Interview with Kelly Sivertson Parsons, PhD, Technology Development Associate in the University of North Carolina Office of Technology Development

Most graduate students have heard of small biotech start-ups that "spin off" of a faculty member's research. In recent years UNC professors have spawned more than 30 such companies such as Global Vaccines, Inspire Pharmaceuticals, and Therologics to name just a few. But how do these academic professors learn to start and manage a company, license their ideas, and introduce their products onto the market? The answer is they get a lot of help from the Office of Technology Development (OTD) at UNC. This interview with Kelly Sivertson Parsons, PhD, a Technology Development Associate in the OTD will shed some light on how a one-time bench researcher such as yourself is now applying her scientific understanding to the business of science.

Kelly received a B.S. in Biology from Virginia Tech and a Ph.D. in Microbiology/Immunology from Wake Forest University. She was a postdoc at UNC for two years and has been with the OTD since March of 2008.

What are your day to day responsibilities in the Office of Technology Development? Kelly explains that UNC's Office of Technology Development follows a "cradle to grave" model meaning that they support a researcher's idea or invention from the moment the idea is conceived until the day the patent expires. The life of a patentable idea can be broken down into the following steps, all of which Kelly has a hand in: triage, patenting, marketing, and licensing and business development. Kelly's role in all these steps is that of an advocate and liaison for the University and the researcher. Not surprising a big part of her job is educating faculty about the process and explaining what is happening to "their baby" throughout the process. Let's take a closer look at her role in each of these steps.

Triage. When a researcher approaches the OTD with an idea they believe is marketable, the project is assigned to a staff member who assesses the value of the technology and whether it is commercially viable. If for some reason the idea is not deemed valuable or patentable, the staff member has the challenge of tactfully explaining the reason to the researcher. As Kelly put it, "Sometimes you have to tell someone their baby is ugly, and that can be difficult. At times, the hardest thing for scientists to grasp is that good science and commercial viability aren't always one and the same."

Patenting. When a technology or idea is sufficiently developed and has potential for being marketed it must be patented to prove ownership and allow the idea to be insulated from outside competition. Most universities including UNC don't have their own patent attorneys, instead they contract with a life science patent company to draft and submit a patent to the US patent office. Kelly's involvement in this step centers around providing information to the patent lawyer assigned to the case and reviewing the patent draft with the researcher before submission.

Marketing & Licensing. Kelly explains, "At the point that we have a patent in hand we are also responsible for licensing that particular technology. We reach out to our contacts, either people who we think might want the technology, or people who can comment on what needs to be done before the idea will be attractive to a company." Kelly describes this process as one of the most difficult and time consuming responsibilities a technology development associate has. It requires an in depth knowledge of the technology and its applications, an understanding of the needs of potential buyers, and a measure of salesmanship to align those two concepts in the minds of the investors.

When an interested party is identified, Kelly is directly involved in drafting and negotiating the actual licensing agreement between the inventor, the University, and the company. Sometimes that company is a preexisting company with an interest in the technology, and sometimes a new company is formed around the technology to further develop the idea with the hope that the start up will be "bought out" at a later date.

Strategic planning and business development. "After we have a successful license agreed upon and signed, we still continue to follow that technology all the way through, working with the company to manage the patent portfolio, and dealing with whatever ongoing needs they have" explains Kelly. For a start up company this service is more critical and can include advice about hiring new personnel, finding additional investors, or helping the company to acquire new patents, begin a clinical trial, or perform marketing research.

Throughout the entire process, Kelly is an invaluable resource for the inventor – leveraging her contacts and the resources of the OTD to ensure the successful development of the idea for the benefit of the university, the inventor, and the future consumer/beneficiary of the technology.

What makes your job fun? It was obvious from the beginning of the interview that Kelly enjoys her job. When I asked her what she enjoys the most she responded, "I'm more of a social person, so I enjoy the interactions with our inventors – the professors, grad students, and postdocs. In addition to meeting people, I enjoy learning about a wide spectrum of science that I never would learn about as a bench scientist. It's just kind of fun to be in the middle of everything."

Do you find anything frustrating about your job? After thinking for a moment, Kelly explained, "I would say the same thing that is great about the job can also be the most frustrating – that is that there are so many things going on at one time. Being efficient and using your time well are really important to get the job done. What makes the job really fun is that in the course of the week no day is the same, but at the same time it's hard to feel like your really gaining traction because there's so much happening all the time."

When did you decide on tech transfer as a career path and how did you prepare for this career? Kelly explained that during graduate school she flirted with the idea of going to law school to become a patent lawyer, but as she learned more about the job she couldn't see herself drafting and reviewing patents for the rest of her life. Instead of going to law school she decided to do a postdoc at UNC and used the time to continue to explore career options in the sciences. One day she attended a TIBBS career panel on technology transfer and "suddenly realized I could do all the things I wanted to do without going to law school. I really enjoyed the academic environment and here I was learning about tech transfer opportunities in an academic setting! I learned that I could be involved in intellectual property law, but not have to draft patents. I could still stay current on the science and feel like I was using the education I invested so much time in."

With a clear vision and new-found excitement for a career in university technology transfer, Kelly contacted the Office of Technology Development at UNC and volunteered to help in any way she could in exchange for the chance to get her feet wet. At the time a formal internship in the OTD hadn't been developed yet so she had to persist until she was given a chance. Soon thereafter Kelly also volunteered to help on a "Launch the Venture" team through the Kenan Flagler Business School in order to get more business experience. For 5 months she volunteered her nights and weekends to gain experience in technology transfer, while doing her postdoctoral research during the day. All the hard work and persistence paid off when a position in the OTD opened up. Kelly applied, was accepted, and started her duties as Technology Development Associate in March of 2008.

Are there certain personality characteristics that are especially well suited to tech transfer? "I think technology transfer is especially well suited to extraverted scientists that enjoy a lot of personal interactions, like meetings, phone calls, and making contacts," Kelly explains. Other innate or acquired characteristics of scientists who have succeeded in technology transfer careers are an entrepreneurial spirit, an aptitude for deal making, well-honed organizational skills (needed to manage multiple overlapping deadlines), and the ability to respectfully influence people in positions of authority who are key to the success of a project.

Where do you see yourself in 5 to 10 years? "I really like university administration so for me the academic direction is where I see myself. It's a great job and also a very good lifestyle." Although Kelly plans to stay in academic tech transfer she points out that, "there have been people from this office who have left to go into management positions at small biotech companies, or business development offices in big pharma. There are people who have left to go to venture capital firms, and some have left to take jobs higher up the food chain in academic tech transfer."

What is a typical salary for someone working in a university technology development office? A typical starting salary for a technology development associate in an academic tech transfer office is in the range of $65,000 to $75,000. It's not uncommon for an experienced tech transfer professional to make closer to $100,000 and the director of the office can easily make more than $100,000.

What advice do you have for others interested in a career in academic tech transfer? Kelly responded, "I would say that most people I know of who have gotten into this type of a position had an experience in a tech transfer office as a grad student or a postdoc. I would say that volunteering your time and being as proactive as possible is really important."

Kelly also suggested that people interested in tech transfer careers explore the websites of the Licensing Executive Society (LES) and the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) which has a job board with current openings. A link to information about the UNC OTD internship (which was instituted after Kelly's informal internship) can be found here and the link for the Kenan Flagler Business School Launch the Venture program can be found here. The TIBBS website also has information about tech transfer careers.

If you have a question for Kelly that wasn't answered here she invites you to append your question to this post between now and January 10th at which point she'll do her best to answer any questions that have been posted. If you're unsure how to post a question on this blog, please see the text box at the upper right hand corner of the blog titled, "How do I post a comment or question?". Thanks for reading.

Interview with Scott Horner, PhD, Managing Director of a venture capital firm

Have you ever wondered how venture capitalists decide which startup biotech companies are worth the risk of funding? This interview with Dr. Scott Horner will give you a glimpse into the career of the sole PhD scientist at Third Security, a venture capital firm with the goal of identifying high potential life science startups and helping to make them profitable.

Scott earned a PhD in biophysics from the University of Rochester in 2003. When he neared graduation his PhD mentor was just starting a small biotech company based on a technology that had been developed in the lab with Scott's help. Scott worked for his advisor in the spinoff company for 3 years as the Chief Scientific Officer before jumping at the opportunity to become an Associate at Third Security. In less than 2 years Scott had proved his worth to the company, and he was promoted to a position of Managing Director in March 2009.

Why did you decide to pursue a career in venture capital management? While Scott was working as Chief Scientific Officer in his PI's startup company, he had many opportunities to inform other scientists and business people about the science behind their new technology. He said, "I loved going out and presenting about our company and getting others excited about our technology". In the process he realized he had an interest in the business side of science. That said, he's the first to admit that it was hard to let go of the notion that "good science" was the sole determinant of a sound business plan. As Scott learned how to build a company around a technology, his appreciation and passion for business strategy increased and as he puts it, "that's when I decided to transition from being a business operator to a business innovator".

What were your responsibilities as an Associate at Third Security and what do you do now as a Managing Director? Scott explains that in contrast with venture capital firms that fund many different investments hoping that 10% of those companies will become profitable, Third Security is intent on investing in a select group of emerging companies and doing all in their power to ensure that each one succeeds. That puts a lot of responsibility on the analysts whose job it is to evaluate potential startups based on technological merit, the expertise of the scientists who started the company, and other complex market factors.

As an analyst, Scott spent many hours each day researching the science behind new technologies and analyzing the market in which a new company was attempting to enter. In the case of later stage startups that were performing well, he actively sought merger and acquisition targets that the company could merge with to make themselves even more competitive. Scott approached each case as a research project requiring lots of background reading, hours of report writing, and many board room presentations to lay out the pros and cons to the higher level decision makers at Third Security.

When Scott was promoted to Managing Director he shifted from doing research in support of the portfolio managers to BEING one of the portfolio managers. Now he works directly with the founders of a biotech company to help them design a strategic business plan, identify threats to their plan, and advise them on market factors that scientists don't generally think about such as financing, advertising, and market entry.

What aspects of your previous training especially prepared you for this career? In answer to my question Scott said, "The PhD was absolutely required not only from a technical depth standpoint – being able to understand complex new technologies, but also from a process standpoint. Learning how to think about problems and approach complex questions in a methodical way is certainly something that has had applications for me well beyond science."

Scott explained that his training as a research scientist gives him an appreciation for the blood, sweat, years, and tears that go into developing a new technology. As the sole PhD at Third Security that appreciation gives him a degree of emotional capital with the owners of the startups companies he works with.

What kinds of things did you have to learn quickly when you started at Third Security? Although Scott gained an appreciation for business development fundamentals and strategic planning while working in a biotech startup, he quickly realized he needed a more holistic view of what is required for an emerging company to become profitable. Some things he specifically mentioned learning on the job were:

• What makes a business attractive to investors,

• upper level business management processes,

• finance and accounting issues,

• understanding how to introduce a new product into the market,

• how to price the product,

• how to advertise a new product in a cost effective manner.

Is your career path to this position a common one? "If you look at 10 venture capitalists you'll see 10 different paths to how they got to where they are" explains Scott. "Since PhD scientists are still relatively scarce in the venture capital world you see a lot of wandering paths."

Scott acknowledges that he is one of the younger Managing Directors in the business, and he attributes his success to lots of hard work and the fact that his first position after earning a PhD was in a startup company where he wore many hats and learned business strategy out of necessity.

Is this career especially suited to a certain personality type? Scott explains, "You definitely need to be a self confident individual to do something like this – you meet a lot of really smart scientists and business people so you have to make sure you're on your game. You need to be outgoing and personable, but you also need to be aware that a lot rides on your assumptions and there are a lot of dollars are at risk when you give something the thumbs up or thumbs down. You definitely need to take a 'measure twice – cut once' approach." Scott further explains that he routinely puts in 12-13 hour days because he needs to convince himself first and foremost that he has thoroughly vetted a potential investment. Because so much rides on the decisions he makes, and because his work is very outcome oriented, venture capital careers are characteristically high pressure… but they do carry the possibility of high rewards.

How much can entry level analysts expect as a starting salary? It is hard to give a narrow salary range for venture capital consultants. Factors such as company size, location, and previous experience all factor into a starting salary. That said Scott estimated that most entry level analysts make between $60,000 – $100,000 depending on the factors listed above. Salaries beyond the first few years with a company are merit based and vary widely depending on the returns from the firm's investments and their bonus policies. Scott explained it this way, "If you come in as a first year analyst and really hit the ball out of the park, this is one of those fields where you can do very, very well."

Where do you see yourself in 5 or 10 years? "If I can retire from Third Security, I will", says Scott. "It's different everyday, the people I work with are fantastic, and I get to do what I love everyday."

What advice would you give to aspiring venture capital or management consultants? "I know it sounds painful after being in graduate school so long, but I think that a graduate student who wants to transition into venture capital would certainly be well served by finding an internship in a venture capital firm or a larger investment management firm. If you have to, volunteer some time with a local venture capital firm so you can really understand the operational and management issues that are faced by these companies."

For those in the Research Triangle Park area, two local venture capital firms that you can contact are Pappas Ventures (http://www.pappasventures.com/) in RTP and Intersouth (http://www.intersouth.com/), in Durham. You can also check out the Center for Entrepreneurial Development, http://www.cednc.org which holds conferences and monthly activities for entrepreneurs in the triangle.

Scott's last word of advice is that because a career path such as his is still a narrow path for PhDs it is uncommon to see positions advertised. That means that if this path interests you… you guessed it… networking is key.

If you have questions for Scott that weren't answered in this posting he is eager to answer them and invites you to append your questions to this post between now and Wednesday 8/12/2009 at which point he will do his best to answer any questions that have been posted. If you're unsure how to post a question on this blog, please see the text box at the upper right hand corner of the blog titled, "How do I post a comment or question?". Thanks for reading.

Interview with Dr. Angelique Whitehurst, Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Angelique Whitehurst joined the faculty at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill in January 2009. Before coming to UNC, she was a postdoc in Dr. Michael White's lab at the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center. Her postdoctoral research, which is published in Nature and Molecular and Cellular Biology, involved using genome-wide siRNA screens to identify genes implicated in survival, proliferation, and chemosensitivity of tumor cells. Angelique received her PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology from the University of Texas Southwestern in 2004.

I spoke to Angelique in early May 2009 when she'd only been in her position for 5 months. She was very generous in sharing her story and advice with the readers of CarolinaBioscience and she invites you to post questions for her if you have them after reading through her interview.

When did you decide to pursue an academic career? "I wasn't sure what I wanted to do for a long time", explained Angelique when I asked her this question. She had seriously considered being an industry scientist, a science writer, and a clinical trials manager – but she didn't set her sights on academia until part way through her postdoc. Two years into her postdoc while working on a high risk project, her hard work paid off when she got an exciting result from a novel siRNA screen she developed to identify genes that control chemosensitivity in human cancer cells (see the Nature article here). As the significance of her work became apparent, she realized, "This would be so exciting to follow up, but I need more people and resources to help me follow it up". Since then her goal has been an academic position and she's now one of the newest faculty members at UNC.

What appeals to you about an academic career? "I really enjoy the academic culture", Angelique explains. "I enjoy working around other people who are passionate about their science, and the fact that you're constantly being pushed." She also likes the independence and the flexibility that she has in academia. To a large degree she gets to determine the size, scope and trajectory of her research program, and she sees that flexibility as key to balancing her scientific interests with the needs of her young family.

Was your choice of postdoc important in your career progression? Angelique credits much of her success to hard work and supportive mentors. Her postdoctoral advisor, Dr. Michael White, fostered an environment of scientific independence as well as openness about the practical aspects of academia, She explains, "My PI taught me about grant writing strategies, funding processes, academic bureaucracy, and how he set up his own lab so I felt that I had some basis for expectations as a PI."

Dr. White understood that a high profile paper and a cutting edge project Angelique could take with her would make her competitive in the academic job market. This was particularly important for getting her paper accepted at Nature. Her advisor encouraged her to be persistent through the multiple rounds of the review process and to continue to address reviewer comments. Angelique followed his advice and the paper was accepted to Nature.

How did you decide when to start applying for faculty positions? "I had gotten a lot of advice about hitting it while it's hot", Angelique explained, and that's just what she did. Her Nature paper was published in April of 2007 and the next month she began applying to 15-20 faculty openings. In the fall of 2007, she received invitations to interview at 7 or 8 universities from which she decided to interview at 3 medical centers. She interviewed in Jan 2008 when she was 25 weeks pregnant with her second child.

So you were 25 weeks pregnant when you were interviewing? Did that raise any eyebrows? As Angelique put it, "I'd only want to work at a place that would support somebody who wanted a family. I wasn't going to hide it. If they didn't like it, it wasn't the place for me." It did help that she was pregnant with her second child at the time so she was not as nervous or apprehensive as she might have been with the first child. The search committee at UNC was willing to work around her schedule and acknowledged that interviewing while pregnant has some unique challenges. The committee's response conveyed to Angelique that UNC would be supportive of her commitments outside of the lab, which in turn influenced her decision to accept UNC's offer.

What aspect of your CV do you think was the most helpful in getting your current position? Angelique credits her first author Nature paper with opening the door to a career in academia. Importantly, the paper was based on a new and exciting technology and provided her with a system and data to follow-up on as an independent scientist. She also credits her Nature article with helping her secure a K99/R00 "Pathway to Independence" NIH grant. The K99/R00 is a funding mechanism for postdocs who are committed to a career in academia that bridges the gap from a postdoctoral position to a tenure track position (you can read more about K99/R00 grants here). Her first application for the K99/R00 was not funded, but received many useful comments from reviews. Her second submission, which incorporated changes based on the reviewers' comments, was submitted after the Nature paper was published. This time her K99/R00 grant was funded, which further increased her competitiveness in the job market and has taken some of the funding pressure off of her in her first years at UNC. Importantly, the process of writing a K99 is similar to that of an R01, so the experience was critical to learning about grant writing.

What has been the biggest challenge in your first months of your position? When Angelique moved into her new office and lab space in the brand new Genetics Medicine Building she naturally wanted to get to work generating data and making new discoveries, but before she could even culture cells she had to purchase reagents, supplies, and equipment. As she put it, "there is so much to do, and it is almost impossible to be productive when you're starting a lab. It was the first time I couldn't just walk into a lab and start doing experiments." She described trying to remember which of the thousands of Eppendorf tubes on the market were the ones she was familiar with, and realizing how hard it is to do any experiment without KimWipes.

Another challenge for new faculty members is that they are completely on their own scientifically – often for the first time – and they are expected to establish a research program from the ground up. Angelique described the roller coaster of emotions inherent in this transition by saying, "People tried to prepare me for this by saying that there would be moments of enormous doubt, followed by moments of ultimate confidence. Being prepared for the oscillations helps to keep them from being a distraction and promotes focus and persistence."

What have you found most enjoyable in your new position? Outfitting a lab from the ground up is an huge challenge – not just the nuts and bolts of getting equipment set up but also pursuing new ideas and experiments. Angelique admits that she is enjoying this period of intensive learning. She has had a number of students rotate through her lab already and just accepted her first graduate students. With excitement in her voice, Angelique described what she considers the most enjoyable part of her new position. "It's a lot of fun inspiring other people to be excited about a project, and then helping them to execute on it. When they generate data that makes them excited, and then when you can share that excitement with them as you analyze the data – it's really a lot of fun. It's also great to be in a new environment with new colleagues pursuing different and exciting scientific approaches. It expands your knowledge base, and then you can apply that back to your own science."

Are there aspects of the transition from postdoc to PI that you didn't anticipate? "The biggest shock for me was how much I would care about the success of the people who enter my lab. I went from seeing everyone I worked with as my peers, to feeling responsible for the success of anyone who comes through my lab. You care about them as if they were your own children…I didn't anticipate that."

What are the external expectations of you in the first year, first 5 years? "In the first year the expectation is that you will get your lab established, begin working on you research program, get people into your lab, and generate data", explained Angelique. Within 5 years the expectation is not only that you have established your own niche in the scientific community, secured outside funding, are publishing, and training successful students and postdocs, but that you're also collaborating with other scientists and contributing to the UNC community by teaching courses, mentoring students, and incorporating new techniques and technology into your research program.

What is the starting salary range for a tenure track investigator? Like all careers, starting salaries for assistant professors cover a wide range depending on the size of the institution, whether it's a public or private school, and whether it's a medical school or not. Angelique explained that the starting annual salaries at top research universities range from $70,000 – 120,000+ for a tenure track assistant professor. In general, smaller universities offer lower salaries, and medical centers usually pay more. Angelique also explained that policies differ between institutions regarding what percentage of your salary is guaranteed by the department and what percentage you are required to bring in from external funding sources. It's important to understand this when interviewing and comparing offers.

What advice do you have for students and postdocs who want to get a tenure track position in academia? Angelique stressed that there are wide roads and narrow roads that can all lead to an academic position. "Don't let anyone tell you that you have to have this or that in your CV to get an academic position." Some things may make the road wider, she explained, but the most important attributes are being passionate about your science and willing to put forth persistent effort.

At various times throughout the interview Angelique spoke about how she sought out successful researchers in all levels of academia that helped her weather the disappointments and tough times inherent to bench science. She acknowledged that most, if not all graduate students, at one point or another have looked over the academic fence and seen what looks like greener pastures on the other side. She advises young scientists who want to stay in academia to find researchers who are established and happy in their careers. Then when you're in a rut, talk to these people so they can share their perspective of academia. In Angelique's words, "You can't be in your own box. You can't do it on your own. Be collegial. Ask for advice and be humble. "

For those who will soon be applying and interviewing for academic positions Angelique encourages you to thoroughly educate yourself about the mission of the institution and the department you hope to join. Look at the faculty's research programs and how they complement each other, then when you interview, present a clear research plan focusing on how your science would fit in and create bridges between other faculty member's research.

One of the challenges of starting up your own lab is that you are immediately thrust into the role of a small business owner. Angelique suggests that grad students and postdocs take every opportunity to learn about grant writing, how to propose, implement, and adhere to a research budget, how to lead a team with different personalities, how to plan strategically, how to motivate others, how to work on professional committees, etc.

Do you have advice specifically for young female scientists? Angelique adamantly stated, "Don't listen to people who say you can only have a family OR a career – but not both. If you want to have children, go ahead – there is never a convenient time! If you have kids and it changes your perspective, listen to yourself and readjust your plans if you need to. I had no idea that becoming a Mom would make me want to be a scientist even more, but it has. Lastly don't be shy about seeking advice from other female scientists with children to learn how they have done it."

If you have questions for Angelique that weren't answered in this posting she invites you to append your questions to this post between now and Tuesday 6/2/2009 at 5:00pm at which point she will do her best to answer any questions that have been posted. If you're unsure how to post a question on this blog, please see the text box at the upper right hand corner of the blog titled, "How do I post a comment or question?".

Interview with Dr. Jan McColm, Managing Editor of a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Dr. Jan McColm earned a PhD in immunology in 1998 from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. Following her graduation she came to the United States to receive postdoctoral training in an ophthalmology laboratory at Louisiana State University. After 18 months at LSU, the laboratory where Jan was studying moved to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She relocated with the laboratory and remained at UNC as a research associate for 6 years. In 2006, Jan accepted a position as the managing editor of Genetics in Medicine, the official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics.

When and how did you decide to become a science editor? When I asked Jan this question she said she couldn’t point to one experience that hooked her on the idea of being an editor, nor did she go through grad school intent on being a science editor. Instead her decision was based on a desire that will sound familiar to many graduate students and postdocs – she loves science, but wanted to find a non-bench career where she could feed her passion for science and support the scientific enterprise at the same time.

Jan’s postdoctoral advisor was a successful clinician trying to establish a new research lab and had a few manuscripts in various stages of completion. Jan helped her advisor prepare the manuscripts for publication and in the process realized that she enjoyed editing and had a talent for it. That experience, as well as favorable grant writing and editing experiences, led Jan to pursue a career in editing.

How did you transition from bench science to editing? Once she decided to pursue a career in science writing and editing, Jan volunteered to write a number of articles for Endeavors magazine - UNC’s research publication (see an example of her first and latest feature articles in Endeavors). She also volunteered to write press releases such as this one for the UNC School of Medicine public affairs office. She even edited manuscripts for non-native speakers who needed help polishing their manuscripts prior to submission.

Those experiences reaffirmed that she enjoyed writing and editing, and made her a strong candidate in the job market. In fact, the quality and range of her portfolio led her current supervisor to jokingly remark that she was “overqualified” when he offered her the job.

What are you duties as a managing editor? Jan explains “the position of a managing editor is essentially to guide submitted manuscripts through the process of acceptance or rejection and then on to the publisher”. Once accepted manuscripts are assigned to an issue, Jan works with the publisher to make sure the proofs, graphics, cover art, and features are correct. At any given time she is working on at least three issues in varying stages of completion.

Jan is the first person who sees a submitted manuscript. She checks to make sure the authors followed the journal guidelines and contacts the authors if reformatting is required. She sends acceptable submissions to the editor-in-chief, who decides, along with the editorial board, whether the manuscripts will be reviewed or not. A large portion of her day is spent following up with manuscript authors, reviewers, invited authors, and other editors to make sure deadlines are being met for upcoming issues.

Because she works for a relatively small journal, Jan has many opportunities besides those listed above. She writes and edits the monthly “Highlights” page for Genetics in Medicine along with the Editor-in-Chief. This page features genetics news and events as well as highlighting two articles from within each issue. She also records and edits a podcast of the abstracts posted on the Genetics in Medicine website. Jan is also responsible for securing cover art for the journal.

What do you like best about your current position? Jan’s reaction to this question was, “Oh that’s tough, because there are lots of good things about my job”. Jan is in the enviable position of being able to work from home, and she considers that one of the perks of her job. Jan explains that in the digital age it is increasingly common for the editorial board of a journal and the publishing team to be spread across the United States and many science writers and editors that Jan knows in the triangle work from home and are employed by companies headquartered from New York to California and anywhere in between.

Jan enjoys a lot of independence in her job and she gets to express her creativity in every issue. Although she meets with the editor-in-chief once a week, she is largely in control of many aspects of the journal. One of Jan’s most enjoyable duties is commissioning or otherwise acquiring cover art for the journal. She garners a lot of satisfaction from starting each month’s publication as a blank slate, populating it with quality research publications and artwork, ending with a quality piece of work she can put on the shelf as a finished project each month. As she explains it, “Every month your project is complete, it’s out the door and you’re on to the next one – and that’s very satisfying to me personally”.

What’s the most unpleasant part of your job? Remember that one of Jan’s most enjoyable parts of the job was working from home? The other side of that coin is that she doesn’t interact much with others on a personal level during the day and that can lead to feelings of isolation. To counteract those feelings Jan gets together for lunch a few times a month with other science editors and freelance science writers in the triangle.

Jan points out that when she spoke with editors during her period of transition from the bench to editing, some of them warned her that editing can be very repetitive. For her, however, that has not been an issue. It’s true that she uses the same skill set over and over, but her skills are never applied to exactly the same manuscript or exactly the same journal issue.

Where do you see yourself in 5 or 10 years? Jan is happy with her current position and plans to stay on as managing editor of Genetics in Medicine through the tenure of the current editor–in-chief (who usually hires the managing editor). When the current editor–in-chief’s tenure expires, Jan will either make a case to the new editor-in-chief to keep her on as managing editor, or she has also toyed with the idea of doing freelance science editing full time.

Is your path to becoming a managing editor a common one? In the past most managing editors were not science majors, Jan explained in answer to this question. In the days of hard copy submissions and snail mail reviewing, managing editors did a lot of clerical work. That is less true now that author submissions, peer reviewing, and even submission to the publisher is all done electronically. For that reason managing editors with PhDs are in increasing demand because they can fill multiple essential roles (especially at smaller journals) and can serve as an additional reviewer to catch science based or technical errors before articles are printed.

What salary can a PhD scientist expect to earn as a science editor? When I asked Jan this question she remarked that compensation for science writers and editors differs greatly depending on whether you are employed by a for profit or not-for-profit company, and whether you are freelancing or working for an established entity. For example a medical writer working for a big pharmaceutical company will likely be paid between $75K and $100K per year, whereas an editor or writer working for a non-profit or educational entity could expect a salary of $50K to $80K. Experienced freelance writers and editors with a PhD can make $100 per hour, but they don’t have company benefits (i.e health insurance or retirement plans) and must constantly be looking for the next project.

What advice do you have for aspiring science writers or editors? Without hesitation Jan replied, “Go and write - find someone who can look at your writing objectively and can give you feedback and criticism...and then practice”. She elaborated by saying that one great way to prepare for a career in editing is to critique others’ writing – not just critiquing their experiments, controls, and hypotheses, but analyzing how well they convey their message and how they transition from one idea to another through the manuscript.
______________________________________________________________________________

If Carolina Bioscience readers have questions that you would like Jan to address, she invites you to append your questions to this post between now and Friday 4/25/2009 at 5:00pm at which point she will do her best to answer any questions that have been posted. If you’re unsure how to post a question on this blog, please direct your attention to the text box at the upper right hand corner of the blog titled, “How do I post a comment or question?”.

Welcome

Welcome to Carolina Bioscience - a career exploration resource for life science PhDs on and off UNC campus.

In my role as Associate Director of Biomedical Graduate Training Initiatives at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine I see an insatiable desire on the part of PhD students to gather as much information as they can about all possible career paths that are available to them. This appetite, especially for information on nontraditional career paths, is only heightened by the current shortage of tenure track academic positions. The goal of this blog is to highlight traditional and alternative career paths by posting interactive interviews with PhD scientists who have successfully transitioned into a wide range of science careers.

So, what exactly is an interactive interview? I'll interview successful PhD scientists and post an overview of the interview including what their job entails, how they got to where they are, what they like about their position, and what advice they have for graduate students or postdocs interested in that particular career. Once the overview is posted, blog readers can post questions for the interviewee for a few days. When that period is over, the interviewee will respond to the questions. The overview, reader questions, and answers to those questions will remain in the blog archive.

The first interactive interview with Dr. Jan McColm, Managing Editor of a peer reviewed scientific journal, will be posted on April 20th. Future interviews will highlight PhD scientists who are tenure track research professors, undergraduate teaching professors, industry researchers, patents lawyers, grant managers, science writers, science policy makers, venture capitalist consultants, and many more such professionals. If you have suggestions of what you'd like to see please email me at pdb@unc.edu.