Question for those in DS with an epidemiology, biostatistics or health informatics background
Our take
The narrative shared by the data scientist navigating their career in biotech/pharma raises important questions about the evolving landscape of data science, particularly for those with a background in epidemiology, biostatistics, and health informatics. This individual's experience resonates with many who find themselves grappling with the intersection of technical prowess and domain knowledge, especially as AI technologies increasingly assume roles traditionally held by skilled professionals. As data science continues to grow, the need for professionals who can leverage both analytical skills and contextual understanding becomes paramount. In a similar vein, the challenges faced by data scientists in various fields, including those highlighted in articles like Are there any small, quick things I can do everyday to keep my skills sharp?, underscore the importance of continuous skill enhancement amidst rapid technological advancement.
The individual expresses a common sentiment among data scientists: a sense of stagnation despite technical expertise. With colleagues quickly advancing into leadership roles, this person questions the value of their technical skills in a world where AI is poised to automate many tasks. Their experience is a reflection of a broader trend in the industry — a growing need for professionals who can not only manage data but also interpret it within the context of healthcare, thus bridging the gap between raw data and actionable insights. This is crucial in sectors like biotech, where understanding therapeutic implications can significantly influence outcomes. The tension between technical skills and domain knowledge is palpable, as seen in the insights shared by those in related fields, such as the discussion on Ideas on a Forecasting Problem, which emphasizes the need for practical applications of data science.
Moreover, the mention of feeling "stuck" in a senior data science role highlights a critical issue many professionals face: the lack of clear career progression pathways in specialized fields. As data science teams often grapple with operational inefficiencies and technical debt, it can be challenging for individuals to visualize their next steps. This situation emphasizes the importance of organizational maturity within biotech and pharma, where data-driven decision-making is still catching up to other tech-centric industries. The disparity in salary and advancement opportunities compared to tech giants creates a dilemma for professionals who are passionate about their work but seek recognition and growth.
As the landscape of data science evolves, it is essential for professionals to reassess their career trajectories regularly. The individual’s contemplation about whether to stay in data science or explore new roles in pharma is a worthwhile consideration. Transitioning to positions that align better with one's interests and strengths may provide the fulfillment that technical roles currently lack. However, the uncertainty around how transferable skills are perceived in other functions can be daunting. It is crucial for professionals to engage in networking, seek mentorship, and explore diverse roles that could amplify their impact in the industry.
Looking ahead, the future of data science in biotech and pharma will likely hinge on the ability to integrate technical skills with deep domain knowledge. As AI continues to advance, the individuals who can guide its application within the unique contexts of healthcare will be instrumental in driving innovation forward. The question remains: how can organizations better support data scientists in navigating their careers while fostering an environment that values both technical expertise and contextual understanding? This evolving dialogue will be essential as we seek to unlock the full potential of data science in improving health outcomes.
I work in data science in a biotech/pharma company with an epidemiology/biostatistics background - in my previous jobs, I worked with colleagues who had a similar background but had much stronger research skills rather than programming skills in R or Python. This is where I felt I really shined because I loved using both to develop solutions that automated critical processes, data visualization tools and all. My technical skills I felt were my strongest asset in my career.
Both me and my research colleagues eventually switched into biotech - however, I work specifically in a data science team while they work in other roles. In the past 2 years, I've been really confused with my trajectory, especially the feeling that I focused a lot on technical skills that there is a push for AI to automate. Although I have a more balanced approach to AI in that I feel that even if AI can produce technical solutions, it still needs a lot of description and steering to get it to work the way it should - I still have this "what am I doing" feeling. I don't really have in-depth knowledge of the therapeutics I work with even though I try to set time to learn the domain knowledge and network with colleagues who have been working on the projects I've just gotten started on for years. My job over the last few years has felt really confusing as my team struggles with technical debt, lack of ownership and the myriad of other things. Moreover, I don't really see myself getting promoted - I started here with a senior DS role after having nearly a decade of experience and while I try to network extensively with my colleagues and take initiative, I feel like I might be stuck at this level for a while.
I look at my colleagues who were in research roles in previous jobs and they quickly got promoted to director roles in pharma in a span of just a few years. It's making me wonder if becoming a DS with a healthcare background was really worth it - data science in biotech/pharma feels very behind both in terms of organizational maturity and salary compared to tech and even other areas of biotech - but I do find the domain knowledge projects I work on more meaningful to me than the possibility of working at Meta or Amazon, say. It has me wondering if I should (or even can) switch to something else in pharma- but the thing is, I don't even know what to look for or what the titles/skills even actually mean or how my skills would be transferrable. I spoke to a colleague in medical affairs and when they explained the job, it felt like I would be jumping into a whole new world and bit of an unknown territory that I'm not sure I'd even like. I'm wondering if anybody else has been in this position and can offer advice - should I say in DS in biotech and grow my career here or leave data science for a role/function in pharma/biotech with an epidemiology/biostatistics background?
[link] [comments]
Read on the original site
Open the publisher's page for the full experience
Related Articles
- Switching out of Data Strategy to Technical workI work as a consultant at big 4. I got hired into the their AI & Data Analytics practice for the financial sector. I was brought in being told that I would be working on technical projects. However, my first project ended up being providing data strategy and architecture work. I am now being further pushed into more data governance and product management work. These are areas that I have no interest in. And yet, I keep getting pushed into them. I don’t have a say since I’m still fairly new have to take what I get. I want to know if I can eventually make a switch to a company else where in the next 6-12 months doing more technical work? Like actually building and validating models. Pushing them into production. I don’t have such exposure through work any way but I have been doing analytical work for a long time now. I’m not up to date with the new AI and AI agent stuff but I understand the theory well and have played around in sandboxes with them. I would greatly appreciate any advice on how to best position myself for a pivot and if something like this can be done. I don’t want to become a data governance type of a person. submitted by /u/alchemicalchemist [link] [comments]
- Is working as a data scientist (ML focus) but not getting to interact with the business a common tradeoff, or is my company just weird?Prefacing this with the fact that I've been in this field for 3 years, across 2 different DS roles at my company. My company is huge and I know that often results in specialized roles, however getting a balance of business and technical exposure is much more difficult than I think it should be. My first role was heavily consulting-focused for DS work and very little building for production. I moved to a team with a more technical focus to make sure I didn't lose that skill set and it's very difficult to get work with an actual business stakeholder, and I'm now worried I'm going to get worse at that. I've tried to find ways to work that into the role and to go talk to people to help find projects but the manager does not seem to support that for the team, only for themselves and one of the leads. I really don't feel like this should have to be an either-or dichotomy, especially since so many areas can benefit from data science work but they don't always know where or what they can ask for. Technical skills are important but they mean nothing if you can't work with the business. Is this more common for the stats/ML side of DS work or do I just need to start job searching? submitted by /u/TaterTot0809 [link] [comments]
- did i accidentally pigeonhole myself as a recent grad?hit my one year mark out of university as a DS at a hedge fund doing alternative data research. work has been really interesting and comp is solid so i'm not complaining. with that being said, i've started to wonder if i'm quietly boxing myself in. most of the work boils down to data analysis and light statistical modeling, real edge being creative data sourcing, thinking about biases, and building economic intuition around research questions. high impact work for sure and the thinking it requires probably has a moat against AI. but i can feel my ML and "production" skills atrophying since i don't use them which is spooking me a little my worry is that if i ever want to jump to a more traditional DS role down the line i'll look way too specialized and technically inadequate. the work here doesn't map cleanly onto most DS job postings and i'm not sure how that reads to a hiring manager a few years from now is this actually a problem or am i overthinking it? submitted by /u/statsds_throwaway [link] [comments]
- Is the ds/ml slowly being morphed into an AI engineer? [D]Agents are amazing. Harnesses are cool. But the fundamental role of a data scientist is not to use a generalist model in an existing workflow; it's a completely different field. AI engineering is the body of the vehicle, whereas the actual brain/engine behind it is the data scientist's playground. I feel like I am not alone in this realisation that my role somehow got silently morphed into that of an AI engineer, with the engine's development becoming a complete afterthought. Based on industry requirements and ongoing research, most of the work has quietly shifted from building the engine to refining the body around it. Economically, this makes sense, as working with LLMs or other Deep Learning models is a capital-intensive task that not everyone can afford, but the fact that very little of a role's identity is preserved is concerning. Most of the time, when I speak to data scientists, the core reply I get is that they are fine-tuning models to preserve their "muscles". But fine-tuning is a very small part of a data scientist's role; heck, after a point, it's not even the most important part. Fine-tuning is a tool. Understanding, I believe, should be the fundamental block of the role. Realising that there are things other than "transformers" and finding where they fit into the picture. And don't even get me started on the lack of understanding of how important the data is for their systems. A data scientist's primary role is not the model itself. It's about developing the model, the data quality at hand, the appropriate problem framing, efficiency concerns, architectural literacy, evaluation design, and error analysis. Amid the AI hype, many have overlooked that much of their role is static and not considered important. AI engineering is an amazing field. The folks who love doing amazing things with the models always inspire me. But somehow, the same attention and respect are no longer paid to the foundational, scientific side of data and modeling in the current industry. I realise it's not always black and white, but it's kind of interesting how the grey is slowly becoming darker by the day. Do you feel the same way? Or is it just my own internal crisis bells ringing unnecessarily? For those of you who have recognized this shift, how are you handling your careers? Are you leaning into the engineering/systems side and abandoning traditional model development? Or have you found niche roles/companies that still value the fundamental data scientist role (data quality, architectural literacy, statistical rigor)? I'd love to hear how you are adapting submitted by /u/The-Silvervein [link] [comments]