GlaxoSmithKline's Hal Barron exhorts GSK scientists to take 'smart risks'

Smart risks = Dangerous risks

GlaxoSmithKline's Hal Barron exhorts GSK scientists to take 'smart risks'

This is a Fierce Pharma article from July 22, 2019 - just a few months before the COVID ‘outbreak.’ It begins:

Barron exhorts GSK scientists to take 'smart risks'

Hal Barron has detailed efforts to embolden GlaxoSmithKline scientists to take “smart risks” when developing drugs. The culture change is part of an effort to stop the fear of failure from pushing GSK researchers to make conservative decisions. 

Talking to the Financial Times, Barron discussed how rewarding teams that take molecules deep into the clinic and penalizing those that kill off assets early can subtly influence the interpretation of data. 

“Once you start fearing failure, you become so conservative that you end up basically moving towards things that are obviously going to work and therefore likely to be not very innovative. And, ultimately, it’s a death spiral,” Barron said.

To cut the risk of such conservatism, Barron is encouraging staff to take more risks. Decisions about whether a risk is justified now falls on the individual who is in charge of a particular program. Before Barron’s arrival, GSK made decisions about whether to advance or drop a drug by consensus.

Sorry, but is this really a sensible idea?

I may be overly cautious here, but should the owner of a project that will bring much kudos be allowed to mark their own homework? By its very nature, risk is something that has many facets, and to allow one person to assess project risk seems rather foolhardy.

Then, in January 19 2022:

Barron quits GSK to take CEO post at $3B biotech startup, leaving Wood to finish what he began

“Hal Barron, M.D., is leaving GlaxoSmithKline. After four years as chief scientific officer, Barron is leaving to take up the CEO post at a deep-pocketed, wildly ambitious biotech startup—leaving Pfizer veteran Tony Wood, Ph.D., in charge of the scientific side of the company.

Barron joined GSK at the start of 2018 as part of efforts by Emma Walmsley, then newly appointed as CEO, to revitalize the lackluster R&D side of the business. The appointment was a coup for GSK, which lured Barron back into large biopharma after his stint at Google’s stealthy biotech sibling Calico. GSK was looking for Barron to replicate some of the success he had during his years at Genentech and Roche.

As with many CSO departures, Barron is leaving GSK before it is possible to fully evaluate the success of his spell at the company. Under Barron, GSK made some bold bets, such as the cell therapy partnership with Lyell Immunopharma that gave the company a 14% stake in its preclinical partner and the $625 million it handed iTeos Therapeutics for rights to an anti-TIGIT monoclonal antibody. But it is too early to tell where those deals will fall on the spectrum that runs from costly flops to transformational successes.

In disclosing his departure, Barron defined his spell at GSK in terms of numbers, pointing to the 13 major product approvals and the doubling of the number of assets in phase 3/registration to 23 as evidence of success. The GSK pipeline now features 21 vaccines and 42 medicines.

21 vaccines???

“Barron will transition to a nonexecutive director role with additional responsibilities to support R&D at GSK when he hands the reins to Wood, freeing him up to take on the CEO position at Altos Labs, a new biotech that begins life with $3 billion in committed capital and a focus on cellular rejuvenation.”

This is the Board at Altos Labs

Can you see anyone who might have the faintest idea of what it takes to get a drug to market? Me neither.

Hal Barron never brought a drug to market, or even set foot outside an R&D laboratory. The rest are similarly wall-to-wall science. No translational skills.

The crucial point here is this is, again, a big pharma company hiding behind a minnow start up pretending it is highly innovative due to the quality of its website! Barron is still on the GSK Board, which likely put up the $3Bn itself.

What are your thoughts?