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!