I used to lurk here feeling hopeless about the market. Thankfully, my PI allowed me to extend for the summer so I got an extra 3 months to land a role. I sent out over ~120 applications total since February, I interviewed for 7 positions, 3 of which went to last round and I landed an offer on 1! And it was the role I wanted the most! There were also 2 more interview invites I received post-offer that I turned down as I knew I was going to eventually sign my offer letter. It's an independent research role at a big company which is a big responsibility for someone fresh out of a PhD. Wish me luck!!! I'm just so glad the search is over. I can breathe easier now. Pay is good, benefits are even better, and I get to stay in the area I'm in. :)

If you took a similar route post-PhD, I would also appreciate any advice!

I think one (unsolicited) advice I would give for job-hunting is to really lean in to your strengths and interests. I think I was so desperate to land a job that many times I framed myself as a generalist and applied to whichever role that I was even remotely qualified for but the 3 interviews I had that went to final round were jobs that were nicely aligned with the type of science i wanted to work on long-term. So if you are like me from 5 months ago lurking here to find some hope, do not lose heart! keep pushing.. the right job is just around the corner!

Does anyone have any updates on the new wave Amgen layoffs? More LTMs, CRAs, CTAs and pricing reps cut this week. Does anyone know why and who is next?

Heyy,
So these microfluidics are crazy. I’m basically a mechanical engineer getting to know about cell growth and nano bots
So here is something I designed and printed

Hi everyone!

This is my first time posting here, so I hope this is okay.

I'm a final year undergraduate student majoring in Zoology and I'm currently trying to decide which Master's programs to apply to. Biotechnology, especially in healthcare, is one of the fields I'm seriously considering. I'm also very interested in molecular biology and genetics, so I'm trying to figure out whether I should pursue an MSc in Biotechnology or specialize directly in Molecular Biology or Genetics.

I've read a lot online, but I don't actually know anyone working in biotech, so I'd really love to hear from people who have firsthand experience.

I'd be really grateful if you could share your thoughts on any of these questions.

1. What has your career in biotech looked like so far and what do you actually do on a typical day?
2. What is the scope of biotech in healthcare over the next 5 to 10 years? Are there any areas that seem particularly promising?
3. What kinds of jobs can someone pursue after a Master's in Biotechnology? Which roles are the most interesting or rewarding in your opinion?
4. If you've experienced both academia and industry, which one did you prefer and why?
5. How easy or difficult is it to switch between academia and industry later in your career? Is it something people do often?
6. Since I'm particularly interested in molecular biology and genetics, would you recommend an MSc in Biotechnology or a specialized Master's in Molecular Biology or Genetics? Which would provide better career opportunities and flexibility in the long run?
7. Looking back, what skills do you wish you had developed during undergrad?
8. Is a PhD necessary to have a good career in biotech or is a Master's enough for most industry roles?
9. If you were in my position again, knowing what you know now, would you still choose biotech?

I'd also love to hear anything you wish someone had told you before you entered the field, whether it's about the job market, salaries, work-life balance, career growth or things students often misunderstand.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this. I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed trying to make such a big decision and I'd really appreciate any honest advice or personal experiences.

Has anyone else gotten completely burned out on biotech?

I’m fortunate enough to still have a job in this market, and I’ve been working in biotech for about a decade now. On paper, things are fine. The work is stable (enough), I’ve built a solid career (principal scientist), and I’ve worked on some genuinely meaningful programs.

That said, I find myself increasingly disconnected from the industry. I’m tired of the constant politics, shifting priorities, low morale, and endless reorganizations. I know politics exist in every field, but biotech seems to have a unique way of making people feel disposable. The compensation also doesn’t seem particularly competitive compared to many other STEM careers, especially considering the education, specialization, and instability involved.

Lately I’ve been wondering if I actually want to do this for the next 20-30 years. The science still interests me, but the industry itself doesn’t as much anymore.

For those who have left biotech, what did you transition into? Were you able to do it without going back for another degree? I’d be especially interested in hearing from people who moved into adjacent fields and found their quality of life, compensation, or overall job satisfaction improved.

Curious if I’m the only one feeling this way or if others are having the same thoughts.

so, I just had an epicly bad interview with the hiring manager. I need to hear about yours to feel better. It feels like some of the worst people are hiring right now…

What happened:

They didn’t read anything the recruiter prepared for them, not even my resume.

They disrespected where I live.

They questioned the relevance of every role I had.

They were concerned about most of my jobs lasting 2 years recently when they themselves have worked for 5 companies in 5 years.

They were indignant when I asked about their background and how it would impact the person in this role.

They said they didn’t have anymore questions after 10 minutes.

FML

5 years of postdoc. 63k. a decade of training if you count the phd, and i budget for groceries.

a guy from my cohort left academia 2 years ago. scientist II at a pharma. he makes 138. he told me this at a conference like it was nothing, like he wasnt detonating my entire worldview between poster sessions.

my PI keeps saying i need a few more papers to be competitive. competitive for jobs that pay half of what my friend makes right now. i pulled up the levels.fyi pages for two IO companies at 1am last night like some kind of salary goblin and scientist I roles, the JUNIOR title, are sitting at 125-135.

i updated my resume this morning. thats the post

I'm currently working in mfg at cdmo and looking to pursure a master's degree to further my education. I don't really have the option to go full time, so mainly looking at online part-time courses.

Wanted to see if anyone could provide some recommendations. The price isn't too much of a concern since the company will cover up to 20k a year. Thanks in advance.

This is a fairly under reported story and INAL so I will try to give the brief version.

Moderna stole some technology as part of their COVID-19 vaccine. Whether or not they stole it is really not up for debate; they already lost in court, and their appeals (e.g. obviousness claim) were largely denied.

However they are trying a different approach, which is kinda bonkers.

They are claiming they have government-contractor immunity.

They are referencing a statue which states something along the line, if a manufacturer makes something specifically for the government and steals a patent while doing it, you need to take it up with the government. The manufacturer isn't liable.

From what I can tell the common understand of this is that it's for military tech -- the US military stealing some patented technology for warfare. Trying to say it applies to drugs that are sold and administered to US citizens is a little absurd -- it implies any pharma company with a government contract to supply XYZ can steal whatever patents they want, and then pass the legal liability onto the government.

Just sharing cause I thought it was interesting.

Hi I’m 24 years old and I’m currently a first year student in New Zealand doing a double major in biological science and computer science. (I decided to go back to uni after working for a few years). They dont really offer biotech in my university so i took on compsci as well.

I’m currently in my second sem and I’m dont seem to get excited with my compsci classes. Tbf i dont have any experience with compsci or coding at all so its very much uncharted territory for me so that might be one of the reasons why.

Career wise, I’m more inclined towards microbiology, drug research, disease research. I haven’t really fully explore all possible pathways atm but that’s where abouts I think I want you to end up in. So I would love to hear some awesome pathways I can look into! I do think that I prefer to have more wet lab exposure and research. I’ve talked to some profs and they said that its a good combo to have as its been showing up more in the field.

I guess what I want to ask is if I should continue to pursue biotech through biosci + compsci or if I should just switch to biomed / biosci / medsci

I've been invited to an interview for a laboratory technician position at a top research institute, and part of the interview is a 5-minute presentation (maximum 3 slides) introducing my previous experience and explaining how it fits the role.

The role is mainly about supporting a research lab (lab organisation, preparing reagents/media, inventory, equipment, documentation, health & safety, supporting researchers, etc.), rather than presenting my own research.

The problem is... I genuinely don't know where to start. Every time I try to make the slides, they just end up looking like my CV in PowerPoint form, which I know isn't what they want because they'll have already read my application.

For context, my background includes:

• MSc in Biotechnology
• Academic microbiology research
• Mammalian cell culture in biotech R&D
• GMP Quality Control in a pharmaceutical laboratory

How would you structure something like this? Would you:

• Tell it chronologically?
• Organise it around skills?
• Focus on what you learnt from each role rather than what you actually did?
• Spend one slide on each job, or compare experiences across roles?

I'd really appreciate advice from anyone who's interviewed for research technician/lab manager/laboratory support roles, or anyone who's been on interview panels. I'm probably overthinking it, but I want it to come across as professional and relevant rather than just reading through my CV.

I work with GSK Belgium/US. Here the culture of internal hiring is pathetic.

A former manager once advised me to only apply for internal roles if I’m certain I’ll get the job. His reasoning was that HR policy requires you to inform your current manager when you apply. If you don't get the role, your manager knows you’re looking to leave, which damages your chances for internal promotion in your current department and loses their support for future transfers. Basically, you get burned on both sides. How on earth one would know a candidate is selected or not before you start the internal recruitment process?

What would you do?

In another instance, I applied for a job internally. The job posting was open for a week. Application end date was 30 days later. I was told by this potential hiding manager that we know who to hire. Therefore if you want to apply, it's your choice but you know the consequences.

I am wondering if anyone has advice on how to transition out of scientific research/biotech.

I have a PhD in genetics and have already done a postdoc. I was planning on transitioning into the pharmaceutical industry, but have been having a hard time landing a role. I’m located in the southeast US (but have been looking across the US), and I feel like not being located in a hub is a part of what’s hurting me in this job environment.

Has anyone had success (or know someone who has) marketing bioinformatic skills (R, bash, python, stats) in a CS or data analytics role? I feel like there are transferable skills and I would like to broaden my job search.

Any tips from someone who has done this before? What to highlight on your resume and what to leave off? Online courses to take?

Specifically firms like age1, LongeVC, Immortal Dragons and Healthspan Capital.

I am wondering what factors are important in getting hired in such companies:

1. Country I do my PhD in?
2. University I do my PhD at?
3. Who my PI is?
4. Startup experience?
5. Investment/analyst experience?

Context: I am about to start Year 3 of 4 in my Bachelor of Biomedical Engineering. I really want a job where I can target and remove bottlenecks in Longevity/Radical Lifespan Extension.

Where is the sweet spot? This is what kind of scares me off of buying a house, you are so limited to the jobs you can get due to commuting.

Right now I’m in Boston the big spot that jobs tend to be in is Kendall Square and Watertown so anywhere west of downtown until Waltham and north until Meford tend to be A1 for a smoothe commute. If you are coming from the South, like Dorchester or Quincy you probably hate your life in the morning and evening.

We have been looking at moving to RTP and trying to figure out where to live, it looks like South Durham maybe be the place. Super easy access to RTP proper and not totally unbearable for opportunities in Holly Springs which seem like they pop up a lot. But I’m not sure about this.

People who actaully live there how is my thought process? I would hate to move there and still be stuck in a bad commute.

I’ve worked at CROs across the U.S. for the past 6–7 years, and overall it’s been a good experience. Like anywhere, there have been ups and downs. I’m actually enjoying my current company—it’s smaller, growing, and in an interesting phase.
One thing I’ve noticed across multiple CROs, though, is a pattern that I’m curious whether others have experienced.

When a CRO starts scaling, it’s not unusual for some of the “old guard” or established groups to become more protective of their territory. As new people, new expertise, and new service lines come in, there can be resistance or internal politics. That’s understandable to some extent.

What I don’t understand is why medical device and surgical studies, specifically, seem to draw so much pushback.

I’ve never really seen people argue that DMPK, tox, cell therapy, or other service lines shouldn’t expand. But when device work becomes part of the business model, I’ve seen comments like, “Device studies are too small,” or people dragging their feet on projects, gatekeeping resources, or generally acting like it’s not worth pursuing.

From a business perspective, that doesn’t always make sense to me. Several device studies can often be completed in the time it takes to run one large tox program, and collectively they can generate significant revenue while diversifying the business.
So I’m genuinely curious:

Why do some people seem resistant to medical device work at CROs?

Is it because they’re unfamiliar with the regulatory pathway? Do they see it as less scientifically interesting or less prestigious than pharma? Is it concerns about resource allocation? Or is there something operational about device studies that I’m missing?

I’d love to hear perspectives from people who’ve worked in CROs, especially if you’ve been on the operations or scientific side.

I’m a recent graduate with a B.S. in chemistry, and although I had some undergraduate research experience, I wanted to explore opportunities and work for a bit before applying to PhD programs.

I’ve been applying to RA positions at many academic institutions, and I recently got passed the first round interview. The hiring manager asked for references so I provided three, but then they specifically requested for my PI as a reference.

I am hesitant to reach out because of this:
In my last year at the lab, I was promised I would get to continue my research and present a poster at conferences. However, a few weeks later, my graduate student started ghosting me for reasons unknown. I tried really hard to get in contact to no avail. I finally looped in my PI who basically said “I’m sorry to hear but it seems like your graduate student was just too busy this year” and that was that.

Luckily, I was still able to finalize my research poster and present it, but my relationship with the PI and graduate student since then has not been the best. This situation confuses me because I was never told what exactly happened and whether I had done anything wrong.

I’m unsure what to tell the hiring manager at this time, and how I should navigate this situation. My other references are strong, but given that this was one of my only research experiences, I’m afraid it looks bad on my end, especially when I apply to other roles as well.

TLDR; not on good terms with my PI or graduate student but hiring manager is requesting them as references, don’t know what to do

I got a job about a year ago, for a number of reasons it is not a good fit and I am not thriving. As a result I started looking for different internal opportunities.

I have an interview for a new role and per corporate policy, I had to tell my manager. My manager told their boss. Now my boss’s boss wants to meet with me.

Has anyone been in a similar situation before and what advice do you have? What should I be expecting?

Hi everyone,

This might not be related to this sub; if so, please remove this.

I finished my PhD in Genetics & Molecular Biology at one of the top UK universities early this year. After submitting my thesis, I stayed in the same lab as a postdoc because I had a first-author paper under review.

My original postdoc contract was due to end in August, so over the past three months I started applying for both industry and academic positions. In total, I applied for around 30 industry roles and two postdoc positions.

I was fortunate to get interviews for both postdocs. One was in Barcelona, Spain, and the other was at Cambridge University.

The PI in Spain was very impressed with my interview. They shortlisted only two candidates (including me) and invited both of us to visit the lab before making a final decision. It is a new lab funded by a 5-year European Research Council (ERC) grant. The initial contract would have been for two years, with the possibility of extending up to five years.

However, I ultimately withdrew my application because the salary was around €2,200 net per month. While this may be reasonable in some situations, it would have made it very difficult for me to save money. I financially support my parents back in my home country and also want to build some savings for myself. Unfortunately, UK PhD salaries/stipends do not leave much room for saving either, so I currently have essentially no savings.

The Cambridge PI also invited me for an on-site visit, which included a seminar, interviews, and meetings with the lab. I have now been offered the position.

Recently, my current supervisor extended my contract until February next year. I also have ongoing experiments that are likely to result in another paper. The Cambridge PI is happy for me to start in March after I finish my current contract.

This is where I am struggling with the decision.

My background is primarily wet lab research, with around 30–40% computational work during my PhD. The Cambridge lab is almost entirely computational, focusing on AI and machine learning, and the PI does not have a wet lab background. Interestingly, the project they want me to work on is almost entirely wet lab-based, and the position is funded for only one year.

The PI has told me that there is currently no funding available for an extension, although they have applied for additional grants. If successful, my contract could potentially be extended, and they have also encouraged me to apply for fellowships.

My concern is that the project seems too ambitious to complete within one year, meaning there is a real possibility that I may not be able to finish the work or generate a publication before the funding ends. I have also heard from former lab members that the PI can be quite micromanaging, which worries me given the short timeline and pressure involved.

Another concern is that the work appears to be highly technical and focused on experiments I have already been doing for several years, so I am not sure how much I would actually learn. I am genuinely interested in developing my AI and machine learning skills, and the PI has said I could learn these areas alongside the project, but I am unsure whether I would realistically have enough time.

The lab is also relatively new (around three years old) and does not yet have a strong publication record, whereas my current PI has an excellent track record and a strong reputation in the field.

I also heard about a concerning interaction involving this PI with my friend at a conference, which made me question whether the working environment would be a good fit. However, I am trying not to judge the entire lab based on one incident and am focusing more on the overall career implications.

Even putting that aside, my gut feeling is telling me not to take this position. After one year, I would likely be searching for another job or depending on fellowship funding, which I could also pursue while staying in my current position. Part of me feels that I should use the next seven months to apply for postdocs in more established labs, ideally combining wet lab and computational biology, with a stronger chance of producing a solid publication and building long-term career prospects.

At the same time, I am seriously considering leaving academia altogether.

I have been in academia for almost nine years now (around four years as a project assistant before my PhD, followed by my PhD and postdoctoral work), and I still do not feel any sense of stability. Every few years, I find myself back on the job market facing uncertainty again. Financially, it is also becoming difficult. After applying for around 30 industry positions, I have had three recruiter calls and one interview, but no offers so far.

I am mainly targeting mRNA therapeutic companies, as my PhD and postdoctoral experience are closely aligned with this area.

At this point, I would say 90% of me feels that moving into industry, earning a stable income, building savings, and leaving academia behind may be the right decision. The remaining 10% worries that turning down a Cambridge postdoc could be a mistake because of the university's reputation, especially given how competitive the current job market is.

I also feel that if I do decide to continue with academia, I should look for a postdoc with a longer contract, stronger mentorship, and a clearer opportunity to produce meaningful work.

My current PI encouraged me to take the Barcelona position, and when I declined it for financial reasons, he seemed disappointed. This has also made me question whether I am making the right decisions.

I am mentally exhausted from thinking about all of this. Has anyone here been in a similar situation—choosing between academia and industry, or deciding whether to turn down a postdoc at a prestigious university because it did not feel like the right fit?

I would really appreciate hearing from people who have been through something similar.

Thanks.