top of page

Navigating the Nuances of Modals in Pharma Communication

Let’s say you’re looking over the results of a recent drug trial. The numbers are in, but they're not what you expected. You turn to your team and say, "The patients must have misunderstood the dosage instructions," showing you're pretty sure about what went wrong.

Or maybe you're not so certain, so you suggest, "They might have taken the doses at the wrong times?" Your words, those small yet mighty modals like 'must' and 'might', shape how your team thinks about what happened and what to do next.


In pharmaceutical communication, precision is not just a goal, it's a requirement. The same precision applies to language — especially when using modals, those critical helpers like 'must', 'should', and 'could'.

Modals can influence the perception of obligation and prediction, ultimately affecting decision-making and operations. Let's explore these nuanced verbs to increase your communication ability, focusing on obligations, prohibitions, and deductions, particularly in past scenarios.

Understanding "Mustn't" versus "Don't Have To"

When conveying obligations, 'mustn't' and 'don't have to' often trip up even the most seasoned professionals.

'Mustn't' implies prohibition, something that is not permitted: "You mustn't disclose confidential trial data." It's a strict boundary not to be crossed.

On the other hand, 'don't have to' suggests the absence of obligation: "You don't have to attend the seminar if you have prior knowledge of the subject." It offers freedom and discretion.

Modals of Deduction

Deductions are vital in pharma, where conclusions must often be drawn from available data. Modals are crucial in this regard, especially when analyzing past events.

  • When you're almost certain about a past event: "The participant must have misunderstood the dosage instructions."

  • To suggest a possibility in the past, not a certainty: "The compound could have interacted with the patient's other medications."

  • These suggest a tentative guess about the past: "The research team may have/might have found a breakthrough, but further tests are needed."

  • This implies an expectation that was not met in the past: "The control group should have shown different results."

Applying Modal Precision in Pharmaceutical Settings

Let's contextualize these modal verbs in scenarios reflective of the pharmaceutical landscape:

  • Conveying Prohibitions: "You mustn't alter the prescribed formulation without prior approval."

  • Indicating No Obligation: "Researchers don't have to use the old database; the updated one is now available."

  • Drawing Conclusions: After reviewing past data, one might say, "The subject must have experienced side effects due to off-label drug use."

  • Expressing Past Possibilities: "The candidate drug could have passed the initial trials if the dosages had been adjusted."

Avoiding Modal Missteps

It's crucial to distinguish between 'mustn't' (prohibition) and 'don't have to' (no obligation), as confusing the two can lead to critical misunderstandings. Additionally, using the correct modal for past deductions ensures that your inferences are accurately conveyed.

The Takeaway: Enhancing Clarity and Foresight

The correct use of modals can propel your communication from good to exceptional. Whether you're discussing protocols, results, or compliance, the right modal choice can provide clarity and subtlety in your messaging.

Looking ahead, our journey into the depths of effective communication continues.

Anticipate my next piece, where we'll delve deeper into the language of persuasion and influence – another key ingredient in the alchemy of professional excellence. Stay tuned, and continue to fine-tune your communication with the precision of a scientist and the eloquence of a linguist.


bottom of page