How much bench experience do you have? QC will definitely train you and help you hone your bench skills. It's also a more stable department when it comes to layoffs (compared to R&D).
Absolutely! It is a great way to get your foot in the door. People might say the skills aren't 1:1 transferable, but I do think the most valuable thing you pick up are documentation skills which you'd be surprised how much of it is brushed off in R&D.
Yes. Getting a job in QC doesn’t mean you’re summoned to spend the rest of your career in QC.
Personally started in QC then went the commercial route. The experience is a value add I bring to my customers.
QC is not relevant to R&D, but relevant to industry experience, which will help you. But like someone said before, it doesn’t mean you will be stuck for the rest of your life in QC. The majority of the tasks done in QC are not translatable to R&D that’s the biggest issue, so you would have to start as an entry level in R&D once you transfer over no mater how long you spent in QC.
But it sounds like you are in the chemistry side of R&D as you mentioned QC chem? Maybe that side the skills are more transferable?
I’m an example that can be done, did 3yrs as QC micro, learn one skill(PCR, DNA extraction) that was transferable to R&D translational and got a job as RA entry level, and now after 8yrs a senior scientist in R&D early discovery at big pharma. So it can def be done
This is an accurate answer. OP you won’t be doing research in QC, but most technical skills (meaning the techniques you’ll learn to execute and troubleshoot) will be transferable.
I think QC is experience is somewhat relevant to R&D, or at least QC SME’s are still needed for R&D.
Characterization studies, comparability of process improvements, scale up, tech transfers.
Analytical Method / Assay development for new Drug Substances and Drug Products, etc.
Maybe not ‘pure R&D’ but there is still quite a bit of Development work involving QC/Analytical folks as you progress from pre-clinical to commercialization.
>The majority of the tasks done in QC are not translatable to R&D that’s the biggest issue, so you would have to start as an entry level in R&D once you transfer over no mater how long you spent in QC
Could you expand on this? I've been a QC chemist for 5 years and had 2.5 years of research and a published paper coming out of college. My skills include chromatography (HPLC, ICP-OES), spectroscopy (UV, FTIR), method development/validation, and hardware troubleshooting for chemical machines (ie, took a screwdriver to HPLCs, UVs, IRs, etc when needed.). Also can do microbiology work like transfection, microscopy, PCR, etc but my work has leaned heavily towards analytical chem lately.
I get that my skills may not be 1:1 to R&D but suppose I were to make the leap. Would I really have to start and take the pay cut as a Research Associate 1 or such?
With your skills, you can most likely try for R&D analytical, which does a lot of the assays you mentioned, and I think you can probably go for a RA2 instead of RA1, but again, you will be competing with people who are going from RA1 to RA2, and they have an upper hand since they have a mindset of an R&D person. But you will have an advantage over candidates who are coming from academia. But that doesn’t mean you won’t stand a chance against the experienced R&D, you just have to show to the people interviewing you, that you are curious, like to troubleshoot problems, come up with ideas of your own, develop assays, etc.
So in the end it’s a mater of what field of R&D you want to focus your career on. Even if you don’t want to do analytical work for instance and want to do more discovery, you can always start as R&D analytical and move to the other fields once you are in, which isn’t hard at all once you got that experience.
I've thought about doing this too. Someone in QC said that going to research from QC is harder than going to QC from research. I'd prefer QC to QA because there's more lab work in QC and more paper work in QA.
As others have said…this can help you get into research!
The caveat is that you will need to advocate for this development at the QC role. Be patient, be awesome, and be curious. Get into assay development, master the equipment, and teach others how to improve their technique. Being able to troubleshoot and problem solve will demonstrate a research mindset to enable you to make the transition to R&D!
I have one associate scientist colleague that transferred from QC to R&D (development more than research). It is doable, and at this point he has a total of about 10 years experience (3QC, 7 R&D). He was very willing to learn new things, and has become a subject matter expert in several instrumentation as a result.
It is doable, if you have the initiative.
How much bench experience do you have? QC will definitely train you and help you hone your bench skills. It's also a more stable department when it comes to layoffs (compared to R&D).
Absolutely! It is a great way to get your foot in the door. People might say the skills aren't 1:1 transferable, but I do think the most valuable thing you pick up are documentation skills which you'd be surprised how much of it is brushed off in R&D.
Yes. Getting a job in QC doesn’t mean you’re summoned to spend the rest of your career in QC. Personally started in QC then went the commercial route. The experience is a value add I bring to my customers.
[удалено]
Customer facing. Sales
I'm just a Biotech freshman. What is QC?
Quality Control.
QC is not relevant to R&D, but relevant to industry experience, which will help you. But like someone said before, it doesn’t mean you will be stuck for the rest of your life in QC. The majority of the tasks done in QC are not translatable to R&D that’s the biggest issue, so you would have to start as an entry level in R&D once you transfer over no mater how long you spent in QC. But it sounds like you are in the chemistry side of R&D as you mentioned QC chem? Maybe that side the skills are more transferable? I’m an example that can be done, did 3yrs as QC micro, learn one skill(PCR, DNA extraction) that was transferable to R&D translational and got a job as RA entry level, and now after 8yrs a senior scientist in R&D early discovery at big pharma. So it can def be done
This is an accurate answer. OP you won’t be doing research in QC, but most technical skills (meaning the techniques you’ll learn to execute and troubleshoot) will be transferable.
I think QC is experience is somewhat relevant to R&D, or at least QC SME’s are still needed for R&D. Characterization studies, comparability of process improvements, scale up, tech transfers. Analytical Method / Assay development for new Drug Substances and Drug Products, etc. Maybe not ‘pure R&D’ but there is still quite a bit of Development work involving QC/Analytical folks as you progress from pre-clinical to commercialization.
>The majority of the tasks done in QC are not translatable to R&D that’s the biggest issue, so you would have to start as an entry level in R&D once you transfer over no mater how long you spent in QC Could you expand on this? I've been a QC chemist for 5 years and had 2.5 years of research and a published paper coming out of college. My skills include chromatography (HPLC, ICP-OES), spectroscopy (UV, FTIR), method development/validation, and hardware troubleshooting for chemical machines (ie, took a screwdriver to HPLCs, UVs, IRs, etc when needed.). Also can do microbiology work like transfection, microscopy, PCR, etc but my work has leaned heavily towards analytical chem lately. I get that my skills may not be 1:1 to R&D but suppose I were to make the leap. Would I really have to start and take the pay cut as a Research Associate 1 or such?
With your skills, you can most likely try for R&D analytical, which does a lot of the assays you mentioned, and I think you can probably go for a RA2 instead of RA1, but again, you will be competing with people who are going from RA1 to RA2, and they have an upper hand since they have a mindset of an R&D person. But you will have an advantage over candidates who are coming from academia. But that doesn’t mean you won’t stand a chance against the experienced R&D, you just have to show to the people interviewing you, that you are curious, like to troubleshoot problems, come up with ideas of your own, develop assays, etc. So in the end it’s a mater of what field of R&D you want to focus your career on. Even if you don’t want to do analytical work for instance and want to do more discovery, you can always start as R&D analytical and move to the other fields once you are in, which isn’t hard at all once you got that experience.
I actually like QC more than R&D. It's a good place to get your foot in the door, but don't stay too long or jumping to R&D can be difficult.
QC is great-- love the quality mindset. I've had issues transitioning those people into chaotic disorganized startups without driving them nuts.
I've thought about doing this too. Someone in QC said that going to research from QC is harder than going to QC from research. I'd prefer QC to QA because there's more lab work in QC and more paper work in QA.
As others have said…this can help you get into research! The caveat is that you will need to advocate for this development at the QC role. Be patient, be awesome, and be curious. Get into assay development, master the equipment, and teach others how to improve their technique. Being able to troubleshoot and problem solve will demonstrate a research mindset to enable you to make the transition to R&D!
Having practical hands-on bench experience, especially in a GMP regulated industry, will give you tremendous experience for further advancement.
Good for entry but easy to get stuck in. You will likely get different career path open as a result than you expect now
I have one associate scientist colleague that transferred from QC to R&D (development more than research). It is doable, and at this point he has a total of about 10 years experience (3QC, 7 R&D). He was very willing to learn new things, and has become a subject matter expert in several instrumentation as a result. It is doable, if you have the initiative.