Replies

• Paul Smaglik

  19 March 2008 | 21:03

  You don’t need an MS or PhD to enter a research career—but you may eventually want one down the road. Your best bet is starting somewhere as a technician. Pharmacology is a hot field, and many biotech and pharma companies need skilled people do do lab work, especially in pharmocokinetics and pharmacodynamics. These sub-fields study how drugs interact with the body, in terms of metabolism and the drug’s chemistry. These fields ar eincreasingly important, with the growth of pharmocgenetics/pharmacogenomics—which aim to tailor drugs and their dosage to people with genetic differences. You might also consider looking at contract research organiztions (CROs), like Quintiles and Covance (the world’s two largest), because they handle a lot of pre-clinical work for bioteech and pharma alike. No matter what venue you choose for that first research job, you’ll want a good background in animal models and in vivo drug experimentation. To improve your chances of getting one of these job s—or to advance once you’ve obtained one, it’s probably a good idea to get some more formal training. Lare research hubs like the Bay Area and Boston/Cambridge often offer sort-term training courses, or series of courses. You might want to enquire with your local bioteech/pharma hub organization (for instance www.massbio.org in the Boston area, or www.baybio.org in San Francisco). It’s generally a good idea to check in with whatever organization serves your area, to track job tends and industry skill needs. Once you have a technician job, you might consider pursuing an MS in biotech or a related subject—unless you think you’ll be happy your entire career as a worker bee. Master’s level scientists tend to have more reponsibility and PhD-level people get to take more of a big-picture approach to science. But it’s perfectly acceptable to start as a technician, leanr a few skills, decide whether or not you like what you’re doing, and, if you do, seek further training. That’s pe rhaps a more rational approach than in investing seven years in a PhD, a few more in a postdoc, then learnign you despise benchwork.
  Good luck!

• Amit Kumar Singh

  22 March 2008 | 00:17

  Dear Paul,

  I won’t suggest starting career as a technician because Brown already having a clinical degree and he can directly jump into the research.

  Learning laboratory work won’t take more than six months and going for a technician job will only downgrade his career prospects.

  Working as a technician, he can only learn the techniques, but what most important for being a successful scientist is critical thinking, which requires motivation, diligence and most important, an academic supervisor (such as in PhD).

  Pharmacology includes variety of research methods such as molecular biology, cell physiology, whole organism studies and volunteer programmes.

  And next important thing is how these approaches can be applied to specific diseases.

  He already have clinical degree, therefore, if he goes for PhD in Pharmacology, He’ll have full potential of being a clinical researchers in pharmacology.

  He can specifically match his research interests and background for a PhD, but in a technician job it won’t be easy.

  He can acquire and develop many skills during a PhD (but not as a tech), which will be complementary to his clinical skills and might define stable long term career choices.

  Cheers,
  Amit

• Paul Smaglik

  27 March 2008 | 15:27

  I noticed in your profile that you have an MD. So that makes me think that, if you are interested in applied research, you might consider clinical trial management. The main skill you need to acquire is an understanding of regulatory affairs. There are some courses for this, but you might also pick up these skills by working in a lesser capacity in some clinical trials your hospital or university is already involved in. Naturejobs has done a story about working in clinical trials.