logo

Tag : life science marketing communications

Can Perplexity Reliably Answer Technical Questions in the Life Sciences?

The generative text AI tool Perplexity has rapidly gained popularity in the life sciences for its ability to show its references when answering. As those references can include scholarly articles, it has great potential as a literature review assistant for scientists. AIs are well-known for both hallucinations and inaccuracy, however, and being incorrect even a small percentage of the time is normally not something a professional scientist can allow.

We therefore decided to set up a little experiment: we asked three subject matter experts in the life sciences to ask perplexity a series of questions of increasing difficulty, then evaluate the answers:

  1. A question which a grad student should be able to answer relatively easily
  2. A question which most PIs in the field would be able to answer
  3. A question requiring very specific knowledge to answer. Something which a scientist wouldn’t know unless it was within their specific research area.

Here’s what they asked, what Perplexity had to say, verbatim, and the scientists’ take on Perplexity’s responses.

"Some quick notes on this experiment: The scientists were not asked to proof / correct Perplexity’s responses, but rather just to provide overall feedback, which is found below the questions. They all used the free version."

Steve Perrault, PhD, former Associate Director of Research & Development at Foundation Medicine

Q1: What cell type is targeted by mRNA vaccines?

mRNA vaccines primarily target and deliver their mRNA cargo to antigen-presenting cells (APCs), particularly dendritic cells and macrophages.

Upon administration, the mRNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles is taken up by APCs. Once inside the APCs, the mRNA is released into the cytosol and translated into the encoded antigenic protein.

This antigenic protein is then processed and presented on the surface of the APCs in the context of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, allowing for the activation of antigen-specific T cells and initiation of an adaptive immune response.

The ability of mRNA vaccines to efficiently target and activate APCs in vivo has been demonstrated in studies using non-human primates like rhesus macaques.

These studies have shown that modified mRNA vaccines can effectively deliver their mRNA cargo to APCs, leading to robust antigen expression and subsequent activation of antigen-specific T cells.

Furthermore, the size of the lipid nanoparticles used for mRNA delivery plays a crucial role in their trafficking and uptake by APCs. Studies have shown that nanoparticles within a specific size range (around 20-100 nm) can efficiently drain into lymph nodes and penetrate the paracortex region, where APCs reside, facilitating their uptake and antigen presentation.

In summary, mRNA vaccines primarily target and deliver their mRNA cargo to antigen-presenting cells, particularly dendritic cells and macrophages, enabling the expression of the encoded antigenic protein and subsequent activation of antigen-specific T cells, which is a key mechanism underlying their immunogenicity. mRNA vaccines primarily target and deliver their mRNA cargo to antigen-presenting cells (APCs), particularly dendritic cells and macrophages.

Upon administration, the mRNA encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles is taken up by APCs. Once inside the APCs, the mRNA is released into the cytosol and translated into the encoded antigenic protein.

This antigenic protein is then processed and presented on the surface of the APCs in the context of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, allowing for the activation of antigen-specific T cells and initiation of an adaptive immune response.

The ability of mRNA vaccines to efficiently target and activate APCs in vivo has been demonstrated in studies using non-human primates like rhesus macaques.

These studies have shown that modified mRNA vaccines can effectively deliver their mRNA cargo to APCs, leading to robust antigen expression and subsequent activation of antigen-specific T cells.

Furthermore, the size of the lipid nanoparticles used for mRNA delivery plays a crucial role in their trafficking and uptake by APCs. Studies have shown that nanoparticles within a specific size range (around 20-100 nm) can efficiently drain into lymph nodes and penetrate the paracortex region, where APCs reside, facilitating their uptake and antigen presentation.

In summary, mRNA vaccines primarily target and deliver their mRNA cargo to antigen-presenting cells, particularly dendritic cells and macrophages, enabling the expression of the encoded antigenic protein and subsequent activation of antigen-specific T cells, which is a key mechanism underlying their immunogenicity.

Q2: How do mRNA vaccines escape endosomes?

mRNA vaccines are delivered into cells encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). For the mRNA to be effective, it must escape from the endosomes into the cytoplasm where it can be translated into proteins. The endosomal escape process is facilitated by the ionizable lipids in the LNP formulation:

  • Upon endocytosis, the LNP becomes trapped in an endosome, which is an acidic compartment within the cell
  • The acidic environment of the endosome causes the ionizable lipids in the LNP to become positively charged
  • This positive charge allows the LNP to interact with and disrupt the negatively charged endosomal membrane through electrostatic interactions
  • The shape change and disruption of the endosomal membrane enables the release of the mRNA cargo from the endosome into the cytoplasm
  • Optimizing the pKa values and lipid tail structures of the ionizable lipids can enhance their ability to become protonated and facilitate endosomal escape
  • Early endocytic compartments like recycling endosomes have been identified as key sites for productive mRNA escape, whereas prolonged retention in late endosomes leads to mRNA degradation
  • So in summary, the ionizable lipids undergo a charge-induced shape change in the acidic endosome that allows the LNP to disrupt the endosomal membrane and release its mRNA cargo into the cytosol for translation

mRNA vaccines are delivered into cells encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs). For the mRNA to be effective, it must escape from the endosomes into the cytoplasm where it can be translated into proteins. The endosomal escape process is facilitated by the ionizable lipids in the LNP formulation:

  • Upon endocytosis, the LNP becomes trapped in an endosome, which is an acidic compartment within the cell
  • The acidic environment of the endosome causes the ionizable lipids in the LNP to become positively charged
  • This positive charge allows the LNP to interact with and disrupt the negatively charged endosomal membrane through electrostatic interactions
  • The shape change and disruption of the endosomal membrane enables the release of the mRNA cargo from the endosome into the cytoplasm
  • Optimizing the pKa values and lipid tail structures of the ionizable lipids can enhance their ability to become protonated and facilitate endosomal escape
  • Early endocytic compartments like recycling endosomes have been identified as key sites for productive mRNA escape, whereas prolonged retention in late endosomes leads to mRNA degradation
  • So in summary, the ionizable lipids undergo a charge-induced shape change in the acidic endosome that allows the LNP to disrupt the endosomal membrane and release its mRNA cargo into the cytosol for translation

Q3: What’s the structure of the ionizable lipid used for endosome escape with mRNA vaccines?

The ionizable lipids used in mRNA vaccines like the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have a unique structure that facilitates endosomal escape and delivery of mRNA into cells.

Key Structural Features:

Ionizable Head Group: The lipids contain a protonatable or ionizable amino head group, typically a tertiary amine. This allows the lipid to be neutral at physiological pH but become positively charged in the acidic environment of endosomes.

Branched Lipid Tails: The lipids have branched or multi-tail lipid chains, rather than linear tails. This branched structure is believed to promote a cone-shaped molecular geometry that aids in endosomal membrane destabilization and escape.

Pfizer’s ALC-0315 has four short branched tails.

Moderna’s SM-102 has three branched tails, one of which is longer.

Ester Linkers: The lipid tails are often connected to the head group via ester linkers, which can influence the biodegradability and potency of the lipid.

The combination of the ionizable head group, branched tails, and ester linkers allows these lipids to effectively complex with mRNA, facilitate endosomal escape through the proposed “proton sponge” effect and membrane destabilization, and enable cytosolic delivery of the mRNA cargo.

Bonus historical science question: How did DNA nanotechnology start?

DNA nanotechnology originated from a landmark theoretical paper published in 1982 by Ned Seeman, which proposed the idea of using DNA molecules to create nanostructures.

This seminal work laid the foundation for the field and sparked the development of various techniques and applications in DNA nanotechnology.

The key idea proposed by Seeman was to exploit the predictable base-pairing interactions of DNA to construct artificial nanostructures with precise control over their shape and size.

He envisioned using synthetic DNA strands designed to self-assemble into desired geometries, taking advantage of DNA’s inherent programmability and molecular recognition capabilities.

The first experimental demonstration of this concept came in the early 1990s when Seeman and his colleagues successfully constructed DNA-based nanostructures, such as a cube and a truncated octahedron.

These initial achievements paved the way for the rapid growth of DNA nanotechnology, leading to the development of various techniques like DNA origami, DNA tiles, and DNA nanorobots.

Over the years, DNA nanotechnology has evolved into an interdisciplinary field, bringing together researchers from diverse areas like chemistry, physics, materials science, and computer science to explore the potential of DNA-based nanostructures for various applications, including nanoelectronics, biosensing, drug delivery, and molecular computing.

Steve’s take on Perplexity:

Steve said Perplexity was “pretty solid” but criticized it for a “lack of context, like if you’re in that field and wanting to understand a bigger picture based on a question, that isn’t there.”

But on a super reductionist view it seems pretty good. Like, what someone might give on an exam answer after studying, but not what someone who really knows a field should hopefully say to provide that bigger picture.

I don’t see anything “wrong” but someone who really knows their stuff would give a broader answer. This comes across as a pre-med major who’s really good at studying, and the tech details are accurate.

For the second two questions, if someone asked me this I would give a context of this solving a problem that had been around since 1960s, was solved by someone at UBC, how it was solved, why it matters. Things that provide way more depth.

Regarding the bonus historical question on the origins of DNA nanotechnology which he decided to ask, he said: “This is accurate but misses the nuances that one can only know from really diving into it. I wouldn’t expect AI to come up with that. Probably not possible. But the technical details are right.”

Hussain Dahodwala, PhD, Associate Professor at the IBBR Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research and former Director, Upstream Process Development at the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL)

Q1: What are the challenges in enzyme engineering and what advances are anticipated in enzyme engineering for biobetters?

The key challenges and advances in enzyme engineering for biobetters are:

Challenges in Enzyme Engineering:
• Enzymes often have poor stability under industrial conditions, such as high temperatures, pressures, and organic solvents. This leads to poor product yields.
• Enzymes may have narrow substrate specificity, limiting their ability to work with non-natural substrates.
• Enzymes can be difficult to produce at scale in industrial fermentation processes.

Advances in Enzyme Engineering:
• Enzyme engineering techniques like directed evolution, rational design, and semi-rational design are being used to improve enzyme properties such as activity, specificity, stability, and stereoselectivity.
• Computational methods and machine learning are helping to expand the enzyme design space and accelerate the discovery of novel enzymes with desired properties.
• Strategies like enzyme immobilization, molecular modifications, and the use of nanoparticle or cell-based delivery systems are being explored to enhance the stability and performance of enzyme therapeutics.
• Advances in biotechnology and recombinant expression are enabling the industrial-scale production of engineered enzymes.

Overall, enzyme engineering is a rapidly advancing field that is critical for developing efficient, stable, and versatile biocatalysts to enable sustainable and cost-competitive bio-based processes.

Q2: What is the inspiration for Biomanufacturing 4.0 and how is it different from current biomanufacturing?

Biomanufacturing 4.0, also known as Pharma 4.0, is inspired by the broader Industry 4.0 concept and is focused on the digital transformation of biomanufacturing processes. The key differences between Biomanufacturing 4.0 and current biomanufacturing practices are:

  1. Increased use of advanced digital technologies: Biomanufacturing 4.0 leverages technologies like artificial intelligence, machine learning, digital twins, and advanced process control to enable greater process visibility, optimization, and predictive capabilities.
  2. Emphasis on data-driven decision making: Rather than relying solely on empirical knowledge, Biomanufacturing 4.0 aims to incorporate data analytics and modeling to make more informed, data-driven decisions throughout the product lifecycle.
  3. Shift towards continuous improvement: Biomanufacturing 4.0 promotes a culture of continuous improvement, enabled by the increased process understanding and agile regulatory frameworks that allow for more efficient implementation of process changes.
  4. Enhanced supply chain robustness: The advanced process control and predictive capabilities of Biomanufacturing 4.0 can lead to improved supply chain reliability and the ability to better manage variability, ultimately enhancing product quality and availability.
  5. Accelerated product development: The digital tools and data-driven approach of Biomanufacturing 4.0 can help compress product development timelines, allowing for faster access to life-changing therapies.

In summary, Biomanufacturing 4.0 is inspired by the broader Industry 4.0 vision and aims to transform biomanufacturing through increased digitalization, data-driven decision making, and a focus on continuous improvement and supply chain robustness.

Q3a: What are non-canonical redox co-factors and how do we use them in cell culture?

Non-canonical redox cofactors (NRCs) are chemical compounds that can serve as alternatives to the natural cofactors like NAD(P)+ and NAD(P)H in biological redox reactions. Some key points about NRCs:
NRCs can overcome the limitations of natural cofactors, enabling specific delivery of reducing power outside of biological constraints and providing alternative reduction potentials to overcome thermodynamic barriers.

Examples of NRCs include 3-carbamoyl-1-phenethylpyridin-1-ium chloride (P2NA+) and 3-acetylpyridine adenine dinucleotide, which have been used in purified enzyme-based redox catalysis to increase economic viability and drive thermodynamically unfavorable reactions, respectively.

Researchers have developed methods to engineer microbes like E. coli to biosynthesize NRCs like nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN+) to enable their full integration with renewable biomanufacturing processes. This involves developing growth-based screening platforms and exploring pathway combinations to achieve high intracellular NMN+ levels.

Using NRCs in cell culture can provide more economical and scalable biotransformation, as well as enable exquisite control and expand the range of chemistries accessible compared to natural cofactors. However, the impact of NRC accumulation on cell fitness must also be considered.

In summary, NRCs are emerging as important tools in cell-free biosynthesis and metabolic engineering to overcome the limitations of natural cofactors and enable new capabilities in biocatalysis and biomanufacturing

Perplexity did not attempt to answer the second part of the question, and Hussein made another attempt to get it to answer.

Q3b: How to use non canonical redox co-factors in cell culture?

Based on the search results, here is how non-canonical redox co-factors can be used in cell culture: Metabolites and post-translational modifications (PTMs) can regulate cell signaling and gene expression through non-canonical mechanisms. Metabolites can serve as co-factors for enzymes and modify proteins through PTMs like palmitoylation, glutathionylation, and acetylation. These PTMs can alter protein interactions, stability, and function, thereby aligning cellular processes with changes in metabolic state. For example, glutathionylation of the transcription factor NF-ÎşB decreases its ability to bind DNA, linking redox state to gene expression. Histone modifications like lactylation and crotonylation can also regulate gene transcription in response to metabolic cues. Additionally, palmitoylation can increase protein stability by blocking ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation. Several studies have demonstrated the use of non-canonical redox co-factors to modulate cell signaling and death pathways in cell culture: 

  • Dihydroartemisinin, a semi-synthetic derivative of artemisinin, induced ferroptosis in pancreatic cancer cells by altering redox homeostasis and lipid peroxidation.
  • The natural product 11-methoxytabersonine triggered necroptosis in glioblastoma cells through ROS generation, calcium signaling, and mitochondrial dysfunction.
  • Xanthohumol, a chalcone from hops, activated the Nrf2 antioxidant pathway while inhibiting NF-ÎşB in pancreatic cancer cells, leading to reduced inflammation and oxidative stress.
  • Sulforaphane, an isothiocyanate from cruciferous vegetables, upregulated Nrf2 and antioxidant enzymes while downregulating NF-ÎşB in breast cancer and macrophage cell lines.

In summary, non-canonical redox co-factors like metabolites and their PTMs can be leveraged in cell culture to modulate signaling pathways, gene expression, and cell death mechanisms in a targeted manner by exploiting their unique biochemical properties.

Hussain’s take:

These are questions that I regularly encounter in scientific conferences and use them to test graduate student knowledge. I can say that these questions can be answered by biotechnologists with a few years of experience.

The questions chosen were 2 parts each. One part would require” book learning” and the second part would require domain knowledge, some experience and “intelligence” in order to answer.

In all 3 examples: Perplexity AI did an acceptable job in text mining the first half of the question. The definitions and concepts asked were answered more accurately and with more clarity, including citation than one would expect humans to remember. 

Complexity of jargon was increased with each question and in each case Perplexity AI was able to text mine the definitions. For reference, in my experience many grad students fumble at the third question.

However in every question, perplexity AI ignored the second half of the question beyond the definitions. In other words it does great at “What is” and fails at “how to”.

Separating the questions was attempted with the third question, and AI failed to give an answer.

Chris Bjornsson, PhD, Embedded 3D & Automated Microscopy Specialist at ZEISS.

Q1: How many tissue types are there in the human body?

There are four main types of tissues in the human body: epithelial, connective, muscle, and nervous tissues.

Epithelial Tissues
Epithelial tissues are sheets of cells that cover exterior surfaces of the body, line internal cavities and passageways, and form glands. Their main functions include protection, secretion, absorption, and excretion.

Connective Tissues
Connective tissues bind together and support other tissues. They include bone, cartilage, blood, adipose (fat), and fibrous connective tissues like tendons and ligaments. Their main functions are to bind, support, protect, insulate, store energy, and produce blood cells.

Muscle Tissues
Muscle tissues are composed of cells called muscle fibers that have the ability to contract or shorten, allowing for movement. There are three types: skeletal (voluntary), smooth (involuntary), and cardiac (heart muscle).

Nervous Tissues
Nervous tissues are composed of neurons and neuroglial cells that propagate electrochemical signals called nerve impulses, enabling communication within the body and the processing of responses. The different tissue types work together to perform the various functions required for the human body to operate and maintain homeostasis.

Q2: How many orders of light does it take to form a microscope image?

To form a microscope image, it takes at least two orders of light according to the Abbe theory of image formation. The key points are: 

  • According to Ernst Abbe’s theory, for a specimen detail to be resolved in the microscope image, the objective lens must capture at least two orders of diffracted light from the specimen, such as the 0th order (undiffracted light) and the 1st order of diffraction.
  • The more diffracted orders that are captured by the objective lens, the more accurately the image will represent the original specimen details.
  • Using immersion oil between the objective lens and specimen allows more diffracted orders to be captured compared to air, resulting in higher resolution. 
  • Blue light is diffracted at a smaller angle than red or green light, so objectives can capture more diffracted orders of blue light, further improving resolution.

So in summary, capturing just the 0th order undiffracted light is insufficient to form a resolved image. At minimum, the 0th and 1st diffracted orders must be captured by the objective lens to resolve specimen details according to Abbe’s theory.

Q3a: How does the wavelets model work to create a maximum intensity projection?

Wavelets are not directly used to create maximum intensity projections (MIPs) in medical imaging. MIPs are created by taking the maximum voxel value along a particular viewing direction and projecting it onto a 2D image plane. The wavelet transform is a mathematical tool that decomposes a signal (like an image) into different frequency components at different scales or resolutions. It can be useful for tasks like image denoising, compression, and feature extraction, but it is not the primary technique used for MIP rendering. MIPs are typically computed directly from the 3D volumetric image data by the following steps: 

  1. The viewing direction is chosen (e.g. axial, coronal, sagittal).
  2. For each pixel in the 2D projection plane, the maximum voxel value is found along the corresponding ray through the 3D volume in the chosen viewing direction.
  3. This maximum value is assigned to that pixel, creating the MIP image.

So in summary, while wavelets have many applications in image processing, the maximum intensity projection algorithm operates directly on the voxel data itself by finding the maximum value along rays through the volume. Wavelets are not an inherent part of the MIP rendering process.

Q3b: How does the wavelets model work to create an extended depth of focus?

The wavelet model works to create an extended depth of focus (EDF) image by combining in-focus regions from a stack of images captured at different focal planes using the wavelet transform. The key steps are: 

  1. A stack of images is acquired by capturing the same scene at different focal planes along the optical axis. 
  2. The wavelet transform is applied to each image in the stack, decomposing them into different frequency subbands at multiple scales.
  3. For each spatial location and wavelet subband, the coefficient with the maximum absolute value across the image stack is selected. This selects the in-focus information from the stack.
  4. The selected wavelet coefficients are used to reconstruct a composite wavelet representation, which corresponds to an EDF image containing the in-focus regions from across the stack.
  5. Optional post-processing steps like enforcing local smoothness of the depth map and avoiding saturation/noise accumulation can further improve the results.

The key advantage of using wavelets is that they provide a multi-scale representation that can effectively isolate in-focus and out-of-focus regions based on their different frequency characteristics. The maximum selection rule across the stack allows combining the in-focus information into a single composite image with an extended depth of field. This wavelet-based approach, especially the complex wavelet variant, has demonstrated state-of-the-art performance for EDF microscopy imaging compared to other traditional algorithms.

Chris’ take:

I’m impressed! I even tried to mess it up on the 3rd question but it caught me. Fast, too. I’ll actually start using it and spreading the word!

There was one error, i should mention, when it comes to how many orders of light are needed to form an image…it can be any two orders, and doesn’t necessarily need to include the 0th order. It can be 0+1 or 1+2 or 2+3 etc… The first part of that answer was correct, but the final summary statement was wrong.

Takeaways

Perplexity isn’t perfect, and is likely better at answering “what is” type questions than “how to” type questions. If you want to get a lot of context behind the answers, you’ll likely have to dig a bit. However, in these experiments it did seem to be relatively accurate, with few obvious errors. Used with caution, it can make a solid research companion and speed up literature review considerably.

"Scientists are increasingly using AI, which means that you need to be planning for their AI-enabled future. You’ve heard of search engine optimization, but how much do you know about AI optimization? Don’t be intimidated, just partner with BioBM. We stay at the forefront of organic optimization techniques so that you can stay at the forefront of scientists’ product and service discovery. Contact us today."

Avoiding Skepticism

The scientific buying journey is fraught with skepticism. From the buyer’s perspective, this is a requirement of a good buying journey. The buyer must decide what to believe and what not to believe, determine what is meaningful and what is not, and refine their understanding of their own needs all while being blasted with marketing messages from companies that are all trying to get the scientist’s business. Skepticism is a natural and required component of these efforts. It is also the enemy of the marketer.

Skepticism is what makes overly pushy and overtly bombastic messages fail. It’s also part of the fuel for the rise in content marketing. Marketers are looking for ways to convey their messages in manners that create less skepticism. Rather than immediately jumping to validation, promotion, and flat-out selling, they first attempt to educate in a more subtly guiding manner which conditions the scientists to viewpoints that will be later elaborated on in the more traditional marketing efforts. However, promoting content to scientists is not the same as the scientists discovering content on their own, and the manner in which content is presented will, in part, determine their receptiveness to it. Additionally, taking a “hands off” approach throughout the buying journey such as to avoid skepticism would lead to overall marketing ineffectiveness due to low rates of opportunity development later in the journey.

Educational content is often necessary, but never sufficient. We therefore must consider the nature of messages, as well as how those messages are to be delivered, such that we can avoid skepticism-driven rejection earlier in the buying journey while still creating the desired effect in the later stages of the buying journey: a closed sale.

Illustration of how messages should be adapted to different positions within the buying journey.

Evolving Message Types

Early in the journey, the customer is gathering information and may not even yet realize that they have a need for a product. At this stage, educational content is the way to go. You want to help them learn and discover information that will prime them to your point of view without giving them reason to be skeptical (as promoting a commercial solution would).

As they transition from discovery and exploration to analysis, they know a need exists and start to actively gather and evaluate options. Educational content is still useful, so long as it is focused on the customers’ needs. Basic background information is of little interest to the customer at this point, unless it is something so disruptive to their journey that they need to reconsider its premises. Additionally, we want to start adding validation content – content that demonstrates to them that the solution we are advocating is correct. (For example, case studies are a very common form of validation content.) This type of content will help them understand our offering as a qualified option to solve their need. If the customer has been properly educated to accept our point of view earlier in the buying journey, validation content will not raise skepticism.

As they come to the late stages of analysis and approach their buying decision, educational content should be largely avoided in favor of additional validation as well as promotions – the “hard sell,” as we call it. At this point the opportunity exists; we just need to seize it! Dancing around it with more educational content will not effectively prompt action. More direct calls to action are required.

Message Centricity

Let me lead off with this reminder: life science marketers should always maintain a focus on their scientist-customers. That said, customer-centricity exists on a sliding scale, as most things do, and is not absolute. Changing the centricity of your messages throughout the buying journey is also necessary for optimal performance.

Early in the journey, we should have a nearly exclusive customer focus. Everything should be framed from the perspective of the customer and their needs. We should adopt their perspective as much as possible. As the journey continues, we can shed a little bit of this customer-centricity, giving room to focus more first on the technology, then ultimately on the product. We are not shifting to a product-focus. We are shifting to a customer-centric product focus. We can never focus solely on the product. Why? The product is a lower-order need and our scientist-customers will respond vastly better to higher-order needs (the reason they need your solution in the first place).

Mechanism of Discovery

The manner in which messages are delivered can raise skepticism. However, the mechanisms that raise the least skepticism are not the most effective throughout the buying journey, so shifting mechanisms of message delivery / discovery must be considered as well.

Messages that are naturally found by your audience tend to raise far less skepticism than messages that are pushed upon them. Early in the buying journey, we want to rely on mechanisms that are organic – those which allow the messages or content to be found naturally by your audience or in a manner that feels natural. They should be able to actively choose to interact with it rather than have it pushed upon them. This could include organic search, display or native advertising, and placement within third party media. In general, marketing tactics that are considered inbound would roughly overlap with organic discovery. Regardless, the customer must feel as if they are driving their own discovery.

As the customer has more interaction with your brand and consents to receive marketing, you can begin to transition from pull to push. Even with permission, you should avoid the temptation to get too pushy too quickly, as you can still very easily raise skepticism by doing so. As the customer progresses through the buying journey, you can transition more from customer-driven discovery to a more visibly active role in leading them. This more active role will be necessary; if you were to always wait for the customer to “organically” discover and interact with your content, you could very well lose mindshare to your competitors. Therefore, a careful and evolving balance is required throughout the buying journey.

Transitioning Goals

While the ultimate goal of closing a sale remains the same throughout the buying journey, looking at the interim goals can help to understand both why the aforementioned transitions are necessary and how to execute them. In brief, we transition from:

  • Shifting the scientists’ viewpoint without activating skepticism …
  • … to convincing them that the adopted viewpoint is the correct one …
  • … to persuading them to act on their beliefs and execute a transaction.


We shift from seeking to primarily avoid rejection as the customer remains open to many viewpoints, to seeking acceptance as the customer evaluates and filters their options towards an ultimate decision.

Avoiding skepticism is undeniably important, and raising skepticism with your marketing can shut your brand out of a customers’ buying journey early on. However, the approaches that we use to avoid skepticism do not make for an efficient marketing platform as the buying journey progresses. Many of the mechanisms that create skepticism are needed to close opportunities. By understanding where customers’ are in their buying journeys, and matching our approaches to it to create balance, we simultaneously limit skepticism while increasing the ultimate likelihood of a sale.

"Scientists are complicated. Buying journeys are complicated. Your path to winning them can be easy. BioBM will ensure that your customers’ buying journeys – no matter where they start – end squarely on you. Let’s take your marketing to the next level and dominate the competition. Get started."

Captivating Your Audience

Captivating Your AudienceCaptivating your audience should be priority #1 for high-level marketing communications. Before you get into the details of whatever it is you want to say, you need to make sure that you have the audience’s attention, will maintain it for as long as possible, and that they’re in a mindframe that’s most conducive to a positive outcome. Unfortunately, very few life science brands actually do so.

The most common statement type of introductory statement made is a “what” statement. Companies explain what they, their brands, or their product lines do, then get into how they do these things. That makes for a very drab and uncompelling introductory statement. Instead of initially focusing on what you do, focus on why you’re doing it. (You can find some examples of “what” statements and “why” statements pertaining to brand messaging in a previous post here.) It’s far easier for people to psychologically buy into a reason than it is for them to buy into a thing.

Frame your reason – your “why” – as a statement which the audience can agree with. You want them to think – consciously or otherwise – “I agree with this.” That will start the audience off on a positive note which will make them more receptive to subsequent messages. Presenting a statement which indicates that your goals or values are aligned with those of the audience can be a good method of doing so, but it is certainly not the only method.

For that additional kick which will really make your message powerful, frame your message in a way that can draw sincere emotion from the audience. This can be a difficult task and one that requires considerable creative talent. It’s more of an art than a science, but understanding the underlying motivations of your target audience is an important starting point. You need to frame the message around something that they care about.

Off the top of my head, I can recall one good example within the life sciences – certainly in no small part because it was in the Boston metro stations for a while, but also because it was a genuinely powerful message. It was an Ion Torrent advertisement and it read “Everyone Deserves a Chance to Break Through.” This meets the three criteria explained above. It is a “why” statement; it tells you that Ion Torrent is doing what they’re doing to provide people with the opportunity to make scientific breakthroughs. It prompts agreement; If you agree that everyone does deserve that chance (a fair assumption on Ion’s part) then you can get behind the idea. Lastly, it is emotionally powerful. It might invoke slightly different things for different people, but the underlying idea is one of scientific success – the empowerment to make groundbreaking scientific discoveries. Unfortunately, I don’t think Ion used this much beyond their initial ad campaign. Their current slogan – “Sequencing for All” – doesn’t have the same power to captivate (largely because it lacks that critical third factor – emotion).

By making a compelling “why” statement, making it something the audience can agree with, and making it emotionally powerful, you’ll be able to heighten your audience’s receptiveness to your forthcoming messages, increase their effective attention span, and begin to create brand value right from step one. Use these statements as centerpieces of your high-level marketing communications and watch your marketing effectiveness improve.

"Powerful messaging is a key driver of marketing success yet is also something which any company of any size or scope can implement. We believe that all life science companies have the power to captivate. To help unlock that power, contact BioBM. Our life science marketing communications experts will help you captivate your audience through compelling messaging."

Optimize Your Messages

Optimize Your Marketing MessagesThink about how much money (not to mention effort) goes into disseminating your marketing messages. Think of all the resources spent on advertising, copywriting, conference exhibitions, social media, printed materials, even search marketing. Life science companies spend huge sums trying to reach their audience but many companies don’t spend nearly enough on making sure their messages are effective. Instead, messaging is often based on personal opinion, anecdote, or simply left to whatever the copywriter puts on paper. The result is that most marketing communication efforts are sub-optimal. In other words, you’re throwing away money on every marketing communication you make or disseminate.

To avoid this, companies need to devote just a small amount of their marketing communications budget into optimizing their messages. There are three primary ways in which this can (and should) be performed.

First, start with the competition. Analyze how your competition is positioning and describing their own products by performing an attribute analysis. Just as your products / services need to be differentiated (unless you’re competing on price) your message needs to effectively convey that differentiation. If you’re describing your products the same way that everyone else is, then your audience is going to have a hard time discerning which product is more valuable to them. However, differentiating the message isn’t enough to discern what message is optimal.

That’s where marketing research comes in.

Many companies think they know what is most important to their customers and why, but it’s easy to be wrong. For instance, say your product enables what was a 5-step procedure to be done in three shorter steps. That obviously has value, but what is most important to the customer? Do they perceive the greatest value in the reduced number of steps, or is it that the whole process is shorter? Is it that they are saving time? Is it that the time saved allows them to do other things and thereby accelerate their research? Perhaps, if you’re selling to a manager or PI, they think less time equals less money and that is what’s most important. As you notice, any one feature or attribute may translate into a large number of perceived benefits. In order for your message to be optimally effective, you need to understand where the customer places that importance. Draw out a “web of benefits” to articulate all the reasonably likely perceptions of value, then query your audience as to which benefits they find most valuable. However, sometimes the feedback received in this kind of marketing research differs from how people actually act in a real-life situation.

That’s where A/B testing comes in.

So now you have a short list of what the most important areas of perceived value are to the audience and which messages are the most differentiated. Overlay those and choose a few messages which reflect your differentiation, are distinct from your competitors, and align with the customers’ perceptions of value. Now test them to see which ones actually work best in practice.

None of these things need to be time consuming or complicated, and they’re certainly a lot less costly than wasting a significant chunk of your communications budget.

Just one last tip – no matter what you do, always avoid facile claims. Reliable, high-quality, and industry-leading have lost their meaning long ago. Stick with meaningful claims that can be expressly validated.

"Are you looking to get more from your marketing? To ensure that your communications are effective, contact BioBM. We’ll work with you to ensure you’re resonating with your audiences and that your communications are generating leads and creating brand value."

Validate Your Messages!

Life science marketers need to validate the claims in their marketing messages.I think that this point is obvious to the vast majority of life science marketers who may read this – and you should certainly be well aware if you’ve been following this blog or the Marketing of Life Science Tools & Services Group on LinkedIn – but I’ve seen this problem a few times in the past week so I think it’s worth bringing up: When you make a claim, be sure you validate that claim.

Let’s drill down to the core of this discussion and build from there. What is a claim? According to Merriam-Webster, a claim is “a statement saying that something happened a certain way or will happen a certain way : a statement saying that something is true when some people may say it is not true.” For our purposes, we can view a claim to be any statement that may reasonably be disputed.

Of course, the reason that you are making claims is to convey a viewpoint to another person. The whole purpose of marketing communications is to get an audience to adopt a particular point of view; if they can reasonably dispute that point of view and you do not attempt to preemptively address potential points of dispute, then your marketing communications will be ineffective. The nature of these disputes are myriad; they could be anything from simply questioning a factual point or rejecting an opinion to questioning the neutrality of the source or the basis for the claim itself. Resolving these disputes is where validation comes in.

Funny side note, going back to Merriam-Websters, their example usage of the word validation is: “I’m afraid we cannot act on your claim without validation.”

Validation is where you resolve the disputes that the audience may have with regards to your claims. This can involve provision of additional factual information or data, third party opinions, etc. How we do so is not important here; once you identify how your claims are likely to be disputed then the method of solving those disputes is often obvious. What is important is the recognition that what you are communicating is, in fact, a claim (and therefore may be disputed) and, subsequently, how that claim is likely to be disputed. Once those things are identified, you’re well on your way to improving your marketing messages.

Also, when validating your marketing messages, don’t forget that it’s always better to show than to tell.

"Are your marketing communications getting results for your company? Improving your messages and your message validation can do wonders for conversion. Let BioBM show you just how much better your communications can be. Call us and let’s talk."

Marketing Channels

To ensure that your campaigns have reach, focus on the many different channels which scientists may prefer.Many small life science companies have their preferred advertising / marketing channels. This approach, limited and highly focused, works well for demand generation campaigns (and, to a lesser extent, branding initiatives) in which reaching a large proportion of the target market is not necessary; when reaching just a subset of the target market is acceptable. However, when companies want to reach an entire market, it is critical that a wide variety of marketing channels are considered. The concept also applies to dissemination of content – a large amount of content channels need to be targeted if a large amount of the target market is to be reached. This is because people have preferred channels for finding information and consuming content.

As a data-supported example, take consumer behavior for consumption of digital media. As the Harvard Business Review discussed in its October 2012 article “Why Digital Media Require a Strategic Rethink“:

[pullquote_left]Most customers choose their channel before choosing a product, and they’re unlikely to jump channels. […] For example, in December 2007 NBC removed its content from the iTunes Store, causing an 11% increase in piracy the following month—and no increase in DVD sales. Conversely, after ABC added its content to Hulu, in 2009, piracy of its shows dropped by more than 20%, while TV viewership remained essentially unchanged. And in 2010, when a major U.S. publisher stopped providing Kindle editions, it saw no increase in hardcover sales.
[/pullquote_left]

This translates into ways in which people look for information and products as well. For instance, some scientists may use BioCompare almost all the time when looking for a product. Others may not use BioCompare at all. Others may use it only when they are having difficulty finding a product or making a decision. However, very few are likely to migrate between those groups at will. Another example: many scientists do a Google search first when looking for a chemical or reagent, but many others go straight to Sigma and search their site. There are probably very few who randomly do both. When looking for scientific news, some scientists may gravitate to Nature News. Others may go to their favorite journals (either print or digital – but unlikely both).

For those of us that don’t have scientific backgrounds, think about your own searches for information different types of products. You probably have a preferred method and channel(s) to look for various types of products. When you want to read the news, you likely have one or a few preferred websites, newspapers, or periodicals. The way in which scientists look for information or products is not very different.

Because scientists have preferred sources and channels, advertising or publishing content across a single channel or a small number of channels is often an ineffective way of reaching a large proportion of any particular target market. To ensure that your campaigns have reach, focus on the many different channels which scientists may prefer.

"Are you looking to increase your company’s reach? Want to develop promotional strategies to help drive inbound lead generation or improve your company’s brand strength? Contact BioBM. Our team of life science marketing experts will help your company reach more scientists, reel them in, and convert them into profitable sales which drive your company’s growth. For more information, call us at +1 313-312-4626."

A Lesson in Communication

Aristotle's Reason provides three timeless fundamentals of great communicationOne of the most timeless lessons in the art of persuasive communication is about 2350 years old and written by Aristotle. Rhetoric, and particularly the second book of Rhetoric contains fundamentals which every life science marketer with a role in marketing communications should understand and adhere to. In this book, Aristotle discusses what he believes to be the three essential elements of persuasion: ethos, logos, and pathos.

Aristotle takes ethos to comprise wisdom, virtue, and good will, however these can more generally be summed up as credibility. The speaker needs to establish credibility before he can successfully be persuasive. Aristotle’s composition of ethos actually breaks down how marketers can do this quite nicely: we can show our wisdom and have the audience therefore trust in our expertise, and we can show virtue and good will and thereby have the audience believe that we genuinely want to help them and put their best interests first. Life science marketers should aim to do both, although the former is generally an easier sell.

Logos is logic, plain and simple. (Etymologically it’s not so simple – its usage by Aristotle means something more akin to “reasoned discourse” – but that’s not really relevant to this conversation). In order for you to be persuasive, reasons Aristotle, you must think logically and effectively communicate your logic to the audience. Logos is probably the easiest and most direct element for science marketers, however understanding what you need to explain and effectively explaining it are two different beasts. Many still fail at the latter.

Pathos is an appeal to emotion. Aristotle claimed that emotions have specific causes and effects and therefore one can understand how to invoke emotion in the audience and utilize that one can effect how they render their judgments. To be optimally effective, you cannot simply reason with your audience, but you must create an emotional connection that will help drive your desired action. This is often the least straightforward element of persuasion as it pertains to marketing. Many marketers do not even attempt to leverage emotion in their communications, but the most powerful messages almost always inspire emotion.

To create more effective marketing communications, utilize Aristotle’s three elements of persuasion: demonstrate credibility, clearly explain the logic behind your perspective, and appeal to the audience’s emotion. By incorporating all three elements you’ll more effectively persuade your audience to adopt your viewpoint.

"Educating and persuading your audiences requires great communications. To improve the effectiveness of your communications, contact BioBM. We’ll work with you to ensure you’re getting the most impact out of every customer contact."

The Pitfall of Facile Claims

Facile attributes are meaningless and largely ineffective, so why do life science marketers cling to them?Previously on this blog, we discussed why a number of commonly-used claims are meaningless (such as “high-quality” “reliable” “improved” and “consistent”) and also how marketers need to validate their marketing messages in order for them to be effective. However, life science marketers continuously cling to these facile attributes and fail to validate their messages. Many marketers who resort to the use of facile attributes want to make compelling, validated claims but fall into that pitfall anyway. In this post, focus on common reasons why facile attributes get used.

Reason 1: Poorly Differentiated Products / Services

It’s hard to make your marketing stand out if your products or services do not. Even if your products could stand out, if you don’t have a defined positioning it can be a difficult an imprecise process to determine what messages and product attributes to highlight. Without such an understanding, marketers often fall to facile claims. If the product really doesn’t have much going for it, this can be the fault of the product rather than the marketer, as vague claims are often the only ones that can be made in such a circumstance. What can be done? If you have not created a positioning statement for your product or service, do so. This will give you a better idea of how your product creates value and will therefore help you elaborate it. If your product really just lacks meaningful differentiation, perhaps it’s time to reevaluate your product line.

Reason 2: Lack of Market Segmentation

Different attributes are often important to different market segments. If your marketing isn’t targeted to distinct groups, or if your product / service tries to be everything to everyone, then marketers often resort to using facile claims as these are the most general and broadly applicable (albeit least effective). What can be done? Cut your market into segments based on application, need, position, etc. – any segmentation that meaningfully effects how they would view your product. Create different marketing messages for each segment. If your product isn’t focused, especially if it is not widely adopted by the market, pick a segment which you can provide superior value to and tailor it to that market first. Use that foothold to expand into ancillary markets.

Reason 3: Marketing Laziness

Sometimes poor marketing is simply the fault of the marketing copywriter. It’s very tempting to fall back to facile attributes. They seem generally appealing (who wouldn’t want a “high quality” product?), do not require much thought, and make the marketer’s job quick and easy. What can be done? Proofread. Look for facile claims and “weasel words”. If you find them, think about how you can be more specific in order to make a more compelling claim.

Reason 4: Lack of Marketing “Ammunition”

It’s difficult to make specific, compelling claims if you don’t have anything to validate your messages with. How can you show that your product yields 40% more protein in 25% less time if you don’t have any data to show for it. How can you reasonably say that you offer the most mouse models of disease of any CRO if you’re not willing or able to discuss the lines? If you’re going to make meaningful, validated claims you need something to validate them with! What can be done? Work with your application scientists, talk to your customers, ask product development to do some testing, or get data any way you can. In addition to hard data, gather testimonials, form case studies, or gather customer feedback however possible. Other types of validation may be optimal depending on the product or service and the situation or claim being made, so determine what “marketing ammunition” you need on a case-by-case basis. In certain situations the gathering of marketing ammunition may seem very difficult, such as when marketing a new service, but rise to the challenge and get creative to validate your messages. If you’re a life science marketer, that’s part of your job.

In order to convey value beyond that of your competitors, your marketing messages need to be differentiated. If you find yourself making non-specific, general claims, figure out the reason why you’re doing so and you’ll be well on your way to fixing the problem and creating compelling, meaningful messages.

"How compelling are your marketing messages? Are they effective at driving conversion or, more generally, moving customers through their purchasing decision? If not, or if you’d like your messages to be more effective, call BioBM. Our expert life science marketing communications team will help you demonstrate value to your audience in order to more efficiently create sales."

The Customer’s Perspective

In most life science companies, marketing and product development work in somewhat close contact. Marketing (as well as sales) frequently relay customer needs to product development and help them to understand those needs and adopt a customer perspective. When it comes to their own craft, however, life science marketers often fail to follow their own advice and adopt that critical customer perspective. Instead, marketers tell the tale of their products, focusing on why the product is great rather than how it fulfills a need.

A while ago, we posted about the end of solution sales; how customers typically will be 60% of the way to completing their purchasing decision before ever contacting a supplier. This means that solution sales are becoming less effective. At 60% of the way through the buying journey, customers know what their problem is, what their needs are, and already have (at least superficially) evaluated a number of options. A sales rep who tries to work through all that all over again with the customer is wasting their time. However, earlier in the decision cycle the customer is far less certain about the nature of their need. In these early stages, customers generally seek information from colleagues or the internet (an unpublished BioBM study showed about 45% of scientists turn to colleagues first when considering a product and about the same number perform an internet search first). Marketers therefore need to engage in a sort of “solution marketing”, helping the customer to frame their own problem and needs and, in the process, showing how their products or services can fulfill those. Simply discussing your product’s technology, features, and benefits does not adequately do that job. Instead, marketers need to take on the perspective of the customer and frame their products and services around their needs.

To help guide you in creating customer-centric communications, ask yourself these questions:
• Does this communication ever address the customer? (with second-person language – “you” “your”)
• Did we clearly address the needs of the customer? Would our statement of this need still be valid if removed from the context of our product / service?
• What do we define first? The product / service or the customer’s problem that we are trying to solve?
• Did we clearly state how our product / service solves the problem? Do we offer specific solutions or simply general ones?

Product-centric marketing leaves a disconnect. The customer has a need, and the product provides a solution, but the customer is left on their own to decipher how (and how well) the product would meet their needs. Customer-centric marketing does that math for them by framing your product or service from the perspective of how it provides value and fills their needs. By adopting the viewpoint of the customer and creating customer-centric marketing communications, life science marketers can generate more demand.

"Is your life science company looking to generate more demand? Contact the life science marketing specialists at BioBM Consulting. We’ll diagnose your current marketing efforts to find areas for improvement in order to grow your market share and your revenues. Give us a call any time."

Focus on “Why”

While a large part of a company’s brand is controlled by what a company does, this is not a compelling corporate image to project. It would be far more beneficial to life science brands to focus on why they do it, as “why” is simply an inherently more compelling proposition than “what”.

As an example, I’ve taken the first self-defining statement from five life science tools companies’ about pages and anonymized them. This is what I came up with:

  1. “[Company] develops and manufactures innovative scientific instruments and systems that exploit digital imaging technology for a range of disciplines.”
  2. “We believe in the power of science and appreciate its rigorous discipline. That’s what drives our passion for innovation, leading to transformative offerings that support endeavors throughout the world.”
  3. “[Company] develops, manufactures, and markets a wide range of laboratory instruments, apparatus, and consumables used for research in functional genomics, proteomics, and food safety.”
  4. “As a global technology leader, [Company] is taking action to harness the power of insights and transform them into knowledge to deliver innovative, differentiated solutions for our customers.”
  5. “Established in [date] as a cooperative laboratory of experienced scientists, [Company] is a world leader in the production and supply of reagents for the life science industry.”


Of those five, three (1, 3, and 5) are extremely straightforward definitions of what the company does, one (4) is a description of how a company does what they do, and only one (2) is a description of why they do what they do. Did you notice any particular one being more compelling that the others?

Your reason for existing can actually be a very compelling driver for both new customer acquisition as well as customer loyalty. Not only can it improve your current business, but also enable you to more easily enter new marketplaces. Furthermore, integrating this reason for existence into your company can motivate your employees and make you more productive and successful. I don’t mean to make it sound like a magic bullet, but your company’s reason for existing can and should be a powerful driver for both internal and external stakeholders.

There’s a great TED talk on the subject:

"Are you using your “why” to motivate your market? If you would like to leverage your company’s beliefs to help grow your following (not to mention your market share), contact BioBM."