We need to back scientists (more)

I get the most excited about science-based businesses — because they’re solving humanity’s physical and existential problems (across climate, health, materials, etc.). About 40% of the founders I saw this year were trying to build a business based on science, so I wanted to share some thoughts in the hope that I can help more scientists at Oxford build, commercialize, and scale their tech — to solve real problems. In a lot of ways I secretly wish I was a scientist :) but barring that, I’ll settle for however I can catalyze and help.

There’s some easy resources for Oxford scientist-founders here (Oxford University Innovation), here (Founders and Funders), here (Oxford Science Enterprises), and here. In this blog I try to focus outside of Oxford, as I’ve tried to cover inside Oxford overe here in Part 1.

You don’t need an MBA.

Right off the bat — scientists often think (or get told) they should hire a CEO for their startups, a pathway that can often fail due to the scarcity of suitable CEOs at this early stage. The original researchers are better suited to lead their company — they’re deeply invested and possess domain knowledge, crucial for adjusting to market feedback. So let’s start there. Bringing in commercial team members (as founders, as staff) is more a timing question.

There is this stereotype in startup-land perhaps characterized best by the way the Jobs & Wozniak story is sometimes told: the introverted, brilliant, long-suffering technical builder and the extroverted, narcissistic sales-wizard, ruthless commercial operator. Many accelerators unintentionally reinforce this narrative by recruiting and matching a ‘technical’ and a ‘commercial’: “you be CEO, I’ll be CTO”. Worth watching the Steve Jobs biopic, The Founder (on Ray Kroc of McDonald’s) and Blackberry for Hollywood’s take on this frame. Articles like this also don’t help.

Like many frames, it’s become a trope. Founding teams come in all shapes and sizes. The inventor can be the CEO. Firms led by “Inventor CEOs” are associated with higher quality innovation. Titles aren’t everything (my good friend Arun — who I don’t 100% agree with, but makes a damn good case!). And (for the most part…), business-y type people aren’t lurking around the corner: suited, booted, and ready to snatch your patent like a Disney villain.

As a general rule, the idea of ‘balance’ between a commercial and a technical co-founder is borne out of a misconception that founding teams outperform solo founders. There are actually stats that are quite favorable to solo founders — so I think the jury is out on this. For example, companies founded by solo founders are more likely to secure an exit according to Techcrunch research. Harvard Business School Professor Noam Wasserman has also shown that 65% of startups fail because of conflict among co-founders — hard to have inter-founder conflict with only one founder.

Jared Friedman from YC has commented on this in his article on how to spin your scientific research out of a university — quoting here verbatim: “Many scientists think that to start a company you need someone with prior business and financial experience. This is just not the case. In the first couple of years, there is typically very little “business” to be done, and whatever business skills you need you will pick up along the way. Most of the scientists we fund at Y Combinator have no prior experience in business. People who work in business like to make it sound hard, as if business were like quantum physics, a field that needed to be studied for years to master. The fact is, it’s not even close.”

You can do it alone. I feel like this is a moment of the ‘builder as the CEO’, and supports have sprung up to scaffold around a technical founder as they find their feet in the commercial role (e.g, Wilbe, Conception X, the Founders initiative at Cambridge supporting science founders, and folk like Leonardo Massa who’ve put together resources for scientist founders). Conception X has coined the term “Venture Scientist” — and there are several programs supporting scientist founders to go it alone.

✔️ I’ve heard good reasons for a technical founder to go it alone: “We’re set to be in the lab for 2 years — we don’t need a commercial co-founder” — “I want to understand every aspect of the business and the customer-facing work so I can build a better product”.

❌ I’ve heard terrible reasons for a technical founder to go it alone: “I don’t trust businessy people — they just want to make money”.

In any case, you can do it alone.

Most successful “solo” founders are not actually solo. Research out of Harvard shows that while “solo founders” often don’t have co-founders with equity and voting rights, they did have co-creators. Building a business is hard. Building a business as a solo founder is harder. The entrepreneurial journey can be lonely, and aside from metrics on success, think carefully about what you are signing up for. Founding teams also objectively raise more money (or raise more quickly/more easily) than solo founders do. This is less a question of the cap table, more a question of your skills matrix in the early days: do you have everything it takes? And if not, why not bring it in?

If timing is right (i.e., you need to do market analysis to help guide the commercialization pathway for your product, or you’re headed to market with a product), you may want to bring in a co-founder or an early-hire to fill commercial skills gaps in the team.

I can tell you that the most common feedback I’ve gotten from VCs (including specialist funds) on science-based decks is that they don’t have anyone that’s got commercialization experience. That doesn’t mean ‘MBA’ — it means having team members who have experience out of the lab (working to customers and clients, thinking about shipping product, etc.).

If the timing is right, what matters most in this case? My gut says “trust”. You’re bringing in a partner — either as an employee or a co-founder — to fill a commercial role. This role is likely to be outward facing — representing you, your business, and the outcome of your scientific research — to customers, clients, partners, investors, etc. As a result, the most important thing is trust: have a rapport with this person, perhaps have a history, check you have the same vision for what the thing can become.

It’s also worth remembering that the science isn’t ever “done” — you don’t hit TRL 9 and then “go out and sell” — as Jared Friedman says “a related misconception is believing that the research is done and that all that’s left is to commercialize it. If this were true, perhaps an outside CEO would make sense. However, it rarely works out that way. Usually you find that the thing the market wants is not quite the thing that you’ve invented, and that more research needs to be done. The original inventors can take this feedback and make adjustments; an outside CEO will just be stuck”. Keeping this in mind, if the timing is right and you want to bring in commercial people, make sure they work well with the people you have — because the science isn’t done, and there’s no wall between the departments in a startup.

Alternatively, maybe you only have short term commercial needs (e.g., fundraising, market analysis, specific initiative), consider getting an intern or a strategic consulting project (the friendly neighborhood MBAs at the business school have to do these for academic credit, and would be a cheaper way to get some commercial skills in the team to bounce ideas around). This is likely the case with other MSc programs at the university. If you are searching for a commercial–side co-founder, Nucleate’s model of matching researchers to co-founders in biotech might be good for you, or else explore some of the accelerator models like Antler that specifically look out for science-based founders in their intake pipeline.

💡 Whatever the case — seek guidance widely and think about timing and your own skills matrix; but don’t think that you can’t do it alone.

This one’s a bit tricky to say out loud, but needs to be said.

Be careful — or rather, be sensible.

I’ve heard horror stories of so-called independent ‘Advisors’ asking for 5–10% equity (even ~40% in one case!!!). To help a technical cofounder raise money, “deal with investors”, access markets and corporate customers, etc. If you know, you know. This typically takes the form of an unaffiliated ‘specialist’ networking into events on campus, presenting as an Advisor, and bringing up equity right off the bat. I’ve heard a few stories like this where the person also encourages the scientist not to talk to others about their idea, to not share their deck, etc. Which literally doesn’t make sense when you think about it. Maybe they’d rather own 10% of nothing.

Giving equity for advice is a ‘thing’ — but the norm is 0.25–1.00%, and only under very specific conditions. Is that person demonstrably connected with your commercialization pathway? Can they credibly connect you with capital (angels, VCs)? Do you need their advice right now…? Because if you don’t, then don’t give them equity. Once you give them equity, you’ve taken that off the ‘cap table’ (meaning other investors can’t buy that slice of your venture in exchange for capital that you can then use to build the business). If the ‘advisor’ then doesn’t offer much value, you might be stuck with them… Again — use your common sense, seek advice widely.

👍 A quick rule of thumb: you are the one who should find your advisors — reach out to industry specialists, get them on your deck, and eventually maybe incentivize them with equity; but if an ‘advisor’ comes and finds you, then it’s probably not kosher.

Remember: the Royal Society started out as a “melting pot” at Wadham College, Oxford. Melting pots create entropic chance & lateral conversations, inquisition from different points of view — all the stuff that goes into innovation.

I’ve seen science founders avoid talking to commercial people, or avoid talking at all to anyone (period) about their work. First of all, often the best teams (and the best ideas) are those made up of a mix of people — there are exceptions, but for the most part it’s good to have diversity around the table when you’re doing something difficult like building a business off the back of a scientific breakthrough. Timing matters (as above) — if you’re spending the next few years in the lab, maybe a commercial-side founder or team member isn’t going to be helpful. However, generally — talking about your idea might unlock your route to market, a customer intro, etc. Cross-pollination is how to surface innovation and commercialization pathways.

Secondly, ideas are cheap. Even with IP (eek!). It’s in the execution. So talking to people — other scientists, people who have built businesses before, people who want to help — can help you think about execution. Get differing opinions (from other scientists, VCs and accelerators, other founders, and yes — eek! — sometimes an MBA or commercial-type person).

🧸 Don’t hold your cards too close to your chest / Don’t give away the farm on day one. It’s a goldilocks zone. However you do it, get input from people you trust, and do it in a way that feels comfortable to you.

Protect your IP! Begin by conducting a thorough patent search using databases like WIPO or the USPTO. This ensures your idea is truly novel and unanticipated by prior publications. Lean on expert resources for drafting and filing patents, and consider all public disclosures that could affect your eligibility. A robust IP strategy not only protects your work but also enhances its market value, laying a solid foundation for your startup’s success. Some pointers that are hopefully helpful as you begin thinking it through:

• Patents are (seriously) critical in protecting and commercializing scientific inventions.

• There are risks associated with casual or premature public disclosures that can jeopardize your patent rights.

• It’s really important you understand IP ownership, as the scientist-founders, especially in academic settings where collaborative and funded research may impact IP rights.

• It’s also important to analyze your ‘freedom to operate’ to ensure that commercializing an invention does not infringe on existing patents. On the other hand, you also need to understand what use you will have of your patent after filing (for example, is it only in a specific use case and other use cases can be licensed out by who you share the patent with).

• IP isn’t the only thing — there are other forms of IP such as trade secrets, trademarks, and design rights, each serving different strategic roles in protecting your company’s innovations and branding.

📝 I’m not an IP specialist — typically by the time I’m seeing a deck, the founder has a patent or has filed for it already. I recommend you do your own research using primers like this or this.

Should you raise money from grants or investors?

Grants provide non-dilutive funding ideal for initial R&D without sacrificing equity, but they are often restricted in use and involve competitive, lengthy application processes. In contrast, early-stage venture capital (VC) investment offers larger sums of money, crucial business expertise, and valuable industry connections, which can accelerate growth and market entry. However, accepting VC funding means relinquishing some company equity and adhering to investors’ expectations for rapid scaling and profitability, which can add significant pressure.

The right time to seek VC funding is typically when the technology has been sufficiently validated, the market shows demand for the product, and the team is ready to execute on growth strategies. This strategic shift from grants to VC can facilitate a transition from R&D focus to commercial scalability and getting out in front of customers (or partners to build the product with).

🤷 In short: one’s free, but has strings; the other isn’t free, also has strings, but comes with capital plus. If you don’t need investment yet, maybe don’t go after it.