From Politics To Industry Reputation – Top Of Mind Topics For Execs In Biopharma

By Rob Wright, Chief Editor, Life Science Leader
Follow Me On Twitter @RfwrightLSL

In preparing for this year’s annual outlook issue (published in December), Life Science Leader posed a variety of questions to biopharmaceutical executives. Unfortunately, not all the responses could be squeezed into the annual outlook print edition, so we decided to share them here. Don’t miss out on all the other knowledge and wisdom provided by the more than 40 biopharmaceutical executives taking part in this year’s annual outlook by becoming a Life Science Leader subscriber today.

How Do You Anticipate The Current State Of U.S Political Affairs Will Affect Biopharma In The U.S. And Globally In 2022 And Beyond?

Ivan Dimov, Ph.D., cofounder and CEO, Orca Bio: I'm concerned with the fragmentation around the world. At the macro level, we’ve seen the U.S. put up national barriers that did not exist in the 1990s and 2000s and other countries have followed suit. Although I do not believe that globalization is an unmitigated force for good, ultimately, cooperation between countries is better for an industry like ours given its global and collaborative nature. Even on the individual level, as we’ve seen with the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination campaign, many people are only thinking about themselves and are not thinking about their communities. I think both dynamics are deeply destabilizing. Increased nationalism and individualism will make it harder for companies in our industry to collaborate with our peers across borders or even run clinical trials abroad. Ultimately, this will hinder innovation and it’s the patients who could benefit from new therapies being researched who stand to suffer most from this.

How Do You Anticipate Trade Relations Between The U.S. And China Evolving In 2022 And Beyond?

Nancy Lurker, president and CEO, EyePoint Pharmaceuticals: Trade relations between the U.S. and China are critical for biopharma. It is unknown right now how trade relations are going to unfold looking ahead, but I am optimistic that both governments will continue to try to work collaboratively, and that we respect existing intellectual property (IP) from both sides.

U.S. and China trade relations are of particular relevance for EyePoint, as we have important partnerships with two Chinese companies. In one of these partnerships, we have out-licensed two of our drugs; in the other, we have a pipeline collaboration. Our relationships with these companies are strong and deeply valued, which I hope continues – as a means of driving more innovation and helping more patients.

What Should Biopharma Be Doing To Keep The Industry’s Image Trending Positively?

​

Diem Nguyen, Ph.D., CEO, Xalud Therapeutics: It’s incredible how there’s a universal understanding of the importance and complexity of drug development, and the companies behind it. The industry should capitalize on this awareness to better communicate innovative science and new data in a way that is understandable and relatable to everyone. When we explain the significant impacts that a vaccine or drug has on the broader population, we must relay this information on a personal level. For example, our industry has focused on aggregate epidemiological data and macro-level effects the vaccine will have on COVID transmission, but it’s vital we translate that in a way that still resonates with individuals and the personal decisions they’re facing.

In addition to a better understanding of drug development, the pandemic also highlighted the lengths to which biopharma companies must go to make a drug accessible to everyone. In addition to drug discovery, there’s a greater appreciation for new options for drug delivery, whether that is through mRNA or inactivated viruses. As the industry continues to pioneer novel complex drugs, like gene therapies, it will be important that we maintain this perspective when exploring delivery modalities, including non-viral methods, as well as manufacturing, distribution, and access.

What Are Some Of The Pros And Cons To Implementing Hybrid Work Models In 2022 And Beyond?

​

Peter Mariani, EVP and CFO, Axogen: The medtech/biopharma industry is somewhat unique in that much of the core work must be done on-site in clinical and R&D labs or a manufacturing environment. I believe that, in large part, true innovation is born from the collaboration and free exchange of ideas that transpires during face-to-face in-person meetings and working sessions. Organic interaction often serves as the foundation for inspiration and creativity. While technology advances have allowed many of us to successfully work from home, impromptu conversations, the resulting camaraderie, and the preservation and advancement of a constructive company culture is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate in a fully virtual environment. Connections with coworkers are often forged and strengthened outside of formal meetings during unscheduled interactions. However, the past year has taught us that the flexibility and focused work time that often accompanies working from home is equally valuable and contributes to productivity and employee satisfaction. I believe the best next normal is a combination of in-office and work-from-home that allows us to leverage the benefits of both. We have adopted a hybrid model at Axogen that provides flexibility while also harnessing the power of in-person collaboration.

What Needs To Be Done To Encourage The Allocation Of Resources To Develop/Commercialize Drugs For Common Chronic Diseases?

Robin Knifsend, SVP finance and operations, Synthekine: Chronic diseases are the leading driver of healthcare costs as well as leading causes of death and disability in the U.S., yet investment in drug development targeting chronic diseases has not kept up with this increasing cost burden on our healthcare system. Greater awareness and financial incentives are needed to drive innovation to solve this unmet gap. Awareness needs to be driven by those impacted by these diseases and the current payors who are bearing the cost burden. The key points are that there is a large potential market and there is a substantial cost to not addressing this unmet need. Financial incentives, perhaps similar to those for orphan diseases, are needed to encourage innovation in these areas, with the hope of greater financial rewards. Examples are tax incentives, grant funding to support research, the promise of government supported markets, cheaper or faster paths to approval, and longer exclusivity. In addition, providing incentives to form creative partnerships or programs to address chronic diseases could result in new drug discovery platforms or optimize collaborative innovation efforts leading to more efficient and effective drug discovery while minimizing the cost to one particular entity.