INTRODUCTION

TOP INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND DECISIONS WHAT IS IT LIKE? A FEW SUGGESTIONS

Glenn R. Hicks, Associate Director, Plant Genetics, Exelixis

Choosing a career path in science is a process of discovery that is deeply personal. Yet, hopefully we can learn from the experiences of others in weighing our own choices. My case involved a decision to accept a position as a scientist in a company involved in plant research aimed ultimately at commercial products. The decision was influenced by factors that were anticipated and, as is often true in life, were a response to circumstances and opportunities.

	BACKGROUND

TOP INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND DECISIONS WHAT IS IT LIKE? A FEW SUGGESTIONS

I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Bacteriology in 1981 from the University of California at Davis. I had always been interested in science and felt that this would be a good career, although like many undergraduates, I had little true appreciation of the effort and rewards associated with this choice. An advisor and several graduate students encouraged me to apply to graduate school. However, even though I was interested in the biological sciences I did not have a clear sense of a specific area of focus. Rather than going to graduate school immediately, I decided to work in several small biotech companies in the San Francisco area to gain experience and to begin paying off student loans. This turned out to be a valuable experience. I did research in a start-up company that was interested in crop improvement at a time when many technologies like plant transformation were being reported for the first time. Although the company was ultimately not successful, during the nearly 5 years I was there, I learned an enormous amount about research in plants, acquired skills in molecular biology, and developed an excitement about the plant sciences that would endure. In time it became clear that to direct my own research, I would need formal academic training. I had developed contacts at universities and approached specific faculty members about potential research projects within their laboratories, a definite benefit from my experience.

I had developed an interest in plant hormones from my industry research and ultimately settled on a laboratory at Oregon State University (Corvallis; under the supervision of Dr. Terri Lomax) working toward the identification of auxin receptors. The transition from industry salary to stipend was significant to say the least, but graduate school was very rewarding in that I was able to acquire the broader knowledge and mentoring that is simply impossible in a company where the emphasis is on results. I was a few years older than most other students, but the practical knowledge I had of laboratory research was extremely valuable. I received a PhD in Genetics in 1992 and was interested in developing skills in plant cell biology that perhaps could ultimately be used to gain a better understanding of hormone action. At the wise urging of my advisor, I contacted a laboratory at the Michigan State University-Department of Energy Plant Research Laboratory (PRL; under the supervision of Dr. Natasha Raikhel). The PRL is scientifically excellent, and during the 4.5 years I was there, I conducted postdoctoral research in the targeting of proteins to the plant nucleus. In addition to rewarding research and stimulating coworkers, my advisor taught me much about the practical aspects of running a successful research program. It was a great experience, and I met many faculty and colleagues whom I still contact on a regular basis. With a strong emphasis on basic research, one could not help but to be guided toward an academic career, although the PRL does provide students and postdocs exposure to scientists from nonacademic settings. In any event, although my industry experience had many positive aspects, I was largely committed to pursuing an academic path. Yet, today I direct and participate in research at Exelixis, a young cutting-edge biotechnology company. How did I come to make the decisions that led me here?

	DECISIONS

TOP INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND DECISIONS WHAT IS IT LIKE? A FEW SUGGESTIONS

At the time I began to search for a permanent position, competition for academic posts was fierce. Nevertheless, I was granted a good number of interviews on the strength of publications and letters. Although frustrated at times, I was confident that I would eventually land a faculty position in a good institution. Between interviews, I had time to reflect on my career objectives. From my previous experience in a small start-up company, I knew that research in an industry lab could be exciting. With this in mind, I applied to a few companies for positions that sounded appealing. I was interviewed quickly by a large biotech company and then several months later by a smaller company. I was offered positions at both, so I had to make several choices. Should I accept an industry position at all, and if so, where? After much thought, I accepted a position in a company for the following reasons: (a) I was familiar with the benefits and limitations of industry (see Table I) and felt that in the right company I could do productive research; (b) the scientists I met during my interviews seemed smart and well-motivated; (c) research equipment and supplies were abundant; and (d) on a more personal level, after the birth of our second child, the generous salary and benefits, while not the prime consideration, were undeniably appealing. I chose the smaller company because I felt that I could make the transition easily in a smaller organization where I could understand the programs quickly and have a greater impact on research. In addition, it was located in a geographical area that appealed to my family (who deserved a voice in the decision). So ultimately, both timing and the presence of several opportunities provided a choice of career paths. In choosing my path, I used past experiences in industry and academics along with family circumstances as guides.

	WHAT IS IT LIKE?

TOP INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND DECISIONS WHAT IS IT LIKE? A FEW SUGGESTIONS

My experience in industry thus far has been rewarding on the whole. In particular, there is a sense of a common goal that runs throughout an organization that permits companies to assemble sizable teams of scientists with sometimes very diverse backgrounds. This emphasis on cooperation and team goals can be very stimulating when faced with complex problems to solve and permits companies to be particularly good at developing complex high-throughput technologies such as genomics, informatics, proteomics, and large-scale genetic screening. There are of course offsetting characteristics depending upon your viewpoint. One important fact that academic scientists should consider about industry research is that it requires a high degree of flexibility in terms of areas of research. Because business decisions mostly dictate research needs, projects typically have a shorter life span than in academics, where productive research programs can last many years provided there is funding. As a result, industry scientists are often knowledgeable in many different areas of biology, though perhaps in less depth than an academic scientist who has worked on one topic for an extended period. There are situations where industrial programs are long lasting, but they must survive a high degree of accountability for results and justification from the business perspective. In industry, one is rewarded for achieving research objectives that are typically on a yearly basis, whereas successful research as measured by publications and grants are typically on a multiyear scale in academics. Table I provides some additional examples of the contrasting environments between industry and academics. There is no judgement that one is "better" than the other is; rather, they have different characteristics that should considered. One of the myths about industry scientists worth mentioning is that somehow they were not "good enough" to make it in academics. To the contrary, many excellent postdoctoral scientists and university faculty have joined companies, particularly in an age of great opportunities in the plant sciences.

An essential fact is that scientists need to emphasize a different set of skills in industry compared with academics. These skills include (a) flexibility in pursuing goals; (b) strong communication skills since the ability to lead and garner research support depends upon constructive argument and persuasion to a high degree; (c) the ability to work well in research groups that have a common goal rather than each scientist having his/her own project; (d) acceptance of a higher degree of accountability and justification for research directions; and (e) a reasonable degree of persistence in pursuing research directions in the face of competing research interests. It is arguable that academic scientists also require such skills at times, but they are essential for success in industry in my opinion.

	A FEW SUGGESTIONS

TOP INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND DECISIONS WHAT IS IT LIKE? A FEW SUGGESTIONS

We all have our own career expectations. But for those considering a similar path to my own, I would venture to suggest some relevant points for consideration.

If you are considering industry (or any other course), get advice from those who have practical experience.

If possible, take the time to gain exposure, perhaps an internship for the summer or collaboration with an industrial laboratory.

Take time in deciding upon a position. While an industry salary may be seductive, you will inevitably derive satisfaction from your research.

If you are considering industry, do your best to interview at several companies before making any decisions. Like academic departments, companies can have diverse cultures, some of which will better suit your expectations.

Strive to stay in touch with academic scientists because their scientific viewpoints will not be influenced by commercial considerations. Interaction and advice from impartial experts can be extremely valuable to your research program, which may not always be subject to the light of external peer review. Contact may be complicated because research can be confidential and publication is not a primary objective. However, being as forthcoming as possible with academic colleagues, establishing mutually beneficial research collaborations with academic laboratories, and establishing consulting relationships with excellent scientists are helpful.

Be fully committed to whatever course you choose or you cannot be successful by any measure of your profession.

Finally, remember that no decision is irreversible. It is healthy to consider occasional career changes if your expectations are unmet. The goal of a satisfying career in science is what we are all striving for, and it is worth some exploration and a few risks.