Josh Garlich, PhD, is a Senior Research Scientist at Apellis Pharmaceuticals. He received his bachelor’s degree from Bethany College in Biology and his PhD from Marquette University in Biochemistry. During graduate school, Josh’s work was focused on characterizing a family of proteins that regulate oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria. He then went on to do a post-doc at the Medical College of Wisconsin where he gained experience in consulting biotech companies, ultimately leading him to pursue a career in industry.

Can you describe your academic and professional background? What path led you to pursue this field?

As an undergraduate I gravitated toward biology because it sparked my interest, and I quickly became fascinated with biochemistry. It offered a framework for understanding human health and disease. I was kind of hooked. After graduating from Bethany College, I worked as a technician in a research lab in Boston, studying the biochemical mechanisms of cell motility. In particular, the protein interactions that underlie focal adhesion dynamics. That early research experience informed my decision to continue my development as a scientist, and I started my graduate studies in the lab of Rosemary Stuart at the Marquette University Graduate School. Rosemary is an exceptional scientist and mentor, and her approach to research strongly shaped the way that I conceptualize and investigate scientific questions.

Prior to graduate school I thought that a career in science was largely limited to two options, academia or industry. During graduate school, I started to think about careers in less binary terms, and began thinking about how I could use my scientific training in a career that I would be excited about. But my exposure to career options was very limited, and heavily biased toward academia. After completing my PhD I started a postdoctoral fellowship, studying the immunobiology of graft versus host disease. During that time I joined a bio consulting group of postdocs and graduate students that worked on projects primarily for biotech companies. The projects that I worked on offered a glimpse into the world of drug discovery and development. The pace and linear focus in drug development seemed to fit my strengths and interests. Once I came to that realization, I knew that I needed to end my postdoc and start looking for scientist positions in biotech and pharmaceutical companies.

How did you find this particular position, and what was the hiring process like? Is there a typical structure for this in your field?

I found my current position through LinkedIn. After searching for jobs on several different platforms I found that LinkedIn had one of the easier to use job search functions, and that their algorithm for matching open positions with my interests and skill set was fairly accurate. The other benefit is that LinkedIn automatically shows you if you have any contacts that currently work at the company of interest, which can be a huge help in the hiring process. To start the hiring process, I first had a phone screening. These can vary in format, but typically involve a hiring manager or supervisor asking you questions that speak to your experience in the skills that are required for that specific position. I think that the main purpose of the phone screening is to dig deeper into the specifics of the applicant’s experience and proficiencies. Following the initial screening, I had two additional phone interviews; one with the Vice President of Research and Translational Medicine, and one with the Vice President of Intellectual Property. From there I was invited for an in-person interview, which was a half-day of conversations with people such as the Chief Operating Officer, the Director of Program Management, and the director of Human Resources.

Some variation of the above process appears to be fairly typical for a scientist position at a small biotech. Now that the company has grown, we typically also ask that candidates for a scientist position give a 50-minute presentation to our research team. The presentation covers some of their past work, which can also include graduate and postdoctoral projects.

Can you tell us about your current responsibilities? What is a typical day or week like in your role?

As a Senior Research Scientist, I’m focused on driving our preclinical research and discovery programs forward towards translational development and first in human studies. My primary role is to develop the preclinical pharmacology data package, and to characterize discovery modalities to determine which will become our lead candidate for a specific indication. A typical day involves some combination of: designing studies to test the efficacy of discovery compounds, analyzing data from ongoing studies, preparing presentations of data for internal audiences, meeting with external collaborators to discuss the progress of ongoing projects, corresponding with those collaborators about logistics and experimental considerations for our projects together, developing program plans with timelines and budgets, contributing to cross-functional program teams, reading scientific papers, performing due diligence on technologies that are being considered for use in our programs, and writing pharmacology summaries and scientific rationale for regulatory filings and research proposals.

What do you enjoy about your current job and work environment?

The thing that I enjoy most about my current job is that the ultimate objective of our scientific and research programs is to develop life-changing medicines for people with debilitating diseases. Keeping that in mind every day is incredibly motivating. I also enjoy the amount of variation in what I do from day to day. There’s rarely a day in which the plan that I had at the start of the day comes to fruition. More often than not, higher-priority tasks come up that require me to pivot and focus my attention on something entirely different, but often equally or more exciting. I like the pace too. It’s fast and requires me to use a combination of my scientific training, agility and creativity to solve problems. What I like about the environment where I work is that we operate as a cohesive team. I get to learn a lot from my teammates. They’re chemists, toxicologists, program managers, and scientists that are far smarter than I am.

What are some of the challenging aspects of your job?

The main challenge is finding enough time in the day to complete everything that needs to get done. As a scientist in the innovation group of a small biotech startup, the culture is that you roll up your sleeves and get it done. You do a little bit of everything and you often take on more than you would at a larger, more established pharmaceutical company. That mode of operation can work very well for getting a lot done in a short amount of time, but can also lead to fatigue and burn out at some point if you don’t create a balance in your life. Planning for, and dedicating enough time for family, health, and mental wellness cannot be underestimated.

Do you have any professional plans for the future? What are some future career paths that could open up for someone in your position, 5-10 years down the road?

For now, my plan is to keep developing as a scientist and expand my drug development experience. But I’m interested in a lot of different aspects of drug development and translational medicine; from primary pharmacology, to identifying and evaluating technologies that enable drug development, to regulatory affairs, all the way to first in human clinical trials.

5-10 years down the road, someone in my position could potentially have several different options that span from scientific management, to analytical, and even to more of a business role. From what I’ve seen, starting out as a scientist is a great way to learn and, especially at a smaller biotech, to gain exposure to a wide variety of functions that support drug development. 

What activities, internships, or organizations would you recommend someone get involved with to help them break into this field?

Gaining biotech industry experience and an understanding of how research and translational medicine programs operate is a major benefit in my opinion. As a graduate student or postdoc, there are a number of ways to do this, ranging from a summer internship, to a semester co-op program with an industry partner, or joining a consulting firm in some capacity. I was fortunate that there was a postdoctoral industry consulting group at the institution where I was a postdoc. Catalyst BioConsulting is a group of postdoctoral fellows and graduate students at the Medical College of Wisconsin that offer pro-bono strategic business services to biotech and pharmaceutical companies. As a postdoc member of this group, I was able to work with a team to deliver actionable business recommendations to biotech and healthcare companies. The projects ranged from reports on the competitive landscape in a specific therapeutic area, to white papers on the state of the art in a therapeutic technology, to creating a decision matrix for a healthcare company to prioritize the research programs they would fund. I learned many things from this experience, but there were two major takeaways. First, I learned that I could do this type of work. While I had no prior experience and very little understanding of how biotech companies operate, I found that the analytic skills that you develop while completing your graduate research are translatable to a wide range of activities that businesses use and rely upon. The second key takeaway was that I discovered how energized I was from working on projects that were fast-paced and had clear deliverables and distinct timelines. That was a game changer for me, and informed my decision to ultimately end my postdoc and move into industry research.

Is it common for people in your field to have a scientific/academic background (i.e. have PhDs)? Can you think of any advantages or disadvantages someone with a PhD might experience while pursuing or working in your field?

It’s often required to have completed a master’s degree or PhD for industry scientist positions. Which of those you need really depends on the job. I think that having an M.S. or PhD offers significant advantages in terms of experience. To complete either of those degrees requires that you develop expertise in your field of research, and that you become technically proficient in the methodologies that will allow you to answer the scientific questions you’re pursuing. Completing a PhD means taking on a more expansive project, and arguably, a greater breadth of practical lab experience. During a larger project you’re likely to encounter a greater number of challenges that you must navigate intellectually and that require you to integrate new scientific techniques into your skill set.

Do you have any final words of advice for those navigating these career questions? Is there anything you would have done differently given what you know now?

Buy more coffee. Specifically, for people in careers that you're interested in learning about. The best way to find out about different careers, what their day-to-day looks like, and if that might suit your interests, is to talk with the people doing those jobs. You might be surprised how many people are receptive to chatting with you about their current job and career path. They often have helpful recommendations for what you can do now to bolster your marketability for the position you’re interested in, detail the pitfalls to avoid, and provide first-hand knowledge of the pros and cons of their current and past positions. In my experience, these conversations often led to additional connections, as they would suggest that I also speak to their friend or colleague. The added benefit is that you also make important, sometimes lasting, connections that can be mutually beneficial.