SEO for pharmaceutical and biotech marketers: how to fix the keyword disconnect

Beware the gap: when marketers optimize and scientists search, they’re not always speaking the same language.

Have you ever opened a spreadsheet of optimized search terms and thought: There’s no way our customers would type this into their search engine? If you’re a pharmaceutical or biotech marketer, product manager, or science writer, you know the feeling. You’re caught between domain expertise and digital strategy, and too often, SEO advice just doesn’t fit the way scientists actually search.

This post is about that disconnect and what you can do about it. I’ll share how I spot mismatches in keyword lists, evaluate scientific relevance, and work with SEO experts to get better results and alignment.

There’s plenty to say about SEO in biotech, from SGE (search generative experience) to schema to shifting search intent. But for now, let’s focus on the practical: how to handle keyword guidance that just doesn’t make sense for your audience.

Why biotech SEO strategies often miss the mark

The traffic trap: high volume does not always equal high value

This probably sounds familiar: someone recommends you go after the keywords with the biggest search numbers. In theory, it makes perfect sense, right? More searches mean more eyes on your page. 

But if that traffic doesn’t match your buyer’s technical intent, you end up with reports full of impressive numbers and very little impact on the people who matter. Worse, it can actually steer your content away from the scientific audience you’re trying to reach.

How SEO tools misread scientific search behavior

One reason keyword lists often miss the mark is that SEO research tools weren’t designed for science. Platforms like SEMrush, Ahrefs, or Google Keyword Planner are great for retail and B2C – but they don’t understand how scientists search for information.

For example, I’ve seen projects where the suggested keywords were “what causes breast cancer” or “how genes affect lung cancer.” Technically correct, yes. But they sound more like science fair topics than what an actual researcher or product manager would ever type into Google.

These terms might have strong search volume, and they might even win you a top-of-page snippet, which is a good thing. But for content aimed at researchers studying signaling cascades, gene regulators, or pathway-specific drug development, they completely miss the audience.

This disconnect happens all the time when SEO guidance comes without real scientific context. We don’t need to reject these high-level terms entirely, but we should know when they help the strategy and when they distract from it. We scientific communicators can bridge that gap.

When SEO advice feels off: a product manager’s dilemma

If you work in biotech marketing or product management, you’ve probably felt this: your SEO team hands you a keyword list, and something just isn’t right. Some terms are too broad, others too basic. The phrasing doesn’t sound like your audience at all.

You know your products, and you know your buyers. Many of us in this field also have a science background – we can spot when something’s off. But knowing that a keyword is wrong isn’t the same as knowing how to fix it.

That’s where things get frustrating. You can sense the disconnect, but don’t always have the language or framework to push back. What you need is a way to evaluate keywords through a scientific lens and a clear path to show your SEO partners why true relevance matters more than just raw volume.

My process for evaluating keywords in life science SEO

When I get a keyword list for life science SEO that feels off, I don’t dismiss it, but I also don’t accept it blindly. Instead, I use what I know about the audience and their real search habits to put those keywords to the test.

Here’s how I break it down:

• Who is supposed to be typing this search term?
• What kind of results actually show up?
• Does this sound like something my target audience would say – or something a high schooler might Google?

Then I dig deeper:

• Does this keyword trigger a featured snippet or a “People Also Ask” box?
• Which types of pages rank at the top: technical vendors, academic journals, or general education sites?

When search volume tricks you

Once, an SEO strategist gave me a keyword with massive search volume that looked perfect for our scientific topic. But a quick Google search showed that the top results were for a university program with the same acronym. Turns out, all that traffic was for something completely different. Moral of the story: always check what your keywords mean to the rest of the world.

Sometimes, I’ll run the keyword list through my own tools – partly to make sure we haven’t missed any obvious search terms, but also to see exactly which competitor pages are showing up for those keywords. SEO experts pull massive lists of keywords, and it’s easy for something important to slip through the cracks – especially with all the noise in scientific search. That’s why a second look from someone close to science can catch opportunities or phrasing that aren’t so obvious on the first pass.

Increasingly, I’ll pressure-test with large language models like ChatGPT or Perplexity. For example, I’ll prompt, “What might a translational researcher Google when evaluating new pathway analysis tools?” I’m not looking to copy the output, just to sense if the phrasing feels real, specific, and aligned with the actual workflow of my audience.

There’s no rigid formula. It’s a hybrid of data, instinct, and experience. But in life science and biotech, that’s often what it takes to turn a keyword list into a working strategy.

How to build a collaborative scientific keyword strategy

When a keyword list misses the mark, it’s usually just a blind spot. SEO specialists know the tools, the trends, and the data. What they might not know is how scientists think, search, or evaluate solutions. That’s where true collaboration comes in.

Start with what you know about your audience:

• What questions are they trying to answer?
• What pain points are they looking to solve?
• What phrases do they use at conferences, in research papers, and in conversations with colleagues?

This is the language your scientific buyers use when they search, and these insights are often your best clues for finding relevant keywords. 

Remember: the words you use in product management or marketing may not match the ones your target audience types into their search engine.

Now your scientific keyword strategy can start to take shape, grounded in how your audience actually talks, thinks, and searches.

Then, organize your keywords into three layers:

1. First are your primary keywords: Think broad, high-traffic terms like “biomarker validation” or “clinical trial design.” They’re great for visibility, and you need them to show Google you belong in the conversation, but they’re usually too general to speak directly to the people deciding whether to buy your products.
2. Next come the secondary keywords: This is where things start getting a little more specific. Now you’re looking at phrases like “biomarker validation protocols” or “Phase III clinical trial design.” These are less crowded, a little closer to what your real audience is typing, and often a better fit for actual scientific discussions.
3. Finally, there’s the long-tail layer: These are hyper-specific, sometimes oddly worded phrases or questions that don’t pull in large search volumes. They may even show zero search volume in the research tools. But they will attract exactly the right kind of visitor. Think “biomarker validation protocols for oncology drug development.” Not a ton of hits, but when you do get one, it’s someone who knows exactly what they need.

This layered framework gives both teams a shared language and structure. SEO experts bring the data; scientific communicators bring the context. Used together, you create content that actually connects – and performs.

It’s a model of SEO collaboration for science writers that can transform raw keyword lists into actionable, audience-aligned strategies for life science SEO.

Navigating what’s next in pharma and biotech SEO

The search landscape isn’t just changing – it’s already changed. In pharma and biotech, staying visible now means adapting to more than just keywords. Real technological shifts are rewriting the rules. Here are four trends you can’t afford to ignore:

• AI-powered search: Google’s AI-generated overviews, ChatGPT, and who knows what else are all pulling information from everywhere, not just from your carefully optimized web page. 
• Voice and conversational search: People are searching with full questions, not fragments. Natural, specific phrasing wins over keyword stuffing.
• EEAT and YMYL standards: For scientific and healthcare content, Google expects more than just correct information. You need to show real-world Experience, deep Expertise, clear Authority, and Trust. And if your topic could impact someone’s health or finances – Your Money or Your Life – the expectations are even tougher. In these areas, trust and depth really matter.
• Generative Engine Optimization (GEO): It’s not just about ranking in Google anymore. You also need to be visible to the AI systems that generate answers for your buyers.

The good news? These shifts aren’t just happening to you – they’re happening to every competitor in your space. You have a chance to make a difference in how you respond. Adapting your keyword strategy for this future means real collaboration: domain experts who get the science, and SEO specialists who get the tools.

The next time that keyword list feels off, trust your instincts and use it as a starting point for conversation. Ask better questions, layer in what you know, and don’t be afraid to advocate for scientific relevance.

Because when data and domain expertise work together, the content wins.

AI-generated image (DALL·E 3 via ChatGPT), modified by the author.