Biotech Voic­es: Coro­n­avirus will change biotech re­search with re­mote col­lab­o­ra­tions

When a field that de­pends on sci­en­tif­ic bench­work sud­den­ly moves on­line, what hap­pens to col­lab­o­ra­tions and the in­no­va­tion sup­ply chain? We are see­ing the an­swer to this ques­tion play out in re­al time dur­ing the Covid-19 cri­sis. Across the Unit­ed States and abroad, mea­sures to safe­guard against this se­ri­ous dis­ease have cre­at­ed an un­planned, mas­sive test for re­mote work in biotech­nol­o­gy.

Sci­en­tif­ic com­pa­nies face a unique chal­lenge dur­ing the shut­down: con­tin­u­ing their re­search. Lab-based work re­quires in-per­son, hu­man at­ten­tion, as many ex­per­i­ments are com­plex and re­quire spe­cial­ized ex­per­tise. These projects are of­ten achieved through re­search col­lab­o­ra­tions be­tween or­ga­ni­za­tions, re­quir­ing meet­ings to share da­ta, shared work en­vi­ron­ments, and deep dis­cus­sions. And their re­sults are price­less — these col­lab­o­ra­tions have the po­ten­tial to gen­er­ate ther­a­pies that save or im­prove mil­lions of lives in the fu­ture. This is why biotech­nol­o­gy com­pa­nies have been deemed an es­sen­tial in­dus­try and con­tin­ue to op­er­ate in some form dur­ing the shut­down.

Of course, the in­dus­try — like many oth­ers — has rapid­ly adapt­ed. With bans on trav­el and re­stric­tions on in-per­son work and meet­ings, many of the sci­en­tif­ic col­lab­o­ra­tions that gen­er­ate new ther­a­pies are now 100% vir­tu­al. This shift presents unique chal­lenges as well as op­por­tu­ni­ties.

It’s im­pos­si­ble to ful­ly re­place in-per­son work with Zoom video and con­fer­ence calls. Face-to-face com­mu­ni­ca­tion will con­tin­ue to be im­por­tant, even af­ter the acute coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic eas­es and some sem­blance of nor­mal op­er­a­tions recom­mences. That said, it’s cru­cial that com­pa­nies con­tin­ue to pro­tect em­ploy­ees and pri­or­i­tize their com­fort and safe­ty. The need for safe, low-risk busi­ness en­vi­ron­ments will con­tin­ue to be nec­es­sary, and we will all need to ad­just and adapt to col­lab­o­ra­tions with less — and some­times no — in-per­son in­ter­ac­tions.

As the need for re­mote work con­tin­ues, it will dri­ve big changes in how biotech com­pa­nies ap­proach re­search col­lab­o­ra­tions and part­ner­ing ac­tiv­i­ty.

Sci­ence will be “de-den­si­fied”

Across in­dus­tries, busi­ness­es are look­ing for ways to “de-den­si­fy” work en­vi­ron­ments to pro­tect em­ploy­ees. Biotech is no dif­fer­ent. Un­til we have re­li­able and wide­ly-avail­able tests for Covid-19 — both an­ti­body tests and serol­o­gy tests — to sup­port safer work­spaces, labs will need to adapt. Al­ready, biotech com­pa­nies are cre­at­ing new work struc­tures to en­sure that em­ploy­ee health is pro­tect­ed and sci­en­tists spend the least amount of time to­geth­er in the lab.

New struc­tures with more re­mote work mean that sci­en­tif­ic teams will be­come greater ex­perts at plan­ning and com­mu­ni­ca­tion. At my com­pa­ny, for ex­am­ple, we have im­ple­ment­ed a shift-based ap­proach, send­ing teams in­to the lab for two-week sprints, fol­lowed by two weeks of re­mote of­fice work. With this sys­tem, we al­ways have a core team in the lab for es­tab­lished process­es such as tis­sue cul­ture, bio­chem­istry, in-vi­vo, phar­ma­col­o­gy, and more. These shifts are ac­com­pa­nied by tem­per­a­ture checks and oth­er mea­sures to en­sure our team feels and is safe, and that our labs are at low­est pos­si­ble risk for spread­ing Covid-19. Feed­back from our teams re­flects chal­lenges — we can­not work at the same den­si­ty or ef­fi­cien­cy as be­fore — but we al­so see that teams have learned to work more in­ti­mate­ly to com­pen­sate. Fur­ther­more, our most in­no­v­a­tive sci­en­tists are ac­cel­er­at­ing our ef­forts in bioin­for­mat­ics and the use of AI in bi­o­log­i­cal imag­ing and drug de­sign, all of which can be ac­com­plished re­mote­ly af­ter key da­ta have been gen­er­at­ed in the labs.

Re­search col­lab­o­ra­tions will be­come more glob­al

Biotech clus­ters like Boston, New York, and San Fran­cis­co have many ben­e­fits, one of which is den­si­ty of col­lab­o­ra­tors and part­ners, such as uni­ver­si­ties and Big Phar­ma play­ers. Big name com­pa­nies spend huge amounts of cap­i­tal on R&D col­lab­o­ra­tion, and many drugs are born from part­ner­ships based on phys­i­cal prox­im­i­ty.

Re­mote col­lab­o­ra­tion was al­ways tech­no­log­i­cal­ly pos­si­ble, and has been a key strat­e­gy for biotech for years. How­ev­er, hav­ing an in­no­va­tion chain dom­i­nat­ed by re­mote col­lab­o­ra­tion in the ear­ly dis­cov­ery space is an untest­ed con­cept. Now, we’re see­ing that glob­al col­lab­o­ra­tion is more vi­able than per­haps an­tic­i­pat­ed. With the right tools and process­es, sci­en­tif­ic teams can work well across bound­aries.

More glob­al col­lab­o­ra­tions au­to­mat­i­cal­ly lead to more di­ver­si­ty, which of­ten im­proves ideas and ap­proach­es. With dis­trib­uted col­lab­o­ra­tions, the qual­i­ty of re­search and find­ings will al­so grow. Bet­ter ther­a­peu­tics are a net pos­i­tive for the health­care in­dus­try and pa­tients.

Pri­or­i­ties will be­come more reg­i­ment­ed

Sci­ence is a cre­ative process, with room for wan­der­ing, imag­i­na­tive it­er­a­tion. Suc­cess­ful in­no­va­tion, how­ev­er, has al­ways re­quired dis­ci­plined con­cen­tra­tion. With re­duced lab ca­pac­i­ty due to de-den­si­fied work en­vi­ron­ments, com­pa­nies will now need to hone their fo­cus like nev­er be­fore.

For com­pa­nies with a sin­gle as­set, this will mean a laser-fo­cused ap­proach to re­search, with less room for tan­gen­tial work. For plat­form com­pa­nies — like my own — whose bi­o­log­i­cal in­sights al­low the tar­get­ing of mul­ti­ple dis­eases, teams will need to quick­ly de­cide which paths to pur­sue alone and which would fit bet­ter in col­lab­o­ra­tion. No mat­ter what, the “nice to dos” will fall away in fa­vor of the “need to dos.” Fast for­ward to the fu­ture, and this nec­es­sary triage may re­sult in a bumper crop of valu­able ther­a­peu­tics.

Best prac­tices for man­ag­ing a re­mote col­lab­o­ra­tion

Over my ca­reer, like many oth­ers, I’ve man­aged suc­cess­ful re­mote col­lab­o­ra­tions. In more than one case, a team has col­lab­o­rat­ed re­mote­ly for years with­out ever meet­ing in per­son. It is thrilling to watch work­ers who do meet in per­son un­der cir­cum­stances where, af­ter work­ing in­ti­mate­ly “alone, to­geth­er” over long dis­tances, it feels like a re­union of long-lost friends. But it is al­so note­wor­thy that these teams were very pro­duc­tive, even with­out ini­tial face-to-face col­lab­o­ra­tion.

For com­pa­nies fac­ing re­mote col­lab­o­ra­tions due to Covid-19, part­ners on both sides of the equa­tion will be fac­ing chal­lenges. The fol­low­ing best prac­tices ap­ply to all col­lab­o­ra­tions, but they’re more crit­i­cal than ever to­day:

  • Es­tab­lish clear vi­sion and goals: Whether in-per­son or re­mote, all re­search col­lab­o­ra­tions should have a shared vi­sion and mea­sur­able, clear goals. When teams are col­lab­o­rat­ing across re­mote lo­ca­tions with lit­tle to no in-per­son in­ter­ac­tion, this be­comes even more im­por­tant. Hav­ing a vi­sion is in­spir­ing, and it re­minds us what we’re work­ing to­ward. En­sure every­one is on the same page from day one, and build the vi­sion and goals in­to meet­ings and oth­er col­lab­o­ra­tive check­points.
  • Se­lect key col­lab­o­ra­tors thought­ful­ly: In any in­dus­try, good work re­lies on hav­ing the right team in place. Peo­ple who are in­cred­i­bly en­thu­si­as­tic and pas­sion­ate about their work can con­vey that ex­cite­ment even through a cam­era and over the phone. They should al­so be true ex­perts in com­mand of the da­ta, too — that goes for any col­lab­o­ra­tion, of course.
  • Choose the right tools — but don’t re­ly on them too much: Re­mote work is en­abled by ad­vanced tools like Slack and Zoom. But tools don’t com­mu­ni­cate — peo­ple com­mu­ni­cate. Col­lab­o­ra­tive teams need to agree on the tools sup­port­ing their work­flow, and they need to un­der­stand when, where, and what to com­mu­ni­cate. Se­lect tools that sup­port your goals, and en­sure every­one has been tech­ni­cal­ly trained and cul­tur­al­ly prepped on how to use them.
  • Prep thor­ough­ly: Tech­nol­o­gy can have short­com­ings, such as split-sec­ond lags for in­ter­na­tion­al calls, patchy au­dio, or lack of vi­su­al cues in body lan­guage. As a re­sult, or­ga­ni­za­tion and prepa­ra­tion are even more im­por­tant to cre­at­ing a good meet­ing cul­ture. Be­ing de­lib­er­ate, re­hears­ing for meet­ings, and us­ing time wise­ly will work won­ders in fa­cil­i­tat­ing smooth col­lab­o­ra­tion.
  • Be com­pas­sion­ate: Liv­ing through a cri­sis is fright­en­ing. To­day, many peo­ple are con­cerned for their health and for their loved ones. They are con­tend­ing with vast­ly shift­ed home en­vi­ron­ments, lack of child­care, and oth­er chal­lenges. Em­pa­thy is cru­cial. Build flex­i­bil­i­ty in­to col­lab­o­ra­tions to al­low sci­en­tists room to man­age dur­ing this un­prece­dent­ed time.

In­no­vat­ing for a new fu­ture in health

Biotech­nol­o­gy com­pa­nies have been de­clared es­sen­tial busi­ness­es for a rea­son — al­ready, mul­ti­ple com­pa­nies have mo­bi­lized to look for so­lu­tions to coro­n­avirus. From the im­me­di­ate cri­sis to dif­fi­cult dis­eases like Alzheimer’s and can­cer, our in­dus­try’s young com­pa­nies are the fu­ture of hu­man health. We are on track to find new ther­a­pies and cures for many dis­eases.

Col­lab­o­ra­tions are the lifeblood of our in­dus­try, and they will con­tin­ue. Our in­dus­try is in­ven­tive, and I am con­fi­dent that we will find new ways of work­ing that en­sure em­ploy­ee safe­ty and re­sult in more dis­trib­uted, more glob­al, and more fo­cused re­search. While these are un­cer­tain times, our in­dus­try-wide mis­sion to help pa­tients and save lives is as strong as ever. I en­cour­age com­pa­nies large and small to ap­proach re­mote col­lab­o­ra­tion not as an un­ten­able set­back, but rather as a new par­a­digm to con­tin­ue our cru­cial work in 2020 and be­yond.

Pearl Huang is the CEO of Cyg­nal Ther­a­peu­tics, an ear­ly-stage biotech­nol­o­gy com­pa­ny in Cam­bridge, MA.

For a look at all End­points News coro­n­avirus sto­ries, check out our spe­cial news chan­nel.

Da­ta Lit­er­a­cy: The Foun­da­tion for Mod­ern Tri­al Ex­e­cu­tion

In 2016, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) updated their “Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.” One key shift was a mandate to implement a risk-based quality management system throughout all stages of a clinical trial, and to take a systematic, prioritized, risk-based approach to clinical trial monitoring—on-site monitoring, remote monitoring, or any combination thereof.

Covid-19 roundup: EU and As­traZeneca trade blows over slow­downs; Un­usu­al unions pop up to test an­ti­bod­ies, vac­cines

After coming under fire for manufacturing delays last week, AstraZeneca’s feud with the European Union has spilled into the open.

The bloc accused the pharma giant on Wednesday of pulling out of a meeting to discuss cuts to its vaccine supplies, the AP reported. AstraZeneca denied the reports, saying it still planned on attending the discussion.

Early Wednesday, an EU Commission spokeswoman said that “the representative of AstraZeneca had announced this morning, had informed us this morning that their participation is not confirmed, is not happening.” But an AstraZeneca spokesperson later called the reports “not accurate.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pfiz­er's big block­buster Xel­janz flunks its post-mar­ket­ing safe­ty study, re­new­ing harsh ques­tions for JAK class

When the FDA approved Pfizer’s JAK inhibitor Xeljanz for rheumatoid arthritis in 2012, they slapped on a black box warning for a laundry list of adverse events and required the New York drugmaker to run a long-term safety study.

That study has since become a consistent headache for Pfizer and their blockbuster molecule. Last year, Pfizer dropped the entire high dose cohort after an independent monitoring board found more patients died in that group than in the low dose arm or a control arm of patients who received one of two TNF inhibitors, Enbrel or Humira.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Adeno-associated virus-1 illustration; the use of AAVs resurrected the gene therapy field, but companies are now testing the limits of a 20-year-old technology (File photo, Shutterstock)

Af­ter 3 deaths rock the field, gene ther­a­py re­searchers con­tem­plate AAV's fu­ture

Nicole Paulk was scrolling through her phone in bed early one morning in June when an email from a colleague jolted her awake. It was an article: Two patients in an Audentes gene therapy trial had died, grinding the study to a halt.

Paulk, who runs a gene therapy lab at the University of California, San Francisco, had planned to spend the day listening to talks at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, which was taking place that week. Instead, she skipped the conference, canceled every work call on her calendar and began phoning colleagues across academia and industry, trying to figure out what happened and why. All the while, a single name hung in the back of her head.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Mer­ck scraps Covid-19 vac­cine pro­grams af­ter they fail to mea­sure up on ef­fi­ca­cy in an­oth­er ma­jor set­back in the glob­al fight

After turning up late to the vaccine development game in the global fight against Covid-19, Merck is now making a quick exit.

The pharma giant is reporting this morning that it’s decided to drop development of 2 vaccines — V590 and V591 — after taking a look at Phase I data that simply don’t measure up to either the natural immune response seen in people exposed to the virus or the vaccines already on or near the market.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Anthony Fauci, NIAID director (AP Images)

As new Covid-19 task force gets un­der­way, threat looms of vac­cine, mon­o­clon­al an­ti­body-re­sis­tant vari­ants

Hours before President Biden’s Covid-19 team gave their first virtual press conference, the famed AIDS researcher David Ho delivered concerning news in a new pre-print: SARS-CoV-2 B.1.351, the variant that emerged in South Africa, is “markedly more resistant” to antibodies from convalescent plasma and vaccinated individuals.

The news for several monoclonal antibodies, including Eli Lilly’s bamlanivimab, was even worse: Their ability to neutralize was “completely or markedly abolished,” Ho wrote. Lilly’s antibody cocktail, which was just shown to dramatically reduce the risk of hospitalizations or death, also became far less potent.

Eli Lil­ly demon­strates that 2 an­ti­bod­ies beat 1 for guard­ing against se­vere Covid-19. But can that solve the first an­ti­body’s prob­lem amid slow up­take?

It seems safe to say that two antibodies are better than one.

Eli Lilly released the largest results yet on Tuesday for their Covid-19 neutralizing antibody cocktail, announcing that the combo reduced deaths and hospitalizations in coronavirus patients by 70%. Across 1,000 patients, there were 11 such events in the treatment group and 36 in the placebo group.

The breakdown for deaths alone was even starker: 10 in the placebo group and 0 in the treatment group. Lilly added that the drug hit secondary endpoints for reducing viral load and alleviating symptoms, although they did not disclose numbers.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

George Yancopoulos (L) and Len Schleifer (Regeneron)

Re­gen­eron touts pos­i­tive pre­lim­i­nary im­pact of its Covid an­ti­body cock­tail, pre­vent­ing symp­to­matic in­fec­tions in high-risk group

Regeneron flipped its cards on an interim analysis of the data being collected for its Covid-19 antibody cocktail used as a safeguard against exposure to the virus. And the results are distinctly positive.

The big biotech reported Tuesday morning that their casirivimab and imdevimab combo prevented any symptomatic infections from occurring in a group of 186 people exposed to the virus through a family connection, while the placebo arm saw 8 of 223 people experience symptomatic infection. Symptomatic combined with asymptomatic infections occurred in 23 people among the 223 placebo patients compared to 10 of the 186 subjects in the cocktail arm.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,900+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pascal Soriot, AP

As­traZeneca CEO Pas­cal So­ri­ot sev­ers an un­usu­al board con­nec­tion, steer­ing clear of con­flicts while re­tain­ing im­por­tant al­liances

CSL Behring chief Paul Perreault scored an unusual coup last summer when he added AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot to the board, via Zoom. It’s rare, to say the least, to see a Big Pharma CEO take any board post in an industry where interests can simultaneously connect and collide on multiple levels of operations.

The tie set the stage for an important manufacturing connection. The Australian pharma giant agreed to supply the country with 10s of millions of AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine, once it passes regulatory muster.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.