Medical Affairs and Communications: An Underestimated Factor in Life Sciences Investment and M&A

Sebastian Andersen
Feb 2
5 min read

For most life sciences founders, value creation is instinctively linked to science. The strength of the data. The novelty of the mechanism. The size of the unmet need. These are, without question, foundational. But as companies move from discovery into development, and from development into capital markets or M&A conversations, another layer begins to matter just as much: how that science is understood, trusted, and contextualized by the outside world.

This is where Medical Affairs and Communications quietly become decisive. Not as support functions, and not as marketing tools, but as core value-shaping capabilities. Yet they are consistently underweighted by founders until late in the journey, often when the cost of getting them wrong is highest.

This article is written for founders who are building toward scale, financing, partnership, or exit, and who want a clearer view of where value is truly assessed in life sciences companies today.

The persistent myth: “If the data is strong, the rest will follow”

A common assumption among founders is that strong clinical or preclinical data will speak for itself. That belief is understandable, particularly for teams with deep scientific roots. But in practice, data rarely speaks without interpretation. It is filtered through regulators, physicians, investors, partners, and analysts, all of whom bring their own incentives, skepticism, and heuristics.

The real risk is not that the data is ignored, but that it is misunderstood, discounted, or viewed as incomplete. This gap between scientific success and external conviction is what many investors quietly refer to as translation risk. And it is one of the most common reasons why companies struggle after positive milestones.

Medical Affairs and Communications sit squarely in this translation layer. They do not change the data. They determine whether the data is trusted, contextualized, and adopted.

Medical Affairs as credibility infrastructure, not overhead

For founders, Medical Affairs is often associated with later-stage commercialization. In reality, it functions much earlier as a credibility-building system.

Medical Affairs shapes how data is framed in scientific forums, how key opinion leaders engage with the asset, and how clinical relevance is articulated beyond trial endpoints. It connects the mechanism to real-world treatment decisions and prepares the ground for regulatory, payer, and physician dialogue.

From an investment and M&A perspective, this matters more than is often acknowledged. Acquirers and late-stage investors are not just evaluating what the data shows today. They are assessing how resilient that data will be under scrutiny, across geographies, and over time.

A company with weak Medical Affairs may still advance, but it often faces slower adoption, more challenging diligence, and greater skepticism around scalability. These issues rarely appear as binary red flags. Instead, they surface as valuation friction, elongated timelines, or a narrower set of credible buyers.

Communications shapes perception long before valuation models do

In life sciences, perception often precedes valuation. The way a company communicates its science, strategy, and progress shapes how it is framed by the market long before financial models are built.

This does not mean promotional storytelling. It means narrative discipline. Consistency of message across publications, congresses, investor materials, and leadership communication. Clear articulation of what the company is, and just as importantly, what it is not.

Founders frequently underestimate how quickly inconsistent or poorly sequenced messaging erodes confidence. Conflicting interpretations of the same data, overextended claims, or shifting strategic narratives create doubt. And doubt is expensive. It reduces competitive tension in financing rounds and M&A processes, and it increases the burden of proof during diligence.

Strong communications, by contrast, do not inflate value artificially. They reduce uncertainty. They allow external stakeholders to engage with the company on its own terms, rather than filling gaps with assumptions.

Where this shows up in M&A and late-stage diligence

For founders thinking about exit or strategic partnerships, Medical Affairs and Communications often become most visible during diligence. This is rarely where companies expect friction to arise.

Buyers and partners ask questions such as:

How has the data been socialized with the scientific community?
Which KOLs are engaged, and how credible are those relationships?
Is the scientific narrative coherent across regions and indications?
How well does management articulate clinical relevance beyond trial design?

Weaknesses here do not always kill deals outright. More often, they reshape them. Deal structures become more conditional, earn-outs grow larger, timelines extend, and general confidence drops.

Importantly, these issues tend to surface late, when founders have limited ability to fix them without delaying the process. What looked like a scientific or financial negotiation becomes, in part, a credibility assessment.

A signal of organizational maturity

To experienced investors, Medical Affairs and Communications also serve as proxies for management maturity. They indicate whether leadership is thinking beyond the next milestone and whether the company understands the ecosystem it operates in.

Early investment in these capabilities signals long-term thinking. It suggests that the team recognizes that value is created not only by generating data, but by ensuring that data travels effectively through regulatory, clinical, and commercial systems.

This does not require large teams or heavy infrastructure at early stages. But it does require intentionality. Founders who treat Medical Affairs and Communications as something to “build later” often struggle to convince sophisticated buyers that the organization can scale credibly.

Practical implications for founders

For founders, the takeaway is not to overinvest prematurely, but to assess readiness honestly.

Key questions worth asking include:

Can we clearly explain why our data matters in real clinical practice?
Are we engaging the right scientific voices early, and for the right reasons?
Is our narrative consistent across audiences and over time?
Would an external party trust our interpretation of our own results?

These are not marketing questions. They are value preservation questions.

Founders who address them early tend to retain optionality. They are better positioned to raise capital on their own terms, attract strategic interest, and navigate diligence without last-minute surprises.

Reframing value creation

Medical Affairs and Communications are often invisible when they work well. That is precisely why they are underestimated. But in life sciences, where trust is the currency that connects science to capital, invisibility is not irrelevance.

For founders building toward the next phase, the question is not whether these functions matter. It is when they begin to matter enough to influence outcomes. In today’s market, that moment arrives earlier than many expect.

If you are a life sciences founder approaching a financing, partnership, or exit inflection point, it may be worth pressure-testing not just your data, but how your science is understood outside your organization.

Get in Touch

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. ClarityNorth Partners makes no representations or warranties of any kind regarding the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the information. Readers should consult with their advisors before making any business decisions based on this content.