Rules of engagement

Since the arrival of Gregory Lucier as chief executive last year, Invitrogen has been subtly broadening its role. Headquartered in Carlsbad, California, the research-tools company is seeking to build research partnerships with academic, industrial and government customers, and is focusing on the way life sciences converge with healthcare.

One significant change that Invitrogen has made is to increase its scientific recruitment. In particular, it is seeking out promising young researchers. Last year, it spent 6% of its revenue on research and development (R&D); this year it plans to spend 10% (some US$900 million), and as a result will hire up to 250 PhD scientists over the next 12 months.

Perhaps the most aggressive tool in this recruiting drive is the company&'s experimental project called the Life Science Leadership Program, which it launched in January. Under this, the firm scoured the best universities worldwide and drew up a shortlist of 15 of the brightest and best PhDs and MBA candidates. The aim was to give three of these a job.

To smooth the recruitment process, each of the candidates spent two days at the company. There they got a feel for what Invitrogen does and how it does it. More importantly, they got a chance to see the breadth of opportunities that were potentially available to them — both the range of scientific projects and the resources that back them up.

In short, the initiative tries to show how attractive Invitrogen is as a job prospect for them. They can, for example, pursue a technical career path or choose to follow a managerial route.

Ultimately, the goal is to have four ‘waves’ of this two-year scientific leadership programme up and running, with 20–30 people per wave. Every 6–9 months, the new recruits will be given a new assignment in a different part of the company. And after two years, they should be qualified for a fairly meaty job.

For example, Invitrogen is building an R&D centre in Frederick, Maryland, which will eventually house 150 scientists. If members of the leadership programme choose a scientific track, they could well become leaders at that facility. If they choose a management role, they could be leading teams in five years.

The key to the concept is that the programme is not a postdoc, but rather it is a ‘pipeline’ for middle- to senior-level scientists.