Clinical Research: Dana Panteleef

Dana Panteleef

How did you choose your career? Was this an easy or hard process for you? If you struggled, how did you overcome these struggles?

Honestly, I kind of stumbled into it; trying things along the way and being honest with myself about what I did and didn't like about particular job functions. One place that was a struggle for me to find the right fit was within trying to shift from a purely research laboratory setting to more of a clinical trial setting. While exploring options within things more on the clinical side, I encountered concerns from those involved in the interview process (both real and informational interviews) that there was perhaps too large of a gap between what I had learned in twelve years in a research laboratory compared to what would be expected from a more clinical setting. Some of those concerns were real — indeed, I hadn't worked within a formal or regulated environment. But some of those concerns were purely perceived — the vibe I was picking up during interviews (for specific positions or informational) was the misconception that research labs are completely unorganized and people who come out of them have a hard time shifting into more of a structured and regulated environment. While it was frustrating to hear those perceptions and experience the level of influence that those perceptions can have on hiring decisions, these types of exchanges shaped my approach to describing what I would be able to bring to the positions in which I was interested. Once I shifted descriptions towards describing my strengths and aptitude in developing organizational systems — with specific examples — I then had the opportunity to highlight the benefit of having had the opportunity to test a wide variety of approaches within the research lab setting, where there is perhaps a bit more freedom to explore. All that said, I'll never really know if that shift in approach really helped when I interviewed with my current group, or if I simply got lucky, but that was the thinking behind the approach.

What kind of training, both formal and informal, did you receive to prepare you for your career? If applicable, how did you select where to attend graduate school? How did you choose your postdoc? How about any additional training? How did you choose what additional training to pursue and how did you choose where to do it?

Formal training for me is fairly thin; I hold a B.S. in Microbiology from the University of Washington. The majority of my training was much less formal by way of on-the-job training, a smattering of meetings and conferences, and mentoring from more senior colleagues. Recently I did decide to pursue a graduate certificate in Clinical Trials offered through the University of Washington. I decided on that program after reviewing course content and appreciating the applicability to a position advancement opportunity I was considering within my workplace. I'm currently wondering if a master's-level degree would be beneficial to me professionally.

How competitve and/or rigorous was the training for your career?

The Microbiology Program was congenially competitive; as a group we were fairly capable and supportive of each other performing at capacity. But we always compared notes after exams. The Certificate In Clinical Trials is more of an adult learning-style program — those who invest more get more out of it. All other training for me was on the job and informal.

In general, how much did the training cost? Was the investment worth it?

If memory serves, the tuition and other academic fees ended up in the $20K range. The graduate certificate was roughly $3K. I believe the investment in both was very much worth it.

How long did it take you to train? Was it shorter or longer than anticipated? If you had any setbacks, how did you deal with them?

B.S. was a typical four years, graduate certificate was one academic year. Both were as anticipated and I was fortunate to experience no setbacks.

What was the process like to apply for your first job after your training was over? Was it easy or difficult? How did you cope with any difficulties? Did that differ from subsequent jobs you've had?

My first job out of undergrad was as a research laboratory technician. I sort of stumbled into that position, as the lab in which I was doing an undergraduate research project was looking to hire a technician right around the time I was deciding what do to with my time just after graduation. In hindsight, it was an easy process, but I recall being intimidated at the time by the process of having a "real" job. I ended up staying with that lab for roughly twelve years as a technician with increasing responsibility, but my job now is very different from my first job. As a technician, usually the success of an experiment was in my hands — if I made a mistake, I could be mad at myself, and just do it better next time. My current position involves more working through other people and teams. When there are mistakes or misunderstandings, there are often more politics and team management required to agree on an appropriate corrective and preventative action plan.

What advice would you give to someone interested in following a similar career path?

Seek out ways to immerse yourself in a variety of approaches and ways of thinking. Each PI and each study have very different needs, so it's important to be comfortable working within a wide variety of structures and paces. If international research is of interest to you, gain international experience early. Speak up about what you can do and what you are interested in, as those conversations can open doors.

What would you have done differently in preparing for your career?

I'm still preparing! However, I have no regrets regarding career choices made thus far.

How much do you like what you do? Why? Is it what you imagined it would be? If not, how have you adapted?

Usually, I love it. It's fast-paced, complicated, exposes me to a wide variety of projects and approaches, and requires me to practice thinking in different ways. I enjoy working with PIs who are driven and dedicated to the research as well as the participants. Working for a group of four very different PIs, I've had to learn to adapt my communication style to (hopefully) suit each one while still conveying the key points of a message.

How do you achieve career-life balance? Is this easy or hard to do? How many hours do you typically work per week?

That's a tough one — how does one measure career-life balance? I can't recall a time where I've consciously thought, at some particular moment, "Wow — now, this is balanced and exactly how I want to maintain division of time going forward." However, if I step back and reflect on the fact that I have succeeded in staying happily married for thirteen years and connected with my kids (currently six and nine), while advancing professionally, I can see how that sounds pretty darn balanced. Personally, I tend to notice more when something feels way off-balance, and then try remind myself that rather than dwell on the frustration of the feeling of imbalance, focus on what to do to correct the course. Depending on mood and other circumstances, sometimes that's easier said than done.

I typically work 50–60 hours per week, flexing up further when there are key deliverables or milestones within one of our studies.

What strategies have you figured out over time to help you succeed?

Be flexible and adaptive, be open to hearing that your idea may be what's best for you but may not be what's best for the group. And it never hurts to make your boss(es) look good.

How do you see your field changing in the next 5–10 years?

I'm currently working in the international HIV prevention research field. I'm hoping that as the next wave of studies comes out, we'll have some good news with regard to intervention tools that have been tested and are deemed to be safe and efficacious. As we accumulate tools that work in theory and within the research environment, perhaps studies will move more towards implementation, roll-out, and scale-up type projects as opposed to proof-of-concept studies. Regardless of which way the science and research goes, regulations will likely continue to increase, thus we'll need to continue to revise and optimize our approaches such that we can keep operations lean and nimble yet still conduct our work within high levels of quality and regulatory rigor.