Taking the leap: moving from academia to the biotech industry
Bill Brizzard (left; Brizzard Consulting LLC, MO, USA) made the move from academic researcher to biotech industry professional before becoming an independent consultant. In this interview, Brizzard provides insights into this transition, the importance of mentoring and networking and his personal career highlights.
Could you give us an insight into your academic and professional career to date?
I started as an undergraduate studying zoology at Louisiana State University (LA, USA). I then went to graduate school at Florida State University (FL, USA) where I got a PhD in molecular biology. I finished my PhD in 1982, when biotechnology was in its infancy. The first recombinant DNA experiments were happening, showing that it was possible to express foreign proteins in bacteria, for example. After Florida State, I went on to do a couple of postdocs. I was a postdoc at MD Anderson Hospital in Houston (TX, USA) and also at the University of Washington in Seattle (WA, USA) in the microbiology department. I originally thought that I was going to pursue an academic career, at least at the beginning of my graduate career. That was about the only option. There weren’t a lot of alternatives for biologists.
As the biotech industry got started, it began to open up opportunities outside of the traditional academic career. After my postdoc in Seattle, for a short time I was an Assistant Professor at DePaul University in Chicago (IL, USA). From there, I decided to make the transition into industry. In 1989 I took up my first position in industry. I started working at a biotech startup based in New Haven (CT, USA), called International Biotechnologies, which had recently been acquired by the larger Eastman Kodak Company (NY, USA). Kodak’s rationale for the purchase was to find a unit that could help them with marketing their products to research scientists.
I was primarily employed to work on a protein expression system, called the FLAG® System, that Kodak was developing in partnership with Immunex Corporation out of Seattle (WA, USA). The FLAG® System became quite successful commercially, and it was purchased by Sigma-Aldrich Corporation in St. Louis (MO, USA), so I moved to St. Louis in 1998. I worked in R&D before moving into licensing intellectual property and business development.
I have always had a really keen interest in early stage research, and I wanted to get back into the academic environment so that I could become more involved with basic research. I went to Indiana University (IN, USA) to work in their technology commercialization office and ended up staying there for 14 years, eventually becoming the Executive Director of the commercialization office. I continue to have an interest in early stage biotech companies that are about ready to come out of university and move towards commercialization. Now, I consult.
What was that transition from academia to biotech like?
Looking back on it, it wasn’t clear at the time that biotech companies would be commercially successful. I recall one of my professors in graduate school expressing the opinion that he thought they would all go out of business. It seems comical now, but at the time it was risky because it wasn’t at all clear that there was going to be a market for the products that could potentially be created through biotechnology. The space I entered was less risky because we developed products that could be used by researchers, so there was an existing market for that.
The biotech sphere was so new; there were a lot of questions to answer, fears to overcome and regulators to satisfy. There was a lot of concern that something dangerous could be created out of it. We had to come up with rules for the safe handling of recombinant DNA, and we still have those classifications for biohazards that were developed back then.
What was the most challenging aspect of that transition to industry, and what advice could you give to early career scientists who are thinking about making the same move?
A couple of things come to mind. The most challenging aspect for me was that the laboratory research in the commercial environment was applied research as opposed to basic research like in academia. In the university environment, you are really going after the truth and following your research wherever it might lead, and that may very well not have any commercial application. Conversely, in the commercial environment, the research is more applied and you are following a path that’s going to lead to what will hopefully be a successful product, that’s very different. If it’s beginning to look like that product may not work out, then the company will say, “we’re ending this,” and you won’t be able to finish your research. This is because in industry, the companies provide the funding, which does remove the competition for external funding aspect that academic researchers face.
Another aspect is that companies will often need to review any publications before they can be released, so it becomes more challenging to participate in conferences or get your work published because companies want to protect confidential information and intellectual property, and those aren’t primary concerns in the academic environment.
I also found that I had to adjust to the cultural differences between academia and industry. In the academic environment, you are encouraged to look at things critically and offer criticisms if you think the design of an experiment could be improved. For example, if you doubt the results, you are encouraged to voice that and explain why you doubt them, and why you think another theory may be more appropriate.
That doesn’t happen so much in industry. You have to be careful to make sure you’re being seen as a team player, for example. To use a phrase from the political realm, you have to be careful about speaking truth to power. If you are in a program and it looks like the boss’ idea or plan may not be working out, you have to be cautious about voicing that because your boss doesn’t want to look bad. You need to communicate your criticism in a way that’s acceptable. I always found that, if you were going to speak up, you had to find a way of putting it in a very positive light, so it doesn’t reflect negatively on anyone. Interpersonal relations are very important in the commercial environment. Whereas, they are helpful in the academic environment, but not a requirement. In academia, it is more about your research and how successful you can be as a researcher than your ability to get along with your colleagues.
Have mentors been supportive throughout your career and what have you gained from those relationships?
I think mentoring is very important. The success I have had is largely due to mentors, people older or more experienced than I am, being willing to share their insights and help me grow. When I first left academia for industry, academics that I knew at the time were not at all supportive. You were almost seen to be a traitor, like you sold out and were being lured by money to make that transition. I see it differently. I feel like I have had a much greater impact working in product development than I ever would have had as an academic researcher.
The FLAG® System became a successful commercial product; thousands of researchers used it. Mentorship played an important role in that. When I first got into industry, having someone more experienced than I was, who had also made that same transition and was able to keep me from putting my foot in my mouth, was very helpful. Even in academia, folks that were successful would ask questions and seek advice from more experienced people, rather than taking the view that they knew it all.
How important has networking been to your career?
This is probably true for any career, not just science, but I believe that your network – of folks that you meet along the way, folks that are ahead of you along the way and folks that are more experienced in higher positions – is immensely important. The job market has been, and always will be, competitive and having a network of people is very valuable. Throughout my career, it has been rare for me to find a position without having personal contacts at the company. Your network is an important and valuable tool for helping you seek out positions. People who are already working there can give you insights before you decide to take the plunge with a new position, so you can get a sense of what it’s really like on the inside. That’s very helpful.
What is it like being a consultant and what does your average day look like?
This is my first endeavor being out on my own, where I don’t have a full-time position or an employer. It is not something I would recommend in the early stages of a career when you are dependent on having a paycheck, but having already worked for many years, I am in a position financially where I can afford to be out on my own and pick up projects that look interesting to me. It’s an adjustment. I like the interactions that come with having a bunch of colleagues around me so it was a big change to go independent and not have that day-to-day interaction. I do miss that when I’m on my telephone calls and virtual Zoom meetings now.
On the plus side, I have much more freedom to be able to choose when I want to work and what I want to work on. I can pursue what interests me and not have to be beholden to whatever the employer wants or expects me to spend my time on. However, it’s harder because you must find the opportunities yourself. It is very competitive and takes time. Again, networking is so important.
You highlighted the importance of networking; what have you found to be the best way to network?
I like the events where they have dedicated networking opportunities, maybe an hour or two set aside for cocktails; it’s in this sort of environment where you are likely to meet the type of folks that you are potentially interested in working with. For me, that’s probably a more business-related scientific conference. During the pandemic when we could only do virtual meetings, I found it to be almost completely non-productive. Without the opportunity to meet and interact in person, it is just about impossible to generate any kind of lead or opportunity.
What has been the highlight of your career to date?
It was probably that first move to the commercial environment and the protein expression system. We didn’t know if it was going to succeed as a commercial product. Undertaking the applied research to make it successful and continuing to grow it as the uses became more varied was definitely a highlight for me.
That was actually how I first came in contact with BioTechniques. I published an article in BioTechniques many years ago about the FLAG® System that many researchers found very useful. I think this system had a greater impact than the various research projects I worked on in academia. Not that those projects weren’t important, but so many people being touched by a research tool that I worked on was definitely the highlight for me.
Can you tell us about your experience being part of the editorial board for BioTechniques?
That’s going back a few years! I think I joined the editorial board with the original owner and original editor. After submitting some papers to BioTechniques, the editor asked me to begin reviewing, so I became a reviewing editor. That was how I got started. Being a reviewer is very useful; you learn a lot, and it improves your knowledge and skills as a scientist. Additionally, the success of the journal shows just how important technical innovation is in life science research. The importance of sharing ways to make research easier, optimizing existing protocols and using research tools in novel ways is highlighted by this type of journal.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of BioTechniques or Taylor & Francis Group.
