Science Career Networking Opportunities

Scientists, let’s talk about “finding a mentor” versus “drafting a board of advisors for your career” ⤵ There’s only one person who I’ve ever referred to as “my mentor." He was the PI of a lab I worked in during high school. He had high expectations which he knew I could live up to - even when I wasn’t so confident. In hindsight, I see how he consistently went out of his way to find funding, publication, and conference opportunities for me. He initiated conversations about PhD programs and fellowship applications. I didn’t grow up in a family of scientists, but he made the path to “becoming a scientist” clear. As a true mentor, he ✅ Used his position to connect me with new opportunities ✅ Advocated for me in rooms I wasn’t in ✅ Showed me a clear path to my desired career ✅ Pushed me to aim higher than I believed I could ✅ Helped me develop new skills I think finding a single person who checks all of those boxes is incredible, but also a rarity. What's slightly more attainable: ➡ A board of advisors for your career ⬅ Under this model, you curate a network of folks who you rely on for mentorship. You don’t need to find a single person who can guide you to your dream career. These folks are people who: ✅Are more experienced or more skilled in areas you want to develop (note: this doesn’t always mean they’re “more senior” than you) ✅Advocate for you when you're not around ✅Have achieved something you want to emulate ✅Believe in you in the moments when things get tough ✅Have differing perspectives and thus can challenge and improve your thinking Just as a company’s board of directors is strategically and deliberately made up of people with different backgrounds and expertise, a diverse board of advisors can help you avoid blind spots as you build your career - and really your life. I think this sort of career guidance and support will absolutely accelerate anyone’s career - but it can be just as useful coming from a board of 4-5 people, rather than in the form of a single mentor. Just some musings for a Monday morning #linkedinnewsaustralia

🚀 From Orbit to Opportunity: Transforming Space Experiments into Commercial Innovations Axiom Space's Mission 4 (Ax-4) is a groundbreaking collaboration between ISRO - Indian Space Research Organization, NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the European Space Agency - ESA . India’s investment in this mission, to the tune of $70 million, is not just a strategic move in space diplomacy but a bold step toward commercializing space science. Indian astronauts will carry out #seven experiments aboard the International Space Station, including: 🧠 Human-Machine Interface in Microgravity – Understanding how astronauts interact with screens and controls in space which can improve everything from cockpit design to remote medical devices. 🌿 Microalgae Growth Studies – Exploring how algae adapt to space environments to enhance sustainable food and oxygen sources. 🧬 Cyanobacteria Metabolism Research – Investigating their metabolic changes could lead to breakthroughs in biotech and biofuel. 💊 Stem Cell Behavior in Microgravity – Critical for regenerative medicine and understanding aging processes. 🧫 Bacterial Biofilm Formation – Helps in designing better antibiotics and disinfectants, both in orbit and in hospitals. 🔬 Protein Crystallization – Could revolutionize drug development with purer and more stable crystal structures. 🌡️ Thermal Coating Performance – Testing materials for better insulation in satellites and future habitation modules. These aren’t just scientific experiments—they’re potential blueprints for the next generation of commercial products in healthcare, sustainability, biotech, and beyond. This mission exemplifies what’s possible when international collaboration meets strategic investment with a clear pathway to building future commercial products. Hopefully, the experimental space data will be made available to accelerate the innovation. #SpaceInnovation #ISRO #NASA #ESA #AxiomMission4 #CommercialSpace #Biotech #HumanSpaceflight #GlobalCollaboration Pic Credit : Axiom Space

What if we stopped treating university-SME collaboration as a “nice to have” and started treating it as economic infrastructure? A new report from CSIRO and the University of Queensland reveals what actually happens when small and medium enterprises (SMEs) work with universities and research institutions (URIs). The results are compelling. Collaborations between SMEs and URIs are widely acknowledged as drivers of innovation. But this report digs deeper, asking: what’s the real commercial payoff for the firms involved? Based on a survey of 201 Australian businesses across diverse sectors and regions, Commercial Outcomes of SME–Research Collaboration analyses three types of engagement: 🔹 Facilitated dollar-matched programmes 🔹Competitive grants 🔹Student placement programmes The findings? 🔹66% of SMEs reported new or improved products—clear evidence that collaboration brings ideas to market. 🔹Prototypes, independent validation, and derisked R&D were common outcomes, especially for early-stage firms. 🔹Facilitated, entry-level collaborations delivered outcomes nearly on par with large, competitive grants—but with smaller budgets and greater accessibility. 🔹Regional SMEs outperformed their metro counterparts across nearly all dimensions, from innovation to credibility to market expansion. Sectoral insights are equally striking: 🔹Medtech and biotech firms focused on R&D derisking; 🔹Manufacturing and digital tech SMEs reported strong product development outcomes; 🔹Energy businesses used partnerships to validate solutions for market credibility. In New Zealand, we often underinvest in the connective tissue that makes innovation happen. This report shows that well-designed, fit-for-purpose collaboration programmes can unlock capability, especially for regional and smaller firms. The message is clear: industry-university collaboration is a catalyst. And in an economy where resilience and diversification are more important than ever, we can’t afford to overlook it. https://lnkd.in/gTHhRiBQ

As Harvard faces deep research funding cuts, a private equity firm has stepped in with a $39M commitment to support a Harvard research lab. Could this signal a new future for how academic science is funded? The investment comes from Turkish firm İş Private Equity, which typically backs high-growth small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The funding recipient is the lab of Professor Gökhan Hotamışlıgil at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, whose research aims to develop therapies for obesity and other metabolic diseases. Broader context Private equity (PE) rarely funds basic university research directly, as it doesn’t align with traditional return-focused models. But that’s changing. New structures are emerging where PE capital supports translational or applied academic science: ▫️ New startup - İş Private Equity launched Enlila, a new biotech company created to fund Hotamışlıgil’s lab over the next 10 years. Enlila will also invest in translating the lab’s discoveries into therapeutic products. ▫️ Joint ventures - Since 2017, Deerfield Management has created university partnerships to advance early-stage therapeutics, providing capital and helping universities evaluate projects toward Investigational New Drug (IND) readiness. Recent examples include: - Hyde Park Discovery with University of Chicago ($130M, 2025) - VeritaScience with Washington University in St. Louis ($130M, 2024) ▫️ Royalty monetization - In 2023, Purdue Research Foundation received over $100M from Blue Owl Capital by selling a portion of its royalty interest in Pluvicto, a prostate cancer therapy. Yale University executed a similar deal for the drug Yervoy, turning future royalties into immediate research capital. Takeaway As the research funding landscape evolves, the capital stack for science is becoming increasingly complex. I think we’ll likely see more private equity, venture capital, and philanthropy stepping in to support bold, high-risk science in new and unexpected ways. Curious to hear your thoughts: Should private equity be stepping into early-stage science? Which research areas could benefit most from this approach?

"Focus on your research. Publish in top journals. Apply for postdocs at R1 universities." This was the career advice I heard throughout my PhD program. It was well-intentioned. And completely misaligned with what I actually wanted. Here is what no one in my department told me: Learn Python and R. Take machine learning courses. Build a portfolio on GitHub. Network outside academia. Not because they were holding me back, but because they genuinely didn't know these skills mattered. Most academic departments excel at preparing students for academic careers. But the industry landscape? That's often outside their expertise. The wake-up call came during my job search. While I was being encouraged to apply for postdocs, I was struggling to explain why my research mattered to tech recruiters. I had to learn the hard way: Academic institutions are experts in academia, not the broader job market. The best career advice I got during my PhD came from: - Alumni working in industry - LinkedIn connections in tech - Online communities of career changers They told me what skills were actually in demand. What interviews really looked like. What companies valued in PhD hires. If you want to leave academia, you need guidance from people who have actually left academia. Where are you getting your career advice? Are your sources aligned with where you want to go? More PhD insights coming next Thursday! Hit follow + 🔔 to join the journey! #PhDHindsight

How do you really make the most out of academic conferences?👨🏻🏫 (Some advice for aspiring Ph.D.s and Post-docs). Congratulations – your paper has been accepted at a top scientific conference! You’re likely focused on perfecting your slides and crafting a clear presentation. That’s important. But here’s a truth many early-career researchers underestimate: The real value of conferences lies in building and extending your academic network. 🕸️ And networking is not always easy at the start of your career. So what can you do? Here is a concrete suggestion: ➡️ Scan the conference program and identify five researchers close to your field whose work you admire. ➡️ Reach out in advance by email and kindly ask for a short (15 min) meeting during the conference. ➡️ Do your homework: read their papers carefully and prepare a concise one-pager with three constructive suggestions for their research. ➡️At the meeting: hand over your one-pager, focus on their research, and only then introduce your own. Will this take time? Absolutely. Will everyone respond? Probably not. But: If you manage to give genuine feedback, you’ll definitely stand out... and your network will grow faster than you expect. 💡

Global dynamics in science are shifting. The U.S. recently paused new NIH grants to international research partners — a decision that has disrupted collaborations across Canada, Europe, and beyond. While the reasons are complex, the result is clear: scientific partnerships are being redefined. Meanwhile, the EU is moving to position itself as a leader in global research. This week, Ursula von der Leyen announced Choose Europe for Science — a €500M initiative to support young researchers, strengthen academic freedom, and attract global talent. Just weeks earlier, CEOs from 32 leading pharma companies including Pfizer, Novartis, GSK, and Sanofi urged the European Commission to ensure faster approvals, stronger IP protection, and support for AI-driven R&D. Without those, they warned, Europe could risk losing up to €100B in investment by 2029. These developments highlight a global inflection point in life sciences: 🔹 The U.S. remains a powerful hub for innovation — but is revisiting the scope of its international engagement. 🔹 Europe is investing in talent and infrastructure — but still faces challenges in regulatory agility and tech adoption. Big initiatives make headlines. But it's predictable regulation, sustained investment, and infrastructure that supports AI-driven science that truly build innovation ecosystems. #biotech #drugdiscovery #lifesciences #sciencepolicy #EU #US #researchfunding #AIinScience #innovation

I've been reading about the recent effort by the Princeton Neuroscience Institute at Princeton University to map decision-making in the mouse brain, and the scale of the collaboration is remarkable. Getting 22 labs across continents to standardize their experimental procedures is a significant logistical and scientific achievement in itself. This approach allowed them to create a comprehensive dataset by integrating recordings from over 600,000 neurons. Read more 👉 https://lnkd.in/ePREw7xZ The findings highlight how complex behaviors involve widespread brain activity, moving beyond traditional models focused on isolated regions. The Down Low: 🧠 Distributed Activity: Decision-making signals were observed across many brain areas, not just traditionally recognized cognitive centers. 🤝 Power of Standardization: Unifying experimental protocols across multiple labs was essential for creating a large-scale, reliable dataset. 📊 Open Data: Sharing this extensive dataset openly invites further analysis and discovery from the global research community. This work serves as a strong blueprint for future large-scale projects in neuroscience and other complex scientific fields. Read more 👉 https://lnkd.in/ePREw7xZ #Neuroscience #Collaboration #BigData #Research #DataScience #OpenScience

How to Find the Right Networking Events and Network Efficiently When I first came to the U.S. for my master’s, I kept hearing the same advice: "Networking is key." So, like many students, I started attending random events, meeting a few people, and—let’s be honest—enjoying the free food. But after a while, I realized that while I was showing up, I wasn’t really making progress. I was meeting people, but those connections weren’t leading anywhere. That’s when I changed my approach. Here’s what worked for me: ✅ Targeted Networking: Instead of attending just any event, I focused on those specific to the biotech and medical device industry. ✅ Pre-Event Research: Before going, I would look up the speakers, their companies, and what they were working on. This helped me move beyond small talk and have meaningful conversations. ✅ Follow-Ups That Matter: The real challenge isn’t meeting someone once—it’s staying in touch. After events, I would send a thank-you message mentioning something specific from our conversation. That made my outreach more personal and memorable. This shift in strategy helped me build long-term connections—people who eventually played a key role in my career. Now, when students ask me how to find the right networking opportunities, I recommend starting with events hosted by accelerators and innovation hubs. These are some of the best: 1. MassBio 2. Nucleate 3. Innovate@BU 4. MIT Biotech Group 5. MDG Boston 4. Venture Café Cambridge You can’t miss this event that is right around the corner! In June, the 'Festival of Genomics' is happening, and it’s a great opportunity to meet professionals and industry leaders. If you're serious about networking, make sure to check it out! If you found this helpful, follow me for more insights and share this with anyone who might benefit! #networkingevents #biotech #medicaldevices

We skipped SLAS and Future Labs for the Novalix conference and a Horizon Project training school in Greece. I think we made the right choice, not for the beachside hotel and the fantastic seafood, but for business purposes. DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to disqualify any conference here; we would have attended if we had the bandwidth. I simply want to give you a different perspective. Small conferences, training schools, and other events are the way to go regarding business development—the real kind, not sales in disguise. The problem with big conferences is that most small companies cannot capitalize on the foot traffic. While most people think this is how to make the stats work out and convert in a 30-30-30 regime, an early-stage start-up can rarely do so. Here is why you should look for small conferences to gain exposure and build a stakeholder network. 🤝 Networking: At small conferences, you spend time with people because you are not under a numbers pressure. You get to know people's vision and values. Spending 2-3 hours with top scientists at a dinner beats any 15-minute 1:1 in a top conference. 🎯 Focus: Everybody in the audience is here for the same reason, faces the same challenges, and shares the same hopes. If you are talking, your story will resonate; if you are listening, you will be inspired. 🚀 Exposure: It's more likely that you will be a speaker or a panelist if you are attending a small event with a strong interest in what you are doing. If you are a seed startup founder, you are not giving a keynote at a major event. 🧠 Mental space: You will likely be in your comfort zone, enabling you to share your best version of yourself and properly listen to what people tell you. Conferences are 9.00-23.00 (if not longer in Greece :) ) working hours, you are here to understand what people want and need. It is impossible if you have 20 different conversation focuses in a single day, without learning any lessons learned. Of course, big conferences are also good, especially once people know you or your company. They then transform into excellent meeting points for catch-ups and demos. They are also useful if you are trying to attract investors, and at an early stage, it may matter a lot, so do not give up on them. But if you want to expand your network and deepen your market intelligence, consider attending smaller events as well.