the Node » Careers

Has the academic spring sprung?

Thomas Butts — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:44:46 +0000

Two weeks ago the Guardian newspaper, the safe port of call for most left-leaning liberal academics in the UK, devoted its entire front page to the rise of open access publishing in what it called ‘The Academic Spring’. For those of us working at the coalface, whilst this exposure was and is entirely welcome, it feels a little premature. Can we really compare the open access movement to the Arab Spring? And what would constitute an ‘academic’ Spring anyway? Much of the article’s emphasis was on the move by the Welcome Trust to jump on the ‘academic spring’ bandwagon ostensibly begun by the Field Medal-winning Tim Gowers, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge.

Gowers delivered a blog post on 21^st January protesting at the exorbitant practices of the Dutch publisher Elsevier, not least of which is the exceedingly high subscription rates they charge universities. In essence, the argument runs that the situation, whereby public money funds scientific research by academics that is submitted to learned journals for free, peer-reviewed by academics for those same journals for free, and then that same research is sold back to academics in the form of huge subscription charges paid ultimately by public money, is not just unsustainable but immoral. It is an argument that has received much support both within and outside the scientific community and has been at least partially responsible for Wellcome’s announcement that all research funded by them must be freely available six months after publication. The thinking goes that this will encourage academics to publish their work in open access journals and platforms, and it just so happens that Wellcome’s own new open access journal eLife, is about to start accepting submissions.

Please don’t misunderstand me; there is much to be said for open access publishing and for large funding bodies throwing their weight behind it. Likewise, the movement to reform the business models of huge publishing companies such as Elsevier that Prof. Gowers has spawned (almost 10 000 academics have signed up to www.thecostofknowledge.com, the advocacy site taking on Elsevier) is without question in the long-term interests of science and the academic enterprise.

The Arab Spring though, was (and hopefully is) a movement that has ousted (and hopefully will oust) repressive military dictatorships across the Middle East. To couch the debate over publication business models in the scientific world in the language of this outpouring of popular will seems to me a bit misplaced. Such as it is, the academic spring is not a movement directed at individual governments, but at international business practices – in that sense it shares more in common with the Occupy movement than the Arab Spring. It is not an undirected and unpredictable public protest movement, but a quiet and deliberate articulation of objection to a single company, in adherence to a well thought through and principled position. It is then, certainly academic. I’m just not sure it has sprung yet.

All the emphasis on the type of publishing market that would best serve science has in my view distracted from the fact that there is a much more fundamental issue that undermines the scientific enterprise in the 21^st century: the existence (or rather the perception of the existence) of a market in ideas. The idea that the fruits of research are quantifiable pervades current thinking. They are not. In a sense this perception parallels (at least in the UK) the move by successive governments to treat education more generally as a market, where consumers (families) ought to have choice between products (schools and universities). In terms of science, governments, funding bodies and universities, in that order, are responsible for this. The notion that it is possible to define in a short period of time the ‘outcome’ of scientific research is one that has pervaded recent thinking in the distribution of scientific money in particular in the UK but also, I think, everywhere else. Indeed, the idea that measuring such outcomes or their impact (I hate that word!) is an excellent way to judge the quality of an educational institution is almost unquestioningly accepted, it seems, by those in power. I would argue that measuring the outcome of research is not only inappropriate: it is impossible.

And this is where we come back to the business model of scientific publication. Basing the funding of the scientific enterprise, and the people that accomplish it, on publication outcomes is as short-sighted as it is prevalent. The rise of open access publishing may help, but the real problem is that there is no alterative to judging people by the cachet of their publications. In a world where the amount of scientific literature continues to spiral upwards, and where financial pressures mount on governments, in terms of both allocating their science budgets, and assessing how to do so, the appeal of using statistics and metrics to short-cut good judgement is perhaps inevitable. Likewise, the insistence of funding bodies on concrete direct consequences of the research they fund that are demonstrable to their political paymasters are understandable. Finally, the duty of universities to play the game and jump through whatever hoops are necessary in order to maximise their income from both government and competitive research grants is self-evident. The problem with all of these things is that they, and the system they constitute, rest upon a fundamental philosophical flaw: that it is possible to rank scientific research. There is no such thing as a market of ideas unless you give them a monetary value and sell them to somebody. But there is no alternative that has been articulated by anyone, even despite the growing recognition of the inherent problems in the scientific structure. The real academic spring has not yet sprung.

Naturally Obsessed: The Making of a Scientist

Nishal Patel — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:03:53 +0000

I recently saw a documentary about graduate students called Naturally Obsessed: The Making of a Scientist (available to watch here). It’s hour long movie follows several PhD students from Lawrence Shapiro’s lab in Columbia, NY, for 3 years as they attempt to crystallise and work out the structure of AMPK, a cellular master regulator involved in several metabolic pathways such as glucose regulation and lipogenesis.

The three PhD students the film focuses on are Rob (below right with Lawrence), Kilpatrick (Kil) and Gabrielle. Rob is given the most screen time. He is a two-time university drop-out and navy veteran on his last chance to get a PhD after being kicked out of another lab for being disruptive. Kil is desperate to finish before he turns 30 and is also under pressure to get a job from his fiancée. Gabrielle is a former technician who’s story isn’t dwelt upon as much as the others and she is seen to be struggling with being an independent researcher.

Lawrence Shapiro comes out as a great mentor, a zen-like father figure ready to offer advice to his students. He sees a PhD as more of an apprenticeship rather than a job (he makes a really nice comparison between scientists and violinists around 12 minutes in).

I always thought a reality show about life in the lab would be a great way to show the public how the world of science works rather than the shiny lab coats and 20 second PCR reactions shown on TV. I’m glad Richard and Carole Rifkind took the initiative to make this. The film is great in that it not only highlights the curiosity that motivates scientists, it also deals with the ups of experiments that worked and the downs of those that failed as well as the ever present threat of being scooped. It’s also really well made, quite funny and easy for the general public to understand, so next time someone asks you what working in a lab is like, show them this movie!

On a more light-hearted note, here are a couple of viral video came out recently that many Node readers might identify with as well – “Sh!t Graduate Students Say” and “Sh!t Scientists Say” - enjoy!

A Career in Science Management

Natascha Bushati — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:42:01 +0000

Last June, Eva summarised the Node’s alternative careers stories, personal accounts of how scientists made their transitions from research into various alternative career paths. As a friend of Andrea Hutterer, who is now the Fellowships Manager at EMBO, I witnessed her exciting leap from the bench into science management back in 2010, and now asked her to tell her story. I’m sure her experiences will interest the Node’s readers and complement the alternative careers stories already available on the site. Enjoy the interview!

Briefly tell us about your scientific career.

I studied biochemistry in Vienna and then did both my diploma thesis and my PhD in Jürgen Knoblich’s lab at IMP and IMBA in Vienna. The focus of my thesis was asymmetric cell division in the nervous system of Drosophila. After that I joined Masanori Mishima’s group at the Gurdon Institute in Cambridge, UK, for a postdoc. In his lab, I studied the process of cytokinesis.

Why did you quit research?

I was simply not sufficiently fascinated by one particular biological problem. My CV was good in scientific terms, so I think I could have gone ahead and started to apply for PI positions. But without being passionate about a question I think it’s hard to be successful, and being quite ambitious I decided it’s not the right career path for me.

What got you interested in research funding and policy? Did you consider other career paths?

Once I had decided to look into alternative careers, I needed to find out which career paths were open to me. I looked into loads of things - management consulting, scientific editing, medical writing, conference organising and science communication. In the end it was clear that science management was the best choice for me, as I would still have direct contact to scientists and thereby get a broad overview of scientific progress and emerging fields. On top of that, one can make a difference in terms of policy, for example by dealing with researchers’ employment conditions or gender issues.

Did you take any additional courses to polish your CV?

At the Gurdon Institute I was lucky enough to be able to take advantage of the fantastic careers service Cambridge University offers. In the beginning, I almost randomly took courses such as microeconomics, web-authoring and programming languages. This helped in a way that I found out quickly that pure economics were not entirely my thing and Perl was not my language. Other courses were more useful, for example when I learned the basics of using HTML to build websites or how to best write a CV for non-scientific jobs.

With regard to “polishing” my CV, it wasn’t so much the courses I listed but more how I organised the CV. I tried to emphasise my soft skills and highlighted extracurricular activities such as supervising younger students and organising retreats and symposia.

How easy was it to get your first job in funding?

It wasn’t easy at all, not even to get interviews. My scientific CV was good, but I had virtually no other relevant experience. Many employers appreciate even the smallest amount of experience more than a fantastic scientific CV, so what you really need when coming out of a PhD or postdoc is to get a foot in the door.

The first interview I got was with Cancer Research UK, but they didn’t offer me the job. I then got offered a job as Science Manager with the Medical Research Council (MRC) in Swindon, UK. I was quite over-qualified for this job since it didn’t even require a PhD, plus it came with a significant pay cut, but I was glad to have been offered it and accepted. In hindsight, it was the perfect stepping stone.

As preparation for the interviews, the Cambridge Careers Service again proved extremely helpful, because they offered mock interviews with the career advisor. It helped immensely to practise - I found out what I might be asked in an interview and I learned to explore different possibilities for answering these questions. I simply got an idea of what to expect during the process.

What does your work consist of?

On an everyday basis, I do some general administration, the details of which depend on the various fellowship application deadlines: I read proposals, find referees, talk to fellows, talk to my team [Andrea has three administrative staff to manage] and attend in-house management meetings. Every now and then I travel to career events to give talks about the programme, or attend workshops somewhere in Europe, which cover different aspects that come with the programme, such as a recent workshop on tracking research careers.

I also write grant proposals to try to get more money for the programme, and organise and attend the EMBO Fellows’ meetings in Heidelberg and the US. So it’s a very diverse job and I’m never even remotely bored!

Is there anything you miss about working in research?

At the MRC, although my colleagues were great I sometimes missed the international environment, which I do have here at EMBO. Sometimes I also miss standing at the bench, running around in the lab, being physically active. But I’m aware that that would have stopped sooner or later even if I had stayed in research and had become a PI.

What advice do you have for PhD students and postdocs wanting to leave academic research?

Find out why exactly you want to leave and what you would rather do. Even if you’re unclear whether research might be the right thing for you or not, start thinking about alternatives and get involved in non-scientific activities early on. There’s actually quite a lot one can do with our education. You just need to be clear about your goals, have a good non-scientific CV ready and work towards the new career profile. It might take a while until you get the job you have in mind, and you possibly need to be prepared to take pay cuts and will maybe feel slightly under-challenged in your first non-research job, but at least for me it was all worth it.

PhD student position at the British Heart Foundation Regenerative Medicine Laboratory

FSimoes — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:18:25 +0000

EU Initial Training Network searches for 1 PhD Student

CardioNeT – Our Initial Training Network in Cardiovascular Research offers 1 PhD student position at the British Heart Foundation Regenerative Medicine Laboratory, Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, UK.

Funded by EU’s FP7, CardioNeT comprises twelve partners from both the academic and industrial sectors and aims to implement a highly multidisciplinary, intersectoral and competitive training programme in cardiovascular research through cutting-edge projects and extensive training in complementary areas.

We are looking for:

Enthusiastic researchers with a Masters Degree in biomedical sciences and interest in cardiovascular research

Previous lab experience will be valued

Good spoken and written command of English

The PhD may incorporate, although will not be restricted to, one of the following research projects:

Epicardial signalling during myocardial regeneration in zebrafish

Identifying the source of new vasculature during zebrafish coronary vessel repair

The role of inflammation and fibrosis in the regenerating zebrafish heart

Small molecule induction of human adult epicardium-derived progenitor cells in cardiac repair

We offer:

3-year contract to undertake a PhD in cardiovascular biology

A highly multidisciplinary, intersectoral and competitive training programme in cardiovascular research

Integration in a European network of scientific excellence, with short stays in partner labs

Access to state-of-the-art infrastructures

Very competitive salary (€45,714 per annum)

Extensive complementary training

Eligibility:
Researchers must be in the first four years (full-time equivalent) of their research careers and have not yet been awarded a doctoral degree at the time of recruitment. In addition, researchers must not have resided or carried out their main activity (work, studies, etc) in the UK for more than 12 months in the 3 years immediately prior to 14 February 2012. There is no restriction on the nationality of the researcher to be hired.

Interviews will take place in Oxford between Wednesday 22nd and Friday 24th February 2012. The studentship will start on Monday 1st October 2012.

Those interested please send CV, a cover letter justifying the interest of the applicant in the project, and the names of two referees to sally.harte@dpag.ox.ac.uk

General enquiries should be addressed to paul.riley@dpag.ox.ac.uk

Application deadline: 12 noon on Tuesday 14th February 2012

PhD Programme in Human Biology, University of Tsukuba, Japan

tkunath — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:16:51 +0000

The University of Tsukuba, Japan is offering fully-funded PhD studentships to do research in Japan. They have close ties with many international universities, including the University of Edinburgh. Joint projects between Edinburgh and Tsukuba will be available. The University of Tsukuba, located 1 hour from Tokyo, is one of the top universities in Japan, and does outstanding biological research. All courses and research will be in English.

Please visit this site for further details and for application forms: http://hbp.tsukuba.ac.jp/en/

The deadline is 4th January, 2012, and interviews will be held in Edinburgh on 22nd and 23rd January.

Send informal enquires to both Tilo Kunath (tilo.kunath@ed.ac.uk) and Prof Satoru Takahashi (satoruta@md.tsukuba.ac.jp)

Parenting in Science

Eva Amsen — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:56:28 +0000

After the interview with Ottoline Leyser was posted last week, a discussion on Twitter focussed on the last part of the interview, about parenting.

That interview question referred to a little booklet Leyser published a few years ago, after winning the Royal Society Rosalind Franklin Award in 2007. The book, called “Mothers in Science: 64 ways to have it all” features interviews with mothers who have managed to maintain a career in science while raising children. (Here is a link to the PDF on the Royal Society website.) In the booklet, all featured scientists have a page with a timeline showing the important events in their career and family life. They’re all unique stories, because every situation is different.

When I wanted to address the ensuing Twitter discussion (which you can read in the Storify embedded below) I thought I could add a poll to ask how other people have managed to combine their career with children, or perhaps to ask how others have failed to do so. But I quickly realised that there is no question I could possibly ask for which the answer can be reduced to a set of multiple choice answers. The possible answers would need to include all combinations of which family members are scientists, what the other partner’s job is, the age difference between parents (e.g. one is a postdoc, one a PI), working hours, who took the main child-rearing responsibilities or whether there is a balance, gender, which country you’re in, competition in the field of research, how close together the kids are, and much, much more.

Even a quick show of hands, just to ask who has children or not, would be meaningless if it didn’t account for gender, age, career stage, country, family situation, and desire to even have children in the first place.

So there is no poll. There is no poll because clearly there isn’t one clear-cut problem, and because there is not just one type of family unit.

What Ottoline Leyser’s book did is showcase a group of women who all managed to combine a family with a career in their own way. It’s an example to show that it can be done, but it’s not a collection of recipes for success. Each case really is different, and this Twitter discussion between @fishscientist and @David_S_Bristol tells a different story. (Text continues after the embedded file.)

So are there solutions? One promising step was made last week in the UK, when the Research Excellence Framework (REF) announced that “UK funding bodies have taken an early decision on the arrangements for taking account of maternity leave in the REF. … researchers may reduce the number of outputs in a submission by one, for each period of maternity leave taken during the REF period.”

That doesn’t help most of you, but it positively affects the career progress of a few mothers, and at least changes their stories.

If you have your own story to add, please leave a comment, as a poll was just too complicated….

Phd Places fully funded Syracuse University Biology Department

Kate Lewis — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 01:00:20 +0000

Fully Funded PhD Places available in Developmental Biology and Neuroscience

Syracuse University, New York, USA.

Interneuron specification in the zebrafish spinal cord.

The Lewis Lab recently moved to Syracuse University from Cambridge University in the UK. We use Genetics, Cell Biology and Developmental Biology to investigate how the correct number and pattern of different neurons forms in the vertebrate spinal cord, and how these neurons acquire their specific characteristics and functions.

PhD Projects are available to investigate the roles of specific regulatory genes (Transcription Factors) in determining different neuronal characteristics (such as neurotransmitter phenotypes and axon morphology) in the zebrafish spinal cord.
We primarily use zebrafish embryos as a model system, as the embryos develop outside the mother and are transparent and their relatively simple nervous system facilitates studies of neural circuitry and function. We use GFP lines (see picture) to study neurons in live and fixed embryos. As most of the genes involved in spinal cord development are conserved between vertebrates, the insights that we gain should be widely applicable, including to humans.
See http://biology.syr.edu/faculty/lewis/lewis_research.htm for more details
Application Deadline:
Deadline for August 2012 admission is January 2012.
Applications will be considered in the order that they are received – so if you are interested please apply soon! We will start assessing applications in December 2011.
Notes on Funding and PhD Program
Funding will be a mixture of teaching and research assistantships and is guaranteed for 5 years.
Students usually rotate in 3 different labs and then choose a lab for the PhD.

Information on other labs in the department can be found here: http://biology.syr.edu/directories/fac_dir.htm
For more details on the graduate program see http://biology.syr.edu/grad/graduate.htm
Syracuse has its own airport (15 minute drive from downtown) and is close to Toronto, New York City, Philadelphia, Montreal as well as the natural beauty of Upstate New York (Niagara Falls, The Finger Lakes, Adirondack lakes and mountains).
Syracuse University shares a campus with SUNY Upstate Medical University that has active research programs which include Cell Biology, Developmental Biology and Neuroscience http://www.upstate.edu/research/research_dept.php and the Lewis Lab is also part of their graduate program in Neuroscience (for which there is a separate application).

The profession that isn’t

Thomas Butts — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:47:26 +0000

This post was my contribution to Science is Vital’s latest campaign on science careers. If you haven’t done so yet, I warmly encourage to get involved with the movement.

THE PROFESSION THAT ISN’T

As I enter the last 6 months of my first postdoc, I am confronted by a number of issues with having chosen (and continuing to choose) science as a career that I suspect apply quite broadly:

1. The UK has cut science funding in real terms significantly, and will likely continue to do so. Obviously, I think this is misguided, and the economic arguments in a knowledge economy in 21st century Western Europe are well worn, so I will not re-state them. It is, though, worth contemplating that not every country is adopting this approach, and I fear that our medium and long term competitiveness as an economy, not to mention as a health service, will struggle in comparisons with countries such as Germany that are taking the opposite approach to their science budget.

2. I am an average, middle class, married, soon-to-be 30-year-old, and have a close-knit family. My regular 12-hour days and weekend working are not very sustainable.

The arguments surrounding about point 1 are well worn, as I say, but point 2 needs significant re-statement in the corridors of power. Elaborating on my, I suspect typical, situation I hope will be informative.

I am fairly normal. In my more self-confident/self-indulgent moments I think I might actually be quite bright, with much to contribute to science, though I should point out that I am more often of the opposite opinion. But then, it isn’t like I spend my professional life on the lookout for incorrect conclusions not based on reasonable evidence or anything.

Seriously though, whether or not I as an individual am any good, I do not bear comparison as a scientist with people in other professions at my stage of career. The contrast with my wife is stark. She is a civil servant working for her majesty’s government in London. She is better paid than me, has a permanent contract, and is encouraged to pursue a balance in her life between work and leisure/family. I also like to remind her that she is less well educated than me, but I will humbly ignore that for now. In contrast, I know academics (and quite a few of them) who are of the opinion that a good work-life balance involves having a weekend off. Sometimes.

For those of us not in a position to drop everything and move to Boston for 5 years, it seems that science and life are not compatible, and are becoming even less so. At best it is like we have all the negatives of the private and public sectors with none of the benefits of either. At worst it is as if we are participating in a career structure that is fundamentally undermining of one of the UK’s truly outstanding endeavours. It is an issue that needs addressing.

An Informative Career Day at The EMBO Meeting in Vienna

Natascha Bushati — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 22:10:23 +0000

What shall I do, and once decided, how can I get my dream job after completing my PhD or postdoc, especially if I don’t want to become a group leader? Questions many of us ask ourselves sooner or later, and there are more options than the pessimistic among us might be able to imagine. These issues were addressed at today’s EMBO Career Day, taking place before the start of The EMBO Meeting, from which I’ll be blogging during the next few days.

There was a choice of four different workshops, of which one could pick two. The first I attended covered the process of applying for a job - “Cover letters, CV writing & interview skills”. Barbara Janssens, PhD career advisor at the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) in Heidelberg, Germany, started her workshop by telling us how she ended up in her current job. After having produced “no papers but two kids” during her postdoc, she decided that she would rather have a career outside of academic research. Barbara talked to many people about their experiences, and finally came across someone who suggested her to try at Wiley, where she started as a trainee and even ended up setting up a new journal! From there she went into teaching scientific writing, before finally becoming the PhD Career manager at the DKFZ.

Barbara and EMBO’s Gerlind Wallon both did a great job in giving useful advice, such as to always have an up-to-date CV (you never know when someone might ask for it), to network in an intelligent manner (know who has the power to hire you - it won’t be HR!), and stand out from the crowd by being involved in relevant extracurricular activities (as everyone applying for the job will have a PhD - that’s not enough).

Several of the participants had sent in their applications for a mock job advertisement we had received a while before the workshop took place. We evaluated these (anonymised) cover letters and CVs, and one brave volunteer even did a practice interview in front of the whole group. These exercises resulted in two precious “Dos and Don’ts” lists; the strongest advice I extracted from this was to always be aware of what’s relevant and what isn’t when presenting yourself.

After this excellent workshop I attended the Expanding Career Options lunch, where in an informal setting, I learned about careers in science policy, intellectual property and non-governmental organisations.

Finally, EMBO reports’ Sam Caddick guided us in explaining research in simple terms in the very interactive “Make Science Make Sense” workshop. Avoiding jargon and deciding on a single, simple message to describe your work turned out to be a lot harder than one might imagine, and it had the beneficial side effect of making me think more carefully about the relevance of my research. All in all, the EMBO Career Day gave me a lot of information and I can definitely recommend attending it next year in Nice!

Leaving the lab: career development for developmental biologists

Eva Amsen — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:54:15 +0000

Over the past months, we’ve heard from several people who left research for a career away from the bench. Now, a summary of all these posts appears in Development, followed by some tips for graduate students, postdocs, and their supervisors. Below is the full text of the article, but it’s also free on Development, and you can get it as a PDF from there.

Leaving the lab: career development for developmental biologists

Let’s face it: not all PhD students and postdocs will become lab heads. Every few years, the National Science Foundation surveys doctorate recipients in the USA about their career progression, and their latest published data (collected in 2006) show that only about one quarter of biomedical science PhDs held tenured or tenure-track positions (see the links at the bottom of this post). If graduate and postdoctoral training are merely apprenticeships for tenure-track jobs, these numbers suggest that there are too many people being trained for the number of research jobs that are available. But if trainee positions are more than a stepping stone to running a research lab, what value does a PhD in the life sciences have outside of the lab, and what types of job do the remaining three quarters of PhD graduates go on to have?

In July 2010, I asked the following questions on the Node: `Should there be fewer postdoc and PhD positions? Or different kinds of [research] trainee positions, where some include training for scientific careers outside of the lab?’

The ensuing discussion suggested that the PhD degree and the postdoc system are not in need of reform, but that attitudes towards these positions should change. Greg Dressler, a professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in a comment on the Node post, `I do think we need to get over the idea that nothing short of an academic career fulfills the ideal goal of our students and post-docs. Most of the folks I went to graduate school with are not in academia anymore, yet they have meaningful and successful careers.’ In the same discussion, James Briscoe, a group leader at the MRC National Institute for Medical Research suggested that we need `the acknowledgment and encouragement of a diversity of career routes and development paths’.

These are good suggestions. There are a number of jobs outside of research or academia that are suitable for PhD graduates. A research job in industry, for example, connects seamlessly to research experience gained during PhD and postdoctoral training. But not every PhD graduate wants to continue in a research career, academic or otherwise. What kind of non-research jobs are available and how do PhD graduates get these jobs? And how is scientific training useful to people in a non-research career? To answer these questions, I invited a number of people to write a post on the Node to explain how they moved away from a career in research after their PhD. These posts can be found on the Node, but it’s worth discussing here the trends they raise collectively, and distilling some of the advice from those people who have left the life of the lab bench behind them.

Why do some people search for a career outside of academic research? Although the competitive nature of tenure-track jobs can be a discouraging factor, many people who shared their stories on the Node did not think that carrying out their own research was the best way to express their broad interest in science. For Vivian Siegel, this realization came at the end of her postdoctoral training, when she was reluctant to accept a faculty position. Vivian visited a career counsellor, who asked her what she would do if money and people’s opinions were not an issue. `What surprised me was that I knew the answer to that question: I’d be a student for the rest of my life.’ In search of a career to fulfil that wish, Vivian found an editorial position at Cell, and spent the next 12 years in publishing. She became chief editor for Cell and Molecular Cell, launched Developmental Cell and joined PLoS as its founding Executive Director, before eventually making her way back to academia as Director of the Center for Science Communication at Vanderbilt University. She still spends most of her time as an editor, and is Editor in Chief of Disease Models & Mechanisms. `Being an editor is really very much like being a student,’ Vivian wrote on the Node, `you encounter lots of interesting and new science every day in a broad range of fields.’

Sarah Gibb also found a way to stay in touch with science without doing research. `I liked finding out how things worked, not the politics that goes with establishing a career in academia.’ While completing a PhD and postdoc at the University of Dundee, Sarah put a lot of effort into developing her skills outside of the lab. `I started organising scientific meetings [and] did plenty of generic skills courses in time management, communication skills, presentation skills, the list goes on and on.’ She also did freelance writing, public engagement work and a science policy internship – all during and right after her PhD. Her effort paid off, and Sarah now works as Science and Interpretation Officer at the Glasgow Science Centre. In this job, she develops exhibitions for the science centre, and talks to researchers to find ways to interpret their work for the public. Although the position didn’t explicitly require a PhD degree, Sarah might not have had her job without it. `A big part of their decision to offer me the position was based on the fact that I had done a PhD. I had experience of doing research and lots of reading…They also felt I had the confidence and experience to go and speak to top academics in all manner of fields.’

Other employers may prefer PhD graduates, too: Michael Belliveau completed his degree for the sole purpose of continuing in a law career. `From discussions with patent attorneys, I learned that completion of a PhD was nearly an essential requirement, so I delayed law school and instead pursued my doctorate degree.’ After his PhD, Michael found a job as Technology Specialist at patent law firm Clark & Elbing. In this position, he used his scientific training to evaluate patents, while the law firm assisted with his education towards a law degree. Michael is now a partner in the firm: `Now, I rely more upon knowledge of the law than my knowledge of science, although the latter certainly remains important. The one aspect of my scientific training that has continuously served me well is the ability to critically analyze a collection of facts. The ability to do so is critical to the success of scientists and patent attorneys alike.’

As Michael Belliveau’s story shows, some career changes require additional degrees. Michael Szego became interested in clinical ethics after attending a career seminar during his PhD degree in molecular genetics, but knew he needed to undertake further education to be able to find a job as an ethicist. `To address my knowledge gap, I enrolled in a Bioethics Masters program at the University of Toronto. I was fortunate enough to get a scholarship and worked hard over the 2 year degree to immerse myself into the field of bioethics.’ He is now a fellow in clinical and organization ethics at the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, where he is learning ethics `on the job’ through rotations at ethics programs of healthcare institutions.

Michael Szego started out his graduate career with the intention of becoming a research scientist. `While I enjoyed the scientific process, I had a nagging feeling that a scientific career was not the perfect fit for me. Accordingly, I tried to keep an open mind and got involved in extracurricular activities.’ For Michael, one of his extracurricular activities – a visit to a career seminar – introduced him to his current career in ethics. For others, the extracurricular work may one day turn into a career of its own. This was the case for Sobia Hamid, who left research after her PhD in genetics, and founded a company based on a tool to visualize the monetary impact of charitable donations. Although it’s not at all related to her graduate research, Sobia’s career has relied on skills she gained and opportunities she took during her PhD. Like Michael Szego and Sarah Gibb, Sobia explored extracurricular activities and joined the Cambridge University Entrepreneurs Society (CUE). `At CUE, I learnt about what was required to develop successful businesses, and met fellow students interested in entrepreneurship. I also worked for a while for a biotech, identifying collaborative opportunities with research labs around the world.’

Even if you have your heart set on a research career, it might be a good idea to take on some additional activities away from the bench. You never know how the experience might one day turn out to have been more than just a hobby – just ask Nicole Husain. Nicole joined a science outreach organisation during her PhD and enjoyed doing school visits and trying to explain her research in Drosophila eye development to five-year-olds. `It never occurred to me that there might be a way to combine my interest in communicating science with my academic background – mostly because I never looked beyond the path of becoming a PI.’ Near the end of her degree, Nicole lost her motivation for research, but thanks to her experience in outreach she found a job at Spongelab Interactive – a company that develops educational online games about science. `They were looking for a graduate student to help write grants and contribute to their games about biology. It sounded too perfect and strange to be true. It was the first CV I ever sent out that included my scholarships and publications as well as my video gaming experience.’ Nicole’s job is a perfect combination of her hobbies, outreach experience and scientific education. `A PhD in developmental and cell biology really is essential in understanding the science I’m trying to communicate and the research, analytical and problem-solving skills from grad school are essential [for] working in an industry where you’re leading the way with new research and technology innovations.’

Like Nicole, science journalist Claire Ainsworth also originally intended to pursue a research career. During her PhD, in which she studied fate determination of cells in the fly renal system, she took a science communication course run by the Wellcome Trust for students on their Prize Fellowships. `One of the course tutors, Peter Evans, a science radio journalist for BBC Radio 4, encouraged me to try my hand at student radio. Before long, I was a writer and presenter for The Frontier, a science magazine show on Oxygen 107.9FM, the UK’s first student station with a full FM radio licence.’ This turned out to be a career-defining event. `I have no idea how many listeners The Frontier team had, but producing a live half-hour show every week, whilst also studying for our degrees, was both hugely stressful and immensely fun. It planted the idea that this might be something I could do in future.’ Claire landed an internship at New Scientist, and has worked as editor and reporter both there and at Nature before starting a freelance writing career and running her own science communication skills company, SciConnect. `There are days of doubt, of course. Every now and then I fish a sozzled fruit fly out of my Rioja, dry its bright wings and feel a pang of nostalgia for the lab…At times like these I remind myself that science is not just about making discoveries, but also holding science to account and making sure those discoveries reach beyond the lab.’

Advice for graduate students and postdocs

If you are a PhD student or postdoc who is considering a non-research career, have a look at the posts on the Node for advice and inspiration. You’ll notice some trends in the tips they offer.

* Keep an open mind – you may start your PhD with the intention of becoming an academic scientist, but that may change.
* Do more than just research and explore extracurricular activities, such as journal clubs, student clubs and student government, outreach organisations, career seminars, skills courses, writing contests, or teaching.
* Talk to as many people as possible about your career plans, people who have the kind of jobs you might be interested in, career counsellors and also your supervisor.
* Once you know where your interests lie, focus on expanding your skill set – either through practice, courses, available internships or an additional degree if necessary.

A final note to supervisors

If you are mentoring graduate students and postdocs, keep in mind that not all of them will end up with a career like yours. As an academic researcher, you are in the minority – most of your trainees will follow another path. You may not want them to move on from the research they are doing now, but if they let you know they have other career plans, please support their decision. They might become editors or patent attorneys, hone their talents in writing or business, or inspire young people through science outreach and education, but the time they spend in your lab is vital to their future.

Links to relevant information

NSF Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT), containing data of their Survey of Doctorate Recipients

FASEB’s analysis of NSF’s Survey of Doctorate Recipients