Another science writing internship opportunity

This was passed on from a friend of The Alternative Scientist:


The Ecological Society of America (ESA) is looking for an intern, to be
based at its Washington, DC office, to help with the production of one of
the Society's journals, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
(www.frontiersinecology.org). Frontiers is published ten times a year
(both in print and online). Ecologists and environmental scientists make
up its primary readership.

The internship is a great opportunity to learn about the scientific
publishing process. Depending on experience and aptitude, the intern will
be involved in many different aspects of journal production, including
editing/proofreading, writing, podcasting, and image research, as well as
other day-to-day activities of the editorial office.

The internship includes a stipend of $2750 for 3 months. The successful
applicant should have a demonstrated knowledge of ecology, environmental
science, or biology, and an interest in, or experience in, publishing or
journalism.

Application instructions:

Resume, cover letter, and two letters of reference should be sent
electronically to Dr. Sue Silver, Frontiers Editor-in-Chief
(suesilver@esa.org).
On e-mail subject line, please state: Frontiers Internship

Science writing internship opportunity at Argonne (for undergrads)

A friend recently alerted me to a science writing internship opportunity at Argonne National labs. It sounds like a great opportunity. Unfortunately, it is limited to undergrads only, but perhaps some undergrads do read this blog?

The following description is from Argonne's web site http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Internship/index.html

"Argonne National Laboratory's Communications & Public Affairs Division is offering one full-time science-writing internship for summer 2010 for an undergraduate student or student who graduates in May or June 2010. Former Argonne interns subsequently landed reporting and editing jobs with Science, Science News, R&D, Chemical & Engineering News, The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the International Medical News Group and the Elgin Courier-News, and as science writers at Cal Tech, Purdue, the American Chemical Society, Ames Laboratory, Argonne, and the University of Chicago Hospitals.

Participants must be full-time students at an accredited college or university and must have a strong interest in science-related journalism. Participants will work at least ten 40-hour weeks on science news and feature stories and magazine articles for the Argonne News, Argonne Now and the Argonne Web site, as well as related news releases. The internship requires a strong background in journalism and an interest in science.

The working environment is collegial, creative and collaborative. Argonne's Communications & Public Affairs Division has nine full-time professional journalist/writers who work with our interns daily.

Argonne National Laboratory has more than 200 research programs in basic and applied science, including mathematics and computer science, biology, environmental research, materials science, physics, chemistry, energy research, and advanced nuclear reactor technology. Argonne's Illinois site is located on a wooded, 1,500-acre campus near Chicago."


For more detailed information on the program and application, see

http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Internship/index.html



http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Internship/index.html

The thoughts of 17 science writers (and public policy experts, journalists, educators, editors, etc)

Emily Monosson is an independent toxicologist, writer and editor. You may have heard her name—she is the editor of the recent anthology, “Motherhood, the Elephant in the Laboratory: Women Scientist Speak Out.” I urge anyone who is interested in work/life balance or alternative careers to seek out this book; it’s not just for mothers! Although many contributors to this book have indeed managed to successfully balance family with traditional academic careers, a significant number also found success in the so-called “alternative careers.” In doing so, many forged entirely new career paths for themselves. Monosson’s book offers an enlightening and inspiring view of the many different careers possible in science.

In addition to her scientific and writing work, Dr. Monosson has spoken on various scientific career panels. I was recently honored to be asked for my input on a recent career panel discussion that she was putting together on the topic of parenthood, science, and alternative careers. Dr. Monosson sent out a brief survey to a number of science writers for their thoughts on their careers. What follows is a collection of responses from 17 very different writers. As you will see, these responses showcase the many many different forms that a career in “science writing” can take. Respondents included government public policy specialists, communication specialists, educators, at least one journalist and an editor at Science magazine. (By the way, I’m respondent #17 ). Dr. Monosson collected and summarized all our responses, and has generously agreed to allow me to post them here.

The Questions Asked in the Survey

“…I'm writing to you all because you've each indicated that writing is or has been a part of your work - and if you have a moment - I'd like to know if

1) you feel it is a satisfactory way to use your scientific training
2) if you feel you've left science behind or if you feel it's led to a broadening of your scientific knowledge base
3) any other thoughts you may have”

Emily Monosson’s Summary of the Responses

“For most writing about science satisfies the scientist in them, and while several sometimes feel a loss of the bench, the broad view of science (albeit shallower for some - not all) is viewed as a plus. Several also mentioned the need for scientists to do the kind of interpretation and synthesis that they do -- and finally several commented that reaching and possibly influencing a broader audience by writing is also a big plus to science writing.”

The Responses

Response #1: Writing for the public can be much more influential than
scientific papers (unless you're Darwin or Watson & Crick!)

Response #2: A critical function of my writing for this audience is education, so I have to synthesize scientific information for a lay audience. I do think it’s a very satisfactory way to use my scientific training…it’s serving the same function as my more scientific writing.

I feel like it’s broadened my scientific knowledge base. I was trained as an avian behavioral ecologist. My writing has focused more on the documented and predicted impacts of climate change on global biodiversity.

In general, I think this type of scientific writing is as important as writing scientific papers. The writing I’m doing now reaches a much larger population and I’d like to think it’s as impactful as my scientific papers.

Response #3: Most often my audience is Congress which I would consider lay readers. Here are a few quick thoughts.
Satisfactory isn't the word I'd use. Necessary is more like it. While my scientific knowledge is not often challenged, I would not want my job done by a non-PhD.

The research that I now report on is much different than that in which I studied. Therefore, I have a little regret that I left that part of science behind. But as far as leaving all of science behind, because of question 1, I'd answer no. I feel that because I'm fulfilling a need that is better in line with my interests and talents, I'm doing more for science now that if I were still in a lab.

Response #4: I did become a science writer in a way possibly only somewhere like the Washington DC area - I go to gov't science or science policy meetings and write them up (been doing this since 1989 first through contractors, then directly at NIH, and now semi-retired, through contractors again.

There is a really good discussion on the website of the National Association of Science Writers about what should come first, the science or the writing skills (obviously folks get into the field both ways). www.nasw.org That part of the website is open to the public.
Of course in this days of cutbacks in science in newspapers and in science magazines, opportunities are somewhat more limited that even a few years ago.

Response #5:I was a Congressional Science Fellow in 1994-1995 and since then have been an earth science professor at Vassar. My CSF influenced me tremendously and I have tried to continue my work as a scientist as the same time as I communicate science to the public. My blog below lists two books that are part of that effort.

Response #6:I use my training in psychology and epidemiology to write op-eds for newspapers, articles for magazines and web sites, booklets for patients, as well as testimony for Congress and government meetings.
I enjoy it, especially compared to writing for scientific publications.

Response #7: Satisfactory? YES
Left science behind, or led to a broadening of your scientific knowledge base? THE LATTER

The late Stephen J. Gould is an superlative example of how a scientist can devote major efforts to communicating science to a lay audience without compromising their personal scientific or philosophical integrity.

Response #8: Satisfactory? Yes –I’m happy doing what I do.
If you feel you've left science behind or if you feel it's led to a broadening of your scientific knowledge base:both. I don’t do cutting edge research now (bad) but I know more about lots of things, and I don’t have to be first (good).

Response #9: I was fortunate to enjoy both the AAAS S&T Policy Fellowship and the AAAS Mass Media Science and Engineering Fellowship, both of which helped land me my current (dream) gig as an editor for science policy at Science magazine. So that's me, what I do. In answer to your questions:

1. absolutely
2. broader knowledge without question
3. i'm hungry, tired, and ready to go home. does that count?

Response #10:I have recently transitioned completely to a Science Communications position within the EPA from a science position (also at the EPA). I am mostly writing news releases, desk statements, content for web pages, and fact sheets as well as some resources for teachers and students. I love it and am very satisfied with my use of scientific training. I feel that translating science to the public is perhaps one of the most important aspects of actually doing the scientific research. I definitely do not feel that I have left science behind, as it is very much a part of everything I write or communicate; I am only making it make sense to the general public. It is still science. I am now part of a larger community of scientists and also exposed to more areas of science than before, for which I am grateful. I am very happy with my contribution to science and to the general public.

Response #11: I write reports and memos for Congress on science and engineering-related topics, tied to policy. My scientific training and career are essential, in many if not most instances, in helping translate the scientific issue or controversy to a non-scientific audience. I have left my own scientific career behind, surely, but this job requires that I keep abreast of the scientific discoveries in a broad array of fields, so I still attend scientific meetings and read journal articles. As a result, I have a much broader, although surely shallower scientific knowledge base. That is offset, in my view, by having to describe and analyze science in the broader public policy context, which is complex and nuanced in many instances.

Response #12: I definitely feel like writing has expanded by knowledge in science. There is absolutely no doubt about it. I know so much more than I ever did, and since this is the part of science I always enjoyed, it gives me a thrill.

Now, do I feel like I am using my training... yes, I was trained to read, synthesize, and understand primary research, and this knowledge is critical for my writing. If I was unable to understand the research by others, I would not be able to write the textbooks and study guides. What I do not use from my Ph. D is the actual bench research... taking what is known and devising the next experiment, performing that experiment, and interpreting these results. Can you be 50% scientist??

Response #13: I have a Ph.D. in Neuroscience, and have been a science writer for the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for 3 years. I write research news, publications for patients and families, and correspondence for senior officials, among other things. To answer your questions:
1) I don't think I could excel at my job without my scientific training. My job quite literally involves translating scientifc information for lay audiences - if I didnt' speak science, I wouldn't be an effective translator. But if you're asking whether I am personally satisfied with my position, the answer is no. I started here as an S&T policy fellow thinking that I would be doing a mixture of science communication and policy, but the policy has been lacking.

2) I have definitely abandoned the lab bench, but I wouldn’t say that I have left science behind. I feel more educated about general neuroscience and better informed about current neuroscience research than I ever did as an academic researcher.

Response #14: I work as a consultant to community organizations concerning the clean-up of contaminated sites, such as Superfund sites and closed military bases. My writing includes comments on technical reports and information pieces on topics of interest to the citizens concerning their site. These latter pieces may be about lead toxicity, endocrine disrupting chemicals, or the methods used to clean up contamination. I also write an editorial piece for my own web site.
Writing scientific material for a public audience is without a doubt one of the more rewarding developments in my professional life. My non-technical writing pieces include popular press letters and op-eds, white papers, position papers and information papers for communities. Much of the writing that goes to a more technical audience is also intended for public consumption, so I actually do little writing that is purely technical.
It’s not the adding on of the non-technical writing that has come with some down sides. Technical writing for journals can be cumbersome and tiring, and I still do write an occasional peer-reviewed paper or book chapter. And journal reviewers tend to be largely a pain in the butt. So, writing for other media and applications brings a way to keep both technical and non-technical writing in perspective. The losses have been in the change in work that accompanied the shift in writing. I no longer carry out lab/field research for which the principal outlet is peer-reviewed journals. There is nothing quite as satisfying as a lab experiment that goes well, and these are no longer in my work. That satisfying experience has been replaced by another.

Response #15: you feel it is a satisfactory way to use your scientific training?
Sort of. I use analytical skills and my background of science. But I'm not creating data points or designing experiments, which is what I was trained to do. This might bother some trained scientists, but it doesn't bother me. One of the things I liked most about my lab bench days was crunching through data, making graphs of it and trying to figure out what it meant. I do this now in my job as a science writer, except that my data points are quotes and other facts/figures I find and it's up to me to sift through it and come up with a story that people would want to spend their free time reading.

if you feel you've left science behind or if you feel it's led to a broadening of your scientific knowledge base

I think there are many ways to be a productive scientist. I was trained at a research 1 university where most grad students went on to be post docs. That's one way to be a productive scientist and contribute to society but generating new knowledge. But someone has to be out there to explain it in a way that's accessible to non-experts. Some scientists are able to find time to do this, through outreach at museums or giving layperson-friendly talks. But usually it's the job of a trained science communicator to distribute science to the public.

As for my career choice broadening my scientific base, it has! Before, when I was at the bench, my studies inevitably became more and more narrow as my research progressed. That's one of the reasons I left labwork. Now I get to cover a smattering of topics, and it's so much more interesting and fulfilling for me.

any other thoughts you may have
Just that scientists don't have to leave the bench in order to write for the general public. They can have blogs, give lectures, write op-eds in their local papers, etc. They should also be willing to talk to journalists about their work...there still seems to be a fear that the journalists will get it wrong (and sometimes they do!) or that they will appear to be tooting their own horn. Also, public affairs offices at universities can help scientists improve their communications skills such that journalists will write more accurately about the science.

Response #16: I trained as a PhD in biology and I have been working as a science writer now for almost 6 years. I write mostly long form narrative pieces.

I do feel like writing is a very satisfactory way to use my scientific training. I do not feel that I've left science behind at all. My knowledge base is much broader now (although less deep in my field of training). Having a PhD has made it easier to approach primary literature in diverse fields and gives me more credibility when interacting with scientists. I have also developed a keen sense for how to navigate the uneasiness felt by many scientists when talking to the media. I also help teach a communications workshop aimed at graduate students in science that focuses on writing for multiple audiences.

Response #17: Yes, I feel that science writing has been a satisfactory way for me to use my scientific training.

My particular position is very specialized and rather unusual. I am currently employed as a scientific writer/editor for a large cancer research laboratory at a non-profit research institute. In this position, I edit and help write scientific manuscripts and grant proposals. My scientific training is essential for this work--the level of editing and writing required simply cannot be done by a person who does not have a science background. Indeed, I'd say my doctorate and even postdoctoral training have been invaluable for this job. I read a lot of primary literature. Depending on the project I am working on, I have to be able to get quickly up to speed on a specific subfield, and I need to be able to synthesize the primary literature into coherent introduction and discussion sections of papers. I also very critically evaluate the primary data presented in papers and grants--basically, I'm just another trained scientific mind who can offer some
perspective. I participate in lab meetings and journal clubs--basically, I'm like a postdoc who doesn't do experiments (but does everything else).

I haven't met anyone else who has my exact same job, but I've recently come to know of others who have similar jobs. Through the science blogosphere, I've come to "meet" a few people who are Ph.D.-trained scientific writers/editors for departments or divisions at biomedical research institutes. These people go by different titles and have slightly different tasks (one person I know has the title of "research development facilitator"). Most are devoted primarily to helping their departments or institutes get grant funding--identifying grant sources and working with PIs to help write, shape, and oversee the entire grant application process. What we have in common is that we are specialized in science writing/communication for other scientists.

2) No, I don't feel that I've left science behind. I'm as deeply involved as ever--if not working at the laboratory bench means that I'm not a scientist, then none of the lab heads at my institute are scientists!

Alternative career profile: Rachel Carson, scientist and writer

I thought it would be fun to start posting profiles of people in alternative careers. Recently, I ran across a very interesting such profile in the publication, "Science Editor", the monthly journal of the Council of Science Editors (I'm a member). April’s issue had an eye-opening story about Rachel Carson, the environmental activist best known for her book, “Silent Spring.”

I admit that I’ve never read “Silent Spring” or any of her other books. Actually, I know almost nothing of Carson other than that she was a famous environmental activist best known for “Silent Spring.” But the article I read makes it clear that Rachel Carson was a remarkable person with a remarkable career path and life. And it brought home to me (yet again) that career paths are often unpredictable, that they turn and twist in unexpected ways, and that long-held dreams can blossom late in unlooked-for spaces.

Adapted from “Rachel Carson, Science Editor” by Olga Kuchment. Science Editor (April 2009) Vol 32: 39-42. (Too bad there’s no online access to the journal!)

Rachel Carter was born in a rural setting in 1907. She started writing at an early age, and early on she dreamed of becoming a professional writer. But she was introduced to zoology at the Pennsylvania College for Women (now Chatham College) and fell in love with the subject. She switched her major from English to zoology and decided to become a scientist. At the time she “thought she would have to give up writing.” (Kuchment, 2009).

She earned a master’s degree in zoology from Johns Hopkins University and tried to continue for a Ph.D. But her family was poor, the Great Depression hit, and she was unable to afford the tuition to continue her training. (Hmmm, seems you actually had to pay for a science Ph.D. in those days?) Rachel Carson became the main economic support for her widowed mother, sister, and nieces. She took a job at the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, where she wrote scripts for a radio program on marine biology. The radio scripts jump-started her writing career; she reworked the scripts into articles that were published in the Baltimore Sun. On the urging of her boss, she reworked one of her government assignments into an article that was published in The Atlantic. She secured a book deal and wrote her first book “Under the Sea Wind.”

Her first book was not a commercial success, and she stayed on as a scientific writer/editor with the government for many years, eventually rising to the position of editor-in-chief of the publishing program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Kuchment’s article in the Science Editor quotes interviews from admiring colleagues who praised Carson as both an editor/scientist and person. Carson continued to work on personal writing projects in her spare time, and eventually hit commercial success with “The Sea Around Us.” She then retired from her civil service job and worked full-time on her own writing projects. “Silent Spring” was her last book.

I love this story. A dream deferred, put aside—the early dream of being a professional writer. A new dream and its loss—what a bitter pill it must have been to not be able to finish her Ph.D.! But then the marrying of interests—her initial job title with the government was “junior aquatic biologist”; she went out into the field and interacted with scientists; it seems that one could still call her a scientist, as well as a writer/editor. And then, at the age of 45, the realization of her dream to work full-time as a creative writer pursuing her own interests. Interests that sprang directly from her training and love for science.


**Note: this was cross-posted from my personal blog.

On leaving the bench

This is cross-posted from my personal blog. It seemed appropriate, and this blog-space seems a little empty of late. It was inspired partly by a post that Thomas Joseph put up.

It’s surprising how much I still feel like a postdoc. I still go to work in the usual postdoc uniform of jeans and sneakers. I still go to seminars, journal clubs, lab meetings. I sit at a computer right in the middle of a lab bench, surrounded by the glassware, conical tubes, equipment and buzz of a research laboratory. I shoot the breeze with my labmates, and I find myself part of scientific discussions. And to my surprise and gratitude, I find that my scientific opinions are solicited and respected. I’m not just a copyeditor, correcting typos and English grammar. As part of my job, I am often required to evaluate the quality of the data going into manuscripts, and I make suggestions on how to tighten a paper, what to cull, what points to bring forward, and (sometimes) how to reorganize figures for a better flow.


I really thought that I would miss the benchwork. To my surprise, I don’t.


The postdoc at the adjoining bench tells me heartbreaking stories of failed projects and projects scooped by his competitors. He is currently getting results that are very exciting. But the previous five years have been a desert, with not a publication in sight--and the stress and disappointment show in his eyes. I don’t miss that stress. I don’t miss that hounding pressure of GOTTA PRODUCE, GOTTA GET PUBLISHED OR MY LIFE IS OVER! I don’t miss the frustration of fruitless screens, of watching a year or more of work spiral down the drain.


Yet I loved bench research, I really did. I remember standing in the darkroom on a Sunday afternoon, heart pounding, waiting for that film to slip out of the X-ray machine. The thrill of holding a blot up to the red light, squinting to make out the dark bands that will tell you where your protein is expressed, or whether or not it interacts with another protein of interest. Looking down a microscope to see to how your cells have reacted in response to a particular treatment—did the cells proliferate, did they spread and migrate, did they round up and die? Pacing impatiently before the scintillation counter, waiting for the results of an enzyme assay. There is nothing like the feeling of being the first person in the world to know some new fact about our universe. Even if it is a fact that even 99.99% of scientists couldn’t care less about—that, for instance, protein X is found in liver cells but not kidney cells. Still, at that moment, you are the only person in the entire world with that knowledge. It is a feeling that is very difficult to convey to those who have not experienced it. I’m not sure that it can be conveyed.


When my experiments were cooking, when my science was working—it was fantastic. It was an utter high. When the experiments weren’t working, it was the deepest low. It was like being on a roller coaster ride, but a ride that spent most of its time creaking tortuously through a subterranean tunnel. I remember sitting around a lunch table with friends in grad school, chatting about school and science in general. One of the students said thoughtfully about research, “You know, about once a year I have a good moment.” I always thought that quote should be printed on the cover of every graduate school brochure.


To mix metaphors still further, I recall once reading that research science is like playing the slots at a casino. (And if, dear reader, I read that on your blog, I do sincerely apologize. Drop me a line and I’ll give you the credit =) Most of the time you come up empty. But every once in a while you’ll get a payout. Just enough to get you excited, to keep you feeding tokens and pulling that damn lever. We all live with the dream of hitting that big jackpot. We feed off the smaller wins, or just the memories of past wins. The hope, the adrenaline, keeps us going through the dry spells.


I don’t have that rush of adrenaline anymore. But neither do I have the crushing lows and stress. I see people around me so desperate to continue their research careers. I know a former postdoc who took a position as associate director of a core facility. She took the job with the understanding that she would be able to continue her research interests. But now she finds that there is neither money nor support for her research. She is struggling on her own, trying to live off reagents and equipment donated by collaborating labs, coming in every weekend to work on her “side” projects. I see someone like that, and I think Man, I just don’t have the heart for that. I loved research, but I don’t have the fire to continue in the face of those kinds of odds.


I did not plan to leave academic research. It was never a part of any five-year plan. I was devastated when I left (er, was laid off from) my former postdoc, and I don’t want to underplay that. But I see a new path opening up before me now. I see a chink of light, and feel a breath of freedom that would never have been possible on the old road. I have flexibility to work from home when needed and spend all weekends with my family. And there is now a glimmering dream of someday going completely freelance as a science writer and editor—working when I want, on what I want, on my own terms.


I’m still in science. I don’t do the experiments, but I help interpret and communicate them. I even (as in the grant I’m now working on) have some input in experimental design. And I’m once again part of an active scientific research community, once again privy to unpublished, cool data, once again part of the “leading edge” of science. I don’t need the glory of a first authorship. I had thought that I missed benchwork the most, and that I would continue to miss it. But it turns out that this—being part of an active scientific community—is what I really missed most of all.

Science Journalism...

...I ran across this blog entry by Matt Brown on Nature Network and he did a nice write up on how you get into science journalism that I thought I would just pass along for those who are interested.  He outlines 1) Why you would be interested in it,  2) Some myths that are associated with the career, 3) Some skills you will need, and 4) Some tips on how to get into science journalism.

Also...I hope all is well and that everyone is plugging away at discovering or pursuing their alternative science career!!

More on scientific writing/editing (thoughts from a novice)

Jennifer said in a comment to my last post: I am interested in pursuing science writing, but am not fortunate enough to know anyone in the field. Do you have any advice on starting to freelance without such connections?

Okay, I’m not an expert, but I’m going to give this a try….

Getting the first gig.

(1) Cold-calling/cold e-mailing

There are a number of online editing services geared toward the needs of non-native English speaking scientists. Off the top of my head, I can name ScienceDocs, EquityEdit, BioEdit, Bioscience Writers, Write Science Right, etc. etc. Just Google “science” and “editing” and you’ll see what I mean. These companies recruit postdocs with good English skills to edit the manuscripts and grant proposals of international scientists. Although some companies may ask for an editing sample, many others will simply give you a test sample to edit as a way to evaluate your skills. So this can be a relatively easy way to get some freelance experience under your belt. These companies will often advertise open positions on their web sites. Even if they don’t, try e-mailing them anyway to express your interest.

You may also find other types of companies with which you’d like to do freelance work. Be aware that there are many many different types of science writing and editing jobs—from medical education/communications to more “newsy” science journalism. If you come across a company site you find interesting, don’t be afraid to shoot off a cold e-mail inquiry. If you have a really great news idea for The Scientist, don’t be afraid to pitch it! And please read Maddox22’s post here for some advice to freelancers, from a science editor (She works in K-12 science educational publishing).

(2) Advertised jobs
Science writing/editing jobs are also advertised on a number of sites, including the Council of Science Editors and the American Medical Writers’ Association. More on these organizations in a little bit.


Building your writing portfolio.

Of course, it’s easier to get a job when you have experience. You need to start accumulating samples or “clips” of your writing. It doesn’t need to be paid writing. If you are still a grad student or postdoc, there are great writing opportunities right there in academia. See Cath’s great post on Finding the Alternative in Academia. Offer to help your advisor with a grant, write a review, or copyedit a manuscript for a colleague who needs help with his/her English. And by the way, if you are editing a colleague’s paper remember to turn on the “track changes” function in Microsoft and save drafts of both the original and edited versions! You can use these as “editing samples” if you apply for editing jobs. (I’m still kicking myself because I didn’t do this after I copyedited a postdoctoral colleague’s twenty-page review).

Other ideas: your university probably has a press office. That press office probably publishes a newsletter spotlighting faculty research and other university news. Contact the press office and volunteer to contribute a piece on some university research you think would be of general interest. Or submit a story to your local community newspaper/newsletter/trade journal. At the beginning you may get paid very poorly or not at all; you want the experience, and you want to build up your portfolio. Have clips to show, and they can help you land paid jobs

Network, network, network.

This is so critical. Read Cath’s excellent post on networking. And read my post on networking within professional science writing societies. And don’t forget your grad school’s alumni database—my grad program has an excellent alumni website that tracks and profiles graduates by career outcomes. Because you have a built-in connection, fellow graduates are often happy to respond to someone with serious questions. Much of the advice I’m giving here was actually first passed on to me by a writer I “met” through my school’s alumni website!

Keep reading, keep researching (I think ScienceCareers.org is an excellent place to start). Keep talking to people. It’s all intertwined—the networking, the pitching, getting experience that leads to more contacts and yet more jobs.

And last of all, follow this link to Emma Hitt’s site for a nifty video interview on freelance medical writing. (Emma Hitt also maintains the HittList, a weekly updated list of medical writing jobs)

How I landed my alternative career in science writing

When I first started talking to people and reading about alternative science careers, I quickly realized that there is no set path. People find themselves in editing, writing, or policy positions by any number of round-about ways. Personal contacts are often key. This can make the prospect of “breaking into” an alternative career quite daunting. Academia is hard, but at least we’re all familiar with the setting, and we have at least some idea of what one needs to do to “succeed” i.e. land that tenure-track job. If you’re a grad student or postdoc, you have a built-in network of academic contacts and support. And you have probably seen, or are seeing right now, colleagues applying to and interviewing for academic positions.

But what if your dream is to go into science policy? To be a science journalist for the New York Times? To be a biotech consultant for investment firms, or to produce scientific documentaries for the Discovery channel? How the hell do you get into that?!

No one follows the exact same path. There isn’t a degree program you can take that will automatically get you the job you want. My own journey to an alternative career has been marked by meanderings and false starts. But I thought that it might be helpful in this forum, to some reader somewhere, to give a detailed account of how I’ve landed where I now am.

*****************************

Like probably 90% of my grad school cohort, I thought I wanted to head up an academic lab and spend my life doing basic research. I got Ph.D. in the biomedical sciences and then landed a good postdoc. Unfortunately, that Nature paper never appeared, and my postdoc advisor lost a major source of funding midway through my time in his lab. When I returned to the lab after a maternity leave, I was informed that my contract would be up in one year. Until this time, I had lived in a bubble, humming along at the bench with no real thought for my future other than a vague hope that the next breakthrough experiment was just around the corner. I had given no real thought to my career plan, and certainly had not researched any type of alternative career. But nothing sharpens the mind like the imminent loss of a job.

Option #1: Go into teaching

I knew that I wasn’t competitive for tenure-track research positions, and I didn’t particularly care for doing a second postdoc. So I decided that I wanted to be a teacher. That fall, I applied for tenure-track teaching positions. Saddled with the classic “two-body problem,” I restricted my search to schools that were in commuting distance. This turned out to be a grand total of two. I had a preliminary phone interview with one of the institutions, and it was so immediately clear that the position was unsuited for me that I was quite relieved to let that particular job go. The other job, at a regional state university with masters degree programs but no doctorate programs, seemed far more promising, and I was invited for a campus interview. At this point, I had practically ZERO college teaching experience (aside from eight weeks of TAing in grad school). I knew nothing about the environment at a teaching-oriented school or regional state university. And some snotty, elitist part of me still saw this path as second best.

I interviewed for the job and SURPRISE! I loved the school. I adored the people and environment. I loved it that people seemed excited about my research, and that I would have lab space and funding to continue my interests (even if only at a level that would be laughable to those at an R1). I decided that this was my dream job.

I didn’t get the dream job.

Option #2: Frantically apply for any other science-related jobs in the area.

I found a grand total of two. Postdoc School was not exactly in a biotech hub, and industry positions were extremely limited. I applied for one position in technology transfer and one position in medical writing. Didn’t get interviews for either.

Option #3: Drop out and get knocked up.

Um, this is the one I went with.

Seriously, my husband and I wanted a second baby. And it seemed that this was a good time to “opt out” and re-evaluate what I really wanted out of a career and life.

While working on the “knocked-up” part and caring for my toddler daughter, I kept exploring career options. Realizing that I needed more teaching experience if I actually wanted to be competitive for teaching positions, I signed on to teach a course at Regional State University, the same school that I had interviewed with and loved. And a friend at a medical communications company promised to send freelance science writing/editing jobs my way.

I learned that Regional State University was indeed a great place to work and teach. I also learned that I didn’t particularly care for teaching. I found the pressure of preparing new lectures each week, week after week, trying to master and present myself as expert in a new subfield each time . . . tiring and stressful. I liked getting to know students, and I liked working with them one-on-one. But I couldn’t see myself teaching full-time for a living, for years on end.

On the other hand, I did enjoy the medical writing/editing that I did for my friend’s company. My friend gave me a contract assignment reviewing and editing the text for a course in oncology. It was lucrative (far more than teaching!) and it was fun.

Trailing spouse

Unbeknownst to me, my husband, an M.D/Ph.D, was going through his own career crisis at the time. Out of the blue (it seemed) he announced to me that he was looking for a full-time clinical position. But, but, I sputtered in disbelief. You just set up your own lab! You just got your own lab going this summer! But my husband was disillusioned by academic research, and had been secretly dreaming of an escape hatch.

Luckily, a clinical position in his field of medical expertise opened up at a hospital across the state, in a city very near my parents’ home. Husband interviewed for the job and got it. Do you mind moving? he asked me. Hell, no. We’d be close to my parents, and there was nothing keeping us in Postdoc City. I was heavily pregnant with our second child by this point. We moved to the new city, and I gave birth just one month later.

I became a stay-at-home mother for the next year. During this time, I continued to do occasional freelance medical writing/editing projects for my friend’s medical communications company. I also started to seriously investigate medical writing and editing as a full time career. I read everything I could find on the Web (This article and this at Sciencecareers.org are good places to start). Eager for more work, I haunted the job board at the Council of Science Editors and applied for contract jobs I saw advertised there. Now it happens that there are numerous scientific manuscript editing services out there on the Web (just Google “scientific editing” to see what I mean). One such editing service company responded with interest to my application and asked for some editing samples. Thanks to my work with my friend’s company, I actually had samples on hand. The samples helped land me the job, so I was now a contractor with a second company. Through my friend’s company, I gained experience writing for the pharmaceutical industry. Through the second company, I gained a little more experience editing academic scientific manuscripts and grant proposals.

I had not quite, however, given up that old dream of a life at the laboratory bench. In fact, at the back of my mind, I harbored a fantasy of a triumphant return to the bench. I knew that the NIH runs a program of grant supplements to promote the reentry of women into biomedical research who have taken time out of their research careers for the sake of family responsibilities (These grant supplements are applicable to men as well, despite the name. Also, the sponsoring lab needs to be funded by an RO1 or one of a few other select NIH grants). Our new city of residence had no biotech industry, but it did have an Up-and-Coming Research Institute associated with my husband’s hospital. I regularly browsed this institute’s web site for information on its research labs, and for news and job opportunities. From time to time interesting postdoc positions popped up, but I wasn’t quite ready to apply. And then one day, when my youngest had already turned one year old, a new job posting popped up on Institute’s web page. It was a job posting for a Scientific Writer. And it sounded perfect.

I applied for the job. And I also applied for a postdoc. I still wanted to keep my options open, and why not, as this was just the application stage? I still thought that maybe I did want to head back to the bench, and the research position was in a lab whose research interests were loosely related to the avenues I’d been exploring during my first postdoc.

I received initial interview offers for both the science writing job and the postdoc. Then the postdoc position was eliminated when the PI realized she didn’t have the funds. The interview process for the writing position was delayed as that PI struggled for funds. I went through an angsty period and wondered if I should apply for other postdocs at the institute. But the other advertised postdoc positions were not of real research interest to me, and I didn’t have the stomach to apply for them. I waited. Eventually, I did get an interview for the science writing job. And so here I am today.

I am now a scientific writer and editor for a large laboratory at a private, nonprofit biomedical research institute. My position is unusual in that I do not work for an entire department (like Cath) or institute, but rather for one individual laboratory. My major responsibilities are to edit and help prepare grant proposals and scientific manuscripts for publication. So far, I am truly enjoying the work. I remain close to science—I interact daily with scientists, work with exciting, unpublished data, attend lab meetings and seminars, and read, read, read. To my surprise, I’ve found that I have yet (so far) to pine for the laboratory bench. Although earlier this week I was so bored (we’d just passed on a potential grant proposal, and things were slow) that I did offer to do DNA minipreps for anyone who wanted!

The key to landing my current position, I think, was the freelance scientific writing and editing work that I had done. Grad students and postdocs get writing experience as part of their standard training, but I had something extra in my resume, something that distinguished me and that suggested a special commitment to writing and editing. You can bet that I played that up in my interview. You can bet that I played up my English minor in college, as well =)

Now, having landed where I am, will I stay here? I don’t know. I might not be done with my meandering ways. But you can bet that, as Cath has suggested before, I will keep looking for marketable experience and my next potential job. Especially in these economic times, I think we all need to stay flexible and always be prepared to look for that next job. In my case, this may be as early as next year. The funding for my position is only guaranteed for one year. But in the meantime, I am making contacts at my research institute and am getting valuable new experience in grantsmanship. I am feeling more hopeful about my job prospects than at any time in the past year, when I really thought my science career was doomed.*

*I guess my “traditional” career as a tenure-track researcher is doomed, but a career in science still is not.*

A note about targeted letters of reference

I was looking through some old emails this week, and came across some correspondence with my PhD supervisor. Our emails are infrequent but very friendly; I like to keep him updated on my career progress - although he sometimes seems more interested in my (non-existent) sailing progress - and he in turn likes to pass on any news from his lab and department. So when I applied for my current job, back in academia after a stint in industry, I definitely wanted to include a reference from him, thinking that a professor's opinion would hold more sway than that of a marketing manager. The fact that the marketing manager didn't know I was applying for new jobs was, of course, completely incidental...

It is just common sense and good manners to email your prospective references, asking their permission to be listed as such in every new job application. However, in order to obtain an optimal reference you will need to provide some more detailed information. This is especially true when applying for an "alternative" position, as most academics will not be familiar with the job and its requirements.

So what did I do? After establishing that my PhD supervisor was happy to provide a reference, I sent him the following documents:

• A Word document containing the job advert, including the full job description (don't count on the link staying active, copy and paste is your friend!)
• My application CV
• My application cover letter

Again, common sense. But you still need to go one step further. Sure, your CV will be full of all the relevant experience you've managed to obtain in your current position and other activities, and this information will be highlighted in your cover letter (right?!). But you also need to explicitly highlight this information - and really stress why you think you're a good fit for this job - in your email to your friendly local mentor. In my case I reminded my PhD supervisor of specific examples from my time in his lab of my strong track record in academic writing. I specifically asked him to focus on those aspects of my peformance in his reference letter.

My other reference was from my postdoc supervisor, who works in the same building as my current boss. She was the one who convinced me to apply for the job (the timing was not optimal - I ended up interviewing 3 days before my wedding - but she basically told me I'd be an idiot not to apply anyway), and she delivered her reference letter in person, about two hours after I told her I'd applied, and without being asked by anyone in my new department. I'm sure her actions played a pivotal role in my successful application, but those circumstances are pretty unusual and I think the focused letter of reference from my PhD supervisor was also an important factor.

Oh, and always let your reference providers know the outcome of every job application. Again, it's good manners, and hopefully it will also help the PI to perfect the art of writing reference letters for non-academic positions!

Finding the alternative within academia

As with networking, the best time to prepare for your next career move is NOW.

But what if you don't really know what you want to do after your degree / PhD / postdoc?

Well, NOW is also a good time to start figuring that out.

Identify the things you enjoy

The great thing about the academic experience is that it exposes you to many different tasks and experiences that are relevant to careers outside of the traditional tenure track. If you can identify the parts of your work that interest you the most (hint: these are probably the times when you're actually happy to be working rather than reading blogs), then you've already made a huge first step towards identifying your ideal career.

I made my first step when I started to write my PhD thesis. I'd enjoyed my three years in the lab about as much as it's possible to enjoy a PhD, but I struggled with some technical aspects of the work, especially long-term cell culture. The sorry state of my house plants is a testament to my lack of a green thumb, or whatever the cell culture equivalent is. When I started to write, I realised that my rate of progress was determined solely by the amount of time and effort I put in. What a contrast to those long Sundays in the lab, slaving away over a hot incubator, only to have my cells die before the end of the assay! I'd always enjoyed writing anyway, but this was my first realisation that I might enjoy writing about science more than actually doing it. This suspicion was confirmed during my postdoc - I was always happiest when writing papers, popping into the lab occasionally to run a gel and chat with friends. It took me a little longer to identify careers in science that were primarily based on writing, but I got there in the end.

So: what do you enjoy most about your current situation? Straight-up lab work? Maybe a research position in industry would suit you. TAing? Maybe you'd like to be a teacher, or to work in a public communications role such as in a museum or science centre. Do you find yourself more drawn to the opinion pieces and corporate merger information than the research articles in Science and Nature? Consider a career in science policy, intellectual property, or business development.

Hate everything about academia? Well, all is not lost. Any hobbies and volunteering you do in all that spare time you have (ha!) will also give you some ideas. Or maybe you have a friend with no scientific background, but with a job that sounds pretty cool. Might a biotech or big pharma company, a University or a museum or a professional association, need people to play a similar role within their organisation? Have a look at the careers section of their website and find out.

Now find a way to do them more often

If you enjoy a specific part of your current position, find a way to incorporate more of it into your remaining time in academia. This is a good idea for two reasons

1) it gives you a better idea of whether you really do want a career that focuses on this one area

2) it gives you experience that will make your CV stand out from all the others

You want to convince future interviewers that you're looking for a career, not a job; being proactive, not reactive; working to a long-term plan, not applying to any old scientific job that crops up in your local area. If you can point to areas of your CV that show a long-standing commitment to your chosen field (do this in the cover letter and - repeatedly - at interview), you will stand out from the pile of CVs stacked up in human resources.

My postdoc supervisor knew that I eventually wanted a job in scientific communication, and she was happy to help me gain more experience. I volunteered to edit and proofread manuscripts and studentship / fellowship applications written by other lab members. I wrote parts of her grant applications and progress reports.

But don't just rely on your boss; look for other opportunities too. My department had a newsletter, run by some of the grad students, so I wrote articles whenever I had time. I volunteered for Let's Talk Science, an outreach programme that took us into high schools to, well, talk about science.

Writing and communication are relatively easy examples, because they're such a large part of academic science anyway. But you should be able to find ways to gain more experience regardless of your chosen future field. Just volunteer for anything even vaguely related - even if you end up spending a lot of time proofing legal documents from your technology transfer department, sitting in committee meetings, volunteering for ethics review boards or whatever, you can find a way to get the right experience and flesh out your CV. (That's the other great thing about the academic experience; always more tasks than volunteers).

Again, you don't have to stick to academia - maybe a local charity would appreciate some help with their own newsletter or website. Maybe you have a friend who could use a fresh pair of eyes on her big sales report. The skewed tasks:volunteers ratio is not just an academic phenomenon...

Repeat ad infinitum

Hopefully the advice above will help you to make that first step into your new career. But don't stop now! Your first non-academic position is unlikely to be the amazing dream job that you will do for the rest of your life, but it will expose you to another, broader, range of experiences. For example, as well as the grant writing that is my day-to-day focus, my new job also gets me involved in public relations, website design and intellectual property issues. I haven't quite figured out which parts I enjoy the most (definitely not intellectual property!), but you can bet that as soon as I do, I'll start volunteering for more of it.

Advice on Freelance Science Writing

Caveat: I am writing this advice from the perspective of an editor who regularly works with freelance science writers. However, the market in which I work may not be the same as some of you out there work in, or want to work in. Therefore, I can guarantee that following the advice below will endear you to K-12 educational publishers (and to companies like mine who work for educational publishers). I can't speak to journals, newspapers, etc...but I can't imagine they'd mind if you follow this advice! And given that a lot of people here have expressed an interest in freelance writing, I thought I might be able to provide a bit of a different perspective on things.

Another note: Please do not interpret anything in this post as snarky. The points below are things that almost all of the freelancers I've ever worked with have violated at one point or another. Some of them are things that we see violated all the time. And I can say from personal experience that violating some of them (the ones marked with a star below) will almost surely get you kicked off any list of freelancers that a company regularly uses.

If you want to be hired as a freelance science writer (or, more importantly, if you want to be hired again as a freelance science writer :), here are some things you should always do:
*1. Keep your email address and other contact information up to date. If you have a website or blog, and that's how you advertise, make sure that people who go there looking for you can find you! If you've worked with a company in the past, send an occasional email to let them know you're still alive. (And it doesn't hurt to remind them what project(s) you worked with them on, especially if it was awhile ago.) If they can't get in touch with you, they won't offer you work.
2. Keep your resume up to date, and attach it any time you contact someone looking for work. Yes, most companies have a freelancer database, but it's not always convenient for the person receiving your email to search it to find out what you're good at. And even if they do have a database, it's always good for them to have an updated resume. (Oh yeah...and make sure there are no typos in your resume or email...)
*3. Turn your work in on time. Seriously. Those deadlines the company gives you? They're not just for laughs. If you don't turn it in on time, don't be surprised if the company doesn't accept it, doesn't pay you for it, or doesn't hire you again. Of course, life happens. Sometimes there's nothing you can do but miss a deadline. But if that happens, tell the company immediately, and offer a solution (e.g., "I can't get it to you on Friday, but I can definitely have it to you first thing Monday morning").
3a. Corollary: Unless the project manager specifically says otherwise, "due Friday May 1" means by 5 pm on Friday May 1, in the local time zone of the company. It doesn't mean midnight on Friday. If in doubt, clarify.
*4. Make sure your writing is good. I know, another no-brainer. But I have actually received files from people in the past that literally contained incomplete sentences. Even if you know for a fact that your writing is going through an editor, that doesn't mean you don't have to write well. If it's poorly written, the editor just has to rewrite it, and chances are they won't hire you again--because why would they pay you to write something that they then have to re-write?
*4a. Corollary 1: Make sure what you write is true and accurate. Do a fact-check before you submit. Even if you're writing for a 3rd-grade audience, you still have to give them accurate science. (I.e., it's not okay to say that a spider is an insect in order to make things "easier.")
*4b. Corollary 2: Even (especially?) if you are writing for a young audience, you have to write well. A guideline we sometimes give is "write for a 3rd grader, not like a 3rd grader."
*5. Follow any guidelines or directions given. Again...they do apply to you. If you're not sure about something, just ask! I've never met a project manager who would rather get something that doesn't follow the guidelines than answer a question or three.
6. Respond to all emails as soon as you get them. Even if it's just a short email from the project manager sending you a file to work on. Send an immediate response saying, "Thanks, I got it!" Otherwise, we're not sure whether you received it or it disappeared into the ether. And so we have to send another email asking if you got the first one...
7. Ask for feedback, and be gracious when you receive it. Maybe not in the middle of the project when things are crazy, but at the end of a project, email the project manager and ask whether your work was satisfactory, whether there was anything that you could've done to make them more likely to hire you again in the future, etc.
*7a. Corollary: Apply any feedback you get. If they tell you your writing was good but just a little too high-level, then the next time, make sure it's a little bit lower level. Applying the feedback the editors spent time giving you shows that you really are interested in giving them good work.

Here are some things you should never do if you can possibly help it:
*1. Quit a project the day before it is due (or, worse, the day it is due). If you think you're not going to be able to do a project you agreed to do, tell the project manager immediately. If you have to quit two days after signing on, you might make them a little grumpy because they have to find someone else. But if you quit the day something is due, and don't turn it in, you have just made their life a living hell, because now they have to write in one day what you were given a week to write. The former might get you off the freelancer list for a project or two. The latter will get you off of it permanently, or nearly permanently.
2. Demand more money. Obviously, sometimes the pay rate really is just too low for what is being asked. But if that is the case, please, present it nicely! I can guarantee that you will get a more positive response with a polite "I'm really sorry, but I expected this to take 3 hours and it's taken 10, so..." than with a "I can't do this for less than $X." It's perfectly fine to have a minimum rate, and to be clear about that rate. Just be polite about it. (And be realistic. As much as you might like to make $200/page, you're going to have a very hard time finding someone willing to pay that much. But if you do find someone willing to pay that much, PLEASE, let me know!!! :)
*3. Ask the project manager to bend the rules for you. Chances are, all of the guidelines the PM has sent to you were given to him or her from On High. The project manager can rarely change any of them. If you're told something has to be 300 words, it has to be 300 words. Don't turn in something that is 500 words and say, "It's impossible to make this 300 words." That doesn't help the project manager, because he or she still has to get it down to 300 words.
*4. Get grumpy with the client if he or she rejects your work because you didn't follow the guidelines or didn't turn it in on time. Let's face it: if you screwed up, it's your fault, not the PM's. This doesn't mean you can't (politely) argue something that you think isn't right (e.g., the guidelines say "3-6 pages" and you turned in 3 pages and they say you didn't write a long enough piece). But if they call you on something that you did incorrectly, either offer to fix it or apologize and let it go.

I know some of these seem like no-brainers, and I hope I haven't offended anyone. If I did, I apologize in advance :) But as I said, I have had freelance writers violate every single one of the points above at one point or another...so maybe they're not as no-brainer as we'd like to think.

Networking in science writing/editing

I’d like to piggyback here on CAE’s excellent, excellent post on networking.
Professional societies in your field of interest can offer invaluable opportunities for networking. If you are interested in scientific writing and editing, there are three organizations you should know about:

National Association of Science Writers (NASW)

American Medical Writers’ Association (AMWA)

Council of Science Editors (CSE)

All three associations offer a wealth of online information. There are listserves or discussion groups that offer the opportunity to virtually network with other writers and editors. There are online job boards, and web space to advertise your own services. Perhaps best of all, there are opportunities for face-to-face networking at national meetings, chapter meetings, and educational workshops.

Unfortunately, I do not belong to any local chapter of any of these associations. These are all U.S. organiations, with chapters near major metropolitan areas. I live in something of a Midwestern backwater, and the nearest chapter of AMWA is a five-hour drive from me. However, if you *do* live near a local chapter, attending local meetings is great way to learn more about these fields and make local contacts. I know one science writer who told me that attending local chapter meetings of NASW brought her invaluable contacts, and mentors who helped her learn the ropes of science journalism.

And as an illustration of how useful networking within these professional societies can be, I am going to reference this post I saw recently in the ScienceCareers discussion forum.

The original comment was posted at http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/tools_resources/forum/view?id=44147. But I am copying the post in full here, because it is just that good (hope that’s okay. Someone let me know if it isn’t)

From a ScienceCareers poster going by the name of “Wes”:

Hello everyone, Just as a little background I've been reading and posting on this forum as a grad student and postdoc for a couple of years now. I wasn't sure what I wanted to do after graduate school, so I decided to take a postdoc at a prestigious University in one of the biotech hotbed areas of the country, in hopes of networking and landing a position outside of academia. I had read many of Dave's posts regarding "networking" and how invaluable this technique could be for meeting individuals outside of academia who may aid in your job search. At first, I was stubborn and didn't may much attention to these comments. So I applied to a bunch of companies online and either never heard back or received the wonderful automated generic response of "Thank you for applying but we have received more qualified applications". After a brief stint of frustration, anger, and even lashing out at someone on this forum who was already in an industry position, I decided it was time to take a more assert approach. Now this was not an easy step, no one I knew from my graduate school days or from my postdoc lab had EVER networked outside of academia, and had either no ambitions to look outside the Ivory Tower or had no idea how to go about it (or they were just too scared to try). The only information I was equipped with to start networking I found on this forum. After reading 'alternative careers for scientists' books and websites, I decided that medical writing appealed to me. I still get to think, read, and write about science without having the pressure of obtaining grants and performing bench work. But, how do I find such a job? After reading on this forum that websites existed for science professionals to network within a specific region, I found such a website for my area. There was an online calender of events, one of which was a talk given by a nobel prize winning molecular biologist which happened to be sponsored by the local AMWA chapter. I signed up to attend the talk and discovered there was an hour long networking session before the talk began. I was alone in a foreign world outside of my comfort zone. I didn't know anyone, but decided to just walk up to someone who looked friendly enough and began talking. Just small talk at first... "How are you? What do you do? Where to do work?" etc. After speaking with a few individuals, the approach became easier and by the end of the session I had 4 business cards and few names. A few days later I contacted the individuals via email and 3 out of 4 responded. I'll skip the details, but after retooling my CV to a resume and listing my transferable skills, I landed a couple of interviews. One interview went very well and I received a verbal offer, but after waiting a few months for the official offer, I was about to give up. Luckily, I was still attending monthly AMWA meetings and met another individual who was very open to talking about my interests in medical writing. So again, I applied directly to the director of her company and received an interview within a week. A few days after the interview I received an offer and I accepted. Now I have a whole new challenge of adjusting to a desk job in an entirely foreign environment, but I feel the first and most difficult step is complete. Basically, I'm writing this to share with those disgruntled postdocs that while the job searching process is not easy, and many bumps in the road will frustrate you even more, perseverance and networking is the key. Don't give up and eventually the combination of luck, timing, and hard work will come together and bless you with a real job. Good luck and happy hunting!

Now isn’t that a story to inspire and warm the heart?

*Note: I think all the professional societies I’ve mentioned have discounted membership fees for students.

*Note: The job board at the CSE website is open access (you don’t need to be a member to see it), and I actually got my second science editing gig by responding to an advertisement on that job site.

Hi Y'all!

I thought I would take a break from my lab and come over to chat for a while. First of all, thanks to Mad Hatter and Bean Mom for starting the Alternative Scientist blog and for the invite to post. As someone who had no real guidance in her career decisions, I was happy to read that someone was trying to get information out on the subject of alternative careers for scientists.

Well, I guess I should start with a proper introduction. My name is Mad Chemist Chick and I am an organic chemist (Hmmm, sounds like the beginning of a support group, huh? ;-).

So how did I get to where I am now you may ask? I attended a small liberal arts college and majored in chemistry and minored in biology. During that time, I fell in love with organic research and went on to attend grad school at a large public university where I performed research in both organic methodology and natural product synthesis.

During grad school, I found I enjoyed teaching labs and tutoring students, however, I never seriously considered obtaining an academic tenure-track position. I did repeatedly question my sanity for putting up with the conditions in my lab though. I thought that maybe I should come up with a plan B. What if I could not work in chemistry in the way I had planned? I ended up ordering a book called Careers for Chemists: A World Outside the Lab. It gave me a lot of ideas but none of them were quite as appealing to me as drug discovery (For those interested in pharma, you might want to check out the book Jobs in the Drug Industry).

I moved to the Midwest to take a postdoc at a large research university where I performed a mix of organic and organometallic research. After I finished my postdoc, I had the choice of applying for industrial jobs or taking a job at a small liberal arts school teaching as an adjunct and doing some research in the lab of a tenured professor there. In a fit of what I can only describe as madness, I chose the latter. I thought I really couldn’t reach an honest decision regarding industry versus academia without having tried to teach a lecture course and dealing with all the crap that comes with it. I was also worried that if I chose industry and then later changed my mind, it would be much harder to go back and try to get into teaching.

Long story short: While I really enjoyed interacting with the students, I decided I wanted to stick with my plan A. After postdoc #2, I took some time off and started looking for an industrial job. I ended up being unemployed for about 14 months and started doing some science/technical writing to help make ends meet (and have continued it as an extra source of income).

At the onset of my job search, I had to take an honest look at what I wanted from my career. During some early interviews at large pharma, I saw some things that I did not like and that really concerned me. So I widened my search to include some more non-traditional jobs. Chemists are really lucky in that there is a broad array of companies needing our skills. I interviewed at all sorts companies including biotechs, small pharma, start-ups, law firms, medical supplies, energy and contract research organizations (CROs). I ended up taking a position at a CRO and so far love it.

In terms of this blog, I don’t have firm ideas as to what I will write quite yet. I was thinking about possible avenues for increasing one’s marketability, my experiences while job hunting and hiring (including some outrageous examples of blatant prejudice), and debunking (or confirming) some of the myths of jobs in industry. If anyone has any questions (or ideas), just post them here or over in my lab and I will answer them ASAP.

If it's Pittsburgh, it must be Wednesday

Well, I guess it's my turn to do the introduction thing. As a preface, let me say that not only is this my first post on this blog, it's also my first post ever, on any blog, anywhere. Yes, I'm a noob. Please educate me on blog-iquette (woohoo! I coined a word!) as necessary.

So, the short life story: I have a Ph.D. in geochemistry, which I earned in 2005 from Cornell University. (My mother was very proud.) Before that, I got a B.S. in geology from the University of Delaware.

About two-thirds of the way through graduate school, I became aware (thanks to a long series of unpleasant events that I won't detail here) that I had, in fact, very little interest in becoming a professor or researcher--at least in geochemistry. (For the record, 2/3 of the way through is a VERY bad time to figure this out. It's far enough in that it's silly to change direction, especially if you have funding; and it's far enough from the end that you have the prospect of a year and a half of not really enjoying what you're doing to comfort you at night. I don't recommend it.) I thought what I actually wanted to do was teach high school. I had become involved in several outreach/teaching activities as a grad student, and they had gotten me into classrooms and in front of kids, and I really enjoyed it.

Unfortunately, this was also right around the time that the No Child Left Behind act was starting to bare its teeth, and I didn't think I'd be able to get a teaching job without certification. And getting certification either meant paying for another 2-3 years of graduate school, or committing to teach for 3-4 years in a high-need public school while also working 25 hours a week earning my degree. Neither of these options appealed to me, so I started exploring other options.

As you might imagine, I had a rather hard time exploring those avenues. The university career services center was--to put it politely--less than useful for someone not seeking a job in business, marketing (no offense, CAE), or industrial research. My advisor was, if not negative, definitely not particularly helpful. So I turned to the Internet. (Where else?)

I started looking for jobs with museums, universities, textbook companies, pretty much anything that would let me do pre-college education without state certification. I sent out the requisite million resumes. The only response I got was from an educational content developer. They offered me a job as a science editor, and as I had at that point been looking for a job for a year or so and had had not so much as a nibble from anywhere else, I took the job. Three years later, I am still here.

The company I work for is a vendor. That means that other companies hire us to do work for them. Most of the companies we work for are educational publishers of some kind; almost all focus on the K-12 market. We've done work for the big basal publishers, and also for lots of smaller companies. We do all sorts of products, from text books to teacher guides to lab manuals to high-stakes tests and test prep. Our company works in all disciplines; I work in the science department. The department is currently quite small, so we all pretty much have to do everything; although my degree is in Earth science, last week I was writing life science questions, and this week I'm working on a teacher guide for physics.

If there is one thing I can say about my job, it is that it is never predictable. This is, I think, a function both of the type of company I work for and of the type of work I do. Because we work entirely on contract, we are never really sure how much work we will have in the future; therefore, things tend to swing from feast to famine with alarming rapidity (although, because NCLB's science requirements are now coming into effect, it's been more in the "feast" mode lately). And because I'm one of only a few editors in the department, I'm never really sure what I'm going to be doing next.

I'd say the job has its ups and downs. I'm fairly confident now that, although I enjoy the work, this particular industry is not a great fit for me. I think my first instincts in grad school--that I'd like to work in informal education, such as in a museum--were probably right; I'm currently keeping my eyes and ears open for other job options.

I guess that's about it (you should see the LONG life story...) for my background. Looking forward to your comments...

(And for those of you questioning the title: Yes, I live in Pittsburgh. Yins should visit, n'at.)

Introducing myself

Okay, I’ll take the baton now…

Bean-mom, here. I’m so thrilled that Mad Hatter set up this website, and graciously invited me to join. I am a cell biologist by training, and spent years (grad school and a postdoc) immersed in the world of academic research. For almost two years, however, I have been off the bench, caring for my two young children at home. I’ve been off the bench, but not completely absent from the world of science. During this time, I taught a course in my field at a regional state university, took on freelance science writing and editing projects, continued to read journal articles, and thought a lot about science careers and what I want out of life.

My youngest child is now one, and I feel that it is the right time to return to the workforce. I have applied for a position as a science writer with a non-profit biomedical research institute near my home. I am now awaiting the final scheduling of an interview, which should take place sometime this July.

I didn’t start seriously researching “alternative careers” until very late in my postdoc. In fact, I waited until the push came to shove—when my PI lost his major source of grant funding, and I found myself forced to really think of my career options for the first time. My hope is that young scientists reading this blog will not wait for that “push comes to shove.” Don’t wait until the last minute. You may have your heart and mind set on that traditional marker of success—a tenure-track faculty position at a major research institute. You may be bending all your effort toward that goal. Formulate a Plan B as well. Work on Plan B concurrently with your Plan A. Would you risk your entire Ph.D. dissertation on a single long-shot hypothesis? O course not; you’d set up side projects in addition to your main one, in the hopes that at least one pans out. The latest statistics from the National Science Foundation suggest that less 15% of all biomedical Ph.Ds in the US will obtain tenure-track faculty appointments 5-6 years after graduation. That study only covered data up to 2001, so I assume the current figures are much worse*.

Thanks to the Internet, there is now a wealth of information at our fingertips about “alternative careers.” For example, I have found that checking the alumni website of my graduate institution can lead to contacts with scientists in all types of interesting, non-bench jobs. I hope to add, in whatever small way I can, to the information out there for other scientists interested in careers off the traditional track. I’ll be blogging about my job search, and whatever else strikes my (and your) fancy!

*As far as I can make out, the NSF study does not break down "tenure-track faculty positions" into those at research institutes versus teaching-focused institutes. So if we are talking about tenure-track positions at research institutes, the figures is much lower than 15%. Does anyone out there know any more about this figure? (Citation from Garrison, et. al. "In an era of scientific opportunity, are there opportunities for biomedical scientists?" FASEB Journal 17: 2169-2173 (October 2003)).