Heading Straight to Industry featuring Helen McBride

Laura: I agree it is hard to know what people in industry work on in general unless you collaborate with them. But as my graduate advisor used to say "If you don't know what you're talking about, then acknowledging your ignorance is the best choice." If someone started spouting "facts" like they do about industry about their science instead..they wouldn't find themselves in it for very long. I think I'd most appreciate some circumspection on their part when they speak to students.

ScifemXX: Yes, we get to publish at one of two points during the life cycle of a project. The first is if it crashes and burns. No drug=immediate publication of everything we've got, assays, tool reagents, compounds, the whole thing. The second time is at drug launch to support the medical liasions who talk to the docs about the science behind the drug. In that case we pull out manuscipts that we wrote up along the way out of dusty drawers and get them on their way for publication. Oftentimes this means repeating experiments with updated technologies as they may 10+years old. We're given time to do that because supporting products is valued. The one time when we're restricted in publishing even with the two above is when we sell off the drug to another company because we don't want to develop it: niche market, not something we're good at, etc. In that case the buyer can restrict what we can publish.
Do I care? That's a personal thing for me. I feel publishing is a community service more than anything else. For people working in the field, giving them the results is key for them to build or move on from what has been done. So...actually getting it in a journal doesn't matter to me as much as collaborating with key people in the field so I can share information and resources that are necessary to advance a field. If I was going the scientific track in my company, however, I would need to publish as often as possible to pass a tenure like review standard. That's why I'm solid management track instead. I have no desire to dance that dance. :)

Scifeminista: Do I get to work on what I want to work on? The answer is particular to my company of course. There is variation in the degree in talking with my colleagues at other companies. In short, yes, however. I nominated a target I felt was interesting and being me, different, from others in the department. I've been working on it since 2006, and we will have to decide if we have a drug soon fairly soon. If we don't, then I have 6 months to wrap up everything and publish if I choose. Then its on to the next target...that I also get to choose:) I like industry because I don't have to work on the same thing forever. I visit my grad advisor who has been working in the same area for over 25 years, and I know he's still completely fascinated with that area of work...and I find the minutiae so boring...so part of it is personality. If you like changing directions every 5-7 years, then industry is good. If you want to do the same thing for your whole life, then industry is not so good:)

I sense from your posting, Helen, that you feel you get to do first rate science at Amgen. My question is, do you get to publish it? Do you care if you do or not?

Hi Helen,
Do you find that being in industry restricts what you can work on, the problems I mean, to things that might lead to products? That's what I've heard from academics. If you go into industry to study X, would they divert you to study Y if trends in drug development changed?

Hi Helen,
Probably it's because they don't really know how it is in industry. Unless you're one of those bio-entrepreneurs, academics don't have an easy entree into industry. As I recall, Amgen events like symposia, etc, are not usually open to non-Amgen people, for example. I'm not complaining about that, I am sure there are good security reasons, but it just makes it hard for people in academia to know how exciting industrial research can be. Or, of course, other options. And industry people almost always came out of academia in the US so they are well aware of both plusses and minuses of that way of life.
cheers,
Laura

Susan: I agree its pointless to run down one path or another, especially when there isn't much information about what industry is like for someone who has only worked in academe. It amuses me that at events where both options are present the industry PIs are always so respectful and take care to point out the benefits of an academic path. For some reason the academics never do the same...What I object to is that the culture is such that making any choice beyond the "expected" one is disparaged.

This young woman agonized over telling her advisor and put it off until she couldn't any longer as she was so worried about how he would react. He almost cried when she told him as she was his first student and he felt that he had "failed" in some way...that is just way too much pressure for anyone. Keeping women in science is important to effect change, I agree. But expecting women to sacrifice themselves for the greater good is a stretch for me.

Individual choice as you say should be respected, even if that includes someone wanting to go off and work teaching chemistry in Africa for a few years (as a friend of mine did). A PhD in my opinion is never wasted regardless of what someone does with it.

ex CS: That's a perspective I have heard on occasion. My question is what is there to reconsider if you know the life is not for you and especially if you have a desire to do something outside discovery research? I just don't hear anyone longing to go back into academe as a lab head with the work required to obtain funding. I've certainly heard them want to go into non-profit pharma for the developing world, NGOs, science outreach, science education, university administration, venture cap, policy etc. and all of those are viable "exits" from industry. We have a scientific track at my company that allows you to essentially pass a "tenure" process and not focus on management development, just the science. In theory those individuals could re-enter academe. So far no one has exited like that, although one went on to a dean level position at a university, so it is possible if not common.

Hey postdoc girl: It's not too late to consider industry after a postdoc. I waited until I was a non-tenure track faculty to leave, however it is more difficult as industry has many more associate level positions vs. manager positions available at any one point. And the recent consolidation of companies has made this worse for those breaking into industry for the first time as there are so many industry experienced applicants. Although we appreciate the "fresh outlook" that someone from academe provides, we also realize that it takes over 1 year to become familiar with the practical aspects of working in a company that is effectively downtime for a new hire. When we can save that, it's always welcome. One thing I think people forget about is that there are more than discovery research jobs in industry. People can go into a variety of positions with a PhD, such as project management, biomarker development/translational sciences, medical writing, medical liasion, protein sciences/molecular structure/screening/assay development. All these positions hire PhDs, so if you take away the limit of discovery research which is the closest to academe, you give yourself a lot more opportunity.

I'm not surprised when it happens. But, things in academe will not continue to improve if women keep leaving--it takes the pressure off to make changes.
 

Women from my lab have gone to a variety of places. Only two went fully academic (one overseas). Several are in industry, doing well; one is a sort of "super-postdoc". about half have children.

 

While I appreciate that there are strong opinions on this subject, I think it's useful to point out that academe still offers some good things--like complete freedom to set a research program, the pure joy of developing young scientists (my grad students are my favorite part of it), and significant flexibility. For example, I'm enjoying a sabbatical this semester, which has allowed me to engage a new project and really think about what I want to do next.
 
In a panel yesterday at USC, several of us faculty spoke to a room full of postdocs about academic job searches. We faculty panelists were a mixture of women and men, all tenured, all with families in one form or another. i don't think we're particularly exceptional.

 
The main thing is that women (or anyone else) should make an affirmative decision: they want to go into industry for the positive attributes of that career path, rather than as a negative choice because they are told they can't make it in academe or are afraid of it. I find it unhelpful to disparage one choice or the other. My general take is to advise the women working for me to make a free choice on what THEY want, whichever that direction is, and not be afraid to reach for it.
 

I was told that industry was a dead end, that if you go in you could never come out again. So my impression is that the glories of the low paid, hard working postdoc period were supposed to make you want to reconsider going into industry.

My advisor thinks doing a postdoc is like buying insurance if you plan to go into industry, so you will have the basic academic expectations if you ever decide to come back to academia. From what I can see, the time and child care flexibility is much greater in industry and you don't have to go through the strain of tenure during your years when you could consider having kids. And the research sounds great.
Is it too late for people like me who took this advisor pressure too seriously? How much postdoc is too much?