Search Results

Your scientific thinking built the foundation, but leadership is what scales it. The Invisible Obstacle   👉 Brilliant science. Stalled progress. It’s a pattern we see far too often in early-stage biotech operations and startups. The experiments work. The data looks promising. But decisions lag, the team spins, and investors get nervous. Science isn’t the problem; scientific thinking is. What makes you excel in the lab can quietly sabotage your leadership in the boardroom. 👉 Scientific thinking  rewards depth, rigor, and precision. But in a startup, those same instincts to analyze deeply, minimize error, and delay action until “enough” data is in can kill momentum . 👉 Most founders don’t even realize they’re still running their company like an academic research group. They explain instead of deciding. They analyze instead of acting.   ✅  This post explores how scientific thinking can become a leadership liability and what mindset shifts are needed to evolve from research reflexes to CEO decisions.   ✅  You don’t need to abandon your scientific instincts. But you do need to adapt them if you want your startup to scale .     The 3 Golden Rules of Scientific Thinking — and Why They Break Down in Biotech Operations Leadership   👉 Scientific thinking trains you to be precise, methodical, and skeptical. These instincts are critical in the lab, but they often undermine leadership when blindly applied in a startup . Let’s unpack the three core “rules” most scientific founders unconsciously carry into their companies:   1️⃣ “Only act when the data is solid.” In research, acting on incomplete or shaky data can destroy your credibility. In startups, waiting too long for certainty can destroy your momentum . 👉 Biotech founders often delay critical business moves, hiring, BD outreach, or funding decisions, because the data isn't “mature enough.” But in business, decisions must be made under uncertainty . Clarity doesn’t precede action; it follows it.   2️⃣ “Eliminate error at all costs” Labs are built around error reduction. You control variables. You minimize noise. But startups are inherently noisy. Trying to eliminate all risk leads to overengineering and stagnation . 👉 Instead of shipping early and iterating, many scientific founders keep refining decks, processes, and team structures until they feel bulletproof. But by then, the window of opportunity has often closed.   3️⃣ “Deep analysis leads to better answers” Scientific training favors deep thinking. More analysis = better outcomes. But in leadership, depth without speed equals paralysis . 👉 Startups don’t reward depth alone; they reward direction and decisiveness . Over-analysis becomes a form of avoidance. And while you're analyzing, someone else is executing.   👉 Bottom line:  Scientific thinking is invaluable, but only when it’s reframed for the role you’re actually in. ✅ You’re not optimizing experiments anymore. You’re steering a company.     Startups Play by Different Rules — and Most Scientific Founders Miss That   A research lab is designed for precision. A startup is designed for progress. And that difference changes everything. 👉 Scientific thinking values thoroughness, error reduction, and complete data before action.  But in the startup environment, these instincts can quickly become liabilities. You rarely have perfect data. 👉 You can’t eliminate every variable. And waiting too long often means missing the moment. Startups demand something different: ✅ Clarity of direction even when the picture is incomplete. The ability to decide when no option is risk-free. The discipline to align a team without all the answers. Founders who keep operating like researchers often create internal confusion. They revise instead of committing. They analyze instead of align. They aim for perfect clarity, and in doing so, they delay momentum, erode trust, and weaken execution. ✅ Scientific thinking can make you cautious when your company needs decisiveness. Unless you update the way you lead, your startup will struggle to translate insight into impact.   Leadership isn’t in your lab notebook; it’s in how you decide     How to Know If You're Still Leading Like a Scientist   👉 Leadership isn’t a title. It’s a way of thinking. And if your thinking is still shaped by academic norms, your startup will keep running like a lab, not a company. 👉Scientific thinking is precise. Leadership thinking is directional. The transition between the two isn’t automatic, even for the most capable founders. It requires conscious shifts in how you process uncertainty, how you frame decisions, and how you lead people through ambiguity. Here are three questions to help you check in with yourself: 1️⃣ Do you delay or dilute decisions while waiting for more clarity? Real leadership often means choosing without all the answers. If you find yourself looping decisions or delegating them upward, you might be leaning on scientific habits to avoid risk.   2️⃣ Do you overvalue internal logic over external action? It’s tempting to refine the deck, rework the roadmap, or re-analyze the market. But leadership is outward-facing. It’s about choosing direction, enabling others to move, and owning tradeoffs with imperfect inputs.   3️⃣ Do you explain more than you align? Explaining a model is not the same as rallying a team. When your communication centers on logic and detail instead of clarity and momentum, your team stays in wait mode, and execution stalls.   ✅ The shift from scientist to CEO  is not about abandoning your expertise. It’s about realizing that your value now lies in decisions, not just in depth.     Strategic Takeaway   👉 Scientific thinking will always be your strength, but it must be reshaped to serve your new role. 👉 As a biotech founder, your impact no longer comes from precision alone, but from your ability to lead through uncertainty, prioritize progress over perfection, and turn insight into execution. ✅  Leadership is not the opposite of science. It’s what gives it direction.   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.

September 2022 Lack of Oestrogen Receptor Expression in Breast Cancer Cells Does Not Correlate with Kisspeptin

systems, but in reality, our most brilliant and expensive minds are stuck with low-impact tasks due to a lack Every time a problem arises, we trace it back to its root cause, implementing changes that prevent its Part 3: The Financial Friction : Explore how a lack of precise alignment between GPCR scientific milestones

Welcome back to your weekly GPCR quest! Financing Deal of the Year at the Citeline Japan Awards 2024 GPCR therapies: Eight promising biotechs hacking Scientific Advisory Board GLP-1s like Ozempic are among the most important drug breakthroughs ever Goldman-backed

Assay data flows back into models. The cycle only works because every part is connected .   Structural biologists may capture snapshots of receptor conformations, but lack large-scale screening modeling designed with downstream chemistry in mind, chemistry connected to assays, and assay data cycling back

Kotliar sums it up best: “We went from one receptor to many… and now, from many, we can go back to one

Terry Kenakin will conduct two back-to-back courses this fall. The two back-to-back courses are new and specially tailored to the Dr.

We will be back next week with our regular weekly GPCR news digest.

Access the Course Hacking GPCRs: A Toolkit for Systems Biology – New Podcast Episode In Episode 167,

Warm greetings and a resounding welcome back to our GPCR Weekly Newsletter, rejuvenated after the festive GPR84 and insights into biological control Larixol is not an inhibitor of Gαi containing G proteins and lacks

binds to CCR1, CCR3 and CCR5, and induces different patterns of receptor recycling where CCR5 recycles back to the cell surface (Mack et al. 1998), CCR3 is partially restored to the cell surface and partially

tools available to study the contribution of PKC isozymes have considerable limitations, including a lack Moreover, since pharmacological tools to study PKC isozymes generally lack specificity and/or potency

🔹 Spot the opportunity → Why Catalio is betting big when others pull back Amid biotech slowdowns

Building a Career from the Inside Out Now back in med school, Serafini aims to follow the physician-scientist

We're zooming back to the future of GPCR discoveries. AI-Powered Drug Discovery and Antibody Innovation: DeciBio Q&A with Sean McClain, Founder & CEO, and Zach

GPCR Podcast is back this week with a brand new episode. Our guest is none other than Dr.

GPCR Virtual Cafe is back! Our first guest speaker is none other than Dr. Ben Myers!

You can already explore the platform and subscribe to The Kenakin Brief—our new newsletter packed with

Kenakin will be back with two back-to-back classes.

May 2022 "Seoul, South Korea, 28 April 2022 – GPCR therapeutics, Inc., a venture-backed clinical stage

However, the drug development of CX3CR1 is hampered partially by the lack of structural information.

Terry Kenakin will lead two brand-new, back-to-back courses tailored for the Dr.

Internalized receptors can then recycle back to the cell surface or be trafficked to lysosomes for degradation

However, applying it to GPCRs without signaling proteins remains challenging because most receptors lack

Join Terry Kenakin as he pulls back the curtain on the deceptively simple process of orthosteric binding—the

Welcome Back, Discovery Drivers   Terry’s Corner is live, on-demand pharmacology built for drug discovery

derivatives as a new class of GPR34 antagonists Larixol is not an inhibitor of Gαi containing G proteins and lacks drugs by the human hydroxycarboxylic acid receptor 2 GPCRs in Cardiology, Endocrinology, and Taste Lack

We generated mutant mouse lines lacking the entire Defensin (Def) gene cluster in keratinocytes or Mrgpra2a

Employing GRK knockout cells and β-arrestins lacking the finger-loop-region, we show that the two isoforms

Several S1PR therapeutic drugs have been developed to treat these diseases; however, they lack receptor