Great Products Are Built Beyond Scientific Discovery

What a recent consulting project reminded me about product development philosophy.

Every consulting project teaches me something new.

During a recent engagement, I watched two highly experienced teams examine the same experimental results and reach completely different conclusions.

One group saw a biological product that wasn’t working.

The other saw a product development system that wasn’t yet optimized.

They were simply approaching the same challenge through different product development philosophies.

That conversation stayed with me long after the meeting. It reminded me of a lesson I’ve been learning throughout my career: first in research, then in industry, and now through consulting:

We often evaluate new technologies using the development philosophies that made previous technologies successful.

Sometimes those philosophies transfer well.

Sometimes they become the biggest obstacle to a different innovation.

Every innovation usually starts with a breakthrough. A new molecule, a promising microbial strain, a novel peptide, or a powerful RNA sequence.

But product development determines whether that breakthrough ever reaches the field.

After more than two decades working across various crop protection platforms, I’ve come to appreciate that successful product development is about much more than optimizing a technology.

It’s about optimizing an entire system.

Discovery Solves One Problem

Scientists, including me, are trained to solve scientific questions.

• Can we control the target?

• Can we improve potency?

• Can we identify a better lead?

• Can we discover a new mode of action?

These questions are important, and every breakthrough product starts with solid science.

But discovery only answers one thing:

Can it work?

Product development, though, has to answer a much bigger question:

Can it become a reliable, scalable, commercially valuable solution?

These are two very different challenges.

A Product Is an Ecosystem

One thing I’ve seen over the years is this:

No crop protection product succeeds just because of one part.

Success depends on how all the different parts work together.

A great active ingredient can fail because of formulation.

An excellent formulation can struggle because of delivery.

A strong biological can disappoint under field conditions.

Even if a product works from a technical standpoint, it can still fail if it costs too much to produce, if it doesn’t meet regulations, or if growers don’t find it practical and useful enough.

In short, products don’t succeed just because one part is great.

They succeed when the whole system works as one.

Biological Products Make This Even More Obvious

Working with biological technologies reminds me of this lesson every day.

Unlike many conventional chemicals, biological products are always interacting with living systems.

How well they work depends not just on the active ingredient, but also on plant physiology, environmental conditions, microbial communities, formulation, delivery, application timing, and many other factors.

So, when a biological product doesn’t perform well, the active ingredient isn’t always the issue.

More often, the real problem lies elsewhere in the development process.

Realizing this changes the questions we ask.

Instead of asking:

“Why didn’t the biology work?”

We begin asking:

• Was the assay and/or field experiment design ideal for biologicals?

• Was the delivery optimized?

• Is the formulation protecting activity?

• Are we testing under the right environmental conditions?

• Does the manufacturing process preserve consistency?

• Are we designing around how growers will actually use the product?

These are the questions that often lead to real breakthroughs.

I saw this lesson again during a recent consulting project where I managed a collaboration between a company with decades of success in chemical crop protection and an academic laboratory with deep expertise in biological discovery and a strong track record of partnering with companies to advance biological product development.

As the project progressed, I realized the discussion wasn't really about the biology at all.

The company used the same development approach that had worked for them for years. Their plan was simple: find a promising biological active, show it works, improve the formulation, and move the product toward commercialization.

When early results were inconsistent in the greenhouse and field, their first thought was to question if the biological itself had enough potential.

The academic team viewed the same data differently. For them, the variability didn’t mean the biology had failed. Instead, it showed that the development system still needed optimization. Factors such as formulation, delivery method, application strategy, environmental conditions, and production process could all affect performance.

Both perspectives made sense. Each came from years of experience and success with their own technology.

What stood out to me was that the discussion wasn’t really about the biological product. It was about how we think about product development.

That consulting experience inspired me to write this article. It reminded me of a lesson I’ve seen:

Sometimes, one product development philosophy transfers well.

Other times, it becomes the biggest obstacle to innovation.

Biological products don’t simply require different active ingredients.

They often require a different philosophy for turning scientific discoveries into successful products.

Product Development Is Systems Thinking

Over the years, I’ve spent less time focusing on individual technologies and more time thinking about how everything fits together.

• How does discovery influence formulation?

• How does formulation affect field performance?

• How does manufacturing influence product quality?

• How will regulatory strategy affect development timelines?

• What evidence will customers need before adopting new practices?

No single department owns these questions.

They’re part of the whole development process. That’s why working together matters so much.

The most successful organizations I’ve seen are the ones that bring together science, engineering, manufacturing, regulations, agronomy, business, and customer needs right from the start.

I was reminded of this during a conversation with Mark Engel, Chairman of Phagelux AgriHealth, during BioEX2026.

One insight from his talk has stayed with me:

No farmer is willing to take the risk of replacing an old product they are already using.

That statement reinforced another important lesson.

Product development isn’t only about solving technical challenges.

It’s also about understanding how people adopt innovation.

A successful product must fit naturally into existing farming systems, reduce rather than increase perceived risk, and earn trust through consistent field performance.

In other words, product development doesn’t end when a technology works. It ends when growers are willing to use it.

Innovation Is a Team Sport

A common myth in our industry is that most innovation takes place in the lab.

But in reality, innovation happens when people from different fields come together to solve tough problems.

The team includes discovery scientists, formulation experts, bioanalytical teams, field development teams, process engineers, regulatory specialists, marketing, and commercial teams.

Each group brings an important piece to the puzzle.

The sooner these perspectives come together, the faster an idea can turn into a successful product.

My Biggest Takeaway

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in my career, it’s this:

Product discovery creates new possibilities. Product development makes a difference by building the system that supports those possibilities.

The future of agricultural innovation won’t be defined simply by discovering better technologies.

It will be defined by how effectively we build systems that allow those technologies to succeed, from discovery and formulation to manufacturing, regulatory strategy, and ultimately, farmer adoption.

Because a great product isn't measured in the laboratory; it's measured by the difference it makes in the field.