They are a smaller company, so the process felt a little clunky, but they were always quick to communicate. There's a screening round, a simple technical round, a take home, and a third technical round with the director, then a final presentation. Felt like a lot of rounds for a research associate position, felt more aligned for a data scientist or software engineer position. I had a pleasant experience with the first person I interviewed with. He was easy to talk to and the interviews were low-pressure. Speaking with him made me excited for the position and the company. I felt great about the interview process until I met with the director for the third technical round. The way he framed questions was condescending. He used an accusatory (almost mocking) tone throughout the entire interview and I felt belittled despite knowing I was well qualified for the position. A post below mentions the "manager got visibly irked" when he didn't understand an explanation of something, and I can attest this behavior. The technical question itself was fine, it was the interviewer himself that created an uncomfortable, inhospitable environment to interview in. Despite great communication throughout the hiring process, I was ghosted after meeting with the director. Regardless, I would have not moved forward with this company due to the awful experience I had in the third technical. If the director treats interviewees this rudely, I cannot fathom how he treats the people he works with everyday. My advice for the company is to reassess the position and hiring process. One to two technical rounds is okay, but three technical rounds (and a presentation) for a RA position is a bit much. If someone that technically sound is wanted, up the desired qualifications from "1+ of programming and BS in Biology" or hire for a bioinformatician with a PhD.