About this opportunity
base 上海，负责可善挺上海医学事务工作，与上海医学专家一起领导科学参与。实施临床和教育策略，并回应未经请求的医疗查询。
Major Accountabilities~ 与医学专家（ME）进行医学/科学信息教育 ~ 确保对医学专家/关键客户进行合理识别/了解，包括识别涉及医学专家的机会，以为确定的特定医疗需求提供支持 ~ 制定/执行医学专家参与方案，以有效地确定医学专家参与的优先顺序，并根据国家/地区战略实现战略性参与 ~ 响应医学专家的主动信息请求 ~ 支持Novartis临床研究项目，优化试验执行，并与临床操作一道为未来和当前研究中心提供科学教育支持。 ~ 应研究者要求，协助研究者启动试验（IIT）的过程 ~ 在现场矩阵式工作环境中人员的一种医疗人力资源 ~ 在收到诺华产品后24小时内报告与诺华产品相关的技术投诉/不良事件/特殊情况 ~ 营销样本的分发（如适用）Key Performance Indicators〜与他们的医学专家一起领导科学参与。实施临床和教育策略，并回应未经请求的医疗查询。Work Experience~运营管理和执行~跨界协作Skills~生物统计学~临床实践~临床研究~临床研究报告~好奇心~客户关系管理（CRM）软件~疾病管理~药物开发~教育~流行病学~IT工具~医疗信息~医学研究~医学写作~IV期临床试验~植入式广告~科学支持Language英语
Job details
How this role compares
Computed from every other active Medical Affairs role in our database, not just this employer's listings.
We currently track 1636 comparable Medical Affairs roles across 170 biopharma companies.
Salary context
440 of 1636 peers report a salary range (USD, annualized)
Peers share this role's job function. This posting doesn't list a seniority level, so peers aren't narrowed by seniority either -- the range below may span more levels than usual.
Where these roles are based
Top locations among the 1636 comparable roles
+ 57 more countries
Seniority mix
985 of 1636 peers have a known seniority level
Therapeutic area mix
568 of 1636 peers have a known therapeutic area; the rest are genuinely unlabeled, not hidden
Similar opportunities
The closest matches from our peer group, ranked by how similar they are, not how well you'd qualify for them -- treat this as market context, not a guaranteed shortlist; a weak match is labeled as one below.
Notify me about similar jobs
Get an email when we spot other openings like this one – same job function, comparable seniority, roles you'd actually want to see.
Or follow a whole field: get every new Medical Science Liaison job in China, and choose locations and companies.
How we calculate "similar"
No black box, no LLM guesswork: a deterministic score built from four normalized attributes. Here's this role's own peer group at different match levels, so you can see the mechanism, not just the result.
Every comparison starts from the same 100-point budget: 25 for working in the same function, 40 for the same therapeutic area, 20 for the same or adjacent seniority, 15 for the same country. A dimension we can't confirm on both sides contributes nothing, never a guess, never a free pass.
0 points, never a partial guess. A role we know almost nothing about beyond its function bottoms out at 25%; it never inflates to 100% just because there's little to compare against. Seniority uses a defined ladder (Associate → Manager → Associate Director → Senior → Principal → Director → Senior Director → Executive/VP) so "Director" and "Senior Director" count as adjacent, but "Director" and "Executive/VP" do not.