Search Results

👉 Most founders look back at the end of the year and try to make sense of the results. They analyze numbers, milestones, missed goals, and unexpected outcomes. 👉 It feels logical to evaluate success where it is most visible . Yet that moment is usually the worst place to look for answers. What if the most important part of the year already passed long before those results showed up? 👉 What if the real leverage was never in the metrics but in the choices made when everything still felt open ? Early in the year, decisions feel small. Flexible. Reversible. But that is exactly why they matter more than we think. This is where strategic decision-making quietly shapes everything that follows , not through dramatic moves or bold announcements, but through subtle direction-setting that compounds over time. Most teams do not notice it happening. They only feel the consequences months later, when it is hard to change momentum. 👉 This article is about that hidden window. The moment when clarity is cheapest, alignment is easiest, and impact is highest . If you have ever wondered why effort does not always translate into results, the answer often lives much earlier than expected. The quality of your results is decided early. Strategic decision making sets direction long before outcomes become visible. Why Results Appear Too Late to Change the Outcome 👉 Most teams focus on results because results feel tangible. Revenue, milestones, completed experiments, and signed partnerships. They give the comforting sense that progress can be measured and managed . When something feels off, the instinct is to push harder and expect the numbers to follow. 👉 The issue is that results are never the moment when decisions are actually made . They are the visible consequences of choices that happened much earlier. By the time results show up, direction has already been set. Tradeoffs have already been accepted. 👉 What looks like a performance gap late in the year is often a strategic decision-making gap from the beginning . This creates a misleading sense of control. Teams believe they can correct course by adjusting execution. But execution only magnifies what already exists. It cannot compensate for unclear priorities or misaligned strategic choices . 👉 In biotech, where cycles are long and feedback is slow, this gap becomes even more pronounced. Founders who wait for results to diagnose problems are looking at the end of the story and hoping to rewrite the first chapters. At that point, flexibility has already faded . Budgets are locked. Teams are committed. Assumptions feel too costly to challenge. What once felt like optionality quietly turns into constraint. This is why late-year analysis often leads to frustration instead of clarity. ✅ The real leverage never lived in the results themselves , but in the earlier moments when strategic decision-making was still shaping the path forward. Where the Year Is Actually Decided If results are not the moment where control exists, then the real question becomes obvious. When does the year actually take shape ? For most founders, it happens quietly, early, and without much ceremony. This is the phase where choices feel lightweight, but their impact is anything but. Early in the year, teams make decisions that define how everything else unfolds. This is the true domain of strategic decision-making . Not because the answers are clear, but because uncertainty is still manageable and alignment is still achievable. These early decisions usually fall into a few recurring categories: 1️⃣ What does the team truly focus on? 👉 Every startup claims to have priorities. Few make real tradeoffs. Early strategic decision-making determines which initiatives receive attention and which are consciously deprioritized. Without this clarity, everything feels important, and nothing moves decisively. 2️⃣ How will it be defined internally? 👉 Milestones, progress signals, and success criteria are often assumed rather than agreed upon. Early decisions shape what the team optimizes for , even when no one explicitly states it. 3️⃣ What will not be solved this year? 👉 One of the most powerful early choices is deciding what to leave untouched. Strategic decision-making is as much about restraint as it is about ambition . Teams that skip this step carry an invisible scope that slowly drains focus. 4️⃣ How decisions will be made going forward? 👉 Founders rarely pause to define decision ownership and escalation paths. Yet early choices here determine speed, friction, and trust for the rest of the year. ✅ When these decisions are made deliberately, they create a sense of direction that feels almost effortless later on. When they are made implicitly, or not at all, teams spend the rest of the year reacting. ✅ Execution then becomes noisy, not because people are slow, but because the direction was never fully set . This is the moment where leverage is highest. Before momentum hardens. Before assumptions turn into dogma. ✅ Early strategic decision-making does not guarantee success, but it dramatically increases the odds of alignment and meaningful results . Timing shapes results. Early decisions set the direction long before outcomes appear. How Alignment Turns Decisions into Real Progress Strategic decisions only matter if they translate into action. This is where alignment becomes the invisible mechanism that turns intent into movement. 👉 Without alignment, even good strategic decision-making stays theoretical . With alignment, execution starts to feel lighter, faster, and more coherent. Alignment is not agreement on every detail. It is a shared understanding of direction. When early decisions are clear, teams spend less energy interpreting what matters and more energy moving forward. ✅ Clarity removes the need for constant recalibration . People stop guessing. Priorities stop shifting week to week. This is especially critical in science-driven organizations. Biotech teams operate across disciplines, timelines, and incentives. When strategic decision-making is vague, each function optimizes locally. Science pushes depth. Business pushes speed. Operations push stability. Alignment is what allows these forces to reinforce rather than cancel each other. 👉 The absence of alignment shows up in subtle but costly ways. Meetings multiply. Decisions slow down. Execution feels busy but not effective. Teams mistake motion for progress . Over time, this friction compounds and erodes confidence, even when the underlying strategy is sound. 👉 When early strategic decision-making creates alignment, something changes. Decisions no longer feel heavy. Tradeoffs feel intentional rather than painful. Execution becomes a reflection of shared direction, not constant negotiation. ✅ Results improve because they are finally pulling in the same direction . ✅ This is why alignment is a force multiplier. And it is built far earlier than most teams realize, at the moment when strategic decision-making still has room to shape behavior rather than react to it. How Founders Can Strengthen Strategic Decision Making Early Once founders recognize the role of early decisions and understand how alignment works, the next question becomes practical. 👉 How can strategic decision-making actually be improved when the year is just beginning? This is not about adding more meetings or creating heavier processes. It is about making a few critical choices explicit while flexibility still exists. Strong early decision-making starts with intention. 👉 Founders who take control of this phase do not try to solve everything. They focus on creating a clear decision environment that supports consistent execution later on. At this stage, a few simple actions make a disproportionate difference. 1️⃣ Clarify what truly matters now.  👉 Not everything deserves equal attention. Strategic decision-making improves immediately when priorities are stated clearly and revisited deliberately. 2️⃣ Make assumptions visible.  👉 Early alignment depends on shared assumptions. When they stay implicit, teams optimize in different directions without realizing it. 3️⃣ Decide how decisions will be revisited.  👉 Good strategic decision-making leaves room for learning. Founders who define when and how decisions can be challenged reduce fear and defensiveness later on. These steps do not eliminate uncertainty. They create a structure that allows uncertainty to be handled productively . Instead of reacting to pressure as it appears, teams operate from a shared foundation that makes course correction possible without chaos. ✅ When founders invest in strategic decision-making early, they are creating the conditions where better decisions become easier throughout the year. Strategic Takeaway ✅ Strong results are shaped much earlier through strategic decision-making , when direction is still flexible, and alignment is easy to build. ✅ Founders who focus on early decisions create clarity that lasts. Execution becomes smoother. Teams move faster with fewer corrections. The results follow because the groundwork was done at the right moment . ✅ A strong year is not something you fix later. It is something you design early, one deliberate decision at a time . Ready to Break Your Bottlenecks? If you're feeling the friction, indecision, misalignment, or slow momentum, it's not just operational. It's strategic. Attila runs focused strategy consultations for biotech founders who are ready to lead with clarity, not just react to pressure. Whether you're refining your narrative, making tough trade-offs, or simply feeling stuck, this session will help you get unstuck quickly. 👉 Book a 1:1 consult and start building the mindset your company actually needs.

👉 In early-stage biotech , uncertainty is not an exception. It is the environment. The science evolves, assumptions break, and timelines shift quietly rather than dramatically. Most founders are prepared for this on a technical level. What they are less prepared for is how much this uncertainty tests the team. Early hiring decisions are usually made around skills, experience, and domain expertise. That feels logical. 👉 Complex biology seems to demand strong credentials.  But when the science starts to drift, teams often discover something uncomfortable. Some people keep moving. Others wait. Not because they lack intelligence or motivation, but because they were hired for clarity, not for uncertainty . 👉 In early-stage biotech hiring, the real risk is not weak science. It is building a team that cannot operate when answers are incomplete. ✅ This is where survival is decided. Early-stage biotech hiring is not about perfect resumes. It is about building a team that can operate when clarity is missing. Why Skill-Based Hiring Breaks Down in Early-Stage Biotech Most early-stage biotech teams hire with good intentions. The science is complex, the stakes are high, and mistakes feel expensive. So founders optimize for competence. 👉 Strong resumes feel like protection against uncertainty. This logic works in stable environments. It works when roles are defined, processes exist, and the path forward is mostly known. Early-stage biotech is none of those things. 👉 In early-stage biotech hiring, skills are selected based on an implicit promise. That the biology will behave well enough for expertise to compound. Those milestones will arrive in the expected order. That execution will follow the plan. When those conditions hold, skill-based hiring looks smart. When they do not, it starts to fail quietly. As the science shifts, highly skilled people often hesitate. They wait for clearer data. They ask for tighter definitions. They look for certainty before committing. 👉 This is not incompetence. It is a rational response trained by environments where clarity existed. The problem is that early-stage biotech rarely offers that clarity. Especially in discovery-driven programs, the work happens between answers. Progress depends on decisions made with incomplete information. Teams that rely only on skill depth struggle here because skills alone do not tell people how to act when the rules are missing. This gap becomes visible fast. Meetings slow down. Ownership becomes fuzzy. Decisions escalate upward. Founders feel the pressure to hold everything together. The team is talented, but momentum starts leaking. 👉 Early-stage biotech hiring fails at this point, not because the science is too hard, but because the hiring logic was built for a reality that does not yet exist . Skills are necessary. They are never sufficient. This is the moment where founders begin to realize that survival depends on something else. The Difference Between Competent and Useful in Early Stage Biotech As uncertainty increases, a subtle shift happens inside the team. The question is no longer who is the most qualified. It becomes who is actually useful when answers are missing . 👉 In early-stage biotech hiring, competence is easy to recognize. It shows up in credentials, past roles, and technical depth. Usefulness is harder to spot. It only becomes visible once the science stops behaving, and decisions still need to be made. This is where many teams get stuck. They are full of capable people, yet progress slows. The issue is not ability. It is behavior under uncertainty. 👉 Here is what separates competent people from useful ones in early-stage biotech environments. 1️⃣ Decision making without complete data: Useful people do not wait for perfect information. They assess what is available, understand the risk, and move forward. They know that waiting is also a decision. 2️⃣ Ownership without clear boundaries: When roles are still forming, useful team members step into gaps instead of protecting job descriptions. They act as if the problem belongs to them. 3️⃣ Momentum between milestones: Competent people perform well when goals are defined. Useful people create progress when milestones slip or dissolve entirely. 4️⃣ Emotional stability during scientific ambiguity: Early-stage biotech generates long periods of not knowing. Useful people remain constructive during these phases instead of becoming defensive or disengaged. 👉 None of these traits replaces skills. They determine whether skills can be applied at all.  In environments where the plan changes often, usefulness becomes the multiplier. This is why early-stage biotech hiring breaks when founders optimize only for what is visible at the interview stage. Competence shows up early. Usefulness reveals itself only under pressure. ✅ Recognizing this difference changes how founders evaluate talent. It also changes what questions matter when building the team. Built for growth means building a biotech team that can learn, adapt, and move forward together as the science evolves. What Survival Traits Look Like in Real Biotech Work 👉 When founders start paying attention, they realize that survival traits are not abstract qualities. They show up in very concrete moments. Usually, when the science refuses to cooperate. In early-stage biotech hiring, these moments arrive quietly. A key experiment produces ambiguous results. A lead program slips without a clear explanation. The discovery phase stretches longer than planned. In teams working on complex biology like GPCR targets, this kind of drift is not unusual. What matters is how people respond to it. Some team members retreat into analysis. Others disengage emotionally. But a few keep the company moving forward even when certainty is missing. 👉 They reframe the problem, adjust priorities, and make decisions that preserve momentum without pretending to have all the answers. These are not heroic behaviors. They are practical ones. Survival traits express themselves as calm under ambiguity, a bias toward action, and the ability to separate progress from perfection. People with these traits do not fight uncertainty. They operate inside it. 👉 This is why early-stage biotech hiring needs a different lens. Skills determine what someone can do when conditions are stable. Survival traits determine whether anything gets done when they are not. Founders who recognize this early stop asking whether a candidate is impressive. They start asking whether that person can still be effective when the ground shifts under their feet. How Founders Can Hire for Survival Without Overengineering It 👉 Once founders recognize that survival traits matter, the next question is practical. How do you actually hire for this without turning the process into guesswork or psychology? The answer is not more complex interviews or longer job descriptions. In early-stage biotech hiring, what matters is where you focus your attention . Survival traits reveal themselves in how people talk about uncertainty, ownership, and unfinished work. Instead of testing for theoretical excellence, founders can shift toward observing real behavior. 👉 Here are a few practical signals that consistently matter in early-stage biotech environments. 1️⃣ How candidates describe moments without clear answers: Listen to how they talk about uncertainty. Do they freeze, escalate, or adapt? Useful people explain how they moved forward despite missing information. 2️⃣ How they react to shifting priorities: Ask about situations where plans changed midstream. Survival-oriented candidates show adjustment, not frustration. 3️⃣ How they define responsibility: Pay attention to whether ownership is framed narrowly or broadly. Early-stage biotech rewards people who take responsibility beyond their formal scope. 4️⃣ How they balance rigor and progress: Strong candidates understand scientific rigor. The right ones also know when progress matters more than perfection. 👉 These signals are subtle, but they are reliable. They do not replace skills. They determine whether skills translate into momentum. When founders make this shift, hiring becomes less about finding the perfect profile and more about building a team that can function while reality is still forming. ✅ That is where early-stage biotech hiring stops being fragile and starts becoming resilient. Strategic Takeaway 👉 In early-stage biotech hiring , the goal is not to eliminate uncertainty. That is impossible. The goal is to build a team that can operate while uncertainty is present. 👉 Skills matter. Experience matters. But survival depends on how people behave when the science shifts and the plan no longer leads . Teams that endure are not the ones with the most impressive resumes. They are the ones where individuals can decide, adapt, and move forward without waiting for perfect clarity. For founders, this is not about fixing past hires. It is about making the next decision more intentional. ✅ Hiring for survival traits is how early-stage biotech teams stay functional long enough for the science to catch up. Ready to Break Your Bottlenecks? If you're feeling the friction — indecision, misalignment, slow momentum — it's not just operational. It's strategic. Attila runs focused strategy consultations for biotech founders  who are ready to lead with clarity, not just react to pressure. Whether you're refining your narrative, making tough tradeoffs, or simply feeling stuck, this session will get you unstuck — fast. 👉 Book a 1:1 consult and start building the mindset your company actually needs.

👉 Biotech startups rarely fail all at once. They usually fail while everyone is still working hard.   Experiments continue. Meetings happen. Progress is reported. Yet over time, alignment fades, and decisions start to feel disconnected. 👉 Many founders ask why biotech startups fail  not after a collapse, but when the company starts to feel harder to run without a clear reason . Nothing is obviously broken, but clarity is missing. Priorities blur. Execution slows. This is not a motivation problem. It is a structural one.  When complexity grows faster than strategy, biotech companies begin to fall apart quietly. 👉 This article examines why biotech startups fail when strategy is absent , and how that outcome can be changed. The difference between surviving and failing in biotech is rarely science. It is whether clarity exists when complexity grows. When complexity grows faster than clarity 👉 Early-stage biotech is complex by default. Science evolves in parallel with regulatory funding pressure and team growth.   Each of these dimensions introduces uncertainty. On their own, none of them is fatal. The problem begins when they expand faster than the company’s ability to make clear decisions. Most founders do not notice this shift immediately. Work continues. Experiments multiply. New ideas are added on top of existing ones. Complexity feels like progress.   👉 In reality, it often signals that priorities are no longer explicit. This is one of the earliest reasons why biotech startups fail . Not because the science stops working, but because the organization stops knowing what matters most right now . When everything feels important, nothing truly is. Without strategic filtering, teams accumulate parallel efforts. Scientists explore promising side questions. Leadership avoids saying no because every option feels valuable. Over time, focus dissolves. 👉 The company becomes busy instead of deliberate. At this stage, failure does not look like failure. It looks like motion. But motion without clarity slowly erodes confidence, execution, and trust.  Decisions become harder. Tradeoffs are postponed. The cost of complexity compounds quietly. 👉 The danger is not that biotech is hard. The danger is letting complexity grow without a structure that contains it.  When clarity does not scale with ambition, disorder fills the gap. The illusion of progress and the slow loss of direction One of the most dangerous phases in a biotech startup is when everything appears to be moving forward . Experiments are running. Data is being generated. Timelines are discussed with confidence. From the outside, progress looks real. 👉 Inside the company, however, direction often becomes unclear. Activity replaces alignment.  Teams execute tasks without a shared understanding of which decisions those tasks are meant to inform. Milestones are reached, but no meaningful choices follow from them. This is a central reason why biotech startups fail . Progress becomes performative rather than strategic. Work is measured by output instead of insight. The organization stays busy, but learning slows down. 👉 This pattern usually shows up in a very specific way: 1️⃣ Experiments are added faster than old ones are stopped 2️⃣ Milestones exist, but they do not unlock real decisions 3️⃣ Data accumulates without changing direction 4️⃣ Roadmaps grow longer instead of sharper 5️⃣ Everyone is working hard, yet priorities feel unstable Each item on its own looks reasonable. Together, they create drift. More experiments feel safer than fewer deliberate ones.  Additional data feels like risk reduction, even when it does not change the strategic picture. Over time, confidence erodes. Teams are no longer sure what success looks like. 👉 No single decision breaks the company, but the absence of decisive moments weakens it. The startup does not fail because it stops doing things. It fails because it stops knowing why it is doing them.  When progress is no longer tied to clear strategic questions, direction quietly dissolves. Clarity before chaos is what prevents biotech startups from slowly falling apart. Strategy as a system for making fewer better decisions The turning point for many biotech startups comes when strategy stops being a document and starts functioning as a decision system. ✅ The role of strategy is not to predict the future, but to reduce unnecessary complexity in the present. Teams that regain control do not suddenly become more confident about biology. They become clearer about what matters now and what does not.  Strategy creates a shared filter that connects science execution and business reality. ✅ At its core, this is what a functional strategy provides: 1️⃣ Clear priorities that limit parallel work 2️⃣ Explicit decision points tied to experiments and data 3️⃣ Agreed criteria for stopping as well as continuing 4️⃣ A common language for tradeoffs across science and leadership This is where the pattern of why biotech startups fail  begins to reverse. Instead of adding more work to feel safer, teams start designing fewer experiments with sharper intent. Data is no longer collected because it might be useful someday. ✅ It is generated to answer a specific question that unlocks a decision. Importantly, strategy does not slow teams down. It removes hidden friction.  When priorities are explicit, execution accelerates because teams no longer need constant alignment checks. Scientists understand why an experiment matters. Leadership understands what outcome would trigger a change in direction. ✅ The goal is not certainty. The goal is coherence.  When decisions follow a visible structure, complexity becomes manageable rather than overwhelming. Designing order before chaos becomes expensive What separates resilient biotech startups from those that slowly fall apart is not confidence or optimism. ✅ It is the presence of someone actively designing order while uncertainty is still manageable.   Order does not emerge naturally in biotech. It has to be built deliberately and revisited continuously. Founders who succeed understand that strategy is not a one-time exercise. It is a repeated act of clarification.   They pause regularly to ask which assumptions are still valid, which decisions are being avoided, and which activities no longer justify their cost in time, focus, or capital. This is where many teams escape the typical pattern of why biotech startups fail . Instead of letting chaos accumulate quietly, they surface it early. They make uncertainty explicit rather than hiding it behind optimism or additional experiments. ✅ They accept that clarity is a moving target and treat it as such. Designing order also changes how teams experience pressure. When priorities are visible and decisions are intentional, stress becomes directional rather than paralyzing. People know what they are optimizing for.   Tradeoffs feel purposeful instead of arbitrary. Most importantly, order creates trust. Scientists trust leadership because decisions are grounded in logic rather than mood. Leadership trusts execution because work is clearly tied to strategic intent. ✅ The company stops reacting and starts responding. Biotech does not become easy when an order is designed. It becomes survivable.  And in a field defined by uncertainty, that shift makes all the difference. Strategic Takeaway - Why biotech startups fail Biotech startups rarely fail because of a single mistake. They fail when complexity grows without structure and clarity.  Over time, this creates drift that no amount of effort can correct. ✅ Strategy is what holds a biotech company together under pressure.   It makes priorities explicit, decisions visible, and tradeoffs intentional. Without it, even strong science slowly loses direction. 👉 Understanding why biotech startups fail  is not about predicting collapse. It is about designing clarity early enough that chaos never takes over. Ready to Break Your Bottlenecks? If you're feeling the friction — indecision, misalignment, slow momentum — it's not just operational. It's strategic. Attila runs focused strategy consultations for biotech founders  who are ready to lead with clarity, not just react to pressure. Whether you're refining your narrative, making tough tradeoffs, or simply feeling stuck, this session will get you unstuck — fast. 👉 Book a 1:1 consult and start building the mindset your company actually needs.

Discover the Dr. GPCR Ecosystem – the ultimate hub for GPCR professionals to connect, collaborate, and advance drug discovery. Home: About Accelerating GPCR Drug Discovery, Together Dr. GPCR is the global hub where academia and industry meet to advance GPCR research, accelerate drug discovery, and foster collaboration across the entire ecosystem. 👉 Join Free Today 🔒 Go Premium Strategic Partner(s) Your Path to GPCR Mastery Flexible, career-ready courses designed by scientists for scientists. GPCR Courses ➚ Terry's Corner GPCR Weekly News ➚ Dr. GPCR Podcast ➚ Articles from the Ecosystem ➚ How Early Strategic Decision Making Creates Alignment and Better Results Early Stage Biotech Hiring: What Really Holds a Team Together When the Science Starts to Drift The One Reason Why Biotech Startups Fail More Often Than They Should Why Biotech Fundraising Fails Due to Intellectual Property Gaps Closing the Gap Between Academia and Industry Our vision is simple: empower the GPCR field through shared knowledge, collaboration, and open access to tools that accelerate drug discovery. 🤝 Support the Mission Home: Premium Premium Yearly $499 $ 499 Every year 🚀 Everything you need to master GPCR science — in one membership. Valid until canceled Select 🎓 Full GPCR University + 🔬 200+ expert talks 🗞️ Weekly research, careers & event intelligence 🤝 Members-only networking, AMAs & matchmaking 💡 Support open resources for the global GPCR field 🧠 Designed for researchers at every career stage 🚀 Don’t just keep up — lead the way. 🔒 Grandfather Guarantee, your rate never increases Everything You Need to Master GPCR Science in One Membership Join the most complete GPCR learning & collaboration hub. Explore the packages and choose one that works for you Advancing GPCR Science Through Collective Intelligence Dr. GPCR is a living ecosystem where global minds converge to share knowledge, spark collaboration, and shape the future of GPCR-driven discovery. 🤝 Support the Mission

Dr. GPCR Podcast - The Voice of the Community Whether you’re a scientist, student, or just curious, you’ll hear about discoveries, career stories, and the latest GPCR news. Jump in and get inspired! Strategic Partners Latest Podcast Episodes 2025-12-17 2025-11-05 2025-09-02 2025-07-22 2025-05-27 2025-12-03 2025-10-22 2025-08-19 2025-07-08 2025-05-13 2025-11-19 2025-09-22 2025-08-05 2025-06-11 2025-04-29 1 2 3 4 5 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 8 Enjoying the Dr. GPCR Podcast? Leave a Review. Leave a quick review to help more scientists find the show—and help us keep improving every episode. It takes <60 seconds and makes a big difference. ★ Review on Apple Podcasts ★ Rate on Spotify ✉️ Send feedback to the team Thanks for listening to this podcast episode Follow us on your favorite Podcast Player Listen and subscribe where you get your podcasts

Explore the world of GPCRs with Dr. GPCR Podcast! Join industry leaders as they share insights, stories, and groundbreaking discoveries, enriching our understanding of GPCRs. Delve into the science behind these vital components shaping our collective knowledge. Welcome to the Dr. GPCR Podcast - The Voice of the Community Conversations with the world’s leading GPCR scientists. Exploring discoveries, careers, and ideas shaping human health. In each episode, we sit down with leading experts to explore their career journeys, groundbreaking discoveries, and the impact of their research on our shared understanding of GPCR biology. Launched at the height of the pandemic, the Dr. GPCR Podcast was created with three goals: Share discoveries – Highlight the latest advances in the GPCR field. Amplify voices – Provide scientists a platform to showcase their work. Inspire the future – Motivate the next generation to pursue GPCR research. At its core, Dr. GPCR’s mission is simple yet ambitious: to bring the GPCR community together - across borders and disciplines - to connect, exchange, and collaborate in order to improve human health through a deeper understanding of GPCR biology. Latest Podcast Episodes More podcast episodes Dr. GPCR Podcast Audience Survey We are currently planning our next season and need your help. This short survey will help us understand your needs to bring you exciting and informative content. We also know that you are busy, which is why we designed this short survey that should take you 5 minutes. Fill out this form Be our Guest In each episode, we chat with an expert about their career trajectory, discoveries, and how their research contributed to the shared pool of knowledge about GPCR biology. We’d love to have you on our podcast. To be a guest, fill out the form below, and we’ll be in touch in 48 hours. Fill out this form What others are saying about this podcast Really enjoyable science podcast! Dr. Yamina Berchiche interviews leading GPCR scientists on this vibrant, entertaining podcast. I really appreciate the way the podcast educates and mentors, particularly towards junior scientists but also to the community as a wholen Yamina is a great interviewer, getting insight and personal history from her guests. Am very grateful for Dr GPCR livening up the week in these difficult times! Sam @Pharmamechanic I enjoy the breadth of questioning that goes beyond just the science, and reveals a bit about the scientists as individuals/mentors/people. Anonymous Great initiative, thanks. Carrier paths, choosing research topics, switching fields, late start, failures and successes. Anonymous This came at just the most perfect time. I hadn't heard a scientific talk outside my lab since February and was starved to hear someone else talk passionately about GPCRs. I've listened to the episodes multiple times and it's just like being at a conference getting new ideas. I just couldn't be happier y'all created this podcast. Anonymous I think it's really well done. I'm genuinely interested to see how it evolves and grows over time, as I feel it has the potential to develop into something even more impactful. Anonymous Listen and subscribe where you get your podcasts