“Core values in an integrated age.” The theme of ISMPP (International Society of Medical Publication Professionals) Europe 2025 truly permeated the meeting. Rob Matheis, ISMPP CEO, referenced its unusual degree of resonance in his opening address. Upholding and championing core values, while acknowledging and embracing the challenges and opportunities of our time.
What are those core values? Trust and integrity, yes; perhaps never more important. Medical publications exist to provide the foundation of evidence on which to build impactful, balanced communication streams that enable medical advances to benefit patients. But other values were also prominent: respect for patients; collaboration; diversity and inclusion; sustainability.
Perspectives from patient advocates were integrated, from organization to presentations. Simpler, perhaps, to include patients for an ISMPP meeting than a congress reporting data on unlicensed treatments. But in plenary session we heard a blunt message – “stop blaming compliance!” The EFPIA code, which influences up to 80% of countries in the world, is not prohibitive. Country codes and company SOPs layer on complexity, true, but involving patient voices in planning of medical activities, including publications and communications, is a matter of precisely that: planning.
Patient advocates ran with topics that are regularly debated at ISMPP, such as patient authorship and accessibility of content. Other angles were more newly aired, including simple adjustments that can enable meeting attendees to have their best experience, whatever their reality. Efforts to incorporate patient perspectives were evident throughout posters and roundtables, touching every course through the packed agenda.
Less interwoven, but vaunted via the opening Keynote, was sustainability. Extraordinary expeditions fed by waste chocolate and scavenged oil were described alongside the ensuing mainstream media attention. The stated aims of the talk echoed the meeting – staying true to integrity, transparency and collaboration, while embracing innovation and sustainability. But particularly resonant was the subtle distinction between advocacy and awareness. The expeditions, though not entirely sustainable, caught the imagination and attracted a welcome spotlight; with it, a temptation to turn advocate. For medical publications professionals seeking to extend the reach and impact of research, it’s an important reminder of our key role as guardians of balance.
In a member research oral, a beautifully clear approach to integrated medical communication planning (the answer to boosting reach and impact) was presented. The challenge, of course, is coordinating the different stakeholders. The advice to get buy-in cuts to the heart of communication; reassure your collaborators that you’re not going to change their plan – you’re going to help them describe it better.
And so, seven paragraphs in: AI. Omnipresent at the meeting, it perhaps could have been employed in this writing (it was not). We’re all living this revolution, and we’re all aware of the acute needs for confidentiality, reliability and accuracy, in medical publications perhaps more than anywhere else. Roles for AI are everywhere through gap analysis, data processing, ideation, summarization, boosting performance and providing all manner of minor, undocumented support akin to traditional IT tools and teams of personal assistants. Larger roles in publication drafting are still at pilot stage, and issues of acceptability and transparency, to journals as well as to authors, were among the myriad AI topics under active discussion.
A thought-provoking take came from the day two Keynote, which focused on diversity. We were shown research into learned racial discrimination in children, a worldwide phenomenon, and how this bias is being similarly absorbed by AI. Perhaps surprisingly, when the room was asked who anticipated AI becoming sentient at some point, a minority of us raised our hands. Either way, we heard, AI right now is like a toddler. What we teach it now, matters. It’s much harder to unlearn than to learn. “Ever tried unlearning to ride a bike?” Bias in research is already a concern, aside from amplification by invisible AI algorithms.
We wouldn’t ask a toddler to write ISMPP take-homes. Nor expect it to draft a scientific paper, yet. The technology hasn’t graduated. But its maturation curve is accelerated, and its potential is enormous. The analogy doesn’t hold completely, of course. AI already provides us valuable services beyond the capacity of a human of any age. Yet, while we discuss how to keep things confidential, AI toddlers are out there, learning. Who is parenting them? Are they going to play nicely? Can we raise AI that upholds our core values and advances medicine for the benefit of patients? Let’s try, at least.
