A New Model for Drug Discovery and Development

From Phase-Driven to Hypothesis-Driven R&D

The traditional mindset of drug development – advancing candidates from phase to phase – often prevents companies from investing resources wisely. Scientists, managers and investors focus their energy on meeting milestones, distracting them from the real question: have we advanced knowledge on how to deliver value to patients?

Rather than centering work on advancing compounds, R&D groups can center their efforts on building knowledge about how to deliver health benefits through improving human biological function. Instead of asking, “What do we need to get to the next phase?” they can ask, “What do providers, patients, and payers need to know about this treatment to make the best decision for the patient?” They can visualize R&D as a series of experimental cycles:

  • Build hypotheses about chances that treatment will succeed
  • Design sound experiments
  • Execute experiments with tools fit-for-purpose
  • Generate robust, interpretable data
  • Rigorous quantitative analysis to reduce risk
  • Boost certainty about chances treatment will succeed
  • Apply knowledge to decisions.

Read more

Break Down Organizational Silos

One group thinks the other doesn't get it

I’d like to share a surprising but consistent interaction pattern I’ve observed over many years.  When one group thinks that another doesn’t get it, the other group invariably thinks the same of them.  When one group tries to bypass the other, the first group finds itself cut out the next time around.

To break the cycle, leaders can practice a new mindset.  They reframe others from “they don’t get it” to “they see it differently.”  They seek to learn, not just to convince.

Finding the Best Path to a Clinical Protocol Design

Can’t get people out of their silos?

You’re not alone.

Problem: An early-stage company needed to demonstrate Proof of Concept for a novel therapy, but the organization could not reach agreement on a clinical protocol design.

My client Peter, the Program Executive, vented his frustration to me:

“Dr. C [the Clinical Director] withdraws, withholds information, doesn’t inform me or the program team about anything, comes up with a suboptimal design, gets his boss on board, the Portfolio Review Committee rejects the proposal, and we end up losing a lot of time. This has happened a couple of times already.”

The Portfolio Committee told the team that the only solution was to bring in outside experts.

Solution: Instead of blaming Clinical, I helped the Program Executive step back. Read more