Hmm.

I'm just wondering, what are the general challenges biotech graduates are currently facing now when applying for jobs? So far from the posts, what I've gathered are:

(i) Not enough research posts
(ii) Few known biotech companies in Malaysia
(iii) Money not enough (i.e. low pay)
(iv) Companies not hiring because not "specialized" degree/relevant skill-sets

Any thing else? Please do add to the list, if any.

As far as I know, there are 364 biotech companies in Malaysia, and another 3 more MNCs will be added to that list by 2012. Those listed on BiotechCorp's website are only the 188 companies with 'BioNexus' status, and are mostly pioneering companies, rather than mature ones. If you use that list as a basis of finding biotech-related jobs, then the chances for disappointment is comparatively higher.

This is my personal experience in the Malaysian biotech industry:

After graduating from Monash in 2006, I was initially hired by a phytopharma company. The job was very different from what I specialized in (developmental genetics), and so I decided to leave the company at the end of my 3-month probation period. Partly, it was due to a job offer I received from a Dutch-Malaysian company to be their plant breeder/seed technologist. As of October 2010, I've joined another company involved with the biotech industry as an intelligence officer. Just for information sake, my salary has made the following progression: RM1,800 => RM2,200 - RM 3,000 => RM3,300. It is low, but that's just my taxable salary. My remuneration package (which is largely non-taxable) makes my total income a lot more higher, eg. guaranteed "hardship" pay of RM10,000 or minimum 6-months salaray a year; free housing and utility; non-taxable subsidies amounting to RM200-RM300 a month etc. In addition, for a person who is classified as a "knowledge worker", there are tax rebates to enjoy. The nett result is my real income is closer to RM4,000 - RM5,000 a month.


Admittedly, being more business-oriented, the level of fundamental research for the 364-odd companies are lower. Also, companies moving from SME-status to mature status tend to be very picky and particular about the kind of skill-sets and training local graduates posses. I'm not sure how many graduates are aware about the Biotechnology Entreprenuership Special Training Program (BeST), but just as well to note it here. It is a 6-month intense training program aimed at preparing graduates for the local biotech industry needs. Usually, graduates are attached with an industry partner, which may be local or foreign (including overseas training), and most often, trainees gain job offers after completing the training stint at those companies/agencies. Since 2007 till end 2010, 1,040 graduates have opted to go through the program, with 650 of them securing jobs, while the rest them going on to develop start-ups within and outside Malaysia, or continuing with further studies.


I recall coming across someone mentioning that biotech is a "specialized" field. I would like to clarify that "biotech" is not actually a field of its own, but rather a conglomeration of various fields. And yes, a "biotech" graduate can hardly be considered a specialist in any one field. But I would add that a biotech graduate should also be more capable of looking at the bigger picture, of how to link different fields together in a synergistic fashion. For instance, a boiler engineer would likely know how to build stack fermentors, calibrate those fermentors etc., but would likely know little about optimising cell activity, input/output efficiency, biocontrol and metabolic rates etc. Likewise, a chemist might have a better understanding about chemical reactions and synthesization, but likely know little about mechanical assembly etc. The lack of knowledge in the other field does not affect the specific role of those workers, but it does affect the overall work efficiency and productivity of the business entity. This is were the "biotechnologist" comes in: as a coordinator and synergiser of those overlapping fields, a sort of "go-between". Biotechnology is an applied science after all.


I would like to add the comments from some biotech companies about our local graduates. These are MNCs and some local players; most of them admit that local graduates do have good knowledge of the sciences, but lack applicable skills or are too academic instead of industry-poised. Personally, I've been involved with the training of local biotech graduates when they came for BeST training in my previous company, and from first-hand experience, I can vouche for the legitimacy of these comments. Most of the graduates I've trained start-off with the wrong impression about biotechnology. As I've mentioned before, biotechnology is an applied science (i.e. research AND development), but most seem to have the idea that it is a fundamental science (i.e. all about research). Maybe it is also the fault of the universities that produced the graduates, but almost every graduate I've encountered wants to do fundamental research only, rather than finding ways of commercializing research findings. As for "Biotech not as good as government said", I must add this: Malaysia has achieved in less that a decade what other countries have been working on for 30 years or more. Even today, a very large component of US and EU biotech companies are still start-ups, with very few percentage of mature companies; and the biotech industry there started 50-60 years ago. Biotech in India started in the 1980s, and only today are these companies attaining some level of maturity and profitability. Yes, admittedly, certain quarters have over-hyped the biotech industry in Malaysia, but it does not mean the industry is all gloom and doom. The industry is growing at a rate of between 15%-20% per annum (depending on sector), with most of the growth being in healthcare biotech and industrial biotech. It is one of the country's fastest growing economic area, and is likely to overtake other sectors in the very near future.

This post has been edited by Michael J.: Sep 20 2011, 11:57 AM

Adrian:

I agree with you in part. It is true, local institutions do not provide adequate training for industry specification. But it is also attitude. Attitude on the part of the students, and also the trainers. Some students are really keen to learn, but there are also quite a large proportion who only do what they feel like doing.

Example: You want to get involved in agriculture, then you got to be ready to get in the dirt, walk under the blazing sun, get soaked in the rain. You might be a science student, but if you do not what happens in the field, you will never be a good agriculture scientist.

Also, a very sickening attitude amongst many industry members is their "tidak-apa" attitude towards training. To many of them, a trainee is more of a burden than an opportunity to nurture a future leader. A very recent comment I received from a supposedly high-level agency, "Industrial training students ah? We usually don't have time for them, so we let them do the little-little unimportant things. Anyway, they are only here for a few months."

Fortunately, some aspects are beginning to change. I've had some recent graduates come up to me with very sharp questions and ideas; in addition, we're seeing more industry members being open to really training students for industry needs. There could still be some measure of hope yet.

Bellarina:

Someone in the forum had stated, "companies don't pay scientists well". Firstly, if I remember correctly, the pursuit of science used to be about the enrichment of knowledge and the advancement of the human race, not so much about money and fame. It is only since the last 40-50 years when big corporations started sponsoring science that every scientific pursuit had to bring with it some kind of commercial value. Personally, and this is just my opinion, if a person prefers chasing after money, then science may not be for them regardless of how good they are at it. If they still want to pursure science, and make big money, then they really need to find a way to merge the two in order to succeed.

I don't know which business grads you are citing, but those I know put in 14 hours a day at work, including weekends. And they come up with applicable, real-life immediate solutions for the companies they work with, instead of theorectical "potential" solutions. That's the only reason I find which earns them their 5-figure salaries.

Knight:

Spot on. Do a 2-dollar job, get a 2-dollar pay. Also, one needs to compare apples-to-apples. Can't say an apple is lousy just because it isn't as juicy as a watermelon.



Someone once came up to me with a statement, "Mike, you know in Australia, there are jobs where your sole duty is to push buttons, and you get paid AUS$4,000 a month". I had to remind the guy that although that is true, and the job may seem simple enough, but just imagine for a moment the consequences if something goes wrong. The responsibility of the "guy who pushes the buttons" is very high, and if things do go wrong, and they do, it is his head on the chopping block. Worse, as the job is perceived as "simple", who is going to hire him once word gets out that he can't even do a "simple" job?