Pros
Lots of different things to do and learn. But be cautioned you learn a way to do things that is unlikely to transfer unless you are on the research team (and maybe accounting?). Everything else is made up as they go and they do not follow any industry standards for anything. The engineering systems are very flawed.
Cons
Where to start? First, you should be aware that the entire research team, and even some of their replacements have left over the past 18 months. They were all honest about the leadership failures, tried to be constructive in helping right the ship, but were told "if you don't like it, leave"...so they and some of the rest of us did. Second, at least 2 of these positive reviews were written by the marketing people, and they are dishonest- but they were having such problems recruiting, they added these to try to improve the image. The issues are myriad but here are a few: 1) the leadership is completely over-matched for the scale the company had grown to. The CEO had hired multiple Directors that had no idea what they were doing, and maybe 2 of them actually tried to learn and become competent. The other 2-3 just floated along- two engineering types simply did not work for years at a time, but they still got paid large salaries. They hired some other guy to write grants, and then when he failed at that they hired him FT anyway at a large salary? They all still work there last I heard. 2) While not dealing with high level salaried employees not completing anything on time, or at a quality that was not embarrassing, they will continually claim there is no money to pay people at mid to lower levels across teams, and if your manager does not fight tooth and nail, you won't get paid much- and I heard that the one manager that did fight for her team (the research group) left. So not sure anyone in management gives a crap about anyone or anything but themselves now. 3) The products could be awesome. But the CEO will not reign in the marketing group saying things like "fMIR is not real science, like EEG", or selling "metrics" that are fine for research tools, but are not solid enough to be profiting from- the workload algorithm was built on on a sample of 13 pp- even I know that is weak. But the CEO will melt down if you say it was only 13- she is convinced it is over 80...but read the paper- not just the abstract- it was 13. Meanwhile the technology and software apparently all worked at one point- but while I was there there, there were constant problems with gadget they used to synch things- to the point that the data files were corrupted beyond rescue in several cases (and when customers complained, the comments around the office were they were just nitpicky, and no one really used the technology that way...well except for those customers I guess?). The software for the EEG had also become a mess- they had an engineer trying to clean it up, but the lead software engineer denied anything was wrong, the marketing people again claimed no one cared, but some basic calculations were apparently corrupted- that did not seem ok to me) 4) my last straw was hearing that the CEO was now considered a liar by some pretty important people in the funding agencies- I did not want to end up stuck here or end up with a poor reputation by association, so I left...and apparently a lot of others left too.