Menu
Close
.svg)
I recently had the privilege of sitting down with Diana Pohle, Ph.D., Head of Business Insights & Analytics at BioMarin Pharmaceuticals and the most recent recipient of the Intellus Worldwide Impact Award. Our conversation was both wide-ranging and deeply insightful -- exploring the future of insights, the evolving role of technology, and the enduring importance of human connection in research. What struck me most was Diana’s clarity of purpose, her passion for advancing the field, and her unwavering commitment to the insights community. I came away both inspired and grateful for the opportunity to learn from her perspective, and I’m excited to share highlights of that discussion with our community.
Noah Pines: Whenever I’ve seen you at Intellus or other industry meetings, you’ve always struck me as genuinely fired up about this profession. What is it that keeps you energized about being an insights leader in pharma?
Diana Pohle: Early in my career, when I was still putting myself through school, I landed at Johnson & Johnson. I didn’t really know what I wanted to be yet -- it just felt like a solid, responsible choice. Then one day, a market researcher on my team asked me to help gather stimuli for a focus group. I remember saying, “Why all these fancy words? Why not just say product?” She smiled and explained what she really did: she couldn’t change the whole world, but she could change it in small ways every day through market research. That moment stopped me in my tracks. It was life-changing. My PhD dissertation is dedicated to her, because she helped me realize I didn’t just need a paycheck -- I wanted work that mattered.
Starting at J&J also gave me an early, powerful lesson in patient focus. I once saw a marketing leader pull the credo off the wall, slam it on the table, and exclaim, “We put patients first! We do what’s right for them!” Those moments stuck with me. And honestly, they’ve shaped how I’ve carried myself ever since. With all the practical pressures that come from raising a large family, I’ve held onto that conviction. At the end of my career, I want to look back and know the work I did mattered -- that someone lived longer, or better, because of something my team influenced. That’s what keeps me going.
NP: You’ve shared what first inspired you and the mentors who shaped your path. But what about today? Where does your energy come from now, in the work you’re doing every day?
DP: It’s the same, really. We get to be the voice of the customer, and in healthcare, that carries real weight. When we uncover an unmet need, the work feels deeply meaningful. Of course there are tough days -- internal debates, trade-offs, hard calls on team size or scaling. Those can keep you up at night. But even then, I can go to bed knowing I like the work, and that it has purpose. At the end of the day, we don’t take any of this with us -- the value in our lives is in the good we do while we’re here.
NP: Congratulations on winning the Intellus Impact Award! It’s a significant honor in our profession. How did it feel to receive it...what was going through your mind on stage?
DP: I was honestly very humbled by it. I still remember my first Intellus meeting, back when it was PMRG. I walked into that room and immediately sensed I was surrounded by pioneers who had helped shape this industry. Charlotte Sibley was there, and soon after I met David Berman. At the time, I had been in insights for a while but was new to pharma, and I was trying to figure out what made this space different. What struck me about Intellus was the sense of community -- the idea that our work wasn’t just about delivering research, but about making a bigger impact and bringing others along. Hearing Charlotte talk about her career and how she had lifted people up was incredibly inspiring to me.
So to receive this award now, knowing the caliber of people who’ve been honored before, means the world. I don’t do this work to earn recognition, but to be acknowledged by my peers in this way is very meaningful. And it motivates me to think about the impact still ahead. We have a lot more to do, and I believe the next five to ten years will be some of the most pioneering of my career. This award was special -- not as a finish line, but as encouragement to keep contributing to the field and to the industry.
NP: Without getting into anything proprietary, what’s been one of the most memorable or rewarding research projects you’ve worked on -- something that really captures why you do this work?
DP: One project I’m especially proud of goes back to my early days in rare disease. At the time, companies weren’t really doing patient research -- it just took too long to recruit, and by the time you had participants, the decisions were already made. So teams were relying on gut instinct or physician input instead. Having come from consumer research, I’d seen how online communities could work, so I floated the idea: why not build a patient community we could engage year-round, to make sure their voice informed every decision?
To my surprise, they agreed to pilot it, and the impact was immediate. We were able to turn insights around quickly, shape brand decisions, and create materials that patients actually understood and used. It was one of those moments when you see clearly what would have happened without the research -- and how different the future looked because of it. That experience made me proud, because I knew the work directly improved patients’ lives and gave them a stronger voice in the process.
NP: From your vantage point, how would you describe the current state of pharmaceutical marketing research?
DP: I think it’s a transformational time for our industry. We’ve been through waves of change before -- I remember in the early 2000s when “big data” was the buzzword and people thought traditional research might disappear. That didn’t happen, but it did highlight limitations and forced us to think differently. Today we’re again at the edge of what data can do -- the interconnectivity, the possibilities -- but with that comes real uncertainty. And our industry isn’t very comfortable with uncertainty. We like answers, and we like them quickly. Learning to navigate ambiguity with thoughtful planning and scenario building is going to be critical.
At the same time, we need to keep elevating the skills of researchers to prepare for the industry we’re moving into. Some of the pilots I’ve seen -- for example, physician–patient conversation research with synthetic respondents -- are fascinating. Even small experiments like that build the muscle we’ll need for what comes next. And what excites me is seeing organizations share those learnings, so we’re not advancing in silos but collectively raising the bar and ultimately improving patients’ lives together.
Another big factor right now is policy change. The volatility in that space impacts executives and cascades down to all of us. From a market research perspective, it means our work has to connect more directly to leadership decisions and prove its relevance. That’s also why I appreciated Glenn Crooks’ presentation at Intellus on policymakers as stakeholders. It was a powerful reminder that our scope is expanding, and we need to include these voices in our research if we want to stay truly relevant.
NP: You’ve already alluded to some of the headwinds in the industry. If you had to name the biggest challenges right now, what would they be?
DP: One challenge I see is the assumption that technology will solve everything -- that we’ll need fewer people, smaller budgets, and can just abandon the methodologies of the past. That’s a misconception. Tech is powerful, but it doesn’t replace the fundamentals of good research. What it does mean is that investments will shift. Commercial spend may look different, decision enablement may look different, and we’ll need to adapt to where those priorities go.
Another big challenge is making sure our voice is heard across the organization. Through my work with the Integral Insights Task Force [within Intellus], I’ve seen how difficult silos can be to navigate, especially in large companies. Too often, researchers don’t have the business acumen to connect their work to what the rest of the enterprise cares about. If we’re not developing the skills to speak the language of the C-suite, then our insights risk staying in a corner of the business. That’s not enough to move the needle. Between now and 2035, the world will look very different -- and our impact depends on making sure insights are part of the conversations that truly shape strategy.
NP: AI is on everyone’s mind right now. From your perspective, how do you see it shaping the future of insights in pharma?
DP: AI is going to open up huge opportunities to work differently and really expand our capabilities. At the same time, it probably means some of our traditional methodologies may no longer be as necessary. That can feel uncomfortable, but it’s also exciting, because it frees us up to focus on higher-value work.
To be a little provocative, I think we’ll see less demand for research that just describes what’s happening. With stronger data ecosystems and AI’s ability to analyze patterns, those questions can be answered more quickly and cheaply. Where insights professionals will still be essential is in uncovering the whys behind behavior and in connecting information across silos to build a bigger picture. That’s where the real value will be -- and that’s what we’ll have to lean into as the role of AI grows.
NP: From your perspective, is pharma embracing AI fast enough -- and with the right mindset -- or is there still reluctance holding us back?
DP: I don’t think we fully appreciate what AI really is yet, or what its full potential will be. Nobody has the complete picture, and adoption will happen at different rates. It’s like with self-driving cars -- the technology is there in some ways, but are we really ready to trust it? That’s the stage we’re at with AI in pharma.
What I see right now is a lot of focus on how AI can replace existing methodologies. That’s fine, but it’s only part of the story. What we’re not doing enough of yet is asking how AI connects across the enterprise -- with IT, R&D, clinical, advocacy -- so we can create true enterprise solutions. To me, the opportunity isn’t just in replacing what we already do, but in positioning ourselves as insights leaders across the business. Marketing research is one piece, but if we want to stay relevant, we have to think bigger. We have to drive change at the enterprise level.
NP: AI tends to dominate the conversation right now, but what other technologies are you personally excited about -- especially in how they might transform the way we gather insights?
DP: AI itself isn’t new -- we’ve had machine learning and predictive models for years. What’s new is generative AI, and that’s exciting, but I think as market researchers we sometimes miss the bigger picture. We’re not always spending enough time understanding how IT infrastructure works and why it matters to insights. If our data is integrated into enterprise systems, it can be connected in far more powerful ways in our businesses. Not all research data fits there today, but more platforms are emerging -- and they open up big possibilities.
That’s why we need to be part of those conversations. When technology platform groups are meeting to decide what tools the organization will invest in, that’s not coming out of a market research budget. But those decisions will directly shape how we operate, what data we can access, and whether insights has a voice at the table. If we want to stay relevant, client-side researchers need to step into those rooms and make sure our perspective is heard as those enterprise-level decisions are being made.
NP: So you’re saying insights professionals need to pair their strengths in storytelling and psychology with greater fluency in IT capability and tech platforms. Am I interpreting that correctly?
DP: You interpreted it exactly right. I love your use of the word “fluency” -- that’s really what it is. For me, coming from a psychology background, I’ve always seen myself on the social science side. I love taking complex data, finding the story in it, and putting it into a presentation that actually moves people to act. That’s why I believe insights belongs in the role of quarterback -- we can connect the dots, tell the story, and lead the enterprise forward. But to do that, we need to understand the new tools and technologies that are coming, and we need to partner across the company to make sure insights has a voice in those conversations.
That’s also why the work of the Integrated Insights Committee has been so interesting. We’ve been speaking with C-suites about how insights can have more impact and be seen as truly valuable. One key takeaway is that companies with an objective data office — whether it’s a Chief Data Officer or something similar -- are making better decisions. That structure creates space for insights to influence at a higher level. There’s a white paper coming soon from the task force that will go deeper into this, but I think the real opportunity lies in defining how we keep insights as an objective, trusted voice -- and in building the skill sets that will make sure we’re indispensable in that role.
NP: I have to admit, I’m a bit of a tech nerd, and I’ve been intrigued by the new Apple Vision Pro. It feels like it could be a real game-changer, much like the iPhone was. Do you see virtual reality becoming part of our world in pharma insights anytime soon?
DP: I do think VR and related technologies are going to change things in a big way. It’s a bit like smartphones -- nobody imagined how much they would reshape our lives until suddenly we were asking Siri or Google for everything. That’s why I think it’s so important for us, as researchers, to stay tuned in and keep learning. At our core, we’re listeners and learners, always watching how trends emerge and what they mean. That makes us well-positioned to help guide this next wave of transformation in life sciences.
That said, not everything will stick. Some things will flop, like Second Life years ago. We experimented with avatars and virtual worlds in market research back then, but it never really scaled. Still, even when ideas don’t take hold right away, they often pave the way for the next generation of innovations. So we can’t afford to sit back and wait -- we need to be part of the experimentation, because change is coming fast.
One story that recently struck me is that Baxter was actually one of the first companies to pioneer digital commerce back in the late ’70s or early ’80s -- using a primitive modem to reorder supplies. That reminded me not to underestimate our industry. It’s easy to fall into the stereotype that pharma is always lagging behind, but the truth is, we’ve been on the leading edge before. And if that was possible decades ago, there’s no reason we can’t be at the forefront again.
NP: One thing you raised that really caught my attention was synthetic respondents. I’d love your point of view: are we ready for them in pharma, and what role do you see them playing?
DP: I’m excited about synthetic respondents, but I don’t think the technology is fully there yet. It reminds me of the idea of a self-driving car -- I love the vision, but I’m not quite ready to take my hands off the wheel. There are some promising use cases, particularly in areas like positioning research, where it’s difficult to test conceptual ideas in compliant ways. A synthetic respondent could be a game-changer there.
But the bigger question is: what data are we training on, and what biases are baked in? Building a data set that’s truly representative and not compromised is no small task. And I haven’t yet seen a solution that convincingly addresses that for healthcare. My own experience as a parent has made me especially sensitive to this. Seven of my children were adopted from East Africa, and walking with them through the U.S. healthcare system has shown me firsthand the inequities and biases that still exist. That gives me pause -- because if we’re training models on historical data, we risk reinforcing the very problems we should be trying to solve.
There’s also the issue of who gets represented. Do we lose the voices of patients who don’t articulate their experiences as clearly, or who struggle to navigate their health situations? That’s a real danger. As Tom Donnelly, PhD and the Clearhealth Communication Task Force at Intellus have highlighted, if we only build from respondents who speak well and answer cleanly, we miss huge portions of the populations we serve. If that’s the data we use to train synthetic respondents, we could unintentionally create new blind spots while thinking we’re innovating.
NP: We’ve talked a lot about where things are headed, but I sometimes wonder about going back to basics. I took a client team recently to a facility for in-person interviews, and for them it was a revelation to watch respondents live without distraction...and then brainstorm afterwards in the back room. Do you see value in us revisiting some of those traditional methods, even as technology keeps pushing us forward?
DP: The loss of the back room is a real challenge. Virtual tools just don’t replicate the magic of being in a room together -- observing respondents live, then immediately turning to one another to unpack what it means. That dynamic conversation in the moment is what makes insights come alive, and I don’t think watching on a screen gives you the same impact. There’s something different about being behind the glass, hearing people talk, and seeing it unfold right in front of you.
The hard part is, with cost pressures, regulatory constraints, and tighter travel budgets, it’s rare to get teams together in person anymore. We’ve tried alternatives -- conference rooms where people watch together, or “first-person” research days -- but it’s difficult to coordinate and get people to commit the time. Everyone’s calendars are just too full. Still, I see it as a challenge we have to solve. That human connection, that shared experience of seeing insights first-hand, is too important to let disappear.
And honestly, I think this is the kind of problem we should be tackling collectively. It’s not just about nostalgia; it’s about preserving the power of what makes research meaningful. We need to find creative, practical ways to bring that back into our industry, and I’m hopeful that through communities like Intellus we can figure out a path forward.
NP: We’ve talked about the back room, but what other ‘old-fashioned’ practices do you think were valuable and worth reviving in today’s increasingly virtual research world?
DP: It’s not that some of these older methods aren’t valued -- it’s that they’ve become harder to execute. Privacy and compliance concerns, for example, make true ethnographic research really difficult today. And when it does happen, it’s often not from an insights perspective but more for publication or testimonial purposes. That means the work ends up heavily curated, rather than the kind of raw, in-context observation that can uncover unmet needs or hierarchy of needs. That’s where ethnography has so much power, and I think we’ve lost some of that.
The other piece is technology itself. With all the transcription tools, AI copilots, and automated outputs, I think we’ve unintentionally weakened some of the fundamental skills of researchers. The art of note-taking, of coding insights in real time, of actively listening and processing in the moment -- those are muscles that used to make us sharper. Now, with so much of that outsourced to technology, I worry we’re losing a critical part of what makes us effective as researchers.
NP: I completely get what you’re saying. I’m a physical notetaker myself -- I process by writing things down as I listen. But now, with transcription tools doing that for us, I wonder: are we actually losing that layer of processing and reflection that comes from writing in the moment? Is that what you’re pointing to?
DP: That’s exactly what I’m saying. When we’re listening for key insights, the human brain processes differently than an AI tool ever could. But I see a lot of researchers today relying on those tools just to spit out a summary -- “what did we hear?” -- and that becomes the output for brand partners. Agencies sometimes fall into the same pattern because the pressure for speed is so great. Years ago, when I was running the research myself, I’d take notes during the first interview of the day, then refine and expand them across the six interviews that followed. By the end of the day, I had a curated a strategic view that reflected real learning. We’re losing some of that discipline now, and there’s a risk of dumbing things down if we over-rely on technology. We have to be careful.
Part of this comes back to protocols. We need to give people the space to fully engage and be present. In 2025, no one is immune from distractions -- emails, texts, three meetings booked at the same time. But staying mindful and focused is critical, not just in research but in life. It reminds me of the old debates about calculators: you had to know how to do the math yourself to recognize whether the calculator’s answer was even in the right ballpark. Once you had that skill, the tool was helpful. Without it, you risked getting it wrong. That’s where we are with AI and synthetic respondents -- they’re powerful, but without the grounding of critical thinking, they can mislead.
Ultimately, decision enablement only works if it’s based on good data. Yes, we want to be fast and cutting-edge because that’s a competitive advantage. But speed without rigor can be dangerous. So the challenge for all of us is making sure we’re investing in the right innovations, putting in the right training, and preparing our people to be ready for the next generation of insights. That balance is what will define whether we succeed.
NP: Speaking of the next generation, many people reading this may be just entering the field or considering it. I think about my own daughter, who’s about to graduate from college, and wonder: what skills and practices will serve young professionals best as the industry continues to evolve?
DP: I never want to underestimate the value of soft skills in our profession. A background in the social sciences is incredibly valuable -- whether it comes from formal training or just from having high IQ, EQ, or natural curiosity. There’s more than one way up the mountain, but at the heart of it, you need to understand how people make decisions and what influences their thinking. That kind of curiosity is what drives real insight.
We’ve seen so much progress in behavioral science, and you don’t need to be a master in it, but having exposure -- even at the college level -- is important. I’d love to see psychology or social sciences woven into more general curricula. At the same time, you can’t ignore technology, IT, or even basic finance. If you’re going to be in business, you need enough fluency to follow the conversation and not get lost. Don’t just lean into what feels comfortable; stretch yourself. It’s like learning a language -- easier when you’re younger. The same goes for technology, coding, and other skills that allow you to flex, pivot, and keep doors open. This industry is constantly evolving, and you need a broad enough toolbox to move with it.
Beyond the technical and academic skills, I see a real need right now for resilience and some of those fundamental life skills. A lot of younger professionals are struggling there. That’s why mentorship is so important -- learning from those who’ve already weathered the ups and downs. We’re going to see a wave of retirements in the next 10 years, and the people who invest now in both their skills and their networks will be the ones ready to step into leadership roles. Those who do are going to reap the rewards.
NP: For a while, behavioral science felt like it was everywhere in our field -- it was the hot topic everyone was talking about. But lately, when I talk with clients, it seems like the appetite has cooled. People seem more focused on using standard methods to just get things done quickly, rather than investing in some of the more nuanced behavioral approaches. From your perspective, what’s driving that shift? Why do you think interest in behavioral science has either declined or changed in the past few years?
DP: I think, like with many things, behavioral science had its moment of hype. There were some companies that truly integrated it in meaningful ways, but there were also others who claimed to be doing behavioral science without really delivering value. That kind of superficial application can lead people to dismiss the whole approach, when in fact it has enormous potential if done right.
For me, the real value of behavioral science is that it doesn’t just tell us what people say they want today -- it helps us understand why they behave the way they do and, importantly, how they’re likely to behave in the future. That’s incredibly powerful. It’s essentially the human equivalent of predictive modeling. If people aren’t taking advantage of that, I see it more as a positioning problem than a limitation of the discipline itself.
At the same time, I think we in insights can be our own worst enemies. Too often I hear colleagues defaulting to “what we did last year” or checking a box to move a project forward. That mindset erodes credibility and, frankly, limits the impact of our work. If behavioral science is seen as slowing things down or adding unnecessary steps, then organizations will cut it. But that’s exactly where we need to be careful -- because when we cut out the “why,” we’re cutting out the real value we bring as researchers.
So yes, I am demanding about it. I want behavioral science to be integrated thoughtfully into our work, because without it we risk becoming transactional instead of truly strategic.
NP: This has been such a phenomenal discussion, and I really appreciate it. I don’t think we’ve ever had the chance to just sit down and go this deep before. It’s been refreshing to set everything else aside and really just listen -- to hear how you think about things, how you process them, and the way you articulate your perspective. Before we wrap up, I’d love to know: what else is on your mind? Is there anything we haven’t touched on that you think is important to share?
DP: I’ve really enjoyed this conversation, and I think one area we haven’t touched on enough is advocacy -- both for our industry and for the value we bring to healthcare companies and ultimately to patients. Part of why I stepped into the role of co-leading the task force on Integral Insights is because I believe we’re not doing enough to amplify our voice at the highest levels.
David Berman and others have spoken about the “inferiority complex” market researchers sometimes carry, and I’ve seen it too. Many of us hesitate to engage C-suite leaders directly, even to the point of feeling uncomfortable sending an email to a CCO. That reluctance worries me. We need to recognize the value we bring and have the confidence to advocate for it.
At Intellus, we’re tackling this through the task force, but also through committees focused on upskilling and preparing for the future. The summit program committee, for example, is doing meaningful work to spotlight what we should be proud of as an industry. We need to see ourselves as worthy of that spotlight -- not waiting for others to be our amplifiers, but using our own voices.
And at a personal level, I think one of the most powerful things we can do is support one another. At the last Intellus meeting, I spent time with a woman new to her organization who was trying to amplify her impact. We sat together for 20 minutes and worked through practical ways she could build her network and gain C-suite access. Nothing revolutionary...just pressure-testing her plan and helping her think about where to start.
That’s the kind of peer support that matters. The more we do that for each other, the better the outcomes are for patients. I truly believe we each change the world in small ways every day, but our impact grows exponentially when we help others do the same. That’s why conferences, sharing best practices, and even learning from missteps are so important. It’s how we elevate ourselves -- and the industry -- together.
