#biotech pharma company

[wintersbiotechnology]

Why Formulation Success Begins with a Biotechnology Company

Have you ever wondered what makes your favorite skincare product so successful or why some supplements appear to work better than others?

The answer is biotechnology!

A Biotechnology company is like a behind-the-scenes expert, formulating new ingredients that help everything from wellness to advanced beauty products.

Biotech companies make sure these ingredients are safe, natural, and revolutionary in addition to making things effective. With the world evolving so quickly, staying updated on recent biotechnology innovations has become important for anyone trying to stay ahead in the health and wellness game.

After all, when science and creativity meet, the results are incredible! Read Full Blog Here: https://wintersbiotechnology.com/why-formulation-success-begins-with-a-biotechnology-company/

[mediblogs-blog]

The pharmaceutical industry in India is a powerhouse, contributing significantly to the global medicine supply. Generic medicines, known for their cost-effectiveness and therapeutic efficiency, are a major driving force behind this success. A Generic Pharma Franchise Company in India provides a golden opportunity for individuals and businesses to enter this thriving sector with minimal risk and maximum potential for growth.

[curetonbiotech]

India has established itself as one of the largest producers and exporters of pharmaceuticals worldwide, and Mexican markets are increasingly benefiting from this relationship. Indian pharmaceutical companies are known for providing high-quality, affordable medicines, which has made them valuable partners for Mexico’s healthcare sector. Indian pharma companies exporting to Mexico have played a crucial role in meeting the demand for affordable medicines in Latin America by delivering generic drugs, biosimilars, and over-the-counter products. This article highlights the top Indian pharma companies exporting to Mexico, their specialties, and the benefits they bring to Mexico’s healthcare system.

[oidracremedies]

Maharashtra, one of India’s most industrialized and economically advanced states, offers a fertile ground for businesses, particularly in the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors. With an ever-increasing demand for quality healthcare, the pharmaceutical industry is booming. One of the most promising avenues in this sector is the General PCD pharma franchise in Maharashtra. Entrepreneurs and small business owners can leverage the growing healthcare infrastructure and demand for essential medicines to build a profitable business in the state.

[eularis]

AI in Pharmaceutical Industry

Discover how Eularis is transforming the pharmaceutical industry with innovative artificial intelligence solutions. Our advanced artificial intelligence tools help pharmaceutical companies make data-driven decisions, improve research accuracy, and speed up time-to-market for new therapies. Explore how our expertise in the Artificial Intelligence Pharmaceutical Industry can revolutionize your business and deliver results. Visit us to learn more about our AI-driven solutions.

[biotech-gnova]

General Range PCD Pharma Franchise Company In Mumbai

Mumbai, the bustling financial capital of India, is not just the heart of Bollywood but also a thriving hub for various industries, including pharmaceuticals. The pharmaceutical industry in Mumbai is booming, offering countless opportunities for entrepreneurs. One such opportunity is investing in a general range PCD (Propaganda Cum Distribution) Pharma franchise. In this article, we'll delve into the potential of a general range PCD Pharma franchise company in Mumbai, highlighting the benefits, market potential, and steps to get started.

[anjudigital]

We are here to Acheive Advancing Healthcare through Innovation

Our biotech company is dedicated to using the latest technologies and research methodologies to deliver best solutions that make a positive impact.

We're committed to developing advanced biotech products that promote quality of life and generate value for our customers.

Our biotech patents represent some of the most innovative solutions in the field, spanning healthcare, agriculture, and industrial applications.

[mariacallous]

For much of living memory, the United States has been a global leader of scientific research and innovation. From the polio vaccine, to decoding the first human chromosome, to the first heart bypass surgery, American research has originated a seemingly endless list of health care advances that are taken for granted.

But when the Trump administration issued a memorandum Monday that paused all federal grants and loans—with the aim of ensuring that funding recipients are complying with the president’s raft of recent executive orders—US academia ground to a halt. Since then, the freeze has been partially rescinded for some sectors, but it largely remains in place for universities and research institutions across the country, with no certainty of what comes next.

“This has immediate impact on people’s lives,” says J9 Austin, professor of psychiatry and medical genetics at the University of British Columbia. “And it’s terrifying.”

The funding freeze requires agencies to submit reviews of their funded programs to the Office of Management and Budget by February 10. The freeze follows separate orders issued last week to US health agencies—including to the National Institutes of Health, which leads the country’s medical research—to pause all communications until February 1 and stop almost all travel indefinitely.

The confusion is consummate. If the funding freeze continues through February, and even beyond, how will graduate students be paid? Should grant applications—years long in the writing—still be submitted by the triannual grant submission deadline on February 5? What does this mean for clinical trials if participants and lab techs can’t be paid? Will all that research have to be scrapped thanks to incomplete data?

Even if Trump fully reverses the freeze on research funding, the damage, multiple sources say, has been done. Although for now the funding freeze is temporary, the administration has shown how it might wield the levers of government. The implication is that withdrawing funding could be done more permanently, and could be done to individual institutions, individual organizations, both private and public. This won’t just set a precedent for the large East Coast or West Coast universities, but those located in both red and blue states alike.

While always an imperfect arrangement, science in the US is largely funded by a complex system of grant applications, reviews by peers in the field (both of which have had to be halted as part of the communications pause), and the competitive distribution of NIH funds, says Gerald Keusch, emeritus professor of medicine at Boston University and former associate director of international research for the NIH. According to its website, the NIH disburses nearly $48 billion in grants per year.

When it comes to medical research, America truly is first, and if it abdicates that position, the void left behind has global ramifications. “In Canada, we have always looked to NIH as an exemplar of what we should be trying to do,” says Austin, speaking to me independently of any roles and affiliations. “Now, that’s collapsed.”

Science is, in its very nature, collaborative. Many consortiums and alliances within scientific fields cross borders and language barriers. Some labs may be able to find additional funding from alternative sources such as the European Union. But it is unlikely that a continued withdrawal of NIH funding could be plugged by overseas support. And Big Pharma, with its seemingly endless funds, is unlikely to step up either, according to sources WIRED spoke with.

“This can’t be handed off to drug companies or biotech, because they’re not interested in things that are as preclinical as a lot of the work we’re discussing here,” says a professor of genetics who agreed to speak anonymously out of fear of retribution. “Essentially, there’s a whole legion of university-based scientists who work super damn hard to try to figure out some basic stuff that eventually becomes something that a drug company can drop $100 million on.”

The millions of dollars awarded to high-achieving labs is used to fund graduate students, lab techs, and analysts. If the principal investigator on a research team is unsuccessful in obtaining a grant through the process Keusch describes, often that lab is closed, and those ancillary team members lose their jobs.

One of the potential downstream effects of an NIH funding loss, even if only temporary, is a mass domestic brain drain. “Many of those people are going to go out to find something else to do,” the professor of genetics says. “These are just like jobs for anything else—we can’t not pay people for a month. What would the food service industry be like, for example, or grocery stores, if they don’t pay somebody for a month? Their workers will leave, and pharma can only hire so many people.”

WIRED heard over and over, from scientists too fearful for their teams and their jobs to speak on the record, that it won’t take long for the impact to reach the general population. With a loss of research funding comes the closure of hospitals and universities. And gains in medical advancement will likely falter too.

Conditions being studied with NIH funding are not only rare diseases affecting 1 or 2 percent of the population. They’re problems such as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s—issues that affect your grandmother, your friends, and so many people who will one day fall out of perfect health. It’s thanks to this research system, and the scientists working within it, that doctors know how to save someone from a heart attack, regulate diabetes, lower cholesterol, and reduce the risk of stroke. It’s how the world knows that smoking isn’t a good idea. “All of that is knowledge that scientists funded by the NIH have generated, and if you throw this big of a wrench in it, it’s going to disrupt absolutely everything,” says the genetics professor.

While some are hopeful that the funding freeze for academia could end on February 1, when the pause on communications and therefore grant reviews is slated to lift, the individuals WIRED spoke with are largely skeptical that work will simply resume as before.

“When the wheels of government stop, it’s not like they turn on a dime and they just start up again,” says Julie Scofield, a former executive director of NASTAD, a US-based health nonprofit. She adds that she has colleagues in Washington, DC, who have had funding returned to their fields, and yet remain unable to access payment through the management system.

Austin says that already the international scientific community is holding hastily arranged online support groups. Topics covered range from the banal—what the most recent communication from the White House implies—to how best to protect trainees and the many students on international visas. But mostly they’re there to provide support.

“I’ve had a lot of messages from people just expressing gratitude that we could actually get together,” Austin says. “There’s just so much unaddressable need. None of us has the answers.”

Scientists, perhaps more than any other profession, are trained to “learn and validate conclusions drawn from observation and experimentation,” says Keutsch. That applies to the current situation. And what they observe during this pause of chaos does not portend well for the future of the United States as a pinnacle of scientific excellence.

“If people want the United States to head toward being a second-class nation, this is exactly what to do. If the goal is, in fact, to make America great, this is not a way to do it,” says the genetics professor. “This is not a rational, thoughtful, effective thing to do. It will merely destroy.”

This story has been written under a pseudonym, as the reporter has specific and credible concerns about potential retaliation.

[ovalt]

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, who is overseeing pre-trial hearings for Luigi Mangione, is married to a former Pfizer executive and holds hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock, including in healthcare companies and pharmaceutical companies, according to her 2023 financial disclosures. Parker’s husband, Bret Parker, left Pfizer in 2010, where he served as Vice President and assistant general counsel after holding the same titles at Wyeth, a pharmaceutical manufacturer purchased by Pfizer. According to Parker’s disclosures, her husband Bret still collects a pension from his time at Pfizer in the form of a Senior Executive Retirement Plan, or SERP. [...] Judge Parker holds between $50,000 and $100,000 in Pfizer.  Parker also holds scattered interests in pharmaceutical, biotech, and healthcare companies like Abbott Laboratories, the owner of St. Jude Medical. [...] Parker also has stakes in pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device investments like Viatris, Intellia Therapeutics, Ase Technology, and Crispr Therapeutics.

[mediblogs-blog]

The future of Generic Pharma Company in Mumbai looks promising. As healthcare costs continue to rise globally, the demand for affordable generic medicines is expected to grow. Mumbai’s pharmaceutical companies are likely to expand their operations, investing in research and development to produce even more cost-effective, high-quality generics. Government initiatives and regulatory reforms may also provide a further boost to the industry, making Mumbai an even stronger player in the global generic pharmaceutical market.

[curetonbiotech]

Mumbai, often referred to as the financial capital of India, is also a major hub for the pharmaceutical industry. Home to some of the country’s largest and most renowned pharma export companies, Mumbai plays a crucial role in the global pharmaceutical supply chain. These companies are known for their high-quality products, innovation, and extensive distribution networks that span across continents. In this blog, we will explore the leading pharma export companies in Mumbai, their specialties, and what makes them stand out in the competitive global market.

[oidracremedies]

General PCD Pharma Franchise in Chhattisgarh - Gnova Biotech Chhattisgarh, with its rapidly growing healthcare sector and increasing demand for quality medications, is emerging as a hotbed for entrepreneurs looking to invest in the pharmaceutical industry. A General PCD pharma franchise in Chhattisgarh offers a lucrative opportunity for those who wish to enter the pharma business and capitalize on the state’s healthcare needs. With its diverse population, expanding infrastructure, and both urban and rural markets, Chhattisgarh provides the perfect environment for establishing a profitable pharma franchise.

[biotech-gnova]

Allopathic PCD Pharma Franchise In Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu, a state renowned for its industrial growth and healthcare infrastructure, presents a thriving market for the pharmaceutical industry. With an increasing demand for quality healthcare services and medications, the state offers immense potential for entrepreneurs looking to invest in the pharmaceutical sector. One of the most promising business models in this sector is the Allopathic PCD (Propaganda Cum Distribution) Pharma Franchise. This model allows entrepreneurs to distribute a wide range of allopathic medicines under an established brand, ensuring both profitability and community health benefits. Let's explore the opportunities, benefits, and steps to start an Allopathic PCD Pharma Franchise in Tamil Nadu.

[mariacallous]

"I’m going to let him go wild on health,” former president Donald Trump said of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at his Madison Square Garden rally in New York City this past weekend. “I’m going to let him go wild on the food. I’m going to let him go wild on the medicines.”

Kennedy, a former Democrat, suspended his presidential campaign in August and endorsed Trump. He has since launched the Make America Healthy Again campaign, an initiative focused on tackling chronic diseases that Trump has seemingly embraced in recent weeks. Given Kennedy’s anti-vaccination stance and conspiratorial leanings, some policy experts and former government officials are concerned about how his views could shape the nation’s health agenda.

Kennedy has long made false statements about the safety of vaccines and has touted disproven treatments for Covid-19, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. On the campaign trail, he has railed against seed oils, blaming several chronic health conditions on their presence in processed foods.

How much influence Kennedy could have on national health policy will all depend on his role within a future Trump administration. Trump did not clarify his remarks at Sunday’s event, including what position he is considering Kennedy for. According to a CNN report that ran late Tuesday, Kennedy said Trump “promised him control of the public health agencies,” but in an email to WIRED on Wednesday, Steven Cheung, Trump’s campaign communications director, said that formal discussions of who will serve in a second Trump administration are premature.

Trump could be considering Kennedy to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which has 80,000 federal employees, or one of the agencies within it, such as the Food and Drug Administration or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It would be a departure from his previous top health picks, who had lengthy government or public health careers. For instance, Alex Azar, Trump’s HHS secretary, was deputy HHS secretary under George W. Bush and an executive at drugmaker Eli Lilly. Scott Gottlieb, a physician and investor appointed as FDA commissioner under Trump, had previously worked for the FDA and had served on the boards of pharma and biotech companies.

When asked to elaborate on Kennedy’s health priorities, Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, the former candidate’s campaign director and daughter-in-law, told WIRED: “Bobby aims to end conflicts and corruption at the agencies, ensure all testing is undertaken by scientists who have no financial interest in the outcome, and all results of all trials are released to the public. The free market will take care of it from there.” (The National Institutes of Health already requires results of clinical trials funded by the agency to be published to a government database.)

Jerome Adams, US surgeon general under Trump and current executive director of health equity initiatives at Purdue University, says that even if Kennedy were tapped to lead HHS, the FDA, or the CDC, it’s unlikely that he would ascend to one of those roles due to his lack of medical training and controversial views on public health issues. “Congressional approval is required for these positions, and his stances could be a barrier,” Adams says.

If Republicans control the Senate after next week’s election, though, that calculus could change. “The GOP has generally fallen into line in terms of supporting candidates that President Trump does,” says Genevieve Kanter, associate professor of public policy at the University of Southern California.

If chosen to be FDA commissioner, Kennedy would control the agency’s budget and priorities and could have a sizable impact by installing lower-level appointees who are sympathetic to his worldview. While the FDA commissioner does not single-handedly approve or authorize new drugs, Kantner says outside political pressure can certainly influence that process. Kennedy could also appoint members to FDA advisory committees, panels of outside experts that make recommendations to the agency on drug approvals and other regulatory matters. The FDA often follows the recommendations of advisory committees when making decisions on new drug approvals, but not always.

The FDA can also choose to not enforce some rules in certain circumstances—what’s known as enforcement discretion. Given his support for dubious and unproven therapies, such as stem cells and hyperbaric oxygen, an FDA under Kennedy, for instance, could choose to not go after companies that market unapproved treatments.

“When we think of the kind of person we want to be head of HHS or be FDA commissioner, someone ‘going wild’ isn’t exactly the first trait that comes to mind,” Kanter says. “It wouldn’t ease the public’s concern that we would see more food safety incidents and adverse events from poorly regulated drugs and devices from a lax administration that is known for embracing unscientific theories.”

Kennedy wouldn’t have free rein though. Existing laws and regulations govern how the agency works, and a new FDA commissioner wouldn’t be able to get rid of those quickly. “If you’re dealing with regulatory issues that have been long-standing and have lots of precedent, it’s just not possible to turn some of those things around or dismiss them overnight,” says a past leader of the FDA, who requested anonymity so that they could speak freely.

Likewise, even in a leadership role at HHS or the CDC, Kennedy wouldn’t be able to easily affect vaccine policy. Vaccine recommendations are made by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which comprises outside medical and public health experts. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, says Kennedy could try to stack that advisory committee with people who are sympathetic to his views on vaccination, but those members are chosen through a rigorous nomination process.

“He could certainly change policy that way, but it takes a while and it won't be a secret. There are ways in which the public can push back, including taking a case to court,” he says.

Kennendy could have influence in other ways beyond direct control of a public health agency. Trump could potentially bring Kennedy on as a White House adviser, which wouldn’t require approval by the Senate.

“Without congressional vetting and oversight, there is potential for unchecked impact. RFK's views could shape health policies, raising concerns about misinformation and harm,” Adams says.

Karoline Leavitt, national press secretary for the Trump campaign, told WIRED in an email that if reelected, Trump will establish a “special Presidential Commission of independent minds and will charge them with investigating what is causing the decades-long increase in chronic illnesses.” She did not say whether Kennedy would be chosen for that task force.

Kennedy has also been sizing himself up for another position in a potential Trump cabinet: agriculture secretary. A longtime environmental activist, Kennedy has promised to take on big farms and feedlots, reduce pesticides, and fix what he presents as a food system captured by corporate interests. “When Donald Trump gets me inside,” Kennedy said in a video shot outside the Department of Agriculture headquarters in Washington, DC, “it won’t be that way any more.”

This platform is a continuation of Kennedy’s long history as an antagonist against the agriculture industry. In 2018, Kennedy and a team of attorneys won an initial $289 million settlement against Monsanto, representing a groundskeeper who developed cancer after being soaked with a herbicide made by the agrochemical firm. He also attempted to sue the pig farming company Smithfield because of its production of hog manure, although that case was thrown out by a federal judge.

Kennedy’s past makes him an unlikely candidate for agriculture secretary, according to Daniel Glickman, who served in the role during Bill Clinton’s presidency. “It’s hard for me to imagine, given Trump’s traditional base in the heartlands, that he would pick somebody who was an advocate for breaking up large farms and breaking consolidated agriculture,” says Glickman.

Like top posts at HHS, the USDA secretary position would need to be confirmed by a Senate vote. “I don’t think [Kennedy] is a slam dunk,” says Glickman.

Trump’s pick for USDA chief during his first term was Sonny Perdue, a former governor of Georgia and founder of an agricultural trading company. Most agriculture secretaries either have a background in the industry or politics—two crucial constituencies for the person who will be in charge of a department that employs nearly 100,000 and is made up of 29 agencies, including forestry, conservation, and nutrition programs. “The difference between Sonny Perdue and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is like night and day,” says Glickman.

If Kennedy were to be confirmed as agriculture secretary, he might struggle to enact the most radical parts of his program. He is an outspoken critic of pesticides, but the USDA is generally not in charge of regulating those, says Dan Blaustein-Rejto, director of agriculture policy and research at the Breakthrough Institute. Rather, the EPA regulates pesticides with public health uses.

Although he may not be able to directly influence pesticide regulations, Kennedy has said he would try to “weaponize” other agencies against “chemical agriculture” by commissioning scientific research into the effects of pesticides. The USDA Agricultural Research Service has a nearly $2 billion discretionary budget for research into crops, livestocks, nutrition, food safety, and natural resources conservation.

There are other levers that an agriculture secretary could pull, says Blaustein-Rejto. The USDA is investing $3 billion through the partnership for climate-smart commodities—a scheme that’s supposed to make US agriculture more climate-friendly. A USDA chief might be able to put their thumb on their scale by influencing the selection criteria for these kinds of programs. The USDA also oversees the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), which has a $5 billion fund that it uses to support farm incomes and conservation programs, and to assist farmers hit by natural disasters. It’s possible that a USDA chief could influence how these CCC funds are distributed by the agency.

Kennedy has also argued that corporate interests have captured the US’s dietary guidelines, and he pledged to remove conflicts of interest from USDA groups that come up with dietary guidelines. US dietary guidelines are developed jointly by the USDA and HHS and are updated every five years, giving the agriculture secretary limited opportunities to influence any recommendations.

“If RFK is in a high-level policy role, I expect to see a lot more talk about ultra-processed foods, but I’m not sure what that would actually entail when it comes to the dietary guidelines,” says Blaustein-Rejto.

The experts WIRED spoke with largely think Kennedy’s more extreme positions will likely be constrained by bureaucracy. But the message that elevating a vocal vaccine skeptic and conspiracy theorist would send remains a serious concern ahead of a potential second Trump administration.

[biopractify]

How to Transition from Biotechnology to Bioinformatics: A Step-by-Step Guide

Biotechnology and bioinformatics are closely linked fields, but shifting from a wet lab environment to a computational approach requires strategic planning. Whether you are a student or a professional looking to make the transition, this guide will provide a step-by-step roadmap to help you navigate the shift from biotechnology to bioinformatics.

Why Transition from Biotechnology to Bioinformatics?

Bioinformatics is revolutionizing life sciences by integrating biological data with computational tools to uncover insights in genomics, proteomics, and drug discovery. The field offers diverse career opportunities in research, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, and AI-driven biological data analysis.

If you are skilled in laboratory techniques but wish to expand your expertise into data-driven biological research, bioinformatics is a rewarding career choice.

Step-by-Step Guide to Transition from Biotechnology to Bioinformatics

Step 1: Understand the Basics of Bioinformatics

Before making the switch, it’s crucial to gain a foundational understanding of bioinformatics. Here are key areas to explore:

Biological Databases – Learn about major databases like GenBank, UniProt, and Ensembl.

Genomics and Proteomics – Understand how computational methods analyze genes and proteins.

Sequence Analysis – Familiarize yourself with tools like BLAST, Clustal Omega, and FASTA.

🔹 Recommended Resources:

Online courses on Coursera, edX, or Khan Academy

Books like Bioinformatics for Dummies or Understanding Bioinformatics

Websites like NCBI, EMBL-EBI, and Expasy

Step 2: Develop Computational and Programming Skills

Bioinformatics heavily relies on coding and data analysis. You should start learning:

Python – Widely used in bioinformatics for data manipulation and analysis.

R – Great for statistical computing and visualization in genomics.

Linux/Unix – Basic command-line skills are essential for working with large datasets.

SQL – Useful for querying biological databases.

🔹 Recommended Online Courses:

Python for Bioinformatics (Udemy, DataCamp)

R for Genomics (HarvardX)

Linux Command Line Basics (Codecademy)

Step 3: Learn Bioinformatics Tools and Software

To become proficient in bioinformatics, you should practice using industry-standard tools:

Bioconductor – R-based tool for genomic data analysis.

Biopython – A powerful Python library for handling biological data.

GROMACS – Molecular dynamics simulation tool.

Rosetta – Protein modeling software.

🔹 How to Learn?

Join open-source projects on GitHub

Take part in hackathons or bioinformatics challenges on Kaggle

Explore free platforms like Galaxy Project for hands-on experience

Step 4: Work on Bioinformatics Projects

Practical experience is key. Start working on small projects such as:

✅ Analyzing gene sequences from NCBI databases ✅ Predicting protein structures using AlphaFold ✅ Visualizing genomic variations using R and Python

You can find datasets on:

NCBI GEO

1000 Genomes Project

TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas)

Create a GitHub portfolio to showcase your bioinformatics projects, as employers value practical work over theoretical knowledge.

Step 5: Gain Hands-on Experience with Internships

Many organizations and research institutes offer bioinformatics internships. Check opportunities at:

NCBI, EMBL-EBI, NIH (government research institutes)

Biotech and pharma companies (Roche, Pfizer, Illumina)

Academic research labs (Look for university-funded projects)

💡 Pro Tip: Join online bioinformatics communities like Biostars, Reddit r/bioinformatics, and SEQanswers to network and find opportunities.

Step 6: Earn a Certification or Higher Education

If you want to strengthen your credentials, consider:

🎓 Bioinformatics Certifications:

Coursera – Genomic Data Science (Johns Hopkins University)

edX – Bioinformatics MicroMasters (UMGC)

EMBO – Bioinformatics training courses

🎓 Master’s in Bioinformatics (optional but beneficial)

Top universities include Harvard, Stanford, ETH Zurich, University of Toronto

Step 7: Apply for Bioinformatics Jobs

Once you have gained enough skills and experience, start applying for bioinformatics roles such as:

Bioinformatics Analyst

Computational Biologist

Genomics Data Scientist

Machine Learning Scientist (Biotech)

💡 Where to Find Jobs?

LinkedIn, Indeed, Glassdoor

Biotech job boards (BioSpace, Science Careers)

Company career pages (Illumina, Thermo Fisher)

Final Thoughts

Transitioning from biotechnology to bioinformatics requires effort, but with the right skills and dedication, it is entirely achievable. Start with fundamental knowledge, build computational skills, and work on projects to gain practical experience.

Are you ready to make the switch? 🚀 Start today by exploring free online courses and practicing with real-world datasets!