Scientists who discover and develop drugs have many different roles to play in a pharmaceutical company. Some are assigned one of these roles and do not deviate throughout their professional careers. Others are assigned two or more distinct roles (either simultaneously or sequentially) or through their own initiative take on additional roles because of apparent needs and opportunities in their company.

The roles of scientists can be classified as follows:

Scientists need to have many skills to conduct any one of these activities effectively. These skills, which include those of the entrepreneur, teacher, and diplomat, in turn usually depend on an individual’s personality, interests, and abilities. These interpersonal skills may be developed, but they are not readily taught.

Few pharmaceutical companies allow their scientists and other professionals in research and development a great deal of flexibility in defining their roles. People who are unhappy with their roles may request a transfer to a different department, join a different company in a new role, or retrain themselves through education. At those companies that allow some professionals to redefine their roles, people who see an unmet need that they could fill may move slowly in that direction by an amoeba-like growth. Amoebas send out a small part of their cell bodies to explore a new area. If they do not encounter resistance, they may move their entire cell in the new direction. A positive aspect of this approach is that the person who is exploring a new area is highly motivated to do a good job and the company will probably benefit from their activities. The negative aspects are that many people may be seeking new areas to work in and creating numerous conflicts throughout the company. If an individual is successful in the new area, he or she may be engaged in activities for which they were not hired and their original job function(s) may be inadequately performed or covered. This type of amoeba movement was fairly common in some departments at the Burroughs Wellcome Company, but would not be possible in more highly structured (and, dare the author say, rigid) companies, at least from an organizational perspective.

Many scientists perceive their careers as a stepwise building process where each advance made in their professional disciplines (e.g., professional publication or positive contribution to the company) is viewed as helping in their career advancement. Scientists often have overlapping careers within their pharmaceutical companies, as well as within their general discipline of science or drug. Outside their companies they may (a) teach courses, (b) present lectures, (c) author manuscripts, (d) conduct research, (e) engage in patient treatment, (f) serve as officers in professional societies, (g) work for a trade association, or (h) help organize and chair meetings and symposia of various types and groups.

It is ironic that the most effective and creative scientists in a pharmaceutical company may only be promoted at most pharmaceutical companies by giving them additional administrative responsibility and taking them out of the laboratory. This is a major issue because they are often of greatest value to the company when they are working actively in the laboratory. This has always been a difficult personnel issue in pharmaceutical companies among ambitious senior scientists whose professional career growth has outstripped their administrative career growth. In a pyramid type of organization, there are usually few positions and even fewer opportunities for promotion available that will satisfy ambitious scientists. Some companies have addressed this issue by creating a system of “half-level” promotions. This approach, however, merely serves to increase the company’s bureaucracy and often complicates the career problems and possibly drug development as well, rather than solving these issues.

Creative scientists often develop an individual approach or style in how they develop their ideas and seek to reach their goals. They differ greatly from each other and do not fit a single pattern. They desire certain freedoms to pursue their own ideas, though the paths they follow are often extremely different. General goals should be established by managers for their efforts and activities. A large majority of scientists (as well as others) prefer having a clear goal and direction to follow that is supported by the company’s managers and will enhance the company’s overall health.