 |
INTRODUCTION |
A successful career in science can
be launched accidentally. With a BS in Psychology, I only knew that I
wanted a career that was empirical rather than warm and fuzzy. The
concept that chemicals could have predictable effects on human thinking
intrigued me enough to pursue a Ph.D. in Biochemistry.
People actually wanted to pay me to go to school! Serendipitously, the
training that I acquired working on Escherichia coli meshed
perfectly into the emerging field of recombinant DNA technology.
In 1980, when I was finishing my studies, there was much excitement
about careers in the new field of "biotechnology." Just then,
workers in Eugene Nester's lab at the University of Washington proved
that Agrobacterium tumefaciens could transfer a piece of its
DNA into a plant, paving the way for development of transgenic approaches to establishing gene function. Clearly,
Agrobacterium was going to be a core technology for the
future of plant biology, and the Nester Lab would be a fabulous place
to transition into plant biotechnology. I was given the opportunity to
join the group, where Gene had assembled a remarkably talented group of
postdocs. It was intellectually stimulating and personally rewarding to be surrounded by brilliant, dedicated, fun people who worked hard because they loved the science. The experience changed my life.
Upon completion of my postdoc, I approached the proverbial fork in the
road: industry versus academia. In 1984, good scientists were not
routinely encouraged to go to industry. For the unwary, industry could
become a one-way ticket. There were few mentors capable of
authoritatively communicating to students the industrial perspective.
With industry largely a black box, I applied for university positions.
Shortly thereafter, I received an interview for a great position. But a
funny thing happened on the way to the ivy-covered walls. Scientists at
Monsanto published seminal work using Agrobacterium to
produce "normal" transgenic plants. Mostly out of curiosity, I
applied to Monsanto and was invited for an interview. I was overwhelmed
by the experience; these were some of the best scientists I had ever
met doing cutting edge research with virtually unlimited budgets. When
I subsequently received both job offers, I agonized for about a minute.
Meet me in St. Louis.
| |
Life in Industry |
This job choice was driven by my long-term goal to utilize
biotechnology for agricultural improvement. It was obvious that one
could contribute from day one to a dynamic program. While we knew that
the company ultimately had to make money, our efforts were driven by
sincere beliefs in the potential value of our work. Further, virtually
everything done was "basic" science, by anyone's definition. When
we didn't know how to express genes effectively in plants, we did the
work to figure it out. With so much to learn, why not work on something
both fascinating and potentially practical?
In 11 years at Monsanto, I learned some valuable lessons about academic
versus industrial science. In several critical ways, industry is far
ahead of academic science. First, the technology routinely available to
industrial scientists is more advanced. In 1984, that technology
centered on DNA manipulation and plant transformation. Today the
technical edge involves widespread implementation of "-omics"
(genomics, proteomics, etc.). Equally important to industrial success
is the team approach to science. Multiple disciplines such as
biochemistry, molecular biology, and tissue culture are integrated to
achieve a goal. The nature of such teamwork is unique to industry;
while we certainly collaborate in academia, the very definition of
academic success, tenure, is based upon unique achievement. A further
distinguishing quality of industrial science is a much greater degree
of critical review than occurs in academia. Moreover, peer review of
industrial programs differs in a critical way from that which occurs in
the academic grant system; it is a real-time process. This system
provides for constructive criticism as it is needed; criticism is not
limited to the period before the project is initiated or after the work
has been done. A productive dialogue beneficial to successful
completion of the project occurs. If only the National Science
Foundation could implement that format!
| |
Leaving It All Behind |
What changed? The nature of the industry and my personal goals
did. Curiously, when products were a distant possibility, the company
was patient. We were a research and development program. Then we made
plants resistant to herbicides and insects, and with success came a
dramatic change in climate. Although all good companies focus on
achieving specific goals within defined times, the window to produce
steadily shrunk in the time I was at Monsanto. Focusing on shorter term
goals was healthy for the company and its stockholders. For
researchers, shorter timelines translated into termination of projects.
In industry, scientists frequently find themselves working on something
new. In a company, one works at the whim of the person(s) higher up the
chain of command. While we academics work at the whim of funding
agencies, we like to think that we choose our targets. To thrive in
industry, you must accept that you are not the boss.
Furthermore, I reached the point where my career was shifting from
science toward management. Research success breeds larger responsibility. More responsibility moves the researcher out of the
lab. Inevitably, the cost of research success is losing touch with the
day-to-day thrill of science. Companies have not succeeded in
establishing true dual-track systems that reward scientific success.
This is probably the most personal of choices that industrial scientists have to face, and I chose the science.
| |
You Can Go Home Again |
The biggest advantage to an academic career is the opportunity to
contribute to the greater scientific community. While activities such
as publishing, grant panels, reviewing papers, and teaching are
condoned in industry, they do not promote one's industrial career.
At the core of contributing to the greater good is teaching and
mentoring. The rewards of students and teaching are only now becoming
obvious to me. Industrial researchers can do great science but they
rarely influence the next generation of scientists directly. While this
was not an initial motivating factor in my return to academia, it is a
clear and unexpected fringe benefit. Industrial experience surprisingly
has prepared me to be an effective mentor. Given the current
availability of academic positions, many of today's students
justifiably believe that industry is their future. We who have returned
from "the dark side" have an obligation and opportunity to educate.
Different skills are required for success in the industrial sector and
few of our academic colleagues can speak authoritatively on the matter.
Students need to fully comprehend their options. My experience in both
arenas has made my laboratory attractive to young scientists seeking to
make an intelligent decision about a career.
Finally, the combination of public and private sector experience has
made me a better scientist
more focused and more open to productive
collaboration than someone raised purely in an academic setting.
Heterosis has produced a basic scientist who sees the value of research
in a real-world setting.
TOP
INTRODUCTION
Life in Industry