The PhD to biotech series: Understanding the biotech landscape and where you fit | Careers

The biotech ecosystem: more diverse than it appears

At a high level, the biotech sector can be divided into several overlapping environments: startups, scaleups, large pharmaceutical companies and contract research organisations (CROs). All employ scientists with doctoral training, but their expectations and operating models vary significantly.

Startups are often built around a single technology or scientific insight. Teams are small, resources are constrained and priorities can shift quickly. Scientists are expected to contribute broadly, often beyond the bench. The upside is speed, ownership and visibility. The downside is uncertainty and limited structure.

Scaleups have moved beyond proof-of-concept to focus on execution and growth. Roles begin to specialise, but flexibility remains important. This environment offers a balance between impact and stability, though processes are still evolving.

Large pharmaceutical companies operate at a very different scale. Research is embedded within formal governance and long development timelines. Roles are specialised, training frameworks are strong and stability is high, but individual impact can feel more distant.

CROs support multiple clients across projects and therapeutic areas. Scientists develop strong delivery, communication and adaptability skills, working to external timelines and expectations.

Each of these environments can suit a PhD background, but in very different ways.

How scientific skills translate across settings

A common misconception among academics is that industry primarily values subject expertise. In reality, industry often places greater emphasis on how scientific skills are applied.

In smaller organisations, the ability to prioritise incomplete data, adapt quickly and communicate clearly across disciplines is often more valuable than deep expertise. In larger organisations, rigour, consistency and decision-making within established frameworks become more important. In CROs, flexibility and execution under pressure are key.

The same PhD training underpins all of these roles, but it is expressed differently. Recognising this flexibility helps scientists see their background as a platform rather than a limitation.

Why job titles can be misleading

One of the most critical, and least intuitive, lessons for academics entering biotech is that job titles are not standardised. Titles that sound familiar, or appealing, can mask very different day-to-day realities depending on the organisation.

For example, a clinical scientist in a biotech startup may be deeply involved in trial design and data interpretation, while the same title in a large pharmaceutical company may focus more on documentation, governance and cross-functional coordination.

First-hand insight often reveals gaps between how a role sounds and how it actually operates

Similarly, titles like project or programme manager can be misleading. In some contexts, these roles are administrative. In others, they are scientifically intensive positions that require strong judgement, prioritisation and stakeholder management. Without understanding the specifics, it is easy to self-select out of roles that could be a strong fit, or to pursue roles that do not align with your expectations.

The only reliable way to navigate this is to go beyond the title. Read job descriptions carefully.

Look for signals about decision-making authority, scientific depth, interfaces with other teams and how success is measured. Crucially, speak to people who are already doing the job. First-hand insight often reveals gaps between how a role sounds and how it actually operates. For those without an established network, this can still be very accessible: use platforms like LinkedIn to identify people in relevant roles, look for alumni from your university or previous institutions, and attend seminars, conferences or webinars where professionals are speaking. When reaching out, keep messages concise, specific and respectful of their time, many people are willing to share their experiences if approached thoughtfully.

Positioning yourself deliberately

Once you understand what a role truly involves, positioning becomes much clearer. Rather than presenting yourself as a generic ‘PhD looking to move into industry’, you can align your experience with the role’s specific demands.

This may mean reframing your academic experience. Supervising students becomes people management. Designing experiments becomes decision-making. Writing grants becomes stakeholder communication. The goal is not to exaggerate, but to translate.

Finding where you create the most leverage

Rather than asking where you ‘fit’ in biotech, it is often more useful to ask where you create the most leverage. Do you thrive in ambiguity or prefer structure? Do you enjoy breadth or depth? Do you want to influence strategy or focus on execution?

The answers change over time, and there is no universally correct choice. What matters is intentionality.

Biotech offers an extraordinary range of opportunities for scientists. Those who navigate it most effectively are not the ones chasing titles, but the ones who understand the landscape, interrogate roles deeply and choose environments where their skills can have the greatest impact.