This has been a great week for decision science in pharma, for those looking to improve early phase.

In Jack Scannell’s new article, Predictive validity in drug discovery: what it is, why it matters and how to improve it, we see the power of better decision science in finding more efficient and effective paths forward or stopping rules that can be more effectively applied.

"Successful drug discovery is like finding oases of safety and efficacy in chemical and biological deserts… Both history and decision theory suggest that predictive validity is under-managed in drug R&D, not least because it is so hard to measure before projects succeed or fail later in the process."

In David Grainger’s #Unshackled: The evolving definition of asset-centricity, the conversation on ‘progression bias’ is played out for Development decisions.

"The progression heuristic switched from “nothing has yet killed the opportunity” to “we are still excited and want to further back the opportunity”.  It sounds subtle, but the impact is enormous."

Each in its own way points to the value of Decision Science in early phase. As soon as you accept that You Do Not Know, the question shifts to How Do You Find Out? and how you might do that better than the competition. And that is the central point of Asymmetric Learning - not just finding out, but doing so knowing that your ‘finding out’ brings competitive advantage.

And what are you finding out? Not just whether the drug works, but where, and whether it will be of value, whether that might be approvable, and more. That is, simply knowing that the drug works is not enough.

For example, good drugs have lived and died on behavioural or economic practices as simple and predictable as the commercial dynamics of infusion vs oral. The answer does not lie in the molecule alone.

It is rare now that you have a unique molecule, or class. It is always a race among equals - or at least it is critical to assume that, instead of locking in the bias that our drug must be intrinsically best in class, often compounded with assumptions like ‘first to market/ fast to market’ is key.

The opportunity for those companies who lean into the very real complexity of Development decisions versus the seductive but untrue simplicity of old process (such as my latest podcast, with Andrew Hopkins of Exscientia), is tangible, and based on methodologies that weren't possible even 10 years ago. There is a lot to overlay now - not just all of the ‘omics’ of Discovery, but the end-to-end value of Development and Commercial requirements. And that means harnessing the power of better decisions. If you now hear ‘we follow the science’, it is reasonable to ask ‘which one?’