Research-Knowledge Graph Board Guide — Applied Biosciences

The mandate

The board repeatedly asks whether a proposed graph linking experiments, samples, targets, compounds, publications and patents will accelerate translational decisions or simply make fragmented records easier to browse. Researchers disagree about assertion confidence, negative evidence and attribution, while partnership leaders want external data connected rapidly. Vendor demonstrations show attractive paths but not whether a scientist can challenge the provenance or meaning of each edge.

The adviser will reserve two days monthly for chair preparation, scientific and technology challenge, and review of investment papers, plus five committee meetings. A written reaction to a material partnership or data-rights question is expected within two Argentine business days. Ontology design, research analysis or vendor procurement work beyond board challenge must be separately commissioned.

The initial term lasts ten months from February 2027. In month eight, the board will determine whether the institute’s research-data council can apply the agreed investment principles without continued external input. One four-month renewal may be approved by full-board vote; management cannot carry unused time forward or redirect the retainer into implementation supervision.

The guide holds no line authority, executive responsibility, scientific-review vote, intellectual-property judgement, vendor selection or data-release authority. Advice will question evidence and portfolio logic, not determine research truth. Principal investigators, technology executives and the IP function retain accountable decisions, and the appointment cannot be cited as independent validation of a target or translational claim.

Up to three other appointments are allowed with disclosure of relationships involving pharmaceutical companies, research institutes, graph vendors, publishers, investors and potential licensees. Work on a competing target or transaction may require recusal. Access to another client’s unpublished experimental or patent strategy can create a conflict too substantive for anonymisation or information barriers.

Why the board wants this voice

Directors understand science and partnership economics but have not operated a research graph whose assertions change as evidence accumulates. Technology teams emphasise connectivity, while scientists fear flattening uncertainty and contribution. The board wants a practitioner who can challenge graph value and governance without dictating ontology or substituting for peer review.

What you will own

• Press directors to identify the target-selection, experiment, partnership and intellectual-property decisions the graph must materially improve.
• Test whether assertion, contradiction, negative result, confidence, provenance and effective time remain visible through graph traversal and update.
• Challenge ontology scope that favours elegant connectivity over researcher adoption, defensible meaning or sustainable stewardship.
• Shape investment gates around independently reproduced queries, changed decisions, captured negative evidence and reduced manual evidence reconstruction.
• Probe attribution and rights where external literature, partner data, internal experiments and machine-derived relationships combine in one path.
• Frame board scenarios involving retracted publications, disputed target identity, changed assay interpretation and confidential partner withdrawal.
• Coach the committee to distinguish graph navigation, scientific inference, research validation and IP judgement in decision records.

Candidate qualifications

• Led scientific knowledge graphs or research-data products in biosciences, pharmaceuticals, materials research or another evidence-intensive domain.
• Modelled assertions, contradictions, confidence and provenance without presenting graph connectivity as proof of scientific causality.
• Demonstrated a translational or research decision changed by graph evidence and measured the benefit beyond search convenience.
• Governed attribution and data rights across publications, internal experiments, partners and machine-derived relationships.
• Challenged a vendor or internal graph programme whose ontology ambition exceeded stewardship capacity and scientist adoption.
• Advised boards or research councils while preserving principal-investigator, peer-review and intellectual-property authority.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend five Buenos Aires committee meetings in person despite remote delivery of the regular monthly cadence.
• Will disclose research, pharmaceutical, graph-platform, investment and licensing interests before viewing unpublished institute evidence.
• Accepts that scientific validity, IP, partnership and data-release decisions remain with accountable institute leaders.
• Must demonstrate an operating scientific graph; enterprise search or generic semantic-web experience alone is insufficient.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe a research decision changed by graph evidence and how you avoided treating an edge as causality.
2. 49 words maximum. Which current research, pharmaceutical, vendor or investment relationships require disclosure to this institute?
3. 49 words maximum. How would you represent a negative experiment that weakens, but does not invalidate, an existing target assertion?