Podcast: AI, innovation and human insight in medical communications – A conversation with Lauren Waite & James Wright

Listen by chapter

• 01:08 – How our clients are asking for AI to be used
• 04:55 – AI as a content generator and a content audience
• 12:16 – Where can AI offer something additive?
• 16:50 – The limitations of AI for med comms
• 20:27 – The impact of AI on publications strategy
• 23:20 – Will AI replace med comms agencies?

AI, innovation and human insight in medical communications – A conversation with Lauren Waite & James Wright

The Science. Strategy. Solutions. podcast series brings together perspectives on the ideas, evidence and expertise shaping medical communications, market access and regulatory writing.

In episode 2, Lauren Waite, Director of Scientific Strategy at Bioscript Group, and James Wright, Senior Director of Bioscript Data Insights, explore the growing role of artificial intelligence in medical communications.

As AI moves from an emerging opportunity to an increasingly common client expectation, their discussion considers a more important question than whether the technology can be used:  how should it be used in a way that protects quality, builds trust and delivers meaningful value?

Their conversation returns to a central theme: AI can help teams process information, challenge established thinking and work more efficiently, but meaningful healthcare communication still depends on human judgement, scientific rigour and trust. The highlights below explore how organisations can pursue innovation without compromising the quality, accuracy and strategic thinking their audiences require.

Q: How has AI moved from an emerging technology to a client expectation?

Lauren: We’re increasingly seeing AI referenced in requests for proposals. Clients want to understand how it can make workflows more efficient, support innovation and help teams go beyond traditional approaches.

However, the question is no longer simply whether we can use AI. We need to determine where it adds meaningful value and whether using it is appropriate for the task. Efficiency cannot come at the expense of quality, particularly in medical communications, where clients expect accurate, strategically aligned and carefully reviewed work.

The opportunity is to use our judgement and expertise to identify where AI genuinely improves an approach, rather than adding it simply because the technology is available.

James: Clients are also asking how AI will be used and managed. Alongside the pressure to demonstrate innovation and create efficiencies, teams need to consider what realistic efficiency looks like and whether AI is genuinely the right approach for the task. 

That means looking beyond the presence of the technology itself and considering how it contributes to the quality and value of the final work. 

Q: How can organisations balance AI-enabled efficiency with quality and compliance?

Lauren: Medical communications teams already cross-check their work to identify potential errors and inconsistencies. With AI, that becomes even more important because inaccurate information can be repeated, reproduced and circulated across different pieces of content. 

Teams therefore need to check AI-generated material carefully, validate the information it provides and consider how errors or unsupported claims could affect the final communication. AI may support parts of the process, but it does not remove the need for rigorous human review. 

The proposed approach should also be discussed with clients at the beginning of a project. Teams should explain how they intend to work, where AI may be used and how they will check that the approach remains appropriate. Clients should not be surprised to discover that AI has been used in a way they did not expect. 

James: Introducing AI into a governed medical communications environment may increase the importance of effective communication. Teams need to ask the right questions, articulate the outcome they require and assess whether the response they receive is appropriate. 

Efficiency must therefore be considered alongside the quality of the output. Technology can contribute to the process, but experienced people are still needed to provide context, validate the result and decide whether it meets the needs of the project.

Q: Why is transparency so important when using AI with clients?

Lauren: Confidence depends on clients having trust  in how their teams work and approach a challenge. They should never discover unexpectedly that AI has been used in a way they did not anticipate. 

The proposed approach should therefore be discussed at the beginning of a project. Teams should explain where AI may be used, what role it will play and what checks will be applied to its outputs. This is consistent with the way we already approach compliance across publications, meetings and other medical communications activities. 

Transparency is not simply about reporting that AI was used. It is about creating shared expectations and demonstrating that the process has been considered carefully. When clients understand the rationale, safeguards and intended benefit, they can make informed decisions about whether the approach is right for the project.  

Q: Why should communicators consider AI as an audience as well as a tool? 

Lauren: Much of the discussion about AI focuses on using it to produce or analyse content. However, AI is also becoming one of the ways that healthcare professionals and other audiences find, summarise and interpret information.

That changes how we need to think about communication. We have spent years considering human audiences, including how people engage with information, how they learn and what helps them retain it. Those principles remain essential, but communicators must now also consider whether digital content can be found, understood and represented accurately by AI systems.

This means creating a clear hierarchy of evidence, connecting claims to appropriate context and reducing the potential for ambiguity. It also means thinking carefully about format and discoverability. If an AI-generated response becomes an audience’s first interaction with a subject, the source material needs to make the intended evidence and narrative as clear as possible.

James: There are several connected decisions within that challenge. Teams need to consider what evidence is being communicated, where it will be published, who needs to access it and how both people and AI systems may find and interpret it.

The technology adds another layer to an already complex communications environment. Decisions about content, channel, format and audience still require experienced scientific and commercial judgement.

Q: Where can AI add genuine value in medical communications?

Lauren: One valuable application is processing large volumes of information and bringing forward potential themes, trends or patterns. This can reduce the time required for initial analysis, but it does not remove the need for experienced interpretation.

For example, an AI system may be able to analyse an advisory board transcript and identify recurring topics. But a transcript may not capture a participant’s facial expression, a change in tone or the strength of feeling in the room. Those signals can shape the meaning of a discussion and still require interpretation by people who understand the context, the subject and the client’s objectives.

I also find AI useful as a sounding board. It can challenge an idea, suggest alternative approaches or help me look at a problem from another angle. The value is not necessarily in accepting its recommendation, but in prompting reflection and broadening my thinking.

James: AI can create space for structured reflection. It gives people something to respond to, test or challenge, which can support the thinking process.

However, the final strategy or message still needs to come from experienced people who understand the context of the problem. Technology can contribute to the process, but contextualisation and decision-making remain human responsibilities.

Q: What does AI mean for creativity and the human voice?

Lauren: AI works from patterns in existing information. That can make it effective at producing familiar structures or offering variations on what has been done before. True innovation, however, depends on creating something genuinely new and applying ideas in a way that reflects the specific context.

If more organisations use similar tools trained on overlapping sources, there is a risk that content becomes increasingly uniform. Tone, rhythm and structure can begin to feel interchangeable. In that environment, a distinctive human voice may become more valuable because it gives audiences something recognisable, credible and memorable.

This makes relationships with healthcare professionals and other experts even more important. Their perspectives, experiences and ways of communicating can bring originality and nuance that formulaic content cannot replicate.

The goal is not to avoid polish or accuracy. It is to communicate with a human tone while maintaining the precision required in medical communications.

James: Audiences can obtain rapid summaries more easily than ever. When a subject matters, they may place greater value on communication that offers depth, context and a genuine human perspective.

The challenge is therefore to meet the need for speed and accessibility without losing the qualities that make information worth spending time with.

Q: Will AI replace medical communications?

Lauren: No. AI will increasingly support particular tasks, including the analysis of large datasets and the development of possible responses to defined questions. With the right inputs and safeguards, it can contribute meaningfully to established workflows.

But there is no acceptable margin for avoidable error in medical communications . Outputs must be accurate, consistent, strategically aligned and appropriately contextualised. Humans are needed to validate the evidence, understand the audience and take responsibility for the final communication.

The way we work will evolve, just as previous technologies have changed established processes. However, the importance of the work means responsibility cannot simply be transferred to a system that teams cannot fully validate or trust.

James: Introducing AI into a governed medical communications environment may actually increase the importance of communication skills. Teams must be able to ask precise questions, articulate the required outcome and assess whether an answer is appropriate.

Technology may change the process, but it does not remove the need to communicate the right information, to the right audience, in the right way.

Building trust in an AI-enabled communications landscape

If there is a throughline to this discussion, it is that responsible AI adoption depends on trust.

That includes trust between clients and their partners, trust between healthcare professionals and the communications they receive, and trust that any efficiencies delivered through technology have not compromised the accuracy or value of the work.

As AI becomes a more influential part of how information is created, discovered and interpreted, consistency will become increasingly important. Organisations need clear core claims, aligned narratives and reliable sources of truth that can support communications across markets, channels and audiences.

Local nuance will still matter, but it should sit within a coherent global strategy. Establishing that foundation requires early collaboration, careful planning and an honest understanding of where AI adds value and where human expertise must lead.

AI will undoubtedly change how medical communications teams work. But throughout the discussion, Lauren and James return to the same conclusion: technology can support efficiency and innovation, but it cannot replace the clarity, context, scientific rigour and human judgement that underpin effective healthcare communication.

Listen to episode 2 of the Science. Strategy. Solutions. podcast to hear the full conversation between Lauren Waite and James Wright.

Missed episode 1? Catch up on our conversation with Dave Andrews, Chief Scientific Officer, and Cora Carolan, Managing Director, Medical Communications, as they reflect on their career journeys, the evolution of medical communications and what effective partnership looks like in today’s complex pharma environment.