By definition, scientists and entrepreneurs are both innovators. They shatter the status quo, either by uncovering misconceptions about the way the world works or by creating solutions to society’s most pressing concerns.
Despite that commonality, many researchers find the idea of entering the business world daunting. Fear not, says Joe DeSimone, Ph.D., a chemist with joint appointments at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and NC State University and over 100 patents to his name.
“How far you go down this path is a choice. Some people will put academics in a box and say that they cannot do entrepreneurial things. I think that’s wrong. You may find it isn’t your cup of tea, but you won’t know for sure until you try,” argued DeSimone, speaking to a room full of scientists at a recent Burroughs Wellcome Fund workshop on academic entrepreneurship.
Becoming an entrepreneur enables researchers to push their discoveries beyond the academic setting and translate them into practical solutions. DeSimone found inspiration for his own career trajectory in a passage from Henry Rosovsky’s The University: An Owner’s Manual: “Research is an expression of faith in the possibility of progress. The drive that leads scholars to study a topic has to include the belief that new things can be discovered, that newer can be better, and that greater depth of understanding is achievable. Research, especially academic research, is a form of optimism about the human condition.”
“I think that embodies the privileged opportunity that we as scientists have to be translational and actually make a difference,” explained DeSimone. “That motivates a lot of us. There is this old quote from Goethe “Knowing is not enough, you must apply. Willing is not enough, you must do.” It is sort of like the old Nike advertisement 'Just do it' – you have to do your part to translate the research.”
Among those working to translate academic research findings was DeSimone’s fellow panelist, Christy Shaffer, Ph.D., managing director of Hatteras Discovery, a venture capital fund that supports early stage companies and projects. Though Shaffer’s fund has invested in a number of different endeavors, some common themes run through all those investments: they involve a solution to a big problem, they matter to patients, and they can be turned into a product in a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps most importantly, the research is driven by a scientist who is passionate enough to stick it out when the path to commercialization becomes difficult.
“Many times the academic scientists don’t have the background to understand what it takes to make a company,” stated Shaffer. “How do I get funding to take this discovery to the next level? How do I go talk to the FDA? What should it all cost? There are many, many questions on the road to discovery that we can help with. But the scientists still need to understand that starting a company can take much longer and cost twice as they expect.”
Those difficulties – such as the long hours to compile preliminary data or the intense scrutiny from regulatory bodies and potential investors – can be a gift in disguise, posits DeSimone.
“Academic entrepreneurship is peer review on steroids,” he explained. “When people bet on your technology or your science, they bring in Nobel Laureates, they bring in all sorts of domain experts, and pound away at you asking ‘why are you doing it this way?, what is your data?, what’s your value proposition?’ At the end of the day that just makes the science better. It helps you understand the value of your work and gives you improved grantsmanship. The granting agencies will ask, ‘what is your mechanism for bringing your science into the public domain?’ Start-up companies and entrepreneurial activities are one of the best vehicles to point to as making your work truly translational.”
Subjecting yourself to such scrutiny also means accepting the possibility of failure. The final panelist, Karen LeVert, president and CEO at Southeast TechInventures, acknowledged that the failure rate for start-ups is very high. Yet she just started her third company.
“Henry Ford once said that failure is simply an opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently…and I look at it that way,” explained LeVert. “It’s not winners and losers -- it’s winners and learners in the entrepreneurial space. You can always start again, you just have to keep your feet moving.”
According to LeVert, the first place any scientist with a new idea should go is to the university technology transfer office. The office can explain their policies, consider filing a patent to protect the idea, and discuss any potential conflicts of interest. Scientists can also explore funding opportunities through the federal government’s small business innovation research program or SBIR. Different universities will have different policies concerning SBIRs or subcontracting work from a spin-off company. LeVert noted that people should keep in mind that if they plan to pursue an idea they generated at a university, they will likely have to license the intellectual property from that institution first.
Attendee Jonathan Kagan, Ph.D., an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard, warned that it is hard to be good at anything that you do part-time. He then asked the panel how likely they thought it would be for a scientist faced with the demands of running an academic lab to be able to take on the new responsibilities of starting a company and actually be successful. DeSimone responded that in his mind, his roles in academia and industry are one in the same.
“They are so intertwined in who I am, how I think and what I do, that I don’t see them as disconnected. Instead, I see them as part of the same continuum,” stated DeSimone. “But I also know some of the world’s best scientists and inventors who would say that companies are not for them. You have to understand your strengths and what you want to do in life. This may not be for everybody.”