Developing doctoral scientists for drug discovery: pluridimensional education required

Abstract

Research universities continue to produce new scientists capable of generating knowledge with the potential to inform disease etiology and treatment. Mounting interest of doctoral-level experimental science students in therapeutics-related research careers is discordant with the widespread lack of direct drug-discovery and development experience, let alone commercialization success, among university faculty and administrators. Likewise, the archetypical publication- and grant-fueled, principal investigator (PI)-focused academic system (“PI-stan”) risks commoditization of science students pursuing their doctorates as a labor source, rendering them ill-prepared for career options related to therapeutics innovation by marginalizing their development of “beyond-the-bench” professional skills foundational to modern drug-discovery campaigns and career fluency. To militate against professionalization deficits in doctoral drug-discovery researchers, the author—a scientist-administrator-consultant with decades of discovery research and development (R&D), business, and educator experience in commercial and university settings—posits a critical need for pluridimensionality in graduate education and mentorship that extends well beyond thesis-related scientific domains/laboratory techniques to instill transferable operational-intelligence, project/people-management, and communication competencies. Specific initiatives are advocated to help enhance the doctoral science student's market competitiveness, adaptability, and navigation of the significant research, commercial, and occupational challenges associated with contemporary preclinical drug-discovery R&D.

Keywords::

• communication
• curriculum development
• mentoring
• pharmaceutical industry
• professionalization
• translational science

1. Research skill necessary, but not sufficient

Drug discovery is fundamentally a science-based endeavor that demands of its doctoral (Ph.D., D.Sc., etc.) laboratory practitioners several research-related attributes. These include up-to-date experimentation skills; scientific knowledge and acumen of unusual depth and breadth; excellent critical-thinking and analytical abilities; the capacity to generate, evaluate, assimilate, and apply new data quickly and economically; and vision beyond state-of-the-art mirages. Science competency has become even more important as a growing armamentarium of techniques and instrumentation and a veritable avalanche of multiparametric knowledge about living systems in health and disease simultaneously invite and complicate discovery of those rare chemical and biological entities worthy of clinical candidacy.

Whereas the value of technically accomplished laboratory researchers to drug hunting endures, the discovery ecosystem itself is evolving dramatically in an atmosphere of enormous temporal and fiscal challenges. Many associated changes represent slash-and-burn pharma-industry responses to a future made uncertain by an ever-lengthening business cycle, patent and revenue loses on several blockbuster medicines, and the failure of increased R&D spending to generate bounties of therapeutic targets and new large-market drugs and enhance candidate approval rates [1]. One consequence of this innovation and productivity deficit has been increased interaction between commercial and academic sectors that goes beyond the core university responsibilities of education and knowledge generation in attempts to militate and share risk, increase discovery efficiency, and enhance compound success through more detailed and rigorous experimental characterization of potential drug candidates [2]. Examples of such strategic preclinical drug discovery and development interactions include public–private and government R&D collaborations involving academic scientists and the industry-university clusters formulated by large pharmaceutical companies able to bear the significant associated costs [2,3]. Therapeutics innovation has thus become highly interactive, cosmopolitan, and global, spanning myriad disciplines, stakeholders, and constituencies, each with its own culture, core competencies, and psychosocial metabolism.

To deliver innovative therapies that satisfy medical needs and provide commercial sustenance, the product-driven entrepreneurial enterprise of drug discovery depends not merely upon focused research, but also upon varied participant capabilities. In contrast, university education of doctoral-level research scientists routinely takes place within a canonical, publication- and grant-based recognition and reward culture highly dependent upon the technologist labor of doctoral-level students engaged in multi-year training apprenticeships that help sustain a principal investigator's (PI's) individual research program, publication output, and funding universe. This construct—which the author terms “PI-stan”—ensures its continuation by emphasizing the production of like-kind university scholars, despite numbing declines in available tenure-track faculty positions and public/government research support. The circumstances have led doctoral students in the physical, chemical, and biological sciences within research-intensive academic institutions to voice increasing dissatisfaction with the classic march-to-tenure career path and aspire to apply their hard-won knowledge toward practical therapeutic ends in a drug-discovery enterprise [4-7]. This aspiration is heartening in light of the loss of R&D savvy consequent to the contraction of the pharmaceutical industry and, specifically, its early-stage internal research. The brain drain, accompanied by the advocacy in some quarters for a shift away from reductionist discovery approaches toward systems-based phenotypic paradigms [8], has intensified the challenges for preclinical discovery scientists, regardless of the type or character of the institution in which they conduct their research [1,2].

Prompted by this contextual framework and the belief that progression through a doctoral higher-education program represents the initial career-building step, the purpose of this Editorial is to provoke consideration of the question: Is higher education doing its best to develop doctoral-level researchers who are not only scientifically and technically well-informed within their thesis-related discipline, but who also command “beyond-the-bench” capabilities relevant for navigating the dynamic, challenging drug-discovery landscape? Informed by the author's thirty years of pharma/biotech R&D and consulting experience recruiting, educating, and mentoring scientists in academia and the pharmaceutical/biotech industries, this Editorial offers some counterpoint to the prototypic PI-stan academic construct by advancing the proposition that “pluridimensional education” involving transferable skills beyond coursework, scientific disciplines, and laboratory techniques is integral for developing doctoral-level experimental scientists who aspire to a profession involving discovery-related research. The author opines that three supradisciplinary competencies (operational intelligence, project/people management, and communication) are particularly critical—yet often neglected—components of the repertoire of discovery scientists (Figure 1). Specific initiatives are discussed for enhancing these competencies in doctoral science students interested in drug discovery. The contingent and collaborative nature of most any research-related career [9] would seem to render these transferable competencies essential for preclinical drug hunters to power discovery campaigns of the future as well as for doctoral-level science researchers in general to cope successfully and productively with career-path travails, adapt to changing market needs/new opportunities, and self-reinvent, if necessary.

Figure 1. Diagrammatic summary of some major drivers of doctoral scientist education in academia and their relation to competencies for modern drug-discovery scientists. Typically, graduate training of doctoral science researchers in disciplines related to preclinical drug-discovery R&D involves primary mentorship and financial support from a faculty principal investigator (PI) and takes place within an academic construct (“PI-stan”) that invites treating doctoral students as commodities whose technologist labor provides not only data for the student's thesis, but also fodder for the PI's publications, grants, and rank advancement (red type, left ). Although coursework, scientific acumen, and technical expertise garnered by the doctoral student during this educational process are also valuable for drug discovery (mixed red and blue type, left ), supradisciplinary competencies in operational intelligence, project/people management, and communication represent transferable knowledge essential for professional development of pluridimensional doctoral discovery scientists (blue type, right ).

2. Operational intelligence

In disciplines relevant to drug discovery, education of doctoral research scientists remains firmly entrenched within departmental silos of collective expertise among hierarchical faculty who themselves earned advanced degrees and were rewarded in a similar environment to become academics, not translators of basic knowledge into practical (i.e., therapeutic) application. Given the often limited (if any) discovery R&D experience of university faculty and administrators, this educational paradigm has the potential of producing doctoral-level scientists who may wish to become involved in therapeutics research, but who lack appreciation of the procedures, problems, and governance associated with this complex, high-risk enterprise and its unique integration of scientific, medical, business, regulatory, and legal issues. These circumstances argue for educational opportunities and initiatives through which doctoral science students interested in drug-discovery research careers may garner relevant operational intelligence in discovery-related practice, process, and problem solving as a component of their higher education.

2.1 Practice and process

Monographs are available that can serve as reference tomes for a one-semester, graduate-level course on the history and workings of drug R&D [10,11]. Ideally, such a course would be team-taught by instructors successful in the full spectrum of therapeutics innovation, from early conceptual and laboratory work through clinical testing and marketing. It would also include analysis of relevant contemporary literature as published in this and other discovery-focused forums. A journal club is an excellent forum for inviting students to consider how published basic research may relate to disease etiology, extant and potential therapeutic approaches, and unmet medical needs in the context of a product-driven therapeutic outcome. Workshops and university-industry gatherings that foster graduate-student discussion with experienced discovery scientists/business representatives can provide unique insider intelligence and career information, as can (inter)national scientific meetings having a prominent drug-discovery component.

Inherent relationships between the technical content of many traditional disciplines (organic chemistry, pharmacology, biochemistry, cell biology, medicine, etc.) and preclinical drug discovery invite myriad educational opportunities for expounding upon this connectivity within academia. For instance, the author has presented “Applied Receptor Pharmacology/Enzymology in Drug Discovery” modules to conclude graduate-level “Receptor Biology” and “Molecular Enzymology” courses to examine how contemporary discovery research is attempting to modulate protein structure/function for therapeutic gain. Having received his doctoral education and postdoctoral training in medical schools and largely from practicing physician-scientists, the author's own motivation for a discovery-focused career was stimulated by interaction with clinicians and patients, who illuminated the often intractable problems they faced due to the lack of innovative drugs for various medical conditions. These “real-world” didactic examples also illustrate that an appreciation of fundamental chemical, biological, and human pathophysiological processes is critical for bridging the theory-to-therapy translational gap. In concert with this viewpoint, the United States National Institutes of Health recently launched a pilot program that introduces biomedical Ph.D. students to principles of clinical research, one of the program's stated aims to engage research scientists in “moving concepts from the bedside to the bench and back” [12].

Since drug discovery depends upon integrating information at intersections among knowledge domains, courses/seminars that consider the business of science and its ramifications for new-product development (e.g., funding, evaluation of commercial potential of an invention, formulating a venture, patents) can challenge students to ponder the applied aspects of their research and prompt cross-fertilization among science departments and nonscience university entities such as colleges of management. Similar outcomes can also result from diversifying the composition of graduate-student mentorship and oversight committees beyond university science faculty to include researchers, administrators, and alumni with successful drug-discovery and development experience, some of whom may be affiliated with non-science scholastic departments (e.g., business, law). A university-based entrepreneurship service involving intra- and extramural professionals with expertise in drug innovation can incentivize building a translational/commercial viewpoint into the doctoral student's research and career planning. Researchers with both established scientific credentials and successful drug-discovery and entrepreneurial accomplishments could also help inform and improve the curriculum offerings for doctoral-level experimental scientists.

Initiatives outside of the halls of academe, such as the paid internships and doctoral-degree programs offered by some pharma and biotech companies [13-15], allow students to garner, firsthand, both research and drug-discovery experience and related operational intelligence in a commercial setting. Indeed, grants to support Ph.D. candidates and offered by the Biotechnology Predoctoral Training Program of the United States National Institute of General Medical Sciences mandate such internships [16]. Fellowships awarded by some government granting institutions and professional organizations specifically promote the work of advanced doctoral students focused on drug discovery [16,17]. It is noteworthy that initiatives integrating discovery-related learning within an overall doctoral-level science degree program routinely require mentor accountability to help ensure the conduct, quality, and integrity of the experiential educational component. Continual oversight of such experiential initiatives is particularly critical to ensure that students are truly being educated in a discovery effort at an appropriately advanced, doctoral level and are not being utilized as a “pair of hands.” Although it is reasonable to consider academic investigators who have been awarded research/student support funds as qualified peer reviewers for grant applications, the author advocates greater participation of scientists with discovery R&D and commercialization experience in the evaluation of funding applications for programs involving graduate research-scientist training, particularly those with a translational discovery/therapeutic component.

2.2 Problem solving and decision making

Another aspect of operational intelligence related to drug discovery is the ability to identify and solve problems and make decisions in a knowledgeable, consensus-building fashion that supports one ultimate goal: introducing safe, effective therapeutics into the clinic to satisfy medical needs. As compared to the archetypical academic setting where decisions surrounding the progress of science depend heavily upon the data accrued and the interests and funding of the PI, experimental research aimed at discovering new drugs involves a much more complex matrix whose fabric is interwoven with scientific, medical, regulatory, commercial, and business considerations. The large number of parameters that need to be considered in problem solving and decision making as related to drug-discovery research invites collateral effects and a multiplicity of consequences from most any course of action taken. In this regard, business-related courses incorporating problem-solving and decision-making, such as those discussed above (Section 2.1), could provide a very useful extension of the foundational education of doctoral discovery researchers. Opportunities for developing problem-solving and decision-making acumen in prospective doctoral-level discovery scientists could also be provided by didactic exercises built around student-presented case studies of discovery campaigns using a team-based analytical approach encompassing in-depth discussion of the associated therapeutic problems and opportunities; evaluation of potential research, regulatory, and business trajectories and their relation to those ultimately pursued; appraisal of the scientific, therapeutic, and market impacts of each campaign; and examination of outcome determinants of “success” or “failure.”

3. Project/people management

Shaped by many factors (university bureaucracy, program requirements, PI interests, available resources, etc.), the educational path of the doctoral-level scientist is a particularized journey with the ultimate aim of conducting original research that generates new knowledge as a unique scholarly contribution in a given field. To this end, the student is primarily responsible for balancing thesis-related research directives within the framework of a larger project led, funded, and controlled by the PI. Opportunities within this circumscribed, task-based framework for even advanced doctoral students to learn and practice independent project- and people-management skills are limited, especially since career development of the professorate depends heavily upon aligning, if not subjugating, doctoral-student thesis research to the publication and grant-award metrics of PI accomplishment and hierarchical faculty rank. Additionally, the author has observed significant institutional ignorance, if not denial, within academia regarding the critical role of active, informed project administration (and, more generally, research management) in the momentum and oversight of a discovery enterprise and gross underestimation of the effort and talent required.

Regardless of setting, science research operations involve such basic tasks as securing and maintaining sufficient financial support, personnel, and resources (material and intellectual) to ensure reliable data output of sufficient quantity and quality. Successful project functioning, however, demands of participants several additional competencies: consensus- and relationship-building; the ability to lead and motivate by interpersonal influence; leveraging diversity; and negotiation, delegation, entrepreneurship, networking, and strategizing acumen [18]. These leadership skills are increasingly recognized as being essential to modern drug discovery, whose collaborative, team-oriented nature involves dynamic interaction among participants of varied backgrounds from industrial, governmental, academic, and outsourcing sectors. Since discovery project teams are culturally complex sociotechnical systems designed to meet specific outcomes/needs within the context of stringent compliance and oversight requirements, their mission-focused evolution and internal mechanics depend critically upon scientists who can drive and sustain constituent interaction in a constructive, symbiotic manner. This scenario argues that doctoral-level discovery scientists spur connective innovation by influencing and directing others with respect to the research and resources required for generating drug-like agents meriting human testing.

The foregoing supports the notion that opportunities for developing basic project-management competencies should be available to doctoral science students interested in drug discovery. To this intent, the graduate science curriculum could be diversified to include topically relevant nonscience courses offered by, for instance, colleges of business administration that feature interactive, project-based exercises. Guiding less experienced (under)graduate student researchers and collaborating within or outside of the student's own research group can offer a means by which more advanced graduate students can develop and practice both project- and people-oriented management competencies. Internships in pharma/biotech companies offer a real-world learning experience through inside exposure to team-oriented management processes and culture. One exemplary internship initiative of this type aimed at fostering the project-management and leadership skills of scientists during their doctoral education is the BALSA Group at Washington University (St. Louis, Missouri, USA), through which Ph.D. students become members of active R&D teams within pharma/biotech concerns to collaborate on a discovery-related project for up to three months [19].

4. Communication

More than mere conveyance of thought, the art of communication reflects multiple higher-order competencies, for example, the depth and breadth to which listening aptitude has been developed, information has been analyzed and integrated, knowledge has been applied, and critical thinking has been honed. The mounting deluge of scientific data applicable to preclinical drug discovery and the push for “big science” involving dynamic discovery teams spanning (non)academic stakeholders/constituencies demand effective communication skills of the doctoral researchers involved. This demand is intensified by the increasing presence of scientists in the discovery workforce whose native language is not the universal one of scientific communication (i.e., English) and the escalation of pharma R&D outsourcing to non-English-speaking, pharmemerging countries [13,20]. The communication level required for discovery purposes ranges far beyond the usual technocratic focus of doctoral science students (i.e., transmitting/discussing methods, data, and experimental plans with the PI and, perhaps, other researchers) to encompass, for instance, presentation of complex scientific information and its therapeutic and commercial implications to nonscientists, for example, (potential) investors and the lay public at-large. These considerations, along with the precept that research is fueled by collaborative information- and idea-sharing and financed through formal (often competitive) bids for resources and financial support, imply that doctoral-level drug-discovery scientists will, of necessity, require effective communication for cross-cultural productivity and networking. Compromised communication not only risks data devaluation/misrepresentation, but also invites interpersonal and learning divides that can undermine even the most promising discovery effort and its potential for translation. It follows, then, that the development of effective oral and written English communication skills should be a core component of any educational program involving doctoral scientists interested in discovery-related careers.

Purported “how-to” manuals of English grammar and scientific communication exist [21], and some universities offer (in)formal coursework/tutorials in science writing. Nonetheless, the author's experience has demonstrated that communication skills are most effectively learned through interactive, Socratic-type instruction involving continuous critique of student oral and written presentations by proficient mentors. Discussion and presentation opportunities (e.g., journal clubs, term papers, laboratory research reports, literature summaries/analyses, manuscripts) for the graduate science student should, therefore, be encouraged throughout the course of study and evaluated for presentation quality as well as technical content. Likewise, analysis of the published literature and colloquia and seminars presented by students themselves and by experienced scientists should encompass discussion of both content and delivery. For more advanced doctoral students, mock job interviews and crafting of formal seminars are advised, since candidates seeking preclinical drug discovery and development positions are routinely required to present the most significant results of his/her research, explain why they are so important, and convince the listener of their contribution to existing knowledge.

5. Expert opinion

Optimizing the predictive value of preclinical R&D to reduce late-stage pipeline attrition arguably stands as the dominant mandate in contemporary drug discovery. Especially at the pre-competitive stage, the high-level insight sought from preclinical R&D is being approached through novel collaborations that transcend conventional knowledge, risk, and institutional boundaries, placing increased demands upon discovery scientists in the face of a brain drain instigated by pharma downsizing [1,2]. These considerations support the author's contention that ensuring a flow of doctoral science researchers capable of translating actionable knowledge into therapeutic success has never been more critical to drug discovery. Notwithstanding dwindling research support and tenure-track faculty openings in academia and the precarious states of R&D commitment and investment return in pharma, students remain motivated to pursue doctoral-level science education with an eye toward a research career involving drug discovery. This motivation has been fueled by factors such as the impression that doctoral-level scientists, whether in-training or in lengthy postdoctoral appointments, often serve as labor commodities for advancing the professorate and codifying the pedagogical and political orthodoxies of PI-stan [4-7].

In the author's opinion, these circumstances necessitate a pluridimensional expansion of what is considered the critical mass of essential capabilities for doctoral-level experimental science students interested in drug-discovery careers. The Zeitgeist also makes it necessary for educators to take a proactive stance and deliver more relevant educational models, content, and infrastructure to develop in these students beyond-the-bench supradisciplinary competencies such as operational intelligence, project/people management, and communication. These transferable competencies appear foundational to future drug-discovery success and essential for empowering doctoral scientists interested in drug discovery-related research with greater appreciation of available career options; enhanced professional competitiveness, flexibility, and adaptability; and the capacity to deal with unanticipated professional demands and opportunities. More creative and holistic approaches for educating nascent discovery researchers that offer transferable educational content might also help boost overall therapeutic achievement in the increasingly challenging drug market. The author further contends that such transferable competencies would benefit all doctoral science researchers by increasing their degrees of professional freedom, given the essential role of strategic collaboration to the success of most any research program, the mandates from funding agencies for practical applications of research results, the dwindling numbers of tenure-track academic positions, and the discontent that can result from protracted postdoctoral and non-tenure-track, “contingent” research-faculty stints [4-7,22]. Thus, inculcating in doctoral-level experimental science students transferable competencies by no means equates to securing jobs or catering to employer whims, but rather aims to enhance the value proposition of doctoral science education as the initial career phase. Aside from the knowledge contributions made through original research, the extent to which transferable competencies in operational intelligence, project/people management, and communication are developed could very well differentiate master's-level graduates of now-popular programs in biotechnology [23] from doctoral-level discovery research scientists.

Doubts have been raised as to whether university doctoral programs in many disciplines equip students for careers outside of academia [24-27]. Debate and concern likewise surround whether the venerable apprentice model of doctoral science education insidiously focuses on serving PI-stan rather than developing independent researchers capable of spearheading the next waves of therapeutics innovation [28,29]. Although purportedly paradigm-changing remedial constructs have been advanced for science higher education, few feature input from successful drug-discovery scientists, let alone from those who have also bridged multiple domains in which discovery-related research is being conducted. It is therefore encouraging that some public and private agencies and pharma/biotech companies commit both financial and intellectual support to various doctoral-level educational programs related to preclinical drug discovery [15-17,30,31]. Involvement of pharma/biotech in such educational programs goes far beyond corporate tuition payment for job-related coursework and underscores the notion that the commercial sector shares in the obligation to support the education and professional development of its (potential) doctoral-level researchers. The programs typically blend basic and applied educational content to increase doctoral students' awareness of and hands-on experience with competencies relevant to drug discovery beyond thesis-related technical skills. They usually provide direct lines of student funding, thereby weakening PI temptations to regard graduate students as technical help salaried out of PI funds for generating data to support PI publications and grants (Figure 1). The author forecasts that such cutting-edge educational programs—especially those cross-subsidized within university-industry partnerships—will be critical to improving the alignment of graduate science curricula with discovery-related career opportunities, fostering a skilled drug-discovery workforce, and incentivizing researchers to drive their ideas forward to clinical application while finding a productive niche in the overall economy. These programs, however, may require a timespan and support level incompatible with the academic desire for immediate publications and the industry desire for rapid return on investment.

Vigilance needs to be exercised at the advisory-mentorship level so that initiatives toward increasing the comprehensiveness of doctoral science education per se neither inflate the curriculum nor prolong the time to degree. Since drug discovery is innovation-based and driven by science within various regulatory, commercial, and legal strictures, pluridimensionality of doctoral-scientist educational programs also should not dilute the rigor of the science- and research-related educational components. Rather than overwhelming both the student and the curriculum with several new course requirements for building competencies in discovery operational intelligence, project/people management, and communication, efficient integration of opportunities to do so into already existing graduate science courses should be paramount. Additional elective courses focused on specific transferable competencies and/or select aspects of drug discovery (e.g., technological, business, regulatory, legal) could then be recommended on a case-by-case-basis, commensurate with individual student needs and goals. This suggested modus operandi necessitates an ongoing level of informed student guidance and mentorship in order to avoid spawning mediocre generalists instead of capable, pluridimensional discovery scientists. Although the United States remains the single largest locus of pharma invention (using patent output as proxy for innovation) [32] and the single largest pharmaceutical market [33] and is home to several pharma/biotech-university geographic clusters [2], inherent differences in higher-education constructs among nations as well as in the organization of national systems of pharmaceutical innovation and regulation should be recognized when considering curriculum diversification relevant to drug discovery and development [34,35].

Universities are responsible for creating conditions and offering relevant resources that help students forge their professional competencies and plan their careers in a timely, informed manner. Students also carry responsibility for their own education: learning is interactive, not a spectator sport. The author thus encourages doctoral science students interested in drug discovery to seek intra- and extramural opportunities for professional development beyond the technical and scientific know-how required for degree completion. Doctoral science candidates should also examine the qualifications of prospective mentors beyond typical indices of academic accomplishment (numbers of publications and grants, faculty rank) to include placement data, thesis-related publications, and thesis-committee memberships of recent graduates to ascertain whether the mentorship level is sufficient to support projected career goals.

5.1 Concluding remarks

Trial-and-error learning is unsatisfying and ill-tolerated, as is the all-too-common expectation that students will divinely intuit what is necessary career-wise at some point during their doctoral studies. The canonical, apprentice-based educational construct for doctoral science researchers dates back to medieval times and is one in which, to paraphrase Karl Marx (1818 – 1883): “Doctoral-level experimental science students may make their own circumstances, but usually not under circumstances of their own making.” The orthodoxy underserves the development of pluridimensional doctoral scientists capable of appreciating and contributing to both the scientific and commercial aspects of modern preclinical drug-discovery. Re-evaluation of the higher education of doctoral research scientists with drug-discovery aspirations is urged with the overall aim of making the educational experience more comprehensive in scope—but not less rigorous scientifically—to include at least some development of transferable skills in operational intelligence, project/people management, and communication that can be honed post-degree. Efforts along these lines, if properly executed and conducted with informed oversight, would appear to go a long way toward stimulating the interest and appreciation of doctoral science students in the discovery enterprise, facilitating their entry into therapeutically driven R&D efforts, and increasing the potential for overall career satisfaction and adaptability. As noted above, some universities are already moving in this direction at the institutional level, the varying degrees to which they are doing so likely reflecting the reality that institutions of higher education can differ markedly in the development and demand for their doctoral educational programs, the native PI-stan expression level, the intensity of their intramural entrepreneurial research effort/commitment, the range of research and discovery expertise in-residence, and the level of ignorance (or even indifference) concerning the challenges and rewards of experiential graduate education. Regardless of institutional or nationalistic context, though, current and prospective participants in the evolution of preclinical drug discovery and development, including doctoral-level experimental scientists, may wish to ponder this statement by computational scientist Alan Kay (1940–): “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”

Declaration of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest and has received no payment in the preparation of this manuscript.