YOU鈥橵E probably heard about revolutionary antibody treatments for cancer and the excitement surrounding disciplines such as proteomics. Perhaps you fancy yourself as one of tomorrow鈥檚 pioneers who will exploit our knowledge of the human genome to create medical breakthroughs for AIDS, cancer or Alzheimer鈥檚. There is no doubt that the pharmaceutical industry needs smart scientists to develop the lifesaving drugs of the future.
First, though you will need to get your foot in the door. This can be difficult. For instance, how do you gain that vital job experience all employers seem to demand? And what can you do to give yourself an edge over the other applicants with their stellar CVs? 快猫短视频 asked the people who will be sitting across the desk during your job interview for their tips on how to break into the drug industry and get ahead.
The first thing employers will tell you is that you will need to have the basic skills and training to work on tomorrow鈥檚 pharmaceutical breakthroughs 鈥� or you may never get the chance. Jim Loftus, discovery recruitment manager for Pfizer, agrees that fields such as proteomics and metabonomics 鈥� the study of individual metabolic responses based on individual genomes 鈥� are big draws for scientists attracted to careers in the pharmaceutical industry. But he stresses that you鈥檒l need basic skills to win a job.
Advertisement
鈥淭hese subjects like proteomics are making headlines, but the interesting thing is these are quite niche areas,鈥� he says. 鈥淎t the graduate level especially we鈥檙e looking for an awareness that things like proteomics exist. The disappointing thing is that many graduates are unable to work with some of the core parts of biochemistry, for example.鈥�
Of course, the modern pharmaceutical lab has plenty of high-tech equipment that scientists will need to get to grips with 鈥� but the traditional skills acquired during your first degree are paramount. 鈥淲e hear a lot about mass-assaying machines run by robots and how new recruits will need to know about this. But it鈥檚 really a bit of a myth that everyone鈥檚 sitting in a drug company working robotic machines all day long,鈥� says Loftus. 鈥淭hese methods are very important and they do allow us to screen large numbers of samples very quickly. But [this technology] doesn鈥檛 discover new drugs and besides, we can train people to use the machines.鈥�
Martin Todd, a senior manager in AstraZeneca鈥檚 R&D wing, agrees. 鈥淯sing computers is no substitute for doing hands-on stuff in the lab. Potential employees need to experience what happens when things don鈥檛 go to plan, for example.鈥� Nonetheless, employers want scientists who can cope with the 鈥渉uge amounts of data鈥� generated by computers in today鈥檚 pharma companies, says Loftus. As such, numeracy is another vital basic skill.
Specialise, specialise
Let鈥檚 step back in time a moment. Before you even get the chance to wow employers with your skills at the job interview stage, you should consider specialising in a particular area, if you haven鈥檛 already. Clearly, this decision is mainly about what interests you, but it鈥檚 worth knowing just how much employers value particular talents.
In 2005, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) asked its members about the skills they most needed from their scientists. The results apply just as much in 2007, says Todd. Drug companies are crying out for talent in certain areas.
For instance, there is a scarcity of quality candidates trained in pharmacokinetics (how drugs are metabolised in the body), pathology (the study of disease) and toxicology (how the body responds to chemicals). Finding scientists prepared to work on drug trials in animals is also a real problem. 鈥淭here is a lot of social and political pressure against doing this sort of work, but it is vital,鈥� says Todd.
The ABPI report also remarked upon a shortage of organic chemistry candidates. This might come as a surprise given the emergence of 鈥渂iological鈥� drugs, which rely on the skills of biologists rather than chemists (see 鈥淏urgeoning Biotech鈥�). But according to David Allen, head of respiratory drug discovery at GlaxoSmithKline, small molecules will remain the mainstay of new medicines for the foreseeable future. Medicinal chemists are needed to design these drugs and organic chemists to synthesise them.
鈥淵ou can use all the 鈥榦mics鈥� 鈥� proteomics and metabonomics and so on 鈥� to help you discover why some people don鈥檛 respond to certain treatments, but you鈥檙e still going to need people to design and make the drugs to treat them,鈥� he says. 鈥淭he bottom line is: if you鈥檙e going to design and synthesise molecules you鈥檇 better understand organic chemistry.鈥�
With all this in mind, a typical chemistry or biology graduate might reasonably ask: if I don鈥檛 have the specialist skills described in a job advert, how do I persuade employers I鈥檓 right for the role?
Todd says that sometimes if employers need candidates to have specific skills they are willing to teach them. 鈥淭he vital qualities are that applicants have logic and good analytical skills.鈥� Flexibility and the ability to move around as the needs of the company change will also prove valuable, he adds.
鈥淚f I had to name three core strengths that potential recruits will need now and in the future, these would be the ability to carry out practical experiments, the ability to analyse results and the ability to communicate these results clearly.鈥�
If you are still studying, industrial experience during your holiday or a sandwich year can prove to be a real bonus, says Todd. 鈥淲e tend to prefer people with a year鈥檚 industrial experience. That year can be incredibly important. It gives people a chance to learn what the job is about, whether they really want to do it.鈥�
It seems this last quality is the single most important 鈥渟kill鈥� you can acquire. 鈥淎bove all we want people with a sense of excitement and of the importance of the work we鈥檙e doing,鈥� says Todd. 鈥淚t can take 12 years from discovering a new molecule to getting a new drug to market, which will improve the health of millions of people. We want people who realise that it鈥檚 a lot of hard work, but that the results are worth the effort.鈥�
Burgeoning biotech
In the biotech sector, employers鈥� requirements are slightly different to those of pharma. Generally, biotech companies are looking for three types of people: protein chemists, molecular biologists and cellular biologists, says Lynn Lester, a senior vice-president at biotech company Cambridge Antibody Technology (CAT). Biotechs tend to recruit more PhDs than people with first degrees, although recent graduates do make up a significant part of the workforce.
鈥淭he main difference between us and big pharma is that we鈥檙e dealing with big molecules so we鈥檙e looking for molecular biologists,鈥� says Lester. Nonetheless, a familiar message emerges. 鈥淲e鈥檙e still looking for people with good basic training in molecular biology,鈥� she says.
Echoing senior figures at the big drug companies, Lester says that graduates with a year鈥檚 work experience are preferred 鈥� CAT offers one-year placements for four-year degree students.
Despite the different focus of biotech research, the links with big pharma are obvious, so any pharmaceutical scientist must be comfortable working across both sectors. Like many successful biotechs, CAT was snapped up by a big pharma company last year. The parent company AstraZeneca is well aware that antibody treatments or 鈥渂iologicals鈥� with their precise mode of action, are a key part of medicine鈥檚 future.