They appear to be corporate neophytes looking for their very first jobs—and many are. Fresh out of school they may be, but they're hardly entry-level applicants. They are, in fact, highly trained university scientists, mainly postdoctoral fellows, who are here to trade academic aspirations for biotech careers.

Thousands of life scientists have flocked to the annual biotechnology job fair since its launch by the journal Science in 1997. The rising turnout—this year's fair drew a record 700 scientists—illustrates a significant shift in the field. Not long ago, many academics shuddered at the thought of "selling out" to industry and looked down on peers or proteges who made the move. But with the recent boom in biotechnology and genomics, the private sector is becoming an attractive alternative—intellectually as well as financially—for many young scientists, even those with stellar academic credentials. It's a change with important implications not only for the scientists themselves but also for the broader research community, affecting the relationship between academia and private industry and overturning assumptions about how biomedical science advances in the United States, where and by whom.

Some of the job seekers at the Cambridge job fair don't want their mentors to know about their interest in biotech; others say they've come with their mentors' blessings. Either way, when the doors finally open, they hand over their curricula vitae—the price of admission—to a woman at the entrance, who collects about 400 in the first hour. Past fairs drew that many attendees in an entire day. The room is packed with booths representing 30 biotech heavyweights—Genzyme, Genaissance and Genentech; Merck, Millennium and Millipore, for example. People form new lines inside, this time for a chance to make an impression during a 10-minute interview.

Lisa Flanagan, an NIH postdoctoral fellow at Harvard Medical School, strides into this bazaar with an open mind and a simple mission: to gather data while making contact with a select handful of recruiters. While other attendees say they've decided to work in biotech, Flanagan is still unsure. She has talked to friends who left academia for the private sector. Her impression? Industry offers more of a team approach and more resources, two aspects she likes. "At a company, if you want to explore a new technique instead of having to set it up in your own lab from ground zero," she says, "you can go down the hall to another division of the company that is already using it. Your research can move all the faster." But she wonders to what extent scientists in biotech must justify the direction of their research, and she wants to know how much autonomy and freedom they have. She will seek answers to these questions by talking to company scientists rather than recruiters. Today, she simply wants to make contacts and learn more about each company's research.

Before the fair, Flanagan checked Science's Web site for the list of exhibitors, then pored over each company's site to determine geographic location (her destination: Boston or California) and research focus (her specialty: neuroscience). She whittled down her list to five companies: Genentech, Merck, Aurora, Genzyme and Axys. As she enters the ballroom, she scans a map of exhibitors, locates the Genentech booth and weaves through the crowd toward the far corner of the room. Craning her head to scout the best path, she scans corporate banners bearing cheery come-ons: "Consider the Possibilities!" "How Far Do You Want to Go?"

Across the river in Boston, her husband is on a more traditional career path. Edwin Monuki, an HHMI physician- postdoctoral fellow, is tucked away in an eighth-floor lab in a Harvard Medical School research building, finishing a grant application and preparing a presentation that he will give in Detroit the following week. Without question, he will stay in academia. "My desire to do clinical pathology is always easier to pursue in an academic setting," he says. "I guess I never really imagined it any other way." With a few months left in his fellowship, Monuki has received one offer, but he will look into other university hospitals on both coasts before committing himself.

The options and pressures facing this dual-science-career couple, who possess comparable credentials and related research interests, typify those of today's postdoctoral fellows. Monuki, who is 37, and Flanagan, 33, met at the University of California, San Diego, where they were doctoral students in neuroscience and he was also working toward his medical degree. Married for six years now, they have a 3-year-old daughter and an infant son. Raising children has made them thoughtful about balancing their careers with parenthood. Spending as much time as possible together as a family is important to them. They alternate dropping off and picking up their children at day care so that, each day, one gets the chance to arrive earlier and the other stay later at his or her respective labs, which are in buildings opposite each other on Avenue Louis Pasteur in Boston's Longwood Medical Area. They try to avoid coming in to work on weekends, but Monuki realizes that may change once he starts his own lab.

Monuki credits two factors with cementing his stay in academia. One is great mentors; the other is a successful graduate career, during which he published several papers. After talking with a friend who works in human resources at a biotech company, Monuki came away thinking that doing "what's best for the company" is the antithesis of what he loves about academia. "That gets to the heart of it. I guess it would be awful if a company drops your project in the middle. The main thing is (academic) freedom," he says. "But the biggest reason I want to keep doing research in academia is that I really like to do it."

His wife isn't so sure she wants the tenure track. "When you see how many hours new assistant professors spend on research, grant writing and teaching, and you have small children, it's hard to imagine how to fit it all in," Flanagan says. "Basically, there is no good time at the early stages of your career to have kids. The best time would be when you already have tenure, but biologically that's a bit late."

For Flanagan and others, the private sector now offers a viable alternative. HHMI investigator Shirley Tilghman sees the broadening of opportunities as a boon for new scientists. "One of the things that I think is most positive over the last 25 years is that the options for postdoc fellows have greatly expanded from when I was in training," says Tilghman, who chaired a National Research Council (NRC) committee examining the job scene facing life scientists at this critical point in their careers.

Today's life scientists are 32 years old, on average, when they earn their Ph.D.s and twice as likely to receive a postdoctoral fellowship as their counterparts three to four decades ago, Tilghman's committee notes in its 1998 report, Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists. Nearly 8,000 people in the United States earned life sciences Ph.D.s in 1996—more than triple the number granted in 1963, and the biomedical sciences accounted for nearly all of the increase, the committee found. The average life scientist will, after a fellowship of five or more years, secure a permanent position between ages 35 and 40. But here's the catch: While universities still employ the majority of life scientists, the number of academic positions has not grown enough to absorb the flood of Ph.D.s. The biotech industry, meanwhile, has been booming, fueled in part by the overflow of life scientist Ph.D.s, according to the NRC report. During this period, Ph.D.s also began to explore alternative science-related careers—in law, writing and secondary or undergraduate teaching.

Among scientists, the changes are spurring a cultural shift. "Twenty-five years ago, jobs in industry were thought not to be very interesting or very prestigious," Tilghman says. Now, however, she notes, "younger scientists see it as a place for exciting careers" and adds that "one of the largest problems today is a disconnect between the attitudes of the current generation and their advisers."

The attitudes of younger scientists about biotech are shaped not so much by the appeal of higher salaries as by the prospect of doing cutting-edge science. Celera's pioneering use of EST clustering and whole genome data mining, Affymetrix's GeneChip expression monitoring probe arrays and Genzyme's innovations in tissue repair are a few examples. "When I visit companies like these, they strike me as places of great energy and enthusiasm," says David A. Clayton, HHMI's vice president for science development. "A lot of very exciting science is being done there." Clayton says the Institute will continue focusing its scientific and educational activities in nonprofit settings, and he emphasizes the importance of academic training even for researchers who enter industry. But, he's quick to add, "I believe the essence of doing science is the same no matter where you end up."

In response to the changing job market, several universities have introduced programs that assist postdoctoral fellows with career development. In 1997, the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine created an office to do just that. Its director, Trevor Penning, who has mentored many postdocs over the years, tells those now entering the program to prepare from the start of their fellowships for their intended permanent positions. To some, this comes as a shock. "Many have been in a protected environment and were not exposed to career options in their graduate programs," he says.

Penning's office holds career workshops that bring together academic scientists and those in nontraditional careers to speak about their experiences and career paths. Penning has also established a link with the career services office, which, at Penn as at most other universities, ordinarily serves only students and employees. Now, postdocs can turn to career specialists to learn effective job search skills, participate in mock interviews and get feedback on their CVs and cover letters.

Many scientists applying for biotech jobs are eager for career counseling. At the Science career fair, a resume expert runs a very popular booth, with a long line spilling out into the hallway. At no charge, he will scan a CV and offer a few tips, all within five minutes or so.

Aside from the resume expert, there areonly three nonbiotech exhibitors at the fair. The National Cancer Institute and U.S. Food and Drug Administration have each set up booths, which draw few applicants. The booth for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital isn't hopping either. William S. Walker, vice chair of the department of immunology and associate director of academic programs, who is staffing the St. Jude exhibit, says his presence among the biotech companies provides an excellent chance to meet postdoctoral scientists of the highest caliber, given the proximity of nearby universities like Harvard and MIT. He hopes to hook some undecideds, if only a few—and sell them on working at St. Jude. At the moment, the lone job seeker at the St. Jude booth is Paul Beresford, who is nearing completion of his postdoctoral fellowship at the Center for Blood Research at Harvard Medical School and whose wife anticipates the birth of their first child in March. Beresford, 32, feels uncertain about his prospects in academia and worries about supporting a family. His friends, who are his age and work outside academia and science, are farther along in their careers, he observes. He might not consider leaving the university world if he had a better idea of how long it will take his career and salary to progress. "It can take five to 10 years to establish a lab," Beresford says. "That really takes its toll psychologically and financially." Still, while higher-paying biotech jobs may beckon, it was his heart that lured him to the St. Jude booth.

Walker talks to Beresford at length about the hospital's start-up package and core facilities. Beresford likes what he hears, but St. Jude is in Memphis and he and his wife have family ties in Boston. In the end, however, location will not be the deciding factor. "It will depend on who gives me the better offer—grants, fellowships, salary," Beresford says. "I'm really on the fence."

Unlike Beresford, Flanagan stays away from the St. Jude booth as well as the other nonbiotech exhibitors. Yet she still debates about moving to industry. It's not that she still feels uncomfortable with entering biotech; the more she talks to people who have gone to the "other side" and taken research positions in biotech, the more conceivable the option feels. Flanagan used to question whether a job in industry would mean selling out as well as whether it would prevent her from ever returning to the academic world. That was before she began gathering information about biotech careers, however. In the end, she says, her decision will depend on finding a situation that suits her, whether in biotech or academia. "My hope for my career has always been that I continue to love what I do each day. I find the workings of the human brain fascinating, and I particularly like thinking about the intricate details of neuronal function," she says. "So from that standpoint, as long as I continue to do that research, I'll be happy."

Flanagan manages to introduce herself to all five recruiters on her list today, reciting her credentials and interests while looking each interviewer straight in the eye. Mission accomplished.

"This was useful," she says at the end of the day. "I got a couple of contacts at companies, which is good. I'm a step farther along than when I came here," she says as she leaves the now hot and airless ballroom. Will she take the leap or, like her husband, continue on an academic track? Like so many postdocs in this shifting career world, she's still undecided—but either way, she knows she'll be doing research.

Family Photo: Stanley Rowin
Crowd Photo: AAAS

Download this story in Acrobat PDF format.
(requires Acrobat Reader)

Reprinted from the HHMI Bulletin,
January 2001, Pages 18-25
©2001 Howard Hughes Medical Institute