>Isn't it crazy hard to get hired for a research position? I was told in the past that just because you had a PhD didn't mean you would automatically be able to find a job doing interesting research.

It's crazy hard to get hired for a permanent research position in academia at a university people will have heard of. In science and engineering <10% of people go on to PhD and <10% of those PhDs who graduate find a permanent position. If you don't feel like you were the top 1% of your year at uni, then its going to be harder, or you've been under appreciated and are good at research rather than being taught. So yeah to remain in academia being paid little actually takes you being incredibly good. But getting an operational research job in something like an innovation or RnD department, in a company, is about as hard as getting any other job once you have some experience, and are qualified for the work. A PhD is not at all required though. But in life sciences its kind of important right now. The main issue of work being "interesting" is probably if you have directly relevant experience or not, which is a lot less likely as a researcher. If you're like me though and can get interested in almost anything then pragmatism wins. Plenty of knowledge and research skills are completely transferable. Getting a PhD is not really about skill or ability its an endurance race that very few people even sign up for and even less finish. By definition finishing the race means you are capable of doing it. It's a trial by fire.

Nothing is automatic in life. The number of hopelessly incompetent people with a PhD is only slightly less than the number with an undergrad degree or without any higher education. That doesn't change. But yeah if someone sucks, they suck. That's never something that can be overcome with a piece of paper. But a PhD at the very least usually represents a level of dedication to trying to make yourself suck less that others were unwilling to sign up for. That's probably about all its ever recognised as. My experience to date is people with a PhD are hugely self starting, and capable of pushing a project along independently. Which is simply a product of being left alone floating in a room for several years expected to solve something independently.

> In what way?

The main way is that I come from an AI background by training. Many of the concepts from that field set you up for sort of reverse engineering how things might be working in molecular biology. It's not that cells and proteins are remotely like computers, but they are doing heavy computation in a strange way and AI is essentially the field of understanding strange computation. The main thing I was interested in when I was doing an AI degree were optimisation problems and specifically genetic algorithms. Turns out evolution of molecular biology -the real thing- is just vastly more interesting and complex in a way you wish you could get genetic algorithms to behave. Better yet is that the alarming rise of biotech to actually manipulate how life works, means for all intents and purposes theoretical work you do in molecular biology can directly become technology. It's basically what I was looking for in AI.