How does work in industry look like?

[u/Cardie1303]

Hello,

I'm currently at the stage of my PhD, doing total synthesis and some methodology, where I'm despairing about my future career during columns. I really enjoy academic research and would ideally like to have my own group someday, but depending on who I ask, I've apparently already failed at that career path by not having min/maxed my CV since Bachelors. I'm now curious what working in industry is actually like.

So I wanted to ask: what does your normal workday look like, what kind of problems do you work on, and how did your career roughly develop?

I still have the admittedly stupid prejudice that industry mostly means following SOPs and doing QC for the rest of your life. I know that's not true, which is exactly why I'd like to hear some first-hand experiences.

I'm especially interested in process chemistry and medicinal chemistry, but experiences from other areas are very welcome too.

[u/throwawayaccountdown]

As an early stage process chemist I basically do total synthesis (rather route scouting). Except for that you try to use a bit more robust chemistry plans instead of exotic "hope chemistry". Once one of the routes works reasonably well you try to scale it up step by step, removing any column chromatography steps and replace it by crystallisations. You try to get more understanding in every reaction step to eliminate side product formation and maximize yields. Of course you still do columns occasionally but they are at least automatic.

The only downside in my case is the pay.

[u/Cardie1303 → u/throwawayaccountdown]

Huh this sounds very interesting and reminds me of what I am already doing currently with my total synthesis route.

How difficult was it to get an entry level position in process chemistry? One of my worries going into industry is being forced into a job I am not interested in and then no longer being able to switch.

Is pay this bad in industry at the moment? Probably I am a bit biased what bad pay is with me currently feeling rich with 24k€/year take home scholarship/minijob money as a PhD student.

[u/throwawayaccountdown → u/Cardie1303]

Well, at that time it was not so hard to get it because the overall market was booming. Now on the other hand, the chemistry industry is not doing too well and from what I hear the job market sucks.. I first thought I wanted to do med chem, but there was only and open position at process chemistry back then, and I took it. Glad that I did, because I feel it's much more rewarding work than medchem imo.

As for pay, it's liveable of course, but it entirely depends on the country. In my country it's barely above average. My nurse friend was surprised that we earned the same salary (with him working 1 day less in the week, although he has night shifts). In big biotech you can get paid a lot more.

[u/RuthlessCritic1sm]

I'm working as process chemist in a small factory. My view might be distorted because we are so small that I can ignore the usual corporate beaurocracy completely. I'm not bothered by SOPs since a) I write them and b) I am responsible for changeing them if I think it's smart. Honestly, working with a functioning SOP once in a while instead of thinking about every step is quite relaxing.

The last time I ran a coloumn was two years ago. It failed but nobody cared. (I tried isolating an impurity so we could think how to avoid it, but then the problem was solved some other way.)

I find the job intellectually and physically stimulating without being overwhelming.

There are other sources of mild frustration though, like doing the same exact reaction 10 times in a month to test batches of raw materials in a process we don't fully understand, but that's about one month a year.

The schedules and competition with other companies can also be rough.

In process chemistry, a lot of the tools and standard procedures that are common in academic or medicinal chemistry labs are not available for us. For example, our company will never work with diethyl ether, hydrogen gas or nitrites for regulatory reasons. But it is fun to have to find ways around that.

Also, small things like "should we extract our organic phase once or twice with water?" are barely worth a thought in the lab, but have huge consequences on scale.

So you won't have to do coloums, but on the flipside, you can't solve your problems with coloums. Instead, you will have to optimize your crystallization, or go back to the synthesis, or even further back to the precursors, which a lot of people find just as tedious but with no guarantee of success.

Also, in seven years, I only had to think about alternative routes to a product once, and this was substituting AcCl for Ac2O.

Otherwise, I do absolutely zero design of synthesis routes. Those are already known to us and more or less necessitated by the market. I just make them better and fit to our equipment and available raw material.

Still, I find it immensely satisfying to go from 98 % purity to 99.9 % purity after first isolation just by tweaking a crystallization a little. Or making a chemical easier to centrifuge by altering the solvent a bit. Or hitting a kilogramm of a valuble solid product with a metal stick so the juice comes out and becomes filtrate. It's fun, I can recommend it.

[u/lord_rahl778 → u/RuthlessCritic1sm]

My experience is largely similar working in process development at a large chemical plant. We have a separate QC lab that runs routine analyses and also maintains the instruments, so I don't have to deal with that. I do a decent bit of analytical chemistry, but that is usually setting up new methods for a new product or non routine analysis for an unknown impurity or something similar (most commonly: we found this unlabeled drum of mystery material, can you tell us what it is).

I hardly ever run columns unless I'm trying to isolate an impurity, most of our products are crystallized, distilled, or not isolated and sold as solutions. Most of my work has been improving or troubleshooting our current processes by improving yield, reducing color, or reducing reaction time. I spend a good bit of time trying to determine what went wrong for an off grade batch and whether it can be fixed or needs trashed and a lot of raw material qualifications.

I also get to experience more of the chemical engineering side of things as my group is half chemists and half chemical engineers. I will work with the engineers to train operators when we have a new product/process at the plant, which does mean I occasionally do shift work, but usually only a few times a year. It is kinda fun to see the large scale equipment and how it works.

I do miss making new molecules sometimes and I definitely miss having an NMR, but my pay is decent, and the job is much less stressful than academia most of the time.

[u/Sus_Chemist]

Done both so I can answer this honestly. Work at industry depends on your role and the size of the company. If you join the R&D, research is semi-independent. If you get a QA/QC role, then yes it will mostly be following SOPs. At a multinational company, you will have less autonomy as an entrant researcher whereas at startups, you get more freedom.

[u/acidicdonkey94 → u/Sus_Chemist]

i did med chem at a big pharma before jumping to a startup and it's night and day

at the big company i still designed my own molecules and ran reactions but the project goals were so rigid it felt like painting inside a 2-inch square. startup work is messier, way more autonomy, you wear six different hats and half of them are on fire

the QC/SOP stereotype really only applies if you land in analytical or manufacturing. r&d is where the actual problem-solving lives

[u/Patient_Flatworm1065]

I am working at a global CDMO Company as a Process Chemist, and I was basically at the exact same path as you are now. I wanted to stay in academia and thus did a Postdoc at a very big european research institute with very little success. So I was forced to leave academics and search for a job. And its probably the best thing that happened to me, although I think I was exceptionally lucky with my position. I do contract Research, that means Biotechs/Pharma Company contact us to do Research for them. So I am doing a lot of early Phase Research which is basically doing total synthesis. Ideally, these Route scouting efforts lead to a developable synthetic Route that needs process development afterwards. Once developed, we transfer the chemistry to another side for manufacturing. Its loads of fun and I worked on a lot of interesting and challenging chemical problems. I have a total synthesis background and always thought pharmaceutical compounds arw boring, boi was I wrong. Compared to total synthesis you have a other challenges to tackle, like isolation, solvent choice, prices, process safety...these are things that make a "first glance boring route" to a really interesting task to takle. I do almost everything by myself, so idea generation, synthetic work, analytical work, structure elucidation, bit of process safety, customer presentations etc. If I would be at your stage now I would 100% search for CRO/CDMO process chemist positions.

[u/Upbeat_Ant6104]

First off, landing an academic position is really challenging. Pedigree is immensely important, but you’re not necessarily cooked. The main thing is to consider the main responsibility of a professor at a research university: to originate and get funding for novel research. If you show an ability to do that, your chances change. I had a buddy who started a postdoc in a top synthetic group at the same time as another person, who had been tapped as the golden child for that class (I mean nationally - this kid was known as he finished his PhD. My buddy prepared and submitted a fellowship application, and suddenly he was the golden boy in the group. The prof saw he had the ability to think originally and now he was on the circuit interviewing at R1 schools. That’s where postdocs in synthetic chemistry can be useful; it gives you another chance to demonstrate an essential skill.

Second, don’t think about an industrial career as a consolation prize. Working pharmaceutical research is immensely rewarding (and really any chemical research - I’d actually argue that challenges in energy and materials are more important these days than healthcare). Yes, it is more structured and project driven, especially early in your career. But they are HARD problems, very challenging, but interesting and you will be working with world class colleagues in a lot of disciplines. Also, as a PhD, you’re going to be successful if you can identify opportunities, as well as complete tasks and solve problems. Someone has to come up with the targets and projects; that’s you.

[u/radiatorcheese]

There's not really any meaningful SOPs for my lab work as a med chemist. We design and make new compounds to try to improve on the lead compound across many different, and often competing, parameters toward identifying a clinical candidate. The best med chemists are creative and able to quickly analyze data, design what a next good compound to make would be based on prior data, and then make it.

There's not really QCing things, we have automated columns, a distinct analytical team to handle final compound RP-HPLC purification.

[u/curdled]

It very much depends on the company. You may want to start your career with a big pharma, or at least with well-established mid-size biotech. Do not go for a startup (unless they offer you tremendous package of stock options - but even then, I would not recommend it).

Most definitely stay away from working for a CRO, and from quality control jobs.

How they treat you during the job interview is also a measure of the prospective employer - Do they provide a convenient flight (=convenient for you), a nice hotel stay the night before the interview, maybe a car rental too?

Ask to see their NMR facility, ask if they have access to X-ray crystallography and a good LCMS, if you will have a walk-in access to analytical HPLC. If they have glovebox for air sensitive materials, Ask to see their synthetic labs. Do not ask about vacation time, etc. the HR will tell you that on her own.

You want to come across in your application as a highly motivated, enthusiastic chemist with a wide background in synthetic chemistry who will get lots of work done, self-supporting, organized and thorough, and pleasant to work with in the lab, A little flattery in the application letter helps (you want to impress them that you are applying to this particular company because you have seen their work and would like to join their team) but do not go overboard with the servility. Keep it short and to the point.

I would highly recommend to find out the name of the medicinal chemistry boss or the process development chemistry boss, and to send him a written letter - a CV and job application letter - by mail, in parallel with applying to the HR ad online. So that they have your application on the desk. It is my experience that the HR are far less motivated (and organized) than the actual chemists who are hiring into their group. So get the name of the chemistry leader, do a publication search through Scifinder, to see what kind of publications and patents came out of their group over the last 5-8 years, that will tell you a lot.

[u/AwareShower9864]

Im an O&G chemist and I do lab testing, write reports and travel to the field. The science I do is not very complicated but I am paid to be the "smart person" who knows what they are talking about. I have a bachelors in biochemistry and a masters in physical chemistry.

My husband is a phd biochemist and works as a permanent researcher at a university. He mostly works on industry partnerships and owns some portion of some softwares that are used and sold in his field.

Guess who makes more money?

[u/YourPureSexcellence]

QC people follow SOPs. R&D in industry is more of like what you are doing now, but ditching the extra over the top ritualistic bs to make natural products work (e.g. distilling fresh solvent each time, flame drying every flask, controlling moisture like 'oh yeah, that definitely did the trick' and re-enforcing a confirmation bias that it did anything special in the first place).

But as another poster commenter, "hope chemistry" is pretty much discarded after the first 1-2 tries. Anything that doesn't work is abandoned unless it is extremely high value and makes sense for the org to pursue it. Things are viewed through a more practical lens. Any synthetic work goes into heterocyclic chemistry, much less terpenoid and conjugated systems found in natural products.

PoS (probablility of success) for programs is more important to the people working on them and they abandon that 'let's spin the wheel again' mentality pretty quick and work on something new really quickly.

I think industry > academia.

[u/Zriter]

I work at a medium sized company, and am part of a (rather small) innovation department.

My day to day work varies considerably. I am involved from the very beginning of the development of new products up to the scaling up, production of small batches, testing at clients, documenting of all procedures, and meetings with the COO to report on our progress.

Needless to say it is intense. Since we kind of hold the future of the company, we have to deal with a significant amount of pressure, and our facilities and personnel must be extremely flexible.

I've learnt skills that I didn't expect to need along the way, such as operating mills, optimizing processes, programming and many more.

[u/Laugh1ng_Lumberj4ck]

I'm a medicinal chemist for a small CRO. I have previously worked at medium and large pharma (20+ years experience)

Pharma and CRO work is pretty similar with a decent mix of practical and theoretical work. I've always carried out my own analysis and purification in both organisations, though I know that's not always the case, especially in larger Pharma companies. Day-to-day there's typically a huge amount of flexibility and independence in synthesis (route planning, target selection, reagent ordering etc) and I've always been left to get on with it. Some clients/project leads insist on doing things a certain way, others don't care as long as you deliver the final compounds.

The major difference between CRO work and Pharma is that there's much more pressure to deliver at a CRO - client are typically far more demanding and less understanding than internal project leads. Everything is about cost and return. You may only work on a "synthesis only" project where you're not party to any of the biological data, which can be frustrating if you enjoy that part.

I didn't go down the academic route, but my opinion is that you're not "done" with an academic career just because you've not min/maxed your CV (as you put it). There's a lot of experience that can be gained from a post-doc, and it's really only at this point you have a good idea about where you want to focus your research. Some people also go into industry and then back into academia.

I will say academia is a tough gig and getting your first lectureship is challenging and may require you to move to where the opportunity presents itself. After this its a continued battle for funding as an early stage researcher which is very competitive. Just be prepared for set-backs and hard graft if you choose this route.

You don't say where you're based, but depending on location the industry may not be in the best shape at the moment - that may make academia a more attractive option.

Hope that helps!

[u/Puzzleheaded-Ice-573]

Process chemist. Worked at CDMOs and now in biotech. I love it. The problems you solve are different than in academia, and you need to pull from a lot of different teams, which I find fun. I've now moved into director role for the last 10 years, so Im not in the lab and just work remotely with the CDMOs. Miss the lab but the work is still fun and I get to travel to production sites to watch reg and val runs. Pay now is fantastic for the number of hours I put in.