I recently read an insightful article, “The rock path from PhD to CEO,” in C&EN that discussed the evolving landscape of scientific innovation. Historically, large corporations heavily invested in basic science, leading to groundbreaking discoveries. Today, however, small startups are at the forefront of pursuing these impactful outcomes. This shift brings a unique set of challenges that young scientists must navigate.
For scientists considering entrepreneurship, the key is to clearly articulate the problem they aim to solve and their proposed solution. This clarity is crucial when crafting a pitch deck and is essential for delivering a compelling one-minute pitch.
Beyond this primary focus, scientists need to develop several critical skills to thrive as entrepreneurs:
Team Management: Effectively lead and manage a team.
Pitching to Investors: Present ideas compellingly to potential investors.
Listening to Customers: Understand and integrate customer feedback.
Decision-Making Skills: Make informed decisions even with incomplete data.
Understanding Business Models: Assess the commercial viability of technologies.
Ultimately, the essence of these skills lies in understanding the difference between science and product development. In chemical terms, it means distinguishing between a molecule and a marketable product. Chemists modify molecular structures to achieve desired properties, such as efficacy and low toxicity for new drugs, along with robust patent strategies to protect the business. However, a molecule with these attributes does not automatically become a commercial product.
Consider the example of Leclaza (or Lazcluze), developed by Genosco, Oscotec,and Yuhan Corporation, which recently received FDA approval in combination with Rybrevant. The commercial positioning of this combination therapy remains to be seen, but understanding the journey from the molecule lasertinib to the final product is crucial. This lesson was highlighted at the CPhI Korea conference on August 28th, where four presenters shared insights I found particularly illuminating.
To bridge the gap between a molecule and a product, scientists must adopt a different mindset and approach:
Move Away from Critical Thinking: While valuable, critical thinking should be balanced with flexible thinking in business contexts.
Judgment Suspension on Ideas: Avoid delaying judgment on ideas until all data is available.
Recognize Market Interest: An interesting research project does not necessarily translate into market interest.
Technology-Centric Thinking: Shift focus from technology alone to what customers actually need.
This perspective is not only essential for aspiring entrepreneurial scientists but also for those like myself who are writing about these topics. Scientists working in industry must adopt this mindset to fulfill their roles effectively, regardless of their specific situation.