Pros
As a bench-top researcher, my experience and feedback encompass primarily a laboratory based work environment. That being said: -The laboratories are, for the most part, top of the line. The size of the work space and quality of the equipment is impressive. -Cubicles are structured more openly, with plenty of sunlight - makes socializing easier, and gives a great view of Kendall square. -Many of the people who compose units / groups in a given laboratory are brilliant and hard-working individuals. -Many opportunities to work with diverse groups of scientists, ranging from entry level new recruits to M.D-PhDs. -Many of the ongoing experiments are innovative and considered by much of the scientific community as defining the frontier of scientific research. -Generous bonuses were actually given, at times. -The pay was quite good compared to many other hospital / academic based research facilities.
Cons
-Depending on your position within the hierarchy, the lower down the ladder you are, the more 'grunt' work you will do. -Feast to famine work environment, which I contribute to the waxing and waning of grants and funds. -Expectation by supervisors and managers to put in long hours and prioritize work over most everything else, because "everyone in the sciences puts in long hours". This tips the scales towards a more academic feel, while still maintaining a tight industrial 'high-throughput' environment where deadlines are constantly getting shortened, and work must be completed on time (if not early) because grant money is doomed to dry up soon. Work/life balance was a serious issue, when one was either faced with a seemingly never-ending and daunting amount of work, or no work at all. -Lack of managerial supervision. Although a given project may have its goals / milestones well defined, there was often a severe lack of managerial oversight. Thus, managerial and administrative responsibilities were often left to lower-level researchers. This created a chaotic and oftentimes inefficient work environment, where a lab tech would have to time- manage multiple people and aspects of a project rather than use that time to productively generate results and data for the assigned project - essentially adding on responsibilities and diverting precious time away from the task for which one was hired / specialized in. An ill-managed team often slowed or even halted the progress of the project, creating a negative cycle wherein poor management resulted in poor productivity, which in turn caused management to require lab techs to put in more hours. At points this caused exhausted employees to make serious mistakes to sensitive aspects of a project, and perpetuated a sense of frustration. -Unfortunately, I must agree with the majority of other Broad reviewers on this site - there was no sense of career advancement within the Broad. I encountered many brilliant and hard-working scientists who had worked within the Broad 5+ years while still holding the same title with which they were hired (e.g. Associate Scientist I, etc...). One could say an internal compromise had to be made - accept lower pay and lack of job advancement while reaping the intellectual and status benefits of working at a prestigious, incredibly well funded scientific organization. -Oftentimes it felt as if management would vie for more and more outside projects (with lofty grants) while simultaneously expressing the urgency for current projects to be completed on time. This seemed to dilute the manpower available, as one could find themselves split between projects or transferred from one to another without much warning. Not only was this a stressor for time-management, but it made the work environment feel more like a CRO than a stand-alone research institution. -The Broad fostered a micro-environment that seemed to shield its employees from some of the more stark realities of scientific research and funding. Layoffs would come in waves, and many employees would be startled, expressing the opinion that the Broad was so well funded as to be above the current economic realities. The Broad held multiple celebrations within my time there, celebrating large private donations (generally in amounts close to or over $100,000,000), which perpetuated this line of thought. It brings into question the efficacy of the Broad's internal spending and allocation of funds - if there is such a surplus of money, why are so many projects time-sensitive to NIH government funds, and layoffs so far-reaching?
