When it comes to the topic of drug discovery and development, scientists are busy furrowing their lab-goggled brows trying to understand what’s real and what’s hype when it comes to the power and potential of AI.
This *Resonance Test* conversation perfectly dramatizes the situation. In this episode, Emma Eng, VP of Global Data & AI, Development at Novo Nordisk, and scientist and strategist Chris Waller provide a candid view of drug development in the AI era.
“We're standing on a revolution,” says Eng, reminding us that “we've done it so many other times” with the birth of the computer and the birth of the internet. It’s prudent, she cautions, not to rush to judgement guided by either zealots or skeptics.
Waller says, of the articles about AI and leadership in *Harvard Business Review,* one could do “a search and replace ‘AI’ with any other technological change that's happened in the last 30 years. It's the same kind of trend and processes and characteristics that you need in your leadership to implement the technology appropriately to get the outcomes that you're looking for.”
Which means, for pharma, much uncertainty and much experimentation.
“I think experimentation is good,” says Eng, who then adds that we need to always keep track of what is it that we're experimenting on. She says that the word “experimentation” can “sound very fluid” but in fact, “It's a very structured process. You set up some very clear objectives and you either prove or don't prove those objectives.”
Waller references the various revolutions (throughput screening, combinational chemistry, data, and analytics revolutions) that pharma has seen and says: “We've all held out hope for each and every one of these revolutions that the drug discovery process is going to be shrunk by 50% and cost half as much. And every time we turn around, it's still 12 to 15 years, $1.5 to $2 billion.”
Will AI make the big difference, finally?
“Maybe we need to be revolutionized as an industry,” she says. “It can be hard to make much of a difference as long as there are few big players.” Just a few big players, she says, is “the nature of pharma.”
Of course, our scientists are measured in their assessments about industry change. After all, as Waller says, the systems involved—the human body, the regulatory environment, the commercial ecosystems—are all “super-complicated.”
Eng notes that an important side-effect around the AI hype is corporate interest in data. “Now it's much easier to put that topic on the table saying, ‘If you want to do AI, you need to take care of your data and you need to treat it like an asset.’”
Listen on as they test topics such as regional and regulatory challenges in AI adoption, change management, and future tech and long-term impact (watch out for quantum, everyone!).
In the end, Eng returns to the idea of revolutions. “You think you want so much change in the beginning which you don't get because it takes time,” says Eng. This makes us underestimate what will happen later. Having such a farseeing mindset is significant, she says, because “these technology shifts will have a large impact on the long term.”
Host: Alison Kotin
Engineer: Kyp Pilalas
Producer: Ken Gordon
All content for The EPAM Continuum Podcast Network is the property of EPAM Continuum and is served directly from their servers
with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
When it comes to the topic of drug discovery and development, scientists are busy furrowing their lab-goggled brows trying to understand what’s real and what’s hype when it comes to the power and potential of AI.
This *Resonance Test* conversation perfectly dramatizes the situation. In this episode, Emma Eng, VP of Global Data & AI, Development at Novo Nordisk, and scientist and strategist Chris Waller provide a candid view of drug development in the AI era.
“We're standing on a revolution,” says Eng, reminding us that “we've done it so many other times” with the birth of the computer and the birth of the internet. It’s prudent, she cautions, not to rush to judgement guided by either zealots or skeptics.
Waller says, of the articles about AI and leadership in *Harvard Business Review,* one could do “a search and replace ‘AI’ with any other technological change that's happened in the last 30 years. It's the same kind of trend and processes and characteristics that you need in your leadership to implement the technology appropriately to get the outcomes that you're looking for.”
Which means, for pharma, much uncertainty and much experimentation.
“I think experimentation is good,” says Eng, who then adds that we need to always keep track of what is it that we're experimenting on. She says that the word “experimentation” can “sound very fluid” but in fact, “It's a very structured process. You set up some very clear objectives and you either prove or don't prove those objectives.”
Waller references the various revolutions (throughput screening, combinational chemistry, data, and analytics revolutions) that pharma has seen and says: “We've all held out hope for each and every one of these revolutions that the drug discovery process is going to be shrunk by 50% and cost half as much. And every time we turn around, it's still 12 to 15 years, $1.5 to $2 billion.”
Will AI make the big difference, finally?
“Maybe we need to be revolutionized as an industry,” she says. “It can be hard to make much of a difference as long as there are few big players.” Just a few big players, she says, is “the nature of pharma.”
Of course, our scientists are measured in their assessments about industry change. After all, as Waller says, the systems involved—the human body, the regulatory environment, the commercial ecosystems—are all “super-complicated.”
Eng notes that an important side-effect around the AI hype is corporate interest in data. “Now it's much easier to put that topic on the table saying, ‘If you want to do AI, you need to take care of your data and you need to treat it like an asset.’”
Listen on as they test topics such as regional and regulatory challenges in AI adoption, change management, and future tech and long-term impact (watch out for quantum, everyone!).
In the end, Eng returns to the idea of revolutions. “You think you want so much change in the beginning which you don't get because it takes time,” says Eng. This makes us underestimate what will happen later. Having such a farseeing mindset is significant, she says, because “these technology shifts will have a large impact on the long term.”
Host: Alison Kotin
Engineer: Kyp Pilalas
Producer: Ken Gordon
Silo Busting 70: Lessons for the Modern CISO with Tim Ramsay and Sam Rehman
The EPAM Continuum Podcast Network
26 minutes 56 seconds
7 months ago
Silo Busting 70: Lessons for the Modern CISO with Tim Ramsay and Sam Rehman
How are CISOs holding up in the era of AI?
According to Tim Ramsay, Managing Director of Mandiant Client Advisory (now part of Google Cloud), and our guest on *Silo Busting*: “You have a number of parts of the organization that may be embracing AI without any involvement from central IT, and more importantly… without security.”
Not an easy situation for a CISO.
But not to worry, Ramsay and Sam Rehman, EPAM’s CISO and SVP, have seen this kind of thing before. In the pre-AI age, there were other technology inflection points, such as virtualization and the cloud, and our conversationalists learned that dealing with them involved clear communication and trust.
Today’s CISOs “don't want to kill the business or stop the business,” says Ramsay “They want to *enable* the business. But that kind of presupposes they know what the business is trying to do.”
What’s necessary, he says, is for business leaders “to have some level of trust that the security people are actually going to bring something productive to the conversation and not just rule from a position of fear, uncertainty and doubt.”
CISOs must teach their colleagues that secure business is, as Ramsay notes, a team sport and that organizations must know their data assets. Security people must also be clear about risk. “We need to be real about what type of threats we actually are engaging,” says Ramsay.
The lessons of DeepSeek emerge during the episode. Ramsay says he thought there’d be “some voice in the room who would have said, “Guys, are we ready? Are we ready for global type of exposure here?” Getting ready, in fact, means that security must be included from the beginning, they say. Rehman adds: “To secure something as an aftermath is a million times more difficult than if you have security in mind when you’re actually going through that innovation process.”
Rehman asks *how* CISOs can build the necessary trust. “Meetings are always good, but relationships are where it gets real,” replies Ramsay. “Conversations that CISOs are having alongside other C-levels are going to be much more effective” than meetings that can sometimes feel adversarial.
Build strong enough relationships and sometimes business leaders will deliver the security message themselves. “It takes a secure CISO to let others carry the message sometimes,” says Ramsay, adding: “It takes the pressure off the CISO to be always the bearer of threats and news of risk.”
Says Rehman: “So much of security requires... letting go of that insecurity.”
Host and Producer: Ken Gordon
Engineer: Kyp Pilalas
The EPAM Continuum Podcast Network
When it comes to the topic of drug discovery and development, scientists are busy furrowing their lab-goggled brows trying to understand what’s real and what’s hype when it comes to the power and potential of AI.
This *Resonance Test* conversation perfectly dramatizes the situation. In this episode, Emma Eng, VP of Global Data & AI, Development at Novo Nordisk, and scientist and strategist Chris Waller provide a candid view of drug development in the AI era.
“We're standing on a revolution,” says Eng, reminding us that “we've done it so many other times” with the birth of the computer and the birth of the internet. It’s prudent, she cautions, not to rush to judgement guided by either zealots or skeptics.
Waller says, of the articles about AI and leadership in *Harvard Business Review,* one could do “a search and replace ‘AI’ with any other technological change that's happened in the last 30 years. It's the same kind of trend and processes and characteristics that you need in your leadership to implement the technology appropriately to get the outcomes that you're looking for.”
Which means, for pharma, much uncertainty and much experimentation.
“I think experimentation is good,” says Eng, who then adds that we need to always keep track of what is it that we're experimenting on. She says that the word “experimentation” can “sound very fluid” but in fact, “It's a very structured process. You set up some very clear objectives and you either prove or don't prove those objectives.”
Waller references the various revolutions (throughput screening, combinational chemistry, data, and analytics revolutions) that pharma has seen and says: “We've all held out hope for each and every one of these revolutions that the drug discovery process is going to be shrunk by 50% and cost half as much. And every time we turn around, it's still 12 to 15 years, $1.5 to $2 billion.”
Will AI make the big difference, finally?
“Maybe we need to be revolutionized as an industry,” she says. “It can be hard to make much of a difference as long as there are few big players.” Just a few big players, she says, is “the nature of pharma.”
Of course, our scientists are measured in their assessments about industry change. After all, as Waller says, the systems involved—the human body, the regulatory environment, the commercial ecosystems—are all “super-complicated.”
Eng notes that an important side-effect around the AI hype is corporate interest in data. “Now it's much easier to put that topic on the table saying, ‘If you want to do AI, you need to take care of your data and you need to treat it like an asset.’”
Listen on as they test topics such as regional and regulatory challenges in AI adoption, change management, and future tech and long-term impact (watch out for quantum, everyone!).
In the end, Eng returns to the idea of revolutions. “You think you want so much change in the beginning which you don't get because it takes time,” says Eng. This makes us underestimate what will happen later. Having such a farseeing mindset is significant, she says, because “these technology shifts will have a large impact on the long term.”
Host: Alison Kotin
Engineer: Kyp Pilalas
Producer: Ken Gordon
