Our My Question is….Networking Lunches are gaining momentum now and one might say an adept way of keeping in touch as we come to the end of a cold, locked down January.  Once again, our network was primed with a variety of questions across different topics that they were keen to debate.  Over 30 delegates joined our virtual networking session looking to meet and catch up with others informally and for perhaps a learning experience too.  Five breakout rooms and five questions later, here is what came out of the discussions:

Question one submitted by Kathryn Simpson; Kathryn Simpson Consulting: “How do you decide when you need to have an external facilitator to run your meetings?” One of the first points identified by Kathryn’s group was the need for structure and efficiency in meetings with senior stakeholders and management, often those meetings that have a strategic focus and high impact outcomes.  In this sense, having an external facilitator can help to keep the meeting on track.  In addition to this, having an independent view can often help to get the best out of others as well.  As Kathryn’s team point out, a facilitator can often help to take emotions out of the meeting and this can be especially important given their ‘public’ nature.  An independent facilitator can almost act like a ‘peacekeeper’ bringing the two sides together if it is expected there will be two contrasting viewpoints, or to get to the essence of a subject if it is a particularly complex one.  Amongst the discussion, the group identified a pertinent example of two different cultures coming together like patient advocacy groups and Pharma.  Other reasons for having a facilitator included moving the group forward to a consensus and bringing fresh perspectives.  The discussion ended on what skills are needed for a facilitator role, which could be a debate for next time…

Question two submitted by Abigail O'Driscoll; BioPartner, UK: “Are international partnering meetings now a thing of the past, and can digital platforms replace face-to-face introductions and negotiations?” This has been a widely talked about topic since the pandemic began.  To address the current Covid-19 pandemic the whole world has had to adapt and international conferences have been no exception.  But what will this adaptation look like and how long will it last?  As Abigail highlighted, as an event planner herself, it will most likely be a blended approach moving forward.  Events with a digital element (content and attendees), whilst others attend in person.  However, we are social creatures and currently missing out on human-to-human interaction.  As well as the social aspect, picking up of body language can be used by some in negotiations and this is now difficult.  Loss of contact could also influence negotiations within different cultures where perhaps more emphasis is placed on face-to-face networking.  The group decided that in-person will return when safe to do so, but blended may be here to stay.  Only time will tell…

Question three submitted by Victoria English; Evernow Publishing Ltd: “Will fundamental decisions about drug targets be routinely informed by data derived from artificial intelligence and will the NewCo of the future be led by a data scientist?”  Once again, one of the most talked about topics within the sector now.  The group all had the same opinion that there is a clear need for biological knowledge and broad-spectrum science knowledge, as well as data scientists within the biotech and pharma industries.  This was a broad topic to debate and the group highlighted a wide range of applications of AI in the drug development space, from the democratisation of data, using AI to provide solutions to complex diseases (DeepMind and protein folding was the example given here) and repurposing of drugs.  There seems to be no doubt that data derived from AI will drive significant decisions around drug targets, but perhaps to get started we need to be focussing more on centralising data first and making this data meaningful, so a focus on analytical techniques and interpretation too.

Question four submitted by Simon Portman; Marks & Clerk Law LLP: “Is there a significant future for VR in life sciences?”  You could say that this is the stuff of science fiction, but this groups’ discussion highlighted the broad applications of VR already been used in life sciences from the training of staff (virtual experiments to surgery), education for children, diagnoses and treatment (e.g., dementia), molecular simulations and construction of new products (e.g., the UK Ventilator Challenge involved engineers collaborating virtually so they could remain in separate labs distanced from each other).  Simon drew parallels with question two and paid homage to the immersive VR conferences he had attended, although limited as they are as most people are keen to return to in-person when feasible, but it does allow for some creativity!.  It was also important to highlight some of the challenges with using this technology.  For instance, when using VR for diagnosis and treatment who will be liable if something goes wrong?  Cost is also a commonly cited barrier, as well as the data management and confidentiality side of things.  What about the apparent benefit of allowing trainees to learn in a risk-free environment, could this transfer to complacency in real life settings?  Simon ended on the point that the rise of Covid-19 has accelerated the purchase of VR headsets among the public by 350%.  Is this the beginning of a new era?

Finally, question five submitted by Sophie Rose; Metrion Biosciences: “What is the current appetite for outsourcing within the Life Science Industry and what do people look for in a Contract Research Organisation?”  This groups’ discussion was successful in highlighting that there is no shortage of benefits to using CROs and outsourcing is indeed becoming a more common strategy in R&D.  There are also an increasing number of services that companies can outsource to from manufacturing to PR, HR, etc.  Outsourcing is an opportunity to bring in specialists that can help with problem solving.  It can also help with risk sharing, especially when venturing into a new area, as well as helping with capacity issues and time efficiency (as the technology is already invested in and set up by someone else).  But if there is a need for very strict quality control, or issues around confidentiality, a company may be hesitant to outsource.  The group recognised that people, trust and relationship building are important factors when looking for a CRO.  Alongside this, however, co-location could also be important, e.g., when thinking about access to a clinical trial site.  But this is by no means the most important factor.  The group also took some time to discuss who oversees outsourcing in a company, as this could affect the selection process and appetite.  It was recognised that there has been a shift from the scientist to those within procurement roles.  Types of companies that would benefit from outsourcing are those that are completely virtual and newer biotechs that are not fully set up.  Sophie highlighted this is indeed a flourishing area with more biotechs registered in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 combined.

Thank you for reading and until next time…