In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Kailene Simon is a scientist not just driven by passion, but by cause. When she was in high school, she lost her grandmother to the rare disease scleroderma. Her curiosity to understand the disease, passion for science, and urge to serve society eventually led Simon first to Genzyme, now part of Sanofi, a Boston-based company with a strong reputation in the rare disease community, and then to Atalanta Therapeutics, a startup company focused on developing siRNA-based therapeutics to treat neurodegeneration.

Simon started at Genzyme as a research assistant immediately following her graduation from Providence College, where she obtained an undergraduate degree in biology. As an RA in the Bioanalytical Development group, she supported several rare disease projects, including one focused on scleroderma, but soon realized she needed to continue her education. Using a company-sponsored degree program, Simon was able to continue working at Genzyme while earning her MS from Tufts. As her career progressed, she again felt compelled to return to graduate school, this time for her PhD. 

However, unlike with the masters’ degree, there was no precedent in her company for obtaining a PhD while working full-time. Undeterred by this, Simon initiated an agreement with the University of Massachusetts Medical School which allowed her to pursue a doctorate in biochemistry as a full-time student while also maintaining her scientist position. After completing her PhD, she was offered a position as an associate director of in vitro biology at Atalanta Therapeutics, which was founded by UMass scientists Anastasia Khvorova, Neil Aronin, and Craig Mello.

What was your motivation for joining industry?

When I was in high school, I lost my grandmother to a disease called systemic scleroderma. The biggest challenge my parents faced in caring for my grandmother was finding a doctor who could identify her collection of symptoms for what they were—a rare autoimmune disease. By the time she was properly diagnosed, her disease had progressed beyond the point of treatment, and she passed away within a few months. We now know that with the correct diagnosis and treatment, patients with scleroderma can often have a normal life expectancy. But as is the case with many rare diseases, the limited research and treatment options that existed (especially in the mid-90’s) made her diagnosis and treatment particularly challenging.

Motivated by my experience, I decided to attend PC as a pre-med/biology major with the intention of going on to medical school. However, during my sophomore year an opportunity arose to work in the biochemistry lab of Dr. Yinsheng Wan that provided a view of what being a research scientist was like. Dr. Wan was a fantastic mentor and was the first to discuss a career in industry with me, something I had not considered until then. Admittedly, he did encourage me to consider grad school first, but I decided against it and began applying for jobs in rare disease research. The opportunity to be a part of improving the lives of people like my grandmother was incredibly important to me, and there seemed like no better place for this than at Genzyme.

Why did you decide to go back to school after spending so many years in industry? 

A few years after I began working in industry, I developed a sense of the gaps in my scientific knowledge. I was also working with two women in leadership positions in my group who both had PhDs, and I benefited from their excitement for science. At that point, I decided I needed to go back to school. I took advantage of their tuition reimbursement program and applied to a part-time master’s degree program at Tufts. This allowed me to work during the day and take one class at a time in the evenings until I had completed my degree. 

My PhD happened a few years later. After years of following the leadership of some wonderful scientific directors, I felt confident in what I knew in the field of biology and what I could contribute, but I also knew I still had a lot to learn. When working with my colleagues with a PhD degree, I always felt an inherent difference in their thought process compared to mine. They could think more critically about the trajectory of their work or the rationale behind choosing one therapeutic modality over another for a given patient population or target. In industry, these factors are what make a program successful.

Why did you decide to pursue a PhD while also working a full-time job?

As I was finishing my master’s degree, my husband Andrew (a fellow Genzyme scientist) and I got married and bought a house. Around that same time, I began to think seriously about pursuing a PhD, a career goal of Andrew’s as well. However, because we had just purchased a house, giving up both salaries in lieu of grad school stipends was not an option. And despite having the support of my immediate supervisor, conversations with our leadership team about the possibility of working toward the PhD while at Genzyme were understandably met with skepticism. So, after much discussion, Andrew and I collectively decided I would stay at the company, while he would go back to school full-time with the understanding that once he was finished, I would return as well. 

A few years after Andrew went back to school, we welcomed our son, Bennett, which coincided with Sanofi’s buyout of Genzyme and a major reorganization of the company’s leadership. Two years after that, with Andrew still engaged in his thesis research, we found out we were expecting again, and this time we were having a girl. The news that we had a daughter on the way suddenly made getting the PhD seem much more urgent. I realized I never wanted her to ask why her father had a Ph.D. but her mother did not. I also knew that if I were going to return to school, I needed to do it right away, or I likely would not do it at all. And since we relied primarily on my salary, I had to find a way to hold onto my full-time job.

So, after discussions with our parents about what it would take for us to pull this off (and them offering their unwavering support in all possible ways), and at six months pregnant, I went to the dean at the University of Massachusetts Medical School to ask about the possibility of doing a PhD while also working full-time. To my relief, he was supportive and excited. On his side, he convinced the associate dean of the graduate school and the dean of admissions for their support. On my side, I went back to Genzyme (now Sanofi), to ask for their support to build this collaboration of sorts, so I could keep my salary. Unfortunately, unlike with my master’s, there wasn’t a lot of precedent for doing a PhD while holding a salaried position. There were some programs for executives, which I used as an administrative loophole to get an inroad, but I was the first to ask for the opportunity to combine my work responsibilities with a doctoral program. There were so many factors at play – who would own the IP? (Sanofi), would UMass pay me a stipend? (no, but I did keep my salary and benefits from Sanofi), what happened if the company decided to terminate my project (too bad!) After a lot of back and forth with the Sanofi lawyers, they gave their approval for me to work on a discovery research project that supported a drug discovery program at Sanofi, but that was funded with grant money from a third party. Three days before I went on maternity leave, I signed a contract with our head of R&D that gave me permission to move ahead with this arrangement. A few months later, I interviewed for and was accepted to the graduate program at UMass, and when my daughter was eleven months old, I started the PhD program. 

You had two kids before you joined the PhD program. How did you balance your life and work? 

I started graduate school when my children were just shy of turning one and three, and life became more hectic than ever. In many ways, my academic schedule was the same as every other student. I was, of course, expected to take all the classes required by my PhD program, including the career development courses, while doing rotations and my thesis work. Yet I was also expected to fulfill my obligation to Sanofi to maintain my position there. This often meant going to class in the morning, then heading to Sanofi by noon and working late in the lab. Whenever possible, I would make it home in time for a late dinner with Andrew and the kids (who became experts at the flexible schedule our situation commanded), and after dinner we would put the kids to bed, and we would both sit back down at our computers to study or analyze data. It was a challenging schedule but having a partner who was willing and able to share the childcare responsibilities equally made all the difference. We were fortunate that my first few years back in school overlapped with his last few, so we had the flexibility of his grad school schedule to make things easier. I also had the advantage of my experience as an industry scientist, which helped a lot. I had been in a lab for 15 years at that point and I had developed good time management and project management skills.

Once the first year was over, my course load got easier, and we found ourselves in a good routine. But no matter how well we managed our days, we could not have done this all alone. We relied heavily on my parents, who provided two days a week of childcare for us. And every week, my parents kept the kids for an overnight so there was always one night (usually Thursday) where we could work late in the lab guilt-free or even sneak in a late dinner date at a pub near our house.

In the end, it worked out, and I was able to graduate in just under five years. Looking back on the experience now, I am so glad I made the decision to go back for my doctorate. It was tough, of course, but for our family, it was worth it. And while I know that this path wouldn’t be the right fit for everyone, it feels great to know I didn’t have to choose between having a family and having the career I wanted. More importantly, I am grateful that with the support of UMass, I was able to be an example for what it looks like to invite industry into the world of academia and create a collaborative relationship in the process.

What prompted your move to Atalanta?

After I graduated with my PhD, I was ready for the next step in my career. By that time, I had been at Genzyme/Sanofi for about 18 years, and it felt like the right time to move to a completely new environment. I had begun considering my options when a friend from school reached out to me to discuss a potential opportunity with a startup company she was helping establish with her PI at UMass, Anastasia Khvorova. She connected me with the company’s CEO, Alicia Secor, and CSO, Aimee Jackson, and after speaking with them I knew this was the best place for the next phase of my career. The opportunity to work at a company with a founder who has been such a force in the field, and for a leadership team of such talented women, was something I couldn’t pass up. I was employee number 13 at Atalanta, which meant having the opportunity to help build the science organization alongside some amazing scientists. I started the position in February of 2020. Building a lab from scratch during a pandemic was incredibly tough, but my team is fantastic. They, along with the rest of our company, are all working very hard, very quickly, and we are making exciting progress!

I was so fortunate that the right people took a chance with me—first at UMass, then Genzyme, and now at Atalanta—and it has made all the difference. After twenty years in this field, I have finally gotten to where I want to be.

About the author:

Ruchi Jhonsa was a liaison on the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee. Currently, she is an account manager at Absorption Systems, Philadelphia. She strives to educate young scientists about career development and is passionate about writing new scientific developments from academia and industry. 

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

Tracy Raines works at AgBiome as a project leader and strategist. Her scientific career spans academia and industry. In her current role, she oversees the company’s workflow while also working in business and partnership development.

In the “Decoding Life” series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Dr. Tracy Raines is the Chief Innovation Officer at AgBiome. She has a long and inspiring career journey that has moved her from different roles in industry and academia. As a mother and accomplished scientist, Dr. Raines shared with us her passion for agricultural biotechnology and food security, obstacles she has faced, turning points in her career, and traits that make her an inspiring leader. 

How did you become interested in science?

I grew up in the Appalachian Mountains of Virginia, in the very small coal mining town of Grundy, Virginia. When I was younger, there wasn’t a lot of exposure to different types of careers in science other than becoming a teacher, doctor, nurse, pharmacist, or veterinarian. I always knew I wanted to work in the biology field as I had a fondness for the life sciences. One particularly formative moment was when my mother brought home a microscope and I was enthralled by it. I put almost anything I could under it just to get a closer look. After graduating high school, I decided to go to Virginia Tech to become a veterinarian because I loved animals and biology. But my experience with medical sciences wasn’t as I expected. I quickly realized that I become too attached to sick animals and would be miserable as a veterinarian! During my final year of undergrad, I took a molecular biology lab and I really enjoyed it. I fell in love with molecular biology, and I knew that I wanted to continue to work with DNA.

What was the most important career decision you made that led you to your current position?

After I graduated from college, I looked for opportunities to work in a molecular biology lab and discovered a startup biotechnology company named Paradigm Genetics in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. They were a small company with only about 30 employees developing a high-throughput phenotyping platform to help determine gene function in plants. Working there allowed me to learn a multitude of molecular biology techniques—far more than I could ever experience in a university setting. I also learned a lot about how genes function in plants. 

I worked at Paradigm Genetics for about four years. At that time, some colleagues started a company called Athenix Corporation, also an agriculture biotech company. I was eager to continue to grow my knowledge and experience, so I decided to join their team. As one of the first ten or so employees, we started in a small incubator lab at North Carolina State University and had very little lab equipment at the time. The excitement of building a lab, building a discovery platform, and building a team was one of the best experiences I have had in my career. I stayed at Athenix for about four years, discovering and patenting several insecticidal genes from naturally occurring soil bacteria. 

Those career decisions to join two different biotech startups were instrumental in my training because they let me see and learn firsthand how successful companies are built from the ground up. More specifically, it was very rewarding to play an integral role in developing a successful discovery platform and company from the very early stages.

After having worked in industry, how did you decide to return to school and pursue a PhD? What were the major obstacles you faced?

I wanted to get a more rounded education and have more professional opportunities, so I decided to go back to school to earn my PhD after staying home with my kids for three years. I attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and studied plant physiology under Dr. Joe Kieber, focusing on plant hormone signaling. I did a lot of gene knockout experiments in plants and looked for resulting phenotypes. These experiments uncovered the roles and functions of various genes within the cytokinin signaling pathway.

To be honest, it was a bit of a rough transition back to an academic setting. My lab mates  laughed at me because I had to learn how to do things at a much smaller scale compared to industry. It felt weird to step back and not have to do as many samples and to not use more modern and efficient equipment like multichannel pipettors.

I was faced with plenty of challenges during my PhD that made me think about quitting. For part of my time at UNC, I was a single mom. Juggling graduate studies and home life was daunting and tiring. I wasn’t going to give up, and I persisted mainly because I knew the training would open many doors in my career and enable me to achieve my goals. To be successful, I really had to prioritize and be efficient. A lot of the younger graduate students spent time socializing, having coffee, and going for lunch. I, on the other hand, just had to be really regimented to get everything done in a day because I had to go home at a certain time to take care of my kids. Fellow graduate students and postdocs would often say, “You are here from nine to five, but you get more done than we do.” Through my PhD training I learned to work efficiently and to stay focused on what needed to be done, which still benefits me to this day. 

What do you enjoy most about your job?

I’ve been at AgBiome for four and a half years. This was a very small company when I started and now we have about one hundred employees. I lead a partnership with a large seed company and work with a large group of people from multiple disciplines—from bioinformatics, molecular biology, biochemistry, plant transformation, greenhouse, entomology, and so on. I really enjoy the opportunity to learn about the science and develop my leadership skills. I also enjoy being at a company that emphasizes teamwork to achieve company goals. It’s very motivating and rewarding to develop a product that will help farmers and have a positive impact on food production.

What personal traits helped you move forward in your career?

Ever since I was a kid, I have been very persistent. Life has made me face and overcome many challenges that otherwise would have caused me to quit science.

A second trait is passion. I really care about agriculture, and I don’t see myself ever moving outside of the field. I think agriculture is the most important area of science. We are facing a lot of challenges as the population grows and as the environment changes. To overcome these challenges, we’re going to need innovative agricultural solutions that come from research at companies like AgBiome.

What advice would you give to recent science graduates to succeed in Industry?

I would encourage early professionals to explore multiple opportunities, even if the opportunity doesn’t feel like an ideal fit. Also, don’t be afraid to try new things. You never know what you’re going to fall in love with and what connections you’re going to make. Your career is never a straight line; in fact, I think it’s more like a winding country road back in the Appalachian Mountains of my youth. Don’t be afraid of what’s around the next corner. It could be the opportunity you’ve been looking for. 

About the author:

Bernarda Calla is a member of the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and a Research Scientist at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is currently researching the cytochrome P450 gene family and its evolution, and she hopes to one day lead her own research lab.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

Students, postdocs, academic faculty, and industry researchers will all find benefits at the new Industry Sessions at TAGC, to be held April 22–26 2020 in the Washington DC region.

When industry scientists and academic labs collaborate, both society and science benefit.

That’s one of two big-picture messages Kailene Simon hopes will be conveyed through a new series of sessions to be held at The Allied Genetics Conference (TAGC) in 2020. The other? “You can do exciting, creative science in an industry setting!” says Simon, a senior scientist with the Rare and Neurologic Diseases Group at Sanofi.

Simon is working closely on developing the Industry Sessions with Mark Johnston, who is a professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the Editor in Chief of GENETICS.

The sessions were originally proposed to meet the needs of GSA’s early career members. “Students and postdocs keep telling us they are interested in careers in industry but don’t know where to start,” says Johnston. “We wanted to help remove some of the mystery.”

But although there is a strong career element to the initiative (there is a recruitment event and an industry career session) the overall focus is on the science. At the “The Biotech Pipeline,” scientists will present on research that has moved from an academic setting to eventual clinical translation. In “Genetic Technology in Agriculture,” researchers will discuss their work improving crops and livestock through genetics. “There have been terrific advances in these areas in recent years that we think attendees will enjoy learning about,” says Johnston. At the Careers in Industry session, Simon will present on transitioning to a biotech career and will interview a range of industry scientists about their experiences.

Both Simon and Johnston hope the sessions will seed industry-academia collaborations.

“We can’t do our job without academic science,” says Simon. “Everything we do is built on the foundation of basic science.” Although industry labs typically have plenty of resources, she says, they don’t often have the luxury of time to explore new research avenues. That’s why industry researchers attend conferences like TAGC, where there are so many new ideas hatching and where they can build relationships with researchers working at the limits of the field. They also get to meet and recruit talented early career researchers into their labs.

The exchange is not one-sided. Academic researchers who spend their careers chasing down new ideas and projects lack the infrastructure to see their ideas applied in the clinic or marketplace. It is quite common, says Simon, for academic labs to receive funds from industry labs, thus establishing a collaboration with the common goal of clinical application. This allows the academic lab to “keep doing what they’re doing,” i.e. pursuing discovery research and building knowledge. Collaborating with industry can provide academic labs with not only funds, but translational expertise, access to clinical or field samples, and the institutional machinery for bringing an idea through development and approval to market.

“Genetics has so much potential for clinical application, I think it’s important that the translational side is also part of the discussion,” says Simon. Like many in the GSA community, she has a particular interest in rare diseases. Gene therapy is the only true cure for many of these diseases, she says.

“If we are to stand a chance of being successful, we’ll need all hands on deck.”

Learn more about the Industry Sessions at TAGC ≫

Learn more about ways to connect with potential colleagues and employers at TAGC ≫

As the Vice President of Research at 23andMe, Joyce Tung has a career that blends together her love for personalized medicine and accessible science for all. She also continues to support her team and help them move 23andMe’s mission forward. Here, Joyce describes her journey through her 12 years at 23andMe and offers advice for supporting a team of scientists.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Joyce Tung has been interested in the field of personalized medicine since high school and has worked throughout her career studying topics such as human fertility and skin pigmentation. After Joyce earned her PhD in Genetics at the University of California, San Francisco, she went on to take a traditional postdoctoral position at Stanford University. During her time as a postdoc, she started consulting part-time at 23andMe. Soon after, she became a full-time Human Geneticist, eventually growing into her current role as Vice President of Research. In this role, she manages projects, supports her team, and helps scientists develop new skills and overcome obstacles—all while working on building a healthy company culture focused on clear communication.

During your graduate and postdoc experiences, what career paths were you considering?

I initially didn’t think about my career path too hard. When I started my PhD, I thought I was going to follow the academic track because I didn’t have a good sense of what the other options were. During the second half of grad school, I started wondering if academia was really for me, and it became more obvious that there were other interesting paths that felt more appropriate, but I had been stuck in the academic mindset for so long that I hadn’t totally convinced myself that a non-academic path was the way to go.

I applied to a few non-academic positions while finishing grad school, and it became clear I wasn’t qualified enough for them. I wasn’t getting any interviews and most positions required postdoctoral research experience. I decided to do an academic postdoc after grad school because it would prepare me by gaining skills to take on industry positions or to continue with academic research.

As a postdoc, I envisioned that I would continue as a bench scientist, because in my mind industry roles were like roles in academic labs, just in a different setting. I was also playing with the idea of pursuing science writing because I liked writing and had contributed to a few pieces here and there while I was in graduate school.

How did you find your position at 23andMe, and what did your first role look like?

About five or six months into my postdoctoral position, I saw a flyer for 23andMe that was advertising for a content curation and science writer role. I was intrigued by what they were trying to accomplish, and I thought that it might be a good opportunity for me to get some industry experience, as I toyed with both the ideas of science writing and becoming a bench scientist.

Although I wasn’t ready to leave my postdoc at that time, I thought it couldn’t hurt to see if there was a part-time opportunity. I met with 23andMe, and they offered me a part-time consulting position. I then checked with my advisor at the time. He was fine with that arrangement, so I took the part-time position for about nine months.

When I first joined 23andMe, they were just starting to put together a product, so a lot of what I was doing was genetic content curation. I reviewed scientific literature, researched what we could actually say about certain genetic variants, wrote customer-facing content, and helped with some of the basic educational FAQs.

What made taking a position at 23andMe so appealing compared to other companies?

I believe in the goal and mission of 23andMe and in getting science out of dusty old journals and making it accessible to everyone. I’ve also been interested in personalized medicine since high school. Knowing and believing this has taken me through my twelve years at 23andMe. In addition, I could tell the group of people at 23andMe were going to do both good science and the right thing by the customer.

I also felt that 23andMe was growing and going through so many changes. The learning curve has always been steep, which is exciting. I’ve been able to learn about business functions I might have not have had the opportunity to learn about in academia or in a larger company, where I might have been more siloed and distant from some teams.

What skills did you work on during your graduate and postdoc work that equipped you to transition into industry?

I certainly didn’t intentionally do things thinking they would help me with my career later; I just didn’t have that kind of foresight. Looking back, one thing that was helpful was learning volunteering as co-chair of the Graduate Student Association at UCSF. Being a part of that organization taught me how to lead other volunteers, which was a really useful skill. This is something I look for in other people—whether they can lead and influence without authority. This is a valuable skill, especially when working in a company where you’re interacting with teams of people and everyone is working on multiple projects.

The other thing I did in grad school and as a postdoc was mentor people. It wasn’t very glamorous; I taught people how to pipette, do PCR, run a gel, etc., but the process of breaking down something you know to someone else is a useful skill. These were opportunities for me to learn how to coach somebody to be successful without bossing them around.

What was it like leaving your academic postdoc to go to 23andMe, and what were some of the initial challenges you experienced?

I’m a risk-averse person, so I was nervous about leaving the security of a postdoc with a great lab and advisor for a company that might not exist in a year. I consulted with my cousin, who was at Novartis, about taking the leap, and he said, “Listen, taking a year of experience in industry, even if the company folds after that, is still going to help you more than another year of not having that work experience.” So, between getting over my fear of doing something a bit risky and ensuring that I was leaving my advisor in a reasonable position with my project, I joined 23andMe full-time.

In your role as Vice President of Research how do you stay excited about the work going on when you’re mostly managing others?

I‘ve realized that I get the most satisfaction out of helping people get things done. I enjoy removing obstacles, supporting scientists as they develop new skills, and helping them be as productive as possible. If someone is able to get past an obstacle, learn something new, and achieve a goal, then I’ve done my job. At the end of the day, I love science. I love scientists. I love all their glorious nerdiness. I really enjoy working with them.

How do you manage leading 80 people and ensure everyone is doing well and staying on track with the company’s mission?

In terms of managing other people, I’m learning as I go and seeking advice from people who have been in this position before. But the number one thing that helps me is that I’m surrounded by extremely good people. I work at developing my team and building a relationship with them. That’s how we keep everything aligned.

We also try to communicate high-level goals across the team so everybody has the same information. As scientists, I know it’s really important to not only know what you are supposed to do, but why. The scientists I manage will be more motivated to do something if it makes sense. We as managers need to provide them the context to see the bigger picture as opposed to a faceless, nameless task.

I have also implemented things like office hours when people can come by and talk about whatever they want. I also host a “fruit time chat” once a week where I go to our kitchenette area and give people a space to chat more casually about topics that don’t require privacy. We also have team lunches where employees are placed in random groups, which increases opportunities to talk with people they may not regularly work with or report to.

If you were going to give advice to someone looking for positions at 23andMe or other companies with a similar structure, what would you tell them?

By the time you are invited for an interview, we’re guessing you probably have pretty good technical skills to do the analysis needed, create scientific instruments, or something like that. What I think most people undervalue are the professional soft skills. Do you communicate well? Do you work well with others? When you have a conflict, do you know how to resolve it? These skills are incredibly important when working with a team where you will likely be a part of many projects.

To demonstrate these important skills to potential employers, take on leadership positions, practice communication, and learn conflict resolution techniques. To rise in the ranks and take on more responsibility in a company, it is really a combination of those technical skills and professional soft skills.

About the author:

Amanda Shaver is a Co-Chair on the Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee and a PhD candidate at the University of Georgia.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

Asav Dharia works as a Competitive Talent Strategist and Research Analyst at Flagship Pioneering, matching leading scientists with newly forming companies and technologies. He’s centered his career on finding the big picture in science and looking for a niche where being a scientist becomes the value-add.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Although Asav loved research during his PhD, he was always interested in a big-picture question: how does the research done every day in the lab change the world? During graduate school, he helped start a company called Smpl Bio that created software to simplify the design and analysis of targeted genetic tests; after, he sought opportunities where he could both explore his career options and take a high-level view of the biopharma industry. Then, he consulted for LifeSci Advisors to wade into market research before joining The Stevenson Group as a Research Associate and Consultant. In his current role as a Competitive Talent Strategist at the life science innovation enterprise Flagship Pioneering, he helps place top scientists and executives in leadership roles to build culture and drive innovation.

How did you find your first position after graduate school?

Asav Dharia.

While wrapping up my PhD in Genetics and Genomics from the University of Connecticut, I was consulting with Smpl Bio and looking for other opportunities where I could bridge science and business. On LinkedIn, I noticed an Equity Research Analyst at LifeSci Advisors who had a PhD, and I wrote him a short note, thinking he might have had similar interests. I explained that I was curious to explore the life science market and wanted to know what he does during his day-to-day at the office to see if there were any potential opportunities. Luckily for me, he had a lot going on at work, and he offered to give me a small project researching a company he was evaluating with the idea that, based on that project, I could work for him on a consulting basis. So that’s exactly what I did.

While I was working on the project at LifeSci Advisors, I continued exploring other opportunities to give me a broader idea of what the biopharma industry looks like. I was researching early stage companies and found myself wondering why someone would leave a comfortable job at a big pharmaceutical company to go work for a biotech startup that only had a little bit of data. It was then that I ran into Adam Bloom, CEO of life science executive recruiting firm The Stevenson Group; my conversation with him really impacted me. He explained that my scientific experience could lend to a career in executive recruiting: I could have informed conversations with the leaders of biotech and pharma industries and place candidates in roles that needed experienced scientific leadership. That conversation led me to believe I should take the calculated risk of pursuing a non-traditional career in executive search and joined The Stevenson Group.

What did you do in graduate school that prepared you for that jump to business?

During my PhD, I actually co-founded a small biotech company, Smpl Bio. It was a result of participating in the UConn Innovation Quest inQbator, where students pitch ideas to venture capitalists in the UConn alumni community to get funding. I contributed to the pitch, business development, market research, and competitive intelligence work while others on my team did the scientific work.

I was also involved with the Tufts consulting club. At a networking event, I met the club leader, who told me there were a couple of PhD students and postdocs at Tufts trying to get into consulting. I just said, “Hey, I’m interested in knowing more about this,” and they invited me to a consulting competition at Yale. That competition was open to everybody, and even though we knew it wasn’t going to be centered on a biotech project, we were excited about the opportunity to get exposure on how a consulting position would work.

Additionally, I attended many conferences and forums to network with professionals in pharma and biotech.

Who guided you in making the switch to a business heavy career?

Asav Dharia skydiving.

Most recently, my current supervisor Grace Niwa, VP of Talent Acquisition at Flagship Pioneering, is playing an instrumental role in guiding me through the world of venture-backed companies. Additionally, Adam Bloom, who I spoke about earlier, has been super supportive. Even though I was leaving his company, he was instrumental in making sure that I was wise about that career move. He gave me some crucial pointers that really helped me succeed.

However, a lot of the credit has to go to my mentor David Weisman, who I met during my undergraduate years at UMass. After co-founding a  successful consulting business focused on system software design for years, he had returned to academia to apply his skills to the field of molecular and cellular biology. While I was considering each crucial career decision that I’ve made—including my first job as a Research Assistant and Lab Administrator at Tufts-NEMC, joining a PhD program, and consequently becoming an executive search consultant—David was the one who asked me the tough questions and gave me the right guidance.

What did you do as an executive search consultant for The Stevenson Group?

My role at The Stevenson Group was to be the scientific face of the company with regards to providing market research, delivering competitive intelligence and connecting with industry leaders. My responsibilities included mapping the industry—what companies work in the space, who are the potential candidates, where do they work—and to present that to senior management clients across pharma, biotech, medical device, and diagnostics. Through conversations with company leadership, I figured out where the gaps were in the team, be it early discovery or clinical development. I highlighted the skills and work the candidate had done to make the connection between candidate and company. For example, if a company was trying to fill a position for a scientist that works on a very specific rare disease, I targeted someone who had worked on that specific genetic disorder. By utilizing my scientific expertise and background in genetics, I immediately added value to the role when it came to understanding the technology developed by small biotechs and their scientific needs.

How did you pitch yourself when you moved to your current position at Flagship Pioneering?

I was aware that Flagship Pioneering was a scientifically-rich and entrepreneurial environment with brilliant minds creating and building life sciences companies that invent breakthrough technologies. I knew a big part of my job would be to help them find top-tier scientific talent that would continue to help build Flagship’s ecosystem and portfolio companies. At The Stevenson Group, I was the only team member with a PhD; Flagship Pioneering, however, is a company where the majority of people have PhDs. The value I was bringing was the experience I had gained understanding the market trends and landscape from a talent perspective. Flagship Pioneering has many PhDs working on interesting projects in their different companies, but what they didn’t have when I came on board was a PhD on the talent acquisition side who could speak to scientists and C-suite level pharma and biotech individuals from a talent perspective. Hence, my goal was to come in and immediately add value by bringing the right talent to the right companies within Flagship Pioneering’s portfolio.

What are your key considerations when negotiating for a new position?

When you change positions, you may take a short term pay cut in exchange for higher returns later—but you want to be aware of your big picture goal. When I negotiate, I’m not just concerned with the salary, I’m also looking at equity-based incentives, stock options, opportunities to continue learning by taking courses and attending conferences, work-from-home capabilities, paid time-off (to maintain work-life balance) and mid-year bonuses. I would encourage anyone to consider all aspects of compensation when negotiating.

About the author:

Tony Patelunas is a liaison on the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and a PhD Candidate in the department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of Connecticut. He strives to build a community of scientists that transcends industries and brings data-driven decision making to policy.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

A division director at NIH, Dorit Zuk has a career that spans basic research, scientific publishing, and policy. She shares how she transitioned from different positions and advice for managing a team.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Dorit Zuk is the poster child of what you can do with a biology PhD. After completing her training at the Wiezmann Institute in Israel, she moved to the US to conduct her postdoctoral training at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. While applying for faculty positions, she applied to be an editor at Cell on a whim—a decision that dramatically altered her career path. After serving as an editor, she became a AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Fellow, and subsequently worked on policy with the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, NIH, and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. After working with the NIH for seven years, she became the division director of Genetics and Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), where she leads a team of scientists to determine how research funding will be allocated.

You refer to your career path as a “random walk” career. Why is that?

Dorit Zuk

It started very serendipitously—but the point of serendipity is that you have to act on it. When I was a postdoc, I went to the Molecular Cell website to find an article that was missing from Pubmed, and while I was there, I saw a job ad to be an Editor at Cell. At the time, I had been applying for faculty jobs and had gotten some interviews, but I figured being an Editor at Cell would be exciting, and if I didn’t like it, I could go back to the lab.

I really liked taking a broad view on science as an editor. After about seven years as an editor at Cell and Molecular Cell, I learned of the AAAS fellowship and that anybody at any career stage could apply. I was looking for something different to do after my years at Cell, so I applied for the AAAS Science and Technology Policy fellowship. I took a similar approach as before: I decided that if I didn’t like it, I could go back to editing. Working in policy allowed me to experience the sociological aspect of the biomedical research enterprise, and I found that I enjoyed it.

After the AAAS fellowship, I worked as a program director at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. I did the most diverse things you can ever think of as program director; I worked on topics around philanthropy in the public school system, and even nuclear energy. While I enjoyed the work, it helped me realize that what I really care about is the biomedical research enterprise. In 2009, I was offered the position of science policy adviser to the Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the NIH. In 2015, the opportunity came up to apply for director of the Division of Genetics and Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology at NIGMS. Looking at the job description, I found that the research funded by NIGMS overlapped with the research I worked with as an editor at Molecular Cell. In a way, this position brought me back to my scientific roots while bringing my experience in policy and science administration to the job. I’ve been here since January 2016—and that’s my “random walk” career.

What does a position as Division Director at the NIGMS involve?

I have to think broadly about the genetics, molecular, cellular, and developmental biology research that we fund through Research Project (R01) grants. I spend time thinking about how to allocate the funding based on the vision of the NIGMS, and I then make decisions, together with my team, on what science we should be funding. I directly manage three people in my division, but there are 15 total program directors who each have portfolios of science that we fund. At any one time, we fund about 2200 R01s.

I am involved in funding decisions for R01 applications, which start out being reviewed by the Center of Scientific review. They go through a second round of review at our council, where I’m involved in presenting the research. The council provides oversight to ensure that the initial review for scientific and technical merit conducted by the study section was fair and in compliance with policy. NIGMS has a philosophy of trying to fund as many people as possible. We often award people who don’t have other funding before people who have a lot of other funding, even if they did differently in review. I’m involved in making these decisions.

What are your visions as a leader of a team?

A good team is one in which everyone works together towards common and well-understood goals while each member is also able to develop individual interests and skills. My first principle is to respect everyone. Number two is to know what you want to achieve and to have a clear idea of how to get there; it’s very hard to steer a group if you don’t know where you’re going. Once the main goal is clear, you should discuss it with your team early and often and revise goals based on their input so you’re all moving towards the goal together. Thirdly, celebrate successes both small and large rather than waiting for something huge to come through. My final principle is that communication is everybody’s responsibility. It’s important to ask questions and to tell people what you’re doing. Don’t assume people will communicate with you; it’s your responsibility too.

How do you interact with science as a Division Director at NIGMS?

As a Director, I’m taking a broad view of the science I encounter. I am less concerned about the specifics of experiments and more interested in the main questions—and whether the science that’s being proposed can answer those questions. I read grant applications at the level of evaluating the main question and what the specific field is thinking about. I find the work most interesting when areas of science collide. For example, it took the collision of biochemistry and chromatin biology to understand how transcription happens in the context of the chromatin. Those are the things that I find most interesting. I read primary literature and reviews, and I talk to a lot of people.

Do you have any advice for early career scientists having a tough time choosing a career path?

I’m going to use an analogy of climbing a mountain, where the goal is reaching the top of the mountain. There are two ways to approach this: one is you can go straight to the top as quickly as you possibly can, and the other is a switchback approach. In the latter approach, you may go to the left and then to the right—but you’re always going upwards. Even though the former is a linear path, that person may or may not get as high up the mountain as the person who takes the switchback approach. I see myself as a person who likes switchbacks; I enjoy the journey and seeing different things along the way. I think it is important that early career scientists recognize that those two approaches exist and they’re both legitimate.

Dorit Zuk in her convertible car, one of the three things she had dreamed of having when she was younger.

What were some of your earliest life goals?

When I was younger I had three dreams: I wanted my own lab, a convertible, and a porch swing. I didn’t have my own lab, but I did have my own journal, and now I have my own vision. I have a convertible. I had a porch swing at some point, but I got rid of it because it was uncomfortable.

About the author:

Didem Sarikaya is the Co-Chair of the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and an FRSQ Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of California Davis. She is committed to bringing forward stories and tools for trainees to learn more about career options so they can develop personally meaningful career trajectories.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

Scientist and manager Amanda Young develops applications for next-generation sequencing at Illumina. She talks about how careers in product development broadly impact the scientific community and how you can tailor your skills to land a job.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

Amanda Young completed her PhD in biology at MIT with Phil Sharp as part of a group that was developing methods for building sequencing libraries from RNA. She did a short postdoc at the Salk Institute before deciding to transition into industry—a choice that felt like a big risk at the time. Now, she leads a team of scientists at Illumina who develop applications for next-generation sequencing in microbiology and infectious disease. She hopes other scientists will consider careers in the dynamic product development industry.

What experiences led you to your current position?

The company Solexa launched the first next-generation sequencing instrument, called the Genome Analyzer, while I was working on my PhD. The instrument was revolutionary in its throughput and workflow, offering short reads that were great for studying microRNAs, and I was part of the group effort at MIT that developed the methods for it. I loved being part of a team of grad students and postdocs doing collaborative work.

Following my PhD, I moved to San Diego and did a postdoc at the Salk Institute for one year. At the time, it felt like conventional wisdom that having a postdoc was important to getting an industry position without closing the door to other career paths. As I started my postdoc, I thought I would be excited to work on a new project. Instead, I realized that what I truly loved was developing new technologies, as I did during my PhD. Around the time of my realization, Illumina had acquired Solexa and was rapidly advancing the technology for next-generation sequencing. I leveraged the skills I developed during my PhD training to obtain a position at Illumina.

What do your days look like in your position at Illumina?

At Illumina, I lead a team of scientists while also working closely with our sales and marketing teams. My work with the marketing team focuses on strategic planning, and we work to decide where we want to be in the next three to five years. I also lead collaborations with our customers, including academic and government labs and other companies. I attend conferences to hear about the latest research, learn how customers are using our technology, and give talks at seminars or workshops. I’m a pretty social person, so I feel like my best science is done when I get to work with other highly motivated and creative scientists. When I joined Illumina, I was really happy to see that collaboration is one of the core values of the company.

What’s unique about my role now is that I have a lot of opportunities to contribute to new and different projects, technologies, and fields. In academia, sometimes you get set in a field and then you’re in that field for decades, diving deep into a single subject. In my time with Illumina, I’ve been part of our oncology, forensics, and microbiology groups. I love the new challenges of working in different fields and being able to develop a broad understanding of biology.

What excites you about your career at Illumina?

Young while hiking on the Big Island in Hawaii with her oldest son.

People often think research in industry involves working for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs. At Illumina, we like to call ourselves a tools provider: we make tools and instruments that bench scientists use. The companies that provide bench scientists with reagents and equipment have teams of scientists that are working to develop products, and really cool science happens as part of product development. I didn’t anticipate how exciting my career would be, but being involved in product development allows you to impact research scientists by developing tools they can use in the lab.

What advice do you have for people interested in pursuing a research career in industry?

People who want to pursue research positions in industry should start looking into companies that are doing things that match their skills and interests. Hiring in industry is very skill-set driven, so it’s important to look at the skill sets and expertise required for available positions. Job descriptions will help you understand what skills are valuable in the market, and you can start tailoring the experiences and expertise you’re gaining during your PhD or postdoc to those skills. That may lead you to take your project in a slightly different direction, strike up a collaboration, or take a course to help boost your skills in a specific area. It’s important to think about how your skills translate—and to highlight those skills as you start to apply to jobs.

How has mentorship influenced your career?

My PhD advisor Phil Sharp is a brilliant scientist, but he also has a head for business. I learned from him that you can be a scientist and do business with honesty and integrity; those things aren’t mutually exclusive. At Illumina, my mentors have helped me develop my managerial skills and business acumen. One of our senior leaders once mentioned to me the idea of having a personal board of directors. You benefit from having multiple mentors, and for me, some of the people on my “board” are my superiors, who are in roles that I aspire to. Peers and team members also give me a lot of great advice and feedback about being a manager and leader. In addition to scientists, I think having people that are outside your own field can provide perspectives that help you grow in different directions.

What experiences outside of your scientific training have had the greatest impact on your career?

As a mom of two boys, I’ve learned from them to be more flexible and open-minded. My horizons have been greatly expanded by their interests that are different than mine and by their distinct personalities. The business environment at Illumina changes rapidly; there are always new projects, and we might have to shift into a different direction on short notice. In fast-paced environments, being flexible and having an open mind is very important for success. I imagine that applies at other companies as well, and I think that bringing my parenting skills in to my day job really helps.

About the author:

Dina Beeler is a liaison on the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee and a PhD candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is committed to helping other scientists realize and achieve their career goals.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships. You can also search for fellowship opportunities in the GSA Policy Fellowship Database.

AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships (STPF) give scientists and engineers the opportunity to apply their knowledge and analytical skills to the policymaking process.

These US-based fellowships are predominantly located within the Executive Branch of the federal government, such as the National Science Foundation. However, there are over 30 opportunities in the Legislative Branch and one in the Judicial Branch. Fellowships last one year, though some Executive Branch agencies can opt to extend their Fellows’ terms for an additional year.

I spoke with Reba Bandyopadhyay, PhD, who was a Legislative Branch Fellow in the office of Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), sponsored by the American Physical Society*, from 2014–2015. To broaden her training, she also completed a AAAS Executive Branch Fellowship from 2015–2017.

For information on Executive Branch Fellowships see our previous interview.

What is your current position?

I’m a science policy analyst at the National Science Foundation in the office of the National Science Board, which is the governing body for the Foundation. This is also where I did my AAAS Executive Branch Fellowship. My job includes drafting and presenting policy products and communications and handling legislative affairs for the board. I keep track of what Congress is doing, assist Board members when they talk to Members of Congress about science and technology issues, and give technical assistance on legislation if requested.  

What were your favorite aspects of the two fellowships?

The Congressional Fellowship is very fast paced, so if you like a fast-paced environment and you’re good at moving quickly, you’ll enjoy it. The Executive Branch Fellowships are slower paced because it takes things longer to develop.

One of my favorite things about the fellowships is feeling like you’re actually making an impact on something, even though you won’t immediately feel like that. You figure out what you’re doing first, and then you realize, “Oh, actually this is a good fit”. I enjoyed meeting really great people. Both of the offices I’ve been in have been extremely functional, good teams with good rapport, where people trust each other. That environment allowed me to be more independent and take on more responsibilities.

Can you describe the most common duties of a Congressional Fellow?

There are no typical days as a Congressional Fellow, though functionally we are policy staff for our Member of Congress. A common responsibility of policy staff is meeting with individual constituents, interest groups, lobbyists, unions, and organizations like teachers’ federations. These visitors usually come in to talk about a particular upcoming bill. Another frequent task is doing background research for upcoming legislation to help our Member decide what position to take.  

Do you ever directly contribute to legislation that comes from your Member’s office?

Yes. Sometimes we come up with suggested ideas for legislation or policy objectives for the Member. We help develop plans for carrying out the policy goals of our Member— so when they tell their staff, “I want to do X,” we figure out how to accomplish that and what the constraints are.

Do the legislative constraints ever require any political strategizing about how best to go about passing bills?

Yes, it does. Part of the policy staff’s job is finding co-sponsors to a piece of legislation or amendment. There’s a lot of alliance-building involved. Sometimes there are also political directives from the leadership of the party, such as working to support a particular person because that Member’s going to be up for election in the following year. You also help build partnerships across the aisle, which requires finding where the mutual interest lies. For instance, Senator Schatz’s office has worked productively with Republican offices on health care issues, like expanding access for rural communities.

Other than advising and strategizing on legislation, what else do Fellows do?

There are lots of public briefings on the Hill, which Fellows and other staffers attend. These briefings are where experts from fields related to upcoming legislation or active policy discussions give their professional analysis to inform congressional staff about issues relating to that legislation or policy. Also, Members will sometimes ask their staff a specific policy question. Our job is to find out the answer, and then brief them in staff or personal meetings about our findings. We may also brief the Member about content ahead of hearings, write questions for them to ask, and attend hearings with them. We’re some of the people you see on TV sitting behind them, alongside their professional legislative staff.

What did you learn about the process of making and implementing policy, especially the interaction between Congress and agencies, or interagency interactions?

There’s a back-and-forth between the Legislative and Executive Branches in policy-making. A Member of Congress will decide to write a bill and can ask the Executive agency charged with dealing with that piece of legislation to provide feedback. Agencies may not love everything that’s in every bill, but they provide the technical information for Members of Congress to help ensure the legislation would be feasible to implement. There’s also work between different Executive agencies on issues that fall under the purview of more than one agency. One example of that is STEM education, where the different science agencies get together and talk about their programs, share best practices, and look for opportunities to coordinate or collaborate.

Were your activities driven more by your interests, by current scientific trends, or issues already being considered by the legislature?

There can be a relationship between your research expertise and what you’re assigned to help with in the office. I was a black hole observational astronomer, so it’s tricky to find which population would most benefit from having my expertise. I’ve spent a lot of time in Hawaii because that’s where many of our telescopes are, so that background helped make me a good fit for Senator Schatz’s office. While your interests do factor into your placement to some extent, you can’t come in asking to work on a specific issue. It’s helpful to have examples of issues that are of interest to you, but it’s not good to expect to definitely work on one thing. Any given member only has so much control over the agenda in the first place.

What professional skills do you need to succeed as a fellow?

To be successful as a fellow, you need really good communication skills. That includes written, not just verbal, communication, people skills, and good teamwork. You have to check your ego at the door—that’s a big one. Another useful professional skill is being a generalist, meaning having a wide range of interests and being widely read, and not being laser-focused on one problem. It’s helpful if you’re adaptable.  

What’s something that scientists working in policy struggle with?

One thing that’s hard for scientists is that we always look for more data, and we’re never completely sure about a conclusion, so we don’t necessarily want to take a stance on an issue right away. But in policy you can’t always hedge. You have to be ready to use the available information to make a recommendation, and sometimes the available information is what you were able to get in the last three hours.

What advice would you give to prospective applicants?

Experience comes in a variety of forms, and it doesn’t have to be policy experience specifically. Applicants should show how they work in a collaborative environment and that they can understand and navigate through different competing issues or desires or strong opinions. Talking about mentorship experience, like teaching undergrads in a lab, or public outreach, is also a good option. Also, even if applicants don’t have direct policy experience, it’s good to demonstrate that they’re keeping abreast of policy news and they’re aware of how scientists can contribute to policy work

*Fellowships sponsored by partner scientific societies such as the APS may have different eligibility requirements and deadlines than the regular AAAS S&TPF. The APS-sponsored Congressional Fellowship application is due on January 15th, 2019. AAAS S&TPF applications close each year in November. For further guidance on how to apply, read our recently published article with tips from former AAAS fellows on the application process.

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are solely those of Dr. Bandyopadhyay and do not reflect an endorsement or contribution by Senator Schatz, the National Science Board, NSF, or any other organization.

About the author:

Jo Bairzin received her PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley in 2018, where her graduate research focused on the genetics of cancer and development in fruit flies. She is a member of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee of the Genetics Society of America, which aims to help scientists access policy careers and engage with policymakers. She is also passionate about improving graduate training to better reflect the current STEM career landscape.

Ananda Ghosh, technology transfer agent at NYU, emphasizes the importance of having the right mentor-mentee pairings throughout your career.

In the Decoding Life series, we talk to geneticists with diverse career paths, tracing the many directions possible after research training. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Career Development Subcommittee.

As a postdoc at Weill Cornell, Ghosh decided to transition out of academia; he started networking and soon realized that his training had prepared him to evaluate innovative technologies coming out of labs, which he does now in his career as a technology transfer professional. His passion for career training also led him to found a non-profit organization called Career Support Group (CSG), which provides scientists with career resources and offers a platform to discuss the challenges facing science.

What made you transition into a non-academic career?

Ghosh in his role as Technology Marketing Associate at NYU Technology Ventures and Partnerships.

After spending 13 years in different academic institutions, I figured out that continuing in academia was not the right option for me. Training future students should not be based on just passion to become an academician. That path requires a specific skill set and is an enormous responsibility. I realized that I might not add the same value to academia that I could in other career paths. I recognized that I had acquired several other skills during my training, like understanding scientific literature, communicating effectively with people, leadership skills, and working creatively and collaboratively, that I could put to use.

How did you find your current job? How much did networking help your career path?

Ghosh opining in an illustration for his blog for ClubSciWri. Illustrator Manasi Pethe.

During my postdoc, I started attending networking meetings and talking to people about their transitions. Through those interactions, I learned about technology transfer internship programs. I completed an internship in the Center for Technology Licensing (CTL) at Cornell followed by an internship at Columbia Technology Ventures-the technology transfer office of Columbia University. During that time, I also attended several technology transfer-related networking meetings and met leaders in the field. I was lucky to meet Dr. Brian Kelly, Director of the Cornell CTL, who had a considerable impact in my early career decisions. To get better insight into the field, I did informational interviews with technology transfer professionals. Through the network I built during my internship, I also met Dr. Sadhana Chitale, Director of Life Sciences/Technology Transfer at NYU. I learned about her work and kept her informed about my projects. This interaction was especially important when I found out about a job opening in her office. All these cumulative interactions and my preparations for a job in academic tech transfer worked in my favor, and I got the job.

What does a technology transfer agent do?

Technology transfer agents wear a lot of hats. When a scientist approaches the office with a new technology, we analyze its intellectual property and commercial need. Once we determine the technology is novel and holds a significant value, the office files a patent to protect the intellectual property. We then approach relevant companies to license the technology. When we find a commercial partner that is willing to license the technology, we enter into negotiations and draft a technology transfer agreement. Our job doesn’t end there; we also make sure that the company proactively develops the technology with the goal of putting it into the market, where it will eventually benefit the public.

You also founded Career Support Group (CSG). Tell us more about this group and your motivation for starting it.

Ghosh and Abhinav Dey relax after the second annual Stempeers Conference, NYC 2018.

During my transition out of academia, I realized there weren’t many freely available resources on career development of STEM PhDs, so Abhinav Dey and I began developing a web-based support group to help direct people to free resources related to career transitions. This eventually became Stempeers, a 501(c)(3) foundation centered on the web-based support group. The group not only discusses career development but also issues pertaining to diversity, gender inequality, work-life balance, and immigration. CSG started with just 100 people, and now there are 12,000 STEM PhDs working to helping each other grow professionally! CSG has scientists from diverse backgrounds like industry, science communication, law, and academia and all of them help each other identify career opportunities. It has become what I now like to call a peer-based mentoring platform for STEM PhDs.

What advice do you have for students who want to transition into different career paths?  

I have become an ardent fan of applying “design thinking” while planning a career change. That means thinking like a designer while working on your career goals, and it’s a method championed by Bill Burnett and Dave Evans of Stanford University. Be proactive! This involves being aware of one’s core skills, developing domain expertise (expertise in particular subject/area) aligned with the research training, being aware of one’s interests, doing informational interviews, participating in voluntary internships, and strategic networking. It is OK to seek help. You will be surprised at how many people are out there who just like to help. Most importantly, one should seek good mentors. Careers are largely influenced by having the right advocates by your side at the right time.

About the author:

Ruchi Jhonsa is a liaison on the Early Career Scientist Career Development Committee, and a Joint Postdoctoral fellow in Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics and National Centre for Biological Sciences. She is interested in counseling graduates and postgraduates about different career paths.

Learn more about the GSA’s Early Career Scientist Leadership Program.

This post is part of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee’s series on science policy fellowships.

Rebecca Osthus

The Early Career Advocacy Fellowship (ECAF) is a two-year program to engage early career scientists (ECS) in advocacy activities while they continue their academic work. All members of the American Physiological Society who live in the US and are within 10 years of receiving a PhD are eligible to apply. The application deadline for this cycle is November 16.

Rebecca Osthus, PhD, is the Associate Director for Government Relations and Science Policy at the American Physiological Society. Rebecca oversees the fellowship program and told us about what the fellowship offers.

What does the Early Career Advocacy Fellowship involve?

The fellowship is a two-year term that fellows undertake while they continue their lab work, postdoctoral fellowship, or faculty position. Fellows work with the Society’s Science Policy Committee (SPC) members to develop their advocacy skills. For fellows who attend the Experimental Biology meeting, there is an orientation session where incoming fellows can interact with fellows from the previous year along with SPC members and APS staff. We go over basic advocacy information, but the process is mainly about having a conversation and giving fellows a chance to ask questions before they go to Capitol Hill. Fellows join the SPC and attend the annual meeting in the DC area, during which we ask them to schedule meetings with their members of Congress. We go with them, which allows them to have meetings with someone else in the room —helping them get over the initial hump that might seem daunting. They can be involved in the SPC as much as they wish, but they can also continue on their research path. In their own time, fellows also work on a policy or advocacy-related project of their choosing, with support from a member of staff or the SPC.

What kind of topics does the SPC work on?

Some of the issues the SPC is currently working on include looking at how peer review is done at the National Institutes of Health—whether this process is progressing smoothly or whether there are topics that the community wants to comment upon. Another topic is how to increase advocacy efforts for the National Science Foundation. We look at agency funding policies, specifically the policies that apply to researchers who secure funding. For example, NIH is changing the way they classify clinical trials so that research with human subjects will be classified as a clinical trial, which comes with a host of new regulations. We take a look at policies to give input on how to make them work well for basic researchers.

What kind of projects have fellows worked on over the years?

We purposefully keep the requirements for the project very informal so that fellows can follow their interests. Fellows have done a wide range of things, for example, written an article for the APS newsletter on a policy issue or given a seminar on advocacy at their home institution to share their skills and get more people involved. One person even came to DC and participated in an advocacy event for NSF to showcase her research and demonstrate to members of Congress and NSF leadership what kind of projects get funded and why their research is compelling.

What have previous fellows gone on to do?

Several have continued in their academic career and some have stayed in academia but added extra administrative responsibilities, such as tech transfer. Two fellows joined the SPC as regular members because they wanted to continue their advocacy activities. Others have left academia: one person became an AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow; one person joined a patent law firm, and we even have one fellow who joined the astronaut corps at NASA!

Why did APS decide to fund these fellowships?

Prior to establishing this fellowship, we engaged some of our members in advocacy through our two policy committees—one on funding policies and one on the humane use of animals for research—both committees engaged their members, but that was a limited pool of people. We had people come to us asking us for advocacy opportunities, but we had no formal mechanism in place. We decided to launch the Early Career Advocacy Fellowship for ECS to develop their skills and take those forward, hopefully through sharing their experiences with their institution and their future trainees. The fellowship is a way for our members to be involved in advocacy and for us to develop a larger pool of scientists who have the skillset to be involved in advocacy as part of their professional service.

What do you look for in ECAF applications?

The biggest thing that we look for is a clearly articulated interest in advocacy—have the applicants thought about what advocacy means and what issues they are interested in? The application letters are reviewed by members of the SPC, and they look for ideas of how prospective fellows will use these skills in their future careers. If somebody can articulate their interests, it speaks to their communication skills and their ability to communicate their thoughts to non-scientists. Most members of Congress and their staff don’t have that background and so we need fellows to be able to adjust and explain their research and its importance so that somebody else can understand it, even if they don’t have that same technical background.

What do you hope fellows will take away from the program?

One of the biggest things we hope they take away is that it isn’t as daunting as it might seem! It isn’t as scary as people think to call a member of Congress and arrange a meeting. Fellows will go through the experience with support from SPC and the APS staff, who will demystify the whole process. We also hope that fellows share their experience with others so that we can develop even more scientists with advocacy skills!

About the author:

Giovanna Collu is co-chair of the Early Career Scientist Policy Committee and a postdoctoral fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Giovanna’s goal is to increase advocacy opportunities for early career scientists with a focus on diversity and inclusion.