Here's one of the hardest lessons for my academic colleagues wanting to break into the biotech industry... A paper. Is. Not. A. Result. A grant. Is. Not. A. Result. I know. It hurts to read it. The thing that all of your colleagues and university admin have said is the only thing that matters...it's not really a result. Does that make your academic work irrelevant? Absolutely not. What it does mean, is that you need to change what you're focusing on when communicating your value. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 -method you developed -intellectual property -infrastructure you built -device prototypes you invented -biological mechanisms you determined -operational improvements If you read the above and don't know what I'm talking about, it's ok. I can teach you how to translate your academic mindset into the above. You are valuable. you just need to learn to communicate in a way that people in the business world can understand. If you have questions, put them in the comments below. 👇 #biotechjobs #biotech #phd
Sometimes I get confused with that "academy x biotech industry" thing. For example, jobs in biotech industry for positions as scientist, senior scientist and principal scientist. These roles are almost identical in academy and biotech industry and the people who work in the biotech came from academy. When you go to an interview for a scientist position, usually the principal scientist is one of the interviewers. They want a scientist to do lab stuff, similar to what that scientist does in his/her university. Most of the job descriptions for those positions mention the candidate must know technique X, Y and Z, all learned and done in the academic lab for many years. Many job advertisements for position of principal scientist in biotech companies mention that the candidate must have PUBLICATIONS and be a reference in their field. From my experience in the biotech industry is that the job is almost identical. The difference is that in industry you have a focus on the product and usually don't follow up on experiments when the product is not shown to be promising. Also, there is less emphasis on publishing papers, even though most biotechs publish papers all the time, after they patent their products.
David Giltner
7mo
Absolutely true. My entire career in industry, nobody cared about the papers I wrote. What they cared about were the skills that I needed to get to the point where I could publish the paper. But I had to learn how to communicate those, instead of simply sending them a list of publications…
I agree. In publications, they've developed methods, results, proof of concept and mechanisms of action. In grant, shows the ability to raise money.
Because things like the below happen:
Agreed completely. It’s really just a re-packaging and re-branding exercise translating experiences and expertise into the marketable and sought after skill sets that industry needs
This feels like a kick in the proverbial but it really shouldn't when you think about it. Papers and grants are the outcome and as we are learning in academia are not always the best indicator of research quality. Academia should also be assessing value beyond these metrics.
This is part of what motivated me to launch the Earth and Planetary Institute of Canada—to help scientists get the results of their work actually *implemented* in the world through collaboration with industry, or even starting their own companies!
Kundai Mufara
7mo
And don’t forget to add hours and metrics to every point about what you made or did. It shows the effort required and communicates value
Toumy G.
7mo
Accurate! I'll add that it is common for academics to struggle with explaining the significance of their research in a broader context to individuals with scientific backgrounds but who are not experts in the field. This is an underappreciated skill when applying for industry jobs.
Lab Manager | Technical Team Lead | uLED Test and Characterisation | Process Optimisation | Continuous Improvement | Project Management
7moWhile I was transitioning, not a single interviewer asked me how many papers did I publish or how many million €’s worth of funding did I pull. They were more interested in knowing how my academic experience translated to industry skills. “So tell me, how did you handle working in your wet labs? What were the specific responsibilities you had?” Well, I was responsible for inventory, training, and lab safety protocols. I made sure all our SOPs were upto date and of the highest standards. “How did you contribute to continuous improvement processes?” Well, I had a spreadsheet that monitored our lab equipment. I made sure the tools were always functional and helped minimise downtime that improved productivity. “Can you quantify what you just said?” Sure! Through effective management we were able to increase the number of publications and patent we filed from about 10 a year to 45 over the five years I worked there. I suppose that was the only time the number of papers we published was even remotely relevant.