Corrections or additions?
This article by Kathleen McGinn Spring was prepared for the July
4, 2001 edition of U.S. 1 Newspaper. All rights reserved.
Managing R&D Scientists: Watch for Tribal Concerns
Laymen may think lab scientists are pretty much alike
— white coats, serious demeanor, distracted expression,
familiarity
with test tubes. Janet White, former research chemist and
co-founder
of pharmaceutical consulting firm Phizz Rx, paints a very different
picture. “You act differently depending upon whether you are a
biologist or a chemist,” she says. “They don’t understand
each other. It’s very tribal, really.”
White speaks on “Managing Scientists in R&D,” on Wednesday,
July 11, at 6 p.m. at a free meeting of the Association for Women
in Science, Central Jersey Chapter, at Wyeth Research in Monmouth
Junction.
After spending nine years doing antibiotics research at SmithKline,
White, who completed her chemistry studies at Cambridge in 1987,
“got
a little frustrated.” She enjoyed the work, but realized she would
not progress further without a Ph.D. Deciding she was interested in
management as well as science, she spent three years in a distance
learning program at the Open Business School in the United Kingdom,
where she earned an MBA.
Working as a consultant at Arthur D. Little, White “got
international
experience, worked at a higher level,” and had a chance to visit
exotic places, including Translyvania. “I saw Count Dracula’s
Castle,” she says. The count’s castle, however indirectly, led
her to her new offices on Independence Way.
During her three years at Arthur D. Little, she met Robert Thong
and Stuart Pazelin. The trio saw their colleagues
enthusiastically
selling “big computers” to clients, fitting them out for the
brave new world of E-commerce. “We weren’t convinced E-commerce
was here to stay,” says White, speaking some 15 months after
traders
inverted the curves of nearly every Internet stock, sending a good
number to the cellar — or below.
White, Thong, and Pazelin decided to go out on their own, and to focus
on “consulting on top level, big issues, and on the general
direction
of the company.” They named their company Phizz Rx. The
“Ph”
is for pharmaceutical, White, whose title is principal, explains.
The “izz” is for business, and the “Rx” refers to
the consultants’ healing role. Thong is the managing director, and
Pazelin’s title is partner. The firm, founded in early-1999, has 16
employees worldwide, and is headquartered in London.
Six months ago, the pharmaceutical strategy consulting firm opened
its Princeton-area office. White says this is how she chose the
Independence
Way location: “I drew a big map, got sticky dots, found out where
all the pharmaceutical companies were, and put a dot on each. Then
I went for the middle.” And there was Princeton.
Most of Phizz Rx’s clients are top 10 pharmaceutical firms, although
the firm does consult to second tier companies, and to the occasional
fledgling biotech as well. Many assignments come after mergers or
acquisitions, events that have become so common in the industry that
“you read about one every week,” observes White. These
pharma-marriages
can create chaos. “Think of the R&D groups,” says White.
“They
double in size. There’s quite a mess left behind.”
Phizz Rx comes in and sorts out which company was in the midst of
what drug development project, and whether there is any duplication.
It helps the new unit define roles and job titles. “We work with
the management team,” says White. “We find out what are their
priorities, and who is responsible for what. We help them clarify
their goals.” Once her firm helps the newly-merged company
“sort
it all out,” it works with them on formulating procedures that
will ease the next reorganization. And, far more often than not, there
indeed will be another shuffle. “It takes a couple of years to
sort it all out,” says White. “And once you sort it out, they
make another acquisition.”
White, whose husband, Jonathan, an IT professional, recently joined
her on this side of the Atlantic, has observed differences in the
way American and European pharmaceuticals do business. “In the
states, a lot of people are completely `meetinged’ out,” she says.
“The whole of the business day is taken up with them. And there
are 200 E-mails a day, and the voice mail is full.” Employees,
she has seen, have to go home to think or get any work done. In
Europe,
she says, “there is not such an emphasis on meetings.” Another
difference is that Europeans behave decently where the phone is
concerned.
“I keep getting telesale calls in the evening,” she says.
“That just doesn’t happen in Europe.”
There are similarities in how scientists behave in the two countries,
though, White says. Here are her observations, and some ideas for
breaking down “tribal” barriers:
It all starts with education. “Scientists go throughrigorous training at university,” says White. “All of thissets up barriers between different kinds of scientists. You actdifferentlydepending on whether you are a chemist or a biologist.”Different experiments mean different schedules. It mighttake a chemist one hour to set up an experiment and another four orfive hours to complete it. A biologist, on the other hand, needs somethree hours for set up, and he won’t get his result for another 12hours. “Biologists are dealing with living systems,” explainsWhite. “Chemists are dealing with chemicals.” This disparityis important because it tends to put the two kinds of scientists ondifferent schedules. The life scientist might get in at 7 a.m., seteverything up, and be off on an extended break at just about the timethe chemist is getting to work. Pursuing different time lines, thetwo types of scientists might never meet to exchange observations.Even the protective gear is different. It sounds likea small thing, says White, but even the pre-work safety routine isdiffers from science to science. “Viruses are different fromchemicals,”she points out. So, a biologist might have to go through a clean roomand don protective garb from head to toe. Chemists, watching this,have been known to exclaim “`Gosh, that’s weird,’” she says.This is another way in which the groups, educated separately, andworking apart from one another, move deeper into a sense of otherness.”It becomes `us’ and `them,’” says White.Why it matters. Research has demonstrated thatbreakthroughsare most likely to occur when scientists practicing differentdisciplinesshare insights, says White. Breaking down the barriers, and gettingthe groups to stop dismissing each other as “`Oh, that lot;they’rethe chemists…or, they’re the biologists,’” aids — and speeds— research.Throw away one coffee pot. Chemists and biologistsgenerallyhave separate water coolers and break rooms, says White. Reconfiguringa lab by getting rid of one water cooler and one break room, andmovingthose that remain to a central location could do a lot to get thetwo groups talking.Cash for cooperation. Mingling can be encouraged by suchsocial engineering, or, says White, lab managers can up the ante andhardwire rewards for collaboration into scientists’ compensation.While scientists now often receive bonuses for publishing resultsof their experiments, White suggests that paying an extra bonus forany article arising from a cross-science collaboration could dowondersto get a dialogue going.White suggests none of this will be easy when she tells thestory of an anthropologist who spent an entire year studying thehabitsof a group of immunologists. So close do they become to one anotherthat a whole group of shared ways of doing things arise. While thiscreates cohesion among immunologists — or biologists or chemists— it tends to isolate the scientists from one another. “Justlike any other tribes,” says White.Previous StoryNext StoryCorrections or additions?This page is published by PrincetonInfo.com— the web site for U.S. 1 Newspaper in Princeton, New Jersey.
