Two thousand eighteen was a record-breaking year for biotech IPOs. First with Allogene’s $324 million IPO breaking the record in October – since 2015, this previously was held by Axovant. Then, with Moderna’s $604.3 million initial public offering setting the bar to its highest level ever. These staggering sums only make up a fraction of the $6.3+ billion raised last year in biotech IPOs with funding for clinical trials and pipelines going towards research for gene therapies to eliminate genetic diseases, CAR-T cells to attack cancer with greater efficacy and specificity, and mRNA to turn the body’s cells into drug production engines.
Even more impressive that these figures, are the scientists, professionals and executives who work tirelessly to spin reality from lofty fundraising promises to the potential of drug candidates into therapies that save lives. This article will focus on the executives in charge of the science – the Chief Scientific Officers (CSOs), and more specifically, on the education and career paths that led 20 fresh graduates from their postdocs up to the C-suite table. I focus on CSOs from the five highest IPOing biotechs, as well as from established companies such as Editas, Juno and BioMarin. I also interview CSOs from smaller, yet exciting start-ups!
Read on to discover a few things I learned from these individuals as well as trends that appeared across the journeys of all of these CSOs.
Education Backgrounds
The first thing that became immediately evident from the group I interviewed is that CSOs overwhelmingly hold a Ph.D. title – with only two of the 20 operating exclusively as M.D.s and two others holding both titles. Moreover, and a seemingly standard across biotech in general, there was a definite slant in favor of Boston, with Harvard and MIT making up five out of the 20 graduate schools these CSOs came from. The UK was also strongly represented with four out of the 20 hailing from this area. The rest of the group was spread out across the US and Europe – graduating from the University of Washington and Nebraska, to Lille, France and Leuven, Belgium to call out a few. Overall, 14 of the 20 completed their M.D.s or Ph.D.s in the US and six in Europe. Although, eight completed their undergraduate education outside of the US.
The subjects they studied in graduate school fell mostly into three broad clusters: Immunology, Chemistry and Genetics. Biology, Applied Sciences, Medicine and Physics also ranked high amongst this group for areas of focus. All of them considered a STEM field during their undergraduate education, with Biology and Biochemistry being the most popular.
Every scientist initially had an academic postdoc, with six out of 20 based in Cambridge at Harvard, MIT or the Whitehead Institute. Two out of 20 had their Postdocs at Stanford, with the rest distributed throughout the US – including institutions such as Yale, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute and the NIH. Only one CSO completed their postdoc outside of the US.
Career Paths
Just as the education of these CSOs followed relative paths (with some notable deviations), so have their careers. Significant industry experience was the most common trend, as 17 of the 20 CSOs surveyed worked in the biotech industry immediately before taking the top position. Of the three that didn’t work within the industry before becoming a CSO, all were well-known professors at universities such as Harvard, UMass Medical School or UVA.
Moreover, these CSOs seem to come almost exclusively from Big Pharma companies such as Novartis, Roche and Pfizer. Of the 17 that came from this industry, 15 worked at companies with over 10,000 employees. The most popular companies for soon-to-be CSOs were Novartis/NIBR and J&J/Janssen – with three executives coming from each, and others leaving high-level positions at BMS, GSK, Gilead, Allergan, Pfizer, Takeda and the Shire to take the reins at smaller companies. It’s worth noting that two of the CSOs surveyed who came from Big Pharma (but not from one of the larger companies mentioned above), both were founding members of the companies they would go on to lead – starting in Associate Director and VP of Research positions, evolving their careers as their respective companies grew.
I observed that CSOs leave VP or Therapeutic Area Head positions at their former companies – some holding previous titles such as Head of Discovery Chemistry, VP of Nonclinical Development, Head of Oncology Discovery and Head of Cancer Immunotherapy. The experience of managing an entire division of a global pharma company combined with the breadth of knowledge gained from directing numerous projects simultaneously likely translates well to the more focused, yet no less intense, role of a biotech Chief Scientific Officer.
The amount of time it took to become a CSO varied widely among this group and seemed to me to be one of the most complex aspects of CSO development. The fastest escalation took just under nine years of industry experience following a rapid rise in NIBR’s ranks from Research Investigator to Head of Oncology Discovery. Conversely, the longest journey took north of 30 years, with VP and Global Head responsibilities at GSK and Janssen preceding the leap to CSO. On average, it took this group of CSOs 18.6 years from when they first left their postdocs to them directing the science of entire biotech firms. From my experience working with CSOs, outside of the scope of this analysis, 20 years of experience does seem to be the norm.
Advice From Three CSOs
While conducting this analysis, there were three CSOs I interviewed in more depth – Anish Suri of Cue Biopharma, Charles Albright of Editas Medicine, and Nick Valiante of Glyde Bio. In these interviews, we discussed their career paths, their work as Chief Scientific Officers as well as advice they have for aspiring CSOs. All offered unique perspectives and were unified on several points concerning the importance of prioritizing projects, managing people and always keeping the bigger picture in mind.
For Anish, “data is always the currency,” and all good decisions are driven by good science. He considers his most important function as a CSO to have the capacity to use data to determine how to best allocate sparse resources, and always keep in mind the limits of what can be taken on. He emphasized that biotechs always need to be agile, remembering inflection points of value and be able to pivot based on the science towards more promising paths. He also makes clear that hiring great talent is of the highest importance – as “no good work can get done without good people.” It’s his responsibility not only make sure the right people are hired but to ensure that they understand the “whys” of their work, not just the “hows.”
Likewise, Charles stressed the importance of portfolio focus as one of the most significant responsibilities of a CSO. Before coming onboard, Editas was spread thin with eight projects across five different tissues. Under his leadership, they’ve centered on ocular disease and ex vivo cell therapy as the leading programs for getting innovative medicines out the door – navigating the eye of the needle between taking on too many projects and being heavily reliant on too few.
An exciting point that Nick mentioned about managing people, “sometimes the most important thing is to manage egos, including your own.” As the CSO (and in Nick’s case, CEO), “you always tend to think your opinion is the most important one in the room. However, you bring onboard the people you hire because you value their expertise, and you need to give them the space to come up with novel ideas, and the respect to listen to them. You never know where the next breakthrough will come from, and you need to trust your team enough to execute on what they develop. Likewise, as their leader, they need to trust you enough to know that your decisions are considered and that all input is taken into account.”
They also gave their advice for aspiring CSOs and emphasized the importance of both broad experience and management skills to succeed. Anish made clear that domain area expertise is critical to pushing new boundaries, to creating novel medicines and ultimately to have a lasting impact. And, that recruiting and managing the right talent is the only way to get there. Nick and Charles echoed Anish’s advice and added that previous success through the discovery and regulatory process is also crucial. They recounted his work as therapeutic area heads at Novartis and BMS and noted that having seen many programs go from development to the clinic was hugely beneficial in preparing them to be CSOs. To quote Charles, “some version of the same problems always seems to pop up, so having seen them before is a huge help in being able to navigate the hurdles.”
Finally, Nick added a point about knowing when it’s time to move on from a role as your career develops. If the science seems to move too far into the background, and administration and bureaucracy become your main focus, that may be the right time to consider a switch.
Conclusion
Having analyzed the education and career paths of Chief Scientific Officers, several salient points stand out. Regarding education, while CSOs can come from anywhere, there is a strong bias toward American Ph.D. and postdoc programs – in particular from the Boston/Cambridge area. From a career path perspective, almost all CSOs have worked in industry before, and many tend to rise through the ranks of established Pharma giants toward therapeutic head positions – gaining both scientific and management experience crucial to the role. Finally, among the many important responsibilities of the job, CSOs need to be able to focus their company’s portfolio based on the science, manage their team and themselves well and make sure they are achieving maximum value with the resources they have available.
The journey from discovery to approved medicine is as tricky and winding a path as one can imagine, and it is the job of the CSO to guide a team of experts through that path with as few setbacks and false starts as possible. It is both a great responsibility and one of the highest honors in science, requiring extensive expertise, leadership capabilities and a mix of unshakable determination and carefully tailored optimism. I hope this article has helped shed some light on the type of people blessed with shouldering that burden.
Thoughts? Questions? Comments? I am eager to hear your opinion on anything discussed here. Connect with me or leave a comment below!
