Great Science Doesn't Guarantee Business Influence

I’ve been in pharma leadership for three decades. What I’ve seen over the journey is that Medical Affairs deliver strong scientific work. The expertise is there. The data is solid. The insights are valuable. They present findings, answer questions, but somehow their input doesn't shape the strategic conversations that matter most.

Most of us have witnessed this disconnect. Technical teams deliver outstanding scientific work but can struggle to influence business decisions. When translation fails, it's not just business opportunities that suffer—it can also affect patients.

The gap isn't about capability. It's about translation.

The Translation Challenge

When I started in industry, the lines between scientific and business functions were clear. Scientists did science. Business people did business. Everyone stayed in their lane and conflict became inevitable.

That world should no longer exist.

Most of our training systems, performance metrics, and organizational structures still operate as if the old functional borders exist and compliance rules can reinforce the silos. However, today's pharmaceutical landscape demands technical professionals who can bridge both domains while remaining within compliant boundaries. However, we're asking people to cross a bridge they were never taught to build.

The challenge goes deeper than learning communication skills. I've seen technically brilliant professionals complete expensive business training programs, only to continue struggling with cross-functional influence. The missing piece isn't just generic presentation skills—it's the ability to translate technical insights into business language and context.

Where the Disconnect Happens

Consider a common scenario: A Medical Director explains why a particular biomarker strategy won't work. She's correct from a scientific perspective. But she frames her concerns in terms of statistical power and regulatory precedent. The business team hears "no" without understanding the implications that matter.

Instead, she could have framed the issue in terms of potential market access delay, patient setbacks and provided alternatives and a recommendation.

Same scientific insight. Completely different business impact.

The disconnect often happens at predictable moments. Technical teams present comprehensive data analysis when business discussions need decisive recommendations. They identify risks when business conversations require risk-benefit trade-offs. They speak in scientific terms when the cross-functional team wants strategic language that connects to business outcomes.

The Business Context Blind Spot

The most successful technical professionals I've worked with share one characteristic: they understand the business context surrounding their scientific work—and how that context ultimately serves patients. They understand their organization's competitive position. They recognize how market dynamics affect strategic priorities and patient access.

This awareness transforms how they approach every technical decision. Instead of asking "What is the science?" they ask "What is the science which can advance our business objectives while serving patient needs?" The science doesn't change, but the framing becomes powerful.

The Influence Factor

Business influence requires technical professionals to operate differently while never losing sight of the science, compliance and patient impact. I've noticed that those who succeed learn to think like business partners while maintaining their technical expertise and patient focus.

They translate scientific uncertainty into business scenarios with market and patient implications. Instead of saying "We need more data," they explain what decisions can be made with current information versus what advantages additional data would enable.

They frame technical constraints as business trade-offs that affect patient outcomes. Rather than explaining why something won't work scientifically, they present alternatives that balance scientific feasibility with business objectives and patient needs.

They participate proactively in strategic discussions, identifying opportunities where technical insights can inform strategy, rather than waiting to be consulted on technical feasibility.

The goal isn't to become less rigorous scientifically. The most influential technical professionals I know are often the most scientifically demanding. They've simply learnt to apply that rigor to business challenges while keeping patient benefit as their north star.

Building The Influence Bridge

To successfully develop this capability in technical teams requires a different approach to traditional business training. It needs to focus on translation skills as well as generic business concepts.

Successful organisations help technical professionals understand their specific business context—competitive dynamics, market constraints and organizational priorities. This context makes business training relevant and actionable.

These organizations create opportunities for technical professionals to participate in business discussions, not just present technical findings. Participation requires more skills than just learning how to present.

High performing organizations recognize and reward business influence alongside technical excellence.

Most importantly, they acknowledge that this development takes time and practice. The most effective technical professionals didn't become business-influential overnight. They developed this capability through repeated exposure to business challenges and consistent coaching on how to frame technical insights in business terms that connect to patient value.

The Organizational Imperative

The pharmaceutical landscape is becoming increasingly complex. Scientific advancement is accelerating. Market dynamics are shifting rapidly. Regulatory requirements are evolving constantly. Patient expectations are rising.

Organizations that can leverage their technical expertise for business advantage—while maintaining focus on patient outcomes and compliance—will outperform those that maintain functional silos. Technical teams with business influence contribute to better decision-making, stronger competitive positioning, more effective resource allocation, and ultimately, better patient care.

The challenge for leadership is creating systems that develop this capability systematically rather than hoping it emerges naturally. The technical professionals are ready. They want to contribute more broadly. They understand their work serves patients. They need organizations that invest in their development as business partners, not just technical experts.

When technical excellence translates to business influence, everyone wins—the organization, the team members, and most importantly, patients waiting for breakthrough treatments.

The question isn't whether technical excellence and business influence can coexist. The question is whether we'll build the bridges that make both possible.