In my previous blog post I introduced both myself, and topic of the next several blog posts I intend to issue. Here we resume, with a description of what I believe are three common myths amongst the academic community, particularly, recent PhD graduates and Post-docs.
Myth 1: Industrial research environments are not focused on problem understanding, but rather exclusively concerned with project milestones and product delivery, and therefore, will punish any type of mechanism-based efforts towards enhanced and deeper understanding.
This is amongst the most prevailing thoughts of current academics when asked to describe the concerns they have with potentially joining a corporate research and development operation. First, I would like to absolutely refute this common perception, and place it squarely in the myth category. Just as with universities or non-profit research organizations, not all industrial research centers are created equally. However, when you consider the great corporate research centers of the previous two decades, that may include General Electric, IBM, Microsoft, Merck, Pfizer, United Technologies, Toyota, Sony, DuPont, and so on and so forth, these corporations have provided fundamental advancement of the fields they operate within. My PhD is presently in metabolic engineering and systems biology of Saccharoymces cerevisiae, and I don’t think anyone would argue that DuPont, with development and implementation of an industrial biotechnology process to produce 1,3-propanediol – an added value chemical previously petro-chemically produced – has not been pioneers in this field. I can cite examples for each of the corporations I have listed above. While it’s unquestionable that each of these companies attempt to run the most efficient operation possible, to either deliver a service or product, they also recognize that the value of that service and product is directly correlated with the scientific/technical expertise and investment they make. DuPont in striving to develop 1,3-propanediol has also developed an entire library of recombinant DNA technology in microorganisms, a significant portion of which has been published or presented. Similar to an academic environment that is often striving to reach high impact journals, such as Nature and Science, corporate environments are striving to reach the highest value products. And, similar to publishing in Nature and Science, the highest value products are often those requiring fundamental research and mechanism based approaches. As anyone in the fields can tell you, much of the low-hanging fruit, particularly in established fields, has been picked, so innovation is the key to maintaining a competitive market place advantage. I would offer that research centers at the above corporate power-houses I’ve described would rival the respective department of the top universities in the world. You don’t believe me? Take a moment to visit their respective web pages and decide for yourself.
Myth 2 to follow shortly….
From your post, I gather that you strongly believe in the industrial environment being a strong learning atmosphere. I have always been curious regarding the intellectual freedom in strategizing experiments for students in entry level in a corporate company. For example, an RA in his or her own project has a certain degree of intellectual freedom in directing the project. What would be the case in a corporate scenario? Do entry-levels researchers merely translate the higher order strategies into benchwork without input of their own?
Nisha, thanks for your comment. I will publish the next two myths, and then I’ll address your questions at the end. I want to share the full blog entry before jumping to answer your questions. Thanks for reading, and expect more tomorrow….
I can see why companies would be interested in research that isn’t directly product-oriented, but can you explain the attraction of doing it in-house, rather than out-sourcing it to universities?
Thank you Jose for starting this blog.
One thing I think people have to get passed is the idea that an academic lab is not structured similarly to an industry approach. You have a director (PI) who sets the milestones (goals) for the lab (department). They have a budget that dictates the freedom they can offer an individual to pursue his or her own ideas. They both have deadlines i.e. publication/presentation vs. product launch/presentation. Both are subject to the higher bureaucracy that governs the institution. The perception that in academia there is freedom to study whatever one wishes is a very naive view. While it is true that across all of academia one might find a location/group to support ones research interests I would suspect that if one were to look across the whole of industry one would find a home as well. Finally, there is a lot of industry-academia partnering that goes on. Some of it is very productive and some is destructive. So the in-house vs. out-sourcing is very project dependent.
Dear Bob and Craig,
Thank you both for your question and comments, respectively. I’d like to get through the final “myths” as I outline them, and the in a supplementary I’m going to collect the various questions & comments I’m receiving and address them there. You’ve both high-lighted the concept of adacemic/corporate partnerships; however, this is actually something quite complex. Having a little bit of experience in that area (most of my projects have emerged via collaboration), I’d like to also put some structure and a framework to that discussion. More to follow soon…
Cheers,
Manny