The Jackson Laboratory reviews

While the pay is sufficient, it lags behind industry standards. Despite its non-academic setting, a massive portion of the operational focus revolves around securing grants, bringing all the administrative friction that entails. ​My primary concern stems from the workplace culture at the regional site level. In my view, structural dynamics—including the vulnerability of staff on visa sponsorships—can incentivize an environment of appeasing faculty rather than fostering open, objective scientific debate. On multiple occasions, I felt that my professional input and technical feedback regarding operational protocols were not given serious consideration. This ultimately manifested as failing instrumentation and costly repeats of experiments. These systemic roadblocks limited my scientific output and stifled my professional growth, making the environment poor for long-term career advancement. Expected to contribute to or write multiple papers a year with team members who were unwilling to collaborate or be responsible for their low quality work. It feels like a roll of the dice whether you land in a highly collaborative lab group or a deeply frustrating one. I was consistently working harder and longer than similarly ranked lab members but receiving little to no appreciation, pay, or credit for this effort. This was one element of many in a work culture plagued by favoritism and personal comments that ultimately drove me to leave for a more supportive workplace. While my experience was mainly due to a single PI who is a known problem at JAX, yet still employed, it was not isolated to just them.

Bad management. The mice are more important then employees