u/Adorable_Pick_7491

I'm a single HENRY in my late 30s working at a biotech scaleup. Previously, I completed a PhD at Oxbridge. My background is in machine learning and statistics, but I also have significant biotech know-how, so I'm tailored for ML x Bio companies. I have decent savings (£180k) but no equity.

For a variety of reasons, I'm quitting my current job and I am unsure what to do next. I have an offer to join an aging moonshot as a senior IC, but I'd need to relocate to Singapore, and the offer is not spectacular (S$180k).

I've also applied for faculty positions in academia. The rationale is that these might let me develop some IP, position myself as a founder or principal scientist, or qualify for a US O-1 or related visa. I have an offer from Oxbridge for a fixed-term, faculty-ish position, but the pay is low (£60k). I also have a real faculty offer in Scandinavia that is a bit less prestigious but pays better (€95k) and offers more independence.

Alternatively, I could reject those, spend more time interviewing, and perhaps land a mid-level position at a frontier lab, if I'm lucky, like Isomorphic Labs. The problem is that interview processes are extremely long and uncertain.

What are your opinions? Is a short faculty stint worth it? Or are the risk, toxic academic politics, etc., not worth it? Is moving towards founding or principal roles worth it? How did you manage similar decisions?

I completed a PhD at Oxbridge in the field of machine learning and biology a few years back. Afterwards, I left for an industry position overseas. My PhD publications have matured, and I am now looking into faculty positions.

I have been offered an assistant professorship at one of the top universities in Scandinavia. It is ranked No. 1-2, depending on the ranking system, and is therefore well-funded and research-intensive. I won't have any teaching duties. The catch is that the position is funded by soft money and is therefore fixed-term (24 months), so it is not (initially) tenure-track.

I have a competing offer from Oxbridge at a prestigious centre. This offer is for a fixed-term senior scientist position (grade 8.5), which is very similar to the assistant professorship in terms of compensation (not great, factoring in living costs).

My ultimate goal is to build a stronger profile in certain emerging niches at the intersection of machine learning and biology, either by building my own research programme in academia or by joining an industrial lab. I am wondering which position would be more appropriate. What would be the deciding factors? How did you decide in a similar situation?

The Scandinavian position is a bit more independent, with no hurdles to applying for my own funding from generous local foundations and favourable IP agreements with the university in case I want to spin off. But it is often seen as a glorified postdoc and much easier to secure than a UK lectureship. In fact, a full professor at my prospective institution transitioned from an associate professorship there to a senior scientist position in my prospective Oxbridge department, only to return to the associate professorship and shortly afterwards become a full professor.

The Oxbridge position would be hosted in a small and friendly group. It offers a generous visa, which is valuable given that, as an EU citizen, I have lost my right to work in the UK. It would also allow me to tap into the rich Golden Triangle ecosystem should I need to move back to industry. I am also much more culturally aligned with the UK, and at my age, I imagine it is not easy to integrate into Scandinavia. However, my experience at Oxbridge is that things can become relatively toxic, partly because there is a huge valley of death before one reaches an associate professorship, which encourages competition rather than collaboration.

tl;dr Scandinavia = more independence and funding freedom. Oxbridge = stronger ecosystem and UK access. Which one is the better launchpad for a long-term ML-biology research career?