From the bench to Big Pharma \ Elisabeth Stes is R&D Communication Manager at J&J

Liesbeth Aerts
Jun 27
5 min read

When Elisabeth Stes stepped away from the lab, she did not walk away from science. A trained biotechnologist with a PhD, she carried her research mindset with her and built a new career in science communication, first at a public research institute, and now at a leading pharmaceutical company.

As R&D Communication Manager at J&J, Elisabeth translates complex research into clear, impactful narratives. Her journey from academia to industry offers valuable insights into the different roles of science communicators, and how ethics and strategy shape their work.

On discovering her strength

“I always enjoyed doing research,” Stes says. “But the part that gave me the most energy was talking about it: writing abstracts, presenting posters, communicating results.”

She began to notice a pattern: abstracts she submitted were often accepted for talks, her presentations regularly won awards, and her posters stood out.

“That was the sign. I had found a space where I could truly add value. I felt like in communication, I could make a real contribution.”

What started as a gut feeling eventually shaped a full career pivot. After working as a proteomics and plant biology researcher in VIB and Ghent University labs, Stes transitioned into science communication roles at VIB, first as a Science Communications Expert and later as External Relations Manager. There, she learned to bridge research with public audiences, support spin-off launches, and help scientists craft compelling messages.

The shift to industry

When Stes moved into her current role in the pharmaceutical sector, she discovered just how differently communication functions in a multinational corporate environment.

“In my current role, I am expected to bring strategic guidance. My R&D colleagues rely on my expertise, and my insights carry weight. This can be very different in academic settings, where communication often has to fight for a seat at the table.”

The corporate world also provides structure and alignment. “You start by defining your strategy and objectives. Then you measure progress against those agreed goals. It creates focus and reduces distractions. There is no pressure to chase headlines or respond to every trend.”

Communicating within boundaries

Working in pharmaceutical R&D communication also means operating within a tightly regulated environment. Those rules shape not just what you can say, but how, when, and to whom. For Stes, this was one of the biggest differences she encountered when transitioning from a non-profit research setting to a corporate, publicly listed company.

“In this sector, there is an enormous responsibility,” she explains. “We are dealing with people’s health, and that means we cannot afford ambiguity or overstatement. Everything we communicate must be supported by rigorous, validated evidence, and aligned with both internal policy and external regulation.”

Because Stes works on the R&D side of communications, rather than in marketing or sales, she is not allowed to promote or publicly discuss specific products. Even mentioning an active substance, ongoing trial, or therapeutic claim could be considered promotional and potentially violate EU legislation regulating the advertising of medicinal products. The goal is to avoid raising premature expectations or unintentionally influencing medical decisions before all data is available and approved by the appropriate authorities.

This does not mean communication becomes bland or purely reactive. On the contrary, Stes sees these constraints as a responsibility; one that challenges her to communicate with greater clarity and intent. “You learn to be strategic and creative within these boundaries.”

The strict regulations are part of what makes the work meaningful, she says:

“Ethical science communication begins with accountability. It means respecting the science, as well as the systems in place that protect the patients.”

She believes that high standards should apply across the board. “There’s a clear contrast between the rigorous testing required in our sector and the way some other products, like certain food supplements or cosmetics, are marketed with limited evidence. Medicines undergo extensive clinical trials to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, while elsewhere, claims can sometimes be made with little oversight. It would be beneficial for public trust if there were more consistency.”

Leading with empathy

Stes’ own approach to communication has evolved over time. Early in her career, she responded to misinformation with facts, and got frustrated. “I once had a heated discussion with a friend who said she did not want to vaccinate her children. I launched into a data-driven argument. It was awkward, caused a lot of unease, and in the end had zero impact.”

Today, she takes a different approach. “People who are hesitant about vaccines or other specific scientific claims are not ignorant. They are often deeply thoughtful and concerned about their family’s health. If you treat their beliefs with contempt, you close the door to dialogue. Now, I try to understand where they are coming from and find common ground.”

This mindset shift was supported by her collaboration with different thought leaders throughout her career (one name she dropped was Johan Braeckman, featured in the same edition of Big Bang magazine).

“I have learned that persuasion is not always the goal. Connection is. If people sense that you are not trying to force them into agreement, they become more open to what you are trying to say.”

Professionalizing communication

Stes is a strong advocate for treating science communication as a profession, not a soft skill. “It’s easy to assume that because everyone communicates, professional communication is not ‘a real expertise’. But there is a big difference between writing your daily emails and crafting a strategic communication campaign.”

She knows that many science communicators, especially those with a research background, tend to underestimate their own value. “When you work with researchers, you are surrounded by people who are highly educated, highly respected, and deeply knowledgeable,” she explains. “And then you come in as the communicator. It is easy to fall into the trap of feeling like what you do is less important.”

She encourages aspiring communicators to recognize the value of their skills: “Many of us underestimate ourselves. But our training gives us tools that are incredibly useful in communication: analytical thinking, data interpretation, experimental design, just to name a few.”

Advice for the next generation

Stes offers several key pieces of advice to those considering a career in science communication. First, be open to different paths.

“Many people look only at academia, journalism, or nonprofit work. But this outlook can be limiting. If you are not afraid of business or industry, you will find a wealth of opportunities and the chance to develop business acumen.”

Second, understand the difference between communication as a task and communication as a strategy. “Everyone sends emails and makes presentations. But not everyone considers the broader impact, the audience’s needs, or the responsibility that comes with shaping a message. That is where you can truly stand out.”

Finally, find your ‘freedom to operate’. Every context comes with limitations, whether institutional, legal, or cultural. “You will never have total freedom. But within those boundaries, there’s always room for creativity and integrity. That is where communication becomes purposeful and powerful.”