Expert Research Guidance For Your Clinical Evidence Programs
Leverage specialized nutraceutical methodology expertise when your brand needs it most
Research Expertise
When You Need It
The supplement industry is flooded with junk science: Underpowered studies with inappropriate outcome measures. Supplier research that looks impressive until you examine the methodology. Competitor claims based on studies that shouldn't pass peer review.
Recognizing these flaws requires specialized training in research methodology specifically adapted to nutraceuticals, not pharmaceuticals.
Dr. Cavanaugh trained at two of the world's leading institutions and has spent over a decade conducting human clinical trials on botanical supplements, developing expertise in what actually works for nutraceutical research.
You can leverage this specialized expertise to support your brand's clinical evidence programs with fractional research director services.
When you're designing a study, you get expert guidance on outcome measures that will actually capture botanical effects, not pharmaceutical proxies that miss what matters.
When evaluating supplier research, you get methodology analysis that identifies what studies actually support versus what marketing materials claim.
When building an evidence strategy, you get insight from someone who understands both rigorous science and business realities, what's worth investing in, what can wait, and what's not necessary.
When presenting at conferences or briefing your sales team, you get scientific guidance on communicating your research accurately and effectively.
Whatever the task, you'll enjoy priority access to specialized insight and unique methodological expertise.
How this integrates with your team
Unlike Traditional Consulting
Traditional consultants deliver projects and disappear. This model provides ongoing strategic partnership: methodology expertise integrated with your planning, available when research questions arise, aligned with your business goals.
You're not managing a consultant. You're accessing specialized knowledge as a resource for your team.
Typical Engagement Flow
Initial onboarding includes understanding your product pipeline, research history, current evidence programs, and strategic goals. This context ensures advice is relevant to your specific situation, not generic recommendations.
Regular touchpoints (monthly or twice monthly depending on engagement level) keep alignment on priorities, address emerging questions, and provide strategic guidance as research programs grow.
Project work happens as needed: protocol reviews before enrollment, supplier research evaluation when formulation decisions arise, competitive intelligence when market dynamics require it, conference support when presentations are scheduled.
Email access between scheduled calls means quick questions get answered without waiting: "Is this outcome measure appropriate?" "Is this supplier's study methodologically sound?" "What should we emphasize about our study to retailers?" "Our competitor just published a study; help me understand what it actually means."
The Relationship Over Time
Early months often focus on immediate needs: reviewing protocols in development, evaluating supplier claims, strategic planning for upcoming studies.
As the relationship develops, the expertise becomes integrated: attending quarterly R&D meetings, providing input on research budgets, briefing sales teams, supporting conference presentations.
You gain a research thought partner who understands your business, knows your products, and can advise on methodology without requiring extensive context every time a question arises.
Flexibility Built In
Some months require intensive work such as multiple protocol reviews, detailed competitive analysis, conference presentation development.
Other months involve just strategic discussion: maintaining alignment, addressing occasional questions, monitoring industry developments.
The structure accommodates both without pressure to manufacture work or rigid service quotas to meet.
The Value of Specialized Methodology Expertise
Recognizing What Others Miss
Most supplement studies have methodology flaws that determine success or failure. Power calculations based on wrong assumptions. Outcome measures that can't capture botanical effects. Statistical plans that test incorrect hypotheses.
These flaws are invisible to generalists but clear to specialists.
Expertise in nutraceutical-specific methodology recognizes when sample sizes are inadequate for botanical effect sizes. When outcome measures are borrowed from disease screening rather than designed for wellness enhancement. When blinding strategies won't survive sensory- distinctive botanicals.
This specialized pattern recognition prevents expensive mistakes before they happen.
Knowledge Built Through Focused Experience
Over a decade conducting human clinical trials specifically on botanical supplements such as ashwagandha, elderberry, lavender, or tea tree creates knowledge that doesn't come from general research experience or pharmaceutical backgrounds.
What actually works for compliance monitoring in 12-week supplement trials. Which outcome measures capture stress reduction versus just measuring cortisol. How to design recruitment strategies for healthy populations seeking wellness enhancement. What statistical approaches handle nutraceutical data patterns appropriately.
This knowledge comes from specialized focus, not general expertise applied to supplements.
Training at Leading Institutions
A PhD focused on botanical clinical trials combined with Harvard Medical School's post-doctoral research training program provides methodology foundation that most supplement industry professionals lack.
Not because they're less intelligent, but because their training focused elsewhere: formulation chemistry, regulatory compliance, pharmaceutical research, or other valuable specializations.
Nutraceutical clinical research methodology is its own discipline. Access to someone who specialized in it provides perspective unavailable from general consultants.
When It Makes the Difference
The value shows up in critical moments:
Before committing $180K to a study, recognizing the protocol has fatal flaws. Before formulating with a new ingredient, identifying that supplier research doesn't actually demonstrate what they claim. Before responding to competitive claims, understanding what their published study actually proves.
Specialized expertise prevents mistakes when they cost $0 to fix and identifies opportunities others miss.
That's what access to this knowledge provides—better decisions in the moments that determine whether research programs succeed or become expensive lessons.