I studied chemistry in Groningen and graduated with a specialization in biochemistry. I then stayed in Groningen for a PhD, also in biochemistry. After that, I stayed a bit longer, around 2.5 years, as a postdoc at the University of Groningen. Then, about ten years ago, I moved to Leiden. That's when I started working for Johnson & Johnson, specifically Johnson Vaccines, the vaccine division of Johnson & Johnson.

I work as a researcher in process development. My primary task involves developing production processes for vaccines. Recently, there have been organizational changes; Johnson & Johnson has stopped producing vaccines, and our department now focuses on other products, such as gene therapy. I currently work as a principal scientist, still within the process development area.

In some ways, it's quite different. The work I did at the university involved fundamental research. Now, my role is more applied; we aim to develop good production processes, and if problems arise, they need to be solved. However, the research aspect, such as the methods we use, the questions we ask, and how we analyze data, remains similar.

After completing my PhD, I felt ready to move on from academic research and sought something different. I needed time to think about where I wanted to go next and what I wanted to do. Then, an opportunity for a three-year postdoc project came up, and the topic was very interesting. During my postdoc, I had the time to figure out what I wanted for my career outside of academia. I knew I wanted to work in the pharmaceutical industry, so I actively pursued that. I also preferred to work for a larger company, as they generally have more resources and experience to bring products to market. With that in mind, I applied for various positions and eventually, this opportunity at Johnson & Johnson arose.

I work in a department with about 25 people, at various levels. My position is Principal Scientist, and I have fellow scientists. These come at different levels: Junior Scientist, Senior Scientist, and Principal Scientist. We are responsible for the scientific background of experiments and studies and for analyzing data. Additionally, we have a lab team that focuses on executing experiments. Naturally, there is some overlap between the two. We are the group responsible for process development.

In terms of title, it is. You move from Senior Scientist to Principal Scientist. There isn't anything beyond that title. However, that doesn't mean you can't progress as someone more scientifically involved. That's what a scientist's role defines at all levels: you're truly a researcher and involved in acquiring knowledge. There are also other career paths within the pharmaceutical industry. You could, for example, do people management or project management, or occupy very specific roles. There's still room for growth. It just means that the scientific background component of your work may become somewhat smaller, and you may also take on management tasks, for example.

You can have direct management responsibilities within our company. This means you're responsible for ensuring that the people who report to you perform well and develop positively. That's not part of my role at the moment. However, that doesn't mean you don’t manage people. If I come up with an experiment and someone else is going to execute it, then I have to manage that person. Letting someone else execute these experiments mainly has to do with specialization, which means efficiency. I mainly focus on analyzing data and designing experiments, which is something I'm good at, so it's efficient for me to spend my time on that. Someone else can then focus on executing experiments. It also depends a bit on personal preference. I enjoy occasionally doing an experiment in the lab.

I enjoy managing people and working with people. What I find less enjoyable is course correction when things aren't going well, such as when you have to give someone negative feedback or when someone is slowly drifting off and performing less, you have to think about what to do about it. Additionally, I find it challenging that there's very little room to pursue your curiosity from time to time. This is because the research we do here is applied, which I also find very enjoyable because you're contributing to something concrete. I also noticed that we're, of course, a company with a commercial mission. That means that certain things don't progress further for commercial reasons, even though they might be very interesting or have a lot of potential.

I think it was a bit different from my expectations. What does match is the scientific side of the work. Conducting experiments, designing, and data analysis. What has struck me, which I might not have foreseen beforehand, is how much of my work involves communication with others. Pharmaceutical companies are complex because pharmaceutical products are complex. Many people work on them simultaneously, so you constantly have to collaborate with a large group of people to collectively determine the right path. That requires a lot of communication. I see that as a positive thing. It's nice to work together with a large group and have the same end goal in mind. That's different from doing research at the university, which is quite individualistic. That's also a reason I didn't want to continue in the academic world.

To be very honest, no. I didn't have a very clear career path mapped out for myself. My choice of study was somewhat coincidental. I just thought, well, chemistry, you can go in many directions with that. During my studies, I discovered that I really enjoyed research, which is why I decided to do a PhD. At that time, I had no idea where I would end up, so I never made very conscious choices. Looking back, I do think that doing that PhD was very important. It allowed me to pursue a certain career path within the pharmaceutical industry more easily.

The short answer is that it's not necessary, but it can be enormously helpful. It also depends entirely on where your interests lie. If you want to develop a scientific background of things and if you want to become a researcher within the pharmaceutical industry, then having a PhD is hugely beneficial. That doesn't mean it's the only way. We also have people with a master's degree who have been hired here and who think, research is actually what I want to do, and then they develop in that direction through personal growth. At the same time, there are also completely different paths like project management or people management. Then a PhD is somewhat less important.

People with a master's degree often start a bit below their level. We don't really have a very good starting position for people with a master's degree. So you can go in two directions: progress or focus more on the executive side.

If I saw a position that seemed interesting, I sent out an application in the hope of being invited for an interview. I also had many interviews. What I found important at that time and what also helped me was always specifically to prepare for a certain role. Try to highlight certain things in your CV that you think are relevant. Do some research on the company where you're applying. If you don't have specific experience in a certain role, try to find out a bit about what such a role entails. Another tip is to ask for feedback after a rejection. This can motivate you to continue applying.

What I specifically look for when people apply to us, and they don't yet or hardly have any experience in the job market (because I think that's most relevant for you as a student), is that it's not so much about the technical skills you have. You've followed a certain study, and have a certain background that matches the job; otherwise, you wouldn't apply. But exactly what you've done isn't that important. It's more about who you are as a person, how you fit into a team, and how interested you are in learning more, for example. If you're considering applying, try for example to write a short motivational letter in which you address those points. Of course, it's very important to mention in your CV what courses you've taken, what research you've done, and what techniques you have mastered. That's useful information, but it's not something I pay very specific attention to in an application. It's really much more about who this person is and whether they fit into the team and what they can bring, for example, in terms of diversity that we might not yet have in the department.

Neuroscience is just a branch of life sciences, and there are many people with all kinds of backgrounds in the life sciences who work with us. I can also imagine that if you want to do something with neuroscience, you can also find connections with certain parts of the pharmaceutical industry like certain types of medicines and maybe more the development process. Thinking about what kind of medicines we should make to cure diseases that cannot yet be cured. For most pharmaceutical companies, especially at a certain point in your career, your technical background is much less important than the skills you bring. In that sense, someone with a neuroscience background could in principle also end up in vaccine development, but it may not be the most obvious path. I think it also depends on how important you find it yourself to stay very much involved in neuroscience content.

If you find research interesting, seriously consider doing a PhD. It's super fun and you learn a lot from it. It's also very demanding, so you really have to want it. I can really recommend it and it can also help you if you decide to pursue a career outside of the academic world afterward. If you don't want that, then don't do it, because then it's really quite a big challenge to work very hard for four years with a lot of uncertainty. My second tip is: when you enter the job market and you're invited for a job interview, and I know it's a cliché, but it's really true, try to be yourself as much as possible in an interview. When you're on the other side of the table, it comes across as much more genuine, and that's already a plus. The chances are then much greater that you'll find something that suits you.