<p>Hello everyone,</p>
<p>I was wondering which areas are considered to be the "international hubs for biotech". I know the San Diego area is one, but beyond that I have no idea. Within the US I would guess the New England area, or the San Fransisco bay area... can anyone provide some information about this?</p>
<p>Also... which bioscience graduate programs have the closest ties to industry? Especially in California? Is it really that bad to state that you want to work in industry rather than academia? Also, what motivates you to want to work in academia or industry (or government)?</p>
<p>This came up in a thread about summer internships (<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/graduate-school/585762-summer-internships-nih-etc.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/graduate-school/585762-summer-internships-nih-etc.html</a>).</p>
<p>*EDIT: This article talks about biotech centers within the U.S. (Signs</a> of Life: The Growth of Biotechnology Centers in the U.S. - Brookings Institution) but what about internationally?</p>
<p>Boston, San Diego, San Francisco, Research Triangle...beyond that it's a crapshoot. Singapore?
Biotech</a> Regions, Biotech States, Biotech Hotspots - FierceBiotech
Every year they publish a list of biotech hotspots but those four are the only ones consistently mentioned. </p>
<p>For whatever reason, academics don't seem to view industry to favorably. It's a shame since they are a rich source of funding and expertise. Even if you ultimately plan to go into industry, I definitely wouldn't state that in the application materials- someone might see.</p>
<p>Thanks for the update, belevitt.</p>
<p>Yeah, I was told that unless I have real industry experience, then I shouldn't mention industry in my grad school application. I guess you have to sneak out at the end... I could try to get experience in industry first, but I also heard that once you start working it can be very hard to motivate yourself to go back to school, especially if you start a family.</p>
<p>On another note, if anyone is interested, the article I posted earlier mentioned the UCSD Connect program as a major way in which academia and industry is bridged in the SD area.</p>
<p>Well, from somebody with a few years of industry experience and a family, I can corroborate your statement. It was hard to return to academia. It basically invalidated my entire network of contacts, required a 40 percent paycut and left me years behind in the newest research and techniques. I feel that the change was worth it but I can see why many people would not.</p>
<p>Yeah, a good friend of mine had over five years industry experience before coming back to graduate school. He said a PhD is essential to go anywhere in science industry and get a decent salary, otherwise you hit the ceiling fast. My thought is to get it over with now. Hopefully I won't regret it.</p>
<p>I wouldn't agree with your friends statement about a PhD being required for a decent salary. Project management, clinical research, quality, manufacturing...These are all areas where BS/MS level scientists get involved and can rise to VP levels. The biggest limitation in industry of not having a PhD is that you have no credibility with venture capital jerks. My old boss (now chief scientific officer) couldn't have the title vice president of research/development even when he was the only VP in the company- he had to be the VP of Product Development, because he didn't have a PhD. </p>
<p>If you are first entering industry, I can't come up with a solid reason why you would ever want to do so at the BS/MS level when you could just as easily spend the next six years and get a PhD. You won't advance very fair in industry in six years and if you have a PhD, you come in at scientist (it goes assistant scientist, associate scientist, scientist, senior scientist, director, VP) and if you have any supervisory/post doc experience you come in at senior scientist. </p>
<p>It is especially important not to go into industry if you ever want to go into academia after. I did this. In industry, publications go to the people who would be strategically important for their names to be included, not the people who contribute intellectually and complete the work. This is in those rare times when publishing is even permitted by upper management. Patents are the same way, a young scientist is not seen as somebody who will spend their career at the company and thus the patents are awarded to a more senior person in the company. With this setup, there is no way to build any application fodder for academia where publications are the currency of research.</p>
<p>Thanks, that was informative.</p>
<p>I guess the reputation of the PhD works similarly everywhere... people who work with you will know & accept your abilities, but those who don't have only the standard of your degree to go by... like standardized testing. My friend's dad who works in a government lab has a Masters in engineering and is in a managerial position, but claims he often needs extra PhD's to backup his word when dealing with washington and other external groups.</p>
<p>About your old boss, did the title also come with a reduced pay? If not, then it seems to me that without a PhD you can get to the same place, it just might take longer and come with less default "respect" from people who don't know you.</p>
<p>I hear also that it's much easier for people with industry experience to get into grad school, a lot of it because they know exactly why they're there and what they want. I thought about trying to get a job in industry for a couple years before applying to grad school, but it's like you said.... how far could I expect to get in that time? An undergraduate advisor in my department said just to skip it and go straight to grad school, because I won't make any money and probably won't learn much in just a couple years. Right now I just want to streamline my life so I can get a decent job sooner and not have to worry as much about it later (why academia is probably not my track, seems too tough to get the job). I guess my friend was pretty lucky. In the 5+ years he worked in multiple places, he did get to lead a team & got a patent under his name... but he worked like crazy and eventually "hit the ceiling" where he needed his PhD to keep going.</p>
<p>What I was realizing from talking to people is how dynamic the biotech industry really is. There are start ups and mergers occurring constantly, but maybe all hot industries are like that. I wish I understood the market & biz/econ more! One general strategy seems to be joining small start-ups in hopes they'll get big and maybe eventually bought out by a biotech giant so one can cash out on stock options and move onto the next. When its time to settle down, they head for more stable positions in big companies. The problem here (at least for people with no real world knowledge) would be business sense or lack thereof to make work investments wisely....</p>
<p>You may overestimate what sort of stock options scientists get. When you start you usually get anywhere from 1500 to 6000 shares which vest over a four year period (you can purchase one quarter of them each year for four years). As bonuses it is possible to be granted more options but I wouldn't count on it. Also, small and midsize biotechs are not very stable and it is unlikely that you would be somewhere for long enough for 100% of your shares to be vested.</p>
<p>If you are interested in going into biotech/pharma, get your phd first and maybe consider an mba or professional masters in biotech (there are a few of these programs) down the road.</p>