Neurodiversity Is Nature’s Innovation Strategy
Biotech’s Real Pipeline Problem? Cognitive Conformity
A note before we dive in:
Neurodiversity is one of the most overlooked forces in innovation and one of the most misunderstood. This post is my attempt to explore both.
I've been thinking about how the world talks about neurodiversity—or doesn't—especially in light of some narratives that have circulated in the media over the last couple of months. Some are subtle: hiring practices quietly narrowing and DEI programs scaling back. Others are louder: public figures making claims that cast neurodivergence as something to be fixed, filtered, or feared. The message isn't always direct, but it seeps in: different is defective.
That sentiment goes deeper than most people realize. It teaches you that being wired differently isn't just inconvenient but something to hide, apologize for, and carry quietly with shame.
I've had to unlearn a lot of that and that shame doesn't disappear overnight. Years ago during my doctoral program (after a lot of internal work coupled with incredible external support systems), I started to realize that the traits I once exhausted myself mentally to mask—like intensity, nonlinear thinking, and relentless pattern recognition—were the very ones that have propelled my work forward. In high-uncertainty spaces like research and innovation, where novelty matters more than polish, the ability to connect seemingly unrelated dots is a strategic asset. The uncomfortable truth? Neurodivergent minds aren't just worthy of inclusion but are often the engines behind meaningful breakthroughs. It's time the biotech world caught up to that.
However, now I'm wondering: in a time when some companies are quietly scaling back their DEI commitments, will fewer neurodivergent people be hired or even make it through the door? Neurodiversity hiring programs were pipelines for talent that the traditional system overlooked. Without them, how many neurodivergent thinkers will be shut out before they even have a chance to contribute?
I know from recent personal experience how loaded some job application questions can feel. When I see the question, "Do you have a disability?" followed by a list that lumps ADHD in with cancer and diabetes, it's hard not to feel a little uncomfortable. Not because one is more valid than the other but because they're so different, and the system isn't built to hold that complexity. And when nuance is lost, so is trust. It's hard to imagine that checking “yes” to that question could work in my favor. Don't even get me started on the shame spiral that can come from asking for neurodivergent-related accommodations during interviews.
Neurodivergence Is a Competitive Edge
The innovation economy runs on pattern recognition, strategic chaos tolerance, and the ability to see around corners. Neurodivergent people often bring all three. But too often, they're not set up to succeed—not because they lack value, but because the systems around them weren't built with them in mind. That failure isn't just anecdotal—it's systemic. Across STEM fields, particularly in biotech, neurodivergent individuals face structural barriers that block entry, reduce retention, and stifle potential.
Research shows that nearly half of neurodivergent adults have experienced discrimination during hiring, often due to nontraditional communication styles or after disclosing a diagnosis [1]. Many biotech labs and work environments remain poorly suited to sensory and cognitive differences, which can lead to attrition and missed potential. And while some companies have made strides—Pfizer, Merck, and others have launched inclusion initiatives—comprehensive neurodiversity inclusion strategies remain rare in life sciences.
And yet, despite these barriers, the business case is clear. Research from Hewlett Packard Enterprise indicates that neurodiverse teams can be up to 30% more productive than their neurotypical counterparts, with significantly higher retention [2]. Companies like JPMorgan Chase, Google, and Deloitte have already launched neurodiversity hiring programs, not out of charity, but because they've recognized the competitive advantage. ADHD, for example, brings hyper-focus, rapid-fire ideation, and the rule-breaking creativity that fuels real innovation—when it's supported, not stifled.
If biotech and venture genuinely pride themselves on being forward-thinking, this is the moment to prove it. Not just by acknowledging neurodiversity for what it is (a natural facet of biodiversity necessary for the evolution of the human species) but by actively designing systems that make space for it and benefit from it [3].
This idea isn't new. Sociologist Dr. Judy Singer, who coined the term "neurodiversity" in the 1990s, argued that just as biodiversity strengthens ecosystems, neurodiversity strengthens societies [4]. A range of cognitive styles isn't just a matter of inclusion. It's a form of collective resilience. Different ways of thinking equip us to solve different problems, innovate from the margins, and adapt to complexity in ways that homogeneous systems cannot.
That evolutionary lens is echoed by Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen, who writes in The Pattern Seekers that neurodivergent traits—particularly those linked to autism and ADHD—have been foundational to human innovation for tens of thousands of years [5]. He proposes that these traits gave rise to invention, pattern-based reasoning, and the tools and ideas that moved us forward as a species. Innovation didn't happen in spite of neurodivergence. It happened because of it.
If It Were Up to Me...
So, what might it look like to actually support neurodiversity inclusion in innovation spaces like biotech, venture, and beyond?
If it were up to me, here are a few places I'd start:
1. Rethink hiring filters. Design interviews that value pattern recognition, creativity, and lived problem-solving over charisma or speed.
2. Build in flexibility. Innovation spaces pride themselves on agility. Extend that to work styles. Let people focus when they focus best. Don't equate presence with performance.
3. Treat accommodations as infrastructure, not favors. Normalize them. Budget for them. Assume they will make your team stronger, not weaker.
4. Fund the margins. Investors and accelerators: If you're serious about "non-obvious" bets, back founders who think differently and build systems that let them lead.
And sure, all of this is easier said than done, especially if the bottom line is the only thing that matters. But if innovation is the goal, then ignoring the minds that drive it isn’t just short-sighted. It’s self-defeating.
What Are We Optimizing For?
Innovation doesn't come from sameness. It comes from minds that move differently and the courage to make space for them.
If we're serious about progress, we can't just talk about disruption. We have to embrace a bias for action and live it. That means rethinking hiring, retention, and culture to stop rewarding things like polish over pattern recognition and compliance over complexity. Neurodivergent thinkers don't need charity. They need access.
And yes, some of us make it through the societal and systemic filters that too often confuse difference for deficiency. We get the degrees, the jobs, the credentials. But even then, we're often operating at a fraction of our potential because so much energy goes into masking—into seeming "normal, " into not being read as intense, disorganized, unfocused, or too much.
And that's a loss, too—not just personally but systemically. When the cost of inclusion is invisibility, what gets lost isn't just identity. It's insight and impact.
So, if you work in biotech, venture, or innovation:
Are your systems optimized for sameness or for the future?
A note for next time:
This piece has focused on the systems: how biotech and innovation spaces filter out the very minds they claim to prize. But before those ideas are shut out by hiring committees or funding rounds, many of them get filtered out internally.
Next time, I’m shifting from systems to something more personal: masking and the cost of hiding in plain sight. I want to discuss the difference between showing up and being seen and how self-censorship isn’t always quiet. It can look like overfunctioning, overpolishing, and overfiltering.
In my case, it started in a classroom with one piece of unexpected feedback that changed how I understood failure, contribution, and my own voice.
Coming soon: Part 2 — The Ideas That Never Make It Into the Room
Thanks for listening to or reading Innovated Mind.
If this resonated, or made you pause, rethink, or quietly nod to yourself, consider subscribing. Your support truly means a lot. Until next time, stay curious and never underestimate the power of a mind that moves differently.
Disclosure: I have no affiliations with the organizations or authors mentioned. All views are my own.
References:
[1] Zurich UK. (2024, November). Excluded from the job market: Forced to hide their neurodiversity. https://www.zurich.co.uk/media-centre/excluded-from-the-job-market-forced-to-hide-their-neurodiversity
[2] Austin, R. D., & Pisano, G. P. (2017, May). Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/05/neurodiversity-as-a-competitive-advantage
[3] Milton, D., & Chown, N. (Eds.). (2022). The neurodiversity reader: Exploring concepts, critiques, and consequences. Pavilion Publishing and Media.
[4] Singer, J. (2016). NeuroDiversity: The birth of an idea. Judy Singer.
[5] Baron-Cohen, S. (2020). The pattern seekers: How autism drives human invention. Basic Books.
