Is this thing on?

Overseas experience?

2008-09-11T09:11:00.000-07:00

From two posts back, asking about overseas experience, in the comments - got this

My department is getting changed about and there is an opportunity for someone to run all of Europe as Product Manager or stay in the US at the headquarters for the same role. Which lends itself to more advanced career advancement? Autonomy at HQ, close to the Big Cheeses or responsibility separate but isolated in Europe?

I have been traveling a lot, and unable to update the blog, but that isn't the reason I have been slow to answer this question. The truth of the matter is that I have waffled very hard on the answer. I have argued (to myself) both sides of this. SO - please take that in to account that I don't even agree with myself.

Here are the issues as I see them.

Going over seas just for the sake of being overseas (strictly speaking work wise here, not general life experience) is probably not worth it.
What will you learn? If there is an expansion of opportunity (i.e. you will get responsibility that you won't get in the US) then it is likely a good thing? You say "same role" in your comment, but I don't ever think that is 100% true.
Does the company have a good track record of bringing people back from overseas? or is that where people get sent to die? If it is the metaphorical version of being sent to Siberia - then don't do it. If all of the senior people in your company have been overseas for a posting, and you think you will be staying at that company for awhile - get your butt on an airplane.
Are you traveling overseas for work a lot right now? if yes, that can give you a flavor. Make sure you "know" the rest of the world exists at all times or you are likely to be very surprised when something happens. If you aren't getting that opportunity right now, then an overseas posting is probably a good idea.
Living overseas has a lot of benefits as far as expanding your mind. There are annoyances and upsides, but overall you will be a more rounded person (outside of work).
You will expand your network in ways that US only based people will NOT be able to. You will, therefore, get information and have contacts that purely US based people will never have.

SO - I have absolutely no good answer for you. For me, I haven't and don't have plans to work overseas. Others around me have. I don't think they have a big advantage over me, but I spend a lot of time overseas anyway. Our CEO was based overseas for awhile early in his career, but those around him haven't been.

Kind of a toss up. If you have no family/life issues preventing you from doing it - that likely means you are early in your career, and I would likely do it. That is when I would have done it and am actually a little bummed I didn't get the chance then.

Sales experience for an app Scientist job

2008-09-11T09:04:00.000-07:00

From my previous post, there were some questions in the comments. Will deal with them in two seperate posts.

I am less than a month away from submitting my PhD, and am frustrated with bench work. I am very interested in begining a career in industry, and specifically looking at applicaiton scientist roles.

As you yourself have said, you always hire through recruiters, however, all the ones I've spoken to keep telling me that I'll have real trouble getting a position straight out of my PhD. One of them has refused to put me forward to any of the companies she has as clients. Another one has done so, as my experience matches exactly what the client needs, but told me in effect not to hold my breath. Apparently I have to go through sales first. I don't beleive that is so, but perhaps I am misguided.

I should point out that I am in the UK, so the market here is probably different from the US, but what are your thoughts about this?

I couldn't disagree with what you are being told any more strongly than I do. "go through sales first".... ummm.. NO - I wouldn't hire you in to an app scientist role if you had been through sales first. At that point you have been taken too far away from the bench.

"not right"is very odd. In looking at our app scientists, they are all straight from Ph.D. At other companies I know of, that is mostly true as well. Several have done post docs, but far from a majority. Several don't have a Ph.D. - so that is pretty much the opposite of what you are being told.

I am looking world wide when I say this. I have full visibility in to Europe, China, and India - so this is certainly not a US only issue. I would say ex-US that it is critical that you have a Ph.D. as I don't currently see any non-Ph.D's. In the US it seems to be a lot less of an issue.

Straight out of the Ph.D. it WILL TAKE A LONG TIME to get a job. You don't know anyone, you have nothing in your favor with regards to work experience etc.... It took me 4 months, and I got VERY lucky. Others have taken 5/6/7 months.

Hang in there... you will be told NO an awful lot. I hated bench work as much as it sounds like you did - it gets better!

Random questions I remember being asked...

2008-07-07T20:39:00.000-07:00

People have asked a couple of other questions, and I tried to save them, but they are all buried in comments on old posts. SO - some random answers that I think are linked to comments that are posted that I can't immediately find... AND - some commentary on some other things going on.

BIO
I went to the BIO trade show in San Diego. It is unlike any other show I have ever been to. For example - lunches were served and the speakers were governors of states (Mass. and CA. for example). For the night time parties, they rented out several city blocks (the gas lamp distict) or an aircraft carrier (state of Georgia did that...) UNREAL. The freebies were absurd. In between all of that party stuff was serious business. I met with approximately 12 billion people. All of your major countries and universities and companies were there with business development people. An unbelievable business environment. There was a good talk track as well - but I have to say the reason to be there was for the meetings and not for the talks.

Salary questions
I have realized I can't really answer these. I have given some guidance in the past, but it is such a location dependent, year dependent thing that I don't really think it is helpful. Industry pays better than academia in the US - not sure what else can be said about that. Look for more on salaries in my next post.

"Can I do this...."
Yes. Don't remember the exact questions being asked, but it is likely you can do it. IF you can make a convincing story about why you will be able to do it and how you are qualified. The question really is how long you want to wait and how hard you will push and where you can move to. Someone is, if it is a good idea, likely to let you do it. Answering these questions is really hard, as there are so many other factors that come in to play. The post previous to this one answers one of them, and you see that it is very detail specific.

Bachelors + 3yrs experience vs. Ph.D.

2008-07-07T20:32:00.000-07:00

from way back here, on my original post about being an application scientist, I got asked a question about.... well read below here.

I am working for an Australian biotech company based in Brisbane. I graduated from my research honours program 3 years ago now, originally with the intention of going back and doing a PhD after I got some industry experience and some ideas/direction under my belt.

I took a lab level job in the genetics field and have been promoted a few times through the product development team for a year and have now spent a year managing key customers in what is essentially an applications scientist position in a company that sells services/information.

I feel that I will end up stuck in this position forever as the structure is very flat and there is essentially 1-2 middle aged guys above me and then the vice president above them, no where for me to go really. Also I keep getting pulled in to other areas to solve internal operations problems etc, as I am still in touch with what the lab is doing, but I don't want to do this anymore.

I have been looking at some of the advertised applications scientist, field applications specialist etc and feel that I could do these jobs as I have extensive experience with all of the platforms listed and have proven my ability to learn new things in my current/previous positions.

Some of these positions require a PhD OR a Masters with 3 years experience. Do you think someone with an honours degree and 3 years biotech experience in a similar role has a chance? Any advice on how you think I could improve my chances would be greatly appreciated. Ideally I would like to end up in a business development or marketing role.

I cut out the beginning stuff about how great I am...

But to answer the questions. If they are willing to take a masters + 3yrs experience, then I think you are as qualified. Many masters degrees just require a bunch of classes and no bench work (and many require bench work). As a hiring manager, I have no idea if your masters required bench work, and will only know if asked. If I am looking for a position that requires a bunch of bench work + analytical thinking + some years - I am very likely to put "Ph.D. preferred" in the job description. Personally, when I write that, I kind of screen for it automatically. I will fully agree with you that I am missing good people that way, but I have to put some filter on there and that is as good as any.

Back to your question... Do I think you are qualified. Yes. 3 years in a small organization has likely forced you to learn a bunch of random things. Your description says as much. Make sure you play that up.

I think your next role is in product management/marketing. Take your ability to work in a lab - add in field experience - and you should be able to tell a good story to anyone looking for entry level marketing.

Go Lakers...

2008-07-07T20:31:00.000-07:00

Oooooopppppsss

Way late on that. Boston handed them their rears....

Been buried in work. Now a flurry of comments and updates.

New Technology? - failing in scouting...

2008-04-17T20:02:00.000-07:00

I have spent very large chunks of the last two weeks at two meetings here in San Diego. FASEB and AACR. My goal was the same as always... find new stuff and talk to people. I should say I haven't been to conferences in awhile, as I got caught up in a bunch of M+A stuff and this part of my job got deprecated. Went to these two just to see new stuff. Don't want to miss the "new".

Wow.

Total disappointment.

Nothing new.

In fact. Really nothing new. I did not, in all of the posters I looked at (and I think I looked at, quickly mind you, every poster at AACR and FASEB). I am good at looking at posters quickly and recognizing what techniques were used. Read every title to see what questions were asked. Scan figure legends if it doesn't immediately register as to what they are doing...

Nothing.

I talked to some of the people I work with saying "i got nothing, have been out of the loop for a year - am i totally missing?" and the general response was "no- thats the way it is right now". It seems, and this is the really big view, that new techniques aren't really being pushed right now. There is a lot of incremental improvement, ways to make things faster, etc... but I am not seeing discontinuous innovation. I know it is out there, I just can't find it and it annoys me. OR its not there at all right now. Everyone is catching up with the technology they have. They can answer a ton of questions that was unlocked by the last round of things and are still really figuring out how to use that technology- SO - they don't need new.

My bet is on the "just figuring out the old" for right now (and note - my definition of old in this context is like 4 years ago). There is a lot of making instruments cheaper going on, which drives the measurements possible in to more and more labs (good thing, but doesn't help with my "new" problem).

Overall, a bit of a disappointment.

..some more travel

2008-04-15T19:20:00.000-07:00

I was surveyed by United Airlines recently. They were happy with my travel for this year. Last year I flew 35K miles on them and I am just over 70k already this year. They were thanking me and asking what they can do etc... I told them. I think I surprised the woman as she kept coming back to "you are one of our most loyal customers" etc... I tried to explain, but don't think she ever got it, that I fly you because I have to not because I want to. My company gets good rates from you and you go where I need. As you can see from my recent post, I fly Virgin America whenever I can.

My two favorite airlines are Virgin America and Jet Blue. Unfortunatly they don't go international and they don't go, directly, where I need them to. I would rather be a bit uncomfortable (although now I am in upgrade a lot territory) than take an extra hop.

The loyalty program itself didn't do much for me until recently they added the ability to buy things. Now, using miles, I got a new GPS for the car for my wife and am getting a Wii. This is, I think, the best use of airmiles yet, as the last thing I really want to do is get on a plane for vacation.

Tough economic times

2008-04-15T19:16:00.000-07:00

The recent headlines all over the papers are about how the economy is crashing, dogs and cats living together, and how we are all doomed.

Many corporations are looking at this and taking big steps to deal. Affy decided to move it's manufacturing to Singapore (although, it just guided down for the year and got it's stock smacked by 35% today). You see, in far less obvious ways, most of the other companies doing this as well.

Against that backdrop, I don't see the weakness in the pharma and biotech companies. They are still buying and still looking for stuff. In the smaller companies, I still see them out there and trying to get stuff together. They are still asking for a bazillion dollars to be acquired.

Just a weird disconnect that I am seeing. Not sure whether the sky is really falling or whether it just hasn't yet fallen on the companies I am looking at. At some point, hopefully they are aligned.

learning outside of your box

2008-04-15T19:07:00.000-07:00

Today over at Derek's blog, he is writing about learning outside of your field. He talks about chemists learning biology etc... I had talked here awhile ago about "learning others languages" in a post that I can't find. My basic idea was that lawyers have their own vocabulary. Chemists have theirs, and biologists have theirs. Learning the "new" vocabulary lets you talk to those people more quickly. In order to learn their vocabulary, you have to learn what they do. It is totally invaluable. It leads to promotions. It leads everywhere upwards. I just recently got given more stuff. The reason I was given the group was because we need them to operate across some silo's we have. I speak both languages...so am one of the few who can break that wall down.

There are some people who just won't or can't do this. They have their little area of expertise and won't expand out. You need those folks, as frequently they are really good at what they do. However, they won't be moving up the chain.

The further up you get, the more different groups report in to you. The more "languages" you speak, the better/quicker you will understand what they are talking about (and when they are full of it). In addition, you more rapidly can solve the problems if you understand what is normal for an area, what they expect, how they think, and what they are trying to do.

SO... for those thinking it is just good for your science... it is also really good for your career.

....and yes, my travel has ramped way back up!

2008-03-02T18:47:00.000-08:00

My travel had fallen for awhile but has no ramped way way way way back up. I am over 40K miles flown this year already. This means I am writing less and, as seen by the last two posts, am back focussed on the things that make my life easier on the road.

I have read a couple of the comments recently with people getting jobs and joining in this fun. Welcome to the dark side! As you can read here, it has it's ups and downs.

Virgin America

2008-03-02T18:46:00.000-08:00

....will be trying them out in a week or two. Heard good reports - stay tuned!

TripIt rules

2008-03-02T18:42:00.000-08:00

TripIt

I was directed here by Joel Spolsky's blog, and he was right. It is great. It is now how I print out, track, organize, and share with my wife my itinerary's. It is, possibly, the only way she knows where I am.

Yes, I am totally digital and have a blackberry - but while driving down the freeway or in a foreign country, it is just easier to have worked it all out ahead of time when you weren't sleep messed up and stressed out and hungry.

Heavily recommended to any who travel quite a bit.

You couple that with Skype, and the fact that I carry a small webcam, and it is almost like being a little bit home. I do manage to see my daughter for bedtime almost every night. The fact that she enjoys turning on the special effects and making me in to a sheep/vampire/snowstorm/etc... is secondary...

What is after application scientist?

2008-02-02T18:45:00.000-08:00

From comments in the last post...

I was just reading up on all your comments about Application Scientist positions. I have just joined a company in Boston as an Application Scientist after a 2yr post doc in NYC. I like my job so far, but I am at a loss as to what is the next step in the career of an Application Scientist... Is there anyone out there who has successfully transitioned into a better position from being an Application Scientist? I would be very interested in knowing since I am looking to start a family in about a couple of years or so and would like to spend a lot less time travelling

I talked a little bit about this way back here, but worth talking about again.

You do a lot of things. I went from App scientist, quickly through marketing, and in to business development. A LOT of people go to marketing next and stay there for quite a while. I would say marketing is the number 1 destination really. I have seen some go back to the lab (uncommon but not unheard of), seen 2 leave science completly (the travel made them hate the whole concept of science and I would agree that was odd), and a couple of others go to sales.

In really thinking through the previous paragraph, Sales and Marketing are really the top choices, with marketing having a sizable lead there. The others are just random things that occur.

So Cal Salary...

2008-01-19T13:53:00.000-08:00

From a comment

Hello.. I'm the originator of the big Application Scientist offer in L.A.

Turns out I didn't accept their offer. They needed someone pronto to run an installation overseas and I couldn't meet their start deadline. However, I wasn't too upset because I still think their final salary offer of $72500 with no bonus program and no commission was too low for the SoCal area.

Which leads me to a dilemma... the company has recently gotten back in touch with me and wants me to interview again for the position. I am not in desperate need of the job (I have several interviews lined up) but I am curious on my leverage with them. I would assume salary negotiations are back open. How far can I push?? I am fairly sure that commission isn't going to be apart of it, and vacation at 2 wks/yr will be standard. I would need a 5K relo or starting bonus. Any ballpark guesses for base salary for L.A. on a app sci position with ~50% international travel?

Thanks for the support. The company obviously wants me but I don't want to blow a deal.

I don't have a good answer for this, and put off answering (bad bad me...). I think at this point you have to decide what you want. Ask for that. See what happens. Worst case - they say no. Then you are right back where you started.

Realize this isn't great advice, but its the best I've got right now...

Go pats...

Getting Raises....

2008-01-19T13:43:00.000-08:00

I have, over time, heard of all of the strategies for getting raises. I have always been a bit skeptical of them, as they seemed to involve some sort of trickery or having to sell or something. Never used them but do think I have been very succesful in moving forward. Recently, I got to see another person go for a raise. I will talk about him...

He is an above average person who works "near" me. Doesn't work for me, but his boss and I work closely together and are friends. We were on the road travelling and having a few beers at night and he really started to ask questions about where the company is headed, where his group is headed, and where he was headed. Interesting. Filed away in head (and questions were answered as best could be). Next day, talking while sitting in an airport, he mentioned that he had an offer on the table from one of our competitors and asked what I thought he should do. We went through the +'s and -'s of the two positions. When asked about this I am, generally, very blunt in the assessment. I will not talk you in to staying.

He heard me. When spelt out it was pretty clear staying was better than leaving. SO - next day he went in to his boss's office, told her the whole thing (knowing I had already briefed her, as I told him I would and you as the worker should expect to happen anyway) and said "now I know my market rate and worth. If you can match, I will stay. It isn't really about the money, but I do now have a sense of what I am worth".

We matched. Gave him 10 minutes to accept. He accepted. Done. insta-raise.

Couple of points to make.
1. You have to be good. If your boss doesn't respect you and think you are great, this likely won't work.
2. You have to be real about leaving. He was. He didn't say anything to that effect, but his reputation is one of keeping his word (which really leads to point 1 above....). If we hadn't matched, I fully expect him to have walked. He didn't say it. He didn't threaten it. He did none of that. Just stated "this is my market rate, please match".
3. Playing games doesn't work. He didn't and he got a decent raise out of it.

I have received two pretty decent raises in the last year. Neither of them have I really asked for. I just work my butt off. It seems easier than playing a game to get them.

Succesful job search - someone else... CONGRATS!

2007-12-16T10:52:00.000-08:00

From the comments two posts back, comes a successful job search and some advise of their own.

UPDATE--GOOD NEWS

Dr. yes--

I first posted on your blog sometime in July, asking for advice for my job search. I have posted off and on since then (I am the "anonymous" who kept getting pretty far along before things fell through). As of this past friday, my search is over, and i am very happy with the result. I will be in Boston working as a capital-salesperson for a large diagnostics company. The technology fits very well with my dissertation, and i will be working with a variety of industries throughout new england. (it's a field position). I just wanted you to know I found your blog extremely helpful, and probably wouldn't have considered a sales position until i read your descriptions and opinions.

If I may supplement your advice with some of my own:

1. Don't limit your job search to any function or technology...I interviewed with consulting firms, a variety of biotech, drug, and research tool companies...I pretty much looked for anything that was at least tangetially related. As far as function: apply for consulting, field applications, sales, marketing, etc...anything that will get you out of lab. Try any and every company you can think of or that pops up in a google search.

2. BE PERSISTANT AND BELIEVE IN YOURSELF...This took me 6.5 months and 10 interviews, each with multiple rounds and stretched out over weeks...some of the best advice you gave was to decide what you want to do and keep trying until you get there.

3. It's very difficult, but if at all possible, having an offer (even one you won't take) in hand when you defend your thesis seems to help grease the wheels considerably. I had a pretty average BME thesis, but the offer letter seemed to help sway the committee (this was another offer that i didn't take...i got the sales offer 1 week after my defense). Just be aware this means you need to work very hard on both the disseratation and the job search process in the last few months of grad school.

4. Know what to expect. I would say my callback rate per submitted application was on the order of 7-8%. That is, for every 100 full applications i would fill out online, i'd get 7 chats with recruiters. And that was after carefully choosing each job i applied for and putting some effort into the cover letter/application. From others i've talked to, i think 7-8% was on the high end.

5. If you are later in the phd program and know you want a businessy role, try to take any business/mgt/entrepreneur classes you can. Get a certificate, if possible...attend seminars, and try to get something on the resume that shows your inclinations and motivation for the business side.

6. GET THE RESUME IN GREAT SHAPE. Mine was 1 page of descriptions and 1 page of publications/posters/business plan competitions/etc...worked really well. Format the sh*t out of it, and get many other people to look at it. Also, ask to look at others' resumes who have been successful at leaving the bench.

7. Network yourself as much as possible...be a wh*re. Talk to your school's alumni association...mine has a databse of alumni that have expressed interest in helping people....try to collect at least one business card/contact at every conference, meeting, semniar, etc you attend your last year of school. Call them all. Repeatedly.

OK, that's all...I just wanted to let the other readers know that it is possible, it is very difficult, and that Dr. Yes's blog is filled with valuable insights.

Thanks again,
Happy PhD Sales Guy

(BTW--from looking at various offers, i think this particular position will provide more $$$, benefits, and contacts with fewer hours/week and more flexibility than just about anything else...so i'd endorse sales jobs to anyone looking for an in on the business side)

What to do with your Ph.D. -> Patent Attorney / Examiner

2007-12-16T10:40:00.000-08:00

In a comment WAY back... I was asked about being a patent attorney. The commenter noticed that there are some firms that pay for you to go to law school etc... and wondered what was up with that.

I think you make a lot of money.

I know I value GOOD patent attorneys a lot.

We pay them a lot.

I don't want to be one.

That was the short version. A little more description on what they do (from my point of view not being one). These people listen to the inventors, the business people, and assorted by standers and then write up the invention as a patent. They translate the hard core technical in to the hard core legal, which are completely seperate languages. In addition, the good ones write the patent in such a way as to be maximally useful for the business. Translated loosly that means that people like me can take it and enforce it against other people and either exclude them from the market or derived some license revenue.

I think almost anyone could write claims that cover ONLY the invention. The good attorneys have enough of a technical background that they understand enough, poke enough, and write well enough in order to make sure that you get coverage on what was really invented.

Really good attorneys are also able to read the patent landscape and see options about where things can be invented, or where coverage of your competitors are weak. This requires both the deep legal understanding and the deep technical understanding to see the holes in coverage. These people are worth their weight in gold.

Legal, at most places, works closely with the business really as a support function. For those attorneys that I don't think are that good, they are treated really as support people. For those that are good, they are brought fully in to the strategic teams and are part of setting direction. They are incredibly rare and highly compensated.

Fires, acquisitions, and Flexibility in jobs

2007-11-15T19:27:00.000-08:00

So we had a bunch of fires in San Diego - got evacuated - House totally OK. I solved the problem by going to Germany as it got me very far away from the fires. I married a saint, as she looked after everything after that...I helped wash the soot off the windows when I got back.

...then I did an acquisition. I took it from idea to announcement. I was the one who stood up in front of the company and did the announcement to them. Oh my god... it was a whole lot of fun actually. Way nervous, but a lot of fun. They are a great company and we are treating them really well and giving everyone there a bright future. Enjoying being involved in that.

....Then I had to fire a guy and move another guy around. NOT FUN. The moving the guy was fun, as now he is doing something he wanted to do. The firing.. NOT FUN. He wasn't actually fired, he was given a package and sent on his way. He was given a great package and sent on his way. Still - he has a family and he has to support them. I was not psyched to do it, but it had to be done. He wasn't right for the job and was kind of sucking at it. I can't even imagine what he had to go home to that day and how he explained that. My only consolation is that we gave him a great package. Sucks though.

The guy I moved in to the position, after a scramble as we moved the guy out without any plan as to what I was going to do, is working out really well. He is bright, very flexible, and motivated. It really demonstrates again for me that the specific things you know aren't overwhelmingly relevant to me. He has done a whole bunch of stuff in the past, some of which is relevant, but for the most part has not done what I need done. He showed that he can do different stuff though, and learned it quickly, so I have faith that he will learn to do this as well. Fingers crossed.

the glamourous side of travel....

2007-10-17T20:09:00.000-07:00

A couple of random notes:

I am doing a top secret thing, so am stuck somewhere in a hotel room banging away on things. This means I am anti-social and just looked around at what I have been eating. There are 4 empty bags of beef jerky and 10+ empty Gatorade things. This came to my attention because I was hunting for more beef jerky and there wasn't any. I don't think I ate breakfast today. I also thought I should have grown out of this behavior in grad school. The fact that I *can* order room service means nothing. I still eat like crap
I finally rewarded myself with a car. I turned in the Saturn SL1 that my wife and I bought when I was a 3rd year grad student for $6000 and bought a used BMW540. I can heavily recommend this as a life step. However, whereas I used to look at rental cars as a big step up vs. what I was driving, I now miss my car. This is massively materialistic and I love it.
I am good at big company politics....so far.

A comment stream on an Application Science applicant

2007-09-24T19:08:00.000-07:00

This comment stream was back here, but I thought it was worthy of moving to a post of it's own as it is a good conversation. Also, this is by far the laziest way to make a new post, and it has been a very long week.

App Sci applicant said...

I don't have a post doc and I am CLEARLY in the running for a field application scientist position. In fact, the interviewers were more concerned about how much and quickly I can learn in-house than how much I knew already.

Which leads me to my question about salary:
The company I have interviewed for sells biotech/medical equipment at pieces in the range of $750K-1.5M to start. The position requires 50% or more travel, international at that, and the rest being in-house demos and some technical writing assistance.
My background works well with their product (I have 4 yrs drug development and animal handling exp. as a research assistant) and if all goes well I will join their company immediately after completion of my PhD this fall. The company is based in Southern California and has under 100 employees but expects to double in growth over the next five years.
That's the overview as best as I can give it. I haven't been offered anything yet but what should I expect for a salary offer? Would 85K be too unreasonable? Thanks!

9/14/2007 8:43 AM

Anonymous said...

Thank you for answering the question I posted in that old blog. My plan was to post it in your newest blog if I didn’t get a response. You are very kind and provide information that is very difficult to find for graduate students.

New question anyone can feel free to comment on:

If a given App Scientist job has more than 50% travel, does it matter where you live? I mean, if you are covering all of the Southeast territory, do you have to live in Miami or can you live in Atlanta? I guess it depends in the company, but since I have a significant other with a non-traveling job, I would like to know if that would be an issue during interviews. Right now she makes three times as I do as a graduate student, so I wouldn’t want to relocate her just yet.

Also, a question for the App Scientist Applicant’s comment: When did you start applying for the jobs? If you will be done this fall, when did you send the resumes or CV’s? When did they start paying attention to you? Did you have to write a date on your documents?

THANKS

9/14/2007 10:01 AM

app sci applicant said...

In response to a second commenter:

I applied to this particular job in July with a very clear description that my PhD would not conclude until late October. Realistically, I think I lucked out. My background happened to fit their requirements and they had a so-far unsuccessful local search. I received a quick email perhaps a week after I applied asking about my availability (in regards to starting time), my specific background and my reception to the amount of travel.

That being said, a second application Scientist position at a different company showed promise for me but point-blank told me that it was too early for me to be taken seriously. I have an email address from an HR rep and was told to let her know when I was much closer to graduation. Originally I contacted them 3 months from graduating and they were hiring within 3 weeks. I've yet to follow that up.

If your background meshes well with the position then your application will definitely turn heads. Otherwise I think it has more to do with good timing and tenacity on your part. Good luck and keep posting (commenting). I've been reading this blog for the last 6 months and I find it VERY insightful.

9/14/2007 3:34 PM

yes said...

to the second commenter - I agree with the "app sci applicant" statements as to when and how HR will look at you. We never do what it sounds like he has lined up, but I can easily see how in a specialized example we would. We have thought about it in other contexts but then lucked in to an "available" person.

With regard to the travel question.

No.

It doesn't really matter where you live. However, it helps a lot for your sanity if you live somewhere you will working a lot. By this I mean, If you are in New England and in BioTech, living in Boston will be a lot easier on you than living in Burlington Vermont. From Burlington you will ALWAYS be travelling. From Boston, much of your travel will be local and WAY easier.

Your example of Miami vs. Atlanta is fine (for me). You will need to travel to both of those cities (and in fact, I think Atlanta has more than Miami, so you are probably in the right one as far as reduction of travel is concerned).

I don't think, for the field questions, that I have ever worried about that unless someone was WAY out in the boonies. If they are so far out, it is a given that their travel will creep well over 50% just becuase there is nothing they can do without travel. It is normal as well that the middle of nowhere never has direct flights to anywhere, so they spend longer travelling than someone who lives in an actual real live city.

....and my wife supported me through grad school as well. She is getting the payback now (only took 10 years....)

9/14/2007 8:23 PM

app sci applicant said...

How strange is this: without even a face-to-face interview (we are on different continents at the moment), I was given a preliminary offer of $63K and relocation expenses. This, if you read my above comment, is much lower than I was anticipating. Anyone have insight on this offer and situation? How much further up can I push the salary, especially since I haven't even met anyone from the company and they STILL want me?

9/15/2007 2:39 AM

yes said...

"App Sci Applicant"

After I went to bed last night, I remembered I forgot to answer this. Oooppss...

There are other components of salary.

Is there a bonus program?
Is there commission for sales?
Is there Car reimbursement?
How much vacation?

Anything else?

If they aren't putting you in a major metro area, then $63 isn't that weird , as long as there is a bonus or commission in there. A 10% bonus for hitting targets would be expected.

If they are putting you in Southern California, I would push a bit on this salary and expect mid $70's with a bonus or commission on top of that.

For reasons that are unclear for me, the entry levels for salary's on app scientists haven't really been going up over time.

9/15/2007 7:49 AM

app sci applicant said...

Reply to yes:

Thanks for getting back to me. The location is just outside of LA, a suburb of it. Due to the location, amount of travel, price of sales I thought I would have a higher offer. The position has nothing to do with sales other than prospecting so there is no commission. I haven't discussed other benefits just yet but I am going to assume no company car and standard vacations (2-3 wks). The only immediate extra that was mentioned is relocation, and even then I don't have specifics just yet. My feeling is that the hiring manager wants to have a base salary to keep in mind while we talk about the other benefits. I'm not sure how the travel is handled as far as expenses paid; I'm not even sure what to expect.

My thinking is that I would have a bit of play with the salary and benefits because they want to hire without even a face-to-face meeting. It was disheartening to read $63K but if this is standard then maybe I'm overreaching. Thanks for your opinion.

My next move I'm contemplating an email back to the company saying that the salary was lower than I had expected and that I needed clarification with health insurance, benefits, travel expenses, etc. Then I'll have the full story to negotiate a higher value. What do you think? That's sounds reasonable, right?

But whatever I end up with, it'll be higher than a post-doc salary.

9/15/2007 8:32 AM

bill said...

I'm not surprised by the person getting a comment from HR about wanting people to have a postdoc. Basically its a question of the market. If you live in an area with a ton of postdocs (i.e. Boston) most companies will prefer to hire people with postdoc experience, just because they can. The market is saturated with postdocs looking to get out of academia, so they are in a better position to get a job than someone with less experience. On the other hand, as Yes points out, most positions (like field app scientist) don't require that you have a postdoc.

By the way, 63K in Southern California is pretty poor. Have you looked into cost of living there? Its astronomical.

9/15/2007 9:52 AM

yes said...

Good to see you Bill!

App Sci, As Bill points out $63K is poor for So. Cal. I live here, and it will be hard at that level.

BUT - you need to find out the rest of the package. Bonus/Commission and other stuff can make it up. i.e. if they pay you for your car or give you a free one, that goes a long way.

I would not negotiate salary first, then other stuff. You have to negotiate as a package.

I would most certainly ask for an increase, as they pretty obviously want you. I don't think you will get the base in to the $80's, but you should get to the $70's

For the travel - You should not pay a dime out of your own pocket. If you are travelling for them, they pay. The way mine works is that I put it on my credit card and get reimbursed within 2 weeks of submitting the expense report.

I use credit cards with frequent flyer points of some kind attached, and ended up with $200K worth of expenses flowing through my credit cards last year. This does wonders for your credit rating, but doesn't count as part of your compensation from the company.

SO - Ask for the TOTAL picture all at once. You can't negotiate one peice at a time.

If you want to ask more, once they give you an offer, just put it in the comments. I would definatly hold out to see the complete picture though.

9/15/2007 10:12 AM

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to see how much "app sci applicant" was able to negotiate....any updates?

9/20/2007 3:04 PM

app sci applicant said...

Unfortunately, no response so far from the company. I had emailed them on the 16th to request more information about the offer (benefits, profit sharing, how travel is handled, commissions, etc) and here we are at the 22nd with no contact. It hasn't been a week; I won't call until the 26th. My expectations are for a higher base and inclusion of some bonus/profit sharing plan for total cash/yr being around 72-75K. Anything less and it would set off my instincts to walk.

I'd hate to pass on the opportunity. The company seems to be in a good niche that could put me into medical diagnostics sales after about 5 years. When I think of that possibility I just have $$ in my eyes. I'll update again when I have more information. Thanks all.

9/22/2007 12:00 PM

app sci applicant said...

The offer given to me today in more detail:

* base would be 65K/yr
* bonus was not emphasized, and worded as "all bonuses and raises are performed in summertime", so sounds like no bonus
* 2 weeks paid vacation
* travel is paid for by company-issued AmEX, no company car but gas is reimbursed if within town
* medical/dental/vision coverage
* some relocation money but not given specifics. They asked for more details on what I would need.

All in all not a stellar offer but I can't say that I'm surprised. Any suggestions or comments?

Oh, and the company is rushing a start date of late Nov. I probably will JUST be able to make that.

9/24/2007 3:57 PM

yes said...

all in all I would call that not a stellar offer.

No details on Bonus/commission etc... is worrisome. "will be paid in summer" is a very weird statement. Your assessment of "no bonus" would be my conclusion as well.

Any stock options?

Travel is normal.

"help us" with the relocation package is an odd thing to do.

I would suggest pushing back by asking for full pack and move, 3 months temp housing, and your cars moved. They won't (and at your level shouldn't) give that to you, but at least puts it back in their court. Worst case - they give it to you.

At the very least, their HR department is very weird. There are some red flags there, but entry in to business is a hard thing to do, so you may have to make some comprises to get your head in the door. Sort of a gut check for what you want to do.

Industry does nothing....

2007-09-12T22:33:00.000-07:00

Over here, Derek is actually surprised to find that people still think academia does everything and industry is dumb... I think it is just a sign that I am closer to grad school than him for me to NOT be surprised by this. It isn't

Post doc for Application Scientists?

2007-09-12T22:15:00.000-07:00

Way way way back here (2 years ago) when I talk about being an application scientist, a new comment was posted. I wouldn't know that if I didn't get email notifications, so you will be excused from not knowing it either, but it is an interesting comment.

The comment says, after inflating my ego (much appreciated...)

I just came from a talk that a "Field Application Scientist" just gave, and approached her and asked about how she got her job. She said that "it is hard to get into industry" and that "she had to do a post-doc in industry" and that basically she thought I should do one too. By the way: I don't want to do a postdoc.

Question: have things changed in two years? Is this still true? I wonder because I am getting ready to defend in three months and kind of need a job...

I do NOT think that post docs are needed for application scientist positions. I have taken two days to answer this question becuase I was just at a meeting with a lot of app scientists (training and "idea exchange"). NONE of them had post docs (industry or otherwise). That is 0 for 23 of them. Being at a larger company, they cover a wide range of products, so this was not localized to just one type of product/field/country.

I have met others who, like the woman you spoke with, DO have post doc experience.

For the application scientist role, I do not think a post doc makes a whit of difference. The role itself will not be helped by post doc experience. The research you do as a post doc won't likely be the dividing line between getting the job and not (the exception being if you had never ever done technique X as a grad student, but do it as a post doc then that would be relevant to getting a job as an app scientist about technique/instrument X).

Bill, a friend and sometimes commentor on this blog has a bit of a different spin on this. His comments on it are not the only ones I have heard. The comment posted on that old posting mirror it. It seems like a lot of people, including people in industry, disagree with me. As many of them are likely hiring managers, there is likely something to it and it may make a difference.

I want to be very clear that I am talking about Application Scientist and NOT bench scientist in Industry.

Hiring and working in industry

2007-09-08T16:25:00.000-07:00

I have now hired and re-hired several times for a few positions I have. Some I have written about here, others are for groups that reported in to me transiently (although none have yet moved on, so I have some odd groups reporting to me).

In total, I have hired about 20 people. Of those, I am happy with 15 of them. Not all are "superstars" as some of those positions are lower in needs than others. The other 5, I am totally unhappy with what I did, and I do blame myself for the hire.

I hired people my gut told me not to. They looked good on paper, and I convinced myself that my read of them during an interview was "wrong". Other people were not jumping for joy enthusiastic about the hires and said things like "they will be OK" or "you could do worse". So I hired them. And now, I am having to "move the along", which is the polite way of saying I am documenting their failures to justify asking them to move along involuntarily (i.e. Firing them). This sucks.

Joel Spolsky talks about this, as do a lot of people. As I am obviously smarter than the rest of the world, I decided this didn't apply to me. So I hired people I knew I shouldn't. And they haven't worked out. Who knew... oh right... I did and so did everyone else.

So now I am pushing them out. I hired because "I needed hands and I can't wait". Lets say it takes 3-4 months of concerted effort to get rid of someone. Do I think that I would have got a good person if I had waited 3-4 months longer (Yes)? So, was it worth it? (No)

Now kicking myself.

2 of these people fall in to the ballpark of people that I talked about in the last post. They came expecting the easy job. I am, for many reasons, not the easiest person to work for. They wanted to coast and make good money. I don't let them and they aren't happy. I honestly don't even think they are capable of working hard as there are web sites to look at and people to gossip with and a coffee room to go to.

They came straight from academia. I am not sure what they will do after they leave me, as they have been with me for less than a year. When they finally move on, it will be just over a year. They will have a hard time getting a recommendation (not from me, thanks!). I will guess that they go back to academia, but I will bet that they weren't stellar workers there either. These people will be the people who get talked about, and a bit of the fault lies with me. I shouldn't have hired them and then they wouldn't be in the position I am going to put them in.

Is it BAD to jump to industry?

2007-09-08T16:13:00.000-07:00

From the last post, in the comments, is a long question from Daniel. The crux of it (and you need to go there to read the background) is this question.

I find your last few entrys encouraging to such a direction, and you've acknowledged in the past the fear that's involved in making the jump out of academics. I guess what I want to know is -- Do you think it DANGEROUS to leave? In other wards, do you know of anyone that left academics and ended up (3 years down the road) in worse position versus someone who bit the bullet and did an academic postdoc?

An anonymous person says "yes" they know some people like that. So do I. I also know people who have stayed in academia and gotten progressively more miserable. Others who have stayed in academia for a long time always meaning to jump. Specifically the guy who graduated just ahead of me from our lab,took 8 years to jump over to industry. He always said he was going to, but just didn't get it done for quite awhile.

I would say EVERY step is dangerous. I will admit I have been lucky and others haven't been. I don't know why that is, but can't deny it. I would not say a jump to industry is any more/less dangerous than any other career move.

However, there are people who make the jump across to industry for purely the wrong reason, and those people fail.

They jump because they want a 1) EASY and 2)High Paying job. News flash, Industry jobs are NOT easier. They are higher paying, but if you went in expecting the EASY part the pay won't make it up for you. These people are doomed to failure, as business does demand results. I will write more about this in my next post.

Considerations for Management

2007-09-03T20:32:00.000-07:00

In talking with my "mentor", and soon to be boss, about my choice of next steps up the ladder (see last post for the decision), we talked about a lot of things that you "need".

To get to the top, he declared you needed the following:

1. The "Vision" thing.
2. People management/logistics
3. "Portfolio" management
4. Technical ability

To explain these further, and in reverse order

4. Technical ability. This referred to a technical understanding of the science in the marketplace in question. For me, my Ph.D. takes care of this. Staying current is required. This was the least interesting for me, as the order was basically "Make sure you know the science you are trying to sell or figure out or move in to". Translated really loosely - make sure you understand your problem/customer. I wanted to say "no duh!" - but that seemed a bit impolite. I guess some people don't get this, but I don't know how they do it.

3. "Portfolio" management. This refers to making trade offs between A and B, where both A and B are important. Made up example - You have $2M to spend on R+D. Group A supports your current projects, and spending that money will over the next 3 years return you $5M, with a 95% probability. However, these are your current products and don't move you in to any new areas. Group B is in a brand new area where you, as a company, should be. The $2M spend will return you $5M over the next 3 years, but there are a lot of chances for things to go wrong. You may get nothing, you may get more than $5M, or it may cost more to get in so the $2M number might go up. You have to decide. This, in his view, was portfolio management.

2. People Management / Logistics. I have managed a smallish group for awhile. There are a fleet of little things that come from that. The next step for me is to manage a much bigger group where I have layers of managers below me. As put, there is no real way to do this other than to do it. HR has little guides to help you. There are management training classes. There are mentors to ask. There are many things.... At the end of the day you just have to do it and try to learn faster than you screw up. I am petrified/excited about this for when I get to it.

1. The "Vision" thing. A strong drive to go somewhere. To lead a group in a growing market, the person in charge needs to have some idea of what the end goal looks like. They have to have a vision of where the group is headed. This, from his point of view, wasn't something that could really be taught. You either had the ability to look ahead and try and drive.... or you didn't.

These were the items that he said you had to have all of in order to get to the upper levels of management at a "large" company. Small companies were different and we didn't get in to that.

Job Decisions - Director R+D vs. Business Development

2007-09-03T20:14:00.000-07:00

Over the last week I was offered and declined a different position within my same company.

Post acquisition, I had been (and remain) slotted in to a "larger" business development role, where larger is, loosely, "supporting $1B dollars of current business and making it much much much bigger".

I was offered, funnily enough, a director of r+d position.

I haven't been in the lab in quite a few years.

I was being asked, and there were serious discussions about, me being in charge of a bunch of VERY serious scientists. Several people that I rank as amongst the smartest people I have ever met. To put it in perspective for at least Bill - in the same realm as our advisor's wife (whom was a>much smarter than him and b>one of the smartest people I have ever met)(On a side note, I don't know why she was married to him!!!).

The organization has about 150 scientists in it covering 3 different physical locations. It will grow. It has all the issues that a large R+D organization has.

The part that rattled around my head is that I haven't been in the lab in quite a few years. SO- I asked another person above me, and a person whom I might add I treat as a mentor on how to get ahead within our organization and who has sway over my career, what he would do and why I was being considered/pursued for this position. He added that his voice was behind the push, but that he was also pushing for me to stay in my current role and that I wasn't allowed to do both.

Then he added a couple of other things that apply both generally and specifically to me:

1. Managing R+D has nothing what so ever to do with DOING R+D.
2. You (speaking of me) know enough to smell BS, and that would be your job.
3. You are blunt. People have absolutely no doubt as to where they stand with you. You would need to temper this and learn polish, but it is a good place to start.
4. You are broad. Some might call you "shallow" as they are the same. You know a little about a lot of different things and are quick enough to read up on any area when that area becomes important.
5. You get stuff done.

SO - that, for those who want to go up the R+D side of the house, seems like a decent road map of how to end up in charge of a decent sized R+D group.

I spoke to several other folks internally and a couple externally in order to make the decision, and I will write more about that in the next post, but want to mention the 2 things that most people came back to about my consideration.

1. The scientists you work with respect that while you are on the business side, you do not lose site of the science. I talk to them about science. I attend group meetings and do my best to keep my mouth shut (until later, when the director has to explain bits to me). NOT losing this science link has been key to me keeping my head. My problem was never with not liking science, it was with hating bench work and being underpaid. To those who move in to business development/marketing/other - MAKE SURE YOU DO THIS. You were trained as a Ph.D. -> don't lose it. You probably went to grad school for some good reason. Remember what it was and keep interested in science. Leaving aside the business of it, it is cool. Not just saying that...I really beleive it. I am just as likely to get lost reading about volcanoes as I am about *insert biology reference here*.

2. GET STUFF DONE. People kept coming back to this. This is a trait that seems to really resonate with folks. I would say that I do get stuff done, but that much of what I get done isn't what I was supposed to be getting done. If I was given a list of "Do these things", I would probably not have a great record. I run around, find the big problems, and solve them. This has, apparently, gotten me noticed as someone who gets stuff done.

This, to those who want to know how to move up the chain, seems to be a pretty big deal. All else was secondary to this in most peoples eyes. I have had to hire a person who actually picks up the pieces of the little things I am also supposed to get done, as I don't do them well. This likely means that folks see this and gripe about "He doesn't do his job". In a sense, they are right. I don't do the "technical definition" of my job. I have, however, made enough of a financial dent in the company that they gave me a person to help me "do" my job. She does a kick butt job of making sure that the stuff I was supposed to do gets done while I go fight fires and stir up muck. To get away with this you have to get it done. You can't just stir up stuff or poke around or whatever, because if you are doing that people will, if you don't show positive progress, start to ask about your "real" job. By showing strings of success's on large problems, I am able to hide the fact that I skip a lot of the little stuff that I am supposed to do by farming it off on a person who works for me and is really good at it. Yes - I live in fear of losing her.

More on the "the field" and gettin to the top of a biotech company

2007-08-24T19:45:00.000-07:00

2 posts ago, Bill commented that
I think a lot of PhDs are probably biased against "customer service" type jobs.

which sort of resonated with me. I totally agree with him. So many in academic labs only see their sales rep from a company (could be ours...) come in and try and sell them stuff. AND - quite rightly you think those folks are possibly a bit slimy, probably pretty stupid, and you could never see yourself doing that.

Good.

For the most part you can't do that job. Most, certainly not all, of the academic sales reps do not have Ph.D.'s. Some do, but they move on and upward pretty quickly.

I didn't go the route of academic sales rep.

I went commercial sales rep. When selling to companies, you are generally selling something that costs more. You show up where you are going with an appointment (or they won't let you through the door) and you are, in a sense, "wanted". You are not cold calling, which is what you mostly see the academic sales rep doing to you (just as you are doing something that can't be interrupted).

It is a totally different world. You, as an academic lab person, don't know anything about it and should not be freaked out by it.

****non-sequiter**** but sort of related.

I think the point of seeing the top people in our company all have that similar background points not to what they did early in their careers as a function of getting there. I think it points more to the type of personality that does those jobs well.

To say that more clearly -> the kind of person who is going to thrive in a field position and who is, as a side benefit, going to be able to move up the corporate ladder, is an extroverted scientist.

Extroverted Scientists apparently, and a recruiter just explained this to me again, don't really grow on tree's. They are, in fact, a bit rare. I keep searching for them to fill the bus dev roles I have and keep getting hammered by it.

For those who are not naturally extroverted this has to be harder. As I am, as somewhat of an understatement, pretty extroverted -> I have no idea how to do it as an introvert.
****************

So - To put the two parts together.

Ph.D.'s do need to get over the "service job" as the experience that you have of the reps calling on your lab doesn't map to the kind of job you should get.
---And---
Extroverted Scientists seem to end up in the field naturally, and people at the top of the places I work are all extroverted, so I would say the label is that extroverted people migrate to the top and they happened to have been in the field NOT that they were required to be in the field.

Career's in biotech.

2007-08-24T19:36:00.000-07:00

Unabashedly stealing these links from "In the Pipeline" where you should be reading anyway.

Faseb did a study on biomedical sciences and what is going on with jobs.

The summary is here.

The basic take home for me was that there are a whole lot more people going in to industry than there are in to academia. Yet, as you see over on the AAAS forums, it is still an "alternative" career. Why weren't we trained (at least where I went to school) more for the place where most of us will actually work? Why wasn't more information on how to get there made available ( None given to me....)

I know studies like these won't change anything, as the people running graduate schools are, exactly, the people who made it in the academic track and don't, for the most part, know anything about the corporate track.

Still... They should at least invite people in.

That said. I will be on a panel next month at Scripps as a recruitment pitch for our company and answering questions on how to get in to business development. I don't know any details just what I am talking about. Given that is going on, it seems like someone is at least driving something to get exposure to folks. At the very least, it should be interesting.

Scientists who go to the field... and then run companies

2007-08-22T21:48:00.000-07:00

As the evolution of our integration moves forward, I am slowly getting ready to move on in my career. I will be within the same company, but just have a bit of a different role. That means my current role will be open.

That means I have to hire.

I tried to just pretend that magic elves (HR possibly?) would fill my position, but it has been made abundantly clear to me that I have to "Back Fill" my position.

There is an internal person who might expect it, but that person has shown themselves to not be up to the job.

SO... the hunt begins.

I started by talking to a senior person who just joined us. He has been in business a long time. New to our company, but been around. Started talking about this and he just leaned back and whistled. "good luck, going to take awhile" - I looked at him a bit confused. Huh? How hard can it be. I need a Ph.D. with field based experience. An "outgoing" scientist who is not afraid to learn new fields. We have a bunch of them in the company doing a variety of things. Most too senior and in other fields to be interested in my role.

then it hit me.

1 Everyone above me is a Ph.D.

2. Everyone above me did time in a "field" role (application scientist, sales, etc....something where you are out face to face with customers and dealing with them WELL (i.e. you have to be good at it))

There are males, females, couple of races etc.... the absolute unifying thing is those two statements above. I want one of those people.

Apparently, we are rare. I know, speaking for myself, that we are expensive. BUT - looking at several companies, we also seem to do well.

The fact that I am surrounded by them is, apparently, odd. When I was interviewing, I was only talking to them. Apparently that is odd as well. When you look at the company as a whole, the "field" part rules out most of the Ph.D.'s BUT most of them are in the lab at the bench (or managing the bench people).

So - to the Ph.D.'s out there. If you have a desire to really move up the company management totem pole, I can say that it has really struck me in the last week that the number one thing you can do is get some sort of position where you are in the field learning how to deal with customers. Learn what makes sales people tick. Understand the sales process. really, at a level that makes you totally get it, understand how business gets money. If you get that, you will rise up the business pretty quickly. I personally am seeing that in my promotion speed, and notice that everyone ahead of me has that common past (and about only that as their common past).

yep...I am a lawyer...

2007-08-22T21:43:00.000-07:00

There was a ruling in the Seagate case recently. I have spent a bunch of time reading the CAFC's opinion and understanding what it does for us. Find it pretty likely that it decreases the number of legal opinions I have to get for product launches. As an opinion runs $50K or so (and up I should say), this is a non-trivial ruling.

Then I remember I didn't go to law school and that I really am a biologist in disguise. And I feel like a dork for getting excited about it.

I would say, though, that the outcome is a good thing for our budget. To say that the legal department is up in arms analyzing this is to understate the matter. Many many many emails received on this. Several conference calls.

For those of you who don't do what I do, and are in science and looking at business, you have to realize that I am weird even by the business peoples standards. MOST of the business people don't even know this stuff. Don't be afraid just because I talk about it!!!

Different Questions for different Networks

2007-07-28T19:25:00.000-07:00

Last post I was talking about how I don't use LinkedIn to ask questions of my network and then went on to list some things I don't ask. Harry raised some other questions in the comments, and then I went away and thought about it.

I think there are different needs and different networks for different questions.

Harry's questions, and most of the questions on the AAAS board are of the "how do I break in to area X from area y" where Y is frequently post-doc/grad school and X is "other". The answers I have mostly been looking for are "how do I get ahead in this industry". I think those require very different networks and answers.

The "how do I break in" really sort of implies that you aren't already in the field and you need to build a new network. My questions are all of the type of within field.

In my own career, I had built a decent network of PI's etc... to get a post doc There were informal offers out there. I didn't take it further because I knew I didn't want to do that. SO - I flailed about and eventually got lucky at my first company.

The part where I flailed is the part where boards and blogs are helpful. That is the part where you see the questions on boards.

Once you have taken that first step, then you start to build your network and I think then the questions move toward more as I am describing (personal network, not a "public" one).

That implies that I think the people asking the public questions of "I am a grad student...how do I get a post doc" didn't do a very good job of building a network when they were a grad student!

Both have value when used at the right time.

Industry telling Industry about career options....

2007-07-26T11:08:00.001-07:00

In the comments back here, Harry made a comment about the AAAS board. The next paragraph was this.

It may be that this is simply a function of the age of most of the forum participants. My impression is that most of the people posting there are grad students and postdocs, with a few people who have recently transitioned to more permanent positions. Also, people who are established in industry probably have other, more efficient means of obtaining career advice, including places like linkedin, their own network of contacts, or other more industry-specific blogs and forums.

Leaving aside the AAAS comments, as I think that issue has been sufficiently beaten, I would like to comment on the part where industry people communicate with each other. More specifically I would say that I don't think we are any better! There is no site I can go to and ask questions on the industry side either.

How do I know what I want to do next. ummm... I don't really, but I do look at succesful people and talk to them. I have had the "pleasure" of spending a large amount of time with a CEO and currently report to a very senior person at the large company. By most measures I am pretty far up the chain. BUT - I do spend an inordinate amount of time going "what am I doing?". SO - I ask. Not in a pleading kind of way, and only with people I can trust.

To flesh this out a bit, and I have absolutely NO idea on whether this works for other people or even will work for other people.

After I work with people for awhile (defined as more than just a few days - easily several weeks) I figure out which ones are bright, have made good decisions, and know the lay of the corporate landscape. You need to, very quickly, weed out the people who whine about where they are, complain about how "the man" kept them down or the organization doesn't appreciate them, or rely on "seniority" to get where they are going. I, and this fits with me, look for the people who are on board with the idea of driving the organization ahead as rapidly as possible. NOTE: They have to be realistic as to what the political landscape of a company will allow. Just being a reactionary highly driven pain in the rear will get you to irrelevant NOT to results.

So - once I know those people - I learn from them. If they do something in a meeting that doesn't fit with what I know their goals are - ask them later and alone why they did that. Tell them where you are trying to go, they may tell you something about the way to get there. Tell them what you are trying to learn. If they respect you, they will push opportunities for those things your way.

That is how I do it... BECAUSE I don't know any other way. I *wish* there was a place to ask questions. I wish that there were more people writing about it. I wish there were "instructions".

All of that said, these things may be impossible. The "instructions" most certainly are impossible as the situations are all over the place. The "board" probably wouldn't work as I don't, in general, trust people I don't know (and thus write a blog for people I don't know thinking they might care about what I say....).

SO - LinkedIn and it's ilk are useful to me for finding people and for when I was hunting for jobs. For getting career advice, I haven't found them to be too useful (and I only use LinkedIn and Plaxo)

Well that was fun....

2007-07-23T12:47:00.001-07:00

The AAAS forums.

I guess I struck them the wrong way.

AAAS Career Development board

2007-07-22T20:26:00.000-07:00

two posts ago, a comment was left pointing to the Science (AAAS) career development board. Hadn't been there in awhile, so went back looking.

Found a gratuitous link to here, so that was nice...

but then I started to look around some more. Ended up in this conversation and got a little depressed. What you can see, if you read through that thread, is a lot of people only talking about academic careers. There are a few in there that throw in a gratuitous biotech/Pharma reference, but for the most part it is about academia.

ummmm....there is life outside of academia. The majority of folks posting there don't seem to know that.

That said - there was actually more industry discussion than I expected. Not a huge amount, but a decent enough amount compared to when I last looked. There is hope after all I guess.

More on going to Grad Schhol

2007-07-19T21:17:00.000-07:00

Last post I talked of going to grad school (and would I tell someone else to do so?).

In the comments were some other questions/views.

To pick those up.

Dr. J said

Just touching on a slightly different international aspect because you have a few international readers. Doing a PhD in Europe/Australia is only 3 years and is only lab work, which seems to be quite different to the US. In this case, I´m not sure its as critical to be the perfect candidate as it isn´t a 6 year slog through course work etc.

It´s also an important point that these days you almost need a PhD for any science related job. In fact, in Europe, you almost need a PhD, minimum of 3 languages and several years of international experience to get anything.

However, I still don´t think you should be doing a doctorate unless you REALLY want it. But don´t think you have to be commited to a life in science just cause you stuck it out. Nothing is wasted, even if afterward you do something completely different.

which really resonates with me. The European Ph.D. is shorter and they don't have classes. I will say that SOME of the classes I spent my first two years taking were actually useful. Some of the others were me, yet again, learning the Krebs cycle and spitting it back out on paper. Still don't have the thing memorized. Hope never to. That is why they invented wikipedia and other reference materials.

The qualifying exam that we did was also a big waste of time. There went 4 months of my life I don't get back. And, oh yeah, I still failed the written and had to retake it 2 weeks later. Beyond a stupid exercise to have to memorize stuff that most labs keep on posters that silly vendors hand out.

Anonymous added a paragraph agreeing with Dr. J plus this

The professors in the US love to drone on about the superiority of the American degree, but personally I believe that they're just trying to justify a 50%+ increase in degree time. As with the original post I feel like most of my education came in the first few years, and that my last few have been more about 'work' and less about 'learning'.

which it would be impossible for me to agree more with (i.e. 100% is kind of the max...). I was cheap labor. Thats fine, just don't pretend otherwise.

The statement by Dr. J about needing the Ph.D. for just about anything is pretty true. Becoming more true here in the US. I would be interested in knowing if there are more Ph.D.'s in Europe where it takes less time or here in the U.S. Would guess that we have more, but just because we have way more people. Could be totally wrong though and you could correct for population etc...

I agree you don't have to be committed to the life sciences once you have the Ph.D. and, as Dr. J does, do think that you have to be committed to them when you start it. You, in the US system where you are going to spend at least 5 years, have to think this is a pretty good life and be willing to take your vow of poverty to do it.

I almost find the post docs who are, as put, "just sticking it out" becuase they got the degree to be a little worse off. They haven't seen the options yet and are stuck in a rut.

There are so many options out there as to what to do with the degree. No one in grad school tells you what to do and your supposed to have learned how to think for yourself. BUT - those years of brain washing that this is normal and everyone does it are really hard to overcome.

Would I tell someone to go to Grad School?

2007-07-18T20:16:00.000-07:00

Last post Bill asked, in the comments, if I would tell someone to go to Grad school or not.

Some back story - Bill and I have the same ex-advisor and he picked up my project. So - he knows exactly what I went through at the end and knows it really wasn't pretty. I have heard of worse ways to graduate, but I certainly had a little worse than average ending. I could have picked my lab a bit better. That said - the grass is rarely actually greener on the other side, so I probably did about average. We were funded and had a decent degree of freedom. Many are much worse off. Many are better off. Sort of a wash there.

So...that wasted a paragraph ducking the question...

I have no idea.

I don't think anyone could have talked me out of going to grad school.
Toward the end my wife had to talk me in to finishing.

There are some people who just have to go to Grad school. There are others who are going for the wrong reasons. If you are going because you didn't get in to medical school - you are doomed to failure. This person should be talked out of it at all costs. They are going to be miserable and likely be really bad at it. On the basis of a very small sample size, I would say they won't even finish grad school and will wash/be washed out. No one will enjoy this.

For me - I learned a lot. The last almost 2 years were a complete waste of time, in that I had learned all I was going to learn in that lab, but the first bit was critical. I have, now, a HUGE advantage over the folks who did not go through school.

Things I learned:

How to read a paper. Really read it. Understand it. And do so quickly.
How to design an experiment so that I actually learned something.
Techniques. Lots of techniques. Useful now that I work in a tool vendor... Knowing WHY people do experiments, and what experiments follow which experiments is key/critical. If you haven't gone to school and only were a tech, I am not sure that you get this as much. Possible, but less likely.

SO - Back to the Question.

Would I tell someone to go.

What do they want to do? Be a professor? (if yes - then they have no choice. Grad school is the only way). Go in to Industry? (if yes - then they have no choice. Really the only way to the top of the research heap is with a degree). Go in to Business? (more choice....read this blog!)

Why are they doing it? Parents have degrees (horrible reason!!!!). They didn't get in to medical school? (Worst reason ever.) They don't know what else to do? HORRIBLE reason.

I would say that to make it through you have to start in a condition of absolute gung ho can't be talked out of it and all of you people whining are losers that I am better than.

Then the beatings commence, and soon you are a senior student whining and complaining with the rest of us and the first years are looking at you funny. If you don't go in believing you can crush it.... DON'T GO. You won't make it.

If the person is a technician and is wondering - thats harder. One of our former techs I didn't think would do it and she went off and did it. Lost track of her, so I don't know how she did. (Pubmed just told me she has 2 papers.... so she did alright actually!)

Summary - I think this is a totally personal thing. If you can be talked out of it, you probably shouldn't go. Some random dude being able to talk you out of it is the least problem you are going to face completing the degree. If that is enough of a deterrent, you are hosed when the real pressures come to bear. You see your friends leading "normal" lives and making real money and going on vacation (imagine not going to lab on Xmas day!!!) and buying houses and all sorts of normal stuff.... A guy talking negatively about it is the least of the problems you will face. We probably all should denigrate it.

Start up vs. Product manager

2007-07-05T12:38:00.000-07:00

In the last post, some guy left a question in the comments about the fact that he is straight out of the lab and has an offer to be a product manager. Wants to know what to expect. AND also has an idea for a start up and wants to know about that.

So - to deal with the start up first. If it is in the Bio area, and you have no business experience, I wish you the best of luck. It is possible that your idea is THAT good. I don't know. I would doubt it and would guess you have a long road ahead of you making errors.

THAT SAID - if you believe in it and can't live without doing it and don't mind working your butt off and probably not making any money - worst case -> you will come out of that with a lot of great experience. Best Case -> you get rich. Only you can make this call.

Product manager.
Entry to the business world. There are at least two jobs that dress themselves up as product managers. One is a tactical role and the other is strategic.

In a tactical role, you will be doing things like putting flyers together, scouting the competitions pricing and running promotions to combat them etc... You will have minimal involvement in product development and will really only be focussed on the next 3 months. You will give feedback to the strategic folks and hope that your ideas lead to a product. There will, likely, be a bit of friction there for everyone to overcome.

In a strategic role, you will not be too involved in the day to day stuff. You may get sucked in to some sales training (depends on the company) but will likely be mostly focussed on what products do we make next. How much can we charge for them? How much will they cost to make, and can we make any money at that price? Those last questions translate to "should we make them".

At many of the companies, and I have an idea about who you could be going to, the roles are blended. There are not seperate folks for the strategic and the tactical. I think this is the best place to learn as you can see what you like and don't like. A general idea would be that the bigger the company, the more "silo'd" people are. Break through 1000 people, and there is likely a split between tactical and Strategic. Below 500 - there probably isn't. In between - All bets off.

He also asked if his shot at getting offers from other places is good. Hard to say without seeing your resume, but I would likely go with the first offer I got just to get in the game (what I actually did when I got in to it). Getting a second job will be MUCH easier with the first one out of the way. If you want out of the lab, I would get out of the lab.

You guess at 80-90K for the pay. I wouldn't rule that out, but as someone just coming out of school you might drop in to the 70's. Depends on the company and what the bonus looks like (i.e. lower salary may have higher bonus - not guaranteed but I would expect it).

I like places with growth, and would be attracted to that. No matter what - you will learn a lot. I would get on with that learning and not wait around.

Benefits...and why don't people use them.

2007-07-01T19:22:00.000-07:00

As part of the acquisition, toward the end, I got involved in making sure that we paid out the right people for the right things and looked after people so they didn't get really pissed off. I learned some things that blew me away.

Most people in the company did not make use of our attempts to give them free money.

Example: Many did not contribute the amount to their 401K that we match to. This means, in essence, that they didn't want to accept money that the company was trying to give them for free. These were not bottom of the payroll type people either, so it wasn't that they couldn't afford it, it was that they didn't pay attention and figure it out.

Another Example: ESPP. Stands for Employee Stock Purchase Plan. In essence, the company is trying to give you stock that you can sell, that day, for a 15% increase in price. Sell it that way, and figure that you pay 50% in taxes, you still make and automatic 7%. That is WORST case. If, during the 3 or 6 month period (companies do it differently) the stock of the company went up, you make more. SO - in the worst case you make 7%. In the best case you make...more. Not taking this bet is just a silly financial decision. Again, most people don't take advantage of this. Absolutly nuts.

Please don't let this be you. I will be embarrassed for you. Your HR people are making fun of you, but they are a bit limited in the amount they can push on you or ask you. They can't force you to be bright, but trust me - they are laughing at you for not doing it.

You won't find and HR person not doing these things.

Job

2007-07-01T19:16:00.000-07:00

So, we got acquired. It is all done now except for all the integration. A bit like saying a football game is over because the first play ended. Quite a bit of the game left... But for me, I am busy again.

There is this weird period where the deal has been announced, but you haven't formally been acquired yet. You are, but you are not, done. In this period, for someone in business development, you can't really get much done. As long as the deal moves ahead, you can't really get much else through. The new buyers may not want to do something, but you aren't legally allowed to really get in to it and figure it out. So....you get bored.

Then you go on job interviews. Or at least I did. A bunch of other people did as well. Some left, but not really too many people and not really anybody who mattered too much. I got offers. I thought about it real hard. I talked to the guy who would be my new boss. I thought some more. I talked to my wife a LOT. I decided to stay. That boils about 3 weeks of a bit of trauma down to a nice paragraph.

So...Don't have to relocate. Do have to meet a bunch of new people. Do have to figure out the politics of a new company (because I am sure they exist, I just don't know the rules yet or where the bodies are buried).

Should be fun... Now I am getting the big big company perspective.

The power of the internet....

2007-05-18T21:14:00.000-07:00

Not...

From the New York Times article (in the magazine) about a variety of artists cultivating fan bases via the internet and how that works/doesn't for them.

These days, Coulton is wondering whether an Internet-built fan base inevitably hits a plateau. Many potential Coulton fans are fanatical users of MySpace and YouTube, of course; but many more aren’t, and the only way for him to reach them is via traditional advertising, which he can’t afford, or courting media attention, a wearying and decidedly old-school task. Coulton’s single biggest spike in traffic to his Web site took place last December, when he appeared on NPR’s “Weekend Edition Sunday,” a fact that, he notes, proves how powerful old-fashioned media still are. (And “Weekend Edition” is orders of magnitude smaller than major entertainment shows like MTV’s “Total Request Live,” which can make a new artist in an afternoon.)

This points out something that many need to remember. The internet is just another tool. It is not the magical elixir that will replace all the other tools. It has power, but it also has limitations.

..and for the record, I have a lot of Jonathon Coulton music running my ipod.

Perfect Storm on Tech Transfer offices?

2007-05-01T21:18:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I was talking about the effects of KSR on the world in general, and mentioned that I thought tech transfer offices may be about to have a bad day. Also mentioned the Medimmune case in conjunction with that.

In thinking more about that...it could be a really bad day for the universities on this front.

NIH budget is declining.
Number of researchers has been ramping up for years (due to doubling NIH budget).
Cost of reagents has been increasing at greater than rate of inflation

Researchers need money

Look to licensing to fill hole with money (amongst many places)
"Go to companies" - They are rich - take their cash

NOW

Obviousness bar is lower
Challenge to patents after taking a license is easier

Company may choose to may you come after them (belief in winning in court)
University may offer cheap license to tempt company to take license rather than a court battle.

Bias against

Big wins. The more money there is at stake, the more tempting that shot at the court case looks. If the universities keep their royalties down, to avoid rising to the "worth a challenge" level, they will keep their patents but they may not make very much money
Licenses without most favored nation clauses. I probably won't ever sign another one. If someone else challenges, I want to reap the reward of the university bribing them to back off. This will have to happen at some point.

Other predictions

Some University will go to court. One of them will think it can push it. I don't know if they will win or not, but it will set the tone for a lot of things. We will all watch that case VERY closely to see what happens. Much case law will be written in the next while here and it will matter a whole lot.

Ummmm....problem. Do I think this will come true? To some degree yes. I also think we will also see a lot of the fallout of their just plain being more licensing offices and more of a mandate to them to market their stuff. That leads to just plain more people chasing a money pool that isn't really growing that much. Each University will, therefor, get less cash.

As a side note to any who might think "but my University is, like, really good at licensing and we are world famous and we will totally be able to stomp out U. of Hicksville". NOT. I don't care what university you are. I need the IP. All your licenses prevent me from using your name anyway so it doesn't matter whether I license from Famous U. or U. Hicksville.

In any case - I am glad I don't run a University Tech Transfer office right now.

more on KSR

2007-05-01T21:03:00.000-07:00

In my other post, written while I was still reading the decision, I sort of didn't say anything. Just posted the, to me, interesting bits of the decision.

Now, some things I think are going to shake out of this in no particular order.

Less license income for Universities. I think this because a lot of what I see coming out is incremental improvements that involve heavy use of someone else's patents. This is precisely the stuff that the ruling goes after.
MORE legal battles. I know I am emboldened today. I assume many others are as well. Someone is going to role the dice in court on this in a bigger way just to see what happens. Kind of hope it is us, but would guess someone will be cautious one here and back off.
Put together with the previous ruling in the Medimmune case (and some commentary on it) , which essentially says that "A licensee in good standing can still challenge the validity of the patents" - I see licesors pushing for high up front fee's and licensees pushing back. The high upfronts dont make commercial sense if the technology doesn't work out but the licensor needs to worry about the attack on the patent. Given the lower bar to get it thrown out on obviousness, the attacks will be more frequent. OR the royalties I am willing to pay will be lower, as the cost to fight a patent is still a couple of million dollars and I may not want to bother.
MORE INNOVATION. Many biotechs and pharmas are freaked about this BIO filed a brief in opposition to the way this came out. I think they are wrong, but I am in a different business than they are. I fight every day with the patent landscape. Cleaning up a lot of this crap and getting it out of the way will make my life a WHOLE lot better. We will push stuff out much faster if we can clear a lot of the cruft out the road. This will take a decade to come true, as that is the speed things move at, but a boy can dream.... I think the 1 patent 1 compound people will still have a defense if they truely did something. If not, they won't and there will be a problem. I leave that up to someone who knows that area to speak to (derek?)
We will spend less on IP filings. If we apply a bit of a filter to our filings we could save money. We won't of course... we will keep on going the way we have been going and see what the patent office does to them. My hope is that they start kicking more back and that we get a chance to actual weed our garden. As long as it isn't happening to us only, it is good. If everyone's garden gets weeded, there will be space to actually ship product.
This will help, I think, Diagnostics a lot more than it helps Pharma and biotech. The diagnostics world, as it moves toward molecular diagnostics, is a patent mess. Cleaning that up will help this transition a whole lot more. Pharma and biotech are pitching companies with smaller amounts of IP coverage that if they don't have it they have nothing. That increased level of risk will make them harder to get funded. Diagnostic companies, on the other hand, are generally not bringing IP to the table and are instead trying to duck dodge and weave around it (or exclude everyone else from using the IP they do have.)

That LinkedIn thing....

2007-05-01T11:12:00.000-07:00

In my post on finding the new frustration of 10+ years, and the hidden fact that there is always another barrier to getting really cool jobs, I talked about LinkedIn and the fact that I was using that.

I got questions about that, so here are answers (I'm generous that way... or bored with nothing to do, I leave that as an exercise for the reader).

LinkedIn is one of those social networking sites. Given that you know someones name and email address, you should be able to send them an invite and you two get linked together. Were you linked to me (and Bill, we should sort that out) you would be able to see everyone that I know (who is also a LinkedIn member) and, if you wanted to get a job to them you could try and use me to put you in touch with them. If they like me (slim hope...) and I like you then it should help to get your resume in front of them. Given the HR filter that stops a lot of resumes, there is value in this.

I also have used it in the past to find people in companies. Given an introduction from someone they know, I get farther on the first call than I might otherwise. It works for that, and I have used it for that a lot.

For jobs....no data yet. No leads yet. But that is true of every other method I am trying and is also likely some fallout from the fact that I am impatient and have only been really looking for 1 week. We will see how things shake out....

Is LinkedIn necessary to get ahead in business. Probably not, but I do see an awful lot of people in our industry in there. Can it help you get a job. Probably. Anything that gets you in front of people is worth trying. Sure beats spamming Monster.com as a strategy.

Outsourcing...

2007-04-30T21:40:00.000-07:00

I just read on Derek's blog that a commenter got on him about recommending an outsourced solution. The people in question were going to do work in India and the commenter was on Derek about, essentially, "Didn't that just cause you to lose your job? Why are you encouraging this?".

Dereks response of, 1 - that didn't cause me to lose my job and 2- You better learn to deal with outsourced competition as it is here to stay and free trade is a good idea.

I would just expand on this a bit, as we are seeing a bit of this in our industry as well.

We moved our manufacturing out of California for tax and cost reasons. Did we move it far enough? No idea, but will flat out tell you that we are always looking. There is the cost of moving a plant and starting up and disruption VS. the labor cost you have to bear. You have to do this math, and keep doing this math, or you will get your lunch eaten by a competitor who is doing this math. That is why they pay me and people like me and all the operations people. Costs matter to making a profit. Want to make a profit, make sure you watch your costs.

Derek's point that soon Indians will be griping about the next low cost place is wrong (he uses Pakistan and Bangladesh in his example). It is wrong because he uses the future tense. It is the present tense. Hyderabad for software development is no longer the cheapest high quality code writing place. We use a company there and I know what there cost increases have looked like. I also know the services they have started adding on to our work so that they break out of the "low bidder" hand cuffs. You have to be more than low bidder if you want to keep the work, and they have learned that. In addition, if you are trying to just make it as low bidder, you have to make sure and keep your employees dirt poor and in low demand. The second they get educated they will start asking to be paid and your costs will go up. As a side light to this "education" thing, they will also become a whole ton better as workers. Your quality will go up and you will be able to ask for more money from your customers. BUT - you have to accept that there will now be some other part of the world that is way cheaper than you.

I am with Derek on the whole free trade thinger. It is only by bringing everyone up to our standard of living that we can sell stuff to them and then hope to fight to bring jobs back here.

We have been fighting this boogy man for a lot of years. Wasn't Japan supposed to eat our Lunch (90's). You know...it sort of turned out that they weren't superman after all. They do some stuff better than us and some stuff not as well. The better stuff, they are kicking our butts at. The other stuff, we win. This is, I think, good and healthy.

KSR vs. Teleflex

2007-04-30T21:10:00.000-07:00

Today the supreme court handed down a ruling in the KSR vs. Teleflex case. Many of us having been watching that for quite awhile and the ruling is set to break new ground. Some links first : The ruling and Some Commentary and some other commentary, and more commentary, and some other commentary. Reading the ruling (where as I described in my previous post they only talk about the claims, and only claim 4 at that) and the commentary (which also only talks about claim 4) shows you how this obviousness thing is shaking out.

Leaving aside the discussion of pedals, which doesn't really matter, we get to a couple of pretty good quotes for consideration.

As just a starting point

We begin by rejecting the rigid approach of the Court of Appeals. Throughout this Court's engagement with the question of obviousness, our cases have set forth an expansive and flexible approach inconsistent with the way the Court of Appeals applied its TSM test here.

****The TSM test was the test for teaching, suggestion, or motivation. We worry about this a lot. The court explains is thusly,

Seeking to resolve the question of obviousness with more uniformity and consistency, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has employed an approach referred to by the parties as the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” test (TSM test), under which a patent claim is only proved obvious if “some motivation or suggestion to combine the prior art teachings” can be found in the prior art, the nature of the problem, or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Al-Site Corp. v. VSI

and then a lay out of really where they want to set the lines.

For over a half century, the Court has held that a “patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions . . . obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men.” Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U. S. 147, 152 (1950). This is a principal reason for declining to allow patents for what is obvious. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Three cases decided after Graham illustrate the application of this doctrine.
In United States v. Adams, 383 U. S. 39, 40 (1966), a companion case to Graham, the Court considered the obviousness of a “wet battery” that varied from prior designs in two ways: It contained water, rather than the acids conventionally employed in storage batteries; and its electrodes were magnesium and cuprous chloride, rather than zinc and silver chloride. The Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result. 383 U. S., at 50–51. It nevertheless rejected the Government’s claim that Adams’s battery was obvious. The Court relied upon the corollary principle that when the prior art teaches away from combining certain known elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely to be nonobvious. Id., at 51–52. When Adams designed his battery, the prior art warned that risks were involved in using the types of electrodes he employed. The fact that the elements worked together in an unexpected and fruitful manner supported the conclusion that Adams’s design was not obvious to those skilled in the art.
In Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U. S. 57 (1969), the Court elaborated on this approach.
The subject matter of the patent before the Court was a device combining two pre-existing elements: a radiant-heat burner and a paving machine. The device, the Court concluded, did not create some new synergy: The radiant-heat burner functioned just as a burner was expected to function; and the paving machine did the same. The two in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation. Id., at 60–62. In those circumstances, “while the combination of old elements performed a useful function, it added nothing to the nature and quality of the radiant-heat burner already patented,” and the patent failed under §103. Id., at 62 (footnote omitted).
Finally, in Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U. S. 273 (1976), the Court derived from the precedents the conclusion that when a patent “simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform” and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. Id., at 282.
The principles underlying these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida and Anderson’s-Black Rock are illustrative -- a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.

This is interesting as it is setting up where they (supreme court) philosophically fall on the matter.

This is what will really stand a lot of biological patents being pursued/issued today on it's head.

As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

This means that if a technician would have thought of it, you likely shouldn't get a patent on it. This is huge for getting rid of a lot of the combination patents that are being pursued (admittedly by us as well as others...). They get right to the heart of this combination business as well, stating...

When it first established the requirement of demonstrating a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine known elements in order to show that the combination is obvious, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals captured a helpful insight. See Application of Bergel, 292 F. 2d 955, 956–957 (1961). As is clear from cases such as Adams, a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does. This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.

....So making known mutations that give expected results may not actually be patentable.

When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida and Anderson’s-Black Rock are illustrative -- a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.

and just before it,

Finally, in Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U. S. 273 (1976), the Court derived from the precedents the conclusion that when a patent “simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform” and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. Id., at 282.

which really hits at making expected mutations and getting expected results.

This is, in total, a pretty interesting ruling. How will it affect our patent filing strategy? No idea. We will likely wait and see what the patent office does. It will certainly affect our litigation strategy, as it opens up all new ways to attack patents. For those where we are the defendent, we are happy. For those where we are the plantiff, we are sad. There will be a period here where we all try and figure out the new rules. I would expect to see someone (hopefully not us) bet huge on some interpretation and lose big. I would expect most of the rest of us to hedge a bit. I may give in on some issues a bit more quickly. I would expect to push a bit further/harder on other issues. We will see... in the mean time, I expect that a lot of biotech patent people are all reading this as hard as I am. Anyone not reading it...I would love to do a deal with you.

Patent Analysis- Its all about the claims folks....

2007-04-30T21:00:00.000-07:00

I have been reading a lot of computer people talk about patent's. Here, at ArsTechnica, is the latest example that made me want to write this post. Timothy B. Lee goes on in the post and talks about the Verizon patents that cover voice over IP. In his discussion of the patents, he never talks about the actual claims.

He talks about the background. He talks about the general patent and market landscape. Never once does he talk about the actual claims of the patent.

The claims are the only part that matters. They are the part you sue someone for. They are the part the court interprets. They are the part that you file your obviousness challenge on. The only reason for the rest of the patent to be written at all is to support your claims. If you can't point to at least 1 part of a sentence in your background that supports your claim, then you don't get the claim allowed by the patent office. Once the support for a claim is shown to be there, then the background doesn't matter. The claims control what limitations are on the interpretation, and what is covered. You can't sue someone because of something that is in the methods section. Only the claims.

You can have a background section that is totally obvious and says nothing at all ground breaking. Given his description of the patents in question, they likely do have that. BUT - the claims are all that matters. Read those. Parse those. Figure those out. Any time that the claims use a tortuous definition, you get to look back into the body of the patent and see how that term was defined. It is only by doing this very long and tortured analysis that you can say, with any certainty, what a patent does and does not cover. Given that information, you can then say whether or not it is, or is not, obvious.

His article references the KSR v. Teleflex ruling that the supreme court was going to hand down. They have done so, and I will talk about that next.

The 10+ year hurdle

2007-04-30T20:47:00.000-07:00

As previously mentioned, I have sold my way out of a job. I am, in the course of things, interviewing for positions at the company that is acquiring us and I have a pretty good track record to point at (I mean...you just bought us...that has to be worth something!). I continue to get paid and go to work every day and I will, likely, fingers crossed, in due course, get an interesting job from the acquiror. I equally likely will have to switch cities I live in to do it. My wife is not that psyched about that idea. She, however, likes me moping the around the house being a grumpy pain in the rear even less.

So - I have also started to hit the job circuit in a big way. The core question being - can I find a really cool job that pays me as well as I currently am and that doesn't require me to move. If it does require me to move, will it have a better package than I think I can expect from the folks who bought us?

NO

at least not yet. I have fired up every recruiter I know (a non-small number) and have started spamming my resume to former friends. My LinkedIn network has been activated to find stuff. Things are afoot. Phone interviews have already started. BUT....

10+ years industry experience

is on every job that I am currently interested in. HR people seem stuck on this. I am routing around them, but they are a bit of block on the recruiter path. The recruiters I know well are pushing through this but it is still there. I live in fear of having to do a boring job.

I can't believe I have only been out of graduate school for 6 years. Grrrrrrr....

The process of being acquired...

2007-04-22T20:09:00.000-07:00

For those reading from the academic side and living in fear of what an acquisition means, I thought I would talk a little bit about that.

I have been involved in this acquisition for quite a while and couldn't talk. Besides any other world problems, the SEC would have frowned on the revelation and thrown me in jail. It has been a bit surreal to, for example, go to meetings and talk about long term plans that I happen to know full well won't happen (or might now happen or whatever). Up until the day before announcement I was leading this double life - The public face is no different and was setting up things. The other 1/2 was working all night (both literally and figuratively) to get the company sold. I lied to, approximately, everyone. That was getting very old. I had been doing that for about 3 months or so and it was old...

SO - now we have announced and are in the period between announcement and actual close of deal. There are filings with the SEC going on to get their blessing that there is not an anti-trust problem. There are meetings to figure out how, post close, to integrate the two businesses.

We are a bit lucky in that we were bought for our manufacturing and our R+D. Our sites most likely won't be shut down, as we aren't duplicative of anything they already have. Were there mass shutdowns in the future, this would have a very different feel. As it is, the number of of us who are facing unemployment is small. Unfortunately, I am one of them. Post close, the role I have now will be gone. I have known this from when I started working on this, but really pushed it out of my head. Now, when I really have little to do, it is first and foremost in my mind again. I have fired up the recruiters and am looking around within the acquiring company for positions of interest. I made a favorable impression on the acquiring folks, so there is a lot of support for finding me something...but you still have to do it. Don't have it done yet. Stress exists. Are we moving again? I have some quasi permission from my wife to move us if we have to, but I have to say that San Diego is pretty much the best place on the planet to live (obviously-my opinion. Your mileage may/will vary.)

For the rest of the people in the company - there is a lot of unknowns. I know that they will likely come out OK, but until the close happens and full sets of plans can be developed and spelled out for folks, there is a lot of uncertainty. Uncertainty is not good...

It is funny that in the middle of this, I go read this over at ars technica. Lay offs and uncertainty are all over the place. Academics are just getting used to this idea. Don't know that it is easier in industry or if you are just supposed to expect it more - but it is beat all around.

In any case - I am still here and fighting to find a new job. The company is chugging ahead on momentum as I don't think most people have really stopped and thought about it yet. Part of (and it is a huge part of it) my job is to not let them stop and think about it, as they are OK. Lets stay on target with projects and get products launched. Not much else to do anyway.... I know I'm dead, but I know they aren't. I've known I was dead for awhile though and have been really saving money in order to get through a dry spell if it comes to that.

Fun? I am still having it.

Acquired....

2007-04-08T08:56:00.000-07:00

We just announced our intention to be acquired on Friday. I have been working on this for a long while and am pretty relieved to be on to the next step. BUT - oh wow... they didn't teach you about this in grad school.

I will write more when my hang over wears off, as I am pretty happy!

Rules for Industry

2007-03-24T21:41:00.000-07:00

These are great rules. I didn't write them (obviously) but wow - they nail it. Hadn't really thought about writing these, but am really glad someone did.

Wow

2007-03-24T20:58:00.000-07:00

I live under a log. I just don't think like this search committee did ( and follow up). About 50% of the folks at my level are female (depends how you score a couple of people, both men and women). There is only 1 level above me (and it is small and 2/3 male). I just can't comprehend this and would kind of be dumbstruck if it was said in a meeting about hiring someone. I sit through a lot (way way way way too many) hiring meetings, and this just doesn't come up. I don't think we are particularly enlightened. I don't even look at myself as particularly PC, but wow.

FemaleScienceProfessor is a great blog that continues to remind me that this still goes on. I, being male, am not affected by it directly. That said, I don't even see this stuff going on around me (which would be indirectly...). The best scientist at our company, and this is something the CEO (male) has said publicly many times (and he is not just blowing smoke, she is) is female. For what she works on I would say she is the best in the world but no one knows it outside of some industry folks (this relates to where our patent apps are years ahead of academic science....).

Good to have a blog that continues to show this happening.

Will they all hate me?

2007-03-18T07:50:00.000-07:00

From my comments back here....A question about leaving the academic world behind...

However, I would like to ask you: how did you deal with the contemptuous attitude of your advisor and peers when you mention that perhaps a different job (in my case a sales rep position) might better your understanding of business in the biotech and/or pharma industry. You comments on this would be highly appreciated.

By the way: You blog came up when I did a google search on info on what to do with my PhD. Thank you. Your are making my life much happier, together with www.phdcomics.com

Also, I have a very similar story about finishing up. My significant other is also telling me that I would hate myself if I don't finish.

Couple of things. Bill, who commented on your questions, used to work with me. He in fact picked up my project when I graduated. So, at least one person still talks to me... I would say that amongst my direct peers I did not get any "attitude". A lot of questions (and that continues to this day) but no attitude. From my adviosor...whether I had stayed in academia or not he and I didn't part on the best of terms. His opinion, at the end of the day, was irrelevant to me. My departmental chairmans opinion, on the other hand, was a bit harder to stomach. He was, essentially, done with me. There were several other faculty that felt/acted this way. It's too bad really, but I have to say that I sort of expected it and didn't care.

I will say, though, that I DIDNT talk about what I was going to do next. I didn't bounce the idea off of them or anything like that. As I got real close to graduation and people directly asked, I answered that "I didn't have anything lined up but was looking to industry". That set people back, but I was essentially already out the door so the uncomfortable overlap was pretty short. I keep in touch with a couple of people from Grad school. None of the faculty, just some of my peers.

It will happen. I knew it and didn't care. Think you have to have that attitude.

With regard to finishing. I wasn't happy to hear it from her at the time becuase she was totally right and I was totally miserable. Hang in there.

String at EMBL

2007-03-17T20:13:00.000-07:00

This site, which I read about here, is cool. In my looking at gene expression panels as prognostic markers in cancer (something I do for a living these days) this will prove most useful. I had written, and had others write, many tools to help me. Several are like this, but worse. I like finding new cool things to use!

New blog that I found

2007-03-17T19:10:00.000-07:00

Found Jonathan Eisen's blog where he is complaining about (he removed the company name but I saw it before then...). Read the rest of his blog. Interesting stuff. Worth reading.

Circle of life....

2007-03-12T21:45:00.000-07:00

One of the many things I heard at AUTM was the need for Universities to find alternative funding sources now that the NIH budget was drying up. Many of those people took time to find me and pass me their card in the thought that I might be that source.

Given my last post on the matter, which is actually your problem to begin with, you have to realize that the sales of research reagents will fall. Since they will fall, I will have less money to spend. A nasty little link where your problem becomes my problem, which means I can't solve your problem.

Given the diagnostic side of things, where I am also active, there is money there. BUT there are many many many fewer things that I license for diagnostics vs. our research business. There are just more research tools and they are easier to launch in to the market. Diagnostics have long lead times and large amounts of cash needed per launch. Research tools are easy.

SO - the diagnostic business has money in it, but for very few projects. Research tools has no money, but needs lots of projects.

next couple of years should be interesting.

Buzz Kill....

2007-03-12T21:42:00.000-07:00

Stories like this are not what a person who is in the research tools market likes to read. You can assume that our income matches that NIH funding levels. This isn't a news flash to me, as I worry about this a lot, but that was a nice summary of all of my worries written in a better manner than I can write it.

To any AUTM people left over coming here from the last post....you should figure that it will affect my ability to license....more about that in my next post.

some other AUTM observations...

2007-03-11T21:11:00.000-07:00

Another comment I didn't make, but wanted to, while in the audience.

Question asked by some University guy - "Why are so many companies looking overseas? Is is just cheaper?"

My answer, but I had already asked 1 question in that session, would have been NO - cheaper hasn't been the driver for me. I will, and do, go where the technology is. The overseas countries (and I am US based in case that wasn't blindingly obvious) have been investing a whole lot in their research. In terms of things I can license, this is paying off. We have done several deals with German universities this year already. Last year we were over 50% ex US in our licenses. Mostly Europe, in it's broadest definition, but also a couple from India. 1 from South Africa (and yes, that totally surprised me too when we found it...).

I don't think, but am too lazy to pull all the financials, that the licences from oversease were cheaper than good ole USA ones. I don't think they were easier to do. They certainly made me get up earlier in the morning as to do conference calls with them requires an early start to the day from California. If they were cheaper, it is a matter of a small degree as It didn't lodge in my head.

The panel IBM and Intel folks did answer the question and didn't bring up cost in their answers either.

AUTM meeting

2007-03-11T20:13:00.000-07:00

I was just at the AUTM meeting in San Francisco. For those not "in the know" AUTM is the association of university technology managers. Basically the tech transfer office, although I learned there is quite a bit more to it than that.

I served on a panel at the meeting on the first day, which was interesting, and then through out the meeting popped up at a variety of sessions and failed to keep my mouth shut.

The main things I took from the meeting.

A question was asked by our industry panel on the first day of "What is the University tech transfer offices mission?". I can now say, having sat through many sessions, that every one of the offices has a seperate mission. Many are partly over lapping, and they all have some core in common but there are some pretty big differences. Some places are just tech transfer. Nothing more or less. Others have a mandate to do local area development. i.e. serve as an economic stimulator for the local economy. Others are deeply involved in building translation facilties to really make the technology come out of the university in a way that is much closer to early stage industry work. Much spread. This really does drive me to start asking a series of questions now when I deal with them - starting with "what is your goal". I had been operating on the assumption that it was to license out technology. Now understand that they may, and likely do, have other goals.
The tech transfer people really have no clue about industry trends. This was highlighted on the second day when the harvard guy was talking about the fact that Harvard is building a facility to do hit screening on compounds and pointed out that Pharma is moving away from that early stage discovery and has been looking to biotech to do that work. Biotech, under pressure from VC's, has been moving away from that slowly. I would say the Harvard guy was right, and as he and I talked about afterwards (he knew this) it has been going on in Pharma this way for several years. The surprising bit was the number of other people in the room who came from large research institutes who did NOT know this fact and had been wondering why Pharma wanted to pay much less for early stage targets.
The decision process within many tech transfer offices on how to pursue patents is NOT driven by what could, today, be licensable. Specifically, many folks were talking about licencing gene panels for diagnostics. This is something I am very interested in doing. They all said "Can't be done" and no one will pay for it. They based this on "the head of the office saying so". My response of "it can be done, and we have done it, and I will pay for it" surprised them. My follow up of once you put it in the public domain you likely kill the market also surprised them.
There are a lot of old white guys in charge....and a lot of woman not in charge. This was probably most clearly show cased by the fact that they gave everyone a free neck tie. Leaving aside the lack of color coordination that my tie had, it is not a very useful gift for a woman. You can make as assumption that she can give it to a significant other if you want to move to a new, and higher, level of sexism. I leave that as an exercise to the reader but I do think it wasn't well done.
You can't carry bottle openers on a plane. For serving on a panel I was given a wine bottle carrier and a bottle opener. I didn't even look in the bag and just put it in my luggage to carry home. The security guy at the airport was not that understanding...

BUT - the biggest take home message that I got from it was that industry and tech transfer offices really need to do more to understand each other. The things I go through were alien to them. The time pressures, the reason for IP etc.... they sort of got but not so much. On the other side, there was quite a bit that they go through that I don't get. The local development impetus - the number of people who have to sign off, the control from the state/local government were all things that I didn't fully apreciate.

Overall, a really good meeting. Hoping I didn't burn bridges, but I do have a big mouth....

Fish nor Fowl....

2007-03-08T19:56:00.000-08:00

Over at "In the pipeline" he is talking about "hybrid" folks. By this he means those who do both chemistry and biology, and there is a bit of worry about whether or not they will be able to get jobs afterwards. He thinks academia will be more open to these folks than industry. I don't really know enough about this to comment on his example, but I would suggest a seperate example.

Bioinformatics.

Recently, I was asked and answered about a woman who got a degree in bioinformatics and what should she do. I don't think I was overwhelmingly helpful to her, but I do think it points to the exact oppisate problem that Derek is talking about. I think the Bioinformatics degree is TOO specialized and not broadly useful. I think bioinformatics in the context of doing biology is good, but the bioinformatician has to (in my opinion) understand biology. They need to understand it at the bench level. In my view of the world, and I have worked with and managed several bioinformaticians, I have to say that I think the best ones were at one point bench biologists. They just seem to have a better grasp of the real biology behind the scenes. One can do a lot of math on things, but if you don't know what you are really modelling and whether or not that is real then I think you have problems.

Pure Bioinformaticians lack this.

Pure Bench biologists don't, as a general rule, have the programming skills necessary to code this. Most of us also don't have the math to get it done and make do by building a team of biologist/project manager/developer (with the project manager getting the boot a lot of the time). The project manager's job is to "translate" biology to computer and back again.

SO - This is sort of the flip of what Derek is talking about. Here, the bioinformaticians started as the hybrid folks, evolved to a "pure" version, and I think they have more problems now than they did before.

Scientists and boxes

2007-03-08T19:48:00.000-08:00

Over here at Defective Yeti is a post you should read. Let me restate that... you should read all of his posts becuase they are really funny. Even his very serious ones are well written so while not funny are worth reading.

In any case, on this post further down is a comment that I will reprint here becuase I like the conclusion (I bolded it for those who just want to skip ahead.)

Did you listen to last weekend's This American Life? It was a repeat, but there was a story about an experiment a psychologist did on children around the age where they're chummy with the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. The psychologist put a box in the center of the room and told the children that there was NOT a monster in the box. Then he left the room, and the children scooted away from the box. In a second experiment the psychologist told the children that a puppy was not in the box. When the psychologist left the room, the children went to look in the box.

Sounds like 1) People don't grow up 2)Scientists get their kicks by putting boxes in the middle of rooms and telling lies.

Personality types.

2007-02-17T17:40:00.000-08:00

So over at YoungFemaleScientist she gets her personality type. I don't think she took it seriously, but you don't know. If you are in sales, you put a lot more stock in these things as it pretty much totally affects how you approach people. AND, at sales training you always go through getting your own.

I am an ENTP.

I was a solid non-beleiver in this stuff....until using it made my sales numbers went up. There is a really good book ( Please understand me) and the follow on books. They are a total good read, and I have to say reading about myself has helped a bunch with how I manage people. Understanding them gives good guidance on what they want and what kind of goals to set for them. Understanding customers helps understand how they want to hear things, thus helps you close faster.

Anyway... totally worth learning about.

Financial World VS. Bioinformatics for a future?

2007-02-13T15:32:00.000-08:00

From some comments back here....

It's absolutely amazing how everything makes sense until you actually start looking for a job. That is when I come to a conclusion that my Ph.D. is field-wise useless. How DO you get that first experience if no-one wants to hire a "book-worm"? With the exception of summer-time gigs back in undergrad, what else can anyone leaving a Ph.D. program boast? I am confused, to say the least... I am (almost) where the other guy is -- 26, Ph.D. in Bioinformatics, no kids BUT I am married and thus stuck in the New York Metro area. One would assume that with all the big pharma around someone would take a chance on the new girl, but nooooo.... Well at least not yet. Plenty of places that want me to do pattern recognition on financial data though. So my question is this: Is it worth it to look for/take a job in consulting (hopefully closer to bio) or an analyst position in finance (don't know how that's gonna work out if I've never went past the first "intro to finance" book in my life)? Or should I hold out for pharma to come around? (alternatively: should I build a neural net to predict my chances:)?)
I would really not want to leave bio completely, but I got to eat, right?
Thanks for the advice...

Not too sure what to say.... Bioinformatics is a rough one. I am seeing a lot of resumes come across my desk from this area. I have a background of a couple of years working in it so know a bit, and I am not that bullish on it.

A lot of companies have gone in to the bioinformatics space...not many have made money. Lion built the SRS system, got paid a bunch of money to develop stuff...and then got sold for not very much money to Biowisdom. OmniViz just "merged" with them as well. Rosetta/Merck is making a good run of it.... but I wouldn't say that any of them are making a whole lot of money. The number of start up's who have come and gone is too long to list here....

A round about way of saying I don't know what you should do. Staying in Bioinformatics is a rough way to go. The other companies and types of companies that you mention have, I think, a better future.....Given that you have to live in NYC, I would go to the financial world...

...Realizing how far from the bench I am.... more patents

2007-01-22T07:28:00.000-08:00

When reading this entry on a site that in and of itself indicates "you aren't at the bench anymore" I realized that A> I understood the entire thing, legal words and all AND B>It actually affects some decisions I am making right now.

never would have guessed that I would get here from grad school...

bears colts , Sad...

2007-01-21T19:27:00.000-08:00

Wanted New England becuase I lived there so long....

Wanted New Orleans for 2 reasons. First - that would be such a great comeback story. Second, and far more importantly, I live in fear of seeing "the superbowl shuffle" from the last time the bears were in the superbowl (I think). If that video is on TV ever I am not responsible for my actions.

IP, Lawsuits, and is it getting worse?

2007-01-20T21:40:00.000-08:00

So, Like every other company in this space, we are in a bunch of law suits. We are in suits with our competitors where they are suing us. In turn, we are suing them. Oh yeah -> they are all suing each other as well. There are a couple of lop sided ones where only 1 party is suing the other and the other has not yet fired back. I would guarentee that privatly they are having a conversation along the lines of "stop or we will sue you back", so it may be just a matter of time before those imbalances are righted.

My question last week, in a moment of complete desperation over what was going on, was "is this worse now than in the past, or am I just young?".

I did some work. First I asked those older than me. It is worse now was the answer. It used to be you could all watch the individual cases in the industry and eveyone would talk about them. Now, most people don't even know all of the cases we are in never mind what the sum total for the industry is.

Then I looked at press releases over the last years I can find at all the companies... yep -> getting worse.

We are now at the point where, essentially, everything we try and sell requires a license from someone. We (I actually...) spend a lot of time on freedom to operate and working with lawyers on this, but there is so much. It is, almost, 100% guarenteed that you miss one until you are a fair ways in to the project. You don't want to. You spend 10's of thousands of dollars on lawyers trying not to. But, pretty frequently you do. Frequently enough that I am now pretty paranoid until we have found the problem because I assume that the fact that we haven't found it means we have missed it not that it doesn't exist.

...and now a digression/example of how this works these days.....

Normally the patent we find comes from some totally left field place that you wouldn't expect. I mean, finding it from a university of some famous academic -> Expect that. Look there first anyway and talk to their tech transfer office (they will always try and license you something, but rarely know the background...). Recently we have been on a streak of turning up stuff that we are just getting interested in, and a large number of papers are coming out of academic labs on (and people getting big notice on!!!) ----and patents were issued in the late 90's to a bunch of different japanese electronics firms on the core ideas. They didn't commercially launch a product, so the only way you know about this work is if you search the patents. AND - oh yeah - They used their own vocabulary so simple text word searching wont work. You have to understand the concepts as they describe them to see that they are talking about exactly what is being talked about in the literature today. Given how much we have put in to this project already... this is a big big big kick in the teeth. I now am talking to them to license and move forward. This will, likely, move at a glacial pace as that is how most deals with them evolve.

The really funny part of this is the academics running around thinking they found something new. I KNOW that they have gone to their tech transfer offices and tried to file patents, as those offices have approached me. They are pretty shocked when I reply "How do you distinguish over this 6 series patent" (The 6 referes to the first number and if you live this crap you know how old that makes it. We are doing 7's right now). I can only wonder if the academics hear back on this? If they do, what do they do? Will the read the patents and copy the work and claim it as their own? (as there is extension to what they have published in the already published patent specs?)

I am skeptical enough of academic science that I don't think they tell anyone but do read and copy.

In any case -> that long diversion illustrates a lot of work that I do.

Once we find the patent, we then either try and work around it (not practice it) or license it. Everyone has a price....the question is "are they sensible?" as many peoples prices are quite high. They think they hold the holy grail and that we should pay up. Sometimes we do, so I can't really fault the trying. Got to know when to hold them, know when to run --or whatever that line is. That negotiation is the fun part of my job (for me...).

Unfortunatly, there are a lot of patents out there and a lot of lawyers. So - companies (ourselves included....) will take a bit of a patent and try and stretch it as far as possible to exclude our competitors from the space. Thus...the court.

I don't know what the answer is, and don't think any of the simplistic ones are it (outlaw patents, make everything free....etc...) but do know that the current status quo will likely break soon in the biotech space.

We will see.

off topic...but really funny

2006-12-27T19:50:00.000-08:00

This is good stuff.

Read the ingredients when you get down to that part....

pretty much off topic, but funny none the less.

Someone actually reads an "A list" blogger and tries to decipher it...

2006-12-26T10:14:00.000-08:00

There are many posts that I read by "pundits" that make me wonder how I can have back that time I wasted. So many that I stopped reading them as they thought they were telling me the future. The problem being that they are so busy talking about it that they aren't really helping it happen. I long ago got the feeling that they weren't actually saying anything and were just writing for the sake of seeing their words on the screen. I would imagine they check how many people read on an hourly basis. The fact that I didn't totally "get it" was also a bit annoying. I didn't want to spend the time to understand...

SO - Joel went and used the secret decoder ring on one article and after he wasted a bunch of time he shows that my hunch was right. Now any lingering doubt I had has been erased.... I am sorry Joel had to waste that hour (more than an hour he says...) , but better him than me!

Washington Post on working X-mas...

2006-12-26T10:12:00.000-08:00

In grad school, I didn't get a Washington Post article about going to work on a Holiday. I got some flak from my now wife, but no article. I would rank this under the things that they trot out once a year to say "look at the weirdo's" and "aren't these people great slaving away to keep you healthy". Good to get some press, but I am a little too jaded to think it actually means anything other than it was a slow news day.

Some random links...

2006-12-19T20:20:00.000-08:00

To a really old dudes blog (he is 93).... Life lessons learned.

To the new google patents site. This brings patent search to the way the patent office should do it. When dealing with the patent office, you would be amazed at them. From the notice of allowance (that tells your patent is done, accepted, and will issue) to you acutally getting the patent is 6 months. In that time it moves from office A to office B. You pay a small fee. It issues. Their web site is horrid. Google has done the right thing and made it more searchable. Oh yeah - google went back to before 1976 and made all of that searchable as well (meaning the google site is more searchable than the patent office...go figure). Now all they need to do is add patent applications to it and it will really be useful.

Bad time of year

2006-12-19T20:14:00.000-08:00

Those of you not in a sales/quarterly based world (hello academia) probably enjoy this time of year. For me, this is horrid. Our fiscal year wraps up at the end of the year, so any money I can earn before Dec 31 goes in to this year and all of the financial implications that has for both the company and for myself. There is a great incentive to close deals before Dec 31. Sleep is unneccesary.

For me to close deals, Airplanes are involved. Airplanes at this time of year are full of the "non professional" traveller. Many of you would call these people "families" or "students". I look at them as road blocks in security lines and people who fill in the middle seats on airplanes. They also get in the way at check in counters.

SO - to sum up this time of year for myself and many in similar positions....

High stress to close deals, which requires travel that is itself made more stressfull by the large number of people who don't travel that much.

... to top it all off, many people start going on vacation so stuff has to be done even more quickly. Those that are still at work are really about 50% gone.

Every year I get crabby about this...

Positive about your work....

2006-12-11T19:12:00.000-08:00

Over on YoungFemaleScientist she has a post about liking what you do. A couple of points.

1. I can't imagine doing something I didn't like. I invest too much, be they hours, thought, interruption of my personal life...whatever... to not like what I am working on.

2. She points to a difference between men and woman that I don't know what I think of.

She states.

This phrase, "I don't think I can" is something I hear all the time from women, but not so often from men.

That's not to say the men don't feel the same way. But more often what I hear from men who leave academia is that they think the system sucks, not that they wouldn't be good enough, if they wanted to be a professor.

...when it comes to the discussion of men vs. woman who have come over to the dark side. She is pointing out something that she hears woman say about academia and use as a justification of why they left.

My initial response was to call BS, because I am argumentative that way... but I don't know. I know why I left, and I know why some others left, but in speaking with the folks who are on the dark side (small n, but mix of both men and woman) none of them say "I don't think I would have made it". I get a lot of "I don't know why you would try" and that comes from both men and woman. BUT => we are all saying that to each other after we have moved. Sample bias and eleborate self justification all rolled in to one.

So, I don't know. Part of me thinks I could have made it if I wanted to, but since I didn't want to I didn't even try. This is true for me -> if I am not in to it, I will be bad at it. SO, the justification is that I "wasn't in to it" and thus punted to avoid being unhappy.

3. Random note about self flaggelation, discussing one of her friends.

She misses the bench (sound familiar? I've heard this from young PIs before)

Why would these people not flee to industry where you can, if you choose, stay at the bench for a long time and make a really good living doing it? This I will never understand.

4. GREAT STATEMENT

News flash: a PhD degree by itself doesn't have magical powers.

Oh yeah. Totally true. Don't know you need to add much to this. A Ph.D. should, if done properly, teach you how to analyze stuff and think for yourself. The rest is up to you.

5. LOVE the competitivness

Statements like
And part of me says, Move over sister, soon it will be my turn!

At the end of the day, I feel we should all like what we are doing. Really love it. I feel that I am worth quite a bit of money per year and that someone should pay me that because I am smart enough to make it pay off for them. I feel that I should be allowed to set priorities for a lot of reasearch groups, and that you should pay me for that. But- most of all- This is what I like doing. I think I am good at all of those things becuase that is what I like doing. I am not doing it becuase someone has set a bar out there that says "this is how you are successful" or "do this to get ahead" -> becuase I think if you are doing it becuase someone else has set a bar that you will be miserable at it and it will haul you down.

If you don't like what you are doing. Change.

sounds so simple....

Recruiters....

2006-12-10T20:20:00.000-08:00

In looking through the comments on Derek's post about his site shutting, there was a link to here, talking about recruiters. WOW> I didn't really think it was that bad. My jobs have all come via recruiters. In my current role, I have moved to exclusivly using them to fill spots. They bring me higher quality people than I am getting via monster/biospace/craigs list. HR makes me post and advertise to places, but I try and limit it to what I have to in order to keep them happy. It just drains my budget to do that.

I get an unsoliciated call/email a day for new positions. I am pretty good about writing back to people saying "thanks, but no thanks for right now". You can sort of smell the useless ones that don't know what they are talking about. Those, I am still polite to. I got my current job becuase a recruiter sent me in for the "wrong" job, but the hiring person recognized that I would be useful for what I am currently doing.

So - I pretty much disagree with the poster at the medicine vault pretty completly. To get a senior position I think they are the ONLY way to get the job. For entry level positions, I am a lot less sure. Would guess that you get a lower quality recruiter at that level, so the posting might be accurate or reflective of that - but that is buried in a little sentance at the end of the post.

Holiday gifts

2006-12-10T20:05:00.000-08:00

It is the time of year that I have to give gifts to the folks who report to me. Always stressful. What to get them? The standard gift seems to be a good bottle of wine. It is what I gave last year and is likely what I will give this year.

However, due to some turnover, I have some "newer" employees, who have only been working for me for a breif while. Don't know them that well. Is wine acceptable? Hope so, as that is whay I bought this weekend...Hope none of them are recovering alcoholics (or practicing one for that matter) as that would be a kick in the teeth.

....more stuff I didn't think about in grad school.

The other side of a shut down...

2006-12-10T19:58:00.000-08:00

A while ago Derek reported that his site (place of work, not Blog) was shutting down. I am sympatheitc to that as that isn't fun, but didn't think too much more about it. Then we started getting the termination of agreement letters and the sales rep in that territory is reporting that there will be a hole. We had a couple of licenses with the site that were lucrative for us. Termination means they won't be paying us that money next year. This means I have a hole that I have to dig out of in my department if I want to show growth and get a bonus. Nothing like what Derek is going through, but I have to say I didn't think of it. Little stupid on my part, as there is pretty much no pharma site around from which I don't derive some part of my yearly income.

These things ripple outward in ways I should have thought about but didn't. In thinking about it, my previous company had a pretty big license in there as well. No idea if they kept it alive for the last few years (no reason to think they wouldn't...) and to them as a smaller company this shut down could be a pretty big deal.

Transition help: BioCom in San Diego for postdocs to industry

2006-10-26T19:18:00.000-07:00

I don't think they had this when I was doing this, but here is something for the San Diego folks. I am sure such things exist elsewhere.... I have been to several BioCom events and they have all been good so I don't know of any reason this wouldn't be as well.

"Transition to Industry" Career Symposium for Graduate students and Postdocs

Discover what San Diego's life science industry has to offer and how to get there...

When: Saturday October 28, 2006

Where: Biogen Idec
5200 Research Place
San Diego, CA

Registration Time: 8:00-9:00 AM
Symposium Program: 9:00AM-5:00 PM
Networking Happy Hour: 5:00-7:00 PM
Registration Fee: $20.00

Join other local graduate students and post-docs to learn about:
The local life sciences industry,
What it takes to transition from academia to industry,
How to market oneself to industry, and.
Have the opportunity to interact with and seek out information from local companies.

Click here to register.
For more information email biotech@workforce.org

Grumbling post docs, industry, and options

2006-10-25T21:36:00.000-07:00

So last post I put my words in Bills mouth.

Bill was good enough to reply and put his own words in his own mouth in the comments.

Yeah, that's a pretty good interpretation of what I was saying. To be fair to some grumbling postdocs, though, it isn't necessarily simply a matter of knowing one's options, as there are lots of experienced postdocs who would love to work in industry (at least from what I hear). But they are trapped because they can't get a job there either. So I can understand their anguish.

He had previously asked, offline and when he was asking if this site was me (CAUGHT!) about this same subject. Essentially "how do I get in to industry bench". Many do an academic post doc knowing they don't want to be there, is essentially Bill's point (and...his dilemma).

Way back at the beginning of this blog, I talked a bit about this. Now, I have actually asked a bunch of people stuff and have a 1/2 way coherent thing to say on the matter.

Much to my surprise, ALL of our directors at the R+D level did academic post docs. About 1/2 of them did 2. All of the people right below the directors did at least 1 (and sometimes 2, although many fewer of them). I was, bluntly, blown away. This has taken awhile, as I started asking people at other companies. N kept increasing but the percentages didn't change. They all do academic post docs.

On the business side, I found that for those with Ph.D.'s the number of postdocs was many fewer. No 2's that I ran in to, and maybe 1/3 of the folks with even 1. Most of us, myself included, totally skipped that step.

We have one friend who did an industry post doc, so I don't really know how you score her. She essentially was working in industry, but becuase she called herself (and was in a program that called her this) a postdoc -> she got paid less. I didn't really understand how that worked for her. Totally understand how it works for the company!!!

SO - To stay at the bench you have to do postdocs. Who knew? (well a lot of people....)

Disruptive Tech and the Post Doc grind

2006-10-08T21:37:00.000-07:00

In my previous post, I mentioned that I thought disruptive technologies would tend to come from academic groups.

Then I got to thinking about it. Two examples come to mind.

RNAi - which started academic ( and they just got Nobel prizes for it)
PCR - Came from the commercial side. Kary Mullis worked for industry.
miRNA's - academia, and I don't know how disruptive they will be yet. Much smoke any fire?
Tumor supressors - academia, but from a long time ago when there was no industry.

PCR came from the time of not much industry as well, so it is an even bigger anomoly.

The tools companies have a bunch of stuff that no one thinks of as creative, but on the other hand they didn't come up with it either. Promega has all the TnT stuff. Stratagene has QuickChange. Invitrogen has TA cloning. All of these required a massive amount of basic biology research to be done. It is hidden by deceptivly simple ideas and kits, but at the end of the day is very creative stuff.

I don't claim to have any knowledge of "who is more creative", nor do I actually think that is a question with an answer. No idea how to measure that. No real idea of why you would try. My point is that there are really bright people doing really cool stuff in all corners of research. There are really dumb people in both academia and in industry. There are great projects in both as well.

When folks feel they are trapped, as FemaleScientist does right now, then they get depressed. When, in that depression, they throw out huge numbers of options with little to no knowledge about those options, I get annoyed. I probably shouldn't as I don't know her or what she works on, but all the same.....

One of my other friends (hi Bill!) who figured out who I am after reading her site said, and I paraphase, "She is just like all the other old timer post docs around here. Bitter at being stuck but not able to take a break and figure out what she wants to do". By not able to take a break he meant "she couldn't see a way NOT to go to lab and stop and look at the world around her". I have put a few words in his mouth, but not too many. The second half, stopping and getting away and reassessing, is the critical part. When you are in it and doing what she is doing right now there is no way for you to come up with a plan of how to move forward. Everything is lab lab lab lab lab lab lab. It is not "what do I want to do in a few years and what choices exist?" I would also add that I think you are doing crap science right then. You don't have the ability to actually think about what you are doing. There is no analysis and you make stupid errors. Just my experience from watching...

Graduate school has to be done in academia. Everything after that is your own path. Choose from knowledge of choices not from what you can wedge in between two gels. Regardless of what you think, you do have the ability to take a couple of days off and clear your mind enough to make a plan.

Industry Science, and why we aren't all morons.

2006-10-06T19:23:00.000-07:00

This post is partly in response to this post over on YoungFemaleScientist, but is mostly driven by several conversations I have had with several of my friends individually that that posting started. They are all still post-docs, most in the boston area, and are looking at their next steps. Industry or academia? Can I have a family and become a PI? What if I actually want to see my partner? Kids?

The major question is "what is it like to work in industry?"

YoungFemaleScientist does a very good job of showing the stereotypes of what academics who don't know anyone on the industry side think goes on in industry. She makes it pretty obvious that she doesn't actually know. I don't know how she would know, so that isn't really her fault. People in industry can talk about it, as I have done here, and 1-1 can tell people stuff. Occasionally, as happened with at least two folks previously here (Phd Dropout and Dapi) they can ask someone questions and get some answers. They were focussed on the career path I have chosen, so that was relativly easy for me to answer. As I have fled the bench, those questions are harder to answer.

....so I asked the R+D directors.

They are roughly equivelant to PI's in academia, in that they head up groups that range in size from 5 to 40 people and are focussed on larger or smaller areas of our business. In addition, I spend a lot of time looking at what we know and what we don't know, and what is going on in academia to compare against.

Some summary thoughts:
1. In area's we are active in we are years ahead of academia.
2. Scientists work as hard or not as hard (depending on the person) in industry as they do in academia. Depends on the person.

In order, some more thoughts.
I am going to talk about an area that is of general interest to biotech/pharma and compare it to academia. Kinases. Academics are still doing stuff that looks at cellular localization, binding partners, and knockouts. Pharma has already patented the whole lot and are looking at drugs to interfere, but the academics don't even know that the pathways are worked out. Why am I so certain of this? Look at the drugs they produce. Read the patents that are published at the USPTO. If you look at what is in the published patent applications, and compare to the literature, you will find that more is known and locked up in the companies than they let on about. One, from a "information wants to be free" point of view can get mad about this. BUT, lets look at why this is, and at the area where academics are ahead. Industry can, and does, buy databases that are manually curated from the literature of all the pathways know in the free and open science worlds (Ingenuity and GeneGo are big on this, but there are others). So - take it as a given that they have access to a lot of data academics can't easily look at (licenses to those tools aren't cheap). NOW - if they are interested in a pathway becuase it has in some way been implicated in disease, they throw a lot of people and equipment at that. As opposed to a couple of academic groups randomly throwing grad students at this, PI level people, senior postdocs, and an army of technicians who are trained and motivated attack it. You will get the brute force effects of solving the problem but you will also get their brain power. Most in academia seem to assume that everyone who went to industry got a lobotomy and will never have another creative thought in their lives, but that isn't quite true. Industry scientists are just as good as academic scientists in this regard. Industry is looking for the angle...they want to convert to product. The way you do this is learn something that no one else knows before they learn it. THEN figure out what to do with that knowledge such that you can make a product out of it. In some ways this is harder than academia. There, you can just write a paper about what you have learned and move on. For Industry, just knowing a fact doesn't help you that much. You actually have to do something with that fact.

Where academia does well is on the things that no one can see a use for in the next few (10) years. RNAi was a good example. Not many in Pharma are really looking at gene control in nematodes ( I think Novartis looks at fly's, but that is old knowledge so maybe they don't any more). The fact that the work in nematodes eventually leads to a huge industry push is not foreseeable, so mostly they don't fund it. Academia does this work and does a supurb job of it.

Once the initial discovery is made, and published, and realized that it is usefull, then industry runs with it. Academia can't hope to keep up at that point and is soon left behind.

This is, I think, only really true for disruptive findings. When one is talking about general control or the basic biology of enzyme classes, I think that the academics are behind.

I can't really point at the example, but there was a recent nature paper that shows an effect that we have already released product based on and have a patent on. They are 6 years behind us. We don't publish though. The paper got put up on the board at work and the internal scientists are smiling.

As far as working hours go...People work a bit less than in graduate school. That is, I think,healthy. You can not keep up that pace for the rest of your life. You might think you can, but you won't be productive and in the industry setting you will end up unemployed. Derek Lowe said it best (also has a great heading of industry vs academia where he spells things out well for chemists. I would agree with everything that he says for biologists as well though)

Overall - what I would say to Post-Docs who are slogging through the years trying to figure out what to do - ASK people. Read blogs. Send questions to folks. Talk the uncommunicative industry folks at meetings.

DONT base your decisions on old stereotypes. You don't know what we do on this side of the fence, but we all came from your side so we do know what you are going through.

academia vs. industry (bench work)

2006-09-19T09:48:00.000-07:00

Over here there is a good discussion of academia vs industry. I pop up in the comments section... My take home point is that industry and academia aren't that totally different at the end of the day (when it comes to bench work). You can be happy/unhappy in either place. Overall, I think you might be better paid in industry, but that doesn't neccesarily make people happy. Anyway - go read it over there.

Nature Peer Review

2006-09-16T14:09:00.000-07:00

I will freely admit I had no idea this was going on until I read about it over here. Seems like a cool idea, but as Coranted notes, there is nothing there yet. Many articles, some I even care about, but no real comments. He sums up the feedback pretty well so I won't repeat.

I asked around my own company to see if people knew about this. Nope. Not one did. Stealth launch? -OR- do biologist just not seem to read journals on line. I still get paper versions of several journals. We get them free as we advertise so much that they throw in subscriptions on the side as a bonus. That triggers me to read them. I don't seem to ever go to the science or nature sites? Not like I am computer phobic (working, and programming, in the bioinformatics field covers that...). My entire life is on computers - why not journal reading. When I want to share articles for discussion, I go to the web site and get the pdf to share/discuss around that one. BUT - I don't start there to find/read it. Go there in a directed manner to get 1 article.

In asking around, this was the same behavior that many others had. This wasn't age biased, as there were several new post docs amongst the directors I asked. Wide range of people.

Why don't we find the articles on line? I am just programmed to read the paper version.

When do I start on line? When I find the article in PubMed. Then it is direct to the electronic version. That is directed searching. The reading of a journal is "browsing". I look at the table of contents of every issue of science and nature and generally browse the "news" sections.

Don't think I am weird, but it is weird given that I get the entire rest of my news online.

Life Science Tools of the Trade

2006-08-31T21:21:00.000-07:00

I read this site pretty regularly. They whine a fair bit, and in general are normal academic researchers. They hold, quite rightly, their sales reps to task for things. They are not huge fans of Quiagen and Stratagene (haven't totally figured out what Stratagene did wrong, but Quiagen seems have PO'd them with quality)(Stratagene's sales rep may have annoyed them, but I might have missed some posts there and am too lazy to totally sort it out).

This post talks about what is in the QuickChange kit.

This post here could be labeled inducement to infringe on Stratagene's mutagenesis patents. Would guess, based on the previous postings, that Hal doesn't care or doesn't know. Likely doesn't even think about that. It is in the gray zone, as he doesn't tell you what to do with the components, which would be clear inducement. BUT - he does tell you to go do the method. Stratagene has kept that market to itself because of it's patent protection, so I am curious as to what they will do about this. Everyone, well apparently except Hal, knew this to be true. No one ever put it out in quite so public a way before. (On a side note, a person in Australia welcomes Hal to the club...)

Would guess, although stupidity could break out, that we won't ever see anything happen. A post deletion fire war and lawyers would be excellent theatre. Probably not productive, but still good theatre!

T.W. andrews

2006-08-18T07:45:00.000-07:00

MBA, and where you get it. I don't think it matters. I don't know where any of the people around me who have them got theirs. For networking, it matters - but for me looking at you I don't notice. I might be a fruitcake of some flavor though and others might care.

Bioinformatics as a label - I would break this as soon as possible. It is not a huge market and there are a lot of dead companies on this road. I used to work at one... you say you see the HTS side of things and know a lot about lead identification. I know minimal amounts over on that side of the world, but think a chemistry background is more suited. I know people on that side regarded me with a bit of suscpicion becuase I was a biologist and not a chemist.

Initial move in to marketing would be as a product manager or associate product manager. You have to start at the bottom and learn the marketing side of things that you aren't currently picking up. I would do that sooner and not later!

Marketing is all about "what do we do next" at the upper levels. At the lower levels, there is a lot of booth duty, making flyers, getting copy on the web site, and getting banner ad's designed. Tactical marketing. More of what are we doing this and next quarter as opposed to next year. The top level people are more "what are we doing next year".

If you want to control products, and launch products, then marketing is the place for you. Bus Dev and top level marketing work pretty/very closely together on things as the line between them can be a bit hazy.

Travel

2006-08-18T07:41:00.000-07:00

For all of my getting used to travel, this blog pretty much doesn't get updated when I am in heavy travel mode...which I have been for the last while here.

The only thing I would say about travel in this day and age is that it is fast becoming very environmentally unfriendly. I shifted towns every night for about the last two weeks. Every night since they outlawed liquid on planes, I have purchased/acquired new toothpaste. Shaving cream as well (not every night, as I am not quite that manly). Every morning, I have left them behind in the hotel as they can't travel onward with me. I rarly, in one night, come anywhere close to using the entire tube/canister etc... so off to the trash it goes.

Buying stock in toothpaste companies might not be a bad idea, as their volume is going to go up a bit.

Paper Catalogs?

2006-08-03T17:55:00.000-07:00

We are going through a process of getting the next catalog together. While I am not involved in actually doing anything (that would be marketing people tearing hair out) - I am fascinated that we still do this. So do all of our competitors....

I have to admit I don't use paper anything any more (to the extent possible) and really don't understand why we (or anyone else) still do.

Do people in labs still use paper or do you go direct to the web page? A link on Life Science tools of the trade seems to support the paper catalog thing, so I guess it still works. But wow... You got to know the thing is out of date before you get it. Its out of date before we even print it. Why use it?

I don't get it - but wouldn't be advocating that we be the first company not to print. Big risk - little upside - why be first?

...More Job advice. (TW Andrews)

2006-07-30T19:47:00.000-07:00

More questions about Career path to Bus Dev. Here another person sets the stage. Excerpted it basically summed up is :

Has BA in math
Worked 5 years as at a bioinformatics company, although it's a start up so has expanded duties.
Started as programmer but moved more to pre sales side over the last while.

questions are

Can they do it?
Should they get another degree?
Should they do it?

Where "it" is defined as the jump to business development.

If you have read my posts about travel, and are OK with that, then that is a start. You likely travel quite a bit in the role you are in, so that should be under control.

If you REALLY are driven by talking to people, then this is good. The programmer background is good, as is the fact that you got out of it and in to the field. If that was driven by you wanting it as opposed to the company needing it, then BusDev would be a good fit for you. If you really wished you were back being a programmer, then do not under any circumstances try to make the jump.

What I would worry about, and I had to make decisions where I wrestled with this myself, would be the bioinformatics lable. In the big picture of things, the bioinformatic marketplace isn't that big. I don't know the total market size, but it isn't as big as reagents or any of the other steps that are in research. You, by having the math background + the computer background = stuck in that area. I wouldn't be able to look at you, as you have described yourself, and see you in anything but a bioinformatics company. You don't present yourself as having the eductation or experience to leap out of that. Granted - I don't have a complete resume and have to work with what you wrote in a brief comment.

Against the previous paragraph I would put - So what. The bioinformatics marketplace is big enough and there are many companies within it to go work at. There are, however, a limited number of busdev positions at them and a pretty limited numer of companies.

You are more likely to be able to move in to marketing at one of those firms. That would be, based on little to no information, my suggestion to you. From there, you will be on the inside and able to make the jump. Once there, start talking to those folks. Stay close to them and, after knowing them for awhile, ask if there are openings etc...

Alternativly, get to know these folks at trade shows. They are there somewhere - so just work to meet them.

On the MBA or other degree front. For you - getting a further degree in the bioinformatics just further locks you in to that area. I think it would be a waste of your time. You have programmer chops - not degree chops. That counts. The MBA might help get you up the ladder, but you have to get in the door first. I would advocate for MBA later while working (you didn't need a social life anyway did you?).

Just my $0.02 - with limited knowledge. If you want to tell me more, I will refine my statements a bit more.

Carreer Path for Bus Dev person

2006-07-22T14:37:00.000-07:00

Way back here, a question was asked... Here it is. I hadn't heard the term "necro post" before, so that in and of itself was good reading.

What is the traditional career track for someone in business development? (If indeed one exists.) Clearly, one can work up to a title of 'Director of Business Development', but what comes after that? Admittedly the answer depends on the org. structure of the company in question. Generally speaking though, what jobs are those that hold the title of "Director of Business Development" looking for? CEO? Chief Science Officer / Director of R&D? CFO? Vice President of Sales & Marketing? It seems like business development may not be considered true ‘science’ work, nor true ‘sales’ work, nor true ‘finance’ work, yet it certainly may be a combination of the three, depending on the company. As a business development careerist, if you’re not considered a specialist in any of these areas you may not be qualified to lead these groups.

So - where do I want to go and what is possible? I am looking to move up the Bus Dev side of things and then go the CEO post. I look at Bus Dev as having to have your fingers in everything. I have to understand sales. I have to understand manufacturing. I have to understand the direction of the company. I, as you point out, am not a master of any of them. I am, however, familiiar with all of them. COO would be another position that would be possible, depending on you focussed yourself. CSO is unlikly as you have strayed too far from the research side of things. The basic thing that Bus Dev does is understand how the company works and then try and take it to the next level. If you bring in things that you can't manufacture, don't fit with your R+D team, or aren't aligned with what your sales reps can sell -> you haven't done your job. You won't be doing the basic thing of "take company to next level". You will have accomplished "burden people with stuff they can't deal with" which is not what you are supposed to be doing!

You then state

I'm looking at Business Development as an alternative to the research track, but I'd like to have a better idea of what my career options will look like in twenty years. On the science side of the house there is a clear progression as one becomes group leader, then rising to lead ever larger numbers of researchers. Eventually one can head the entire company’s R&D, then theoretically on to CEO. Less clear to me is the progression in Biz.Dev. – unless of course it’s common to make the jump directly from Director of Business Development to CEO.

I don't agree with the CEO part from climbing the research side. I do NOT agree that CEO's should (or do) come fromthe R+D side of the house. It is a mistake (in my opionion) if they have been over there the whole time. A pure R+D focus will NOT prepare you to run the company. You know, if you have been over there the whole time, nothing about sales, manufacturing, marketing, or any of the other bits of the companies. I don't see the heads of any of the big companies (or any of the quickly growing smaller companies) as coming from the pure R+D side.
I think a good CEO is as I describe (and I am biased here as it is what I want to become) - well rounded. They HAVE to know the tech side of things cold. They can not be like John Scully at Apple - Pepsi guy trying to sell computers. Didn't work... Joel on Software has a lot more to say about that and says it a lot better than I do (you have to search his archives, as I am too lazy right now) but his basic point is "how can a CEO lead if he doesn't even understand what his company sells/makes/develops or the market they operate in. The cult of MBA has this illusiong that all companies are the same and that you just "have people for that" and they take care of things. I, and I think Joel, would pretty firmly disagree with that.

SO - they have to know tech, but that can't be it. There is also this sales and marketing thing. If you don't know about that you won't do it right and you will make errors. Operations (making sure the lights stay on, people have what they need, and the bills get paid) is a whole other thing that has to work. Basically - My view of the CEO has them knowing a bit about all of these things. In a pinch they can do them, but as the company gets bigger they just have to know enough to call BS when someone else lies to them.

SO = I have strayed off topic. BUT - I look at Bus Dev as having my finger in everything. This is, I think, good training for the step up. I look at Manager -> Director -> VP -> CEO as the progression. The names change along the way in that you may not be called business development and may get labled as "Corporate Development" or some such. Some Bus Dev jobs have a much bigger sales component than mine does, so your milage may vary.

Answer the question?

Semantic Web, User Stupidity, and why I think we can beat the machines after all

2006-07-21T20:52:00.000-07:00

Every now and then I see posts like this one where someone says they are going to "Tag" the post with a tag and that this will be useful in some way. I never understand it. I don't think it works, and here is why.

Users make up the Tags

and

Users are stupid.

I include myself in the above defined users. In the example at that page, Fred Wilson is saying that he will tag all posts about stocks with the tag "Stocks". This seems simple, but here is the problem. Somone else might be more granular than Fred and tag things as "biotech stocks" or "industrial stock" or they might use the singular and say "stock". And so - when I go to a site or go to run a search I have absolutly no idea what tag people used and so I fail and then I get negative reinforcement and I don't get back to it ever.

You can see this on Flickr - where you can't just look at one stream and get everything that is pictures of something. You have to look at a couple of tags. If your lucky you will see a post with some way of also tagging that always you to wander on (a rosetta stone if you will).

Why does this matter to me so much? Transgenic Mice and my thesis. AND the notion of this Semantic Web thing that keeps getting batted about. You can see Scoble talk about it to sometimes.

Mesh headings are a bit related to tags, in that you can search for things that fall in a Mesh heading on Medline. They seem to be more hidden these days than they used to be, but they are still there lurking uselessly in the background. They are assigned by editors to put papers in categories so that one could browse down a hierarchy and end up with only papers talking about, say, "Transgenic mice".

Now the problem. Papers are assigned to the hierarchy by people. They read and make judgements about where things should go, and the papers are assigned.

When Transgenics first came out, people used all kinds of words for them (and the free text search engines were slow anyway) AND then, to cap it off, the editors at the National Library of Medicine decided to put them in at least 5 different MESH headings. SO - if you were doing transgenic work close to the time that transgenics were a new thing (that would date me a bit...) then you had a problem of being able to find all of the literature on the subject. Eventually, after a couple of years, they got it together and solved this problem.....only to have it again when knockout mice came on the scene. By this time, I was only doing full text searches anyway, so didn't care as much. BUT - the point is - Tagging, when done by humans, is useless.

Humans have opinions about things (for the most part) and not all of them are enlightened enough to just full agree with me. This means that when you lable something, I may not agree with the label you put on it.

A further problem crept in to this when, a few years ago, I was working with some people at GSK who were putting in a system to manually categorize every bit of paper they had at the site they were at, put it in a computer, and then have this mass repository of stuff that would somehow magically produce drugs faster. They were just starting to run in to the problem that if you gave the same bit of paper to a couple of people, they wouldn't categorize it all the same way. There would be subtle differences that would cause them to read it just a bit differently, and thus they would file it differently.

Another similar problem creeps in when you try to file paper in files by company name (say, all of your legal files). How do you deal with University of Southern California vs. University of California at Los Angeles? + all the other University of.... 's --- You can use the full name of every university and spend a lot of time typing and have very long file names. Or you can always shorten to U.S.C. or USC or U SC (but then what do you do with South Carolina?). Given this problem, people will pick a different system that to them makes all the sense in the world. Others will look at the system and be like "what were they thinking" and then they will make statements like I did at the beginning of "users are stupid". Outsiders would look at my filing system and (I think) would understand it. BUT they would be unlikely to have duplicated it without peeking as the shortcuts I use are based on my background and my perception of the world. I have just had to teach this to the woman I hired, as we have to share the filing system back and forth and she admits it makes sense. I have clear conventions etc... but she also said it was totally different from what she had done at her previous job. They had different conventions. Neither of us is "right" but it just goes to show that from the computers point of view - users are stupid.

I think they are going to build massive engines and interpreters and other confabulators to deal with this, and they may even do it = but I will be real surprised if they pull it off becuase even if you do - if it is dependent on the user doing anything then it won't get done. I could tag these posts, but I don't. Why? because I am lazy. I think most people are lazy and they won't do this tagging stuff becuase they don't reall care that much about it and they have better things to do with their life.

So - In summary - Users are both stupid and lazy.

To Ph.D. Drop out, answer of questions....

2006-07-18T20:52:00.000-07:00

Back here, Ph.D. dropout asks some more questions. She is responding to both my and Dapi's comments on making sure she really wants to do this. She has some new questions.

Taking the second one first

2- they mention 3k bonus. i read that bonuses are based on performance... so, what exactly does that mean? if they say i didnt do quite as good, i may get like $300.00 or something instead??
and how often are bonuses paid? quarterly? yearly?

Bonus's are awarded for so many reasons and with so many strings and on so many different schedules that I would be hard pressed to give a over reaching answer to this. I would get the bonus expressed as a % not a fixed number, as you will be hoping to get raises in future years and thus you would expect the bonus to go up not remain fixed. I would also make sure I got clarity on why bonus, when bonus, and under what conditions bonus would be given. No way I can answer here, as pretty much every company and job position are different.

Now, the harder question.

1 - would it be wise to let my prospective employer know that "look, i thought i'd be getting my MS just by completing the thesis and submitting my almost-ready manuscript, but now the department says about that 1 course requirement..." and ask them "WILL U LET ME TAKE THE 10 WEEKS OFF COMPLETELY?" to go to another city while subletting my place, and then come back and return to my job duties.
if they say yes, i KNOW i can do it and get my MS within 1 school year!
or should i just tell them closer to 1.5 yrs before i have to take that course? and then if they say "NO, we will have to get someone new then," i'd quit, and find a new job while taking that 1 course????
i hate conceiling anything.. i am a very open and honest person, but i fear that telling them now may make them change their minds on hiring me (isnt it still possible despite the signed offer letter?). ALTHOUGH! DONT U THINK THE PROCESS OF HIRING AND TRAINING A NEW EMPLOYEE WOULD TAKE THE SAME 10 WEEKS AT LEAST ANYWAY?! so maybe telling it straight out is not so bad at all..?

You are, by asking to take 10 weeks off, really asking them to stall the hire by 3 1/2 months (or so). I, as a hiring person, would be pretty unlikely to accept that. I moved on from hireing a guy this summer becuase he asked to stall 2 months. I got, I now beleive, a better person because I moved on. I can't conceive of taking the risk of waiting 3 1/2 months and then you bailing on me. I am not saying that becuase you are you, I am saying that because anyone who has been through hiring people knows that some of them flake on you. Given the time that would transpire, I would be thinking that the "flake factor" would be really high and that I would be sitting there not looking for someone to come on board and then you wouldn't show up and I just would have wasted a whole lot of time. Not something a sane person would do I don't think.

Why do you have to quit to take the 1 course? Why can't you work and do the course at the same time? Why do you want to get out so bad you can't just take the course and then look for a job?

Personally, I think getting the masters will help you in the future a whole lot. Is is, and this is stupid I will admit, letters after your name that some other people won't have. Yes, others have different letters, but your letters are more than a bachelors. I would be totally focussed on getting that degree since it is so close.

I have problems with the quitting after 1 1/2 years as well. I know you said you worked for 4 years previously, but honestly I wouldn't even see that when I looked to hire you after that 1 1/2. It is further back in the resume and I probably wouldn't get there. You can call me shallow if you want, but you have to keep in mind that even for my little entry level position I had to dig through a whole lot of resumes. Any red flag meant I could chuck and get to the next one. I wouldn't be trying to put red flags on my resume.

I fully realize you are in a jam, in that you have a job possibly lined up and you have a course you have to take, but I don't know what to say. I would just try and find a way to do both at the same time. If that isn't possible, then I would finish the course and then look for a job. If you found 1 then you can find another.

a Change in Tech Transfer Offices?

2006-07-18T20:41:00.000-07:00

I have to admit that over the last few months I have been pretty impressed by the folks I am dealing with in Tech transfer offices. Almost 100% of them (can't think of an exception right now, but I am sure there is one) have been really good. Today I was talking to a guy at a Boston area university and we talked for about 1 1/2 hours about the technology they have going on, our needs, some ideas he had based on talking to researchers, etc... It was a great conversation. Granted both of us are "lapsed" scientists, in that we both elected to bail out of the lab, but it was still a great conversation. I would like to think he learned something about what our business wants, and I can conclusivly say that I learned a lot about what they are doing and where they are headed with a bunch of stuff.

He was a bit odd, in that he works in a translation research setting and not a classic tech transfer office, so that may be the difference. BUT - it doesn't change that it was a great conversation. I am used to really only getting that level of science from the business people when I am dealing with industry folks.

On other fronts, I have become more impressed with the general tech transfer people. It seems, and who knows if this is conscios effort on their part or not, that they are focussed on some things they think will work and for those selected ones they are very focussed on moving things ahead.

There are still some, and the one that leaps to mind is at a top top tier school, who are a bit dense at valuing technology. I will still not pay $1M for a research reagent technology that I have to develop if you won't give me an exclusive. It just won't happen. I am uncertain as to why you even think you will be taken seriously when you propose that. Please don't get mad at you when my counter proposal sheds, essentially, all the zero's.

However, the web sites. They still are horrid messes. I continue not to understand why people don't put effort in to this. I imagine I will be wondering this to the end of my days. This is a low effort way to find people that you don't even know are interested. I guess, given the rest you do, that I don't understand why you WOULDNT do it. If all else fails, just start a free blog here on blogger and post them as they come in. Even that would be better than your regional sites, your hidden university sites, and you confusing mish-mash of sites linking together institutes that I have never heard of but aren't included in the university site in whose buildings you are located and to whom you link yourselves (in other ways) as closely as you can.

So - Summary - People Good, web sites - Bad.

Web sites are cheaper than people, so I don't understand!

Interviewing lawyers - An experience in someone who prepared for the interview

2006-07-14T20:10:00.001-07:00

So I am in the process (along with senior management) of hiring some sort of lawyer to work with me on deals. The person, obviously, has to know something about the biotech space. Needs to know M&A, in-licensing, out-licencing, and all the other little stuff I do. Oh yeah - they will have a bunch of other little jobs that I don't know anything about or have anything to do with.

It was the most interesting interview ever.

The guy had read ALL of our wall street filings, and knew the informatino in them cold. He asked specific questions about a lot of little stuff that we normally don't talk about but have to reveal to the street. A complete tour de force and made a very positive impression.

I don't know that most of us can do what he did. He has a lot of years of experience in this business so the background part was easy, but it is something henceforth that I will aspire too.

He is still a lawyer, so I am not entirely certain that he doesn't bite the heads of bats at midnight in a graveyard, but if you have to pick a lawyer to associate with you might as well pick an incredibly well prepared one that makes sure not to miss the details.

welcome pipeline people...

2006-07-14T20:10:00.000-07:00

From here. Welcome!

Dapi - Update?

2006-07-12T21:35:00.000-07:00

Inquiring minds, or at least me, want to know!

Hope well. Fear not so good.

...and this is why I got out

2006-07-12T21:31:00.000-07:00

I was digging around reading other science blogs today, so a bit of a link run...

This post is about why academic science is kind of beat...and really sums up why I left.

Actually you can probably boil my reason down to one thing....$$$$ The other reasons factored in, but this was probably the number one reason.

I like toys. Toys need to be purchased. Purchasing things requires $$. Therfore, need to get job with $$$.

Oh yeah -> happiness requires science, therefore must stay in science. Thus, here I am.

A good description of Graduate school

2006-07-12T21:13:00.000-07:00

This guy may be a chemist, a fact I won't hold against him, but I have to say this is probably the best description of graduate school I have read. Short and sweet.

I was pretty crabby during grad school. I have pretty much no idea how I convinced my now wife to date me, move in, and get engaged. I am not entirely sure she knows either...

I worked more than 1 christmas day. I thought it was a badge of honor at the time (everyone else was there...) but now I know better. At that time, it is what you have to do. If you don't think that is OK, then you likely aren't cut out to make it through. Having a "real life" is not part of the deal for most. Some pulled it off, but I don't know how. I think they were smarter than me.

How long to be an Application Scientist

2006-06-27T09:42:00.000-07:00

Last post, Ph.D. dropout asked, in essence, how long she has to stay in a job before she can move on. She phrased it as:
what do you think is the minimum reasonable time I should spend at one job before looking for something new?
and if the time frame that I wil be able to handle is a year or a little less, what kind of jobs can I look at applying to move into the more business sector of biotech?

I would say 2 years. Any less than that, and I will be asking you what happened. At two years, in a travel job, you are fine. It won't raise eyebrows to move on. If you last less than a year, it will raise big red flags. I wouldn't take a risk on you after that, as at that point you have left a Ph.D. at less than 2 years. You have left a job at less than 1. What makes me, as a hiring person, think that you will stay with my job? You will, at that point, have shown no ability to stick with anything. I would be looking at you as someone who would come in and leave. Since hiring people is a real pain in the butt, I am very biased against doing it more frequently than I have to. Part of what I take in to account is how long I think you will last. Less than 2 years = bad. More than 2 = fine. I don't think I can tell if you will last 3 years or 10 years, but don't really care.

My personal rule is not to move more often than every 3 years. Others set the bar at 2 years. I don't know of anyone who sets it below 2 years, and whose career I would be trying to emulate.

Your statements:

I think you were absolutely right about suspecting that 30% travel sounds too good for AS. THe other person I interviewed with already stated 25-50%, which leaves me concerned that it will go up over 50 rather fast. :(
I am excited as hell to travel, but I need the travel time to be shorter than the time spent at home, I think... to retain my sanity.

play to something I have said before. You have no idea about how you will handle travel. I would expect, with an FAS job, to spending more than 50% of the time on the road during some periods. The end of a fiscal year / quarter would be a time when I would expect you out constantly. Early in the quarter, not AS much, but still.... I can't help with this part, but if you make this jump I think you have to be willing to stick it out for at least 2 years, or you should expect to have problems getting the next job.

More about salary - PhD dropout

2006-06-22T14:53:00.000-07:00

PhD dropout, whom I answered a question for last post, asked what I thought her salary should be in the comments way back.... She says

SO.. I have been checking out career newsletter, job listings, advice boards, etc... and seems like App Scientis jobs go from 50-80k. 80k being = PhD + experience.
but, seems like the 50k range is not exactly for the postition I was interviewing for, because it seems like there is a difference between job responsibilities of App Sci and FIELD App Sci (FAS). FAS'es seem to travel over 50% of the time at least and not really engage in other data mining or paper-writing projects. Sounds like the job I am 'hoping for' is not like the FAS, more like AS, with, as they say, 30% travel not more.

The range with Ph.D. being about what I had guessed in my post on the matter. I haven't seen too much of the less travel version of an FAS. I guess I don't really understand the difference between and FAS that doesn't travel and a lab worker. I don't know how the 30% travel would work out, and would guess that pretty rapidly you get hauled well above that number. Just a guess though.

I would have to have a better understanding of what the job was, and how it created value for the company, to give a guess about how the salary levels line up. At a guess, and based on the n=1 of me and another guy in a similar position, I would say a Ph.D. was worth between $15K-$30K / year. There is a lower limit of what they will pay someone who is in the sales process and travels a lot, so at the lower levels the split will be less. At the higher levels the split will increase until you get to the highest levels where I think it closes up again. the Ph.D. I think really only helps get you more money in the mid levels. You always get a bit more, but it is closer at the top and the bottom.

Someone can probably pull some statistical jujitsu on my head now and show that this is false in some way, but I am starting with a flawed n=1 anyway so I wouldn't hang my hat on this.

SO - long way of me saying I don't really know what you are worth but there is some long rambling.

A new career advice asking person....

2006-06-20T20:04:00.000-07:00

Back on the comments page for my Application Scientist posting (what is an app scientist and what do they do anyway?) there is a new person asking carreer type questions, and so I will address those here. I am going to sum up her background and questions and then got on with it.

Summary of her comment:

1. General buttering up of me. Greatly appreciated and inflates my head further. My wife does not appreciate this but she is not typing here....

2. Background: She is dropping out of the Ph.D. program Less than ?2? years in before she takes her Quals, and thus won't leave with either a masters or a Ph.D. Before starting program worked in industry for 4 years after getting a B.S. but hates bench work.

Her description of herself is - "I like to think science, learn science, but LOVE to DEAL with people and computers" which is sort of how I would describe myself. She goes on to talk about why she is quitting, which is in and of itself interesting reading but can be summed up as that it isn't what she wants to do.

Answers:

Yeah - right. There is so much more, so if looking for simple answers probably not going to help you!

I will say that I admire the punting now. Once you realize it isn't what you want to do, there is no real reason to keep going on and doing it. When asked why you are quitting, I would be honest about that. Saying "I didn't like the environment, I didn't like the pace, and I didn't like the people" is OK from my point of view. Probably shoudl phrase it better, but I think that overall it is a good reason. There will be those that don't like that reason, but once they hear that you dropped out, they weren't going to hire you anyway.

I very much understand that you are stressed about dropping out right now. BUT - you will need to get over it in years going forward. Don't make it an issue. What I mean by this is that you need to make this decision and never apologize for it and never explain it. There is a conversatino that I have had with several Non-Ph.D.'s that goes something like this:

Them: "You have a Ph.D."
Me: "Yes"
Them: "I worked in the lab for a bunch of years, and was going to go do but decided to do this instead. I know as much as you and didn't miss anything by not doing it"
Me" "OK"
Them: "It just wasn't the right time of my life, and there was a lot going on"
Me: "OK"
Them: ....more rambling and getting more defensive....

This is a horrible conversation, and I keep having it. I want to shout at them "I DONT CARE". So - my take home message of this is to make sure you are making the decision you want to make and then get on with it. Don't regret it later, and don't tell me about it when you are interviewing or when I/you start working together. When you sound guilty and defensive about it you don't make yourself look good.

The other quesions:
So, I got only a BS so far, not happy in my program, trying to get feedback on what is AVAILABLE and WHAT IS AT STAKE if I re-enter the field AS IS!
You can do this. You do answer your own question though. You point out that there are some non-Ph.D.'s at the higher levels of some companies, and that this proves it is possible. You are correct - there are. I have written about this on the blog several times, and I can't be bothered to look at whether I am being consistent in my opionion or not, but would guess NO - so when I write this please keep in mind this is todays opionion. I think Non-Ph.D.'s at biotech companies have a much harder time getting to the higher levels than Ph.D.'s. When two people act the same, speak the same, etc...the same - the Ph.D. will get the job every time. How much better does the Non-Ph.D. have to be? I don't know that you can quantify "better" but I would say that it is "quite a bit" better that is needed. SO - not impossible by any means, but definatly not stacking the deck in your own favor.
The question you didn't ask is "Is that time that I would spend in the lab worth it once I get to the working world" and to this - looking at where you are - I would (subject to much I don't know) say that I would quit as well. You are looking at several more years worth of work, for low pay, and doing something that you don't sound that psyched about. In that time, you can have gone to industry and piled up a pretty nice resume and be well on your way. As an App Scientist, you are still building technical credibility, so you have that going for you. You are going to have to, after a year or two or three, start looking to move towards marketing/sales/bus dev or some other role in the company as you will burn out and will also really be tapped out on what they will let you do without the degree.

I have totally lost track of your questions!

ah - are you nuts for quitting and how to explain your quitting.

I think you are quite sane for quitting. I have never understood people doing jobs that they don't like as I think it makes them all around miserable people that no one likes. No fun is being had and it takes them much longer to complete the task anyway. With your attitude you would be looking at a longer haul than someone who is fired up and motivated (me for the first few years...). To explain your quitting, just do it. I quit becuase I didn't want to do it. Business excited me more, and the lab was unappealing. All of your other stories didn't sound that good to me and sounded like cop outs. I am of the opionion that meeting it head on is the right answer, and if you were interviewing with me and try any of the other answers, I would drop you. Other people, with other personalities, will have other opinions.

BUT - you should note that everyone you will talking to, likely, will have made the decision to leave the lab as well. There is a reason they are interviewing you, and its not becuase they are still in the lab. On some level they made the same decision as well and didn't (go to /stay in) the the lab.

I realize I am a couple of hours too late, but real life gets in the way some times. Saw that you had posted the comment ( a blackberry is evil...) but didn't have time to write. Hope it went well.

Did I miss any questions?

**edited** would point you to this post to see what I have done recently.....

Dapi - more about expense reports.

2006-06-19T11:34:00.000-07:00

Dapi, a couple of comments back said:

I would definitely be going home on the weekend but I wasnt sure if I could ask for them to pay for it but it totally makes sense to me!

and I sort of answered, but want to really spell things out for those not at companies right now. Everything you do when travelling for a company is reimburseable. I, now, automatically keep receipts even when travelling for personal travel. Then my wife makes fun of me, but it shows how deeply ingrained it is. Companies have travel policies that tell you what you can charge, eat, stay at etc... and you follow them and then they reimburse you for everything. Other companies have credit cards that you charge against so you don't even see the bill. This is totally non-negotiable. When you are travellling on company business, they pay the bill. End of discussion. If you trash their rules, they may choose not to pay for the stuff you did that violates the rules, but that was your bad not theirs!

This is a big change from academia where you are sort of committed to the lab and would maybe not get reimbursed for everything at a conference. In industry - get reimbursed. Keep every receipt. "I don't know if I can ask for that" - the way I look at this, they have to pay for your hotel and food and car to keep you there for the weekend. It's not that the weekend is free.

Just a different way of thinking, but wanted to make sure you thought of it.

Salary - Dapi Question

2006-06-17T19:20:00.000-07:00

I guess I could answer in comments, but since I never look at those on other blogs I assume other people don't either.

Last post, Dapi Asked:

As for the $60K- pros would be it would provide me with experience in industry and I can always work damn hard and ask for a raise ...but I have a number in my head and I know what I am worth in relations to quality of life!

Can you give me an idea of the the base salary that a company like your company would offer to someone who has zero experience in industry? If this helps the company of interest has roughly 100 people..(rounded it up)!

I have a number in my head and i was want to know if its realistic!

I was paid $83K when I was employee #9 at a startup and as an application scientist. Start ups, in general, frequently have to pay better as you are taking risk to be there. OR they give you a lot of stock options. $80K is, I think, the high end.

After that, at the entry levels, salary falls the bigger a company gets.

For a product manager, with your credentials, we would be looking at $60-$70K with 10% bonus.

Bus Dev, with those qualifications, I probably wouldn't have hired you but if I had I would have gone $70 with minimal bonus.

App Scientist - $50-$80 is probably the range but that is far from the entire story. The app scientists at our company are closer to the upper end, but don't get a bonus/commission. They also don't get a car allowance. At the lower end, you have to get other things, like bonus's and car allowances etc... so you have to be careful not to fixate on the one number. The car allowance is $8K right there. The bonus could be $20K. SO - if you are at $60 you are making more than the guys at our company as your car + potential bonus gets you to $88K. This leaves out me even talking about health insurance and 401K matching etc... as you really have to look at the entire package. What is the out of pocket on the health insurance? Do they pay 100%? We don't unless you choose the absolute minimum HMO coverage (1 person, not family etc...)

A major consideration of this is understanding what kind of deal volume you will be involved with. Is each deal worth $1M? When I was an app scientist that is what I was looking at. A large instrument company would be looking at this. Smaller companies, where the deal size is in the $10K region will pay less.

It is important to get what you can, but make sure you keep the options in mind. What is plan B? Getting in to the business side is non-trivial. If you take this job, you are only really looking at 2 years before you can switch. I wouldn't get too hung up on the salary.

Stock options? (and do you think they are worth anything?)
Training? (i.e. will they send you to classes like sales training or negotiation?)

all of these things have to be taken at a totality to see if you are happy. If you fixate on the one number, and they won't get there, see if you can dump other stuff that you don't care about to get there, as the HR people will look at the total cost.

I realize I am all over the board here, but reading my past statements I see I am just as guilty as others in that I posted just 1 number (salary). As you seem to note, by mentioning the size of the company, the range differs by company size. It also differs by what you are involved in selling. It also differs by what else is in the package. The car allowance is huge. That is income right there that you may not have to pay income tax on (I don't think, but check that). That inflates your income in a disproportionate way.

At the end of the day, what it comes down to is whether or not you will be happy doing what they want for what they are willing to pay you. If not -> don't do it. If yes-> the ranges didn't matter.

I wouldn't fixate on the 70% travel -> we have all been there. It seems big, and it is big, but if you are going to go up the business side of things there will always be travel. I am down to about 50% this year, but I get on a plane tomarrow (fathers day....) as that is what has to be done.

Is this thing on?

Overseas experience?

Sales experience for an app Scientist job

Random questions I remember being asked...

Bachelors + 3yrs experience vs. Ph.D.

Go Lakers...

New Technology? - failing in scouting...

..some more travel

Tough economic times

learning outside of your box

....and yes, my travel has ramped way back up!

Virgin America

TripIt rules

What is after application scientist?

So Cal Salary...

Getting Raises....

Succesful job search - someone else... CONGRATS!

What to do with your Ph.D. -> Patent Attorney / Examiner

Fires, acquisitions, and Flexibility in jobs

the glamourous side of travel....

A comment stream on an Application Science applicant

Industry does nothing....

Post doc for Application Scientists?

Hiring and working in industry

Is it BAD to jump to industry?

Considerations for Management

Job Decisions - Director R+D vs. Business Development

More on the "the field" and gettin to the top of a biotech company

Career's in biotech.

Scientists who go to the field... and then run companies

yep...I am a lawyer...

Different Questions for different Networks

Industry telling Industry about career options....

Well that was fun....

AAAS Career Development board

More on going to Grad Schhol

Would I tell someone to go to Grad School?

Start up vs. Product manager

Benefits...and why don't people use them.

Job

The power of the internet....

Perfect Storm on Tech Transfer offices?

more on KSR

That LinkedIn thing....

Outsourcing...

KSR vs. Teleflex

Patent Analysis- Its all about the claims folks....

The 10+ year hurdle

The process of being acquired...

Acquired....

Rules for Industry

Wow

Will they all hate me?

String at EMBL

New blog that I found

Circle of life....

Buzz Kill....

some other AUTM observations...

AUTM meeting

Fish nor Fowl....

Scientists and boxes

Personality types.

Financial World VS. Bioinformatics for a future?

...Realizing how far from the bench I am.... more patents

bears colts , Sad...

more follow up answers to questions in the comments...

IP, Lawsuits, and is it getting worse?

off topic...but really funny

Someone actually reads an "A list" blogger and tries to decipher it...

Washington Post on working X-mas...

Some random links...

Bad time of year

Positive about your work....

Recruiters....

Holiday gifts

The other side of a shut down...

Transition help: BioCom in San Diego for postdocs to industry

Grumbling post docs, industry, and options

Disruptive Tech and the Post Doc grind

Industry Science, and why we aren't all morons.