Evaluate Gene Therapy Researcher candidates across 4 weighted areas: technique and experimental design, results that went somewhere, troubleshooting and reproducibility, and documentation and collaboration. Technique and experimental design leads at 35%, so probe hands-on command of vector work: AAV serotype selection, lentiviral packaging, plasmid design, ddPCR titration, potency assays, and how they. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
For technique and experimental design, look for evidence the candidate names specific serotypes, promoters and capsid variants used, explains titre methods, and justifies dose ranging with control arms and endpoints. For results that went somewhere, look for evidence the candidate points to a named candidate advanced to IND-enabling tox, GMP tech transfer, or publication, with their own contribution clearly bounded.
Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Technique and experimental design
35% weight
Probe hands-on command of vector work: AAV serotype selection, lentiviral packaging, plasmid design, ddPCR titration, potency assays, and how they powered in vivo dosing cohorts.
Evidence to listen for
Runs the assays and instruments themselves rather than describing what a team does
Designs experiments with controls, replicates, and a stated hypothesis
Knows what each technique can and cannot resolve
Understands the science, not only the protocol
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Protocol follower with no experimental design; cannot justify controls.
2
Needs Improvement
Runs standard assays; designs experiments poorly or not at all.
3
Satisfactory
Competent at the bench with sound routine design.
4
Very Good
Designs rigorous experiments and understands the limits of each technique.
5
Excellent
Names specific serotypes, promoters and capsid variants used, explains titre methods, and justifies dose ranging with control arms and endpoints.
02
Evaluation factor
Results that went somewhere
25% weight
Ask which constructs or programmes moved forward: IND-enabling packages, transfer to GMP or CDMO, published editing efficiencies, licensed candidates, or programmes they helped kill on data.
Evidence to listen for
Names projects where their results changed a decision, a process, or a product
States their own contribution rather than the group's
Has taken something from bench to a larger scale, a filing, or a publication
Knows what happened to the work after they handed it over
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No results that went anywhere; work is entirely exploratory.
2
Needs Improvement
Contributed to projects but cannot say what their data changed.
3
Satisfactory
Real contributions; outcomes described loosely.
4
Very Good
Names results that changed a decision, with clear personal scope.
5
Excellent
Points to a named candidate advanced to IND-enabling tox, GMP tech transfer, or publication, with their own contribution clearly bounded.
03
Evaluation factor
Troubleshooting and reproducibility
25% weight
Test troubleshooting of low transduction, empty:full capsid ratios, off-target editing calls, batch variability in cell lines, and how they re-established reproducible results across operators.
Evidence to listen for
Treats a failed run as information rather than bad luck
Isolates reagent, instrument, operator, and biological causes systematically
Knows why a result failed to reproduce and can say when their own data was wrong
Keeps records good enough to diagnose from months later
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Repeats failed runs unchanged; no diagnostic thinking.
2
Needs Improvement
Troubleshoots by substitution; cannot explain a reproducibility failure.
3
Satisfactory
Solid troubleshooting on familiar assays.
4
Very Good
Systematic isolation of causes, and honest about their own irreproducible results.
5
Excellent
Traces a real failure to root cause (capsid ratio, MOI drift, passage number) and describes the controls that confirmed the fix.
04
Evaluation factor
Documentation and collaboration
15% weight
Check ELN discipline, protocol writing for IACUC or ethics submissions, biosafety committee interaction, and working with vector core, analytics, and regulatory colleagues on shared timelines.
Evidence to listen for
Keeps records to the standard the setting requires, whether that is GLP, GMP, or a defensible notebook
Writes up so someone else can repeat the work
Works with process, quality, or clinical colleagues rather than in a bench silo
Explains a result to a non-specialist without overclaiming
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Records would not survive audit; work is not repeatable from them.
2
Needs Improvement
Documentation is thin; write-ups need heavy editing.
3
Satisfactory
Adequate records and write-ups; collaboration is limited.
4
Very Good
Audit-standard records and clear communication across functions.
5
Excellent
Describes audit-ready ELN records, authored IACUC or IBC protocols, and concrete handoffs to analytics or process development teams.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Gene Therapy Researcher
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
Have you conducted in vivo studies for gene therapy applications?
02
Can you explain your experience with animal models in this research?
03
How proficient are you with cell culture techniques in this context?
04
Can you describe your experience with vector design and development?
05
Can you discuss your proficiency with different gene delivery methods?
