The life and times of a younger member volunteer and medicinal chemist.

Share this |

Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Share to Linked More...

Latest Posts

David Rodgers, a final year University of Glasgow PhD student and President of the Glasgow chapter of the Oxbridge Biotech Roundtable (OBR), recently visited Dundee University to present his experience with and the objectives that define OBR to the College of Lifesciences Postdoctoral Association committee.

OBR is a student-led organisation that creates and fosters a global network of multidisciplinary academic innovators and industry leaders to catalyse efficient innovation in biotechnology, through the cross-pollination of ideas and resources necessary to move ideas forward.

The organisation is an impressive success story. OBR began as a small student-led initiative at Oxford University in October 2011 to improve engagement in biotech innovation, discussion and training on the University campus. In less than two years, it has grown to a 10,000-member organisation with chapters at flagship educational institutions and pivotal biotech hubs including Cambridge, London, Manchester, Glasgow, San Diego, the San Francisco-Bay Area, and Los Angeles.

An evidence of its success is the recent OneStart competition - the world’s largest biotech idea competition - in which OBR partnered with SROne (the venture capital arm of GSK) to award the most tenacious and promising of biotech entrepreneurs within its community £100,000; incubation space at Stevenage Biocatalyst; membership to existent life science enterprise networks; and access to business plan development and intellectual property support.

OBR is an avenue for chemists of all ages, but especially younger chemists, to expand their networks of leading entrepreneurs, industrialists and academics from across the life-sciences. It also can provide unique experiences in early-stage entrepreneurship and established industry, and much sought-after educational tools and resources from experts at the forefront of biotech innovation.

Membership of OBR is free-of-charge, and full details of its activities and opportunities are available online at: http://www.oxbridgebiotech.com.

* Many thanks to OBR’s Editor-in-Chief, Jenny Dworzak, for helping me research this piece.
Posted by David Foley on Jul 27, 2013 5:15 PM BST
Fair dues to the Dalton Division Council, who have created two new elected positions specifically for PhD students and postdoctoral researchers. Hopefully the other divisions will be encouraged to follow suit, as it is vital that younger members are involved in shaping the future of the RSC.

One criticism I would have is that the postdoc position has an academic feel to it. Young researchers in industry are just as important, but easily over-looked. Perhaps consider changing the guidelines (you need RSC membership to access this link) to simply "hold a PhD and be within X years of passing your viva" - that would open it up to everyone.
Posted by David Foley on Jun 19, 2013 7:54 PM BST
This declaration coming out of work done by the American Society for Cell Biology, as well as conversations with some of my colleagues and friends has got me thinking about some of the key issues facing the integrity of science.

The first is covered very well by the above declaration – that too much emphasis is placed (in academia at least) on the impact factor and number of papers published. I particularly agree with the point that impact factors and publication rates are widely different between various disciplines. This is fine if you are working in a clearly defined discipline but if, like me, you are working on interdisciplinary research then suddenly you find yourself competing for jobs with people who have had the opportunity to work on some research that could be (and was) published in very high impact (read: biological) journals, whereas I’m stuck with J. Med. Chem.!

One of the knock on effects that is not considered in this declaration, but has been widely discussed elsewhere (and I’ve brought it up before) is what this drive for high impact publications has done to the way we conduct scientific research.

When I first starting learning about science back in secondary school, I was taught that scientists devise and test hypotheses by experiment, record their observations and draw conclusions. This simple model is certainly not the way science is being done right now all across the globe. Despite enjoying easier access to data than ever before, it seems that only the “right” results ever see the light of day – with “negative” data being buried.

Not only does nobody publish negative data, but when was the last presentation you attended where the presenter talked about something that “didn’t work”. If “the most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...” then why do we not hear more of the “that’s funny” stories?

As a young scientists, I can be irritated by the status quo. I can even try to effect change in my own work. But in reality, if science is to get back on the right track (as I see it) it is up to publishers, institutions, reviewers and funders to make a stand. This declaration goes some way to making that stand and I would urge you to sign.
Posted by David Foley on Jun 16, 2013 3:29 PM BST
Apologies for the silence lately. I've just moved from Nottingham to Dundee, so been pre-occupied.

Just came across the following interesting offer from Elsevier. It's for recent graduates and post-docs who are job hunting or between jobs, and have consequently lost access to the journals they may need to prepare for interviews or Fellowship applications. Elsevier are therefore offering unlimited complimentary access to all their journals and books on ScienceDirect, for up to 6 months. So far, it seems orientated towards "academia" - but if you're unemployed, you're unemployed!

More information can be found on the links below, but I think this is a fantastic idea that truly reflects the realities of the modern job market for scientists. Times have changed, the job for life is gone. People of all ages are affected, but young scientists in particular need all the help they can get.

I wonder if we might follow suit? Of course, members do get access to a reasonable amount of content, but this seems like a relatively cheap way to make a real difference to people struggling to find the next job.

http://elsevierconnect.com/post-doc-free-access-program-returns-helping-researchers-stay-competitive-between-jobs/

http://www.elsevier.com/authors/an-opportunity-for-postdoctoral-scholars

Posted by David Foley on Jun 11, 2013 8:36 PM BST
My take on the recent job cuts and reorganisiation announced by AstraZeneca more...
Posted by David Foley on Apr 4, 2013 9:24 PM BST
I came across this (slightly dated) article in the Guardian recently, which draws on data from the Royal Society of Chemistry’s 2008 report The chemistry PhD: the impact on women's retention.

Whilst I completely agree that a glass (or even concrete) ceiling does exist for women in academia, and that the statistics on the percentage of men and women who want an academic career (21 and 12% respectively) are shocking, I would argue with the conclusions Curt Rice, the authors, has reached.

Curt argues that we should make academic careers more attractive to both men and women, thus ensuring that academia will attract and retain the best and brightest. He cautions that, so long as industry remains more appealing as a career, academia and universities as a whole will suffer.

This seems at first glance to be a sensible argument and call for change.  However I would argue that, certainly in the pharmaceutical industry, academia pays better, is more flexible and offers better terms and conditions of employment and pension plans. Consequently, from a sheer financial perspective a postdoc is the better proposition. This may be a case of short term benefit in exchange for long term gains, but I really think that depends on the industry in question. I would also argue that academia offers opportunities to develop your career in novel, unexpected ways that a traditional company may not.

Secondly, I feel it misses the key point, a point which Curt points out himself: That 88% of women and 79% of men DO NOT WANT an academic career.

These percentages contrast sharply with the percentages of men and women, post-PhD, who ARE in academia (usually as postdocs). According to the Royal Society's 2010 report The Scientific Century: Securing our Future Prosperity, 30% of science PhD graduates go on to do a postdoc. From the above math, half of those don’t really want to be there.

I argue that, instead of focussing on increasing the pool of people universities can promote from, they should focus instead on identifying those PhD students who want an academic career and nurturing them, whilst providing similar support for those PhD students who don’t want such a career. This might affect universities ability to recruit postdocs, but the ones they get will want to be there! Surely this is the type of men and women the universities want and need. Academia is not an easy career and it is made more difficult if you don’t really want it in the first place.

Adjusting this support for PhD students may make universities and the wider government realise just how bad the industrial chemical sector in this country is at the moment and may actually prompt them to make changes in policy and numbers of PhD students being taken on.

Do you agree? Or am I being over-simplistic?
Posted by David Foley on Feb 23, 2013 3:12 PM GMT
I'm sure you've already seen this elsewhere, but just in case...

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/44790
Posted by David Foley on Jan 26, 2013 5:36 PM GMT
I was at an interview recently, where we were discussing how I, as a medicinal chemist, would be able to carry out the relatively complicated biochemical experiments I had proposed.

The lead interviewer turned to me and said "You know, chemists think biology is easy. They think it takes next to no time, whereas in fact it takes many hours of optimisation and effort. Sometimes, if the cells or animal and co-operating there is nothing you can do!"

I responded with "And biologists think the exact same about chemistry!"

But I have been thinking about it since. I've spent my career working at the interface of chemistry and biology. My degree covered the theoretical aspects of most of the biochemical assays I now spend my time interpreting for SAR trends! I've even gotten my hands wet (literally, cells tend to grow in water) doing some tissue culture and MTT assays.

But I will admit I still admire the patience of the biologist. Waiting 24 hours to get an answer, three weeks for cells to reach confluence, months for an animal survival study to complete. Taking time points at EXACTLY (not something a chemist ever is when it comes to time) every hour, even when it's way past anybodies idea of bed-time!

On the other hand, us chemists suffer from the sheer unpredicability of our work. Whilst a biologist will plan his day, week and month meticulously, and walk around with a timer that beeps mid-coffee, a chemist will plan his day and week only to have it undone by a reaction that has not gone to completion. Or the tricky column that takes forever. Or.... insert frustrating example here!

My experience suggest that we have totally different brains: chemists act on instinct, making gut decisions on when to work the reaction up, whether to flush the column now or give it another 2 L of solvent. Should I add just a drop of water to my methanol solution to see if she crashes out...? Biologists are much more, predicable. And I mean that in a good way. Mathematical, methodological.

Maybe it boils down to the fact that they need to statistically prove their results, whilst all I need is one good NMR! In any case, I appreciate their efforts, for I'm not sure I'd be able to cope! Give me cyanogen bromide, phosgene, cyanide and diazomethane any day... all pales when compared to malaria, HIV and Ebola!

Here's to you, biologists! There but for the grace of God go Ismiley

PS - I didn't get that job in the end. Maybe if I'd given them this spiel instead...
Posted by David Foley on Jan 11, 2013 7:48 PM GMT
   1 2    Next >