The recurring question I hear from so many people in business is: “Why aren’t more startups generated by the university system?” It’s not an easy question, certainly not one to be solved in a single blog post. As I considered the many facets of academia that influence the actions of its researchers such as government policies, university culture, funding agency metrics and so forth, I realized that the obstacles and challenges faced by professors are similar to those of most any startup.

Academic scientists must in fact be entrepreneurial minded in order to maintain the funding they need to not only survive, but thrive in academia. The outsider would be mistaken, however, if they consider the lack commercialization from academia as a sign of a lack of entrepreneurial muster. Considering an academic lab as a startup in its own right, most researcher professors make a wise entrepreneurial decision by remaining focused and not spinning out one of their ideas into a new company.

Scientists are primarily motivated by the excitement of discovery and unveiling of new understanding of the world. In both academia and industry, you can find similar types of scientific minds who either probe the boundaries of understanding, seek to improve a current technology, or even invent new ones. They all share the passion to solve difficult problems and questions through scientific discovery and innovation. In industry, the direction of their intellectual pursuits is decided by the business minded individuals who identify interesting problems through market opportunities and customer needs or wants. Larger companies can afford to allow some of their research staff to perform exploratory work, but many define the research goals for their scientist and place blinders on them to increase their speed and efficiency. In academia, however, the direction of the ship is steered the scientist themselves, allowing them to pursue any question at the whim of their curiosity. For the same reasons an entrepreneur leaves a major corporation, a scientist will avoid industry for the freedom to explore or tinker or create whatever they desire in academia.

Universities are equipped with the infrastructure and funding support to feed the curiosity and need for independence of academic scientists. The modern research university owes its existence to World War II and President Franklin Roosevelt’s recognition of the critical role of the U.S. science and engineering understanding to its military success. His awareness, along with the famous report by Vannevar Bush called “Science-The Endless Frontier,” drove the development of several funding agencies during and after the war. These agencies where founded on the idea that the nation’s healthcare, economy and national defense will dramatically and rapidly improve from continuous, organized funding of university research to expand our scientific understanding. Under that mandate, professors who receive government funding are bound to a mission of creating and disseminating intellectual capital to provide society with a return on their investment in the form of knowledge. The expansion of knowledge by academia works in tandem with industry to increase commercialization and innovation by creating more opportunities for new scientific products.

Like a CEO, securing funding is the No. 1 responsibility of a research professor. If a professor loses their funding, they can potentially lose their lab and, if not tenured, their faculty position. Much like the early-stage entrepreneur looking for seed funding, a professor must prove … Next Page »

Comments (9) | Reprints | Share:          

It can be argued that among talent, cash and technology, no factor is more critical to a start up than talent. The talent drives innovation, attracts the venture capital and makes the critical life or death choices of the company. No matter how groundbreaking the technology or the amount of money invested, it is the people steering the ship that can sail off into the sunset or crash into rocks. This can be said for all sectors, especially life sciences.

That is why the focus of many of the discussions in the Seattle community about our life science industry center on generating a vibrant talent pool. Though the primary concern is on the recruitment and retention of the existing talent by generating an ‘anchor’ company, Seattle must not forget to be proactive with cultivating the young scientific entrepreneurs and talented businesspeople that want to build great new companies, and their careers, already here in the Northwest.

Before you jump to conclusion that this is some rant by a whiney grad student, I have to say upfront that the Seattle business community is incredibly generous when it comes to helping advise an aspiring yet naïve entrepreneur such as myself. Since I moved here 4 years ago from the East Coast to pursue my PhD in bioengineering at the University of Washington, I never knew the distinction between a biotech executive and a poor student could evaporate so effortlessly by simply walking into a coffee shop. Rarely have I been turned down by any person from industry scientist to CEO for an invitation to enjoy a cup and a conversation. I have met with countless of Seattle’s biotech and med device elite under the premise of me being an eager scientist wanting to learn how to turn ideas in the lab into a marketable product that helps people live better lives. Each time the conversation was as casual as the North Face attire some of them wore. I have tried to soak up every ounce of wisdom they have shared and am eternally grateful to each of them for their invaluable time they donated to my education.

I have noticed, however, that it takes a particularly aggressive student, especially in the life sciences, to recognize not only the possibility, but the necessity to educate themselves beyond the classroom. I was introduced to the concept through a student founded/run non-profit organization called the Science & Engineering Business Association (SEBA). Through SEBA, I am able to operate in the borderlands where university science education meets real world business and see firsthand the stagnant traffic flow between the two. On the student side, a majority are either intimidated by the prospect of meeting professionals outside the lab or under the false assumption that career success is solely dependent upon scholastic merit. On the business side, many seem to have an operator receiving calls but not too many making them. Each side seems to have its bias of the other which fortifies the walls between them and creates a culture that stifles the flow of information and growth of talent.

Many organizations have been trying to cross this cultural divide by generating both excitement and confidence in the students while providing a platform for the business community to share the advice it has to offer. The Center of Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CIE) has partnered with SEBA to host two annual events promoting and educating young innovators: Entrepreneurship Week and the Science & Technology Showcase. Entrepreneurship Week is a series of events and activities that brings individuals in the business community to the University as well as the students to the companies around Seattle. The Science & Technology Showcase is a poster/pitch competition hosted in collaboration with the Tech Transfer Office for young scientists to present their marketable innovations to venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and MBA students. Last year, the Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association recruited SEBA to expand the showcase to reach universities around the Northwest and present their ideas at the Pre-Emerging Poster Session at Life Science Innovation Northwest (formerly Invest Northwest). Other community organizations like the Northwest Entrepreneurs Network are also making efforts by providing student scholarships to attend their Entrepreneur University that reduces the tuition to $50 for individuals. Despite these efforts listed and many others not mentioned, there is still a false belief that the University as an entity is not willing to shed the confines of the ivory tower that have stood tall for years.

While, many people within the University are making great strides in moving towards a more integrated academic environment with the life science business community, it’s time for both university students and more members of the business community to do their part to reach out. For the real changes the Northwest life science industry needs, it’s time to forget the past, drop the bias and have a second look at what is happening at the University. It’s not just the place where basic science is explored, and a few startups are launched, but it’s an underutilitized training ground for talented young people who will help lead the local life sciences industry for years to come.

Comments (4) | Reprints | Share:          

The University of Washington Business Plan Competition hosted by the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CIE) came to a close Thursday night, handing out $60,000 in prize money to an impressive field of technologies. It brought a bittersweet end for my team’s company, Shockmetrics. We did not take the $25K grand prize award that we spent months of sweat equity to win.

Nanocel, the company led by the scrappy entrepreneur Daniel Rossi, took home the big check with their compelling innovation and rock solid business plan (version 15). Maybe I should have stayed up until 2 am blogging about the my Business Plan experience on Xconomy like Daniel did to be as sharp during the Q&A. Maybe we should have pushed for a few more iterations of our business plan (we submitted only version 10). Honestly, I am not so bitter to lose to such a strong competitor; even though, my team was the one exchanging the ‘good natured taunting’ Daniel mentioned in his late night blog. Of course I am not bitter to collect a generous $5K check as a finalist . . . but the extra $20K in cash would have been nice!! I am mainly disappointed because the loss means we failed to effectively communicate to the judges that the Shockmetrics System will be saving lives in hospital intensive care units within the next five years. Then again that is the sweet part. The Shockmetrics System will be saving lives WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

So allow me to re-phrase my first sentence:  The UW Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship’s Business Plan Competition brought a bitter, sweet BEGINNING for my team’s company, Shockmetrics.

Shockmetrics core technology was invented by Dr. Ken Schenkman, Wayne Ciesielski and Lorilee Arakaki, PhD, to provide non-invasive and continuous real time monitoring of one of the most common cause of death in the ICU, medical shock. I first met Ken and Wayne at the Science and Technology Showcase co-hosted by the Science & Engineering Business Association (SEBA) and CIE. At that time Shockmetrics technology was disclosed to UW Tech Transfer. Chris Porter, a prominent medical device entrepreneur and LaunchPad Entrepreneur Advisor along with Erik Roby, a UW TechTransfer intern, came on board first to size up the commercial potential of this technology.

Chris and Erik’s research identified the need to create a company around the compelling Shockmetrics Systems technology. Tech Transfer charged Erik with the task of forming a business development team that could create an effective plan for Shockmetrics. Erik leveraged his connections in SEBA and the MBA Biotech Club to find Ryan Bergsman, an MBA student and Process Development Engineer at Dendreon, and myself, a PhD student in bioengineering and Co-Founder of nPostBio. At that same time, Deborah Kessler, a UWTechTransfer Entrepreneur in Residence, formerly of Rosetta Inpharmatics, had taken notice of Shockmetrics and joined as the candidate CEO. We all came together with a single goal in mind: winning the Business Plan Competition.

Realistically, $25K is small potatoes compared to the millions necessary to launch a medical device, but the business plan competition value proposition to us was not the money. We wanted to throw ourselves in an environment that would force us to hit milestones, meet deadlines and above all fuel our desire with competition. We had a goal to compose a solid business plan that was driven by the exciting yet intense environment the Business Plan Competition provides. From crunching numbers to discussions over hockey stick financials to perfecting pitch decks, we fought through three rounds of scrutiny from 300 judges from the local entrepreneurial community and more than 90 competitors to place in the finals. More importantly we have developed a real business plan that is being put into action and have taken the first critical steps out of the lab and into the market.

As Paul Thelen, founder and chief strategy officer of Big Fish Games, stated at the awards dinner, “The biggest reasons an entrepreneur fails is that they fail to start.” Thanks to CIE, Shockmetrics along with many other UW based companies have successfully navigated that initial hurdle. The rest will be up to us.

Comments (1) | Reprints | Share: