For Which Drugmakers Do Postdocs Like To Work?
5 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // February 26th, 2010 // 8:12 am
In its annual survey of postdoc preferences, The Scientist lists 40 institutions that are favored places to work. Not surprisingly, the institutions cited are predominantly universities and government entities. Among the winners - Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Mayo Clinic, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and the National Cancer Institute.
However, two drugmakers not only were listed, but were highly ranked. Placing fourth was the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Ma. Why? Postdocs cited equity and benefits, although they’re not crazy about the value of the postdoc experience or demands on family and personal life. At number five was Genentech, which was cited for research funding and benefits, but was rated as weak when it comes to the value of the postdoc experience, and training and mentoring. Here is the list.
lab shot courtesy of seattle municipal archives flickr creative commons
pharmavet
I’m surprised that there are not more pharmaceutical companies higher on the list. This used to be a good way to break into pharma research. Basically, the drug company would recruit you as a post doc, and if you showed promise the door was open to a permanent job without having to go through the formal application process of an external applicant. In fact, given the tightness of today’s job market, I would jump at the chance for a pharma company to hire me as a post-doctoral fellow. When I applied for my first pharma job as a PhD with 2.5 years of post-doctoral experience, I appled to 12 companies and got exactly one offer. And this was in the days when the job market was supposedly “favorable” for applicants.
Robert
I’m surprised too, pharmavet. Seems that big pharma would pay quite a lot more than, say, a mid-level university. The benefits may be a bit less, but the pay would probably make up for it. Glad to see so many research clinics on the list.
Dennis
There is however a fundamental issue with postdocs in industry. I worked in pharma for almost 29 years. The purpose of a postdoc is to futher develop skills that will lead to you being an independent investigator. Not every project you work on is successful and a mentor needs multiple opportunites if one idea does not pan-out. We had postdocs at my firm but very few. It was tough having enough non-proprietary projects for them to work on. Yes, we hired some of the best ones but unless the others were to go on to industy, their reception in academics was not that great having done their postdoc in pharma and it seemed to taint their abilities to apply for NIH funding: a necessity today to survive at a university.
pharmavet
Interesting, Dennis. When I went from academia to industry I had some transferable skills in terms of protocol writing, etc. However, there also reverse transferable skills, like learning how to do applied vs. basic science. The NIH funders look down on applied science for some reason, as if it were less “pure” than basic science. Actually the best environment for a post-doc is a hybrid, like Novartis has in Cambridge.
Betsy
It’s my understanding that there are far less industry postdoc positions than there used to be. Of the ones that do exist, it is rare for postdocs to be hired on in permanent positions afterward. I know this is true at Genentech.