We have conducted a random poll around the OITE and with fellows who have recently left.  The results are clear:  Having a conversation with their PI about the next step can be scary.  You may be unsure that you have enough data to actually say this is the year that you will move on.  If you are going to be a PI you may not be sure if will be able to take part of your project with you.  Perhaps you do not know what reaction you will get if you say you want to take a different career path than staying in academic research.  All of these factors can persuade you just to not have the conversation at all. 

One thing we know, is that this conversation if often more scary in our mind than in reality.  We have expectations of what the PI will say, and then when the conversation actually takes place it typically goes much better than we had played it out in our heads.  Most PIs actually have good intentions and just want you to be successful in your career.  Before you start booing, we are aware that some PIs are tougher than others….BUT many of us suspect that our PI will not approve of our choices, but we never actually give them a chance to have a conversation about where we plan to go next.

So, here is a way to start. 

• Make an appointment to sit down with your PI in January and state that in 2012 you want to start making moves for you career.
• Have this conversation away from the research group (think the coffee shop). 
• Plan ahead to make sure you get what you need out of the conversation. 
  • Do you need to discuss what part of your project you can take with you if you leave?
  • Can you discuss the direction you would like to see your own lab go in as you move into your own PI job?
  • Who do you need to meet to make your career dreams come true? AND does he/she know any of the people and can they connect you?
• Be bold!  This is YOUR career. 

Your PI may not have the knowledge or network to help you, especially if you are moving away from the bench.  If he/she doesn’t, that is OK!  You have many other resources around you.  However, you might be surprised by who your PI knows in different fields and at different companies.  Your PI wants you to be successful.  Not just because that is part of being a mentor.  But also, because successful alumni/alumnae reflect positively on a PI, both for recruiting top postdocs to their lab and for positive reviews from their departments. 

If it really is not your PI that you want to talk with, consider who else you might be able to discuss your career with.  Do you have a mentor outside of your lab?  Have you considered talking with your Lab Chief or Institute Training Director?  While your PI likely knows you the best and, you also need to find someone you are comfortable with and who can have an honest conversation about your career path.

We all know that resolutions often do not see success beyond the second week of February.  Saying that you are going to make your career a priority in 2012 is not enough.  You should also make a plan for how to do that.  Below we have sketched out a timeline of things to do in 2012 to make sure that you are ready to face that next step. 

January:  Meet with your PI to discuss your career.  Yes, it can be scary.  We will be posting next week with some tips to conquer that fear and get the most out of such a meeting.

February:   Meet with a Career Counselor.  We have two on staff here at OITE, and they are really good at their jobs. 

March:  Create a “Networking Map” and update and improve you LinkedIn presence. 

April:  Use a conference to build your network. 

May:  Attend the annual NIH Career Symposium and use that information to figure out what is next.

June:  Set up at least two informational interviews.  If you need some tips on how to go about that, check out our blog post here.

July:  Make a decision on the where you want your career to go.  Then, figure out holes you still have in your CV or Resume and find ways to fill them.

August:  Create your Job package.  Whether for an academic position, a postdoc, or a career transition, you will want to have a competitive application.  OITE staff is well equipped to help you with this process.

September:  Practice and improve your interviewing skills.   

October:  Be prepared to negotiate a job offer.  Know what to ask for and how to improve your chances of getting it.

November:  Prepare for the transition to your new job.

December:  Celebrate your Success!  Even if you have not found that perfect job yet, you have stuck to a plan that will benefit your career in the long run.  Be proud of that and take some time to pat yourself on the back…then get back to work. 

This list may contain topics with which you are uncomfortable or unfamiliar.  Do not fret!  We will be checking back in throughout the year with tips and advice on how to be successful following this career development calendar.   Also, you can always write us a comment, or contact us through LinkedIn with questions and concerns.  We would love to hear from you.

Your job search begins before you start looking for a job:

“The best advice I ever received is related to networking.  Think of your network as a bank.  When it is time to search for a job, you will need to make a withdrawal from your network. You need your network to work for you.  The key questions will be:  Have you invested enough in your network so you can make a withdrawal?  Did you invest in a network that will provide a good return on your investment?  

Investments can be as simple as attending someone’s seminar and asking an insightful question to volunteering to lead a project that will assist their career yet provide you invaluable experience.  So next time you hear the phrase network, network, network; think invest, invest, invest!”

“The bottom line:  A timely volunteer effort can significantly improve your professional network, while also providing relevant experience and sometimes leading directly to a job.”

Be prepared for an interview:

“Research, research, research.  Do your homework on any company to which you are applying.  This will enable to you be ready for that “what do you know about our company?” question.  Do not think that it’s unimportant.  Your answer will show initiative and solid interest.”

“Regarding interviews, someone once told me not to worry about thinking for a few moments before answering a question. Just say, ‘Great question.  Do you mind if I take a moment to think about it?’  Then genuinely think about it (probably for no more than 30 seconds) and respond. I did this once and I think it went over very well.”

Ready or not, do it anyway:

“There is never a good time to make life changes, so now is as perfect a time as later.  This piece of advice sticks with me to this day, and was a present from a faculty member during my graduate work.  He said it as I was exploring the pros/cons of getting married during grad school, but it became a mantra during my job searches later on.  As I was deciding on positions after postdoc this advice helped me to put in perspective that the transition is tough, but the goal is to keep moving forward to make my life what I want it to be.”

“The best advice I received was from the provost at University of North Carolina.  We met for an informational interview and to talk about my long-term goals. I said I was thinking of making a move in a few years and he said to apply now, even if I didn’t feel ready.  You never really feel ready or qualified enough. I took the advice and applied for two jobs. I got one and withdrew from the other search.  And, here I am.”

If you have received the gift of great advice, please “regift” it to all of us in our comment sections!  Happy Holidays!

Name: Mona Dvir-Ginzberg

Current position: Lecturer, Institute of Dental Science, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Location: Israel

Time in current position: 2 years

Postdoc: Histone-modifying enzymes involved in the pathology of osteoarthritis with David Hall at NIAMS

A change in path: I was very lucky during my postdoc to have made some novel observations. But I was held back by thinking it was way too early to look for jobs and that my publication record was insufficient. After my first publication, I felt more confident to start pursuing a position. At that point, I wasn’t thinking about academia at all. I wanted applicability and financial security, and industry seemed very appealing, so I began interviewing in the States and in Israel with several biotech companies.

It turned out some of the requirements did not suit my expectations. I was drawn to R&D, but some of the projects in the industry already had a product which only needed to be optimized. One company had outsourced all R&D. Others had a lot of documents and regulatory affairs, which appeared to me as being extremely technical and not very creative work.

A few friends persuaded me to look into a career in academia. In the beginning I was hesitant since I knew it would be tough and the hours would be crazy. On the other hand, the opportunity to interact with students and peers and engage in scientific research was very alluring. I could create my own research theme and still keep it applicative toward discovering new therapies. I began thinking that it might be in my reach. I started putting together an application package and sending it to suitable positions. A mentor in OITE helped me perfect my package and gave me some helpful tips on how to handle an interview. She gave me some tough love, but she did a terrific job preparing me for an academic career. Without her, I wouldn’t have a clue about interviewing or writing application packages and grants.

I learned that if you go into industry for the money and aren’t fulfilled by the work, you won’t have a long-lasting career and will feel dissatisfied. You need to look for jobs that fulfill your core needs and passions in science. It’s a metamorphosis you have to go through on your own.

How I got my job: I applied to positions in the U.S., Canada and Israel. I didn’t think I’d get anywhere with my package—I still thought I wasn’t an attractive candidate. But I heard back that I was being considered at two universities in the U.S. and Israel.

I was invited to give a talk at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. They were looking for someone with a specific expertise. At that point the institute had another candidate with a better publication record than I did. But they liked the overall impression I gave in my interview, my experience in biochemistry and epigenetics could let them open new venues in their curriculum, and my research experience complemented much of their existing research. Although I was unaware of the competition, I requested a relatively modest startup package. Three months after my interview, I was notified that the committee had unanimously accepted my application.

Surprises along the way: At a conference, someone from theU.S. university department I’d applied to let me in as to what they were looking for. They needed someone who could teach undergraduate engineering and had a strong engineering background. I hadn’t realized there were considerations other than publications. Each department’s needs are different; even if your research is in line with theirs, you may not fit other requirements.

Similarly, I gained the impression that the biotech industry doesn’t emphasize publications, and that sometimes having too many publications may be a hurdle.

A difficult adjustment: I found some things very difficult in the beginning. I needed to get a lot done. I had to set up my lab. There wasn’t a vacant space for me when I arrived, and I didn’t receive my start up package right away. I was the only woman in the institute, which was at times challenging. But the hardest thing was that I had to do it alone. As an independent PI, you’re completely isolated from the sort of community of friends you have when you’re a postdoc. I was literally an ocean apart from my friends in the U.S. The fact that you are assigned a mentor and have an institute head helps you deal with many issues, but it’s not the same level of communication you have with your colleagues and friends. You are simply expected to handle the load, and you don’t want to complain too much. 

Find your support: I made it a priority to make time for my family. They energized me—they filled my batteries so I could go back in the ring. My family is my support. My mother, father, husband and children who are excited to see what I do in the lab. They keep me going through tough times. And my institute has a tremendous group of people who are very supportive and professional. They got together to help me out when I didn’t get any grants. That’s a great example of camaraderie and it shows me I work with people who want me as part of their team. You don’t want to go somewhere you’re not wanted.

Day-to-day: Now, most of my day is dedicated toward writing papers and grants and mentoring students. I have two students and a published paper; I have another paper accepted and one under review. Sometimes I indulge and join my students at the bench. I really love doing that. As part of my work, I need to teach. I teach undergrads in dental medicine and advanced students in Master’s and Ph.D. courses. I’d had a little experience teaching science enrichment for high school kids. I loved it and had no problem doing it. It’s very exhilarating. I love interacting with an audience and listening to their thoughts and ideas.

During the day unexpected responsibilities get thrown to your desk like budgeting, committee attendance, invited talks, and reviewing grants and papers. I try to plan it, but most of the time I don’t know how my day will pan out.

Essential skills: Multitasking. Working efficiently throughout the day so you can try to make time for things other than science. Trying to be courteous and patient to all the people who come to you with questions and requests. Not to lose your temper. And not taking on too many responsibilities if you think you’re maxed out. Learn to say no. We’re human. We can’t do everything.

Facing the challenge: In the beginning, I wasn’t sure I wanted to go back to Israel. There are fewer resources compared to the NIH and U.S. extramural. But it occurred to me that I should turn it around for the better. There are so many talented, well-published, well-acclaimed scientists in Israel and it would be great to work with them. Here you are more prone to collaborate with people. Because of limited resources, you improve to some degree your creativity. You are always thinking of ways to overcome various hurdles. There is so much open range. Many times I have attended conferences where I may have been the only attendee from Israel doing basic research in osteoarthritis. I want to lay this foundation. I see it as a challenge.

Mona can be contacted through the OITE alumni database.

Make it short and to the point:  The key principle here is respecting the reader’s time.  Everyone is busy.  No one really has the time to read a long drawn out e-mail that addresses every aspect of who you are, what you want to do with your life and the role that they can play.  Keep your initial communication on point.  Introduce yourself.  Explain that you are interested in the job that they do and how they got there.   Then, ask them for the interview.  Your entire e-mail should be no more than two short paragraphs. 

Have a clear and direct subject:  When sending an e-mail, never leave the subject line blank.  When you are contacting someone who will not recognize your name or e-mail address, make sure your purpose is clear from the subject line.  A subject line such as, “Request for Informational Interview” clearly states your purpose in writing.  If you are being referred by an acquaintance or friend of the reader, you can include your contact’s name in the subject line by writing, “Referred by John Doe:  Informational Interview.” 

Be detailed:  This may seem contradictory to making it short and to the point.  However, you can be detailed and to the point.  When you ask for the informational interview, be specific when it comes to their time commitment.  Let them know you want 15 to 30 minutes of their time.  Suggest a time frame in which to conduct the interview, such as “within the next couple of weeks,” or “between date A and date B.”  This indicates you have thought this through and shows that you are organized.  Also, show that you know something about their position or company.  Stating, “I want to be a Program Officer” only shows you know the title.  You can demonstrate a little knowledge of the field by including a comment like, “I am interested in a career that allows me to not only stay current in cutting edge research, but also be a part of moving research forward in my particular field of interest.”  However, keep it to one or two sentences.  Remember you are trying to make it short and to the point.

End with appreciation:  Even if they never respond, you should state your appreciation for them taking the time to read your e-mail.  It is amazing how far a simple “thank you” will go.  So, end your message with “I appreciate you taking the time to read my e-mail and respond.  I look forward to hearing from you soon.” 

As with all your communication, make sure that your e-mail is professional and grammatically correct.  For some tips on writing a professional e-mail, visit https://www.training.nih.gov/writing_professional_e-mail.  Also, if you want to see an example of a cold e-mail and more tips on writing an effective one, check out this post from “Career Rocketeer.”

First you should understand the purpose of an informational interview.  It is to gain information, not a job.  You are asking a person who works in a field, a position or a company of interest to you about their job and career path.  The interview is not about you and your aspirations.  It is about the person you are interviewing.  However, a successful informational interview will build your knowledge base and your network by at least one person. 

So, how do you set up an informational interview?  The first step is to identify someone you want to interview.  Once you have done that, you will need to make contact with them.  The current convention for first contact is an e-mail.  In general, make it concise and to the point.  You want to respect their time.  State clearly that you are writing to ask them for an informational interview to learn more about them, their work and their career path.  Ask to meet in person or to speak on the phone for fifteen to thirty minutes.  Assure them you will not take up any more of their time and then be sure to honor that. 

Once you have set up the interview, take some time to write out your goals for the conversation and some key questions to ask.  A good list of objectives and questions can be found on the OITE website by clicking here.  However, do not go into the interview set on asking the questions in a precise order.  Let the conversation flow naturally.  If they give an answer that really intrigues you, ask them to elaborate on that particular subject.  Let the flow of the interview dictate the direction it takes.  The more comfortable the person you are interviewing is the more forthcoming and honest they will be. 

Ending an informational interview often can feel a little awkward.  A good transition to ending the interview is to ask them if they know anyone else whom you would benefit from talking to.  If they do, ask them if you can use their name when introducing yourself.  As obvious as it sounds, be sincerely appreciative of their willingness to share with you and express that gratitude at the end of the interview.  Also, send an e-mail after the interview to say thank you. 

Note:  It is often helpful to have a mutual acquaintance that can connect you with the person you wish to interview.  That is not always possible and certainly isn’t necessary.  However, if you do not know the person, you will have to write a “cold e-mail.”  We will go over tips for writing a cold e-mail in a special Friday post this week.

Name: Sandeep Dayal

Current position: Health science policy analyst, Office of Scientific Program and Policy Analysis, NIDDK

Location: Bethesda, MD

Time in current position: 1 year

Postdoc: Role of chromatin remodeling in class-switch recombination with Gary Felsenfeld and Marty Gellert at NIDDK

Day-to-day: We analyze the science that goes on at NIDDK and make it accessible to people, i.e. Congress as they decide on funding. We support the institute director. I write in lay language a lot. I work on things like meeting reports, admin reports, PowerPoints and briefing materials. I analyze data sometimes. I work a lot with the extramural staff and the communications office.

Almost everyone in the office has a Ph.D. and some postdoc experience. It’s necessary to have people with strong science backgrounds to quickly digest very technical material. It’s actually kind of intimidating! Everyone’s really smart.

Essential skills: The main skill that stands out is writing. You have to really love to write, and writing in lay language is not the same as what you write in the lab. That part was kind of new to me. You really have to understand the science inside and out to write for the public and maintain the accuracy. It’s a constant learning process.

It also takes a little bit of humility. You have to be okay with people editing your work. In the beginning, documents would come back all bloody red with tracked changes and I was like, “Oh, my God, I thought I was a good writer.” And lots of things I do don’t have my name on them. You have to be okay with people not knowing you wrote something.

Adjustments: In the lab, I was used to being pretty independent. The amount of interaction with other people in this job is just so much more: working in a group to discuss ideas, managing projects, delegating responsibilities, being diplomatic in how you handle things, being tactful and respectful of people’s time and effort. On the other side, you spend a lot of time sitting in your office and writing.

The scope of the science is completely different. In my postdoc, I worked on one region of the genome. I knew every single modification of that histone. In this kind of job, you never do anything in depth. It’s much broader. One day it’s X-ray crystallography of a drug interacting with a protein and the next it’s large-scale trials of whether vending machines affect childhood obesity rates. I love it, but it wouldn’t be for everyone.

Another difference is deadlines. I was told in the interview that I’d have to work within deadlines, but I guess I didn’t fully appreciate what that does for your work when you’re juggling three or four or five projects. You have to work quickly and budget your time carefully. You have to get things done to 80-90% of your satisfaction and then let them go.

Sometimes I do miss doing experiments and analyzing data. I miss the flexibility of lab life. On the other hand, I work 8:30 to 5:00 most days. There’s more structure. I don’t miss failed experiments or troubleshooting! The way I see it, every job has its mini-preps—the little jobs you don’t want to do. But if the fun stuff outweighs the boring stuff, you’re in a good place.

A path in hindsight: When I started my postdoc, probably like most people I was thinking about PI positions and academia. It didn’t take long to realize that maybe I don’t want to do this long-term. I was watching people smarter than me at the bench struggle. You have to really love it. There was something missing for me.

Since grad school, I’d been doing all these things outside the lab. I was president of my grad school student association and I started my own journal club. At the NIH I joined Felcom. It’s all stuff you’d call leadership. I talked to lots of people at the NIH, and what kept coming up was policy. I took a look back and saw that all the things I’d been doing were good preparation for a career in policy.

Network, network, network: Start with your friends. It sounds silly, but it’s true. They’re your immediate networking circle. Then expand on that. Go for coffee, send emails, make phone calls, go on “informational interviews.” I used the contacts I made at Felcom. I learned of this job because two people gave me the heads up. They knew I was looking, and they said I should apply. I got an industry offer through networking with people I knew in grad school.

If you have people who can put your resumé in front of the right eyes, it really helps. It won’t get you the job, but it’ll get your resumé looked at.

Take a chance: I almost didn’t apply for this job. I didn’t have direct policy experience. But people said apply, apply, so, okay. I sat down with the person whose job I would be filling—she was moving overseas—and tried to really understand it, to see if it was what I wanted to do. And it was. Then it was a matter of navigating the federal government hiring process. I got through the first screen, so my resumé was looked at. Then in the first interview I met everyone in the office and it was a great fit. There was a second interview with different people. For policy, personality really matters because there’s so much interaction between people. They offered me the job.

Making the choice: I applied to industry positions, too, which is like 180 degrees from policy. I think I would have liked industry, but this appealed to me more. An industry job I was offered in Connecticut paid a lot more, and I had to wrestle with that. But I really love D.C., and I had family reasons to stay.

Beyond the lab: Try to get extra skills under your belt outside the lab. Everyone’s really smart and good in the lab, and on paper, most of us look roughly the same when it comes to the science. Sometimes you’re lucky or creative and you have top-tier publications, but that’s not the case for everyone. You have to find other things to stand out. There’s things you can do to make yourself marketable beyond pipetting. It’s really good to have leadership skills. I would encourage anyone interested in policy to get involved in the community.

The right fit: I think this is where I’m going to lay my roots. I’ve gotten to know people in different ICs, and the cultures are different. I’m really pleased with my office. It’s fun to do policy at the NIH.

Sandeep can be contacted through the OITE alumni database.

Many of us are trained as research scientists.  Others are NIH employees committed to education and training.  We remain involved in biomedical research while providing the research tools into the often overlooked part of your scientific life…the career part.  We understand the pressures to publish and the long and often unpredictable hours of the lab.  We appreciate the sacrifices you make to further science and to provide better treatments and cures for diseases.  It is that great appreciation that drives us to do what we do:  Help you have the successful career you desire.

We meet with many fellows either through our workshops or in one-on-one meetings to help you improve your career prospects, in any job sector.  We strive to take our understanding of the dynamics of lab life and couple that with our knowledge of career development to help provide the tools and guidance needed to succeed in whatever career path you choose.  We try to provide a positive influence and inspiration.  We help you prepare to become a PI by helping with your application package all the way through negotiating the offer.  We provide training on breaking into industry, from crafting the resume, networking tools, and transitioning to the new job.  And we also present career options along with ways to gain additional skill sets so you can pursue any career that excites you. 

Through helping others reach career goals in science, we get to be a part of advancing biomedical research, growing the broader workforce, and helping people lead fulfilling lives.  When all the pieces come together and we are able to help a fellow achieve career success, it is like getting that final bit of data that completes a paper.  We are grateful to be able to participate in your success.

Current position: Research scientist at Johnson & Johnson

Location: San Diego, CA

Time in current position: 4 months

Postdoc: Molecular neuropharmacology of dopamine receptors with David Sibley at NINDS

My story: When I came to NINDS, I didn’t know what I was going to do [for a career]. I thought it would all be unveiled with time. Looking back, I should have had more “career intellect.”

I knew I didn’t want to go into academia. Figuring out what I did want was the hard part. I knew I needed to get closer to helping people. I wanted to get more into drug discovery. Pharma was in line with my interests. It was more big-picture; okay, so you have the target, but what happens after that, how does it go down the pipeline, at what point does it get to the patient, how is it helping them, what went wrong, what works. The other thing is that funding was being cut. This was 2007, and the market was crashing. I had colleagues with their own labs who were struggling. It wasn’t an environment where I could thrive.

Job search in a nutshell: One and a half years out of completing my term, I knew I needed to look for jobs. I started going to seminars through OITE and going on informational interviews. Then I got more serious. I did a ton of reading. I did more extensive job searches and tapped into every connection I could find, even if there was no position immediately available. That included things like mixers and roundtables after work. I had connections with a lot of embassies through the Visiting Fellows program. I used Fogarty. I worked with people who were in the medical field outside the NIH for additional perspective on my CV and so forth.

The thing is not to feel embarrassed but to let people know you’re looking for a job. Don’t cross over into hounding, but mention it in conversation. You just need that one person who will put in the word for you.

Challenges for a non-citizen: I wasn’t a citizen, and I wasn’t a green card holder. That puts another whole dimension on the job search. I had a J1 visa and tried to change my status to H1B. It’s very challenging because you’re only there to train for a certain amount of time (5 years) and then you need to go back to your home country for 2 years (although that can be waivered in some countries). You need to get someone to sponsor you. It all takes time. You really need to get up to speed as soon as possible about what you need to do.

Visa status is not a mark against us, but there are some companies and science organizations that won’t sponsor you. You need to take that into account when you’re looking at jobs. There will be a disclosure at the bottom of the job description if it’s open to U.S. citizens only. If not, it needs to be brought up at some point during the interview. NIH being in DC, the majority of positions require permanent residency or U.S. citizenship. The likelihood is you’ll have to relocate. I cast a wide net. I was willing to move to wherever the best job was.

It was a huge hurdle for me, to be perfectly honest. You aren’t just up against people who want to do the job you’re interested in, but people who are citizens and who have experience. I learned that you have to really tailor your CV to what the job requirements are. The experience you don’t have, you look for what you can substitute. For example, if they were looking for people-management and team skills, I may not have done that as part of my job, but I was co-chair for the Visiting Fellows Committee, organizing events and teams. I didn’t mention visa status until the interview. Usually it comes up with HR. At the end of the interview I would say something like, “Oh, I wanted to let you know, is this a problem, is the company willing to sponsor?” Usually, unless they’ve disclosed otherwise, it’s not issue.

Stepping stone: I was getting interviews but not job offers. The answer was invariably that the other person had industry experience. So I ended up doing a second postdoc in industry at Eli Lilly. It was a completely different line of research, using techniques I’d never used before. The postdoc did three main things for me: it gave me industry experience, it added new techniques to my resume, and it involved a company that was ready and willing to sponsor my visa.

How I got my job: A colleague of mine from back at the NIH received a job announcement through a recruiter. She didn’t want it, but she thought it was a good fit for me and forwarded it to me. It was a great fit. I contacted the recruiter, and within a week I was set up for a phone interview.

Day-to-day: There are a lot more team meetings and a lot more projects. Just about every project that needs a drug crosses my desk. I’ve got an incredible amount of diversity. I like the collaborative nature of the work. I’m still doing bench science, and there’s freedom to look for collaborations outside industry.

What’s next: I’ll probably take more of a management route, away from the bench. I am very interested in the managerial side of pharma.

Elizabeth can be contacted through the OITE alumni database.

Name: Tshaka Cunningham

Current position: Scientific program manager at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; adjunct assistant professor at Howard University

Location: Washington, D.C.

Time in current position: 2 ½ years

Postdocs: Cancer and HIV/AIDS with Jay Berzofsky at NCI; viruses and immunology with John Yewdell at NIAID

 How I got my job: Every year I would update my CV and show it to people. I’d say, “Just to let you know, this is what I’m doing now, hope everything is going well with you.” That’s how my resume ended up at the VA. They got it from someone in my network. They called me up and asked if I’d like to talk about this research management position. It was very informal, over lunch. I hadn’t thought about that kind of work before. Once I realized what I’d be doing, I really liked it, because one of the things I like is mission-focused research, and what better mission than to help veterans who’ve served our country? It got me fired up. I applied for the posting.

 Unexpected directions: I did my doctorate at Rockefeller University, which was hard-core academia. Cutting-edge research in HIV biology. It was the best time in my academic life. Then I started a postdoc at the Institut Pasteur, but NIH offered more in the area I wanted to be in. My thinking was that I’d stay in academia. At the NIH, I learned that I’m not a traditional, basic researcher. I need application. I don’t feel that great unless I’m trying to cure someone. Now, at the VA, I get treatments out to people who need them.

 “A-ha” moment: I took the Myers-Briggs assessment when I was at NIH and was shocked by the findings. [In a supplemental book that lists popular occupations for various personality types,] it didn’t have science as one of the careers for my type. It had other options like politics, business and administration/management. All my life, I’d felt like a science nerd. The test helped me recognize all these other interpersonal skills and preferences that I have. It pushed me out of the lab a little bit. 

Network, network, network: I’m a natural networker. I love talking to people. I do it everywhere I go. A lot of scientists shy away from that stuff. Being outgoing expands your network in ways you don’t even know. All the job offers I’ve had have come from someone I know, or from someone who knows someone I know. They already have a good impression of me and then they can look at my credentials.

 Networking is not just getting a name and a business card. It’s having a conversation, getting to know the person, and them getting to know you.

 Practical considerations: I considered things like compensation, lifestyle and my feelings about basic research. If you want a family, you have to prepare. I met my wife when I first started my postdoc, and we got married right before I left. She’s an elementary school teacher, and we had loans to pay back. We said, “One of us has to get a higher-paying job!” Now we have a young son, Logan, who is the joy of my world.

 Day-to-day: I work in the rehabilitation portion of the Office of Research and Development. Day to day, I evaluate science. I have to stay up on the science. I am constantly reading. I interact with investigators a lot. That’s good when there’s good news, but only a small percentage get funded, so I help them understand what they need to do better. I also set up peer reviews. I’m lucky to meet very distinguished scientists who take the time to do peer review. I do background research on them and manage a database of experts.

I don’t do bench research. The closest to that is site visits. But I am still involved in some basic research projects at Howard University outside my area of focus at the VA.

 Giving back to students: My dream was to do my training at Ivy League schools and be a professor at a historically black college. I was fortunate enough to be presented with the opportunity to become an adjunct professor at Howard University when I was at NIH. I still do that. I also am doing a detail with Alexandria city public schools to improve STEM education, especially for disadvantaged minorities. That’s my passion. I want to make science cool for kids.

 Marry your career for the right reasons: Keeping an open mind is important. When you’re finishing your postdoc, it’s like you’ve been in a relationship this whole time and you say, “We might as well get married.” That’s not good. You have to ask, “Is this a good fit for me?” Maybe you need something different. You’re not necessarily meant to become a clone of your lab mentor. You can do a variety of things with a Ph.D.

 Tshaka can be contacted through the OITE alumni database.

First off, find a quiet space to conduct the interview and if possible use a land line as opposed to your cell phone.  You want to limit distractions and background noise.  Your goal is to be heard and to hear the interviewers easily.  Typically, there are one to three people on the other end of line.  Write down the name and position of each person as they introduce themselves so you can refer to them by name during the call (and try your best to put a voice with a name).  After introductions you will likely be asked to briefly tell them about yourself and what excited you about the position or they may dive right into asking you more direct questions. 

We have seen that interviewees tend to ramble, probably since the lack of non-verbal cues makes it seem like the interviewer is still looking for more information. Try to keep your answers to three or four sentences, and then pause. If they don’t ask another question, ask “would you like me to elaborate on that?” 

Also, be prepared for the interview.  The interview may focus on traditional interview questions, and the OITE has a list of questions here: https://www.training.nih.gov/assets/Interviewing_Handout.pdf 

For academic positions, we have collected a list of questions that other post-doctoral fellows have reported being asked in their phone interviews.  Obviously some of these questions are for predominantly teaching positions and others for predominantly research position.  A few questions apply to both types of positions.

 Questions:

1. Why did you apply to our college/university/department?
2. Briefly tell us about your career leading up to this application?
3. Who do you envision collaborating with here on our campus?
4. What will be in your first grant application?
5. Do you need access to any major/special equipment to do your research?
6. What types of resources will you need to start up your lab?
7. Tell us how you approach developing a new course.
8. Tell us how you deal with students who are struggling with the material in one of your courses; a spin on this is how do you deal with disruptive students in your classroom?
9. What would you like to teach? – be sure to talk about both survey courses and advanced courses for majors
10. Any updates on papers or grants mentioned in your application
11. How do you focus on making your classroom welcoming to a diverse student body?
12. How will you accommodate the unique needs of adult learners in your classroom?  
13. Are you aware of our honors requirement and how do you think you would approach supervising honors students?

 The final question almost always is: 

1. Do you have any questions for us?  You must have one or two, and “when will I hear back from you?” does not count.   

Name: Thomas Paul

Current position: Bench science, working on epigenetic drugs at a pharmaceutical company

Location: San Diego, CA

Time in current position: 9 months

Postdoc: Epigenetics of acute myeloleukemia with Linda Wolff at NCI

Job search in a nutshell: I researched which companies were doing what I was doing and pursued them. I looked at job boards, and I used the networks I’d built through serving on committees and also friends, colleagues, people I used to work with—basically, using anyone I knew who had any access to any company to put the word out that I was looking and to let me know if they had any options available. I got one interview through a salesperson who came to our lab.

How I got my job: Talking to people at a conference, telling them I had expertise in what they were doing. They had no openings then, but two months later I got an email saying they did.

Planning is everything: I think it’s important to establish a plan when you start your search and to follow through on it. When I was getting close to the time when I needed to start looking for jobs, I worked out a Plan A (a research job at a company doing what I was already doing) and a Plan B, C and D. It was motivating for me; I knew what to do on a daily basis to be effective. I spent maybe one hour a day doing nothing but trying to fulfill the plan.

Career development really helped me, because it made me aware early on of what I needed to be doing. By the time I was finishing my postdoc, I had already met people and knew how to be a competitive candidate. If you start in your last year, you’ll be surprised how much catching up you have to do. 

Network, network, network: Just putting things online is not going to work. You have to go out and get it. It’s not a total waste of time—I got some hits through online applications—but most everything was generated through networking. Talking to people in the field also lets you know what they’re looking for in a candidate.

I met lots of people who helped me. That includes people at other companies I’d pursued jobs with but didn’t get. It’s never an easy thing to be rejected, but it doesn’t have to be nasty. The people who rejected me became my mentors. They recognized that I had talent even though I wasn’t the right fit for their positions. It’s important to keep your options open and not burn any bridges.

Biggest frustration: There was a two- or three-month lag between beginning the search and getting hits back. I put all this work into it, and I wasn’t hearing much. Then things started coming together.

Making the choice: I ended up with a lot of options and offers, including other fellowships and non-bench positions. Then I started getting more interviews! You have to make quick decisions. I fell back on my Plan A, Plan B and Plan C. I got my Plan A, which was great.

Day-to-day: What drives me is an opportunity to really produce something. Here, that means cancer drugs that could save people’s lives directly. It’s a corporate environment. In addition to bench science, I write reports, keep an online notebook and do training.

The upside: I’m in a position I like that is similar to my postdoc, and I can grow. I’m using what I knew and I’m learning a lot.

The downside: The trade-off was geography. I have a family, and it wasn’t in our plans to move to the West Coast. One piece of advice someone gave me is that when you’re starting out, you have to be willing to sacrifice some things. I heeded that.

What’s next: We have a two-year-old, and another baby on the way. Life never gets easier! But we’re happy out here in San Diego. We’re ready for whatever life throws ahead of us.

Thomas can be contacted through the OITE alumni database.

Name: Jennifer Crawford

Current position: Technical writer, Office of Communications and Education, NCI

Location: Macon, GA

Time in current position: 1 month

Postdoc: Tumorigenesis and prolactin signaling in breast cancer, with Barbara Vonderhaar at NCI

My story: I didn’t think I wanted to do research, but I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do. I thought I’d see what panned out. I joined AWIS [the Association of Women in Science] and went to OITE career events. I did a personality assessment with an interest inventory, and a lot of things came up in communications—talking about science rather than doing science. 

I didn’t realize this right away, but I like to finish things. I want to point to something in my hands at the end of each day and say, “I did this.” Being in the lab, nothing ends. Even when you publish, there are always more questions to answer and more you could do. That’s great if that’s what you like to do, but if you’re like me, it can be frustrating. My favorite thing in grad school was sitting down for one month and writing my dissertation—saying why I did what I did and what it means. It made me think, well, maybe writing is something I want to do. 

Network, network, network: I sent out a lot of emails trying to figure out what to do. I went on informational interviews. Everybody was really open to talking about what they work on. I talked to people who did policy, communications, journal editing… It didn’t require hours and hours—just meeting people for lunch or grabbing coffee and asking what their day-to-day is like, what they like and don’t like about their job. You’ve got time in your day to do that.

Change takes effort: People recommended that I get some experience. I got involved with the NCI Knowledge Management mentoring program and did some writing for OITE. That was the first year they had the career symposium, and I helped write and edit articles about it. I wrote an article about Community College Day for the NIH Catalyst. I did lots of small articles like that. I was surprised how many people were happy to let me write something for them.

Then I applied to the NCI health communications intern program. Usually you have to have graduated within a year and have an MPH or science writing Masters to get in. I’d been out a year and a half, but through my interviews I’d encountered an office [the Center for Cancer Research] that had an opening, and they told the program they’d made a match with me. I spent a lot of my time there on lay summaries of research papers and articles for the quarterly magazine and monthly newsletter, helping with ideas and editing, and helping with the congressional justifications. It was lots of good experience with plain language writing for the Internet. Some of the work involved calling people up, not just researching a result. That was really interesting. It was very different than anything I’d done before.

When I was in the lab, it was a struggle for me to stay motivated. I liked going into work every day when I was an intern.

Help from my advisor: My boss let me take half a day a week to go over to OITE from January to April 2010. Then she retired, and I spent the last 3 months of my postdoc in the same office as the health communications internship. For 3 months during your postdoc, you may be able to do a detail somewhere. My project hadn’t really panned out, so there was nothing to finish up.

How I got my job: After 6 months in the Center for Cancer Research, it became clear that they were not going to be able to hire someone in the office. My mentor suggested I talk with the head of the Cancer Publications Branch. Since I had a Ph.D. and writing experience, CPB hired me as an intern for 6 months. During my internship, I made it really obvious that I’d like to keep working for them after my time was up. I wasn’t thinking of it as an internship but as a long job interview. I made myself invaluable. I stayed late, read a lot, asked questions, and showed that that was where I wanted to be. I showed what I could become. We started discussing the possibility of a contract, and they hired me for one year.

A satisfying result: I am super enthusiastic about what I’m doing now. I’m teleworking from Macon, GA, where we relocated when my husband got a job at Mercer University. I’d be happy to keep doing this for a couple of years. I’d like to transfer into a more permanent position if possible. At the same time, other ideas could be cool. Maybe being a PIO [public information officer] at a university. I’m trying to meet people and create a network here in Macon. There’s a lot of different writing you can do. Something will pan out.

Jennifer can be contacted through the OITE alumni database.

Name: Nicholas Mitchell

Current position: Assistant professor at St. Bonaventure University

Location: St. Bonaventure, NY

Time in current position: 10 months

Postdoc: Adult neurogenesis as a potential therapy for cognitive deficits, with Henriette van Praag at NIA

 Job search in a nutshell: I went to the NIH after completing a one-year visiting professorship. I decided to do a postdoc largely based on the realization that I needed to retool and complete my research training to be competitive for tenure-track faculty positions at undergraduate institutions.

 I was really aggressive in my job search, going to sources within and beyond the NIH. I asked people in academia and industry about what key functions and tasks were required to be successful in the jobs I was interested in. I interviewed for faculty and administrative positions in academia. I also considered alternate careers that emphasized the business and managerial sides of science. Ultimately, I chose academia because I thought it encompassed most of what I was looking for.

Go back to the beginning: For people struggling with finding a job or choosing between options, go back as far as you need to to identify the people who excited you. That should give some indication of where you want to go. I honed in on becoming a professor by listing my five most influential role models. They were coaches, teachers and professors. Open yourself up to all the people you’ve encountered and the career possibilities available to you.

Know thyself: I took the Myers-Briggs personality assessment at OITE. I had an idea of what I wanted and what I was good at, but the test helped me ask, “Am I really?” I took a good, hard look at myself and my skills and preferences as a human being, not just as a scientist.

When you spend so much time in the lab, you think that’s all you are. Don’t overlook your “translational skills” that could be helpful in other careers.

Putting it on paper: Craft your resume and cover letter carefully. Have it reviewed by as many people as possible. Recognize the differences between resumes and CVs. Neither should be something you write once and lock in stone. They are much more organic. Update them quarterly, or better yet, monthly. Make sure you use language that’s appropriate for the field, job and audience.

Interview tips: If you get an interview for a job you’re at least 50% interested in, take the interview. You can’t fully appreciate an opportunity until you’re on site, talking with would-be supervisors and coworkers. It’s very labor-intensive, and you have to develop a healthy way for coping with rejection, rejection and more rejection. But even if you don’t want the job or don’t get an offer, the process is still critical to eventually getting what you do want.

I cannot overemphasize preparation! You have to find out specific details about the organization—where and how you intend to fit in, promote it and advance its goals. Dress appropriately. Learn as much as you can while you’re there. Then follow up. Don’t let it sit like a boat adrift. If you don’t get the job, identify someone there from whom you can seek constructive feedback.

Making the choice: Teaching isn’t for everyone, but it‘s something I’ve always been passionate about. I decided to join the faculty at St. Bonaventure because they legitimately promote and support undergraduate research. The facilities allow us to conduct research on par (qualitatively) with Tier One, which is phenomenal when you consider that the student body here consists of just over 2,000 undergraduates. I received a respectable start-up package. And the best part is I get to work with really smart students. It’s awesome.

Give it time: My first year was teaching-intensive. I worked to advance our anatomy and physiology and our biochemistry curriculum. It was pretty tough to build any research momentum. However, in December I took on two energetic research students. In the spring, we started ordering supplies and setting up our lab. We’ll be culturing stem cells by Labor Day.

Your first year–anywhere–is hectic. Things don’t really gel until your second year, I think. Save game-changing judgment for years two and three.

The upshot: This is the most happy I’ve been, professionally and personally, since undergrad. I’m in a place where what I do has a direct impact on an organization. I work hard and see the effects both scientifically and humanistically. It’s tremendously rewarding to see students realize their potential.

What’s next: My current single biggest goal is to win a grant for extramural funding. Looking forward, I’m always questioning when and how to raise the bar. Whether that eventually means a more administrative role in academia, or transitioning beyond, I can’t say. Right now, I’m tickled to have my own lab and be mentoring bright students.

Nicholas can be contacted through the OITE alumni database.

Attention alumni: Do you have an interesting career or job search story? Drop us a line at conlanlo@mail.nih.gov

What were the challenges you faced?

Your productivity takes a sizeable hit. Everybody mentioned this one. Stephanie explains, “Expect that your productivity during the first 6-12 months post-baby may be far less than what you are used to. This is due to lots of factors: Lack of sleep, hormonal changes for mothers, adjusting to a vastly different way of life, figuring out how to use work-time more effectively because undoubtedly you will have less time to devote to work if you are participating equally with your partner in child-rearing duties.”

It’s hard to remain competitive. According to Mark, “The worst part of having kids during my postdoc is that I find myself competing against childless postdocs willing to work 55+ hours a week. At most, I am able to work 40 hours a week (with daycare pickup, then dinner, then bath, then preparing lunches for the next day, sweeping food off the floor, washing bottles—well, there’s no extra time at night to squeeze in extra work).”

The element of unpredictability. Michael, an NIH clinical fellow, explains: ”Whatever level of predictability you expect in your other life goals (clinical care, experiments, grants, etc) does not apply to children.” You never know when your child is going to wake up with a fever and need to stay home. This can wreak havoc with a well-planned schedule and leave you scrambling at the last minute.

Paying for child care on a trainee salary. Infant day care can be difficult to find and can run $1500-1800/month. The NIH day care centers have extremely long wait lists (years, even). Once you find good day care, it may take up a large chunk of your stipend. Furthermore, fellows don’t make W-2 income and are thus ineligible for the child care tax credit or a spouse’s child care flexible savings account.

Feeling guilty. Anna explains, ”What I struggle with now is the feeling of guilt that is common among a lot of working parents. I don’t feel like I’m giving 100% at home and I know I’m not giving 100% at work. I constantly feel like I should be working longer hours and weekends, and then at the same time I feel like I should be spending more time with my daughter. That’s not something that has gone away nor do I think it ever will.”

It can be done though!  Join us later this week for some pieces of advice to having a family while being a trainee.

This is the first of a three part series about having a family during the time of your scientific training.

When is the right time to start a family? This is really an impossible question, since there’s never a perfect time. The balancing act of work and family is a challenge even under the best circumstances.

We talked to NIH grad students, postdocs, and clinical fellows who decided to go for it during their time here. We compiled their lists of pros and cons, and sought their advice for students and fellows considering taking the plunge.

Question 1: Why was this a good time for you to start a family?

Their answers:

A flexible work schedule that allows wiggle room for sick days and day care emergencies.

Manageable workload compared to what they expect later in their careers. Though NIH students and fellows often work long hours, several shared their desire to get the baby years over with before their work lives get even busier, for instance as new faculty members running independent research labs. This was the case for Anna: “The reason my two kids are going to be so close together in age is that I wanted to have my second child also during my postdoc, rather than as a new faculty member.”

Maternity and paternity leave (for IRTA/CRTA fellows): 8 weeks of paid leave for the birth or adoption of child. Many fellows discuss their amount of leave with their principal investigator or supervisor. FTE fellows (such as research and clinincal fellows)  first must use their annual leave, and then can take unpaid family leave or receive annual leave donations.

Health insurance for IRTA and CRTAs covers nearly the entire cost of the pregnancy and covers dependent children at no additional cost. FTE health insurance is a bit more complicated, but there are still very good options.

The NIH Nursing Mother’s Program. This was a life-saver for many of the new mothers we interviewed. The program features breastfeeding and return-to-work classes, phone support from lactation consultants during maternity leave, and lactation rooms available in multiple buildings on campus.

The ticking clock. Several trainees pointed out that their NIH years occupied a key place in their reproductive lives. They were willing to face any challenges rather than risk potential consequences of waiting.

The opportunity to adjust to parenthood before making long-term career choices. It’s hard to know in advance how having a baby will affect your career goals. Some fellows felt relieved to have been able to figure this out relatively early in their training. For Stephanie, “[having children during my postdoc] allowed me to look for a job with my own career priorities in place. I knew what I could handle, work-wise, while parenting two small children.”

Believe it or not, parenting can actually make you a better scientist. You wouldn’t necessarily predict this, but several trainees said that having children actually made them MORE productive at times, because they came to work each morning knowing that they had a limited number of hours to accomplish something that day. Natalie, a grad student in NIDDK, said ”One of the reasons I have been successful thus far in my career stems from my struggles as a parent. I have learned that being focused (a must for working parents) actually puts you one step ahead.”

Coming up in the next two posts:  Challenges to having a family during training and words of wisdom.  Check back soon!

Neither of Chris’s parents were scientists, and rather there was a strong interest in classical music in the house. He did a lot of music as a boy, and for a time he might have thought that his ultimate destiny was to be a classical musician. The boarding school he went to for a time specialised in music, but, he changed schools after the Junior Certificate when he realised that he was not going to follow a career in music.

UCD Volcanologist, pictured here, at work ‘in the field’ in Tenerife, with a volcanic crater in the background (Credit: Chris Bean)

The first time Chris recalls being interested in science was as a young boy, watching the historic 1969 moon landings. His father got him out of bed to watch the events unfold on what he remembers as a very speckly black and white TV. He was totally captivated – hooked – and he followed all the other Apollo missions in detail.

The interest in science continued from there, and by the time he was in 6th year in school he had begun to develop an interest in the Earth and its natural processes. That interest was triggered at that time  by visits to the geology museum at TCD.

A  friend of Chris’s was interested in physical geography – the study of the Earth’s natural features – and his friend’s brother was studying physics in TCD. “We used to go down there to hang out after school in 6th year to play snooker, sometimes popping into the geology department for a look around,” recalls Chris. “Yes, officially we probably shouldn’t have been there! but nobody ever tried to stop us.”

SCHOOL

At primary school there wasn’t much science taught, he recalls. This was before there was a proper science curriculum at primary level. There were nature studies, but even that was “on the light side”. He remembers being interested in the physical aspect of geography, learning about rivers and so on, but it’s a bit hazy, he says. Primary school students today have a more interesting programme he believes.

Nevertheless, by the time he entered second level his interest in science was gaining strength, and after completing the Junior Cert he decided to take physics for the Leaving Certificate. He went to two different secondary schools, St Finian’s in Mullingar, a school renowned for music, but that also had good science labs, and later to Synge Street in Dublin’s south inner city – a school with a great reputation for science and has produced several winners of the BT Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition over the years.

COLLEGE

After leaving school he decided to go to UCD to study science and his chosen subjects in his first year were physics,  maths and maths physics. There was no clear career path in his mind at this point, he just ‘followed his nose’ and did what he was interested in doing.

He loved the college experience, and enjoyed it much more than school. There was much more freedom, and it was much more open, he says, in terms of the learning experience. It required taking control of things for yourself, but that’s a good thing, he says, and college is a fantastic experience for students that “fully engage” with it.

By now, he found himself watching Earth Science documentaries on television and he realised he was interested in using maths as a way to study how the Earth’s natural processes, such as volcanoes and earthquakes, work. He started down this road by doing an M.Sc. in Applied Geophysics at NUI Galway. Next he did a PhD at the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies (DIAS) and he  spent a lot of time in Karlsruhe University in Germany as part of that. This was a really exciting time for Chris, doing research and travelling the world to present his finding at various conferences. Some of the people he met abroad during this time are still among his best friends.

JOB

Chris says that he was “pretty lucky” to get a job at UCD immediately after he finished his PhD at the DIAS. Since then he has also had several visiting positions in France, Spain and the US. One of the great things, of course, about being a scientist – up to now at least! – has been that it offers the chance to work and live abroad, meet new people and learn about different cultures and countries, but still then still be able to come back to a job in Ireland afterwards.

In terms of his work, Chris says that he studies several aspects of geophysical science, that is the physics of the Earth in all its aspects. This includes learning about volcanoes, says Chris. Volcanoes are interesting, he says because we don’t know how they work. The goal is to figure out how volcanoes actually work, which is not to be confused, he says, with describing how they seem to be working.

The volcano work involves going to exciting places and collecting data on volcanoes. It also involves lots of computer simulations of volcano processes. Chris and his colleagues develop new models and write their own software to apply these models.

The work on volcanoes is interesting, but it can also be dangerous, even fatal. Some of Chris’s colleagues were killed in the 1993 eruption on Galeras, Columbia, but he says, such deaths are very unusual. He doesn’t worry too much about the dangers, but neither is he reckless. He cancelled a field experiment due to take place on a volcano in Costa Rica last year, as he was not happy about the safety arrangements.

He also likes to make the point that there is more to geophysics than studying hazards such as volcanoes and earthquakes. There are aspects that are important to civil engineering and building projects, mineral exploration, petroleum exploration, and, increasingly, in the renewable energy area.

ADVICE

Science is exciting, and fun, but like most things it requires dedication adn there is no quick or easy route to success. For someone that is very interested in science, then a career in science can be very rewarding, says Chris.

“The best thing is that fundamentally you are searching for ‘the truth’, for how things work and fit together,” says Chris.

“If you are doing your job properly you will be open to changing your ideas as new evidence requires and you certainly will not toe the partly line, instead you will think independently. The worst thing is that it is hard to switch off. When you walk out of the office your job often walks with you with stuff swirling around in your head.”

In terms of monetary rewards, he says that scientists might have been exploited somewhat in the past because they were so committed to their jobs.

This meant that they didn’t have to be incentivised financially, as a lot of them were driven first and foremost to discover new knowledge.

The upside of this, he says, is that science must therefore be a career with very high levels of job satisfaction, as people are not going into it for purely financial reward.

This situation might be changing, said Chris, and the future looks bright for science.

The best advice he would give is to for students to do what they love best.

“Do law or medicine of you are really interested in law or medicine,” he says. “If you are interested in science and creative new discoveries, do science and it can lead you so some very strange and interesting places.”

“When I was an undergraduate, I never realistically thought that I would be hiking up volcanoes in Costa Rica and getting paid to do it.”

This article was first published in the May-June ed. of Science Spin

Last fall, OITE launched “A Day in the Life of…,” a series of interactive, online chats exploring a variety of careers in science.

In September, we heard from David Kosub, a Public Health Analyst, about careers in science/public health policy, and chatted with Philip Mayer, an Assistant Vice President of Pfizer, in October to explore careers in big pharma. Last November, we featured careers in science writing through a discussion with Mariette DiChristina, Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American. (For more tips from Ms. DiChristina, click here.)

To kick off the series in 2011, we are pleased to introduce “A Day in the Life of…A Science Educator,” featuring Jayatri Das, Senior Exhibit Developer at The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a dynamic science museum with interactive exhibits for visitors of all ages, live science shows, and more.

To read the transcript of the chat, click here .

EVENT: “A Day in the Life of…A Science Educator”

DATE: Thursday, January 20, 2011

TIME: 12 pm – 1:00 pm EST

GUEST: Jayatri Das, Senior Exhibit Developer, The Franklin Institute

RELATED POST: How to Get a Job in Science Education and Outreach

“It’s exciting running experiments. I actually get to set fire to things in a laboratory for a living, and see what happens, and how they burn. Not many people can say that.”

So says, Dr Claire Belcher, a post-doctoral researcher based at UCD’s Palaeoecology and Palaeobiology Group, until recently when she took up a post in Edinburgh University. Claire has spent most of the past decade exploring the truth of the widely held theory that the dinosaurs died out because they were broiled alive, following a massive asteroid impact that caused a global firestorm to rage right across the surface of the Earth. It seems, however, from the studies of Claire and others, that the unfortunate dinosaurs were not broiled, but rather were frozen to death. The asteroid impact, which is not in dispute, happened, but it led to temperatures falling due to debris blocking out sunlight, rather than to a global firestorm.

INTEREST

Claire recalls first getting interested in science, at the age of five, and one of the early inspirations was a geology book her father had, called ‘Principles of Physical Geology’ by Arthur Holmes, which had lots of pictures of volcanoes. She found volcanoes really fascinating and wanted to learn more about them.

Later on in school, unsurprisingly, she loved her science and geography classes at school, although she ‘hated’ maths. Her science teachers, for the most part, were fairly young and enthusiastic about their job. In particular she enjoyed GCSE chemistry (the equivalent of our Junior Certificate) and A-level geography. The reason she enjoyed these particular classes was that the teachers had a fabulous sense of humour and this really helped to make the classes fun.

BALLERINA

From secondary school level she always thought she’d do a degree in Geology, but, interestingly, she thought the best option might be to come back and do this as a mature student. The reason for this way of thinking was that Claire had wanted first to see if she had what it took to become a professional ballerina. She trained hard, four nights per week, from the age of nine to achieve this goal. However, one month after she was due to start full-time dance college, she had a change of heart, and began to ‘feel strange’ about the prospect of not learning science anymore. So, she decided, at the last minute, to apply for university. She was lucky in that there were still a few places left at Royal Holloway University, London, and she was accepted, and began studying for her B.Sc. in Geology in September 1997.

UNIVERSITY

Claire immediately took to the university experience and enjoyed the learning thoroughly. She does remember thinking, however, that the new way of learning was quite hard, and almost overwhelming. The big change was in listening to a lecture as opposed to being taught in a more direct way in school. But, she soon adjusted and became drawn to palaeontology – the study of pre-historic life – a subject that she didn’t know much about before college.

She had always been attracted to the Earth Sciences, which encompasses the study of earthquakes, volcanoes, geological process, oceans, weather, and anything else that relates to the natural process on planet Earth. “I think my mind is fairly visually stimulated, so that I derive my ideas from being able to put them in a context of that which I can see around me,” Claire explained. “Earth science to me is like placing the pieces together of a jigsaw puzzle – you can collect fragments of information that you can see in the rocks and then piece them together using that which we can see in the world around us today.”

During her undergraduate studies, Claire became very interested in something called the ‘Cretaceous-Tertiary’ (K-T) geological boundary. This is the time in Earth’s history, about 65.5 million years ago, when, for reasons that are still in dispute, there were “mass extinctions” of many plant and animal species, including, most famously, the dinosaurs.

This mass extinction of species intrigued Claire, and she wanted to find out more. To this end, she began a PhD with the title: “Assessing the evidence for extensive wildfires at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary.” The dominant scientific theory to explain the extinctions was that a large asteroid hit the Earth, and this triggered huge forest fires around the globe, that, in turn, killed off much of the life that then existed on Earth. She wanted to test the theory.

She found evidence that indicated that wildfires could not have been as widespread at the K-T boundary as many scientists thought, and that there must, therefore, be some other explanation for what wiped out the dinosaurs. What the evidence now shows, according to Claire, is that there was indeed an asteroid impact that hit what is today the Yucatan Peninsula in modern Mexico, but that it did not cause forest fires. Because the asteroid hit an area that was under water at the time, huge amounts of seawater, dust and soot went up into the atmosphere, creating an ‘impact winter’ that cooled the Earth’s surface by 10C for decades and led to the extinction of ‘cold blooded’ dinosaurs that couldn’t keep warm.

In her relatively short career to date, Claire has had papers published in the world-famous science journals, Science and Nature. That brought recognition and it led to an appearance on a BBC Horizon programme entitled: What really killed the dinosaurs?

SUCCESS

Claire puts her success at a young age down to hard work, and long hours in the lab, and at the computer. Unlike many scientists, she does not like to read scientific papers full of technical ‘jargon’ that have no real story to tell. This perhaps is something that underlies her excellent communication skills, and ability to tell a story that ordinary people will understand.

She is also highly motivated to solve puzzles, and gets excited when she manages to do so.

She felt fortunate to have worked as a post-doctoral student in the UCD laboratory of Dr Jennifer McElwain, a researcher who established a world’s first for the university, when she set up a €900,000 laboratory that could re-create ancient climate conditions, and test what plants would grow under particular circumstances.

Claire recently moved from UCD to Edinburgh where she will continue to study ancient fires as they impacted on the Earth, while based jointly between the departments of fire safety engineering and geo sciences. An ideal place for Claire to be, she says.

WORKING DAY

Claire’s average working day can vary. There are periods of time, perhaps months, where she would spend almost all her time in the laboratory, collecting data. The fun begins, however, she said, when the data is collected, and it is time to figure out what the data all means. Once an understanding of the data has been achieved, the next thing required is to communicate the results of that analysis to scientific colleagues, through scientific journals. A manuscript is drafted, and published by the journal, if it is considered sufficiently new and interesting.

There is also plenty of time spent travelling to national and international scientific conferences, presenting findings to other scientists and discussing ideas. The publication of research in leading journals, or speaking at important conferences, can be picked up by general media, who might decide it is something that the general public is interested in. This can sometimes lead to interviews with newspaper journalists and appearances on TV or radio shows.

ADVICE

She advises science students at secondary school, interested in becoming a scientist, to study hard first and foremost in science classes. However, she says that it is important to remember that being a university science researcher is not the only career path in science. “We can see science all around us,” said Claire. “It is what makes the world tick – from the internal combustion engine running your car, to the supports in your house holding up the roof. So science isn’t just about being in a lab and writing scientific papers. There are so many career opportunities the world over for people interested in science. Studying science can set you up for a career in some many exciting things”

That is not to say that like any job, there are things about being a scientist that Claire is not that happy about. The big one is the lack of job security these days for many university based scientists. Unlike decades past, when a job in a university was a job for life, with a great pension, and total security, these days, scientists typically work on short, three, or, if they are lucky, five year contracts. This can mean moving job every few years, and moving to difference countries. The downside here is that it can be hard to put down any roots in any particular place, or to maintain regular contact with family and friends.

“But this is also an exciting aspect as it gives you the opportunity to experience new places and people,” Claire said. “In terms of the science, I love being able to study things that I am interested in, to answer questions about the Earth in which we live.”

During the chat, Mariette suggested that aspiring science writers begin blogging immediately. Setting up a blog is free, and forcing yourself to write in a more accessible way about science will improve your writing skills, your ability to juggle multiple projects at once, and will help you to build a portfolio of writing samples.

Also, think about submitting a short piece to the NIH Catalyst, or a newsletter associated with your undergraduate or graduate school, or with your professional association. Again, think in terms of building up a collection of writing samples for when you feel ready to submit a proposal to a leading journal like Scientific American or similar.

Whatever you do, start writing. As Larry reminds us in Throw Momma from the Train, a writer writes: always.

“I don’t have any experience.”

“I’m only trained to do one thing.”

“I don’t have the skills employers are looking for.”

Sound familiar? These are sentiments I’ve heard in counseling appointments with graduate students and postdocs in the past, typically from those exploring careers outside of academia. While I do think that many, if not most, of the skills developed through graduate programs and postdoctoral fellowships can be transferred fairly easily to a variety of careers, there is no doubt you will be a more attractive candidate to a given employer if you have had some experiences in that particular field.

How can you possibly gain experience while you’re conducting dissertation research? Or working full-time and caring for a family? Or a house? Or volunteering in your community part-time? It is difficult, but it can be done. Following are some ideas for gaining experience in a range of career fields. This is not a complete list of careers available to Ph.D.-trained scientists, but suggests some ideas for exploration. Consider some of these activities, but be sure to discuss your ideas and career goals with your PI, as your first priority is to your program/postdoc.

SCIENCE EDUCATION

What You Need:

• Passion for and ability to education others
• Ability to communicate science to a broad audience

Getting Started:

• Get involved in community outreach programs
• Volunteer at museums or schools
• Offer to lecture through FAES, at a local community college, etc.

SCIENTIFIC/MEDICAL ILLUSTRATION

What You Need:

• Love of science combined with artistic skills and interests

Getting Started:

• Volunteer for projects to build your portfolio
• Build images and diagrams into your current projects
• Take classes or workshops in this area

SCIENCE WRITING

What You Need:

• Must be comfortable communicating science to a broad audience
• Ability to absorb new information and learn quickly
• Interest in writing, books, words, language

Getting Started:

• Write a few articles for NIH publications, alumni newsletter/magazine, local newspaper, your scientific society
• Take course in journalism
• Find writing fellowships

BIOINFORMATICS

What You Need:

• Facility with computers and programming
• Ability to keep up with research in a variety of fields

Getting Started:

• Get hands-on experience using relevant programs
• Take courses to develop skills

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

What You Need:

• Experience. Most positions are not entry-level. Try to volunteer some time at the NIH Office of Technology Transfer.
• Interest in bigger picture, application of science.

Getting Started:

• Take business courses.
• Join/be aware of/attend meeting of the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM)

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

What You Need:

• Strong analytical skills
• Ability to solve problems and communicate very well
• Affinity for working with different kinds of people

Getting Started:

• Read business journals to get a sense of where/how the market is growing right now
• Talk to people involved with business development currently
• Attend workshops at the MD Technology Council

SCIENCE POLICY

What You Need:

• Interest in and comfort with dealing with issues, policy, and politics around how science is conducted
• Knowledge of how government functions
• Ability to communicate in a different style and culture

Getting Started:

• Get involved with politics at the local level
• Take writing courses
• Be aware of/volunteer with/write for the NIH Office of Science Policy
• Consider policy fellowships

Again, as you map out short-term and long-term goals, be sure to communicate your ideas and interests to your PI and mentors. It is critical for you to be on the same page as your PI regarding your hours, projects, and research-related goals.

Enjoy exploring these and other exciting career fields!

What about success on the job market? We know from recent job reports that unemployment remains high. Still, some employers are hiring, so some people are getting jobs. How are they doing it? Or more to the point, are there particular traits shared by successful job hunters?

This is the topic of a recent article posted on EmploymentDigest.net. In this piece, the author shares the following 6 traits common to people who have found success on the job market.

1) They keep an open mind. Be flexible with your job requirements. If you have had your heart set on living in DC, would you be willing to look at positions in Baltimore? How flexible can you be? Being open to different locations may improve your chances of finding something you would enjoy.

Also, be flexible in terms of sources of jobs. Having a strong online presence (having a complete LinkedIn profile, a Facebook page, a personal blog) will increase your chances of networking with the appropriate people, being found by employers of interest, etc. Be sure that all of your social media links are included in your email signature – but before doing this, be sure that they are all fit for professional/employer consumption.

2) Preparation is key to success. Your energy and hard work should be put into creating a strong and error-free application. Is your résumé and/or CV free of errors? Is it tailored to the specific jobs you have been applying for? And have you done the same with your cover letter? The more time and energy put into this work upfront, the better your chances of hearing back from an employer once you submit an application.

3) They do their homework. What is unique about the company or organization you are applying to? Where are the majority of their efforts going these days? What is their hot, new research area? Understanding the priorities of the organization(s) you are applying to and mentioning these in your job search materials – and how well your background is suited to tackle these – will set you apart from the pack.

4) They convey energy and enthusiasm. Be aware of every interaction you have with individuals, and be sure to present yourself professionally and with enthusiasm. From the way you dress, to your interactions, documentation you submit, to the timeliness of your responses…everything you say and do in regards to networking and job searching matters. So be aware of the messages you are sending in the way you carry yourself, both online and in person.

5) They assume nothing. Once your application materials have been submitted for a particular job, keep in touch. Do not assume that your materials arrived intact – follow up to be sure that your application is in, and inquire about the timeline for a particular search. These two follow-up questions are totally appropriate…and may result in your name ringing a bell with reviewers later in the process.

6) Closing the sale and follow-up makes the difference. As mentioned a few times above, follow-up can make a great deal of difference in a tight job market. Send a quick email to a contact you made at a conference, through a friend, via LinkedIn, etc. Consider sending a handwritten thank-you note to someone with whom you’ve networked recently. Being thoughtful and following through will keep your name fresh in people’s minds – and keep your name circulating as a potential candidate for future jobs.

Follow up after you have had an interview as well. Beyond sending a thank-you note or email, call the potential employer if you have not heard back in the time frame mentioned during the interview.

Being proactive, staying professional, and remaining polite and courteous will take you far in this difficult market. Good luck with your search – and BE SURE TO VOTE TODAY!

Last month, OITE launched its “A Day in the Life of…” series of interactive, online chats exploring careers in science. We kicked off the series by hearing from David Kosub, a Public Health Analyst with NIAID. To read the transcript of last month’s chat, click here .

The series will be held from 12:00 – 1:00 pm every third Thursday through December and includes Oct. 21, Nov. 18, and Dec. 16.

Today, we explored the work of a senior scientist/administrator in a large pharmaceutical organization. The text of today’s conversation is below. Cheers!

EVENT: “A Day in the Life of…A Scientist in Big Pharma”

GUEST: Philip Mayer, Ph.D., Assistant Vice President, Pfizer Inc./President-Elect, American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists

DATE: Thursday, October 21, 2010

The series will be held from 12:00 – 1:00 pm every third Thursday from September through December, which includes: Sept. 16, Oct. 21, Nov. 18, and Dec. 16.

Topics covered will include careers in science policy, science writing, drug development in industry, and science education.

Trainees at every stage are welcome to participate and are encouraged to bring questions to our “speakers” during the live chats. After each discussion, the transcript of the entire chat will be posted on this site.

To kick off the series, we will explore the work of a science policy analyst.

EVENT: “A Day in the Life of…A Public Health Analyst”

GUEST: David Kosub, Ph.D., Public Health Analyst, NIAID, NIH

DATE: Thursday, September 16, 2010

TIME: 12 pm – 1:00 pm EST

Bring your questions and comments, as this live event is your chance to learn more about different careers!  To set up an email reminder for the event, or to participate in the discussion the day of the event, click here.

Chat with you next Thursday!

To give you a better sense of the position, read through the following phrases from the job description:

• Design and conduct evaluations that will examine many qualitative and quantitative endpoints that measure scientific productivity, scientific and public health impact, and economic return on investment
• Write, review, and edit materials, at various levels of technical difficulty, for use in communicating information effectively and serve as the agency representative at meetings related to the areas of responsibility
• Synthesize and simplify scientific information from all available sources into capsule narratives, determine appropriate presentation style and format, and graphically enhance scientific documents to more clearly demonstrate scientific concepts
• Determine and implement the best approach for quantitative and qualitative assessment
• Evaluate and communicate important scientific advances made by grantees to a diverse audience comprised of scientific professionals, congressional staff and committees, other federal, state, or local agencies and specifically-interested segments of the lay public
• Develop and maintain contacts in scientific evaluation
• Provide an assessment of a scientific field
• Develop a needs analysis in which the current state of the science is evaluated and future needs are assessed

The trainee interviewing for this job has a few questions she’d like to ask before her interview takes place. Join our conversation this Thursday and have your questions answered…whether you ask them yourself or not.

REAL WORLD NIH

LIVE – Thursday, June 24, 2010

10:00am – 10:30am

Before Thursday, visit the link above to set an event reminder for yourself. After the chat, the text of the conversation will be available at the same site.

Join us for the discussion, send in your questions, or just sit back, read, and learn!