Last month we wrestled with attrition and sustainability in drug development, asking what it would take to “land the plane” instead of patching it mid-flight. We argued that learning is not a side effect of R&D, it is the product that makes everything else repeatable, fundable, and ultimately fair to patients. This month, we stay with that thread but change the question. If we accept that we must learn, then who gets credit when we do, and according to which scoreboard.

In this issue, Brian looks at the tension between being a scientist whose internal compass points to patients, and a business that measures success in promotions, multiples, and margins. Nick zooms out to our social biology, showing how engagement-optimizing platforms quietly rewire our brains while the right digital measures could help us fight tech with tech. I try to treat ROI as a translational language that connects investment, intention, and learning across the full evidence chain. Together, the three essays ask a simple but uncomfortable question: when we say “return,” who are we actually optimizing for.

Brian opens this issue by asking what happens when your internal ROI is still calibrated to patients, while the system evaluates you on stock charts and slide decks.

In his essay, Brian plays with the uneasy distinction between “science-based business” and “business-based science,” and he admits to a supposed character flaw: he optimizes for work that matters more than for career optics. From his vantage point, drug development is not only a benevolent scientific pursuit, it is a capital intensive business that demands a return, and every decision along the way shapes who ultimately benefits from that return. He walks through the quiet ways metrics drift, how tools become ends in themselves, and how easy it is for organizations to treat people who chase patient impact as if they were leaving money on the table. Rather than rejecting business realities, Brian is asking for a more honest conversation about what counts on the balance sheet, and whether we are willing to recognize outcomes that do not fit neatly into quarterly summaries but matter deeply to patients and to the scientists who show up for them.

"There are science-based businesses and there is business-based science."

See the full insight →

Picking up the thread at the level of everyday life, Nick takes us from family dinner tables to notification feeds to show how our biology and our incentives have fallen out of sync.

Nick starts with food as social glue and an evolutionary bargain. Our large, calorie hungry brains made daily eating a risk, so we wrapped it in cooperation, culture, and connection. Over time, our bodies evolved a simple safeguard, a feeling called “full” that lets us stand up from the table and go do something else. Smartphones and social media arrived too recently for any such satiety signal to evolve. Our social brains now burn the same circuitry on artificial interactions that look like connection but lack the biochemical completeness of real relationships, driving dopamine without the regulatory balance of serotonin and oxytocin and contributing to a loneliness and mental health crisis that is anything but abstract. Nick argues that platform companies simply respond to their incentive to maximize engagement, while payers, providers, and individuals lack equally sharp measures for well being. His call is to use the same digital and AI tools that fuel “digital drugs” to quantify mental health, reward prevention, and help our brains once again feel “full” in a digital world.

"Technology fighting technology. Or perhaps just containing it, putting up boundaries, helping our brain feel ‘full."

See the full insight →

To close the loop, I zoom back out to the evidence chain and treat ROI as a language that only works when everyone is honest about which dialect they are speaking.

The essay starts in a familiar room, the portfolio review where four very different projects compete for attention. On the surface, everyone talks about ROI, yet shareholders, payers, platform companies, regulators, clinicians, and patients all mean something different when they say “return.” I argue that this confusion is not just semantic, it is structural. Financial ROI is what the balance sheet recognizes. Return on Intention is the distance we actually move patients toward the outcomes we claim to care about. Return on Learning is how much better the next decision gets because we took the time to capture and reuse what just happened. Most organizations fund the first, gesture at the second, and ignore the third. Using examples that run from NAMs and home cage monitoring to wearables and mental health apps, I suggest that ROI, RoI, and ROL only line up when we design explicit translational bridges and treat learning as a deliverable, not a byproduct.

"ROI should be treated as a translational property of the entire evidence chain, not just a verdict at the end of a quarter."

See the full insight →

Innovation in drug development isn’t broken because of a lack of ideas or tools. It’s broken because too often we mistake noise for signal, hype for strategy, and platforms for solutions.

Taken together, these three essays ask us to be far more deliberate about who benefits when we innovate, what we count as value, and how we make learning visible instead of incidental. If you see echoes of your own work in Brian’s tension between purpose and performance, in Nick’s portrait of our overstimulated social brains, or in my attempt to stack ROI, intention, and learning in the same direction, we would love to hear where you are already bending the curve. Hit reply, comment, or share a story where you deliberately redefined “return” and changed a decision for the better.

Join the Conversation
This isn’t a newsletter to skim; it’s a place to interrogate assumptions and share the war stories that don’t fit into glossy decks. If a claim isn’t anchored to a patient decision, say so. Share your near misses, your “we were wrong, then we got better” moments.