The R&D environment in the pharmaceutical industry differs significantly from other fields. Above all, the most noticeable difference is the time it takes to create a final product, i.e., a drug approved by regulatory agencies. Although there are various milestones before the final product is achieved and these milestones take relatively shorter times, it is a unique characteristic that all these milestones must be successful to avoid failure.
It is known that it takes about 10 to 15 years for a molecule born in a laboratory to receive approval from regulatory agencies. This process involves numerous experts from different fields making highly uncertain decisions together. Deciding to move to the next stage in drug development is a highly political matter because it requires experts from diverse fields to gather and make risky decisions. Even in the regulatory approval process, a committee composed of multiple experts reviews the data, and the approval decision is ultimately based on the distribution of opinions among these experts. Therefore, this process is social and can be influenced by factors beyond scientific data.
A better alternative to political decisions is data-driven decision-making. This approach aims to reduce disagreements about the decision itself, but in reality, it reflects the collective efforts of multiple players seeking data to support their decisions. While what the data shows is crucial, understanding what the data hides can be equally important. Understanding the context in which the data was produced and what that context means for subsequent actions requires high expertise and enough experience. As such, a universally satisfactory data-driven decision is often akin to a unicorn.
The choice of communication method — face-to-face meetings, video conferences, or asynchronous communication (messenger, email, etc.) — is crucial because communication in pharmaceutical R&D determines what data needs to be produced, how to analyze it, how to interpret the results, and how to base the next decisions on that understanding. These decisions must be made by scientists with different functions through consensus or authority and must be supported by sufficient data. While decisions can sometimes be influenced by factors beyond scientific data, any scientific/technical debt incurred must be addressed afterward.
To ensure all team members dedicate their best efforts and commitment, these decisions must be as acceptable as possible. Scientists' dedication often occurs when their academic pride is maintained.
Routine decision-making within a group of scientists with the same expertise can be sufficiently handled through simple messages or emails. In such groups, communication methods are well-defined and familiar, so face-to-face or video meetings are only needed for new data analyses or when extensive context explanations are required.
Communication difficulties arise when scientists from different fields must discuss and make decisions. The most crucial aspect is conveying context that may be difficult to express in writing due to differences in expertise. While scientists are accustomed to understanding other fields through papers or books, achieving deep understanding without systematic education in those fields is challenging. Overcoming disciplinary barriers requires frequent direct communication, mutual trust, and sufficient context exchange.
When conveying your context, you should prepare communication respectfully, considering that the other party may not know what you take for granted. When trying to understand someone else's context, you should make an effort based on respect and trust in the other's scientific expertise. These efforts contribute to a broader and deeper understanding of different fields, serving as nourishment for personal growth and enabling higher-level decision-making beyond one's field.
In reality, scientists working on the same tasks meet more frequently face-to-face and share even minute details of their work, but routine communication may not occur sufficiently among scientists working on different tasks. Thus, research organization managers need to understand how routine communication occurs and adjust systems and atmospheres to facilitate more routine communication among researchers with different scientific backgrounds.
Key Takeaways
1. Extended Development Timeline: The pharmaceutical R&D process typically takes 10-15 years from laboratory discovery to regulatory approval.
2. Multidisciplinary Decision-Making: Drug development involves experts from various fields making highly uncertain and political decisions together.
3. Importance of Communication: Effective communication methods are crucial in pharmaceutical R&D as they guide what data needs to be produced, analyzed, understood, and used for subsequent decisions.
It is known that it takes about 10 to 15 years for a molecule born in a laboratory to receive approval from regulatory agencies. This process involves numerous experts from different fields making highly uncertain decisions together. Deciding to move to the next stage in drug development is a highly political matter because it requires experts from diverse fields to gather and make risky decisions. Even in the regulatory approval process, a committee composed of multiple experts reviews the data, and the approval decision is ultimately based on the distribution of opinions among these experts. Therefore, this process is social and can be influenced by factors beyond scientific data.
A better alternative to political decisions is data-driven decision-making. This approach aims to reduce disagreements about the decision itself, but in reality, it reflects the collective efforts of multiple players seeking data to support their decisions. While what the data shows is crucial, understanding what the data hides can be equally important. Understanding the context in which the data was produced and what that context means for subsequent actions requires high expertise and enough experience. As such, a universally satisfactory data-driven decision is often akin to a unicorn.
The choice of communication method — face-to-face meetings, video conferences, or asynchronous communication (messenger, email, etc.) — is crucial because communication in pharmaceutical R&D determines what data needs to be produced, how to analyze it, how to interpret the results, and how to base the next decisions on that understanding. These decisions must be made by scientists with different functions through consensus or authority and must be supported by sufficient data. While decisions can sometimes be influenced by factors beyond scientific data, any scientific/technical debt incurred must be addressed afterward.
To ensure all team members dedicate their best efforts and commitment, these decisions must be as acceptable as possible. Scientists' dedication often occurs when their academic pride is maintained.
Routine decision-making within a group of scientists with the same expertise can be sufficiently handled through simple messages or emails. In such groups, communication methods are well-defined and familiar, so face-to-face or video meetings are only needed for new data analyses or when extensive context explanations are required.
Communication difficulties arise when scientists from different fields must discuss and make decisions. The most crucial aspect is conveying context that may be difficult to express in writing due to differences in expertise. While scientists are accustomed to understanding other fields through papers or books, achieving deep understanding without systematic education in those fields is challenging. Overcoming disciplinary barriers requires frequent direct communication, mutual trust, and sufficient context exchange.
When conveying your context, you should prepare communication respectfully, considering that the other party may not know what you take for granted. When trying to understand someone else's context, you should make an effort based on respect and trust in the other's scientific expertise. These efforts contribute to a broader and deeper understanding of different fields, serving as nourishment for personal growth and enabling higher-level decision-making beyond one's field.
In reality, scientists working on the same tasks meet more frequently face-to-face and share even minute details of their work, but routine communication may not occur sufficiently among scientists working on different tasks. Thus, research organization managers need to understand how routine communication occurs and adjust systems and atmospheres to facilitate more routine communication among researchers with different scientific backgrounds.
Key Takeaways
1. Extended Development Timeline: The pharmaceutical R&D process typically takes 10-15 years from laboratory discovery to regulatory approval.
2. Multidisciplinary Decision-Making: Drug development involves experts from various fields making highly uncertain and political decisions together.
3. Importance of Communication: Effective communication methods are crucial in pharmaceutical R&D as they guide what data needs to be produced, analyzed, understood, and used for subsequent decisions.