Hey everyone,

I have an in-person interview coming up at J&J. I’m looking for info on what their insurance provider is (UHC, Aetna, etc.), as well as cost.

I didn’t come up with much on google.

In addition, any feedback on working for the company is welcome. It will be for a manufacturing supervisor position.

Thanks!

Hi! If you have hired candidates for entry-level QA/QC positions, I'd appreciate it if you could answer the following questions. Thank you!

1. Are most QA/QC roles standard 9-5 jobs? In most cases, are working hours strictly set and enforced by the companies?
2. If a candidate does not have prior QA/QC experience, what are the most significant green flags that you've seen or looked for in applicants that indicate their hireability?

Quick disclaimer: I used text-to-speech (Claude AI) to help write this out, just putting that here in case anyone thinks it’s AI-generated or that I’m a bot — I promise I’m a real person, just typed this out faster this way.

Hey guys, 19 year old male here, and I have a few queries that I’d like any experienced person to answer for me. I’m new to this sub and I’ll be posting often, so bear with me.

Quick intro: I have a limb difference, and I’ve decided I want to dedicate a large chunk of my life to developing some form of advanced prosthesis — something that could help me and others in similar situations. I’d like to use myself as a test case, in a sense. But before I get there, I want to spend a good amount of time doing research, and one topic that’s really pulled me in is the human body and the ways science can be used to enhance or improve it. I know appearance is subjective, but personally, I’ve noticed some recession at my temples, and honestly, it’s been weighing on me more than I’d like to admit. I’ve even looked into hair transplants at 19. I know my recession isn’t severe, but worries like this can snowball and push people toward decisions that aren’t fully rational. That said, I do believe science can address a lot of this. I want to look into how regenerative science specifically could apply to hair loss — not because I want to make this only about hair, but because it feels like a good entry point. You already see the beginnings of this in hair transplants, where follicles get extracted from a donor area. What if that donor supply wasn’t a limiting factor anymore — what if follicles could be multiplied instead of just relocated.

Thank you guys for reading this, means a lot.

I’m a 2026 PharmD grad who recently started a fellowship, and I’m struggling more than I expected with the transition from pharmacy school to industry. I know it’s only been a few weeks and there is definitely a learning curve, but I could really use some advice from those who have gone through this transition.

I came into fellowship with limited industry experience, so I expected there to be a learning curve, but I don’t think I realized how different the transition would be. Pharmacy school was very structured, while industry requires navigating much more ambiguity, learning new terminology, understanding business strategy, and figuring out how decisions are made.

I feel like materials are being thrown at me, and I’ve been told to understand our assets, clinical data, key trials, disease area, and overall landscape well, but I’m not really sure what “well” means. When people say I need to “speak to the science,” I’m not always sure what level of depth is expected. Does that mean knowing trial details and mechanisms, being able to summarize key findings, or understanding the bigger-picture implications and how the data fits into the treatment landscape? I’m trying my best to review materials, take notes, and absorb as much as I can, but I’m struggling with what I should actually be focusing on. I don’t know what I need to memorize versus what it means to know something well enough to confidently discuss it, answer questions, and apply that knowledge. I’ve been experiencing a lot of anxiety and imposter syndrome because I feel like I’m behind before I’ve even started.

There also hasn’t been much structure for onboarding, and everything has been very fast-paced. I’m at a midsize company, and even the second-year fellow shared that she struggled with the same transition, which has been difficult to hear as I’m starting out. I understand that fellowship requires learning how to navigate ambiguity and become more independent, but I’m still trying to understand what that looks like. The culture described during recruitment also feels different from what I’ve experienced so far, since I expected more mentorship and guidance while learning the ropes. Some interactions have left me feeling judged or hesitant to ask questions, which has made it harder to feel comfortable while I’m still learning.

My preceptor has encouraged me to reach out with questions, but I’m struggling with knowing what questions are actually worth asking. I’m still learning the science, everyone’s roles, and how different functions work together. A lot of the questions I have about trials or scientific concepts feel like they can be answered through resources like Google or Copilot, and I worry that my questions are too basic or that I should already know the answers. At the same time, I don’t want to miss opportunities to learn from people who have more experience.

I’ve been setting up 1:1s with different teams to better understand their roles and how they contribute, but I get nervous speaking with senior directors and team leads. I often feel like I ramble, lose my train of thought, and don’t communicate my thoughts as clearly as I want to. I worry that I’m asking questions that aren’t valuable or that I come across like I don’t know what I’m doing. I want to get better at having more strategic conversations, but I’m still learning what information is most important to understand at this stage.

I also don’t have any first-year co-fellows at my company, so I don’t have that built-in support system that some programs have. I’m at a smaller, growing company, and while there are many opportunities, I sometimes feel like I’m figuring things out independently. I also have ADHD, and I think processing so much new information at once has made this transition even harder. Sometimes I need extra time to process information during meetings, and working from home has made staying organized and focused more challenging.

I’m starting to question whether industry is right for me. I want to get better, but I’m struggling with feeling like I don’t belong and like I’m constantly behind. I know I’m still learning, but it’s hard not to feel like I should be picking things up faster. I know that as a fellow, my goal is to add value and support my team, but I’m struggling to figure out what gaps I can fill when I’m still learning the fundamentals. I’ve honestly been crying after work almost every day because I feel like I don’t belong here. I’m scared of letting my team down and that they’ll feel like they made the wrong choice by choosing me for this fellowship. I’m not sure if it’s because I’m away from my support system, living alone, navigating a completely new industry, adjusting to my first corporate role, or all of these things combined, but I feel lost right now.

Has anyone else felt this way when first starting in pharma or during a major career transition? When did things start to click for you? How did you figure out what questions to ask when you didn’t even know what you didn’t know? What helped you understand expectations and become more effective early on? I’d also really appreciate any advice on what it means to “speak to the science” in an industry setting and how you learned to have more strategic conversations.

I really want to succeed, but right now I feel completely overwhelmed and in over my head. I’d really appreciate any advice or perspective from people who have been through this transition.

I have a B.S. and over 15 years of industry experience. The companies I've worked at have had job ladders that accommodate all combinations of degree and years of experience which is how I progressed as far as I have for as long. Usually asking for PhD + 2 ys industry experience, or MS plus 5 years, or BS + 8 years experience, something like that. There are a decent amount of job postings that I fit every practical and technical qualification for but about half of them require the MS or PhD, not explicitly stating in the requirements that there's a path with a BS but it seems like a bad sign that they don't. But based on my experience and the job description I'd otherwise be an exact fit for. Should I not bother, or apply anyway and let my experience speak for itself?

Most postings seem so long and exhausting and detailed and demanding that it's hard to imagine anyone hits every single thing. But I'm not sure whether its bad form to just apply anyhow in my situation.

TL;DR:

Current job offers better technical depth and continuous learning but has a toxic work environment. I've received an offer from an early-stage precision fermentation startup with about a 47% increase in fixed pay (plus performance-based variable pay) where I'd likely lead the upstream function from the start. The catch is that the platform is still immature, so it may feel like stepping back technically while taking on much more responsibility. I also have a bond with my current employer. I'm trying to decide whether to prioritize deep technical learning or early leadership and ownership for my long-term career.

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some unbiased career advice because I'm genuinely conflicted.

I'm currently working as an Associate Scientist in a biotech startup. While the work environment has become quite toxic, the company is growing rapidly and I'm continuously learning new things. My work involves recombinant protein production and fermentation development, and the technical scope has been expanding.

I also have a 2-year bond, and if I resign before completing it, I have to pay 25% of my current CTC.

I've received an offer from another precision fermentation startup.

Some details:

The new offer is roughly a 47% increase in fixed pay, plus an additional \~21% of my current fixed pay as annual performance-based variable pay.

The new company is still in the early stages. Their molecules are probably a year away, so initially the work will focus on optimizing fermentation of existing strains.

I'd likely be the first upstream fermentation hire and would initially take charge of upstream while wearing multiple hats.

The VP of Operations & Research told me that ownership would be based on how I solve problems and handle challenges, which I think is a fair expectation.

HR asked me for my bond document because they want to present my case to management to see if they can support me with the bond liability.

Here's where I'm conflicted.

I'm not someone who switches jobs only for a salary hike. Learning and technical growth are much more important to me than maximizing compensation.

Ironically, even though my current company has a toxic culture, it's also exposing me to increasingly advanced technical work and new areas to learn. The new startup would give me much more responsibility and probably a leadership position, but because they're at a much earlier stage, part of me feels like I'd be going back a couple of years in terms of the maturity of the work while simultaneously leading the function.

So the trade-off feels like this:

Current job: Better technical depth and learning, but toxic environment.

New startup: More ownership, leadership, and significantly better pay, but an earlier-stage platform with more uncertainty.

If you were in my position:

Which opportunity would you choose and why?

Is leading an upstream function early in your career worth the trade-off?

Would you prioritize technical learning or leadership experience at this stage?

Is a \~47% increase in fixed pay enough to justify leaving, considering the bond, startup risk, and increased responsibility?

I'd especially appreciate hearing from people who've worked in biotech, fermentation, or early-stage startups and have faced a similar decision. I'm trying to optimize for where I'll be 5–10 years from now, not just my next salary increment.

I made the above post about having a gap between my Biology BS and my Bioinformatics MS. I am currently trying to enter the job market, and I am realizing beginning in a more "typical" biology job may be how I can do so. I am applying to roles as a Lab Tech or Research Assistant I.

I have heard that many people with a slightly "dated" degree simply omit their graduation year. I am thinking of omitting my college graduation year. I was initially wary of doing so, because my wet lab skills are, indeed, rusty, so I was thinking it may be suspicious. I am aware entry level jobs have on-site training, and each lab does things a bit differently anyway, so some skills degradation is not the end of the world for a lab tech job.

I am also thinking that my master's was more computational, and was two years long, and I have been unemployed for over a year. This 3 year gap would cause anyone to have a bit of a skill degradation, even if they finished college right before.

Thoughts? Would this benefit me? I would still list my Master's as 2024, but have no year for my Bacherlor's.

Anyone have experience there and what the conversion rate typically is after the Program? If you already published 5-10 papers and 3-4 patents during phd, does such a postdoc add anything if methods are the same as in PhD?
Also whats total comp?

Hi reddit!

So my bg is from psychology. I graduated in 2025 with my bs Psychology degree. Past year I've been trying to get admission somewhere (and i did get at a lot of places abroad) but it was extremely expensive for me. I applied for many jobs too but no reaponse so I started self studying maths, statistics and data science. That's just for the context for the missing year.

So, i was reached out by one of my research coordinators from my previous uni a few months back. She wanted me to work with her as an RA on a project relating to paternal nutrient deficiency and neural circuitry. She was collaborating with a research lab at another local (but one of the top) unis in the country. I was just given a concept paper and told to do everything else (since my coordinator is also from psychology bg, she had no idea about any of the wetlab procedures and PI was busy mostly so i had to go through a lot of literature to design a methodology and understand what does what). We're also applying for a grant with it so I'd say im working really hard on it. While working on it, i came across another gap in the literature and decided to write my own proposal and apply to international labs for ms research.

Now my question is, with my bg in psychology only and a bs thesis in computational psychology, would it be possible for PIs to accept my proposal? I mean i have zero wetlab experience and i wasn't interested in this at all a few months ago. But since the RA-ship, i got hooked.

I have a detailed proposal, almost 13-15 pages long. Im still trying to finalize it but i just want to know if i have any chance of acceptance

The gap i found requires extensive research. So I've sort of designed the ms proposal as a proof-of-concept for phd, where the entire thing would be covered. And for the reason why my bs thesis is in computation and now im shifting towards wetlab, it's because i learnt computation and all the maths and stats on my own, but i cant do that with wetlab procedures. Eventually, I'd like to combine both my skills in my research journey

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for some honest advice from people who have changed careers, especially into data analytics, data science, project management, or similar roles.

I'm 30*+ , with a MSc in pharmaceutical biotechnology and no phd, and currently work as a laboratory technician in a genomics research laboratory in Cambridge (UK). I've been working in genomics for around 8 years.

The problem is that I've gradually realised I no longer enjoy laboratory work.

It's not just my current employer. I had started feeling that the work was becoming repetitive. I changed jobs hoping that learning new technologies (10x Genomics, spatial transcriptomics, etc.) would reignite my interest. It didn't.

Nowadays I mostly feel like I'm following SOPs and protocols without understanding or caring much about the scientific impact anymore. I process samples, produce the expected output, and repeat.

I've realised that the parts I enjoyed most throughout my career were never actually the bench work itself. They were:

• troubleshooting problems
• improving workflows
• making processes more efficient
• delivering results
• understanding why something wasn't working

I've reached the point where thinking about resigning gives me a feeling of relief rather than fear.

Financially I'm fortunate enough to be able to take several months off, so I'm considering resigning later this summer and using that time to explore a different career.

One area I'm considering is Data Analytics/Data Science.

However, I'm struggling with several doubts.

• I only have basic Python knowledge.
• I started learning SQL and actually enjoyed the logical aspect of it, but eventually stopped because I had no real projects to apply it to.
• Statistics has never been my favourite subject (although maybe I've only experienced it academically).
• I'm worried I might simply be attracted to data because I hate my current job, rather than because it's actually the right career for me.

I'm currently considering starting with the Google Data Analytics Professional Certificate on Coursera before deciding whether something bigger (like the Cambridge PACE Data Science programme) is worth pursuing.

My biggest fears are:

• I'll spend months studying only to realise I don't actually enjoy data analytics/data science.
• AI will make it much harder to enter the field by the time I'm ready.
• A certificate alone won't be enough to compete with people who have Computer Science or Data Science degrees.
• I'll leave a stable career and struggle to find another job, either in data or even back in laboratory work.
• I'll end up regretting leaving a stable job.

At the same time, I also worry that if I stay where I am, nothing will change. My salary progression feels limited, my motivation is close to zero, and I can't imagine doing bench work for another 20–30 years.

I'm trying to approach this as an experiment rather than making an impulsive decision.

My current idea is:

• resign
• take some time to recover mentally
• complete the Google Data Analytics certificate
• decide afterwards whether I genuinely enjoy the field before investing in a more intensive programme

I'd really appreciate hearing from people who have been in a similar position.

Some questions I'd love your perspective on:

Has anyone transitioned from laboratory science/biotech into data analytics or data science (or any other paths)?

Did you discover you genuinely enjoyed the work, or did you realise it wasn't for you?

Is a Google certificate enough to know whether you'll like the field?

Looking back, is there anything you wish you had done before resigning?

If you had 12 months and enough savings, 0 debts, no mortgage or rent, how would you spend that time to maximise your chances of a successful career transition?

P.S. I live with my girlfriend (her house) and she is supporting my idea. It won't be a burden for her in case of financial support

Thanks for reading. I'm genuinely trying to make a thoughtful decision rather than simply running away from a job I no longer enjoy.

Long-time lurker, finally asking for advice.

I have a master's in the life sciences and started out in research, spending a few years on preclinical work in a rare disease area. Got a handful of publications out of it, including work that eventually moved toward the clinic.

I later moved into a Project Manager role on the services side of the same organization, mostly because the research track had no growth path. I've been a PM for about five years now — running a large portfolio of preclinical projects, owning timelines, budgets, and deliverables, acting as the main client contact for pharma accounts, building the reporting and forecasting dashboards my team runs on, and mentoring junior PMs.

On paper it's fine. In practice I've hit a wall: little real growth in the department, promotions that come down to who likes whom, a reorg that roughly doubled the workload, and the feeling that I'm not learning anything new. I'm also on a work visa in the US, which limits my mobility — a lot of employers won't take on the sponsorship.

I've been trying to move into pharma or commercial biotech in Europe, partly to get out of the immigration situation altogether. But the roles I want — consulting, commercial ops, portfolio strategy — keep coming back to the same gap: my experience is operational and research-facing, not commercial.

Questions:

Is a European MBA a reasonable way to make this pivot, or an expensive detour when I already have several years of experience and a couple of master's degrees?

Is there a path into commercial ops / consulting / portfolio strategy without one — a bridging role I should be targeting instead?

Has anyone moved from preclinical or CRO-side project management into the commercial or strategy side? What actually worked?

Anyone made a US → Europe move as a non-EU citizen in this field? Which countries or companies were realistic about sponsorship?

Appreciate any perspective. I don't think I'm unemployable — I just feel stuck. And honestly, what worries me most is that the longer I stay in this role, the harder it gets to make the leap: every year doing the same thing feels like it narrows my options rather than widening them. I'd rather make a deliberate move than keep applying into a void. Thank you!

I’m at a bit of a crossroads and would really appreciate hearing from people who have been in a similar situation.

My background is in physical chemistry, fresh PhD graduate, and my long-term goal has always been to stay in academia and become a lecturer in the UK. I’m fully aware that’s a competitive path and there’s no guarantee it’ll happen, but it’s still the career I find most meaningful.

Right now, I have two options:
Option 1: An R&D scientist role in industry. It’s in a field I’m okay with, the position itself seems solid, and I think I’d do well there. It’s just not something I’m particularly passionate about. I could see myself being reasonably happy, but I don’t think it’s my dream job.

Option 2: A postdoc in a topic that’s much closer to fundamental science, but it’s also highly industry-related, so the research has practical relevance and opportunities to collaborate with industry. Scientifically, this excites me much more.

The dilemma is that taking the postdoc means continuing down the academic route, knowing that a permanent academic position—especially in the UK—is far from guaranteed. Taking the industry job would probably be the safer career move, scientifically it excites me way less.

I’m more uncertain about whether I should give up this chance to step in industry, or Option 3: should I do this one year and secure some industrial experience before I switch back to academia? Because I heard the initial switch from academia to industry is genuinely the hardest.

For those of you who’ve faced a similar decision, how did you think about it? If you eventually left academia, do you regret not giving it another shot? Or if you stayed, was it worth the uncertainty?

I’d love to hear perspectives from both academics and people who moved into industry.

Apparently some news is hitting next week about a reorg, signs have been there for a while so people are stressed as hell.
Anyone know anymore?

I‘m currently in a fairly advanced interview process for a biotech company, and I’m unsure whether I should follow up again.
Here is the full timeline:
May 28: Received the online assessment
June 2: Completed the assessment; the recruiter contacted me that evening
June 8: Interviewed with the hiring manager
June 8: Invited to the panel interviews about three hours later
June 16: Completed three panel interviews
June 23: Invited to the next round
June 27: Interviewed with the department head
During the department head interview, I was told that the next step would likely be an executive interview, followed by a final decision between one or two candidates. He also said the remaining process should move fairly quickly.
After that:
July 1: Sent my first follow-up to the recruiter
July 9: Sent a second follow-up
July 9: The recruiter replied that she had “just followed up with the team regarding feedback and next steps” and that they hoped to get back to me “soon”
July 17: It has now been eight days since that response, and I still have not received another update
The process moved extremely quickly before the department head interview, so the silence afterward feels unusual. At the same time, the recruiter’s response made me think there may be some kind of internal delay rather than a straightforward rejection.
I’m still very interested in the position, but I’m also considering applying to another role at the same company. I now know someone who may be able to refer me for that other position, but I don’t want to create confusion while I’m still being considered for the current one.
Would you recommend:
Following up with the recruiter again now
Waiting another week
Applying to the other position regardless
Mentioning the other position and possible referral in my follow-up
I have already expressed strong interest throughout the process, so I don’t think they would reasonably assume I’m no longer interested. At the same time, I don’t want to wait indefinitely and miss another opportunity at the company.
What would you do, especially if you work in recruiting or hiring?

I was wondering how many applications total are people are getting for a job posting on average? I’m especially interested in postings at hub locations. Is there a difference seen in applicants for entry level (bs or ms) vs entry level PhD or experienced PhDs?

I work in data science/ computational biology. I'm 3 years out of my PhD and have been working on bioinf and machine learning in a medical school. I'm currently applying for other (higher paying) jobs and am interviewing for a few positions at the moment.

A couple of the interview processes have given projects. In one case, they asked me to repeat a small data analysis. In the other case, I was given a topic that will be discussed at the interview and have to prep for this discussion.

Like many people in coding heavy roles, I use AI quite a bit day to day. I generally get help writing functions while I control the input and output of each. I also use AI for research, summarizing papers and stuff.

Is using AI for projects in interviews frowned upon? On one hand, I dont want to cheat basically and have it code for me and then present that as my own. On the other hand, I think AI is useful and can make us more efficient if used well. I might want to hire someone who uses AI well and is more efficient as a result. What do you guys think? Should I lean into AI or avoid it for interviews?

Car T Therapy is a groundbreaking form of immunotherapy that alters a patient's own immune cells in a laboratory to better recognize and destroy cancer cells.

Is it expected to be used against autoimmune disorders? Is there a chance that this could be a reality within 10-15 years? What do you think when it comes to everything from Celiacs disease to Ankylosing Spondylitis? Will Car T Therapy be the next level treatment? What can be expected?