Joining private companies for Biotech-Pharma R&D sector in India.
B. B. Goel
Sunday, 28 June 2009 17:18 UTC
It seems to be a problem for many PhD and postdocs to decide whether to join public research institutes or private ones. Once they decide and get suitable opportunity to join a private research institute the first problem they face is to determine how much they worth. In whole life they did research and never did self-evaluation from monetary point o view. One thing we must make clear that there is absolutely no rational and honest criteria for anything in a company. Two candidates having same academic achievements and background can have vastly different salary and parks. It mainly boils down to candidate’s own negotiation skill and showing symptoms of desperation to get a job (as perceived by the prospective employer). The first question they face during a HR interview (once they are selected as a potential candidate by scientific/research body of that institute) how much they except as salary. This is a very tricky question and very tough to answer, particularly for those who is looking a job for his/her first employment in a private organization. The general trend is to say, for example, “about 7 lakhs per annum”. By the time company asks this question, they have fairly good idea about the upper limit they can offer. If the asking salary, by the candidate is below the company limit (mostly it is) they accept after some usual (cosmetic) rhetoric (which also reduces the salary for the candidate) and pressure to join as early as possible as if the Company will stop functioning if the candidate does not join soon (which is mostly false but nonetheless very effective to put pressure on the candidate). Extra benefits depend on the difference between asking salary and company’s expected upper limit. Now the next and most widely used trap, the “cost-to-company” (CTC) concept. In academics we have no such concept and so when a company says that your CTC will be X lakhhs then we tend to think that is my net salary (without tax of course). So when you join and get your first salary, you get surprised. Before actual joining, it’s almost impossible to make the HR people admit, in writing, the actuall take-home salary (considering the all legitimate govt taxes and other minimum deductions, as per company law). After the first salary, the candidate start exploring why the actual take-home salary is so low. Now they start understanding the greatness of terms like “productivity linked incentive (PLI)”, “deduction under chapter VIA”, “choice pay” etc. It’ll be less stressful in future if the candidate accepts that PLI will never be given to his/her in some pretext or other. That amount varies depending on company, your negotiated CTC and many other factors. In general it varies from 7-15% of CTC. Actual calculation for PLI is deliberately kept very vague and complicated and with too many variables (which is beyond your own performance and control). It will be better to accept that you will never get that part of the salary. Now “choice pay” part, another tricky business. Before joining it seems that we will get all that part of your proposed CTC. But soon after joining you realize that it’s not the case. Financial benefits and other parks are very well defined in public institutes and we can get a fairly good idea about our actual take-home salary there.
Companies mainly think that once you join the company it will be very tough for you to change or to go back to US/Europe or other countries. They highly exploit that situation. Majority HR will insist that you join first and everything will be OK then. For an average postdoc in US, it’s very hard to waste about $ 10-15 K during relocation and initial settlement in any metro city in India. Financially many of them cannot afford to come back, even if they do not like to continue that job (although some do just that and that trend is increasing as well). Some out of compulsion and rest out of fear, many publicly praise their new job, exaggerate their salaries among his/her friends. Sometimes it’s very tough to get actual salary scale by talking to acquaintances and friends. Private employers just love that aspect. They encourage it (even sometimes in writing) so that candidates do not discuss their salaries and parks among themselves.
Now let’s come to intellectual property rights. Many of us wrongly think that whatever we accomplish in a private company belongs to the company. Probably it’s not right. It’s only the business and financial “right” that belongs to company but the company has the legal obligation to give the candidate due “academic” credit (e.g while filing patents). They almost force the candidate to sign a very lengthy document which most of the candidates will not read but sign, to avoid such complications and deprive the candidate his/her legal rights.
It seems that majority of the candidates working in Indian private companies in R&D will not get the opportunity to come back to basic research and academics after working in such private R&D sector in India. Firstly they will not be much productive so far research is concerned, in terms of publications and novel, usable patents. In other words they have to stick to same type of work during rest of his/her life. Scientifically it’s very boring and frustrating, if they really like to do research. In most of the cases the family life of the candidates will be ruined, particularly if they prefer to join a company where Saturday is a working day. Just like many other Indian companies (both in IT and other sectors), you are expected to stay till late into the night if your boss stays, even though you may not have any work, but to keep up with others in pleasing the higher management. This is very important for the company to measure your “productivity”, as they perceive. Once you climb the hierarchy you feel more pressure for such acts, more meetings after 7pm and during weekends/holidays. It is more problematic for women, as we can understand.
But if played properly, there is a huge scope to earn money, a lot of that, particularly for few who are street-smart and have a flare of public speaking and some managerial skill.
Let’s hear some other thoughts and opinions.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
I posted almost the same message in another thread but posting it here too, as I feel this is relevant to R&D jobs in private sector.
Some salient points from that article (mainly for those who do not have access to the article):
Promoting creativity and innovation in biotechnology“…It therefore seems inevitable that industrial bioscientists will continue with a preference to develop ideas that are based only on existing or similar products, and this clearly limits the generative power of the individuals involved and the business activity that might arise as a result of this potential”.
Ref: Trends in Biotechnology Volume 27, Issue 8, August 2009, Pages 445-447.
-
You are all Experts in this field ..
So what do you think finally ?
What should Studunts do who are really interested in some new research and somthing innovative ? -
Good question. The answer can be varying depending on one’s own situation, ambition and ability to take risk (both career-wise and financially). In an ideal situation, where there is no pressure to join jobs (monetary concern) or to gather degrees under self-imposed pressure (or pressure from families and relatives) then I will suggest doing the following:
1. Find out what you really want and what makes you happy.
2. If you think you really enjoy research in any particular subject, THEN ONLY go for it. Otherwise you should join many other professions where you can earn much more.
3. Once you decide to join research, your first job is to find a suitable person whom you can respect as a human being first and then to learn practical aspects of research. S/he may not be a very famous or intelligent scientist but I’ll prefer such person to a cunning, dishonest but famous scientist to groom my initial career (if given a chance).
4. If possible, get out of India and do your MS/PhD in a West European country (e.g Switzerland, Germany, UK, Sweden etc. Prefer English speaking country for social reasons). Time bound PhD program (as followed in most European countries) is a better career option than open-ended PhD programs followed by USA and India.
5. Then it’s a very personal choice. It depends on what you have learned both scientifically and socially till your PhD; what quality standard you like to maintain and many other equally important aspects (family and social life). Many questions are not scientific at all (mostly related to your personal view about life, family etc) to take the decision where to settle and how. But by that time you should have enough experience to decide yourself!
6. Keep in mind that you will not learn basic research (mainly analytical capability) after PhD. As a postdoc, people expect you to design, conduct and interpret our own research. As a postdoc you will be learning techniques mainly, your basic approach towards research will not change much. Any decent scientist will expect you to guide your own research and will not be ready to waste time to teach you basics. If you show the symptoms that you can not do it, then you will be used as technicians (as majority Indian postdocs do here in US) . You may get many excellent first author publications by doing just that but you will never become a successful scientist by your own right (if you really care about it!). You will hesitate to open your mouth in any symposium or scientific discussions. Even after getting faculty position, you will remain a technician.
7. USA is a good country for a foreigner to settle for social reasons mainly and also due to vast opportunities within and beyond research, although (average) quality of science education, research and life is worse as compared to many West European countries. European countries are excellent to learn science but too racist to live for longer term for a foreign origin person who have a strong sense of self-respect.I am not going into the option of settling in India as yet. That option is always there.
-
I like to add to what Jayanta said. It is very important to check compatibility while choosing a PhD or Postdoc supervisor. Check the compatibility with the person you will be working with. Many times you will not be working with your official supervisor but some other senior person in the lab. If you are not compatible or feel at ease with that person, then better not to join that lab. Such situations can be pretty stressful in the long run and many students simply can not cope with that and drop out. If you can not match with that person does not mean that you are bad or that person is bad, you two simply are not compatible to work together. The same is true for selecting bosses in PDF. Even if you are not compatible with one person you may be excellent with another person. Many times bosses write recommendation letters on that basis of personal impression, not objectively but subjectively. That is dangerous in a country like US or India where personal connection matters more than anything else. A bad recommendation letter from some person like that does not mean that you are bad at research or bad as a person; it simply means, in this case, that you were not compatible with that chap. But many people will not give you any chance to clarify it or may not like to go against a powerful person once s/he expressed his/her dis-satisfaction over you.
-
Thanks for such good information ..
but what do you think about other factors affecting this “ideal” situations ..
like High paying Jobs , financial problems , support from parents n friends, typical Indian man thinking :P ….. -
If money is your main concern, then please do not take research as career. It is not and will not be very attractive so far money is concerned. You can make lot more money by joining professions like medicine (general practice, surgery etc), law, management etc.; besides many other professions but NOT science/research. If you already have taken it up, then you can groom yourself or shift to research (or routine techniques) relevant to industry.
-
I m not talking about perticular money …
I m talking about general students or layman … -
Anonymous
Corporate R&D fraud is not limited to India. Probably India is a small pawn in this big game. Many big pharma companies routinely engage in scientific misconduct. Lately some information is coming out in public. E.g US drugmaker Pfizer has agreed to pay $2.3bn (£1.4bn) in the largest healthcare fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice.
Many of the corporate frauds and crimes in third world countries actually originate from those bigger companies of developed countries. Illegal clinical trials, illicit human organ syndicate, dumping environmentally polluting substances in countries like India are mainly the by-product of such practice. The difference is: in developed countries they take steps, at least when caught. Then they outsource those dirty jobs to countries like India. Our local businessman and industrialists happily oblige them and exploit their personal connections with politicians and bureaucrats. In India they get awards (for best businessman or outstanding industrialists), instead of punishment. There is not a single example where such corporate fraud was detected prosecuted and highly influential industrialist was punished by a court of law in India. It will be almost impossible to maintain high ethical standard in R&D units of such industry. Only public awareness and constant monitoring by other scientific community (e.g in public institutes/universities) can minimize these crimes. -
Talking of research in India, one thing I personally feel is that there isn’t enough adventurousness in research areas, and the problem is only exacerbated by the unwillingness of investors to sink money into what is a very risky business proposition, therefore, for me, if it has to be research in India,government labs are a better bet, BUT, bureaucracy could be a major headache.
-
As someone went through a similar path myself, I want to add in my experience here, take it for what its worth.
A career in science, essentially touches upon these qualities:
1.Accountability
There is no accountability in science, at least nothing directly. There are indirect ways but all are ineffective, IMO. So, fraud, dishonesty, unethical behavior, mistreatment, misuse of funds etc are rampant and inevitable. To put it in other words, you have to decide and be accountable and follow good practice on your own.
2.Ethics Vs Law
Law acts from the outside whereas ethics has to come from the inside so its up to the individual scientist to follow ethics. So, when a person engages in a unethical activity, there are not many measures to correct him/her, at least nothing yet powerful.
3. Passion Vs Monetary benefit
As far as money is concerned, “Food, clothing, shelter” and little more should be the norm but this is often not the case. Why is it so?, there are many reasons, cultural, societal pressures, lack of other better opportunities, confused world view and un-realistic assumptions and advice, to name a few. because of this many people enter science thinking to make money but find out the lack of it.
On contrary, if one is passionate about science (or for that matter about anything !) s/he can do better. But this does not mean you will achieve everything you set out to do. Why not? Because people always focus on “BIG” things in life but in reality life happens in “small”. And big things are always blown out of proportion by media and co. There are many small factors one has to pay attention to in order to stay ahead in addition to “Passion”. For example, everyone simply talk about a GREAT foreign university (BIG thing) to do PhD and Postdoc. No one even bother to tell you about the importance of many many small things like…1.good topic, 2. availability of funding, 3. Overall personality of the boss, 4. track record of the boss and the lab, 5. cost of living 6.society impact on personal life and the very least (my favorite) 7.do you really want to do science. If you line up every small things, its easy to see that there are more than one factor that can go one way or other. This is the reason science succeeds or fails at an individual level.
Person wanting to go into science should decide on the basis of all things above in addition to any other factors.
Practical advice: Be passionate about science, not superficially (often happens to many Indians), but a genuine interest that comes intrinsically. Do a PhD from western Europe (AVOID USA) and then do a postdoc in western Europe. I would personally say again AVOID USA for postdoc too but that’s just me others might vary in their opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I am in USA and so know the ins and outs, at least I think I do. There are many “small” things that are wrong in doing a postdoc in USA so I would avoid doing a postdoc in USA, if given a chance.
what to do after a postdoc ?
Like countless other postdocs (Indians) I am actively trying to find the answer myself. When I do find it I will come back and update everyone.
Good luck doing science!
Manick
Results
-
