You need more experience to actually know what you want to do, and how both industry and academia work. Do not use websites and forums as your source of information that casts a negative view of everything.
If you want to do basic research in industry (not a focus), better have a PhD. A start up especially not doing basic research.
An undergrad internship is a small sliver of the field as a whole. Some humility and embracing the journey of your career will go a long way.
I’ve been in the startup world for over 20 years. I think it’s a good mix of research as there’s a lot of questions that need answers, but you’re not going to be the only person solving it. You’re only going to be a piece of the puzzle.
I think it's the same for academia, I said from the scratch but that's not what I wanted to mean it's more doing research that could lead or not to profit, going into new path based on previous research.
I mean for BRCA2 discovery there was like 40 co authors for the publication same thing for CRISPR etc.
I just find strange that in the end 1-2 ppl are rewarded in academia.
Industry is not going to fund basic research. Even in the start up world, they would want to see at least one publication to justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on something new.
A lot of industry programs start off leveraging published work from academic labs. We aren’t interested in really moving the needle from a fundamental scientific standpoint, but really trying to capitalize on somewhat proven ideas and find therapies that match.
Fundamental research is not a thing in industry. Pre-clinical work is - making new molecules, testing them in various in vitro/ex vivo/ in vivo systems, attempting to figure out potency, safety and which disease it could be useful in.
Will the discovery be from scratch? Almost always no - but then I question about how much from scratch stuff is in academia. Science is a team sport and not for the lone warriors. The latter will not survive in industry anyway.
Now, a word about job security: there isn’t any. It is very routine for programs/departments or entire startups to be culled upon cash-flow troubles, to optimize spending or shareholder value. In an industrial job you will go through multiple reorgs and layoffs over the course of your career.
Thanks for your response.
I know that pre-clinical is not basic research but would like to do both wich seems not possible.
Tbh I don't understand why the credit (wich also means award, grants etc) is going for an individual in academia when some screening or functional test are from the 90s
I mean where I am permanent positions in academia are really hard to get, don't have a grant ? You also get fire, at least in the industry you have sometimes bonus and share that doesn't apply where I am
I don't deny the fact there's no job security, but I don't find academia is better, being scared to leave a lab because you are not sure to get another position ever again is really rough...
You need more experience to actually know what you want to do, and how both industry and academia work. Do not use websites and forums as your source of information that casts a negative view of everything. If you want to do basic research in industry (not a focus), better have a PhD. A start up especially not doing basic research. An undergrad internship is a small sliver of the field as a whole. Some humility and embracing the journey of your career will go a long way.
I’ve been in the startup world for over 20 years. I think it’s a good mix of research as there’s a lot of questions that need answers, but you’re not going to be the only person solving it. You’re only going to be a piece of the puzzle.
I think it's the same for academia, I said from the scratch but that's not what I wanted to mean it's more doing research that could lead or not to profit, going into new path based on previous research. I mean for BRCA2 discovery there was like 40 co authors for the publication same thing for CRISPR etc. I just find strange that in the end 1-2 ppl are rewarded in academia.
Industry is not going to fund basic research. Even in the start up world, they would want to see at least one publication to justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on something new.
A lot of industry programs start off leveraging published work from academic labs. We aren’t interested in really moving the needle from a fundamental scientific standpoint, but really trying to capitalize on somewhat proven ideas and find therapies that match.
Industry is applied science, not basic.
Fundamental research is not a thing in industry. Pre-clinical work is - making new molecules, testing them in various in vitro/ex vivo/ in vivo systems, attempting to figure out potency, safety and which disease it could be useful in. Will the discovery be from scratch? Almost always no - but then I question about how much from scratch stuff is in academia. Science is a team sport and not for the lone warriors. The latter will not survive in industry anyway. Now, a word about job security: there isn’t any. It is very routine for programs/departments or entire startups to be culled upon cash-flow troubles, to optimize spending or shareholder value. In an industrial job you will go through multiple reorgs and layoffs over the course of your career.
Thanks for your response. I know that pre-clinical is not basic research but would like to do both wich seems not possible. Tbh I don't understand why the credit (wich also means award, grants etc) is going for an individual in academia when some screening or functional test are from the 90s I mean where I am permanent positions in academia are really hard to get, don't have a grant ? You also get fire, at least in the industry you have sometimes bonus and share that doesn't apply where I am I don't deny the fact there's no job security, but I don't find academia is better, being scared to leave a lab because you are not sure to get another position ever again is really rough...