There’s much to like in this post but I’d like to add a few thoughts. First off many emerging biopharma companies tend to be a bit “lopsided”-far stronger in the “science” than on the commercial side and this may be reflected in the choice of CEO. Second, cash is always constrained so often a company will need to prioritise its assets and potentially its indications within a single asset. Third, it’s often easy to assume that superior pre-clinical data (eg target affinity) will effortlessly translate into a meaningful clinical profile. Finally beware of KOL interviews which often inform the TPP. KOLs are great at discussing the current landscape but they have a mental model which may preclude or downplay genuinely novel approaches which could change the treatment paradigm.
Yes, these are all good additions. I agree that biopharma are locked in the iron triangle of speed, quality, and cost when capital is constrained. That has a real effect on TPP development.
The other observation about KOLs having a perhaps narrow mental model is a really good one. Thank you for suggesting it.
100% agree with the statement "many emerging biopharma companies tend to be a bit “lopsided”-far stronger in the “science” than on the commercial side and this may be reflected in the choice of CEO." Except I'd change from the words 'commercial side' to "development side". I have spoken to several CMOs in emerging companies and their backgrounds mostly in translational discovery side worked in big pharma and then suddenly jump to small companies with Chief medical officer roles with no drug development experience but only at early discovery science. Then they start hiring development experts i.e. Reg Affairs, Clinicians etc at lower level and this contributes to the failures of several promising projects due to nonalignment of development strategies leading to failures!
There’s much to like in this post but I’d like to add a few thoughts. First off many emerging biopharma companies tend to be a bit “lopsided”-far stronger in the “science” than on the commercial side and this may be reflected in the choice of CEO. Second, cash is always constrained so often a company will need to prioritise its assets and potentially its indications within a single asset. Third, it’s often easy to assume that superior pre-clinical data (eg target affinity) will effortlessly translate into a meaningful clinical profile. Finally beware of KOL interviews which often inform the TPP. KOLs are great at discussing the current landscape but they have a mental model which may preclude or downplay genuinely novel approaches which could change the treatment paradigm.
Hi,
Yes, these are all good additions. I agree that biopharma are locked in the iron triangle of speed, quality, and cost when capital is constrained. That has a real effect on TPP development.
The other observation about KOLs having a perhaps narrow mental model is a really good one. Thank you for suggesting it.
100% agree with the statement "many emerging biopharma companies tend to be a bit “lopsided”-far stronger in the “science” than on the commercial side and this may be reflected in the choice of CEO." Except I'd change from the words 'commercial side' to "development side". I have spoken to several CMOs in emerging companies and their backgrounds mostly in translational discovery side worked in big pharma and then suddenly jump to small companies with Chief medical officer roles with no drug development experience but only at early discovery science. Then they start hiring development experts i.e. Reg Affairs, Clinicians etc at lower level and this contributes to the failures of several promising projects due to nonalignment of development strategies leading to failures!