Computational-Biology Research Authority Recovery Leader

The mandate

An oncology target programme was paused when an independent review could not reproduce the evidence chain from assay quality through feature construction to biological interpretation. India teams had executed pipelines exactly as specified, while Boston scientists retained exceptions, negative findings and decisions about whether discordant evidence invalidated a target. The global computational biology executive resigned after the review challenged three other transferred programmes.

The interim will enter Boston within three weeks, spend alternate months with India research leaders and hold the role for sixteen months. Recruitment of a permanent global research-transfer executive begins after two programmes pass independent evidence replay, expected by month nine. The successor must participate in one target-prioritisation cycle and chair two scientific dissent reviews during a seven-week overlap.

Handover means four research work packages connect assay provenance, cohort logic, analytical code, biological interpretation, negative evidence and a named target decision; India principal scientists exercise defined challenge rights; two blinded replays reproduce conclusions within agreed tolerance; and permanent leadership inherits the dissent, exception, talent and source-exit ledgers. Document delivery without scientific judgment transfer will not qualify.

The interim may pause a work-package transfer, convene independent replication, change analytical acceptance gates, redirect scarce computational specialists and commit up to USD 12 million from the approved capability budget. Target nomination, external publication, animal-study commissioning, patent filing and portfolio termination remain with scientific governance. Research leaders in India may reject insufficient assay inputs under the new delegation.

Wet-laboratory management, clinical development, enterprise research-compute procurement, general data-platform remediation and disease areas outside the four named packages are excluded. The assignment covers computational-research authority, assay interfaces, reproducibility evidence, scientific leadership depth, source withdrawal and succession. Findings outside this boundary will be referred to the relevant research officer without enlarging the interim empire.

Why this seat is open

The failed review converted a long-running capability concern into a portfolio and investor risk, then the responsible executive departed. Programme scientists cannot objectively decide which of their retained judgments should move or how their own roles should exit. Temporary scientific-operating authority is required to repair evidence chains while live target decisions continue.

What you will own

• Reconstruct the paused programme from assay provenance and cohort selection through analysis, interpretation, dissent and target decision.
• Define complete computational-biology work packages with scientific inputs, quality gates, accountable judgments and research outputs.
• Establish India challenge rights over assay sufficiency, analytical assumptions, contradictory biology and irreproducible source conclusions.
• Run blinded evidence replays, cross-method comparisons and dissent forums that distinguish pipeline fidelity from scientific understanding.
• Build principal-scientist, domain-lead and research-product succession with credible exposure to wet-lab and portfolio choices.
• Sequence source-team withdrawal around exercised target decisions, publication knowledge, collaborator relationships and negative-result transfer.
• Transfer programme ledgers, reproducibility evidence, delegated decisions, unresolved hypotheses and talent actions through successor-chaired reviews.

Candidate qualifications

• Held senior computational-biology authority across target discovery, omics evidence, assay interfaces and translational portfolio decisions.
• Recovered a research programme after irreproducibility exposed gaps in provenance, analytical assumptions or biological interpretation.
• Built an India computational research capability that challenged scientific inputs and owned conclusions, not only pipeline execution.
• Managed disagreement among assay scientists, bioinformaticians and disease experts without converting uncertainty into endless consensus meetings.
• Preserved negative findings, method rationale and external-collaborator context while releasing scarce source-country research roles.
• Handed research authority to permanent leaders after observing target prioritisation, evidence replay and consequential stop decisions.

Non-negotiables

• Can begin in Boston within three weeks and sustain alternating travel to India research teams for sixteen months.
• Will accept exclusive executive accountability for the four computational work packages and continuous scientific escalation.
• Brings target-discovery authority plus cross-border research transfer; generic data science or research IT leadership is insufficient.
• Must disclose biopharma, diagnostics, data-provider, contract-research, academic and investor relationships affecting named programmes.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe a target conclusion you overturned because pipeline reproducibility concealed weak biological reasoning.
2. 49 words maximum. How did you prove a receiving scientist could challenge assay inputs rather than simply rerun code?
3. 49 words maximum. State your Boston availability and any oncology interest that would require programme-level recusal.