Inside The Unlikely Partnership That Unlocked The Promise Of Insulin
By Patty Martin
On Christmas morning in 1921, a scientist left his family to board a train in Indianapolis headed to New Haven, Conn.—a journey, back then, of a few days. He was registered to attend the annual American Physiological Meeting, tasked as he was with finding the next great medicine—one that could be mass-produced, much in the same way that Henry Ford was cranking out cars. He thought he had found it, and he was right. It was insulin.
But when Alec Clowes made his pitch to University of Toronto researchers John MacLeod and Frederick Banting, he was met with a resounding “no.” They told him they would handle the manufacturing through the university’s manufacturing arm, conveniently located in the basement of the school. In doing so, they believed it would ensure the delivery of an affordable and safe medicine to the public while making sure the scientific discovery remained available to other researchers. Ultimately, they feared greed and mismanagement by an outside “firm,” so they sent Clowes on his way.
A little over a year later, they changed their minds.
The Road to Partnership
The road from “no” to “yes” was not a quick one, but it was paved by a value that’s still vital today: Trust. When examining Clowes’ behavior during that year, it is clear he used (unbeknownst to him) the principles behind the Trust Equation—a tool I use today to build strong collaborations and partnerships.
Essentially, the Trust Equation is reliant upon large doses of credibility, reliability, and familiarity weighed against each party’s self-interest. Often, companies or individuals just want to get down to business and avoid the time it takes to truly get to know collaborative partners. If you don’t invest in building familiarity, it will almost inevitably lead to trust issues—costing time, money, headaches, and even litigation. I’ve seen it time and time again.
My friends, coworkers, and family know that I employ the Trust Equation regularly because I talk about it, I reference it, and I have a card with the equation in my wallet and on my desk. This is intentional. If there is an issue around trust, my partners, colleagues, or collaborators are not surprised when I call a time-out and come to them to see where we are with our Trust Equation. Where does the issue lie? Is it with credibility? Is there a lack of familiarity that we need to invest in? Are there issues around reliability? This is a framework that allows for an engaged conversation around trust without defensiveness. It’s not personal. It’s just an equation—and essentially, a productivity tool. It allows for calmer hearts and minds to prevail and progress to be made for the benefit of all.
In the eyes of MacLeod and Banting, when they first met Clowes, he lacked every component of the Trust Equation except (they presumed) an orientation toward the self-interest of his company.
In the early 20th century, research institutes did not partner with commercial manufacturing enterprises. The snake oil salesmen of the 1800s had tarnished the reputation of “medicine” companies embarking on a new wave of innovation that sought to combine the advances of the industrial revolution with scientific discovery.
It was in this milieu that the researchers Macleod and Banting rejected Clowes’ offer to mass-produce and market insulin. Clowes, reportedly unfazed by the rejection, immediately wired his employer, Eli Lilly and Company, that he had found what they were looking for.
It’s Personal
Clowes’ success was due to his personal and persistent approach. Since there was no familiarity, he took numerous trips to Toronto to continue the conversation and foster their relationship. As Banting and his research assistant, Charles Best, met with Clowes, their relationship grew, as did his (and their) credibility. In any partnership, both sides must measure up when it comes to the elements of the Trust Equation.
When Clowes invited the researchers to visit Lilly’s manufacturing plant in Indianapolis to show what they were capable of, he proved his and his company’s reliability.
However, the answer didn’t change. It was still no.
Finally, after numerous failed attempts to scale up their own production, the Toronto scientists acquiesced and reached out to Clowes. Granted, they could have gone to a number of other eager manufacturing firms, but Clowes had proven himself. In the end, they trusted him, and he trusted them.
The pièce de résistance was in their written agreement, which addressed the issue of self-interest. Each party had a mutual interest in saving lives. Additionally, Lilly agreed to give a percentage of the insulin to physicians and institutions at cost and make the processes public for other companies to use. The concerns of the university were addressed, and in return, Lilly became the sole distributor—for a small royalty and providing 28% of each batch to the University of Toronto for continuing research. Remarkably, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the signing of the agreement for the commercialization of insulin. Establishing trust between these parties has ultimately saved the lives of millions of people around the world.
Trust Takes Time
It is true that Clowes didn’t give up, which is an essential component of this story—but more importantly, he knew how to build trust. He also knew that it wasn’t only a matter of the researchers trusting him, but he, as a proxy for Lilly, had to also trust them.
Trust takes time and work. It is not something you can “phone in.” It is precisely that investment of time that demonstrates a party’s interest (versus unbridled self-interest).
A red flag in any collaboration is when either party avoids investing the time to build the components that engender trust. By using the Trust Equation to enter into and evaluate partnerships of any kind, success can be assured—the type of success that can even save lives.
Patty Martin is president and CEO of BioCrossroads, which serves as a catalyst for Indiana’s life sciences innovation by helping to advance the state’s life sciences sector via research and collaboration.