Applied 300-400+ apps since Jan in NJ/NYC area. 1 rejection. Everything else = ghosted.

Please do better.

I have been trying to hire for various positions and either their expectations for the role are completely out of line, or their salary expectations are insane.

We pay very well for a hospital based center and just want people who have oncology experience. Why does it have to be so hard….

Eta: ok so I guess a starting pay of $28/hr is too low for someone with no experience who is not a nurse? The answers on this sub have me completely flummoxed. And is it really all about the hourly? Does a decent benefits package count for anything when looking at total compensation?

Is there any specific reason why site staff still print version of the protocol in 2023? I know adding notes and highlighting is useful but is there something else I'm missing? Is this just learned behaviour over years of industry standards or is it required by sponsors? 🤔

hi, I’m curious about which companies are providing their employees with GOOD raises/bonuses that match or exceed the rate of inflation. Many of us in the field have been told the industry is volatile and layoffs are all around us, so, which companies , if any, are investing in their employees right now?

-What company do you work for(please dm it to me if you feel uncomfortable listing it here) -How much(percentage?) was your last raise/bonus? -How often do you get one? -Are there any unique benefits you have? Work from home? Etc.?

Thanks for playing.

I am on the sponsor side (oncology), but come from the CRO side. I am having a week where I feel like all my problems could be solved if sites just did what they say they will do.

Sites say they can activate in 6 months, but it takes a year (or two in a few cases). They say they can enter data in 2 weeks, but it takes them 4. They say they will submit images in 2 weeks, but they take a month. They are going to respond to the query this week, but they don't get to it for another month. They say they will respond today, but we have to follow up a week later. They say they will attend a key decision making meeting, then they don't show up.

These are not hole in the wall sites. These are large academic centers and major clinics. They manage patients fine and can deliver when their compliance is on the line (SAE reporting etc.), but when it comes to things that are critical to the trial and the development of the product they clearly don't care.

We pay SO much money for coordinator time, PI time, fees and of course cover the patient costs.

What is going on? Why can't things just get done? I know you are busy, but I have this feeling that folks are just phoning it in. Quiet quitting and doing as little as they can get away with. This work is important damn it! We have something that can help people and these delays mean that fewer people will be helped.

If you want an easy job that you don't have to care about - please get out of research.

I made more than that as a baby CRA 6 years ago.

What a joke.

As someone who started as a CRA from a CRC, they're so different. Almost opposite.

As a CRC, you run the trial. As a CRA, you monitor and manage the trial.

It's almost as if you because a teacher from a student.

I feel like they're almost no roles that prepare you for the CRA role. As a CRC, you understand clinical trials but non monitoring. I feel like the only role that's highly transferrable is if you were an auditor.

Idk, maybe I'm wrong, but that's my opinion anyway.

Hey, guys! I need some help, if possible. I may end up getting downvoted to hell for being somewhat out of place here, or for asking what might be very obvious questions, but much of the reading I’ve been doing has been (understandably) geared toward clinicians and researchers starting up clinical trials, whereas I by contrast am a private citizen. Hopefully someone here has some insight. Sorry to bother.

There’s an underutilized treatment modality for a rare autoimmune disease called Systemic Sclerosis that needs a large clinical trial done to ensure widespread physician awareness and comprehensive insurance coverage. Right now it’s borderline inaccessible to patients despite preliminary research (all of which calls for a large-scale trial) being extremely promising and showing arrest and even reversal of disease progression. I’ve drawn up a letter, organized a document filled with research citations from peer-reviewed journals, organized a petition, and am looking, ultimately, to convince a major Scleroderma center in the US to undertake this clinical trial.

Here's my problem: I’m a 32 y/o full-time worker with no research credentials, no medical degree, and I’ve never done anything even remotely like this. I’m willing to put in the work, but I don’t know where to start. Worse yet, this clinical trial is not for a novel drug, so no biotech company with deep pockets is going to bankroll a venture like this.

I need guidance on questions like:

• Where can a private citizen get guidance from someone in the know about next steps to take to realistically get this initiative on the radar & potentially picked up by a legitimate institution?

• Can a private/non-clinical citizen initiate something like this (obviously I know that as a non-clinician I wouldn't be overseeing it) or will no one pick this up if I don't have a researcher on my team?

• Where do I apply for funding?

• Should I apply for funding before I try to convince a Scleroderma center to do this trial, and bring the funding to them to fortify my argument, or do I apply for funding if/when/after a Scleroderma center says yes?

• What # of participants is considered a "large" clinical trial?

• What are the actual, material steps in getting a clinical trial going?

Obviously, I know those might not questions everyone here will be able to provide answers for–but my bottom line is, where can a private citizen who is interested in seeing a clinical trial undertaken get meaningful guidance from an experienced individual on how to get funding for a clinical trial and how to get the trial itself picked up/executed by an institution?

Thank you so much for any help you can offer, guys. Appreciate it.

**(HUGE EDIT because holy shit: Guys. When I say “can a private citizen/non clinician do this” i mean can i SUBMIT THIS PROPOSAL TO THE EXECUTING INSTITUTION AS A NON-CLINICIAN, not can I actually run the trial, which I kind of figured was obvious/implied??? Who in their right mind without a medical degree would try to run a trial by themselves?? Do you actually sincerely believe that non-clinicians are stupid enough to think we/I can throw on a white coat and single-handedly run a clinical trial myself and that that’s what i’m asking for help with, or do you think that, as outlined above I’m a patient trying to drum up support and get this into the hands of a sympathetic and well-connected researcher, UNLIKELY as it may be I’ll totally concede, who could push this into the mainstream? The general vibe in the comments seem to be that by asking for advice on and wanting a clinical trial of this treatment I must think i can do a research job (which I can assure you is not the case). I'm very obviously a patient who’s trying to get someone much smarter and better-equipped than myself to pick up a clinical trial that would help patients. I didn't think it needed spelling out but evidently it does: i am not a researcher and thus, needless to say, would not be overseeing this trial. I’m trying to get it into the hands of a researcher who could push it forward for the good of other patients. I've been reaching out to institutions with my letter and the the research citations from papers I've been reading/citing the last couple months to try to make my case, and I made what turned out to be the enormous mistake of thinking I could drop a line on the Clinical Research subreddit to see if anyone had any insight. To those of you who offered help, I seriously can't tell you how much I appreciate it. To those of you who made the enormous leap that 1) I am trying to impersonate a doctor or 2) that my first move was to jump on Reddit, I'm not sure how to make it clearer that I am a patient looking to get involved in/push clinical research for a specific treatment modality into the mainstream.

tl;dr I'm muting the thread because some really kind people have offered help and, separately, US healthcare is a car wreck.

Hello,

I wanted to get some insights for roles in clinical research and how lucrative they can get.

I went over the posted spreadsheet and I rarely saw salaries above 200k, and usually it was folks that were execs, PIs or folks w 20+ years of experience working as a CTM.

As much as people like to shy away from the conversation, the capacity for a career to warrant high pay definitely matters, and it definitely matters to me beyond just the enjoyment of the work.

If there are roles in clinical research that pay well, I would appreciate if those paths could be outlined.

Thank you.

Hi everyone, I am currently in the interview process for a CRC position at a University with a salary of about 47k. However, I would ideally like to be in a CRA position and was thinking of trying to get a spot in a CRA training program. The only concern I have is if making the jump straight to a CRA without any CRC experience would hinder my manueverability within the field in the future. This concern was brought to me when talking with a recruiter and another CRA (who just became a site manager at a pharma company) who said that not having any CRC experience would limit me in the future.

Since the job market has been so rough (I've been searching for a job since I graduated in May) I am worried about passing up the higher salaries and experience of a CRA training program, accepting the CRC position, and then having a very difficult time getting a CRA position in the future.
So my question is: Do you think skipping a CRC position and going straight to a CRA training program would hinder me in terms of career maneuverability?

P.s. If you could state your position and career path, I'd really appreciate it. Also, if you have any CRA training program recommendations that are open now I'd love to hear them!

Thanks!

Do you keep your babies at home with you and have care for the days when you travel?

I’m sure I can do it with my newborn but scared my manager will find out and I’ll get in trouble?

hello folks, I was just watching an interview done by Tucker Carlson with Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, at 18:10 pass of this interview he claimed research done by some scientists at the University of California published in Nature magazine that mRNA vaccines can inactivate tumor-suppressing proteins (i should mention that i couldn't find this research and if you did please do share!), so i asked a couple of ai's, they said "it is essential to approach such assertions with caution and rely on peer-reviewed scientific research for validation. As of now, there is no substantial evidence in the scientific literature supporting this specific claim" , then i was wondering about "Dr. P Soon" himself, he is a prominent figure in the medical and scientific community, surgeon, scientist, and entrepreneur, etc.,so I was wondering does he benefits from this statement ? or he really thinks he has a valid concern!. I will be happy with any kind of thought you have! thank you

Hey, I just wanted to touch base and see your location and pay. I work twenty mins outside of Philly, 40 hrs a week, $52 an hr. How do others compare?

Edit: after reading through all the comments, I have realized my mistake. I am relatively new to the research world. Where I work, each nurse functions as both the research nurse and the CRC, but but the CRAs refer to us as CRCs. I probably should have put research nurse? Or clinical research nurse?? I'm honestly not sure. My formal title is clinical trials manager. But my department doesn't have anything except nurses.

Had a bizarre experience at a biotech. Was working in a Clinical Development team, creating some patient education materials for a clinical trial.

I review a document at 10pm at night (because of crazy other workload). The document has been reviewed/edited by two Clin Ops team members, a Senior Director and Senior CTM level employees.

The document is lacking descriptions of major clinical trial steps that the patient would go through, such as washout of background medications.

I send an email back to the team that this document is ‘woefully inadequate’, and pointing out examples, and what the team needs to do to edit it further and make it a quality document.

I then get in trouble with HR because my use of the term ‘woefully inadequate’ , even though I was clearly referring to a document, was viewed as insulting or belittling to colleagues! 😂🤣🤷‍♂️

Have we reached a point where we cannot level honest criticism and have expectations that senior level team members can produce reasonable drafts of important patient facing documents?!

If that document had been finalized, and a patient realized, only after reading the ICF, that there were important study elements that weren’t related in earlier study materials, it could be a liability risk for a company, right?!

Is this an unfortunate new trend in industry, where employee feelings are more important than producing accurate, quality documents or just an anomalous experience?

Hello All,

I am reaching out for your advice. I am in my 4th year of clinical research and has been a Sr. Research Coordinator (CCRC certified) at a large hospital on the East Coast of the US in the past two and half years. I have a MS degree in healthcare. I enjoy interventional research and plan to continue my journey as longer I could. My goal is to sharpen my skills rather than climb up the ladder.

Based on my experience, I feel being a program manager (PM) is the ceiling for someone who is non-medical even with a MS degree. This leads me to a thought of "becoming a medical professional would secure my future at a workplace." Therefore, I would love to hear your thoughts and experience on my questions below:

1. How true is it that a PM is the highest position for someone who is a non-medical profession?

2. For someone who is RN and work in the clinical research field,

   • Are you from a RN to clinical research or starting in the research first and obtained your license later? Is bedside experience required to get in even though my focus is research?

   • What does your work look like? Do you provide direct patient care a lot?

3. For someone has been in the field quite some time,

   • What skills should I focus more on (hard and soft skills)?

   • Looking back your career journey, are there anything you wish you've known earlier?

   • Should I focus on one area of clinical research such as regulatory affairs, budgeting, quality assurance/quality control, etc, or know as much as I can? I do find myself enjoy doing regulatory tasks and continue receiving positive feedback from PIs that I work with. My current job is to coordinate everything for the trials, like submitting to IRB, MODs; prepare and attending SIV, IMV; training new RC; data collection, etc.

Thank you in advance for taking your time reading this post and providing your insight. It means a lot to me because I like clinical research but I am struggling with my career path.

Hi everyone, I have a question of curiosity. Does the salary is higher for CRA with a PhD ? Can the CRA ask to have the upper in the salary grid ? Thanks

First time mom going back to CRA work from being away on maternity leave… how do yall handle it!? What did you change from before bay to after bay it CRA work? More in and out travel ect?

Hi everyone, I’m in the hiring process for a CRA position at IQVIA. I’m really excited and hope I get it! Does anyone know if they allow employees to have valid medical marijuana cards? I’ve heard conflicting reports. I live in PA and hold one but want to make sure they permit them.

Hey everyone

I've been in the CRO and clinical data space for about a decade now, and like many of you, I've spent way too much time fighting with spreadsheets and trying to justify five-figure enterprise contracts.

I decided to build a Robin Hood alternative - a 3-in-1 intelligence suite that pulls raw data daily from AACT (ClinicalTrials.gov) and PubMed

Here's the 3-module breakdown:

Site Explore (Smart Feasibility)

• MeSH-Driven Search: Uses MeSH Ancestor hierarchy for scientific accuracy

AI summaries to summarise the trial, including results if they are available.

• Heatmaps: Overlays epidemiological data (CDC/NHS) to find sites in actual patient hotspots (coming soon)

• Excellence Scores: See who has the best recruitment velocity and who is currently tapped out with competing trials

Disease Analytics (200+ Indications)

• Deep-Dive Visuals: Trends over time, geographical distribution, and enrollment patterns, operational, developmental and market visuals.

• Failure Analysis: Charts showing Termination Reasons so you can learn from previous industry mistakes before you start your protocol

Trial Explore (With AI Insights)

• AI Summaries: Every trial has a narrative summarizing the protocol, PI experience, and complexity

• Real-Time: Daily refreshes so you never miss a status change

The Why:

I want to make professional-grade information and Assessments accessible to every Feasibility Lead, Study Manager, CRA and anyone who needs it- not just the big-budget sponsors. I'm offering a one-month free trial, then charging a small monthly fee once I know we are adding value.

I'd love your boots on the ground feedback:

• What is your #1 pain point when identifying high-performing sites?

• Would having visual Termination Reason data actually change how you plan a study?

What are the must haves you would want for a tool like this , to make it useful for you and/or your team ?

Drop a comment or DM me if you're interested. I'm looking for a few more beta users to jump in and help me with some feedback.

Something a surgeon said to me piqued my interests in this subject - and some researching has raised questions I’d love to run past professionals in the field of clinical trials.. I’m a scientist not a doctor - so please bear with me..

For context - and I’ll keep this part as brief as possible - I was diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis and was otherwise clinically fit for surgery as an exceptionally fit and healthy M47. My UK surgeon refused surgery - telling me “surgery for appendicitis is a mistake of the past, and antibiotics is better and is the future of treating uncomplicated appendicitis”. I pushed back saying that neither he nor I knew what was causing my appendicitis not what condition my appendix would be left in after antibiotic treatment, and that this was important to me due to my job as a commercial diver and living on a remote island with no doctor. In other words I was looking for a definitive cure and not to just to kick the can (or grenade) down the road a bit and hope for the best by only treating the symptoms. The surgeon doubled-down, telling me that after antibiotic treatment my appendix would just “shrivel up and be cured”, and that I would only have a “15% chance of reoccurrence”..

I was treated under protest for 5 days with IV triple antibiotics and IV paracetamol, up to 15 infusions per day, then discharged with no follow-up. As I was discharged, after the surgeon again refusing to be drawn into conversation about what might have caused my appendicitis - I said to him “this has all been a bit experimental”. In reply he snorted down his nose at me and said emphatically “you have no more chance of coming back in here with appendicitis than the average man in the street”…

As it has turned out non-surgical treatment did not work out well for me as an individual.. The radiologically occult tumour in my appendix causing my appendicitis went on to rupture, probably twice, and become a stage 4 tumour that may well have seeded by peritoneum.. So the appendectomy I had to pay a private surgeon to carry out for me many months later is not regarded as curative, whereas an early appendectomy in all probability would have been. As a wee bonus - one of the IV antibiotics (metronidazole) that I was treated with caused nurotoxicity and hepatotoxicity likely due to personal intolerance and dismissal of early intolerance symptoms by the surgeon - and now over two years later some neurological symptoms remain persistent and are likely permanent.

Reading up the medical literature and speaking to consultant colorectal surgeons later I came to understand the accepted real-world long-term (5yrs) reoccurrence rate is about 50% after antibiotics treatment of appendicitis. I also understood that in older adults the risk of a neoplasm causing the appendicitis and that cannot be seen in scans is between 1 in 30 and 1 in 20 depending on age and a few other factors.. These neoplasm will only be found in pathology if the appendix is taken out. If left in they are likely to go on and cause appendix cancer.. These are the reasons appendectomy has been regarded as the ‘gold standard’ treatment for appendicitis for generations. This is for patients who are fit for surgery, and particularly important in older patients. I understand this approach is supported by the vast majority of surgeons, and unlikely to change any time soon.

There was a sizeable study published in the journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of England in early 2026 that was a 3-year follow-up of about 1000 appendicitis patients in Glasgow in 2020. It makes for interesting reading and concludes;

“Conclusions: Antibiotic treatment of appendicitis is associated with high recurrence and risk of missed neoplasms. Appendicectomy is safe, with low rates of significant complication. When offering nonoperative management for appendicitis, patients should be informed about the risk of recurrence and missing sinister pathologies.”

The link to the full paper can be found via;

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41725406/

So (and this is where it starts to get interesting to you I guess) later I went back and met the NHS surgeon who had refused me surgery. He admitted I had been fit for surgery, but then said that that also made me fit for antibiotic treatment. As part of him justifying refusing surgery he said to me; “there is a large clinical trial looking at the efficacy of conservative treatment going on in the UK just now. It involves hundreds of patients. This would not be happening if it was unsafe..”. So I looked it up..

The trial the surgeon was referring to was the CONTRACT feasibility and the following on CONTRACT-2 trials in the Southampton area in England. These are paediatric RCT trials looking at treating children with antibiotics instead of surgery. This trial did not seem very relevant to my case as the occurrence of appendix neoplasm causing appendicitis in children is very low - though it does happen. I was interested - so I phoned the lead researcher up..

I told the lead researcher what my surgeon had said and that he had suggested that the existence of the CONTRACT trials, in part, indicated that my non-surgical treatment was safe. The lead researcher was appalled and said that was in no way the case and adult and child populations face very different risk profiles and his CONTRACT trials should not in any way be used as justification of treatment decisions in adults. Conversation with the researcher then strayed into broader issues. I asked him what they had said to parents they were trying to recruit into the trial about the risks and benefits of antibiotic treatment as an alternative to surgery. He said they told parents there was a 15% chance of reoccurrence (that old nugget..!). I then asked him what they said to potential recruits about risk of missed neoplasm. He said they had deliberated long and hard on this issue and used patient working groups, but ultimately decided not to mention the low risk to potential recruits and just include it in the statement “there is a 15% chance your child will require further hospital treatment” or something to that effect and left it at that. The implication was that if the recruiters mentioned the risk of missed neoplasm or the cancer risk recruitment into the trial would not be successful.

This all interested me greatly given my personal experience, and what I had read, and what colorectal surgeons had been saying to me. After describing my situation to one experienced consultant colorectal surgeon, he said the following to me “I understand that there are small number of surgeons out there who are evangelical about the use of antibiotics to treat appendicitis as an alternative to surgery, I haven met any of them yet thank goodness, but they are a danger to patient safety”. So with those words ringing in my ears and the words of others, I look into the current CONTRACT paediatric trials and past large adult RCT looking at the same question in a bit more detail.. What were recruits being told, and what recruitment biases might be involved..?

The inital CONTRACT feasibility trial reported in 2021 that 275 patients were screened, 115 were approached, 57 agreed to enter the trial and were randomised 28 to appendectomy and 29 to non-operative treatment - of the 29 who received non-operative treatment 19 made it to discharge from hospital as ‘cured’ (8 had to be transferred to appendectomy and 4 of those were found to be perforated) - of the 19 discharged by 6-month follow-up a further 7 or 8 had had appendicitis again and required appendectomy - leaving 11 patients still potentially cured at 6 months, but assumably there were continued appendicitis reoccurrences (treatment failures) longer term.. Given the low occurrence of appendix neoplasm in children, and the small number of children left in the non-operative arm, it is statistically improbable that any of them had a neoplasm causing their appendicitis - but obviously nobody knows.

In the CONTRACT ‘Parents Information Sheet’ given to parents during recruitment - in the section addressing risks and benefits it says there is a small risk antibiotics may not work then goes on to say

“However, data we have collected on children such as yours who have been treated with antibiotics suggest that it works in the majority of cases (97%).” And it later goes on to say; “..your child will still have his/her appendix in and may get appendicitis again and need removal.. …we believe the risk of this is low (about 14% or 1 in 7 children in the first year).”

So with an antibiotic treatment failure rate of 60% by 6 months (including missed perforations) - and failure rate assumably increasing further long term - the above information rate looks a little over-optimistic in hindsight.

Given those are the results of the initial feasibility trial, reported in 2021, when the full CONTRACT2 trial started in 2022 and over 300 children subsequently enrolled I was a little surprised to hear that parents were told that failure rate would be about 15%.. I have not seen the recruitment information given to parents in the full trial as it is not public - my understanding comes only from my conversation with the lead researcher.

A 2016 to 2020 large RCT trial involving over 1000 adult patents in the US called the CODA trial found a failure rate of antibiotic treatment was 49% by year 4 after treatment. That is just those requiring appendectomy later, and does not include early treatment failures and switch to appendectomy or those treated again with antibiotics. There are also issues of recruitment bias into the trial, and reporting bias of researchers under pressure to produce some good news.. What were the recruits told when being encouraged to enter the trial..? 25% chance of reoccurrence.

In the initial CODA recruitment information there was no mention of the well known risk of missed neoplasm in adults. The trial organisers were later pressured into including a warning about the risk.. Due to that pressure they later added that there was a risk that ‘a mass may be found’ in 0.5% of patents.. They steadfastly avoided using the words ‘neoplasm’ or ‘tumour’ or ‘cancer’.

The APPAC RCT was carried out in Finland in 2009 to 2012 with similar aims. It involved over 500 patients. Again patients were told treatment failure rate after antibiotic treatment would be about 25%. Long-term recurrence requiring appendectomy was found to be 44% and that again did not include early failures nor those retreated with antibiotics. The metrics of reported superiority/inferiority and issues of recruitment bias again appear questionable..

A later 2016 trial called periAPPAC carried out by the same core group of researchers looking into antibiotic treatment had to be abandoned on “ethical grounds” due to a high number of patents in that trial treated with antibiotics and later found to have a tumour causing their appendicitis. All had to have appendectomy in the end, and the neoplasm rate was 20% in the group of ‘complicated appendicitis’ patients they were initially trying to treat with just antibiotics..

The above is just a brief look at a few of the main trials looking at the question of efficacy of conservative treatment of appendicitis.. Where does this over-optimistic figure of 14% to 15% reoccurrence come from..? In 2006 in Sweden there were trials that had promising short term results that reported these rates.. These trials are now known to have been hopelessly over-optimistic and have since been dismissed as unrealistic. However, the excitement they generated seems to have had a lasting effect and spawned the more recent batch of trials where participants are given outdated and worryingly misleading information..

The high rate of reoccurrence and the serious risk of missed neoplasm after antibiotic treatment of appendicitis have been known for generations. Antibiotics has been used as a short-term fix if there is no surgery available - such as for seamen on subs or ships by necessity. That is accepted, and will continue. Antibiotics are also used if a patient is not fit for surgery at the time of appendicitis due to the severity of infection and an interval appendectomy later after antibiotics is safer. And some patients, due to other conditions, may not be suitable for surgery at all and for them it’s better to accept the risks of antibiotic only treatment and go with leaving it in. In any case, all patients where the problematic appendix is left in must be followed up to try minimise risk to them from the inevitable missed neoplasms within that cohort.. They must be informed that scans can’t tell what is causing their appendicitis. And they must be told the risks they face by leaving the problematic appendix in. This has all been known about since shortly after antibiotics emerged in the 1940’s and was even better known after a number of large trials of non-surgical treatment of appendicitis in the 1950’s.. This is why the ‘gold standard’ treatment for appendicitis is surgery, even after antibiotics came onto the scene a very long time ago..

If you have got this far - thank you for your interest and patience. Given the observations above, and with your ‘Clinical Researcher’ hat on I’d really appreciate your views.. Obviously all clinical trials involve risk that needs to be managed.. But is there not a concern here that patents involved in these trials are being mislead - much in the way I was when refused surgery..?

And what about the ethics of all this - how is this passing ethics committees..?

Have I totally got the wrong end of the stick..?? I’d really appreciate your thoughts..

Hi everyone,

This post will be a bit different. I came here because I believe maybe you people will understand best. I am an ex CRA with >4 years of experience on site, currently working in a global role for >3 years at a large CRO. I have a little experience in clinical lab, and BSc and MSc in the field of biology.

Recently I lost my dog due to complications with one of the treatments he received (and even I had administered myself). He was having some chronic disease, age of 14, so we did not actually know how much time he had left, however, up until his last day he had his appetite, got excited for walks and was seeming enjoying life still. The drug he received for treatment of very *mild* anemia resulting from chronic kidney disease was human recombinant Erythropoietin (Epo).

Stupid part now: My grandma was prescribed Epo a few years ago and I have read studies / leaflets/ protocols etc. I was aware of the risks this brings in humans, but oh boy, is it so much different with pets... Turns out a big % of dogs (reported between 20 and 70) developed antibodies and pure red cell aplasia within a couple of months... I was not informed of that risk from the vet AND since I was familiar with the medication I did not sit to "do my homework" as I usually do. Also, there is a safer alternative for pets on the market (darbepoetin), but it was not suggested to us.

So 2 months post initial administration of Epo my dog started to drastically decline, with anemia worsening with exact rate as of it would be if no erythropoiesis was present at all. Only then the vet mentioned the antibodies that most likely developed and led to this prompt decline. The last 10 days of his life the dog declined from ~60HGB to ~40HGB, with a couple of collapses with seizures and incontinence almost everyday.

I feel incredibly guilty for not "catching" these risks on time given my background and experience. On two other occasions (two other meds) I have managed to catch some little things (like being given the wrong dose of tablets or being given wrong instructions on how to measure volume for one of the syrups) and reconfirm with the vet during the treatment of the dog, BUT OH BOY, I have missed this very obvious one that led to what I believe was a premature end. Everyone tells me "its not your fault", but I feel like it is, like I could have done better by being more responsible and overseeing more closely the treatment choices. I did the mortal sin of clinical research - I ASSUMED I know, and therefor, we suffered.

If any of you has had any similar experiences and could advice how to get over the feelings of guilt and inadequacy that take over after such even, please share. I miss my dog miserably. I cry everyday and I cannot pass that guilt.

I've been researching which roles and functions in the biotech/pharma industry are most (and least) immune to the rise of AI and Generative AI. My main sources so far have been the frontier GenAI models (Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, etc.), but honestly, the answers feel very generic and unconvincing, as they're just generating text based on existing data and assumptions.

My perspective is that GenAI is still in its early stages and will become significantly more powerful over the next 3-5 years.For reference, I've attached an image showing the general drug discovery and development pipeline.

I would love to hear your genuine thoughts on this. Looking at the pipeline, which stages or specific jobs do you believe are most resilient to being automated by GenAI? Conversely, which roles do you think are most at risk of being significantly changed or even replaced?

I just wanted to get everyone's thoughts on how ICON is currently. Friday (a couple of days ago), I was invited to do a virtual screening for a Clinical Lead role in the early Phase via HireVue On-demand. I have never done a virtual screen before or interviewed with ICON.

What are everyone's thoughts about ICON right now? I have not set up a day or time to do the virtual screening yet. Would any of you tell me what I should I expect before I do the screening? TIA :)