Bio Career Center

As someone who’s transitioned from academia to industry, I’d like to share some of the differences in the two career paths, as well as address some misconceptions of the ‘golden handcuffs’ of industry as seen from the ivory tower.

First, here’s my take of where the biopharma industry stands. R&D costs have grown dramatically in the past decade, and have grown disproportionately to R&D budgets or output, with R&D inflation of 10-12% or more and budget increases between 3-6%, leading to decreased R&D productivity. The regulatory climate is growing more unfavorable and uncertain, with significant pressure to eliminate almost all manner of risk or uncertainty, creating an unrealistic and potentially unachievable hurdle for drug approvals and exposing the industry to unprecedented risks with product liability.

The reimbursement hurdle has also become significant, in that simply being approved as a drug is now necessary but no longer sufficient—companies have to address who will pay for the medicines and how much they will pay. This environment means that truly innovative drugs will take longer to develop as even greater innovations become necessary. The good news is that the industry is seeking ways to increase innovation in the R&D process, both internally and externally, creating exciting opportunities for those that can leverage it.

Similarities between Academia and Industry

Overall, R&D in Biopharma and Academia have more similarities than differences. Science is the foundation in both cases, and innovation is key. The work progression is logical, justified, and generally hypothesis-driven, often beginning with the identification of a new molecular target for a disease (sometimes the same ones as in academic circles). Projects are subject to resource constraints (financial, human, etc.) and must be selected by outside committees, and consistent productivity is critical in both spheres—for tenure or for continued employment.

Dispelling the myths

Probably the most common myth, although this is less pervasive now than a decade ago, is that industry scientists were somehow rejected or otherwise couldn’t make it in academia. From my experience, this is not the case.  In fact, the work is not as dissimilar as it may first appear. For example, industry scientists need to publish and are motivated to do so. I received a cash bonus for first or second author papers I published at one company. Career progression correlates with publication records (in part, though not solely), and becoming an opinion leader and recognized in a field is crucial. Justifying your funding ideas through grant writing is also part of the workday, whether it is NIH grants if you’re at a small biotech or research proposals/feasibility studies at bigger companies. Verbal communication is better rewarded in industry, with great importance attached to public presentations, internal presentations, and persuading others of the value of your ideas. The team is definitely more important in industry, but individual performance is still important, and your contribution is not diminished by those around you. Although some people think you have to give up freedom to work on what you want in industry, many argue that such freedom does not exist in academia either.

What does it take to succeed

It sounds trite, but one of the only things that is constant is change. Company resource needs change constantly, and researchers (and other employees) must be able to change with those needs or risk being replaced. Therefore, someone with a broader background and well-rounded skill sets is more valuable long-term than the international subject matter expert in a particular technique, as they become obsolete quickly. Therefore, aim to be expansive with your skill set early on, rather than becoming too highly specialized. Explore as many courses as possible as a graduate student or postdoc, and not just in science or math—I audited Japanese when I was a graduate student, which prepared me well for my scientist role in a Japanese pharma. Finally, of course, your personality does matter, and industry is definitely more structured than what’s possible in the academic life, with emphasis on traits such as your ability to handle conflict, your ability to deal with ambiguity and failure, your motivation (science vs. salary), and your ability to work both independently AND as part of a team.

A PhD ‘entry-level’ position

To get one of these, traditional advice is you’ll need at least one, preferably two postdocs, although I landed my first scientist position without one (albeit in a foreign land). During these stints, you should seek out opportunities for team interactions and managing people—both of these are often requirements for scientist positions. In the position, you can expect a seed budget to get things started, maybe 1 or two technicians, a boss, budget constraints, an opportunity to combine basic and applied research, and some freedom to explore projects on your own. One unique point of industry is the other opportunities available if you find that research is not your thing, but where science is still valued. These roles include operations, clinical development, corporate, marketing, etc.

Overall, I’ve been very happy with the switch to industry, and most of my colleagues are. In fact, you hear very few stories of people returning to academia once they’ve been in industry for a while. Although there are a number of reasons for this lack of returning (e.g., getting off the tenure track, the golden handcuffs of higher potential salaries and bonuses, access to better/different resources, etc), one key one is that you get to do what you were trained to do—good science!