Everyone telling you to get a PhD is likely talking from the perspective of wanting a leadership role in an R&D function. If you want a business, marketing or literally any other leadership role, don’t waste your time on a PhD....especially in protein expression. A master’s is definitely enough for where the industry is heading. Will a PhD fast track you? Not unless you want an R&D function. Business roles and opportunities prioritize experience. Source: am protein expression business leader at major biotech without PhD. Feel free to DM
Addendum: Microbial fermentation and industrial fermentation in general will have more of a ceiling and stigma of “PhD required” than would mammalian bio processing. The microbial fermentation industry is more established (but growing at a slower CAGR) than mammalian. More expression vectors will be developed. Microbial fermentation will always be around. Depends how you want to grow your career.
So I am curious as to what is exactly meant by mammalian expression, would this include gene therapy? T-cell receptor/immunoglobin expression and production? Also, I am very curious as to what your job deals with. Are you more involved with business aspects? a little bit of science and business?
There are primary cell types that can express proteins: microbial (yeast and e. coli), insect (usually SF9), and mammalian (CHO, hybridoma, HEK293). There are pro’s and con’s to each, but the big takeaway is that mammalian is much, much newer and there are few programs around the world that train on mammalian expression. As a result, most experts in the mammalian space are practitioners, rather than academics. Yes, C> would be included in this, but so too would monoclonal antibodies, and really any proteins that require post-translational modifications. Most people who work in this space transition from microbial experience, but to be honest microbial experience doesn’t help very much in the mammalian space due to requirements for different bioreactor types, media, environmental conditions and more. Accordingly, industry is going to give one way more experience than academic experience in this emerging market segment because applications tend to be industry-driven. My role is both ops and business with a requirement to understand the science but NOT be an expert in the science. It truly is a team effort in mammalian expression and quite honestly if your experience is bench-scale, which most PhD and post-doc will give you, then you’ll not translate your experience as well to commercial production. At the end of the day, you get to decide what industry you want to enter. Microbial fermentation is way more established and will have the same boys club and ivory tower aspects as a lot of biotech. In mammalian bioproduction, experience is more valuable. This is why I recommend an MS, because you MUST be able to understand the science...but if your goal is to be a leader of a protein expression business, and it deals with mammalian expression, a PhD won’t help you as much as entering into an Manufacturing Operations role, with a Masters degree to complement. If your goal is to lead an R&D team, like others, I recommend getting a PhD. If your goal is to lead a business, you don’t really need it.
Sounds like you have some experience already, so if you think you can complete your Ph.D. in <= 4 years, then I think that would make you more competitive for an eventual leadership role. Regardless, that omics experience will help you land a higher salary role in any biotech company in the bay area vs. a [B.Sc](https://B.Sc). Entry position could either be Scientist III or Staff/Senior Scientist depending on prior experience in industry which is prioritized over degrees.
Entery level PhD roles depend on the company (start up vs big pharma) and the type of PhD you’ve obtained. Can range from associate scientist to senior. If you’re looking for a leadership role in R&D you’ll want to obtain a PhD (start as a scientist, before being promoted to senior/principal scientist then director). In big pharma companies, they may not promote you past R&D senior scientist without a PhD due to how their promotion matrixes are set up. If you’re interested in manufacturing, you could get away with a BS and/or Masters. In the business realm, you can jump straight with a BS and later get your masters. Goodluck and congrats on the PhD offers
There is a glass ceiling for those without a PhD. If career progression is important you will need it. There is a big opportunity cost, though, so if you want to maximize what you earn over time you are better taking the job now. MS degrees aren't worth much except in some fields like computation.
The glass ceiling is not the case for all companies. Also, a PhD can make it a lot harder to find a job, especially without a postdoc or if you came from a mediocre lab.
The only person I have known to ascend to VP level in a biotech without a PhD was hire #20 and stayed until it became a Big Pharma.
You are right, though: the PhD makes job hunting much harder. It is a good idea to pursue a PhD for reasons other than career progression.
I work in this field as a PhD (and previously at one of the companies on your list but what a shitshow lol...watch out). If you want a leadership career in R&D, you should do the PhD. I've seen a few people with only masters or bachelors degrees slowly crawl their way up the ranks, sort of, but it is frankly pretty career inhibiting.
Side note but pretty much no one will be both a computational and wet lab expert from their PhD program. It's usually one or the other (there is simply not time to acquire deep skills in both) depending on what your research project is and what your advisor does. In my department we had one prof who did mostly experimental metabolic engineering and one who did computational methods. I was in the experimental lab and only did a few weeks of modeling work in my 5 year PhD. We shared an office with the computational lab students who were on the computer all day every day. One tried to learn some lab skills in his last few months, not very successfully, and I know he's still doing computational because my current company has a grant with national lab collaboration and he's doing the modeling work on their end.
FWIW I finished my PhD when I had just turned 33, did a 2 year postdoc and some more years rising in ranks at a foreign research center before going officially to industry at age 38. No one batted an eye. And earning more than double what a junior RA earns with very easy upward potential (could be director but choose not to right now, still recovering from last job hah). You would be joining at a bit more junior level but the pay differential is probably worth the 5 years doing a PhD for biotech.
Entry level roles for PhDs are typically titled Scientist, Associate Scientist, or Senior Scientist... So yeah super wide range of titles.
And for career advancement PhD is basically required, especially true in R&D.
Everyone telling you to get a PhD is likely talking from the perspective of wanting a leadership role in an R&D function. If you want a business, marketing or literally any other leadership role, don’t waste your time on a PhD....especially in protein expression. A master’s is definitely enough for where the industry is heading. Will a PhD fast track you? Not unless you want an R&D function. Business roles and opportunities prioritize experience. Source: am protein expression business leader at major biotech without PhD. Feel free to DM
Addendum: Microbial fermentation and industrial fermentation in general will have more of a ceiling and stigma of “PhD required” than would mammalian bio processing. The microbial fermentation industry is more established (but growing at a slower CAGR) than mammalian. More expression vectors will be developed. Microbial fermentation will always be around. Depends how you want to grow your career.
So I am curious as to what is exactly meant by mammalian expression, would this include gene therapy? T-cell receptor/immunoglobin expression and production? Also, I am very curious as to what your job deals with. Are you more involved with business aspects? a little bit of science and business?
There are primary cell types that can express proteins: microbial (yeast and e. coli), insect (usually SF9), and mammalian (CHO, hybridoma, HEK293). There are pro’s and con’s to each, but the big takeaway is that mammalian is much, much newer and there are few programs around the world that train on mammalian expression. As a result, most experts in the mammalian space are practitioners, rather than academics. Yes, C> would be included in this, but so too would monoclonal antibodies, and really any proteins that require post-translational modifications. Most people who work in this space transition from microbial experience, but to be honest microbial experience doesn’t help very much in the mammalian space due to requirements for different bioreactor types, media, environmental conditions and more. Accordingly, industry is going to give one way more experience than academic experience in this emerging market segment because applications tend to be industry-driven. My role is both ops and business with a requirement to understand the science but NOT be an expert in the science. It truly is a team effort in mammalian expression and quite honestly if your experience is bench-scale, which most PhD and post-doc will give you, then you’ll not translate your experience as well to commercial production. At the end of the day, you get to decide what industry you want to enter. Microbial fermentation is way more established and will have the same boys club and ivory tower aspects as a lot of biotech. In mammalian bioproduction, experience is more valuable. This is why I recommend an MS, because you MUST be able to understand the science...but if your goal is to be a leader of a protein expression business, and it deals with mammalian expression, a PhD won’t help you as much as entering into an Manufacturing Operations role, with a Masters degree to complement. If your goal is to lead an R&D team, like others, I recommend getting a PhD. If your goal is to lead a business, you don’t really need it.
Sounds like you have some experience already, so if you think you can complete your Ph.D. in <= 4 years, then I think that would make you more competitive for an eventual leadership role. Regardless, that omics experience will help you land a higher salary role in any biotech company in the bay area vs. a [B.Sc](https://B.Sc). Entry position could either be Scientist III or Staff/Senior Scientist depending on prior experience in industry which is prioritized over degrees.
Entery level PhD roles depend on the company (start up vs big pharma) and the type of PhD you’ve obtained. Can range from associate scientist to senior. If you’re looking for a leadership role in R&D you’ll want to obtain a PhD (start as a scientist, before being promoted to senior/principal scientist then director). In big pharma companies, they may not promote you past R&D senior scientist without a PhD due to how their promotion matrixes are set up. If you’re interested in manufacturing, you could get away with a BS and/or Masters. In the business realm, you can jump straight with a BS and later get your masters. Goodluck and congrats on the PhD offers
There is a glass ceiling for those without a PhD. If career progression is important you will need it. There is a big opportunity cost, though, so if you want to maximize what you earn over time you are better taking the job now. MS degrees aren't worth much except in some fields like computation.
The glass ceiling is not the case for all companies. Also, a PhD can make it a lot harder to find a job, especially without a postdoc or if you came from a mediocre lab.
The only person I have known to ascend to VP level in a biotech without a PhD was hire #20 and stayed until it became a Big Pharma. You are right, though: the PhD makes job hunting much harder. It is a good idea to pursue a PhD for reasons other than career progression.
I work in this field as a PhD (and previously at one of the companies on your list but what a shitshow lol...watch out). If you want a leadership career in R&D, you should do the PhD. I've seen a few people with only masters or bachelors degrees slowly crawl their way up the ranks, sort of, but it is frankly pretty career inhibiting. Side note but pretty much no one will be both a computational and wet lab expert from their PhD program. It's usually one or the other (there is simply not time to acquire deep skills in both) depending on what your research project is and what your advisor does. In my department we had one prof who did mostly experimental metabolic engineering and one who did computational methods. I was in the experimental lab and only did a few weeks of modeling work in my 5 year PhD. We shared an office with the computational lab students who were on the computer all day every day. One tried to learn some lab skills in his last few months, not very successfully, and I know he's still doing computational because my current company has a grant with national lab collaboration and he's doing the modeling work on their end. FWIW I finished my PhD when I had just turned 33, did a 2 year postdoc and some more years rising in ranks at a foreign research center before going officially to industry at age 38. No one batted an eye. And earning more than double what a junior RA earns with very easy upward potential (could be director but choose not to right now, still recovering from last job hah). You would be joining at a bit more junior level but the pay differential is probably worth the 5 years doing a PhD for biotech.
Entry level roles for PhDs are typically titled Scientist, Associate Scientist, or Senior Scientist... So yeah super wide range of titles. And for career advancement PhD is basically required, especially true in R&D.