A BioSpace LinkedIn poll showed that just 19% of respondents believe biopharma professionals need Ph.D.s for scientist roles.
It’s a familiar debate: Should scientist roles require Ph.D.s? While biopharma professionals have differing opinions on the subject, a recent BioSpace LinkedIn poll showed people leaning heavily in one direction. Of the 1,848 respondents, 71% said no. Just 19% voted yes, while 11% chose maybe.
Most poll comments leaned in the “no” direction. For example:
- “Considering that I’ve seen brilliant scientific contributors who *don’t* have a Ph.D and I’ve also seen some Ph.D holders who quite often didn’t run properly controlled experiments, I don’t think having a Ph.D means what a lot of people think it means,” shared Alex Birch, a scientist and MBA student.
- “You don’t need a PhD to pursue science,” wrote Tom de Man, head of omics and machine learning at MilliporeSigma. “While a PhD program teaches research skills, these can also be acquired independently or under the guidance of mentors and supervisors who aren’t necessarily academic professors.”
Some commenters highlighted the value of these degrees for scientist roles. For example:
- Matyas Flemr, who has experience working in biomedical research laboratories, noted that Ph.D.s “teach you first and foremost how to deal with and overcome failures and setbacks.”
- Nasir Uddin, Ph.D., a postdoctoral scholar and project lead at The Ohio State University College of Medicine, commented that these degrees teach resilience and a tenacity not to fail.
Ph.D.s are not a must for every scientist role, according to Molly Robb, managing director of LifeSci Search, an executive search firm that’s part of LifeSci Advisors. She told BioSpace that while they lend credibility to scientists diving deep into a particular area of science, for vice presidents and above, they’re just one of several competencies required for leadership and management jobs.
Robb also noted her firm does not see Ph.D.s being required for certain operational or technical support career tracks, such as manufacturing, supply chain, quality, regulatory affairs, clinical development and clinical operations.
“The Ph.D. is best suited for the hard, technical, deep, narrow jobs in industry that are R&D focused—linear track R&D focused—and heavier emphasis on the R, the research versus development, because once you get to development, you’re going to start competing with M.D.s, MBAs, and the Ph.D. becomes less relevant,” she said.
Ph.D.s in Early Career vs. Leadership Roles
When it comes to biopharma professionals just starting their careers, Robb said she’d argue that the reason people get hired into their first jobs is their ability to communicate that they understand the science, even if it’s not in one of the company’s focus areas. She noted that whether the Ph.D. influenced the decision might depend on employer size.
In terms of the entry level, I would say if you really want a safe, comfortable role inside the machine for Big Pharma, having a Ph.D. will do you justice. But in a smaller company, it’s who you know, it’s your ability to sell whatever type of science you’ve done in the past. They see potential to grow and don’t necessarily need that Ph.D. as a prerequisite.
At the senior level, Robb noted that while an organization might want someone to have a Ph.D., a track record of success is most important. If a strong candidate with a master’s can sell and package the story of the science to multiple audiences, has led teams and has had success, Robb said, “that person will win all day long over somebody else who has the Ph.D., but they didn’t interview well.”
Why Companies Shouldn’t Overvalue Ph.D.s
Artur Prejna, a clinical laboratory scientist in microbiology, has also seen that Ph.D.s are not a must for success.
“Though I feel they are a good measure of dedication to an academic field, I have personally known plenty of knowledgeable individuals without degrees or certifications doing amazing things in and for science,” he told BioSpace in a written message.
Vincent Aguilar, a research associate II at Plexium, agreed that non-Ph.D.s provide value to employers.
“The only thing that really matters is what do you bring to the table to solve a problem,” he told BioSpace in a written message. “What skills do you have? Having a PhD is likely a good hedge that a candidate will possess a lot of the necessary skills, but excluding non-PhDs sends the wrong message.”
Aguilar added that when employers require a Ph.D., it comes off as “a little bit elitist.”
“It disregards individual experiences and excludes potentially great employees and problem solvers,” he said. “It says we’re not offering mentorship or training. It relegates capable people to serve as a set of hands because they haven’t ‘proven’ that they have a brain. It says that although you may possess all of these skills, you are not one of us. It sends the message that you are not a part of a club.”
Aguilar further noted that companies should prioritize skills and experience alongside educational achievement. While it’s OK to prefer a Ph.D., all else being equal, he said, “I just think that non-PhDs should be given the opportunity to make their case too.”
Interested in more career insights? Subscribe to Career Insider to receive our quarterly life sciences job market reports, career advice and more.
