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

Cliff Mintz, BioCrowd co-founder and the mastermind behind BioJobBlog, is featured today in an online article at the Science Careers website entitled “Life After Rejection.” The piece was expertly crafted by Siri Carpenter, PhD a free lance science writer based in Madison, Wisconsin— coincidentally, the institution that awarded me my PhD. 

Being denied tenure as an Assistant Professor of Microbiology and Immunology was one of the most devastating events in my professional life. It literally took me over 10 year to come to terms with the implications of the decision. But, I am here to tell you (and in the article) that there IS life after being denied tenure; and in many ways, it is quite liberating. My tenure denial empowered me to explore careers that were previously closed to me as an academician and perhaps, more importantly, to find out who I am and what I really wanted to do with the rest of my life!

Don't get me wrong; it still bugs me that I wasn’t awarded tenure—mostly because being refused tenure implies that you “weren’t smart enough” to make it in academia. Not surprisingly, the “not-being-smart-enough label” doesn’t do much for a person’s self esteem and, many who are denied tenure (including me) tend to view themselves as abject failures in the eyes of their colleagues and friends.

However, looking back, being denied tenure was probably one of the best things that had ever happened to me. Truth be told, I would have been a lousy academic. I am too social and entrepreneurial to have flourished in a system that is rigid, parochial and not conducive to change.  That said, if I sound bitter and a bit envious of those who were granted tenure, you are correct!  After all, who wouldn’t be envious of  people who come and go as they please, don’t have to answer to a boss and are guaranteed a job for life; regardless of their social skills, academic performance or contribution to education?

The point that I want to make is that being denied tenure is an emotionally devastating and traumatic event that nobody ought to experience. However,  if  you should to find yourself in the uncomfortable position of being denied tenure, please remember to continue to believe in yourself, don't give up and, as corny as it may sound, "follow the advice of your heart" when making your next career move!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

The 2009 Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) is currently taking place in San Francisco. For those of you who may not know ICAAC, is an annual meeting mainly attended by infectious disease physicians and researchers where the latest and most cutting edge research on infectious agents is reported. Things must have been a little slow at this year’s meeting (except for H1N1 of course) which led the newswires to pick up a story about the isolation of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus  (MRSA) at public beaches in Washington State. While MRSA infections are certainly a public health concern, particularly among infants, older adults and immunocompromised individuals finding MRSA at public beaches isn’t particularly surprising nor newsworthy.

S. aureus is an opportunistic pathogen that isn't particularly virulent and is incapable of causing disease unless it is accidentally introduced into a wound, surgical incision or similar environment. In humans, the bacterium colonizes mainly the nasal passages, but it may be regularly found in most other anatomical locales, including the skin, oral cavity and gastrointestinal tract. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that over 70% of people transiently carry S. aureus in their nasal passages at one time or another in their lives. This means that S. aureus is very common and ubiquitous in human populations. Consequently, I wasn’t surprised when I learned that Seattle researchers had isolated S. aureus at public beaches in Washington State. Nor was I shocked to learn that some of the isolates were MRSA strains!  After all, the incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus has been steadily increasing in the US and elsewhere for the past 20 years. And, healthy people who carry MRSA (and regularly shed it from their bodies) do like to go to beach and lay in the sand when the weather is warm. That said, I would have flabbergasted if the researchers didn't isolate MRSA from the beach sand samples that they surveyed. As an aside, I want to let my readers know that I isolated S. aureus from a soil sample while an undergraduate microbiology  major at Cornell University. Finally, while some MRSA infections can be fatal, those that are diagnosed correctly and early are usually easy to eliminate with conventional antibiotic regimens.

Because the work mentioned in the ICAAC press release hasn’t been published, it is  difficult to evaluate the results and implications of the study's findings.  Nevertheless, I don’t think it was prudent for the scientists who conducted the research to issue a press release about finding MRSA at public beaches—especially when the American public is already jittery about infectious agents like H1N1. If the authors’ intent was to make a big splash (pun intended) by mentioning the “dreaded MRSA” in their press release, they were successful—the story is all over the news. However, in my opinion, we are obliged as scientists to accurately inform the lay public about important scientific and public health issues—not play into its worse fears and misconceptions about them.

Until next time...

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

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

Since the beginning of the pandemic last spring, BioCrowd founder and virologist extraordinaire Vincent Racaniello has been vigilantly writing at his at his Virology Blog about HIN1 pathogenesis, epidemiology, immune responses and vaccines.  When not blogging about HIN1, Vincent also writes about other viral diseases and does a weekly virology podcast called This Week in Virology (TWIV).

In a very short time, Professor Racaniello has amassed a huge collection of original articles that could be compiled into a virology textbook with a title like “Everything you ever wanted to know about H1N1.” And, not surprisingly, his Herculean efforts have not gone unnoticed: today his Virology Blog was recognized and listed as a legitimate source of H1N1 information by the New York Times. 

For those of you who haven’t been overwhelmed by the unrelenting swine flu media frenzy and are seeking sound information about the H1N1 epidemic, I highly recommend that you check out Vincent’s blog. Also, you can talk with Vincent at BioCrowd when he is not too busy blogging, podcasting or conducting laboratory research.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Remember to Wash Your Hands !!!!!

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

On several occasions while driving in upstate New York, I noticed an exit sign on the NY State Thruway for Coxsackie, NY. And, not surprisingly, I began to wonder whether or not the Coxsackie virus was named after this obscure upstate NY town.

I first learned about coxsackie viruses as a graduate student while taking a medical virology course at the University of Wisconsin taught by the late noble laureate Howard Temin. However, despite a thirty year friendship with Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd co-founder and virologist extraordinaire, I never asked him about the origin of the coxsackie virus name. Much to my surprise, he had recently taken a trip to upstate NY and noticed the Coxsackie NY exit sign while driving on the thruway. This prompted him to blog about the coxsackie virus isolation, its pathogenic properties and of course, the origin of its name!

Coxsackie NY and the virus named after it 

by Vincent Racaniello,PhD

Recently while driving north on the New York State Thruway I passed the exit for the town of Coxsackie, NY (population 8,884). I grabbed my camera and photographed the exit sign, and reminded myself to write about the virus named after this small town.

In the summer of 1947 there were several small outbreaks of poliomyelitis in upstate New York. Gilbert Dalldorf, the director of the Wadsworth Laboratory in Albany, NY, and his associate Grace M. Sickles investigated this outbreak. In particular they sought polioviruses that could replicate in mice. This search was motivated by the fact that research on poliovirus required the use of monkeys which were extremely expensive. Dalldorf had attended the Fourth International Congress for Microbiology in 1947 where he heard that very young mice – suckling mice – could readily be infected with Theiler’s virus.

Dalldorf and Sickles made fecal suspensions from two children suspected of having poliomyelitis, and inoculated these into adult and suckling mice. Only the suckling mice (1 – 7 days old) developed paralysis; animals more than one week old were resistant to infection. The damage responsible for limb paralysis was widespread lesions in skeletal muscles, not in the central nervous system as occurs with poliovirus. Further study revealed that the viruses could be distinguished serologically from poliovirus.

Not only had Dalldorf and Sickles identified the first members of a very large group of human viruses, but they also introduced and popularized a new and inexpensive animal into the virology laboratory – the suckling mouse. In 1949 Dalldorf suggested that the new viruses be called Coxsackie viruses, because the first recognized human cases were residents of that New York village. This unique name is of native North American origin.

Over ten years later the importance of this work was recognized by Dr. Max Finland of Boston City Hospital:

The isolation by Dalldorf and Sickles of viruses which produced paralysis with destructive lesions of muscle in sucking mice and hamsters, from the stools of two children with signs of paralytic poliomyelitis was an achievement that may rank in importance with Landsteiner and Popper’s production of human poliomyelitis in monkeys.

In subsequent years many different Coxsackie viruses were isolated that cause a variety of clinical syndromes. Today at least 30 serotypes of Coxsackie viruses are classified in the enterovirus genus of the Picornaviridae. The viruses are classified into groups A or B depending upon the pathological effect in suckling mice.

Not every locale is pleased to have a virus named after it. In May 1993, an outbreak of an unexplained pulmonary illness occurred in the southwestern United States, in an area shared by Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah called “The Four Corners.” Muerto Canyon was proposed as the name for the etiologic agent of the disease, because the virus was first isolated from a rodent near the canyon. However after residents objected, the name Sin nombre virus was given to the agent of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome.

Dalldorf G, & Sickles GM (1948). An Unidentified, Filtrable Agent Isolated From the Feces of Children With Paralysis. Science (New York, N.Y.), 108 (2794), 61-62 PMID: 17777513

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

The economic crisis is having an adverse effect on enrollment at four year colleges and universities. Most four year institutions are reporting record low enrollments. While things are spiraling downward at many four year colleges and universities, business is booming at two year technical schools and community colleges. Seemingly, this ought to be good news for two year institutions. Unfortunately, statewide funding cuts and faculty shortages are making it difficult for community colleges and technical schools to accommodate burgeoning enrollment.

The rising enrollment at community colleges can almost exclusively be attributed to the current cost of attending 4 year colleges and universities. The cost differential between attending four year institutions and community college is stunning. For example, tuition at Miami Dade Community College, the largest community college in the US, is $1,000 per semester for Florida residents. In marked contrast, tuition at the University of Florida—a public institution— is roughly $5,000 per year and a whopping $42,000 at the University of Miami which is private.

Undergraduates are flocking to community colleges simply because many can’t afford to pay tuition for 4 or more years at most colleges and universities. The new paradigm for undergraduate education is to complete the first two years of college at a community college and then transfer to a 4 year college to finish a degree. Unlike other post secondary education institutions, there are no entry requirements at community colleges—open enrollment is the norm. This means that these schools are obliged to allow anybody with a high school diploma or GED to register for classes. In marked contrast, four year colleges and universities can regulate the size of their incoming freshman classes to deal with financial difficulties. For example, because of budget cuts in Florida, the state's 11 public universities have imposed caps on freshman enrollment. This has put increasing pressure on community colleges in Florida and other stacks to “pick up the enrollment slack.”

While attending community college may be an economical way for students to earn undergraduate degrees, two year colleges have been overwhelmed by the massive enrollment increases. "As it stands right now, we have almost 39,000 students registered for the fall term, and we began fall registration only two weeks ago," says Dulce Beltran, registrar at Miami Dade College. "And a quarter of the courses are already closed with almost two months to go before fall term begins." Not surprisingly, Miami Dade officials say that enrollment is 60 per cent higher than last year’s pace. School officials have been hiring new instructors and adding new courses to handle the enrollment surge.

Unfortunately, school officials estimate that 20,000 to 30,000 students won't get all the classes they need; 5,000 may not be able to sign up for any classes in the fall. Similar scenarios are playing out in other states including Arizona, California, Washington and others. Officials in those states are fearful that hundreds of thousands of prospective new students will be turned away this year.

There is no question that the recession is taking a toll on the ability of American students to attend college. However, the cost of an undergraduate education has been steadily increasing for the past decade. Rising overhead costs, higher faculty salaries and over expansion have all contributed to the increases. Something will have to give soon. Don’t be surprised if the education bubble is the next one to burst!

Hat tip to NPR!

Until next time....

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

• 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 several years, I have publicly called for fundamental changes in graduate education and training for life scientists. To that end, I was delighted to read an OP-ED piece in today’s New York Times entitled “End Universities as We Know It” written by Professor Mark C. Taylor, Chairperson of the religion department at Columbia University. 

In his post, Professor Taylor recommended several fundamental and systemic changes that ought to improve the likelihood that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows find jobs at the end of their graduate education. While some of Dr. Taylor’s ideas are novel and innovative, two in particular; 1) expanding the range of career opportunities for graduate students and postdocs and 2) abolishing tenure and mandatory retirement; are ones that I have suggested many times in the past few years. Rather than paraphrase, I decided to repost what Dr Taylor said about these two very important, seminal issues.

Expand the range of professional options for graduate students

Most graduate students will never hold the kind of job for which they are being trained. It is, therefore, necessary to help them prepare for work in fields other than higher education. The exposure to new approaches and different cultures and the consideration of real-life issues will prepare students for jobs at businesses and nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the knowledge and skills they will cultivate in the new universities will enable them to adapt to a constantly changing world.

Impose mandatory retirement and abolish tenure

Initially intended to protect academic freedom, tenure has resulted in institutions with little turnover and professors impervious to change. After all, once tenure has been granted, there is no leverage to encourage a professor to continue to develop professionally or to require him or her to assume responsibilities like administration and student advising. Tenure should be replaced with seven-year contracts, which, like the programs in which faculty teach, can be terminated or renewed. This policy would enable colleges and universities to reward researchers, scholars and teachers who continue to evolve and remain productive while also making room for young people with new ideas and skills.

For many years now, I have been struggling with the moral and ethical obligations of graduate education. Recently, I came to the conclusion that it is our role as educators to selflessly impart knowledge and training to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows so that they can pursue the careers (and lives) that many have trained for a decade or more. I think Professor Taylor’s view of the role of an educator says it best: “Do not do what I do; rather, take whatever I have to offer and do with it what I could never imagine doing and then come back and tell me about it.” This is the attitude that must be by academicians if America wants to remain competitive in the life sciences.

Until next time....

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

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

A panel of eight judges at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania was asked to identify the top 20 life-altering technologies that were developed over the last 30 years. The survey was sponsored by Knowledge@ Wharton, U Penn’s business publication and the PBS’s “Nightly Business Report.” 

Not surprisingly, the Internet was voted the top innovation followed by computers, mobile phones and e-mail. Interestingly, DNA sequencing and testing was listed as number 5—one of five technologies from the life sciences and medical sectors—the others being MRI, laparoscopy, genetically-modified plants, biofuels and anti-retroviral (HIV) drugs. Finally, Internet social networking, a recent innovation, made a surprise appearance on the list at number 20!. The entire list is as follows:

1. Internet, broadband, WWW (browser and html)
2. PC/laptop computers
3. Mobile phones
4. E-mail
5. DNA testing and sequencing/Human genome mapping
6. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
7. Microprocessors
8. Fiber optics
9. Office software (spreadsheets, word processors)
10. Non-invasive laser/robotic surgery (laparoscopy)
11. Open source software and services (e.g., Linux, Wikipedia)
12. Light emitting diodes
13. Liquid crystal display (LCD)
14. GPS systems
15. Online shopping/ecommerce/auctions (e.g., eBay)
16. Media file compression (jpeg, mpeg, mp3)
17. Microfinance
18. Photovoltaic Solar Energy
19. Large scale wind turbines
20. Social networking via the Internet
21. Graphic user interface (GUI)
22. Digital photography/videography
23. RFID and applications (e.g., EZ Pass)
24. Genetically modified plants
25. Bio fuels
26. Bar codes and scanners
27. ATMs
28. Stents
29. SRAM flash memory
30. Anti retroviral treatment for AIDS

If your favorite technology wasn’t listed in the Top 30, please let me know and we can add it to the list!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try social networks)!!!!!!!

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

I have been accumulating anecdotal information about companies,organizations and institutions that use social media tools like Facebook, Twitter YouTube etc.  I decided to attempt to conduct an informal survey  to determine whether or not the life sciences sector is adopting and embracing social media to meet its objectives (whatever they may be). 

To that end, I constructed a Google Docs spread sheet to collect information for the survey.  Please take a look at the survey and fill in the requested information. I will publish the results of the survey if enough people response to this request.

I look forward to hearing from as many of you as possible. Don't be shy, everything is anonymous!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!!!

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

Vincent Racaniello, Professor of Microbiology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and co-founder of BioCrowd ,has created a weekly series called This Week In Virology (TWiV). Each week Professors  Racaniello and Dickson Despommier (another Columbia virologist) discuss the latest developments and public health concerns for a variety of viral diseases.

The weekly discussions are packaged as podcasts, posted on TWiV and Science Podcasters.org and can be downloaded from iTunes. Dr. Racaniello eventually wants to offer TWiV in a vcast format and use it to inform the public and teach students about viral diseases.

So far, Vincent and Dick have created nine TWIV podcasts. Some of viruses that they have discussed include: HIV, Polio, Lassa fever, Rabies, West Nile Virus and even video game viruses. The podcasts are interesting, informative and a good way to learn something about virology—something that may liven up your daily commute!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

I had many discussions with undergraduate students at the ABRCMS in Orlando last week who were interested in pursuing PhD degrees in the biomedical sciences. I felt that I had an ethical and moral responsibility as a former academic and career development professional to tell them that the job market for PhDs is not good and that it is likely to get worse over the next few years. These discussions prompted me to revisit the role and contributions of tenure to the lack of academic jobs in the US today.

As I stated in a previous post, systemic changes must be made to the current academic paradigm to increase the likelihood that PhDs will be able to find jobs at the end of their training. In that post, I suggested that abolishing tenure and replacing it with renewable, performance-based five year contracts may help to reduce the glut of jobless PhDs by freeing up a small percentage of new faculty positions every five years. While this approach has been tried at several academic institutions, it has been largely been deemed unsuccessful. That said, I came across a provocative article in today’s New York Times about a bold new tenure proposal put forth by Michelle Rhee, the new, 38-year old Chancellor of the Washington, DC school system.

Ms Rhee’s revolutionary proposal offers tenured teachers salaries raises of up to $40,000 per year to give up tenure. It is important to note she has not proposed to completely abolish tenure. Under her proposal, teachers would choose between two compensation options—the green or red plans. Salaries for teachers in the green plan would rise meteorically, nearly doubling by 2010, but they would have to give up tenure for one year, after which they would need a principal’s recommendation to keep their job or face dismissal. Teachers who choose the red plan would also get big pay raises but would lose seniority rights that allow them to bump more junior teachers if their school closes or is overhauled. Red plan teachers who are not hired by other schools would either have to take early retirement, a buyout or face eventual dismissal. I like her plan because poorly- or under performing teachers can opt to take the cash and then either drastically improve to keep their higher paying jobs or do nothing, get paid well for a year or two and then get fired.

While Ms. Rhee’s proposal may work at the primary and secondary school levels, it likely would not be effective at the college and postgraduate levels, where salaries vary widely and are largely grant driven. Instead, I propose that tenure-for-life should remain intact at these institutions but be replaced with a “for cause” tenure review system. This system is tried and true and similar models have been successfully used for over 100 years by employers and labor unions. In this model, management and its unions agree upon the job responsibilities and performance metrics for individual that must be met each year, e.g. an annual performance review.  If a person is under performing or fails to meet his/her performance metrics, an employer can attempt to dismiss the employee “for cause” reasons.  However, before a dismissal for cause can occur, the employer must convince a judge or arbitrator in a hearing that the employee in question has violated the “dismissal for cause” provisions.  Because an employer must prove that an employee has violated the provisions that constitute for cause dismissal, the “for cause” claims against individual employees must be fastidiously documented and vigorously substantiated. This prevents employers from arbitrarily firing employees who are either outspoken troublesome or disruptive. According to my wife, who has been a union-side labor lawyer and union representative for 20 year, this system works well because the players (management and unions) all understand, abide by and play according to the rules of the game.

So what are some of the performance-based “for cause” metrics that I think ought to be considered for yearly evaluations of tenured professors? They are not much different than those currently used to adjudicate tenure decisions. That said, I propose the following five categories: 1) teaching, 2) publication record, 3) grant support, 4) institutional service and 5) commitment to innovation. In my opinion, adoption of the “for cause” tenure review model would help to do two things: improve the overall performance of tenured faculty members and provide newly minted PhDs and postdoctoral fellows with regularly occurring new job opportunities.

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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

According to a survey of 1,800 American professors in the life sciences conducted by economists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, 90% of life sicentiest hold only one or no patents.  This means that  remaining 10% hold more than one (and are probably weathier than the other guys). 

The results of the study led its authors to surmise that despite the recent explosion in patenting in the life sciences, a majority of academics still do research the "old-fashioned way"--by winning federal research grants, publishing in scientific journals and training PhD and postdoctoral students.  Yeah right--I bet many of the old-fashioned folks wish they had patents and were able to start biotechnology companies!!!!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Patenting!!!!!!!

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

This may be one of the more notable years for Salmonella food poisoning. First, there was a modest outbreak in the eating clubs at Princeton University and now a larger outbreak in Texas and New Mexico. This is the first time that I can recall in my almost 30 years as a card-carrying food microbiologist that there has been this many highly-publicized cases of Salmonella food poisoning in one year. Although I don’t wish Salmonella gastroenteritis on anybody, it is kind of rewarding that an organism that led to my PhD is making headlines once again. Typically, Salmonella outbreaks are not noteworthy and rarely receive much notice— usually taking a backseat to potentially life-threatening outbreaks of enteropathogenic Escherichia coli.

Like the Princeton outbreak, the exact source of the Salmonella infection is unclear. That said, public health and CDC officials are leaning towards large, raw tomatoes. In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration discovered that consumption of tomatoes in restaurants had caused a salmonella outbreak that affected 21 states. , “until the source of the outbreak is identified federal and local health officials in both states have recommended that infants, the elderly and anyone with an impaired immune system avoid eating Roma and red round tomatoes that are not grown at home or sold attached to the vine.” So far, 40 confirmed cases, with patients ranging in age from 3 to 82, have been reported in New Mexico and Texas since April. To date, 17 people have been hospitalized, but no deaths have been reported.

Molecular analyses indicated that all of the cases in New Mexico and Texas were caused by the same strain, a relatively rare serovar called Saint Paul (6^th most common serovar infecting humans). Federal health officials at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA fear that this may be the beginning of a large national outbreak of Salmonella gastroenteritis. This is because about 30 cases caused by the Saint Paul strain, have also been reported this year in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas and Utah. Like the New Jersey, Texas and New Mexico outbreaks, the cause of those other outbreaks is under investigation.

Salmonella gastroenteritis generally last between four and seven days, and most people are able to recover without medical (antibiotic) treatment. But, it can sometimes lead to death in immunocompromised adults or young children. Symptoms include headache, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea and sometimes vomiting.  Although textbook descriptions of the pathogenesis of Salmonella gastroenteritis generally portray it as a mild illness, I can tell you that people I know (lab mates of mine) who came down with the disease (gee, how did that happen?) suggest otherwise!

I suspect that fecally-contaminated water may be source of the infection. But, then again, it has been almost 30 years since I thought about Salmonella gastroenteritis. That said, I don’t think that you ever forget the essence or minutiae of your thesis work!

For those of you who are interested, the electron micrograph of Salmonella typhimurium shown with this post is from my PhD dissertation. As I recall, the electron micrograph was taken in 1980 and the bacterium shown in the micrograph was grown for 48 hours on nutrient agar . Althought I would like to take credit for the shot (nice pose eh?),  it was taken by Phil Hegge in the Department of Bacteriology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, my alma mater. if you look closely you may be able to see fimbriae along with the flagella.

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (and remember to wash your tomatoes)!!!!!

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

I apparently made a few errors in the post about the recent Salmonella food poisoning outbreak at PU (pun intended). I want to thank the anonymous member of the Princeton Graduating Class of ’09 for pointing out the inconsistencies and errors in the post.  First, the so-called “dining clubs” are actually called eating clubs. Second, fraternities and sororities are allowed at PU and I hear that they are alive and well. Finally, I inadvertently noted that the University has severed contracts with several of its produce suppliers which may have been the putative source(s) of the outbreak. In fact, the University didn’t cancel contracts but only temporarily closed a few of the eating stations at the Frist Campus Center. My local newspaper reported that contracts where severed–I guess you truly can’t believe everything that you read!

I was duly chastised for not adequately verifying my information before I hastily crafted the post. I stand corrected and will attempt to be more vigilant in the future. That said, I think that my lack of understanding of the practices and customs at Princeton University is directly related to the fact that I attended Cornell as an undergraduate. Mea Culpa!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Yes, even the Ivy League isn’t immune to food poisoning outbreaks from time-to-time. There are currently 10 confirmed cases of Salmonella food poisoning at Princeton U. Another 50 people or so have also fallen ill with gastrointestinal symptoms consistent with Salmonella food poisoning.  As a precaution, university officials have temporarily discontinued doing business with their produce suppliers. For those of you who don’t know, Princeton is famous (infamous?) for its so-called dining clubs. These clubs take the place of sororities and fraternities which are not allowed at this august institution of higher education. Obviously, there is more than eating that goes on at these “dining clubs.”

The reason I am blogging about the outbreak is two-fold. First, I live about seven miles from Princeton and it has been all over the local news. Second, I did my PhD work on the pathogenesis of Salmonella gastroenteritis. So, Salmonella food poisoning is dear to my heart (thankfully, not my gastrointestinal tract). Many infectious disease experts tend to dismiss the seriousness of Salmonella gastroenteritis. This is likely because it is usually not as devastating as shigellosis or infections caused by enteroinvasive strains of Escherichia coli (which is actually Shigella masquerading as E. coli). As my major professor once put it “You know when you have Salmonella gastroenteritis—if you can’t decide than it is not salmonellosis.”

I am happy to report that I never came down with gastroenteritis while working for over three years with enteroinvasive Salmonella strains (even though I was routinely mouth pipetting and eating lunch in the lab; practices which aren’t acceptable by today’s standards). I like to think that “the bugs” were afraid of me. Alternatively I had either a great immune system or extremely good aseptic techniques. Whatever the reason, it is always embarrassing when card-carrying microbiologists come down with the disease(s) that they are studying. Luckily, I never came down with the disease caused by the bacterium that I was studying during my first postdoctoral fellowship—Neisseria gonorrhoeae. That would have been extremely difficult to explain!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (remember to wash your hands)!!!!!!!!

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

Stemcyte, a Taiwan-based company engaged in embryonic stem cell research announced yesterday that it would locate its East Coast operations in NJ. The company already has a research facility in California and is establishing operations in India. Earlier this year, Stemcyte inked a deal with Rutgers University to provide financial support and embryonic stems cells for research conducted by Dr. Wise Young, a long time spinal cord injury researcher and champion of embryonic stem cell research.  New Jersey induced Stemcyte to locate its facility in the Garden State by offering the company $589,000 in business development incentive grants. The new facility is expected to create new jobs and initially employ about 12 people.

This is a small but significant step in New Jersey’s quest to establish itself as leader in embryonic stem cell research. As many of you may know, last fall, New Jersey voters defeated a statewide referendum that would have allowed the State to spend almost $500 million on embryonic stem cell research initiatives. California passed similar legislation several years ago.

The defeat had little to do with the ethics or morality and everything to do with the oppressive property taxes in New Jersey. In case you’re wondering, New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the US!  Many voters simply didn’t want the State to increase its already staggering debt to borrow more money to fund stem cell research (and raise property taxes).

After the announcement, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, and former head of the investment firm Goldman Sachs, suggested that he is considering reinstating the referendum for a second vote. However, he noted “not until the economy shows some improvement”.

Until next time…

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

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