The VIC Fellows Program offers experienced professionals the opportunity to learn how to identify and evaluate high-potential innovations from around the world. We’re proud to showcase the members of the 2025–2026 Fellows class through a series of interviews, including this recent conversation with Shreya Patel, MD, MPH.
Please tell us a little bit about your background.I began my career as a physician in the UK, where I trained and practiced in clinical medicine. Early on, I became interested in how healthcare systems make decisions at scale: what gets funded, what reaches patients, and why. That curiosity led me to transition into the life sciences industry, where I’ve worked across global and regional roles spanning strategy, product launches, and innovation. My experience includes leading initiatives in vaccines, oncology, and more recently immunology and early-stage assets. Across both the UK and US, my focus has been on bridging clinical insight with commercial strategy to ensure that scientific innovation translates into meaningful patient impact.
You began your career as a practicing physician in the UK. Was there a specific “lightbulb moment” that convinced you to move from the clinic to the life sciences industry?
There wasn’t a single moment, but rather a growing realization. In clinical practice, I could impact one patient at a time, which is deeply meaningful. At the same time, I became increasingly aware of how many of the challenges we faced: delayed diagnoses, limited treatment options, system inefficiencies, which were shaped by decisions made far beyond the clinic. I was drawn to the idea of working at that broader level, where I could help influence how therapies are developed, evaluated, and delivered. Moving into life sciences felt like an opportunity to scale impact while still staying grounded in patient care.
For other physicians considering a move into the life sciences or venture space, what is the most important piece of advice you can offer for bridging the gap between clinical practice and commercial leadership?
The most important step is learning to translate clinical intuition into structured, strategic thinking. In medicine, decisions are often made with incomplete information but guided by experience and pattern recognition. In industry and venture settings, that intuition is still valuable, but it needs to be paired with an understanding of markets, incentives, and evidence frameworks. Building fluency in areas like clinical development, regulatory strategy, and commercialization is key. Equally important is being able to communicate across disciplines, especially connecting scientific, clinical, and business perspectives into a coherent narrative.You’ve led global and regional leadership roles across both the UK and US. What is one major difference in how these two healthcare systems approach the adoption of new medical technologies?
One of the most significant differences is the balance between centralized evaluation and market-driven adoption. In the UK, there is a more structured and centralized process, with organizations like National Institute for Health and Care Excellence playing a critical role in assessing cost-effectiveness and guiding adoption at a national level. In contrast, the US system is more fragmented, with multiple payers, providers, and decision-makers influencing uptake. This can enable faster adoption in certain settings, but it also creates variability and complexity in access. Each system has its strengths, but both ultimately face the same challenge - aligning innovation with affordability and real-world value.
Your recent work involves immunology and early-stage assets. How do you determine if a scientific innovation has the potential for real-world impact before it ever reaches the market?
Evaluating early-stage innovation requires balancing scientific rigor with strategic foresight. It starts with a deep understanding of the underlying biology: whether the mechanism of action is compelling and differentiated. From there, I look at the clinical context: the unmet need, the current standard of care, and whether the innovation meaningfully changes outcomes. Equally important is the path to execution - can the asset be developed efficiently, is there a clear regulatory pathway, and will it be adoptable in real-world settings? Ultimately, the goal is to identify innovations that are not only scientifically sound, but also practical, scalable, and aligned with how healthcare systems operate.
At Sanofi, you led major product launches in vaccines and oncology. What is the biggest hurdle in moving a breakthrough therapy from a “successful trial” to actually being adopted by a healthcare system?
The biggest hurdle is bridging the gap between clinical efficacy and real-world value. A successful trial demonstrates that a therapy works under controlled conditions, but adoption depends on a much broader set of factors for e.g. cost-effectiveness, ease of implementation, physician awareness, patient access, and health system priorities. Even breakthrough therapies can face delays if they are not well integrated into clinical pathways or if there is uncertainty around long-term outcomes. Successful adoption requires early planning that goes beyond the trial itself, incorporating evidence generation, stakeholder engagement, and system-level alignment.
You have a noted interest in Women’s Health and AI. How do you see these two fields intersecting to change the future of preventive healthcare?