Industry analysts and human resources specialists
predict which subjects and sectors will provide the best
opportunities for life scientists next year — and give advice on
how best to gain employment in those areas.
Bay Area Bioscience Center (
http://www.baybio.org
)
Burrill & Company (
http://www.burrillandco.com
)
California State University Program for
Education and Research in Biotechnology ( http://www.csuchio.edu/csuperb
)
Commission of Professionals in Science
and Technology ( http://www.cpst.org )
Critical I Limited (
http://www.criticali.net
)
Kelly Scientific Resources (
http://www.kellyscientific.com
)
National Institutes of Health Office of
Intramural Research ( http://www.training.nih.gov
)
University of California, San
Francisco ( http://www.ucsf.edu )
What prospects does the year 2006 hold for life scientists entering
the job market or seeking new jobs? We asked that question of
industry analysts, human resources personnel, placement officers,
and other observers of the employment scene. For the most part,
they give an upbeat verdict. “The general outlook is as promising
as it has ever been,” says Matt Gardner, president of the Bay Area
Bioscience Center (BayBio).
However, Gardner and other authorities point out that the
profile of life science has changed significantly in recent years.
The encouraging prospects owe much to the biopharmaceutical
industry’s need to push promising drug candidates into clinical
trials, thereby refilling declining drug pipelines. Biotechnology
firms, rather than giant pharmaceutical companies, have begun to
generate many new drugs, and hence provide job opportunities for
life scientists. On the other hand, support for research by the
National Institutes of Health has leveled off after a period of
spectacular annual increases, a phenomenon that affects both
government and academic research. At the same time, countries
outside the United States have begun to cultivate their own
biopharma industries, many of them competing directly with American
firms.
In light of those trends, life scientists seeking jobs must
perform the seemingly self-contradictory tasks of thinking in
interdisciplinary ways while gaining narrowly specialized
competences. “Companies need scientists with a broad background in
several disciplines, but they have a broad need for scientists with
special skills as well,” says Chris Jock, vice president and
general manager of scientific staffing firm Kelly Scientific
Resources. Bill Lindstaedt, director of the Career Center at the
University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), explains what that
means to would-be employees. “Clinical researchers, toxicologists,
and pharmaceutical chemists seem to be pretty popular right now,”
he says. “The basic molecular biologist seeking jobs on the
discovery side might be facing more competition.” In short, this
isn’t your old professor’s world of life science.
Academic Shortfalls
An issue associated with academic training will have a clear impact
on the prospects for life scientists’ employment in the coming
year. “Universities are not kicking out the numbers of people
necessary to support the life science industry,” Jock says.
“Industry is trying to get universities and colleges to craft
programs to meet their particular needs.” Those efforts seem
destined to fail, at least for a while. “Academics can’t
distinguish between education and workforce development,” says A.
Stephen Dahms, executive director of the California State
University Program for Education and Research in Biotechnology
(CSUPERB). “Academic faculty members do what they do best: train
people for the bench. But they do not understand the skill sets
that are absolutely critical for drug development.”
Another factor might have a negative impact on life scientists’
attitudes toward careers in their field, particularly in government
and industry in the United States. Recalls of Cox-2 inhibitor drugs
during the past year have raised questions about the credibility of
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) regulation of new
drugs and suspicions that pharmaceutical companies have been overly
eager to put fresh remedies on the market.
On the one hand, the recalls and related incidents could
increase the availability of jobs. “The opportunity is there to get
it right next time,” points out John Hodgson, director of Critical
I Limited, a British based firm that helps clients in commercial
and academic life science to mobilize innovations. “It may impel
companies to be more thorough in the early stages of their testing.
That will attract young researchers.” Steve Burrill, CEO of Burrill
& Company, a merchant bank that concentrates on life sciences,
sees another side of the coin. “On the negative side,” he says,
“concerns about drug safety will make the FDA more cautious and
might start to dry up some of the venture capital for
biopharmaceuticals.”
Issue for Idealists
Michael Gottesman, deputy director for intramural research at the
National Institutes of Health, points to one possible effect of the
drug industry’s problems on idealistic young life scientists.
“There are people who want to conduct their research without having
to worry about whether it will lead to a marketable product in the
short term,” he explains. “The problems with the pharmaceutical
industry may make government research labs more attractive as
places in which to do highly innovative, high-impact research.” So
far, however, little evidence has emerged of reduced enthusiasm for
pharmaceutical careers. “I haven’t seen any decline in applicants
because they don’t want to get involved with the industry,” says
Eleanor Babco, executive director of the Commission of
Professionals in Science and Technology.
Projected figures warrant optimism about careers in life science
in the United States. The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
forecasts that 252,987 individuals will work as life scientists in
2012, up from 213,994 in 2002. During that period, employment of
life scientists will grow at a rate three times as fast as the
average for all jobs.
Some demographic regions have continuing and spectacular success
in creating new jobs. “In the Bay Area we create a company every 10
to 14 days, characterized by a high number of Ph.D.s,” Gardner
says. Europe’s life science industry also looks ready to revive.
“We have data to show some contraction in the European biotech
sector in the last couple of years, largely due to underfunding and
mergers and acquisitions,” Hodgson says. “But the investment is
increasing again, partly owing to government moves around the
Lisbon agenda [a goal of spending 3 percent of gross domestic
product on R&D to which member countries of the European Union
agreed in 2000]. This suggests that life science jobs are on the up
and up. To get to the Lisbon target by 2010 will need job increases
in 2006.”
International Factors
Other international factors offer less encouragement for life
scientists seeking jobs in Europe and North America. “There are
significant opportunities in outsourcing to China and India,
particularly in respect to drug discovery, early development, and
the preclinical and clinical sectors,” Burrill says. “I see big
growth there, but perhaps some decline in Europe and North America.
It may not be economic to develop a drug today in the U.S. and
Europe, where the market size is about equal to the cost of
development. But it may be economic to develop the same drug in
India or China.”
Overseas nations have also begun to create their own
biotechnology industries. “On a global scale there are more
biotechs outside the United States than in it,” Burrill continues.
“The field is growing in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Cuba, the
Benelux countries, India, China, Malaysia, and Korea.”
The internationalization of life science manifests itself in
commitment to one of the hottest fields in present-day research:
stem cells. Although the U.S. government puts stringent
restrictions on funding for research on embryonic stem cells,
individual states such as California have set up institutes to
perform that work and general stem cell studies. “And around the
world we’ll see stimuli to get involved in stem cell work,” Burrill
predicts. “Lots of countries have made that a priority. The
Koreans, Chinese, Singaporeans, and Russians are giving a lot of
support to stem cell research.”
Stem cells will remain largely the province of academic
researchers next year. But industry also looks forward to change,
particularly in drug discovery. “Big pharma has been fairly
resilient, with pharmaceutical firms continuing to hire for drug
development. That’s going to continue, but at a slower pace,” Babco
forecasts. “Most of the new drugs will come through
biopharmaceuticals — drugs produced through biotechnology. That
will involve not just discovery but also further development and
manufacture.”
Interdisciplinary Training
As that comment indicates, many of the most promising opportunities
in pharmaceuticals will involve the post-discovery phases of drug
creation. “Because everybody’s concerned about the amount of time
and money it takes to produce a drug and get it to market, there
will probably be a growth of jobs involved with getting drugs into
clinical trials and drug safety,” Babco says. “Qualifications in
regulatory affairs, validation, and quality control will be
helpful.”
Practically, that means that life scientists must obtain more
interdisciplinary training than they have in the past. “It’s not
enough to have a Doctorate in cell biology or molecular biology,”
Babco asserts. “You’ll need very specific experience in several
areas. You have to have a very strong background in cell structure
and cell biology but also a multidisciplinary feel.”
UCSF’s Lindstaedt agrees. “Having more than one field of
training is important for postdocs,” he says. “The Ph.D. is all
about getting depth; the postdoc should add some breadth to that
depth.” UCSF has a strategy for achieving that. “Next year our
Office of Postdoctoral Education will roll out two cross-training
programs to promote interdisciplinary research,” Lindstaedt says.
“One will help basic scientists understand the molecular basis of
disease and the other is an emerging techniques course that will
give them an understanding of how to do a technique and to see what
its applications are.”
The same attitude pervades noncommercial institutions. “We are
specifically focusing on two areas of interdisciplinary science,”
NIH’s Gottesman says. “One is translational medicine: lab-based
science with translation to human experience. We’re looking for
people interested in doing basic research and applying it to human
problems. The other is combining biology with the physical sciences
— physics, engineering, math, and computer sciences. People who
have skills in those areas will have little trouble getting jobs in
the future.”
The term “interdisciplinary” doesn’t refer only to understanding
of different fields of science. “Scientists have to be prepared to
work cross-functionally, with business development people, for
example,” Lindstaedt says. Adds Jock of Kelly Scientific: “You need
a good understanding of the product development cycle, the ability
to work in a multifunctional arena, and you need to be able to
articulate in a business setting. This will help to guarantee
funding of your project.”
Hot Fields and Subfields
What disciplinary fields and subfields will offer the greatest
potential for employment in 2006 and beyond? “Certainly at the
molecular level, research on signal pathways and chemistry are
important,” Jock says. “Scientists need a broader understanding of
the interface between chemistry and biology. You also throw in a
good, healthy dose of informatics and bioinformatics, which
companies use to make go—no go decisions on projects. Most
biologists understand informatics, but not at the level that
industry needs; that will be part of their ongoing education and
training.”
While the American supply of informatics specialists has
increased in recent years, their transatlantic cousins can hardly
cope with demand for their services. “If there’s one overarching
area that’s a hot field in Europe, it’s probably bioinformatics —
particularly calculating the level of trust one can have in
information,” Critical I’s Hodgson says. “What the field needs are
people with a strong biology background overlaid with an
understanding of informatics who can make sure that the natural
fuzziness of biology is defined. You also need them to develop ways
of making data from different sources talk to each other.”
Burrill sees the development of what he calls “theranostic
drugs” — remedies targeted at specific populations of patients — as
a critical factor in the future employment of life scientists. That
work will demand individuals trained in certain key subdisciplines.
“In addition to stem cells, the pharmacogenomics and
pharmacogenetics arena is expected to be hot,” Burrill says.
“Therapeutically, areas like memory and obesity are going to be
significant spends. Diseases of the underdeveloped world are
increasingly important. Cardiovascular diseases and cancer are
still significant killers and have meaningful funding. And
technologies for drug delivery will be important.” Babco points to
another subfield relevant to modern drug development. “We’ll
continue to have plenty of action in anything to do with
proteomics, such as protein kinases, the control switches for many
cellular functions,” she says.
In Europe, meanwhile, hot job opportunities will depend partly
on geographic location. “Some Danish companies have had to move to
Switzerland because of a shortage of chemists in Denmark,” Hodgson
says. “In France, there’s a lack of clinical trial
specialists.”
Institutional Imperatives
Geography represents just one demographic influence on future job
prospects. Institutional factors also play a role. In some areas,
such as government and academe, opportunities will grow slowly, if
at all. Other sectors, such as small biotechnology firms,
anticipate marked increases in their need for life scientists.
“At NIH, we’re facing a period of relatively flat budgets,”
Gottesman says. “But we’re well aware that it’s incredibly
important for us to recruit new people into biology. Our intent is
to continue to recruit at historical levels — 30 to 35 tenure-track
positions per year.” Recruitment should also benefit from attempts
to counter the perceived “graying” of the staffs of individual
institutes. “There’s a real effort going on to identify new
leadership to replace those who are retiring,” Gottesman
continues.
Universities seem unlikely institutions for expanded job
opportunities in the near future. “I don’t see the job market for
academics improving greatly next year,” UCSF’s Lindstaedt says.
“Not only do the big state universities have flat support from NIH;
they also have a problem getting funds for more tenure-track
positions.” However, academic institutions should benefit from the
burgeoning interest in research on stem cells. “We expect to see a
significant increase in spend in the stem cells arena, mostly in
the academic sector,” Burrill says.
The biopharmaceutical industry will also increase its spending
as it moves new drug candidates into development and clinical
trials. “The assumption is that the industry will grow at a 10
percent annual clip in Northern California for the next few years,”
says BayBio’s Gardner. That growth will provide job opportunities
in companies of all sizes. “Very large companies say they’ll never
have enough research associates and enough manufacturing
associates,” Gardner continues. “Small companies are far more
specific in their needs. They want people in product development,
for example, and offer very targeted research positions.”
Education or Work Force Development
But do graduate life scientists have the skills they need to
survive and thrive in the corporate world? CSUPERB’s Dahms thinks
not. “Academics are contributing to the workforce, but many of the
necessary skill sets come with foreign nationals,” he says. “People
with those skill sets have good science backgrounds but are well
involved in the multiple steps that represent the environment in
companies, particularly small r, large D companies.”
As Dahms sees it, students can’t pick up those skills in the
typical two-hour course in industry that many life science
departments offer. Instead, he says, “they have to bridge past the
constraints set by their advisers to look at the offerings of
colleges of engineering and of business, which have a good mode of
thinking to guide students in the right direction.”
Dahms, who a is board member of the Council of Biotechnology
Centers, a section of the Biotechnology Industry Organization,
recommends another way in which life science graduates can bridge
the constraints. “Take high end professional Master’s degrees,” he
suggests. “These two-year programs have courses in project
management, negotiation, and other skills. In essence, the programs
have 40 percent to 50 percent of the same content as business
school courses.” Babco agrees. “You need people who can interface
among all the different specializations, including those relevant
to business as well as science,” she says. “Professional Master’s
degrees can be useful for project directors.”
The programs focus narrowly on such areas as management of drug
development, reimbursement affairs, and regulatory affairs. “These
are areas so incredibly on target that they have zero
unemployment,” Dahms says. His comments on the courses stem from
firsthand knowledge. “I head a Center for Biodevice Development at
San Diego State University with a professional Master’s degree,” he
explains. He adds one caution: Because professional Master’s
programs remain fairly rare, students must work hard to find them.
“Some of them do not market themselves extensively,” he says, “as
they would be overwhelmed.”
Certificate Programs
At a slightly lower level, undergraduate departments and community
colleges offer certificate programs in specific areas of expertise.
“The programs fit a demographic defined by skills and skill sets,”
Gardner explains. “Those programs are full of students with
Bachelor’s degrees. Qualified chemists and life scientists have to
go back to take short sources in good lab practice, for
example.”
The availability of courses geared to the skills and mindset
that industry needs raises the issue of how far life scientists
need to take their academic training. “I think there’s increased
need in the industry for some of the more pedestrian skills, which
may be lower even than Bachelor’s degrees,” Burrill says. Gardner
agrees. “As some companies in this arena reach the mature
organization stage, the profiles of their new hires are changing,”
he says. “Genentech, for example, is reversing the stratification
of its workforce, from 70 percent Master’s degrees and above to 70
percent Bachelor’s degrees and below.”
Plainly, many of the workers in the biopharmaceutical vineyard
have no need of higher qualifications. “You certainly need a lot of
people who will work the scientific machines,” Hodgson points out.
“Not all of those will need to be as research minded as the Ph.D.
or postdoc. There’s a lot of scope for people coming in at an
earlier level who look to combine a basic science grounding with
experience in business or development work.” Scientists without
Ph.D.s also have opportunities for work beyond the laboratory.
“We’ll be able to use specialists to communicate with lawmakers,
the press, and the public,” Babco says. “They’ll have to
communicate the value of new drugs; they don’t necessarily need a
Ph.D. to do that.”
Jock foresees an increasing stratification in the scientific
workforce that might reduce the value of Master’s degrees — apart
from the new professional versions. “There’s going to be a need for
Bachelor’s qualified individuals with solid science training, but
you’ll also need the Ph.D.s,” he says. “You’ll see a bimodal
distribution, with Bachelor’s graduates trained in specific fields
such as RNA interference or signaling pathways and the Ph.D.s who
can be project leaders and investigators.”
Collegiality and Communications
Scientific qualifications represent just one aspect of job
applicants’ appeal. Employers in academe, government, and industry
uniformly look for evidence of job seekers’ communications skills
and collegiality. “People-to-people skills like these are
absolutely essential skill sets, within the company and for dealing
with federal agencies,” Dahms declares.
The ability to collaborate has become particularly critical.
“You need both collegiality and communications skills, because
industrial life science is a team act,” Hodgson says. “Equally
important is flexibility both in thinking and the ability to switch
from one project area to another.”
Government work provides some scope for isolated individual
initiative. “Because there’s a lot more team science, people must
be able to work in teams. We also need leadership skills, as teams
need leaders,” NIH’s Gottesman explains. “That doesn’t rule out the
brilliant lone investigator, though. There will still be
opportunities for them in government labs and universities.”
Industry has much less time for solo scientists. “Being able to
work in large groups where your result is pretty much important to
the overall mission goal is important. You have to be a link in the
chain rather than carving yourself out as a separate island,” Jock
says. “That was less evident 10 to 15 years ago, but it has changed
as the global economy has developed. You might have to interact
with colleagues across the U.S. and across continents.”
Job seeking scientists must recognize the reality of
globalization. “If we set up a company now, we are global from the
time we start,” Burrill says. “We can license from anywhere in the
world. Our intellectual property is a global issue. Capital is very
fluid. Disease knows no borders. And the need to be Internet- and
global communications—savvy is a much, much higher priority today
than it was a few years ago.” Native English speakers have one
advantage here. “English is the language of science and the
language of business,” Burrill continues. “Regardless of where you
are in the world, it’s important to be fluent in English.”
Speaking Up
Whatever their first language, industrial scientists must be
prepared to speak up for themselves and their projects. “You have
to have the sensitivity necessary to maximize receptiveness to your
ideas,” Jock continues. “You have to be somewhat of a salesman.”
Hodgson echoes that point. “Industrial research is about getting to
the next decision point,” he says. “Any call might terminate a
project or an entire R&D program. The ability to fight your own
corner is important.”
Lindstaedt points out several ways to do that. “Learn
negotiation skills — being able to bring a group to an agreement,”
he advises. “Also develop your ability to delegate tasks, to select
good candidates in hiring, and then to motivate them to follow up
on projects.”
Scientists planning to seek jobs in 2006 should also devote
themselves to due diligence on potential employers. “Preparing
yourself for a discussion about a company’s work, an openness to
its assignments, and an understanding of how a commercial company
works are all important,” Gardner says. “You can find enough
information in public filings to be very well versed in a company’s
affairs — its market, its competition, and its prospects. There’s
no excuse for ignorance.”
Applicants need also recognize how corporations deal with their
resumes. “Because companies are increasing the number of electronic
resumes they receive through the Internet, it’s going to be
important for applicants to research employers for the keywords
they’ll need to get past the resume software,” Babco warns.
“Candidates will have to do more homework to make sure that the
software doesn’t bounce out their resumes.”
Gardner offers one final piece of advice to job seekers. “You
could never do enough practicing and preparing for your
interviews,” he advises. The jobs will be out there next year, but
you’ll have to pursue them with vigor and enthusiasm.
A former science editor of Newsweek, Peter Gwynne ( pgwynne767@aol.com ) writes about
science and technology from his base on Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
U.S.A.