There are lots of things to like about my current gig. It's never boring, I'm paid between fine and well depending on who I am working for, and it's really gratifying to have work. But I continue to blog and look for other opportunities because this doesn't seem like enough, somehow. Don't get me wrong, I am busy as all heck. Two of my contracts are committed to about 40 hours a week, and I have another with regular weekly deadlines, so I'm working lots. I just can't really see this working out long term. Am I going to be 35 and juggling 3 clients every week? The sensible thing to do is keep multiple clients, when one doesn't need me as much, I can still get paid. But maybe the magic number there is two.
And then there is the bureaucracy. I should figure out a better system for keeping track of my invoices, so I don't spend 30 min trying to submit an invoice for $350. It really eats into my effective hourly rate. For some irrational reason, I loath signing contracts too, which is a pretty regular feature of my work. I don't mean to complain, but these were problems I didn't really want to have when I got "a job."
An opportunity has come up that I should think about, but I am really having a hard time making the comparison. My internship (at the surface chemistry company) needs a part-time tech. They like me, and I think the company has a lot of promise if they can be well managed. Although, is a part-time tech position in a chemical company a step up from making fine money in my living room? Is this the opportunity I have been hoping for to get "industry experience," or is being a tech going to be a black mark on my CV that will create a life-time of hurdles for me? Is inventorying monomers and validating SPR results better than writing about IT and Biology and thinking about how kids learn?
A parallel to this entry, I'm going to write soon about mentors.
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
My Publication Record
My manuscript got accepted! Anytime a manuscript gets accepted, it's gratifying, and this one is especially so. As a grad student, I wrote a draft of a manuscript in my 3rd year that continued to be developed until shortly after graduation. I submitted this just before I stopped working. At the time, it seemed like the missing piece- the paper will get out, I'll update my CV and get a job. So simple! This paper went through 3 journals and was finally accepted on its 6th submission. It's about time!
There is lots of time to think during 6 submissions. Can you really believe you are a good scientist if your peers won't publish your work? If your 'peers' only ask dumb questions about your science, do you really have to respond? How many submissions would it take before you'd just scrap the idea all together. Fortunately, before I came up with answers to those questions, we were able to address the actual issue with most of those rejections. My super specialized/limited-audience work wasn't ideal for a general Biochemistry type journal, we really need a specialized journal. Antiviral Research gave us legitimate feedback that was reasonable for us to respond to (Thank you!), and now I've got my second first author publication. Phew!
As long as this process has drawn out now, I'm not sure it is going to be the fix-all I imagined. Other papers came out in the field (it figures that drug discovery in polyomaviruses is trendy now), so my work isn't exactly seminal. But more than that, it has been a long time since anyone asked about my publication record. I told a industry scientist once that I've got a couple papers to my name, and he gave me a sort of patronizing look. I've gotten less interested in bench work, where it might come up more often. Neither internship asked about papers. I've tried drafting resumes to technical writing positions that include my papers, but they seem like a cumbersome way to demonstrate "I have communication skills." I'm still figuring out the best ways to use these.
This also raises a few questions. I no longer have a semi-regular excuse to communicate with my old adviser. We had discussed writing a review, based on the intro to my dissertation. That's easily a year out of date now, so it would require significant effort to update, and there was some doubt anyone would publish such a thing (and after this ringer, I'd love to write something that could get published). But would it make a difference? I don't think I've had a hard time finding a job because my Antiviral Res paper wasn't out yet, I think it's because I don't have preclinical experience or a background in immunology. Would publishing a review change my prospects as all? Is it a good idea to require semi-regular updates with my old adviser while I am looking for a position?
There is lots of time to think during 6 submissions. Can you really believe you are a good scientist if your peers won't publish your work? If your 'peers' only ask dumb questions about your science, do you really have to respond? How many submissions would it take before you'd just scrap the idea all together. Fortunately, before I came up with answers to those questions, we were able to address the actual issue with most of those rejections. My super specialized/limited-audience work wasn't ideal for a general Biochemistry type journal, we really need a specialized journal. Antiviral Research gave us legitimate feedback that was reasonable for us to respond to (Thank you!), and now I've got my second first author publication. Phew!
As long as this process has drawn out now, I'm not sure it is going to be the fix-all I imagined. Other papers came out in the field (it figures that drug discovery in polyomaviruses is trendy now), so my work isn't exactly seminal. But more than that, it has been a long time since anyone asked about my publication record. I told a industry scientist once that I've got a couple papers to my name, and he gave me a sort of patronizing look. I've gotten less interested in bench work, where it might come up more often. Neither internship asked about papers. I've tried drafting resumes to technical writing positions that include my papers, but they seem like a cumbersome way to demonstrate "I have communication skills." I'm still figuring out the best ways to use these.
This also raises a few questions. I no longer have a semi-regular excuse to communicate with my old adviser. We had discussed writing a review, based on the intro to my dissertation. That's easily a year out of date now, so it would require significant effort to update, and there was some doubt anyone would publish such a thing (and after this ringer, I'd love to write something that could get published). But would it make a difference? I don't think I've had a hard time finding a job because my Antiviral Res paper wasn't out yet, I think it's because I don't have preclinical experience or a background in immunology. Would publishing a review change my prospects as all? Is it a good idea to require semi-regular updates with my old adviser while I am looking for a position?
Monday, July 30, 2012
What I should have said to my high school science teacher
I went home for a visit recently. I grew up in Juneau, Alaska and I don't get there often. The timing of this visit actually seemed quite lovely, here I am wondering what I am doing with my life, and I get to revisit my roots to reflect. I got to spend some time at low tide looking at sea cucumbers and digging in tide pools, which reminded me why I enjoyed science when I was younger- it legitimized my curiosity.
At the end of the week, I ran into my high school oceanography teacher. He was the drummer for the wedding band, so I had some time to think about if I should talk to him at all, and if so, what should I say. In the spirit of revisiting my past, I said something like "Mr. ____, I'm not sure if you remember me. I took your Oceanography class as a 5th year senior. I just wanted to thank you, and let you know I earned my Ph.D. in Molecular Biology." He laughed a little, and said, "And you owe it all to me?" He continued with pleased congratulations (he only vaguely remembered me), and then said, "In class you never can tell who is going to make it, and who is going to be a bartender for the rest of their life." It was a sore point with me for a long time that getting out of high school was such a struggle to finish- I did a year of foreign exchange for my first senior year, and came back to finish a credit and a half and collect my diploma- but I my teachers were very supportive. Obviously, I liked science before this time, or I wouldn't have taken Oceanography as an elective. I didn't really need to thank him for helping me be interested in science, but after our conversation I realized what I should have said.
By the time I was a senior in high school, I understood that to get ahead academically, I had to work hard. I worked on good study habits, and took a lot of courses that emphasized problem solving. However, this oceanography class encouraged curiosity for its own sake. Every day, we had to turn in 5 questions about the ocean. They could be totally lame, or incredibly thoughtful, we got the same grade. At first, I didn't really know how to pose questions. How deep is the ocean? How many kinds of fish are in the ocean? As the course went on, and there was more content to pull from, my questions got better, How do fish sense brakish water? How does low oxygen levels affect bacteria? But more importantly, I stopped needing to be a know-it-all. We were just asking questions to ask them. They almost never got answered, and it was still fun to pose them. And that turned out to be a huge key to shaping my temperament for science. Science is a field where curiosity is essential for driving success, but rarely rewarded directly. I'm glad I had a chance to develop that separately in the supportive atmosphere of the high school science classroom.
At the end of the week, I ran into my high school oceanography teacher. He was the drummer for the wedding band, so I had some time to think about if I should talk to him at all, and if so, what should I say. In the spirit of revisiting my past, I said something like "Mr. ____, I'm not sure if you remember me. I took your Oceanography class as a 5th year senior. I just wanted to thank you, and let you know I earned my Ph.D. in Molecular Biology." He laughed a little, and said, "And you owe it all to me?" He continued with pleased congratulations (he only vaguely remembered me), and then said, "In class you never can tell who is going to make it, and who is going to be a bartender for the rest of their life." It was a sore point with me for a long time that getting out of high school was such a struggle to finish- I did a year of foreign exchange for my first senior year, and came back to finish a credit and a half and collect my diploma- but I my teachers were very supportive. Obviously, I liked science before this time, or I wouldn't have taken Oceanography as an elective. I didn't really need to thank him for helping me be interested in science, but after our conversation I realized what I should have said.
By the time I was a senior in high school, I understood that to get ahead academically, I had to work hard. I worked on good study habits, and took a lot of courses that emphasized problem solving. However, this oceanography class encouraged curiosity for its own sake. Every day, we had to turn in 5 questions about the ocean. They could be totally lame, or incredibly thoughtful, we got the same grade. At first, I didn't really know how to pose questions. How deep is the ocean? How many kinds of fish are in the ocean? As the course went on, and there was more content to pull from, my questions got better, How do fish sense brakish water? How does low oxygen levels affect bacteria? But more importantly, I stopped needing to be a know-it-all. We were just asking questions to ask them. They almost never got answered, and it was still fun to pose them. And that turned out to be a huge key to shaping my temperament for science. Science is a field where curiosity is essential for driving success, but rarely rewarded directly. I'm glad I had a chance to develop that separately in the supportive atmosphere of the high school science classroom.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Better, cheaper, faster, easier
In my internship at the C4C, part of my job was to help innovators determine if thier idea would be better, cheaper, faster or easier than the current standards. If you can be one (or all) of those things, you've got a shot at success- or a market advantage. (If you have none of these things- go back to the drawing board.) This type of assessment is something I'd like to bring to my job hunt.
I was discussing careers with a friend from graduate school, who was describing her resistance to taking on the PI path. It's no surprise that it's a hard job, with responsibilities that not everyone wants to be good at (grant writing, mentorship, teaching and lab administration pop into mind). But the people who are successful at it enjoy those aspects, or don't find them as miserable as I might. Or they find it worth it for the exciting and fun parts (assay design, designing projects, pursuing interesting scientific questions). My friend said, "I'm not going to be better than my old boss at the fun and exciting stuff, and the hard parts won't be any easier for me." I'm not going to be better at it, and it won't be easier for me.
This got me thinking about what I am doing right now. I'm not sure it's my dream job, but curriculum development and instructional design are pretty easy for me. I came from a standards based education that was very participatory, so assessing objectives and meeting educational standards isn't a struggle. And I seem to be decent enough at it that I'm fairly busy with it for the moment. I don't know that I am better that anyone at it, but I don't find the work emotionally hard (unlike, say, developing a blank Western at 6pm on a Friday), which leaves me a lot of energy to put into my real life.
It might not be my dream job, but if a market advantage can score me a stable paycheck, maybe that is good enough.
I was discussing careers with a friend from graduate school, who was describing her resistance to taking on the PI path. It's no surprise that it's a hard job, with responsibilities that not everyone wants to be good at (grant writing, mentorship, teaching and lab administration pop into mind). But the people who are successful at it enjoy those aspects, or don't find them as miserable as I might. Or they find it worth it for the exciting and fun parts (assay design, designing projects, pursuing interesting scientific questions). My friend said, "I'm not going to be better than my old boss at the fun and exciting stuff, and the hard parts won't be any easier for me." I'm not going to be better at it, and it won't be easier for me.
This got me thinking about what I am doing right now. I'm not sure it's my dream job, but curriculum development and instructional design are pretty easy for me. I came from a standards based education that was very participatory, so assessing objectives and meeting educational standards isn't a struggle. And I seem to be decent enough at it that I'm fairly busy with it for the moment. I don't know that I am better that anyone at it, but I don't find the work emotionally hard (unlike, say, developing a blank Western at 6pm on a Friday), which leaves me a lot of energy to put into my real life.
It might not be my dream job, but if a market advantage can score me a stable paycheck, maybe that is good enough.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Editing manuscripts
I've got a contract to substantially edit a manuscript this weekend that, um, is in serious need of my services. I'm also trying to deal with comments from my own manuscript that will be celebrating a birthday along with my PhD soon. Honestly, dealing with the revisions of my own paper makes me feel like a terrible scientist. Looking for old files lost in what passed as my 'organizational system,' and trying to find ways to respond to very reasonable reviewers comments is really stressing me out. Trying to navigate this all with my old adviser and our ever growing team of collaborators just feels messier and messier as we go through each resubmission. I just got an email from him that said, "Check submission 4, we used a different supplemental figure 4 there." Oh. Uh. Right. I can't keep this straight because, seriously, if I believed that publishing this paper would improve my career prospects, it would have torn me to bits months ago.
This is why editing someone else's manuscript right now is fantastic. Their manuscript is pretty rough. The manuscript came with comments from two previous submission- one in 2006, one in 2008. Both said the language needs help, but also such silly comments as, "it wasn't clear until halfway through the paper that there would be two drugs tested" and "You need to include the IRB approval" and my favorite "Please discuss the limitations of this study." I'm not very far into this paper, but I suspect the experiments were well done. They have just not been presented well at all. And if THESE people can publish their paper, with it's outdated references and scattered presentation, I've got a shot for sure. I often feel like I must be the worst scientist ever. Being an editor means I get to see other people's work before it is polished, I get to see the weakness and struggles they have, and it's nice to know others go through that too.
My manuscript is, in the scheme of things, probably pretty close to publication. I'm looking forward to being done with it because I feel like I never really finished grad school while this keeps coming back into my life. I'm completely resigned to the fact that it won't change my prospects at all. Other, more interesting papers have come out in the last year. And much more importantly, I'm able to get paid to do stuff that has nothing to do with small molecule inhibitors of polyomaviruses. I'd like to talk more about this later, but I'm pretty sure I am not going to be employed to continue my grad work or anything like it. So finishing it up would be a HUGE relief.
This is why editing someone else's manuscript right now is fantastic. Their manuscript is pretty rough. The manuscript came with comments from two previous submission- one in 2006, one in 2008. Both said the language needs help, but also such silly comments as, "it wasn't clear until halfway through the paper that there would be two drugs tested" and "You need to include the IRB approval" and my favorite "Please discuss the limitations of this study." I'm not very far into this paper, but I suspect the experiments were well done. They have just not been presented well at all. And if THESE people can publish their paper, with it's outdated references and scattered presentation, I've got a shot for sure. I often feel like I must be the worst scientist ever. Being an editor means I get to see other people's work before it is polished, I get to see the weakness and struggles they have, and it's nice to know others go through that too.
My manuscript is, in the scheme of things, probably pretty close to publication. I'm looking forward to being done with it because I feel like I never really finished grad school while this keeps coming back into my life. I'm completely resigned to the fact that it won't change my prospects at all. Other, more interesting papers have come out in the last year. And much more importantly, I'm able to get paid to do stuff that has nothing to do with small molecule inhibitors of polyomaviruses. I'd like to talk more about this later, but I'm pretty sure I am not going to be employed to continue my grad work or anything like it. So finishing it up would be a HUGE relief.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Interview with a Medical Writer
At an AWIS event recently, I met a woman who is a Medical Writer. That is one of the jobs that I am told people with a Ph.D. can do, but given my non-medical background, I wanted to know more. She generously agreed to tell me more about the position: how she got it, what it's like and why it's great.
First, a quick background on her; she has a Ph.D. in molecular biology, and realized towards the end of her time in graduate school that she didn't want to be at the bench and wasn't sure where else to go. She joined American Medical Writers Association, and started looking for jobs. Although she said she had not special training for the role, I think that the membership is the magic piece that helped her get the job. The job she eventually was offered she found on Monster, although she applied for other jobs on the HittList and other places. She started on site at a pharmaceutical company in Chicago, and for personal reasons has moved to Seattle as an off-site contractor with the same company and position.
Her job now is a combination of writing tasks. Sometimes she writes 'primary literature'- data is provided in the form of polished figures and she writes manuscripts to tie them together. Sometimes she writes 'content' for clinical trials. When a doctor recruits a new patient, the patient will be given a brochure with all the legalese and descriptions of the trial methods. Sometimes she helps in filings, which she says makes her feel less like a writer, and more like an aggregation. Other people have done most of the writing, and she copies and pastes bits of documents together to make a new document. She has more of a management role on some projects as well. She said she likes the work because it changes, and she never feels too married to any of her work to take criticism.
Most people who are medical writers are not Ph.D.s, many have clinical backgrounds. This may make them better at navigating the medical lingo, but as far as writing up figures, methods or any research stuff goes, she felt completely prepared to to do the job. And she loves it- the work is interesting and challenging, and the pay is great. According to AMWA, the average Medical Writer makes $92K annually. Starting salaries are high for those with Ph.D.s and there is room for career advancement.
It sounds like a great gig to me. Although I am loathe to work off-site, a well paid job with a contract route of entry seems achievable. I like writing, and could be happy having someone else tell me what to write. I've joined AMWA ($160 annually), in hopes that might legitimize my application to these types of roles. Now I just need to find them.
First, a quick background on her; she has a Ph.D. in molecular biology, and realized towards the end of her time in graduate school that she didn't want to be at the bench and wasn't sure where else to go. She joined American Medical Writers Association, and started looking for jobs. Although she said she had not special training for the role, I think that the membership is the magic piece that helped her get the job. The job she eventually was offered she found on Monster, although she applied for other jobs on the HittList and other places. She started on site at a pharmaceutical company in Chicago, and for personal reasons has moved to Seattle as an off-site contractor with the same company and position.
Her job now is a combination of writing tasks. Sometimes she writes 'primary literature'- data is provided in the form of polished figures and she writes manuscripts to tie them together. Sometimes she writes 'content' for clinical trials. When a doctor recruits a new patient, the patient will be given a brochure with all the legalese and descriptions of the trial methods. Sometimes she helps in filings, which she says makes her feel less like a writer, and more like an aggregation. Other people have done most of the writing, and she copies and pastes bits of documents together to make a new document. She has more of a management role on some projects as well. She said she likes the work because it changes, and she never feels too married to any of her work to take criticism.
Most people who are medical writers are not Ph.D.s, many have clinical backgrounds. This may make them better at navigating the medical lingo, but as far as writing up figures, methods or any research stuff goes, she felt completely prepared to to do the job. And she loves it- the work is interesting and challenging, and the pay is great. According to AMWA, the average Medical Writer makes $92K annually. Starting salaries are high for those with Ph.D.s and there is room for career advancement.
It sounds like a great gig to me. Although I am loathe to work off-site, a well paid job with a contract route of entry seems achievable. I like writing, and could be happy having someone else tell me what to write. I've joined AMWA ($160 annually), in hopes that might legitimize my application to these types of roles. Now I just need to find them.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Notes on working with entreprenuers
In a meeting the other day, an entrepreneur shared a moment of great self-insight. He said, "I'm an entrepreneur, I come up with all kinds of ideas. Some of them are great, and lots of them are terrible. I need people around me to tell me which is which. But I really need people to get things done." At first, I thought this was just his take on the role, but I've had the chance to work with several now and I see it's a bit of a universal truth. And knowing that can help those interactions quite a lot.
This is a guy I am day dreaming about a STEM program with. He loves it when I tell him which ideas might work, or how we are going to have to pull them off. He doesn't perceive those responsibilities as his role- his job is to have great ideas and find the resources to make them work. I am one of those resources, and I'm valuable because I can tell him when his ideas stink.
When I look back on my interactions with the algae guy, he had a lot of this too. Great ideas that weren't always bounded by our current access to technology, money or other practical considerations. I'll admit that that kinda spooked me a bit. A good entrepreneur is so compelling about that "The Sky is the Limit!" pitch that other people buy into it, literally giving money, and suddenly you've got everything you need.
Scientists can be a little like this too. If you dread showing your boss data because they will come up with 8 equally important follow-up experiments that don't overlap with the experiments they proposed that got you there in the first place.... you work with an innovator. I knew a guy like that. I work with some of these PIs now as an intern at C4C. The tech managers often complain that their teams can't make forward progress because they get distracted by all kinds of other considerations. You mix the entrepreneur's dream with a habit of basic research and it can be really tough to move a brilliant idea to a product on the shelf.
One of the (many) reasons I don't want to be a faculty member is because I don't think like that. I don't like to invent bad ideas to find good ones, and I am much more opinionated about the practical things. Honestly, I thought that made me less of a scientist. But I think in a commercial world, there is a real need for people like me. Brilliant ideas aside, if you want to put a drug through trials, there is a lot of regulation that doesn't usually benefit from creative thinking. I mention this, because I think recognizing which type of person I am and how I related to the other type has helped my professional interactions.
This is a guy I am day dreaming about a STEM program with. He loves it when I tell him which ideas might work, or how we are going to have to pull them off. He doesn't perceive those responsibilities as his role- his job is to have great ideas and find the resources to make them work. I am one of those resources, and I'm valuable because I can tell him when his ideas stink.
When I look back on my interactions with the algae guy, he had a lot of this too. Great ideas that weren't always bounded by our current access to technology, money or other practical considerations. I'll admit that that kinda spooked me a bit. A good entrepreneur is so compelling about that "The Sky is the Limit!" pitch that other people buy into it, literally giving money, and suddenly you've got everything you need.
Scientists can be a little like this too. If you dread showing your boss data because they will come up with 8 equally important follow-up experiments that don't overlap with the experiments they proposed that got you there in the first place.... you work with an innovator. I knew a guy like that. I work with some of these PIs now as an intern at C4C. The tech managers often complain that their teams can't make forward progress because they get distracted by all kinds of other considerations. You mix the entrepreneur's dream with a habit of basic research and it can be really tough to move a brilliant idea to a product on the shelf.
One of the (many) reasons I don't want to be a faculty member is because I don't think like that. I don't like to invent bad ideas to find good ones, and I am much more opinionated about the practical things. Honestly, I thought that made me less of a scientist. But I think in a commercial world, there is a real need for people like me. Brilliant ideas aside, if you want to put a drug through trials, there is a lot of regulation that doesn't usually benefit from creative thinking. I mention this, because I think recognizing which type of person I am and how I related to the other type has helped my professional interactions.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
What's holding me back?
I'm a big picture person. I can't help myself. I worry about my job hunt because I'm not sure where I'll be in 20 years, I just want to get on a path. I've been looking for a job in science for longer then I hoped, but I think I am much more likely to end up in a position I will actually like in the long term. Meeting people in different fields, in different roles has really helped me shape my expectations and aspirations. And have been realizing recently that both of those are things I need to resolve before I can find a real job launching career.
What do I mean? People ask me what kind of a job I am looking for, and I usually say that given my background, a job in pharma or biotech would suit me well. But, I'm not really married to bench work. I enjoy thinking about science more than performing experiments, I'm more journal club than lab meeting, if that makes sense. It's not important to me to get "credit" for my work, but I do want to know I am working on a good cause. And I don't want to get bored- I am looking for a position that can lead to other opportunities, and not just in terms of salary growth. But really, I'm not sure what type of position I aspire to, so it's hard to set my expectations accordingly.
Here is the thing, when my friends pester me to talk about what I've done lately that I liked, I almost always point to my volunteer work that the Science Center. I loved playing with science, sharing my enthusiasm with kids and their families, and I've come to realize that Science Centers may play a really integral role in communities and in the future of the STEM economy. But, I presumed that my volunteer/outreach work needs to be supplemental- it seems insincere to encourage kids to go get a job in science if I couldn't be bothered.
But, the Pacific Science Center in Seattle is hiring right now. They aren't hiring molecular virologists, but they are looking for a grant writer. And I realized two things, 1) I had previously discounted working at a Science Center because I wasn't sure it was "important," but I now view it as part of a bigger picture solution to the worlds complex problems- encourage kids to believe they are innovators at a young age and when they grow up, they'll have the capacity to stop global warming. 2) I was worried about growth. I figured you join the team as a grant writer or volunteer coordinator, and there is nowhere to go. I don't know why I thought that, ignorance obviously. Clearly, I need to expand my circle of informational interviews to include this professional arena.
And I applied for that job.
What do I mean? People ask me what kind of a job I am looking for, and I usually say that given my background, a job in pharma or biotech would suit me well. But, I'm not really married to bench work. I enjoy thinking about science more than performing experiments, I'm more journal club than lab meeting, if that makes sense. It's not important to me to get "credit" for my work, but I do want to know I am working on a good cause. And I don't want to get bored- I am looking for a position that can lead to other opportunities, and not just in terms of salary growth. But really, I'm not sure what type of position I aspire to, so it's hard to set my expectations accordingly.
Here is the thing, when my friends pester me to talk about what I've done lately that I liked, I almost always point to my volunteer work that the Science Center. I loved playing with science, sharing my enthusiasm with kids and their families, and I've come to realize that Science Centers may play a really integral role in communities and in the future of the STEM economy. But, I presumed that my volunteer/outreach work needs to be supplemental- it seems insincere to encourage kids to go get a job in science if I couldn't be bothered.
But, the Pacific Science Center in Seattle is hiring right now. They aren't hiring molecular virologists, but they are looking for a grant writer. And I realized two things, 1) I had previously discounted working at a Science Center because I wasn't sure it was "important," but I now view it as part of a bigger picture solution to the worlds complex problems- encourage kids to believe they are innovators at a young age and when they grow up, they'll have the capacity to stop global warming. 2) I was worried about growth. I figured you join the team as a grant writer or volunteer coordinator, and there is nowhere to go. I don't know why I thought that, ignorance obviously. Clearly, I need to expand my circle of informational interviews to include this professional arena.
And I applied for that job.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Informal Science Education
Last week I was in New York at the New York Hall of Science (NYSCI) for the Design Make Play conference, which was a conference of Informal Science Educators and facilitators. As I mentioned before, this was a new field for me (informal science education), so I wanted to share a little about the field in general with you. Informal Science education is meant to be any of the learning that takes place outside of a formalized school format, from the Boys and Girls Club to playing with Legos. This was vaguely like what I had heard of called "Outreach" before- giving students positive experiences with science to encourage them to pursue that as a career path. But Informal Science Education is much more-so a field driven by educators, and has less of a specific purpose. Many folks from museums and science centers were there, as well as small organizations that do fun hands-on activities with children and adults.
The keynote speakers addressed the fact that kids spend most of their time not in school, and that this is time that they are still learning. They talked about the "leaky" STEM pipeline, only 2.4% of the adult population has a STEM career- but really is that bad? One of the themes of the meeting was not just that we need more trained scientists, but that what America needs is more innovators, people who can think scientifically and understand how to solve problems, work collaboratively and aren't initimidated by technical problems. Science isn't the only place that requires those skills, but it does provide decent training for these ideas. The conference organizers were aligned with the Maker Movement- you know, the people hanging out at Maker Spaces, Maker Fairs, Hackerspaces and their own little tinker shops who are finding ways to build things like robots out of vacuums, or paints out of household items.
You can picture how this would not only cultivate the skills of innovation, but give a young student confidence and perhaps help a student who is not gifted in the traditional sense realize that they are quite bright afterall. It's very feel good stuff. It also parallels the idea that if we need a more science literate society (say, one who will oppose cuts to NIH budgets and stuff), in order to have an informed citizenry who can address the complex and technical problems our country and and world are facing.
In the informal arena, the measures of success are quite different, and I noticed this immediately in the culture of the people at the conference. Many people took photos of presentations. I never figured out who the Big-Wigs were, since everyone was sharing with everyone. And being a conference about learning by exploration, everyone was very willing to jump in feet first to all kinds of crazy things and really share their enthusiasm. Yes, this arena is generally grant funded, and as I said, dominated by educators. But, when I mentioned that I was a scientist, people would flip! They LOVED that a scientist wanted to get involved in this stuff, and were really supportive despite the fact that all the education/assessment/etc. stuff was new to me. In my dream world, I'll have a solid job as a professional science somebody, and then get to work with groups like this to help them in their efforts to promote play a a tool for education.
The keynote speakers addressed the fact that kids spend most of their time not in school, and that this is time that they are still learning. They talked about the "leaky" STEM pipeline, only 2.4% of the adult population has a STEM career- but really is that bad? One of the themes of the meeting was not just that we need more trained scientists, but that what America needs is more innovators, people who can think scientifically and understand how to solve problems, work collaboratively and aren't initimidated by technical problems. Science isn't the only place that requires those skills, but it does provide decent training for these ideas. The conference organizers were aligned with the Maker Movement- you know, the people hanging out at Maker Spaces, Maker Fairs, Hackerspaces and their own little tinker shops who are finding ways to build things like robots out of vacuums, or paints out of household items.
You can picture how this would not only cultivate the skills of innovation, but give a young student confidence and perhaps help a student who is not gifted in the traditional sense realize that they are quite bright afterall. It's very feel good stuff. It also parallels the idea that if we need a more science literate society (say, one who will oppose cuts to NIH budgets and stuff), in order to have an informed citizenry who can address the complex and technical problems our country and and world are facing.
In the informal arena, the measures of success are quite different, and I noticed this immediately in the culture of the people at the conference. Many people took photos of presentations. I never figured out who the Big-Wigs were, since everyone was sharing with everyone. And being a conference about learning by exploration, everyone was very willing to jump in feet first to all kinds of crazy things and really share their enthusiasm. Yes, this arena is generally grant funded, and as I said, dominated by educators. But, when I mentioned that I was a scientist, people would flip! They LOVED that a scientist wanted to get involved in this stuff, and were really supportive despite the fact that all the education/assessment/etc. stuff was new to me. In my dream world, I'll have a solid job as a professional science somebody, and then get to work with groups like this to help them in their efforts to promote play a a tool for education.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
What's in a business plan?
When I started asking around for advice about working for a start-up, everyone said "Look at the Business Plan." That's nice seeming advice, but considering my first experience with one is the one I am making a career choice on, I'm not sure if that actually puts me in a good position to judge. Seriously, what is normally in one of these?
A business plan (esp for a company looking for investors, or anticipating growth), should include everything from the mission statement to the revenue streams and expected profitability timeline, and provide an indication that each of the major issues for the business have been considered and addressed. There should be some indication that both the Market (who will buy what you have to sell?) and Finances (can you make it for less than you'll sell it? How much outlay is required to make it?) have been considered. For example, it might include the expected clients, or investors, predicted areas of growth or challenges. In a science field (I'm clearly thinking about biofuels, but this holds true for biotech as well), these is probably some oblique reference to the whiz-bang science that is going to move the company forward. If it doesn't sound believable, you should be able to get references about it.
The part that is a little confusing is that a business plan is normally written for investors, either the bank that will make a loan or venture capitalists. As a result, everything is couched in the language of "Potential Success and Profits!" It's hard to look past the "uniquely qualified team," and their "cutting edge approach," despite their "deep understanding of market realities" to see if there is a good idea down there. And working for a start up might not be like a normal job, where you know if you show up and do your thing, you'll have some stability. It's riskier, and as someone who doesn't like job hunting much, I want to be sure the job I take is one I'll still have in a few months.
I'm not really sure how one balances all that, frankly.
The one other think I have to add was this funny acronym, EBITDA- earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization which is a nice way of making earnings look as GIANT as possible, even though that isn't a perfect reflection of the final take home.
A business plan (esp for a company looking for investors, or anticipating growth), should include everything from the mission statement to the revenue streams and expected profitability timeline, and provide an indication that each of the major issues for the business have been considered and addressed. There should be some indication that both the Market (who will buy what you have to sell?) and Finances (can you make it for less than you'll sell it? How much outlay is required to make it?) have been considered. For example, it might include the expected clients, or investors, predicted areas of growth or challenges. In a science field (I'm clearly thinking about biofuels, but this holds true for biotech as well), these is probably some oblique reference to the whiz-bang science that is going to move the company forward. If it doesn't sound believable, you should be able to get references about it.
The part that is a little confusing is that a business plan is normally written for investors, either the bank that will make a loan or venture capitalists. As a result, everything is couched in the language of "Potential Success and Profits!" It's hard to look past the "uniquely qualified team," and their "cutting edge approach," despite their "deep understanding of market realities" to see if there is a good idea down there. And working for a start up might not be like a normal job, where you know if you show up and do your thing, you'll have some stability. It's riskier, and as someone who doesn't like job hunting much, I want to be sure the job I take is one I'll still have in a few months.
I'm not really sure how one balances all that, frankly.
The one other think I have to add was this funny acronym, EBITDA- earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization which is a nice way of making earnings look as GIANT as possible, even though that isn't a perfect reflection of the final take home.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Science Bloggers for Students
Although I am never sure who reads this blog, I'd like you all to know about a really exciting challenge I am participating in on the other blog I write for, Steel City Science. We are in a challenge with other science bloggers to raise funds for Donor's Choose, an organization that helps teachers get funds for projects in their classrooms. If you are interested in supporting the needs of Pittsburgh's teachers, or really any science teachers anywhere, please follow this link and make a donation of any size to support the next generation of scientists. We've got until Oct 22 to show the ChemBloggers that Pittsburgh is a city with a big heart. Thanks for your generosity!
Monday, August 29, 2011
Interview: Science Textbook Editing
My occasional work editing manuscripts got me thinking about the whole field of science publication. And just as I started to boggle at the overwhelming amounts of scientific literature that might require editing or publishing services, I was reminded I know someone who worked in Textbook editing, so I sat her down to talk about it.
Editing science textbooks (first for middle school, then increasing grade levels) requires a mix of talents- knowing science, being a good communicator and understanding how students learn. The role of the editor in the book writing process can be everything from fact checking to improving the themes of the book to pushing on the bureaucracy to be sure that deadlines and budgets are met. If you start as an editor, you probably do less of the managing type roles. The editor does things like determine or assess teaching objectives, themes and layout. She didn't feel like she needed any special experience to be successful at this- it was her first job out of grad school. That being said, more of these types of roles are being contracted out by the major publishing firm, which is one reason she suggested this can be a good "mommy-job" or a good summer semester work if you aren't ready to go full time.
She also told me that this has opened a lot of doors for her to do different things, she is currently a lecturer, but has done college level text editing and even written her own textbook. She gets pretty regular contacts for new and different kinds of work based on the network she started while being a full-time editor at a major publishing house. She said she can make $400-500 a project, which can be ~$30-$50/hr depending on which education level she is writing for. Editing End of Chapter Questions for a Middle School Bio book at $6/question can add up, if you are quick.
She had some other insights on the field as well. By the time she had progressed to a senior editor within a firm, she was much more aware of how changing state education guidelines were re-writing textbooks (for better or for worse). But she also felt like she had a really great opportunity to educate teachers. When preparing for a new book, she was involved in preliminary market surveys to find out what teachers needed, and was surprised to realize how much help they needed to teach, especially science. This could be a fantastic platform to really reach a broader audience with the excitement of science. She did get to travel seasonally (to market the finished product), but she rarely had much of an impression of anywhere she went because the work was so consuming. But the biggest thing she told me was that she felt like this work made her a better teacher- it made her empathize with the poorest student in class, and really helped her think creatively about different ways to reach students. Her work in college text books made it possible for her to transition to a lecturer position, and she said she feels like this is her niche- teaching most of the year and doing some projects over the summer to keep a hand in it.
She encouraged me to think about other kinds of scientific publishing that might require a scientific background, which also seems like an intriguing possibility.
Editing science textbooks (first for middle school, then increasing grade levels) requires a mix of talents- knowing science, being a good communicator and understanding how students learn. The role of the editor in the book writing process can be everything from fact checking to improving the themes of the book to pushing on the bureaucracy to be sure that deadlines and budgets are met. If you start as an editor, you probably do less of the managing type roles. The editor does things like determine or assess teaching objectives, themes and layout. She didn't feel like she needed any special experience to be successful at this- it was her first job out of grad school. That being said, more of these types of roles are being contracted out by the major publishing firm, which is one reason she suggested this can be a good "mommy-job" or a good summer semester work if you aren't ready to go full time.
She also told me that this has opened a lot of doors for her to do different things, she is currently a lecturer, but has done college level text editing and even written her own textbook. She gets pretty regular contacts for new and different kinds of work based on the network she started while being a full-time editor at a major publishing house. She said she can make $400-500 a project, which can be ~$30-$50/hr depending on which education level she is writing for. Editing End of Chapter Questions for a Middle School Bio book at $6/question can add up, if you are quick.
She had some other insights on the field as well. By the time she had progressed to a senior editor within a firm, she was much more aware of how changing state education guidelines were re-writing textbooks (for better or for worse). But she also felt like she had a really great opportunity to educate teachers. When preparing for a new book, she was involved in preliminary market surveys to find out what teachers needed, and was surprised to realize how much help they needed to teach, especially science. This could be a fantastic platform to really reach a broader audience with the excitement of science. She did get to travel seasonally (to market the finished product), but she rarely had much of an impression of anywhere she went because the work was so consuming. But the biggest thing she told me was that she felt like this work made her a better teacher- it made her empathize with the poorest student in class, and really helped her think creatively about different ways to reach students. Her work in college text books made it possible for her to transition to a lecturer position, and she said she feels like this is her niche- teaching most of the year and doing some projects over the summer to keep a hand in it.
She encouraged me to think about other kinds of scientific publishing that might require a scientific background, which also seems like an intriguing possibility.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Post-doc for Cancer Prevention- and an MPH to boot
I'll admit it, there are times I wish I knew what public health was before I came to graduate school. Don't get me wrong, doing basic science has polished my skills as an investigator and gave me the potential to learn about anything I want to know about. It's just that now I am pretty sure I am ready to learn about something new. "Great!" my boss says, "That's why you post-doc!" Sure, but do you know how easy it is to get into a post-doc and forget that it is supposed to be a stepping stone in your career? What do you really GET out of a post-doc, besides a new letter and a better publication record?
This is one reason I've been really interested in unique post-doc opportunities, programs that are meant to get you more than just another 4 years of experience on the bench. Which brings me back to public health- since I am coming to a realization that I would like to apply my science, really help people in real time, public health keeps coming up. But I don't know anything about epidemiology, or statistics, or ... those other public health things you should know... Which is why the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program seems like such a great opportunity. For the first year, fellows get their Masters in Public Health (MPH) and then they spend a couple years doing research related to cancer prevention with a mentor either at NCI or the FDA. This is one of the transition programs to get a permanent FDA job, as mentioned before.
A few specifics- there is a yearly application cycle for this program. Applications this year are due August 25, and fellows start in June. There are a lot of preceptors (research advisers), hopefully there is something to fit everyone's interests- although most of these looks like they are in DC. Any Irish citizens out there? There is a special application process for you to work at the Northern Ireland NCI.
There may be other programs in non-cancer fields that give you the chance to get an MPH and try out public health research , if you see these, please send them this way! And heck yes, I am applying for this one.
This is one reason I've been really interested in unique post-doc opportunities, programs that are meant to get you more than just another 4 years of experience on the bench. Which brings me back to public health- since I am coming to a realization that I would like to apply my science, really help people in real time, public health keeps coming up. But I don't know anything about epidemiology, or statistics, or ... those other public health things you should know... Which is why the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program seems like such a great opportunity. For the first year, fellows get their Masters in Public Health (MPH) and then they spend a couple years doing research related to cancer prevention with a mentor either at NCI or the FDA. This is one of the transition programs to get a permanent FDA job, as mentioned before.
A few specifics- there is a yearly application cycle for this program. Applications this year are due August 25, and fellows start in June. There are a lot of preceptors (research advisers), hopefully there is something to fit everyone's interests- although most of these looks like they are in DC. Any Irish citizens out there? There is a special application process for you to work at the Northern Ireland NCI.
There may be other programs in non-cancer fields that give you the chance to get an MPH and try out public health research , if you see these, please send them this way! And heck yes, I am applying for this one.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Start your job search early
People had told me to start looking for my next job 6-12 months in advance. I had several thoughts on this:
1) What if I get a job, and then have to tell them I want to start in another 12 months?
2) It's kinda hard to find much motivation for the job hunt when you aren't sure if you are really graduating.
3) Is it really going to be that bad? What will keep me busy for a YEAR?
With the benefit of experience, I wish I could reach back and respond to each:
1) You should be so lucky. If they want you, they'll wait. And if they can't wait, you can find another job you are that well qualified for. I applied for a job that I didn't get a call back about until SIX MONTHs later. The job you apply for on the first day of hunting might just take 12 months to get their funding in order. Especially if you are looking for a post-doc.
2) It's even harder to find the motivation to look for a job while writing your dissertation. You might not have a date yet, but if your boss is dropping hints about graduating (stops making reference to your attending the next 5 annual retreats, starts mentioning which PIs would be good mentors, stops writing grants for your project...), start the process. Even if you are off by a few months, you'll be glad you've put the time in. Because...
3) Grad student-self, you are way less prepared than you think, and this process will take way more time than you imagined. Oh sure, my CV was up to date when I first applied for a job. But the second job wanted a resume. And my first cover letter was awful : "To whom it may concern, let me summarize the contents of my CV, and evade my motivations for applying here..." I still am working on how to pitch myself in interviews or job fairs to prompt potential employers to see me succeeding in the positions they have open. But more than that, I still don't know what I am looking for. Reading job descriptions got me thinking about jobs I could or couldn't do, and made me realize that when we say "industry job" that's about as specific as "University degree." This has helped me to realize that while I want off the bench in the long term, I would like to try some applied R&D, in drug development or even clinical trials. It got me thinking about how to use my interest in writing, and even how many "industries" are out there. Sure, BigPharma and Biotech spring to mind, but biofuels, bioremediation, food science, regulatory science, medical devices and science publishing are all venues that need Ph.D.s in biology, and that I'd really never thought of until I started looking. It doesn't have to take a year to find a job, but if you are looking for a job you want, you need the flexibility to be more discerning.
Sure, you might get the first job you apply for, but it may take them half a year to get back to you. It's hard to get focused on the search unless you have a firm date, but really I should have started looking at job boards earlier- like maybe when I was applying to grad school. Seriously, if I had figured out what job I wanted after I had my degree, I might have tailored my education to get it.
1) What if I get a job, and then have to tell them I want to start in another 12 months?
2) It's kinda hard to find much motivation for the job hunt when you aren't sure if you are really graduating.
3) Is it really going to be that bad? What will keep me busy for a YEAR?
With the benefit of experience, I wish I could reach back and respond to each:
1) You should be so lucky. If they want you, they'll wait. And if they can't wait, you can find another job you are that well qualified for. I applied for a job that I didn't get a call back about until SIX MONTHs later. The job you apply for on the first day of hunting might just take 12 months to get their funding in order. Especially if you are looking for a post-doc.
2) It's even harder to find the motivation to look for a job while writing your dissertation. You might not have a date yet, but if your boss is dropping hints about graduating (stops making reference to your attending the next 5 annual retreats, starts mentioning which PIs would be good mentors, stops writing grants for your project...), start the process. Even if you are off by a few months, you'll be glad you've put the time in. Because...
3) Grad student-self, you are way less prepared than you think, and this process will take way more time than you imagined. Oh sure, my CV was up to date when I first applied for a job. But the second job wanted a resume. And my first cover letter was awful : "To whom it may concern, let me summarize the contents of my CV, and evade my motivations for applying here..." I still am working on how to pitch myself in interviews or job fairs to prompt potential employers to see me succeeding in the positions they have open. But more than that, I still don't know what I am looking for. Reading job descriptions got me thinking about jobs I could or couldn't do, and made me realize that when we say "industry job" that's about as specific as "University degree." This has helped me to realize that while I want off the bench in the long term, I would like to try some applied R&D, in drug development or even clinical trials. It got me thinking about how to use my interest in writing, and even how many "industries" are out there. Sure, BigPharma and Biotech spring to mind, but biofuels, bioremediation, food science, regulatory science, medical devices and science publishing are all venues that need Ph.D.s in biology, and that I'd really never thought of until I started looking. It doesn't have to take a year to find a job, but if you are looking for a job you want, you need the flexibility to be more discerning.
Sure, you might get the first job you apply for, but it may take them half a year to get back to you. It's hard to get focused on the search unless you have a firm date, but really I should have started looking at job boards earlier- like maybe when I was applying to grad school. Seriously, if I had figured out what job I wanted after I had my degree, I might have tailored my education to get it.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Interview with a AAAS Policy Fellow
Here is a hook: 95% of the NIH budget goes to fund science, either in the form of grants, awards and fellowships or equipment. The other 5% fund those that administer, facilitate, manage and advocate for the first 95% of the budget.
I had the opportunity to interview a former AAAS Fellow and current Legislative Liaison, and I must say- I'm smitten. The whole career path seems so compelling, it's exciting, dynamic and frankly very important, and if you can position yourself well this should be manageable transition.
So let's dive in: The American Association for the Advancement of Science has designed a competitive and prestigious fellowship program for Ph.D. scientists at any age/career stage to gain experience in policy. Fellows select one of the hosting agencies for their experience, and are provided with training and support for the duration. This is a 1-2 year experience, and provides a stipend on par with a GS12 level government job (depending on host agency. This is between $55,000 and $85,000/year). Many fellows use their experience and connections to find a permanent position in science policy, so this is a great way to transition from the bench to the Hill (or the NIH, or just check out the list of hosting agencies).
Anytime I have mentioned my interest in science policy, people suggest the AAAS fellowship. There is lots of information available on the website about this program, which you should explore. In my interview, it became quite clear that there is a lot of flexibility for a proactive fellow to create the experience they need during their fellowship time. But I've read through the requirements before and felt really outclassed. I was assured that a strong applicant is not someone who already had know-how and influence in policy; these people have an MPP and don't need more training. Rather, a strong applicant is someone who can demonstrate a desire and competency to be a good citizen to science and willingness to be involved in the aspects of science that take place outside the lab. Think about ways you can demonstrate if not an actual aptitude yet, but an understanding for the value of communication, management, education or facilitation skills. It's less important that you remember high school civics than you understand why scientists should take a role in science policy. For example, our fellow had some interaction with his university's Federal Relations Department, who basically act as lobbyists for the university on a federal level, which is what got him interesting in acting at the interface of science and the public. That covers what you might already know about the AAAS Fellows.
I also wanted to talk a little more about the position of Legislative Liaison. I first heard about this type of job during my interview with the PMF. Each of the Institutes of the NIH have people who bridge the science with the politicians who fund it. His role as a Liaison is to serve as the contact for legislative offices, to monitor and respond to legislative requests and to monitor and report the progress of the intramural funding of his Institute. He felt he was very involved in science, and he really enjoyed his position as an advocate and facilitator of that science. This requires a lot of communication, and depending on the institute, a breadth of expertise. In principle, a person can apply directly to this type of position, but if you are a grad student/post-doc, you might find it hard to demonstrate the ability to facilitate and manage programs. That said, if you are excited about a position, apply anyway. I will be.
I had the opportunity to interview a former AAAS Fellow and current Legislative Liaison, and I must say- I'm smitten. The whole career path seems so compelling, it's exciting, dynamic and frankly very important, and if you can position yourself well this should be manageable transition.
So let's dive in: The American Association for the Advancement of Science has designed a competitive and prestigious fellowship program for Ph.D. scientists at any age/career stage to gain experience in policy. Fellows select one of the hosting agencies for their experience, and are provided with training and support for the duration. This is a 1-2 year experience, and provides a stipend on par with a GS12 level government job (depending on host agency. This is between $55,000 and $85,000/year). Many fellows use their experience and connections to find a permanent position in science policy, so this is a great way to transition from the bench to the Hill (or the NIH, or just check out the list of hosting agencies).
Anytime I have mentioned my interest in science policy, people suggest the AAAS fellowship. There is lots of information available on the website about this program, which you should explore. In my interview, it became quite clear that there is a lot of flexibility for a proactive fellow to create the experience they need during their fellowship time. But I've read through the requirements before and felt really outclassed. I was assured that a strong applicant is not someone who already had know-how and influence in policy; these people have an MPP and don't need more training. Rather, a strong applicant is someone who can demonstrate a desire and competency to be a good citizen to science and willingness to be involved in the aspects of science that take place outside the lab. Think about ways you can demonstrate if not an actual aptitude yet, but an understanding for the value of communication, management, education or facilitation skills. It's less important that you remember high school civics than you understand why scientists should take a role in science policy. For example, our fellow had some interaction with his university's Federal Relations Department, who basically act as lobbyists for the university on a federal level, which is what got him interesting in acting at the interface of science and the public. That covers what you might already know about the AAAS Fellows.
I also wanted to talk a little more about the position of Legislative Liaison. I first heard about this type of job during my interview with the PMF. Each of the Institutes of the NIH have people who bridge the science with the politicians who fund it. His role as a Liaison is to serve as the contact for legislative offices, to monitor and respond to legislative requests and to monitor and report the progress of the intramural funding of his Institute. He felt he was very involved in science, and he really enjoyed his position as an advocate and facilitator of that science. This requires a lot of communication, and depending on the institute, a breadth of expertise. In principle, a person can apply directly to this type of position, but if you are a grad student/post-doc, you might find it hard to demonstrate the ability to facilitate and manage programs. That said, if you are excited about a position, apply anyway. I will be.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Don't forget the National Labratories!
Right now, I am taking my career search three directions:
1) I'd like to get a job in industry, probably drug discovery or development. But that is hard to do without any previous work experience.
2) I'm looking at jobs in Public Health Labs, because it would give me work experience, and exposure to the world of public health- which might tickle my fancy if I knew more about it.
3) I'm looking for a post-doc/fellowship to facilitate doing one of the above.
Why the three-pronged approach? I have no idea which of these I am capable of succeed at, so I am testing them all in parallel, as we like to say. Today, I want to focus a little more on option 3- post-docing, namely, cool places to do yours.
As I've alluded to, I am really interested in virology and infectious diseases, so I was looking for places that might give me opportunities to develop the skills to break into track 1 or 2 at some point. People often suggest the NIH or NSF as great places to develop your scientific track record, which I always pictured this as WA DC, naively forgetting about the National Labs. Namely, Rocky Mountain Labs and Oak Ridge National Labs are both places with a strong history of success in bio research. Rocky Mountain Labs houses one of the few Biosafety Level 4 labs in the country, so if you want to work on pathogens as scary as Ebola- that's the place to be! And Oak Ridge has a long history of working on bio-things, that isn't the major area of focus there now, but look around their website. There are occasionally FDA postings there, too. Both of these locations are intramurally funded, like working at the NIH, but are in less urban environments (Montana or Tennessee). There may be other labs, but these are both places I've seen postings recently. To me, this seems ideal, you can take advantage of the re$ource$ available to intramural labs, without having to put up with the busy city that sprang up around the thousands of researchers in Bethesda.
That being said, I am still a big proponent of figuring out what you need to learn/accomplish during your post-doc before you find labs that are interesting. The post-doc is supposed to be a stepping stone to other career opportunities, right? But do you have other thoughts on interesting places to do a post-doc?
1) I'd like to get a job in industry, probably drug discovery or development. But that is hard to do without any previous work experience.
2) I'm looking at jobs in Public Health Labs, because it would give me work experience, and exposure to the world of public health- which might tickle my fancy if I knew more about it.
3) I'm looking for a post-doc/fellowship to facilitate doing one of the above.
Why the three-pronged approach? I have no idea which of these I am capable of succeed at, so I am testing them all in parallel, as we like to say. Today, I want to focus a little more on option 3- post-docing, namely, cool places to do yours.
As I've alluded to, I am really interested in virology and infectious diseases, so I was looking for places that might give me opportunities to develop the skills to break into track 1 or 2 at some point. People often suggest the NIH or NSF as great places to develop your scientific track record, which I always pictured this as WA DC, naively forgetting about the National Labs. Namely, Rocky Mountain Labs and Oak Ridge National Labs are both places with a strong history of success in bio research. Rocky Mountain Labs houses one of the few Biosafety Level 4 labs in the country, so if you want to work on pathogens as scary as Ebola- that's the place to be! And Oak Ridge has a long history of working on bio-things, that isn't the major area of focus there now, but look around their website. There are occasionally FDA postings there, too. Both of these locations are intramurally funded, like working at the NIH, but are in less urban environments (Montana or Tennessee). There may be other labs, but these are both places I've seen postings recently. To me, this seems ideal, you can take advantage of the re$ource$ available to intramural labs, without having to put up with the busy city that sprang up around the thousands of researchers in Bethesda.
That being said, I am still a big proponent of figuring out what you need to learn/accomplish during your post-doc before you find labs that are interesting. The post-doc is supposed to be a stepping stone to other career opportunities, right? But do you have other thoughts on interesting places to do a post-doc?
Monday, July 25, 2011
Jobs at the FDA- Interview with a PI
When you start getting advice about where to do a post-doc, most faculty members will tell you, "Do the best post-doc you can with the best mentor." This is very sound advice, but I haven't yet found it actually helpful. There are lots of kinds of post-docs out there, and as someone who is currently looking for more specific experience in a post-doc, I need more guidance. So I keep doing what has proved to be so helpful in my career/job hunt: I keep asking people.
One of the people I has a chance to sit down with is and FDA PI that I met at a scientific meeting. He had an abstract in the meeting book, but when I suggested his job must be a lot like working at the NIH ("C'mon, you get intramural funding, right?"), he gave me a look reserved for the naive and offered to explain it to me.
Yes, as a PI, he runs a lab with scientists who work on projects and publish in peer reviewer journals, and yes, they are funded intramurally. As an FDA scientist, his research tends to be on important issues of public interest that either aren't high impact or narrative driven enough to be performed by either academic or industry scientists. For example, recently, he tested whether the naked DNA in vaccines can be incorporated into cells, and whether this was a risk factor for transformation. He holds his lab to a similar standard as other high functioning labs, they publish about 1 paper/person/year, (although he says it might be hard to move to a faculty position afterwards because there isn't usually a defined project to take with you).
But, that is just a portion of what he does, his other major role at the FDA is to be the guy on study sections where the data from clinical trials is weighed for FDA approval. Companies think they've found a miracle drug, collect a decade or so of data, and then the whole giant pile (imagine him, holding his hand a meter off the ground to demonstrate) gets sent for review to people like him. They read through it, both to make sure that all of the appropriate experiments have been done and regulations met (and he will ask for more if something is missing) and to think very critically about the science. Much like being a program officer, the FDA trusts that the best reviews come from someone who is actively doing research (although there are also people who do full time review with no bench component). This is a severe peer review, and because the stakes are so high, he is really passionate about the role he serves in this important but bureaucratic process. And, he told me, they need more people in these roles- if you post-doc at the FDA, you get some training in how to read these types of documents and make recommendations- the regulatory science aspect. As PIs tend to do, he made it seem straight-forward to transition from a post-doc to a staff scientist position that would have a regular commitment to the regulatory aspect of the job. He likes the dual nature of his job, he goes to both science meetings (where I met him) and regulatory science conferences, and sends people in his lab to both as well.
How can you pursue this type of job? If you want to enter as a post-doc, the usual post-doc route is open to you. Investigate the PI of interest, send them a letter and start a dialogue. It probably would help for you to be clear about your interest in learning about regulatory review. I've just run across this fellowship program for research/review training in oncology, there may be others like it for different broad fields. This particular program is for those with 3 years of post-doc experience, and the fellowship program suggests you will "develop skills of value to academia, the pharmaceutical industry, and government agencies." And this was his main complaint (although you should see it as an opportunity), the people who get trained to read these documents at government wages tend to get lured away to write them at drug company wages.
Here is a list of the many FDA opportunities, for everyone from current students to research faculty. I'll point out that a lot of these positions are in Washington DC, but there are some at the Oak Ridge National Labs, and I've seen various FDA jobs pop up all over the country on USAJobs (particularly inspectors).
One of the people I has a chance to sit down with is and FDA PI that I met at a scientific meeting. He had an abstract in the meeting book, but when I suggested his job must be a lot like working at the NIH ("C'mon, you get intramural funding, right?"), he gave me a look reserved for the naive and offered to explain it to me.
Yes, as a PI, he runs a lab with scientists who work on projects and publish in peer reviewer journals, and yes, they are funded intramurally. As an FDA scientist, his research tends to be on important issues of public interest that either aren't high impact or narrative driven enough to be performed by either academic or industry scientists. For example, recently, he tested whether the naked DNA in vaccines can be incorporated into cells, and whether this was a risk factor for transformation. He holds his lab to a similar standard as other high functioning labs, they publish about 1 paper/person/year, (although he says it might be hard to move to a faculty position afterwards because there isn't usually a defined project to take with you).
But, that is just a portion of what he does, his other major role at the FDA is to be the guy on study sections where the data from clinical trials is weighed for FDA approval. Companies think they've found a miracle drug, collect a decade or so of data, and then the whole giant pile (imagine him, holding his hand a meter off the ground to demonstrate) gets sent for review to people like him. They read through it, both to make sure that all of the appropriate experiments have been done and regulations met (and he will ask for more if something is missing) and to think very critically about the science. Much like being a program officer, the FDA trusts that the best reviews come from someone who is actively doing research (although there are also people who do full time review with no bench component). This is a severe peer review, and because the stakes are so high, he is really passionate about the role he serves in this important but bureaucratic process. And, he told me, they need more people in these roles- if you post-doc at the FDA, you get some training in how to read these types of documents and make recommendations- the regulatory science aspect. As PIs tend to do, he made it seem straight-forward to transition from a post-doc to a staff scientist position that would have a regular commitment to the regulatory aspect of the job. He likes the dual nature of his job, he goes to both science meetings (where I met him) and regulatory science conferences, and sends people in his lab to both as well.
How can you pursue this type of job? If you want to enter as a post-doc, the usual post-doc route is open to you. Investigate the PI of interest, send them a letter and start a dialogue. It probably would help for you to be clear about your interest in learning about regulatory review. I've just run across this fellowship program for research/review training in oncology, there may be others like it for different broad fields. This particular program is for those with 3 years of post-doc experience, and the fellowship program suggests you will "develop skills of value to academia, the pharmaceutical industry, and government agencies." And this was his main complaint (although you should see it as an opportunity), the people who get trained to read these documents at government wages tend to get lured away to write them at drug company wages.
Here is a list of the many FDA opportunities, for everyone from current students to research faculty. I'll point out that a lot of these positions are in Washington DC, but there are some at the Oak Ridge National Labs, and I've seen various FDA jobs pop up all over the country on USAJobs (particularly inspectors).
Friday, July 22, 2011
Experiment 2: Could I be a deputy director?
One of the venues that comes up while looking for government jobs in science is Public Health. I run across postings that look interesting but are ultimately frustrating, such as Health Scientists or Public Health Microbiologists. These sound like fairly heroic jobs. Diagnose and track diseases of public health interest; these are definitely the scientists who will be called into to detect the zombie outbreak, and they are certainly responsible for tracking seasonal flu migrations. Or so I imagine: despite the fact that I am fairly sure I can run the routine diagnostics (PCR and ELISA) that these jobs call for, I don't qualify. These want some type of Public Health Microbiologist Certificate. Although I was starting to wonder who was filling up these jobs if not people with degrees in microbiology, this seemed like something people with Public Health degrees might be equipped for.
I didn't pursue that at all until this week, when one of these jobs came up somewhere I would really like to live. So I screwed up my courage, made some calls and got a sent a job announcement for a Director of the Public Health Virology Lab. Now, I know having a Ph.D. earns you a certain respect in some sectors, particularly the Family Member sector. But just because my own mother believes I am certified as smart doesn't mean any self respecting Actual Public Health expert is going to look twice at my CV. Let's be serious, I am not even sure I know what Public Health means!
Being sent a job announcement is many steps away from a firm offer, but I couldn't pry myself away from this one. This job sounds compelling, exciting and heroic in a way I'd forgotten science jobs could be! Among other things, the director is in charge of "overall budgetary and program planning, establishing goals for the State Lab, providing consultation in clinical and medical virology, preparing in-depth reports, position papers, research studies and testimony before special or regular legislative committees, and providing consultation visits." To me (and I can feel my mentors rolling their eyes in horror), this is such a spectacular job that would keep me intimately involved in Science, while allowing me to facilitate other peoples understanding of science, and all in the important context of the well being of the public. I love this job! Could I possibly do it? Can you really go straight from Recent Graduate to Lab Director?
Actually, both the Vice Chancellor of Research and the State Director of Public Health were very happy to talk to me about this position (Lesson learned, just make a quick phone call), and everything seemed fairly promising if I could just pass the Lab Director Certification. The certification for this job (and similar Public Health positions) are Board certifications, not additional degrees. Not unlike the "Boards" that instill so much fear in training Medical Doctors, there is a governing body that sets a standard for the field, which in most cases includes a combination of experience and passing an exam. The governing body for each agency sets the standard, and lest you think that you cannot meet this standard without more training, I would encourage you to check out the specific requirements for each job.
For this particular job, I would need to pass the High Complexity Lab Director Boards- Try the American Board of Bioanalysts for details. In addition to the exam, it requires 2-4 years of Clinical Experience (working with humans or human tissues), and an advanced degree. Some states have their own institutions for certifications, I suggest you look at the State Department of Public Health for more information.
This in and of itself is not that mind blowing. Its a job hunter's catch-22, how do I get certified for a job that requires experience in the job to get the certification? What blew my mind was this: to work at the state public health lab, you need to be certified at the end of your one year probationary period. That's right, you can get one year of experience, and THEN take your certification exam. This may not be news to other people who have had jobs before, but it really made me feel like there were a lot more opportunities for me out there- not just ones that require certifications. Of course I won't be perfect for the job on the first day, but I can absolutely apply for jobs I know I could GET good at in short order. I found it quite liberating, even though I don't quite qualify for this dream job yet.
I didn't pursue that at all until this week, when one of these jobs came up somewhere I would really like to live. So I screwed up my courage, made some calls and got a sent a job announcement for a Director of the Public Health Virology Lab. Now, I know having a Ph.D. earns you a certain respect in some sectors, particularly the Family Member sector. But just because my own mother believes I am certified as smart doesn't mean any self respecting Actual Public Health expert is going to look twice at my CV. Let's be serious, I am not even sure I know what Public Health means!
Being sent a job announcement is many steps away from a firm offer, but I couldn't pry myself away from this one. This job sounds compelling, exciting and heroic in a way I'd forgotten science jobs could be! Among other things, the director is in charge of "overall budgetary and program planning, establishing goals for the State Lab, providing consultation in clinical and medical virology, preparing in-depth reports, position papers, research studies and testimony before special or regular legislative committees, and providing consultation visits." To me (and I can feel my mentors rolling their eyes in horror), this is such a spectacular job that would keep me intimately involved in Science, while allowing me to facilitate other peoples understanding of science, and all in the important context of the well being of the public. I love this job! Could I possibly do it? Can you really go straight from Recent Graduate to Lab Director?
Actually, both the Vice Chancellor of Research and the State Director of Public Health were very happy to talk to me about this position (Lesson learned, just make a quick phone call), and everything seemed fairly promising if I could just pass the Lab Director Certification. The certification for this job (and similar Public Health positions) are Board certifications, not additional degrees. Not unlike the "Boards" that instill so much fear in training Medical Doctors, there is a governing body that sets a standard for the field, which in most cases includes a combination of experience and passing an exam. The governing body for each agency sets the standard, and lest you think that you cannot meet this standard without more training, I would encourage you to check out the specific requirements for each job.
For this particular job, I would need to pass the High Complexity Lab Director Boards- Try the American Board of Bioanalysts for details. In addition to the exam, it requires 2-4 years of Clinical Experience (working with humans or human tissues), and an advanced degree. Some states have their own institutions for certifications, I suggest you look at the State Department of Public Health for more information.
This in and of itself is not that mind blowing. Its a job hunter's catch-22, how do I get certified for a job that requires experience in the job to get the certification? What blew my mind was this: to work at the state public health lab, you need to be certified at the end of your one year probationary period. That's right, you can get one year of experience, and THEN take your certification exam. This may not be news to other people who have had jobs before, but it really made me feel like there were a lot more opportunities for me out there- not just ones that require certifications. Of course I won't be perfect for the job on the first day, but I can absolutely apply for jobs I know I could GET good at in short order. I found it quite liberating, even though I don't quite qualify for this dream job yet.
Jobs at NIH- Interview with a Presidental Management Fellow
This week I had a very informative informational interview with a Presidential Management Fellow (PMF). The PMF program was designed to encourage graduate students from many disciplines to develop leadership potential, specifically in government. This is a fantastic oppurtunity to rotate through a variety of experiences in government agencies. If you are interested in this program, you should know that this fellowship has an academic timeline, and that you MUST start the process while still a graduate student. Which is why I'm not going to say anything else about the fellowship, I'm not eligible, and that isn't what we talked about.
What we did talk about were non-bench positions for scientists at the NIH. In the past, when I have mentioned that I am interested in science policy, my well-intentioned mentors always put me in touch with their Program Officer (PO). If you don't have a trusted working relationship with your PO, you may be missing out- this is the person who receives your grant after submission, finds reviewers, and a study section and ultimately recommends it for funding. This person is also inevitably a former tenured professor who has the credibility and experience to deal with the diversity of challenges at this job. This is a really interesting way to be involved with shaping research in this country, but I am rather more interested in a job I could get this decade, so PO has been off my list for a long time. (I am exaggerating- not all NIH Institutes require POs to be tenured faculty.) Also, this is more of a policy implementation position- funding objectives are already set and these blessed souls are responsible for finding some way to meet those objectives.
Perhaps now is a good time to mention my motivations for looking at policy at all. I have the impression that Science should be used for good, and that the tax payers who have funded the ~$250,000 investment in my training deserve some return on that investment. Further, I feel strongly that a strong nation must build policy based on credible science, and that not every politician may be in a position to understand that Science. I see a real need for scientists to get involved in policy development, both as Science for policy and policy for Science.
I had heard that this particular contact was also a Ph.D. in biology and planned to stay at the NIH after the fellowship. In fact, she told me that there were many jobs, policy or otherwise, at the NIH that could be filled by someone without post-doc experience. Specifically, each of the 27 NIH institutes has some type of office for Policy, Communication and/or Program Planning. This office is full of people with job titles like Legislative Liaison or Policy Analyst, who can be involved in policy development. As a recent graduate with minimal other experience, I should keep an eye out for jobs in the GS-11 or possible GS-12 grade. As expected, these jobs are always posted at USAJobs.
She also recommended that a common way scientists end up in policy is through one of the fellowship programs designed to help with the transition (such as the PMF). The most common is the AAAS fellowship, but she sent me this link to a host of others. These are all quite competitive, and strong applicants have some demonstrated interest in policy or evidence of leadership skills.
What we did talk about were non-bench positions for scientists at the NIH. In the past, when I have mentioned that I am interested in science policy, my well-intentioned mentors always put me in touch with their Program Officer (PO). If you don't have a trusted working relationship with your PO, you may be missing out- this is the person who receives your grant after submission, finds reviewers, and a study section and ultimately recommends it for funding. This person is also inevitably a former tenured professor who has the credibility and experience to deal with the diversity of challenges at this job. This is a really interesting way to be involved with shaping research in this country, but I am rather more interested in a job I could get this decade, so PO has been off my list for a long time. (I am exaggerating- not all NIH Institutes require POs to be tenured faculty.) Also, this is more of a policy implementation position- funding objectives are already set and these blessed souls are responsible for finding some way to meet those objectives.
Perhaps now is a good time to mention my motivations for looking at policy at all. I have the impression that Science should be used for good, and that the tax payers who have funded the ~$250,000 investment in my training deserve some return on that investment. Further, I feel strongly that a strong nation must build policy based on credible science, and that not every politician may be in a position to understand that Science. I see a real need for scientists to get involved in policy development, both as Science for policy and policy for Science.
I had heard that this particular contact was also a Ph.D. in biology and planned to stay at the NIH after the fellowship. In fact, she told me that there were many jobs, policy or otherwise, at the NIH that could be filled by someone without post-doc experience. Specifically, each of the 27 NIH institutes has some type of office for Policy, Communication and/or Program Planning. This office is full of people with job titles like Legislative Liaison or Policy Analyst, who can be involved in policy development. As a recent graduate with minimal other experience, I should keep an eye out for jobs in the GS-11 or possible GS-12 grade. As expected, these jobs are always posted at USAJobs.
She also recommended that a common way scientists end up in policy is through one of the fellowship programs designed to help with the transition (such as the PMF). The most common is the AAAS fellowship, but she sent me this link to a host of others. These are all quite competitive, and strong applicants have some demonstrated interest in policy or evidence of leadership skills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)