For many scientists, the early stages of a career are built around questions about discovery, evidence, and what deserves further study. For Philip Ashton-Rickardt, those questions eventually expanded into something broader after years in academia, including senior roles at the University of Chicago and Imperial College London. When he moved into biotechnology and founded Smith Therapeutics, the transition changed more than his job title. It changed the way he had to think about science, teams, decision-making, and progress.
Science Becomes More Collaborative
Academic research can be highly collaborative, but scientists are still often measured by their own papers, experiments, grants, and ideas. Company building requires a broader view because progress depends on people with different skills working toward the same goal.
For Ashton-Rickardt, that meant learning how to connect scientific thinking with wider company priorities. Scientists, operators, executives, and outside partners may all approach the same problem from different angles, so leadership becomes less about controlling every decision and more about creating an environment where people can contribute their expertise effectively.
Decisions Have Different Consequences
In research, an unexpected result can lead to a new question worth exploring. In a biotech company, however, every new direction can affect time, resources, staffing, and long-term priorities. That makes decision-making more complex and increases the importance of judgement.
Ashton-Rickardt has described resilience, flexibility, hard work, and curiosity as some of the qualities that have mattered most throughout his career. Those traits become especially important in biotech, where leaders rarely have perfect information. Programs evolve, data changes, and strategies may need to shift, so company builders have to know when to stay committed and when a different direction makes more sense.
Curiosity Needs Structure
Curiosity remains essential in biotech, but it has to operate within a clearer framework. A scientist may see several promising ideas worth exploring, while a company may only have the resources to pursue a small number of them.
That creates a different kind of discipline. Leaders have to ask not only whether something is scientifically interesting, but also whether it fits the larger mission, whether the team can support it, and whether there is a realistic path forward. For Ashton-Rickardt, whose career has centred on immunology and cell therapy, balancing curiosity with focus has become an important part of scientific leadership.
Communication Becomes a Bigger Part of the Job
Scientific training teaches people how to explain complex ideas to other scientists, but company leadership requires a wider range of communication skills. A founder may need to explain the same concept differently to a researcher, a business leader, an investor, or someone with little technical knowledge.
Being able to simplify an idea without losing its meaning becomes a leadership skill in itself. Clear communication also helps teams understand why their work matters and how individual projects connect to a broader company goal.
Success Becomes Less Individual
One of the biggest changes from scientist to company builder is the way success is measured. Earlier in a scientific career, progress can feel highly personal, whether it comes through a successful experiment, publication, promotion, or research finding.
As responsibility grows, success becomes more collective. Leaders are judged not only by their own ideas, but by how well their teams perform, whether people are developing, and whether the organisation is moving in the right direction. Ashton-Rickardt has said that he has his own standards, and that mindset remains important, but leadership also means helping other people meet high standards and do strong work.
Reinvention Becomes Part of the Career
Moving from scientist to company builder also requires accepting that the skills behind earlier success may not be enough for the next stage. That can be uncomfortable, especially for someone who has already spent years becoming highly skilled in one environment.
Ashton-Rickardt came from a working-class background and has said he had to chart his own path through college and into an academic career. That experience helped develop the independence and persistence he later brought into entrepreneurship. His career has continued to evolve through roles as a founder, executive, advisor, and scientific leader, with each transition requiring him to learn something new while building on what came before.
Philip Ashton-Rickardt: The Mindset That Carries Across Both Worlds
Despite the differences between academia and biotech, some qualities remain constant. Curiosity still matters, as do persistence, judgement, flexibility, and the willingness to keep learning.
Philip Ashton-Rickardt has often returned to a simple principle: “Always learn.” That idea captures one of the most important lessons for scientists moving into leadership because the job will change, the questions will change, and the pressure will change. The willingness to keep learning is what allows someone to grow with those changes rather than be limited by what worked in the past.