[_ihaque]

There are a lot of comments in this thread discussing biotech salaries. They're not universally true. Source: I'm the VP of data science at Recursion, a biotech company focused on drug discovery, so I manage or have visibility into hiring in the domains that most people on this site would likely be interested in.

The biotech industry (which is made up of at least three rather different verticals: tools, diagnostics, and therapeutics) is changing quite a bit today. There are certainly companies that have less of a technology or data emphasis or who are still trying to figure out the value those could bring, and those companies are far less likely to pay well in SW/DS roles. There are others that either from their inception or more recently realize the value these approaches can deliver and compensate accordingly. I personally find the new wave of biotech startups that are focused on being hybrids of experimental and computational capabilities extremely exciting (which is why I'm at one) and these are the firms where software and mathematical skill sets are most likely to be valued.

You'll probably still make more on Wall Street than you would in biotech. But you don't have to be _badly_ paid in order to work on a meaningful mission. OP is, IMO, correct that biology is entering a phase in which computational skills are a rate-limiting factor in our ability to make advances (note: not _the_ limit -- experiment is still absolutely critical), and it's a super exciting and impactful field to be in.

Shameless plug: Recursion is hiring a TON of positions in data science and machine learning, engineering, and elsewhere. Check us out: https://www.recursion.com/careers. (Contact info is in my bio.)

[RhysU]

Man, I am so sick of my industry being a punching bag.

I work in "Wall Street".

My firm sells things to those who want to buy them in a highly regulated marketplace with considerable governmental and self-regulatory oversight.

We do this on behalf of investors who entrust us to use their capital as fiduciaries for their, and their clients, best interests.

We solve challenging problems with cutting edge approaches involving non-trivial technical, statistical, and business considerations.

And we are not paid _poorly_ for our efforts.

Please stop pushing a strawman financial industry narrative that we've no meaningful mission to serve your industry's recruiting needs. I don't poo on biotech to source my hires.

(Of course none of this constitutes financial, or personal, advice.)

[spekcular]

What, exactly, is the "meaningful mission" of modern tech-driven finance firms? As you note, you are paid well for helping (typically wealthy) investors make a lot of money, and this is a challenging thing to do. But nothing in your post tells me why that's meaningful.

I understand the point of places like Fidelity or Charles Schwab, that offer the general public effective, low-cost investment vehicles. It's hard to deny that's a meaningful, socially beneficial thing to do. But when people punch at "Wall Street," they usually have in mind places like G-Research, whose only real purpose seems to be making an already rich owner richer.

[RhysU]

> What, exactly, is the "meaningful mission" of modern tech-driven finance firms?

Suppose that such a firm accepts money from a state (or other) pension plan. Then part of the mission of that firm is to provide a stable retirement for every participant of that particular pension.

Know anyone on a state (or other) pension?

[spekcular]

Do most statistical arbitrage/high frequency trading/market making shops manage state pension money? I use these terms loosely – if you want me to be more precise I can just start naming individual firms.

Again, I take no issue with the firms that responsibly manage people's pensions, help the public access equity and bond markets, and so on. But those are not the firms that the people making demeaning comments about "Wall Street" are talking about. So I don't think that comment is responsive to the question I asked. Again, that question is, what is the "meaningful mission" of those other firms?

[RhysU]

Here's another example focusing on just market makers and the value they provide...

Many people disparage used car dealers. The used car salesperson is a trope punching bag. They offer bad prices versus what someone can get by using Craigslist or AutoTrader or something and putting in modest effort.

But those businesses serve a purpose because they allow folks to buy or sell a vehicle real darn fast relative to Craigslist or AutoTrader or something. Like, hours instead of days.

Market makers are used car dealers. They collect a spread every time they buy then sell the same car. Or when their car inventory goes up in value. They don't have perfect information, like a used car dealer, when someone is selling them a lemon so they build that risk into their quoted spreads.

The market maker's mission is be the most profitable used car dealer they can be. Unsavory? Perhaps. But they are kept in check by competition from every other used car dealer in town. Consequently, you get a reasonable price for reasonable amounts of liquidity. Just like you do when buying a first, used car one afternoon for some lucky teenager.

The other types of market participants you mentioned also accomplish useful things. I won't go into other examples nor will I field questions about any specific firm.

And, sure, everyone wants to be as profitable as they can be. That's business. Providing valuable service to customers for the highest possible profit in the face of competition isn't unique to the financial industry.

[spekcular]

I was going to include market makers in my previous post, but didn't to keep things simple. I agree the benefits from them seem pretty clear, in the sense that lowering the spread and increasing liquidity helps retail investors (and maybe market stability in general). But there are a few points here that I think make a lot of people uncomfortable.

First, it's not so clear this is meaningful work. If I'm a smart college graduate and go to work in biotech, I get to save lives and cure disease (ideally). If I go to work at a market making firm, I get to ... lower the spread? I think it's quite reasonable for someone to forgo doing this because they feel it doesn't make a meaningful contribution to the world.

Second, I've watched many incredibly talented people disproportionately go work at HFT firms, and it's hard to to avoid the impression this is socially wasteful. Efficient markets are nice, but do the markets really need to be efficient on a microsecond scale? It seems like the talent sink here is unfortunate and society might be better off if some of them worked instead on, say, biotech or alternative energy sources.

I agree the the cause is obvious: finance pays more money. But it's hard to avoid thinking about solutions that reduce the profitability of HFT and don't harm market efficiency significantly, for example eliminating the subpenny rule [0]. It seems clear to me that if the current incentives result in one industry essentially monopolizing the nation's most quantitatively able workers, then those incentives might need to change.

I don't think this point was made explicit in the original post you responded to, but it lurks in the background.

Finally, I really wish you would treat other examples of market participants. Because right now you've done the easy cases, the ones that I, a total outsider, can mount a defense for. Again, it's the other ones that are interesting. And it's clear there are a ton of participants who are a) not aimed at increasing access for retail investors and b) not market makers.

[0] https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_whats_broken.htm...

[55555]

There isn't one. It's the worlds biggest poker table and they just like playing cards and it's profitable and it's intellectually rewarding to think your way to being the smartest guy at the table. Sounds awesome to me (until you burn out because you're fundamentally just playing a big game of poker).

[_ihaque]

Sorry @RhysU! My intention wasn't to poo on financial careers. A lot of* what happens in finance is in fact useful and certainly technically interesting.

My point was that _if_ one's primary goal is to get the highest comp possible, it's probably better to go into finance than biotech. No bones about that; we don't pay as well. But that does not mean that biotech universally pays _badly_ for technical skills, as casual readers might assume based on reading this thread. My point was that if someone is both technically-minded and interested in the mission in biotech, it's worth taking a closer look, especially at the wave of companies from the last ten years bringing tech and biotech together.

* Not everything, I'm sure, but neither is everything in biotech!

[RhysU]

Agreed! Chasing comp for its own sake is unsatisfying. Pursue the vector aligned with what you like and with what pays well enough.

[anthuswilliams]

I'm a software engineer at Recursion, and Imran is telling the truth. I was on my way to posting a comment just like this when I saw this.

If you're exploring the world of AI for drug discovery, IMO, it's important not to fall for the trap of companies that just do "AI on public available data". That's just the same "the fundamental problem of software is a lack of ideas" phenomenon the article was talking about. You want to meld software and data science skills with the fundamental work of whatever industry you want to be the vanguard of.

Seriously, if you're in the market, check out Recursion. My contact is in my bio also, and I'll answer any questions Imran can't (or won't :p).

[mediocreisbest]

Having worked with Yoshua, I can say your company is lucky to have him around.

[junon]

No remote positions :/ That's a shame. Would have loved to apply.

[anthuswilliams]

One problem you see a lot in biotech, is that "bio" and "tech" tend to form separate poles of the company, and there is little cross-contamination between the two. I[0] think being on site is an important counterweight to that phenomenon. I think it's what has made us successful so far.

We've been doing a lot of remote work during covid and I have definitely noticed the decline of water-cooler solidarity. We still do hire remote engineers and data scientists, but only in cases where they are the literal top of their field.

[0] Standard disclaimers: I work at Recursion, have drunk the Kool-Aid, etc etc