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

I started BioJobBlog in 2007 primarily as a means for me to express myself about life science careers and issue and challenges confronting the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical devices industry. That said, I never thought that BioJobBlog would ever amount to much; it was simply a vehicle for me to rant and rave about things that were important to me! It is a daunting challenge to begin a blog with no readers and then realize that 5 years later over 2.0 million unique readers have visited to read my thoughts and ideas about a wide breadth of topics.

I want to thank the readers who continue to visit BioJobBlog. And, I hope that what I have written over the past five years has either helped or induced you to think about issues in the life sciences industry. While I have no plans to stop blogging; my schedule is becoming increasingly challenging and I can no longer post articles as frequently as I have in the past. Nevertheless, I will continue do what I can to keep the content at BioJobBlog interesting, fresh and thought-provoking. 

Please feel free to contact me with ideas, thoughts or comments about the blog (or anything else for that matter). 

Thanks for supporting BioJobBlog!

Until next time...

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

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

A fascinating article entitled “Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)” that appeared in the NY Times this past Sunday asserts that the decline in American science, technology engineering and math (STEM) majors can be mainly attributed to the difficulty of the subject matter as compared with non-science majors. While I agree that STEM courses may be a bit more challenging their non-science counterparts and the way that they are taught can be improved, the decline in STEM majors can be directly attributed to the length of training and earning potential for STEM jobs as compared with non-STEM ones. Put simply, persons who pursue non-STEM careers generally require less training and have a much higher earning potential than those who choose STEM career paths. And, the reason why foreign students from emerging are flocking to STEM careers is that these jobs are highly regarded in their home countries and those who pursue these career paths are well compensated for their efforts.

Rather than try and enunciate my feelings on this topic, I think a Letter to the Editor from Stuart Firestein, PhD, Chairman of the department of biological sciences at Columbia University that appeared in today’s NY Times nicely capture my sentiments:

To the Editor:

Why do science majors change their mind? They wise up.

Your article makes it sound as if American science students are stupid or lazy, unlike their workaholic Chinese and Indian counterparts. This is glib and insulting.

It is in their second year that students typically join laboratories and see firsthand that their dreams of a scientific career include low-paying and highly competitive professorial jobs, that getting grants for scientific research is increasingly difficult and unpredictable, that they are facing many years of postgraduate work at ridiculously low salaries and that they would have a hard time supporting a family.

Compare this future with that of the economics major (lots of math) who goes to business school and can look forward to million-dollar yearly bonuses.

American students change their majors because they recognize that this country has stopped providing a reasonable future for scientists, with slashed budgets for the National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and National Institutes of Health.

For Chinese and Indian students, science remains a way out of poverty. For American students, it’s becoming the path into it.

In addition to Dr. Firestein’s comments, it is important to note that outsourcing and consolidation in the life sciences industry that has occurred over the past decade has all but eliminated the option of industry jobs for those who were unable to secure academic positions. Put simply, there are no longer enough jobs in the US to support the numbers of sciences students that we annually train.

Although I have never taken an economic course, simple supply side economic theory suggests that training fewer scientists—thereby reducing competition for a dwindling number of jobs—may partially help to solve the STEM job problem. Further, changing the way in which we train STEM students, to provide them with the requisite skill sets for non-academic career would also help. Finally, eliminating tenure, which would force increased turnover among research faculty members and regularly infuse new ideas into extant STEM curricula would help to increase the overall number of available STEM jobs and also improve America’s global competitiveness in the sciences.

Until next time...

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

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

I just returned from the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) meeting in Washington DC where I gave three talks about biocareer development strategies. One of the talks, "Emerging Job Opportunities in the Life Sciences Industry" was reported on (see below) by a writer from Fierce Pharma.  While I don't usually "too my own horn." about my achievements, I thought a Number 2 ranking in the publications daily top 10 list was certainly worth a mention.  

 
New job opportunities emerging in Big Pharma
October 26, 2011 — 7:24am ET | By Maureen Martino

Since 2001, 300,000 pharma employees have lost their jobs, primarily in R&D and sales. That's according to Clifford Mintz, the founder of BioInsights, which develops and offers bioscience education and training. Mintz spoke at a session on new job opportunities in biotech and pharma at the annual AAPS meeting in Washington, D.C. While the losses have been steep, they're balanced by emerging, in-demand careers in the industry.

The industry's struggles are well-known: Many companies are facing loss of exclusivity on their biggest sellers but have little in the pipeline to pick up the slack. Productivity is dropping as the cost of bringing a new drug to market soars. Government and payors want more effective drugs for less money. The list goes on.

Developers are looking to new markets and new technologies to address these issues. But how do these trends play out for the pharma job seeker? Many people, particularly Ph.D.s, may have to consider getting additional training if they want to land their dream job. "Companies used to be willing to just hire smart people. But with the economic downturn and global competition, companies can no longer afford to invest in people who have promise. They need to see proven skills," Mintz explained. With the right blend of skills and experience, however, there still some pharma jobs that are in demand.

Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs

"Clinical research is the lifeblood of the industry," Mintz said. As developers expand in emerging markets, there's a particular demand for people to manage and organize overseas clinical trials. "There's a huge need for clinical research professionals worldwide," he said, noting that most Phase I and II trials are conducted outside of the U.S.

Another one of the industry's perennial needs is regulatory affairs professionals. "Regulatory affairs experience is a skill that all companies large and small would die to get their hands on," explained Mintz. The increasingly complex and uncertain world of FDA regulation--particularly when it comes to new technology and science--means that companies are always on the prowl for individuals with solid regulatory knowledge and ability to interact with the FDA. You can read more about the demand for clinical research and regulatory affairs jobs here.

Biomanufacturing

The pharma industry's interest in biologics remains strong--just look at Sanofi's buyout of Genzyme, or Roche's purchase of Genentech. They're lured by disease-altering biologics that are less likely to face generic competition than traditional drugs. As a result, there's been increased demand for professionals who can navigate the complex world of biomanufacturing. Those with a background in upstream and downstream processes, large-scale protein purification, fermentation technology and bioengineering can make the transition to biomanufacturing.

Healthcare Information Technology

The rise of bioinformatics and genomics coupled with the push for electronic medical records has created jobs in healthcare information technology. Health informatics--the intersection of healthcare and IT--is ideal for people with expertise in genomics, bioinformatics or software that understand how to work with and manipulate large data sets and databases. The Obama administration has made EHRs a priority, and there's a need for software engineers and biologists who are comfortable working with medical information.

Medical Devices

"The medical devices industry has been experiencing explosive growth for the past decade," Mintz said. Regulatory hurdles in the medical device industry are much lower than they are for biologics or small molecules, making the industry a more stable alternative to biotech and pharma. The demand for devices, which address problems that can't be treated with medicine, will continue to grow as the population ages. Job seekers with strong backgrounds in bioinformatics, genomics, engineering and translational medicine are best suited to this field.

Medical Communications

Medical communications--which includes medical writing, editing, graphic design and science journalism--continues to boom. The demand for these jobs has risen because companies need a slew of communication materials to send to patients, physicians, researchers, investigators and the general public about their products and business.

Patent Law and Technology Transfer

Recent changes to U.S. patent laws have increased the demand for patent agents and patent attorneys in the life sciences field. Pharma's growing reliance on basic research from learning institutions means that there's a need for technology transfer experts. These experts manage the patent estate and intellectual property of universities and colleges that may engage in licensing deals with the industry. A law degree is a must to compete in this field.

Until next time...

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

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

Created by: Online PhD

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

According to an article that appeared in the online version of The Chronicle of Higher Education website the Council of Graduate Schools and the Educational Testing Service  last Thursday that they are creating a commission to study and recommend ways to help graduate students move more easily through their training and into careers.

The commission aptly named The Commission on Pathways Through Graduate School and Into Careers, is composed of college officials and business leaders and will examine how much graduate students know about their career options once they obtain their degrees. Further it will also look into how students learn about their professional opportunities after graduation and the role of graduate programs in guiding students in their transition to a career.  The findings uncovered by the commission will likely be reported sometime next spring.

Ironically, the impetus for creating the commission was a report released in 2010 that urged the US to make it a national priority to improve graduate education and attract more students to pursue graduate degrees to prevent the country’s decline in global competitiveness. By 2018, the report estimated about 2.5 million more jobs will require graduate degrees. I am not sure what the authors of the report were smoking at the time that they prepared it, but I for one do not think we need more people with advanced degrees; especially in the life sciences. That being said, since the PhD-producing machine will not stop until tenure is abolished, the next best thing is for graduate programs to provide incoming students with a “real-life” perspective on career opportunities and the training necessary to pursue them. At present, career development programs and career counseling services are virtually non-existent at most universities and colleges. 

While formation of the commission is laudable, I am not convinced that it will accomplish anything except possibly assuage growing graduate student and postdoc discontent at many academic institutions. The reason why my expectations are low is a comment made by Patrick Osmer, the commission chair and vice provost for graduate studies and dean of the Graduate School at Ohio State University, who said

“It is important to create a dialogue with graduate students and with employers, and to listen to the students' concerns and expectations about career paths beyond academe.”

Personally, I don’t think that the lack of dialogue between graduate students and prospective employers is the problem. The real problem is the lack of care development discussions between graduate students and their advisors; many of whom don’t know or care about career options for the persons who they train. Until graduate programs recognize that career development counseling and training are in their bailiwick, then nothing is going to change regardless of findings of one or more “expert” commission run by individuals who are part of the problem!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!   

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

For the past several years, I have been trying to convince anyone who would listen that the reason for the dismal job prospects for most PhD-trained scientists is a simple supply and demand issue. To wit, there are too many PhDs and too few jobs for them! 

While I intuitively understood that this was the case, nobody had ever substantiated the veracity of the claim and consequently I was beginning to think I was wrong. Imagine my joy after reading William Deresiewicz’s piece in this month’s edition of the The Nation magazine. In an article entitled “Faulty Towers: The Crisis in Higher Education,” Deresiewicz elegantly and aptly sums up the situation facing today’s newly minted PhDs:

"At Yale, we were overjoyed if half our graduating students found positions. That’s right—half........You’d think departments would respond to the Somme-like conditions they’re sending out their newly minted PhDs to face by cutting down the size of their graduate programs. If demand drops, supply should drop to meet it. In fact, many departments are doing the opposite, the job market be damned. More important is maintaining the flow of labor to their domestic sweatshops, the pipeline of graduate students who staff discussion sections and teach introductory and service courses like freshman composition and first-year calculus. (Professors also need dissertations to direct, or how would they justify their own existence?)

Further, he asserts:

“......the PhD glut works well for departments at both ends, since it gives them the whip hand when it comes to hiring new professors. Graduate programs occupy a highly unusual, and advantageous, market position: they are both the producers and the consumers of academic labor, but as producers, they have no financial stake in whether their product “sells”—that is, whether their graduates get jobs. Yes, a program’s prestige is related, in part, to its placement rate, but only in relative terms. In a normal industry, if no firm sells more than half of what it produces, then either everyone goes out of business or the industry consolidates. But in academia, if no one does better than 50 percent, then 50 percent is great. Programs have every incentive to keep prices low by maintaining the oversupply.”

Finally he concludes with an eye-opening but sadly accurate observation:

“How professors square their Jekyll-and-Hyde roles in the process—devoted teachers of individual students, co-managers of a system that exploits them as a group—I do not know. Denial, no doubt, along with the rationale that this is just the way it is, so what can you do?”

I am glad that somebody else perceives the problem the way that I do. At least, I now know that I am on the right track! Do any BioJobBlog readers have any suggestions, ideas or insights into how to fix this obviously broken system? 

Let me know!

Until next time...

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

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

A graduate student friend of mine suggested that his research project was very similar to a video entitled "The Bad Project Video (Lady Gaga Parody)."  The video based on the Lady Gaga hit song "Bad Romance" was produced by members of the Zheng Lab who study Alzheimer's disease at Baylor College of Medicine. The lab unveiled its video at their annual 2011 Molecular and Human Genetics Retreat. 

To date, the video that was posted on YouTube has already amassed over 2.7 million hits an almost unprecedented number of hits for a science video! Members of the lab posted this introduction at their YouTube site:

"Thanks everyone for your comments and words of encouragement! We had no idea this would spread like it has, but I guess some of these feelings are universal (and international!). This was all in good fun and took us only a few days to do the filming and editing. If you are caught in a bad project, best of luck and hope you can turn it around soon!"

Unfortunately, the video accurately depicts the daily lives of  many graduate students and postdoctoral scientists struggling to jump start careers in the life sciences.  In any event, it is a well produced and hilarious attempt to show graduate students and postdocs that they are not alone and that there may be light at the end of the tunnel. 

Until next time..

Good Luck and Hang In There!!!!!!!!

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

The recent article published in the NY Times about the decline of high school student participation in science fairs resulted in many letters to the editor. Many of them were from concerned citizens and a few were from university researchers decrying the lack of government funding for research and the funding of sports over science programs. Another railed against the Bush’s Administration’s poorly crafted and ill-advised No Child Left Behind Act. However, there was one letter that surprised me. It was written by John P. Holdren, President Obama’s science and technology adviser (see below)

To the Editor:

Your article points to deep budget challenges that many school districts are facing and problems with the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind law.

But it does not mention much of the Obama administration’s extraordinary agenda for improving science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education in this country: for example, the commitment to prepare 100,000 new math and science teachers over the next 10 years, the $4 billion Race to the Top program’s support for innovation in teaching these important subjects, and the administration’s blueprint for updating the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this year.

Recognizing that government alone cannot be the answer, moreover, the president has also called upon the business community, foundations, professional societies and others to do more. Already, the president’s “Educate to Innovate” campaign has attracted more than $700 million in nongovernmental financial and in-kind support for science and math programs.

And more than 100 chief executives have responded to the president’s “all hands on deck” call to action by launching “Change the Equation,” an unprecedented program to scale up effective models for improving STEM education.

John P. Holdren
Washington, Feb. 7, 2011

The writer is President Obama’s science and technology adviser.

What surprised me about the letter is that it took an article critical of the Obama Administration’s commitment to science education to provide the American public (at least part of it) with some insight into the government’s recognition of the problem and steps that it is taking to help to correct it. Perhaps the Obama administration needs to be a bit more proactive and publicly-vocal about its plans to improve American STEM education. This would go a long way to assuage some of the concerns about America's waning global competitiveness in science and technology.

Like Dr. Holdren, I believe that government alone cannot be the answer and American corporations must get actively involved by providing ideas on how to improve American science education and the financial support to implement them. While the CEO-endorsed program “Change the Equation” sounds great on paper, it is time for those CEOs to actually step up and do something about the problem. Many of these same CEOs have been complaining for decades about the lack of STEM preparedness of the American workforce. As somebody once said “Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words!”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!

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

Twitter was largely ignored by college-age students after it was introduced over three years ago. At that time, Facebook was on the rise and texting appeared to be sufficient to meet the needs of much college students. Nevertheless, over the past year or so, university researchers have begun to assess Twitter as an education tool in addition to the role it has played in shaping today’s social media usage. 

According to a recent study published in the Computer Assisted Learning, Twitter can apparently bolster student interest and engagement and grade-point average. The study followed 125 undergraduate health studies majors at a public mid-sized US university. Half of the students used Twitter whereas the other half (control) group did not. The results of the study showed that Twitter users had an average GPA half a point higher than their non-tweeting counterparts. Also, the tweeting cohort more frequently participated in class and sought out their professors to discuss course material outside of class. 

Tweeters mentioned that Twitter was a less intimidating means to express themselves in large classes. In other words, Twitter was a less anxiety ridden means to ask questions during lecture. And, perhaps more importantly, Twitter users had much greater access to instructors outside of class. Also, instructors we able to send out tweets during lectures to keep their students engaged and awake! After all, who doesn’t look at their cell phones when they are vibrating and buzzing?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting  

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

I have tried to steer clear of the Facebook frenzy mainly because I don’t like the platform (it is too unwieldy) and frankly, pretty boring. I would be lying if I said I don’t have several accounts and regularly use it to advertise some of my own entrepreneurial ventures. After all, how can 500,000 million users be wrong? 

However, with the release of the movie The Social Network and Mark Zuckerberg’s recent foray into saving Newark, NJ and secondary education, it is getting difficult to avoid entering the fracas (not to mention that it is good for SEO).

While the popularity of Facebook continues to grow, it is becoming increasingly difficult for new and even long time users for figure out how to successfully use the platform. To overcome the difficulties and complexities of Facebook, the folks over at CollegeCrunch.org posted an article to help college students (and others) makes Facebook “less annoying” to use. 

I find this extremely ironic, since college students were the first Facebook users and mainly responsible for its meteoric rise in social media circles! 

10 Ways to Make Facebook Less Annoying 

While Facebook has grown and evolved a whole lot from when it first was created, it seems as though it also seems to be losing some popularity. People who have had Facebook for years have noticed the drastic changes and numerous page layouts and defaults that have changed Facebook in recent years. The following changes could help Facebook turn around its image and be a little less annoying:

1. Friend requests procedure
Unless you have some major privacy settings set on your account, it's fairly easy for anyone you know- or don't know for that matter, to send you a friend request on Facebook. The problem arises when you don't know or care to be friends with that person and you ignore their request. You can then be bombarded by repeated attempts which can be annoying and creepy. Making it impossible for someone to send you a friend request once you have denied them, would make the Facebook procedure a lot less annoying. 

2. College students only
When Facebook first started, only college students and staff were able to join and create profiles. Facebook required you to have some type of university administered email that had to be verified before users could join. Now that just anyone can join, it allows all sorts of people you don't want to be friends with send you friend requests. When you start getting friend requests from your parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and then people you don't even know you begin to wish Facebook went back to just letting university students and staff in on the network.

3. Limit status updates
Everyone has someone on their Facebook that updates their status and informs you of every step along the way in their day. Not only can documenting their day on Facebook become extremely annoying, it's also an open door for other people to know where you are and what you are doing. We don't really need to know who's eating what and with whom, who's fighting with their significant other and how drunk someone is, it's best to limit the amount of times a person could update their status a day- it would be a lot less annoying and probably stop a lot of people from yelling at their computer screens or phones. 

4. Eliminate Farmville
While Farmville and other games on Facebook seem to have plenty of followers, the people that don't play these games shouldn't have to be subjected to constantly view their progress in the game. A group has even been started on Facebook that invites discussion and provides info for those that hate games entitled "I don't care about your farm, or your fish, or your park, or your mafia!!!" That group alone has over 6 million members, and is a sign that the elimination of that game and many others would make a lot of people on Facebook less annoyed. 

5. The layout wasn't changed so often
If you've been a user with Facebook over the last several years you'll know that the layout is changed quite frequently. It seems as though just as you are getting used to the current layout, it is changed again and you are left wondering how to navigate through things and don't know where to find certain settings, applications, and general things on your home page or profile. Plenty of Facebook users find this extremely annoying, as sometimes it takes days to figure out and get used to the new layout, for it only to be changed and relearned in a couple of months.

6. Easier and more understandable privacy and account settings
It seems that anytime you are trying to customize or change privacy or account settings, its not very easy to navigate through. It would help a great deal if the privacy settings were clear enough to where you do not have to individually manage settings and type in every single person's name in your blocked or not blocked lists. It seems as though anytime you want to change something in your privacy settings, it's going to take a while, and that can be very annoying.

7. Categorize picture tagging
As if picture tagging wasn't a chore in itself, the fact pictures can not be tagged in separate groups can be very annoying. Since most of us on Facebook like to limit our profiles from certain friends, coworkers, or family members, it's kind of annoying that you can't also group and tag your photos in some way so that they can be under different categories. That would save a lot of time and frustration when uploading and tagging pictures.

8. Block applications, event invitations, etc.
We've all been all that point when our notifications are nothing but event invitations, invitations to join a certain cause, or to join a certain group. If you are one of the ones that finds this annoying, you can modify your settings so that you don't receive a notification whenever you receive one. It would probably just be less annoying to be able to block all invitations in general, because even if you modify your notifications, the events and invitations will still show up on your home page.

9. Don't accept just anyone
While some people feel bad denying friend requests with people they don't know or would just not rather catch up with, being choosy with who you decide to accept as a friend is pretty important. Accepting someone just because you don't want to feel bad or don't want them to keep requesting you is going to annoy you more when you can't stand to see their walls, status updates, and photo albums. So, keep it easier on yourself and don't accept people you'd rather not having anything to do with.

10. Delete your account
If you really are at the breaking point with Facebook and find yourself so annoyed with it all the time, there are two options. You can either limit the amount of times you login per week so that you dont have to be bothered and annoyed by people's pictures, updates, and wall posts, or you can delete your account all together and never worry about Facebook annoying you again.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Following!!!!!!!

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

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you needed important biological, genetic or other life sciences information quickly? Sure, you can Google the topic but it takes time to wade through all of the search results until you find the right one!

Carol Brown from Onlineuniversities.com sent me a list of the “100 Best Reference Sites for Science Students.” The list contains information for chemistry, environmental science and even geology.  I extracted the life sciences websites from the list and posted them below.  

1. Biology Online: On this site you can post questions in a forum, look things up in a bio dictionary, and read all kinds of informative articles and tutorials.
2. Everything Bio: Check out this resource to find a glossary, textbooks, images and a range of other online biology tools.
3. Life Science Dictionary: Try out this dictionary to look up life science terms and identify their meanings.
4. Molecular Biology Glossary: Students of molecular biology will appreciate this valuable research tool.
5. National Biological Information Infrastructure: Want to know and read about the research being done in the life sciences? Check out this site.
6. Biology Reference: You can look up loads of helpful biology terms in this online encyclopedia.
7. Biology Nation: From finding the best biology grad programs for looking up biology terminology, this site is a one-stop resource.
8. Dictionary of Cell and Molecular Biology: Search through this online dictionary to refresh your memory on the parts of the cell.
9. BioScience: With a dictionary, encyclopedia, links, software, and custom search tools, you’ll find more reference material than you could ever need on this site.
10. All Experts: Biology: Have a biology question you just can’t seem to find the 
11. Amino Acids Repository: Use this site as a reference on amino acid properties alone and in proteins.
12. Table of Standard Genetic Code: This site is a great reference when trying to remember which part of DNA goes where.
13. Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms: Don’t know how to say a particular term? No worries, this glossary will tell you and more.
14. Human Genome Acronym List: Don’t have a clue what the ASHG is? This site can help you look it up.
15. Genetics Resources on the Web: Search through this site for the best genetics resources the web has to offer.
16. National Human Genome Research Institute: This site offers a number of helpful educational resources for students young and old.
17. Genetics Virtual Library: Search by organism or topic to find the genetic information you need to do your homework.
18. Genetics Home Reference: Those studying genetic disorders will appreciate this quick online reference for conditions.
19. GeneTests: Even if you’re not in medicine, you’ll be able to find interesting and compelling information on this site.
20. Gene Cards: You’ll find a collection of concise information on just about every gene out there on this site.

While I can’t vouch for the quality of the  list, it looks to be pretty informative.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Studying!!!!!!

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

While this isn’t a new topic, I wanted to raise the question again because I recently received a message  from a reader that greatly troubled me. The person who posted the comment has a PhD degree in biomedical engineering and is extremely angry with the existing system because of the lack of employment opportunities in her field. Put simply, she is so frustrated with the system that she no longer believes that it is ethical to advise young people to pursue careers in the life sciences. I know that she isn’t alone and that many of you share her anger and frustration with the lies (as she put it) about employment opportunities for life sciences PhD candidates and postdoctoral fellows

From time to time, I am invited by graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to talk about alternative careers in the life sciences. I try to remain upbeat and positive during my presentation but generally I can’t control myself by the Q&A session. Invariably, I rant and rave about how dysfunctional academia has become. Interestingly, I recently was uninvited by my former graduate department where I was slated to present a seminar on alternate career choices for life scientists. As the tenured faculty member (you know how I feel about tenure) who would have sponsored my visit told me “the seminars that we offer our students are scientific in nature and much different than many of the topics that I discuss on my very interesting blog.” Consequently, he informed me that I was no longer invited to give my talk (I was previously invited by the Department Chair who happened to be a former colleague of mine who decided to move to another institution before my visit). In an e-mail response to his un-invitation, I told him that I wanted to visit the Department and give the talk because I believe that my graduate education is what enabled me to maneuver the minefield that ultimately became my career path. Also, I told him that I wanted to share my insights and career experiences with current graduate students and postdoctoral fellows because I thought that many may benefit from them. Not surprisingly, I never heard back from him. 

The point that I am trying to make is that my message about alternative careers for PhD students is diametrically opposed to the mission of most PhD programs; which is to prepare 100% of their students for academic careers. Unfortunately, as I have stated many times in the past, only about 10% of those who receive life sciences PhD degrees land academic appointments. What are the remaining 90% of the folks who toiled long and hard for their PhD degrees suppose to do with their lives? In the past, as many as 50% or more of these students were able to garner jobs as research scientists at biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies or with government agencies like the CDC, FDA, EPA and others. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry has laid off over 200,000 employees in the past 3 years, funding for biotech companies has hit an all time low and we are experiencing the worst recession in almost 70 years which is causing government agencies to stop hiring! This begs the question: what are graduate students pursuing PhD degrees and postdoctoral fellows suppose to do to put food on the table to feed their families and themselves? 

While I don’t have an easy answer to that question, I can tell you that getting angry and frustrated or dropping out of the system isn’t going to change anything. I will also tell you that the system isn’t going to change by itself! To that end, it may make sense for all of you angry and frustrated graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to band together and tell your advisors and mentors that “you are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.” To show them that you are serious, I highly recommend that your offer them a plan to address your concerns about finding gainful employment (not decade long postdoctoral fellowships) following completion of your PhD degrees. For example, you may suggest that they add alternate career certificate and degree programs to their existing curricula. Or, if new programs are too costly, suggest that they offer courses that showcase alternate career options like entrepreneurship, science writing or medical communications. Finally, at the very list, insist that they work with local companies and organization to create sponsored internship opportunities and get them to commit to supporting annual career development symposia or job fairs for graduate students and postdocs.

For the past decade or more, I have struggled to convince many of my academic colleagues to consider any and all of the above suggestions. Unfortunately, my pleas for creation of new courses and programs have fallen upon deaf ears! Given my current lack of success, I suspect that it is going to take more than one person (me) to induce the academic establishment to consider systemic change. That said anybody who may be interested in joining the “cause” to improve employment opportunities for PhD life scientists, please feel free to contact me!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Organizing!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Amber Johnson of Accredited College Online thought that BioJobBlog readers might be interested in an article that she authored entitled “10 Big Ways that the Recession is Hitting Higher Ed.”  It is an informative piece that might be of interest to high school and undergraduate students and parents who have kids in college.

10 Big Ways the Recession is Hitting Higher Ed

From elementary to college, schools around the nation have felt the recession in many different ways. As the economy sinks, the educational demands rise. Teachers are holding on to dear life for their jobs, students are struggling to pay for college and the states are running out of school funding. But even with all of these economic woes, there are still people eager to teach and happy to learn.

1. Budget Cuts. Since the beginning of the fiscal year, the U.S. has suffered a 5 percent drop (about $4 billion) from the amount of money state governments apportioned for higher education, according to a U.S. News & World Report article. This is directly affecting universities across the country, who’ve seen larger class sizes, less professors and counselors, as well as canceled courses, which experts say could "threaten the quality of education."
2. Spike in Tuition. College tuition has been an inevitable hurdle for many students and families for years, but in this recession, it stings that much more. Since 1982, college tuition and fees have increased 439 percent, which is about three times higher than the increase in family incomes, according to an ABC news report. In some cases, tuition increases are the school’s response to more financial aid requests, but these scholarships may not be enough to cover soaring prices.
3. Decline in Aid. Many states are cutting college financial aid programs when students need it most. An increase in unemployment and financial losses has caused 620,000 more students to apply for federal aid in the first quarter compared to last year. An Associated Press article reports that without financial assistance, students may be forced to drop out, transfer or be laden with debt.
4. Decline in Endowments. A major factor in these educational downturns is the decline in college endowments. Big and small donors simply aren’t giving back right now, which has caused hiring freezes, cutbacks on financial aid and halted construction projects, according to a Wall Street Journal article.
5. Graduate in Three Years.Graduating in three years is a surefire way to slash college costs. American colleges are now starting to offer three-year college degrees, which is the normal time frame for many British and Canadian students. It’s an upcoming trend, according to CBS MoneyWatch, that could make "elite education" more affordable.
6. More Kids Are Going Public. According to a CBS News report, private school enrollments have declined as many students make the switch from private to public schools. While some continue to pay top dollar for private school tuition payments, others have had to transfer to less prestigious schools to save money.
7. Arts Programs Suffer. With devastating budget cuts on the agenda, college art departments are the first area to be altered. According to a New York Times article, students can expect to see fewer teachers, programs and courses in the arts when they return to campus in the fall. While some colleges are phasing out programs altogether, others, like Louisiana State University, are holding off on new computers, production technology and traveling for conferences to lessen their demand for funding.
8. Growth and Decline of Majors. For college students, choosing the right major during the recession may secure a stable career in the future. Certain industries, such as journalism, entertainment and finance should be avoided, according to a report by College Finance 101, because they have seen the most turmoil during the recession.
9. Higher Community College Enrollment. With the recession at its peak, many college students have opted for the more affordable institutions — community colleges, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. However, this influx of students has caused some community colleges to turn them away, claiming there’s not enough room, teachers and accommodations at these campuses.
10. Distance Learning is More Desirable. A big thing hitting the economy is online education. Whether people have lost a job, are fearful of losing one or want a degree, online colleges have open seats. A CNN report, titled "Riding out the recession in a virtual classroom," touches on the idea of investing in education during troubled times to have a back-up plan and find the right career path for you.

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

People frequently ask me why I decided to get a PhD degree to become a scientist. For the past 30 years, I have tried to explain to people why I decided to spend seven long years of “blood, sweat and tears” to attain that elusive degree. While anyone who has earned a PhD degree understands what drove them to do it, it is difficult to explain to others that the decision has little to do with career paths and salary considerations and is largely driven by passion— and perhaps more aptly—obsession. That is why Carole and Richard Rifkin’s film “Naturally Obsessed: The Making of Scientist”—an emotional and gritty film that follows the lives of three Columbia graduate students on their quest to obtaining their PhD degrees—is resonating with scientists, students and the public.

The film, which took five years to make and was launched in March 2009, follows the progress of three X-ray crystallography graduate students, Rob, Killington (Kil) and Gabrielle, who worked in Larry Shapiro’s laboratory at Columbia University Medical Center. Work in Larry’s laboratory focuses on elucidating the X-crystallographic structure of proteins that are thought to be involved in appetite control. While Rob, Kil and Gabrielle share a common goal—getting a PhD degree—they are very different people. Rob is a rebellious, boisterous, self-assured free thinker (who was thrown out of a previous laboratory) whereas Kil is a more staid, soft spoken pragmatist from the Midwest. Gabrielle, who returned to graduate school to pursue a PhD degree after a stint as a laboratory technician at a company, loves science but isn’t certain that she has the mettle to realize her dream. Each of them understands that time is of the essence and they work feverishly and unrelentingly  to insure that their competitors don't beat them to the punch and publish first!

Despite their obvious personality differences, each is driven and obsessed with producing perfectly-formed protein crystals that are suitable for X-ray crystallography analysis. The film accurately and painstakingly depicts the inevitable emotional “ups and downs” of laboratory research, the personal struggles and the often difficult life decisions that are made when pursuing a PhD degree. In the end, Rob, Kil and Laura find their own career paths as scientists and perhaps, more importantly. come to terms with the decisions that they made during their journeys.

Carole, a documentary filmmaker, and Richard, Chairman Emeritus of the Sloan-Kettering Institute and founding Chairman of the New York Structural Biology Center, made the film to portray the “reality of doing science” and raise awareness about scientific research. The film emphasizes that science, like art, requires creativity, persistence and unyielding commitment and dedication. The Rifkinds interviewed many NYC-based academic laboratories before choosing Larry Shapiro’s laboratory as the subject of their documentary film. Larry’s laboratory was chosen because X-crystallography is visual (and lends itself to film making) and Carol had a hunch that “there was a story to be told there.”

During a recent interview with the Rifkinds, I mentioned that if I had seen the film as a high school or undergraduate student, I probably would have skipped graduate school. Carole responded and said, “Yes, the hard work and emotional challenges portrayed in the film might turn some students off but we wanted to portray scientific research the way it is and remain true to its realities.” She added, "while the film focuses on science graduate students it is also relevant and accurately reflects the trials and tribulations experienced by PhD students in the humanities and the arts.” 

One of the more troubling moments of the film for me is when Larry mentions that scientists, like artists, “represent the fringe of society.” The fact that a prominent, successful scientist views himself as different, and on the fringes of society, doesn’t bode well for the public perception of science or scientists for that matter. Another troubling aspect of the film is that Rob, Kil and Gabrielle are clearly being groomed for academic careers despite the fact that roughly only 10% of life sciences PhDs secure academic positions at the end of their training. I pointed this out to Richard and he said that he agrees that it is a troubling trend and that “alternate career options for PhDs is the subject of Carole's  and his next film.”

Since it launch in March, the film has been screened at over 60 high schools, colleges, medical schools, professional science associations, government agencies and biotechnology companies. While the film may not be “right” for everyone, it is a must see for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and for members of the public who want a rare glimpse into the emotionally-charged and highly competitive world of scientific research. For those of you, who may be interested in arranging a screening, please visit the Naturally Obsessed: The Making of a Scientist website or contact Hayley

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

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

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

Did you know that the top ten pharmaceutical companies in the world spent close to $50 billion dollars last year on R&D? That sum could be used to purchase the entire US biotechnology industry except for the five largest companies—Genentech, Amgen, Gilead Genzyme and Celgene. Further, pharma’s R&D budget is about 4 times the R&D budget of all of the US biotechnology companies combined. According to a blurb in breakingviews.com, Pfizer alone spent $8 billion last year which was greater than the sum spent by biotech’s top five companies. What this tells us is that pharmaceutical companies are grossly unproductive when it comes to drug discovery and development. This would explain why nearly three-quarters of all new medicines approved for sale in the US last year originated at biotechnology companies.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that biotechnology companies are much more efficient at R&D than pharmaceutical companies. More importantly this suggests that something must change so that pharma can continue receive adequate ROI on internal discovery programs. Perhaps big pharma ought to spend a greater portion of its R&D budget on biotech mergers and acquisitions rather than continuing to invest in inefficient and failing internal R&D programs. While biotechnologynology companies are exceptional in drug discovery, they are severely lacking when it comes to clinical development of new drugs. This is largely due the high costs of conducting human clinical trials (which are required for regulatory approval of all new medicines). Most biotechnology companies are strapped for cash and don’t have sufficient funds to conduct clinical trials on their own.

Not surprisingly, given the recent financial downturn, there has been a recent spate of deals in which pharma has been willing to pay large sums of money for clinical development rights to promising new biotechnology drugs. Moreover, a majority of the almost 160,000 employees layed off by pharma companies in the past few years have been R&D scientists. This suggests that pharma is beginning to realize that its money may be better spent doing deals or buying biotech companies rather than continuing to invest large sums of money into it’s own unproductive R&D programs. Unfortunately, this paradigm shift doesn’t bode well for doctoral students and post-doctoral fellows who are training in the life sciences. This is because many entry-level biotech positions, traditionally filled by newly-minted PhDs and postdoctoral fellows will likely be filled by experienced, pharmaceutical employees who lost their jobs in the recent rounds of layoffs. As much as I hate to say this, if I were a life sciences graduate student or postdoctoral fellow considering an R&D career in industry, I would begin to explore alternative career options.

Until next time….

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

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

For the past five years, I have been giving career development seminars that offer graduate students and postdoctoral fellows alternate careers choices (instead of research) for life scientists. The intent of these seminars is to get students who may not be enamored with a possible life long career at the bench (I know that there a lot of you out there) to think about what they really want to do after they complete their graduate or postdoctoral training.

I recently met Jane Chin (on Twitter) who, like me, has had an unorthodox career trajectory for a life scientist. After exchanging several tweets, I learned that we both are microbiologists, Cornell University graduates, entrepreneurs and social media enthusiasts. But, the main reason I am telling you about Jane is that she crafted a fascinating PowerPoint presentation entitled “3 Lessons About Career Life From a Career Nomad” that provides insights into the decisions and choices that she made to shape her current career path. I highly recommend that you take a peek at the presentation—it may help to reduce some future career stress and angst!

Until next time…

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

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