I'm used to Rush Limbaugh and Republicans despising the academics, but I don't generally see a reason for biotech companies having an aversion to academic researchers.
On Thursday of last week I noticed a job announcement on Craig's List for an "In-vitro Biology Research Associate II" that seems to have changed from then until today. I was actually surprised at the difference and struck by the emphasis of the new posting, that on "non-academic" and "non-hospital" experience. Here is the Craig's List posting and the Acucela announcement, that has the latest version:
JOB REQUIREMENTS: Bachelor’s degree or equivalent* in Biology, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Medical Technology, or a related field plus two years of U.S. biotechnology industry (non-academic, non-hospital) work experience, including:
• Two years of experience performing biochemical enzyme assays;
• Two years of experience performing HPLC analysis of biological samples;
• Two years of experience producing recombinant proteins through growth,
maintenance, and expansion of mammalian and prokaryotic cell lines;
• Two years of experience performing protein purification and quantification using
absorption, chromatography, ultra-centrifugation, western blot, SDS-PAGE, and
spectroscopic procedures; and
• Two years of experience performing data analysis, result reporting, and database entry using ChemFinder software.
Experience may be gained concurrently. *Any suitable, equivalent combination of education, experience, or training is acceptable, as are foreign equivalent degrees. Employer will accept an Associate’s degree in Biology, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Medical Technology, or a related field and six years of post-degree U.S. biotechnology industry (non-academic, nonhospital) work experience in the skills and abilities listed above as equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree in Biology, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Medical Technology, or a related field and two years of U.S. biotechnology industry (non-academic, non-hospital) work experience in the skills and abilities listed above.
The earlier posting (from Thursday) did not include the "non-academic, non-hospital" requirement. (I have the Google Cache screen captures showing the Thursday Craig's List posting and that it has been removed.)
Normally, I wouldn't have thought much if I only saw today's posting, even if it had the non-academic emphasis. But the difference between Thursday and today was striking to me. Why the sudden desire to keep out academics? Were there a lot of academics applying for this job and they had to rule people out? What makes academics so much less appealing than biotech workers that you have to tailor your announcement to keep academics from applying?
- gqmartinez's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Unionized employees.
Academia probably has more of them than private biochem.
one possibility
Hazarding a guess
The academic environment is simply different from the industrial one in many different ways. The advantage of industrial experience is one of understanding the process by which new therapeutic entities are discovered. There is a workflow, stages, and quality of work that is simply different. It requires a person who is trained to be independent and a problem solver. In the past, we have hired biologists that only do one thing and do it well but those people are the first to go during layoffs. They are so specialized that their skills are not transferable.
It is also a matter of perspective. I have trained post-docs in the past and I think I know where your ad is coming from. Academics need time to adjust and get up to speed. Startup biotechs don't have the luxury of time. They have impatient venture capitalists with stopwatches. There is no grace period for learning what is expected and getting the hang of go/nogos and other process oriented stuff.
Actually, I'm amazed that you found an ad with an opening. That's becoming pretty rare. You will have TONS of competition from people who have loads of skills in the area and who are facing layoffs.
Come together at The Confluence
Academics not independent problem solvers?
Again, something I expect to hear from the dittoheads, not the biotech industry. That's my big point. You go out of your way to paint a picture of an incompetent academic--not merely to talk about philosophical differences, which are understandable--and that answers my questions. Indeed, academics need not apply.
Oh, Jeez
Don't be so sensitive. That's not at all what I'm implying. All I'm saying is that the industrial side of things is radically different than what academics are accustomed to. Academicians may be at the zenith of their problem solving skills. That is, after all, why they write papers. But in this business, what counts is applied problem solving in a rapid environment because several other groups are waiting for your stuff. It requires a high degree of cooperation, experience and knowing where the team is in the discovery process. That kind of thing takes time to develop. People coming into this industry hoping to write papers might be sorely disappointed. For one thing, patent attorneys make it nearly impossible to do so. Plus. small biotechs are resource limited to begin with. They don't have all of the money in the world to hire lots of recent graduates with good ideas. What they need are people who can jump in fast and deliver quickly because they know the landscape.
It's just a catch-22 right now for recent grads. You can't get hired without experience and you can't get experience unless you are hired. My suggestion is to apply for an internship at some corp that has summer positions. The pay's not great and the work is limited but you get a better idea of what you're getting into.
Of course, I could be completely wrong as to why they are excluding academics but the non-hospital thingy seems to be a clue that they want familiarity with industry.
Come together at The Confluence