Nature publishes ridiculous editorial on researcher working hours

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
Now there are a dozen tricks for getting a job in finance or software. I'm sure that there are similar tricks for getting a job in biotech, but since I don't know anything about biotech, I don't know what they are, and some things that will help you in finance will probably kill you in biotech.
<snip>

What has been irritating me about this thread (not to pick on twofish in particular, this sentence was simply the most recent) is the uselessness.

Saying you want a job in 'biotech' is like saying you want a job in 'engineering' or a job in 'math'. If someone had asked how to get a job in Engineering, they would be (rightly so) excoriated for not being more specific- one does not apply for an engineering job, one does not get an engineering degree, one does not get a PhD in math. Instead, you get a degree in EE (or some other sub-specialty) and apply for jobs tailored toward your specific expertise.

I'm sure finance has sub-specialties as well, and it's not trivial to move from one to another, just as a mathematician who has a PhD in statistics may not be able to easily move into algebraic topology.

So it is with 'biotech'- do you want to do clinical or research work? Most bioinformatics is, AFAIK, clinical trial based- data mining. There is another large bioinformatics thrust in genetics/proteomics, using network theory. There's a lot of work doing drug development using high-throughput techniques that undoubtedly use a lot of mathematics to analyze.

All I'm saying is, if you want to be serious about moving into another field, you should at least make an effort to learn about the jobs in that field.

 

[Diracula]

I'll read the replies in more detail later, but briefly:

1) There are specific jobs in biotech that, I think, are more suitable for someone with physics training. Namely, things like computational biology and (AFAIK from talking to biological science professors) systems biology. Probably synthetic biology and bioengineering too. Much of this is based on impressions I have gathered from people already in the field. I have seen job ads in the biotech industry specifically for people with physics or related backgrounds, and it tends to be in these fields. I mentioned at least a couple of these previously, and it should be pretty clear that a computational astrophysicist (for example) wouldn't be seriously considered for a protein biochemistry position (for example).

2) All of the people who I know that work in biotech obtained their jobs through "standard channels". To the best of my knowledge they literally simply applied on the company website, had a phone/screening interview at some point (generally 3-6 months later for positions they are not rushing to fill), then had an all day interview. I don't know if there are other ways to get positions in the biotech industry. So it looks like finance and software are just way different to what I'm familiar with.

 

[twofish-quant]

All I'm saying is, if you want to be serious about moving into another field, you should at least make an effort to learn about the jobs in that field.

From whom? It's incredibly difficult when you have no idea where to start.

Also, maybe I'm *not* serious about moving into another field. What I really need is to have someone give me an hour or two presentation about what is possible and what isn't, so that I can make a rational decision on how much effort to put into this. Talking with a real live human being is helpful because you learn stuff that isn't easily available on google. For example, "do I as a Ph.d. want a job in finance" can basically be boiled down to one question "Do you want to live in New York City/London/Hong Kong/Singapore?" If it turns out that you hate NYC, then I can tell you that finance is likely not for you, and you should look elsewhere, and that's a huge time saver.

In my case, I have no immediate need or desire to switch fields, but I've found it useful to keep a parachute ready just in case. Also even in the lack of any jobs, I'd like to talk to someone in biotech who has astrophysics background. My current plan is to work for another decade, and then do astrophysics for the rest of my life. If there is someone in biotech that is planning the same thing, we need to talk.

In particular, I try to keep looking five to ten years ahead. If I have to find a job in bioinformatics *now* then it's come as you are. If there is a vague possibility that I'll be looking for a job in bioinformatics in five to ten years, then I can start learning some things now so that in five years, I'll have guru level skills.

Also I've found that it's a bad thing to assume things when moving from field to field. What's standard practice in one field is suicidal in another. The other thing that is a problem is that there are trust issues. There are people in finance that are downright crooked, and even the people that aren't crooked are usually not acting in your interests. One reason that a lot of finance involves face to face interactions is that its not hard to write an ad that streches the truth, but it;s a lot harder to convincingly lie to someone that is you talking directly to.

The other thing that you can gauge is how much people really want you.

 

[Diracula]

From whom? It's incredibly difficult when you have no idea where to start.

Also, maybe I'm *not* serious about moving into another field. What I really need is to have someone give me an hour or two presentation about what is possible and what isn't, so that I can make a rational decision on how much effort to put into this.

YES!

A lot of these posts that people are critical of come from the point of view of "OK, I have no job, or my job and career direction are completely horrible, so I need to know what to do."

If you are coming from this perspective, it is a serious serious mistake to pick out one specific niche in one specific field and try to gather all the info you can about that one career path then do that. And do all this before you weigh your options in every other reasonable field. This is what got you into the horrible career situation in the first place, most likely.

Which is why people who are looking for SOME type of reasonable job or career path tend to speak in broader terms of "ok, what can I do from where I'm at?" Picking out one specific sub-field of biotech, for instance, and putting your blinders on for all other options in biotech (or every other field physicists can work in) is silly for someone in that position. It's far better to ask questions like, "biotech seems to be growing, can I get in this field with a physics background? If so, how?" Then once you answer that you start thinking about specific paths to specific jobs.

 

[Andy Resnick]

From whom? It's incredibly difficult when you have no idea where to start.

It's far better to ask questions like, "biotech seems to be growing, can I get in this field with a physics background? If so, how?" Then once you answer that you start thinking about specific paths to specific jobs.

[Twofish:]How did you find out about finance? Whom did you talk to?

You both know as well as I do that finding a job is a full-time job. Also, speaking from 'the other side of the fence', I don't have the time or inclination to recruit- qualified candidates come to me.

For the students (undergrad or grad), you have career services centers at school- use them. For the postdocs, you should have, by now, an established network of contacts- not just colleagues, but friends who went on to do other things.

There's no shortcut- if you want to move into a new field, you need to get familiar with that field. Being able to solve a PDE is, in itself, not a marketable skill because there are bizillions of people who can do that. People are hired because they can solve someone else's problem. If I can do something myself, I'm not going to spend money getting someone else to do it.

How do you find out what problems need to be solved? Read. Read everything. Trade journals are an excellent resource, most of them are free and give you a broad overview of a field. What skills do you have that can translate to another field? I can't answer that for you, nobody can.

In the end, nobody can point to a well-defined career path for you. Nobody can figure out what you should do, and nobody can honestly say things like "if you do [x], then you will be able to get a job doing [y]".

I took a risk by spending 4 years immersed in a Physiology department. The first 2 years that I spent working in a medical school were incredibly disorienting and difficult, for a variety of reasons. Biomedical people don't like physics, *really* don't like math, and know a $hitload more than you. For 2 years I was regularly derided in class (I took a bunch of classes) and in various Department seminars for asking idiotic questions. I suspect that both of you realize that if you can endure that period of time (and over time ask fewer stupid questions and more intelligent questions), you will start to gain mastery and value.

No shortcuts, no single path.

 

[twofish-quant]

You both know as well as I do that finding a job is a full-time job. Also, speaking from 'the other side of the fence', I don't have the time or inclination to recruit- qualified candidates come to me.

There is the matter of going where you are wanted.

Recruiting is a royal pain in the rear end sometimes, but most financial firms *NEED* physics Ph.D.'s so that they go through quite a bit of effort to find them. Our firm (and pretty much every other firm) send people to the major big-name universities each fall looking for Ph.D. applications. The reason I post as much as I do, is that since my Ph.D. isn't from a big-name university, I do what I can to "level the playing field."

There are some signals that people can put out, and you can figure out that you are needed when someone spends a lot of precious time on you. If biotech firms *NEED* physics Ph.D.'s then I've got some ideas for how to get them. If the attitude is merely "send us your resume and we'll call you back" then maybe that don't *need* you, and if they don't *need* you, maybe it's a waste of time to apply unless you are totally
desperate.

For the students (undergrad or grad), you have career services centers at school- use them. For the postdocs, you should have, by now, an established network of contacts- not just colleagues, but friends who went on to do other things.

And none of my contacts went into biotech. If there are jobs available then that's a big problem that needs to get fixed.

Also, people *should* have a network of contacts, but in most places people don't. If you have a situation in which working in industry is considered shameful, then people just won't network. Also networking favors the big name schools, which is a problem since I didn't get into one, so I'm doing what I can to create a different network.

There's no shortcut- if you want to move into a new field, you need to get familiar with that field.

But how do you decide if you want to move into a field? The reason finance looked interesting was that I knew people that made the switch, and that made a difference. Also there is really know way of learning some things until you jump off the cliff.

Being able to solve a PDE is, in itself, not a marketable skill because there are bizillions of people who can do that.

Not true. There really aren't that many people that are competent at it. Being about to crunch PDE's is a very marketable skill. You just have to remember to market it.

People are hired because they can solve someone else's problem. If I can do something myself, I'm not going to spend money getting someone else to do it.

That's also not true in finance or software. A lot of finance consists of what I call toilet cleaning problems. There are lots of people that *can* clean a toilet bowl, but if you have ten thousand toilets to clean it doesn't matter. Anything I can do, there are a dozen other people that can also do, and some of them can do it better. But there are lots of toilets to be cleaned.

How do you find out what problems need to be solved? Read. Read everything. Trade journals are an excellent resource, most of them are free and give you a broad overview of a field.

Except that in finance the good stuff never gets published. If anyone is interested I'd be happy in private lunch what we are working on, and what skills we need, but I will get fired if I start talking about it publicly. In any case, things change quickly. Skills that are in serious demand in January 2010 may have a glut in March 2010.

One reason that finance needs so many Ph.D.'s is that the rules change quickly. The human body and general relativity will not change much between May 2011 and today, but finance changes on this sort of time scale. That's also why taking classes is useless. By the time you finish a one semester class, everything you were taught could be wrong and even dangerously wrong.

In the end, nobody can point to a well-defined career path for you. Nobody can figure out what you should do, and nobody can honestly say things like "if you do [x], then you will be able to get a job doing [y]".

True, but people can tell you that there is a road that leads somewhere or a road that leads nowhere. Also, I can't honestly say that "if you do X, then you will be able to get a job doing Y" and I *can* with reasonable confidence say "if you do X, then you *won't* be able to get a job doing Y"

Also the fact that there is no well-defined career path for physics Ph.D.'s has to do with the way that the economy is set up. It's not an inherent characteristic of society, and if we have a situation in which Ph.D.'s are ending up vastly underemployed we have a problem, especially since other countries are rolling out red carpets for Ph.D.'s.

I took a risk by spending 4 years immersed in a Physiology department. The first 2 years that I spent working in a medical school were incredibly disorienting and difficult, for a variety of reasons. Biomedical people don't like physics, *really* don't like math, and know a $hitload more than you. For 2 years I was regularly derided in class (I took a bunch of classes) and in various Department seminars for asking idiotic questions. I suspect that both of you realize that if you can endure that period of time (and over time ask fewer stupid questions and more intelligent questions), you will start to gain mastery and value.

No shortcuts, no single path.

But knowing that something is painful is useful information. For example, if you send out ten resumes and no one calls you back. Is this a problem with your resume or is this normal? In the case of software, it's normal.

As a counterpoint, there are a lot of physics Ph.D.'s that end up getting an MFE degree. They are just wasting their money, and helping the schools make $$$ and pad their statistics. If it turns out that taking courses for four years is *essential* for moving into biotech, then that's very useful information and may explain why no one I know has done it.

The other thing is there is an issue of social responsibility. One thing that I do from time to time is play Carl Sagan and go to young people talking about the wonders of the universe. The fear that I have in the back of my mind is that I'll get someone hooked on science and then they'll end up like some of the post-docs in this thread. If I believed that this would be the outcome, then I'd shut up about how cool science is.

But since I really believe that society would be better off with more people interested in science, then it then becomes my responsibility to make sure that the eight year old who I get interested in astrophysics has some path in front of him.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
But how do you decide if you want to move into a field? <snip>

I can answer that for me, but clearly there's no way I can answer that for you (or anyone else).