You have no prayer of becoming VP or director in Big Pharma unless you are already at that level in another company and want to jump ship. People only get promoted to these positions in smaller/mid-sized biopharma companies that are actively growing. Big Pharma R&D groups are AT BEST staying the same size + have almost no turnover here that isnt filled externally.

100K sounds about right

75k-85k for a position with 2-3 direct reports seems low

75k to 85k annual

Any guess how much will be the salary for a PhD with good postdoc experience , a good fit technically, for the senior scientist position who will have three direct reports.

Sincere thanks

To all of you defending upper Pharma management, shouldn't the directors and VPs all be laid off when the pipeline runs dry because the failure is obviously their responsibility.

Funny how this never happens this way.

luv u long time five dollar.

I want to be director and then VP because i do not agree with many of the projects run in the company. I want to discover drug and i want to work with larger teams with more saying in allocating resources.

Then you dont need Principle investigators to run the labs in MIT Harvard Princeton Johns Hopkins (those guys stopped bench work in first 1-2 years of getting the job as faculty and they have not worked on bench for years but their labs are making great discoveries). Why not to stop the ranking at postdoctoral fellows.....

To bench scientists - if you think that you are the one who will "discover or invent' drug then i have no word for your thinking level. You will certainly do one of the important experiment (even just a part of experiment) required to get to the drug. There will be million other aspects done by many more like you, and like the ones who report to you as well as the ones you report to. You enjoy working on bench, no harm in this but that does not make everyone else 'useless'.

I dont see it as negative trait if you want to be a director and enjoy working on a bigger picture and bringing work from many different disciplines together and solve the puzzle, rather than repeating couple of techniques day in and day out (it is important but not everyone likes it).

--------

I do not see a move to director as being something that anyone should aspire to. To repeat another posters sentiments, does anyone in pharma have ambitions to find a drug? It's an old cliche but the having the desire to be a director should automatically rule you out from being one. Yes, there are many people who are called Scientists who simply have a pHd and are about as far removed from being real scientists as Kim Kardashian is from being a nun but they still have an infinitely better chance of contributing something positive to the pipeline than any director. Keep the managers for biscuit factories and let science manage itself. Drugs have never come from managers. Always a bit disturbing to hear bloated and rabid personal ambition in the absence of true substance. Always considered it a borderline mental health issue.

I do not see a move to director as being something that anyone should aspire to. To repeat another posters sentiments, does anyone in pharma have ambitions to find a drug? It's an old cliche but the having the desire to be a director should automatically rule you out from being one. Yes, there are many people who are called Scientists who simply have a pHd and are about as far removed from being real scientists as Kim Kardashian is from being a nun but they still have an infinitely better chance of contributing something positive to the pipeline than any director. Keep the managers for biscuit factories and let science manage itself. Drugs have never come from managers. Always a bit disturbing to hear bloated and rabid personal ambition in the absence of true substance. Always considered it a borderline mental health issue.

If you can not move from Senior scientist to Director then in Academic world you can not move from tenure track to tenured job. Not getting a tenure is even worst of getting laid off in pharma. In pharma you can still argue that top guys changed the plan. In academia you have no excuse and you end up no where as your experience in failing to get tenure is not counted. Your experience in Industry is still 'something'.

I am sure people who are whining about politics and criticizing directors in Pharma, would have been busy in criticizing grants and tenure politics if they have been in Academia, because this their nature and attitude. ....... if you think you would have stayed at MRC and be in a 'tenured' type permanent position by now, then you have the potential to become Director in Pharma too.

Why not to go back to MRC ??? How many years you have been Senior Scientist. What stops you from becoming Director. All Directors have started as senior scientists.

No. He didn't. You obviously met him. Or at least know of his type. Martin believed that directors and above were essential and untouchable. They were the continuity that was the driving force of productivity (seriously, he once used that actual phrase while at Sandwich). In his eyes, senior scientists were nothing more than levers to push and pull. The two worst career decisions I ever made were (a) to leave the MRC and join Pfizer (b) to subsequently accept promotion to Senior Scientist. The move took me away from the important and essential nitty-gritty of science while the promotion was the first step into a land of bullshit, lies, manipulation and Powerpoint. I'm nothing more than a salary whore and the likes of McKay knew that. And I'll continue to be one until the next big patent expiry and I'm shown the door with thousands of others.

No. He didn't. You obviously met him. Or at least know of his type. Martin believed that directors and above were essential and untouchable. They were the continuity that was the driving force of productivity (seriously, he once used that actual phrase while at Sandwich). In his eyes, senior scientists were nothing more than levers to push and pull. The two worst career decisions I ever made were (a) to leave the MRC and join Pfizer (b) to subsequently accept promotion to Senior Scientist. The move took me away from the important and essential nitty-gritty of science while the promotion was the first step into a land of bullshit, lies, manipulation and Powerpoint. I'm nothing more than a salary whore and the likes of McKay knew that. And I'll continue to be one until the next big patent expiry and I'm shown the door with thousands of others.

......and I bet Mckay didn't feel it necessary to have himself on a short-term contract

"When Martin McKay was at Pfizer he produced a strong argument to have all of R&D staff on contracts. People tend to be more focussed when their future mortgage payments depend on it. I cant believe i'm saying this but perhaps he was right."

but companies have to be competitive. If you only off short-term contracts you'll only get/keep people who can't find a job elsewhere. Would only work if all companies did this simultaneously and only last as long as it took for one to break ranks.

but that is the issue. In industry, the move up to senior scientist is not one related in anyway to the science. A senior scientist in industry does not sit in his office with scribbled structures on a whiteboard, PubMed purring in the background and a two foot tall pile of papers. The industry remit for a senior scientist is very simple.....
1. Ensure that biology is to blame when a project fails. If you work in medicinal chemistry then the converse is true.
2. Ensure that all staff appraisals are completed on a time on a six-monthly cycle
3. Ensure one does not ask awkward questions of higher management, HR or the validity of other projects. This way madness lies and your project resources are likely to be rapidly re-assigned.
4. in the current environment, establish ways you and your team can do significantly more with significantly less. Write a report on this for your director.
5. meet with chemistry, DMPK, Biology counterparts to establish ingenious solutions to problems that should never have existed in the first place. Most of these will be political.
6. accumulate all data from your hard-pressed bench scientists and technicians and massage the living daylights out of it, with not a moments concern for the scientific integrity you once possessed.
7. Think of new false measures of productivity that you can use to justify your excessive salary.

The only way we can get the industry back on track is by terminating the policy of promoting people simply be cause they think they deserve it or because they have been there for a number of years. And we don't need more scientists at managerial level. What we need is less management, period. When Martin McKay was at Pfizer he produced a strong argument to have all of R&D staff on contracts. People tend to be more focussed when their future mortgage payments depend on it. I cant believe i'm saying this but perhaps he was right.

Why you all guys did not go to Academia if you hate culture in industry so much ??????????????????????????????????????????????

My day as a Former Pfizer scientist. Change resume, call graduate colleagues to network, search Indeed, look at C&E news, go to Chili's to work the shift. Pretty much the same as an out of work actor.

dear friend do not get confused in loving science and loving pipetting. a scientist always wants to scale up his question and only a loser will stay at bench for 22 years working on one tiny 'problem' for years. Being from academia i have seen most of the guys who are very smart well recognized but they dont work on bench. They have a lab and people to work and get trained in their labs.

Talk to some big ideas people in Neuroscience for example. it is a multidisciplinary field. You can not lead a cool project if you do not have power and money to run a lab that has specialists in 4-5 different fields. Try to understand that not all but some want to move up the ladder because they want to do bigger things. again NOT ALL but do not paint all with your brush.

The problem actually is opposite. There is a glut of people who are good at bench but very few on higher levels who can sit inside their office and come up with ideas. Having said all that.....Pipelines are dry also because low hanging fruits are gone. Think about the level of challenges scientifically - what an antibiotic was supposed to do and what a neuro-psychotic drug is supposed to do. And if you understand conceptual science (beyond your bench science), you should be able to appreciate the challenge.

if you want to understand why the industry is in such a mess, look no further than those who are obsessed with moving up the ladder. Just once, it would be nice to work with someone who was equally obsessed with the science and motivated to make a positive contribution to healthcare. Instead, what we have ended up with is an industry malignant with self-obsessed, egotistical and science-weak Forest Gumps who want to know about promotion before they are even offered a job. Far too many of these scientific-also-rans were employed and far too many got promoted to positions of influence based on standard industry false measures of productivity. I have had 22 years in the industry and worked with thousands of people that HR call scientists. I have only worked with two who would be recognised outwith the industry as real scientists. And I have never seen any true scientist get promotion to managerial level. But then again, after over 100,000 redundancies and dry pipelines throughout big pharma, its obviously a model that works.

if you want to understand why the industry is in such a mess, look no further than those who are obsessed with moving up the ladder. Just once, it would be nice to work with someone who was equally obsessed with the science and motivated to make a positive contribution to healthcare. Instead, what we have ended up with is an industry malignant with self-obsessed, egotistical and science-weak Forest Gumps who want to know about promotion before they are even offered a job. Far too many of these scientific-also-rans were employed and far too many got promoted to positions of influence based on standard industry false measures of productivity. I have had 22 years in the industry and worked with thousands of people that HR call scientists. I have only worked with two who would be recognised outwith the industry as real scientists. And I have never seen any true scientist get promotion to managerial level. But then again, after over 100,000 redundancies and dry pipelines throughout big pharma, its obviously a model that works.

"This sucks. Usually industry hires PhDs as senior scientist and next step is principal scientist. So you are STUCK just after ONLY ONE promotion??????????? You join as senior scientist at the age of say around 35. Then you get one promotion and then retire (if not laid off) ???????"

yes, that's the reality. It's a pyramid, not everyone can move up - most don't.

110K for principal ? dont you think you are underpaid?

This sucks. Usually industry hires PhDs as senior scientist and next step is principal scientist. So you are STUCK just after ONLY ONE promotion??????????? You join as senior scientist at the age of say around 35. Then you get one promotion and then retire (if not laid off) ???????

Advancing beyond Principal Scientist in big Pharma has a lot to do with politics. You need to become one of the guys or gals.

I am joining big pharma R&D as a principal scientist (with three direct reports). I am coming from Academia. May i request some guidance from a senior (who can mentor a junior without sarcasm), the basic rules to progress the ladder. I am not afraid of hard work and I dont have ego problems. Just want to have insight what else other than hard work may help me to rise faster.
Thanks in advance.

Advancing beyond Principal Scientist in big Pharma has a lot to do with politics. You need to become one of the guys or gals.

You insult your own self with such replies...

Bob, that you?

Thanks you are one of those rare sensible people, anyone would like to have around. Thanks for your response. They first contacted me for senior scientist position. at the time of offer i asked for higher position and they made it to principal scientist. 110k p.a.

advancing beyond principal scientist will be dependent largely on a vacancy to advance to at a higher level. You're getting quite high up the pyramid at principal scientist level - many good, hard working scientists don't make that level at all so in reality you shouldn't be surprised if it's a career level. You're best chance to move further up would be to move to another company at a higher level after 3 -5yrs.

Fart
Scratch nuts
Drink Coffee
Strategy meeting (aka big lunch from CRO rep)
Fart (a lot)
Scratch nuts
Go home at 3:30

Repeat for many many years.
------

You insult your own self with such replies...

Fart
Scratch nuts
Drink Coffee
Strategy meeting (aka big lunch from CRO rep)
Fart (a lot)
Scratch nuts
Go home at 3:30

Repeat for many many years.

Best get a move on sally, theres another 1/2m of mother plate compounds to shuffle around on this rusty tin can. sealers not working again, so get them in that cold room as soon as they hit the rack.

Get them in, get them through, get them sealed and get them whacked in that cold room.... no overtime, so dont sit around talking. Summer hours starting this week. Youll be gone sooner than you think.

Did people forget to mention crying in the toilets and staring at shattered dreams? Flashbacks of open university bucket science, with trolleys of milliQ wheeling nice and steady down the corridor. Dont spill that... Milliq broke. Take you all afternoon to refill those.

"I am joining big pharma R&D as a principal scientist (with three direct reports). I am coming from Academia. May i request some guidance from a senior (who can mentor a junior without sarcasm), the basic rules to progress the ladder. I am not afraid of hard work and I dont have ego problems. Just want to have insight what else other than hard work may help me to rise faster.
Thanks in advance."

advancing beyond principal scientist will be dependent largely on a vacancy to advance to at a higher level. You're getting quite high up the pyramid at principal scientist level - many good, hard working scientists don't make that level at all so in reality you shouldn't be surprised if it's a career level. You're best chance to move further up would be to move to another company at a higher level after 3 -5yrs.

"f you have two direct reports, are you still expected to be seen working on the bench. Managing two direct reports and doing experiments sounds impossible"

If you can't work at the bench and manage 2 direct reports at the same time then you are one of those typical Pharma people who just sits in meetings all day, pontificates and does absolutely nothing. You are waste of good money.

I am joining big pharma R&D as a principal scientist (with three direct reports). I am coming from Academia. May i request some guidance from a senior (who can mentor a junior without sarcasm), the basic rules to progress the ladder. I am not afraid of hard work and I dont have ego problems. Just want to have insight what else other than hard work may help me to rise faster.
Thanks in advance.

of course!
if you have between 6 -8 reports you wouldn't necessarily be expected to be in the lab (although some do), but with 2 then you'd definitely be expected to be in the lab. The pharma I worked in didn't have the situation where someone only had 2 reports.

No I am serious. WIth two direct reports do you still work on bench ???

"f you have two direct reports, are you still expected to be seen working on the bench. Managing two direct reports and doing experiments sounds impossible"

you are joking?

if you have two direct reports, are you still expected to be seen working on the bench. Managing two direct reports and doing experiments sounds impossible.

work your butt off to become director as soon as possible, once you reach at Director rank. You are very VERY safe...

This is the truest statement on this thread. It happened to me and many other colleagues I worked with a a large Pharma company. If you approaching 50, have a PhD and still a bench Scientist your are too expensive to keep and are toast.

This also applies to non PhDs who have hit the top of their final pay grade.

One highly skilled and productive bench worker was told by his director " we can employ two contractors for the same money as you're getting"
The company policy was "Respect for People"

Also, plan ahead. As a scientist in industry once you hit 45 or so you can expect to be "managed out" or simply laid off at the next and inevitable round of reorganization. There's a lot of denial about this but as an R&D scientist you are considered labor, just like the guy that stacks crates in the warehouse. Granted you are more skilled but at the end of the day if you set foot in the lab you're just a fungible expense. You're going to need a transition plan for this point in your career.

____________________________________________________

This is the truest statement on this thread. It happened to me and many other colleagues I worked with a a large Pharma company. If you approaching 50, have a PhD and still a bench Scientist your are too expensive to keep and are toast.

you are just a worker. no office no direct reports. just like a postdoc

Novartis on the contrary hiring more scientists firing more marketing people.

"At Pfizer and J&J, most employees spend the day shopping online, looking for jobs, or posting to the Rumor Mill. "

Sounds like my job! I keep hoping they'll fire me but no such luck. At least Pfizer has no problem doing that!

At Pfizer and J&J, most employees spend the day shopping online, looking for jobs, or posting to the Rumor Mill.

Most.

Tell them you've always had 6 weeks' vacation and you're not going to change that now - for them and their stupid, vapid little job.

Family comes first, always.

Be sure to let them know you need 2 hours off during the day to pick up kids. Also, mention that you're Mormon and that you're planning on having 10 little love munchkins because God told you in a dream.

"I have an offer. I am looking for information for negotiation. is 140K reasonable ?"

No, that's way WAY too low! I would tell them $175k/year minimum!

"So if you are PhD with some descent postdoc, you will not have a problem to get a job."

Yes, son, you'll be fighting off great jobs with a shitty stick.

Try to keep all those $200k/yr entry-level jobs off your lawn!
It's nearly impossible.
There are tons of them.
Literally. They are weighed out in tons!

(You really don't know how to spell 'decent'? Really?)

I also have a job offer of $140,000 for my first position.

As a research technician, I have 6 years' experience managing PI's, Assistant Profs, Post-docs, and lab managers.

LMFAO at this stupid PhD idiot.

I am astounded by the illiteracy of some PhD students who are posting on this board. I cannot conceive of employing somebody who cannot properly express themselves or make themselves clear to their subordinates. As for being able to lead a research team, I have never yet found anybody who does this effectively when they have not,themselves, served a substantial apprenticeship at the bench. I'm afraid that the possession of a PhD means little any more. I prefer candidates who have significant practical experience and are prepared to graft.

Yeah. You can expect a salary of $0 because, without prior industry experience, you have a zero percent chance of getting a job in industry these days. Stay where you are and be happy you have a job.
-----
I have an offer. I am looking for information for negotiation. is 140K reasonable ?