All scientists joke about going ‘over to the Dark Side’ – in other words, leaving academic research for an alternative career. And these days the transit is pretty common. After all, far more scientists are produced than there are permanent positions in which to house them, or grants to fund their experiments. In parallel, the taboos that used to make even mentioning leaving academia a mortal sin have gradually dissipated. University-trained scientists no longer need feel ashamed to reinvent themselves as patent lawyers, biotech team leaders, investment consultants, science writers or editors – it’s all pretty humdrum stuff these days.
Completely adrift
But what about the opposite direction? What about ex-scientists mired over on the Dark Side who decide to go back to research? How common are they?
Or maybe I should be more precise and rephrase the question: how common are we?
Yes, it’s true. I’m leaving science publishing to go back to the lab. Eleven years after earning my PhD and four years after hanging up my trusty pipettor forever (or so I’d assumed), I’m staring destiny in the face. And destiny is an up-and-coming genetics lab at University College London whose head somehow, miraculously, does not mind that I’ve been handling manuscripts for the past few years instead of composing them, that I’m not getting any younger, that I do weird things on the side like edit LabLit, work freelance in science journalism and write laboratory novels. Nor does he mind that I’ve never had Nature paper (except in the Books and Art section), or that the only grants I’m eligible for these days are those designed largely for mothers returning to work. Admittedly, he might have weighed the advantages of having my editorial skills on side to help him navigate his lab’s papers to suitable homes, but that’s a small price to pay for the priceless gesture of being given a chance to return to a career I used to love and never really wanted to leave.
Half of me is terrified, and the other half doesn’t quite believe it’s real. Am I actually abandoning my comfortable permanent position and salary for a universe of uncertainty? Apparently so, for I have accepted an offer, handed in my notice, and have one month left in publishing.
After that – the Void awaits.
I’ll keep you posted.
My word, you are brave.
Best of luck!
you’re lucky : ) lately i’ve been contemplating if i should leave the lab to do something different too, as it’s rare to find a permanent position in research. the reason i’m still hanging on is because i’ll miss benchwork! i don’t know if i’ll be able to make the leap back in the opposite direction to the lab after a couple of years, if i decide to do something different now…
My jaw dropped when I read your blog post. We missed you at Lamb on Tuesday evening. Your colleagues in publishing are so going to miss you. Good luck at UCL. I had a professor who also did the industry-to-academia thing… he was a deeply philosophical one and approached research in an optimistic yet realistic fashion.
Thanks, guys. Li Kim, I was meeting the new lab en masse (talk about nerve-wracking) on Tuesday, hence my absence. Could have used a stiff drink! Vivien, the older I get, the more I realize that careers are a lot more fluid than what we were told as students. No decision is irrevocable, no path is a one-way street. The only constraint on benchwork for the more mature person, I suspect, is funding. And finding someone who believes in you. Mind you, I suspect that 5 years away is probably the limit in terms of remembering how to do everything! But I have a lot of different skills and I am confident that if this crazy idea doesn’t pan out, there will always be other opportunities.
Congratulations! But this is a temporary move, right, until you get as busy as Margaret Atwood? :o)
Dare I ask why you left the lab in the first? Apologies if you told me, or the blogworld, already.
Yes, if a publisher offers me a big crate of cash for my novels, all bets are off!
But seriously…I left research after a minor catastrophe. I was working for a start-up biotech company that went under, and it was during a period of time when lab jobs were really scarce. After about half a year on the dole, I decided to expand my horizons. (That sounds so measured – in reality I was starting to panic a bit!) The interesting thing is that I don’t think scientists on their career treadmill often get a chance to think about what they are doing; the next step phase just looms and you get on with it. It’s not until you are knocked off your perch and forced into months of contemplation that strange new ideas start to occur to you, such as: ‘I could try something else, couldn’t I?’
I don’t regret it my stint in publishing for a moment – I’m not sure any career choices are bad ones in the end.
Congratulations! It’s heartening to read about someone’s unconventional career journey and know that it’s not always Point A to Point B in a straight line. Looking forward to hearing how the transition goes and maybe even a bit of looking back on your career thus far? Would be educational for someone like me who’s still trying to figure out how path too. (I left academia in 1999.)
Hsien-Hsien, thanks for your kind words and I’ll try to be inspirational (instead of scary!). I see from your profile that you are a genetics consultant, which sounds like you’ve grasped an opportunity to use your skills and work for yourself – very cool. A lot of people talk about doing this sort of thing but in my experience, few have the guts.
Scary can be fun. 😉
I fear that I’m a dabbler. I like to learn new things and when I’m done learning one, I move on to the next. That’s why consulting is good for me. I’m not tied to any one project and face new challenges each time.
That said, my family also doesn’t rely on my earnings for support. That gives me a lot of freedom to try different things. I am really lucky!
Glad to have connected here. Looking forward to reading more.
I think even traditional scientists can embrace some of that spirit – they might stay in research, but they don’t necessarily have to be locked down into one lab/project/technique/model system/way of doing things. The scientist’s outlook has changed a lot over the past few decades. I’m just old enough to remember when geneticists didn’t know how to do biochemistry and vice versa – hard to imagine now. The term “molecular biology” used to be a discipline, not a technique. It’s all got a lot more fluid now.
patent lawyers