In the world of biotech and life sciences, the role of a Field Application Scientist is becoming increasingly crucial. So how can you ensure you're recruiting the best person for the job? Understanding the FAS Role: Learn about the crucial responsibilities of FAS, from customer training to advancing precision medicine. Identifying the Ideal Candidate: We discuss the importance of finding candidates with specific skill sets, like expertise in CRISPR or genomics, and the right balance of academic and customer-facing experience. Navigating Hiring Challenges: From the limited availability of PhD-level candidates to ensuring competitive compensation, our blog provides strategies to overcome common obstacles in FAS recruitment. Gain valuable insights for your hiring strategy in our article or reach out to us. Let’s empower your team with the right talent! 👉https://hubs.ly/Q02f0qgj0

This is the hiring process for a Director of Computational Biology of a VC-backed 'Omics company in Boston: 👇 [1] 30 - 45 min prescreening call with Moxee [2] 30-minute meeting with HR and Talent Acquisition [3] 45-min Meeting with VP of Computational Biology [4] 45-min Meeting with the CTO [5] 3-hour Online Analysis and Method Development Challenge [6] Panel Interview, Onsite - 14 people involved [7] Hiring The problems are: [1] 73% of applicants failed the challenge. [2] Those who did fail weren't receiving feedback as to why = damaged candidate experience within an already small candidate pool, after investing so much time and mental effort. [3] Far too long. [4] They are a remote-first business, so for the onsite panel interview, it's going to take a loooooot of time / financial commitment. [5] The process didn't outline expectations or criteria for success at each stage, leaving candidates uncertain about what is being assessed and how to prepare. [6] There wasn't one single female interviewee (besides HR). [7] The criteria for final hiring decisions, including the weight assigned to each stage of the interview process, were not considered. We're now doing this, with the process clearly stated upfront: [1] 45-min interview with Moxee + HR, with video clips of 4 x predetermined questions shared with VP Comp Bio. ✅ [2] 1.5-hour live task (a typical problem they would solve within the first 6 months in the job role) with the VP of Comp Bio. ✅ [3] 1-hour talk with the CTO and CEO. ✅ [4] Talk with existing team of Comp Biologists. ✅ [5] Hiring. ✅ • Hours saved per candidate = 5 hours 30 mins • Freed up time of the CTO, CEO, and junior Computational Biologists • Reduced time-to-hire / increased sanity 🤣

It's more important than ever to find the right 👨🔬 people to join your team. But when it comes to hiring scientists, it's not just about finding someone with the right 🧪 skills. It's also about finding someone who is a good fit for your team and your culture. Get to know the candidate as a person. Ask them about their 🕵️♂️ interests, their 🔥 passions, and their goals. Get a sense of their personality and how they might fit into your team. Interested in learning more about using this technique? 💡 Read the full article to get a better understanding! https://hubs.ly/Q02kLcp90

As you browse Life Sciences jobs, you might notice the phrases ‘wet lab’ and ‘dry lab’. And if you’re new to the industry, or those particular roles - well, they might sound a bit odd. Both are required for the successful research and development of new treatments, and both are staffed by scientists. So, what’s the difference? Dry labs are so-called because the scientists that work there use computers for testing and analysis. This is where your data scientists carry out modelling or analyse vast datasets. Wet labs, on the other hand, are where you’ll find scientists that work with… well, ‘wet’ stuff! Patient samples, chemicals, trial drugs etc. They’re very different environments and are home to very different scientists, but each is vital to the work of the other. Which type of lab do you think sounds most interesting to work in? Let us know in the comments! And contact Kelly Services in your country to get a great job. #LifeScienceIndustry #LifeSciencesJobs #LifeSciences #LifeSciencesRecruitment

Just a thought... please don't get offended. A lot of organizations are hiring undergraduate and graduate students as research associate. My question to the recruiter is both simple and valid. Does the undergraduate students have pre-requisite knowledge and expertise required for conducting research ? Are the undergraduate and graduate students being trained and equipped with the knowledge of essentials of research ? A good research demands much more than just collecting data from various sources and writing. It has lot of technical aspects attached to it. Being PhD Research Scholar and having more than 10 years of research experience ... I still struggle like many of my peers. We have to engage extensively in finding appropriate framework, theory and methodology, data collection process, analysis and everything.... No offence pls.. Dear recruiter pls develop understanding about the pre-requisite of research. A good research is much more than data collection process and writing a summary about the findings.

This is a sobering number - over 60% of researchers "quit" research after 20 years (or at least stopped publishing). I'd be careful when it comes to drawing conclusions from publication metrics & data. The original authors themselves don't know for sure why people stopped publishing, as this needs to come from interview data. They did speculate that it could be because researchers move to teaching or administrative roles, or to industry. I've been in research for over 13 years now. While I still consider publishing to be an important component of my dissemination activities, it's not the major one - engagement with industry and policy decision makers is. What are your thoughts on this? #science #research #scientist #engineer #phd

Determining whether a researcher is lying, boastful, or arrogant can be challenging, but there are some signs that may indicate such behaviors: Lack of Evidence or References: A serious researcher will back up their claims with solid evidence and reliable references. If someone makes grandiose claims but cannot provide adequate evidence or references to support them, it could be a sign that they are exaggerating or lying. Lack of Humility: Genuine researchers tend to be humble about the limits of their knowledge and the provisional nature of their conclusions. If someone presents themselves as the absolute expert on a topic or never acknowledges the limitations of their research, it could be a sign of arrogance. Inconsistencies or Contradictions: If a researcher's claims constantly change or conflict with previously established information, this could indicate a lack of credibility or sincerity. Defensive Attitudes: Honest researchers are open to scrutiny and constructive criticism from their peers. If someone responds defensively or aggressively to legitimate questions or criticism, this could be a sign that they are trying to hide something. Overconfidence: Honest researchers typically express some caution and acknowledge the inherent uncertainty in research. If someone exhibits overconfidence in their claims and seems overly sure of themselves, it could be a sign that they are exaggerating or lying. It's important to remember that these are just potential signs and do not necessarily mean that a researcher is necessarily lying or arrogant. It's important to carefully evaluate the evidence and consider the context before reaching definitive conclusions about the credibility of a researcher.

#openposition alert at Vellore Institute of Technology for project scientist and project associate. To #stayinformed on the latest #jobopenings & #openpositions by #connecting with me on LinkedIn! #jobs #openpositions #Biotechjobs #microbiologyjobs #lifesciencejobs #MolecularBiologyJobs #careeroppurtunities #Labopportunities #ResearchJobs #LifeSciCareers #clinicalresearch #opportunities2024 #postdoc

Having user research done by PWDR (People Who Do Research) when your organization doesn't have any researchers introduces several advantages: 1. They are closer to the product and understand it more deeply. 2. Faster iteration because research findings can be implemented and tested more quickly. 3. Cost-effective compared to hiring researchers. That said, there are resounding disadvantages: 1. Lack of research expertise leads to lower-quality and rigorless study design, data collection, or analysis, potentially affecting the validity of the results. 2. Limited time and resources as research is likely squeezed in alongside other job responsibilities. 3. Confirmation bias causes people to design research confirming their beliefs or the direction they want the product to take. If you would like to conduct ad-hoc research or implement a high-quality and rigorous user research program, I have a team of experienced researchers you can hire by the hour or per project without any long-term commitment. Please reach out privately, and together, we'll understand your needs and tailor a research study (or studies) to be implemented with a short turnaround of findings and recommendations.

4 of 14 #job #openings on 2/22 ✴️ RnD lead - open to various backgrounds ✴️ FloraPulse (Microfluidics) #checkitout and #share #opportunity #usajobs #usa #hiring #hiringnow #open #jobsearch #reshare #engineeringjobs #engineering #givingback #spreadtheword #connectandgrow #repost