The Untapped Potential of UX in Life Sciences

The relevance of user experience (UX) design is frequently eclipsed in the field of life sciences, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, by the emphasis on external product quality and marketability. However, there's a compelling argument for why life sciences should pivot towards integrating UX more deeply into their internal processes—especially those used by R&D scientists. After all, as the saying goes, "UX is about the arrow hitting its target, not just its aesthetic appeal." This insight underpins the necessity for a paradigm shift towards a more user-centered design in the industry, not just for the sake of aesthetics but for operational efficiency and innovation.

The Current Landscape

Many life science companies, notably in biopharmaceutical R&D, tend to underutilize UX principles within their internal tools and software. This oversight can lead to inefficiencies and a workflow that falls short of the digital experiences scientists expect and need. The contrast becomes stark when compared to the immersive, user-friendly digital experiences these professionals encounter outside their laboratories. Despite significant investments in UX for consumer-facing products, the internal tools essential for scientific discovery often do not receive the same attention, affecting the productivity of research teams.

Industry Insights and Practices

A 2015 business report (Buley, 2015) revealed that while large corporations like IBM and GE proudly announce significant investments in UX for their external products, the internal software used by their R&D teams frequently lacks similar support. This is despite evidence suggesting that optimal UX staffing should not merely be an add-on but a core component of the development team—ideally, one UX designer for every four software developers, although more realistically, two or three UX specialists per 100 R&D personnel might suffice, particularly when assessing third-party software for R&D purposes.

Adopting a hybrid model that combines a centralized design studio with dispersed UX designers across departments could foster an environment where design thinking is integral. This structure not only ensures that UX principles guide everyday decisions but also establishes a dedicated space that attracts top-tier design talent, fostering an innovative and aspirational workplace.

Return on UX investment

Currently, life science companies utilize various metrics to gauge the effectiveness of UX. Tools like the System Usability Scale (SUS) and Net Promoter Score (NPS) are popular, alongside "Voice of the User" surveys and customer satisfaction metrics. These tools help companies align their internal software's usability with scientists' expectations, directly impacting productivity and satisfaction.

There is considerable potential for UX to make a difference in pre-competitive areas such as clinical trials, where patient engagement often suffers due to poor UX. By applying UX research and design, companies can improve patient compliance and reduce attrition rates, thus enhancing the overall efficacy of trials. Moreover, UX can play a pivotal role in developing patient consent solutions and futuristic laboratory environments, ensuring that every aspect of the scientific workflow is optimized for efficiency and ease of use.

Example of UX in Action: Open Targets

A prime example of effective UX application in life sciences is Open Targets (https://www.targetvalidation.org/), a platform that epitomizes the user-centric approach in scientific software. Designed to assist bench biologists and disease experts, Open Targets enables users to perform complex queries on target and disease information intuitively. This is accomplished without the need for deep computational expertise, thereby not only saving costs but also significantly increasing efficiency and accessibility in research processes. The Pistoia Alliance provides new UX opportunities in R&D by sharing toolkits (https://www.pistoiaalliance.org/projects/uxls/).

Conclusion

The potential for UX to transform the life sciences sector is immense. By embedding UX principles deeply into R&D processes, life sciences companies can not only improve the efficiency and satisfaction of their researchers but also accelerate innovation. It’s not just about making the tools used by scientists more attractive; it’s about making them work better, ensuring that the arrow not only hits the target but does so with unprecedented precision and ease.

References

1. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194), 4-7.
2. Buley, Leah. Forrester report: How To Modernize User Experience. March 23, 2015.https://www.tandemseven.
3. Cham, J. A., & Costa, K. (2017). UX DESIGN maximising the value of scientific software in life science R&D. Drug Discovery World, 18(2), 56-65.
4. Familoni, B. T., & Babatunde, S. O. (2024). User experience (UX) design in medical products: theoretical foundations and development best practices. Engineering Science & Technology Journal, 5(3), 1125-1148.
5. https://hbr.org/2003/12/the-one-number-you-need-to-grow