Academia/industry divide in life sciences — are these worlds really that different?
It is often assumed (although rarely checked) that once you’re out of academia, there is no way back. You are expected to feel “free and unrestrained”, in touch once again with the real world.
I’d like to offer a different perspective on the topic, from the point of view of someone who has moved from academia to the business world and decided to return. To describe the many reasons behind my decision I would need to write a whole separate piece. Here I would like to simply share a couple of observations upon my return.
The first thing that struck me as I was sitting at a journal club meeting in my new lab was the sense of excitement. I was truly excited to be back in the environment where ideas and knowledge were not simply means to reaching the next revenue milestone, but the currency and (almost) the end goal in itself. It would be easy to stop writing at this point at conclude that I have just proven that “the boring industry is all about the money, and academia is the true intellectual heaven”. But as I mentioned, this was only the first thought.
It was the point when I remembered my many interviews with industry leaders and the same sense of excitement emanating from them as they were describing to me their startup venture or a new concept they were working on at their company. Also came to mind some of my friends working in biotechnology and pharma, and the many conversations I had with them about the same research articles we found on PubMed.
Many times since my graduation I had to defend academia in front of some friends in business, pointing out that scientists do want to see their research making impact in society. And other times I had to give one example after another to prove that the industry is not all about the money.
So why is there so much contempt for academia among those wishing to work in the business world, and vice versa?
Having seen both worlds, I think that the main reason is the different “society and government structures” in academia and industry.
The governmental structure of an academic lab is a kind of micro-monarchy or a martial arts dojo. Imagine the group leader as the sensei, and every group member as their faithful disciple. This kind of culture lives and dies on the personality of the group leader and the atmosphere they create in the lab. If your sensei is wise and supportive, you can achieve great mastery and fall in love with academic research for the rest of your life. If, on the other hand, you don’t get along with your sensei (or your sensei got too carried away with the power game between your lab and the others), you are guaranteed to feel trapped and disillusioned.
A typical company, on the other hand, is more resemblant of a western democratic country. In most cases, there will be no one person to veto your ideas (unless the manager above you has dictatorial tendencies) and you are offered more ways to progress through a career ladder — often by moving horizontally into a different area of interest. You also feel more connected to the world around you in general as you are not expected to strictly follow the philosophy of the one and only sensei.
The business world is also more about collaboration than competition. There is a healthy level of competition, of course, which is a necessary driver of progress in every field, but there is no dog-eat-dog culture within projects where being the first author is the bone everyone is fighting for. This point, in my view, is something that the academic world still needs to catch up on. The strict and largely outdated academic publishing system and career rewards, which are tightly bound to the amount of first-author publications, is a great impediment to collaboration in our interconnected world.
Another reason for the great divide between the two worlds is the lack of simple and easy ways to translate academic research into products. The main obstacle here is the very complex (and likely also outdated) legal system behind the technology transfer. The responsibility for the knowledge transfer at academic institutions usually rests upon the shoulders of a technology transfer office (TTO). A typical TTO has little direct contact with either academics behind new discoveries or people wishing to turn those discoveries into something practical. The negotiations happen between lawyers from both sides and can last months or years before the two parties agree on all points.
From the outside it would seem that scientists do not care about what happens to their discoveries but they do. Only they don’t want to deal with the legal issues and often don’t even get the chance to meet face to face with industry representatives. This does nothing but deepen the already existing misunderstanding.
Fortunately, many initiatives are springing up aiming to bridge this gap — from innovation centres at universities which encourage their own researchers to commercialise technologies to creative solutions like Living Labs at my current university in Würzburg (in German) where companies are invited to come and see for themselves what the latest research developments look like.
But if we put these points aside — are the worlds of academia and industry really that different? I don’t think so. People working in both areas share the same motivation — to discover or invent something which has never been done before. Which is the main reason I am not afraid to start my new position in a university lab. I don’t see this as a “move back” or “giving up” and I also don’t fear “getting stuck” in the academic world. Working on solving the fundamental science questions is an important part of the knowledge life cycle, which should not be underestimated.
It is unfortunate that many misconceptions still exist about “academia” and “industry”. But if you think about it — in any superhero movie (Doctor Strange comes to my mind, but you can choose whichever you like most) the bad guys are usually the former good guys who at some point in the past bitterly disagreed with their sensei. In any memorable movie there is always a point where you are not sure anymore who is right. But because you only view the story through the eyes of the protagonist, you perceive that there is “right” and “wrong”. And then Winnie Holzman comes along and creates Wicked — and suddenly we see the whole world of Oz through the eyes of the “wicked witch”, wondering how could we miss so much in the original story.
Luckily, we are living at the time of great changes. The drive for digitalisation in nearly every field as well as the rise of entrepreneurial culture have great potential to bridge the gap between these worlds.
My own version of a world without borders is the one where labels “academia” and “industry” will become obsolete. The world where the two warring camps would finally lay down their weapons and sit down by the great sakura tree of knowledge, sipping sake and discussing their next science (fiction) project.
About me: I did my PhD at the Max-Planck Institute for Biochemistry in Germany and throughout my PhD years I was surrounded by the constant confrontation — between those who wanted to dedicate their life to academic research and those wanting to “get out and get a proper job”. As you may have guessed, I did get out, got a “proper job”, and spent 3,5 years working for an AI-powered science media startup in London. Luckily for me, as I see it now, working in science journalism (https://scicasts.com/insights) helped me see the issue from different perspectives and I decided to return to academia. I am now investigating the complex RNA world in bacteria, hoping to shed some light on the development of antibiotic resistance and how we could overcome it.
