Why Pharmacometric Publications Need More Than Just Medical Writers

In the specialised world of pharmacometrics, there’s a unique communication challenge that often goes unaddressed. Translating complex mathematical relationships into clear scientific narratives without losing precision or insight isn’t easy, because it essentially requires you to understand one language while speaking another.

One is the language of advanced mathematics and statistical significance, the other is persuading stakeholders and decision makers budgeting for and justifying expensive research, which operates under a completely different set of rules.

One thing both have in common, however, is that both still follow the rules of sound/valid argument(s) and the logical connectives therein, which is where I come in!

The Publication Dilemma for Modellers

For pharmacometricians, there is a significant dilemma when it comes to publishing. You’ve spent months developing sophisticated models that elegantly capture the relationship between drug concentration and effect. You’ve meticulously validated your approach, accounting for population variability, covariate effects, and parameter uncertainty.

Your work provides critical insights that can drive decision-making throughout drug development…

…but then comes the task of actually communicating this clearly and persuasively, to those who may not have the same level of understanding of the implications, even if you see them all too clearly!

Most pharmacometricians I’ve worked with aren’t necessarily avoiding publication because they lack those writing skills though, they’re avoiding it because the translation process is unnecessarily burdensome and often very time-consuming.

Explaining complex differential equations, non-linear mixed effects modelling, or Bayesian approaches to a traditional medical writer, who is more used to dealing with ABPI code or p-values from a Phase II clinical trial, often means teaching an introductory course in basic pharmacokinetics first…

…and this is where the system often breaks down. When expertise doesn’t overlap enough, both parties can become frustrated:

• The pharmacometrician spends valuable time explaining basic concepts instead of focusing on advancing their next modelling project
• The medical writer struggles to grasp the nuances that make the model truly innovative
• The resulting manuscript often requires extensive revision cycles, making drug development all the slower for it

The Traditional Path vs. The Road Less Traveled

Conventional wisdom in medical communications suggests that writers should always come from science backgrounds and learn writing. While this path works for many therapeutic areas, pharmacometrics presents a unique challenge because it sits at the intersection of mathematics, pharmacology, statistics, and clinical medicine.

What many agencies overlook here is the value of those who travel the opposite path, i.e. writers who develop scientific understanding. Why?

Because writing and science require fundamentally different mindsets. Excellent writers inherently understand how to structure complex information, build logical narratives, and anticipate reader questions…

…and when these individuals develop the necessary technical knowledge too, they can then create or develop manuscripts that truly communicate rather than merely document.

A Different Approach to Publication Support

My journey illustrates this alternative path. I began as a writer and philosopher, trained in logical argumentation and clear communication, the very foundations that advanced mathematics is built upon. Growing up with a pharmacometrician father likewise immersed me in scientific thinking from an early age.

Rather than coming from science to writing, I instead brought writing expertise to the scientific domain.

This perspective allows me to approach PKPD publications a little differently. I understand all too well that pharmacokinetics simply examines how the body affects a drug (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion) while pharmacodynamics explores how the drug affects the body.

More importantly though, I grasp that the mathematical relationships between these processes are what make the work measurable beyond what we can directly observe in clinical trials or lab experiments, and that’s what makes it so powerful!

Translating Mathematical Insights into Publication Impact

Take, for example, a project I supported for Medicines for Malaria Venture (MMV) (i.e. one I’m actually allowed to talk about on LinkedIn and isn’t currently in development under non-disclosure!)

The challenge there was particularly complex: modelling liver-stage parasitaemia for antimalarial drug development, something notoriously difficult because direct measurement of the liver stage is impossible in live subjects.

However, MMV had developed an innovative approach using blood-stage data (in vitro) to make inferences about liver-stage activity. The mathematical model incorporated differential equations describing parasite dynamics in two compartments, with complex transfer functions between liver and blood stages.

This was all very complex stuff! However, rather than being intimidated by terms like “non-linear mixed effects modelling” or “turnover models with lag time,” I focused on the narrative significance:

“Hold on, this approach could predict clinical outcomes for antimalarials without requiring invasive liver measurements!”, I realised.

Thus, I carefully positioned the resulting publication, as editorial lead on that, to communicate both the technical rigour involved, and the practical implications that would matter in context, i.e. how such models may be used in more economically viable drug candidates and where geographically.

The Value of a Specialised Publication Partner

For pharmacometricians, the question shouldn’t be “How do I find time to write this paper?” but rather “How do I find someone who understands both my modelling work and effective scientific communication to make this work meaningful?”

The most valuable publication partners aren’t necessarily those with the most advanced scientific degrees either. They’re those who:

• Already understand the basic mathematical principles behind PKPD modelling
• Recognise the significance of your innovations without requiring extensive explanation
• Can translate complex concepts into clear narratives that resonate with your target audience
• Free up your time to focus on advancing your next modelling challenge

If your breakthrough PKPD models or Model-Informed Drug Development (MIDD) strategies remain unpublished, there is available help out there to change that! Such collaboration shouldn’t be adding to your workload either, it should dramatically reduce it while amplifying the impact of your scientific contributions!

So don’t let your models stay hidden, reach out to the right people, and get them published!

Confessions of a Freelance Medical Writer

I’ve been freelancing for about six years now, with the occasional full-time contract in the mix at a couple of medical and e-commerce agencies.

Today, I want to talk about the challenges I’ve faced over the years and what it’s really taken to overcome them. Be prepared for some brutal honesty—there’s way too much toxic positivity out there these days.

You know the myth:

“You can do or be anything you want in life if you just have that ‘positive mindset!’”

Yeah… not my experience. Sorry! My experience has been very much: If you don’t tick the right boxes, or your face doesn’t fit, you won’t even get the time of day.

Don’t believe me? Ok, think of it this way:

Imagine You’re a Police Officer…

You’ve pulled someone over for a broken tail light. During the conversation, you realise they don’t have a driver’s licence.

Ah, but they’ve been driving for years! Their dad taught them to drive on the farm, and they’ve never had an accident. In fact, you followed them for a few miles—they were driving brilliantly!

They make a passionate case for their right to drive. After all, having a licence doesn’t necessarily make you a good driver—experience and skill do, right?

…You arrested them, though, didn’t you? Of course you did. The law’s simple: No licence, no driving on public roads. End of.

How Does This Relate to Medical Writing?

It’s the same thing.

You either have an MSc or a PhD in life sciences, or you don’t.

Oh, it’s not an official rule—there’s no “law” saying you need a life sciences degree to work in med comms. But unofficially? There’s a reason it’s on literally every single medical writing job post (unless it’s marketing-related).

Why? Simple. Hiring managers don’t have time to sit there listening to how you’ve worked on more clinical trial reports than you can count, or how you’ve memorised the ABPI code back-to-back. They just want a little piece of paper that says, “I know science.”

How do I know this? Because this is literally me. My doctorate isn’t in life sciences—it’s in language (you know, the actual writing part of medical writing). And for that, I’ve never heard the end of it.

My Worst Interview Experience

Recently, I applied for a full-time job in regulatory med comms—not because my freelancing business was failing or anything catastrophic, but because freelancing can be unpredictable.

With a family and plans to move into a four-bed house, freelancing doesn’t sit well with mortgage lenders. So, I figured, maybe it’s time to go back to full-time work for a while.

Big mistake.

That was one of the worst interviews of my life. The only thing they cared about was my degree subject. Not my experience, not my portfolio—just the fact that my PhD wasn’t in life sciences.

(sigh) But it’s ok, right? Who needs snobby med comms agencies anyway? I’ll just reach out to pharma companies directly…

Well, yeah—and that’s exactly how I’ve built the client base I have, especially with international clients.

The problem? This ties me to remote work, forcing me into global competition, where I have to navigate time zones, language barriers, and different regulatory frameworks that other UK-based medical writers don’t.

Oh, and as a freelancer, I don’t get annual leave. If I don’t work, I don’t get paid. Simple as that. Don’t even get me started on tax returns.

So Why Stick With It?

If it’s this hard, why not just pack it in and try something else—like copywriting?

Well, forgetting the fact that I love pharmaceuticals… I do copywriting too, but that has its own issues.

I like to be straight up with people, no BS—which doesn’t always fly in the world of marketing. Especially when you know the brand you’re promoting is objectively worse than the competitor brand you’ve been told to drag through the dirt.

B2B is fine, but a lot of D2C e-commerce feels sleazy. I’ve literally been told to “keep the reading age to 8-12” because “our readers are really stupid!” (They’re not—you just don’t respect them and you’re trying to rip them off.)

And don’t get me started on modern marketing strategy… You based your whole strategy on sentiment analysis? Seriously? You’d have better luck reading tea leaves.

Sometimes things just go viral. You can’t predict it any more than you can predict the weather. Get over yourselves.

The Big Myth

So, can you be anything you want to be? Yes—but not just because you have a “positive mindset.”

There are genuine hurdles you need to navigate. Some you can break through, others you need to go around. You need to accept that.

Here’s what you actually need:

👉 Connections– If nobody knows who you are, nobody will give you a shot.

👉 Qualifications– You can’t blag your way into an NHS hospital. You’re either a registered doctor or you’re not.

👉 Investment– Time and money. Somebody has to pay for the study time, and only you can put the hours in.

👉 Flexibility – The market rate is what it is for a reason. Don’t be that guy on Dragon’s Denwho values their business at millions when they haven’t sold anything yet.

👉 Actual Ability – Yes, you need to know what you’re doing. It’s not just about who you know.

Final Thought

So yes, you can be anything you want to be—but not because of some magical “positive mindset.” You need to put in the work, make the connections, and play the game.

Positive thinking alone won’t cut it. But combine it with these five things? Then you’ve got a shot.

Good luck out there.

Kind regards,

Dr. Simon Lowe