How do we get there, Handbook for Scientists and Managers on Bruno Sánchez-Andrade Nuño

Managing science for Impact

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

Recently, an investor friend asked for my feedback and help. It was with one of his healthcare companies, one that was mostly based on the commercial application of a research discovery. I can´t share the details, but the goal was a profound advance in the treatment of a major type of deathly disease. Getting an effective treatment would be a hard process, as it involved some behavioral changes, but the upside had a huge potential benefit. A medical Moonshot. The main engineer, a published researcher that was making his name on this project, was the linchpin of the company, but it was impossible to manage. No commitment to timelines, no real justification of budget needs, incomplete documentation, unable to externalize tasks to move faster, and endless research side projects were some of my friend’s concerns. I felt somewhat identified with that scientist. He shared with me some of his notes. It was a very interesting hypothesis, and it involved more exploration before exploiting the intended product. When we went through the ideas of this book it became clear that my friend was falling into the Vannevar Bush “free play of the free intellect[1]” trap and he needed a more strict Moonshot attitude. It was also clear that the incentives were misaligned, and the scientist was closer to the HIV story we explored on paving a recognition path than to landing the Moonshot. Despite having invested for years, my friend decided to pull the plug, mostly due to his inability to manage this scientist. This is not an isolated case. In fact, I have found this struggle with businesses trying to manage scientists. It is not hard to create measurable scientific research results, but this is harder to create measurable scientific impact results. This struggle is about leveraging a scientist to land a Moonshot, having them working directly with company executives, elected politicians, due diligence teams or into operational management.

The irrational and absurd effectiveness of story telling

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

¨Telling stories works¨. As a scientist, I have heard that phrase too often from communicators and journalists, usually when doing an interview where they struggle to understand what it is what we did and why would someone care. And I always considered stories a soft ball, inferior to telling science as it is: the facts and only the [amazing] facts.

But consider this: humanity has only democratized reading and writing for a few centuries, decades even depending how and where you count[i]. Moreover, argumentative and factual narratives (like Science) have historically been the education of the few. Yet, humanity, every single one of us, has evolved for millennia to care about this form of communication. Today, we think that we want facts, but we primally crave stories. That is why when we are tired, we watch a movie, not a documentary. Many more people read narrative books than news or research articles. Our human minds crave stories, and we are suckers for good stories. But what is a good story? A Gossip? Something with violence? or sex? Something about someone? Is truth important? What is the minimal story that works?

What would you do?

Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000

What would you do?

Another practical way to explain the value of impact science that I have used on my workshops and courses is to explore pragmatism and impact via hypothetical scenarios. Some situations have a clear answer, some not, but in either case, it helps exemplify the rounding up of skills highlighted on the previous section.

The celebrity boost

In the summer of 2018, I had the chance to visit a very important international research institution on climate change and the environment. The group I was with included some other fellow scientists but interestingly it also included “media celebrities” and award-winning journalists from major international newspapers. People with truly tens of millions of followers who trust them in social media. People whose every online update is instantly read, shared, and commented on. If we want impact with science, it is an interesting and relevant question how scientist could or should relate with that kind of power. For example, should some scientists become media celebrities? How do we partner with them to help drive this impact?.