Biotech Voic­es: Coro­n­avirus will change biotech re­search with re­mote col­lab­o­ra­tions

Biotech Voices is a collection of exclusive opinion editorials from some of the leading voices in biopharma on the biggest industry questions today. Think you have a voice that should be heard? Reach out to senior editors Kyle Blankenship and Amber Tong.

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.

No­var­tis reshuf­fles its wild cards; Tough sell for Bio­gen? Googling pro­teins; Ken Fra­zier's new gig; and more

Welcome back to Endpoints Weekly, your review of the week’s top biopharma headlines. Want this in your inbox every Saturday morning? Current Endpoints readers can visit their reader profile to add Endpoints Weekly. New to Endpoints? Sign up here.

If you enjoy the People section in this report, you may also want to check out Peer Review, my colleagues Alex Hoffman and Kathy Wong’s comprehensive compilation of comings and goings in biopharma.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 112,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Demis Hassabis, DeepMind CEO (Qianlong/Imaginechina via AP Images)

Google's Deep­Mind opens its pro­tein data­base to sci­ence — po­ten­tial­ly crack­ing drug R&D wide open

Nearly a year ago, Google’s AI outfit DeepMind announced they had cracked one of the oldest problems in biology: predicting a protein’s structure from its sequence alone. Now they’ve turned that software on nearly every human protein and hundreds of thousands of additional proteins from organisms important to medical research, such as fruit flies, mice and malaria parasite.

The new database of roughly 350,000 protein sequences and structures represents a potentially monumental achievement for the life sciences, one that could hasten new biological insights and the development of new drugs. DeepMind said it will be free and accessible to all researchers and companies.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 112,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

In­side Bio­gen's scram­ble to sell Aduhelm: Pro­ject 'Javelin' and pres­sure to ID as many pa­tients as pos­si­ble

In anticipation of Aduhelm’s approval for Alzheimer’s in June, Biogen employees were directed to identify and guarantee treatment centers would administer the drug through a program called “Javelin,” a senior Biogen employee told Endpoints News.

The program identified about 800 centers for use, he said, and Biogen now pays for the use of bioassays to identify beta amyloid in potential patients having undergone a lumbar puncture procedure, the employee said — and one center preparing to administer the drug confirmed its participation in the bioassay program.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Vas Narasimhan, Novartis CEO (Jason Alden/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

No­var­tis dis­cards one of its ‘wild card’ drugs af­ter it flops in key study. But it takes one more for the hand

Always remember just how risky it is to gamble big on small studies.

A little more than 4 years ago, Novartis reportedly put up a package worth up to $1 billion for the dry eye drug ECF843 after a small biotech called Lubris put it through its paces in a tiny study of 40 moderate to severe patients, tracking some statistically significant markers of efficacy.

By last fall, the program had risen up to become one of CEO Vas Narasimhan’s top “wild card” programs in line for a potential breakthrough year in 2021. These drugs were all considered high-risk, high-reward efforts. And in this case, risk won.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 112,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

EMA re­jects FDA-ap­proved Parkin­son's drug, signs off on Mod­er­na vac­cine use in ado­les­cents ahead of FDA

The European Medicines Agency on Friday rejected Kyowa Kirin’s Parkinson’s disease drug Nouryant (istradefylline), which the US FDA approved in 2019 under the brand name Nourianz.

EMA said it considered that the results of the clinical studies used to support the application “were inconsistent and did not satisfactorily show that Nouryant was effective at reducing the ‘off’ time. Only four out of the eight studies showed a reduction in ‘off’ time, and the effect did not increase with an increased dose of Nouryant.”

Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO (Evan Vucci/AP Images)

Covid-19 roundup: Pfiz­er to sup­ply US with 200M more vac­cines as UK study finds high­er an­ti­bod­ies in 8-10 week in­ter­vals

The US government has purchased 200 million more doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, the companies announced Friday morning.

Pfizer and BioNTech expect to deliver 110 million of the additional doses by Dec. 31, with the remaining 90 million doses to be delivered no later than April 30, 2022. The price was not disclosed, and the US government has the option to acquire an updated version of the vaccine to address potential variants, as well as new formulations of the vaccine, if available and authorized.

6 top drug­mak­ers of­fer per­spec­tives on FDA's new co­vari­ates in RCTs guid­ance

Back in May, the FDA revised and expanded a 2019 draft guidance that spells out how to adjust for covariates in the statistical analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Building on the ICH’s E9 guideline on the statistical principles for clinical trials, the 3-page draft was transformed into an 8-page draft, with more detailed recommendations on linear and nonlinear models to analyze the efficacy endpoints in RCTs.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

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

Mol­e­c­u­lar Di­ag­nos­tics Can Trans­form Can­cer Care. Let’s Make It Hap­pen.

Like so many people around the world, my life has been profoundly shaped by cancer. Those personal experiences, along with a deep love of clinical laboratory science and a passion to apply the power of genomics in medicine, motivated me to launch a company that would improve cancer care through better diagnostics. Thirteen years later, I am proud that we are delivering more accurate information at multiple points along the patient journey, with a focus on eight of the 10 cancers that are most commonly diagnosed in the United States.

Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO (John Thys, Pool via AP Images)

Pfiz­er and BioN­Tech team up with South African man­u­fac­tur­er, but it will on­ly han­dle fill-fin­ish

The manufacturing expansion into Africa continued Wednesday with Pfizer and BioNTech’s announcement that the two companies signed on with the Biovac Institute to manufacture its Covid-19 vaccine to distribute throughout Africa. But while the continent is in dire need of doses, vaccines from the expansion won’t be available until the start of next year.

Biovac will only handle distribution and fill-finish duties. Drug substance for these batches will come from European facilities. When fully operational, the facility will pump out 100 million doses a year, set to be evenly distributed among the 55 member states of the African Union.