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

Those of you who manufacture products approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are well aware of the importance of complying with Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) during FDA mandated inspections of your manufacturing facilities. Failure to comply with cGMP requirements during an inspections results in the issuance of 483s. And if you fail to adequately address the concerns of the agency outlined in 483s, it may ultimately result in issuance of warning letter to your company.

FDA is more vigilant and aggressive than ever before with its 483 and warning letter enforcement procedures. In the words of Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, FDA is quick, visible and vigilant.  With this in mind, it may be worthwhile to participate in a webinar offered by Expert Briefings.com entitled “Top Compliance Trends for 483 and Warning Letters for 2012—Based on Rare FDA Data.”

The webinar will be held on March 8, 2012 from 2:00-3:30 PM EST and Dennis Moore, Managing Partner, AUK Technical Services and a 28 year veteran FDA investigator will lead it. 

Topics to be covered include:

• Top warning letter trends for 2012, such as more 806 enforcement
• The Top 10 QS 483 Observations for 2010 and 2011
• Most common quality system failures for drugs for 2010
• Top drug and device citations in 483s for 2010
• Top drug and device warning letter citations for 2010
• Total 2010 BIMO inspections for CDER, CBER, CDRH, and CVM
• Details on clinical investigator, sponsor/monitor and IRB audits for 2010
• Most common sponsor deficiencies for 2010
• The rising trend of ‘cease to market’ letters, one of which hit a NY pharma company in 2011
• The total number of 483s issued in 2010 and 2011 – an all time high
• Total CAPA 483 observations in 2010
• How long to receive a warning letter, based upon which offices issues it
• 483 inspection targets for drugs and devices for 2010, 2011, and 2012
• Total warning letters issued by drug and device category in 2010
• Which district offices write the most warning letters
• How long to receive a warning letter, based upon issuing office
• Warning letters issued by QS system for 2010
• 483s broken down by QS subsystem for 2010
• Warning letters by CFR section
• Top device 483 observations for 2010
• Details on process validation observations for 2010
• Design control 483 observations by category for 2010
• Click here to visit Expertbriefings.com.

Click here to visit Expertbriefings.com.

I hope to see (hear ?) you at the webinar!

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

There are a variety of reasons why the life sciences job market has been so dismal in recent years. First and foremost, there are too many applicants for too few jobs; employers are ignoring resumes/CVs that previously commanded face-to-face interviews. Second and perhaps more pernicious, is the notion among corporate executives and hiring managers that current graduates (both undergraduate and graduate students) have been catered to and are so academically untested that they bring little or no value to today’s fast-paced and demanding workplaces. While this characterization may or may not be warranted, it is a prevailing attitude that is likely hindering employment opportunities for recent life sciences graduates.

According to an insightful article written by Robert W. Goldfarb, a management consultant, entitled “Help Graduates Find Their Footing” in the past, senior hiring managers were willing to hire applicants that thought outside of the box or were a bit unconventional to bring in new ideas and create some chaos in quiet office environments. But Goldfarb asserts, that long, painful and largely unsuccessful job searches “have sapped their daring, creativity and willingness to challenge old procedures.” Further he believes that older employees, once extremely resistant to change, are much more willing to reinvent themselves by adapting to a technically-challenging workplace and bringing mature problem solving skills to the job to protect their jobs and 401K plans. Because of this, Goldfarb contends that “managers have become far less tolerant of the missteps that once expected of any new hires” and not surprisingly older workers make mistakes. Finally, previously supportive hiring managers, criticize recent graduates for poor quality written and oral reports and the inability to recognize trends or draw conclusions from masses of data. 

So what can be done to ensure that the current generation of college graduates does not remain unemployed into perpetuity? Goldfarb suggests that mentoring and building partnerships between recent college graduates and companies that want to hire them would be an important first step toward fixing the problem. He suggests that companies should consider investing in training programs designed to shape the employees that they ultimately will need for their businesses. For example, Goldfarb suggests that:

 “high potential graduates for whom there isn’t an immediate opening could be hired, not as unpaid interns but as salaried trainees given three to six months to prove their value in a series of assignments. Those who don’t seize the opportunity can quickly be dismissed.

Also, he suggests that trainees must be mentored to help them avoid the “small missteps that can damage a career before it starts.” Interesting, back in the 70s and 80s most major corporation had training programs in place. These were largely abandoned in the 90s as a result of global competition and increasing US labor costs.

Goldfarb’s plan requires companies to think strategically, and plan for their employment needs of the future. Sadly, as many of you already know, must companies focus on the short term and are not mindful of future needs; after all they are someone else’s problems to solve). But, in response to this attitude, Goldfarb offers this dire warning:

“Employers can keep faulting overindulgent parents, ineffectual teachers, colleges without required subjects and graduates unsuited to today’s complex workplace or they can play a greater role in training and developing a generation longing to take its place in the American mainstream.”

Until next time...

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

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

Despite the fact the US unemployment rate has hovered around 9.0 percent for the past several years and over 200,000 pharmaceutical employees have lost their jobs since 2001, many life sciences executives contend that they cannot find qualified employees to fill job openings at their companies. Most executives blame the US education system for not providing prospective employees with necessary training and immigration laws that prevent companies from hiring highly-skilled foreign workers. According to a recent survey conducted by the staffing company ManpowerGroup, over 52% of US employers that they have difficulty filling open positions because of talent shortages.  Some other revealing statistics about employer’s attitudes include:

• 47% of employers blame job candidates’ lack of hard job or technical skills for their inability to hire
• 35% of companies cite job candidates’ lack of experience as a reason not to hire
• 25% blame lack of business knowledge or formal educational qualification as a deterrent to hiring

While a majority of US corporate executives may believe this, the reality is that employers simply cannot find employees to accept jobs at the wages that they are willing to offer! In other words, there is a plethora of skilled American workers out there; but many US employers are willing to outsource or hire skilled foreign nationals who frequently work for lower wages than most Americans. Further, American employers are unwilling to spend money to train college graduates or re-train existing employees who may be able to step into these so-called difficult-to-fill positions. This may help to explain why an increasing number of students are willing to accept unpaid internships or, in some cases pay to work at companies for free to garner valuable industrial experience which may ultimately lead to a job.

In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Peter Cappelli, the George W. Taylor Professor of Management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, offered three possible solutions to the current American unemployment conundrum

Work with education providers

If job candidates lack the skills or qualifications to do certain jobs, companies ought to make them go to school to acquire them. To that end, a growing number of community colleges in North Carolina and New Jersey have partnered with prospective employers to develop courses or degree programs tailored to meet their employment needs. For example, about 10 years ago my local community college (Mercer County College) developed a program (in a partnership with the clinical research company Covance) to train students interested in becoming clinical research assistants and managers. Not surprisingly, many of the students enrolled in the program ultimately where hired by Covance. 

In another variation of this model, extant employees, who may be interested in advancing their cares, would be able take classes at local community colleges (in off hours) and have their tuition subsidized via company tuition reimbursement programs. This would help to obviate the high costs and inordinate amount of time typically required to hire external candidates for newly created positions.

Reintroduce on-the-job training programs

Back in the day, companies tended to hire persons who were the brightest, most talented and most likely to benefit an organization.  New hires were required to participate in internal training programs so that they would better understand their positions and allow management to best evaluate new talent. Generally speaking, this allowed most companies to operate more efficiently; mainly because this allowed managers to determine the best fit of new hires into the existing corporate structure. Sadly this is no longer the case at most companies. These days, companies tend to hire worker who possess the technical skills and qualifications to do a certain job and are expected to “hit the ground running” Put simply, short term needs are placed before the long term needs and future success of an organization.

Promote from within

According to data from the talent management company Taleo Corp., in recent years a surprising two-thirds of job vacancies, even in larger companies, have been filled by outside hires. While it may be cheaper to hiring from the outside, the loss of experienced workers and historical corporate knowledge may affect a company’s performance and ultimately its bottom line.

While the US economy is beginning to show signs that it is beginning to recover, I believe that surest way to prosperity is to put Americans back to work. Although this may require a substantial financial investment by US corporations, we simply can no longer rely on outsourcing or a cheaper immigrant workforce to allow American to continue to compete on the world stage.

Until next time...

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

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

Fewer and fewer American college students are choosing to major in Science Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). This has been an ongoing trend in the US for the past two decades. However, within the STEM majors, the life sciences are faring the best. While I believe that the US needs more life sciences majors to remain competitive with the rest of the world, there are a few things you ought to know before you take the life sciences plunge.

1. More than 86,000 American biology majors graduate each year
2. About 58% of all bachelors’, masters and doctorates in the life sciences are awarded to women (who continue to earn substantially less than their male counterparts)
3. Entry level salaries for biology majors range from $40,000 to $50,000 per year (computer and engineering students start at salaries of $55,000 to $65,000 per year)
4. PhD degrees in the life sciences take on average six years to complete
5. Postdoc starting salaries range from $37,000 to $40,000 per year
6. More than a third of biologists are still working as postdocs or in other non-tenure track jobs six years after receiving their PhD degrees
7. Only 14% of PhD-trained biologists win tenure track positions within six years of receiving their degrees
8. Because of tighter funding for government jobs and the loss of 300,000 pharmaceutical jobs in the past decade, many newly-minted PhDs are forced to become serial postdocs (supported by soft money) or help senior scientists set up and run their laboratories waiting to see if they can win permanent academic employment
9. Fewer tenured life sciences professors are retiring because of the financial downturn

If you still want to be biology major after reading this post, then I think that you know what career path you ought to pursue! Just sayin’......

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

Last week, BioJobBlog in association with BVS, a life sciences vendor management company, launched an inaugural three hour career development workshop called BioCareer Development Symposium at New York University School of Medicine. 

The event which featured seminar topics  including "Writing a Winning Resume," "Interviewing Tips and Advice" and "Social Media and Career Development for LIfe Scientists" was well attended by graduate students, postdocs and mid-career life scientists.  In addition to the seminars, nine life sciences companies were on site to showcase the latest life sciences reagents, equipments and kits.

Future BioScience Career Development Symposia are scheduled @ Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Alabama-Birmingham and the University of North Texas Health Sciences Center in Fort Worth, TX.

If your or your institution may be interested in hosting or learning more about our BioCareer Development Symposium offerings, please contact me.

Until next time....

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

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

Online degree programs have exploded in the past 10 years or so and are now considered to be a legitimate way to earn a second or third degree to enhance the chances of finding a job in a tough economy. Further, an article that recently appeared in the NY Times “The Masters as the New Bachelor’s” suggested that Master's Degrees were supplanting bachelor degrees as the minimum requirement for employment in the US. Unfortunately, not everyone has the time to enroll in a traditional bricks and mortar Master's Degree program. This has forced many would-be students to enroll in online programs to earn a Master's Degree.

Like it or not, the reputation of the online institution that confers the degree will make a difference for jobseekers. In other words, an online Master's Degree from Penn State University will likely impress a hiring manager more than one from the University of Phoenix. With this in mind, my colleagues over at www.onlinemasters.org recently sent me an article entitled “The 15 Most Prestigious Online Master’s Programs” Most of the programs included on the list (see below) are relevant for those jobseekers interested in broadening their knowledge in the life sciences and healthcare, engineering and information technology (IT).

Auburn University: Electronically Delivered Graduate Education (EDGE) courses are offered online at the student’s convenience. Engineering programs include: Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Science and Software Engineering, Industrial and Systems Engineering, Materials Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering. Business programs include Accounting, Business Administration, and Management Information Systems. A combination MBA/MISE degree also is available.

Boston University: Boston University Distance Education offers master’s degrees in art education, criminal justice, music, computer information systems, health communication, management, manufacturing engineering, and social work. These programs provide students with an in-depth theoretical foundation as well as practical strategies for meeting demands of the marketplace. Many students have gone on to shape the future of their professions through their knowledge and leadership.

Carnegie Mellon University: Carnegie Mellon University’s H. John Heinz III College offers distance learning programs for Master of Science in Computer Science & IT (ranked #1 by U.S. News and World Report), Master of Medical Management (some onsite sessions required), and Master of Public Management (part-time and full-time tracks; work experience is required rather than GRE and GMAT).

DePaul University: Developing and providing degree programs for working adults for over 100 years, DePaul has been able to expand its reach by offering fully online master’s degree programs in various disciplines within the College of Computing and Digital Media, College of Education, and School of Public Service.

Duke University: By utilizing Duke’s resources in environmental science, engineering, policy, and business, the Nicholas School of the Environment’s Environmental Leadership Master of Environmental Management program gives students insight into the many aspects of environmental issues. The faculty includes recognized experts in the field whose research and publications affect important environmental and natural resource challenges.

Georgia Institute of Technology: Online master’s degrees are offered in aerospace engineering, computational science and engineering, electrical and computer engineering, industrial engineering, information security, mechanical engineering, medical physics, and operations research, in addition to a Professional Master in Applied Systems Engineering. Students study at their convenience, accessing a wealth of technological and industry knowledge while building a network of Georgia Tech faculty and industry professionals.

Indiana University: Kelley School of Business, through Kelly Direct, offers fully online MBA program, along with Master of Science degrees in finance, global supply chain management, and strategic management. There are also MBA dual-degree programs (mostly, but not fully, online) with Thunderbird (Master’s in Global Management) and Purdue (MSE and MS in Food and Agribusiness Management).

Johns Hopkins University: Here you’ll find master’s degree programs in bioinformatics, computer science, environmental engineering and science, environmental planning and management, and systems engineering — all can be completed fully online.

Michigan State University: In the online Master of Science in Criminal Justice program, students may choose to follow the general requirements for the Master’s in Criminal Justice, specialize in security management, or follow an international focus. Courses are offered entirely online, and are taught by the same faculty members that are involved in the on-campus program.

Pennsylvania State University: Over 100 years ago, Penn State founded one of the nation’s first correspondence courses. Now through their World Campus, they offer online master’s degrees in a wide range of areas including (to name a few) education, business administration, homeland security, nuclear engineering, and supply chain management. The online courses are flexible, yet the same academically challenging courses as on campus.

Stanford University: Students whose employers are members of the Stanford Center for Professional Development can earn Master of Science degrees while attending classes online on a part-time basis. Courses of study include aeronautics and astronautics, biomedical informatics, chemical engineering, civil and environmental engineering, computational and mathematical engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, management science and engineering, materials science and engineering, mechanical engineering, and statistics.

University of Florida: Most distance degrees may be taken on a part-time basis through this university. However, all degree programs require formal admission to the school. Master’s degrees are offered in various disciplines within the Colleges of Agriculture & Life Sciences; Business Administration; Design, Construction, and Planning; Education; Engineering; Fine Arts; Liberal Arts & Sciences; Nursing; Pharmacy; Public Health and Health Professions; and Veterinary Medicine.

University of Illinois: The Department of Computer Science offers a fully online Master’s in Computer Science program, which is restricted to off-campus professionals and is not intended for those who have access to on-campus courses and programs; although, all students receive the same lectures, class assignments, exams, and projects as on-campus students. The degree can be completed in as little as three years (at one course per semester), but must be completed within five years.

University of Southern California: USC Viterbi School of Engineering’s Distance Education Network (DEN) students view online the same lecture as on-campus students either live or at their convenience. Students interact by calling a toll-free phone number to ask the professor questions. Lectures are archived for the entire semester and can be downloaded.

Vanderbilt University School of Nursing: Vanderbilt’s School of Nursing offers a Master of Science in Nursing Health System Management. A Health Systems Manager is a registered nurse whose focus is on the management of health care delivery in various organizations. Graduates have the breadth of management knowledge and skills needed to perform effectively and assume leadership positions in health care delivery organizations.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Studying!!!!!!

• 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

A recent report issued by the US Department of Commerce reported that job opportunities in science technology, engineering and math fields (STEM) are increasing in America. The report contends that over the past decade the number of people employed in STEM jobs has increased three times as much as the growth rate for non-STEM jobs growing by approximately 7.6 million workers. Further, the report predicts that between 2008 and 2018 that STEM jobs will grow by about 17 percent as compared with roughly 10 percent for non-STEM jobs. On average, in 2010 STEM employees earned about $25 per hour almost $9 more per hour than non-STEM workers.

While this may appear to be good news, a report published last year by the President’s Council on Science and Technology indicated that less than one-third of US eighth graders are considered proficient in math and science. Further, the report also found that there is a lack of qualified STEM teachers at most schools even those that are otherwise successful. Consequently, this has resulted in a student population that is not only unprepared to fill those predicted 1.3 million STEM jobs but also uninterested in STEM subjects. In other words, unless something changes, there won’t be enough trained American workers to meet future US STEM needs; thereby reducing US global competitiveness in STEM fields like biotechnology, computing and engineering.

However, it is important to note that previous reports predicting future shortages of science and technology employees have been flat-out wrong! Nevertheless, there is no doubt that America is lagging in STEM competitiveness. However, this is likely because of the way in which STEM subjects are taught in primary and secondary schools. There is more emphasis placed on memorizing STEM concepts rather than teaching and honing problem solving skills which is the most important factor when participating in real-life STEM endeavors.

The same conclusion was reached by an 18-member National Research Council committee that recently issued a report outlining a new framework to improve science curriculums in the US. The head of the committee that issued the report, a retired physicist said “kids are expected to learn a lot of things but not expected to be able to use them.” The last time the National Research Council—the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering—weighed in on STEM preparedness was 1996.

One way to improve STEM education in the US is to hire more PhDs as middle and high school science, math and engineering teachers. After all, problem solving skills are what the PhD degree is all about and most PhDs ought to be content area experts in the subjects that they teach. Unfortunately, in most PhD and postdoctoral programs the mere mention of possibly becoming a high school teacher is invariably “the kiss of death” and may result in a student or postdoc being thrown out of a laboratory. The irony of the US STEM conundrum is stark; there is a need for more problem solvers in the class room but the people who train the problem solvers refuse to empower them to become teachers! Go figure!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try teaching)

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

A report in Bloomberg News today suggested that Eli Lilly & Co. Chief Executive Officer John Lechleiter, PhD told a technology conference today that unfavorable US permanent resident (green card) laws are to blame for declining US innovation in the life sciences. With this in mind, Lechleiter plans on calling for US immigration officials to issue more green cards and adopt a shorter and simpler process for highly skilled foreign nationals to gain permanent residence in the US. According to Dr. Lechleiter, one of only a handful of big pharma CEO who is also a PhD-trained scientist, current green card regulations are so-called job killers and force many talented foreign nationals to return to their native countries to work with firms that directly compete with American life sciences companies. Unlike most of his peers, Lechleiter has been very outspoken about the lack of US life sciences innovation.

While Lechleiter comments may have been appropriate five or more years ago, they are no longer germane to America’s waning innovation in the life sciences. There is little doubt that many bright and talented foreign nationals were denied permanent residency during the Bush era (2000 to 2008) because of stringent immigration policies and limits on the numbers of green cards allotted for persons from certain parts of the world; mainly China, India and the Middle East. This, in turn, forced many life scientists—many of whom desperately wanted permanent residency in the US—to return to their home countries to look for work and gainful employment.

As Lechleiter rightly asserts, these scientists found work with companies that began to directly compete with US life sciences. This phenomenon, coupled with the rapid assent of the middle class in many of these nations, made it possible to begin to conduct Western style research at a much lower costs in these countries. To that end, by 2007, most big pharma companies—many of whom had dwindling pipelines and monstrous overhead costs—realized that it would be more cost effective to outsource or move R&D to countries with emerging pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets and a well trained R&D workforce. And, for the past four years downsizing and outsourcing of R&D are exactly what have been taking place at many American big pharma and biotechnology companies.

In my opinion, the larger question that must be addressed, as far as US innovation in the life sciences is concerned is: why are so few Americans willing to pursue scientific careers? To wit, the main reason why so many foreign life scientists were educated and trained in the US over the past 20 years was because there weren’t enough American students to fill the incoming roster at most American graduate training programs. Put simply, America’s growing lack of innovation in the life sciences over the past decade can be directly attributed to far fewer Americans pursuing scientific careers and an increased reliance on foreign nationals—who were unable to stay in the US—to innovate! While changing US immigration laws may allow some foreign nationals to more easily remain in the US, there simply aren’t enough life sciences jobs left in the US to make it worth their while! In fact, the likelihood of them finding life sciences jobs in their home countries is now greater than it is in the US. In my opinion, the only way to restore American innovation in the life sciences is to convince American students that pursuing scientific careers is worthwhile and that the requisite training for industry jobs is available to them.

Interestingly, after leading with changes to US immigration laws, Lechleiter also suggested that America’s innovation problem could be solved by lowering US corporate tax rates and American companies should not be forced to pay taxes on oversea earnings. Also, he asserted that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should stop putting off decisions or erring on the side of avoiding risk when considering new drug applications. 

This begs the questions, how do lower taxes, no overseas taxes and expedited drug approvals help to spur American innovation when most life sciences R&D is conducted outside of the US?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Innovating!!!!!!!!

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

The tough job market and economy have caused lots of folks to consider changing careers to find gainful employment. While sometimes a career change is warranted, it may not be as easy as you think. With this in mind, there was a great article entitled "The Big Switch, One Step at a Time" by Phyllis Korkki that provides some tips and insights to think about before taking the big plunge.

Of course, not all career changes are created equal and there are a variety of things to consider depending upon whether you are starting out or a midcareer person. I think that the best bit of advice that was offered for all persons considering a career change was a recommendation to read industry trades and follow industry blogs; mainly because they are not translated for the general public. That said, if you find yourself reading these publications and you don’t know what certain acronyms mean or you are having difficulty understanding the points that the authors are trying to make, it is a good indication that transitioning into that career may take a little more training and understanding than you think!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Career Hunting!!!!!!!

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

As I mentioned in numerous previous posts, health or healthcare informatics is one of the hottest and fasting growing sectors of the US economy. And, not surprisingly, career counselors and job prognostication experts are predicting job shortages unless more Americans are trained for these job opportunities.  To that end, William Hooper of HealthTechTopia sent me a link to a list of 25 online health informatics resource collections. 

Those of you who are interested or considering pursuing a career in the emerging health informatics field ought to check it out!

 Until next time...

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

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

William Hooper author of the HealthTechTopia blog which focuses on biomedicine and healthcare informatics compiled a top 25 list of the best biomedicine blogs on the web. 

While BioJobBlog failed to make the list, BioCrowd was listed at number 14. This is what the HealthTechTopia blog had to say about BioCrowd, the online networking site created by Vincent Racaniello and me.

“So where can you get blog entries from tons of biomedicine enthusiasts? With a stop here. The site was built to help bioscience professionals build relationships, exchange ideas, find jobs, and identify exciting new career opportunities.”

Best Blogs on Biomedicine by an Individual

These experts in biomedicine take it on at all angles.

1. Biotech/ Biomedical
   Join Dr. Theresa Phillips as she uses her experience to provide her readers with tools, tips, strategies, and information about the industry. She has a broad background in a number of different areas of biotechnology and biomedical research, including having worked for two biotech companies in the environmental remediation industry. Must reads include a career in biotech and six approaches to phytoremediation.
2. Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology
   Dr. Etherton is a Distinguished Professor of Animal Nutrition and Head of the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University. His research specialty is the area of endocrine regulation of animal growth and nutrient metabolism. Genetically modified crops and cloned livestock are the latest blog topics.
3. Eye on DNA
   Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei is a PhD-trained epidemiologist and biotech consultant, as well as a Stanford and JohnHopkinsUniversity graduate. One of her focuses is on how both genome and internet technology are going to change the world. Popular articles include DNA toys and “100 Facts About DNA.”
4. Gary Rabin
   He is the Chairman of Advanced Cell Technology. They are a biotechnology company that specializes in the development of cellular therapies for the treatment of rare and common diseases that impact millions of people worldwide. The blog often lists their accomplishments as well as related items in biotech.
5. Building Confidence
   Blogger Russ Altman is also a professor at StanfordUniversity. His writings are a way to share commentary on issues related to his professional expertise, which is biomedical informatics, genetics, medicine, and bioengineering. He also has a quick tutorial on the subject of bioinformatics.
6. Gene Expression
   Razib Khan’s degrees are in biochemistry and biology. He has blogged about genetics since 2002, previously worked in software development, and is an Unz Foundation Junior Fellow. A standout choice for often integrating pop culture and news items into bio-learning.
7. Biotech Blog
   Yali Friedman lives in Washington, DC and is the author of “Building Biotechnology” and other books. He is also the founder of DrugPatentWatch and chief editor of the “Journal of Commercial Biotechnology.” Check out his blog for thoughts and news on the commercial, legal, political, and scientific aspects of biotech.
8. Expression Patterns
   Proving again that biomedicine isn’t just for men is Eva Amsen. She recently moved from research to editing and from biochemistry to developmental biology. In addition to science, she also blogs about the arts.
9. Public Rambling
   What sounds like a blog for the latest commentary on the latest scandal is actually a scientific one. Pedro Beltrao stops here to write about what he thinks on bioinformatics, science, and technology. Omics was the topic of a recent post.
10. Science Roll
    Bertalan Meskó graduated from the University of Debrecen, Medical School and Health Science Center in 2009 and started PhD studies in the field of personalized genomics. His blog is now a journey through genetics and medicine. Biomedicine in the news and his reaction are often the topic of posts.

Best Blogs on Biomedicine by a Group

Check out these groups and sites for a collective view of biomedicine and related areas.

11. The Daily Scan
    Part of Genome Web, there are several blogs on biomedicine to choose from. They include entries on cancer and informatics. The main site has more for those interested in biomedicine such as news, careers, and a magazine.
12. ISAAA
    Click here for the official blog from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. They have a newsfeed that is constantly updated and divided by crop biotech, biofuels supplement, and more. There are also other learning resources offered.
13. Fierce Biotech
    Get just the news with a visit here. Several stories a day are on all the advancements and announcements in the field. You can also choose by biomarkers, events, whitepapers, and much more.
14. BioCrowd
    So where can you get blog entries from tons of biomedicine enthusiasts? With a stop here. The site was built to help bioscience professionals build relationships, exchange ideas, find jobs, and identify exciting new career opportunities.
15. Growers for Biotechnology
    Their mission is to promote and facilitate the research, development and acceptance of biotechnology in agriculture. The news stream has the latest in developments in biology for food. You can also get other biotech info such as why growers use biotech and reports.
16. BMC Biotechnology
    This is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed articles on the manipulation of biological macromolecules or organisms. Use in experimental procedures, cellular, and tissue engineering, as well as in the pharmaceutical, agricultural biotechnology, and allied industries are also shared. Current featured articles are on glucosinolate engineering and cytokine inhibition.
17. Biotechnology Journal
    Can’t make it to the library to read the latest issue or shell out a subscription fee? Then click here to get many issues offering free articles as a PDF. There are also other biomedicine items available.
18. Colorado Bioscience Association
    The CBSA is a not-for-profit corporation providing services and support for Colorado’s growing biosciences industry. Their blog contains news releases, links to articles, and other related information of interest. Maggie Chamberlin Holben of their marketing department has more.
19. Biomedicine on Display
    This is the blog of Medical Museion, University of Copenhagen. They focus on the display of visual and material culture in museums, laboratories, and clinics with a goal of promoting contemporary biomedicine. Materialism was the subject of the latest post.
20. BioSpace
    Finally, stop here to get items on life, science, and the community with the biologist in mind. Top breaking news and featured stories are often included. You can also search by biotech, medical, clinical research, and academic entries.

Best Blogs on Specific Biomedicine

Learn more about a specific area of biomedicine below.

21. The Spittoon
    Get the writings from the pro’s at 23 and Me here. They specialize in using saliva to analyze the nearly one million locations in a person’s genome. Readers of the blog are given a deeper understanding of DNA and related areas.
22. Genetic Future
    So how will all this biomedicine and such affect us in the future? That is the very question that genome researcher Daniel MacArthur strives to answer. Part of Wired Blogs, he focuses on the fast moving world of human genetics and why companies will sell you info on your own DNA.
23. OnBioVC
    But can all this biomedicine talk be used to turn a profit? With a visit to this blog, the answer can be “yes.” They specialize in reporting on bioscience venture capital data.
24. Blog,Bioethics.net
    As with any science, ethics is going to come into play. Get a blog especially for the ethics surrounding biology here. The editors of “The American Journal of Bioethics” use it to inform and discuss more on the subject with the public.
25. Bioethics Discussion Blog
    Because one view on anything ethical isn’t enough, click here. Dr. Maurice Bernstein is a physician and medical school teacher who moderates the discussion. With entries dating back to 2004, make time for tons of bioethics.

No matter if you are a student studying for a PhD or just a fan of science, there is loads to learn on the above 25 best blogs on biomedicine.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

An article in today’s NY Times entitled “New Ways to Exploit Raw Data May Bring Surge of Innovation, a Study Says” suggests that persons with quantitative skills and a firm grasp of the scientific method will be in high demand in the near future. This is because there is a current data surge coming from “sophisticated tracking of shipments, sales, suppliers and customers, as well e-mail, Web traffic and social network comments.” And, the quantity of business data has been estimated to double every 1.2 years!

According to the report “Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition and Productivity” put together by the McKinsey Global Institute, harvesting, managing, mining and analyzing “big new data sets” can lead to a new wave of innovation, accelerated productivity and economic growth. And, the place where this may be felt first is the US healthcare system. The report asserts that better management of big data sets can lead to as much as $300 billion in savings. Also, American retail companies could possibly increase their operating profit margins by as much as 60 percent. However, one of the major hurdles to this paradigm shift is a talent and skills gap. The US alone will likely need 140,000 to 190,000 with expertise in statistical methods and data-analysis skills. McKinsey also notes that an additional 1.5 million data-literate manages will be required. Accordingly, “Every manager will really have to understand something about statistics and experimental design going forward,” noted one of the report’s authors.

As far as jobs for scientists in the healthcare realm are concerned, the report suggests that

“....the biggest slice of the $300 billion gain is expected to come from more effectively using data to inform treatment decisions. The tools include clinical decision support to assist doctors, and comparative effectiveness research to make more informed decisions on drug therapy.” That said, life scientists with backgrounds in statistical analyses, bioinformatics, genomics, public health, epidemiology and quantitative analysis will be ideal candidates for these new job opportunities."

While these types of jobs (mainly health informatics) are certain to available in the future, it isn’t clear how soon. This is because the big-data trend has just begun and, according to economists, it may take years to recognize its financial advantages and benefits. In any event, it is something for life scientists who may be considering alternate career options, to think about. To that end, if you begin to train for these opportunities now, you may find yourself in the right place at the right time in the not-to-distant future.

Until next time....

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

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

Last week’s special issue of Nature Magazine “The Future of PhDs” contains no fewer than six independently written articles assessing the value, importance worth etc of a PhD degree in the life sciences. All of the articles are extremely well written and insightful. The opinions of the authors range from maintaining the status quo to questioning whether a PhD degree is important for life scientists to completely revamping the requirements to obtain the degree. While I think that Nature’s decision to devote an entire special issue to problems facing PhD students and postdoctoral fellows is courageous and laudable, I can not help but ask “What took you so long?” That said, there is no questions that the proverbial “cat is out of the bag”—there was an article in last Friday’s USA Today —which means that the American public (maybe) is now aware of the “problem.” Rather than immediately react to the plethora of posts, LinkedIn discussions and comments from bloggers and recruiters, I decided to take some time to organize my thoughts and offer some of my own insights and ideas about the issue.

For the past seven years, I, along with a few fellow career development experts, have been outspoken about the diminishing career and job prospects for PhD-trained life scientists. Like the authors of the recent Nature papers, we had determined in the early 2000s that career opportunities and job prospects for life sciences PhDs and postdoctoral fellows were rapidly declining in both academia and industry. And, more important, that there was an emerging “glut” of life sciences PhDs (mainly basic researchers) on the job market. Not surprisingly, many of the hundreds of graduate students and postdoctoral scientists—who we counseled during career development sessions at various national scientific meetings—were finding it increasingly difficult or nearly impossible to find jobs in their chosen fields of endeavors. While we were able to advise them on how to write a better resume/CV or provide them with alternate career options, we all knew that their prospects for gainful employment were severely limited. I cannot tell you how difficult and emotionally-wrenching it is to tell extremely talented graduate students and postdoctoral scientists that their prospects for gainful employment are bleak.

Yet, despite a rapidly deteriorating job market and our best efforts to alert those “in charge,” graduate training programs recklessly continue to annually “mint” as many new PhDs as possible. While the reasons for this are obvious—graduate students and postdoctoral scientists are sources of “cheap and reliable labor”— the conscious decision to continue to produce as many PhDs as possible flies in the face of basic supply and demand economics. While I can go on and on with finger pointing and assessing blame, it is not productive or helpful; nor will it help to solve the bleak employment prospects facing many PhD-trained life scientists. However, there are a few strategies that, if appropriately implemented, can help to improve the job prospects for graduate students and postdoctoral scientists.

First, graduate and postdoctoral programs could create career development programs and experiences for their students and postdocs. These programs could include seminars on alternate career options, job counseling, resume writing and interviewing clinics, internship opportunities and even annual career fairs at attended by local or national prospective employers. While many PIs will complain that this will take graduate students and postdocs out of the laboratory and impede their progress, I submit that career development activities will reduce stress and anxiety and allow persons to develop a career plan or roadmap. This, in turn, will allow them to establish goals better budget/manage their time and be more productive in the lab. Moreover, it will likely shorten the time to earn a PhD degree which will provide PIs with more employee turnover and allow them to take larger numbers of new students into their labs.

Second, training programs ought to develop and formalize alternate career tracks for their graduate students and postdocs. For example, if a student is interested in medical writing rather than a traditional academic research career he/she ought to be encouraged to take some medical writing courses or be allowed to do a medical writing internship as part of their training. If a student is interested in business, then it may make sense for the student to be able to take business courses or enroll in an online biotechnology training programs. In fact, several institutions now offer a joint PhD/MBA degree option. The bottom line here is that providing students and postdocs with alternate exit strategies will incentivize them to be more productive so that they can “get on with their careers.”

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, graduate training programs need to limit the number of PhDs that they train and produce. This means, admitting fewer graduate students each year until the demand for PhDs begins to rise again. While this is the easiest and most cost effective solution to the problem, I suspect that it is the one that will meet with most resistance and objections. After all, fewer graduate students means fewer postdoctoral scientists which translates into fewer bodies to do the research necessary to win grants and publish peer-reviewed papers. However, it is important to note that the increasingly competitive and challenging job market for life scientists has already taken a toll on US preparedness in science and engineering. To that end, fewer American undergraduate students are majoring in the life sciences than ever before. In fact, the most popular undergraduate major in the US today is business. Further, over the past 20 years or so, fewer American students have entered graduate school in the life sciences. A quick perusal of the rosters of graduate students and postdoctoral scientists at almost any major US research institution will reveal that a majority are foreign born nationals! New research reveals that many US-trained foreign nationals are going back to their home countries to work and in many instances, compete with American life sciences companies.

There is no longer any question that “something” must be done to improve the career and employment prospects for American life scientists. Regardless of the solution, it will likely be painful. However, this is no longer a problem that can easily be “swept under the rug” or consciously ignored by the “powers at be.” Failure to adequately and seriously address the issue may not only have serious consequences for the current American life sciences training paradigm (don’t be surprised when academic tenure is eliminated) but also may affect the future competitiveness and economic well-being of the US.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

While R&D scientists and sales representatives continue to struggle to find jobs in the US at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, the competition is fierce to hire and retain pharma employees in emerging markets like China and India. Earlier this week, I posted a piece on big pharma’s continuing expansion of its R&D activities in Asia and the growing need for US-trained PhDs in this region. However, it appears that hiring and retaining pharma sales reps is a bigger problem in China and India for big pharma companies like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Sanofi-Aventis (SA) and Pfizer.

According to a recent article in Bloomberg News about 20 percent of GSK’s sales forces in both countries quits each year in favor of better offers from its rivals including Pfizer and SA. One GSK executive quipped “There’s a huge war for talent. It’s hard to do anything about. If you have a good person, they could find someone else willing to pay twice as much.” This is in marked contrast with the US where almost 100,000 pharma sales reps may have lost jobs over the past five years.

Emerging Asia Pacific markets accounted for roughly 17 percent of GSK’s sales in 2010 as compared with 18 percent for Pfizer and 30 percent for SA. Sales revenues for most major pharmaceutical companies declined in both the US and Europe last year. There is no question that big pharma is turning to emerging markets as a means to maintain and increase sales of drugs after patents expire and generic competition cuts into revenue. Sales in emerging markets are predicted to reach about $400 billion by 2020 which is equivalent to the current size of the US and the five biggest European markets combined!

By its own admission, GSK was “fairly late” in their investments in China and may explain why the company may be experiencing trouble with competing for talent in that market. Employment opportunities in emerging markets will likely resemble those in the late 1990s in the US and Europe, when there was a dearth of talents life sciences professionals and companies were willing to pay large salaries (regardless of whether or not job candidates were qualified) to employees to maintain operations. This trend is driving up labor costs in China and interestingly, China is beginning to outsource work to Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore where labor and raw materials costs are less expensive.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (Go East Young Man and Woman)

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

There has been some buzz on LinkedIn and Facebook about an article that appeared in the March 3, 2011 issue of Nature Magazine. The article entitled “Traditional Drug-Discovery Model Ripe for Reform” and basically chronicles the decline in emphasis being placed by most companies on traditional in-house drug discovery as a source for new candidate molecules. Also, it points out that most big pharma companies now agree that they are not good at drug discovery but excel in clinical development and marketing of new medicines. Industry’s new view of itself is supported by the fact that over 200,000 pharmaceutical and biotechnology workers—roughly 50% were discovery scientists—have their lost jobs in the past three years or so. This begs the question “who is going to discover the new molecular entities that large drug companies are going clinically evaluate and ultimately market? According to the article, academic researchers are likely to play a pivotal role in this newly emerging drug discovery paradigm. 

The new model proposed in the article goes something like this. First, all intellectual property rights for certain compounds will be lifted or removed. Compounds of interest would subsequently be evaluated in small clinical trials for safety and possible efficacy. And, interested drug makers would only compete with one another on specific molecules after they were deemed safe and potentially effective. Up until this point, all data on prospective drug candidates would be openly published and freely available to interested parties.

Proponents of the model contend that the approach would allow drug targets to be more quickly validated and developed less expensively because there would less duplication of research activities. Further, it would reduce the exposure of patients to experimental molecules that have already deemed to be ineffective. Interestingly, the new model would rely exclusively on academic scientists who would be supported by a global initiative that cost about $325 million per years— with half coming from the pharmaceutical industry and half from the public. Finally, drug candidates identified in the initial screening process would be available to companies that participate in the initiative (presumably to the company that invested the most?)

While the proposed model is clearly “wishful thinking” on behalf of academics who are struggling to win grant support, it is deeply flaw and was obviously proposed by academic scientists who lack a clear understanding of the industrial drug development process. First, intellectual property (IP) and patents are the life blood of the industry and are in fact what allows drug companies to prevent competition in certain therapeutic areas maximize their return on investment on the drugs that they develop. Therefore, it is highly  unlikely that any drug maker would agree to lift or suspend IP around a novel new molecule. Second, must academic scientists are not qualified nor trained to engage in industrial drug development. Unlike academic science, industrial research is highly regulated and must be performed according the regulations and guidelines established by various regulatory agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration. If the research is not conducted in a regulatory compliant manner, then the prospective new drug will not be able to win regulatory approval. Third, eliminating IP would prevent university tech transfer offices—which exist almost entirely to manage a university’s IP—from negotiating lucrative licensing deals with interested companies or other parties. This, in turn, would reduce the contribution of funds by technology transfer offices that is used to run many academic research centers. Finally, the model is based upon the assumption that academic scientists (unlike drug companies) willfully and freely share information with one another for the “common good.” However, based on my experiences as an academic for over 20 years, most scientists don’t subscribe to the level of altruism and philanthropy attributed to them in the article. In fact the ego-involvement and competition amongst academics is so fierce, that  many academic refuse to share important new information or breakthroughs with their colleagues until grants are funded or the data are published in peer reviewed journals. Put simply, most academics are trained to work by themselves in their own laboratories and are neither interactive nor collaborative by nature.

There is no question that the old industrial drug discovery model is in transition and a new one will ultimately emerge. However, the role of academics in the new model is likely going to be less than proposed in present article. Too many systemic changes would be required for this model to be effective. That said, providing graduate students and postdocs with training in regulatory affairs and new drug development could be a step in the right direction! Nevertheless, a better solution to the problem may be a greater role for government in new drug discovery and development. To that end, the UK Medical Research Council has established the Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme that supports the development of promising basic science research into new drugs and medical devices. Also, Francis Collins, the current head of the National Institutes of Health has proposed the creation of a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences to transform basic science into prospective new drugs and treatments.

Despite the good intentions of the article, the path forward for academic scientists is not going to be easy. To make matters worse, it is becoming increasingly difficult for PhD-trained scientists to find jobs. That said, if you are truly interested in industrial drug discovery and development I highly recommend that you take some regulatory affairs course or enroll in a certificate or MS degree program in biotechnology that teaches the business side of the life sciences industry.

Until next time...

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

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

A common complaint amongst many employees is how awful the boss is! Sure, this may result from a bit of employee envy; after all who wouldn’t want the power and salary afforded to most “bosses.” But, the bottom line is that most bosses don’t go to “boss school” and many are elevated or placed in those positions without much formal training. In other words, there clearly room for improvement for many bosses. Unfortunately, the qualities and attributes of a “good” boss remain unclear.

Google, the ultimate masters and purveyors of analytical data have attempted to make them more clear by creating an algorithm that it thinks can help to decipher and identify the often time intangible qualities and attributes that most good bosses possess. The program dubbed Project Oxygen analyzed years of performance reviews, feedback surveys and awards nomination correlating words and phrases to create a list of so-called good behaviors and possible pitfalls of managers and executive. Project Oxygen took over a year and resulted in the following list.

Reprinted from the NY Times

While some of the positive behaviors on Google’s list may appear to be obvious, the fact that they were created based on analytical rather than entirely anecdotal data suggests that may be instructive and helpful. Interestingly, I think that the list of managerial pitfalls that Google identified may be more useful; mainly because these behaviors they are quite destructive and frequently the cause of low employee morale and corporate productivity.

Hat tip to Google!

Until next time...

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

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

Project management (PM) is growing as a career option for life scientists. This is mainly because life sciences companies have begun to realize that team projects with professionally trained PMs at the helm (as compared with research scientists lacking in PM skills) are conducted more efficiently and cost effectively.

Because of the “newness” of the PM option, in the life sciences industry, there is no formal training or a direct pathway to become a PM. However, Bruce Fieggen, Vice President of Project Management and Training at QPharma— who has over 25 years of experience as a project manager (and trainer) in the life sciences industry—offers some ideas and insights on how to become a PM.

On Becoming a Project Manager in the Life Sciences Industry

By Bruce Fieggen

By now you have probably worked as a team memberon several projects and may be thinking that a career in project management may be right for you. So, how does one become a project manager in the life sciences industry?

The best first step is to obtain some formal training in project management (PM). There are many courses designed as evening programs, university classes or three day workshops. You can take them in person or online. While some of these training options may not be as comprehensive as others, it will help interested persons to determine whether or not a career in project management may be right for them. Once you have obtained some formal training, the next step is to take an honest look at your personality. Are you an extremely introverted person who feels uncomfortable talking with others on a regular basis? Do you fear speaking in public? Are you a good listener?  

If the answers to these questions are a resounding “no” or maybe, then PM may not be a good career choice. However, if the answers are yes, then volunteer to run a small project or a sub-project of a larger team effort. Be prepared to learn from the mistakes that you undoubtedly you will make. And, also be prepared to do other people’s work in order to get your small project finished on time! Once you have exhibited some aptitude as a PM, you may be asked to take on larger projects and if you are successful you may be on track for a lifelong career as a PM.

People become successful project managers from almost any discipline or field. In my almost 25 years as a PM (and PM trainer), I have seen PMs hail from jobs in R&D, manufacturing, marketing, purchasing, engineering, quality, and regulatory affairs. No particular group produces better PMs than another. That said, all successful PMs:

• Are great communicators and know how to listen
• Know the process of managing projects and can show you the schedule, scope and budget at any time
• Are rarely at the extreme introverted end of the extraversion – introversion continuum
• Understand how to motivate people to work for them when they don’t actually report to them
• Implicitly understand that the project (not their egos or kudos that they may receive), takes precedent over everything else

To learn more about a possible career as a PM, I highly recommend that you join PMI.org and attend monthly meetings at a local PMI chapter. Network with fellow PMs and learn from them. Pretty soon you’ll be in the thick of things and understand what being a PM is all about! 

Please check out my Round Table Project Management blog for additional information and feel free to contact me.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

The economic downturn has taken its toll on a number of industries including retail, manufacturing, real estate and others. Many veteran workers from these industries are unemployed and face the prospect of long term unemployment unless they develop or acquire new skills that qualify them for jobs in other areas.

Most employment experts place careers in healthcare and the life sciences in the top ten of most “future hot jobs” lists. Unfortunately, winning these types of jobs requires specialized training in biology and medicine. Consequently, persons with non-science backgrounds will have to go back to school to acquire the training and skill sets required to compete for these jobs. 

I recently came across a website called UniXL which bills itself as an education and career information portal. At first, I was dubious about the usefulness of UniXL. However, after spending some time at the site, it does provide great information for individuals who are considering starting or going back to school. For example, would be students interested in biology can find colleges and universities that offer training in biology while others who are tempted by biotechnology can find similar lists of institutions that offer that type of training.

Finally, persons who may not be interested in healthcare or medicine but simply want to go back to school for training in other disciplines can easily find for- and non-profit institutions of higher learning (by state) by clicking the links listed below.

Until next time....

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

Schools in Alabama
Schools in Alaska
Schools in Arizona
Schools in Arkansas
Schools in California
Schools in Colorado
Schools in Connecticut
Schools in Delaware
Schools in Florida
Schools in Georgia
Schools in Hawaii
Schools in Idaho
Schools in Illinois
Schools in Indiana
Schools in Iowa
Schools in Kansas
Schools in Kentucky
Schools in Louisiana
Schools in Maine
Schools in Maryland
Schools in Massachusetts
Schools in Michigan
Schools in Minnesota
Schools in Mississippi
Schools in Missouri
Schools in Montana
Schools in Nebraska
Schools in Nevada
Schools in New Hampshire
Schools in New Jersey
Schools in New Mexico
Schools in New York
Schools in North Carolina
Schools in North Dakota
Schools in Ohio
Schools in Oklahoma
Schools in Oregon
Schools in Pennsylvania
Schools in Rhode Island
Schools in South Carolina
Schools in South Dakota
Schools in Tennessee
Schools in Texas
Schools in Utah
Schools in Vermont
Schools in Virginia
Schools in Washington
Schools in West Virginia
Schools in Wisconsin
Schools in Wyoming

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

The $789 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was passed in 2009 included funding for the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) act to promote the adoption of electronic health record (EHR) technology in health. Beginning next year, doctors and eligible medical providers can receive Medicaid incentive payments over a five-year period if they adopt a certified EHR technology platform and adopt so-called "five goals" established by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

The act is expected to create more than 50,000 new health information technology (HIT) jobs. With many hospitals and physicians making the transition from paper charts to electronic medical records, there is a growing demand for specialists trained in the latest medical record technology. Recognizing the surging demand for HIT workers many universities including two- and four- year colleges and for profit institutions like DeVry University have created HIT certificate and degree programs.

There is no question that HIT professionals will be in high demand over the next decade or so. That said, if you have an interest in biology or medicine and like IT, HIT may be a good career choice for you! Don’t wait; act now.

Until next time...

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

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

Most job pundits and career analysts believe that millions of jobs will become available in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) by 2018. Yet, despite ongoing initiatives the next generation of American employees may be unprepared and not qualified to take advantage of these new opportunities. A recent report from the Information Industry Technology Council, indicate that US children are falling behind their international peers in all aspects of STEM education!

Further, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that although women currently make up more than 50 percent of the American workforce, they hold only 14 percent of all engineering positions and 25 per cent of mathematics positions. While it previously was believed that women were less academically-capable in STEM disciplines, new data clearly shows this not to be the case. The differences in achievement only become apparent when lower expectations and distorted perceptions of likely success affect motivation levels and confidence. In other words, there are no genetic differences between men and women that explain why there are disproportionately lower numbers of women in STEM jobs. 

With fewer men and increasing number of women graduating from college, it is incumbent upon STEM educators and employers to devise new strategies to encourage and help women purse careers in science, math and engineering. Like it or not, women will have a significant role to play in the future when it comes to American ingenuity and innovation. 

The “gold ole boys” days are thankfully drawing to a close and will continue to do so as we move further into the 21^st century.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!! 

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

Sunday marks the beginning of “American Education Week”, the observance which was started back in 1921. It was created by the National Education Association (NEA) and other groups because 25% of World War I draftees were illiterate.

While a lot has change in the US since 1921 and the literacy rate has drastically improved, the quality of the American education system, especially in math and science, continues to be suspect and in many instances is failing its citizens. Much of this failure is rooted in skyrocketing college tuition costs which prevents many Americans access to an adequate post secondary education. 

Most politicians contend that education costs are too high and spending on education must be capped. However a quick look at some facts (provided by an article in USA Today written by its founder Al Neuharth) paints a much different picture

• Families are spending an average of $64 billion annually to send 13.9 million students to public colleges and universities
• For the past 10 years, the US has spent $1.1 trillion per year on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; an annual average of more than $110 billion

As Mr. Neuharth aptly points out: $64 billion annually for higher education versus $110 billion per year for wars!

Is it any wonder that American students continue to lag in science and math preparedness as compared with much smaller countries where higher education is free or heavily subsidized by their respective governments? Think about this the next time you hear politicians and conservative talk show hosts about America’s dwindling competitiveness in math and science.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

While I believe that tenure ought to be abolished and the cost of a college education is way too high these days, I cannot fault non-profit post secondary educational institutions for the job that they do educating students and preparing them for life. Most do a pretty good job despite the outrageous price tag.

Because of the recession and high unemployment, many displaced workers have chosen to “go back to school.” This has resulted in a booming business for many for-profit post secondary education companies. Because there are no perquisites at many of these schools, the main criterion for admission is the ability to pay tuition and fees. Not surprisingly, the quality of the education at many of these institutions is somewhat deficient and the attrition rates are exceedingly high. More egregiously, however, is the little known fact that much of the financial aid available to low income and minority college students is “eaten up” by for-profit education companies. And ironically, the tuition to earn certificate or associate degrees at these schools is 4-5 times higher than that required to earn comparable degrees at local community colleges.

Admittedly, I don’t think near enough about for-profit secondary education companies and their impact on students. However, my eyes were recently opened, after reading an article entitled “Degrees of Debt" by Jeremy Dehn; a journeyman adjunct instructor who works at both non-profit and for profit post secondary education institutions. Because he works at both non- and for-profit institutions he is in a unique position to compare the two educational experiences. This is a MUST READ article.

The notion that education can be accurately and adequately delivered based on the free enterprise system and unbridled capitalism is bogus. While non-profit education institutions leave a lot to be desired, relying for-profit companies (and prevailing market trends) to educate Americans is certain to continue to diminish American competitiveness on the world stage.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

It is well established that many scientist are not particularly adept at social interactions and are notoriously poor at networking. Contrary to popular belief these deficiencies are not genetic and likely result from the erroneous notion that scientists don’t need career network to advance their work or careers.

There is no question that face-to-face networking is an acquired skill and that practice is necessary to master it. However, the advent of Google search and social media platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter permits even the novice jobseeker to establish an online network—in the absence of a real life one—that may be useful in a job search or future career development. To that end, I came across a 2008 post written by Trent Ham that offers insights and tactics on how to incorporate online networking into a successful job search.

Ten Fundamental Steps for Successful Online Career Networking                                       By Trent Hamm

Let’s start with the big question.

Why?

What is the point of doing online networking for your career? How is it any better than simply keeping in touch with people you know via email or at meetings? Isn’t stuff like LinkedIn or Facebook a waste of time, or at least not worth the time you invest in it?

Online networking tools serve two purposes, really.

First, they make it easy for people to find you – or at least find the information about you that you want to be found. Once you set up a proper profile at a social networking site, it’s often the first thing that shows up about you on search engines. Thus, when people go searching for information about you, you can have a lot of control over the information that they find.

Second, they allow you to keep tabs on other people – and allow other people to keep tabs on you. Let’s say, for example, that you’re starting a new project that might interest a lot of people in your field – and you might want input from some of them. Is it easier to collect all their email addresses then send a blanket email to all of them or to just simply update your online networking tool?

Similarly, if you’ve set up such tools properly, you can effortlessly and automatically follow such news and updates about others in your field, which can automatically alert you to any interesting changes without having to hope that that person remembered to send it to you.

Together, these things add up to tons and tons of opportunities to connect with people without having to invest a ton of time continually tracking people down.

Tactic #1: Just Use Google
One problem that many people have with doing this is that there seems to be a giant pile of services available for people to connect to others. Should I use Twitter? Should I use Facebook? Should I use LinkedIn?

Really, though, there’s only one you need to worry about. And that’s Google.

When people want to find other people online, they turn to Google. They type in that name, click on the first few links, and see what they can find out.

That means your focus shouldn’t be so much on which of these services to use. It should be to make sure you’re controlling that top search result on Google.

How can you do that? You need to have a page that’s (a) fully open to the public and (b) linked to by a lot of other people.

Based on what I’ve observed, for professional purposes, the best tool for that is LinkedIn, so if I were just getting started with things, I’d use LinkedIn. Facebook has more users, but it’s a “walled garden,” meaning the general public cannot read your profile. If you’re focusing solely on professional material, that’s actually a pretty big disadvantage.

Tactic #2: Detail Your Profile
When you sign up for such a service, the first step is to add appropriate detail to your profile. The key word here is appropriate.

The purpose for doing this is to attract professional connections, so keep it professional. Describe your career. Enter all of the relevant information and include as much detail as you can, including past places of employment, organizations you’re involved with (that you’d want to share professionally), where you went to school, and so on. Make especially sure to describe your current work (again, in as much detail as you can). Be sure to share it all publicly, too, so that you can easily be found on Google searches.

The more information you provide – particularly interesting information – the more likely it is that people will take an interest in you, follow you, and contact you for further connection, which is exactly what you want.

Tactic #3: Find People You Know (Or Want To Know)
Once you’re in place, start searching the site for people you know and establish connections with them. You may not know anyone – that’s fine – but if you can at least establish a few connections, you’re off on the right foot.

You might want to search whole companies, like your own, just to get a list of people, so you can quickly identify people that you may want to link up with. Don’t be afraid to connect with people above you in rank – or even below you – but focus on connecting to those that might actually have value in that connection. Don’t just connect for the sake of connecting or else you’ll suffer from needless overload.

Tactic #4: Invite Your Friends To Join
So, you signed up at LinkedIn (or whatever site you’ve chosen to use), filled in your profile, and located a few people you know. Now what?

These tools work better if you know lots of people using the tools, so email a bunch of your work contacts. Send them the URL of your LinkedIn page, along with perhaps the URLs of some other people most of them might be interested in, and encourage them to sign up. If people already know that they have at least a few connections in the bag, they’re much more likely to sign up for such a service.

Tactic #5: Keep People Reminded Through Other Means
Once you’re established there, make an effort to remind people through other mediums about your profile page, so they can follow you, too. I’d encourage you to stick a link to your profile in the signature of your emails as well as into the profile of any other online services you might use (like Facebook, for example).

What this does is it gives people many opportunities to visit your page and keep you in their mind – and that’s a pure benefit for you.

Tactic #6: Keep An Eye Out
Once you’ve established a profile and a lot of connections, it’s worth setting your basic page on the site as a bookmark so you can keep up with what’s happening with the people you’re connected to. I tend to look at what’s happening with my connections on various sites every other day or so, just to keep tabs with them.

For the most part, I don’t do anything with the updates – I just try to keep track of them. I usually send congratulations in response to big news and occasional follow-up questions, but I usually try to avoid too much follow-up (see #8 for why).

Tactic #7: Update Regularly
I also make an effort to update my own profile whenever there’s something significant to note. Whenever something happens that’s significant enough for me to wish to contact people professionally, I make sure to update any relevant social networking pages with a global update (so that everyone can see it and anyone who follows me or is connected is alerted to it).

Of course, there’s a fine line here – too much stuff can overburden the people connected to you. To mitigate that, I keep the update count down to the serious stuff – things that I would actually bother to contact others about, such as major project changes, changing jobs, the birth of a child, or another major event.

Tactic #8: Don’t Get Bogged Down
Ideally, you find yourself in a situation with a lot of connections, which means a lot of people are keeping tabs with what you’re doing. The danger in that is that it’s tempting to get involved in a lot of conversations – and that turns the social networking tool into an unproductive time suck.

My suggestion: avoid long conversations on the site. If you see something truly compelling, contact that person directly off the site. If it’s not compelling enough move on and don’t waste your time!

Tactic #9: Add Value
There is one other reason I add updates to such social sites, and that’s when they add direct value to the people following me. If I find a truly great resource or piece of information that many others in my field will find valuable, I add an update letting others know about it.

Why do this? Why share something of value so easily? If you share truly valuable things, people will come to ascribe value to you – and that will stick in their minds. Do it regularly enough with stuff that’s truly valuable and people will share valuable things with you – information, important news, and so on.

Tactic #10: Follow Up
Most of these tactics don’t require much time, and so it can be easy to just put up the profile, check in every once in a while, and not think about it.

If you just do that, however, you may miss out on opportunity. Thus, I’d suggest two methods for regular follow-up on your profile.

First, set the site as a default page in your browser. This way, checking the page becomes part of your normal routine. You can often integrate a number of pages into a single iGoogle start page – that’s the tactic I use.

Second, check your own profile regularly and make sure it’s updated. Don’t let it slag with out-of-date information. Check it once a month or so and make sure that correct, current, and relevant information is easily found by people searching for you.

Follow these ten tactics and you’ll be using online networking to great career advantage.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking (try it, you may like it)

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

A study financed by the US Department of Education which compared the effectiveness of online vs. classroom-based teaching for the past 12 years found that online learning on average beat face-to-face instruction by a modest but statistically significant margin. Not surprisingly, Bill Gates (a Harvard drop out) believes that online learning will ultimately replace much college classroom teaching because he thinks “college needs to be place-based.” In other words, teaching needs to be directly delivered to the students who may be a difference places at different times. 

But, recent research published by David Figlio an economist at Northwestern University (in association with the National Bureau of Economics) found that live, classroom instruction was superior to Internet-based lecture videos for an introductory economics students.

The results were obtained in a head-to-head experiment that compared the grades achieved by 312 online students and those taught in a traditional classroom setting in an introductory economics course taught at a major unnamed state university. Interestingly, Hispanic online students’ grades fell nearly a full grade lower than Hispanic taught in a traditional classroom. Moreover, male students performed almost a half a grade worse than their classroom-based counterparts and low achievers, who had college grade point averages below the university mean also performed more poorly. Finally, online female students outperformed online male students.

The researchers assert that the differences that they observed could not be attributed to computer replacing the traditional tutorial-style human teaching environment because the lecture hall used in the experiment was a very large one that seated hundreds of students at one time. Initially, Figlio thought that the flexibility of online courses—the ability to go back and revisit course materials when time permitted—would give online learning an edge over traditional learning environments. However, based on the results of the study he contends that “the time-shifting convenience of the Web made it easier for students to put off viewing lectures and cram just before the test; a tactic that likely may not produce the best results! 

That may partly explain some of the discrepancies uncovered in the study, but why do online male students perform worse than their online female counterparts? The answer likely lies in the commonly-held belief (fact?) that female students are superior to male students in time management, organizational skills and commitment. Whether or not this is true, there is emerging evidence which suggests that online learning may not be an appropriate learning style for some students despite it obvious advantage of convenience. That said, it is important to note that the traditional didactic methods of instruction commonly employed by most secondary and postsecondary educators is also lacking and needs to be modified to create better learning environments.

While online training is gaining in popularity—and in my opinion, a great adjunctive tool—it will never replace those “magical teaching moments” that often spontaneously arise in a face-to-face classroom setting from student-instructor interactions and student-student repartee.

Until next time,

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

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

Those of you who may be old enough to recognize the slogan “We’ve come a long way baby” ought to consider reading the list below about the things that the majority of today’s 18 year olds (college freshman) have never done. The reason why I think that the list is important is because we educators (most of whom are baby boomers and increasingly Gen Xers) grew up in a different world than the Millennials aka Gen Y. 

Like it or not, these differences must be taken into consideration when devising strategies on how to teach these students! What may have worked for you or me, may no longer be the best way to teach this and future generations of students.

The article was sent to me by a representative at matchacollege.com.

10 Things the Class of 2014 Hasn’t Experienced

Below is a list of the 10 things the class of 2014 hasn’t experienced, or more accurately, the 10 things a majority of 18-year-olds haven’t experienced firsthand.

1. A world without the internet
   Not only do new college students not know a world without the internet, but many also haven’t endured the screaming modem connecting through a telephone landline. A dropped connection or the fear of it limited your enjoyment and inhibited you from accomplishing much. But as the internet has evolved, connections have become faster and almost everything has become available with the click of a mouse. Teenagers are able to sign up for SATs, apply for college, apply for financial aid, select their classes, find a dorm, find a roommate and join a club all before they set foot on campus. The legwork that came with making such a life transition two decades ago has been eliminated.
2. Consistent email correspondences
   It’s tragically unhip to use an email for anything other than formal correspondence. It has become an archaic form of internet communication and it has been supplanted by social networking sites. Email is rarely used to facilitate conversations by young people because it’s too slow and too impersonal. Instead, it’s used for formal messages with bosses and professors, and as a tool for signing up for websites.
3. Life without cell phones
   College freshmen now are connected to their friends every minute of every day thanks to their smartphones. They can maintain constant contact with each other by texting and Facebooking – the latter of which has made high school reunions less anticipated because graduates from the last several years already know what their classmates are doing with their lives. Many college students have never used a payphone, which was the main communication device to use when you were out and about in years past, though you couldn’t make the call if you didn’t remember the number.
4. Cameras with film
   The class of 2014 will be taking plenty of pictures in the coming years, capturing the memorable and not-so-memorable moments that occur during college. But before the advent of Facebook, when picture-taking was less of a priority to young people, a camera was only as good as the film that accompanied it. There was no immediate gratification after taking a round of photos because you couldn’t upload them onto your computer. Instead, you dropped the roll off at the drugstore and waited until the photos were developed – it was the only way you would see the photos.
5. Using a paper map
   Now, commuters are less likely to get lost with the presence of a GPS. The only time a paper map is unfolded, trial and error is used or verbal directions are requested during a trip is when the GPS hasn’t been updated in a while, and it steers you to an empty field. So when students from the class of 2014 embark on their first college roadtrips, the absence of wrong turns and unexpected detours will result in more time to have fun.
6. Driving manual transmission cars
   Although cars with manual transmissions are still manufactured, few young people bother to learn how to drive them. The phase-out began a couple of decades ago, but for a while, many parents took it upon themselves to teach their kids how to drive a stick shift because it was still considered a useful skill. Cars with manual transmissions are usually cheaper, and car enthusiasts will tell you they’re more fun to drive. But driving has become a chore, and young and old people alike prefer to keep it as easy as possible.
7. Thumbing through an encyclopedia, dictionary or thesaurus
   The time-consuming activity of thumbing through an encyclopedia, dictionary or thesaurus made research papers a dreaded part of the college experience during the pre-internet era. It was a given that you would spend hours upon hours in the library, and if you didn’t, your GPA would suffer. For home use, Encyclopedia Britannica and Webster’s Dictionary were reliable options. Now, definitions can be easily found by googling the term, and Wikipedia has become an informal source of information despite its inaccuracy. Library time is spent surfing the internet, unless a professor gives an assignment that requires for certain books to be cited.
8. Returning videotapes
   Through the ’80s and ’90s, college students would spend late nights perusing the aisles of video stores, looking for the latest and greatest hits to view during their downtime. It was imperative they returned the videotapes in a timely manner; otherwise they would face late fees, which would put a dent their nearly empty bank accounts. And, of course, the tapes had to be rewound. Students today use torrents and sites like Netflix, and they never have to leave their dorm suites.
9. Cash only
   No longer are trips to the ATM a necessary weekly occurrence. There are very few situations in which cash is needed, so few people carry bills in their wallets. Everyone with a bank account owns a debit card, so wads of cash aren’t needed by college students for activities like barhopping. Instead, they use their debit cards for everything, including bar tabs, which grow as more beer and shots are downed, causing future meals to be sacrificed due to the limited funds that remain.
10. Reliance on a wristwatch
    Cell phones have ensured that people no longer uses wristwatches for time-telling purposes. Watches are no different than any piece of jewelry – they’re aesthetically-pleasing items that are worn fashionably. But it doesn’t seem to be a trend for 18-year-olds to own one, and with their cell phones always in their palms, they always know the time.

Until next time...

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

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

The ever-increasing competition for faculty positions is forcing many graduate students and postdocs to consider careers outside of academia with a likely eye on industrial jobs. Unfortunately, many of these would be industrial scientists lack the appropriate training and qualifications for entry-level jobs at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. This is because most undergraduate and graduate programs do not offer training to their students in drug development, quality systems and manufacturing. The reasons for this include: 1) lack of well informed and qualified faculty members to initiate and develop specialized curricula on these topics and 2) a belief that job training is the responsibility of prospective employers, not academic researchers. Unless substantive curricular change is made to existing academic programs, the road to employment for many students will continue to be bumpy and fraught with difficulty. 

In contrast with academic research, industrial research is highly regulated and guided by legally-enforceable rules and regulations, e.g., Current Good Laboratory Practices (cGLP), Current Good Clinical Practices (cGCP) and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). These rules and guidelines were created by regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the development of safe and efficacious products. In recent years, the FDA has begun to enforce these rules and regulations more strictly. As a result, many life sciences companies now require that prospective employees understand cGLP, cGCP and cGMP guidelines and how to apply them in industrial laboratory settings. Because these rules and regulations are specific to industry and relatively unknown in academia, most academically-trained job candidates fail to qualify for these industrial jobs. Finally, over the past five years, there has been a growing emphasize on the importance of so-called "soft skills" e.g., good oral written and communication skills, teamwork, professional behavior, etc. in existing and prospective employees. These skills are increasingly important as life sciences companies grow larger, more diverse, and increasingly multidisciplinary in their approach to drug discovery and development. Unfortunately, few academic programs develop these skills in a systematic way; this failure hinders the ability of students to obtain industrial jobs.

Although the transition from academia to industry can be difficult, students can do several things to improve their odds. First, take advantage of available resources in preparing your resume and learning how to interview for an industrial position. A well written, carefully crafted resume can result in an interview, and a professional interviewing style can increase the likelihood of a job offer. Working with a skilled and well-connected professional recruiter may also increase the probability of securing an industrial job.

Second, many community colleges and several companies now offer specialized training in quality systems, regulatory affairs (cGLP, cGMP and cGCP) and other areas. Finally, there is no better way to get an industrial job than to have previous industrial experience. To get industrial experience, seek out training opportunities that include an industry internship as part of the curriculum. Some biotech and pharmaceutical companies may offer volunteer opportunities,  paid internships and some still have postdoctoral positions available for qualified applicants.

Until next time...

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

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

The Stanford Summer Institute for Summer Entrepreneurship was started several years ago and was “designed for currently enrolled, non-business graduate students.” According to the program’s website, “The business world is in need of young visionaries with backgrounds in humanities, science, and engineering. The Stanford Graduate School of Business Summer Institute for Entrepreneurship offers current graduate students the unique opportunity to build the analytical and practical skills critical to launching a successful business.” That’s right, all you would-be entrepreneurs who want to start your won biotech company ought to check it out!

The program has been wildly successful since its inception. The 2010 class is completely full and applications for the 2011 session will be available this September. For a program overview, check out this video

Please contact Aimee Slobin for more information. Also, you can download a program brochure by clicking here.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

It is becoming  increasingly difficult for undergraduate and graduate students to secure entry-level jobs at biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. This is because these students lack the appropriate training and qualifications for entry-level jobs at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Unfortunately, most undergraduate and graduate programs do not offer training to their students in drug development, quality systems and manufacturing. The is likely due to: 1) lack of well informed and qualified faculty members to initiate and develop specialized curricula on these topics and 2) a belief that job training is the responsibility of prospective employers, not academic researchers. Unless substantive curricular change is made to existing academic programs, the road to employment for many students will continue to be bumpy and fraught with difficulty.

In contrast with academic research, industrial research is highly regulated and guided by legally-enforceable rules and regulations, e.g., Current Good Laboratory Practices (cGLP), Current Good Clinical Practices (cGCP) and Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). These rules and guidelines were created by regulatory agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the development of safe and efficacious products. In recent years, the FDA has begun to enforce these rules and regulations more strictly. As a result, many life sciences companies now require that prospective employees understand cGLP, cGCP and cGMP guidelines and how to apply them in industrial laboratory settings. Because these rules and regulations are specific to industry and relatively unknown in academia, most academically-trained job candidates fail to qualify for these industrial jobs. Finally, over the past five years, there has been a growing emphasize on the importance of so-called "soft skills" e.g., good oral written and communication skills, teamwork, professional behavior, etc. in existing and prospective employees. These skills are increasingly important as life sciences companies grow larger, more diverse, and increasingly multidisciplinary in their approach to drug discovery and development.

Unfortunately, few academic programs develop these skills in a systematic way; this failure hinders the ability of students to obtain industrial jobs. Although the transition from academia to industry can be difficult, students can do several things to improve their odds. First, take advantage of available resources in preparing your resume and learning how to interview for an industrial position. A well written, carefully crafted resume can result in an interview, and a professional interviewing style can increase the likelihood of a job offer.

Working with a skilled and well-connected professional recruiter may also increase the probability of securing an industrial job. Second, many community colleges and several companies now offer specialized training in quality systems, regulatory affairs (cGLP, cGMP and cGCP) and other areas.

Finally, there is no better way to get an industrial job than to have previous industrial experience. To get industrial experience, seek out training opportunities that include an industry internship as part of the curriculum. Some biotech and pharmaceutical companies may offer volunteer opportunities, and some have postdoctoral positions.

Until next time...

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

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

In case you haven’t heard by now, biotechnology is no longer one of the best kept secrets of the pharmaceutical industry. Because small molecule blockbuster drugs are few and far between, every major pharmaceutical company in the world has announced plans to increase the percentage of protein-based drugs in their development pipeline. 

As strange as this may sound, most people working at pharmaceutical companies have little or no understanding of the science behind the biotechnology industry, its products and the skill sets required to compete in the industry. I learned this while working as a contract writer at a pharmaceutical company that was trying to transition from an emphasis on small molecules to biotechnology drugs. Shortly after management publicly announced its intention, signs began appearing in the building where I worked with messages like “Are you biotech to the core” or “Got biotech.” Not surprisingly, I found myself explaining the different between small molecules and biotechnology products to large numbers of colleagues during group lunches. Their lack of understanding about biotechnology was both surprising and troubling. I mean where have these people been for the past 35 years? 

While I thought that this phenomenon was unique to the company where I was working, it turns out —based on many conversations with employees at other companies—that it is pervasive in the pharmaceutical industry! Put simply, there are large numbers of pharmaceutical employees (and aspiring students for that matter) who know little about biotechnology and must quickly learn about an industry that they are being forced to work in so that they can keep their jobs! This presents time and logistical issues for many full time pharmaceutical employees—they simply don’t have the time or where-with-all to learn about biotechnology via traditional bricks and mortar training opportunities, e.g. undergraduate, graduate or certificate programs.

Recognizing a growing need, several academic institutions now offer online biotechnology courses and degree programs for undergraduate and graduate students. While these programs may not enable participants to work as bench scientists at life sciences companies (this requires hands-on wet laboratory training), they certainly provide students with the fundamental scientific and business underpinnings of the biotechnology industry.

Below you will find descriptions of a couple of online degree biotechnology programs and links to online undergraduate and graduate level biotechnology courses.

Online Biotechnology Degree Programs

The Johns Hopkins University – a prestigious brick-and-mortar research university – offers three online degree programs in advanced biotechnology: the M.S. in Bioinformatics, the M.S. in Bioscience Regulatory Affairs, and the M.S. in Biotechnology. (The M.S. in Biotech may involve a limited amount of on-campus instruction in Baltimore.) Students have up to five years to complete their degrees, but those who enroll for full-time study typically finish in two years.

The University of Maryland University College (UMUC) is among America’s largest providers of distance education. UMUC's Biotechnology Studies Program has been designated a “Professional Science Master’s Degree Program” by the Council of Graduate Schools. The program’s three specialization areas include: bioinformatics, biotechnology management, and biosecurity/biodefense. A dual online degree option is also available: students can earn an MBA in addition to the Master’s in Biotechnology by completing just a few additional courses.

Online Biotechnology Courses

Purdue University’s Department of Continuing Education frequently features online courses in horticulture and related fields that can help students prepare for careers in biotechnology. New choices are offered every semester.

MiraCosta College, a community college in Southern California, offers a number of online courses in biotechnology. The school’s website includes a five-year projection of course offerings.

While the current list of online biotechnology offerings is short, expect the number of online courses and degree programs to continue to grow in the future. If you are aware of or participate in other online biotechnology courses and degree programs, please feel free contact me about them.

Hat tip and thanks to Chesca and her colleagues at OnlineDegreeReviews.org for research and writing of this post!

Until next time,

Good luck and Good learning!

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

While I don’t advocate postdoctoral positions for individuals unless they plan on doing bench science for the rest of their lives, postdoctoral training is a fact of life for those interested in pursuing academic careers. To that end, The Scientist.com conducts an annual survey that ranks the best 40 places for postdoctoral associates to work. The survey ranks the strengths and weaknesses of individual training institutions based on funding, facilities and infrastructure, benefits, training and mentoring and family and personal life. Surprisingly, institutions are also ranked on networking, career development and mentoring and training and mentor and training that they offer to their postdoctoral trainees.

The institution that snagged the top spot on the 2010 list was the Trudeau Institute in Saranac Lake, NY. Nestled in the Adirondack Mountains in Upstate NY, the not-for-profit Trudeau Institute has a deserved international reputation in immunology, infectious diseases and vaccinology. When I was a graduate students (back in the dark ages), some of the greatest minds in infectious diseases held positions at Trudeau. These days; not so much—but I bet the skiing is great! Interestingly, one of Trudeau’s strengths is networking opportunities (how much networking can take place at a secluded institute on a lake in the Adirondacks). Curiously, however, one of its major weaknesses is the lack of career development opportunities. Based on my life experiences, I always thought that networking was a crucial part of career development. But then again, what do I know?

The top 10 of the list featured a couple of Massachusetts-based institutions including the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (3) and the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research Institute in Cambridge (4) and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Woods Hole, MA (9). Two national laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, CA (8) and Rocky Mountain Laboratory, NIH Hamilton, MT (6) cracked the top ten. By all accounts, the fly fishing is outstanding in Hamilton.

As usual, there were some surprises. These included Samuel Robert Noble Foundation (2) in Ardmore, OK, the University of Colorado, Denver (7) and the Mayo Clinic (10) in Rochester, MN (not exactly cities on my top ten list). Not surprisingly, there were only two life sciences companies that made the Top 40 list; Genentech (5) in South San Francisco and as mentioned above at number 3, the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research. Once a mainstay, industrial postdocs are becoming increasingly scare and difficult to land. In many cases, these positions are not advertised and generally filled by word-of-mouth recommendations to principal investigators who are looking for postdoctoral fellows.

A quick perusal of the list revealed, as expected, that most of the 40 institutions excelled in categories that included funding, facilities and infrastructure, benefits and family and personal life. In marked contrast, many of the institutions on the list were disappointingly weak in the areas of networking, career development and training and mentoring. Of the top 40, six got kudos for networking (15%), 11 for career development (28%) and only 6 for training and mentoring (15%). These abysmal statistics are somewhat shocking given that postdoctoral fellowships are mainly intended to train and prepare aspiring individuals for lifelong careers as scientists. The fact that only 25% of the nation’s best places to perform postdoctoral research offer career development training and support for postdoctoral trainees suggests that the future of the American life sciences industry may be in serious jeopardy!

Hat tip Ed at Pharmalot.

Until next time....

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

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

American competitiveness in engineering, technology and science. Unfortunately, while American competitiveness and innovation in these areas continues to wane, little has been done (except talking) about it! Yesterday, Intel and 24 venture capital funds announced that they plan to invest $3.5 billion in American startups and early stage ventures over the next two years. Further, in addition, several of America’s leading technology companies including Google, Cisco Systems, Intel Microsoft and 13 others pledged to add as many as 10,500 jobs into 2010—mainly by hiring Americans graduating from colleges with degrees in computer science and engineering.

The initiative, named the Invest in America Alliance was formed in response to “steadily declining long-term investments in education, technology and human capital” that has been taking place in the US for past 20 years or more. Put simply, the American education system is not training enough qualified individuals to allow the US to compete with other emerging technology and engineering powerhouses that include China, India Finland, Korea and the Netherlands. 

According to Robert Compton, a venture capitalist, entrepreneur and education enthusiast “Fewer than 10 percent of college graduates in the US have engineering degrees, compared with more than one-third in India and China and more foreign-born graduates of US universities are returning to their home countries.” For those of you with degrees in math and science (and you base your calculations on population size), the magnitude of the problem (for Americans anyway) is glaringly obvious. Compton went on to say what many others have been thinking for a while, “Early indicators are that we are not the center of innovation anymore. It is shifting to the East.” And he may be right! Based on surveys conducted by the World Intellectual Property Organization in the last year, patent filings increased 30 percent in China while declining 11 percent in the US.

While the Invest in America Alliance appears to be a great public relations opportunity for the companies and venture firms that are participating in it, its critics doubt whether investing more money in technology startups is going to fix the ongoing problem. Education analysts contend that a better and cheaper solution may be changing US immigration laws so that foreign students who train in the US are allowed to remain in the country after they complete their training. Other naysayers contend that most of the venture money committed by the alliance would have likely gone to American startups anyway (US based venture firms already invest 70 percent of their money in American start ups) and that 10,500 new jobs isn’t enough to make a dent in the US unemployment rolls.

Like the technology industry, a decade of wrong-head immigration policies coupled with a waning American interest in science has begun to jeopardize the US dominance in the life sciences. Further these trends are largely responsible for the massive layoffs and unrelenting outsourcing of pharmaceutical R&D jobs to foreign countries.

Toothless or not, the Invest in America Alliance shows that engineering and technology industry leaders are willing to cooperate with one another and get behind an initiative that raises public awareness about America’s waning competitiveness in these fields. Perhaps,   pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostic companies ought to take a page out of the Alliance’s play book to similarly insure the future innovation and competitiveness of the American life sciences industry.

Until next time...

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

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

As many of you already know, I talk to a lot of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who are disillusioned with the prospect of remaining in the laboratory for the rest of their lives. Frequently, students mention regulatory affairs as an alternate career option and ask me what type of training and skills are required to transit into a regulatory career. Unfortunately, regulatory affairs is an industry specific career and regulatory affairs training programs with the possible exceptions of the courses offered by the Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (RAPS) and the Drug Information Association (DIA) (which can be costly) are not readily accessible to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Consequently, I recommend that PhD-trained scientists who are interested in regulatory affairs check out employment opportunities at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This is because there is no better place than FDA to learn the “ins and outs” of regulatory affairs!

Until recently, jobs, fellowships and training programs at the agency were scarce. However, while reading an industry trade magazine I came across an ad (posted below) announcing fellowship opportunities for PhD level life scientists, healthcare professionals, pharmacists and even engineers(although they only need a bachelors degree to be eligible.

This is an opportunity for those interested in a regulatory affairs career to give it a shot! For more info visiting the agency’s website

Until next time...

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

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

While ‘women in the workplace’ is no longer a new or novel concept, there are still differences in the way women and men are viewed and treated at work. Lauri Buckley at Job Profiles alerted me to an interesting article that they prepared entitled “The Gender Gap: 10 Surprising Stats on Women in the Workplace."

Listed below are some startling stats about women in the workplace. 

1.  Women comprise 46% of the total U.S. labor force. With almost half of the workforce being women, female employees aren't exactly a rarity. For most women today, getting a job is an expected part of life. This is a big change from past decades. In 1900, fewer than 20% of women participated in the labor market while today the number is around 75% and growing.
2. Women make only 77.5 cents for every dollar that men earn. This figure comes from data on the 2003 census. Despite this gap, many economists feel that the gap between pay for men and women is due to different personal choices men and women make about personal fulfillment, child rearing and hours at work. Whichever you choose to believe, the reality is that the gap is slowly but surely closing as women become increasingly educated and dual income families become the norm, but this isn't much consolation to those who feel discriminated against today.
3. The more education a woman has, the greater the disparity in her wages. This certainly doesn't mean women should shy away from professional positions, but they should be aware that they may have to battle harder for equal pay. Women in professional specialty occupations were found to earn just 72.7% of what men in the same position earned, and women in upper level executive, administrative and managerial occupations earned even less at 72.3%. If you compare this against the average of 77.5%, the numbers speak for themselves, and this graphic from the New York Times makes it even easier to see.
4. Women may work longer to receive the promotions that provide access to higher pay. One example provided by the National Center for Education Statistics shows that women often have to work three years longer in a teaching position to be promoted to a principal than their male counterparts. Some studies suggest that this is because women and men adapt different strategies when it comes to management and pursuing promotions, yet other studies connect it less to work and more to gender-based biases.
5. Women business owners employ 35% more people than all the Fortune 500 companies combined. If you're like most people, you don't picture a woman when you think about a business owner. Yet there are about 9.1 million women-owned businesses in the U.S., a number that comprises nearly 40% of all businesses. The idea that women don't make good managers just doesn't hold up when you look at these kinds of numbers, with women managing a large number of employees and making healthy profits while doing so.
6. Women account for 46% of the labor force, but 59% of workers making less than $8 an hour. What does it mean? It means that many women are taking on jobs that pay well under a living wage. With nearly 16% of U.S. households having women who are divorced, widowed or never married as the sole providers, this leaves many women at a distinct disadvantage and struggling to make ends meet as they dominate jobs in low paying fields.
7. Only 53% of employers provide at least some replacement pay during periods of maternity leave. Despite the fact that the arrival of a child means extra bills and expenses, many employers don't provide women with any benefits if they to leave work temporarily to have a child. While there is no law requiring companies to offer paid maternity leave, considering it is an issue that primarily affects women, it's certainly a blow to their income potential and ability to care for their families and themselves.
8. Four in ten businesses worldwide have no women in senior management. This shouldn't be a surprise given the way many countries feel about women in the workplace. Here in the United States, however, women still feel the stress of trying to break into upper management, with 93% of the 439 senior women executives surveyed by Korn/Ferry International in 1992 feeling that a glass ceiling for women still existed. Yet new studies report that women outnumber men as managers in fields like human resources, health administration and education--perhaps stemming from reports that many businesses have seen a direct financial impact from hiring women.
9. Women earned less than men in 99% of all occupations. In virtually every field that women choose to enter, they can expect to earn less over their lifetime than their male counterparts. This means that over 47 years of full-time work, this gap amounts to an estimated loss in wages for women of $700,000 for high school graduates, $1.2 million for college grads, and $2 million for professional school grads--a staggering amount.
10. Minority women fare the worst when it comes to equal pay. African-American women earn 64 cents to every dollar earned by white men and Hispanic women just 52 cents per dollar. Whether it's attitudes about race or gender that are at play, it's clear that something needs to be done to level the playing field.

While these interesting statistics may be new to a lot of men, women have long known about the biases and inequities that they face in the workplace. The facts presented in the article suggest that while women have come a long way in the past 40 years, there is still a lot of work that must be done to achieve parity between women and men in the workplace.

Hat tip to Job Profiles!

Until next time...

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

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

Healthcare informatics (HCI) is one of the fastest growing professions in the US. This is because the Obama administration has allocated billions of stimulus dollars to create electronic healthcare records (EHR) in an attempt to reduce healthcare costs. 

To qualify for EHR stimulus monies organizations must develop a plan and then take steps to implement it! Not surprisingly, because of the short ramp up phase for EHR, the number of available jobs far outstrips the numbers of qualified and skilled employees to fill them. The acute shortage of qualified HCI employees resulted in a cover story in the December 2009 issue of Health Informatics entitled “Got People?” It is a great read and provides insights into the types of employees that HCI companies are looking to hire.  The EHR Initiative will likely create over 500,000 new jobs in the next few years. For those of you, who may be interested in pursuing a career in HCI, check out this list of the top 100 HCI companies to work for.

Finally, a group of bioinformatics and genomics PhD students and postdoctoral fellows approached me to help them find sponsors for a Health Informatics Career Development symposium that they are trying to develop for the 2010 Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB) conference that will be held in Boston, MA from July 9-13, 2010.  

If you are interested in sponsoring the HCI symposium please contact me.

Until next time...

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

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

Alan Alda, a well known actor and science enthusiast, is doing his share to improve the science literacy of Americans. His was the host of the Science Frontiers (which ran for 15 seasons on PBS until it was cancelled in 2005) and more recently the host of Wired Science which failed to catch on and was also canceled. Alda’s approach to science education is asking questions that nonscientists could understand while throwing in a bit of humor as well. In a recent interview he stressed that he always tries to “keep it a conversation.” Sometimes, he added, scientists and researchers would “lapse into lecture mode, and I’d have to bring them back into a conversation. This isn’t surprising because many scientists are unfamiliar or lack the necessary training to engage in conversational science. For the most part, scientists are trained didactically and exchange information via formal traditional channels which include: seminars, oral and written presentations at scientific meetings and congresses and publication of research findings in peer reviewed journals. In other words, science education has historically resembled a one way conversation rather than a dialog. Unfortunately, web 2.0 and social media is all about conversations and one way conversations are becoming less acceptable, even in science circles! To that end, Alda just finished teaching a six-week course of workshops at Stony Brook University on Long Island instructing scientists how to use improvisational acting techniques to express themselves more clearly. “The idea is you can’t really communicate ideas unless you know what’s going on in the other person’s mind,” he said. 

Despite many incredible scientific advances in the past decade, the science gap in America continues to widen. Science is becoming increasingly complex and fewer Americans are capable of understanding it. Therefore, it is incumbent upon scientists to begin to understand that they have a critical role to play in improving the public understanding of science. This responsibility can no longer be relegated to primary and secondary school teachers nor should nonscientists like Alda,Ira Flato of NPR’s Science Friday, Robert Krulwich and Jad Abumrad of RadioLab (a great show), be expected to carry the banner and lead the charge! 

Interestingly, while listening to this week’s Science Friday, I learned of educational initiatives being sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundations that are aimed at bringing more science into the entertainment fields. The computer systems institute also offers flexible programs as well.  While this is an important first step, it may be too little; too late. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve it: scientists need to step out of their comfort zones and learn how to better communicate and interact with the lay public. To that end, by way of a sport’s analogy “we scientists control our own destiny” We can choose to collectively learn how to better inform the American public about what we do and how we do it or allow the science literacy gap to ultimately become a chasm in the 21^st century.

Until next time...

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

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

There was an interesting post today at the Seattle, WA-based  Xconomy.com website about the salaries of people who work in the biotechnology industry. The post mainly focused on the salaries of biotech workers in the Pacific Northwest and based on results of a local survey the median salary is roughly around $60,000 per year. While this pales in comparison to the $81,499 reported earlier this spring from a group sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), it is important to note that “real salary” data are difficult to obtain and much of what is released is based on salary figures that don’t include bonuses and other benefits. Further differences survey methodologies may also account for the seemingly disparate results. Nevertheless, salaries in biotech are generally better than those offered in other science-related industries and, not surprisingly, are highly dependent on degree requirements and job duties and responsibilities.

The bottom line: in my opinion, a job in biotech is a good career choice because of the projected upward growth for the industry. More importantly, pharma is continuing to abandon its reliance on small molecules and increasingly embracing biotechnology and its products as the future of the life sciences and healthcare industries. If I was undergraduate life sciences major today, I would be looking to the biotech and medical devices/devices industry, not pharma, for future long term employment!!! And, contrary to popular belief, a PhD degree is no longer a requirement for many biotechnology jobs.

Until next time...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• 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

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

 According to Dr. Samuel Dyer, CEO of MSL WORLD the MSL role has evolved from originally being a support to sales reps to the forefront of pharmaceutical companies serving as the primary contact with KOLs, prescribers, and other Health Care Providers. 

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

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

Understand the mindset of MSL hiring managers

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

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

Become a master networker

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• 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

Yesterday, I gave a lecture entitled “Alternate Careers: Taking the Road Less Traveled” to over 100 members of the University of Pennsylvania’s Biomedical Graduate Student Association. As always, there were many good questions and comments during and after the presentation. Some of the career anecdotes offered by several of the students reminded me of a conversation that I had several weeks ago with one of my Fundamentals of Bioscience students—I teach a Product Development and Regulatory Affairs course in the program—who refreshed my memory about a typical graduate student approach to career development and job searching. “We don’t think about jobs or our careers until we begin writing our PhD theses” she said. “Until then, our advisers don’t talk about careers or jobs and only bring it up because our funding will run out” she added. Admittedly, I had forgotten this because so many years have passed since my graduate student days. That said, it forced me to consider how much the life sciences job market has changed since I was graduate student and how vitally important it is for today’s graduate students to think about and possibly explore different career options throughout the course of their graduate training.

Historically, there were very few career options for life scientists—it was either a tenure track faculty appointment or, as a poor second choice, a job at a pharmaceutical or biotechnology. Unfortunately, academics jobs are hard to come by and since 2007 over 60,000 pharmaceutical R&D scientists have lost their jobs and more cuts are expected. Also, many of these jobs are likely come back after the economy improves because many of the R&D activities performed by these scientists are being outsourced to India, China and elsewhere. This suggests that a majority of life sciences graduate students who receive their PhDs within the next few years won’t be able to secure traditional life sciences jobs. While a majority of US life sciences graduate training programs recognize and understand the implications of the changing job market, many are reluctant to discuss alternate career options with graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Even fewer, encourage or support students or postdoctoral fellows who want to engage in “extracurricular activities” to explore alternate career options. In fact, several U Penn students told me that they have to obtain written permission from their adviser before they can take courses or participate in extra-departmental activities. As one student quipped “What I do on my own time should be my business not my boss's.”

I always conclude my alternate career talk by saying “Nobody ever guaranteed you a job after completion of your PhD or postdoctoral training.” And, “if you wanted a job after completing your education, you ought to have gone to medical school, dental school, law school or any other profession that requires licensure to practice your craft.” While this may sound harsh, I believe that the decision to get a PhD is a personal one and based on discussion with many of my colleagues, most didn’t enter graduate school expecting a job to be waiting them when they completed their training. Nevertheless, I contend that graduate departments that continue to train and prepare students for traditional academic careers —knowing that over 90% won’t find jobs (other than postdocs) after their training is finished —are being disingenuous and even deceitful. Why haven’t academician realized that there is a plethora of job opportunities for life scientists outside of academia?

Like it or not, the life sciences job market has undergone radical changes in the past decade. Unfortunately, academics continue to adhere to dogmatic and anachronistic ideas and practices that don’t prepare their students and postdoctoral fellows for jobs in “the real world.” I contend that informing and enlightening graduate students about alternate career paths and, allowing them to explore some of these opportunities will not impede or hinder laboratory research. Instead, I believe it would help to improve and expedite its progress. As one U Penn graduate student shared with me over a couple of beers “If they would just tell us the truth and give us some idea about our options, it would certainly improve morale, reduce our anxiety and allow us to focus on our research because we would know what is out there!” As the old adage goes”ignorance is bliss.” But, in my experience, knowledge is power!

Until next time....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

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

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

The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) kicked off its annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia today and shortly thereafter, issued a press release detailing an education study (that it commissioned) which suggests that American high school students are continuing to fall behind in life sciences education and competitiveness. The timing of the BIO education report is curious, given that over 100,000 life sciences employees have lost their jobs over the past several years and more job cuts at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are expected in the next six months or so.

The report concluded that “middle and high school students across the country are generally falling behind in life sciences, and the nation is at risk of producing a dearth of qualified workers for the life sciences industry. Students are showing less interest in taking life sciences and science courses, and high schools are doing a poor job of preparing students for college-level science, The deficiencies will hurt the country's competitiveness with the rest of the world in the knowledge-based economy.”

Some of the report's finding include:

• 52 percent of 12th graders are at or above a basic level of achievement in the sciences as measured by the NAEP science test
• Average scores on the NAEP for 12th graders in the sciences and life sciences declined from 1996 to 2005
• Only 28 percent of high school students taking the ACT reached a score indicating college readiness for biology.

The report also found a deficiency in the number of well-qualified biology teachers available in high school, with one-in-eight biology teachers not certified to teach biology. To improve U.S. competitiveness in the biosciences industry, the report recommends that states incorporate biotechnology into their science standards, make sure students are ready to take college biosciences courses and focus more on professional development for teachers.

While BIO ought to be commended for the study, the results and the conclusions of the report are nothing new and have been known for over a decade by industry thought leaders and life sciences industry executives. The crux of the problem is that neither academia nor industry is willing to provide funds or invests in ways to find a solution to this vexing, ongoing issue. Also,while high school science curriculum experts and teachers are typically cited as the cause of the problem, most of the blame more aptly lies with life science educators at the undergraduate and graduate school levels.

Today, many US high schools and community colleges already offer life sciences and biotechnology training to their students. In fact, biotechnology curriculum development and outreach has been ongoing in US for well over a decade. For example, Bio-Link, an NSF-funded consortium of community colleges that began in the late 1990s, has diligently worked to create a network of community colleges and high schools that offer biotechnology education and training ranging from biomanufacturing to bioinformatics to forensic DNA sciences. Further, a quick perusal of many high schools and science academies in biotechnology-rich locales like the Northeast, California, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina and others reveals that life sciences education and training are readily available to many students interested in biology and bioscience.

In my opinion, the system doesn't break down at the high school level but at the undergraduate and graduate school levels. This is because for the past 15 years, many undergraduate life sciences courses have jettisoned their hands on laboratory components in favor of more lecture driven and e-based learning experiences. This is because these laboratories are costly to run and extremely labor intensive. Further, many undergraduate students may choose not pursue science careers because of the mistaken perception that life sciences jobs require a PhD. Ironically, there are many more jobs in the life sciences industry for students with undergraduate or masters' degrees than for those with PhD. This is because there is a glut of PhDs in today's market and the number of jobs in academia and the life sciences industry are growing smaller. I believe that academia and industry are responsible for the rapidly declining job market for PhD-life sciences.

First, let's look at academia. Most academicians who are charged with training PhDs and postdoctoral fellows have little appreciation or understanding of the technical and regulatory skill sets required in the life sciences industry. Second, many academics don't feel that it is their responsibility to prepare students and postdoctoral fellows for jobs in industry because that is tantamount to job training—a big no-no in academic circles. Finally,and perhaps most important, graduate programs are reluctant to provide career counseling or job-specific training for their students because it might interfere with their productivity, which in turn may reduce the amount of data principal investigators have to write papers and win grants to fund their laboratories. In other words, there is little or no incentive for education and training to change at the graduate level because there is no benefit or upside to principal investigators and tenured faculty members.

While the American life sciences industry has loudly and repeatedly complained about a lack of qualified job candidates to work at its companies, they have done little to support and fund efforts to reform US life science education and training. This is likely because many life sciences executives contend that they are in business not education and the responsibility to prepare students for careers in science should not fall on them. Rather, it rightfully belongs in the purview of secondary and post secondary educational institutions. And, rather than train new employees without previous industrial experience (to inject new talent and ideas into their organizations), companies typically only hire job candidates with previous industrial experience. As many newly minted PhD and postdoctoral students frequently ask: “How are we suppose to get industrial experience if nobody will hire us without previous industrial experience?” Good question! 

The BIO report warns that the US is falling behind in bioscience education and American life science companies may experience workforce shortages in the future. The fact that about 100,000    (many of whom were scientists) pharmaceutical employees have lost their jobs over the past several years, suggests otherwise. Nevertheless, American science education and training needs to be improved and reformed if the US wants to maintain its dominance in the life sciences. The piecemeal approach that has been pursued for past decade or so hasn't worked. And why should it? Neither academia nor industry, the two main players in the story, don't really have any “skin in the game.” In other words, they have nothing to lose right now!

I believe that its time for academia, industry and government to come together to craft a cohesive, national life science curriculum that meets the needs of all stakeholders. We have a President in the White House who believes in science, the ingenuity of the American people and change. The time is now!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!! 

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

My oldest son is a high school sophomore and is currently taking “honors” biology. While he is generally an “A” student, it is obvious that he is neither interested in biology nor motivated to perform to his ability in the class. Many of his “A-student friends” are also not doing well in biology class. This gave me pause for concern as a life-long science educator (and certified high school biology teacher). With this as a backdrop, I decided to meet with his teacher to determine why so many good students are underperforming in her class. After meeting with his teacher on two separate occasions, it was readily apparent why so many talented students were performing poorly in her class—she lacks the requisite educational and scientific skills to be an effective biology teacher.  This was confirmed by the head of curriculum development in my school district who told me that the last time that the district had an opening for a high school biology teacher he had two applicants (neither of which had strong biology credentials)—this in the state of New Jersey which is touted to have one of the best public school systems in America.

It is no secret that there is a nationwide dearth of qualified science and math teachers. US officials have been angsting over this problem for about 20 years and have been unable or unwilling to come up with solutions. To that end, I propose the following: induce some of the many currently unemployed life sciences PhDs to consider teaching at the middle and high school levels. While this may sound unorthodox and unappealing to most card-carrying PhDs, there are many benefits to becoming a middle or high school teacher.

1. Starting salaries for public school teachers with PhDs are very competitive
2. The school year is only 10 months long and your summers are free
3. The healthcare and 401 K/pension benefits are better than those in academia and industry (and contributions are usually paid by the school district)
4. There are guaranteed, negotiated yearly raises and longevity pay
5. Tenure is awarded after only three years
6. Curricula requirements and guidelines exists but teachers can run their classes any way that they like
7. Motivated and innovative teachers are encouraged to create new courses, apply   for grants for curriculum development and sometimes—depending upon facilities—offer students an opportunity to conduct independent research projects
8. School districts like to hire PhDs because it implies scientific excellence

While there are many benefits to being a teacher, it is not for everybody who holds a PhD degree.  I don’t recommend taking a teaching job (out of desperation) if you don’t like to teach—you, your supervisor and your students will be miserable And, you likely will have frustrated and unhappy parents— like me—visiting your regularly.

We PhDs are enormously invested in the ways that we are perceived by our peers. And, I suspect that the mere mention of teaching high school to your friends, colleagues and supervisors will likely result in surprised looks and lot’s of head shaking. Unfortunately, it is this parochial thinking that has caused America to lose it competitive edge and scientists who chose to teach rather than do research are generally perceived as being less intelligent or competent than their peers. Ironically, it is this close-mindedness and pejorative thinking that has contributed to America’s two-decade long slide in science and technology. Perhaps it is time for PhDs to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

P.S. Please contact me if you are interested in teaching biology in the East Windsor Regional School District in New Jersey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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

The relationship between science, education and industry has always been a tenuous one. To learn more about the complexity of this relationship check out this article that was recently published in a local New Jersey business publication.

Until next time…

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

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

I am frequently asked by life sciences PhDs whether an MBA would improve their chances of finding a job in industry. And, my response is always “maybe— because it depends. I don’t think that getting a traditional MBA really gives you that much of an edge especially if you are an established PhD looking for career advancement or change.  However, if you are a graduate student or postdoc who has already decided that academia is not for you, then getting a certificate or M.S. through an established graduate program in biotechnology (Georgetown University’s M.S. in biotechnology or The New York Center for Biotechnology's  Fundamentals of Bioscience Program) may increase the likelihood of winning a job in industry. This is because hiring managers recognize that in addition to a job candidate’s technical competency, they possess an understanding of the business aspects of the industry—something that is vital for scientists to be successful in the biotech biz.

Recognizing this, Rutgers University recently created a program that they call ‘a mini-MBA for the biopharmaceutical industry’. In contrast with traditional MBA or M.S. programs, the mini-MBA is a 12 week long, degree-granting program that was designed to familiarize students with the nuances and intricacies of the business aspects of the biopharmaceutical program. The good news is that they are actively recruiting students to fill the slots available in their inaugural class. The bad news is that it costs $4,995 to enroll. That said, it may be worth the time to check it out because—in the end—the investment may be worth it!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

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

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

Until next time...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

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