Roy Haskell, Ph.D., knew early on that his interests were in science.
By Linda C. Brown
A self-professed science nerd, Roy Haskell, Ph.D., recalls an abundance of science fairs in the days of America’s Space Race. As he moved forward through an internship, doctoral studies, and early career as an analytical chemist, he had no idea that he would end up in biopharmaceutics. In one of his high school science fair projects, he trained goldfish to recognize shapes. “It can be done, and they get really good at it, to the point where if they fail at a choice, it was probably because they couldn’t tell the difference,” he says. “Thus, one can figure out what a goldfish can see.”
Furthering his animal research during a summer internship at Rockefeller University, he evaluated hearing in parakeets, which led to coauthoring a publication. “Ironically, it is still my most cited contribution to the literature,” he says, in spite of his many peer-reviewed publications and book chapters.
At this point, he knew he would pursue science as a profession. “The question was only whether it would be chemistry or physics,” he says. “That question was quickly settled during my first class in classical mechanics.” He earned his doctoral degree at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but in analytical chemistry, not pharmacy. “Little did I know while spending my time holed-up in darkened laser labs that I was across the street (at the time) from a world-class pharmacy department. However, now I spend time thinking about the biopharmaceutics of drug absorption and designing strategies for its optimization. Quite a change in disciplines,” he says.
Haskell began his industrial career at The Upjohn Company as an analytical chemist. He says, “Evaluating materials generated by others using methods I developed was a lot of fun. However, after about eight years or so of that, I became increasingly interested in the ‘whys.’ Why are we making formulations this way rather than that way? Wouldn’t it be better to try out that technology rather than this one? Are we even making the right measurements? I wasn’t always the best listener during this period of my career, so this didn’t always go over all that well. However, I gradually found the questions were more interesting than making the measurements to answer them. Thus, over time I transitioned out of analysis and into biopharmaceutics. I sometimes think it was karma saying, ‘All right, buddy. If you have so many ideas about how to design formulations and drug delivery strategies, why don’t you go figure it out!’”
WORKING WITH NEW CHEMICAL ENTITIES
In his current work as a senior research fellow in Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Discovery Pharmaceutics group, Haskell leads a team of scientists engaged in discovery support and enablement of new chemical entities. He recalls a recent discovery project. “For a drug candidate to even be successful in the clinic, it had to generate a specific plasma profile over time, but it was clear from the start that the molecules were not going to be able to do it on their own,” he says. “Novel formulation strategies would be necessary as well. That doesn’t happen in discovery too often. Usually teams find a ‘better’ set of molecules, but that wasn’t an option here. Hence, the team was able to commit significant resources to drug delivery efforts at a stage where that usually doesn’t occur. Managing the experiments and resultant communication was a lot of fun, and I was pleased with the outcome.”
Haskell sees this as a sign of the future. “It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate a molecular-based therapeutic from the means by which it is delivered. The physicochemical properties of the molecule and complex mechanisms of delivery are such that one can no longer develop a compound and then figure out how to formulate it. The formulation and the drug form a package such that one needs to consider the means of delivering a compound at the design stage. The bad news is that this means compounds can fail in development for drug delivery reasons, which is something pharmaceutical scientists have assiduously avoided. The good news, for which I am striving, is that this means we might be able to design drugs or drug delivery more intelligently so we access novel chemical space without increasing risk an undue amount.”
LEADERSHIP
“I think that helping others achieve an intersection of skills, interests, and project need is a key element of leadership,” Haskell says. “Establishing this means that a person will be successful, happy, and productive. The trick, of course, if that everyone is different in the first two categories, so finding that optimum means something different for each person. However, the list of needs is generally pretty large, so with sufficient work, one should be able to drive success of the group. If things are working smoothly, then I’m happy, and it also means I have time to pursue my own scientific interests, which makes me really happy. There is nothing like diving into a set of experimental results for the first time.”
When working with his team, Haskell values listening over talking. “I already know what I’m thinking (most of the time), and it’s knowing what others think that can be hard to figure out,” he says. “I’ve participated in discussions where it is clear through body language and other indicators that the other party is busy thinking about what he or she is going to say next rather than listening to what is being said. Hence, leading is not all about telling everyone else what to do. It’s about encouraging a group to synthesize a higher level of results than any one of the individual members is likely to come up with on their own.”
Haskell has learned that the scientific aspects of a technical pursuit are not always the most important when working toward a goal. “Most advanced degrees are not obtained as part of a team effort. Indeed, the exact opposite is the case. However, I have rarely experienced anything but team activities in my time on the job. When things go wrong, it is hardly ever because of the technical aspects. It’s the failure of team members to communicate with each other that causes problems.”
As for leaders and influencers in his own life, Haskell looks to his high school science teachers. He says, “One landed me the opportunity at Rockefeller, and the other did a good job of making science fun, which admittedly I already thought it was.” He also cites some excellent supervisors, “from whom I learned at least as much about contributing effectively in my environment as I did technically.”
Haskell feels extremely fortunate to have worked with “a good group of people, both supervisors and direct reports over the years.”
BEING SUCCESSFUL
Placing importance on curiosity and the ability to focus on the end goal of an experiment, project, or job, Haskell says, “It is very easy to get distracted by a detail or follow up too much on a side activity, which can waste a lot of time. Figuring out what’s worth pursuing further and what isn’t is very important. It’s also important, particularly in the lab, to pay attention to the details. I recall that one of my most interesting and successful contributions came out of noticing that a vial of solution was all bubbly, even though that observation had nothing to do with what I was pursuing in that particular experiment.”
For those about to embark on their careers, Haskell recommends being flexible and finding a mentor. “Pharmaceutical research proceeded at a more relaxed pace when I started, and there were more resources available,” he says. “Today’s new employees are immediately immersed in a dynamic environment where ideas are plentiful, the requirements are many, and the pace is rapid. This is certainly a very exciting situation, but it can also be confusing without the benefit of a perspective acquired over years of experience. When do I know enough? Should I spend time continuing to pursue a given plan, or should I try something else? When discussing results with people from other disciplines, how much detail is too much or too little? Spending time with more senior individuals is really helpful in sorting all of this out.”
Haskell credits the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS) for being a source of information, networking, and leadership opportunities not available elsewhere. “I just finished a stint as the Physical Pharmacy and Biopharmaceutics (PPB) section chair, where I learned a lot about that.” In his long membership in AAPS, he has also worked on programming for the AAPS annual meeting, PPB webinars, and the Northeast Regional discussion group. Looking forward, he says, “Now is a particularly interesting time as the organization reworks itself to better serve the pharmaceutical science community, and I look forward to my next chance.”
Linda C. Brown is the AAPS managing editor.