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

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

Pharmaceutical sales representatives, along with R&D scientists have been the largest casualties of recent downsizing that has been sweeping the life sciences industry. Increasing regulatory scrutiny, decreasing numbers of new drug approvals and an increasing reliance on e-based technologies to sell drugs have almost rendered the traditional pharma rep obsolete. Flavia Villela, a blogger and former pharma rep has written an interesting article about her impressions about the next generation of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

A New Era of Pharmaceutical Sales Professionals

By Flavia Villela

I have been participating and sharing my thoughts in discussions about pharmaceutical sales professionals related to performance and customer satisfaction. I am also actively participating in discussions about creation of “pharmaceutical sales certification” program. My goals are to share ideas, experiences and provide insights into improving the quality and performance of qualified pharmaceutical sales professionals who will be able to effectively establish rapport with health care providers consistent with pharmaceutical industry expectations and requirement.

While often vilified, pharmaceutical sales reps play important and often pivotal roles in the healthcare industry.  For example, pharma reps often act as drug information consultants, facilitators of customer development, sources of reliable customer information, vehicles of promotion and liaisons between drug companies and their customers. Because of this, it is vitally important that sales reps be highly qualified professionals with broad skills and extensive knowledge of the healthcare industry. Also, increasing healthcare costs coupled with downward pricing pressures suggest that today’s sale reps must be highly efficient and cost effective.

Pharmaceutical Sales Professional: “The Old versus “New Model”

It is well established, that in the past, it was not uncommon for different sales reps from the same company to repeatedly call on a doctor for the same product. This primarily resulted from an over ambitious hiring trend that increased the number of sales reps but failed to increase the number and quality of drug sales. Consequently, over the past few years, pharmaceutical companies began laying off large numbers of sales employees despite the fact that generic drug sales were rapidly increasing and beginning to steal market share from branded products.

The poor performance of many of these reps could be directly attributed to a lack of qualifications.  Nevertheless, despite the massive layoffs, there are still thousands of unqualified sales reps who continue to work in the drug industry. For some reason, many pharmaceutical companies decided to retain employees who I call “old model reps” who simply drop off samples/reprints to healthcare providers and deliver a “canned” product message that they learned during sales force training. Many of these reps don’t engage their customers in detailed product discussions, mostly because they don’t really understand the products themselves. Further, many of these reps got into the business because they were attracted to the flexible hours, high salaries and bonuses, a company car and other benefits associated with pharmaceutical sales reps. More importantly, while many of these old model reps had strong sales backgrounds, they generally were lacking in an understanding of science and medicine. In other words, they really didn’t understand the products that they were trying to sell to customers. While this might have been acceptable for small molecule drugs, it certainly won’t suffice when it comes to biotechnology products which are inherently more complex in their mode of actions and use. To that end, I believe the so-called “new model” or next generation of sales representatives should be required to have a strong medical or scientific background e.g., such as a bachelor/masters in sciences, nursing or medically-related field to  provide a firm understanding of the inner workings of the healthcare industry. However, it is important to note, that “old model employees” who are willing to learn (and have the ability to grasp new medical concepts) should be retrained and encouraged to remain in the “new model” sales force. 

Despite the massive layoffs, many companies continue to hire “old model” employees. One candidate recently contacted me and shared with me his experiences with a medium-sized Japanese pharmaceutical company. The candidate is a medical professional, has a nursing degree and previous experience in the therapeutic area advertised with the sales position. His background and training enabled him to garner a face-to-face interview with a district manager of the company. Although the interview was seemingly going well, at one point during the meeting, the district manager told the candidate that he was overqualified for the position. In other words, he was either “too smart”, “too old” or too set in his ways to be hired.  Not surprisingly he didn’t get the job.

Shortly after being rejected, the candidate read about a new initiative being undertaken by the company to improve the quality of its sales force by focusing on scientific/medical backgrounds rather than prior sales experience or credential. While it isn’t clear why the candidate described above didn’t get a job with this particular company, his recent pharmaceutical sales job hunting experience isn’t unique—it is being repeated over and over again throughout the industry. This begs the question: why are so many drug manufacturers electing to retain “old model” sales reps—despite their apparent lack of scientific/medical qualifications—and willing to pass on seemingly well qualified candidates who apparently represent the “new model” sales rep that pharma says it wants?

What do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

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

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

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.

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

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

Understand the mindset of MSL hiring managers

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

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

Become a master networker

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

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

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

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

After yesterday's post about career planning for life scientists, one of my soon to be former students in the Fundamentals of Bioscience Program aptly pointed out that my readers might have benefitted more if I had, in fact, offered information about alternate career possibilities for bioscientists.  I don't want the student to get too overconfident but I had the same thought immediately after I uploaded the post.  

Rather than modify the previous post, I decided to upload the presentation that I gave to the U Penn Graduate Student Biomedical Association yesterday.  However, as many of my former (or soon to be former) students will tell you, my PowerPoint presentations, while informative, are not as complete as you might think.  To get the real skinny on alternate careers, you will have to attend one of my seminars on the topic where I provide attendees with additional pearls of wisdom and some funny stories about my own journey along an oft times circuitous career path!

Until next time.....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

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 (1)
• 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