Why do I want to be a Medical Writer?

One of the email lists I've been subscribed to for a long time is the Hitt List, a listing of open positions for medical writers across the country.  It's been interesting to see the types of roles that qualify as medical writers, everything from writing CMEs to filing regulatory documents.  It's intimidating, because some of this I clearly something have no business doing, but there is a lot out there that I could do with a little guidance.  I've had the pleasure of speaking with some medical writers, and frankly the position appeals a lot.  You write documents, based on other peoples work.  Sometimes this is copy editing, sometimes this is pulling together bits of other documents into forms, sometimes this is working from raw figures.  The deadlines are often short (days to months) (which I've decided I like much better than very long deadlines, where you can be haunted by your early, naive choices), and the specific work environment can be incredibly flexible.  People do this anywhere from freelance to part time to full time.  And did I mention that it is well paid?

Great, there is some magical job out there that I am still not qualified to get.  I've joined AMWA and try to keep an eye on the listservs, but that hasn't yet helped me figure out how to "be a medical writer."  However, Emma Hitt (of the Hitt list) offers a 6 week course to get people (PhDs and MDs) up to speed on starting this freelance career. I'm working on my application right now.  The part that is hard is trying to explain why I want to go into medical writing.  Clearly, it is a good career path that would take advantage of my education.  It would challenge me to keep up with trends in my field, and I really enjoy writing so this seems like a good fit.  I applied for the course, and was accepted.  Interestingly, this is about to conflict with some other opportunities, so now I need to start making some of those choices about what I want to do with my life.  More on that later.

Vignettes from my semi professional life

Thanks to everyone who has been so supportive after my last post, it really means a lot. It can be a little hard to explain the ups and downs of my life as a job hunter/contractor. I do still feel quite lost, but I am trying to enjoy the journey. Today felt like one of those significant days on the journey.  I'm not sure how to respond to any of it, so I will just throw it out there.

Some things that happened today:

I woke up early to finish part of a writing contract.  Have I mentioned I am really digging my current instructional design contract?  I promise to write more on that later, but yeah, it's going really well.

I was at the Hutch to interview a scientist about her job in academic administration.  Very cool job, and she is a very interesting lady.  I will be writing that up for the Seattle AWIS newsletter- I promise to link to that later.

While entering the Hutch, I was passed by a professorially looking type.  While I was filling out the visitor info, I noticed he approached a group of people centered around a young woman who was OmiGushing that she was soexcited, and sohappy, and so couldn't believe this was happening.  I figured she must have defended or something.  I wasn't paying too much attention until one of the photographers turned and said, "We'd love to get a picture of the two of you by your Nobel Prize."  Why hello, Dr. Hartwell.

After the interview, I agreed to meet a contact for lunch in South Lake Union- this is the part of Seattle where most of the biotech and research institutes are centered, and it sits right on the lake.  I was stunned to find myself sitting in a much too nice restaurant overlooking a marina and watching the float planes.  This was a "what am I doing here?" moment.  Turns out, this guy wanted my advice (MY advice) on this STEM program he is thinking about, and how it should be developed and what are the needs there.  And he bought me that fancy lunch for the privilege of my opinion.  Someone was schmoozing me!

I'm submitting an invoice for the most money I have ever made in a single two week period in my entire life.  That's right, my time and effort are valuable. 

As I said, it feels like a lot has happened.  I learned about a whole new avenue for careers, I've decided I'm actually really loving my current line of work, I miss being starstruck by famous nerds, and somehow, despite spending all week at home in my PJs, people find my opinions and my work valuable.  Huh.

Perks of working from home

There are parts of all jobs that suck.  I think finding a job where the parts that do suck are manageable is really important to finding career happiness.  For me, part of that is recognizing the parts that don't suck.  I don't love working from home- spending so much time with my cat makes me feel like a crazy cat lady.  But taking editing contracts for foreign scientists and writing curricula from home are the jobs I keep getting. I used to have really fun coworkers and went to work in a very interesting neighborhood and I'd like to have all that again (but get paid more to work less).  Until that job comes to my door, there are some really great things about working from home.

1) I set my own hours.  Even working on an hourly contract, I just put the hours in where they fit for me.  Today is too beautiful and I gotta take a long walk?  Fine.  My sweetie is gone for the evening, I'll put some hours in.
2) No commute.  I quickly realized that my 20 hr a week bank job takes at least 25 hours of my week, including a 30 min drive on both ends.  No commute give me that time back for whatever I feel like.
3) No dress code.  Yeah, I am one of those freelancers that works in my PJs.  At least until I feel like a mid-morning shower.  For the bank job, it takes me almost an hour to go through the ritual of showering, and putting on make-up, and getting dressed, and packing a lunch.... Add another 5 hours a week to that 20 hour a week job.
4) No workplace drama.  Yes, I miss my coworkers, in no small part because it's good to have a cohort you can share those stressful experiences with.  Can you believe the department chair did that?  Who took the last of the free seminar food? As another off-site worker told me, "There is no one at the office that I don't like."
5) I set the play list.  My old lab had the best taste in music, don't get me wrong.  But sometimes when we would turn the music up too loud the department chair would just turn off our radio.  As I was blasting some sweet tunes this morning, I was relishing that no one was going to turn them off for me.
6) Contracts are low commitment.  All that phobia about what might suck about a job (terrible coworkers, awful work, tedious tasks) seems more manageable when it's only for a few days or a few weeks.  It also means I've done a lot of different things in the last year.
7) All I need to work is an internet connection.  I could work from Starbucks, or the library.  I'm currently planning to go to my parent's house for a week and work there.  My client doesn't care- they just want to see the work done.  (I have mixed feelings about combining working and vacations- it makes work more fun, but it is much less like a vacation when you are looking for 40 hours to get some work done).
8)  I'm at my house.  I don't live in a super trendy neighborhood with fun shops and restaurants, but my office is the same place I cook, it's where my garden is, it's where my mail gets delivered and I sign for packages.  We need to schedule a repair guy, no big.  I want to get some laundry started, cool, I'll take a break.  Especially for a dual career family, it's nice to have someone who is/can be at home.
9) Time worked = Dollars earned.  Science is frustrating because hard work is not always tied to success.  For a pretty simple definition of success (financial reward), I just put in the time and out comes the money.  It's easier to feel detached about doing the work when you get the pay-off that way.
10) I like to talk to editors by email.  I'm not sure if it's because editors make their money from writing, or they understand that our relationship is based predominantly on written communication, but they clearly go out of their way to be polite and professional.  When you see your coworkers/collaborators all the time, it's ok to send brief, unfriendly emails "Here's the figure you wanted."  It's hard to interpret that as passive-aggressive if you just shared a laugh over coffee.  My editors don't have that luxury, and they seem to put a lot of context into their email. ("Great questions," "I appreciate you asking about that...," "Thanks for pointing out those problems.")  I always found it hard to take criticism in person, even though that is a big part of professional work.  "The figure is unintelligible.  Please make it better by doing the following...."  It's a lot easier to write the email that says, "Great, I will incorporate those suggestions," than to try and say it while not pulling a face.
11) My editors understand the challenge of being a contractor.  They treat me like I am doing them a real favor to be on their team, and try to make all the other stuff (getting paid, understanding the task, understanding deadlines and expectations) as clear as possible so that the only hard part of the job is the job itself.  Of course, this just shows I am working with some really great editors right now.
12) I enjoy this work.  At the moment, I don't have any single employer to fill my time, I am compiling most of my work from a variety of sources.  Basically, I get to find projects I like and work on them.  I can't say every one has been as much fun as a pony ride, but I also can't think of any that have been as miserable as a day in the cold room that ended in colossal failure. 
13) Comparatively, I can make a lot of money (compared to doing the same work in grad school).  I make money now for editing scientific manuscripts and designing courses.  These are activities that I actually would have scheduled to do outside of my normal working hours as a grad student.  In fact, the course I designed and taught as a grad students occurred almost exclusively outside the normal work day.  I'm currently editing a 6 page paper for 354RMB (or about $50), and working on a contract with a pay rate of $45/hour.  All this for work I would have done outside of my real work.  Nice!
14) This job doesn't have things I disliked about other jobs.  Examples include brutal protocols that needed to be repeated ad nauseum, and then rehashed in yet another painful lab meeting.  Or irate customers.  Or fickle equipment that is prone to failure.  Actually, I would say that I like how much more of this job is in my control compared to being a grad student or working at the bank.

Yes, I am giving myself a pep-talk about how much fun I'm having at this job, but in the interest of fairness (and for the benefit of others who might be wondering about the lifestyle), there are some fundamental ways that being a contract laborer is different (and arguably less ideal).  The downside:
1) It's all me.  I find my own contracts, I set my own hours, if the work doesn't get done, it's my bad. No pressure.  And when the contracts as short, it's hard not to feel like each on is an interview to see if they consider giving you another. 
2) I'm a LOT more involved in my own taxes.  I have a small business license to cover this work, which means that I pay business taxes.  I also have no withholdings in my paychecks- so what seems like a lot of money now is going to feel like a lot less come April.  I am also buying my own health insurance and retirement plan.
3) Invoicing feels much more tedious than just filling out an hours sheet, or better yet, being salaried.  The form takes a little more time to fill out, but it takes some of my clients 45 days to cut me a check.  That's a big lag between doing work and getting paid.  This is annoying for me, but manageable because I don't provide the primary income at our house.  If I did, I'm not sure I could swing this career step.
This list of perks is still much longer, and looking over them, we can say that I like to be in control of my day to day.  Interesting insight.

Interview: Patent Law

Working at the UWs tech transfer office puts me in touch with a lot of scientists using their training in a non-traditional way.  I work directly with tech managers who have a portfolio of projects that they cycle through the development- moving from an idea, to a funded idea, to a company, or a patent or a license to another company.  This is a very cool job that I might talk about more later, but these tech managers also work in close contact with patent agents and patent lawyers.  In our office, these are all former researchers who've made the leap into law.  I got to sit down with a woman from an engineering background to talk about her move into law and her job now.

When we first sat down, she said, "you know, all you need to become a patent agent is to pass the patent bar, and that's really no big deal.  Seriously, just sign up, study for a couple weeks and take the test, and you can jump into law."  Hold that look of cautious surprise while we back up a bit.  Entering patent law is different than other forms of law- in order to sign up to take the Patent Agent Bar, you need a B.S. at least in a narrow list of technical or scientific fields.  If you have gone to law school following that degree, you can take the Patent Attorney Bar, which is a different exam.  I'm going to focus on the Patent Agent route, since there is no way I am going back to law school now. 

What the patent Agent does is help prepare and file documents related to patents with the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO).  There are several levels of documentation that go in with a patent, depending on that nature of the patent and it's claims.  What this looks like on a day-to-day basis is juggling several projects, each which requires about 8-80 hours of work, and doing anything from prior art searches, provisional patent language to prosecuting (fancy lawyer term meaning "to persue") patents.  Sometimes patents come back from the patent office, and need a response, so you get to advocate for why your client's patent is different that patents 6,923,245.  In order to be effective, you actually need to understand the fundamentals of your patents well enough to distinguish it from other patents/ literature available.  Even though you don't "do" science in the traditional way, you really need to keep your understanding sharp and up to date.

A little more on the career path.  I've heard people say that a Patent Agent is kind of a dead-end job, there isn't room for advancement.  It's probably true that your job title doesn't change much over time, but my contact had a little more perspective on it.  She said that most people start out in a law firm for at least a couple of years.  You work with all the lawyers in that firm and really get experience in the entire life cycle.  She said (and I was stifling a smile here), you really need to develop a tough skin and be prepared to put in long hows.  You'll be doing a lot of work, getting different types of criticism from the partners.  The stakes are high and the deadlines are short, so there is a lot of pressure.  The hours can be long and the intellectual labor is exhausting.  But after a couple years at a law firm, you have enough experience to pursue another position, like her position at the University, or in a USPTO office.  In her position, she manages the law firms that are contracted to do a lot of that work for the tech transfer office.  Or to work part-time, or generally take more control over your career. I'm not sure what the job opportunities for Patent Agents are right now or are predicted to be in the near future.

That said, this doesn't sound all that different from post-docing (or graduate school, she had a B.Sc. in engineering before making the switch).  Except for the pay.  The USPTO reports the average salary for a patent agent is $74500.

Back to the bar then.  It's a 3 hour exam, you can probably take at your nearest testing center.  You need to pass with a 70% score.  The fee to take the exam is a few hundred dollars (which feels like a lot when you are out of work), but could provide some new exciting opportunities.  Or, if you decide you don't like it, it doesn't shackle you to the debt of law school.  For a career that is a dynamic, challenging way you use your training, the barriers to entry don't seem too high. 

Breaking in to Project Management

Sometimes I rely on other's optimism about my job hunt.  I mean, objectively, it isn't heading the direction I want, so it is really great to have someone who knows what they are talking about say, "C'mon, I think you'd be a good fit for this position." 

This was the formerly job hunting friend of mine who hooked me up with some of his great contacts- he suggested that for the right person and project, a Project Management job could be entry level.  I have since learned that there are sometimes "associate PM" positions, but I don't see many listed currently.  He saw a job at an old employer, and put me in touch with someone who knew the role and the hiring manger.  Slam-dunk, right?

Not so much.  The contact at Philips, while very encouraging and empathetic, was pretty clear that for that specific role they needed someone who understood either oral health, or manufacturing... ideally both.  You can double check my LinkedIn profile, but I've got experience in neither.  I was feeling pretty crestfallen, when he said, "You would probably be a better fit for a scientist position" which obviously made me want to explode.  But, instead, I said, "I'd love to work as a scientist, but I don't have the clinical experience that most positions in the area are looking for.  I can't find a role as a scientist, which is why I've been looking at alternative ways to use my education."  He said he knew that Philips would be opening some positions 'soon' (in a couple months) and offered to pass around my CV, which isn't a bad outcome.

I had this phone call, and then went to my first Intro to Project Management class at Bellevue College.  They offer a certificate, and can help people get the coveted PMP certification through PMI.  The PMP certification requires thousands of hours of experience, which means it probably can't help me with my current effort to find a job.  But, I head about another one that might.  Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) requires much less experience (or just two classes, one of which I am taking already) and a certification exam.  There is a knowledge requirement, so it is meaningful, but it is something I could get before the summer- so it might be possible to influence my current job hunt.  This is a certification that isn't for established experts in the field, but does show that you take the PMI methods seriously, and have spent some time in this area of professional development.

I'm thinking about taking the CAPM, it will be nice to have something concrete to show for all this "professional development," but it might be hard to justify the time away from the job hunt.

Interview with a Program Manager

Through AWIS, I was put in touch with a woman who is a Program Manager at Seattle Genetics.  This is an interesting route for a scientist, although you don't have to be one to have this role.  Her background starts with a Ph.D. in human biology (which is somewhat clinical), then a few years as a science adviser at a biotech company (which sounds kinda like an MSL job).  Then she relocated, and needed to start from scratch here in Seattle.  She spent a lot of time networking, joined AWIS and was on the newsletter committee (like me!), and took an Intro to Project Management course at the community college.  

In her role as a program manager, she is supposed to coordinate people, time and money to get things done- like move a drug through trials.  (The difference between a project manager and a program manager is that Program managers have many projects that they manage).  She doesn't do bench work, but she works closely with researchers.  There are teams of PMs at SeaGen, often with a specialist assigned to some of the major functional areas like Regulatory, Clinical, Development or Research.  She said someone like me could enter as an associate PM in Research, but I might have trouble in the other areas (since I don't know much about them). It's common to arrive in a PM position after having some other industry experience, but she didn't think required.  (Sometimes when people say this, however, I think "you mean not essential in general- but it's probably important in this economy.")


Another thing she addressed specifically is PMI certification (Project Management Professional is sometimes shortened as PMP after someone's name).  She said she found her Intro PM class useful to learn some terminology and techniques, but she didn't feel that PMP was essential to do her job.  In fact, she felt that the approach of PMI is very effective in predictable situations like engineering, but in biology things change to quickly.  Not many people who are biopharma PM have that certification, because of the nature of the job.

So... I've signed up to take the Intro to Project Management course at the Community College.  This completes the trifecta of recommendations for long term job hunters.  I've joined a couple professional societies, I volunteer in a professional capacity, and I now I'm taking a class. 

Great news for Medical Scientists, except epidimiologists!

Over at ChemJobber, there has been some interesting discussion about the derth of jobs for chemists, and many perspectives on why chemists are unemployed and what to do about it.  I'm not a chemist, but I identify with the struggle- I was also trained to do something that isn't what industry wants, and am struggling to transition that technical experience into gainful employment.  There is always a certain amount of finger pointing that "kids these days" can't get jobs because we are lazy, or that our professors pulled the wool over our eyes.  What I like about Chemjobber is that he uses numbers whenever possible- and he pointed out a Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs projection report that he pulled data from to show the shrinkage of the chemists job market.  Ouch.

So I went to look.  I used the most recent version of the same report and found some interesting things.  First of all, based on the career categories used by the BLS, I would consider myself a Medical Scientist (who is not an epidemiologist).  My previous work was to research a human disease to improve human health. Directly from the BLS Jan 2012 Monthly Labor Review:


Life, physical, and social science occupations.
Most new jobs:
Medical scientists, except epidemiologists +36,400
Fastest growing (in percent):
Medical scientists, except epidemiologists +36.4
Fastest declining (in percent):
Forest and conservation technicians –1.0
Highest paying:
Political scientists $107,420

BLS predicts and extra 36,000 jobs for Ph.D. or professional degree carrying medical scientists in the next 20 years.  It thinks the median income for these will be above $70K.

At first blush, I was baffled- if 'medical science' is growing why don't I have a job?  First, this are prediction from 2010-2020, so the growth is not over.  But, as I read the report, I realized that what is needed is scientists with clinical experience.  That's basically the missing piece in my job hunt.  I'm not sure what to do about it, but it's refreshing to have some cold hard data to put up next to my experience. 

Another interesting fact was from the table looking at employment by education level.  BLS believes that 3.1% of the country had a Ph.D. or professional degree (MD, JD etc) in 2010, and that 3.2% will in 2020.  The median income for these folks is $87,500/year.  (For reference, the median income across all education levels is $33,000/year.)

Post-doc at a non-for profit

I had a quick meeting/tour at the Institute for Systems Biology this week.  (yes, Leeroy Hood's ISB- swoon).  Through a contact, I met a post-doc in mass-spec there.  It was great to get to check out the facility, and pretty cool to poke around South Lake Union a bit more.  I forget that all these science places are just cheek by jowl down there.  Seattle Biomed is right next door, UW and the Hutch are quite nearby, Novo Nordisk as some waterfront there, PATH and The Gates Foundation are around the corner.  This is where the science happens in Seattle.

Anyway, ISB is a fun building, bright colors, free coffee, lounges with big windows and wide open lab spaces.  My contact works in a core/research lab up there.  And I just had to know how he got his job.  He is a chemist by training, and had this side project that required him to learn Mass-Spec.  He went to ISB to learn their software package.  There was an opening for a post-doc to do that type of work, so he applied.  The PI was thrilled to have someone who already knew the software and asked him to start immediately- unfortunately, he was following the rule of looking for a job 18-12 months prior to graduating.  They agreed to delay 6 months.  He defended on a Friday and started that Monday.

This is an awesome story.  But in my slighted jaded view of the job hunt, it highlighted a few things. 
1) People who make those final hiring decisions are not experts in hiring.  Don't get me wrong, this guy was great, he seemed like it would be easy to work with and efficient at his job.  But in 6 months anyone could have learned the software package and been mashing out data.  He got hired because the PI liked him and probably hates hiring as much as the rest of us hate job hunting.
2) No one wants to pay for training anymore.  Many people have told me to be sure I list all the weird software packages I used on my resume.  VectorNTI, Kaliedagraph, ImageJ and ImageGauge haven't opened a lot of doors for me so far, but you never know.  If you could learn some software, I'd recommend ADME so you could be in pharmakokinetics.  I see job openings there.
3) He still doesn't know what he is going to do after the post-doc.  These not-for-profit situations aren't that different from academia in terms of mentorship, career advice etc.  But he gets paid better and gets benefits, so there is less drive to leave.  Many people there get hired on to permanent scientist positions, and very view go on to faculty positions.  But research is research, and it won't open the door to commercial jobs.  They are different skill sets.
4) These jobs could happen quick.  Most of the post-doc positions that are posted on these sites are immediate openings- funding and space are in place.  You've got a better shot if there isn't a geographical barrier. 

Not-for-profit

I must admit, this week I applied for a post-doc.

I know, I know.  I'm the one who said a post-doc doesn't provide me the experience I need to get on the vaguely defined career path I am interested in.  I don't want a faculty job, but at this point, working in science would be great.  And Seattle has all these non-academic research institutes.  I gotta be honest, this is is not a concept I was familiar with before I moved out here. 

Maybe other cities don't have this always, but The Gates Foundation had prompted all this funding for soft money institutes.   Because the funding doesn't rely on the NIH, the money is better (am I an ass because I care about that?), and the research is more product oriented.  I have a friend I ought to interview about her job at IDRI, but she has given me the impression that unlike academic work, the entire lab at these not-for-profit gigs is all working towards the same objective.  In her lab, it's finding a cure of TB, in other labs, vaccinate against malaria, or other global health issues.  The upside is that your work is of dire importance, you still get to work on your publication record (if you want to go academic later), and you get paid a bit more than the NIH would recommend.  You might start at 45k, but a little bit more than the NIH suggests can feel like a lot if you've been on grad student wages for half a decade.

The downside, (and I am searching here), 1) this is still a training position.  I am coming up on my 30th birthday, I am ready to settle down.  Why would I want to take a  job that commits me to take a new one in 3 (or so) years? only to find a new one later.  2) All your pubs will have a whole host of authors.  I'm trying to pretend like this is a problem- I was in drug discovery in grad school, which means all my pubs had at least 14 authors (not exaggerating).  Is it important to you to publish papers that indicate your authority on the subject- like just you and your PI? I don't have that feeling, but if you do, not-for-profits might not be for you.  But, if working on a legitimate cure for a major global health issue is for you- you should look into these not-for-profits. There isn't the pressure to make a profit or a product that there might be at companies like Amgen or Zymogen (Bristol Myers Squibb).

Who am I thinking of? IDRI, the Institute for Systems Biology, or Seattle Biomed.  I'm told there are more, but that's a start.  I'm not convinced this is the dream job, but it might be the direction I need to go to get there, so I am trying it.

STEM Summit- Day 1

For the next couple days, I am participating in a state-wide STEM Summit, aimed at K-12 educators, Community College and Voc. Tech schools.  The focus of the summit is more Aerospace and Energy, but it is interesting to hear employers discuss the future of the workforce, and specifically their needs of the mid- and entry-level applicants.  Just to be clear, I'm not participating because I think these people should be telling me how to get a job, but because I really believe that Science affords us the engine for innovation, and that STEM careers can and should be open to a wider range of the population to support a strong economy.  That being said, I was pretty well baffled when I heard employers (Boeing, Tacoma Light etc.) saying We need people to enter trades!  Please!

This certainly wasn't something I heard when I was in high school, but the modern "trade school" is very technical.  That's why they earn such a solid salary (average in WA state for all "STEM" professionals, $76,000/yr in contrast to the state average of $55,000- and the jobs are dominated by those that require only a 2 year certificate).  But the two major barriers for getting people into these jobs is perception and pre-reqs.  Admit it- you kinda think trade school isn't brainy, or doesn't provide middle class jobs.  But running a hydroelectric dam doesn't require a degree in engineering these days.  Maybe that means that yuppies are paying for college degrees while thse seats at Trades Schools are being filled by those who can't afford it- but those students still need to have gotten a C in Algebra and be capable of learning and performing very technical tasks.  Students who go through the two year program are prepared to make twice as much money as that prissy communications degree and in half the time.  Not bad, right?  We focused on this gap of perception and pre-reqs today- teachers begging for more info to distribute to their students about these very good jobs that don't require a 2400 SAT score, and industry begging the teachers to get those kids the science and math skills they will need to get into those programs. (I hope it was eye-opening for both sides, it was for me.)

Sure, the industry buffs would waffle a little on "what should we train the next graduates to do." The pace that technology changes in these industries is hard to keep up with for those working in it.  It's nearly impossible to hone training programs to accommodate that level of fluidity.  Ok, so you might not be able to a Nano-Circuitry-Informatics-Fitter Certification from your local community college.  But, they kept harping on the same skills that would make a person succeed in the long run at any level.

• Curiosity, passion, excitement for the field (which means staying abreast of those changes, be they in advanced manufacturing or rocket science)
• Project management, team work and collaboration
• Technical communication-"The only classes you take in college that are still relevant 5 years later are technical writing and Public Speaking!"

Those are the skills for the "jobs of the future," and will be important for everything from Green power generation to the colonization of Mars.  And it made me feel like outreach efforts by people like me who can find ways to make science look fun and stay interesting to students at risk of hating it might do more then just make the school day run smoother, it might pave the way for a stronger economy.  Scientists!- Go judge at your local science fair or drop by for career night- it's for the Good of America!

Current Grad Students- Consider an internship

One of the major hurdles for finding a job is having "industry experience" and contacts who work in industry.  We often bemoan that grad students in biology can't do internships to fill those gaps, but I am starting to think, why not?  Sure, you might delay graduation by a couple months- but who hasn't had a few months where nothing works in grad school?  And your boss will probably not understand why you want to intern.  But unless your boss has tons of contacts in industry that are going to help you make the jump when you are ready, you might need to make a selfish choice.

And lest you think that such a thing doesn't exist, I will correct that with a list of companies that do offer internships for graduate students who are pursuing a degree in the life sciences.  With a little work, you can probably find one that isn't a total waste of your education, too.
Amgen
AAAS
Bayer
Dupont
Genentech
GlaxoSmithKline
USDA and FDA

Perhaps you have heard of some of these employers?  These are just what I came up with in a couple minutes on Google.  If you can imagine that you might be interested, now is the time to apply for summer internships.  Now may also be the time to suggest to your boss those in vitro experiments won't be wrapped up until the fall.

Interview: Medical Science Liason

This week, I had a phone call with a Medical Science Liason (MSL).  I met with someone who was previously in this position, and it sounded like so much fun!  Travel and shmooze with docs! Learn about cutting edge technology in your field, and you don't have to sell anything.  Heck, you are forbidden from selling anything!  She suggested I talk to some others first before I jumped in (I think I am just primed for jumping in to things these days).

I called up a colleagues of hers, who also had great things to say about the job.  It is well paid (Glassdoor suggests 6 figures and up), and there are great perks, like a company car.  You get to be the recognized expert to the people you work with, and the position is far from routine.  And, he says, "there is no one at the home office that I don't get along with."  That's right, the MSL works from home when they aren't traveling. 

So what does the job really look like?  A big drug company wants to release a new product.  They will unleash some of the team of MSLs (and this large drug company has about 100 nationally), to meet with "thought leaders" like physicians to drum up interest in the drug.  The MSL is not allowed to promote the product, they are in a support role.  I imagine them bringing by copies of journal articles and preliminary results to share with curious docs.  Then the drug comes out, and all these docs have questions about how the product works, when it should be used, and what else it might be used for.  The sales team is not equipped to handle that, so enter the MSL again.  He made it very clear that an MSL really needs to develop deep expertise on the product, and broad expertise in the field (his field being rhuematology).  He does get to attend professional conferences (at least one in Europe every year) for training and reconnaissance purposes.

In addition, he spends a lot of time in contact with other MSLs in his field (via conference call), talking with the researchers that developed the product, and training the sales team.  He suggested that different companies utilize their MSLs for different amounts of these roles.  And he loved this job!  I've heard that with the heavy travel demands (30-70%) over wide territories (AK, WA, OR, ID, and Northern CA, for example) people often burn out of this role and transition to something more stable after a few years, but he has been at the job for 9 years.  But he said his working interactions are not like a normal job, he doesn't have coworkers he interacts with regularly.  His "regular" contacts he sees quarterly, and most he sees less often. 

He suggested I look at the MSL Quarterly Newsletter for job postings and ideas about skills to perform the job better.  He also suggested, with a chuckle, cafepharma for trending news and occasional industry gossip.

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.

Interview: Grant Writer

It's been a while since I did an informational interview, I should do them more often.  Talking with people about why they love their job makes me feel optimistic, and every job hunt could use a bit of that.  So here is the context, as you know, I need a job.  While getting a full time permanent job has not come easy, finding small contract editing work (of manuscripts and educational texts) or some related writing seems to have come up fairly often.  I've been relatively passive about this, but I wanted to give this idea a fair shake, could I (should I?) make a career of reading and writing?

So I had to know, was she working week to week on contracts like me?  Well, no.  Although she had started doing that, she now works as an off-site contractor for a firm that sends her clients who need various levels of technical and administrative help.  She said this sometimes means she is literally writing their grants, and sometimes this means she is just convincing a disparate group of PIs to stick to their writing deadlines.  Depending on the client, this may feel like she is making the best use of her background, synthesizing complex data into an easily understandable package, and other times, this might just feel like she is the secretary (but she did admit the administrative work pays better).

Speaking of pay, she makes more than she did as a post-doc, and figures she'll continue to make significantly more than her husband (a post-doc) for a while. 

The contract for this is novel to me, it's the antithesis of a non-compete. She signs up for a 3-6 month contract with her employer.  They have renewed her contract consistently for 4 years now, so she has confidence that this is fairly permanent work.  However, for tax reasons (and as part of this contract), she must take other contracts, to prove that she does not have a sole employer who ought to pay her taxes for her.  She said she normally works 40 hours a week, but certainly goes through periods of working 80-90 hours a week, as a result of having to juggle multiple contracts. 

So how does a person get into this?  She recommended to get started, work with a recruiter.  Alternatively, there are writing firms that have stables of writers for regulatory/technical/medical writing, like Synchrogenix.  Another option is to subscribe to job lists, like the Hitt list (available here).  And this last website brings up some other interesting resources.  Medical writers are certainly in demand these days, and while having a PhD is great preparation for this career, to help with the transition, Emma Hitt offers some short courses and workshops on running a med writing business, or med writing.  Biotech Ink Insider is another resource for those in the field. The American Medical Writers Association also offers some workshops/short courses in similar subjects.  Again, these aren't essential certifications, but if you are looking for a way to show on your CV that you are serious about this transition or just want to build your own confidence this might be a good route.  I'd be very interested to hear from someone who has taken one of these courses to see what they think.

I recently joined the Council of Science Editors group on LinkedIn, and in one of those discussions these additional resources were listed.  Exciting, right?  Doesn't it make you think you could take on a whole new career??
National Association of Science Writers (http://nasw.org)
National Writers Union (http://www.nwu.org)
Society for Technical Communication (http://www.stc.org)
Health Sciences Communication Association (http://www.hesca.org)
Bay Area Editors' Forum (http://www.editorsforum.org)
American Copy Editors Society (http://www.copydesk.org/)

Volunteering pays off

I got invited to fly across the country to participate in a very exciting conference and workshop just because I have a Ph.D.  Well, that's not the only reason, but before I get into that, let's just around all giddy because Free Trip to NYC!  I love to travel, I love going to conferences and workshops and I figured my decision to "leave science" (as my old adviser calls it) would prevent me from doing these things- but fear not, fellow job hunters!  All kinds of fields have conferences.

The meeting I've been invited to is at the New York Hall of Science (NYSci), which is a very fun looking science museum/center.  I was invited by the folks I volunteer with there, who have done a lot of work on some cool programming, and they needed help presenting at this meeting.  And by "help" I mean NYSci has loads of science Ph.D.s on staff, and they wanted to bring some credibility, their own elbow patches as it were.  I must say, I am quite flattered that anyone would think to invite me anywhere to earn some credibility.  And the meeting itself sounds really great, it's about finding hands-on, dynamic ways to get students to engage in STEM.  I promise I'll track down some of these Ph.D.s and ask them about how they got their cool jobs- for you, my dear readers.

And how knows, maybe me too? Maybe STEM Outreach has more possibilities for me?  I am still trying to track down someone at the EdLab Group, which is a big outreach entity nearby to me.  I'd love to know what they are doing and if I could help.

But, moral of the story:Volunteer, you never know when it might earn you a trip to NYSci.

Equity and other Business Jargon

I am currently pursuing a short term contract with a start-up. I will share with you the magic phrase that opened up this opportunity, and then try to explain why this is a double edged sword.  "I would consider working for equity."  My Dad told me to try this, so I blurted it out when asked about compensation, even though I don't really fully understand what it means.  Well, now it looks like I'll have the opportunity to learn.

The phone interview was really winding down in a "don't call us, we'll call you" kind of way, but I mentioned I'd like to tour this facility, and I'll be in the area for a while.  For some reason, this got the CEO interested again, but when I uttered those magic words, he said "You are getting gold stars for that answer."  Why?  As a start-up, I know that he has limited funds.  He is seeking investors, but it isn't clear that the money has arrived yet.  Working for equity is a delayed (and risky) promise of money.  That is, this privately help company will someday have a public offering of these shares (go public), and if the market has confidence in the business, the shares will increase in value.  Hooray!  However, if the company never gets enough investors to develop enough to go public, the shares don't really have value. Or the markets deems this a terrible business, the shares may loose value.  Many companies will offer partial equity to employees ("employee-owned"), as a way of helping them being equally invested in the success of the company.

This contract I am trying to get is a "high-risk" contract; it's 100% equity.  I'm hoping that a short term contract with a start-up will give me some business cred and help me get my foot in the door somewhere. It's giving me the opportunity to learn some of this business jargon I've never considered before.  I signed a non-disclosure agreement.  I am trying to figure out the difference between Founder's Shares and regular Shares.  I am trying to imagine how many shares there might be in one company, and what it means to spin-off the investment arm of the company.

Interviews in Biofuels

One of the fields that has been suggested as a place ripe for hiring is biofuels- you know, the industry sprouting up around turning algal lipids into diesel, plastics and biomass for ethanol.  This is a fairly young field that is expected to grow a lot- and there is bio in the name.  Clearly there is a need for biologists, right?  Well, when you start looking at companies that actually do this type of work, it's hard not to think they needs engineers and algae wranglers, is there any need for a molecular biologist in this market?

I made two phone calls, one to a start-up in BC, one to a well established company in Cambridge, MA.  And while the fundamentals of the field were the same for both, I heard really contrasting opinions about how to break in.  In both cases, I just introduced myself briefly, "I have a PhD in molecular biology, and a background in drug discovery.  The more I think about a career in Pharmacueticals though, the more I realize that saving lives puts a greater burden on our energy problems.  Biofuels seems like a remarkable way to address this.  What is the role for biologists in this industry?" "What are the biological challenges for this industry, and what skills are needed (that I might obtain in a postdoc) to address them?"

In my conversation with the start-up, the CEO explained to me that the challenge for this industry is not to find a way to convert lipids to biodiesel- that's been done.  It's to find ideal strains for making both the product and byproducts and coproducts that can make the expensive process of growing algae (or cyanobacteria) more lucrative. There are many commercially available strains, so a biologist needn't reinvent the wheel, but does have to learn about various metabolic and regulatory processes that might impact production.  He said for them it was more important that a biologist be willing to learn, work hard and takes risks than to already be an expert in algae metabolism.

In the more established company (~100 employees, ~30 biologists), he said that there were some people who came to the department after defending, but these were people with a background in synthetic biology, metabolic engineering or genetic regulation.  He encouraged someone of my background to to a postdoc with one of the leaders in these disciplines in order to make an easy transition into this industry.  In both cases, I think the advice reflects the culture of the company- the guy in Cambridge is swimming in highly qualified scientists.  The start-up in BC needs more folks willing to earn their success by their bootstraps.  Maybe there is a middle group somewhere for me- someone that needs a molecular biologist, willing to learn and excited about the industry.

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.

Another way to get teaching experience?

For reasons that seem silly to explain, I was searching on the AP Central website for info about AP Bio exam. If you were a bright kid in a well funded school district, you might have taken AP Bio for college credit, and the experience culminated in taking a long standardized exam. Remember that?

Now that you've got your degree, you could be on the other side of that exam. Turns out they always need people to read those exams. My impression is you need to have taught Intro Bio at the college level in the last three years. I'd never really thought of using my teaching experience anywhere but inside a classroom, but obviously there are plenty of other opportunities for the creative career seeker.

That kinda made me wonder who scores the GREs. Looks like they are always in need of science writers, and teaching type folks. If you like thinking about pedagogy, this might be a cool way to supplement your experience, or just a good career to pursue.

Science Illustrators

Have you read Peter Fiske's book? You've probably heard of "Put Your Science to Work." It's a fantastic book that gives credit and credential to the parts of your experience in graduate school that weren't "science," and by science I mean the hard to describe to your grandmother part of your job. Those writing skills, the fact that you give insightful seminars, that you can deal with very complex, dynamic systems and that you have the project management skills to keep the many threads of a complex project in-line. Fiske suggests you think about your transferable skills, all those things that will make you a fantastic professional in any job, even if there aren't conical vials involved. Things that make your science successful, or can make you the golden child at your next job. Recognizing and developing these skills will make you a better scientist, or a better whatever you choose to be. I highly recommend the book, it certainly changed the way I thought about graduate school, and what I want to do afterwards.

For starters, it made me lighten up on the way I spent my time at work. As a first year, if I wasn't on the bench, I felt guilty for slacking. As a result, I almost never had time to think about what I was doing. Now, I get that it is important to be more well rounded, or at least recognize the parts of my job that I like enough to want to develop. I enjoy writing, I like being around people who are learning, and while I find it much more tolerable to help someone else troubleshoot experiments than to solve my own, I hate being in a position of authority. This is why careers like Application Scientist or anything called Liaison are appealing to me.

Perhaps this is why this item of note got bounced my way. What are cool ways you can use your science for good, but on your own time? Take a minute to bound around Shmoop, a sort of social networking study guide for teens. Perhaps if the entire site didn't have the California cool attitude, the job posting for Scientific Illustrator wouldn't have been written so that I thought I could do it. I don't mean to sound like a billboard for them (although I'd love to have a conflict of interest), but there are lots of postings for writing and illustrating jobs to create accessible science for high schoolers. And the description of the posting is simple, can you make figures? Yes, you can. You probably did it for lab meeting already this week.

As it turns out, I actually kind of loathe making figures (I was just reminded of that when I opened powerpoint to diagram a cell for that very application), but this is a really interesting job you could either try out as a grad student, or look for in other venues. If making pretty figures appeals to you, this is a real job. There is even a guild (Guild of Natural Science Illustrators). There are graduate programs you could enroll in, but I suspect if could collect the portfolio of things you made for talks and posters, you might already have a decent start.