laboratory applied sciencecell culturemicrofluidicsorgan on chipsoft lithography
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
Check hands-on command of soft lithography, PDMS bonding, and perfusion design: SU-8 masters, plasma treatment, shear stress targets, TEER electrodes, and co-culture seeding protocols they wrote themselves.
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 chip geometries, flow rates in dyn/cm2, barrier integrity readouts, and explains why each design parameter was chosen.
02
Evaluation factor
Results that went somewhere
25% weight
Probe which chip models reached a real endpoint: compound screens, DMPK or tox data handed to pharma partners, qualification packages, or published gut, liver, or BBB models.
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 models adopted by partners or regulators, with cited papers, screening throughput, or data that changed a compound decision.
03
Evaluation factor
Troubleshooting and reproducibility
25% weight
Test debugging of bubbles, leaks, delamination, cell detachment under flow, and batch-to-batch PDMS variability; ask how they proved reproducibility across chips, operators, and cell lots.
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
Describes systematic root-cause work, controls run per batch, and quantified variability (CV, replicate counts) rather than anecdotal fixes.
04
Evaluation factor
Documentation and collaboration
15% weight
Look for SOPs, device drawings, CAD and mask files under version control, ELN discipline, and how they briefed biologists, mask shops, and imaging or assay collaborators.
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
Produces SOPs others run unaided, keeps traceable design revisions, and translates fluidics constraints into terms cell biologists act on.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
