Science-Based Entrepreneurship

🔹 𝗔 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 In a world driven by specialization, I discovered something surprising: real growth often comes from stepping outside your lane. Working in R&D taught me precision and problem-solving. But it was my interactions with neurodiverse individuals that revealed the magic of empathy and clarity. While leading projects across different industries, I learned to embrace change and humility. Each role, each challenge, was a new lens to view the world. Here’s what I found: The most profound lessons often come from unexpected places. 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 drilled discipline into my work ethic. 𝗡𝗲𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘆 taught me the power of clear communication. 𝗖𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀-𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 pushed me to adapt and keep my ego in check. Mix these elements, and you get innovation that truly shines. I’ve realized that patience in tech leads to better innovation, and direct communication clears up leadership fuzziness. Systems thrive when treated like people. The takeaway? Your side projects and unique experiences aren’t distractions. They're power-ups. So, leverage every tool you have. Your varied experiences are the secret ingredients to building stronger teams and creating a more human future. 👉 𝗜’𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘆𝗼𝘂: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘂𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝗼𝘃𝗲? #LeadershipWithPurpose #Neurodiversity #ElectronicsIndustry #InnovationMindset #CrossIndustryLearning #HumanCenteredLeadership

Why Entrepreneurship Should Be Every Graduate's Core Skill, Not Just Business Students' This article in today's Times Higher Education highlights a fundamental challenge: while employers consistently rank entrepreneurial thinking at the top of their graduate wish lists, most universities still treat entrepreneurship as a business school speciality rather than a university-wide graduate attribute. Robert Crammond from the University of the West of Scotland identifies the core problem: "Most course and programme learning outcomes continue to emphasise traditional academic outputs, such as written assignments and presentations... they don't always provide space to develop or assess enterprising attributes in a meaningful way." Yet the evidence for broader integration is compelling: 🔹 4,000-5,000 student startups are created annually in the UK alone - demand exists across all disciplines 🔹 Employers want adaptability, innovation, and problem-solving - core entrepreneurial competencies needed everywhere 🔹 Cross-disciplinary examples already exist: creative enterprises in arts programs, social entrepreneurship in education, medical innovation in healthcare, sustainability ventures in physical sciences The shift required isn't just curricular. It's conceptual. Universities need to move from "entrepreneurship education" as a specialised program to "entrepreneurial education" as a fundamental approach to learning across all fields. The question for university leaders: Do we want to develop all of our students to be entrepreneurial citizens or just train a small portion to be entrepreneurs? This matters because technological advancement demands workforce agility that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. Students studying literature need entrepreneurial thinking for the creative economy. Engineering students need it for technology commercialisation. Social science students need it for policy innovation. The institutions that will lead aren't those with the best entrepreneurship centres. They're the ones that can systematically embed entrepreneurial competencies into every graduate's experience, regardless of their major. #EntrepreneurshipEducation #HigherEducation #GraduateSkills #UniversityTransformation #CurriculumInnovation 👉 https://lnkd.in/gVBQEDHT

I’ve always liked working across disciplines. As a student, I was a mathematician doing research in manufacturing—surrounded by engineers. It was messy, creative, and incredibly rewarding. Which is why the “10,000-hour rule” never fully sat right with me. You know the story: pick one thing, start early, and grind. We have successful examples Tiger Woods, the Polgar sisters. Case closed. Except… that’s not how most excellence actually happens. Studies tracking elite athletes show that future champions tend to have a sampling period—a few years spent exploring different sports before focusing. (Côté & Erickson, 2015) Another meta-analysis found that deliberate practice explains only about 1% of performance differences at elite levels. (Macnamara et al., 2016) Even top musicians show the same pattern—they specialize late, often after experimenting with multiple instruments. (Güllich, 2017) Psychologist Robin Hogarth called golf and chess “kind learning environments”: the rules are clear, feedback is immediate, and cause and effect are obvious. Most of life is the opposite—wicked environments—where the rules shift, feedback is delayed or misleading, and expertise doesn’t transfer cleanly. In wicked worlds, narrow specialists can get trapped by their own experience. And this pattern scales up. A 2024 study of patent data showed that the most innovative teams were those mixing knowledge from multiple domains. (Wang et al., 2024) My favorite example? Gunpei Yokoi. He struggled with his engineering exam and became a maintenance worker at a Kyoto playing-card company. But he experimented and combined tech from calculators and credit cards to create handheld games. That company became Nintendo, and his side project became the Game Boy. The moral: depth matters—but range multiplies it. In a wicked world, the people who connect dots across disciplines don’t fall behind. They build entirely new games to play.

UK Government Modern Industrial Strategy launched in the last 24 hours: what does it mean? I’ve been exploring this using #systemsthinking and a causal loop diagram (CLD) to map its feedback structures. A few key takeaways which might be relevant #business schools… Systemic Insights via CLD: – Investment → R\&D → Innovation → Productivity → Economic Growth → Investment – Skills ↔ Innovation & Infrastructure → Tech Adoption → Innovation → Productivity Key “hubs” include **Innovation**, **Productivity**, & **Economic Growth**, with **Collaboration** and **Skills** as powerful levers. Negative links (e.g., regulatory uncertainty) can weaken investment, while peripheral nodes (e.g., Net-Zero in our simplified map) may need stronger connections to reflect real-world influence. This underscores the need for aligning R&D, #skills, infrastructure, and #sustainability objectives. So, what should business schools do? 🤝 Strengthen Industry Partnerships: Collaborate with firms & regional clusters on real projects. Connect students/faculty to innovation initiatives, boosting learning and local impact. 💡 Focus on Emerging Skills: Update programs for digital literacy, clean-energy management, & advanced manufacturing basics. Equip grads with in-demand skills that feed productivity and innovation loops. 🚀 Foster Entrepreneurship & Scale-Ups: Offer incubators, mentorship, and finance guidance. “Entrepreneurship → Scale-ups → Innovation” will help startups grow and energize the wider economy 🤝🔬Promote Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration: Bridge business, engineering, sustainability, etc. Joint projects mirror how “Collaboration → Innovation/Skills/Infrastructure” drives broader outcomes. 📜 Short Courses on Policy Signals: Run workshops on navigating regulatory certainty/uncertainty. Helping leaders anticipate policy shifts reduces investment hesitation. 🌍 Champion Regional Engagement: Partner with local authorities & SMEs to tailor programs to regional needs. Reinforce “Regional Clusters → Growth → Inclusive Growth” and support levelling-up. ♻️ Embed Sustainability & Net-Zero Goals: Integrate clean energy case studies & net zero strategy in courses. Aligns with “Net-Zero → Clean Energy → Investment/Innovation,” preparing leaders for green transitions. 📊 Leverage Data & Analytics: Track outcomes of partnerships, alumni ventures, and skills placement. Measurable impact reinforces further investment and collaboration. 🌐 Build Innovation-Focused Alumni Networks : Create forums where grads in high-growth sectors share insights with current students. Sustains knowledge transfer and industry connections. #IndustrialStrategy #SystemsThinking #Innovation #EconomicGrowth #UK #CLD #Policy #Sustainability #Collaboration #Skills

🌍 Broadening horizons: The key to innovation 🌱 In every profession, there’s a tendency to narrow our focus, to stay within the comfort zone of what we know and the boundaries of our specific field. But true innovation often lies in looking beyond those boundaries—exploring ideas, theories, and philosophies that may seem, at first glance, unrelated or even outdated. Take Malthusian economics as an example. Originally focused on the relationship between population growth and agricultural production, it’s a theory that some might consider obsolete in today’s context. Yet, its mathematical approach—juxtaposing exponential growth with linear or degrading resources—remains profoundly relevant. Imagine applying this lens to modern challenges like lithium availability versus the skyrocketing demand for batteries. Suddenly, a centuries-old theory sparks fresh insights into one of today’s most pressing issues. This is why expanding your intellectual toolkit beyond your immediate field is vital. Philosophy, economics, history, and even seemingly unrelated sciences can offer frameworks for understanding, questioning, and solving problems in innovative ways. The ability to connect dots across disciplines isn’t just a skill—it’s a superpower in a world that demands agility and creativity. So, whether you’re in procurement, technology, or any other field, don’t shy away from exploring ideas outside your domain. Even an “outdated” theory might be the spark that ignites your next breakthrough. #Innovation #InterdisciplinaryThinking #PhilosophyInBusiness #MalthusianEconomics #BroadeningHorizons

Cross-disciplinary learning works because principles that solve problems in one field often solve similar problems in another. The challenge is recognizing the pattern underneath the different context. If you need better focus, look at surgeons or pilots. Better collaboration? Orchestras or sports teams. Better systems for managing complexity? Look at how air traffic control coordinates multiple moving parts without central command. Pick one book this quarter from an unrelated field. Read with a question in mind: "What principle here could I test in my work?" Talk to someone whose expertise differs completely from yours. Ask what makes something work in their domain. Listen for the underlying principle, not just the surface practice. When something works well elsewhere, ask what makes it effective and test whether that principle addresses your challenge. The solution might already be proven… just not in your field yet.

Science commercialization is often framed as lab-to-market, but the real question is: who funds the “too applied for grants, too early for VC” zone? I've seen it firsthand: a chicken-and-egg problem where VCs want traction before they'll commit, and founders need capital to create the very traction investors demand. Too often, brilliant scientists with world-changing technologies get trapped here. How science founders can navigate this valley: 1. Build your funding stack based on alignment — Grants, philanthropy, corporate partnerships, and venture capital each comes with different north stars and risk tolerances. Understand how your science fits now and in the future and plan accordingly. 2. Approach expert funders — Seek out capital providers who deeply understand your space. They’re best positioned to see the potential and impact of your work before it’s consensus. 3. Stage-gate your milestones — Show a path where $X unlocks validation, $Y proves scale, and later capital accelerates commercialization. Make each milestone reduce one major risk for follow on funders. 4. Activate alternative capital — Donor-advised funds, venture philanthropy, mission-driven corporates, and government innovation programs can back early science that’s obvious to experts but not yet to markets. Use them to build incremental validation. 5. Design for optionality — Build multiple paths forward: non-profit arms for public good research, commercial spinouts for market applications, licensing deals for near-term revenue, and strategic partnerships for distribution. 6. Create urgency — Patent deadlines, grant reporting requirements, and pilot customer commitments can become forcing functions that accelerate decisions. Use them to your advantage in funding negotiations. What strategies have you used to bridge this valley? I'd love to hear examples that others can learn from, especially creative financing structures or unexpected funding sources that worked.

Most pre-seed medtech founders lose the company before they even build it. Not to failure. To desperation capital. The game is rigged from day one: investors want proof, proof costs money, and money only comes from investors who want proof. The way out is not one perfect round. It's a stack. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀: You take the first check available because the runway is short. You give up more equity than the milestone was worth. You sign terms that quietly scare off the next investor. And you still walk into the next meeting without the one proof point that would have made the raise easy. The cycle repeats. Dilution compounds. Control slips away. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝘅: Stop treating capital as a single event. Start treating it as a sequence. Every dollar should buy a visible risk-reduction milestone: a working prototype, paid demand, regulatory clarity, clinical validation, a clean IP position, or first revenue. Before you take any money, run it through three questions: 1. What milestone does this buy? 2. What rights am I giving up? 3. Does this make the next funding conversation easier or harder? --- 👉 𝗚𝗿𝗮𝗯 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗣𝗿𝗲-𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗮𝗽 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲: 𝗵𝘁𝘁𝗽𝘀://𝗰𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀-𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗸.𝗸𝗶𝘁.𝗰𝗼𝗺/𝗳𝟳𝟰𝗳𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗮𝟲𝟭 ♻️ If this would help another medtech founder or CEO you know, share it. Most are stuck chasing the wrong funding path. --- 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀: I mapped every funding source from most dilutive to least: • Company-building equity (top) • Private and crowd capital • Strategic and international capital • Customer-funded development • Grants and public funding • Disease foundations • Research and in-kind leverage • Bootstrap and revenue (bottom) 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗲-𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲. A paid pilot proves demand while a grant de-risks the science. An angel syndicate funds delivery while a foundation brings patients and credibility. Do this right and you stop raising from need. You walk into the VC conversation with proof already bought. You raise from strength, not desperation. You keep control while you build. --- 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄? Drop a comment. I'll share what to layer in next based on where you are. 👉 And if you haven't grabbed the full Funding Map and Playbook yet, get it here: https://lnkd.in/ghDhgc9Y 🔔 Follow me and turn on "All" notifications to catch the other two posts in this series.

Collaboration across disciplines sounds intuitive. In practice, it is anything but simple. A recent qualitative study examining how artists, scientists and technologists work together shows that interdisciplinary collaboration about navigating fundamentally different ways of thinking, creating and validating knowledge. Participants describe collaboration as a process of “de-disciplining” themselves. Established methods, norms and hierarchies need to be temporarily suspended to make room for alternative perspectives. This is where friction emerges. Scientists may prioritise rigour and reproducibility, artists ambiguity and exploration, technologists functionality and application. What makes collaboration work is not alignment, but negotiation. Shared understanding develops through iteration, translation and, often, discomfort. Trust becomes a central variable, not only between individuals but between epistemologies. The study also points to structural constraints. Institutional settings, funding models and evaluation criteria still favour disciplinary outputs. This creates a paradox where interdisciplinary work is encouraged rhetorically but remains difficult to sustain in practice. Authors: Zeynep Birsel, Ellen Loots, Lénia Marques

It's not you, VC is tight. Have you thought about how your FDA pathway can fund your startup's growth? Regulatory and fundraising go hand in hand. FDA clearance can raise your valuation 40-80%. Awesome. But what does it cost to get there? Your FDA pathway can attract non-dilutive capital that funds the milestones along it. Federal agencies, foundations, and corporate partners all write checks to help founders run clinical validation studies and prepare FDA submissions. Most founders start with government grants: +NIH SBIR/STTR Phase I (up to $323K): The workhorse entry point. Direct runway into Phase II ($2.15M) and the Commercialization Readiness Pilot, which explicitly funds clinical trial planning and FDA submission prep. +NSF SBIR Phase I (up to $305K): Best for verification and validation work and regulatory strategy that builds toward your 510(k) substantial equivalence package. +ARPA-H SBIR contracts (up to $600K Phase 1, $3.5M Phase 2): For higher-risk, novel technologies including AI-enabled SaMD. ARPA-H programs include FDA participation, which helps you avoid surprises at submission. But are you also considering foundations and corporate partners? You should. +Wellcome Leap (multi-million, milestone-based): Broadly applicable across surgery, diagnostics, women's health, and more. For-profit startups eligible. +American Heart Association ($200K Innovative Project Award): Funds well beyond cardiovascular. Goes through your academic PI, who you need anyway to run a clinical trial. +Bayer G4A Growth Track (~€100K, no equity): For seed to Series A digital health startups with a validated MVP. Globally open. +Corporate IIS programs (Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, Roche): Fund studies that involve their marketed products. Real path if your device pairs with or compares against theirs. Heads up: SBIR/STTR was just reauthorized through 2031. Solicitations are coming back online. I'll be sharing advice from Jun Gregg, MSc PhD of Grant Engine this week, so stay tuned!