Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson

Are You Ready for the ICH E6(R3) Rollout?

By Michael Bronfman, July 7, 2025

research scientist doing clinical trials ICH E6 (R3) Rollout

At Metis Consulting Services, we are acutely aware that a countdown has begun for a monumental shift in the clinical trial landscape. On July 23, 2025, the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E6(R3) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) officially comes into effect, ushering in a new era for how clinical trials are conceived, executed, and overseen globally. This fundamental reimagining of GCP, driven by years of stakeholder collaboration and the rapid evolution of technology and scientific approach, is very exciting. This week in "The GuardRail" Michael Bronfman writes below about the pressing question it raises: Are sponsors, Contract Research Organizations (CROs), technology providers, and regulatory teams truly prepared for the profound implications of E6(R3) on compliance strategies, trial design, risk management, and the very future of clinical research?

Implications for Clinical Trials, Sponsors, CROs, and the Future of GCP

The global pharmaceutical and biotech industries are bracing for a major regulatory shift: the official rollout of the ICH E6(R3) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) on July 23, 2025. After years of revision, stakeholder consultations, and a changing technological and scientific landscape, E6(R3) marks a significant evolution in how clinical trials are designed, conducted, and overseen.

Are sponsors, contract research organizations (CROs), technology providers, and regulatory teams truly ready for what’s ahead? What are the real-world implications of this transition from compliance strategies and trial design to risk management, digital transformation, and global harmonization?

In this post, we break down:

  • What’s changing with ICH E6(R3)

  • What sponsors and CROs must do to prepare

  • How the update reflects the future of GCP

  • Risks and opportunities across the pharma value chain

What Is ICH E6(R3)? A Quick Recap

The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) first adopted E6 in 1996, introducing a unified standard for Good Clinical Practice. While the 2016 ICH E6(R2) revision improved transparency and oversight, particularly regarding CROs and quality management systems, it still fell short of addressing modern trial complexity and the digitization of data collection.

ICH E6(R3), by contrast, was developed with flexibility, scalability, and technological evolution in mind. It is also structured in two parts:

  1. Principles and Annex 1 (finalized and adopted): Applicable to interventional clinical trials.

  2. Annex 2 (in development): Will address non-traditional designs like decentralized trials (DCTs), adaptive trials, and real-world data (RWD) use.

The overarching aim is to ensure that clinical trials are fit for purpose, ethically sound, scientifically valid, and operationally efficient for our current global, digitized environment.

What’s Changing? Key Shifts in E6(R3)

The ICH E6(R3) revision doesn’t just tweak processes; it reimagines them. Here are the most critical changes:

1. Quality by Design (QbD) Becomes Non-Negotiable

QbD, the proactive identification and mitigation of risks that threaten participant safety and data integrity, is now a foundational principle. It shifts trial design from a reactive to a predictive approach.

2. Risk-Based Thinking at Every Level

Building on R2’s quality management system, R3 makes risk-based monitoring (RBM) and risk assessment integral to planning, conduct, and oversight, rather than just operational monitoring.

3. Modernization of Sponsor–CRO Oversight

R3 places a clearer, shared responsibility on sponsors and CROs to ensure fit-for-purpose vendor oversight, with less prescriptive language and a greater emphasis on principles and proportionality.

4. Fit-for-Purpose Documentation

E6(R3) rejects the “more is better” mentality. Documentation should demonstrate ethical conduct and data integrity, not create unnecessary administrative burden.

5. Emphasis on Participant-Centricity

Informed consent, trial burden, and participant engagement are brought to the forefront, which supports the shift toward decentralized and hybrid trial models.

6. Technology-Agnostic Principles

Rather than prescribing specific tools, E6(R3) enables the use of digital technologies, eSource, eConsent, and DCT models, provided they uphold core GCP principles.

Timeline:

While July 23, 2025, marks the official adoption date, regulators and industry stakeholders understand that implementation is a process. Regulators such as the FDA, EMA, PMDA, and others are expected to release region-specific guidance on integration into their frameworks. However, organizations conducting global trials should prepare now to meet harmonized expectations across jurisdictions.

Implications Across the Pharma Landscape

1. For Sponsors: New Responsibilities, New Strategies

Sponsors can no longer treat GCP compliance as a check-the-box activity. E6(R3) demands:

  • End-to-end risk assessments: not just site monitoring, but risk identification in protocol design, vendor selection, and data flow.

  • Cross-functional collaboration: Medical, regulatory, data management, and clinical ops must break silos.

  • Fit-for-purpose technology: From eConsent to central monitoring dashboards, tools must enable, not burden, quality.

Forward-looking sponsors will view R3 not as a hurdle, but as a framework for smarter trial design and cost-effective compliance.

2. For CROs: Oversight, Not Just Execution

CROs are no longer “just vendors.” Under R3, vendors share responsibility for risk management, data integrity, and participant safety. Key implications:

  • Clearer contracts and delegation of duties

  • Risk-sharing models in quality oversight

  • Stronger internal QMS to align with R3 principles

Expect CRO audits and partnership models to evolve as sponsors seek R3-aligned vendors with proactive quality systems and digital maturity.

3. For Sites: Less Paper, More Empowerment

While R3 doesn’t directly regulate sites, the ripple effects are clear:

  • A reduced administrative burden if sponsors streamline documentation expectations.

  • More support for site-centric technology like eISF, eSource, and remote monitoring.

  • Clearer definitions of roles and expectations.

Sites that embrace digital workflows and risk-based cooperation will thrive in the new paradigm.

4. For Technology Providers: It’s Time to Grow Up

Tech vendors must move from “tools” to compliance partners. E6(R3) does not mandate specific platforms, but sponsors will seek:

  • Validation and audit-ready documentation

  • Interoperability with existing systems (e.g., EDC, CTMS, eTMF)

  • Support for RBM and real-time oversight

Those who deliver not just features but fit-for-purpose, compliant solutions will rise above the noise.

Strategic Considerations: How to Prepare Now

With less than a month to go, it’s not too late, and preparation must be strategic.

1. Assess Your Current GCP Framework

Use the ICH E6(R3) principles as a benchmark. Ask:

  • Do we have a documented, cross-functional risk management plan in place?

  • Is our QMS aligned with the spirit (not just the letter) of GCP?

  • Are our SOPs technology-agnostic but principle-driven?

2. Upskill Your Teams

Clinical, data, regulatory, QA, and vendor management teams must understand E6(R3) in both theory and practice. Invest in:

  • Targeted training

  • Risk assessment workshops

  • Change management programs

3. Engage with Regulators and Peers

Leverage regulator-hosted webinars, ICH training, and industry forums. Align with evolving expectations before inspection time comes.

4. Run Pilot Projects

  • Test R3 principles in live trials now:

  • Apply QbD in protocol design

  • Practice proportional documentation

  • Use RBM dashboards

This helps teams build confidence before full adoption.

The Broader Vision: Future-Proofing GCP

E6(R3) is not only a regulatory upgrade; it is a cultural reset. It reflects the convergence of ethics, science, and technology in a world where:

  • Clinical trials are decentralized and global

  • Data is streaming in from wearables, apps, and EMRs

  • Patients are participants, not subjects

In this landscape, rigid rules give way to flexible principles, allowing innovation while safeguarding quality.

The broader implication? Sponsors and CROs that fully internalize E6(R3) will be best positioned to:

  • Embrace decentralized, real-world, and adaptive trial models

  • Reduce trial costs through smarter design and oversight

  • Deliver faster, more ethical, more reliable results to regulators and participants

Conclusion: Ready or Not, R3 Is Here

The July 23, 2025, ICH E6(R3) rollout is not a finish line; it is a starting point. For sponsors, CROs, and clinical technology providers, R3 represents a long-overdue shift toward smarter, more scalable, and participant-centric trial operations.

While the transition will require investment and cultural change, the benefits, ranging from improved trial quality to regulatory readiness and operational efficiency, are significant.

The question is not “Will we comply?” It is “How can we lead?”

Suggested CTA for Pharma Companies

If you have not already begun aligning your SOPs, vendor oversight models, and risk management strategies with ICH E6(R3), the time to start is now. A proactive approach will help ensure both compliance and a competitive advantage in a rapidly changing research environment.

If you are interested in starting a conversation about how you or your organization can lead in this environment, email us at: hello@metisconsultingservices.com or visit our website at www.metisconsultingservices.com

Read More
Vaccines Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson Vaccines Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson

Bird Flu Vaccine Funding Cuts: Critical Error

Bird Flue Vaccine Funding

By Michael Bronfman for Metis, June 30, 2025

H5N1 Bird flu vaccines

We at Metis are very concerned about a dangerous misstep by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) when it recently terminated a $700 million contract with a major pharmaceutical company for their H5N1 mRNA vaccine. Michael Bronfman writes why this is a disturbing trend in the following post. His article contends that bird flu poses a significant, non-theoretical threat with a high mortality rate and increasing human spillover and that current vaccines are outdated. Bronfman champions mRNA technology for its speed and adaptability in vaccine development, directly countering the current administration's skepticism and warning that the funding cut will lead to preparedness gaps, economic fallout, and a loss of public trust due to misinformation. He also tells us why we urgently need to restore funding, enhance surveillance, expand stockpiles, combat misinformation, and implement "One Health" strategies to prevent a potentially catastrophic H5N1 pandemic.

At the end of May 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the termination of a roughly $700 million contract with Moderna, aimed at developing an mRNA vaccine for H5N1 bird flu. See: statnews.com+9usnews.com+9english.almayadeen.net+9economictimes.indiatimes.com+12vpm.org+12wprl.org+12.

This decision—from Health Secretary RFK Jr., a noted vaccine skeptic—marks a stark departure from past pandemic preparedness strategies. But why is this move so far-reaching—and so dangerous?

1. Bird Flu Isn't a Theoretical Threat

If H5N1 evolves into a transmissible strain, its impact could eclipse that of
COVID-19.

2. Vaccine Research Is Our First Line of Defense

A. Existing Vaccines Are Outdated

Three U.S.-licensed H5N1 vaccines (2007–2020) are available but target older strains and are held for stockpiling—not mass distribution. See: benzinga.com+14asm.org+14hms.harvard.edu+14. As Harvard experts warn, these old vaccines "do not match the current strains" and require urgent updating. See: hms.harvard.edu.

B. mRNA Offers Speed and Flexibility

C. Real-Time Preclinical Success

New vaccines—both traditional recombinant protein-based and mRNA—have demonstrated full protection in animal models, including mice, ferrets, and cattle. See:  pci.upenn.edu+1time.com+1.

Bottom line: mRNA is not theoretical—it's a demonstrated, powerful tool for pandemic preparedness.

3. Why Cutting the Funding Is Risky

A. Science Vs. Skepticism

Secretary Kennedy cited "safety concerns with mRNA vaccines," stating the Moderna H5N1 shots were "under‑tested". See dvm360.com+15pulmonologyadvisor.com+15arstechnica.com+15. Yet, Moderna's clinical data showed strong immune responses and good tolerability. See: time.com+2pulmonologyadvisor.com+2axios.com+2. Public health experts warn that this move prioritizes vaccine skepticism over solid science. See: reuters.com+2washingtonpost.com+2english.almayadeen.net+2

B. Preparedness Gaps

If H5N1 mutates and spreads easily, the U.S. could find itself without a viable, scalable vaccine. Traditional egg-based production is hampered by the virus's impact on poultry, and updating older vaccines could take months. See: washingtonpost.com+1statnews.com+1. The mRNA approach was designed to bridge that gap.

C. Economic and Social Fallout

Historical models, like the 1957 and 1918 flu, show pandemics impose massive economic costs—healthcare strain, GDP shrinkage up to 5 %, and millions of lost work days unmc.edu. A novel H5N1 pandemic could dwarf the 2020 financial collapse. Cutting vaccine funding is effectively playing with fire.

4. The Wildcard: Misinformation and Public Trust

A. Anti-Vaxx Influence

Secretary Kennedy, known for anti-vaccine stances, has:

Scaling back bird flu vaccine research undermines trust at a delicate moment for public health. It adds to the public's overall skepticism.

B. Implications for Public Confidence

When trusted authorities reduce financial investment in vaccines because of vague "integrity concerns," it fuels suspicion. This can cascade into lower uptake of other essential vaccines (influenza, measles, COVID-19 boosters), increasing vulnerability to both seasonal and pandemic respiratory diseases.

5. Why We Must Continue This Research

A. Vaccines = Prevention

Even if H5N1 doesn't become easily transmissible, vaccines play critical roles by:

  1. Protecting high-risk workers (poultry, livestock, lab personnel) with targeted early vaccination. See: asm.org.

  2. Curbing outbreaks in animals, thus reducing animal-to-human spillover through a "One Health" approach.

  3. Building public preparedness, offering science-based assurance before panic sets in.

B. Economic and Global Leadership

Delaying or stopping vaccine development risks:

  • Loss of global influence in response efforts,

  • Supply chain bottlenecks,

  • U.S. reliance on slower foreign-made vaccines.

Weaker preparedness invites more severe outbreaks and greater economic disruption.

C. Technical Innovation

Ongoing mRNA research against H5N1 improves:

  • Safety profiling,

  • Dose optimization,

  • Broad-spectrum vaccine development.

This translates into future readiness—not just for influenza but for unknown zoonotic threats.

6. The Road Ahead: Recommendations

Recommendation Rationale

Restore and protect funding Back Moderna's Phase 3 and other mRNA H5N1 trials—the world can only catch viruses early with swift vaccine deployment.

Scale genomic surveillance Track mutations across birds, mammals, and humans for early warning signs thesun.iethescottishsun.co.uk+5en.wikipedia.org+5asm.org+5thesun.ie+2asm.org+2time.com+2hms.harvard.edu

Expand stockpiles Update existing protein-based vaccines and purchase doses from CSL Seqirus, GSK, and others.

Combat misinformation Reinforce CDC advisory boards and science-based health communication to rebuild public trust.

Implement One Health strategies Combine farm biosecurity, animal vaccination, and human surveillance to halt cross-species spread.

7. Delay and Mixed Signals: Prevention Requires Commitment

These funding cust signal that vaccine readiness is considered optional. In public health, we don't get mulligans. The stakes are too high; scientifically and economically. The world has seen the devastating precedent of COVID-19; letting bird flu simmer unchecked is an even greater gamble.

If we delay now, we may be rewriting the script of the next global catastrophe. Investing in bird flu vaccines—especially with agile mRNA platforms—is not just wise. It's essential.

If you would like to discuss how this affects your organization and what we can do collectively, please get in touch with Metis Consulting Services.

Read More
Vaccines, Advances in Medicine Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson Vaccines, Advances in Medicine Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson

Background of the Breakthroughs of mRNA

By Michael Bronfman, June 23, 2025

Dr. Katalin Kariko, Nobel Prize winning scientist, mRNA vaccine pioneer

This week, The Guard Rail is diving into a topic that has truly revolutionized modern medicine: Messenger RNA, or mRNA. What was once merely a fascinating concept in biology has rapidly become a groundbreaking platform, and its incredible success in the COVID-19 vaccine development is just the beginning. Join us as we explore the captivating scientific journey of mRNA, highlighting the decades of innovation in molecular biology, chemistry, and nanotechnology that led to its triumph. We will also spotlight the key innovators who made it all possible, with a special nod to the remarkable influence of Dr. Katalin Karikó and Dr. Drew Weissman and peek into the exciting future promise of mRNA-based therapeutics.


The Arrival of a New Therapeutic Frontier

Messenger RNA (mRNA) has rapidly transitioned from a biological curiosity to a revolutionary platform in medicine. Its recent triumph—vaccine success against COVID-19—stemmed from decades of incremental yet transformative molecular biology, chemistry, and nanotechnology breakthroughs.


1. From Molecular Discovery to Therapeutic Aspiration

  • 1961 – mRNA Identified

Scientists first recognized mRNA as the key intermediary transmitting genetic information from DNA to ribosomes. This discovery laid the molecular foundation for engineering mRNA for therapeutic use.

  • 1990 – Synthetic mRNA Demonstrated

Jon A. Wolff and colleagues injected synthetic mRNA into mouse muscle, successfully producing proteins in vivo—an early hint at mRNA's therapeutic potential. See: time.com+3penntoday.upenn.edu+3science.org+3en.wikipedia.org+4en.wikipedia.org+4en.wikipedia.org+4.

Despite the promise, these pioneering experiments raised fundamental obstacles: mRNA's inherent fragility, strong immunogenicity, and inefficient cellular delivery.

2. Cracking the Code: Reducing Immunogenicity via Nucleoside Modification

  • 1997–1998 – The Penn Collaboration Begins
    At the University of Pennsylvania, biochemist Katalin Karikó and immunologist Drew Weissman formed a partnership driven by a shared interest in harnessing mRNA. See: nature.com+15bu.edu+15teenvogue.com+15.

  • 2005 – Seminal Discovery

    They revealed that unmodified synthetic mRNA activates Toll‑like receptors in dendritic cells, triggering inflammation. Crucially, swapping out uridine with pseudouridine (or other modified nucleosides) dramatically suppressed this response, mitigating immunogenicity and enhancing protein translation. See: jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com+15nobelprize.org+15jci.org+15.


These findings marked a watershed—chemical modification of mRNA transformed it into a viable therapeutic candidate, earning the duo the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. See: en.wikipedia.org+3time.com+3nobelprize.org+3

3. Packaging Success: Lipid Nanoparticles Enable Delivery

  • Development of mRNA-LNP Systems

    Research in the late 2000s and 2010s refined LNP formulations tailored to shield mRNA from degradation, enable cellular entry, and facilitate efficient endosomal escape. See: mdpi.compubs.rsc.org.

Notable innovations include ionizable lipids, helper lipids, cholesterol, and PEGylated lipids, collectively optimizing pharmacokinetics, stability, and safety. See: mdpi.com.

  • Clinical Translation

    This chemistry and engineering synergy culminated in the approval and deployment of the first lipid nanoparticle-based mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

4. Pre-Pandemic Explorations

Even before 2020, mRNA therapeutics were under active development:

  • Cancer Vaccines: Preclinical and early clinical trials featured mRNA encoding tumor-specific antigens delivered via LNPs to prime anti‑tumor immunity.

  • Infectious Disease Vaccines: mRNA vaccines targeting rabies, Zika, influenza, and HIV entered early human trials, demonstrating both feasibility and promise. See: arxiv.org+3teenvogue.com+3wired.com+3.

  • Protein Replacement and Gene Editing: Applications using LNP-delivered mRNA for protein replacement therapies and CRISPR editing emerged in preclinical stages. See: mdpi.com+2pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+2pubs.rsc.org+2.

  • Pioneering Companies: Moderna (founded 2010) and BioNTech (2008) both built platforms centered on Karikó/Weissman technology and LNPs. BioNTech later partnered with Pfizer to develop its COVID-19 vaccine regimen.

5. The COVID‑19 Catalyst & Rapid Deployment

When SARS-CoV‑2 emerged in early 2020, the platform's modular nature and advanced formulations enabled unprecedented speed:

  • Clinical Trials: Moderna began human trials in March 2020. By December, both mRNA‑1273 (Moderna) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer‑BioNTech) secured Emergency Use Authorization based on ~95% efficacy. See: nature.com.

This success validated decades of incremental innovation: nucleoside-modified mRNA + optimized LNPs = real-world impact.

6. Recognition: The Nobel and Beyond

The scientific community honored Karikó and Weissman's pivotal contributions:

7. Beyond Vaccination: Broadening the mRNA Horizon

The mRNA platform's adaptability has ignited diverse research avenues:

  • Cancer Therapies: Personalized mRNA vaccines targeting neoantigens, mRNA‑encoded cytokines, and CAR-T therapies are progressing in clinical evaluation.

  • Gene Editing & Protein Replacement: mRNA-driven CRISPR approaches for in vivo editing, and LNP-encoded enzyme replacement therapies (e.g., for genetic disorders) are expanding mdpi.com+1jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com+1.

  • Autoimmunity & Regenerative Medicine: Early-stage efforts are exploring mRNA-induced immune tolerance and tissue regeneration applications.


8. Continued Innovation & Challenges

Despite remarkable success, key areas require continued innovation:

  • Delivery Precision: Next-gen LNPs (e.g., organ-selective or SORT nanoparticles) aim to enable tissue-specific targeting beyond the liver en.wikipedia.org+1arxiv.org+1.

  • Stability & Design Optimization: Advanced methods like codon optimization and structure-prediction algorithms (e.g., LinearDesign) enhance mRNA stability and translational efficiency arxiv.org.

  • Manufacturing Scale & Supply: Scaling up mRNA and LNP production, maintaining cold chain logistics, and ensuring global access remain formidable obstacles wired.com+1mdpi.com+1.

  • Safety & Regulation: Comprehensive long-term safety monitoring—especially with novel ionizable lipids and repeated dosing—is critical pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

  • Cost & Accessibility: Ensuring equitable pricing and widespread distribution, especially to low- and middle-income countries, remains essential.

9. Timeline of Key Milestones

Year Breakthrough

1961 Discovery of mRNA

1990 Synthetic mRNA expression in mice

1997–98 Karikó & Weissman collaboration begins

2005 Pseudouridine‑modified mRNA suppresses immune activation

2018 FDA approves LNP‑siRNA therapy Onpattro

2020 First mRNA COVID‑19 vaccine trials and rollout

2023 Nobel Prize for Karikó & Weissman

10. In Conclusion: A Platform Reborn

The mRNA story is a testament to scientific persistence, collaboration, and cumulative innovation. From a molecular curiosity to a global vaccine solution, the ascent of mRNA illustrates how challenges—fragility, immunogenicity, delivery—were methodically overcome with modified nucleosides and precision lipid carriers.

The result? A modular, adaptable therapeutic platform poised to revolutionize vaccines, cancer therapy, gene editing, and more. Let this narrative serve both as a chronicle of what has been achieved and a roadmap for what's next in the pharma world.

Your Organization and bench-to-bedside Drug Development with Metis Consulting Services

The groundbreaking advancements in mRNA technology demonstrate the power of specialized expertise and meticulous scientific guidance in navigating complex drug development landscapes. Just as decades of dedicated research led to the mRNA revolution, your next therapeutic breakthrough requires seasoned insight and strategic direction.

Don't leave your innovative drug development projects to chance. Let Metis Consulting Services help to leverage unparalleled expertise in navigating the intricate pathways of pharmaceutical research and development. We provide comprehensive guidance, from early-stage discovery to clinical translation, ensuring your projects are optimized for success.

Contact Metis Consulting Services today to unlock the full potential of your drug development pipeline and turn scientific aspirations into real-world impact.

Be sure to check out our podcast, Queens of Quality for more informative and interesting conversations about this and more bio/pharma hot topics.

Read More
Advances in Medicine Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson Advances in Medicine Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson

What Advances in Medicine and Healthcare Look Like: And Why We Must Keep Striving for More

We delve into the cutting edge of medical innovation, highlighting advancements in precision medicine, the revolutionary potential of mRNA and next-generation vaccines, and the transformative power of regenerative medicine and gene editing.

Advances in medicine -Scientist wearing a VR headset and interacting with virtual reality in the science lab

Written by Michael Bronfman, June 18, 2025

Welcome back to the Guard Rail! Metis Consulting Services’ Weekly Blog.

We delve into the cutting edge of medical innovation, highlighting advancements in precision medicine, the revolutionary potential of mRNA and next-generation vaccines, and the transformative power of regenerative medicine and gene editing. It also explores how digital health and artificial intelligence are changing the delivery and monitoring of care. And why continuous striving for more is so important, as is our continued commitment to pushing the boundaries of what's possible. In the past century, medicine has undergone a truly remarkable transformation, shaping how we live, age, and survive. Diseases that once claimed millions of lives are now largely under control, and concepts once confined to science fiction, like organ transplantation and mRNA vaccines, are now routine. This article reminds us that these incredible achievements are not endpoints, but rather stepping stones.

Let’s dig in,

The Ever-Expanding Frontier of Medical Progress

Advances in medicine and healthcare come in many forms: new drugs, improved diagnostics, better delivery systems, and increasingly personalized care. The 21st century has ushered in an era of biomedical innovation characterized by speed, precision, and complexity. Yet, many of the most transformative advances are those still in progress or just beyond the horizon.

1. Precision Medicine

Precision medicine has evolved from a buzzword into a foundational approach to healthcare. By tailoring treatment to an individual's genetic makeup, environment, and lifestyle, we are beginning to deliver more effective and less harmful therapies. In oncology, for instance, biomarker-driven therapies now allow oncologists to match cancer patients with targeted drugs for specific genetic mutations. Drugs like trastuzumab (Herceptin) for HER2-positive breast cancer or osimertinib (Tagrisso) for EGFR-mutant lung cancer are just the beginning.

In the future, precision medicine could redefine treatment not just in cancer but in cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disorders, autoimmune conditions, and rare genetic diseases. Combined with AI and real-world data, it offers a future where treatments are not just reactive but preemptive.

2. mRNA and Next-Generation Vaccines

The COVID-19 pandemic showcased the power of mRNA technology. In less than a year, mRNA vaccines were designed, tested, and deployed at scale, protecting millions from a novel virus. But this was only the tip of the iceberg.

mRNA platforms are now being explored for a range of infectious diseases:Zika, malaria, influenza, as well as for personalized cancer vaccines and autoimmune conditions. Unlike traditional vaccines, mRNA-based therapies can be rapidly adjusted and manufactured, making them ideal tools for a world facing increasingly complex public health threats.

3. Regenerative Medicine and Gene Editing

Stem cell therapies and regenerative medicine offer the tantalizing possibility of repairing damaged tissues or organs. From restoring sight in retinal diseases to regenerating heart muscle after a heart attack, regenerative medicine is becoming more real every year.

Meanwhile, CRISPR and other gene-editing technologies are poised to revolutionize the treatment of genetic disorders. In 2023, the first CRISPR-based therapy for sickle cell disease and beta-thalassemia gained regulatory approval. As the technology matures, the list of treatable genetic conditions will grow, possibly eradicating inherited diseases at their source.

4. Digital Health and AI

From wearable biosensors to smartphone-enabled diagnostics, digital health is changing how care is delivered and monitored. Artificial intelligence enhances radiology, pathology, and even clinical decision-making by detecting patterns invisible to the human eye. Remote monitoring tools allow for chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension to be managed at home, increasing adherence and reducing hospitalizations.

Large language models (LLMs) and AI assistants are beginning to support physicians with documentation, diagnosis, and even treatment recommendations. While these tools require careful validation and oversight, they also promise to alleviate clinician burnout and democratize access to medical expertise.

Why Keep Striving for More?

While the current landscape of healthcare innovation is impressive, resting on these laurels would be a mistake. Here is why:

1. Unmet Medical Needs Still Abound

For all our advances, there remain countless diseases without effective treatments. Alzheimer's disease continues to ravage millions, and current therapies only modestly slow progression. Pancreatic cancer has a 5-year survival rate of just 12%. Rare diseases, affecting an estimated 300 million people worldwide, remain largely untreated or undiagnosed due to limited commercial incentive and research funding.

Infectious disease threats, both familiar (tuberculosis, HIV) and new, (Nipah virus, antimicrobial resistance) persist and evolve. The rise of antibiotic resistance is especially concerning, with the World Health Organization labeling it a "silent pandemic" that could kill 10 million people annually by 2050 if left unchecked.

2. Health Inequities Persist

Medical advances often reach the privileged before they reach the vulnerable. From access to diagnostics and medicines to disparities in healthcare delivery, equity remains a persistent challenge. We must strive for more innovation and broader access to its benefits.

Digital health, telemedicine, and decentralized clinical trials have shown promise in expanding access. However, innovation must be coupled with policy, infrastructure, and global health initiatives that prioritize underserved populations to truly close the gap.

3. Climate Change and New Public Health Threats

The climate crisis is reshaping health landscapes. Heatwaves, natural disasters, and changing disease vectors are increasing the burden of respiratory illness, mental health conditions, and vector-borne diseases. Innovations in public health surveillance, mobile health clinics, and environmental diagnostics will be essential to mitigate these risks.

Moreover, as the COVID-19 pandemic proved, we must be prepared for future pandemics. Continued R&D into vaccine platforms, diagnostic agility, and global response frameworks is non-negotiable.

4. The Pace of Science Is Accelerating—We Can't Afford to Fall Behind

Biomedical science today is not incremental—it is exponential. Tools like CRISPR, AI, spatial omics, and quantum computing are accelerating discovery at unprecedented speed. If we stop investing in innovation, we won't merely stagnate; we will fall behind a rapidly advancing frontier.

Public and private research funding must match this acceleration. Delays in translating research into practice can mean years of suffering for patients waiting for a cure, or even a diagnosis.

How We Can Continue Advancing

So, how do we ensure that innovation continues, not just in volume but in impact?

1. Sustain Research Funding

Innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum. It requires sustained, strategic investment in basic science, translational research, and early-stage biotech development. Governments, philanthropic organizations, and private investors all play a role.

In the U.S., NIH and NSF funding remain essential drivers of global biomedical leadership. In Europe, initiatives like Horizon Europe support cross-border collaboration. Around the world, new research hubs are emerging in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, signaling a more globalized innovation ecosystem.

2. Support Regulatory Agility

Medical innovation is only useful if it reaches patients. Regulatory bodies like the FDA, EMA, and MHRA must continue evolving to balance speed with safety. Adaptive trial designs, real-world evidence, and conditional approvals can get life-saving therapies to patients faster without compromising rigor.

Regulators must also engage with emerging technologies early—such as AI and gene editing—so that frameworks evolve alongside innovation rather than lagging behind.

3. Strengthen Public-Private Collaboration

Some of the most significant medical breakthroughs—like the COVID-19 vaccines—have emerged from partnerships between academia, industry, and government. We need more of this.

Collaboration is critical, whether it is developing antibiotics, advancing rare disease research, or launching digital health platforms. When aligned around patient needs, these partnerships can combine the agility of startups, the rigor of academia, and the scale of industry.

4. Foster Ethical Innovation

With new capabilities come new responsibilities. As we edit genes, collect personal health data, and automate medical decisions, we must build systems that protect individual rights, ensure transparency, and prioritize patient trust.

Ethical frameworks, patient involvement, and inclusive trial design must be built into innovation from the ground up—not added on after the fact.

A Call to Keep Pushing Forward

It's easy to marvel at the milestones we've achieved in healthcare and medicine. From genome sequencing to CAR-T therapy, the progress is undeniable. This is not a time to become complacent. Innovation in medicine is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Every disease left untreated, every patient without access, and every preventable death is a reminder of why we must keep striving for more. The future of healthcare is not just about curing diseases, it is about creating systems that are smarter, more equitable, and more resilient.

Pharma and biotech leaders, clinicians, regulators, investors, and policymakers all have a part to play. By supporting science, embracing collaboration, and championing the patient's voice, we can ensure that the next chapter of medicine is even more transformative than the last.

In the end, the reason we keep pushing is simple: because our lives are worth it.




Read More
Budgets Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson Budgets Li-Anne Rowswell Mufson

What We Lose by Cutting Research Funding in the U.S.A. 

For decades, the United States has led the world in biomedical innovation, powered by long-term investment in public research infrastructure. Institutions like the NIH, NSF, and CDC have been cornerstones of medical progress and global health preparedness. But that leadership is slipping. Research budgets are flattening or declining in real dollars, while political instability further threatens their continuity.

By Michael Bronfman, June 10, 2025

Author assisted by AI

Cutting Research Funding

This week, The Guard Rail is proud to feature a crucial topic impacting the very foundation of innovation in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries. This comes on the heels of ongoing discussions about the importance of sustained investment in research and development. Our latest post, "What We Lose by Cutting Research Funding in the U.S.A.," delves into the far-reaching consequences of diminishing public funding for scientific endeavors. Please let us know what you think.

Science isn’t self-sustaining. It needs fuel, and that fuel is funding. 

For decades, the United States has led the world in biomedical innovation, powered by long-term investment in public research infrastructure. Institutions like the NIH, NSF, and CDC have been cornerstones of medical progress and global health preparedness. But that leadership is slipping. Research budgets are flattening or declining in real dollars, while political instability further threatens their continuity.

In biopharma, where product pipelines rely on early-stage discovery science, this isn’t just a government problem. It’s an industry crisis in the making.

 Slower Drug Discovery and Development

Fact: Every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the FDA between 2010 and 2016 was linked to publicly funded research. Biopharma companies rely on foundational science to guide their pipelines, but they rarely fund that science directly. The risk is too high and the payoff too far off. It’s public institutions that decode disease mechanisms, identify new drug targets, and lay the groundwork for innovative therapies.1

Cuts to NIH funding don’t just slow university research—they erode the pipeline feeding the next generation of breakthrough medicines.

Weakened Global Competitiveness

STAT: China now leads the world in total scientific publications and is rapidly closing the gap in high-impact research.(Source: Nature Index, 2023)2 While U.S. funding stagnates, China and the EU are aggressively investing in research. China, in particular, has made biomedical innovation a national priority, pouring billions into AI in drug discovery, gene editing, and translational medicine. As funding dries up at home, U.S. scientists—especially early-career researchers—are lured by more stable prospects abroad. That includes faculty appointments, lab funding, and full-stack innovation ecosystems. Innovation is global. If the U.S. doesn’t lead, someone else will.

Loss of Talent and the “Leaky Pipeline”

STAT: Less than 17% of U.S. biomedical PhDs secure tenure-track positions.(Source: NIH Biomedical Workforce Report, 2021) 

“Nowadays, less than 17% of new PhDs in science, engineering and health-related fields find tenure-track positions within 3 years after graduation (National Science Foundation, 2012; Chapter 3). Many PhDs who do not find tenure-track positions turn to positions outside academia. Others who think that they will have better future opportunities accept relatively low-paying academic jobs such as postdoctoral positions and stay in the market for a prolonged period (Ghaffarzadegan et al., 2013). Many engineering PhDs go the entrepreneurial route and become involved in startups or work in national research labs or commercial R&D centres. But our focus is academia.”

Science takes a long time. Researchers spend over a decade training before leading independent labs. But the bottleneck isn’t talent—it’s funding.

When grant paylines fall and budgets shrink, postdocs and junior faculty face fewer opportunities. Many leave academia entirely. Others go overseas. This brain drain disproportionately impacts women and underrepresented minorities, who face systemic disadvantages and less funding security.

Losing these scientists means losing not just skill, but diversity of thought—and long-term industry innovation.

Fewer Breakthroughs in Rare and Neglected Diseases

STAT: 50% of rare disease research projects rely heavily on NIH funding. (Source: NIH Office of Rare Diseases Research)3 Pharma’s ROI models don’t always support research in areas with small patient populations. Rare diseases, neglected tropical illnesses, and pediatric cancers often fall outside commercial viability. Public funding fills this gap—fueling the early science, infrastructure, and data that eventually enable therapies. The first gene therapies, mRNA vaccines, and targeted oncology platforms were born out of public research on “unprofitable” conditions. Cutting funding abandons these patients—and the innovation that often follows from solving hard, overlooked problems.

Delayed Preparedness for Future Pandemics

STAT: NIH invested over $700M in coronavirus research before COVID-19 emerged.(Source: Congressional Research Service, 2021)4 The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines didn’t happen overnight. It was built on decades of NIH-funded virology, structural biology, and RNA delivery research. Agencies like BARDA and DARPA took the financial and technological risks long before private companies stepped in. The Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines succeeded because the science—and the funding—was ready. Cutting infectious disease research now will leave us vulnerable to the next pandemic. Public health readiness can’t be “turned on” in a crisis—it must be sustained year-round.

A Fragile Clinical Trial Ecosystem

STAT: Over 40% of U.S. clinical trials are led or supported by NIH, VA, or academic medical centers.(Source: ClinicalTrials.gov data analysis, 2023)

“The claim that over 40% of U.S. clinical trials are led or supported by the NIH, VA, or academic medical centers is supported by multiple sources.

NIH's Role in Clinical Trials

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest funder of biomedical research in the United States. In 2024, more than 80% of its $47 billion budget was allocated to support research, including clinical trials, at over 2,500 scientific institutions. Notably, 60% of this extramural research occurred at academic medical center campuses. (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, aamc.org)

VA's Contribution to Clinical Trials

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) also plays a significant role in clinical research. Through its Office of Research and Development, the VA supports numerous clinical trials. As of November 2023, approximately 932,000 veterans were enrolled or expected to be enrolled in studies funded by the VA. (en.wikipedia.org, congress.gov)

Academic Medical Centers and Clinical Trials

Academic medical centers are integral to the U.S. clinical trial landscape. Institutions like Massachusetts General Hospital and Stanford University collaborate with the VA and NIH, contributing to a substantial number of clinical trials. (journals.lww.com)”

Private pharma drives large-scale, late-phase trials. But early-phase, rare disease, and non-commercial trials rely heavily on public funding and academic infrastructure.

From the Cancer Moonshot to the All of Us initiative, federal investment creates platforms and protocols that benefit the entire ecosystem. Without that scaffolding, trials become slower, more expensive, and riskier for sponsors.

When government funding falters, it’s not just public labs that lose—it’s the entire translational pipeline.

Reduced Return on Public Investment

STAT: Every $1 of NIH funding generates over $8.38 in economic activity.(Source: United for Medical Research, 2020)6

Research isn’t charity, it’s investment. From university spinouts to biotech accelerators, public science creates real economic value. This includes IP generation, job creation, tax revenue, and long-term cost savings in healthcare.

Cutting research funding doesn’t save money—it sacrifices return. And once lost, scientific momentum is hard to regain. Labs close. Talent relocates. Innovation stalls.

We’re not just undermining future therapies—we’re eroding the base of an entire innovation economy.

Erosion of Scientific Literacy and Trust

STAT: Public trust in science has dropped by 10+ points since 2020, especially among younger (U.S.) Americans.(Source: Pew Research, 2023)7

Public research supports more than lab benches—it funds data-sharing, transparency, education, and outreach. From open-access journals to science museums and K–12 programs, public science is a social good.

Without investment, we lose more than knowledge. We lose shared understanding. That void gets filled by misinformation, distrust, and anti-scientific sentiment—especially in an era of rapid technological change.

A well-funded, transparent research ecosystem builds trust, and trust saves lives.

Final Thoughts: Innovation Requires Stability

Cutting research funding may seem like a short-term budget fix. But the long-term cost is far higher.

We lose:

  • Therapies that never make it to trials.

  • Scientists who leave the field.

  • Competitive edge in a global biotech arms race.

  • Preparedness for emerging diseases.

  • Public trust in health science.

The U.S. has always been a leader because it invested in being one. That’s not guaranteed. Leadership in science is a choice—a policy decision. One that affects every sector of pharma, from discovery to market.

If you’re in biopharma, policy, or research, your voice matters.

Support stable, bipartisan investment in:

  • NIH, NSF, and BARDA budgets

  • Early-career research funding

  • Open science infrastructure

  • Translational and rare disease initiatives

Let’s ensure the U.S. remains a place where great science thrives—and where public funding continues to fuel private innovation for decades to come.

Let’s continue the conversation.

What impact have you seen from federal research funding in your work? What do we risk losing? Drop a comment or share this post to keep science at the center of policy.

Read More