Failure is good for scientists – it fights bias and saves time

Abhishek Goel, CEO and co-founder, CACTUS gives us a peek into the microscope of research in life sciences – where we gaze at how pre-print servers, quantum computing, and open data are going to redefine drug discovery and research collaboration. Will VCs be better than grants? Will Covid-induced huddles scatter away now? Let’s see what he sees.

What started the idea of CACTUS – What gaps did you see that spurred you toward this platform’s creation?

The genesis of CACTUS can be traced back to a chance encounter with a researcher in Japan. During my visit to Japan, I had the privilege of meeting a researcher from the University of Tokyo. This encounter took an interesting turn when he solicited my assistance in editing his manuscript that was intended for submission to an international journal. In that moment, it dawned upon me that there was a significant gap that must be addressed—researchers from non-English speaking countries were diligently conducting their research but were confronted with challenges as they tried to publish in English-language international journals, often without adequate support. This realisation provided the impetus for establishing CACTUS, with the overarching goal of bridging this scholarly divide.

Of course, since then, we gained a deeper understanding of the research landscape and have evolved and broadened our range of solutions. We now offer tools, solutions, and services for every stage of a researcher’s journey.

Will AI and Quantum be big enablers here for global collaboration – beyond speed?

One of the most immediate impacts of quantum computing will be in securing communications. Quantum cryptography has the potential to enable a level of security that is mathematically unbreakable. This would allow extremely secure data transmission, fostering an environment conducive to greater international collaboration.

One of the most computationally-intensive tasks in biochemistry is simulating the behavior of molecules to discover new drugs. Faster computation means that global scientific communities could more rapidly develop treatments for diseases, a task often requiring international collaboration.

With the concept of quantum entanglement—wherein the states of two or more particles become correlated in such a way that the state of one particle instantly influences the state of another, regardless of the distance separating them—the possibilities are fascinating.

Exactly how? Can you expand on that?

Entangled quantum states could allow quantum computers to perform many calculations simultaneously, vastly speeding up data processing and improving problem-solving capabilities. Entangled particles can be used in sensors that make extremely precise measurements, useful in medical imaging or environmental monitoring. Entangled particles could help scientists run experiments that yield new insights into the nature of the universe, including the deep mysteries of dark matter and dark energy.

And finally, quantum computing could also promote human alignment for good. With entanglement and almost unbreakable security provided by quantum encryption, we could increase trust among parties, making it easier for people, companies, and governments to collaborate.

What has changed or what have we learnt about science-research-collaboration from Covid? Will that explosion of collaboration fade out now?

The Covid-19 pandemic has brought about significant changes in the realm of science-research collaboration. The urgency to understand and combat the virus prompted unprecedented levels of collaboration among scientists, researchers, and institutions worldwide. This collective effort led to accelerated vaccine development, improved diagnostic methods, and enabled a deeper understanding of the virus itself.

One key lesson is the effectiveness of open data sharing and rapid dissemination of research findings. Many researchers and organizations openly shared data, findings, and methodologies, leading to quicker advancements. This experience emphasized the importance of breaking down traditional barriers to collaboration.

While the urgency of the pandemic served as a catalyst, the sustainability of such collaboration could depend on factors like continued funding, incentives, and the establishment of efficient collaboration frameworks.

Speaking of collaboration again – Do/can scientists/researchers also share about their failures in an environment where the spotlight is all about published work?

“Publish or perish” is the unsaid rule in academia. Academic culture often emphasizes success, and the pressure to publish positive outcomes can deter researchers from sharing failures. However, the scientific community is beginning to recognise the importance of sharing failures and negative results alongside successful outcomes. Traditionally, the spotlight in scientific research has been on published work that demonstrates significant findings and positive results. However, there's a growing realisation that failures and negative results hold valuable insights and can contribute significantly to the overall advancement of knowledge.

This can help save time by ensuring that people don’t make the same mistakes. Moreover, it has the potential to counteract bias; an example being the bias towards successful outcomes, which can lead to publication bias wherein studies with negative results are disregarded. Scientists can build upon one another's work more effectively when they know what hasn't worked. This can accelerate the overall pace of scientific progress.

Pre-print servers play a pivotal role in fostering such transparency. These platforms enable researchers to swiftly share their findings. This proves especially advantageous for disseminating negative results, instances of failure, or insights that might not seamlessly fit into the conventional narrative of a journal publication.

Where does India stand on research and what recent examples have you found impressive – especially in making us a global manufacturing/pharma/education powerhouse and in strengthening our IP game?

As I write this, India has just successfully landed on the South Pole of the moon—a remarkable testament to our advances in science and technology. During Covid-19, there was the indigenously developed Covid vaccine. Each day, we read about new discoveries in areas as diverse as agriculture, space exploration, biogenetics, and nanotechnology. And, more importantly, there is also the impact this research has on the lives of millions of Indians. What I find impressive is the ability to translate research into societal impact.

Strengthening our IP is crucial for innovation to thrive. The Indian government’s efforts to revamp the IP regime, making it more transparent and efficient, will enable more Indian researchers and businesses to protect and commercialise their innovations. The surge in patent filings and the establishment of specialized IP courts are steps in the right direction.

What would your recent tie-up with Kolabtree bring to CACTUS and to the ecosystem? Any such past/future handshakes that you are excited about?

Kolabtree is a network of experts, and it serves as a marketplace for hiring scientific/academic professionals for specific projects, consulting, research, and other knowledge-based tasks. Conversely, in Editage, the flagship platform of CACTUS, the nature of the services are predominantly editing, translation, and supporting authors in their publishing journey.This collaboration expands the suite of offerings that CACTUS can offer, and the merger will ensure that the industry-leading processes and practices that catapulted Editage to the global #1 position will be adopted by Kolabtree, further enhancing the experience of its customers.

How much dry powder exists for VC and start-up action in life sciences, research, and science? Would investments lean towards Big Tech or would we see new pockets here? Is there adequate early-stage investment in these areas?

Venture capitalists, being inherently driven by a desire for tangible returns on investment, gravitate toward opportunities that promise relatively swift and impactful results. Consequently, they often focus on ventures that offer incremental advancements within technology spheres that have already established a substantial market capitalization.

Established sectors like pharmaceuticals and specific segments within engineering and technology exert an attractive pull, and on occasion, the potential for substantial returns drives venture capitalists to engage with riskier, high-reward ‘loonshots’; however, identifying the optimal junction where short-term gains meld with innovative advancement within research remains a perplexing task. Incremental strides within well-established commercial realms are often under the aegis of corporate research and development efforts (such as Pfizer, GSK, Vestas, Apple), leaving minimal room for external ventures. The delicate interplay of factors guiding VC decision-making necessitates a thoughtful alignment of research pursuits with market realities to unlock the potential of these partnerships.

Also, how will VC money help scientists/researchers address the problems they have faced with traditional funding avenues like grants—will they be able to get past conflicts of interest, pressure towards commercialization, avoiding long-term projects, avoiding risky work, favouring statistically-significant results, etc.?

While pressure towards commercialisation exists in VC funding, which could lead to prioritisation of research that has a higher probability of success, as well as lead to scenarios where appropriate rigor is not followed in order to generate results quicker, it can also benefit this space in certain ways. Some of the potential benefits can be in areas like Collaboration and Mentorship. Here, VC funding can bring not only financial support but also access to experienced entrepreneurs, industry experts, and business networks. In terms of independence, while VC funding may come with expectations, it doesn't necessarily impose the same institutional restrictions that grants might. This could provide researchers with greater autonomy in shaping the trajectory of their projects.

What about commercialization pressure?

While pressure towards commercialisation exists in VC funding, it can also enable researchers to explore practical applications of their work. This can be beneficial as it encourages translating research into tangible products or solutions that have real-world impact.

Abhishek Goel, CEO and co-founder, CACTUS

By Pratima H

pratimah@cybermedia.co.in