Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Not enough for starting a biotech startup as OP would like to do. Having a PhD means that you've spent years on a certain subject. You cannot just read a book and be up to speed on biomedical research and CRISPR. 2) Having hands-on experience in wet labs is useful and relatively easy to learn. People can learn wet lab skills sufficient to carry out experiments (i.e. pipetting stuff together) in under a year. This…
RE: "Having a PhD means that you've spent years on a certain subject. You cannot just read a book and be up to speed on biomedical research and CRISPR." Isn't that what books are for? To compile, document and share knowledge some people spent years to figure out?
Ask HN: Getting started in biology with a software background
111–120 of 150 posts
Re: Ask HN: Getting started in biology with a software background
#112The other comments are very good, so I'll add things I didn't see mentioned:
* In my opinion, you have to get beyond the wow factor and figure out what you want to work on and why, rather than the how (e.g. CRISPR). I spent half a year researching this and my result was an interest in heart disease [1].
* Credentialism in biology is high, as mentioned. I'm currently in an M.S. in General Biology program. I was able to get my work to shift me to part time (20 hours/week) and I found a non-thesis M.S. program which is geared towards part time professionals (a rare program format) which is perfect for me. However, another comment mentioned biochemistry rather than general biology and there is some merit to that point, although I've appreciated the broader perspective of a general program.
* If you take the Biology credential path of M.S. or PhD, unless you go the Bioinformatics route, you'll likely need to take the GRE Biology specialty test, which was quite difficult for me with almost no biology background. It took me about 6 months to teach myself [2]. I liked the textbook "Campbell Biology" by Urry et al. as well as others, although I find the lack of citations in textbooks really annoying for the way I learn (following rabbit holes).
* Personally, I'm trying to avoid the bioinformatics route because I don't want to just be a tool of some other scientist, but I want to be a scientist myself. This is a hard path and there is some merit to others' comments about joining a biotech startup as a programmer and then transitioning to deeper biology.
* In my networking, I see a lot of people going the other way: from biology to computer/data science. Anecdotally, this seems to be largely due to points others raised: lower salary, a glut of PhDs, slow growth and conservatism of the field due to regulation, etc.
I don't know where I'll end up exactly, but I've thoroughly enjoyed the ride and I think you should scratch your itch if you can. Feel free to email me (email in profile) with questions.
[1] https://github.com/freeradical13/ValueBasedPrioritization/ra...
Re: Ask HN: Getting started in biology with a software background
#113Re: Ask HN: Getting started in biology with a software background
#114I'm curious who all these sarcastic bio "experts" are that are suggesting getting a PhD or hiring one. I'm a former bio major and researcher/scientist that transitioned to software engineering years ago. I've published papers in bio and worked with many PhDs. Many of them were idiots. Being a PhD doesn't mean anything, it's the independent work that you put in yourself (in an academic lab or by yourself) that determi…
Even if you end up managing a lab rather than working in one, you need to develop a sense for how a lab works and what it's like to do an experiment.
Re: Ask HN: Getting started in biology with a software background
#115my background is in biotech and i've worked at a small handful of biotech startups in a scientific capacity. here's my advice: unless you have friends who can set you up with the right VCs and ensure that they will be willing to overlook your lack of experience and IP, don't bother. you're not going to get up to speed working in the lab on your own in any short amount of time. learning the theoretical stuff that you…
Why are Phds so cheap to hire if their skills are so valueable?
Re: Ask HN: Getting started in biology with a software background
#116Right now I know a ridiculous amount of people with bio phds from top tier schools that are trying to make it as data scientists. I don't think there is a bio revolution like the software revolution that is happening quite yet. I know quite a few bio/chem people working in pharma as well. That industry is booming but mostly for the people that own pharmaceutical companies not their employees. There's a reason that mo…
Everyone I knew that had halfway decent programming/math skills ended up leaving eventually. The pay differential for what your skills can bring you in other industries is massive.
There's so many interesting things going on in biotech, but they're always on the horizon and are likely decades from any commercial product (synthetic bio, DNA as data storage, etc). On top of that, no one gets super rich from equity at a start-up unless you are an exec. If you're lucky and pick the right pony when it's under 30 employees and spend a decade there until a massive IPO, you'll at most get a couple 100k's. Employees in biotech are not valuable enough to get big paydays.
Also, you're likely working on products, that if successful, will help people live longer. So when you're already not paid enough to buy the cheapest home in your city, you're at best ensuring those old folks who already have homes will live longer and make your home ownership dream less likely.
Re: Ask HN: Getting started in biology with a software background
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "That's the failure point for most biotech startups -- they dont have a useful application of their tech." This is precisely the failure of every academic ever. We can examine this through the Theil-lens where they're trying to create a narrative of uniqueness where their research applies + revolutionizes everything ( when it does not ). But everyone knows this is not the case. This is the central plague of all aca…
> This is the central plague of all academic research, that its the pursuit of novel understanding before useful application. Uh, not all knowledge is about making products. I hope you meant "all academic research" only in context of biotech startups. And applied science is only part of the scientific endeavor, which is to understand the world, regardless of whether that can be monetized.
However a trait which is more readily attributed to academic research ( not creating a profitable product ) is more applicable to academic research than to startups.
Per the Thiel quote (summarized):
The history of academic research is riddled with scientists making no profit.
Re: Ask HN: Getting started in biology with a software background
#118I'm curious who all these sarcastic bio "experts" are that are suggesting getting a PhD or hiring one. I'm a former bio major and researcher/scientist that transitioned to software engineering years ago. I've published papers in bio and worked with many PhDs. Many of them were idiots. Being a PhD doesn't mean anything, it's the independent work that you put in yourself (in an academic lab or by yourself) that determi…
Re: Ask HN: Getting started in biology with a software background
#119I have spent 11 years in molecular biology research. I must warn you about a survivorship bias. All the exciting news you are hearing are the tip of a giant iceberg that rests on the mounts of a most dull and repetitive labor. Here are some realities that nobody tells you: 1. There are only 3 operations done in experimental biology: liquid pipetting, opening/closing tubes and moving tubes between machines. 90% of pro…
I wonder if progress is being made on this front.
Re: Ask HN: Getting started in biology with a software background
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they did say "many of them are idiots", which is similar Similar, yes. But, at least to my mind, there's a pretty big jump from "many" to "most". But maybe that's just me. shrug
Mot really, many still sounds like more than 50%. That's a huge claim