Content

On the fence about whether to outsource preclinical efficacy studies? 

So was I -- until I made these frameworks (the results may surprise you)

At first blush, insourcing efficacy studies makes little sense. It is expensive. The sheer number of variables introduces every opportunity for wrong turns, escalating bills, and exhaustion. And the risks are many; even internal know-how doesn’t guarantee good hires, failed drugs, or avoided regulatory scrutiny.

Though expensive and risky, insourcing actually makes good sense, under the right circumstances. A combination of small budgets and long timelines is key. In this case, the upfront investment presents significant return on investment. The added control, flexibility, internal know-how, and IP protection compel the shrewd early-stage pharmas to invest internally.

The benefits of outsourcing need not be stated, given that it’s the [reasonably] chosen path of most. The speed and expertise of CROs is worth the premium. Medium-to-large budgets with short timelines benefit arguably the most. 

Key factors to consider:

• Budget - insourcing more feasible for small, outsourcing for larger

• Time horizon - insourcing better for long, outsourcing for short

• Flexibility, control over timelines

• Learning curve, internal expertise

• IP protection

There's no one size fits all solution. But this framework gives a starting point for weighing the insourcing vs outsourcing decision.