This week I’ve been fortunate enough to speak with Dr Daniel (Dan) Beacham, a Senior Staff Scientist at Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dan’s worked in research and development (R&D) at Thermo Fisher since 2006, following a move from academia.
Here I ask Dan about his move out of academic research to R&D in the technology development sector, where he now works to develop cell-based imaging and biochemical solutions for basic sciences research and drug discovery. He has great advice to help those looking for research positions in biotech. Over to Dan:
What led to your move from academia to commercial R&D?
I was coming to the end of my second postdoc position at the University of Washington, Seattle, when I was offered a research associate position in the department. This was a soft-funded position (i.e. I would be paid through a non-permanent funding source – a grant), which didn’t provide the stability of a tenured position. The possibility was there to eventually bring in my own money and start a lab of my own, but in the meantime I’d be operating as a kind of lab manager and technician. I was ready for something new.
At the same time, I’d sent my CV out to contacts in my network, to scope out if there were any other opportunities available at the time. This led to a friend asking me to give a talk at, what was then, ‘Molecular Probes’ in Eugene, Oregon. At that time, Probes was a biotech company that operated as part of the Invitrogen Corporation, specialising in fluorescent dyes for biomedical research and drug discovery applications.
I travelled to Oregon and presented my postdoc work, part of which included fluorescent imaging. During the visit, I did my best to engage the audience and everyone I met, asking about the work going on here and the needs they had in R&D. We maintained email contact and a short while after, I was asked if I’d be interested in applying for a job.
I applied, got the job and haven’t looked back!
Since this time, Invitrogen merged with another company to become Life Technologies, which later became part of Thermo Fisher Scientific in 2014. Through all of the changes and growth, I have remained at the same company and greatly enjoyed the growth in scope and landscape of the work.
How does working in biotech R&D differ from academic research?
One thing that is maybe not so evident about commercial-based research to scientists in academia, is that like them, industrial researchers also have to bid for money. We compose applications, apply to for project support and report outcomes in our data. And like in academia, the more successful you have been in previous projects, the more closely your latest applications get looked at. We still have to demonstrate our worth to the company at regular intervals to secure financial support for our projects and that’s no different to life in an academic lab.
The day job is also similar – in both sectors the scientific approach remains the same – rigorous hypothesis testing, development of methods and ideas, but there are some differences that researchers should be aware of who are thinking of moving from academic to commercial research.
As a postdoc transitioning to industry, a major change for me was the attendance of departmental planning meetings, finance meetings, and regular training courses. This is often not something in academia that a postdoc routinely gets to participate in, but is no different to the type of meetings that an academic principle investigator (PI) is expected to attend. Students and postdocs live relatively sheltered from these responsibilities, so no matter which direction you take (academic or commercial), the new administrative parts of the job will take you by the same surprise. You have to develop new skills on the fly no matter what career path you take.
Further, the pay may appear more attractive in industry at junior scientist levels (post-doctoral equivalent), but after 5-8 years, senior scientist salaries are similar to those of academic PI positions. So overall in the long-run (as a scientist at least), pay is not hugely different to senior academic positions.
In industry however, very senior scientists are often still able to work at the lab bench, which is seldom the case in academia. Academic researchers gradually drop off from lab work with advancing career progression. So, if you’re are after a lab bench career, you can find that in biotech.
Another thing that you find in industry is that you will have regular conversations with Human Resources (HR) about your career. Your training and career development is often an active part of your job, and regular conversations with HR can give you the option to change career paths in the company if you wish. It’s not uncommon for scientists to move away from R&D and pursue future career paths in management, technical field support or manufacturing, for example. For those taking a business route with their careers, the remuneration can be higher than a research-based career in industry, but often additional training is required (a Master’s degree in business, for instance) and the pressure can be a great deal higher.
It’s satisfying to work on research projects that are properly funded and therefore we are able to see them through to completion, which can be more of a challenge in academia if funding is limited. However in contrast to academia, it is not often possible to keep projects going indefinitely throughout your research career. You might remain in a particular field of study, but you have to follow corporate resources when they direct toward or away from a project.
My ties with academic research have never been completely severed though. During my career, I’ve been fortunate to have the opportunity to secure a number of technology-driven collaborations with academics.
Further, we have an amazing ‘intellectual property’(IP) team at Thermo Fisher, which allows us to interact with external organisations in a collaborative manner. There are certain things we can’t disclose (writing patents and developing IP is an essential part of being a commercial scientist), but we do have funding options available to work with external collaborators. In the past, I’ve collaborated with academic labs to generate applications data or try our reagents in their model systems, for example.
I also speak at conferences and I’m regularly asked to present at academic institutions.
In fact, field-based seminars remain a really interesting part of the job. Having full-blown technical discussions with other experts, whilst at the same time, also hearing the ‘customer’s voice,’ enables us to develop solutions that are needed, providing an essential boost for our sales teams and strengthen our recommendations to administration for further or less development in a particular area. It’s key to stay plugged into current events in science.
How do you think working as a researcher in biotech might differ from a similar role in the pharmaceutical (pharma) sector?
I think pharma is probably more heavily influenced by market trends. For example, the recent interest in immuno-oncology has affected much of the research undertaken by pharma companies in recent years. When fluctuations in these fashions occur, it can lead to the shutdown of huge sectors, which occurs regularly in big pharma.
Biotech companies on the other-hand are not so heavily influenced, as new technologies will always be needed by a variety of applications. As a researcher in the pharma sector, you receive top-down directives to act upon and while these still exist in Biotech, in technology development, there are often more opportunities for ‘grass roots’ research (basic understanding projects) that come as a result of your own proposals. I think this has had two major positives on my research career:
- Sector shutdown is rare in biotech, providing more stability and job security to employees. Whilst I have been through several iterations of my company (through different mergers and acquisitions) and at the time this led to a degree of uncertainty in the workplace, ultimately these changes never resulted in large-scale departmental shutdowns
- Biotech allows for more scientific freedom. At our campus for example we have a broad research scope, similar to anything you might see at a biomedical institute. When first arriving there for my interview, I remember thinking to myself, ‘wow this is somewhere I’m going to be able to do a lot of really cool stuff,’ and I wasn’t wrong!
What advice do you have for academic researchers who are looking to secure their first job in biotech R&D?
The first piece is to network. An expansive network never hurts and will allow you to better position yourself when looking for jobs. Build your network at conferences and keep in touch with those you know who move on from your academic circle. Use these contacts to get a foot in the door and see if they will refer you to hiring managers. Referrals are always a bonus, as it provides the hiring manager confidence when the candidate is known to respected colleagues, and it saves HR a great deal of time if an applicant’s CV gets highlighted among the high volumes that appear with our openings. These aren’t positions for backup if academia doesn’t work out; you don’t fail your way into these jobs. They can be tough to get and it’s worth learning all you can about the place you want to go.
Another recruitment avenue can be through summer internship programmes. These are open to both undergrad and postgraduate students, and will enable successful candidates to gain valuable work experience. As a postgrad, you would need to negotiate time out of your academic lab to work in industry, but if the project helps with your graduate work then that’s a clear advantage and will increase your visibility when job hunting.
Another thing to think about is your skill set. Where possible, try to incorporate technical skills into your academic research experience that are in demand. Latest technologies and emerging areas of interest to industry are always useful things to try and build into your skills repertoire where possible.
I would guess that our new hires are approximately 50/50 split between those with industry experience and those straight from academia. So, if you don’t have prior industrial experience, you’ve still got a good chance of obtaining a commercial R&D position. In fact, I think it’s a good thing to be able to train people in the way you would like things to be done, which is an advantage for those who are fresh into industry.
However, it’s my opinion that this is not the same for managerial positions. Manager level positions invariably require prior industry experience and some business training never hurts. Highlight your experiences leading projects, people and willingness to collaborate if you’re looking at positions in admin. It’s a different way to apply your scientific training than most are accustomed to, but administrative functions are wholly necessary in the academy and industry alike.
Finally, commercial R&D should not be viewed as a second-choice option if academia doesn’t work out. We are looking for excellent candidates and we hire the best. Commercial research offers a highly stable and rewarding career option, so rather unsurprisingly, it’s often highly competitive to get into biotech R&D.
I made the move 13 years ago and have had a great, and highly rewarding career! There is still very limited visibility into industry science from the academic world; I encourage you to learn more and don’t be shy about asking to visit a campus and learn more when the opportunity presents itself.
Thanks to Dan for an insightful look into life as a researcher in the biotech industry. If you’re interested in career options outside of academia, sign up for frequent blog updates:
www.biomedbadass.com/subscribe
Got a burning question about your career? – Ask it in our secure community forum page: