Once again, Stowers Institute ranks among the top three places to work

For the second year running, The Scientist magazine placed the Stowers Institute for Medical Research among the top three “Best Places to Work in Academia.”

In the magazine’s tenth and final annual survey, on newsstands in August, Stowers scientists cited the institute’s infrastructure and environment –as well as available research resources–as key factors that give Stowers the “core strength” that lifted the institute into the number three spot.

Providing a first-rate scientific infrastructure ranks high on the institute’s list of priorities and, as a result, about a third of its scientific budget is earmarked for technology centers and core facilities.

“Our funding structure gives us the flexibility to invest heavily into new technologies but also to come up with organizational innovations to provide the kind of expertise that allows Stowers scientists to dream big,” says Scientific Director Robb Krumlauf, PhD. “We are very pleased that our consistent ranking as a great place to work for scientists supports our emphasis on providing the best possible resources for talented people to flourish.”

In addition, research advisors, highly trained specialists who act as internal consultants, work closely with investigators on projects that break new technological ground. “Whatʼ’s unique about Stowers is that we are committed to providing the expertise to apply technology in novel ways,” says Jay Unruh, PhD, a research advisor who specializes in molecular imaging. “This has repeatedly proven to be a critical step in helping our investigators unravel the mysteries of complex biological phenomena.”

But it is the Stowersʼ famously collaborative atmosphere—a commonly cited quality of organizations that place highly in Best Places to Work, according to The Scientist—that encourages the kind of chance encounters and casual conversations that often spark new ideas.

The rankings were based on surveys that gathered 1,249 responses from scientists across the country. Participants were asked to rate their institutions on thirty seven criteria in eight categories: job satisfaction, peers, infrastructure and environment, resources, compensation, management and policies, teaching and mentoring, and tenure and promotion.