Critical knowledge on how to run clinical trials is not formalized in textbooks or courses but is passed down through a slow apprenticeship model. This limits the spread of best practices and forces even highly educated scientists to "fly blind" when entering the industry, perpetuating inefficiencies.

A COVID-19 trial struggled for patients because its sign-up form had 400 questions; the only person who could edit the PHP file was a grad student. This illustrates how tiny, absurd operational inefficiencies, trapped in silos, can accumulate and severely hinder massive, capital-intensive research projects.

When a billion-dollar drug trial fails, society learns nothing from the operational process. The detailed documentation of regulatory interactions, manufacturing, and trial design—the "lab notes" of clinical development—is locked away as a trade secret and effectively destroyed, preventing collective industry learning.

While the FDA is often blamed for high trial costs, a major culprit is the consolidated Clinical Research Organization (CRO) market. These entrenched players lack incentives to adopt modern, cost-saving technologies, creating a structural bottleneck that prevents regulatory modernization from translating into cheaper and faster trials.

Scientists in specialized roles like immunogenicity risk becoming siloed service providers. To maintain impact and growth, they must proactively collaborate with other functions like CMC, safety, and quality. This provides a holistic view of drug development and integrates their expertise into the entire process.

While AI can accelerate the ideation phase of drug discovery, the primary bottleneck remains the slow, expensive, and human-dependent clinical trial process. We are already "drowning in good ideas," so generating more with AI doesn't solve the fundamental constraint of testing them.

The Orphan Drug Act successfully incentivized R&D for rare diseases. A similar policy framework is needed for common, age-related diseases. Despite their massive potential markets, these indications suffer from extremely high failure rates and costs. A new incentive structure could de-risk development and align commercial goals with the enormous societal need for longevity.

The process of testing drugs in humans—clinical development—is a massive, under-studied bottleneck, accounting for 70% of drug development costs. Despite its importance, there is surprisingly little public knowledge, academic research, or even basic documentation on how to improve this crucial stage.

With over 5,000 oncology drugs in development and a 9-out-of-10 failure rate, the current model of running large, sequential clinical trials is not viable. New diagnostic platforms are essential to select drugs and patient populations more intelligently and much earlier in the process.