Research Biologist: Sara Georges

I've always had a strong interest in science, and my undergraduate training cemented my interest in biochemistry and molecular biology. So, the decision to pursue graduate training was easy; the more difficult part was (and still is) choosing a single path to follow. My attitude is that every pathway and pathology is interesting enough that I can't really go wrong with whatever I choose — so far, that's held true in my experience.

What kind of training, both formal and informal, did you receive to prepare you for your career?

As an undergraduate, I worked as a biology/microbiology lab teaching assistant and I also spent a summer as a molecular biology research intern at a local hospital. These experiences in the lab helped me prepare for graduate school.

The decisions on where to attend graduate school and postdoctoral fellowships were based on a combination of factors: it was important to go to a lab that published well and was well funded, of course, but I also weighed the culture of the lab, the attitude of the PI and the off-campus environment just as strongly. I felt (and still feel) strongly that these other considerations are not trivial — a poor relationship with the PI, a disruptive environment in the lab, or a challenging living situation outside of the lab are all serious obstacles to training. I knew that above all I wanted to be in a collaborative environment, and if I had this I would be happy and able to focus on the science.

Picking a graduate lab was an easy decision — I saw my graduate advisor speak at a departmental retreat and her enthusiasm for the work impressed me. I got to know members of the lab group during lab rotation and felt that the lab would be a good fit interpersonally. I was also interested in the research topic — Human T-Cell Leukemia Virus Type I — because of my personal experience as a childhood cancer survivor.

I chose my academic postdoc by looking through the recent literature, where I found a very cool paper that described the mechanics of transcriptional response cascades during skeletal muscle development. When I visited for an interview, the PI made sure I had appointments with each of the lab members and an opportunity to go out as a group at the end of the day. Again, I sensed that that I would work well with the PI and the lab members and that the institution and surrounding area would be a great place to live and work. I also saw that the institution had a postdoctoral association, which was a plus.

How competitve and/or rigorous was the training for your career?

My training was highly rigorous, and moderately competitive.

In general, how much did the training cost? Was the investment worth it?

I don't have a specific figure for the cost of the training. My graduate and postdoctoral studies were fully funded with fellowships (at the NIH pay scale). I didn't acquire specific debt for my training, but there was some associated opportunity cost: I carried a balance on my credit card, I had to defer my undergraduate student loans, and I underfunded my emergency and retirement savings. Now that I have a "real" job, I am catching up in terms of those opportunity costs, but the reason I feel the investment is worth it is because I love what I'm doing. This is not a get-rich-quick scheme.

How long did it take you to train?

The graduate training took five years, after which I spent another year in my graduate lab finishing and publishing on a project. The postdoctoral training took longer than I anticipated, because I ended up doing a second postdoc: I spent four years as an academic postdoc and two years as an industry postdoc.

What was the process like to apply for your first job after your training was over?

Hunting for that first job is challenging. In my case I had moved directly from undergraduate to graduate school to postdoc, so the biggest challenge was inexperience with the job hunt process. It was difficult for me to look at a posting and see myself as fit for the position if there were any areas that did not overlap with my background (I've since learned that there doesn't have to be a perfect match). I didn't have industry experience and I wanted to stay local, so it was also challenging to compete for biotech jobs in a (relatively) small market — in the end I decided to do a second postdoc in industry to get my foot in the door, so to speak.

I do have two recommendations: actively develop your professional network, and seek out volunteer opportunities that will advance your career goals. When I was in the final year of my academic postdoc and I knew I would be going on the job market, I volunteered to organize my postdoctoral association's Career Fair. This put me in direct contact with recruiters, including the recruiter that was working on the industry postdoc position. Getting that position was key — I am now in a scientist-level position with the same company.

What advice would you give to someone interested in following a similar career path?

My best advice is to try to learn as much as you can about all career options for life sciences graduates and decide on your career track as early as possible (e.g., tenure track faculty at a research institution, teaching faculty at a PUI, industry scientist, intellectual property, regulatory affairs, medical science liaison, etc.) and make sure that your training matches your goal. Be honest with your mentors about your career goals and make sure that the mentor can and will help you reach them — before you commit to a graduate or postdoctoral lab!

What would you have done differently in preparing for your career?

I admit that I didn't follow my own advice perfectly. I was always interested in working in industry, but I worried that announcing this interest would affect my ability to land a good academic postdoc and jeopardize my postdoctoral fellowship grant applications (especially in the case of my NIH NRSA grant). I've now reached my training goals and started a career in industry, but I'll never know whether speaking up sooner could have saved me valuable time and granted me valuable experience earlier on.

How much do you like what you do? Why? Is it what you imagined it would be? If not, how have you adapted?

I love what I do, because I like to solve problems — to look at a complex situation, make a few predictions, test them, and prove myself right (or wrong). At this point in my career, I still get to be at the bench quite a bit, and I love that labwork is a lot like cooking and involves a fair amount of "tinkering".

What I didn't imagine when I set out to be a scientist is how discouraging it can feel to be troubleshooting an assay for months on end, or to have to set aside a body of work when the project finally becomes indisputably untenable (or when business needs change). Early on, I also thought that once I finished my training I would get to remain the "expert' in a given area of biology — not true! I've had to get used to the idea that I will constantly be challenged to learn new biology, in depth. Fortunately, I'm now learning that it's OK to answer a question by saying, "I don't know, but I'll find out".

How do you achieve career-life balance? Is this easy or hard to do? How many hours do you typically work per week?

I typically work fift–sixty hours per week (sometimes more, depending on the project). I hesitated before stating that figure, though, because I think there is this perception that you have to work eighty hours per week or more to be successful. In my observation, the relationship between the number of hours spent working and productivity is not necessarily linear.

The career-life balance issue is tricky. Have you ever met anyone who claims to have achieved this? I can't claim to have achieved balance but I have learned that when I neglect my life outside of work, eventually my life at work also suffers.

What strategies have you figured out over time to help you succeed?

I've learned to make lists, prioritize tasks, and try to make the best use of short spans of "free" time — like the thirty-minute breaks between meetings. I also try to manage what, and how much, work I bring home with me. I stay at work if I need to get something done that requires focused, uninterrupted attention. When I bring work home, preferably it is to catch up on emails or literature.

How do you see your field changing in the next 5–10 years?

I think that whole-genome deep sequencing and therapeutic RNAi technologies will continue to develop, both of which will be game-changing for drug discovery.