DARPA Post-doc?

I got offered a position as a post-doc working with one of my scientific mentors.  It's kinda a weird situation (aside from the fact that it is now across the country from where I live), because it is a DARPA funded project.  I don't know much about DARPA projects, except what he told me and this mostly lead to more questions.

For example, this grant is part of a big push right now at DARPA, but priorities change pretty quickly there.  This is why DARPA only provides funding for 6 months at a time.  In principle, the project is kinda earmarked to go for a couple years, but every 6 months that gets reassessed. Move across the country (again) for a job that might only be a couple months?  The reason he suggested this to me, aside from knowing it wasn't my long term plan to be tied to Pittsburgh, was the funding agency is very involved in the research.  The PIs are meant to meet/conference call with the Head of DARPA every month during funding- which might be a cool way to make some connections, right?  And, while this part freaked him out, I thought it was awesome: if there is a national emergency that requires cell biologist expertise, DARPA can insist you stop your research and instead perform work to address the new national priority.  I figure this isn't something they do often, and by the time there is a pandemic, I would feel much better doing work to find a cure then continuing on the basic science track.

So... I probably won't take this job back in my old department due to the aforementioned two-body problem. But... it does raise an interesting question, how much does DARPA pay it's post-docs?  DoD has deeper pockets than NIH or NSF without a doubt, but is the pay scale quite different? So far, I haven't been able to find any info on that, so let me know if this is something you've heard of.  If I get a straight answer from the guy who offered me the job, I promise I'll share.

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.

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.

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).