Industrial postdocs: A bridge between two worlds

Many pharmaceutical companies now offer postdoc positions, which might be more similar to the traditional academic positions than you think.

Guest contributor Lauren Emily Wright

Roche-NJCE15-workshop-naturejobs-blog

Matthias Nettekoven & Esther Melo from Roche Pharma Research & Early Development in Basel, Switzerland, presenting at the 2015 London Naturejobs Career Expo {credit}Image credit: Lauren Emily Wright{/credit}

Science is often carelessly tossed into two main categories – academia and industry – and the decision to move from one to the other can be daunting. But current opportunities seem determined to break down these walls and make a more homogenous research environment. The Roche group ran one of the most popular workshops of the Naturejobs Career Expo in London, held on the 18th of September 2015. Attendees filled the aisle and crowded around the open doorway, straining to hear the presentations by Dr. Matthias Nettekoven and Dr. Esther Melo, who work at Roche Pharma Research & Early Development in Basel, Switzerland, discovering new therapeutics and diagnostics in several research areas.

Nettekoven, a principal investigator, started with a reminder that research positions are not the only jobs offered by pharmaceutical companies. For instance, following a research post, Roche employees can move into marketing, sales, HR or manufacturing. “When you’re in, you’re just in. You develop into what you want to be,” said Nettekoven. “The world is open, but the initiative has to come from you.” Continue reading

Big data: Collaborative science

The rise of data-intensive research is increasing the need for collaborative science.

Guest contributor Lakshini Mendis

data-naturejobs-blog

{credit}Image credit: iStock/Thinkstock{/credit}

Big data, a term thought to have originated in the mid-90s, is a current buzzword amongst scientific communities. Rather than a sole reference to the size of complex datasets, the term broadly encompasses all aspects of working with large datasets from acquisition to analysis.

Big data in science

At its core, scientific research is driven by our curiosity to understand the relationship between cause and effect. Traditionally, ‘hypothesis-driven’ experiments are designed to answer a specific question about a cause-effect relationship.

However, over the last sixty years there has been a trillion fold increase in computing performance. The per-capita capacity to store information has roughly doubled every forty months since the 1980s. These technological advances are revolutionising almost all facets of human life, including how scientific research is conducted.

In contrast to the traditional ‘hypothesis-driven’ approach, advancing technology allows us to acquire larger, more complex datasets, encompassing as many variables as possible, without bias from preconceived ideas. Powerful computation also enables us to finally realize the full potential of decades-old mathematical and statistical concepts. We can now sift through many variables and identify numerous cause-effect relationships in the same dataset, which would have previously been undetectable to the unaided human mind. These principles are now being applied to diverse fields, from astronomy to neuroscience, from particle physics to genomics.

The need for collaboration

The National Human Genome Research Institute reports that the cost of sequencing a human-sized genome was almost US$10 million in 2001, which had halved a couple of years later. The Human Genome Project took 13 years and cost about US$2.7 billion; however, human whole-genome sequencing is now more affordable and accessible than ever. Today, Illumina’s HiSeq X Ten System can sequence “over 18,000 human genomes per year at the price of about $1000 per genome”. Advances such as this have allowed scientists like Theordora Ross from UT Southwestern Medical Center to identify novel mutations in “mystery breast cancer patients” – those with a strong family history of cancer but who did not possess the BRCA mutation – using human whole-genome sequencing. Advances in human whole-genome sequencing are also paving the way for large-populations studies, which in turn is inching us toward precision medicine.

Thus, a lack of data is no longer the bottleneck to discovery. Rather, it is the effective management, analysis, and sharing of large datasets that now pose a challenge.

Initiatives such as the Open Science Data Cloud and the Multi-Institutional Open Storage Research InfraStructure provide an online repository to efficiently store large datasets and share them between different groups. Effectively analysing complex datasets requires abilities that often extend beyond a single researcher’s immediate skillset. Even the most tech-savvy researcher can struggle with some of the mathematical and computational expertise needed to correctly interpret large datasets. Thus, collaboration is key. Having a versatile team comprised of researchers, software engineers, bioinformaticians and statisticians, helps each focus on what they do best. There is no longer a requirement for the sole researcher to become a ‘jack-of-all-trades’. However, there is a need for clear communication between the experts of each field.

Current global big data projects, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the Blue Brain Project, and the Human Proteome Project, HapMap effectively demonstrate the value of collaboration.

Addressing the barrier to collaboration

However, when it comes to projects that are being conducted on a smaller scale, many researchers are still apprehensive about openly sharing their data. The reasons cited include intellectual property concerns and the fear of being scooped. These concerns have been generated, in part, by the hypercompetitive environment of research, where a high impact factor publication alone has become the ultimate goal of scientists, no matter the cost.

Journals such as Scientific Data and GigaScience help encourage researchers to share their data openly by recognizing their contributions as publications. Further, disseminating the entire dataset helps validate the interpretation of the data and the findings from it. It also opens the door to enable other researchers to reuse the data to investigate their own hypotheses, while guaranteeing proper acknowledgment of the source. For instance, different researchers can make maximal use of a large mass spectrometry dataset to investigate different proteins of interest, without the need for additional time and resources. This approach can help streamline scientific discovery with efficient use of funding.

There are already discernible changes to the scientific research landscape that address the challenges of big data projects. However, the rise of data-intensive research requires a change of mind-set amongst scientists. There is an increased need for multidisciplinary research teams, with clear communication between experts of different fields. Scientists also need to be innovative and become more aware of the tools that will enable them to widely collaborate and openly share data. These changes will help us fully grasp the potential of big data and accelerate understanding.

Lakshimi-mendis-naturejobs-blog

{credit}Image credit: Lakshimi Mendis{/credit}

Lakshini Mendis is a winner of the 2015 Scientific Data writing competition. She is also a PhD student at the Centre for Brain Research in Auckland, and studies how the human brain changes in Alzheimer’s disease. She is passionate about good science communication and is a strong advocate for women in STEM, and volunteers as the Editor-in-Chief at The Scientista Foundation! Follow her musings on Twitter!

Careers in academia: Different options

The traditional career path in academia isn’t the only option available for scientists, say panelists at the 2015 Naturejobs Career Expo in London.

Guest contributor Gaia Donati

Careers-in-acdemia-NJCE15-naturejobs-blog

L-R: Frances Ashcroft, James Hadfield, Frederique Guesdon, Lisa Fox and Anna Price. {credit}Image credit: Julie Gould{/credit}

Are you close to finishing your degree, and tempted by the academic environment you came to know well? If yes, then you’re in good company: according to the Vitae Careers in Research survey from 2015, 77% of researchers in the UK aspire to a position in academia, and 60%  expect to find an academic job. However, the Royal Society estimates that only 3.5% of PhD graduates land a permanent position as researchers or lecturers. But all hope isn’t lost: alternative options for those wishing to stay in academia exist, as panelists discussed at the Naturejobs Career Expo in London on Friday 18 September 2015.

The panel offered a refreshing perspective on some options that allow scientists to maintain the link with academic research without facing years of potential postdoctoral insecurity. Dr Anna Price, chair of the panel, left academic research because she lacked a specific question to answer as a scientist. As the head of Researcher Development at Queen Mary University of London, she now works with researchers on planning their careers and honing their transferable skills. Price is well aware that academia is a competitive sector; for this reason, and from her own career development perspective, she introduced four panelists to talk about traditional academic positions as well as roles at the crossing between research and management. Continue reading

Big data: The impact of the Human Genome Project

The Human Genome Project led to a paradigm shift in the way science is conducted and data is shared, says Rehma Chandaria.

Guest contributor Rehma Chandaria

164480115_genome_istock_thinkstock

{credit}istockphoto/thinkstock{/credit}

In 1996, an international group of scientists came together in Bermuda to discuss how sequence data from the Human Genome Project (HGP) should be released. The meeting concluded in the formation of the ‘Bermuda Principles’, a set of rules ensuring the data would be immediately shared on publicly accessible databases as it was generated. This ground-breaking accord contravened the conventional practice of releasing data only after publication in scientific journals. It changed the way we see data sharing, and ultimately, changed the way science research was conducted.

Its success demonstrated how a global community of scientists could collectively produce and use data far more efficiently than an individual could. This greatly benefited scientific progress and led to many important new insights and discoveries. For example, information of 30 genes associated with disease was published prior to publication of the draft sequence in 2001.

Recognising its ability to accelerate progress, there is an enormous push for all scientists to make raw data publicly available for others to analyse and use. As a prerequisite for publication or receiving grants, it is becoming increasingly common for journals and funding bodies to insist that data is shared openly. Continue reading

Scientific communities: Build your own

Learned societies and online platforms can be great ways to develop a mutually beneficial network, say panellists at the 2015 Naturejobs Career Expo in London.

Guest contributor Paul Brack

Jon-Tennant-NJCE15-communities-naturejobs-blog

Jon Tennant and the merits of online scientific communities {credit}Image credit: Julie Gould{/credit}

“Networking isn’t just me trying to get something from you,” said Julie Gould, editor of Naturejobs, as she opened the session on Building Scientific Communities at the 2015 London Naturejobs Careers Expo. “Networking is about building a relationship with another person that will benefit both of you.” The two invited speakers in this session, Sarah Blackford, head of Education & Public Affairs at the Society for Experimental Biology, and Jon Tennant, an Imperial College London PhD student, discussed some methods that early career scientists can use to start these types of relationships.

Learned societies

Learned societies, such as the Royal Society of Chemistry or the Biochemical Society, are, according to Blackford, “clubs for people with a similar interest in an academic discipline.” Early-career scientists often underestimate how useful learned societies can be in helping them advance their careers. Blackford pointed out that learned societies have quite a lot of money, and, as they’re not-for-profit, “they give that money back into the scientific community.” Learned societies do this partly by organising and subsidising events, such as conferences on topics that interest their members and giving travel grants to early-career scientists to enable them to attend external meetings. Continue reading

Sharing data: Why it should be done

As data continues to be produced at staggering rates, scientists need to become more aware of the benefits of data sharing, says Eleni Liapi.

Guest contributor Eleni Liapi

CD-stack-naturejobs-blog

{credit}PhotoDisc/Getty Images{/credit}

The scientific community is currently experiencing an explosion in data generation. At CERN (the European Council for Nuclear Research), the rate of data production is 1 petabyte (=1015 bytes) per day inside the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is comparable to 210,000 DVDs.  At the European Bioinformatics Institute, 20 petabytes of biological data had been stored between 2004- 2012.  In the US alone, the volume of data produced by the healthcare industry in 2011 was estimated at 150 exabytes (=1018 bytes). Undoubtedly, this volume of information brings with it several problems, including data storage and sharing.

Access to data is a topic that initiates numerous discussions and opinions between scientists and other communities for a plethora of reasons, including concerns about inappropriate use, institutional or industrial restrictive policies where the gigabytes of obtained genomic data are to be utilised for pharmaceutical research, for example. To date, there have already been attempts to estimate the extent of the problem. In one survey, 67% of the participants expressed the view that inaccessible data hinder scientific progress. Continue reading

Career paths: Out of the Ivory Tower

Taking small steps to build up your transferable skills and contacts can be the key to moving away from academia and towards your dream job.

Guest contributor Lauren Emily Wright

Phill-Jones-NJCE15-Keynote-naturejobs-blog

{credit}Image credit: Lauren Emily Wright{/credit}

Ever thought “I want to leave academia, but all I know is lab work”? Well despair no more — the path out isn’t as treacherous as it may seem. In a great keynote speech at the Naturejobs Career Expo 2015 on 18 September 2015, Phill Jones told the story of how he left academia to become the head of publisher outreach at Digital Science, a company that provides a multitude of services to scientists, institutions, publishers, and funding bodies.

Jones gave the audience the sense that calculated planning and sheer luck had both played their part in his career. With a PhD in physics, he was firmly grounded in the world of academia. But after following his wife to Boston, Jones realised that a postdoc in physics would be hard to come by in such a biology-centred city. “I had to be a little more flexible in my career,” he said.

As Jones notes, it is necessary to have an open mind when thinking of changing career paths. “You can’t think ‘all I know is how to pipette’.” Instead, think about what sort of transferrable skills you can offer an employer. For example, Jones finished his PhD with an in-depth knowledge of optics — perfect for a position in a biology lab that used optical imaging to investigate strokes.

But how can you identify which transferrable skills you already have, and which you need to gain for that ideal new career? How can you make contacts outside academia? Continue reading

Data sharing: Making it happen

Sharing of ideas and data could remove the barriers to scientific discovery.

Guest contributor Lorraine Clark

I’m currently working as a postdoctoral research associate in the field of chemical biology at Scripps Florida and over my past eight years in academia, I have come to some conclusions based on personal experiences and conversations with colleagues: Teamwork and collaboration are considered the most valuable qualities in the chemical and pharmaceutical industry. However, in an academic setting, people often still commonly believe the only way to advance their careers is by independently achieving as many accomplishments as possible. This point of view is perpetuated by the tendency of some investigators to pit their students and postdoctoral researchers against each other. This may involve, for example, having two people work on the same project and only giving recognition to the person who completes it first. This process can breed a hostile, overtly competitive atmosphere leading to mistrust and an unwillingness to share data, particularly if the data represent negative results, because of the negative connotations it has. Rather than quickly leading to scientific achievements, this practice might actually decelerate the speed of discovery.

Much more progress could be made if academic researchers were willing to collaborate more by sharing not only their ideas but also their data, especially considering the time and resources often spent on dead end avenues of a research project. Continue reading

Nature Masterclasses: Writing for highly-selective journals

Publishing in a highly-selective, high-impact journal can make a researcher’s career. So what turns great science into a great manuscript?

Guest contributor Zoe Self

Nature-masterclasses-NJCE15-workshop-naturejobs-blog

Dr Peter Gorsuch presenting the Nature Masterclasses workshop at the 2015 London Naturejobs Career Expo{credit}Image credit: Nature{/credit}

A room packed full of PhD candidates and post-docs were given a taster of Nature Masterclasses at #NJCE15 London. The session was run by Peter Gorsuch of MSC Scientific Editing, who runs a pre-submission service that offers researchers Nature-standard editing on their manuscripts. Peter was previously an associate editor for the physical sciences team at Nature, so is a fountain of knowledge on scientific writing and publishing. Also offering wisdom via video were Nature manuscript editors Sadaf Shadan (Senior Editor, Biology) and Leonie Mueck (Associate Editor, Physical Sciences).

The science: what do editors at high-impact journals look for?

For a paper to get accepted, it should contain “novel conclusions that significantly advance our understanding of the field,” says Peter. The experts told the audience that a good paper might: Continue reading