Eliseo Salinas, M.D., head of R&D for Delix Therapeutics offers his perspective on what it takes to become a leader in the life sciences and how to begin that transition.
When Eliseo Salinas, M.D., head of R&D for Delix Therapeutics, transitioned to the biopharma industry from his position conducting research at a teaching hospital many years ago, he didn’t consider it a move away from science.
“What attracted me to pharma was that it essentially was the same, but at a larger scale,” he told BioSpace.
Earlier, Salinis has held positions as interim CEO, CSO, CMO and drug developer for biotech, specialty pharma and big pharma, and has been directly involved in more than 30 drugs or biologics.
When talking about careers with newly-minted Ph.Ds. who are considering a corporate path, he has two key pieces of advice:
- Don’t think you will stop doing science if you go into industry.
“If you’re going into R&D in the industry, intellectually, it will be the same (as in non-commercial research settings).”
- Join a big company.
“Young scientists in large companies quickly learn how things are done. They will be immersed in things they didn’t know about. Those things may not be exciting but are necessary.” The regulatory aspects of the work are one example. Once those lessons are learned, smaller, innovative companies become options.
Building Soft Skills and Becoming a People-Person
As a scientific manager, Salinas had to learn to deal with people in a new way. As a research scientist, he elaborated, “You don’t have to interact much with people. You have a corner of a bench. That’s your territory. You agree with your boss what you will do, and then you do it. In industry – even if you think you are important – it’s all about interaction with people, because you are dependent on a lot of lateral and upward interactions.”
That challenge is common among scientists, James Creeden, M.D., PhD., of Creeden Consulting, agreed.
As he told BioSpace, “In my experience, (in leadership positions at Roche and Foundation Medicine, as well as consulting) the skills and personality traits that lead to success in science do not always lend themselves to leadership roles.”
He emphasized that skills like attention to detail, passion for depth in understanding, building scientific expertise and a willingness to take a well-researched position and defend it relentlessly often conflict with the need for flexibility, consensus-building and authentic care for people that are expected of leaders today.
“Most scientists are trained for indirect communications…that build to a conclusion that listeners are expected to draw for themselves. In business, you need to be more direct,” he elaborated.
For Salinas, “There were, maybe, some skills I had without knowing I had them, which enabled me to move up the ranks and then become a head of R&D, but essentially, the transition was a progression…within the continuity of the workstream.”
His personal challenge, he said, is that, “I talk too much. Recognizing this, I ask questions and I adapt. It’s still a struggle for me when working with a group of people to moderate what I say so they get to talk. I thought I was a good listener, but I realized I had to force myself to listen.”
Salinas has learned that developing soft skills is an ongoing challenge for many. For example, whenhe was head of R&D for an earlier company, the CEO was very affable and engaging. “I told him once, jokingly, ‘When I grow up I want to be like you, because you are very good at doing that.’ He said, ‘I hate it. I force myself,’ and I believe him.
“That was good for me… to learn it’s not all natural (abilities). There are things we can do with certain efforts. For most of us, it’s about imitation and a little bit of effort in finding our repertoire of skills.”
There are differences in status, too. “When you’re a physician in an academic center, you have a certain prestige,” that confers authority. “Industry isn’t like that,” Salinas said. Instead, scientific leaders need to become quite good at interacting with other experts.
Successfully laying the foundation to become a head of R&D at a pharmaceutical company, then, requires two key attributes, Salinas said. The first is that you must like research, and the second is you have to develop the soft skills that enable you to interact successfully with different types and levels of people.
Developing those skills often is simply a matter of exercising them.
“We all have certain resources that we don’t use every day, until we are confronted with a certain situation. Then we see, ‘Ah, this is the way you do this,’” Salinas said. So, scientists hoping to transition toward scientific management should look for opportunities to work with people. Leading small teams or projects is a good way to start.
Transitioning from a Scientific Mindset
In comparing academic and corporate research, Salinas notes that the level of scrutiny in industry is higher in the corporate environment. In both worlds, researchers can expect peer review, “but in academia, nobody comes to the lab to check that the animals exist or that they got sick (or recovered) when I said they did.” Industry research has a different purpose, as it is nearer to patients. It is audited by the FDA or EMA and so receives a higher level of review.
Salinas said he still conducts research as head of R&D, but that doesn’t imply hands-on experiments. “As head of an academic department or head of a company’s R&D, you don’t do hands-on anything. You direct the lab, and the scientists and technicians perform the hands-on work. What I do is determine how we will do that research.”
That means defining the questions to be answered, the tests needed to answer them and how those tests will be conducted.
For example, what can be done in silico, and what requires animal testing? Are healthy animals needed or animal models? Do you use your own lab or work with a contract lab? Then, what statistical analysis will be used and how will the results be interpreted?
One of the more challenging aspects of being head of R&D, Salinas said, is managing and prioritizing a portfolio of research programs.
“Every company has more potential things to do with its resources than it has resources,” he pointed out, “so you need to make choices.”
Those choices, he said, are all about weighing what you want versus the resources available.
“When you get to my position, you either rare making the decisions or making the recommendation as the highest ranking, most qualified scientific person,” regarding which programs to curtail, Salinas said.
“Then, the people whose programs you ended come to you and ask why a scientifically valid, promising program that fit the company’s mission statement was ended. Selecting the programs that will not proceed “was, and still is, the most difficult thing for me.”
