I've been asked to talk about how I ended up doing what I'm doing for #YoungScientistNetworking, so here's the story! I've been at this a while, so it's sort of a long tale by now. (1/20)
I grew up in a small town in NE Arkansas, and was always interested in all sorts of science (astronomy, biology, chemistry and more). I knew that my path wa going to take me somewhere else, but I had no idea where. (2/20)
When I got to college, I wasn't even sure I would go into the sciences! I had always liked history and literature too, but I decided it would be be easier to have my own library at home than to have my own lab, and became a chemistry major. (3/20)
I went on to graduate school, figuring I needed the PhD for whatever it was that I was going to do. At the time I always saw myself going into academia - probably at a smaller liberal arts school, like the one I graduated from, Hendrix. (4/20)
But I became a bit less sure about that after watching academia in action and up close. Grad school was pretty stressful, and I watched young professors fighting for tenure (not always successfully!) who were putting in the same hours I was. (5/20)
As I completed my degree, I looked for post-doc positions - partly to make me more hire-able, and partly as a holding action while I figured out which way to go. I didn't have my own grant money, so the search was producing mixed results. (6/20)
Another professor in the department had just landed a Humboldt Foundation faculty grant to go to Germany, and he suggested I look into that for postdoctoral funding. The more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea. (7/20)
I ended up in Darmstadt for a year doing research, learning German, and traveling around on the weekends (those less-severe European lab hours were very welcome after my PhD!) But I still wasn't sure where I'd go after that. (8/20)
Job-hunting season came along (it was all print ads, no online postings in 1989), and there really weren't any open academic positions at the sorts of liberal-arts schools where I could see myself joining the faculty. By that time, I had friends who were in industry. too. (9/20)
I hadn't thought as much about that path, but reports from my old labmates were actually pretty good, and I applied to a slew of biopharma companies (there were a lot of open positions at that point). (10/20)
I might as well have tossed all those letters into a pond. There were postmarked from Germany, and I don't think anyone read enough of the cover letter to see that I was coming back to the US at the end of the postdoc! Near-zero response. (11/20)
So I retooled as soon as I got back, with a US address and phone # (and on 8 1/2 by 11 paper instead of A4) and sent off another big pile of CVs. This time there were some bites on the line, to my relief. I ended up with interviews, and two pharma "finalists". (12/20)
I joined Schering-Plough in the fall of 1989, doing CNS research, and enjoyed it very much, as it turned out. But within a few years, after some organizational changes, I realized that I'd probably be happier somewhere else. (13/20)
There was a period in the mid-1990s where there were just no biopharma jobs out there. I waited that out, and on the next upswing answered a headhunter call that ended up sending me to Bayer, in CT, in a group targeting metabolic disease. (14/20)
That went fine, until things stopped going fine for Bayer. Taking their big statin drug off the market and then doing a more-expensive-than-expected takeover of Schering AG led to the closure of the whole CT research site by early 1997. (15/20)
By this time, I'd been writing the blog for a few years, and more people had heard of me. That helped in the job search, and I ended up landing a position at Vertex up in the Boston/Cambridge bio-hub. We moved the family in hopes we wouldn't have to again. (16/20)
The Vertex job was very interesting and challenging, but after 10 years a series of management changes and re-orgs turned a lot of positions over, including mine. So I moved on to my fourth company, also in the area, and that's been great. (17/20)
Over the years I've become more of a chemical biology person and less of a traditional medicinal chemist - I wanted to try to get at some of the underlying issues of target selection, for example. But there are so many puzzles in this business; take your pick! (18/20)
My advice? Get to know people, at your company and others. Get to know other fields of research outside your own. Watch for how your own field might be changing, and learn the new technology as it comes along. Don't limit your perspective. (19/20)
Try to offer something to an employer that's useful, valuable, and that they can't easily get more cheaply somewhere else. Keep your eyes out for what those things might be, and you'll be fine! (20/20
Gack! Make that early 2007!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I appreciate Eric saying this after some of us sort of jumped on him about this issue last night! Paxlovid is a good example of where small-molecule synthesis falls on on the difficulty scale when compared to things like mRNA vaccines - here's a thread (1/13)
The mRNA vaccines are intrinsically hard to manufacture - RNA biotechnology on scale is practiced in only a few countries around the world, and the nanoparticle formulation is particularly challenging to scale up and to get right. (2/13)
Small-molecule synthesis (though no picnic) is easier than that - there are generic drug manufacturing facilities in many more countries, and many of these can potentially adapt to processes like the Paxlovid synthesis. That's the good part. (3/13)
You can come at this story from several directions. One is the position of US universities as a destination for hard-working and talented people from around the world. This is a huge benefit for the country, and if we mess that up we are idiots. (2/10)
But (a 2nd angle) China is in its own category (size, economy, and more). The Chinese government aggressively seeks out economic and technological advantage, and they definitely use (or try to use) students and post-docs for this. (3/10)
Since I keep getting inquiries about the idea of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) problems with the coronavirus vaccines, here are some fresh data (1/5)
In May, the US had 18,000 deaths from Covid-19 infections. First: if the vaccines weren’t working, you’d expect these deaths to show roughly the same proportion as that of vaccinated and unvaccinated people in general. (2/5)
And if we had a real ADE problem, you could expect proportionally *more* deaths among the vaccinated, because ADE makes subsequent infections worse - the “enhancement” part. (3/5)
@christymaginn (1/x) There are several bottlenecks to vaccine production, all jostling for the #1 position. One is equipment. Mixers for the mRNA lipid nanoparticles, e.g. Some types of filtration material (not patented!) are in very short supply as well, and there are others.
@christymaginn (2/x) Another bottleneck is in key materials like the lipids needed for the mRNA vaccines. Supply of these has been ramping up, but there's still only so much of these things in the world, and their synthesis is labor-intensive.
@christymaginn (3/x) A really tough one is expertise. All of these processes (mRNA, adenovirus) need hands-on tech transfer to troubleshoot as they ramp up, otherwise production can be spotty with poor QC pass rates. There simply aren't enough experienced people to go around!
(1/8) The UK authorities are now trying to spread out the two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine as well, in order to get more people the first shot now. A similar situation to what I wrote about yesterday: blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archi…
I see why they’re proposing this, of course. The UK is in bad shape, with the new coronavirus variant spreading quickly. And we have evidence that the first shot really does seem to be immunogenic. BUT. . . (2/8)
. . . There are important things we don’t know. How long does immunity last if you’ve only had one shot? How well does the second booster shot work if the gap between them is longer? (3/8)
Absolutely wonderful news from Moderna: 94% vaccine efficacy, zero severe coronavirus cases, no severe adverse events, and one-month stability under standard refrigeration.
We’re winning. Hang on, hang on, hang on and stay safe. We’re going to win.
Thoughts on the Moderna results this morning - safety, efficacy, and more. The vaccine news is very good, especially when it's illuminated against grim pandemic news in general: blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archi…