Author: Cliff Mintz
The first step in any job search is to ensure that your resume or curriculum vitae (CV) are ready for submission to prospective employers. The following can help make resume writing simple. For those of you who may still be struggling with the difference between a resume and a CV, a resume is usually a 1-2 page synopsis of who you are, where you have been and what you have done. In contrast, a CV is a much longer document that does the same thing as a resume but in much greater and granular detail. For most scientific positions a CV is the preferred document style. However, in some cases, employers may request a resume so pay attention before you submit your application.
While most people believe that a resume or CV is simply a list of your education, skill sets and experience, there is a preferred style, format and way to write these documents that will enhance the possibility of securing an interview for the position. That said, it takes many years of writing and editing to perfect the process-something that many of you may not have time to do. If you are unsure about how to write a resume/CV or have not updated your “paper” in many years, the quickest way to begin applying for jobs is to hire a professional resume/CV writer to do it for you. Generally speaking, this will cost anywhere from $200-$500. Sadly, many graduate students and postdocs don’t have the money to invest in resume writing and in many cases are unable to craft a job winning resume/CV.
If you are unable to hire a resume writing professional, I came across a DIY solution called Scientific Resumes. This service company exclusively caters to graduate students and postdocs looking for resume/CV writing help. In addition to their automated self-help products, they offer resume proofreading services and likely customized resume/CV writing too. I have not used or carefully evaluated their products but it may be worth a visit to their website.
Author: Cliff Mintz
There was an interesting article in Science Careers Magazine this week entitled “Should you consider another degree after your PhD.” The article traces the journey of several people who earned PhD degrees in science-related fields who transitioned into new careers including law, regulatory affairs, business development and science writing.
The gist of the article is that if you can afford the costs of earning another degree, it may be worth it for persons with PhD degrees who want to get “out of the lab.” However, based on my own experiences and those of the persons mentioned in the article, most graduate students and postdocs lack the financial resources to enroll in professional degree or certificate programs after completing their PhD programs. Consequently, most of the people showcased in the article were able to leverage unpaid internships and volunteer work into new jobs that paid for additional training or professional degree programs.
I have long posited that obtaining another degree after a PhD degree may not be in the best interest of PhD degree holders for a variety of reasons. First, as mentioned above, the financial obligations of a degree or certificate program may be too onerous or unrealistic for graduate students who worked for minimum wage for many years to obtain their PhD degrees; the funds simply are not available. Second, by the time a PhD degree is awarded and postdoctoral training is completed, most science PhD degree holders are in their mid 30s to early 40s and in many cases, have families, which may not be conducive to going back to school full time. Also, who wants to be a student for most of their adult lives? Finally, the mere exhaustion and stress associated with spending close to 10 years in a laboratory may discourage even the most ambitious individuals from pursuing another degree or certificate. Put simply, there may not be “enough gas left in the tank” to obtain another degree in the hopes of possibly changing a career trajectory.
More thoughts about another degree after a PhD:
Based on my experience as an instructor in a program offered to PhD students and postdocs who had already decided that a research career was not for them, internships, volunteer work and an unrelenting pursuit of an alternate career is probably the best way to navigate a career change. What I observed about all of the students in this program (over 70% of them obtained non-research jobs after completing their PhD degrees with no postdoctoral training) was that they were highly motivated and did whatever was necessary to network and leverage the resources offered to them by the program (which included mixers, invitations to professional meetings, and guest speakers outside of the research world including pharmaceutical executives, venture capitalist, medical writers and clinical study managers) to get “where they wanted to go”.
For example, one student, who was interested in regulatory affairs, went to the dean of her medical school to get the funds necessary to go to a national regulatory affairs meeting rather than attending an annual society meeting to present her research findings. Today, she is a director of regulatory affairs at a major biotechnology company. Another student wrote reviews for an online financial services company regarding the technology behind various private and publicly traded biotechnology companies as a graduate student, now works for a financial service company as an analyst. Finally, another student who was interested in technology transfer was able to leverage an unpaid internship in his university’s technology transfer office into a full time job (he is now a director of the office).
The bottom line about another degree:
While obtaining another degree or certificate may better position you for a possible career change, it may not be emotionally or financially possible or likely. That said, rather than fantasizing about what may have been if you simply chose law or medicine or business over a graduate career in science, you best shot at changing the direction of your career may be to identify alternative career options and obtaining the necessary skill sets, qualifications and real life experience to make it a reality, Once you have identified those things, the next step is to devise a financially-viable plan to obtain them and then spend the majority of your waking hours successfully implementing the plan. It won’t be easy but as the old adage goes “if there is a will then there is a way.”
Author: Cliff Mintz
Most human resource professionals contend that some form of online networking with colleagues and peers is probably the best way to land a new job. To that point, online networking offers several advantages over live networking and other traditional ways of keeping in touch with others.
First, online networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn make it easy for people to find you. Unlike live networking where information flow is painstakingly slow, online networking allows users to provide prospective employers with large amounts of professional information. Moreover, online network users can control the information that employers and others can access. Effectively controlling online information may mean the difference between employment or not.
Second, membership in online networks allows users to easily keep tabs on others and visa versa. Also, users can configure online networking platforms to automatically receive news, updates and alerts in real time. Being the first to learn about a job opening may give a jobseeker a competitive advantage.
Finally, online networking sites allow users to quickly connect with one another (or access the knowledge base of a network) without investing much time or effort. In contrast with live networking, small talk and casual conversation is not required to get the information that you or a prospective employer may be seeking.
Getting Started
An important first step is to create a professional profile. This should contain a candidate’s career path including educational background, past places of employment, awards and honors, and his/her current position and job responsibilities. Sites that are designed for professional networking usually provide new users with templates that allow them to quickly create a profile.
Personal information should not be present in a professional profile. Things like age, marital status, political persuasion or sexual orientation should not appear anywhere in a user profile. User profiles MUST be devoid of compromising photos, inappropriate remarks or political or religious diatribes
Ensure that the information is publicly available so that it will appear in Google searches. Also, keep the profile current and remember to add things like recent speaking engagements, new publications etc. to remain competitive.
Expand Your Network
The next step is to find people at the site to connect with. Connecting with people who work at companies or institution where you may want to work is a great idea! Don’t be afraid to connect with others who may be more senior or even junior to you. However, only connect with others who you think may be important or valuable to your job search. Connecting for connections sake may overwhelm your network with irrelevant or inappropriate information.
Finally, invite professional friends and colleagues to join your network. Having a Nobel Laureate or a member of the National Academy of Sciences in a personal network can really do wonders for a job search! Again, this is a professional network; so only invite people to join who you can trust to keep it that way.
Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn?
Despite its massive size, Facebook has yet to prove its value for jobseekers. Twitter is better than Facebook, but like Facebook, its value as a job seeking tool remains to be determined. At present, the largest and perhaps best online networking site for professionals is LinkedIn. It boasts free job boards, paid advertising and is regularly scrutinized by professional recruiters. One of the more valuable LinkedIn features, are the LinkedIn groups where it is easy to start conversations with prospective employers and hiring managers
Keep it Professional
These days hiring managers routinely scrutinize candidates’ online presence or personas before moving forward with the job application process. Therefore, it is a good idea to Google yourself from time-to-time to manage the information that is available to prospective employers. Any damaging information may mean the difference between employment or not. Finally, online networking, if appropriately used, can be an extremely effective job seeking tool for those seeking employment in the life sciences industry.
Author: Cliff Mintz
Many PhD life scientists who have determined that a tenure-track career is not for them usually set their sights on entry-level R&D jobs at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. While both pharmaceutical and biotechnology jobs are generally lumped together under the umbrella of “industrial careers” there are many differences between them.
Big Pharma: Is Bigger Always Better?
The pharmaceutical industry has been in existence for over 100 years and has successfully developed and commercialized thousands of products. Therefore, not surprisingly, big pharmaceutical companies are generally well-capitalized, multinational organizations that globally employ tens of thousands of people. Because of their large size and financial largesse, there are many advantages to working for a big pharmaceutical company.
First, big pharma companies usually offer high salaries, outstanding benefit packages and a variety of perks including flexible spending programs, onsite cafeterias and large annual bonuses. Second, because of their financial stability, R&D budgets at big pharmaceutical companies are generous and research need not be bootstrapped on being conducted using a shoestring budget. Also, as far as job security goes, it is unlikely that a big pharma company will ever go out of business because of bankruptcy! Finally, because of the large number and diversity of jobs at big pharma companies there are ample opportunities for career advancement or even career change
Despite the obvious pros with these companies, inevitably, the terms “large,” “bureaucratic” and “cumbersome” are typically used to describe the way big pharma companies operate. In general, organizational structure is rigid and inflexible, administrative rules and regulations are strictly enforced, collaboration is difficult and for some employees navigating internal politics can be extremely treacherous. Further, R&D projects are mandated by management and scientists have little flexibility in their day-to-day job duties and responsibilities are rigidly defined and adhered to according to job title. Finally decision-making is often painfully slow and multiple layers of management often impede the progress of research projects.
Biotech: “Take A Walk on the Wild Side”
Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, the biotechnology industry is only 50 years old. Yet, despite its youthfulness, the biotechnology industry has become a vibrant and essential sector of the American economy and is threatening to surpass the capabilities of many pharmaceutical companies.
There is general agreement among industry experts that the small size and entrepreneurial spirit of biotechnology companies enhances their scientific nimbleness, allows for quick decision-making (less bureaucracy) and tends to foster collaboration between employees.
Unlike big pharma companies, many biotechnology companies are often strapped for cash and funding ongoing research operations can be challenging. This forces biotechnology companies to hire fewer employees and exclusively focus on developing a single rather than multiple products at a time. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that biotechnology company employees frequently possess a wider range of skill sets and experiences than most pharmaceutical employees because it is likely that biotechnology employees (unlike pharmaceutical employees) will be asked to “wear many different hats” to scientifically advance a project.
Because of the smaller number of employees, the organizational structure of most biotechnology companies is less hierarchical and the culture at these companies is much more “relaxed” and less formal as compared with big pharma companies. Innovation is encouraged (and rewarded) at most biotechnology companies and collaboration between scientists is very common. This is in marked contrast with big pharma where so-called “silos” are prevalent, collaboration is nominal and innovation is difficult.
Despite the many “pros” associated with biotechnology jobs, there is a downside. First, starting salaries are lower and benefits packages are much less generous at biotechnology companies as compared with big pharma. Second, because the financial future for many biotechnology companies is uncertain, job security is an ongoing concern. Finally, unlike big pharma, opportunities for career advancement/change are restricted at most biotechnology companies because of lack of job diversity and financial resources.
Things to Consider with Industrial Careers
While there are obviously many differences between pharmaceutical and biotechnology jobs, the competition for industrial careers can be fierce. To that point, most jobseekers will not have the “luxury” of choosing between a biotechnology and pharmaceutical job to be gainfully employed!
Nevertheless, before beginning an industrial job search, it is important to determine whether big pharma or biotech is the best fit for you. For example, if you want financial security, don’t mind bureaucracy and are accustomed to a slower, more conservative research environment, a pharmaceutical company may be ideal for you. On the other hand, if money is not a high priority, innovation excites you and working in a fast-paced, rapidly changing environment is your thing then perhaps a job at a small biotechnology company may be a good fit for you!
Author: Cliff Mintz
The “publish or perish” principle of academia is certainly not a new one and is likely as old as scientific research itself. And, while persons who choose scientific research as a career are often motivated by curiosity and the desire to improve the human condition, they soon find out that academic research is highly competitive and oftentimes dominated by overly ambitious and egocentric individuals. I’m sure that most of you have been told that in order to excel your research must be published in the highest impact journal possible. This, coupled with diminishing research funding can place enormous pressure on individual researchers to gain a competitive edge via less than ethical (and possibly illegal) behavior.
To that point, there was an article in the NY Times that described a postdoc who intentionally sabotaged the efforts of a rising star in a cancer research laboratory at the University of Michigan. While this is only one incident, I do not think that it is the only example of intentional sabotage taking place in academic research laboratories. In fact, this recent incident brings to mind a candid discussion that I had with a prominent academic researcher many years ago. He confided to me and a colleague that he intentionally sabotaged a fellow postdoc’s work because he did not like his competitor and did not want him to get recognition for a discovery (BTW, this discovery led to a patent that made the researcher a very wealthy person).
There is no doubt that in present times, working in an academic lab can feel like working in a pressure cooker that is about to explode. That said, it is important to realize that you are not alone and that learning coping skills can be helpful in relieving stress and anxiety about future career opportunities and employment. However, there is never an instance, when cheating, fabricating data or intentionally sabotaging a competitor’s experiments is acceptable. In fact, any researcher who behaves in this manner ought to be called out, censored and disciplined for their actions.
If the pressurized academic rat race is not for you, there are plenty of jobs available at biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies for qualified candidates. Unlike academia, there is no publish or perish pressure, working hours are much more regular and the salaries are usually very generous. While in the past the transition from academia to industry was a fraught process, the emergence of translational medicine coupled with advanced genomics technology has made the process a lot more navigable for academicians who want out! Further, the availability of online courses and certificate programs that offer training in the so-called “soft skills” which can make the transition from academia to industry much easier.
We are living in uncertain times in which hypocrisy, lies and alternate facts are acceptable to large numbers of people. As scientists, we are responsible for facts and “the truth.” Any deviation from this obligation is unacceptable. In the end, people always look to scientists and researchers for answers, solutions and hints of the truth. It is important that we do not succumb to today’s economic and political pressures and continue to be the purveyors of facts and “the truth.”
