Related Posts
Most impactful certifications for cyber?
which one have more exit opp? IB or Big4s
Coach
More Posts
Pro
Chief
Winter at the beach!
Enthusiast
Additional Posts in Life Sciences Consulting
Community Builder
Most impactful certifications for cyber?
which one have more exit opp? IB or Big4s
Coach
Pro
Chief
Winter at the beach!
Enthusiast
Community Builder
Thanks all for the insights! I have a PhD in biology, and my consulting experience was mostly in commercial, so I can fit in both. Everyone I know is talking about being a general manager owning a P&L down the road (thus prefer commercial strategy), but I have some doubts about the value of commercial in the long run. My personal belief is that “good drugs sell themselves” (ironically, after I have done many commercial projects) so a bit leaning towards R&D. Just not sure about the long term career path after R&D strategy. Likely BD , biotech, or VC
Everything D1 said is very accurate, especially about Strategy/global roles vs roles that actually own the P&L. In my 6+ years of consulting/industry I’ve seen that R&D strat will put you in a BD/Licensing/Strategy Team, but that doesn’t lead you up to being the GM of a business. I haven’t seen any GMs that came from R&D, unless they spent plenty of time in Commercial after the R&D experience. It’s simply not realistic given the responsibiliites. If you’re in a rush, go to Commercial Strat, kill it and work your way up. R&D strat will definitely give you a unique understanding of the whole business and still allow you to pivot into commercial, but it’s not a direct path to GM. As for your thought that good drugs sell themselves....That’s pretty accurate. Science sells, however, most drugs aren’t good drugs. The majority just provide some incremental benefit vs the standard of care and require significant market shaping, development etc. Doctors are generally fairly conservative and averse to change unless there’s rock solid data. That’s where the commercial comes into play and why most big pharma are essentially commercial organizations. Let someone else do the R&D, then they’ll do the heavy lifting as far as commercial success
R&D
Why? Very curious about your logic
Marketing.
R&d strat likely requires a hard science degree
Few year back - marketing would have made more sense but its commoditised now; R&D strategy is niche
Also if you like dabbling into latest and greatest in science R&D strategy is a way to go
It depends on the company and the actual role. Most pharma companies are now marketing-driven, where you would be at the center of the business, and it would more likely lead to a GM role. However, there may be 1 or 2 companies that are still R&D-driven, but I agree, they usually want an MD or PhD in those roles.
If you are doing R&D strategy, you may have a licensing and business development role, which is the inorganic growth strategy for the company and could lead to M&A for bigger deals. Or you may have a portfolio management/optimization strategy role in R&D. In Marketing Strategy, would you be part of the business team, or part of strategy? If part of a separate strategy organization, you are an internal consultant, and probably would need another jump to get into the center/driver of the business. Also, it depends on if your ultimate goal is more to become head of the business or the head of strategy/BD/M&A.
Novartis was at one time (during the Vasella years) very famous for firewalling off their entire r&d group (NIBR) from most of commercial
What would be the next step / pivot after R&D strategy?
Commercial and marketing comp is usually higher. Just so you know
In big pharma, that’s not always true. R&D usually has highest investment cap, so salaries can be higher
Anyone have insight into the path to pharma general management out of R&D strat? Commercial strategy seems more straightforward in that regard
Extremely skeptical that they would put a marketing guy to lead a Pharma/biotech development team.
I would hazard to guess that he’s had development experience in the past. Otherwise this is a one off at a small company - have never seen this in many years across multiple companies other than Vas
R&D; you can always pivot to marketing
How do you reply to someone's reply? Seems like there is no option. Anyway, @Manager 2, I was going to say from my project experiences, I would say Merck and Novartis, but perhaps someone there can comment.
I think R&D is more interesting fwiw but commercial is more flex in the long term
@OP it depends what you are interested in. If small to mid biotech, R&D. If big pharma, marketing. This is generally who holds the cards in each (with a few exceptions).
Also depends what you’re definition of R&D is. Eg BD can be housed within R&D