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

After announcing yesterday that it will be reorganizing and closing 6 of 20 R&D sites worldwide, Pfizer/Wyeth announced today that as many as 2000 R&D scientists will lose their jobs. I suspect that others will lose their jobs in the next few months or so.

The Pfizer/Wyeth and Merck Schering Plough mergers signal the beginning of the end of the traditional vertically integrated pharmaceutical business model. It is evident that pharma is shifting away from its almost 100 year focus on R&D and manufacturing to less labor intensive and costly activities like advertising, marketing, sales and distribution—things that drug makers have excelled in the past decade or so. Innovation will likely no longer come from within but from external sources including academia, biotechnology companies and third party vendors including CROs and CMOs.   

While the loss of thousands of R&D scientists will have little impact on the productivity and operations of life sciences companies themselves, it has serious implications for academic institutions that train life sciences graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. In the past, PhD scientists who were unable to find academic jobs too refuge and found gainful employment in the life sciences industry. However, American industrial R&D jobs are becoming harder and harder to find as larger companies continue to outsource those activities, to Asia, South America and Eastern Europe. And, the competition for the remaining jobs is becoming increasingly fierce. Put simply, academic institutions have to begin to realize that we no longer need as many PhD-trained life scientists as we have in the past. At present, there is a glut of PhD life scientists in the US, many of whom can’t find jobs. Perhaps, this should be taken into account before graduate school admissions committees determine the number of new graduate students they will admit next year.

Until next time...

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

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

Employees of Pfizer/Wyeth were notified earlier today of impending changes and consolidation that will be taking place at the newly combined company. According to internal sources, Cambridge, MA, Groton, CT and Pearl River, NY will be the main centers of the combined company’s East Coast operations and San Francisco and La Jolla/San Diego CA will represent West Coast operations. In Europe, the research facility in Sandwich, England will be the main R&D center with a network of smaller sites, in locations such as Montreal, Ottawa, Cambridge UK, Aberdeen UK, and Dusseldorf, Germany providing expertise in vaccine production and biomanufacturing. The company’s China R&D Center in Shanghai will remain the focal point of operations in Asia,

There will be substantial reductions in headcount and the company’s R&D footprint. These include:

• The former Pfizer headquarters in New London, CT, which will be consolidated into the nearby Groton, CT site. Functions currently located at New London will be relocated to Groton
• Elimination of all R&D activities at Princeton, NJ; Sanford and the Research Triangle Park, NC; Chazy, NY; Rouses Point and Plattsburgh, NY; Gosport, Slough and Taplow, UK
• R&D activity will be substantially reduced at the Collegeville, PA and Pearl River, NY sites. Pearl River will remain a center for vaccine and biopharmaceutical development

I suspect that many of the employees who will lose their jobs as a result of the consolidation have already been or will be notified shortly of their fates. It is unfortunate that pharmaceutical companies continue to lay off thousands of employees when the US unemployment rate continues to rise and will likely hit 12 to 13 percent before it is all said and done. As expected, the combined company is reducing its US R&D operations and will likely outsource or purchase these activities from external sources. It is not a good time to be an American R&D scientist.

Until next time...

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

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

I just returned from the 2009 Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS) that was held in Phoenix last week. I attended ABRCMS for the first time last year and decided that it was a meeting not to be missed in 2009. Once again the students (mainly undergraduate life sciences majors) were outstanding, knowledgeable and exceedingly professional—something that is frequently missing or absent in their non-minority counterparts. Like last year, every major academic institution, professional society and research organization attended the meeting to recruit minority students to their programs. However, despite the similarities to last year’s meeting, there were several noticeable differences that are worth pointing out.

First, the number of women undergraduate life sciences major who attended the meeting was substantially greater than the number of men in attendance. This shift is indicative of enrollment changes that are taking place in medicine, law and life sciences graduate programs where women now outnumber men. Second, many more students were seeking career development counseling and resume critiquing this year as compared with last year. This likely has much to do with the ongoing financial crisis and rising unemployment which now exceed 10% nationally. Third, many more students I talked with this year were interested in attending graduate school rather than medical school. This shift may have something to do with anticipated changes to the US medical profession that may result from healthcare reform. Alternatively, more minority students are interested in research as compared with medicine and related healthcare professions. 

Finally, the conference keynote address offered by Mae C. Jemison, MD a former astronaut and life science entrepreneur was one of the most inspirational and informative talks that I have ever heard about career opportunities in the life sciences. Dr. Jemison clearly articulated her belief that society ought to stop differentiating between artists and scientists. Further, she added that the two professions are not mutually exclusive from one another! This is likely because, she, in addition to her medical interests, is a professional dancer/choreographer and also a fashion designer. Coincidentally, earlier that morning I was talking with several female scientists who also happened to be life long dancers and choreographers.  I urged them to continue to draw on their dancing experience to channel that creativity to their research. It was humbling to learn that someone as successful and talented as Dr. Jamison shares many of my beliefs and ideas.

On the plane trip back to New Jersey, I happened to sit next to a young assistant professor from Princeton University who will likely earn tenure next year (he was invited to apply for an early decision). Like most other scientists, he initially challenged my notion that PhD students and postdoctoral fellows ought to be offered courses— or at the very least some information about non-academic careers—before they complete their training. After all, only about 10% to 15% of US life sciences PhDs are able to land tenure track positions upon completion of their training. Initially, many of his remarks were expected: “If you want a job you should go to medical school or law school or do something else...nobody said that getting a PhD would help you find a job” and “we train students for academic jobs because it is a way for us to ensure and preserve our legacy as scientists.” It was a good thing that I had my seat belt on at the time because I almost bolted out of my seat after hearing that!  I tactfully (which isn’t easy for me as those who know me will tell you) suggested to him that that kind of thinking is blatantly self-serving and extremely egotistical. Further, I suggested that it is ethically and morally disingenuous for tenured faculty members to continue to train students for jobs that they know don’t exist anymore.  Luckily, he is young and open minded and ultimately conceded that the system is kind of broken and perhaps things need to change. He also offered that he, (unlike most of the people who I trained with the exception of my PhD advisor) discusses career options with his students (some of whom aren’t interested in academic careers) and helps them in any way he can to realize their goals and dreams. Finally, I suggested to him that offering students and postdoctoral fellows some formal courses or training in alternate career options will likely have better performance and outcomes for students and faculty members as compared with continuing to keep them in the dark about career choices and job prospects.

While there is still much work to be done, it appears that younger faculty members are finally recognizing that traditional academic training paradigms may be anachronistic and changes may be necessary for the US to continue to train the best and the brightest!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

I was sitting around minding my own business (well sort of) and I received the following e-mail message. People must be reading BioJobBlog or something!

In the middle of the worst national job market since the early 1980's, Roche Pharma Research in Nutley, New Jersey is hiring. Specifically, this world class R&D center is seeking to hire 40 scientists to strengthen its research efforts to develop drugs to combat inflammatory diseases like arthritis and asthma.

In addition to Inflammation, Nutley continues to be the headquarters for Roche's Oncology Disease Biology Area, as well as RNA Therapeutics (an emerging area in understanding how genes are turned on and off in cells).

Focusing on drug discovery and non-clinical development, the site has a long tradition of discovering innovative new medicines.

Marcie Geremakis of Roche HR is available to discuss the efforts to recruit the new scientists and why Nutley is an outstanding environment for scientists.  A number of scientists are available to discuss the following:

• Roche's cutting edge scientific approaches to drug discovery focused on meeting the demands of the emerging need for personalized healthcare.

• Roche's intent to provide its scientists with the environment necessary to push forward novel ideas while challenging old paradigms.
• The ability to use state-of-the-art technology and collaborate with Roche's world class scientists across the globe engaged in biomarker discovery, novel biologics platforms, RNAi and diagnostics.

With well over 100 projects in research and more than 60 New Molecular Entities in development, Roche’s pipeline is among the best in the pharmaceuticals industry.

Please call me at 212-468-4306 or e-mail me at jillian.chertok@mslworldwide.com if you would like any additional information, or are interested in scheduling a time to speak with Marcie or one of the scientists at Roche. 

I must disclose that I have no financial arrangement with this agency nor have I ever done business with them before.  But, I figured if there are jobs to be had in this economy I ought to pass them on to folks who are looking.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

I don’t want to brag but I have been touting career options in health informatics and health information technology (HIT) for the past year or so. Today, I came across a post by CareerBuilders declaring health informatics and HIT are the hottest new career trends to hit the market in recent years. As the drive towards digitizing medical and healthcare records continue, there will be literally thousands of job opportunities for people with the right skill set. This is what the post had to say about health informatics and HIT careers and job opportunities. 

Health Informatics
Health informatics will put technology in place that provides hospitals and other health-care providers with access to an electronic network of vital patient information such as like medical histories and prescriptions. The information age finally meets healthcare administration.

The facts
The health informatics initiative won’t succeed unless employees — that’s you! — bring the specialized skills needed to build and expand the network. All other pieces are in place:

• The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes $20.6 billion to help providers drive adoption and development of the IT infrastructure needed
• The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects health information management employment to grow nearly 18 percent by 2016
• The BLS projects a need for more than 6,000 new professionals each year through 2014 — but only 2,600 graduates have entered the field this past year 

Your opportunity
To succeed, health informatics (HIM) will demand a wide variety of specialized positions across IT and health care. It will engage conventional experience from both areas — such as registered nurses and LPNs/LVNs, or IT implementation specialists and IT project managers — if you’re looking for a new twist on your current career.

But new positions will also thrive in this hybrid field. Look for new HIM job titles in your next job search, like health IT professionals, HIM coders, HIM medical records professionals and various health informatics specialists, including trainers, researchers and analysts.

Get online to check out the job titles mentioned above and listed below for related descriptions, and see if you might need any additional training to meet requirements: 

Nursing
- Telemedicine clinical professionals

- Chief nursing information officers

- Clinical IT liaisons 

Health-care administration
- Medical and health services managers

- Document scanners

- Data entry clerks

- File clerks

IT specialists
- Senior programmers

- Senior clinical analysts

- Database analysts

- Developers

- Business analysts

- Software engineers

- Data integration specialists

Not too shabby of a list! In a previous blog post I identified a variety of training options for people interested in pursuing careers in health informatics and HIT. Check it out!

Until next time....

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

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

The bad news is that the US unemployment rate is close to 10 percent. The good news is that the government is looking for scientists at FDA, NIH, USDA, CDC, EPA and other agencies. For those of you who haven’t applied for a government job, the process can be daunting and overwhelming. To alleviate some of the pain, Cyndi Fischer, MSA at the BioCareer Center has written a post on the salient features of filling out a job application for a government job!

Capturing Your Worth in a Government Job Application 

You’d like to consider government employment but are not sure where to start. You know the government has a generous compensation and benefit plan, can offer long term employment stability, and in most cases its employees do not need to seek research grants or funding to continue their rewarding scientific work. Sounds like a dream, so why haven’t you applied? Perhaps you’ve heard that it’s hard to get a government job, that the hiring process is mysterious, slow and a confusing maze of information. While some of those concerns are valid some of the time, government employment has such positive benefits it is indeed a career path you don’t want to overlook. The most important thing to remember about applying for a government position is that all the items that appear to be drawbacks to you in the application phase, are really set in place to ensure that the most qualified candidate, hopefully you, will get the job!

So what do you need to know to ensure that you have the best shot at being considered for a coveted research position within the government? First you must apply to a vacancy announcement published by the government in order to be considered, and subsequently offered employment. Almost all government entities now use an automated system to post vacancy announcements and receive applications. The most widely used website to post vacancy announcements is USAJOBS.opm.gov. Once you have established an account on the site and placed your resume in the space available, you are ready to apply for any vacancy announcement you would like. Be keenly aware though, this is where attention to detail separates the candidates to be interviewed from the resumes in the scrap pile. The government hiring system revolves around merit. Specifically, the candidate who has the most knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) to be successful in the vacant position should be offered the job, as the desired KSA’s for an opening are derived from the position description itself. Your role is to ensure that you capture your KSA’s as accurately as possible so that you are considered for the positions you are most qualified to hold.

If KSA’s are the key to government employment, how do you ensure you include everything that needs to be considered? In many cases this will be easy to discern as the vacancy announcement will list specific KSA questions prompting your response. If there are questions that seek specific answers, it is a requirement that you answer them or your application will not even be considered. In the event there are not specific questions presented, you must ensure you cover the likely KSA’s for that position within the body of your resume. Knowing what the KSA’s are for the position being advertised is one

aspect of being qualified for the position you are seeking. Let’s take a quick look at each element of the KSA’s so you know how to present your talents.

Knowledge covers the body of intellectual information you possess that will assist you in the position. This knowledge is not limited to your academic knowledge, though critical, but encompasses all aspects of what you know that pertain to the position. Included in your mental reference library are federal, state and local regulations that govern the work you will be doing, policies and procedures that apply to the work environment, industry standards and cutting edge technology that you are current in that would make you a good fit for the position. Essentially any knowledge that you possess and can articulate in your resume that is pertinent to the job you are seeking is something you should capture in your resume or the KSA questions presented as part of the announcement.

Skills represent the manipulation of systems, processes, people and things that will allow you to be competent in the position in question. They can include specific skills that require you to operate technical equipment or work with particular software or hardware systems or they may be more generic such as the skills required to communicate effectively. These skills are often the core competencies of the position and are incredibility important. Conversely, some of them are areas that professionals often under-report in their resumes as they take many of these skills for granted such as problem solving, creative thinking, decision making and stress tolerance. In most cases, government application software systems allow you a very generous amount of character space to document your KSA’s or resume, so leave no skill uncaptured!

Abilities refer to your capabilities as they apply to the work environment. Your ability to manage people and programs; to organize, plan, implement, and evaluate; to analyze, supervise or otherwise effectively impact the mission of the organization. One of the unique aspects of this element is that you do not have to have a vast work history to quantify what you can offer an employer in this category. You may have organized a large volunteer effort or been part of a regional political campaign. Any quantifiable information that depicts your role in a challenging environment which allows you to capture the results of your efforts is value added in this element.

Government employment has many rewarding aspects – not the least of which is that the infrastructure of the whole civil service is based on merit. Now that you know a little more about how to present yourself and what you have to offer in the three key government consideration areas (KSA’s) you are one step closer to accepting your first federal research position. Remember it’s not what you know and what you can do that counts in a job application; it’s what the selecting official knows you can do that matters. Good luck!

Cyndi Fischer, MSA is the Director of Strategic Recruitment for STG International. As a Human Capital Management specialist her work concentrates on agency level recruitment strategies and workforce planning. During her tenure at STG, Mrs. Fischer has designed and implemented recruitment strategies, branding techniques, and succession plans for many federal agencies seeking Phd/MD level candidates for research, managerial, and professional opportunities. Mrs. Fischer has a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice and Psychology and a Master of Science in Administration degree in Human Resources. www.stginternational.com

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Have you ever received a call from a “head hunter” who suggests that they might be able to assist you in your job search? Can professional recruiters actually help you find a job? Finally, have you ever wondered what’s in it for the recruiter if they don’t charge jobseekers a fee to help them with their job searches?

If you are curious about these and other questions, please listen to a podcast  of BioCrowd founder Cliff Mintz's interview with Romi Kher, the host of Cornell University’s 10GoodMinutes ,a talk show that provides career advice for young professionals.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

By now, most of you have heard or read how vital networking is to either advance your career or find a job. Like it or not, learning to network is another skill that everyone must master (including scientists) to insure a successful career trajectory. Not surprisingly, most scientists are notoriously poor at networking—mostly because they haven’t been taught to network or perhaps more egregiously they have been told that it isn’t worthwhile or necessary to find a job. For example, in 1974, during a seminar  series required of all incoming graduate students in the Department of Bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin, a very famous and influential microbiologist sanguinely quipped: “your science should speak for itself and that’s all that matters!” In other words, if we graduate students do “good science” then others will recognize it and we shouldn’t have difficulty finding a job upon completion of our training. How wrong he was—it took me over five years (and two post docs) before landing a faculty position at the University Of Miami Shcool Of Medicine in 1987!

Unfortunately, this “networking isn’t necessary” attitude is still pervasive among life sciences faculty members in many graduate departments throughout the US; despite an acknowledgement that there continue to be dwindling numbers of job opportunities for PhD scientists. Nevertheless, in the real world—especially during  tough economic times—networking is a vital component of all job searches. That said, you never know who you may meet when networking at a conference, a seminar or even at a social event who might be helpful in your job search. However, before you begin networking, it is vitally important to understand networking rules and basics.  To that end, I found an informative article that showcases 13 common networking mistakes and blunders to avoid making. I highly recommend that you read this article before your next (or first) networking event!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Networking!!!!!

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

It should come as no surprise to most BioJobBlog readers that scientists are not known for their writing or literary skills. And, for the most part, graduate students in the life sciences receive little or no instruction or training in scientific writing. This wasn’t always the case. When I entered graduate school at the University Of Wisconsin way back in 1974, Joe Wilson, Chairman of the Department of Bacteriology at the time, insisted that all incoming graduate students take a semester-long course in scientific writing. Most of my peers thought it was a colossal waste of time but by the end of the semester we all knew how, in theory, to write a scientific paper, understood the peer review process and if nothing else could write something that resembled a scientific manuscript when asked to do so. I personally learned a lot during the course and thought it was extremely useful. 

I currently work as a freelance science/medical writer and I think the course has served me well throughout my career. In fact, while a tenure-track Assistant Professor at the University of Miami School of Medicine, many of my colleagues would give me their RO1 applications to review for content, grammar and editing before submitting them to NIH. As the former Chairman of my department said to me after I asked him what he thought after reading my first grant application, “It is extremely well written from a literary standpoint”. Not exactly what I wanted to hear but maybe that explains why I am a science writer and no longer an academic. So it goes....!

The reason that I am rambling on about scientists and their poor writing skills is that things haven’t gotten much better over the 35 year since I took that mandatory writing course as first semester graduate student at UW. Based on my observations, graduate students are only asked to do original writing when preparing their theses and in some instances when writing manuscripts (which are usually re-written by their mentors).  What is even more troubling is that science undergraduate students do virtually no writing at all! How then do we expect graduate students and postdocs to successfully write grant application and manuscripts if they receive no formal training in science writing?

To that end, I came across an interesting, albeit humorous, post from Dr. Isis, who according to her bio is “a physiologist at a major research university working on some terribly impressive stuff. She blogs about balancing her research career with the demands of raising small children, how to succeed as a woman in academia, and anything else she finds interesting.” Like me, Dr. Isis, doesn’t think that scientists spend enough time teaching other scientists how to write. In the post she offers some ideas, tips and solution to this increasingly vexing problem! 

Basic Writing Resources for Basic Scientists

Dr. Isis does hot science. Hot, hot, caliente science. I feel like we have already established that, though.

Learning to do hot science has not been a trivial thing, but learning to write in the scientific arena was orders of magnitude harder. It's still something that does not come easy for me and that I have had to practice to improve. I learned the first time I received my first crapvalanche of papers from a group of students that I am not the only one who has had trouble translating the suckquake of writing I learned in high school and as an undergraduate into successful scientific writing.

I wonder if scientific writing is something that we don't spend enough time teaching pre-graduate school level students.  I know that in science courses I've taught that have required papers, the most formal instruction time I have been able to devote to writing is showing them this: 

Video 1: Strong Bad teaches us how to write a successful paper. Strong Bad is full of wisdom and has taught me about 90% of the awesome stuff I know. I'd encourage you to check him out here.

But, I digress. This long, overly drawn-out, unnecessary introduction had tweo purposes -- 1) to give me an excuse to use Strong Bad in a blog. I <3 Strong Bad. 2) to point the following resource out to you.

This weekend someone showed me "Ask Betty: Grammar in College Writing." Ask Betty is run by the Department of English at the University of Washington and has all sorts of great information. It has a list of common editing symbols for those of us who edits papers and a lesson on common grammatical mistakes for those of us who are writing papers. I think this site could potentially be a fantastic resource for those of use who speak English as a second language. There's a Q&A page with examples of phrases and discussion of whether they are well-written. There is also a resource page with links to external writing resources.

Addendum: While Dr. Isis offers a good self-help solution to the problem, perhaps it might be more useful if graduate students and postdocs are required to take formal science writing courses as part of their graduate training. Technology has advanced considerably since 1974 and students no longer have to take time out from their busy schedules to attend a bricks and mortar class like I did. The course could be offered online and students could complete it at their own speed. The growing number of foreign graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, whose primary language isn’t English, suggests that a course like this may be in the best interests of American science.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

I have previously written several posts on the reluctance of life scientists to use social media and online social networking sites. While I realize that scientists may be somewhat socially challenged, the almost universal disdain for social media is puzzling and troubling to me. More importantly, the reluctance of life scientists to embrace social media flies in the face of some revealing new statistics on social media use by the American lay public.

According to a recent survey by Forrester Research, “half of online adults now belong to social networks like, Facebook and Linked In, a 46 percent growth rate year-over-year.” More importantly, almost a quarter of Americans are content creators who write blogs, upload video or audio or post articles online.” Interestingly, the growth of social media is being driven by adults 35 and older. The survey found that four of five adults of all ages use social media including blogs, social networks and review sites. Finally, most adults visit social networking sites, in way or another at least monthly.

Many scientists who I have talked with (mostly graduate students and postdoctoral fellows) primarily use social media to stay in touch with friends or “hook up” with others after laboratory hours are over. And, other scientists—mostly laboratory heads and principal investigators—view social media as a colossal waste of time. Unfortunately, the scientists who underutilize or shun social media don’t understand its hidden potential to advance scientific research and perhaps more importantly to interact with the lay public to demystify “science.”  In my experience social media has been a powerful way to disseminate information and quickly reach large numbers of people. Isn’t this what science is really about?    

Until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

BioCrowd co-founder, Vincent Racaniello, and I were chatting the other day with Crowdvine’s Tony Stubblebine (the guy who created the BioCrowd software platform) about the reluctance of scientists to embrace social media. Both Vincent and I, both scientists ourselves, posited that scientists are simply asocial or at the very least not comfortable engaging in social activities whether they be online or IRL. Tony, a self-anointed software geek, wasn’t buying into to our argument and noted that even software geeks are social!

This prompted me to do a little research and I found a blog post written by Nachiket Vartak a blogger and doctoral student at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Physiology. While the blog post focused mainly on reasons why bioscientists won’t use Twitter, I think that many of his observations can be used to generally describe the chilly relationship between many scientists and social media. Before you read on, I must inform you that I paraphrased and embellished some of Nachiket’s original ideas on the subject. That said, here are some of the reasons why bioscientists may not use social media.

1. The reputation of social networking sites
Many scientists disdain social networks because they believe that social networking sites and microblogging platforms like Twitter are nothing more than places to waste time. Those scientists who use social media usually do it in-between experiments and when planning activities which usually involve copious quantities of alcohol, for after laboratory hours fun. In other words, social media is for fun not for work. Also, many so-called serious scientists contend that “real science discussions” only happen on closed e-mailing lists or forums and not in the “open” on social networking sites.

2. The social activation barrier
According to Nachiket, the stereotype that scientists are asocial is well.....err...true! He asserts that many scientists feel more comfortable focusing on themselves (and their research) rather than interacting with others to learn what they have to say or what they may be thinking. And, many times, unless an individual can demonstrate that they are “smart” they probably aren’t worse listening to anyway. Finally, scientists train for years to become independent investigators. Not surprisingly, there is very little emphasis and importance placed on teamwork or social interactions with others scientists or lay people for that matter. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that many scientists aren’t particularly social or inclined to participate in extracurricular social activities.

3. Privacy aka “secrecy”
Science is a highly competitive endeavor and, in many cases, the discoveries that are made represent many years of sacrifice, blood, sweat and tears. With this in mind, nobody wants to be scooped or beat out by their competitors. Consequently, scientists are generally instructed to be very hush-hush when it comes to sharing any information or data that might give the competition a “leg up” in the competition. Any leak, large or small, could mean the difference between fame and failure and, perhaps more importantly, a successful career as a scientist.

In marked contrast, the success of social media is contingent upon its openness, sharing and transparency. Thus, as Nachiket aptly pointed out social media is antithetical to the very nature of science and scientists.

4. Legitimate channels of communication
The only acceptable and legitimate means of scientific communications are presentations at meetings and publications in peer reviewed journals. These forms of communication are the lifeblood of scientific community and critical to the success of all scientists. If you aren’t published, you have no credibility as a scientist. The scientific publishing and communication industry is big business and “the rules of engagement” in the industry have been well established and institutionalized. Unfortunately, social media threatens to destabilize the science publishing world both financially and philosophically and possibly change the way science information is communicated. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is little support for social media in scientific publishing world and the science community in general.

While the number of science blogs and podcasts continue to increase daily, scientific social networking sites continue to struggle. This is because the information flow in blogs and similar forms of social media can be easily monitored and controlled. This is not the case for social networking sites like BioCrowd and microblogging platforms like Twitter.
However, if scientists are truly asocial beings then none of the existing science social networking sites will gain traction and be successful. Call me crazy, but I think social networking is an ideal medium for scientists to exchange information, ideas and develop relationships that can help them jumpstart their careers!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking!!!!!!!!!!

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

Berci Meskó author of the Science Roll blog recently compiled a list of sites that keep track of the scientists who use Twitter. He recommends: Science Pond (real time), Sciencebase (compilation) and for those of you with a medical bent the Medical Student Blog (compilation). And, for a list of medical journals that are tweeting check out this site. While the lists aren’t comprehensive you might be able to find friends, colleagues and journal editors who use Twitter.

Hat tip to Berci!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting

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

During my recent trip to Vermont and Woodstock, NY I had several conversations about Twitter. Surprisingly, I was being asked to explain Twitter to my nephews, both of whom are in their early 20s and to family friends who are in their late 40s and beyond. Also, at several recent science career fairs that I attended many graduate students and postdocs had never heard of Twitter or it they had, they don’t use it. Initially, this was puzzling but after considering the most recent Twitterverse demographics –I think the average age of Twitter users is around 35 to 40—it made more sense to me.

Anyhow, I have found that it is time consuming to explain Twitter to people who have heard about it but don’t quite understand how it works. To that end, several people— who I follow on Twitter— (@ LaurieDesAutels and @Recruiting Animal) tweeted about an article by John C. Dvorak that offers an excellent review of Twitter and several practical ways to use it.

I hope that the article provides some insights into Twitter and how scientists might be able to harness its incredible power and reach. You can follow me on Twitter @biojobblog!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!

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

Eli Lilly & Co. is offering buyouts to 4,000 U.S. sales representatives to eliminate several hundred jobs and restructure its operations. Sales representatives will be offered four months' pay in addition to the typical Eli Lilly severance package, which ranges from two to 18 months' salary depending on seniority. The company had a total of 40,500 employees at the end of 2008.

Lilly’s best-selling drugs include Zyprexa for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, Cymbalta for depression, Byetta for type 2 diabetes, and Evista for osteoporosis. The patent supporting Zyprexa, which bought in $4.7 billion in revenue last year, will expire in 2011. The patents on the company's next three top drugs —Cymbalta, Humalog insulin, and cancer drug Gemzar —are set to expire in 2013.

The restructuring is expected to start in mid-November and take effect in January.

Sales reps and R&D scientists have suffered the most during pharma’s recent three year downsizing binge. While many R&D jobs have been shipped overseas, pharma sales reps might consider a new career in biotechnology drug sales. Growth in biotechnology and personalized medicine drugs is expected to increase for the foreseeable future.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

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
• Share Link

While many of you may not know this, background checks are routinely run on prospective new employees at most companies and organizatons before job offers are extended. Like it or not background checks are increasingly being run on scientists because of the US anthrax incident that occurred soon after September 11, 2001. I want to emphasize that background checks on being run on ALL employees (not only scientists) before being hired.

Guest blogger, Anne Stephanie Cruz of Crimcheck.com contacted me and offered to enlighten us about how background checks are conducted and the type of information that employers are seeking. Crimcheck.com provides background checks for businesses large and small nationwide. Crimcheck.com background checks include criminal history, education verification, employment verification, driving records and more.

The Expansion of Background Checks for Scientists

A series of events and the development of technology have changed the climate for employers wishing to do a background check on job candidates. With the heightened security requirements resulting from the threat of terrorism, background checks have become essential for many jobs in science. Many companies developed tight security including background checks years ago. For example, anyone entering a large chemical plant understands from the gates and security checks at each entrance that access to the facility has been tightly guarded for years. However, with the escalation of terrorism coupled with the ease of gathering information on a job candidate, even the smallest organizations are taking the opportunity to thoroughly check out their scientists before hiring them.

There has been much debate over this issue as long established procedures give way to tighter security measures. For example, after the contamination of letters with anthrax, some laboratories began to implement new security requirements for employees, including background checks of personal information as well as fingerprinting.

There are firm guidelines in the general population regarding the information that can be collected legally for an employment background check. Also, some information can be collected but not used to make a decision regarding employing a candidate, such as public bankruptcy information. However, federal rules have opened scientists up to closer scrutiny and allowed background checks to include more information.

Generally, the following information may be acquired during a background check:

The following are examples of information that cannot be included in a general employment background check:

1. Records of Arrest
2. Civil Court Records (after 7 years)

The use of information like bankruptcy, marital status, number of children, race, age, sex, religion, birth place, sexual orientation, living arrangements, or health is illegal in the hiring process for most professions. However, new rules have allowed scientists to be checked beyond these restrictions. For example, one rule had restricted citizens of countries suspected of supporting terrorism from working with certain dangerous biological agents.

Scientists were also restricted from some jobs based on a history of mental illness, felony convictions, or drug use. The sudden implementation of background checks and heightened security was particularly disturbing for many seasoned scientists who had been trusted employees for years. Privacy rights have been thrown aside in many cases, leading to a disturbance in the scientific community. Many lawsuits have sprung up as scientists scramble to protect their rights in this environment. Examples of organizations with widely known lawsuits over background checks include JPL and NASA.

The legal framework regarding background checks for scientists is constantly shifting. Scientists need to know that they are likely to be checked out thoroughly, not only when applying for a job, but throughout their career. Employers doing background checks should seriously consider hiring a reputable company to perform these checks in order to stay within the boundaries of privacy laws.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

It’s no secret that major pharmaceutical companies are no longer investing in internal drug discovery initiatives as much as they have in the past. However, I was unaware how drastic the decline in R&D spending was until I read an article entitled “Significant Change Predicted for Bioindustry” by Benjamin J. Conway in the July issue of Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. 

Mr. Conway notes that in 1989 more than 50% of the pharmaceutical industry’s budget was spent on preclinical drug discovery and development. During the 1990s, the percentage slowly declined and was approximately 44% by 1999. He asserts that beginning in 2000, “the drop became precipitous” as pharmaceutical companies spent increasing amounts of their R&D budgets on downstream activities including expanded clinical trials. By 2006, big pharma was spending about 25% of its budget on R&D. Strikingly, Mr. Conway contends that “when measured in terms of constant absolute dollars, spending on pre-clinical R&D activities actually declined 0.4% annually over the period, despite annual increases of nearly 7% in total R&D spending.” 

Not surprisingly, the almost decade-long decrease in pharmaceutical R&D spending is best reflected in the lack of new drug approvals over the past five years or so. According to Mr. Conway, throughout the 1990s more than 50% of all new drug approvals originated at big pharma companies. By 2001, these companies were responsible for approximately 60% of new drug approvals. However, since then, pharma’s new drug approvals have plunged to 25% to 30% of annual totals. Some analysts suggest that the figure has been as low as 15%. The decline in new drug approvals almost parallels the decrease in R&D spending at most major pharmaceutical companies. Many industry analysts and thought leaders contend that big pharma companies have gotten too big and unwieldy and can no longer innovate. The unprecedented drops in pharma’s new drug approval rates tend to support that assertion. Mr. Conway points out that the so-called “innovation gap” has been filled by biopharmaceutical companies that “today account for 75% or more of new therapeutics developed each year.”

These changing market dynamics suggests that big pharma must reconfigure the business model that it has clung to for the past 50 years to remain competitive. Not surprisingly, almost all of the major pharmaceutical companies have begun to do just that! For example, over the past three years more than 60,000 R&D scientists have lost their jobs with little likelihood that the vacated jobs will ever be resurrected. Further, big pharmaceutical companies have increasingly begun to outsource many R&D activities to Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Finally, most big pharma companies have publicly demonstrated—through mergers and acquisitions—that biotechnology products as well as small molecules are in their future.

While big pharma may be retrenching and evolving, don’t expect the pharmaceutical industry on internal drug discovery initiatives —or small molecules for that matter— to disappear any time soon. The industry is going through a transitional period and the companies of the future will look only slightly different than they do today. These companies will still be large and well capitalized, but likely more diversified in their product portfolios (which will surely contain biotechnology drugs). Also, they will continue to excel in new product development, marketing and distribution. However, unlike the past, much less emphasis will be placed on internal R&D programs to discover new molecular entities. This means that pharmaceutical R&D operations will remain lean and companies will increasingly rely on M &A and licensing deals (with smaller specialty pharma and biotechnology companies) to keep their pipelines full.

Until next time...

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

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

A survey involving 2000 members of the public and 2500 scientists conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) revealed that almost two-thirds of Americans hold scientists and engineers (and their contributions to society) in high regard. However, in marked contrast, 85% of the scientists surveyed said that public ignorance of science was a major problem. And, not surprisingly a majority of the scientists surveyed feel that American media coverage of science is “fair or poor.”

While the reasons for this disconnect in opinions aren’t readily apparent, perhaps some insights into the public’s understanding of scientific concepts like evolution and climate might be informative. For example, almost 35% of Americans believe that “humans existed in their current form since the beginning of time” whereas only 2% of scientists hold this belief. Further, only about 50 percent of Americans agree that humans are behind climate change and a whopping11 percent believe that there isn’t global warming at all. These beliefs trouble many scientists because there is no credible scientific evidence to refute the theory of evolution and there is incontrovertible data which shows that humans are a major contributor to global warming. So, what’s the deal with Americans?

There is little doubt that American science education is lacking. For the most part, this deficiency has been blamed on poorly trained and uninformed primary and secondary school science teachers. While this may be partly true, scientists and engineers also bear much of the responsibility.  According to the report, only 3 percent of the scientists surveyed said that they “often” spoke to reporters and the media. In other words, a majority of scientists don’t feel that it’s important to engage the public in fundamental discussion about evolution and climate change.  A facile and convenient way for scientists to eschew any responsibility for the problem is to label the American public as “ignorant about science” and not do anything about it. If scientists truly want to improve the public understanding of science, it will be necessary to roll up our sleeves and do some work to better inform and educate them!  New social media tools like blogs, videos, podcasts and social networking sites like BioCrowd represent ideal vehicles to begin to make headway against this vexing problem! 

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!!!!

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

Over the past few years, a number of search engines designed for the life sciences have appeared. I thought it might be informative for BioJobBlog readers to list some of the more popular ones and how they are used. I want to warn you in advance that this is not a comprehensive list. That said, if I’ve inadvertently omitted your favorite search engine, please feel free contact me or simply list it in the comments section for this post.

Scirus

Searches over 450 million scientific items, and allows researchers to search for not only journal content but also scientists’ homepages, courseware, pre-print server material, patents and institutional repository and website information. This site is owned and managed by Elsevier.

Novoseek

Search engine for biomedical literature in medline, grants and full text publications that will help you to: 1) retrieve meaningful documents related to your search, 2) narrow your search to find results in the relevant scientific journals and 3) identify the most relevant biomedical concepts for your query.

Mednar

Mednar is a free, publicly available medical research run by Deep Web Technologies.

Valdo 

A search engine that caters to all branches of life sciences. VADLO allows users to search within five categories: Protocols, Online Tools, Seminars, Databases and Software.

Life Sciences Search Engine

A customized search engine developed for the benefit of researchers in life science.

ScienceHack

BioPages

Australian web portal and life sciences search engine.

Science Bucket

Specialized search engine that filters biology sites.

GoPubMed

Knowledge-based search engine for biomedical texts. It allows users to identify experts in the biomedical field.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Searching!!!!!!!!

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

Back in the day—when the economy was sound and jobs were plentiful—an adequately written resume with a sprinkling of keywords and strategically-placed human resources clichés were sufficient to get your foot in the door at most companies. However, in today’s troubled economy where unemployment is rampant, there are certain buzz words and phrases that no longer resonate with hiring managers. According to Liz Ryan, an experienced  corporate career advisor who writes for Yahoo Hot Jobs, the following phrases must never appear in a resume if you are a job seeker in today’s market. 

• Results-oriented professional
• Cross-functional teams
• More than [x] years of progressively responsible experience
• Superior (or excellent) communication skills
• Strong work ethic
• Met or exceeded expectations
• Proven track record of success
• Works well with all levels of staff
• Team player
• Bottom-line orientation

She contends (and rightfully so) if old and tired phrases (like the ones mentioned above) appear in you resume you run the risk of being marked as “uncreative and vocabulary challenged.” Further Ms. Ryan suggests that you “can make your resume more compelling and human-sounding by rooting out and replacing the boring corporate-speak phrases that litter it, and replacing them with human language— things that people like you or I would actually say.” 

This language change is being driven by the informal nature of social media and a growing emphasis on truthfulness and transparency in the business. Nevertheless, well written resumes—with or without buzz words or key phrases—have always been and remain the first step in the sometimes long and tedius process of landing a new job!

Until next time...

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Jo

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

I just learned from Diego Pineda who runs the Medical Writer Blog and Medical Writing social network about an interesting internship possibility at Science magazine. For those of you social media enthusiasts interested in the opportunity, here is a job description.

“Science, the world's leading journal of original scientific research and global news, seeks a three-month intern to help implement and manage social media projects for its news department. The candidate should be very familiar with Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking platforms, and should have experience creating content for these platforms. Other duties will include promoting news content on the internet, moderating comments on our daily news site, and repurposing news content for multimedia projects. Some writing and research assistance for our online news site is possible. The ideal intern will have a science background-or at least a strong interest in science-and some journalism experience. The internship will be at our Washington, D.C. headquarters.”

For consideration, send a resume and cover letter to AAAS, Human Resources Department, 1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite #101, Washington, DC 20005.  (Attn:  Requisition #1763) You may also reach us by Fax at 202-682-1630 and e-mail at jobs@aaas.org.

It appears that Science is finally getting into the social networking.  For those of you, who can’t wait for the Science network, please check out BioCrowd, a social networking community focused on career development for bioprofessionals.

Until next time....

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

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

As many of you may know, I attend national science meetings where I offer resume critiquing services and give career development seminars on topics ranging from resume writing to alternate career opportunities for life scientists. Frequently, I critique the resumes of foreign PhD students and postdocs who want remain in the US but cannot for a variety of reasons related to visa status. I usually tell them that there are more job opportunities for them in their home countries; usually India and China, than there are in the US which no longer has a great demand for R&D scientists. 

Until recently, I hadn’t heard of any Asian recruiting firms or organizations that would help to find jobs for US-trained life scientists. Much to my surprise, I heard from Shyam Suryanarayanan, an entrepreneur who started a recruiting organization called ABLE C-Drive that helps place US-trained Indian nationals into life science jobs at Indian pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.   I asked Shyam to send me a description of the services offered by ABLE C-Drive. Here is what he wrote:

"ABLE C-DRIVE (www.cdrivejobs.com) is a specialist Life Science Career Platform for the Indian Life Science Industry.  It is an initiative launched by C-DRIVE ( a specialist Life Science Career Solutions Company), in collaboration with ABLE - (Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises), the Industry Association and the face of the Indian Biotech sector. The company is a pioneering initiative in the Indian Life Science Careers space to help Life Science Professionals be accessible/visible to a whole host of hiring organizations in a discreet manner, with a view to getting hired.  The 'Returning Indian' Community is a preferred group, given their strong training and experience in World Class research labs.

The list of companies hiring from this platform includes a mix of large global home grown leaders, as well as exciting small and medium-sized outfits across pharma, biotech, agricultural sciences (nutraceuticals), bioinformatics, clinical research, contract research and manufacturing." 

Our platform is a boon to hiring companies, because it is a single destination for pre-screened, quality life science professionals which significantly lower the cost, time and effort required for hiring. For additional information, please visit www.cdrivejobs.com or send your resume to lifejobs@cdrivecareers.com”

Those of you who are seeking life sciences jobs in India ought to check ABLE-C Drive out!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

After months of complaints by university officials and scientific organizations, the US State Department announced on Tuesday that it is taking action to speed up the delay-plagued visa process for foreign graduate students and post-doctoral researchers.

For the past few years, foreign science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral seeking to obtain or renew visas have routinely experienced long delays sometimes taking as long as several months. The problem became so acute that students and researchers who left the US often found themselves stranded abroad, not knowing when their visas might be approved.  Not surprisingly, the delays have caused enormous problems for American universities, which heavily rely on foreign nationals to fill slots in graduate and post-doctoral science and engineering programs. Over the last year or so, visa difficulties having discouraged many scientific organizations from holding meetings in the United States. Some life sciences researchers said the apparent reluctance of the United States to accept them encouraged them to seek work in other countries.

The State Department has hired additional personal to deal with the visa backlog but will not say how long it will take to correct the problem. A state department official indicated that they hope to handle routine visa requests within a two week time frame.

While never officially acknowledged, the Bush Administration intentionally slowed the visa process for foreign researchers to “guard against proliferation of science and technical information.” In other words, the visa backlog was likely intentionally created to prevent foreign drug companies and national scientific agencies from infringing on American intellectual property and patent rights—an ongoing practice that clearly frightened many of the jingoistic officials running the Bush State Department.

However, what the Bush administration failed to understand was that a majority of foreign students who train in the US want to remain here after completion of their studies. The visa backlog and its protectionist intent forced many foreign nationals to forgo their US training and return to their home countries to seek employment. This was beginning to threaten scientific and technical innovation in US laboratories because for the past decade or longer American students have shied away from science and engineering to pursue careers in business and computer science. Ironically, the Bush Administration’s protectionist leanings may have contributed—more than they care to admit—

 to the massive job cuts that have taken place at American life sciences companies in the past few years because of availability of a US-trained work forces in countries like India and China. This provides American life sciences companies with reasonable assurances that preclinical and clinical research outsourced to these countries will be conducted according to US standards. Further, it also provides foreign companies with unbridled access to a growing cadre of US-trained scientists that will enable them to compete on a head-to-head basis with American life sciences companies.

Fortunately, the Obama Administration, unlike the previous one, delivers on its promises and appears to be willing to work hard to restore science and technology to its rightful place in American society.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (it may now be possible for many foreign students!)

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

By now, I think that most BioJobBlog readers understand that the job market for life scientists is lousy and that it isn’t likely to improve anytime soon. I know that many of you have spent close to 10 years training for a shot at an R&D job but the reality is that everybody needs to work to put food on the table—whether or not you find a job in your chosen profession. To that end, now may be a good time for those of you who are finding it difficult to land a job to consider one more year of training to get a certificate in a field that keeps you in science but not in R&D.

I came across interesting post today at the Resume Bear blog that discussed 10 certificate programs that can help people transition to new careers to find jobs. Interestingly, four of the programs are good fits for life scientists who are willing modify their careers to be gainfully employed. They are:

Clinical Trials Design and Management

“Pharmaceutical drug and medical device development is one of the premier industries of the 21st century, and the success of this vital industry depends upon the complex process of studying new products to verify their effectiveness and safety.”

Regulatory Affairs

“Professionals are needed to guide drug development and medical device companies through FDA imposed regulation issues pertinent to the pharmaceutical and biological industry.”

Project Management

“As project cycles get shorter – and budgets get leaner – project managers are vital to the success of organizations today.”

Copyediting

“Bridging the gap between writers and publishers – especially technical and nonfiction copyediting – is one of today’s most marketable skills for both full-time and freelance work.”

Another one that was not on the list biotechnology certificate programs in which students learn about product development, regulatory affairs and best business practices in the life sciences industry.

Not surprisingly, many certificate programs are offered at local community colleges and frequently online. For regulatory affairs training you might try the Drug Information Association and Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. The Project Management Institute offers training in project management and the Editorial Freelancers Association offers its members courses in copyediting. Mercer County College in West Windsor NJ in association with a local clinical research organization developed a “hands-on” certificate program in clinical trials design and management. 

In my opinion, certificate programs are worth checking out. They are designed for working professionals (courses are typically given in the evenings and weekends); usually only take 12 months to complete (what is one more year in the scheme of things) and improves the likelihood of finding a job because you now have a marketable skill set! It certainly beats collecting unemployment or sleeping in your old bed at your parent’s home—or not?

Hat tip to Resume Bear

Until next time...

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

Last month, while I was presenting my seminar “Interviewing Insights and Tips: Winning That Next Job” at the Experimental Biology Meeting in New Orleans, LA, I realized that I hadn’t covered what to wear to a job interview. Until the meeting, I didn’t think I had to  mention— that while interviewing men—must wear suits (and appropriately-colored, professional-looking shoes) and women should wear suits with pants (or a skirt with an appropriate length) and shoes with reasonable heels (usually less than 3 inches). I saw more cleavage, bare thighs and high heels, not to mention men with atrocious footwear choices at the meeting than I care to admit. Not that I am a prude or complaining about the cleavage, thighs or high heels that I observed—what red-blooded American male would?  That said, it is vitally important to remember that there are professional dress codes that everyone is expected to adhere to while on the job or at national, regional or local professional meetings.

Phyllis Korrki, who writes the Career Couch for the New York Times, wrote a great piece on professional attire in this past Sunday’s Times that I think every prospective job candidate or employee ought to read. And, when it comes to cleavage, exposed thighs and high heels in professional settings she had recommendations similar to mine. She wrote “Women think they have to dress sexy to get noticed in the work world. It’s what they see on campus and what they see on TV and in movies. Cleavage is not a corporate look or what you want to be remembered for. The same goes for very short skirts and extremely high heels. Also, make sure the top of your thong, if you wear one, doesn’t show above your pants.” 

For you guys, as a rule of thumb, wear black shoes with gray, blue and black suits and brown shoes with all others. It doesn’t get much easier than that!

While we scientists are trained to ignore appearance and not pay attention to dress codes—the reality is—the way you look may make the difference between having a job or not!

Until next time...

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

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

The New York Times reported today that for the first time, Internet users are spending more time on social networking and video sites than on e-mail. According to a report by Nielsen, there was a 1,905 percentage change in the time that users spent viewing online video and an 883 percentage increase in social networking use from February 2003 to 2009.

These changes represent something of a paradigm shift in consumer's relationship with the Internet. People are increasingly moving away from portal-oriented sites, like shopping directories to social networking sites like YouTube and Facebook and providers of niche content.

While marketers have yet to master advertising on social networking sites, Internet pundits and social media enthusiasts believe that over the next year or so a viable business model will emerge that is reliant on social networking user influence and opinions.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking!!!!!

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

Unlike others, life scientists have been slow to use social media to look for jobs or network to enhance career opportunities.  Many scientists  have  Facebook accounts but view it and other social media tools like Twitter simply as a means to stay in touch with family and friends.  However, social media can be a very powerful tool for scientists who are looking for jobs or the next big career move.

To that end, I presented a seminar at Experimental Biology this past weekend in New Orleans entitled "Social Media and Career Development for Life Sciences" that offer suggestions on how to use social media to land a job or jumpstart a career in the life sciences industry.  For those of you who may be interested, I posted the presentation below:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

The US economy has lost about 7.1 million jobs since December 2007 and nationwide unemployment is hovering around 8.5 percent. Despite the lost of  about 80,000 pharmaceutical jobs over the past three years and unprecedented consolidation taking place in the life sciences sector—Merck-Schering Plough, Pfizer-Wyeth and Roche-Genentech—the job prospects for scientists at biotech companies, medical devices and diagnostics, and government appear to be stronger than anticipated. While drug discovery and sales jobs may be scare, there are rapidly emerging opportunities in the fields of medical communications, regulatory affairs, biomanufacturing, clinical trials management , bioengineering, medical devices/diagnostics and website development and management.

President Obama’s promise to restore science to its rightful place, his reversal of the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and an unwavering commitment to alternate energy technologies suggest that the future may be very bright for bioscientists. For example, there are massive hiring initiatives at federal agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Unites States Department of Agriculture (UDSA) — as the Obama administration attempts to overall these agencies— and funding levels at the National Institutes of Health are on the rise (aided in part by a $200 million Challenge Grant stimulus program).

While the road to economic recovery may be a long one, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who are currently engaged in life sciences research should “stay the course and not jump ship just yet.” The life sciences industry is more recession proof than others and it will be one of the first to experience an economic turn around. And, when it does it is best to prepared to find a job!

Until next time…

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

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

As many of you know, the life sciences industry, one of the most highly regulated industries of the economy has been hesitant and reluctant to embrace social media to reach out to patients, physicians and the lay public. This is because the US Food and Drug Administration, specifically Division for Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC), has been mute on the subject and hasn’t issue one iota of guidance on the use of social media in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology or medical devices/diagnostic industries.

Mark Senak, a regulatory affairs lawyer and owner of the blog eyeonfda.com, invited Dr. Jean Ah Kang, Special Assistant at DDMAC in charge of Web 2.0 policy development to talk about FDA’s views and ideas about social media and its use in the life sciences industry. Listening to the 15 min podcast would be, according to Mark, “time well spent” for social media advocates in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices/diagnostics sectors.

Hat tip and much “love” to Mark who wrote “BTW, I absolutely expect waves of love for this (the podcast)."

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Listening!!!!!!!!!! 

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

Mention the word “scientist” to most people and they will likely conjure up an image of a socially-inept, nerdy individual who cannot talk to “normal everyday folks” because they are either “too smart” or out of touch with the “real world.” I have been fighting that stereotype for as long as I can remember. I believe that, along the way, I have convinced a few people otherwise and hope that they have learned that “one size does not fit for all scientists”—or any other professional group for that matter. The public perception of scientists was improving until George W Bush, an inveterate anti-science and anti-intellectual advocate became President in 2001. I hope that America’s attitude toward science (and scientists) will change over the next four years as President Obama tries to “restore science to its rightful place.” Nevertheless, I felt compelled to write this post after reading a New York Times review of a television drama called “Breaking Bad” (AMC, Sundays, 10 EDT) which, in my opinion, reinforces the negative stereotypes of scientists held by many members of the lay public.

Breaking Bad centers on a former Caltech chemistry genius named Walt, who failed to live up to the legend of his graduate school days. At 50, he is teaching high school chemistry in Albuquerque, NM. Although he contributed to work of a Nobel-winning team, the teaching job in New Mexico is inexplicably the best that he can get. To make matters worse, his best friend at Cal Tech has amassed a fortune (based largely on Walt’s graduate school work) and is married to Walt’s beautiful ex-wife. Walt learns  after attending a lavish party thrown by his friend, that most of his graduate school classmates (unlike him) are famous world class scientists who live in big homes and make enough money to purchase guitars that previously belonged to Eric Clapton. On top of his devastating psychic and emotional pain, Walt is also suffering from stage 3A lung cancer—even though he never smoked! To save his life, Walt partners with one of his former high school students in the crystal methamphetamine business. Walt’s chemical genius allows him to synthesize the meth from scratch—unlike his scientifically-challenged competitors who must extract the starting materials from over the counter cold remedies—earning him the reputation as one of the best meth ‘cookers” in the US. Walt uses the drug money to pay for his chemotherapy to stay alive and care for 15 year old son with cerebral palsy.  

While the show sounds intriguing, and by all accounts is well acted and provides a glimpse into the lives of people struggling with chronic illness and unrealized career aspirations, it sends the wrong messages to the American public about scientists, their motivations and their lives. First, it portrays Walt’s classmates as wealthy, elitist dilettantes who live lavish lives and don’t think twice about flaunting their status and power as world class scientists. Aside from Craig Venter and several other high profile scientists who are sometimes featured on 60 Minutes, I don’t think that there are many scientists who enjoy the luxurious and opulent lifestyles depicted in Breaking Bad. To the contrary, I suspect that the vast majority of us are struggling, like others, to make ends meet to put food on the table. And, perhaps more importantly, I don’t think that money, fame and fortune induced most of us to become scientists in the first place. Portraying scientists as ego-maniacal, thoughtless, self-absorbed dilettantes sends the wrong message to an American public that is already suspicious and distrustful of science.

Second, Walt’ colleagues view him as a “failed scientist” who, despite his brilliance, has been humiliated and reduced to teaching chemistry (at a low wage) to high school students. Listen to an exchange between Walt and his oncologist “I am an extremely overqualified high school chemistry teacher. When I can work I make $43,700 per year. I have watched all of my colleagues and friends surpass me in every way imaginable....” Unfortunately, Walt’s view of himself—as a lowly, underpaid high school chemistry teacher —is consistent with the attitudes of many academicians who feel that teaching is far less important or valuable than laboratory research. In my previous life as a medical school faculty member, it wasn’t uncommon to see a prominent researcher cringe or shake his/her head in disbelief at the mere mention of a teaching career by a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow. I contend that we ought to encourage (and not dissuade) some of our best and brightest students to pursue teaching instead of research careers. Further, academic researchers must begin to recognize that PhDs who choose to pursue careers in teaching are not less competent or failed scientists—they are simply individuals who want to teach! Given the 20-year long decline in American science and technology preparedness, the scientific community can no longer afford to continue to exclusively promote research over careers in teaching and education.

Finally, the American public has long been suspicious and distrustful of science. In support of this, scientists are often portrayed in literature, movies and in the news as dark, and sometimes mad people who, when left unchecked, will unleash scientific “horrors” on the world.  I am old enough to remember the public fears about the secret bio-warfare programs in the Soviet Union and US during the cold war and more recently, the rumor that was circulating after the HIV/AIDS epidemic was disclosed, that the virus was created by the US government. The brouhaha that erupted over genetic engineering in the 1980s and continued suspicions surrounded genetically modified foods and human cloning are other examples of the public’s distrust of science. Sadly, the decision of the Breaking Bad’s creators to turn Walt, whose chemistry brilliance is unrivaled, into a crystal meth cooker perpetuates the myth about “evil misguided scientists” who are willing to jeopardize the safety of others for their own motives or self gain. The creators of Breaking Bad want us to believe that Walt is justified in turning to the dark side because his power hungry, egomaniacal, scientific colleagues have derailed his career and forced him to become an overqualified, underpaid chemistry teacher. In other words, he had no choice but to use his scientific talents to survive, and perhaps, more importantly, prove to his colleagues (and himself) that he truly is a gifted chemist and not a failed scientist.

Admittedly, while the plot line of Breaking Bad is a little over the top, it tends to reinforce the public’s negative perceptions of scientists and does little to assuage suspicions about the dark underside of modern science.  Like most other people, we scientists are human and have made our share of mistakes. Nevertheless, I think that we  must challenge ourselves to make an effort to educate the American public about who we are and what scientists do on a day to day basis.  If we fail to meet this challenge, I think that President Obama will continue to struggle to “restore science to its rightful place in America.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try public education-schools are hiring!)

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

Facebook contends that it has over 175 million members, making it the largest social network in the world! Interestingly, according to an article in today’s New York Times, most US members are “still relatively young.” “Facebook offers advertisers a target of 54.4 million members of all ages. But if an advertiser wants to narrow its target audience to those 25 or older, the number drops to 28.8 million. Narrow it to those 30 or older, and Facebook has 20.3 million to offer.” However, this is not surprisingly because people 30 and over weren’t allowed to join Facebook until 2006. In fact, many over-30 individuals have yet to sign up! In support of this, I am increasingly getting friend requests from my contemporaries—most of whom are in their 40s and 50s.

Each week, a million new members are added in the United States and five million globally—the 30-and-older group is its fastest-growing demographic (and the one with the most money to spend).  Further, Facebook members are becoming increasingly social and gregarious. In December the average number of “friends” per member was 100. Since then, it has grown to 120 per member according to a Facebook spokesperson. If Facebook continues to grow at its current rate, it will likely experience unprecedented and astonishing growth in the next few years. And, when it comes to monetizing social networks, bigger is always better!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking!!!!!!!!!! 

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

Social media is the rage these days and, by all accounts, the things that are driving it popularity are making business connections, job hunting and the opportunity to meet/connect with others on a personal/romantic level. While scientists are generally perceived as being less social than others, I believe that we, like most people, primarily join social networks for two reasons—job hunting and career development or dating and sex.

With this in mind, a quick perusal of social media sites reveals that there is no shortage of social networks specifically designed for scientists for job hunting and career development. Surprisingly, there is a dearth of sites that enable scientists to connect with one another on personal or romantic levels. This doesn’t make sense to me as someone who spent 12 years as a graduate student and postdoc. Let’s face it, we scientists generally work long hours, don’t get out of the laboratory much and generally find it hard to meet prospective mates. That is, outside of the people who we work with daily. And as I learned the hard way, workplace romances can be very tricky and uncomfortable to manage at times. But, not to worry! Yesterday, I discovered an interesting website called Science Connection—maintained and run by the Scientist.com—which was specifically designed as a “the meeting place for single science professionals and others with an interest in science or nature.” I guess you can call it match.com for scientists!

From what I could glean from its website, Science Connection was started way back in the early 1990s by “erstwhile biologist Anne Lambert, with help and advice from friends who were also biologists, birders, or science types, and with the essential involvement of her friend Roy Smith, who did the original programming.” The site boasts about 15,533 members and provides some cool stats on the number of matches, relationships, marriages and even children that resulted from members who joined the network. Most of SciCon’s members are from the United States and Canada, with small numbers from other countries and regions of the world. The scientific disciplines of its members run the gamut from physical, natural, medical and social/behavioral sciences to computers and information technology. And, some of SciCon’s members aren’t scientists but lawyers, teachers, business people, musicians and artists (science fetish?).

But, before you take the SciCon plunge, you ought to know that the average age of male members is about 49 years and for women almost 46 years. However, those averages are misleading because they were calculated from the roughly 500 members who listed their ages on their profiles. There are roughly equal numbers of men and women and the age of its members ranges from 20 to 89 years. Many members are into natural history (birding, etc.) and participate in outdoor activities.  Finally, SciCon is not a free site and annual membership is $65 (~ 18 cents/day). “The $65 annual fee buys you a list of all members of the opposite sex (what about same sex individuals?) and a monthly newsletter, which has mini-profiles, discussion forums and a place where members can announce get-togethers in their area. Member Polylogue includes in-depth analyses of cyber romance, the perils of over-50 dating and friendships that bud into romance. If the $65 annual fee is too steep a price to pay for love, then you might want to consider a three month membership which costs only $30 (~33 cents/day). However, as stated on the website, the $65 annual membership represents the “the best value.”

While I had never heard of the Science Connection before, the network has been reviewed many times in the past by a variety of media outlets that include: NPR, Newsweek (2006), Discover (2007), Forbes Magazine and others. In general, the site gets favorable reviews. That said, if I wasn’t married (my wife is lawyer) I might consider joining Science Connection. After all, it certainly beats sitting around the lab on Friday and Saturday nights analyzing sequence data—not that there is anything wrong with that!

Until next time...

Good Luck—and well, err—Good Luck

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

 As many of you know, we launched BioCrowd about six weeks ago. Our membership is steadily growing and several early members suggested changes and improvements to the site. In typical Web 2.0 fashion, we listened to those suggested and decided to add several new features!

First, we added a new section to the home page called BioCrunch. BioCrunch will feature “fresh content” developed by BioCrowd members. Items that can be posted to BioCrunch include but are not limited to podcasts, PowerPoint presentations, manuscripts and possibly poster presentations. With this in mind, we urge interested BioCrowd members to send us stuff that you wanted featured in BioCrunch and shared with the rest of the community.

Second, you can now upload multiple files with discussion posts and add a single file to comments. Also, it is now possible to preview your comment or discussion posts (before you hit the send button) to insure that they are grammatically-correct and typo-free. 

Third and perhaps most importantly, we decided to publicly open the site so that RSS feeds from BioCrowd can be imported to other social media applications including blogs, Facebook and Twitter. It also means that member profiles and discussion posts are searchable by Google. However, all posted resumes and job listings will remain private and only available to BioCrowd members, i.e. you have to join to view them.

We are planning other improvements to BioCrowd—stay tuned for new updates!

Until next time….

Join Us and Be Part of the Crowd!

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

Convincing students and adults that science can be fun and even cool at times can be a very challenging proposition. This is mostly because science is perceived as “being hard” and in many cases, the people who teach science are not appropriately trained. Consequently sciences classes are frequently boring and unimaginative. Nevertheless, creative scientists can sometimes figure out ways to overcome these negative perceptions of science. One of the best examples of this is the use of the Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) in some so-called consumer products.  While this application of GFP may pose ethical dilemmas for some, I haven’t met many children or adults who don’t think that transgenic mice, fish or flowers that glow green, red, blue or yellow (or a combination of these colors) in dark aren’t cool! While this wasn’t GFP’s intended use—the scientists who first demonstrated GFP’s utility as a genetic engineering application won a Noble prize last year—it certainly exposed the lay public to wonders and powers of modern day scientists.

With this in mind, researchers at the University of Tokyo’s Institute of Industrial Science (IIS) announced that they had created a 5-millimeter tall doll composed of living cells to demonstrate a new method for fabricating three-dimensional living biological structures. The researchers created the tiny figurine by cultivating 100,000 cell capsules — 0.1-millimeter balls of collagen, each coated with dozens of skin cells — together inside a doll-shaped mold for one day. After the cells had fused to form the doll-shaped structure, it was placed in a culture solution and survived for more than 24 hours. The researchers hope to use the method to create tissues and organs with complex cellular structures, which may prove useful in the fields of regenerative medicine and drug development.

While this new technology may never rival GFP and its multitude of applications, it shows that scientists like to have fun from time-to-time and can introduce complex scientific ideas to the lay public.  In my opinion, many kids get turned off to science at an early age because we scientists take ourselves too seriously and rarely explore ways to inject fun into sometimes tedious and boring material. After all, nobody made it fun for us and we became scientists anyway! We live in a different world now and I can see from watching my own children grow, that today’s  kids today are inquisitive, creative, comfortable with sophisticated technologies and open to new ideas—requisite traits for all scientists!

Unlike the past eight years, a new window of opportunity exists to challenge and convince young people that science is fun and can be very cool at times. To accomplish this, we science educators must step outside of our comfort zones and begin to inject some fun and wonderment into science. The kids will love it and I suspect so will we!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

While the domino theory was incorrect when it came to the spread of communism during the Cold War, there may be a kernel of truth to it when it is applied to today’s pharmaceutical industry. On Tuesday, Pfizer announced that it would lay off 800 researchers. Not to be outdone by Pfizer, Roche announced today that it plans to lay off about 780 workers over the next two to three years because of “worsening economic conditions.”

After spending the last decade or so associated with the pharmaceutical industry, one thing that I have learned is that there isn’t a single company that I can think of that wants to be the first to do anything. However, when a pharma company makes a bold move, the others are very quick to follow because they “don’t want to be perceived as not being “cutting edge” or keeping pace with their competitors. To that end, the domino theory may warrant some further investigation when it comes to day-to-day operations of big pharma.

Until next time,

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

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

Long rumored, Pfizer announced yesterday that it will eliminate another 800 research jobs outside of its six core therapeutic areas: cancer, pain, inflammation, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia. The new cuts represent 5 to 8 percent of Pfizer’s approximately 10,000 researchers worldwide. According to a company spokesperson, the company will continue to evaluate its current staffing to make decisions that are consistent with its future goals. In short, expect more layoffs to occur in the near future.

Industry analysts expect additional cuts to occur in R&D and Pfizer’s dwindling sales force. To date, Pfizer has eliminated about 10,000 jobs, mostly in R&D and sales. Pfizer became the world’s largest pharmaceutical after going on a 12 year buying spree that began in 1996 after its acquisition of Warner Lambert, the company that developed the blockbuster anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor. The company currently employs about 85,000 people worldwide.

Wall Street rewarded Pfizer’s decision to layoff more scientists by pushing its stock share price up 1.3% yesterday. Rewarding a company for eliminating one of its most important and valuable assets has never made sense to me. But, then again, I am a scientist not an MBA-toting Wall Street analyst—what do I know?

Until next time…

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

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

BioCrowd, a new social networking site for bioprofessionals was officially launched today.  We are still making last minute fixes and cosmetic changes so please bear with us over the next few weeks.

BioCrowd's main goal is to provide a venue for career development and business interactions for students, scientists and other bioprofessionals.  We plan on adding new applications and functionality as the network evolves.  That said, please let us know what you think, what you like and don't like and how we can improve BioCrowd to meet your needs.

Thanks and I hope that you become a member of the BioCrowd!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Like it or not, the best way to land a new job whether or not there is a recession is to network. While career counselors and recruiters trumpet the virtues of networking to job seekers, many people really don't understand what it is or how to do it correctly. I found an outstanding article that demystifies networking and offers tips on how to excel at it. 

For many scientists, online networking is ideal because they frequently lack the requisite skills to effectively network in real life situations. Until recently, face-to-face networking at conferences or "professional social events" was the only way to effectively network. However, the advent of web-based social networks allows job seekers to eschew the awkwardness and time requirements for  one-on-one networking in favor of a more convenient and less-threatening online experience. BioCrowd, a new online social network for scientists and other bioprofessionals, was created to help scientists advance their careers and find new jobs. While BioCrowd and similar online networking sites can help scientists make connections, it is still the face-to-face networking experience that will ultimately  help them land new jobs!

Because networking is not taught or emphasized in graduate school, it is not surprising that many graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are notoriously poor “networkers.” That said, for those of you who recognize the importance of networking and want hone your networking skills, Contacts Count a Maryland-based network training company may be worth a visit. I have no doubt that there other organizations and companies out there that specialize in network training. If you find any, let me know and I will gladly post them!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

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

I first thought about starting a social network for life sciences professionals about a year ago after joined I Facebook and LinkedIn and then learned about SciLink, one of the first social networks for scientists. Apparently, others had the same idea and today, there are currently, by my reckoning, no fewer than 20 social networks for scientists—each promoting a unique approach to networking for scientists.

David Bradley, a UK-based science writer who can be followed on Twitter as sciencebase, did me a favor by posting a piece oh his blog in early November that reviews many of these networks. Surprisingly, most of them were designed almost exclusively for academic scientists! I was thrilled to learn this because we created BioCrowd , our new social network, for ALL life science professionals not just academicians and industry scientists. David has graciously agreed to allow me to repost his article entitled "Social Media for Scientists" below.

Social Media For Scientists

Towards the end of October, I received a flurry of emails asking me to check out new social networking sites for scientists, I’ve already reviewed the nanoscience community, of course. I suspect that, the academic year having moved into full swing, there were a few scientists hoping to tap into the power of social media tools and the whole web-two-point-ohhhh thing.

This from Brian Krueger:

“I came across your blog during my weekly Google search for “science social network.” I thought you might be interested in my website, LabSpaces.net. It’s a social network for the sciences that I’ve had on-line for the last two years and I recently got my University to send out a press release about it. I think you should stop by and check it out. Let me know what you think, I’m always looking for suggestions on how to improve the site.”

LabSpaces has all of the features of a social-networking site with the addition of a daily science newsfeed, lab profiles, a science forum, blogs, and a science protocol database. Apparently, the site provides space for researchers to create their own user profile, add their publication history, upload technical research protocols, blog about science, and share research articles with the community. The site will soon host a free video conferencing service to facilitate long distance collaborations and journal clubs.

New Zealander Peter Matthews who works in Japan emailed:

“I am a full-time researcher from NZ, working in Japan, at a museum with many international research visitors. This multilingual environment made me very aware of: (1) the difficulties that non-English based researchers face when using English, and (2) the difficulties that English mono-linguals face when trying to access or publish research in other important research languages, such as Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, French, and so on. Hence my website: The Research Cooperative - http://cooperative.ning.com. Please have a look, join if you want, and please tell any friends and colleagues about this site if you think they might find it useful.”

Pascal Boels, Managing Director of SurgyTec.com emailed with a medical tale:

“Our website is for and by medical professionals. It’s a video-sharing site for surgeons and medical professionals to show off their newly minted skills. It makes it easy for medical professionals to upload videos or slideshows and share those with the community. You can search for videos by specialty, organ/region, tissue, etiology, operation type, or technique. Many surgeons perform original and high-quality techniques in their operating room and equally many surgeons would like to learn from these new and inspiring techniques. Up till now it was very difficult, time consuming and expensive to take a look in each others operating room and share practical knowledge, tips and tricks. Surgytec.com provides the solution for this problem. We are currently serving over 4000 surgeons from more than 124 countries, sharing over 400 procedures

Priyan Weerappuli had long been interested in scientific research but felt that applied research was guarded by private institutions while basic research was held within the confines of colleges and universities by overpriced journals and an oversimplification that occurred whenever research results were translated for more general audiences. His forum/platform will attempt to open this research to a general audience - http://www.theopensourcescienceproject.com

Some correspondents are claiming they’re approaching web 3.0 nirvana:

“ResearchGATE is proud to announce a major update: We greatly improved our search functionality and called it ReFind. The name symbolizes the importance of an efficient and result-driven search functionality within research in general and within our network in particular. ReFind is one of the first search engines based on semantic, “intelligent” correlations. It enables you to find groups, papers, fellow researchers and everything else within and outside of ResearchGATE without having to read through dozens of irrelevant results. Just type a few sentences into ReFind or simply copy and paste your abstract. Our semantic algorithm will then search the leading databases for similar work, providing you with truly relevant results.” [Sounds like my Zemanta/ResearchBlogging.org idea, DB]

One observer pointed out, however, that ResearchGate’s semantic search is maybe not the greatest thing to happen to search in a decade (especially, when we have the likes of True Knowledge Ubiquity, and Zemanta. Indeed, some users have said it is not much of an improvement on conventional search.

Then there was:

“ScienceStage.com - Science in the 21st century - A wide forum for science - on an interdisciplinary, international and individual level. ScienceStage.com, the only universal online portal for science, advanced teaching and academic research, bridges a major gap in scientific research and learning. ScienceStage.com is a virtual conference room, lecture hall, laboratory, library and meeting venue all in one.”

But, perhaps the best is saved for last. An Oxford graduate student, who has completed his PhD, Richard Price, has launched Academia.edu, which he says does two things:

“It displays academics around the world in a ‘tree’ format, according to which institution/department they are affiliated with. And, it enables researchers to keep track of the latest developments in theirfield - the latest people, papers, and talks.”

Price wants to see every academic in the world on his tree and already has Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Paul Krugman, and Noam Chomsky as members. But, that’s the hype what about its potential? It resembles BioMedExperts because both use a “social” publishing tree, but is that enough to engage scientists?

It will be interesting to see whether any of these sites gain the traction their creators hope for and how things will pan out as the credit crunch bites harder. “There are a bunch of them out there,” Krueger told me, “It’s kind of scary how many came out after Nature and I went on-line in 2006. There’s definitely a lot of competition out there, it seems like a new one appears every month. I wonder how the economy and loss of tech funding is going to affect the larger start-ups.”

Then, there are those perhaps more well-known social media sites and networks for scientists, that are listed in no particular order:

Nature Network - uber network from the publishing giant

BioMedExperts - Scientific social networking

BioWizard - Blogged up Pubmed search

Mendeley - Digital paper repository and sharing

Labmeeting - Ditto

YourLabData - socialised LIMS

SciLink - Sci-Linkedin

Myexperiment.com - mostly workflows.

Laboratree.org similar to Researchgate. Not particularly social beyond groups and sharing documents with collaborators, but email is better, and arguably more secure.

scitizen.com - collaborative science news publishing

SocialMD - Med-Linkedin

Ozmosis - Ditto

DNA Network - network of DNA/genetics bloggers

ResearchCrossroads - Socialised grant databases

MyNetResearch - Socialised LIMS at a price

SciVee - YouTube for scientists (see also Watch with Sciencebase page

Scientist Solutions - science chat

There are so many, I can barely keep up, but if you have any you think I should add to the list, let me know via the comments box below. Or, more importantly, if you have used any of these systems please leave your thoughts.

Meanwhile, my apologies if you were expecting a lesson in how to use the likes of Twotter, FiendFreed, Ding, Pyuke, or Facebok’s feeble science apps, to help you get on in science socially, but I thought it was about time I did some linking out to the web 3.0 brigade in the world of science, so here they are.

Addendum: Since David published this piece in early November, BioJobBlog learned about several other social networks for scientists including labroots, beaker, scientistsolutions and wizfolio.

Until next time…

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!!!!

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

I want to let my readers know that a beta-version of BioCrowd is ready for review. For those of you who may not know about BioCrowd, it is a social network for life sciences students and professionals that was created by Vincent Racaniello a Professor at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and me. 

The reason we started BioCrowd was that Vincent and I both perceived a need for undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to more effectively network with established scientists and life sciences professionals to further advance their careers or find jobs. The social interactivity of Facebook and the business connectivity of LinkedIn are what led to the creation of BioCrowd.

We are looking for a few brave women and men who want to help to beta-test BioCrowd before we launch.  If you are interested, please visit us at www.biocrowd.com and drop us a line.   For those of you who don't want to participate at the moment, but want to learn about our progress, you can follow us on Twitter and FriendFeed ,

Until next time...

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

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

As you all know by now, American pharmaceutical companies have been intermittently laying off thousands of employees for the past two years or so. Many of the employees who have lost their jobs are R& D scientists, marketing personnel and sales representatives. This seemingly makes sense—because fewer drugs are being discovered and brought to market, fewer people are required to market and sell them. That said, isn’t discovering new drugs the currency and lifeblood of the pharmaceutical industry? How do these companies plan to stay in business if they continue to layoff employees who are seemingly responsible for developing new sources of revenue for them? Taking their cues from the IT and software industries, many US drug makers are beginning to either transfer R&D operations to foreign, company-owned research facilities or outsourcing some or all R&D activities to foreign contract research organizations (CROs).

For those of you who may not know, US pharmaceutical companies have been routinely outsourcing various aspects of R&D and drug manufacturing for many years. For example, a majority of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and excipients found in many drug sold in the US are routinely manufactured in places like China, India and elsewhere. Until recently, many pharmaceutical companies were reluctant to outsource many critical R&D activities, e.g., screening, medicinal chemistry, pre-clinical testing, etc. for fear of inferior quality. However, the increasing costs of conducting US-based R&D coupled with a worldwide glut of American-trained, foreign scientists (who were unable or not permitted to find jobs in the US) has made the practice of outsourcing R&D operations less risky and more economically feasible. After all, many of the scientists who work in company-owned foreign research facilities or foreign-owned CROs were trained by American scientists who work at some of America’s pre-eminent academic and government research institutions.

From a business perspective, it makes complete sense that pharmaceutical companies might opt to transfer or outsource R&D operations to foreign countries—the quality is good and it is much cheaper! That said, don’t expect the price of pharmaceutical drugs to plummet anytime soon as more drug makers outsource or expand their R&D operations in foreign countries. Put simply, pharmaceutical companies are outsourcing R&D to cut costs, drive up stock share prices and insure financial growth by preserving the staggering product profit margins that they currently enjoy. Take Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) for example. Late last Wednesday, its CFO told a group of financial analysts and investors that the company plans on trimming $2.5 billion by 2012 from its operating budget through US job cuts and revamping operations. Shortly after the announcement, I read with amazement that BMS is expanding its R&D operations in Bangalore, India and that they are looking to hire no fewer than five new Department heads—America’s loss is India’s gain!

While outsourcing or expanding R&D operations in foreign countries at the expense of American workers may help the bottom line of many US drug makers, it will do precious little to reverse the decade-long, decline of America’s global competitiveness in science and technology.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try India)!!!!!!

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

I just returned from the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS) that was held in Orlando from November 5-8, 2008. The annual meeting, which is configured like most life sciences conferences with plenary oral sessions and poster presentations, is primarily intended to expose minority students to possible career opportunities in the life and biomedical sciences. I was at the meeting working for FASEB Careers as a career development and resume critiquing consultant.  

I have to say that this year's  ABRCMS was one of the most exciting and motivational meetings that I have attended in my career as a scientist and educator. Part of  the excitement and upbeat feeling at the meeting may have been a direct  result of last Tuesday's historic election of Barack Obama (who wasn't excited?).  Nevertheless, I met countless numbers of bright,  highly motivated and talented minority students who want to pursue careers in science, medicine and sometimes both! I was pleasantly surprised to learn that many of the undergraduate students who attend this meeting are actively engaged in basic research in laboratories at their institutions. Further, unlike many of their non-minority counterparts, most of the students who I chatted with were well informed about their intended careers and had divined well thought out strategies to help them realize their career goals and aspirations.

Kudos to the conference organizers and their sponsors! I look forward to attending next year’s conference in Phoenix, AZ.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

I was reading Karen Ventii’s Science to Life blog today and she “turned me on” to a couple of new web-based tools that I think might be useful to people who work in the biosciences. I added Karen’s recommendations to a list that I was building and decided that it had reached enough of a critical mass to share it with you.

The first of these new tools is called graduatejunction.com, a research community primarily aimed at graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. According to its founders—a team of UK graduate students at Durham and Oxford universities—the intent of graduatejunction.com is build a community of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows so that members can stay abreast of research activities within in the community and to connect with other community members who share common research interests. Not a bad idea, considering that many graduate students and postdocs frequently operate in intentional mentor-induced research vacuums.

The second is called labmeeting.com. It is a novel, web-based tool that helps researchers organize (and search) personal PDF collections, share laboratory protocols, Powerpoint presentations and other scientific data with their lab mates. The software was created by graduate students at Stanford University and it aims to organize laboratory research so that it can be conducted more efficiently and at a faster pace (time is money after all). I think that this concept has legs and might be a big winner downstream (although security will be of paramount importance).

Another new tool that warrants praise is biomedexperts.com that was created by Collexis, Inc. In my opinion, biomedexperts.com is the “mother of all” publication search tools and literature management systems. Billed as the first literature-based social network, it allows users to quickly perform personalized literature searches (based on authorship and research interests) and then identify potential collaborators or competitors who have published in the same research areas. Unfortunately, while biomedexperts.com is a “monster” web-based, literature search application, the communication and interactivity between community members is extremely limited and almost non-existent.

Finally, for those of you who are tired of using PubMed’s arcane Boolean search algorithm to find relevant publications, you might consider trying a new free search engine (semanticmedline.com) that allows users to search MEDLINE using phrases or “conventional sentences." Cognition Technologies, creator of the site, says its “semantic natural language processing technology "incorporates word and phrase knowledge to comprehend the meaning and nuances of the English language." Although early reviews suggest that semanticmedline.com might not powerful enough for doing comprehensive science literature searches, it may be useful in situations when you are working on a time-sensitive project or you need to quickly find an article for this afternoon’s journal club meeting (that you failed  to enter into your blackberry or iPhone).

Check them out—they are all pretty cool (for scientists anyway-not that there is anything wrong with that)!

Until next time

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

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

Novartis announced today that it will open a new research facility and hire an additional 150 people by the end of 2009 for a Research Center of Excellence in Virology in Cambridge, MA. That will increase the number of people employed by the company in Cambridge to more than 1,800 workers. Researchers at the new center will study vaccines for HIV/AIDS influenza, cytomegalovirus (CMV) and respiratory syncitial virus (RSV). 

The vaccine business once avoided like the plague by most pharma companies, has been growing by leaps and bound over the past five years and is sizzling hot these days. According to analysts, vaccines generated about $16 billion dollars last year. For example, Merck’s anti-human papilloma virus vaccine Gardasil generated $1.5 billion in sales in 2007.

Novartis clearly sees an upside in the vaccine business and is willing to make a wise investment for the future.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Peggy McKee, a regular guest blogger at BioJobBlog has created a series of podcasts for her readers. The one that I posted here has to do with learning how to network—an essential skill that scientists are notoriously poor at!   Because this is the first EVER podcast on BioJobBlog, please let me know whether it worked (I am a neophyte at this) and whether you thought it was useful.  That said, listen and learn!!!!!!!!

Networking is critically important in the business world–and in the rest of the world, too, if you think about it.  There are several keys things to consider when networking.  Examples of these are:

• How to make yourself available to people and provide value to them and become the kind of person other people want in their network.  (Here’s a quick extra link for how to use networking as a marketing tool.)
• Who to keep in your network…customers, co-workers, and especially former managers.How to keep in touch, and what to say when you do.
• Ways to network beyond the traditional, like using LinkedIn.

The information in this podcast, will hopefully provide you with new insights into networking.

Click on: Peggy McKee - the medical sales recruiter… #4 - Networking - now and forever  to listen to Peggy's podcast.

Until next time....

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

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