Industry Leader articles are written by executives at biopharma companies, consultancies, research firms, and companies that provide services or products to sponsors. The topics are nonpromotional and focused on industrywide business issues.
Often when we think about inefficiencies in the clinical trial process, we focus on the role of the sponsor or CRO, a particular aspect of the value chain, or new technologies that promote data sharing and faster decision making. While these are critical aspects that drive day-to-day operations, there is another aspect of the value chain that we may be neglecting: the patient side.
With wearables, we now have the means to innovate the “where” and the “how” of patient data capture, creating a 24-hour digital map of physical behaviors.
One of the most vexing and common problems HR professionals face is acquiring and training talent for specific skilled positions, only to see that talent, and the time and money invested in them, walk out the door too soon.
The very nature of many scientific processes creates habitual behaviors. Often these habits are effectively passed from senior lab generations to younger ones. Old habits can be hard to break, especially in a time-pressured lab environment.
Although the history of drug development contains many stories of serendipitous discovery, critical advances often emerge by setting out to address specific challenges. Today, many challenges associated with older drugs are being solved with new delivery technologies.
Any biotech or life sciences company in Boston — early-stage or mature — is no stranger to Kendall Square’s lab space squeeze. As the top-performing lab market in the U.S., Kendall Square is especially sought after by life sciences companies — ranging from emerging startups to Big Pharma.
Oncology has always been the front runner in personalized medicine, so this is where targeted therapies and diagnostics have, for the most part, been focused. However, there is new activity outside this area where biomarker and targeted approaches are proving successful.
Even though the U.S. economy continued to strengthen in 2015, many public investors sat on the sidelines grappling with global economic and political concerns and uncertainty surrounding the Fed’s policy concerning interest rates. Because of these and other factors, middle-market IPO transaction activity (IPOs completed by companies with market caps between $10 million and $2 billion) in 2015 decreased versus the previous year. Contributing to the downward pressure on IPO activity was the availability of capital and high valuations from private financial and strategic investors.
Industry-academic collaborations are becoming more popular as pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies seek to harness the innovation and human capital within life sciences institutions.
Today’s laboratory managers are facing significant budget cuts while simultaneously being challenged to obtain faster results. These pressures have created an increased focus on identifying potential areas of lab productivity improvement.
With the exception of several mega-financings for blue chip management teams in companies such as Juno and Denali from syndicates of well-heeled venture funds such as ARCH Ventures and Flagship Ventures, venture financing for startup life science companies has been relatively lean for the last several years.
No industry is more competitive than the life sciences for leadership talent. And we all know there are obvious advantages to asking one’s own leaders to help recruit, but allow me to offer a few words of caution if this is your strategy.
There is a growing movement by some researchers and regulators to increase disclosure of clinical trial results.
Creating the appropriate quality culture is arguably the most important element of being a manufacturing leader in the life sciences industry. Yet, reflecting back on my long career, I have not seen a single recipe for doing this, and I don’t profess to have a well-documented approach myself. But, boy, do I have some stories.