LCGC Blog: Building a Career Series That Goes Beyond the Surface

This summer I had the opportunity to organize and moderate a four-part virtual Careers in Separation Science series through ACS’s Subdivision of Chromatography and Separations Chemistry. Across sessions focused on government, industry, academia, and alternative careers, we brought together scientists to speak candidly about how they built their careers, what their work looks like day to day, and the technical and soft skills that have mattered most along the way.

I have attended many career panels through different organizations, and I have always found them valuable. At the same time, I often noticed a gap: one panel might include scientists from several very different fields, each with a completely different perspective, and there is never enough time to go beyond surface-level questions. Maybe only one panelist represents industry, so the discussion naturally centers on that person. Someone in the audience may have a specific question about what it is actually like to work in industry, but the conversation has already moved on to academia, government, or another topic. I wanted this series to do something a little different. Rather than hold one broad career panel with a diverse group of chemists, we created targeted panels that could get into the details of each field. Is there really more freedom and flexibility in academia than industry? What does a government chemist actually do – spend time in the lab, at a computer, supporting regulations, managing programs, or some combination of all of those? What does career growth look like in each setting? The goal was not to suggest that there is one “right” path after training in separation science. It was to give students, postdocs, and early-career scientists a clearer look at the range of paths available to them.

One of the most encouraging parts of the series was seeing how many of our panelists had moved across sectors during their careers. Their paths were rarely linear. Several had transitioned between academia, industry, government, consulting, scientific communication, and other roles as their interests and opportunities evolved. Hearing how they navigated those transitions made the conversations more useful than a simple description of job titles. It showed that career movement is possible and that skills developed in one setting can be valuable in another. My own path has moved from analytical chemistry to nutritional biochemistry and now aerospace physiology. I know how helpful it can be to hear an honest account of someone else’s career. Decisions can look much more linear from the outside than they felt while someone was living them. These panels gave speakers space to discuss the pivots, uncertainty, mentors, technical skills, and opportunities that shaped their careers, not just the polished endpoint listed in a résumé or CV.

Behind the scenes: making a virtual panel feel like a real conversation

Organizing a virtual career series starts with the obvious tasks: identifying themes, inviting speakers, confirming schedules, coordinating with co-moderators, and preparing promotional materials. Those details matter, but the most important work was thinking through the audience experience.

For each session, I found it helpful to begin with a few core questions:

• How did you arrive in your current role?
• What does your work actually look like on a typical day?
• Which technical skills have been most useful?
• Which transferable skills have mattered just as much?
• What do you wish you had known as a student or early-career scientist?

Those common themes gave each panel a consistent structure. From there, we could tailor questions to the panelists and their field. Government, industry, and academic scientists may all use separation science, but they can define success, manage projects, collaborate, and develop professionally in very different ways. One of the main lessons I learned is that planning needs to begin early, especially when inviting speakers from government, industry, or other organizations that require supervisory or communications approval before they can participate. Sending invitations early gives potential panelists enough time to consider the request, obtain the necessary sign-off, and still participate without a last-minute rush.

Moderating also required more flexibility than I expected. Good panelists often give answers that open the door to a better follow-up question than the one you planned. The challenge is to keep the conversation moving while leaving room for those moments. Shorter introductions, targeted questions, and enough time for audience Q&A helped the sessions feel like discussions rather than a sequence of prepared speeches. A memorable point came from Dr. Andre Striegel during the government panel: regardless of where your career takes you, you still have to know your science. Your chemistry background is your bread and butter. That expertise is what makes you valuable, even as the tools, roles, and career settings around you change.

Why these conversations matter

The series attracted 135 registrants across four sessions, including students, postdoctoral researchers, and separation scientists at all career stages. Feedback from attendees reflected a real interest in hearing from scientists with different backgrounds and roles. Participants especially valued the range of career perspectives, discussions of practical technical skills, and conversations about emerging areas such as artificial intelligence and programming. That feedback reinforced something important: early-career scientists are not only looking for advice on getting their first job. They want to understand how to remain adaptable in a field that continues to evolve.

Separation science supports work in health, environmental science, food and agriculture, forensics, energy, spaceflight, and many other areas. Yet students and trainees may not always see the full range of careers available to them. A targeted career series can help close that gap by putting real people and real professional stories behind broad job categories. For me, the success of the series was not simply that we completed four panels. It was that the discussions made career paths feel more approachable. Students and early-career scientists heard that technical expertise matters, but so do communication, networking, project management, curiosity, and a willingness to pursue opportunities that may not fit neatly into an original plan.

I came away from the summer with an even greater appreciation for these conversations. Virtual events are not a substitute for every form of mentoring or networking, but when they are thoughtfully organized, they can create an accessible starting point. They show trainees that there is room in separation science for many kinds of scientists – and many kinds of careers.