Now Ye're Talking - to a Research Scientist

Boards.ie: Niamh

Our AMA this week is with a research scientist who specialises in biochemistry and has a knowledge of drug discovery, the dairy industry, vaccines and big pharma. Topics you could potentially ask about:

- how to become a research scientist
- the typical day/week/month
- the publication process
- the benefits and downfalls
- the stigma attached to academia
- research ethics
- research procedures
- realistic timelines
- grant applications (undergrad, postgrad, postdoc)
- science in the media

This is not an exhaustive list so if you have any other questions, ask those too

Our research scientist won't be online to answer questions until later this evening, just FYI.

Inquitus

Product timescale on a successful drug from POC in a lab to on the shelves in a pharmacy, and approx costs of the same please? Thanks for the AMA.

Any comments on big pharma pushing opoids heavily in America, and the current related health crisis they have over there?

Noddyholder

Hi, with all the drugs out there for us humans from tablets to vaccines to keep us well & going for everything, Are we in danger of actually making our body's less defensive against illness or are we getting more stronger.



Hope I worded it right.

gar32

Hello

Could you explain the roll of Aluminum in vaccines and the way it helps trigger a response please?

Thanks

Conchir

What are your thoughts on Sci-Hub? It's the Russian website that made millions of journal articles available for free, getting around the really expensive paywalls on websites like Elsevier and ScienceDirect.

Good thing or bad thing? Or somewhere in between?

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Inquitus wrote: »

Product timescale on a successful drug from POC in a lab to on the shelves in a pharmacy, and approx costs of the same please?

This is a general timeline:



And an overview of the process:
https://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Approvals/Drugs/default.htm

In terms of general timelines, the "clinical" phase is at least 4 years, factoring in lab studies, screening and follow up... it easily stretches to the 8 years plus.

Costs... hundreds of thousands if not millions. Fundamental research costs money, and then there's the patent application, the pre-clinical studies and the selling of the idea to the companies. Only ~1% of drugs that are discovered go on to make it to the market. So the costs of drugs that fail need to be absorbed by the costs of the drugs that do make it to the market.

Thanks for the AMA.

No problem.

Any comments on big pharma pushing opoids heavily in America, and the current related health crisis they have over there?

Not up to date on that one unfortunately. Have you a link to a story with some background?

Pharma in America is different to pharma here though. In America, drugs are advertised in mainstream media. I mean watch any TV show in the states and during the ad break you've diagnosed yourself with fibromyalgia and erectile dysfunction and you're off to the clinic for a script of whatever tablet your brain has convinced you that you need. I've heard stories of middle aged women complaining about their prostates...

America is also an odd place in that there are incentives for doctors to prescribe medication. So that is likely going to lead to higher prescribing rates.

Noddyholder wrote: »

Hi, with all the drugs out there for us humans from tablets to vaccines to keep us well & going for everything, Are we in danger of actually making our body's less defensive against illness or are we getting more stronger.

Hope I worded it right.

Short answer: no, we're not making our bodies less defensive by most tablets and vaccines.

But antibiotic resistance is a major threat. The trend of prescribing antibiotics for a cold or a flu, and people taking antibiotics incorrectly (not finishing the course) is probably the current biggest threat to public health. MRSA is not a myth. It very much exists. And the list of bugs that are developing resistance to antibiotics is growing.

Thankfully science is making strides in new drug discovery, however it is unlikely that it will catch up in time. See the above link on timelines for drug development - if there's an outbreak of a highly contagious resistant bacteria, it could infect the population before a drug could make it to the market.

We are also making our bodies less defensive by trying to live in a clean environment. We're more likely to develop a natural immunity to bugs by having limited exposures to them. We need a little bit of dirt in our lives and the soaps that kill 99.9% of all bacteria can't differentiate between good bugs and bad bugs.

In terms of other medications - heart, head, joints, everything in between - nah. As a generation we're surviving longer than our ancestors and that's due to advances in medical sciences.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Wow, very science heavy questions, I had been hoping for more of a light hearted discussion on life as / my experiences as a research scientist rather than the specifics of any particular field, however I will try to answer questions to the best of my ability.

gar32 wrote: »

Hello

Could you explain the roll of Aluminum in vaccines and the way it helps trigger a response please?

Thanks

Good question.

Aluminium is a thing called an adjuvant. An adjuvant initiates an immune response through signalling pathways within immune cells. It heightens the bodies own immune response, leading the a better response of the specific cell subtypes. It's a synergistic effect.

Adjuvants help to trick the immune system into recognising a pathogen, allowing for a greater immune response to a lower level of pathogens. So in the levels of pathogen that you would be exposed to in illness, the immune response would go into overdrive in response, however in the presence of aluminium, a much lower amount of the pathogens are required as the aluminium activates the cells to trigger the required response and then the specific antibodies are over produced in response to the pathogen.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Conchir wrote: »

What are your thoughts on Sci-Hub? It's the Russian website that made millions of journal articles available for free, getting around the really expensive paywalls on websites like Elsevier and ScienceDirect.

Good thing or bad thing? Or somewhere in between?

I don't want to incriminate myself but I have telegram installed on every possible platform

In my opinion, a very, very good thing. Papers are so ridiculously expensive to access. I'm all for open access publishing. I'm lucky in that I have always worked in facilities that have good access/subscriptions to journals, but it was a major stumbling block to some of my research previously when I couldn't access certain papers.

There is probably some middle ground though that would benefit all involved. What that is, I'm not sure, but there does need to be a change.

Conchir

Was your undergrad in the field you work in now?

What are some of the other areas your classmates from undergrad got into?

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Conchir wrote: »

Was your undergrad in the field you work in now?

What are some of the other areas your classmates from undergrad got into?

My undergrad was in biotechnology, but I specialised in biochemical engineering. My PhD was in biochemistry. My current field is working as a biochemist but in an immunology setting.

Other classmates have gone on to the following range of work:
- 2 did PhDs in cell biology: one now a postdoc, one is now a ski instructor
- One did PhD in environmental science
- A few work in chemical engineering companies in Australia
- A few work in bio pharma companies here
- One works in QA for a biopharma in New York
- One went on to do graduate medicine and is now a surgeon
- One is an air hostess

A bit of a variety!

miamee

What is your trpical day like, do you have projects mapped out for months in advance or is it a week by week kind of thing?

I see something about publishing in the OP, are you expected to publish your findings or other types of papers during the year or is this on a project by project basis? Do you get to decide what you are researching or is this something that your company/department map out for you?

Scarinae

I wasn’t sure if you work in academia or in industry, but if it is academia – do you have to work on short contracts, and spend a lot of time filling out grant applications? Anyone I know who works in academia seems to be on contracts of a couple of years at a time and there is so much pressure to publish in journals with a high impact factor, which I think causes a lot of people to move into industry or other areas for more stability and better money – I’d love to hear your take on this

challengemaster

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA wrote: »

Costs... hundreds of thousands if not millions. Fundamental research costs money, and then there's the patent application, the pre-clinical studies and the selling of the idea to the companies.

Sorry but I'm going to have to chime in here as you're wayyyy out of the ballpark on this one. The most recent estimate for the average cost to develop and gain marketing approval for a new drug is $2.87 billion. The initial drug discovery without every going near phase 1 clinical trials would reach the hundreds of thousands/millions mark, by the time you have enough data to satisfy regulatory bodies.

http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/tufts_csdd_rd_cost_study_now_published

Agent Smith

Do you have a bedside locker?

Whats in your bedside locker?



More Serious Q.

What do you believe will be the major Breakthrew or discovery of this Decade? 2010 - 2020

One eyed Jack

I'm loving this AMA already

Do you have a dress code in work or are you allowed wear whatever you like?

Where do you stand on cloning* humans for spares and repairs?



*predictive text put in cooking humans, could've been an awkward question :pac:

RedXIV

Has anyone gone anti-vaccine on you when you tell them what you do?

Do you have to wear the white coat and goggles everywhere?

mickmac76

Hi, this is a good AMA. I wanted to ask your opinion on the government funding of scientific research.

Do you think they put in enough money, it seems rather low by international standards.
What do you think of the way all the money seems to go to applied research with very little going on pure science.
Is too much spent on medical research at the expense of other fields.
Apart from money what changes can the government make to improve research in this country.
It seems every year the government bodies are trying to get more students into STEM at third level. But are we really short of researchers or does the government just want cheap labour for the multinationals.

Thanks for doing the AMA.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

miamee wrote: »

What is your trpical day like, do you have projects mapped out for months in advance or is it a week by week kind of thing?

There's no such thing as a typical day unfortunately! There are standard things that happen over the course of a week - different meetings to attend, teaching, tutorials, writing - and everything else kinda fits in around that. For example, this week we are hosting 4 transition year students in the lab from 10 until 4, and while a certain amount of work can be done with them there, experiments and work needs to be spread around them. This week there is also a conference I would like to attend some sessions of.

Projects have a timeframe and experiments are planned based on that. There will be a set number of aims in a project and a projected timeline for completion. So in that sense, yes, projects are mapped out. But there are so many variables that those timelines are not set in stone.

For example, most people in our lab require cells to do their experiments, and they can be in short supply or get infected or die. This impacts on things greatly!

But in saying that, it's a flexible enough work environment. No set working hours as such, but that also means that weekends are expected if experiments call for it. During my PhD I had a period of almost 7 months where I was in the lab every day. Not all day every day but every day.

I see something about publishing in the OP, are you expected to publish your findings or other types of papers during the year or is this on a project by project basis? Do you get to decide what you are researching or is this something that your company/department map out for you?

The general consensus in academia is "publish or perish". Publications are how people gauge you as a scientist. At the beginning of your research it's quantity over quality, but as you progress you aim for quality. You're also expected to present at conferences, either talks or posters.

In terms of topics... it depends on who brings the money! Many projects are written by the principle investigator, in which case it ends up being their interests, however there are ways to secure your own funding as you progress, in which case you write the grant application so you have more of a say.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Scarinae wrote: »

I wasn’t sure if you work in academia or in industry, but if it is academia – do you have to work on short contracts, and spend a lot of time filling out grant applications? Anyone I know who works in academia seems to be on contracts of a couple of years at a time and there is so much pressure to publish in journals with a high impact factor, which I think causes a lot of people to move into industry or other areas for more stability and better money – I’d love to hear your take on this

Academia. It's a mix of short term contracts and longer ones. You'll rarely get anything longer than 2-3 years, and 1 year contracts are fairly common. In the past 18 months I've had three separate contracts!

Grant applications take forever. Months in some cases, and they only have a ~15% success rate. Then you also have to apply for funding for travel grants or equipment grants too. A lot of work time is spent writing, between grants and papers.

About 50% of PhD graduates immediately leave academia. Of those that stay, only about 10% of them get permanent jobs in academia. The pay is also poor. So many jump ship to industry or other areas.

Without getting into specifics, there was a job advertised recently enough. It was a 5 year contract. You needed a PhD and 3-5 years postdoc. You needed a good publication record in high impact journals. It wasn't a requirement but candidates who had secured their own funding were preferred. So you'd be taking on more roles and responsibilities, and taking on students. I don't know a single postdoc who would qualify to apply that wouldn't need to take a significant pay cut to take the position.

Looking at jobs in industry, I could earn a hell of a lot more and have a lot less responsibilities and stress. It's hard to resist that draw.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

challengemaster wrote: »

Sorry but I'm going to have to chime in here as you're wayyyy out of the ballpark on this one. The most recent estimate for the average cost to develop and gain marketing approval for a new drug is $2.87 billion. The initial drug discovery without every going near phase 1 clinical trials would reach the hundreds of thousands/millions mark, by the time you have enough data to satisfy regulatory bodies.

http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/tufts_csdd_rd_cost_study_now_published

Whoops!! Yeah, figured I wouldn't get that figure right. My estimate was 1 billion in my head. Maybe I meant thousands of millions

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Agent Smith wrote: »

Do you have a bedside locker?

Whats in your bedside locker?

Nope. A little shelving unit.

Radio. Chargers. A bottle of water. Medicines. A book. Fairly standard things I think.

More Serious Q.

What do you believe will be the major Breakthrew or discovery of this Decade? 2010 - 2020

From a general point of view, NASA/space stuff is fascinating. Some of their human based experiments in space are fascinating and are teaching everyone so much. Plus the discovery of other planets and solar systems... that's massive.

In medical terms... I suppose the emergence of some of the new targeted therapies and biologics, allowing for a more tailored approach to treating illnesses (such as immunotherapy for cancers).

The biggest problem though is antibiotic resistance. We really need a new strategy for that.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm loving this AMA already

Do you have a dress code in work or are you allowed wear whatever you like?

Where do you stand on cloning* humans for spares and repairs?



*predictive text put in cooking humans, could've been an awkward question :pac:

Dress code is fairly relaxed. There's a minimum requirement - no shorts, open toe shoes, tights, bare legs etc etc for safety reasons. We tend to wear jeans/dress and leggings and boots or runners day to day.

Weekends are fair game - tracksuits accepted!

And for conferences etc it's just neat/grown up clothes.

I'm pro-cloning/stem cell research. There are some really interesting studies on regenerative medicine using stem cells, which could have major implications in how we do things like transplants. Heart valves grown outside the body using your own cells and then plumbed into the heart...

Not a fan of cooking humans. The arm around the elbow area taste a bit funny.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

RedXIV wrote: »

Has anyone gone anti-vaccine on you when you tell them what you do?

Do you have to wear the white coat and goggles everywhere?

Yes. Anti-vaccine. Anti-medication. Corrupt pharma. Evolution deniers. Animal rights activists. We get them all.

Lab coats and goggles are a bit of a contentious issue The general PPE is gloves, goggles and a coat, however unless you're working with something likely to splash your eye, goggles tend to not be worn. Tend to just wear the lab coat in the lab or whilst doing experiments. I frequently see students wearing them into the bathroom, which is gross. Not only is it unhygenic for your experiment, but you're going to get those nasty chemicals and bugs into your hoo-ha. No thank you.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

mickmac76 wrote: »

Hi, this is a good AMA. I wanted to ask your opinion on the government funding of scientific research.

Do you think they put in enough money, it seems rather low by international standards.

What do you think of the way all the money seems to go to applied research with very little going on pure science.

Is too much spent on medical research at the expense of other fields.

Apart from money what changes can the government make to improve research in this country.
It seems every year the government bodies are trying to get more students into STEM at third level. But are we really short of researchers or does the government just want cheap labour for the multinationals.

Thanks for doing the AMA.

Nope. Needs more funding. University rankings are based on publications. Publications can't happen without funding. You can't get funding without publications. It's a circular argument, but more funding, or at least more relevent funding is needed.

Too much focus on applied research and research outcomes. Everyone is out to cure something and to make a drug to bring to the market, and lots of grants will only fund you if there is a reasonable expectation of the production of a product and deliverables. We're encouraged to do courses on how to become an entrepreneur and how to set up your own company. But there always needs to be room for pure scientific research.

Is too much spent on medical research at the expense of other fields? As someone who works in the field, no, give us more money :pac: but yes - I think there is too much money needlessly spent on re-inventing the wheel, as such.

Improved use of resources. Improved infrastructure for research. More training/awareness of research as a career. More job security for researchers - lots of money goes to make PhD graduates, but there aren't enough jobs for those graduates when they finish. Research bodies that can compete internationally in terms of research support.

The problem isn't getting students into STEM. It's keeping them in STEM. There's no plan in place for when they finish their degree, if they get as far as to finish their degree. The setup of science degrees needs to change too.

You're welcome

endacl

Where do you stand on cooking humans?

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA wrote: »

Not a fan of cooking humans. The arm around the elbow area taste a bit funny.

endacl wrote: »

Where do you stand on cooking humans?

See above.

gar32

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA wrote: »

Wow, very science heavy questions, I had been hoping for more of a light hearted discussion on life as / my experiences as a research scientist rather than the specifics of any particular field, however I will try to answer questions to the best of my ability.



Good question.

Aluminium is a thing called an adjuvant. An adjuvant initiates an immune response through signalling pathways within immune cells. It heightens the bodies own immune response, leading the a better response of the specific cell subtypes. It's a synergistic effect.

Adjuvants help to trick the immune system into recognising a pathogen, allowing for a greater immune response to a lower level of pathogens. So in the levels of pathogen that you would be exposed to in illness, the immune response would go into overdrive in response, however in the presence of aluminium, a much lower amount of the pathogens are required as the aluminium activates the cells to trigger the required response and then the specific antibodies are over produced in response to the pathogen.

Thank you for you answer.

Would using more Aluminium in a vaccine make it cheaper to produce?

Also would using less of the virus make the vaccine safer?

Gaspode

Which one are you?

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

gar32 wrote: »

Thank you for you answer.

Would using more Aluminium in a vaccine make it cheaper to produce?

Also would using less of the virus make the vaccine safer?

I'm not really sure that this is the place to discuss the science behind vaccines. They're pretty complex. There's no one simple answer. The concept of the thread was to answer questions about what my job entails and my experiences rather than a scientific discussion about various components of vaccines. I'm guessing by your line of questioning that you're sceptical about vaccines - your choice - but this isn't the place, IMO, to discuss this.

I will happily discuss how we carry out/design our research if that helps - as that applies to all types of lab based research rather than one specific area.

I'm also not qualified to discuss the safety of viral loads - that's decided on by the FDA. As a scientist I can suggest doses of vaccines that may be efficacious.

And I have no idea about the costings of vaccines beyond how much it costs me to buy in reagents for the lab. Unless you mean is aluminium used as a bulking agent to make it cheaper, in which case no. If they want to increase the bulk of a vaccine without adding any cost or any change in its efficacy they simply add in a little bit of dihydrogen monoxide.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Gaspode wrote: »

Which one are you?

I'm offended that you felt the need to ask that question

Anyone who deviates from the type on the right needs psychiatric evaluation.






:pac:

Gaspode

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA wrote: »

I'm offended that you felt the need to ask that question

Anyone who deviates from the type on the right needs psychiatric evaluation.


:pac:

Phew!

Scarinae

Thanks for doing this AMA, it is really interesting to read!

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA wrote: »

Academia. It's a mix of short term contracts and longer ones. You'll rarely get anything longer than 2-3 years, and 1 year contracts are fairly common. In the past 18 months I've had three separate contracts!

Does this have a big impact impact on planning stuff in your life, from large things like mortgage applications to smaller things like planning holidays? I'd also be interested to know what the competition is like for these contracts - do you ever worry that you won't find another one when your current one is up?

I've heard a lot about trying to encourage more women into STEM fields, but it seems to me like the problem is more about keeping them there. Do you have any opinions on this? (again I'm not sure if you're male or female!)

What is the most prestigious journal that you have been published in?

mickmac76

Do you think is there much fraud in science generally, how about your own field.

Do the senior researchers get too much credit for the work done by more junior researchers.

Whats the money like in your job. Does it increase at all from one post doc job to the next or do you have to wait for a permenant position for a pay increase.

Gloomtastic!

Have you ever cooked up something a bit naughty?


I know someone who has been so sick, for such a long time, that the amount of tablets she takes on a daily basis has worn away her esophegus. Why hasn't the pharmceutical industry (I'm thinking Chemist shops) developed individual perscriptions in milk shake form?

Conchir

Do you enjoy teaching? Are there any aspects of undergraduate teaching you'd like to change?

xLisaBx

I'm an undergrad in Biomedical Science, due to finish in June 2018 (if I stick it out :pac: ). Just wondering how you got into research? I'd love to do either a MD or PhD straight after finishing, but I'm really not sure, so any ideas would be appreciated

Patty O Furniture

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA wrote: »

Nope. A little shelving unit.

Radio. Chargers. A bottle of water. Medicines. A book. Fairly standard things I think.



From a general point of view, NASA/space stuff is fascinating. Some of their human based experiments in space are fascinating and are teaching everyone so much. Plus the discovery of other planets and solar systems... that's massive.

In medical terms... I suppose the emergence of some of the new targeted therapies and biologics, allowing for a more tailored approach to treating illnesses (such as immunotherapy for cancers).

The biggest problem though is antibiotic resistance. We really need a new strategy for that.

Hi, thanks for taking part in the AMA, i don't know for how long?

Who do you think is leading the way for immunotherapy for cancers, i heard there was some breakthru recently, but i assume it was probably a strain of it, as no doubt there are 100s of different types?

How long do certain patents last for, no doubt big pharma will keep it indefinite?

As i wonder where will this row end with the CF drug v the other costs that will be prevented from staying in hospital

Sugar Free

What's preventing you from going into industry? Love of your current job/fear there might not be something similar or challenging enough?

If you did, what area would you be interested in? Clinical pharmacology, assay development, discovery etc. or something broader like product development?

Do you have any opinion on the push for more TQT waivers and the use of pooled ECG data in drug development?

Any opinion on the Orkambi issue?

diomed

How do you know that what you are working on is not being worked on by others, or if others are working on it how do you know that you have a chance of success before the competitors?

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

xLisaBx wrote: »

I'm an undergrad in Biomedical Science, due to finish in June 2018 (if I stick it out :pac: ). Just wondering how you got into research? I'd love to do either a MD or PhD straight after finishing, but I'm really not sure, so any ideas would be appreciated

Do you mean masters? MD is an entirely different qualification. An MD is a research degree that a medical doctor does after their medical qualification.

As for getting into research, I applied for a PhD position that was advertised in college. But not a huge amount of posts are externally advertised. They are either filled in house by the PI based on students they taught, or through word of mouth.

You're in 3rd year now? Have you completed any lab based internships during your summers? Note I didn't do these. I spent my summers travelling. But over the recent years we've had an increasing number of undergraduate students requesting internships to give their cv a boost. If your uni offers them, no harm in applying.

The next piece of advice I would give is to talk to lecturers whose work interests you, and ask if they think they will have any positions opening in their lab. Also ask if they would be interested in being your mentor if you were to write a grant to secure your own funding.

If you're going the "write your own grant" route, or even before accepting a position, make enquiries about the lecturer and their attitude towards PhD students (how hands on they are).

The other benefit to an internship is that it gives you an idea of lab life. But your fourth year project will do that too, and if your supervisor has funding AND think you'll be a good fit for the lab, they'll likely offer you the position.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Scarinae wrote: »

Thanks for doing this AMA, it is really interesting to read!


Does this have a big impact impact on planning stuff in your life, from large things like mortgage applications to smaller things like planning holidays? I'd also be interested to know what the competition is like for these contracts - do you ever worry that you won't find another one when your current one is up?

I've heard a lot about trying to encourage more women into STEM fields, but it seems to me like the problem is more about keeping them there. Do you have any opinions on this? (again I'm not sure if you're male or female!)

What is the most prestigious journal that you have been published in?

Short term contracts seriously impact your ability to plan. Ultimately the rent needs to be paid, so there's always anxiety when signing a new lease that your 6 month contract that ends before your 9 month lease isn't going to get renewed, and then you're stuck. Mortgages are pretty much out of the question too, depending on circumstances. I'm single, so with only one unstable income, there's no way I can get a mortgage. I do have friends who are co-habiting/married who are on short term contracts and who have mortgages, but they're more "stable" as there are two incomes. It's hard though. Combined with the issue of a housing shortage (very few research jobs outside of the cities) and inability to get a mortgage, it leaves a pretty grim outlook.

On the outside we're professionals, however on our salaries its next to impossible to afford somewhere that's within a reasonable distance to commute to work, that isn't a horrible house, and there's no way you could afford to live alone and save for the day that you might actually get mortgage approval.

As for holidays... it depends. For big holidays/events, we schedule experiments around them. There's a certain degree of flexibility - we know when we want to go on holidays and then work back from there. You can manipulate experiments so that they fit around your life, but that might mean later evenings/weekend work. It's swings and roundabouts really.

There's competition for jobs for sure. However lots of positions aren't really advertised - grants are written with specific people in mind. There tends to be a bit of flexibility/leeway with positions, but if you're moving labs you'll need to put the ground work in if you're an established postdoc. It's quite political! And there's nothing as vicious as academic politics.

--
There's a huge issue when it comes to women in STEM in research. Obviously there's the whole "tick tock" thing, which has a bigger effect on women than men. Typically women finish their PhD when they're 26-28, which is prime baby making time. But gaps on your CV are hard to explain. There's also no maternity benefit available. Many women end up leaving the lab to have children, and they either struggle to get back in, or they never go back. There were incentives by SFI a few years back to get women to apply for grants, but I haven't seen that scheme run again. Choosing between career and family is a bigger issue for women than it is for men (unfortunately, not trying to be a feminist) - simply because they need to leave the workplace to have babies.
--
Depends on what you mean by prestigious :pac:

In terms of impact factor, think the highest of a paper I'm on is 8.3 or something. As first author my highest is 4.5. But that's off the top of my head, I haven't checked in a while and I actually forget where some of my papers have been published

My work has also featured in popular science magazines, newspapers, childrens books and also in TV shows.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Have you ever cooked up something a bit naughty?


I know someone who has been so sick, for such a long time, that the amount of tablets she takes on a daily basis has worn away her esophegus. Why hasn't the pharmceutical industry (I'm thinking Chemist shops) developed individual perscriptions in milk shake form?

It depends on your definition of naughty

Without thinking too hard about it I could get: mdma, ecstacy, ketamine, cannabinoids... because they're used for various reasons in research. They're all really controlled and really regulated, but no cooking needs to be done

The worst I have done... I was doing an experiment that required everything to be food grade (it was for an in vivo study). We had some food grade ethanol left over, so we may have used that for non-work purposes. Oh and we brewed our own beer in the fixed temperature room.

I'd be curious to hear more about the tablets burning through the esophegus. I can nerd it up and answer your question, but I don't want to dazzle you with science :pac:

Basically it depends on the drug. There are lots of different targets for drugs within the body. There are so, so, so many factors to consider, particularly when taking tablets orally. Acid stability. Digestibility stability for pepsin, bile, trypsin, chymotrypsin. pH activity. Target within the intestines. Mechanical stability/shear. There's no "one size fits all" for drugs - which is why some are capsules, some are liquid, some are gel caps, some are powder, some are soluble, some are injected, some go under the tongue.... I could continue. Drug delivery is almost as important as drug discovery.

One relatively well known example: probiotics (we'll leave the debate as to whether they're a drug or not to another forum ). We see everywhere that activia yoghurt contains 9 million lactobacillis bifidus digestivus (or whatever it's called) and all of the assosciated health benefits, but what nobody sees is the "best results seen when two portions are eaten together", because the pH in the stomach is so harsh that the bacteria don't survive. If there are a) more bacteria and b) more protein present, the pH will stay higher for longer, giving the probiotic a better chance of getting to the duodenum.

(I did my PhD on digestion, specifically drug stability during digestion)

One thing she could consider is asking for the medication in suppository form. That can help. It's not pleasant but it's quicker acting and most drugs have a target in the rectal cavity.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Conchir wrote: »

Do you enjoy teaching? Are there any aspects of undergraduate teaching you'd like to change?

I had a massive reply written for this by I had technical issues. Bear with me and I'll re-write later.

But yes I enjoy it and there is lots I would change!

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Sugar Free wrote: »

What's preventing you from going into industry? Love of your current job/fear there might not be something similar or challenging enough?

If you did, what area would you be interested in? Clinical pharmacology, assay development, discovery etc. or something broader like product development?

Do you have any opinion on the push for more TQT waivers and the use of pooled ECG data in drug development?

Any opinion on the Orkambi issue?

It's a combination of things really. I love my job. I enjoy the variety and I enjoy the little sense of freedom. If I have a thought I can try it out in my own time. A friend who works in industry has to fill out a report if an experiment doesn't work. I understand that that's how it has to be, but I think I would find it difficult to adjust to. Also I set myself career goals/targets to reach before I made a call on my future.

If I were to go into industry I would like to have some involvement in the clinical side of things, perhaps in terms of the design of clinical studies and perhaps trial recruitment.

No opinion on tqt waivers, it's not something that I have ever encountered. However a quick read up on it and I can see where the ideas came from. Obviously I can't comment in a professional capacity, but having worked with human subjects in studies the variances are staggering. To try preserve some anonymity I will avoid too much detail, however for certain studies we did there was a massive difference in baseline levels of what we were measuring. Many pre-clinical studies take place under strictly controlled conditions, particularly when they're animal based. Here, everything is controlled. Food. Water. Sleep. Light. Exercise. The risk of environmental causes of anomalies is reduced.

Compare that to the more realistic approach to trials/studies. We're human. That extra cup of coffee that we had could have given us palpitations. We may be under stress. We might be fighting a cold. We might be tired. We might even have done more exercise in the past few days. Or we might have accidentally forgotten we were in a study and gone to the chemist and bought a remedy without checking potential side effects or interactions.

Any number of these things could cause a blip in cardiac monitoring, so I can see the theory behind pooling data.

However I'd need to read more on it to decide my views.

Orkambi. That right there is a can of worms. I think I'll need to have a think about how to word my response on it and read a bit more into it before I commit to answering, sorry! Bit outside of my knowledge.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

Patty O Furniture wrote: »

Hi, thanks for taking part in the AMA, i don't know for how long?

Who do you think is leading the way for immunotherapy for cancers, i heard there was some breakthru recently, but i assume it was probably a strain of it, as no doubt there are 100s of different types?

How long do certain patents last for, no doubt big pharma will keep it indefinite?

As i wonder where will this row end with the CF drug v the other costs that will be prevented from staying in hospital

Immunotherapy for cancer has huge potential to turn cancer into a life limiting condition rather than the current situation we're in. I'm biased in terms of who I think will lead the way, but GSK seem to be making the right noises currently.

Don't understand your second question, sorry!

And see previous response on orkambi!

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

diomed wrote: »

How do you know that what you are working on is not being worked on by others, or if others are working on it how do you know that you have a chance of success before the competitors?

Quite simply, you don't know what your competitors are working on. Yeah you have a fair idea from attending conferences and networking, but you won't know for sure until you read the paper.

dellas1979

Not sure this thread is still alive (but can still post).

I was just wondering, where do you stand on pharma companies making drugs and making money off the "rich".

i.e., drugs are made so that pharma companies make money. So where do your morals stand on this? Or do you think about this? There are many diseases out there not researched as there will be no money to be made.

celica00

Hiya,

i havent read all pages yet so hope this wasnt asked before
1) When would you consider someone being resistant to antibiotics? (what factors).- i.e. person takes antibiotics at least once a year, Eats meat. Or antibiotics simply dont work when taken etc.
2) If a person never takes them or once in every few years,, would they be still more responding to it?
3) are babies born with that resistancy or is it just down to the life-time factors?
4) Does your field/work include testing on animals? 
5) What do you think about natural remedies?

Hope thats ok to ask
Thanks!!

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

dellas1979 wrote: »

Not sure this thread is still alive (but can still post).

I was just wondering, where do you stand on pharma companies making drugs and making money off the "rich".

i.e., drugs are made so that pharma companies make money. So where do your morals stand on this? Or do you think about this? There are many diseases out there not researched as there will be no money to be made.

Disclaimer: This is more of a personal opinion than a view of a research scientist.

Morally, it's a tricky one.

I purposefully avoid looking at how much drugs are marketed for. As mentioned previously, drug discovery/production can run into billions from bench to bedside. If you have what is deemed to be an "orphan illness", not a lot of research will be done on a treatment/cure. It's harsh, but it's not economically viable. Another factor to consider is that if it's a lesser known illness, there won't be enough patients for there to be a meaningful clinical study performed. There is also the risk assosciated with a drug working in the lab but not translating to humans. And the risk/reward aspect of things. And the quality/quantity of life.

If you had a terminal illness but could take a drug that would prolong your life, would you take it? If it was to prolong your life before the end stage of illness took hold, it's a bit of a no-brainer; however if it was to prolong your life when the illness has taken over such that you've no quality of life, would you extend your suffering?

If there was a cure developed for an illness but it cost 1 million euro a year for you to take, could you afford to pay for it? If you couldn't afford to pay, who should pay? The government? That's well and good, but when you look at what 1 million euro could get in terms of treating other illnesses, is it better to treat one person or 20? Would your health insurance cover it? If so, would others premiums rise as a result? And if that happened would less people take on insurance and then put the health system under further pressure?

Millions, if not billions, of funding has gone into researching a treatment for MND. There have been numerous discoveries in the lab in terms of potential therapeutics. Not a single one has had any significant impact on the lives of patients. Should money be moved from researching MND to something else instead? I mean it's clearly not benefitting any MND patients.... (That's not meant to be harsh - it's just an opinion)

There's no right or wrong answer.

And then we come to the statins, the blood pressure medication, the anti-anxiety pills, the anti-depressants - they're still being researched, despite there already being treatment on the market. Should they stop research into these new therapeutics, when they might only reduce side effects for patients? Is it better to spend money reducing side effects, and potentially reducing costs of treating those side effects? Or is it better to research these drugs to market them and be able to make more money from patents, in order to fund more research into other illnesses?

It's more than a simple "making money from the rich" unfortunately.

I'm a Research Scientist, AMA

celica00 wrote: »

Hiya,

i havent read all pages yet so hope this wasnt asked before
1) When would you consider someone being resistant to antibiotics? (what factors).- i.e. person takes antibiotics at least once a year, Eats meat. Or antibiotics simply dont work when taken etc.
2) If a person never takes them or once in every few years,, would they be still more responding to it?
3) are babies born with that resistancy or is it just down to the life-time factors?
4) Does your field/work include testing on animals?
5) What do you think about natural remedies?

Hope thats ok to ask
Thanks!!

This is more of a science question than a question related to life as a research scientist, but I'll answer.

1, 2, 3) Antibiotic resistance relates to the bacteria rather than the individual. The bacteria mutates/evolves to gain resistance to the antibiotic - the person, by and large, doesn't really impact things. Obviously a person with a better immune system will have a better chance at fighting off a bacterial infection, but antibiotic resistance relates to the bacteria.

4) My field - yes. My own work? No. We collaborate with people who will do the animal experiments if required.

5) There is a huge debate on natural remedies. I am of the same opinion as Dara O'Briain - if something is a natural remedy, it becomes a medicine. I think there is a huge risk assosciated with certain natural remedies (eg interactions with conventional medicines such as St Johns Wort) or where people see natural remedies as an alternative solution and end up in a worse situation (such as people trying to cure bacterial meningitis with homeopathic remedies, resulting in the death of their child). If natural remedies work for you - go for it. But be aware that a huge amount of homeopathic/natural remedies are at best, placebo driven.

garancafan

Regarding natural remedies - is snake oil polyunsaturated?