Balancing AI Capabilities and Human Leadership in Pharma 

AI enterprise adoption has been one of the hottest topics of 2025. As the year draws to a close, the pharma community is reflecting on its decisions, challenges, and achievements — and AI adoption in business has, without doubt, been one of the most complex and consequential journeys for many. But does the conversation stop there? 

In the new episode of Pharma Talks, Nataliya Andreychuk, CEO of Viseven and host of the podcast, and Paul Simms, CEO of Impatient Health, sat down for a year-end reflection to discuss such topics as human-led AI in pharma, value realization, change management, and the importance of keeping a human in the loop. 

Reflecting on Pharma’s Year and Its Uncertain Future 

“If we had to summarize this year,” Paul said, “AI adoption in pharma would dominate the headlines,” alongside turmoil, rapid change, and disruption. For many across the industry, it’s been a year marked by both fear and opportunity. “Very few people truly know what the future of the industry will look like,” he added. 

That uncertainty, Paul said, is exactly why clarity of direction matters more than ever. As the year comes to a close, the real question is not what happened, but what comes next. What do we take with us into the new year? What mindset, skills, and principles should guide the pharmaceutical industry forward? 

Embracing Change Instead of Fearing It  

“Change is the one thing we shouldn’t fear,” Paul said, pointing out that technological shifts throughout history have consistently been net job creators rather than job killers. He acknowledged that this is difficult to say at a time when many people have lost their jobs and when there is growing talk of entire teams being replaced by AI. 

Efficiency, Paul said, will always be a major driver in the pharmaceutical industry. But AI does not need to be feared if it’s approached with open-mindedness and realism. “This is about human-in-the-loop, not human replacement,” he stressed, explaining that many things AI simply won’t do, at least not in the short term. 

That perspective resonated strongly with Nataliya, who said pharma isn’t fundamentally against change — it sometimes just lacks courage. That led her to pose the central question: What needs to break for pharma to evolve truly? One provocative answer is this: we need to stop asking customers what they want. 

Rethinking Customer-Centricity in Pharma 

As Paul said, even though that might sound strange, especially in an industry that talks constantly about customer experience and customer centricity. Of course, understanding our customers is essential. But the reality is that most customers don’t know what they want beyond the short term. And even when they do, they often struggle to articulate it clearly. 

There’s also a gap between what customers say and what they actually do. There are many barriers — at least ten — that distort feedback. If we only listen and follow, it can be dangerous. You end up optimizing for the short term. 

Another issue is that we tend to focus on the same customers. That leads to everyone doing the same thing. Yes, right message, right place, right time matters, but so does being memorable, desirable, and well-positioned. Paul shared:

When I say we should stop listening to customers, I’m being intentionally provocative. Of course, we do listen. But listening alone is not enough. Leadership enablement also means anticipating needs, making bold decisions, and shaping the future rather than just reacting to it.

The Role of Customer Insights: From Listening to Leading 

Paul said that pharma marketers already have everything they need to innovate — the brains, the resources, and the right people in the room. What’s missing is not capability, but initiative. 

Marketers and leaders cannot be lazy. Instead of waiting for customers to define the agenda, teams should come up with strong ideas first — and then take those ideas to customers to hear their response.

If you only listen, it may feel safe and responsible. But real, sustainable development comes from presenting customers with something they’ve never seen before. That’s how disruption happens, and how relationships change. 

By reversing the order — idea first, feedback second — companies can move from being followers to being seen as pioneers, shaping the future rather than reacting to it. 

The Vendor Perspective and the Limits of RFPs 

Nataliya added that from the vendor side, innovation is often constrained before it even begins. When an RFP arrives, customer needs are already defined “in stone,” making it extremely difficult to think outside the box. 

She agreed that listening alone is not enough. Even when people hear the exact words in the same meeting, they often interpret them differently. 

It’s not about stopping, asking customers what they want. That part feels safe. The real challenge lies in the next step — trusting what you hear, and trusting yourself enough to propose new ideas and different ways forward. 

Paul picked up on that phrase immediately: trust ourselves. He said the pharma industry is harsh on itself, constantly repeating that it’s bad at marketing, behind other industries, or simply not good enough. “We beat ourselves with sticks, and unnecessarily so.” 

Predictions, Experimentation, and the 2026 Mindset 

Nataliya then challenged Paul to offer five predictions for the year ahead, pointing out that many of his past predictions had proven accurate. 

Paul was quick to push back on the idea of certainty. No one truly knows the future, he said — and predictions aren’t about being right. 

Pharma, he explained, has a strong tendency to want to be right all the time. But progress requires experimentation. “If you’re so worried about being right, you’ll never make a bold prediction,” he said. 

While pharma proudly calls itself scientific, Paul argued that this mindset is mostly applied to drug discovery. The same experimental rigor should be applied to AI adoption challenges in marketing, the creation of new engagement strategies, and innovation. 

He added that bold predictions are more likely to be wrong — and that’s the point. Some ideas may come true, just not on the timeline we expect. 

Nataliya agreed, noting that many “future” ideas feel just around the corner, but often take years to materialize. That’s why, she suggested, accuracy shouldn’t matter when imagining the future. 

Instead, she proposed thinking in terms of a 2026 manifesto — a statement of intent rather than a forecast. 

The Evolution of Content: Less, Smarter, and More Human 

Paul’s first prediction was stark: 77% of content produced today is never used, which is why need to focus on quality and not quantity. 

For years, the industry has equated activity with value. “Nobody ever lost their job by making more content,” he said, explaining how safety and volume have become the default. But more content, he argued, is a vanity metric — and it’s time to abandon it. 

As pharma gains the ability to produce on-demand and personalized content, the very definition of content will change. Paul emphasized that customers now have AI too — and they will use it to filter information. 

That means pharma must create two kinds of content at once: 

• emotional, authentic storytelling for humans 

• clear, structured, machine-readable information for AI systems 

Doctors will increasingly rely on their own tools to filter content. If pharma messages are not concrete, authentic, and precise, they will not be effective. Paul highlighted the growing need to measure what has traditionally been difficult to quantify. Too often, teams measure what is easy — not what truly matters. 

Relationships, trust, and quality are difficult to measure, but essential. Technology should help create new metrics — such as sentiment, connection, and relevance — allowing pharma to deliver what machines need and what humans value. 

By combining emotional metrics with technology, Nataliya said, pharma will be far better positioned to produce content that is genuinely relevant — not just compliant or visible, but meaningful to the people it’s meant to reach. 

The Future of Compliance: From Gatekeeper to Core Skill 

Paul argued that in the future, compliance will no longer exist as a standalone department — even though it will remain absolutely vital. 

Compliance should become embedded into how people work every day, supported by technology and machines. He compared it to sports: a football player never claims they are “done” learning the rules — and marketers shouldn’t either. 

“You can’t say you’re a good player if you don’t know the rules.” The same applies to marketing and any customer-facing role. True innovation and empowerment come from being an expert in the rules, not from handing responsibility to someone else. 

Looking ahead to 2026, Paul said he hopes to see the “dismantling” of compliance-specific departments, replaced by organizations where everyone understands and owns compliance. 

Nataliya agreed, summarizing the idea simply: compliance will no longer be a separate service in the future. Instead, everyone will know the rules — like skilled football players on the same team. 

She added that pharma often uses compliance as an explanation for why it struggles with omnichannel or personalization. That argument, she said, is becoming tired. Compliance is no longer a valid excuse for not being as effective or creative as other industries. 

Rethinking Launch Strategies: From Rockets to Cars 

Paul then shifted to launch strategy, pointing out that pharma tends to focus far more on constraints than possibilities. 

He encouraged teams to think about everything they can do. “If people can get others excited about laptops and bits, we’re here talking about life, quality of life, and continuity.” 

He described the industry’s traditional view of launches as a rocket launch: everything must be perfect, every detail planned. But if the wind changes — if the market shifts — the entire launch can fail, and expectations quickly collapse. 

Paul suggested abandoning that mindset entirely. Instead, launches should be treated like driving a car. You know your destination, but you don’t always know the exact route. There might be traffic. You might need to take a detour. And that’s okay. 

Nataliya responded that the car metaphor felt calming, especially compared to the stress and pressure of today’s launch processes. Too many launches still feel like rockets: overly complicated, rigid, and exhausting. 

Paul agreed and added one final thought: even with GPS guiding the journey, humans still have control. You can choose to follow the route — or ignore it. With AI agents and other tools, things will definitely get easier, but it is up to us to decide how and when to use them. 

“The human still has the power,” he said — a point that led directly into his fourth prediction. 

Embracing Agility and Evolution in Marketing 

The discussion returned to the idea that marketing must continue to evolve — not just technologically, but culturally. Agility is no longer optional. It’s a survival skill. 

Paul noted that the industry has been AI-obsessed for some time, and suggested it’s now time to become human-obsessed. Instead of constantly trying to define what AI will do to us, he argued, organizations should spend just as much time defining what the new human role looks like. Where are humans most useful? Where do they create unique value? 

If we don’t put as much effort into defining the human role as we do into the technology, we’re ignoring our most powerful differentiator. 

Paul predicted that by 2026, this question would become unavoidable. People will increasingly ask, ‘What is my role?’ What should I invest in — and what shouldn’t I? Over time, it will become clearer which applications AI should focus on and which responsibilities must remain human. 

Talent, Technology, and the Post-Hype Phase 

Nataliya raised a difficult but honest question: Does this mean that people who were laid off this year will eventually be invited back? 

Paul said the answer isn’t straightforward, but trends are already visible. Many predict that agencies will suffer most as technology takes over, but he disagrees. Paul believes companies that clearly define the human role will do very well. They’ll recognize that technology is excellent at some things, but not everything. As the hype phase passes, organizations will begin to make AI truly useful and sustainable. 

The future is symbiosis — togetherness between humans and machines. Technology will not rule us. Humans will still make decisions rather than handing them over entirely to robots. 

He added that we’re already seeing companies lay people off and then rehire as reality sets in. This recalibration won’t happen overnight. It may take longer, but it’s coming. 

Rethinking Patient-Centricity in Healthcare 

Paul then introduced one of his most provocative ideas: it may soon become a bad thing to say we are patient-centric. Patient-centricity sounds right — just like saying we should always listen to customers. But Paul argued that blindly following what patients want or do can be dangerous. 

Instead, healthcare must be science-centric. Patients don’t always know what’s best for themselves. Treating them like passive subjects to observe — “like zoo animals,” as Paul put it — risks doing harm. 

Health is deeply emotional. Paul shared a personal example — being diagnosed with diabetes during lockdown. That moment changed how he approached his body, prompting him to pay attention to his food, sleep, and habits. The result was feeling better. 

When people stop mistreating their bodies, they feel the difference. It all starts with awareness and recognition. 

Nataliya agreed, reframing the idea as closeness, not control. The industry, she said, needs to be a knowledgeable and empathetic partner — one that stays close to patients, cares deeply, and provides reliable information. 

Life is the greatest value we have, and it’s the value the industry must deliver from day one. 

Rapid-Fire Insights on Industry Trends 

Nataliya then challenged Paul to a fast round of short opinions on industry trends. 

• Will AI replace half of the MLR process? 

Paul said it has to happen, although it won’t be easy. Some pioneering companies are already moving in this direction. 

• Will platforms like LinkedIn outperform congresses and booths? 

“It depends on how you define outperform,” Paul said. In terms of information alone, LinkedIn will win. But congresses offer more than information — they offer connection and inspiration. Interest in face-to-face interaction is actually increasing. 

• Will printed materials disappear? 

Paul compared this to vinyl records. They didn’t die, even though they’re technically inferior in some ways. People love the smell of books, the tactile experience. The more digital we go, the stronger nostalgia becomes, even among younger generations. After all, they still watch Friends. 

• Will sales reps become orchestrators rather than messengers? 

Paul said this should already be true. He recalled a survey from ten years ago where 90% of respondents agreed that the main skill of a sales rep would no longer be selling. Instead, they should act as partners, concierges, and sources of inspiration. 

Nataliya added that sales reps remain the most personalized channel. Looking someone in the eye, speaking in a way that truly lands — that’s personalization in action. Instinctive, human, and irreplaceable. 

• What about machine companionship and AI relationships? 

Paul warned that the rise of machine companionship is concerning, especially among young people who may struggle to understand human relationships. Bots, he said, can be dangerous if they replace real human connections. There is still deep value and virtue in human relationships. 

• Do you believe in TikTok for awareness and education? 

Paul said yes, even if not TikTok specifically, then short-form video. Younger generations see these platforms as more natural than email. As they become mainstream customers, these channels will matter. 

• Will patients directly influence brand strategy? 

Paul warned that misinformation is often more common than accurate information. Pharma frequently avoids addressing it, choosing short-term safety over long-term responsibility. 

We are already entering an era where AI replaces search and discovery. While Google search continues to grow, AI bots extract information from the digital world. If pharma doesn’t actively counter misinformation, Paul asked, how can it truly claim to be patient- or outcomes-focused? The pharma AI strategy for 2026 should focus on bringing AI and people together, with new roles emerging for both humans and machines. 

---