Many MSLs today have extensive healthcare research experience and education, and communicating data is practically second-nature.
November 22, 2005 (Press Release) --
It is all too easy to make common mistakes when engaging in scientific exchange with thought leaders. Sometimes these communication mistakes can lead to regulatory risks that we've come to know well from exhaustive media and conference coverage. I'm calling a collection of these mistakes being "DEAF", defined as:
D(efending data)
E(xtrapolating where you shouldn't)
A(ssuming you know what thought leaders want to know)
F(alsely comparing what isn't comparable)
When a key opinion leader challenges the validity of the design to answer a research question or the significance of the information collected, the medical liaison who defends data may answer with, "Yes, but..." is reaffirming the perception that some thought leaders have of MSLs: that MSLs are medical marketers in disguise rather than an unbiased scientific resource.
When MSLs disseminate interim data to thought leaders, there may be a temptation to add "Therefore..." when discussing interim data. Here, the danger is extrapolating where you shouldn't and potentially making false conclusions - thereby making false claims.
MSLs who have something new may believe they have the antidote to the "What's new?" question. If you're not one of those MSLs, you may experience a momentary (or prolonged) panic attack when confronted by a thought leader asking this question. I think MSLs without anything new are in a far better position to avoid the danger of assuming they know what thought leaders wanted to know. That is - MSLs without new data don't dump data because there's no new data to dump.
Falsely comparing what isn't comparable includes discussing two studies together in a manner that suggests a head-to-head comparison when this is not the case. Even thought leaders are not immune to discussing two separately-conducted studies as if these were conducted as a head-to-head trial.
Because MSLs discuss scientific information in great scientific depth with thought leaders, the danger of being DEAF is especially dramatic for a function that establishes relationships through a foundation of professional credibility.
ABOUT: Jane Chin is President of Medical Science Liaison Institute (http://www.MSLinstitute.com) and provides consulting and training/development services for MSLs and MSL programs. She also founded and publishes MSL Quarterly (http://www.MSLquarterly.com), Pharm Rep Clinic (http://www.PharmRepClinic.com), and several knowledge-blogs, including Blog of a Scientist-Turned-Entrepreneur (http://www.janechin.com).
D(efending data)
E(xtrapolating where you shouldn't)
A(ssuming you know what thought leaders want to know)
F(alsely comparing what isn't comparable)
When a key opinion leader challenges the validity of the design to answer a research question or the significance of the information collected, the medical liaison who defends data may answer with, "Yes, but..." is reaffirming the perception that some thought leaders have of MSLs: that MSLs are medical marketers in disguise rather than an unbiased scientific resource.
When MSLs disseminate interim data to thought leaders, there may be a temptation to add "Therefore..." when discussing interim data. Here, the danger is extrapolating where you shouldn't and potentially making false conclusions - thereby making false claims.
MSLs who have something new may believe they have the antidote to the "What's new?" question. If you're not one of those MSLs, you may experience a momentary (or prolonged) panic attack when confronted by a thought leader asking this question. I think MSLs without anything new are in a far better position to avoid the danger of assuming they know what thought leaders wanted to know. That is - MSLs without new data don't dump data because there's no new data to dump.
Falsely comparing what isn't comparable includes discussing two studies together in a manner that suggests a head-to-head comparison when this is not the case. Even thought leaders are not immune to discussing two separately-conducted studies as if these were conducted as a head-to-head trial.
Because MSLs discuss scientific information in great scientific depth with thought leaders, the danger of being DEAF is especially dramatic for a function that establishes relationships through a foundation of professional credibility.
ABOUT: Jane Chin is President of Medical Science Liaison Institute (http://www.MSLinstitute.com) and provides consulting and training/development services for MSLs and MSL programs. She also founded and publishes MSL Quarterly (http://www.MSLquarterly.com), Pharm Rep Clinic (http://www.PharmRepClinic.com), and several knowledge-blogs, including Blog of a Scientist-Turned-Entrepreneur (http://www.janechin.com).
Email
Print
SPAM
