The Rule of 5: Sociological fallout

In 1989 the Berlin wall came tumbling down and today the centrally planned economy can now only be found in The People’s Republics of North Korea and Cuba. And, just in case you forget, a number of large pharmaceutical companies.

In this post, the final in a series (see 1, 2, 3, 4) on The Rule of 5, we examine some of the sociological fallout of Ro5. Our training is in the physical rather than social sciences so we apologise in advance to any sociologists, economists and organisational professionals who may be reading this.

Many pharmaceutical companies today are distracted by a rather unhealthy focus on The Process of drug discovery. New organisational models (OM) are continually introduced on the advice of people who are paid to introduce new OMs. Cynically we wonder, if last year’s OM is now so bad that it needs to be replaced by this year’s OM, then why was it was introduced in the first place. When the latest of a sequence of OMs is introduced, the recurring theme is that it will be different this time while previous OMs disappear without trace in manner that can only be described as Orwellian. A key component of this organisational paradigm recalibration is The Metric.

The most important feature of The Metric is that it be measurable. A connection to something useful or relevant is quite nice to have but entirely secondary to the grail of measurability. The emergence of The Metric as a basis function of the modern organisational wavefunction is an inevitable consequence of the chronic Physics Envy from which Management Science suffers. The term Physics Envy, which we first encountered in Gould's Mismeasure of Man, refers to a longing in, dare we say, softer disciplines for the quantitative rigor of physics. The main symptom of Physics Envy is to see only the numbers of physics and not the underlying theoretical basis from which those tantalising numbers were distilled. By now we can hear you all asking what this load of bullshit has to do with Ro5. Please read on and all will be revealed.

The link of course is that Ro5 is a metric, or more accurately a connected group of metrics. Quantification is simply not an issue owing to the exemplary care with which Ro5’s creators have defined it and there is the additional bonus of a connection with oral bioavailability. Ro5 is, with apologies for our coarseness, the research manager’s wet dream. Although they would prefer to be called Leaders since Manager is just so y2k. Another evolutionary advantage that contributes to Ro5’s fitness in the organisational environment is that much of it is defined in terms of nice comfortable integers. Generally research managers find integers reassuring even when the precision that they convey is illusory. In contrast, the floating point world is a rather chaotic and unfriendly place since any smart ass scientist can ask you about the error bars and other things that really should not discussed in polite company. In some quarters Ro5 is a box to be ticked and has become an end in its own right rather than a means to an end. Beware the Metric for it is a good servant but a poor master. And some might say that Ro5 is the uber-metric.

Sociology as we understand it involves the study of the different groups that make up societies and how they interact. Those of you who have worked in Big Pharma will be aware that there are a number of people who work in Drug Discovery departments who have don’t have much to do with the search for new medicines. One group that appears to be increasing in numbers is that of those who appear to be paid to primarily to have and express opinions. An ever-filling silo of metrics provides ample fodder these self-styled opinion leaders allowing them to pronounce on the optimal combination of polar surface area and covariance-scaled hyperpolarizability to achieve industry leading mitochondrial penetration. We prefer to characterise these folk as merely opinionated and have noticed that they appear discomforted by people outside their group expressing opinions of their own. This is really about division of labor. We have chemists to make compounds, biologists to assay compounds, opinion-havers to have opinions and managers to read bullet points on autocue and admire each other’s navels. However there is one very basic problem with allowing individuals to specialise in having opinions. With apologies in advance for uncouthness, we note that opinions are like hemorrhoids. Any asshole can have them!

Is it fair to blame the Metrication of Drug Discovery on Ro5? Has this metrication led to our leaders becoming enslaved by their creations? Are the authors of this column overly preoccupied with conspiracy theories? We are simple folk and leave it to you, the reader to answer these questions for yourselves. This now concludes our extended commentary on The Rule of 5 and we hope that you have enjoyed it.