Effective Communication in Biotech

The Communication Skills That Actually Accelerate Bioinformatics Careers Technical excellence gets you in the door. Communication skills get you promoted. I have been watching this pattern for years now. The bioinformaticians who advance fastest are not necessarily the most brilliant programmers or the deepest domain experts. They are the ones who can translate complex computational insights into language that biologists, clinicians, and business stakeholders actually understand. Modern bioinformatics requires constant collaboration with biologists, computer scientists, statisticians, and healthcare professionals. Field professionals must be able to collaborate effectively with biologists, computer scientists, statisticians, and healthcare professionals. It requires technical skills and strong communication abilities to ensure that ideas and findings are clearly understood across disciplines. What I find interesting is that this skill becomes more valuable as AI tools democratize technical knowledge. (Almost) anyone can run a (basic) genomic analysis pipeline now. But explaining why that analysis matters, what the limitations are, and how the results should influence clinical decisions - that requires human judgment and communication skills that AI cannot replicate. So try to position yourself as "bioinformatics translator" who can bridge the gap between computational insights and biological questions. Employers seek professionals who can navigate high-performance computing systems or cloud platforms like AWS and bridge communication gaps between biology and IT teams. They are not just generating results - they are making those results actionable for their colleagues. This shows up in unexpected ways. The ability to write clear documentation becomes a competitive advantage when your pipelines need to be used by other team members. Being able to explain abstract concepts in simple terms makes you invaluable in cross-functional meetings. Knowing how to present data visualizations that tell a story rather than just displaying numbers sets you apart from peers who focus purely on technical implementation. Companies are desperate for people who can combine biological knowledge with engineering discipline, but they are equally desperate for people who can communicate that combination effectively to diverse stakeholders. The technical skills get you qualified for the role. The communication skills determine how far you go in it. In a field where interdisciplinary collaboration is essential, the professionals who master both the science and the storytelling are the ones building careers that scale. #Bioinformatics #CareerDevelopment #Communication #InterdisciplinarySkills #ProfessionalGrowth

When people struggle to understand your words, they assume the problem is you. Not them. You might think complexity makes you sound smarter. It feels necessary. After all, you work in biotech. Precision matters. Accuracy is everything. But research from Princeton professor Daniel Oppenheimer says otherwise. He found something surprising: The more needlessly complex you are, the less intelligent people think you are. You don’t have to dumb things down. You just have to make them clear. Here’s how: 1. Use short sentences. Say what you need to say, then stop. 2. Choose common words. If a seventh grader wouldn’t understand it, reconsider. 3. Explain acronyms. Someone in your audience doesn't know what it means. It takes seconds to tell them. 4. Speak to help, not to impress. Being helpful makes it about them, being impressive makes it about you. 5. Test your message. If someone outside your field doesn’t get it, try again. Because being clear doesn’t mean being simplistic. It means being heard. And in biotech, being heard is how you make an impact.

Communication between science and IT teams is hampered by technical jargon. An effective strategy to facilitate alignment is to define a boundary of understanding and the sphere of what one cares to control. In a simplified view, imagine a line with IT and science at the opposite ends. The boundary of understanding is the middle point where the teams meet. This is as far as IT can comfortably understand the science and vice versa. When communicating to a partner team, details beyond their boundary of understanding should be abstracted away. You may encounter teams that have true or perceived understanding of another’s area of expertise. The question to pose is - “What is important for you to control? Why?”. Defining the sphere of control gives teams authority to move fast. Avoid unnecessary negotiations. If you are a science team, think of all computational work as software operating on data in a sequence of steps. The scientific questions need to be abstracted away. Think tools, files, speed and costs. Meet your IT team at their boundary of understanding. For IT teams, ask about software, process, user experience, performance and cost. Here is a made up research project - “We use FancyTool for protein folding to understand structural implications of genomic variants of the ABC3 gene identified by NGS implicated in disease X”. Interesting but hard to comprehend for all teams. Let’s restate the same in terms that both teams understand and care about - “We generate data at the lab. Output is in FASTA format up to 100GB per experiment. Data are processed with a community pipeline from nf-core. We manually inspect each step on our laptops. The pipeline must complete in < 12 hrs. We will submit each file to FancyTool using Jupyter Notebooks. We use StructureViewer to examine the output on our laptops. FancyTool must be always available and we want to get the fastest possible turnaround. Cost is not an issue“. Now that is a great starting point! #cloud #research #computationalbiology #IT #collaboration #science

Corporate posts rarely work in biotech. Here's why you should involve your CEO instead: First, a quick review of why corporate posts (especially on Linkedin) don’t work: 1. The Linkedin algorithm represses corporate posts Personal account posts are preferred. Company reach outside the organization? Less than 20% of what a personal post can. Bad return on investment. 2. Scientists don’t trust company pages You’re not selling to the general population. You’re selling science to some of the most intelligent and skeptical people on the planet. They engage with the opinions and findings of trusted peers and peer-reviewed information. A company page can (almost) never be that trusted source. It’s too biased. 3. The content is boring and self-serving Sorry. It needs to be said. Most posts fall into these categories: - Learn about how WE are awesome! - Come meet US at a conference! - Go view OUR webinar! - GIMME your email! - Visit the website! The underlying message? Give something I haven’t earned so I can take advantage of you. No one is interested in that. So what should you do instead? Understand the reality: People don’t trust companies. People trust people. Therefore: You need a trusted face to represent your company on Linkedin. Someone who has deep industry knowledge. Someone who knows your company inside and out. Someone who can provide valuable insights to target customers. Someone who has a vested interest in long-term company success. Typically, this is an executive or founder. What then? Invest time and effort into building a personal brand for that person. A brand that leads with value and insightful information. Deliver deep industry knowledge that’s worth its weight in gold. Talk about industry pain points - then solve them. Weigh in on how industry will change in 5 years. Provide helpful insight on industry trends. Become the voice that people look to. Build trust and authority. Just… be useful. Make it a no-brainer for your target customer to follow you. Earn their attention and respect. Therefore, when you do talk about the problems your company can solve for them… They’ll believe you. You’ll be top of mind for that problem. Because you’ve proved your trustworthiness. And by extension, they’ll trust your company too. A great example of this? Steve Harvey, CEO of Camena Bioscience. You've probably seen his posts. Absolutely crushing it. His brand drives significant traffic (and legitimate interest) towards his company. So remember… Personal trumps corporate. It takes time to be useful. But it’s completely worth it. What are your thoughts on this? Drop them in the comments. #biotechnology #marketing #cellandgenetherapy #innovation

Most biotech founders don’t fail because their ideas are bad. They fail because their messaging never stood a chance. Not because they didn’t “communicate benefits” clearly. They wrote posts that ignored how people think. As a founder, you’re used to facts, logic, and evidence. But your audience doesn’t read your LinkedIn post like a peer-reviewed paper. They skim. → They filter. → They fill in the blanks. → Then they forget. The Cognitive Bias Codex is one of the best tools I’ve found for writing posts that work with these patterns, rather than against them. Here’s how to apply it: 1️⃣ Catch attention (Too much info): People are overloaded. You need contrast. → Use the bizarreness effect. Start with something unexpected. → Use the Von Restorff effect. Make one idea visually or conceptually stand out. → Use confirmation bias. Start with what your audience believes, then challenge it. 💡 Instead of “Our study shows a 12% increase,” try: “Most device teams think 40% uptake is the limit. Ours hit 52%.” 2️⃣ Build trust (Not enough meaning): People fill gaps with stories. Give them the right one. → Use the narrative bias. Share a decision, failure, or conversation. → Use the halo effect. Mention credible names or data sources. → Break stereotypes. Show something they didn’t expect. 💡 “We thought this device wouldn’t work in elderly patients. It did.” 3️⃣ Prompt action (Need to act fast): Your reader is scrolling. You need to interrupt the autopilot. → Use loss aversion. Show the cost of ignoring your insight. → Use the sunk cost fallacy. Highlight why clinging to outdated methods hurts. → Use the availability heuristic. Reference a recent news item or post. 💡 “Still relying on 2022 data to plan your 2025 trial?” 4️⃣ Boost recall (What do we remember?): You don’t need to be memorable to everyone. Just to the right people. → Use the peak-end rule. Start strong. End clear. → Repeat key phrases. → Tell stories where the smart choice looks obvious in hindsight. 💡 “We bet on the unpopular strategy. It paid off in 3 months.” Most content tries to sound smart. The best content works with how people think. 👉 Which part of the Codex feels most relevant to your work right now? 💬 Let's discuss in the comments. ♻️ Repost for others. ---- 👋 Hi, I'm Sébastien, Founder of Mywebtechcare®. I help life science founders grow visibility, trust, and long-term opportunities on LinkedIn.

I was talking with a senior director of communications last week about how she measures whether messaging actually works. Her answer surprised me: "I don't care if it sounded good in the meeting. I care if people can repeat it a week later." She'd just been through a product launch where the team spent weeks aligning on the narrative. The positioning was sharp. The science story was clear. Everyone nodded and said it made sense. Then she went out and talked to people across the company. Half of them couldn't explain the mechanism of action. The other half were using different language to describe the same thing. The message hadn't pulled through. That's when she realized the problem wasn't the message. It was that no one had tested whether people could actually repeat it. Now she does spot checks after every major rollout. She asks colleagues to explain the message back to her in their own words. She listens to how employees describe the company to candidates. She pays attention to what people say when they think no one's listening. If the message isn't landing consistently, she goes back and simplifies it. The people who do this well don't just craft messages. They test whether those messages survive contact with the organization. Narrative success isn't about what got said in the meeting. It's about what people are saying three levels down, a month later, when no one's watching.   What's one way you test whether your messages are actually sticking? And what do you do when you realize they're not? #CorporateAffairs #Communications #Biotech

The biotech industry burns over a million hours of senior talent in board meetings every year. Much of it unnecessarily. We imported our governance playbook from Fortune 500 companies. But a development-stage biotech is not Disney. The entire strategy can be visualized on one slide. So why are we running 4h+ meetings? I wrote a piece on what the best biotech boards are actually doing differently. A few of the core ideas: Every board deck should open with a Core Value Proposition, a single statement of what the company promised investors it would accomplish before needing to raise again. All news is benchmarked against the CVP. Manufacturing delay? Will it impair the CVP? If no, then it’s minor. If we can’t deliver promised data before the next financing, it’s major. Most board decks don’t have a CVP, leaving strategic discussions without a key guidepost. Every deck needs an Elephant Slide, which is a single chart showing your cash curve, burn projections, and every major milestone for the next 3+ years. It’s everything you need to realize that your cash runway is too short or that next financing must be larger than you thought. Every slide should have a BLATT (Bottom Line At The Top). The header is the conclusion, not merely a descriptor. Don’t say “manufacturing update”. Say “minor manufacturing delay won’t prevent us from starting our trial”. If a director can’t digest key points of your pre-read in ~10 minutes, odds are they could be clearer and writen more plainly. Management should send short updates between meetings (aka “love notes”) so that little in the pre-read is ever a surprise. Goal is for directors to be able to jump into discussion w/o sitting through presentation of the board deck. Executive session should go first, not last. It’s the most important conversation of the day. Burying it after four hours of presentations when everyone is spent is governance malpractice. The article also includes a taxonomy of directors that I think the industry has never properly made, and it matters, because different directors have fundamentally different superpowers, constraints, and best uses. There are key differences between active investor directors and other directors, including legacy investors, that should impact how directors assigns sub-committees (particularly comp and audit). I get into that in the article. This article also include a Claude agent you can spin up to walk you through board prep. The companion SABER deck has templates and detailed guidelines. These principles are already standard for some boards (eg all the ones I’m on! Thank you!). You’ll see in the article that my motion to adopt these broadly has been seconded by many other executives and directors. The more companies that do, the more effective our boards can be, incidentally freeing up a lot of time for our industry’s most seasoned people. https://lnkd.in/ebuYpad3 RA Capital Management

The communication mistake biostatisticians make is using the same approach with every client. Some clients want directness. Cut straight to the recommendation. Give conclusions first, details only if asked. Respect their time. Other clients need to process out loud. They think through options verbally before landing on decisions. Give them space to talk. Let them arrive at understanding through conversation. Some clients have deep technical knowledge and want detailed methodology discussions. Skip the basics. Engage at their level. Be ready to defend your approach with solid reasoning. Other clients need education alongside recommendations. Start with fundamentals. Use plain language and analogies. Check for understanding rather than assuming they're following. Your job is reading which type you're working with and adapting. Pay attention in early interactions. Notice whether they interrupt with direct questions or let you finish. See if they ask technical details or big picture questions. When you match your communication style to theirs, projects move faster because communication flows naturally. They trust you more because they feel understood. Happy Client Communication, Happy Tuesday.

𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐄𝐎𝐬 𝐖𝐢𝐧: 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐥𝐝 Years ago, I worked with a company that proudly described itself as a “big family.” They collected Best Place to Work awards 🏆, the website was glowing. the employer branding was flawless. Then you scratched the surface. Beneath a very thin layer of veneer, everything was scripted. Every town hall answer. Every internal memo. Every external statement. Corporate communication was sterile to the Nth degree! Having a personality was perceived as a liability. Individual voice was quietly sanded down. The result? Executives who looked impeccable. Spoke in perfect paragraphs. And were about as inspiring as an instruction manual for office carpet maintenance. Corporate robots. Slick as an eel. Memorable as beige wallpaper. Fast forward to today: Imperfect communication wins! Leaders with edges, with asperity, with a point of view, are the ones we remember ... here is my 𝐮𝐧𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭: Philipp Baaske, NanoTemper Technologies, "The HONORABLE ENTREPRENEUR" communicates with technical clarity and unmistakable personality, talks about his mistakes Stef van Grieken, building Cradle in real time, and sharing his unfiltered experience (#StartUpLife ≠ Google) Jason Kelly, Ginkgo Bioworks, Inc. explains complex science in a way that feels accessible and human; really steped-up his short videos lately Alex Zhavoronkov, always with strong opinions, and scientific reason to believe why Insilico Medicine is leading the TechBio race Thomas Clozel, blends medical credibility, AI ambition, and strategic storytelling to position OWKIN at the forefront of data-driven biotech. Najat Khan, PhD, Recursion has mastered the art of explaining AI, drug development, and transformation with depth and authenticity. Her podcast appearances are genuinely worth studying. In large pharma, where constraints are heavier: Vas Narasimhan, Novartis and Dave Ricks, Eli Lilly and Company manage to combine institutional responsibility with visible, genuine leadership. Not a CEO, yet another role model: Marco Andre, VP of AI Literacy at Johnson & Johnson, pioneered a form of communication that is direct, not over-polished, sometimes imperfect, and incredibly memorable. On platforms like LinkedIn, posts from individuals outperform company pages by orders of magnitude. When executives communicate frequently in their own voice, they create trust scales, accelerate the narrative, and position themselves as KOL In an AI-saturated world where polished content can be generated endlessly, personality becomes scarce. Scarcity creates differentiation. Today, being genuine is a competitive advantage. The companies that understand this will not hide their leaders behind scripted perfection. They will let them speak.

Rare Lessons #8: Communicate through the challenge, not around it. Ever notice how silence can feel louder when things get hard? I’ve learned that’s when communication matters most. It’s easy to share good news. It’s harder and, in my opinion, more important to speak up when it’s not. In biotech, updates don’t always go as planned — a delay, new requirements, shifting timelines. The instinct can be to wait for better news. But silence creates distance. And when people don’t hear from you, they fill in the blanks — often with inaccurate assumptions. When we engage teammates, customers, and partners through uncertainty, we strengthen credibility and gain insight. They tell us what they’re hearing, what they’re feeling, and what they need next. Sometimes being heard is enough. Sometimes their feedback prepares us for what’s ahead. These past few months at Agios reinforced this truth. We faced unexpected events and chose to communicate them directly - first with our teams, then with customers. Their response has been appreciation and continued support. I’ve learned to communicate through the challenge, not around it. That’s how relationships (and reputations) grow stronger #RareLessons #Leadership #Communication #Trust #CustomerEngagement