For many PhD researchers, thoughts of leaving academia begin quietly. They emerge not as a decisive plan, but as a growing sense of uncertainty shaped by short-term contracts, intense competition and limited long-term prospects. When alternatives are considered, they are often grouped into a single, ill-defined category: ‘industry’.
This lack of precision is one of the most common mistakes scientists make when contemplating a move beyond academia. It’s easy to focus on what you want to leave behind. Instead, before updating a CV or scanning job boards, it is worth stepping back to ask a more fundamental question: what do you want to move towards?
Industry is not a single destination
Academic career paths are relatively linear. The milestones are familiar, progression is structured and success is measured in widely recognised ways. Industry, by contrast, encompasses a broad range of environments, roles and expectations. Treating it as a single destination obscures these differences and can lead to misaligned choices.
I often speak with PhD researchers who say they want to ‘go into industry’ but struggle to define what that means in practical terms. Are they looking for applied research, clearer impact, greater stability or faster decision-making? Without clarity, it is easy to pursue roles that appear attractive on paper but fail to deliver what was hoped for.
Being intentional about direction doesn’t necessarily mean locking yourself into a fixed plan, it means trading vague dissatisfaction for informed curiosity.
Startups and large organisations: contrasting realities
One of the most significant distinctions within industry is between startups and large, established organisations such as pharmaceutical companies. Both employ PhD scientists, but the working realities can be markedly different.
Startups typically offer breadth. Scientists are often required to operate as generalists, contributing across multiple projects and functions. The pace is fast, resources may be limited and individual contributions are highly visible. For some, this environment provides rapid learning and a strong sense of ownership. For others, the uncertainty and lack of structure can be challenging.
Which environment aligns best with your preferred way of working and your tolerance for risk and ambiguity?
Larger organisations tend to prioritise depth and specialisation. Roles are more clearly defined, projects progress through formal governance and success is measured over longer timeframes. Stability, training and established career frameworks are often stronger, although decision-making can feel slower and personal impact less immediate.
Neither model is inherently superior. The key question is which environment aligns best with your preferred way of working and your tolerance for risk and ambiguity.
Specialist or generalist: reframing expertise
Another common concern among academics is the perceived loss of specialist identity. Years are spent developing deep expertise in a narrow area, and the idea of stepping into a role that does not explicitly value that niche can feel like a step backwards.
In practice, industry values both specialists and generalists, but in different contexts. Deep technical expertise is essential in many roles, particularly within larger organisations. At the same time, the ability to apply scientific thinking across problems, collaborate effectively and adapt to new domains is highly prized, especially in smaller or more dynamic settings.
The challenge is often one of framing. Academia encourages us to define ourselves by subject matter. Industry tends to focus more on problem-solving capability, judgement and impact. Recognising this difference can ease the transition and help scientists articulate their value more effectively.
Understanding your personal drivers
Perhaps the most important step before leaving academia is identifying your personal drivers. What do you want your career to provide at this stage?
For some, impact is paramount: seeing research translated into products, technologies or patient benefit. For others, stability and predictability take priority after years of fixed-term contracts. Some value rapid learning and variety, while others seek visibility, leadership or influence within an organisation.
These drivers are not mutually exclusive, but they do involve trade-offs. Roles that maximise learning speed may come with less stability. Highly visible positions may carry greater pressure. Being explicit about what matters most helps to narrow options and set realistic expectations
Clarity before commitment
Leaving academia is rarely a single leap; it is a series of decisions that shape long-term career direction. Taking time to clarify what you are aiming for before making those decisions can significantly improve the chances of a satisfying transition.
Industry offers PhD scientists a wide range of intellectually stimulating and impactful careers. Approached thoughtfully, it can provide opportunities that rival, and sometimes exceed, those available in academia. The key is to move beyond the idea of ‘industry’ as a single alternative and instead engage with it as a diverse landscape of possibilities.
For those still in academia and quietly questioning what comes next, clarity is not a luxury. It is the very foundation for a confident and intentional next step.
This article is the first in a four part series of tips about moving from academia into biotech. A new article will be published each week. While you wait for the next one, join us on LinkedIn to take part in polls and discussions that build on the advice in this week’s article.
