Unconscious Bias and Recruiting For Technical Roles

Looking at it your way – Unconscious bias and recruiting for technical roles

We seem to have been talking forever about the need for more diversity in science-based industries. Despite all the efforts put into encouraging more gender diversity in the labs, male, and more specifically white male, dominance is still a concern. However, this is seemingly not from a desire to maintain the status quo. Almost every business we speak to is either actively pursuing a more diverse workplace or looking to implement more strategies to encourage one.

In fairness, we need to be realistic and accept that this is not something we can cure with a magic bullet solution. As has been identified many times, a multi-layer approach starting in education and ending in the workplace is needed. It is a long game certainly, but one worth playing. Putting aside the natural moral and ethical desire to ensure our workplaces are inclusive, there is a very clear business reason for encouraging diversity. A diverse workplace has multiple benefits and not the least of these being an increase in productivity.

Simply put, workplaces without diverse teams are missing out on the talent, creativity and skills of a large number of potential employees. Diversity in the workplace is not just a matter of an ethical position; it has a positive financial benefit.

Legally, as we all know, we are required to conform to the benchmarks that prevent us from unfairly favouring or being unfairly biased towards particular candidates and employees. I doubt there are many HR departments or management teams that are not 100% compliant in this area. The rules are reasonably clear, and we all adhere to them.

Unconscious bias, though, is a different matter. Partly because it doesn’t have the clarity of a legal framework, but mostly it is, by its very nature, a hidden problem. To address it, therefore, we need the procedures that recognise it is there and shine a light on where it influences decisions made and the outcome of recruitment. Recognising we are acting on these motivating factors is an uncomfortable position to adopt. In essence, we are asking ourselves to admit we are behaving in a way that we would all prefer to think we did not.

How do we address unconscious bias in the recruitment process?

With so many challenges to overcome, it is tempting to throw your hands in the air and just adhere to the legalities of employment. However, this is one of those situations where the cultural and procedural process within an organisation can be changed with small steps.

One way to start is to look for expressions of implicit bias rather than try to tackle the hidden bogeyman of unconscious bias in general. Identifying implicit bias and removing or neutralising it is a good first step to making your hiring process more inclusive. While there is probably other work to be done in terms of the internal culture, some small steps can help take away the opportunity for unconscious bias to affect recruitment. As with many problems, you can break it down into specific targets and then remove the opportunity for it to manifest.

Knowing the bias points is crucial, but we are often talking about more than the usual suspects such as gender and race when we are addressing unconscious bias. There are other factors that we may need to consider. Indications of relative wealth, manner of speech, physical appearance, and so on all create an impression of the candidate. These are opportunities for unconscious bias to influence the selection of candidates for a job. A good exercise then is to consider the points in your recruitment process where bias may come into play and raise awareness of them. Once in the light of day, they are less likely to be a factor resulting in candidates being judged on skills and ability rather than who they are. However, that does not mean that the personality of the candidate cannot be a factor in your decision of who to employ. You are also looking for an employee who will fit into your ethos and culture. Candidates are not robots, and as an employer, you can choose who you feel would be the best fit for your team, but that best-fit decision should not be influenced by inherent bias, only by the suitability of the candidate.

• Standardise across the whole process

Standardising your initial approach to selecting which candidates to consider for an interview is a relatively easy process (see the next point), but this can be extended to the interview stage. Consistency of content in initial interviews and meetings will allow you to make clearer decisions, not just about who you prefer but why you prefer them. If every candidate goes through the same procedure at the interview, it will give you anchor points on which to hang your judgement of their suitability. It is the difference between stating ‘I think they will fit in’ and having a record that you think the candidate is a good fit because of their answers to a set question or because you gave them a skills test. An unsupported statement may well prove to be correct, but with a standardised recruitment process, you will be able to say why it is correct.

• Remove identifiers from CVs and other materials

The purpose of a CV is usually not to identify the person being introduced except by their skills and suitability for the role. The interview process is designed for personal interaction, the CV stage is not. This doesn’t mean that the candidate’s personality cannot come through in introduction statements, CV examples, and so on. However, if you remove references to gender, age and other potentially motivating biases from the CV in advance, you are levelling the playing field. 

• Mind your own language

A good area to consider first when looking to combat inherent bias is to consider the expression of it in the language used. Is it actually appropriate or necessary, for example, to use words that promote a gender bias in internal communications or candidate evaluations? While there is still some debate around the research at the granular level, it is pretty much agreed that some words attract or repel specific gender candidates. The result of this is those candidates who identify as female will be less likely to apply for a job that uses masculine language. In effect, the language of the advertisement itself is telling them they do not meet requirements. 

• Promote recognition of implicit bias internally

While it certainly can be a little uncomfortable to do, it is really worth looking at how we all use certain bias-laden language in our internal communications during the selection and interview process. It is very easy to add a factual but potentially biased statement. There is really no need to add information beyond the facts, but we still do, often with good intentions. For example, if someone has a poor standard of written communication, then unless there is a very good reason to do so, there is no need to point out that this may be because English is a second language. We may well want to mention this in an attempt to be supportive or as a justification for refusing them the role, but there is simply no need to add this fact. If the role requires a high standard of written communication, then that is all there is to it. Even if the communication problem is not a defining condition of employment, then there is still no need to qualify the point unless you have a specific reason to do so.

Conclusion

It is important to realise the need to address bias because challenging implicit and unconscious bias is well worth the fight. It isn’t easy to change or expose it because it is part of all of us, but the benefits of addressing it are numerous. Science and technology industries, such as pharma and biotech, have long been a battleground in the fight to increase diversity and inclusivity. It is not through lack of trying that this issue still persists, and great strides have been made in education and the workplace to create more diverse teams. Where some industries may struggle to adapt, the pharma space is actively looking to genuinely embrace an inclusive ethos in our experience. Extending this ethos into the recruitment process is another step forward and can only help generate a more creative and productive industry.

Some supporting information:

Gender in language

Support, dedication to the cause and the right people – Can the UK lead the world in Pharma technology?

There is a real sense of optimism about the future of Pharma around this week. It is still hard to talk about anything relating to business growth or development without referring to the pandemic, Brexit, or the recent budget, but the tone has changed. Realistically there will be an ongoing impact from the Covid situation, and even as we head towards recovery and rebuilding, we do need to accept the reality of the economic situation. It has been hard, and it is going to continue to be hard for a while. So why the optimism? Well, accepting the reality of a changing world is one thing but how we react to it is another. The UK Pharma industry has never been a static one. It is innovative, creative and conscientious. Because of this, the circumstances we are currently in could well be an opportunity to cement a place for the UK as a world leader in pharmaceuticals, not only as a manufacturer but as an innovation leader. The stage seems to be set, and with the right people in the workforce to develop them, this could be a time of real growth and recognition for our Pharma industries.

What was in the budget?

There was a real focus on development in the Chancellors speech. We are yet to see the full practicalities of how these will roll out, but a look through the announcement reveals several initiatives and promises of funding and support that are focused on helping scientific and technological development.

The announced continued support for the vaccine rollout is a fundamental requirement to ensure a return to a stable working environment. Other announcements, though, showed an ongoing commitment to tackling the Covid problem. There is to be £22million and £28million to fund research into effective third dose vaccines and new variant testing, respectively, to ensure we keep on top of the virus 

Probably one of the most encouraging announcements for business was the Future Fund: Breakthrough scheme. The purpose of this is to help innovation in business by creating access to funding. The pharmaceutical and other life science industries should be able to access this support, which is great news. Added to this was the confirmation of the so-called super deduction for investment and upcoming consultation on tax relief for R&D. If this, as seems to be the case, results in a climate where businesses can look to investment for research and development tax relief and also the other areas of development, including machinery and facilities, then there is a lot to celebrate. Encouraging new development means new jobs and more potential for growth.

Brexit has recently changed the playing field, and in fairness, there has been a rather unsettled initial period. Pharma, like most industries, had a right to be concerned about the change in access to free movement. Again here, the budget has been a game-changer. The announcement of employment initiatives such as ‘flexi-job’ apprenticeships and trainee schemes show a real determination to increase employment opportunities. Possibly of more immediate interest for development teams, though, was the news that overseas workers considered to be ‘innovators’ could be accessed via a revamped visa scheme. The changes will allow faster clearance. Together these two initiatives could lead to the development of a young workforce to feed the industry in the future and access to a world of talent needed now for an initial boost.

Capital support seems to be about to become available to help create opportunities. Capital investment, though, is only part of the picture if we are to continue to lead the field and develop new technologies and products. If we are in this for the long haul and want to take our position as world leaders, then the recruitment of the right teams and access to talent at all levels has to be the keystone to success. The future of the pharma industries certainly looks a little brighter after the budget, and with the correct workforce in place, we can take this optimism and build something world-beating. 

Call us, and we will talk through your workforce requirements. We are here to help you find the team you need.

Budget 2021 information from .gov

Do the media need to better understand the language of science and quality?

You say ‘effective’, I say ‘efficacy’ - Do the media need to better understand the language of science and quality?

Like most people, we have been watching the reports of the various channels of development in the Covid-19 vaccine with some interest. One of the topics this has raised in the office though is the way the pharma industry and (for reasons I will explain later in the article) quality, in particular, is being reported by the press and through social media. It is fascinating as people who work with pharma businesses, to see how the science and the process of production is being presented. Even though we are not 'in the labs' so to speak, we do have a deeper understanding of the industry than the general public, so perhaps we are uniquely placed to be seeing things with one foot in either camp. 

It is also apparently not only us that have become more interested in this topic. There have been several articles recently about how the simplification of scientific language can lead to misunderstandings. On the one side of the debate, it seems the press is trying to make the science accessible to the general public but, on the other side of the fence, this could potentially result in misunderstanding. I suppose there is, and possibly always will be, a gulf between how science is practised and how the public perceives it. Arguably some of the blame can perhaps be placed at the media’s feet, and the tabloid press, in particular. They are often considered the devils in their lack of detail. That said, there is also some validity in the argument that it is unfair to ask the public to understand a process they are not trained in or working with every day. The press is merely seeking to simplify a difficult topic.

At the time of writing, as we mentioned earlier, there is a rather pertinent example of this readily available in the release of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines for general use. The Sun newspaper loudly proclaimed that the vaccine was '…more than 90 per cent effective at preventing Covid-19'. While you could argue that this is a true statement, it is also potentially misleading. As many highly informed commentators pointed out, the vaccine was producing a result of over 90% efficacy in controlled test conditions. To suggest, as The Sun seemed to be saying, that the test results obtained by administering the drug to, for example, a healthy 35-year-old, would be the same as they would for a patient with a compromised immune system, or even someone twice that age, is not a realistic expectation. Efficacy, in this case, was potentially a very different thing to being proven as blanket effective in a practical way. As it turned out, the vaccine does seem to be highly effective across a range of patients so far, but that doesn't alter the fact that the initial portrayal was somewhat inaccurate. 

That said, is it fair of the scientific and broader pharma community to expect those outside it to fully understand the meticulousness with which they use words such as efficacy? Is there a duty, or at least a level of responsibility, to ensure that the precise language used by the industry is translated appropriately into the outside world?

Quality in Pharma

Quality is a good case in point. In our role as recruitment specialists, we meet thousands of people with successful career paths in the Pharma arena, and they all know that quality must be built in at every stage of development. Total quality management is an inherent part of pharmaceutical manufacturing. Specialists in quality methods and control in the pharma arena are in high demand, and most manufacturers, regardless of size, are continually asking us to find new team members in this area. In short, quality experts are in such demand because this is an industry that relies on quality processes. It is doubtful, however, that the general public understands the role these key team members play in maintaining a cohesive, safe and thoroughly tested development process. To bring an effective and reliable vaccine to the public would typically take potentially a decade or more, so the work involved in bringing a Covid-19 one to general use in less than a year is, frankly, incredible. Amazing and outstanding work has been achieved by everyone involved - yet it seems that is not really newsworthy in a general sense. 

The level of quality control applied during the creation of the various vaccines for Covid-19 has been no less stringent than any other. Accelerated development does not mean cutting corners or a reduction in the quality process. Sometimes, though, we do feel frustrated on behalf of our candidates and clients when we see the various unfounded and uninformed comments about 'untested' vaccines and similar on social media in particular. It seems simple enough that additional resources and the hard work of dedicated teams of professionals can result in an accelerated production cycle. However, some people find that difficult to accept.

At the risk of going full circle here, honestly, we can see both sides of this. Indeed, it would be nice to see a little more credit given to the work of the pharma community and the quality it so carefully maintains, but we also see the need for the press to be accessible. 

We would love your thoughts on this subject so please do drop us a comment. 

Using only accurate language of course…

Biosimilars on the horizon - gauging the impact of biosimilars on healthcare.

You cannot be in the pharmaceutical arena and not notice the buzz around biosimilars. The zeitgeist is gradually turning its gaze towards them and everyone from the major producers through to health care providers is looking to biosimilars as a viable option for treatment of a range of conditions. As with all developments of this sort though there can be a general mix of chatter and misinformation, high-level technical discussion, practical application and of course, compliance and legislative procedures, to muddy the waters. The impact of biosimilar technology is not in doubt, what that will mean in relation to health industries and the wider landscape of care in general is another discussion entirely.

Just to recap for the sake of completeness, biosimilars have been around for many years but they are experiencing a noticeable growth in visibility at the moment. This is at least partially down to increased acceptance of their use. But the main driver is the gradual releasing of the restriction on production because of expiring patents. Where the option becomes available to produce a biosimilar to replace the original biological product, interested stakeholders in medical production are moving to capitalise on the opportunities provided by expiring patents. In short, a plethora of medicines, vaccines and other treatments are currently being, or already have been, developed and this is going to impact on treatment options.

The bigger picture on biosimilars

Undoubtedly the biggest impact access to biosimilar products will have in the short term will be the reduction of cost of care. Simply put, they are cheaper to put on the prescription pad than their biological counterparts. Lower costs are attractive in any environment but for the NHS, beleaguered by cuts and the cost of a recent pandemic, anything that produces relief on the bottom line will be more than welcome. The same is true of private care providers. 

Since biologicals are frequent contributors to on-going care of long term and critical conditions, the impact of lower-cost biosimilar options is certainly impressive financially speaking. In fact, the overall financial impact of the emergence of these treatments can be counted in millions, and potentially in the billions. According to the US think tank RAND, in 2017 the expected introduction of biosimilars to replace the frequently prescribed complex biologicals, could amount to over $50billion in the US market alone. Extrapolate that number in relation to other regions and the cost reductions are staggering. 

With all talk of money aside what do biosimilars mean to healthcare in general? Well, firstly, as we all recognise, putting all talk of money aside is really not possible in healthcare. Keeping the nation in good health and treating those who are suffering is a costly business. For a care provider such as the NHS reducing the cost of treatment or effective medication of a range of conditions is not currently an option due to the requirement for biological medicines. Biosimilars doing the same work for less should literally translate into more choice of treatment options. (NHS England Reference Information) This is going to become increasingly true pretty much across the spectrum of the treatment chain. From GP surgeries through to critical care, biosimilars are increasing options and reducing costs. For patents, a biosimilar option means not just a steady and cogent treatment cycle, it could mean access to a range of possible remedial and curative medication. 

Opportunities and obstacles for biosimilars

Medical professionals are used to prescribing complex biologicals and the bottom line is that they know they work. As with any change in the medical world, moving to a new practice is more a gentle swell than a tidal wave. Faith in the treatments and familiarity with appropriate brands will require time to develop as it does with any other change in care regime. However, the promise of low cost, effective treatment is bringing biosimilars to the fore. As their popularity increases the opportunities for career growth go hand in hand. To put that into perspective the NHS has a target of 80% uptake of new options as they become available. Westminster also has a very positive view of the ongoing potential for biosimilars to be adopted into future healthcare options. In 2019, then Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Access to Medicines and Medical Devices, Anne Marie Morris, MP, considered access to biosimilar medicines as a ‘big issue’. She went on to express her view that these treatments needed to be developed in the UK. 

However, while the future of biosimilars is certainly rosy, as we have already mentioned, the path to common use of new treatments can be a slow one. While the aim of providing access to the best clinical care and the newest treatments is a laudable one, the practicalities of dissemination of the appropriate resources and information are as formidable as ever. With so much white noise competing for the attention of clinicians and other interested parties, and the continued impact of ongoing virus control measures, attracting the gaze of medical professionals is understandably difficult.

That said, the change to widespread utilisation of new biosimilars over a decade after the initial awareness of their existence is bound to become an easier process. The NHS is clearly invested in their use and the medical professions recognise their clinical value. As the patents expire, the awareness grows, and the official push to use them spreads from Westminster down. It would take a major change for anything to stop the rise of the biosimilar. As the industry surrounding the research, testing, production, and distribution of this exciting area grows it should offer nothing but increased patient choices, wider treatment options and effective medical care. To add the cream to this, it will offer all of these at a price tag that will potentially release much-needed funds for research and care programmes. The bright future of biosimilars then is truly just on the horizon.