Research scientist.. how to?

Parents Forum
21

<p>
[quote]
in our area you can get a job without a Phd
D has several friends who were bio or biochem majors who are employed full time doing research.

[/quote]

One research path that does not require a PhD is to work as a "research technician", aka lab asst., aka scut puppy. The entry level tasks can be mundane, but as one acquires skills and seniority, the lab tech evolves into a lab manager, who is the glue that keeps the research together while the PI writes grants, the post-docs look for jobs, and the grad students try to figure out which way is up (sorry again mollie). Pay is reasonable for the field ($50-60K), better in industry, compatible with having a family, and a good option for someone who loves working at the bench but does not want to invest years in training.</p>

22

<p>Salary range for a Phd? It sounds like a really tough career path. My D was wondering about it.</p>

23

<p>In academic biomedical research, postdocs start at $30-40K, new faculty $80-100K, sr faculty - whatever you can negotiate ($150-250K). MDs get bonus $ to keep them out of private practice. Biotech/pharma can be 25-50% more. However, as in any private sector job, re-orgs occur at the whim of a VP, and you may suddenly find yourself unemployed.</p>

<p>What doesn't kill you make you stronger.</p>

24

<p>I am a biomedical research scientist familiar with both academia and industry.</p>

<p>Just to clarify, a minimal degree required for a research technician (research associate in industry) is a B.S. / sometimes M.S. The job is mostly technical, but it’s possible to become a lower rank scientist or a facility manager with those degrees. It’s extremely important to have some undergraduate research experience or research internships in order to find a first job. In industrial settings, responsibilities are usually limited to a relatively narrow and specialized technical field. It’s essential to be extremely accurate, organized, have a lot of patience and attention to details. Generally, it is much easier to find employment being a BS or MS, rather then a PhD.</p>

<p>It takes a PhD + post-doctorate to become a principle investigator, project leader or group leader. It is very common to switch research fields between graduate and postgraduate appointments, however postdocs are usually hired for their first “real job” within the same area of expertise (thus, it helps to plan ahead). This career track is much more demanding and unpredictable. It is helpful and often essential for a postdoc to work in a reputable research institution, have impressive publications and a well-known research advisor with connections. The good news is that good postdocs are in very high demand and generally it’s not very difficult to land a postdoctoral job in a reputable lab. Connections in general are extremely important in research world and they are nurtured by the very nature of this field including collaborative research, invited seminar speakers, scientific meetings etc. It is tremendously important to develop excellent presentation and communication skills. The “real job” interviews always involve giving a seminar and being interviewed by multiple scientists.</p>

<p>Another extremely competitive and lucrative career track is receiving a joint MD / PhD degree. This takes about 7 years plus postdoctorate and/or medical fellowship. The benefits include full scholarship (no medical school tuition), flexibility in career choice and hugely improved chances of employment in biomedical R&D field. It is also possible to a work in clinical research related to clinical trials and such. </p>

<p>Another career track worth mentioning is administrative and management. It can be pursued with undergrad, grad and post-grad degrees and include scientific administrative assistant, project coordination and management, science liaisons, editorial etc. Some people eventually get an MBA and enter business career track in biotech / pharma industry. </p>

<p>Once your are on track, the field is extremely diverse, exciting and presents endless opportunities Get ready to study for your entire life – the field changes extremely rapidly and it’s very easy to suddenly find yourself out of touch. The biggest disadvantage, in my opinion, is being unable to work part-time, to take several years off or to explore different careers. Once you are out for several years, the grasp is lost and it’s almost impossible to return.</p>

25

<p>"Once you are out for several years, the grasp is lost and it’s almost impossible to return."</p>

<p>As such probably not a job for a future mom who wants to take a few years off.</p>

26

<p>One of the technicians my husband works with has been offered a great deal. He can get a PhD. and use all the papers he's already been published with for his thesis. So basically all he has to do is the coursework. Not all technicians are so lucky or become so invaluable that such an offer might be made.</p>

27

<p>The technician must have done a lot of the work in the papers independently (e.g. familiarized himself with the background scientific literature, designed the experiments, written the papers) rather than just doing the more typical technician function of carrying out experiments planned by a supervisor. This is not a typical situation for a laboratory technician. If he did not do the aspects of the work mentioned above, the research in those papers should not be the basis for his Ph.D. thesis.</p>

28

<p>I agree with Mo2 that this is a highly unusual situation. In addition to the reasons she cited, all of the universities I've attended require you register and pay for a minimum number of Research & Thesis units in addition to coursework before getting your degree.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
"Once you are out for several years, the grasp is lost and it’s almost impossible to return."</p>

<p>As such probably not a job for a future mom who wants to take a few years off.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True, unless she is a technician / research associate. </p>

<p>I meet too many kids excited about research but knowing nothing about what it means or what it takes. They want to cure cancer, therefore they get an undergraduate degree in biology or related field and don’t know what to do with themselves afterwards. </p>

<p>Research can be extremely exciting or extremely frustrating, so it is very important to talk to the professionals and understand long-term perspectives and possibilities. It’s definitely not for everyone. The pressure and the level of competition is extremely high. You are surrounded by amazingly gifted, clever, articulate and hard-working people. You need to be able to perform in this environment without loosing your self-esteem. You have to be ready to face challenges every day and not to give up. This could be stimulating or detrimental, depending on personality. I am not trying to discourage anyone – this is an amazing career, but it’s important to know what you are getting into.</p>

30

<p>And those in academia (not me) should be aware that they will likely always be dependent on grants to fund their research, and that applying for and winning these highly competitive grants will be necessary throughout their professional lives.</p>

31

<p>Yeah, he's very smart and in an indispensable part of the imaging facility. He got interested in the science after the fact, but he also is an artist and has occassional shows. (His art is all based on the science work he does.) He's a very interesting guy. </p>

<p>In any event being a technician is one way besides summer work to see if the field interests you.</p>

32

<p>I would also add that although one needs a doctorate to do independent research, it does not necessarily have to be a Ph.D. I am a M.D. who runs a molecular genetics laboratory at a major medical school and previously did the same at the National Institutes of Health. I still see some patients but research and teaching are my major activities. I have colleagues who are physician-researchers who work exclusively in the basic sciences and do not see patients. On the other hand, M.D.s also can do clinical research which generally involves working with patients/subjects which is quite different in terms of skill sets (statistics, clinical protocol design) and day-to day-life than basic research. Each can be very personally and intellectually rewarding.</p>

<p>Also life in academia is quite different than industry, even though research is being performed at both. In the latter case, the research is often proprietary and cannot be discussed publically. At the university, there are opportunities to interact with students and fellows, teach, and also publish. Although I enjoy the opportunity to practice medicine, I am most passionate about my research. I have had the opportunity to work with, and befriend, colleagues from all over the world, and learn from them in many ways. The critical thinking involved in research has also made me a better clinician as I try to be open and unbiased when I analyze a patient's problems rather than look for easy first answers that can be looked up in a textbook. Likewise, my clinical experiences have given me ideas and motivation that have informed my research. For someone interested in both clinical medicine and reserach, M.D./Ph.D. programs also can be looked into, although the time for formal education and training (both clinically and post-doc research) is extended. This is particularly true if one wants to do research in a medically relevant area. I would add that the latter are broadening dramatically as they extend beyond molecular biology to new areas such as bioinformatics and nanotechnology which require backgrounds outside of the more "traditional" biomedical areas (.e.g., biology, chemistry, pharmacology, neuroscience etc.).</p>

<p>Good luck to you. At least in my general area of biomedical science, it is truly a golden era with the sequencing of the human genome and the availability of powerful techniques to dissect diseases and test treatments at a molecular level. We will learn a lot about disease and ourselves in the near future-and it will be very exciting! It may also be true with other disciplines such as physics, math, geology, etc. but you would have to defer to scientists in those fields for their assessment.</p>

33

<p>pmyen, what do you and your associates look for in research technicians - what education level and experience? Thanks.</p>

34

<p>Research technicians come from a variety of educational backgrounds. It also is a viable career path for someone who does enjoys doing research but does not want the pressure/responsibility of running a lab, writing grants, and overseeing a research program. </p>

<p>Nowadays a B.A. or B.S. is required unless one works as a part time or summer technician as an undergraduate. Students who major in a science or at least have taken basic level science courses are preferred. I have hired summer undergrad students as interns and all of them have had at least one year of chemistry, usually significantly more, classwork. I have not taken a summer high school students although there is such a program at the NIH for exceptional students who may have appropriate background (preferably completion of AP coursework). The college graduates whom I hired to work as full-time technicians all had a B.A. or B.S. degree in science.</p>

<p>The B.A. or B.S. techs generally work for a few years before moving onto graduate school or medical school, or moving out of science altogether. There are some people who will continue working as a technician as a career althugh advancement prospects are somewhat limited. There are jobs in industry at this level that pay reasonably well.</p>

<p>Techs with masters degrees in science are also found. However, they would command a higher salary and thus would be expected to provide expertise that is critical for the laboratory enterprise. Ph.D.s also can serve as "super-technicans" in a laboratory but typically they will be a staff scientist working as part of a larger research group with some supervisory role over technicians and post-doctoral fellows while working under a more senior Ph.D. The latter is a route for a Ph.D who does not want the full responsibility for running a lab and is relatively common in industry where projects are done in groups. Some large laboratories in academia also may hire a staff scientist to run the laboratory for a principal investigator who may have other administrative or clinical responsibilities. Hope this helps.</p>

35

<p>I have worked as a research/bench chemist in the pharmaceutical industry for over 20 years. The best advice I could give anyone is to make SURE that you love what you're doing (in other words - there are no guarantees, career-wise). Do not go into science for the money or even for job stability, because you may be disppointed. Pharmaceutical hiring tends to be cyclical, and it appears that we're heading into a "down" cycle right now (lots of layoffs in the industry, at least among major pharma - biotech could be different, though.) That's not to say that there won't be a boom in hiring ten years from now, but it's not at all predictable.</p>

<p>For the PhD chemist, it will take 4-5 years to earn your doctorate (that's 4-5 years of 14 hour days in the lab, too!), and if you want to work in pharma, you'll probably postdoc for another 2 years. At least in my field, you're more employable with a master's degree - a smart MS chemist with "good hands" is worth his/her weight in gold.</p>

<p>Sorry if that first paragraph is a downer. I'm currently waching 200+ of my fellow chemists scramble for new jobs, now that our employer is closing our research site. I's a cold, cruel world out there for a PhD (or MS) with 10+ years of experience!</p>

36

<p>thats pretty ironic...</p>