Chemistry as a career

[frosch45]

I have come to the cusp of my life where it is time for me to make some decisions about my future career. I really do love chemistry, its so interesting!

 

I was wondering what field of chemistry I should go into. I have thought of biochemical research, plastics/compositites research, going into the oil industry (I don't know much about this one)....

 

Could anyone recommend a field that they find interesting/there are decent paying jobs for? Its unfortunate that I have to ask this, but I would really like to be able to support a good sized family when I get older (3-4 kids + wife) and I will need a decent salary, especially depending on the cost of living in the area in which I live.

 

I live in the Untied States, and it seems that areas such as New York and California seem to be very large centers of the industry. Could anyone currently working (or formerly working) in the field tell me

 

1) Where you work

2) How you like it there

3) What division of chemical research you are in

4) What degree you earned in your university

5) Another field that you have heard good things about

 

I really appreciate this. Maybe someday I can be as expierenced as many of you are

 

 

edit: Any of you looking at how I spelled the title of my thread will understand why I am not majoring in English . Good thing there's spell check for your thesis though!

[CaptainPanic]

Chemical engineering. That will enable you to design the chemical factories. It does not include as much chemistry, and more things like thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer and kinetics... There are plenty of jobs for chem. engineers.

 

1. Work as a conceptual process designer for sustainable energy (designing chemical factories for products from a sustainable origin (often biomass or waste)) - that means that if somebody gets new results in a lab that are nice, then I step in to do the very first thinking of how a process should be. Usually it won't work, but I give valuable info back to the lab, which enables the lab guys to do important tests which help me again in designing version 2 of the factory. And at the end of a project, we have something that can work (most of the time ) and earn money (half the time )

2. Love it. I make the world cleaner and I even get paid for that! I'm proud to do the work I do. I constantly learn. I work in international teams, and get to visit other companies/universities abroad (in Europe).

3. Chemical engineering, specialized (Masters) in chem. process design

4. First bachelor, then masters, can't be bothered with a PhD (don't want to be on the same topic for 4 years).

5. Mechanical engineering or applied physics - yes, I know I am very biased about engineers - sorry about that

 

Hope that helps.

And btw, the chemical industry is one of the finest examples of the global economy, so broaden that horizon. The world has more big industry than New York and California!

[frosch45]

Thanks, that sounds interesting. I guess you use lots of physics?

 

Anyone else?

[hermanntrude]

I took straight chemistry. It was a lot of fun but captain panic is right. Jobs for straight chemistry graduates are much less common than those for process chemists or chemical engineers

 

Also good is biochemistry. The problem with biochemistry in my opinion is that it's taught by biologists, which means the chemistry is often skipped or wrong or jumbled.

[frosch45]

So if I were to get a PHD in Biochemistry, I would theoretically then go to work for a pharmecutical company researching new drugs?

[CharonY]

Also good is biochemistry. The problem with biochemistry in my opinion is that it's taught by biologists, which means the chemistry is often skipped or wrong or jumbled.

 

Funny, here almost all biochemistry classes are given by chemists, which means the biology is often skipped or wrong or jumbled .

 

But in any case, I have a couple of former colleagues joining the pharmaceutical industry. They majority of them are in R and D and one is in sales. There is however, no clear cut study course that will secure a position. If you are going into organic chemistry but make your PhD in a drug related field you are as likely (or more likely) to get a job as researcher (or rather group leader) as a biochemist doing the analytical stuff. It depends on what the company is doing (whether they are doing drug research, drug delivery, production of generics and so on).

But classically one should have a strong background in analytical chemistry (you can demonstrate this with a proper chemistry, biochemistry or biology background). As a group leader usually (but not always) a PhD is required and then again ideally your work is related to what they are doing (e.g. pharmacokinetics, polymer science or whatever).

 

From what I have heard though, few companies actually are actively recruiting people for the development of completely novel drugs. What is more common is that there is already data on a drug and that they are doing the validation steps. What the group leader would be doing is not to make the whole basic research stuff, but set everything up so that all necessary studies (as defined by the FDA) are fulfilled.

Pure (basic) research positions are comparatively rare (they exist, of course but are much rarer). Often they directly buy a basic idea, from academia for instance, and proceed from there. And many companies are not doing drug development at all but rather focus on improvement of drug delivery, for instance.

[hermanntrude]

PhD's don't come in subjects. each PhD is its own subject. if it was in the field of pharmaceutical chemistry you might get a job like that, although a word of warning: It's often harder to get a job once you've got a PhD, since it's better for the company to pay some monkey who just came out of university peanuts, rather than fork out for the real deal.

[CharonY]

Well, while that is true one has to add that your PhD will be granted from a specific faculty (or grad school whatever it is properly called here). So you would get a PhD in, say, engineering. However this is less limiting as you may believe because if your research subject fits what is needed, than it does not matter where you came from. Also many companies stress that they do not seek the perfect fit in terms of qualifications, but rather someone that can actually fit into their system. Which makes sense as relatively few PhDs later on really are continuing to be in the lab (for the monkey deal reasons mentioned above. Only the academia does actually pay PhDs with peanuts).

[CaptainPanic]

Thanks, that sounds interesting. I guess you use lots of physics?

 

Anyone else?

 

It depends on what you call "physics". Heat and mass transfer, and thermodynamics are physics in a way because there are not necessarily any chemical reactions involved. But you will never see me do the classical physics (calculating forces, friction, acceleration, ballistics... no funny stuff with balls thrown by people at an angle of 45 degrees ).

 

Simple example

A simple example is: you have a kettle, and you need to boil water. How long does it take until the water is hot if you heat it with a gas fire? Then you start determining the power of the gas (combustion, that's chemistry). Then you determine how fast the heat will transfer to the metal of the kettle (that's heat transfer). You take into account that the whole combustion process has all kinds of movement of gases (flow dynamics and mass transfer). You determine the heat transfer from the metal of the kettle into the water. You determine how fast the water heats up.

 

Factory

And then you do that a hundred times, and with different materials than water, include some more fancy reactions than methane combustion, you make sure it is optimized (the least possible energy for the most possible products) and you call it a chemical factory ... eeh... except that you still need to actually build it. (The study allows you also to work in the detailed design, and actual construction of the factory - it's optional for the hands-on people).

Luckily we don't have to do all the calculations by hand anymore. There exist programs that do most of the calculations for us.

 

My studies included some biochemical engineering as well... so I am able to work for example on the design of bio-ethanol factories (second generation, no food will be converted to ethanol in my designs). But a micro-organism is still a bit of a black-box... meaning that I know what goes in and what comes out, and how fast that all happens... but that's it

 

Did that answer the question?

Edited February 5, 2009 by CaptainPanic
turned on the spelling checker and got blinded by red lines

[frosch45]

Yes, that was very informative. I'm leaning right now towards this engineering. Thanks

[CaptainPanic]

Yay

[GDG]

Could anyone recommend a field that they find interesting/there are decent paying jobs for? Its unfortunate that I have to ask this, but I would really like to be able to support a good sized family when I get older (3-4 kids + wife) and I will need a decent salary, especially depending on the cost of living in the area in which I live.

 

I live in the Untied States, and it seems that areas such as New York and California seem to be very large centers of the industry. Could anyone currently working (or formerly working) in the field tell me

 

1) Where you work

2) How you like it there

3) What division of chemical research you are in

4) What degree you earned in your university

5) Another field that you have heard good things about

 

I work in California, in silicon valley, for a pharmaceutical company. I've lived here ~35 years, and hope to stay I took a B.S. in Chemistry (Harvey Mudd College) and an M.A. in Physical Organic at U. Texas Austin, and then a J.D. (law degree). Haven't truly done chemical research since grad school. Instead, I practice patent law. If you have a deep interest in science, and can write well, this is a good field. Also, you don't have to breath as many toxic solvents

 

My practice mainly consists of drafting and prosecuting patent applications, evaluating other companies' patents, and advising our researchers what they can do without infringing somebody else's patent. A patent application is essentially what gets published as a patent once you finish prosecution: "prosecution" is the process of arguing with the patent office until they agree that you deserve a patent. A patent must (required by law) teach how to make and use the invention that is claimed. In order to get the patent issued, you must understand the technology well enough that you can argue with the patent examiner and point out where he or she is wrong (or, alternatively, you have to be able to understand when the examiner is actually right, and you need to change your claims). Thus, patent attorneys are required to have a science background. There is an exam (the "patent bar" or "agent's exam") administered by the US Patent Office that one must pass in order to practice patent law in the US. You have to demonstrate a degree in chemistry, physics, engineering, or biology (with substantial chemistry) in order to qualify to take the exam. (Last I heard, they would also accept certain computer science degrees.) If you pass the patent bar, you becoma a "patent agent." If you also go to law school and pass a state bar (i.e., become a lawyer), you are then a "patent attorney." The main difference is that the patent agent is only licensed to practice before the USPTO, not to go to court. There are currently 9,110 registered agents and 28,477 registered patent attorneys in the US -- the entire country. When you compare that to the fact that there are more than 217,000 lawyers registered to practice law in the state of California alone, the field of patent law is pretty uncrowded.

 

Having gone through the exercise of hiring a new patent attorney a year ago, I can state from experience that there is a need for patent agents/attorneys who have solid chemistry education/experience. The plus side: no sitting up in the lab all night, no toxic chemicals, no explosions, no clothing ruined by acids/bases/thiols, no grant proposals; the opportunity to learn cutting edge science directly from the people on the cutting edge (the inventors), and on the average, it pays better. The down side: no explosions , lots of writing (to be good at this requires the ability to write clearly and persuasively), staying up late to finish that application/amendment/brief; and you won't be the one to make a big discovery (although you will sometimes make an invaluable suggestion to those who do).

 

In the US, some law firms will hire you as a "technical specialist" on the basis of your chemistry PhD, and train you to become a patent agent. Some will also send you to training courses, and some will even support you through law school. It isn't a bad career path

 

Geographically, the best spots for pharma/biotech patent law in the US are: the San Francisco Bay area; San Diego/La Jolla; New Jersey; New York; Research Triangle, NC; and the Boston area. If you're more solid state/chip fab oriented, then your best areas are probably silicon valley (San Jose, CA area), and Texas.

 

As for other careers, I do run into quite a few medicinal chemists: this is the position we mainly hire at my site. A good medicinal chemist not only has strong synthetic organic skills, but also has (or develops) a good feeling for what kind of molecule makes a good drug. You should be able to look at a structure and guess what parts you can change that would possibly improve binding and selectivity, without making the thing toxic or so quickly metabolized that it has no effect.

 

I'm happy to answer other questions.

 

Grant

[jdurg]

Heh. "A Pharmaceutical Company in California". Either that company starts with an A or starts with a P. We may be colleagues.

 

I can't really put any input into the chemistry career, but what I can say is that you don't have to limit yourself to chemistry with your degree. In many cases, it might be difficult to get a job in the direct field that your degree is in, but you can always use the basic concepts that you've learned in chemistry in many other fields. I have my degree in Forensic Chemistry. Getting that degree taught me to never look at anything at face value. To only accept what is there if you can logically prove how it got there. To think logically in the sense that A + B = C, but if you mix A + B and get D that you can understand why it happened. To know what will happen if you remove C from ABCD and how many things that will impact.

 

I am now a Program Data Manager for a large (soon to be biggest) Pharmaceutical company in the world. I am in charge of the data generated for clinical studies on various compounds. While it really has nothing to do with chemistry, everything I learned in my chemistry program helps me day in and day out. I ensure that our databases are collecting the data that we need to run the trial, that the data being submitted by our investigators is logical and truthful, that we collect data in a manner that meets all FDA and various other regulatory agency standards, that our data is delivered in a timely fashion for critical analysis and generation of the ultimate Clinical Study Reports (CSR).

 

The work I do is as far from the lab as it gets, but the experience of working in a lab has helped me numerous times. I work with individuals from all over the world, and when we actually had a budget we could use, I would travel to places all over the world to train our sites on how to fill out our Case Report Forms and what we need them to do when participating in our trials.

 

My pay is quite good, and since I work for a Pharmaceutical Industry, the medical benefits are fantastic. Being in the Development Operations sector, I'm also "somewhat" safe when the company changes drastically what Therapeutic Areas they are researching. (If they move out of one TA, a chemist dedicated to that TA may not have the experience needed to work in other TAs. In my field, no matter what is being researched it must be developed and the way in which we collect data is the same regardless of the TA).

[GDG]

Heh. "A Pharmaceutical Company in California". Either that company starts with an A or starts with a P. We may be colleagues.

 

Nope. Try "R"

[jdurg]

Nope. Try "R"

 

Well, I can think of a few then. One who has a Phase II Diabetes drug in development, and one whose name is similar to that of a famous Valentine's Day flower. I guess with my post I kind of gave away the company I work for.

[Ladeira]

I have the same doubt about careers and I am, as you, really curious about the difference between pure Chemistry and Chemical Engineering. I don't know if Engineering is the right thing for me. I don't know exactly if I really want to work in a factory, I'm still kinda young so I still have many doubts, but I'm sure I'll do something with Chemistry in the future.