"The Emperor Has No Clothes" — A 32-Year Pharma Recruiter Tells It Like It Is
There's a certain freedom that comes with being 62 and in the last decade of your career. Grant Coren, one of the most experienced life science recruiters in the UK, has earned the right to say what most people in pharma only think.
In the latest episode of The Pharma Perspective, Grant joined me for a wide-ranging conversation that touched on the state of the pharma job market, what's really wrong with AI in hiring, why your CV is probably telling the wrong story, and what the industry needs to urgently change.
Here are the highlights.
The pharma job market is the worst Grant has seen in 32 years
Grant has worked through recessions, bubbles, and industry downturns. He describes the current moment as unlike anything he's witnessed before. Usually, when pharma struggles, biotech picks up. When biotech slows, CROs expand. Right now, it's flat across the board — pharma, biotech, CRO, SMO, medtech, diagnostics.
The roots go back to COVID. A wave of private equity and VC investment flooded into companies promising pandemic-era solutions — but with no coherent post-pandemic strategy. When the returns didn't materialise, investors turned cautious. That caution hasn't lifted.
On top of that, the political environment in the US has added a layer of uncertainty the industry hasn't absorbed yet. The FDA is under pressure. The NIH has been significantly dismantled. A man with impressive credentials on paper has shut down vaccine programmes. The knock-on effects are still working their way through pipelines, budgets, and hiring plans.
Grant's read: don't expect things to improve in 2026. Possibly not next year either…
AI in hiring: a black box with real consequences
Grant is candid about where AI in hiring is heading — and it worries him.
ATS screening tools are already deselecting candidates before a human ever sees a CV. The problem is that nobody really knows how these systems are calibrated. He referenced Amazon's now-infamous experiment: a hiring algorithm trained on historical performance data that ended up systematically filtering out women, because the historical data it learned from was predominantly male. The logic was sound. The outcome was discriminatory.
Grant's concern extends to age. What if AI is quietly deselecting candidates over 50? It's illegal. But if you can't lift the lid on the algorithm, you can't prove it. And in an industry that already struggles with ageism — he talks openly about how older candidates are seen as having an "expiry date" rather than a wealth of experience — that's a serious problem.
His view: AI and human judgement are not mutually exclusive. You need both. AI will never understand nuance the way a skilled recruiter can.
Your CV is probably a job description. Fix that.
One of Grant's most useful observations: most CVs have become extended job descriptions. He already knows what a VP of Regulatory does. He doesn't need you to tell him. What he wants to know is what you achieved in that role.
His practical advice:
Lead with outcomes, not duties. What were you measured against, and how did you perform?
Use numbers where you can. Percentages if you can't give absolutes.
Three pages is fine. Two is not some sacred rule.
Don't write your CV entirely through AI — they all end up sounding generic.
Don't cram everything onto fewer pages by shrinking fonts and collapsing margins. If it's hard to read, it won't get read.
On cover letters: Grant doesn't read them. Make of that what you will.
Why loyalty is no longer rewarded — and what to do about it
Should you wait for an internal promotion or move to a new company? Grant's answer is clear: if you've been in the same company for 10 or more years, you are almost certainly earning less than someone who has made two moves in that time. Loyalty is not being compensated the way it once was.
His rule of thumb: if you want to move from Senior Director to VP, there is only one VP slot at your current company. Externally, there are dozens. The maths is straightforward.
That said, moving too often creates a different problem. He suggests that two or three moves in a decade is a reasonable cadence — enough to grow, not enough to raise red flags.
The biotech trap: when big pharma experience becomes a liability
One of the most interesting threads of our conversation was about what happens when biotechs hire from big pharma to signal credibility to investors — and inadvertently kill what made them successful.
Biotechs win because they're nimble. They make quick decisions. They fail fast. The moment you layer in pharma-style governance — endless meetings that exist only to schedule more meetings — the people who actually drove the growth start to leave. And the organisation becomes exactly what it was trying not to be.
Grant's point: stop labelling people as "pharma people" or "biotech people." The industry needs more cross-pollination, not less.
One technique worth stealing: indirect referencing
References are largely meaningless these days, Grant argues. People say what they think you want to hear.
His alternative: use your network to find people who have worked alongside a candidate — without necessarily telling them who you're asking about. Get a genuine sense of how someone operates, where they thrive, where they don't. Then present that real intelligence to the client.
It requires a strong, trusted network. But it's the kind of insight that no formal reference process will give you.
Rapid fire: biggest interview mistake?
Trying to share everything you know on a topic, hoping the interviewer will find the answer buried somewhere in there.
Answer the question. Be concise. Then be comfortable with the silence.
🎙️ This episode is available on YouTube, Spotify, and Amazon Music.
📬 Thanks for reading Pharma Radar. If this was useful, forward it to someone who needs to hear it.
