Should I leave my research job?

March 21, 2025 7:26 PM

I'm new to the academic research world. I got here just in time for it to burn down.

I've been working at an academic research center attached to a pediatric hospital for about 1.5 years now. I'm an administrator for multiple labs, do general admin stuff, and help with grants here and there. I'm convinced that I will lose my job within the year, but my bosses are not convinced, and take me as somewhat of a doomer. I work for people that are relatively high up who get a lot of inside knowledge. But somehow, I just don't trust it, and I feel a STRONG urge to find another job as quickly as possible. In my mind, I don't see a way how the indirect funding cuts as well as the NIH being dismantled will not destroy us. My job is not that important and they could definitely live without me. I'm also worried about the job market getting flooded with federal workers that have been laid off.

It was my dream to work at this particular institution. I am underpaid, but my job is also soooooo easy. I have so much free time. I'm worried about jumping ship when I don't have to. I tried applying internally, did really well and got to the final stages (and a little bit lead on) and then they rejected me. There aren't any other internal postings that have been interesting to me.

I started applying to external jobs last weekend, and I already have a strong lead right now with a huge pharmaceutical company. It would be an $19k raise but would be way more demanding. They are going FAST - I applied on Tuesday, and already have a third round interview coming on Monday next week! If this turns into an offer I could have a new job in 2-3 weeks, which feels insane to me. Am I being too hasty or should I GTFO while I can?

posted by marvelousmellitus to Work & Money (14 answers total)

I'm not an academic, but it sounds wise to just go now. If you wait until there are more layoffs, it will be more competitive to find a job.
posted by Didnt_do_enough at 7:48 PM on March 21 [3 favorites]

If you have a lot of free time then you’re likely first to go with being laid off. I would pursue the new job
posted by pando11 at 8:05 PM on March 21 [3 favorites]

just one data point about super easy jobs - they are their own form of golden handcuffs, IMO. my very first job out of grad school was absurdly light - great on the surface for the 1.5 years I was there! but it took me, no joke, multiple years to catch up on the combo of "basic job skills" + self discipline + politicking 101 skills. I white-knuckled it for a long time after that singular job because I was so, so out of touch with normal workplace expectations and constantly playing catch-up.

YMMV of course but if you already feel like your days there might be numbered, it's not the worst thing to jump ship now to a job that kicks your butt a bit (if it's mostly in a good way!) before things are dire.
posted by seemoorglass at 8:16 PM on March 21 [10 favorites]

Trust your gut. If the institution has any serious reliance on Federal grants, even indirectly, leave now.

While your center may survive, it will certainly not be thriving in the near future.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:00 PM on March 21 [4 favorites]

I am an academic. I've had my faculty job for 14 years. If I had a non-federal funding reliant job to move into, I would do so in a heartbeat. I'm pretty sure things are only going to get worse, not better.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:02 AM on March 22 [3 favorites]

I got hired 3 years ago as research support (grants management, etc.) and pushed my way into a pure research position at an NIH-funded lab at a "name" university. On one hand, I would say if you actually get an offer of this pharma job with a $19K raise, you should take it. On the other hand, I would say look at the larger climate at your department/university. I am EXTREMELY PRIVILEGED to be at a place with resources to survive these cuts. If your department is talking about "bridge funding," cutting back travel and entertainment, that kind of thing, then your job may not be at risk as of today. I would also have a frank talk with your PI to see what s/he thinks.
posted by 8603 at 5:56 AM on March 22 [1 favorite]

I get 8603’s comment, but I think the problem is that any federal funding is now uncertain. I’m a result of the USAID cuts and it’s been wild talking to people in other sectors who say things like “oh, our funding is really securel” yeah, that’s what I thought too.

Try to dig deeper and find out how exactly your department/role is funded. Even if it’s through something like the school endowment, they might want to pull back on that to then be able to self fund the end of certain projects that lose funding.

Also something to consider is that in many organizations affected by the USAID cuts, obviously the people working directly on the terminated projects were laid off, but also anyone with a more junior title like “officer” or “coordinator.”

You also have MANY public health people from USAID and impacted orgs making the move over the pharma.

If you get offered the job, take it. (Also, if they’re hiring and you don’t mind sharing the name via PM, I’d be interested!)
posted by raccoon409 at 6:18 AM on March 22 [2 favorites]

If you get the offer, go. Regardless of any political/funding considerations. You need a career that will challenge you and enlarge your mind. The pharma job is a logical next step in your career progression. More responsibilities, more challenges, more money. Just go. Don't look back.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:22 AM on March 22

Two factors:

Consider the topics of research. Almost any grant with a keyword on this list is getting canceled.
https://www.reddit.com/r/publichealth/comments/1ihm0ym/words_being_used_to_eliminate_grant_proposals/

Other already- existing grants seem to be getting their yearly renewals on time. NSF has been making awards. There was a pause on NIH review and awarding meetings, but it -seems- to be getting back on track.

So if your center or department is, say, microbiology or cancer or physics, you may well be ok. But "may" is doing a lot of work there. And academia is getting attacked on other fronts as well (see: currently injunction on indirect cost changes, Dept of Ed implosion).

The second issue is how your specific job is funded. It could be directly funded by specific grants, or generally from indirect funds, or "hard money" from the institution. Each of those has different exposures to the current upheaval. How long the job has existed is also an indicator. I think this is a question you could pose directly to your supervisor.

(I am an academic researcher)
posted by Dashy at 7:30 AM on March 22 [1 favorite]

Idk where you work or what your actual funding sources are, but I do know that lots of medical research is funded outside the NIH and other Fed programs. Look at your funding sources. Ask your superiors specifically about what provides for your paycheck. You may be payed by an endowment or some other source that is not directly affected by federal cuts.

Maybe "easy jobs" can be limiting, but cut-throat pharma culture might not be exactly pleasant either. The ethics of the positions will also likely be very different imo, ymmv.
posted by SaltySalticid at 7:46 AM on March 22 [3 favorites]

I left academia and it was one of the best decisions I ever made (and I loved it).

I’ll say that if a job doesn’t ask much of you, you’ll be the first to go and one of the last to be hired at a new job.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:57 AM on March 22

I'm also in an academic research center mostly funded by NIH. If you were early career and asking me this at our center, I'd encourage you to take the other offer. $19K is a lot of money, especially at your end of the pay scale. Also, you get to leave the anxiety of being in research during this asinine era... We are slowly eating away at ourselves with all this underlying stress
posted by advicepig at 12:58 PM on March 22 [1 favorite]

I think the reason you should be looking at jobs, far and away outside of job security, is the fact that your superiors consider you a doomer (and you didn't get anywhere with an internal job interview, which might have been related). That's not a good reputation to have in academia, no matter how warranted it is. Honestly, I'd argue that you should keep your mouth shut with that kind of talk at your next job regardless of where it is; don't get the rep but do keep your eyes open.

In terms of specific jobs, eh. The pharma job could be affected by whatever nonsense RFK puts forward. Don't consider it a guarantee, do save up the extra money.
posted by librarylis at 3:05 PM on March 22 [2 favorites]

Is your position grant-based or university infrastructure-based? If grant, I'd jump. If you're part of the university, I'd probably jump too.

$19k raise

Really worth looking at your life and your priorities and how much $19k can promote those at the expense of doing a standard 9-5.

Or that's an extra $19k (however much can be except if you put it into a retirement account) a year in savings. Austerity isn't a binary 0% - 100%, you can choose some point in-between.
posted by porpoise at 11:02 PM on March 22