Most nonclinical teams spend a lot of time thinking about which studies to run. Very few spend enough time thinking about when. Study sequencing is one of the most consequential — and most underestimated — decisions in IND-enabling development. Get the order right and your program builds on itself. Get it wrong and you're defending conclusions built on shaky ground. This issue breaks down the 3 sequencing mistakes I see most often.

"No major findings" is one of the most reassuring phrases in nonclinical development — and one of the most dangerous. It describes what wasn't observed. It doesn't interpret what the study actually resolved. Once that phrase enters the conversation, attention shifts, assumptions harden, and questions stop being asked. This issue unpacks why clean studies require more interpretation, not less.

There's a point in nonclinical development where data stop helping a program and start working against it. In toxicology we call this inflection point hormesis — low doses help, high doses harm. The same dynamic applies to data. Early on, data reduce uncertainty. Beyond a certain threshold, they complicate interpretation and replace judgment instead of supporting it. This issue unpacks what happens when data accumulation crosses its toxic threshold.