For many researchers, leaving academia is not a decision driven by dissatisfaction with research itself. Rather, it is motivated by the desire to explore new opportunities, broaden one’s horizons, or find greater long-term stability.

Daniel Baier knows this transition first-hand. After studying chemistry and completing his PhD at Ruhr University Bochum, he moved to Belgium for a postdoc at the Université catholique de Louvain. Today, he is a trainee for Plasma Operations & Corporate Projects at Biotest GmbH & Co. KGaA.

In this interview, Daniel shares why he decided to leave academia, what he learned during the transition, and what industry careers for chemistry PhDs can look like in practice.

What’s your academic background and what initially led you to pursue a career in research?

I studied chemistry at the Ruhr University in Bochum, where I completed my bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD degrees. While my bachelor’s and master’s work focused on organometallic chemistry, catalysis, and materials science, I changed my research focus for my PhD and moved into the field of mechanochemistry.

Mechanochemistry is an approach that uses mechanical energy instead of heat and large amounts of solvents to drive chemical reactions. This is particularly relevant because solvents often account for the majority of waste generated by chemical processes. My PhD research explored how mechanochemistry can enable more sustainable chemical synthesis while also opening up new reaction pathways. Afterwards, I moved to Belgium for a postdoctoral position, where I applied these concepts to crystal engineering and the development of new solid forms of pharmaceutical compounds.

Interestingly, a career in research or academia was never part of my plans when I was in school. I come from a working-class background, and after finishing secondary school, I initially wanted to complete a vocational training programme and become a bank clerk. When that did not work out, I continued my education and eventually earned my high school diploma at a vocational college with a focus on business and economics.

The turning point was an inspiring chemistry teacher. He had originally trained as a chemist himself and had earned a PhD in chemistry from Ruhr University Bochum before becoming a teacher. His enthusiasm for science was infectious and sparked my own interest in chemistry. More importantly, he gave me the confidence to apply to university—something I had never seriously considered before. Looking back, that decision changed the course of my life and opened opportunities I could never have imagined.

What motivated your decision to leave academia and move to the industry?

This was not a decision I made overnight. In fact, I spent almost three years thinking about whether I wanted to stay in academia or pursue a career outside of it.

Coming from a working-class background, an academic career was never something I had imagined for myself. Throughout my studies and even during my PhD, becoming a professor often felt like a very distant and uncertain goal. At the same time, I enjoyed research tremendously and was fortunate to receive strong encouragement from my PhD committee when I defended my thesis. That confidence in my abilities made a profound impression on me.

However, during my PhD I also discovered interests beyond academic research. Together with my supervisor and two colleagues, I initiated a start-up project aimed at transferring our research into industrial manufacturing processes. We were successful in securing funding and building a small team to work on the project. Although we ultimately decided not to pursue the start-up further, the experience exposed me to areas such as business development, marketing, sales, and strategy. I found all of these aspects surprisingly engaging and realized that I enjoyed working at the interface between science and business.

Around that time, I learned about industrial graduate and trainee programmes, where participants rotate through different departments and gain experience in a variety of roles over one or two years. The idea immediately appealed to me because it offered the opportunity to explore different career paths while still building on my scientific background.

In the end, my decision was not driven by a lack of enthusiasm for academia. Rather, I wanted to broaden my horizons and explore opportunities beyond research. At the same time, I was looking for greater long-term stability than the academic career path often offers, with its sequence of temporary contracts and the highly competitive route towards a professorship. A traineeship seemed like the perfect opportunity to discover where my strengths and interests could take me.

While working as a postdoctoral researcher, I therefore continued applying for selected positions that I found genuinely exciting. Eventually, I was offered a traineeship. The process was highly competitive, but looking back, it was absolutely the right decision for me.

How was the application process for the traineeship and what would you recommend others, who want to apply for such a role?  

The application process consisted of three stages. It began with a short online interview, followed by a more in-depth interview. The final stage was an on-site assessment that included a presentation.

My advice to anyone considering a similar traineeship is not to underestimate the value of the skills they have developed in academia—but also not to limit themselves to thinking of themselves “only” as scientists. Companies certainly value scientific expertise, but they are equally interested in transferable skills such as analytical thinking, problem solving, project management, and the ability to communicate complex information to people from different backgrounds.

When looking back on the first 2-3 months, was there something unexpected, a particular challenge?

I would not say that anything came as a complete surprise, but some aspects of working in industry became much more tangible once I started. One of them was just how central cross-functional collaboration and communication really are. Communicating complex information in a clear, concise, and audience-specific way quickly became one of the most important parts of my job.

Which skills from your academic career have been most useful in your current role?

Without a doubt, the most valuable skill has been analytical thinking and the ability to break down complex problems into manageable parts. Today, I work on topics that are completely different from my academic background in organic chemistry. What I use every day is not my specific scientific expertise, but the analytical mindset I developed during my years in research. It enables me to quickly familiarize myself with new subjects, assess complex situations, and develop structured solutions.

Another important skill is project management. During my PhD, I was simultaneously responsible for several research projects, supervised students, and was involved in a start-up project. Balancing these different responsibilities taught me how to prioritize, manage timelines, coordinate with others, and keep sight of the bigger picture. I think many PhD graduates underestimate how much project management experience they actually gain during their doctorate because they rarely think of it in those terms.

Communication has also proven to be invaluable. Academia provides countless opportunities to present your work, explain complex ideas to different audiences, and defend your conclusions. These skills translate directly into industry, where communicating clearly with different stakeholders is essential.

What new skills or ways of working did you need to develop in the industry?

The biggest adjustment was learning a different way of working rather than acquiring completely new technical skills. I have learned a great deal about how a large international organization operates. Understanding how decisions are made, how different functions interact, and how projects move through a global company has been a completely new experience. Navigating these structures and building relationships across the organization has become just as important as solving the technical challenges themselves.

What does a typical working day look like for you today, and how closely do you still engage with scientific content?

One of the exciting aspects of the traineeship is that there is no single “typical” working day because I rotate through different departments. My experience so far has mainly been in project management, where my day looks quite different from my time in academia.

One major change is that I no longer work in the laboratory. That was a conscious decision, as I wanted to explore career paths beyond experimental research. My work is now office-based and consists of a mix of project work, meetings, preparing presentations or analyzing information. Rather than conducting experiments myself, I work with people from different disciplines to help move projects forward.

What advice would you give to researchers who are considering leaving academia?

I believe it is of paramount importance for researchers to understand the wide range of career paths that are available to them. I can only speak from my own experience in the natural sciences and chemistry, but during my studies and PhD I had only a very limited understanding of possible career options. At the time, the main paths I was aware of were becoming a professor, leading a research team in industry, or moving into consulting. In reality, there is a much broader landscape, including project and product management, regulatory affairs, medical affairs, commercial roles, and many other fields.

Because of this, I would strongly encourage researchers to actively explore different options early on. Attend career fairs, information events, and talks, and try to speak with people working in different areas. In my own case, I completed a five-month course in life science management after my PhD, which gave me a very valuable overview of different roles outside academia and helped me understand where my interests and strengths could fit best.