 issue of the Journal of Cell Science.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By now, you may have guessed that I am supporting Obama for President. My good friend Jack Goldenberg has created several Obama watch designs that he will be selling at the Democratic Convention in Denver, Co June 25-28, 2008.  For those of you attending, look for Jack and buy a watch (they are really elegant and cool).  If you are unable to attend the convention you can buy a watch online at Jack’s store. Use promotional code CLF and get a 15% discount!

Go Obama….

Until next time….

Good Luck and Campaign for Obama!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

Kevin’s selections this month contains a wide variety of sites ranging from an Australian museum guide, to wildlife parks in Tasmania and online information-sharing and management capabilities.  If leeches are your thing check out this site and if you are a dragonfly aficionado this site will do the trick. An interesting site called the Fallacy Files provides insight into fallacies or so-called mistakes in reasoning.

As a sometimes medical writer, the site that piqued my interest was www.connotea.org— an online reference and information sharing-service.  The site provides you with easy and ready access to references, data and other information stored in your account on the site.  Kevin really likes this site and says “Connotea scores big time with this valuable tool for scientists.”  Check it out….

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Web Surfing

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

The web is filled with wonderful and interesting sites that are useful to many scientists.  Unfortunately, most of us don't have the time to surf around the web to find them!  Luckily, Kevin Ahern has the time (or more likely has found the time) to do what most of us can't. To that end, I created a new category on BioJobBlog called Around the Web to post the results of Kevin's hard and much appreciated work.

Each month, I will provide a link to Kevin's "Best of the Web" report that he creates for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News and provide my own commentary on the sites that he showcased that I found most useful or interesting.

Until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As a self-anointed career development professional, I frequently read blogs and online articles dealing with jobs and career development advice. That said,  I happened upon a piece in Yahoo Education entitled “Risky Business: Finding Job Security in Tough Times”. The article featured careers that may provide greater than average job security to employees. Everything was going great until I read the no. 4 career on the list–Medical Scientist– I kid you not. This is what the author had to say about medical/life scientists:

 “With increases in funding for treating cancer, AIDS, mental illness, and other diseases, corporate pharmaceutical, biotech, and university research labs need more people to develop vaccines and treatment drugs. Depending on your medical specialty, you'll typically need a master's degree or PhD. Often M.D.-holders choose research work over medical practice. You can begin traveling this path by earning a bachelor's degree in a biological science, and focusing on chemistry, biology, statistics, and research methods. Salaries in private sector biotech firms are typically higher than those offered at the college research level. There are also jobs with government medical-research agencies. Median salary range: $44,830 to $88,130.”

I ‘m not sure where the author has been or what she has been smoking but it seems to me that she is not in sync with industry trends. Maybe I ought to write to her and ask her to send me a list of companies that are currently hiring. I guess you really can’t believe everything that you read!

Until next time….

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

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

People who become scientists spend many years learning how to design, conduct, collect and analyze data from the experiments that they conduct. The ultimate goal of this seemingly endless exercise is to craft peer-reviewed publications that either support or refute the underlying hypotheses used to initiate the experiments in the first place. As part of our training, we are repeatedly reminded that it is our obligation to fastidiously and accurately report the results of our experiments and to assume “full ownership of the manuscripts and publications" that we author. The idea of allowing a person who didn’t participate in the design or execution of the research, to craft a manuscript for peer review is something that is virtually unheard of in the scientific community and, in the minds of some scientists, tantamount to scientific misconduct or fraud.

Physicians, on the other hand, who don’t learn how to conduct research or write scientific papers during their medical training, are frequently poor writers and have a little or no time to spend on writing scientific or medical manuscripts. Because of this, it is not uncommon for physicians who conduct medical research on behalf of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices companies to hire medical writers to write manuscripts for them. In fact, many physicians who work with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies prefer and expect this arrangement. So, why the recent commotion over medical “ghostwriting”?

Drug companies typically hire medical communication agencies to develop and craft manuscripts that showcase the results of clinical or research studies that they have conducted. These companies will usually provide an agency with background information about a study, a research summary, clinical study reports, ideas or titles for proposed manuscript and a list of prospective authors (usually physicians who performed the studies on behalf of the company).  Medical writers, who are either employed by the agency or work as freelancers use these materials to craft a detailed outline for the proposed manuscript. After the outline is completed, the agency usually shares the outline with physicians who were named on the list to determine who may be interested in authoring the publication. After an author is identified, the medical writer works closely with the author to develop a first draft of the manuscript. After the draft is reviewed by the author, changes are made to the draft, a revised version is circulated and the process is repeated until all stakeholders are satisfied with the manuscript. Once the publication has been copyedited and undergone legal and regulatory review it is submitted for peer review.

For the record, in my five years as a medical writer, I have never encountered a situation where the primary author doesn’t have final say over what will and won’t appear in a manuscript. When scientific, medical or business disagreements do arise, the author(s), medical writer and company representatives usually negotiate mutually-agreed upon solutions. Rarely, have I seen a company remove an author from a publication because his/her views or interpretations of the data were not consistent with those of the company that sponsored the research. The reason why drug companies and medical communication agencies have recently come under fire for their “ghostwriting” practices is because they have repeatedly failed to disclose that many of their publications were written by medical writers —whose names didn’t appear anywhere on the publications. Although this practice still exists, it is no longer as widespread or commonplace as it once was. These days, the names of medical writers who author manuscripts routinely appear in the acknowledgement sections of many scientific and medical publications. Moreover, in some instances, a medical writer may be able to garner co-author status on a publication —depending upon his/her level of involvement in the project. 

In my opinion, there is little difference between graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and medical writers when it comes to preparing manuscripts for publication. It is not uncommon for the names of PIs, supervisors and others to appear as authors on publications even though their contribution to a project (or preparation of a manuscript) has been limited or nominal at best. Consequently, I fail to see any credible legal or ethical arguments against hiring a medical writer to write manuscript on behalf of an “author” as long as the “author” can demonstrate that he/she actively participated or was intimately associated with study design, conduct or analysis. Finally, to maintain the integrity and transparency of the medical writing process, it is imperative that medical writers who prepare manuscripts on behalf of study authors should be acknowledged or credited with “authorship” somewhere in a publication.

Until next time….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time….

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As you all know, the brackets for this year’s NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament were revealed Sunday evening. As I have done for the past 20 years, I waited until this morning to find a detailed, printed version of the brackets to use for my office pool. That said, I was pleasantly surprised this morning to see that the sports editor of the NY Times decided to arrange the teams that did (and didn’t) make the tournament in a “basketball version” of the periodic table of the elements!

I want it on record that I am not a big fan of inorganic chemistry. However, I must admit that the New York Times rendering of team participation in this year’s tournament was innovative, creative and refreshing. Why, I bet that even Mendeleev – the guy who is credited with creating the first periodic table in 1869– would have been very pleased and proud of the NY Times’ effort! Does anybody know whether basketball was invented by 1869?

I say BRAVO to the NY Times for divining a creative way to make a connection between sports and science. I think that similar efforts ought to be attempted to convince American children (and possibly “grown ups”) that science can be “cool” and as much fun as sports! American science literacy is trending to an all time low. This trend must be reversed so that America can regain a  global competitive edge in science and engineering.

Again, kudos to the NY Times!

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We all know (or should know) that eating dirty or yellow snow is a big “no-no”. Those of us who are parents (and live in regions where there are regular snowfalls) teach our children this lesson as quickly as possible. That said, should parents worry when their children eat new or freshly falling snow because it contains air-borne bacteria? 

Last week, a group of scientists at Louisiana State University reported in Science magazine that there may be a relationship between ice-nucleating, air-borne bacteria and global rainfall patterns. For those of you who don’t know, the formation of ice in clouds is required for snow and most rainfall. Although dust and soot particles serve as ice nucleation particles, bacterial ice nuclei are capable of catalyzing freezing more quickly at much warmer temperatures and their presence in the atmosphere may affect the processes that trigger precipitation. Results from the Science study suggested that bacteria like Pseudomonas syringae, which have long been know to serve as nucleators and induce ice formation, are widely distributed in the atmosphere and likely play critical roles in influencing the amount of rain that falls at various locations in the world–pretty cool new stuff for those of us interested in global warming and climate change in general. Therefore, it surprised me when I saw that lay newspaper reporters chose to “cherry pick” data from the paper to suggest to Americans that even freshly fallen snow contains large numbers of bacteria and that, perhaps, parents should be careful when they allow their children to eat snow!

As a card-carrying microbiologist and seasoned science educator, I want to assure all of you that eating freshly fallen snow will not cause disease in you or your children. The types of bacteria found in the atmosphere, and ultimately in snow, are not human pathogens and don’t cause disease. Thankfully, in a story entitled “Study: Driven snow isn’t all that Pure” that appeared in my local paper (The Trenton Times)– a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health was quoted as saying ; “We eat stuff that’s covered with bacteria all the time, and for the most part, it is killed in the stomach.” Another pediatrician, who is a member of the academy’s committee on infectious diseases, reinforced the claim that snow munching was not harmful and said “Children practically bathe in bacterial when they go to the playground and they won’t get anything from snow that they would not get from dirt.”  

Although most of the stories about bacteria and snow munching that appeared in the lay media were “fluff pieces”, they did alarm some parents! As one mother said in the Trenton Times article: “When I heard bacteria, at first, I went “eeeewwww”. But as long as the kids eat snow as it’s falling, I think it is okay. I tell them not to eat it if it’s on the ground.” What was particularly troubling about her remark was her initial negative reaction to the mere mention of the word bacteria. Unfortunately, most Americans have little understanding about bacteria and the negative impressions that they have formed are based on the sensationalistic and often scientifically inaccurate pieces about “dangerous” bacteria and fungi (mold) that often appear in print media and on television.

In my opinion, America’s negative attitude and poor understanding of science is a consequence of ongoing, misguided science reporting that has plagued this country for years. Although the American lay news media is mostly responsible for this, scientists are also complicit because of their unwillingness or inability to publicly speak out on important scientific issues and problems.

I believe that scientists are obliged to do everything in their powers to ensure that lay science reporting is fair and balanced and that the correct scientific messages reach the American public. Our failure to act will surely jeopardize the future of American science–something that we Americans can ill afford. Enough said–have a plate of snow on me!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Like it or not, writing a carefully-constructed resume or curriculum vitae (as resumes are known in scientific circles) is a vital part of any successful job search. Inexperienced job seekers tend to hastily craft resumes without paying much attention to format, style or content and then wonder why they can’t land job interviews. The best way to approach resume writing is to think of a resume as a work of art–something that requires a lot of thought, creativity and attention to detail. As one well-known professional recruiter and job search expert put it”Trying to find a job without a smart, well-crafted resume is like showing up for dinner at a fancy restaurant in a T-shirt and cutoffs. They won’t let you in.” 

I think that it is important for job seekers to think of a resume as a personal marketing brochure that will either land a job candidate interviews or turn a job search into a long, arduous and frustrating process.

The primary goal of a resume is to show prospective employers how you are different than other applicants and why you and not they ought to get the job! So, what are the salient features of a winning resume?

Writing tips

Hiring managers, professional recruiters and human resource professionals tend to quickly scan resumes that they receive and make snap judgments. Therefore, your qualifications and personal attributes must “jump off the paper.” This can easily be accomplished by using bold type, headings, underlining, bulleting and varying font sizes–all of which are simple ways to visually call attention to your strengths. Avoid using paragraphs because they are dense and difficult for hiring managers to navigate.

Powerful, action-oriented, emotional words produce a strong, positive impression. Unfortunately, we scientists have been trained to write in the “passive voice.” That said; try to resist using the passive voice as much as possible when crafting your resume–think outside the box!

Job Objective or Summary Statement

I am sure that somebody has told you at one time or another to include an “objective” on your resume. Objectives tend to be boring, vague and passively delivered. Instead, I highly recommend that you craft a vibrant, action-oriented, can-do “Summary of Qualifications” that accurately reflects and highlights why you are a “right fit” candidate for the job. To that end, it may be necessary to craft more than one summary of qualifications if you are applying for several different types of jobs. For example, your summary statement for an R&D job should be markedly different than the one that you would use to land a business development job.

Which of the following examples do you think better positions the job candidate?

Objective: To obtain a research scientist position at a pharmaceutical company

Or

Summary of Qualifications: Experienced scientist with expertise in protein purification and microarray technology. Exceptional leadership abilities and outstanding oral and written communication skills. Able to work independently or as part of a multidisciplinary team.

Professional Experience

Resumes can be constructed either chronologically or functionally. Chronological resumes, which are most common, list content in temporal order and should be used for either lateral job moves or when seeking a promotion or looking for a new job to advance your career. When crafting a chronological resume, jobs or work experience must be listed from most recent to past. In contrast, functional resumes offer content based on skills and are most effective for individuals who are seeking career changes. Functional resumes should present your skills in the order of importance for the new career that you are pursuing. 

It is important to stress that only information relevant to the position should be included in a resume. Unrelated job titles or skills can sometimes confuse hiring managers and may cause them to pass on a qualified candidate. As mentioned above, most hiring managers and employers are simply too busy to read all of the resumes that they receive. Resumes that are chosen for further considerations are typically the ones that contain pertinent, job-specific information that is presented in a straightforward and unambiguous manner.

If you switch jobs frequently or have gaps in your experience put the dates of employment in the far right hand column of the resume (we read from left to right so sometimes dates of employment are overlooked) or hide the job-changing by combining or grouping several jobs together to appear as one. Also, employment dates ought to be listed as years; not the exact start and stop dates of employment, e.g., dates should appear as 2001-2002 not July 10, 2001-January 15, 2002.

Tailoring Your Resume

A resume is not just a list of what you have done and where you have been. It is your opportunity to present and highlight the skills that you possess and how those skills translate into making you the right-fit candidate for a particular job. Quantifying or embellishing achievements and using strong, definitive statements elevate and add authenticity to you as a job candidate.

Which of these examples sounds better?

Designed and directed experiments to study Alzheimer’s disease

                                                            Or

Designed and carried out experiments that identified a key protein in amyloid plaque formation

For each position that you apply, it is critically important to list all relevant experience in the order of perceived importance to the hiring manager or employer. Carefully reviewing job descriptions will allow you to quickly and easily identify those things that are most important to the employer. What is seen first means the most! 

When necessary resumes should be tailored so that as many of your skill sets and accomplishments match what was stated in the job description. This means, that it is highly unlikely that you will be able to use the same resume/CV for all of the jobs that you are interested in. To insure success, I highly recommend that you take the time to customize or tailor each resume/CV that you submit to prospective employers.  When I was looking for a new job several years ago, I crafted no fewer than 20 different resumes!

Odds n Ends

Many of you may have heard that resumes should be no longer than one or two pages in length. While this may be the convention for other fields, it is certainly not applicable to CVs or scientific resumes. That said, it is a good idea to limit the length of your CV/resume because, outside of academic circles, nobody has the time nor the inclination to read a CV that is half an inch thick! When I was working as a professional recruiter, it typically took me a minute or less after scanning a resume/CV to determine whether I had identified a “right-fit” candidate. Candidates whose CVs are too long, overly verbose or difficult to decipher rarely make it to the interview stage. I subscribe to the notion that less is more and simple is elegant!

When listing your educational background, I recommend that present your lowest degree first (associate or bachelor) and end with your most advanced degree or educational experience, e.g. postdoctoral fellowships or professional school. The name and location of the institution that awarded the degree and your major or area of expertise should be listed with each. It is perfectly reasonable to list the names of your graduate or postdoctoral advisor in this section (if you think that a mention will help your candidacy). You may also want to include your thesis title if you wrote a masters or PhD thesis. It is not necessary to list the dates that the degree was awarded. By listing the dates that you received your undergraduate and graduate degrees, an employer may be able to deduce your age. While this may not be a bad thing for entry level employees, it may hinder more experienced job seekers from securing new positions.

Membership in professional societies, organizations or clubs should be listed in a section that is separate from your educational background. Any invited lectures or presentations may also be listed under a separate heading. Also, it is important to list any extracurricular activities or specialized skill sets that you think may be relevant to the positions that for which you are applying. For example, letting prospective employers know that you were an Olympic swimmer or president of the debate team may be what differentiates you from other equally-qualified job candidates.

All of your publications should be listed on the last page of your CV in a section entitled Publications.  If you are just starting your career, it is permissible to list along with your peer reviewed publications all of your abstracts, poster presentations, etc. However, if you are mid-career professional, I strongly recommend that you list only peer-reviewed publications, review articles, books and book chapters and eschew the abstracts. Any manuscripts that are “in press” should be listed. That said,  I don’t think that it is appropriate to include “submitted” manuscripts –this signals to prospective employers that you may not think that your publication list is long enough to warrant consideration.

Never send your references to prospective employers unless they specifically ask for them. Simply indicate somewhere on your resume/CV that references are available upon request. For most academic jobs, it is customary to ask for references at the beginning of the application process. For industrial jobs, references are not requested unless an employer is interested in moving forward with specific job candidates.

Finally, it is vital that you understand that your resume is a required first step in the job search process. A carefully crafted resume/CV that indicates to prospective employers that you are the right woman/man for the job will likely get you to the interview stage. After that…it is all up to you.   Look for the next installment of the series on interviewing skills and tips.

Click here to see the wrong way to write a resume and here for an example of one that resulted in a job offer.

Until next time….

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

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

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 (1)
• Trackbacks

For those of you who are interested, I wrote an article about contract work in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry that appeared in Science Careers about a week ago.

As many of you may know, I am a contractor so I can "walk the walk and talk the talk".  That said, for those of you looking for employment try contracting on for size.  You may like it!  Borrowing from Garrett Morris a fomer '70s Saturday Night Live alum "Contracting has been berry  berry good to me"!

Until Next Time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If you are contemplating a career move, check out the new list from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that projects the fastest-growing  jobs from 2006 to 2016.

Forecast percentage growth from 2006 to 2016

Network/data analysts (53%)

Personal and home care aids (51%)

Home health aides (49%)

Software engineers (45%)

Veterinary technicians (41%)

Personal finance advisors (41%)

Theatrical makeup artists (40%)

Medical assistants (35%)

Veterinarians (35%)

Substance abuse and behavorial disorder counselors (34%)

A quick perusal of the list reveals that most of the jobs are service-oriented with perhaps the exception of software engineers and maybe veterinarians. We Americans do love our pets and who doesn’t like a good Broadways show or Hollywood film. Of course, it goes without saying that we have a need for many more personal finance advisors and, given all the stress associated with becoming rich, who can argue against an increased need for substance abuse and behavioral disorder counselors?  After looking at the list, do you think we should begin to worry a little about America’s loss of competitiveness in science and technology? 

 

Until next time….

 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (if there are any left by 2016)!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The US has fallen further behind in science education. According to a report in my local paper, “A recent test of 15-year-old students from around the world showed that U.S. students ranked 29th out of 57 countries when it comes to science literacy. Worse yet, the U.S. ranked below the international average score, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The international study, conducted every three years by the Programme for International Student Assessment, tested 400,000 15-year-olds on literacy in science, math and reading last year. This most recent study placed a special emphasis on science because, as the report stated, solving scientific problems in today's society is "more important than ever."

The students from Finland scored the highest in the study, followed by students from Hong Kong/China, Canada and Estonia. The poor performance by the United States should not be taken simply as more bad news. Instead, it should be used as a rallying point for educators and politicians to begin to develop and implement strategies to improve science and math education.

If the current trends are not reversed, American students may have difficulty competing in science with international students, the result of which will mean fewer jobs for Americans in science-related fields in the coming years and a long- term negative impact on the American economy.”

This is nothing new. Others and I have been talking about the lack of science preparedness in the US for the past decade. Unfortunately, when it comes to education nobody really pays attention except to pass numbskull educational initiatives like “No Child Left Behind.” Sure, why not spend hundreds of million on standardized testing so that we can assess the effectiveness of primary and secondary education in the US. And then, let’s pat ourselves on the back when test results indicate that students are passing the tests at higher rates each year. I am sure that the rest of the world is quite impressed!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (if we can compete)!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks