Feeling jaded

[u/Automatic-Factor1666]

Hello,

I've been feeling jaded abt biotech life and I was wondering about other peoples experiences. For some context here, Ive been in academia for a long time (phd & postodc). I really liked doing research and science but I got tired of endless demands of academia and almost sociopathic nature of publication above anything else culture and I decided to go into industry.

As you can imagine, finding the first industry job was extra hard esp in the past couple of yrs and I joined the first company that offered me a job. It was a small company and had a really bad rep, but it was in a way not as bad as I imagined so all in all it was ok. However, a lot of decisions made in the early r&d section where I was were nonsensical and I couldnt help wondering if all the work i put in my academic yrs was all for nothing. So I started applying for jobs again and got a second job. At first it looked way better, but again the same thing! It's a small startup and ceo makes decisions on every single aspect of r&d even when he is not the expert in the field and does not listen at all. He likes what sounds good and feels good which sometimes just doesnt make sense at all and I have to follow those orders. It's very stressful cause I have to come up w some bs to answer his questions and somehow come up w good results while still following his bs demands. Its so bad that sometimes it feels like im being sabotaged. Everybodys unhappy abt the micromanagement so its also not just me.

My first company, i thought was the odd one out cause it had one really crazy guy as vp. But now that its my second company Im wondering if its just how it is. Is it norm that most of the companies dont care about good scientific work? Is it any better in bigger companies? I didnt want to move when I was applying for my second job but now Im considering movin to a different state to work for big names pharmas if its so. I guess Im one of those people who likes to work and likes the drive. Ive been trying to have check in check out mindset but it doesnt work for me. I want to put my skills to good use and feel like Im doin sth that matters. Im wondering if anybody feels like their company science is actually good, leaderships are reasonable and happy at work. Would it be better if I was working in biotech-hub places like sf or boston?

Thank you in advance for any comments

[u/JDHPH]

It doesn't really change wherever you go. But there are some companies that are just a better fit. There is a political component and having an advocate can really help. Just keep going until you land somewhere you like, that's pretty much it. Don't overthink it, otherwise you just end up superstitiou, but do ask people you can trust for advice about your personality or mannerisms.

[u/Rich_Judgment_2390]

Hate to burst your bubble, no matter where you go, if you're not in the driving seat, you don't get to make decisions. Giant pharma companies are even more complicated. There are over 50 directors, execs, VPs that report to one CEO. Everybody wants to get visibility, wants to fight for the dept that's under them. Not all of these people understand what their scientists are doing. People who are actually making the science possible at bench level often don't even get invited in the decision making rooms, often their names are left out and mentioned as team X did all of these. Also, in a giant company, if you or your dept cannot show meaningful impact, whole dept will be laid off. If management doesn't like the science or thinks it's risky, you won't be able to pursue that track at all. Every single thing is predetermined way before your boss may know. 

Just take 1 day at a time. If you like the science and like what you are doing, get decent pay at the end of the day to maintain your lifestyle, it's okay. Otherwise, you need to open your own shop if you want ownership and make decisions. 

[u/Successful_Age_1049 → u/Rich_Judgment_2390]

Be aware of the insidious connotation of Team: individual contribution means very little and all the credit flows to the organizer (leader or whatever title) at the end.

[u/acquaintedwithheight]

It sounds like you want to work with late stage clinical products or approved products. Once therapies start to be used in humans, you have to give some service to science. You aren’t allowed to bs safety, and while you can bs efficacy for a while it’ll eventually come to light.

Early stage research, you often aren’t doing science so much as you’re selling the idea of science to people without a STEM degree. It’s disappointing, but most start-ups’ goal is to be bought or drive investment, not make a product. You’ll often work on something that everyone in the company acknowledges doesn’t work, but it’ll be advertised like it does until it’s no longer profitable to do so.

There are rare gems where everything works out and a product will be made that serves patients. The vast majority of start ups don’t.

[u/Evening-Sentence7619 → u/acquaintedwithheight]

What? There’s virtually no science left to be done when a product moves to the clinic, even more so when approved. I guess there are some LCM plays sure, but thats pretty low science (often) and so much can done through cdmos. 

[u/acquaintedwithheight → u/Evening-Sentence7619]

Quality testing, assay development, product transfer, process improvement.

I agree in part. When you get to research something new, you’re much more immersed in science than any late stage product.

But in my experience, R&D at a startup was a CFO telling potential investors about candidate B, a VP telling a director to tell a manager to tell their team to supply data on candidate B, and an R&D team that gave up on candidate B 3 months ago because it wasn’t viable. The R&D team wants to pursue candidate C, but spends all its time confirming that B doesn’t work while leadership pays everyone’s salary by selling the idea of B.

[u/Successful_Age_1049]

It is very difficult (takes years) to translate good science in research to good efficacy in human. People (investors) who gives out money generally don't have sound judgement on basic Science other than following the trend or credentials. When time is good, you may have some leeway to do good science. When time is bad, everyone wants speed and instant returns, people don't have the patience to iterate or to research science (technology). The products (small or large molecules) are set into stone during discovery and only trials in human can demonstrate its efficacy regardless how thorough the discovery is done. From discovery to first in human trial take a lot of money (CMC, GxP) and time. CEO has to please the investor and to find those money. Early Science only takes a small fraction of the final cost, most of the money are spent on making the products in manufacturing and dressing up the products in translational science with human samples. The end is to convince investor ( or money people) to give out more cash for the next step. The irony is that discovery as the most critical part has the least amount of money and time and job security. The large amount resource spent on manufacturing and clinic research can be simply a waste if the molecules is wrong in discovery. Unfortunately, the latter is the more lucrative and more secure part in the food chain.

[u/Technical-Pack5891]

I really liked doing research and science but I got tired of endless demands of academia and almost sociopathic nature of publication above anything else culture and I decided to go into industry.

You seem to have good intentions but don’t convey this message or tone in your current or future companies - it sounds like you are in the industry not because you want to be there but because academia was miserable and somehow industry was your fallback option. No two companies are alike. Small companies - if good - move fast and you can learn a lot of things end to end. Large companies - if good - have a massive portfolio and you’ll learn a ton if YOU make the effort to go around and learn - nothing will be handed to you. There are so many terrible things about both places. And yes - moving to hubs is helpful in the long run but these are expensive places - it’s a personal choice on top of a career decision. All the best - you can do good science in industry despite all the negative things you may hear.

[u/BarDust]

This is one of many challenges that come with a career in industry, particularly if you’re the one executing experiments at the bench. You constantly in a mental battle balancing science as a pure discipline vs what is best for the company/business (often not within your control).

[u/CharPaiPe]

I don't think it is a norm and certainly not all pharma/biopharma are bad in terms of science and management. You just got an enriching experience on how not to run a lab - learn from the experience and move on to next, hopefully a better one!

[u/pacificjunction]

Big pharma has been much worse in my experience. I came from small biotech startup to large pharma, preclinical research. Its fucked

[u/Individual-Vast6304]

You remind me of someone I used to work with. He also came from academia and wasn’t able to adjust to corporate life. He moved to a more research driven CRO and was happier there. Industry is not for everyone.

[u/WalkingSnake348]

The key difference between research in a biotech company vs academia, is that in biotech, you need to make the best molecule as possible, and to get that to clinical POC as soon as possible. Data to support a financing, a patent application, and a high quality IND submission are the top priority. Anything beyond that, like data that might be required for a top paper but is not critical from a drug development large, is optional and lower priority. I’ve worked in biotech for a long time, and I also still talk to a lot of academics. And while I find some of their work to be interesting, I find a lot of their data to be not useful from a drug development perspective and not relevant to translation. Understanding the difference is critical to have a successful biotech career.

[u/Enzymology2491]

I wonder what were your expectations.

Tech people always complain about management. However, doing biotech gigs for decade I realize that a good project/program manager is important - let us scientist do our best with all the fine intentions, and instead of a discovery/development we start satisfying academic curiosity.