Why balancing risk factors to foster breakthrough science remains one of the key challenges in R&D leaderships.
Breakthrough science does not emerge from avoiding risk, it emerges from taking the right risks with focused discipline. Risk is inevitable in research and development, but the real challenge is knowing how much risk to take and where to draw the line between bold innovation and unproductive ambition.
Emerging Pharma Leaders nominations are now open!
Do you know someone who can make tough decisions that continue to face manufacturers? Are they destined to change the future of pharma?
Nominate a colleague with impressive leadership and career intentions – even yourself! – for the Pharmaceutical Executive 2026 Emerging Pharma Leaders Awards.
Balancing risk is a great challenge for all of us in research and development, but if we just pursue what is certain, we are likely to only deliver incremental progress. Great discoveries come from high-risk research, whereas playing it safe often means we’re following the curve of discovery, rather than redefining it.
One of our founding principles in taking the right risks, is portfolio discipline and prioritization. At UCB, our seven core focus areas are: neurology (including neurodegeneration and network hyperexcitability), immunology (including multiple ways to achieve resolution of inflammation) and neuromuscular diseases. These defined disease areas provide clarity on where innovation can have the greatest impact and where the risks are worth taking. Further to this, investing in areas of research where there are significant unmet patient needs, significantly improves our risk to reward ratio.
If the reward is the discovery of novel drugs that can transform patient’s lives, then our approach must begin with clear portfolio discipline, identification of unmet needs and a deep understanding of patient biology. But given risk is the inherent variable in this equation, the question we must continually address is: how can we minimize this?
It’s not just portfolio discipline that matters but discipline in capabilities too. Continuous internal capability development is core to our strategy, yet we also recognise the vital role of partnerships. The right collaborations will help define our ability to compete and collaborate on a global stage while minimising owned risk.
Leveraging partnerships with academic groups, startups and other companies, allows us to combine our expertise and bring innovative solutions to patients more efficiently.
Our recent agreement with Antengene to develop, manufacture and commercialise ATG-201, a T-cell engager antibody that targets B-cell-driven autoimmune diseases is a prime example of this approach. Carefully selected partnerships keep us agile in responding to emerging scientific trends and patient needs.
Strategic technological and data led partnerships can also help drive risk efficiency. We’re entering a new era of research where lab experiments, computer simulations, and data-driven insights work together, allowing us to take smarter, more calculated risks. We’re designing hybrid environments where digital tools can be embedded into the scientific workflow, especially during the stages of risk analysis, combining computer smarts with human instinct.
Despite best efforts to minimise risk, terminating projects can be inevitable, particularly if they are unlikely to deliver meaningful benefits for patients. Yet, it is essentially to frame these decisions constructively, ensuring they do not stile future innovation.
Stopping a project often reflects strong, evidence-based judgment, not a mistake. It demonstrates that the team is listening to the science and patient data. Actively involving teams in this decision-making process can also help foster a strong culture of continuous improvement and stop the ‘fear of failure’ taking hold.
We also make it a priority to review terminated projects or those that have shifted direction. In research, valuable insights emerge at almost every stage in the journey, providing us with the opportunity to re-visit findings with a fresh perspective. Have deep biological insights been uncovered in early research – even if they did not serve the initial end goal? Is the data revealing patterns we initially missed? By continually re-assessing our work, we can continue to leverage the wealth of knowledge uncovered in all our projects. This also helps to reduce the overall cost of risk in terminated work, through using these insights for future decisions and developments.
The timing of termination is also critical. Regular evaluation of whether our research is taking us in the right direction allows us to identify early if a project isn’t working. This helps free up resources or move track to research and development areas that look more promising.
But what does this mean for our equation of risk and reward?
Every aspect of science carries risk. In research, the equation could be expressed as: clear portfolio boundaries + understanding of patient needs + deep biological insights, multiplied by strategic external and data led partnerships, divided by the risk factor of termination or change.
When calculated correctly, this leads us to the development of novel drugs that can transform patients’ lives. At its worst, it provides valuable learning opportunities for scientists, clinicians and leaders alike, that can be applied at speed to the next potential breakthrough.
We must also remember that taking risks, terminating projects or changing course must be transparent to demonstrate responsible stewardship to patients, regulators, and investors alike. And for patients, even the toughest risks are worth taking if it could bring meaningful improvement to their lives.
