Editor's Note: In this special blog, CEO Betsy J. Lahue sits down with a leading biotech innovation expert to challenge conventional thinking about drug development and commercialization. Their conversation bridges two worlds that rarely intersect in life sciences: commercial strategy and clinical innovation.
A conversation between Betsy J. Lahue & Cenk Sumen
(3.5 Min Read)
Executive Summary
While most life sciences companies work in silos, forward-thinking teams bridge the gap between clinical innovation pipelines and commercial strategy.
Organizations that integrate these functions achieve faster formulary placement, higher market share, and more productive R&D investments.
The choice is stark: reorganize now or watch market position erode as others reshape the innovation landscape.
Betsy: Through my career in life sciences, I've seen how commercial and clinical innovation teams exist in separate worlds, with different languages, timelines, and success metrics. These parallel universes rarely intersect, creating challenges for cohesive pipeline innovation strategies. To bridge this divide, I've invited clinical innovation specialist Cenk Sumen to cross boundaries that usually remain firmly in place.
Cenk: Biotech's golden age is over. In the 1980s, cloning a gene could earn both academic prestige and commercial fortune. The Cohen-Boyer patent generated $35 billion through 2,400 licensed products. Today? The stagnation is exemplified by the 2024 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) prize in the “Breakthrough” category, which honored an extended-release formulation. Biotech R&D has become as bureaucratic as the large pharma model they once disrupted. We clearly need new paths to innovation success!
Betsy: The life sciences industry stands at a fork in the road. Most companies follow the familiar path of incremental improvements and standard commercial approaches. Yet the security in bringing a line extension to market rarely translates to revenue growth. Has anyone at the executive table questioned whether we follow this path because it's optimal or simply because it's comfortable?
Cenk: That comfortable path leads to obsolescence. Venture capital has consolidated dramatically since 2022. Companies that raised hundreds of millions in 2021 can't secure seed funding with identical pitches today. While life sciences teams debate modest improvements, China, India, and Brazil are rewriting innovation rules.
Betsy: This structure of investment and perceived “safe bets” restricts innovation pipelines to what fits existing frameworks rather than reimagining them. Life sciences companies focus on scientific challenges while delaying commercial model questions, and then they wonder why payers resist their value story despite good data.
Cenk: We're like cowering Roman armies in walled camps, afraid to venture forth though our success depends on exploration. We've made failure so costly that breakthroughs have become nearly impossible. Development costs rise while innovation productivity shrinks, a deadly combination.
The Competitive Landscape Is Shifting
Betsy: Innovative commercial models are flourishing outside of the US. Singapore actively partners with companies building manufacturing and technical capabilities which could lower costs for biotech. The UK provides multiple support programs for innovators (i.e. NHS Innovation Service case studies - Innovation Service and the NHS Accelerated Access Collaborative) to help accelerate approval and adoption. These aren't theories; they're delivering new technical capabilities and bringing products into health systems faster than traditional pipelines.
Cenk: Post-Brexit, the UK is beating the FDA to approvals and securing better payer agreements. Fast-tracking trials isn't just possible, it's happening now, just not in traditional markets. Nonprofits like HHMI and Gates, and SBIR grants could help fund breakthroughs outside traditional VC models. These environments let companies "fail fast" and iterate rapidly, leaving conventional timelines behind.
Betsy: These success stories show that agency and health system partnerships can create paths to early adoption with efficient data collection to demonstrate payer and outcomes value. But the challenge remains: systems only partner when there's a clear unmet need with large burden or cost. Are innovation pipelines addressing system-level challenges, or merely product-level ones?
Two Different Approaches
Cenk: The industry follows a pattern: leaders take risks while fast followers exploit that innovation for short-term gains. Which role are life sciences companies playing? Most executives claim leadership while implementing follower strategies. Better approaches require:
Betsy: The traditional commercial model exists for good reasons. But have companies examined whether it still serves their goals? From my commercial view:
The Decision Point Is Now
Cenk: Life sciences companies face a decision. Will they keep optimizing within current constraints while competitors reimagine how innovation works? During the pandemic, we saw what's possible when barriers fall. That urgency has vanished from the development process.
Betsy: What signals are companies missing by keeping walls between commercial strategy and innovation pipelines? While many follow traditional paths, forward-thinking organizations are gaining advantages that will compound over time.
Cenk: Two roads diverge before the industry. The well-traveled path looks safer but leads to shrinking returns. The road less funded requiring the courage to reimagine how pipelines connect with commercial strategy will make all the difference between leadership and irrelevance.
Betsy: The implications are clear: maintain silos, and access timelines will lengthen while returns fall. Integrate commercial thinking into innovation pipelines early, and companies will achieve faster formulary placement, stronger value stories, and greater market share. Forward-thinking organizations have started this shift. Will others make this change before market realities force it upon them?
Betsy J. Lahue is Chief Executive Officer of Alkemi, helping life sciences executives transform commercial strategy from a fragmented process into a unified source of competitive advantage.
Cenk Sumen is a biotechnology innovation expert with extensive experience across academic research and commercial development.