Avoiding the sunk cost fallacy
This year has been off to a tough start - almost every week 2023 began we've heard stories of layoffs from across the biotech industry. While this year has had its share of belt-tightening as fundraising grows more difficult, every year brings stories of therapies that failed to realize their potential, and in that regard 2023 is no different. When the evidence is clear that a therapeutic isn't going to succeed, the decision is clear: remove it from the pipeline. But what about tools and technologies that aren't delivering as promised?
The effectiveness of a new drug can (usually) be measured: a patient's condition either improves or doesn't in specific ways. If the drug fails to improve the patient's condition, spending more money on its development often doesn't make sense, and so the spending stops. Unexamined, though, are the processes and technologies that produced the drug. In a previous post from our DrugOps series, we talked about the importance of rapid feedback in identifying whether a process needs to be modified based on data about its relative success or failure. In this post, I want to emphasize the importance of rapid feedback in the face of a dangerous error that all too often informs our decision making: the sunk cost fallacy.
The sunk cost fallacy arises from our innate tendency to weigh the avoidance of loss more heavily than the desire for gain, a phenomenon known as loss aversion. Once we have invested time and money into adopting a new process or technology, it becomes more difficult to give that process or technology up, as doing so would force us to acknowledge the loss of the time and money involved. In our quest to avoid incurring that loss, then, we may end up "throwing good money after bad." Even when presented with a new process or technology that demonstrably improves on the one being used, we may still resist making the change.
Rapid feedback can help us avoid this problem. Collecting the information we need to surface issues with processes and technologies sooner allows us to more quickly replace those that are failing, minimizing loss and reducing the physiological "sting" of replacement. Further, placing the benefits and drawbacks of a particular process or technology in the context of the bigger picture helps draw our attention to the mission and away from the loss. Ultimately, our goal is to develop a successful therapeutic, and the resources involved in that undertaking dwarf the cost of a particular technology we're using. If we can see in the grand scheme that something we're doing is making it harder for the team to develop a safe and effective therapy, clearly we need to stop doing it!
Software technologies have become an integral component of antibody discovery. Perhaps you and your team have already identified that the technologies you're using aren't working the way you expected, or are costing more in time (both in terms of implementation and daily use) and money than you had expected. If you need a partner to help your organization transition to a more effective platform, one that encompasses all the critical areas of the antibody discovery process, please don't hesitate to reach out. StackWave is committed to ensuring that Affinity truly supports your scientific endeavors so that your focus can remain the success of your therapeutics and the ultimate health of patients. We can help move your team, your data, and your processes from your current software systems to our Affinity solution for antibody discovery. Sign up here for a free consultation to see if you qualify for a free or reduced-cost migration to Affinity.