Lost in Translation: How Can Science Have an Impact on Society Without Entrepreneurs Carrying Ideas Into the Marketplace?
Of the so-called academic pursuits, scientific research is disproportionately well funded. Grants for biomedical research easily value in the millions of dollars; the same cannot be said of grants to art historians or archaeologists. The reason is clear. We expect benefits to society not simply based on the accrual of knowledge and cultural depth, but from direct, tangible impacts on productivity, wealth, and health.
How do we expect research to make its way out of the laboratory and into the marketplace? In decades past, corporate, in-house R&D was a mainstay of innovation, in which industry scientists built on the basic research blocks contributed by their academic colleagues. But as companies have scaled down their own R&D operations, they have looked increasingly to external breakthroughs to fuel their more mature pipelines.
Meanwhile, an increased focus on public return on research investment has led to the rise of translational research within academic institutions. Applicability has become a key metric in many research proposals. This might be a solution if academic research institutions were actually suited to translational research. But, unless special bridges are built — for example, when the Wyss Institute[1] brings in industry experts to work with its research scientists — the incentives to do good translational research are woefully misaligned[2].
Scientists are rewarded mostly through academic publishing and its associated metrics of success — for novelty, not reproducibility or robustness or good manufacturing processes[3]. Those kinds of studies that are foundational to a successful commercial enterprise never make it into the sexy, top-tier journals. Moreover, there is little opportunity for feedback from the market into the developer of the technology. The net result of throwing money at translational research without dealing with those misalignments and insufficiencies is simply bad science.
We created Breakout Labs to support start-up companies as the effectors of translation between basic research and commercial application. Our portfolio companies are run by self-made scientist-entrepreneurs who want their science to have a direct impact on society. What if, much the same way that MD-PhDs were once specifically trained to bridge the gap between research and medicine, PhD-entrepreneurs are the solution to bridging the gap between research and commercialization?
Small companies are ideally placed to take research forward with the explicit purpose of creating a commercial product. And the ecosystem is ready for them. Whether it’s incubator space, shared lab equipment, outsourcing, or computational prediction, small companies can make big strides towards focused goals on shoestring budgets. The things that are missing are money and mentorship. SBIR programs make a small dent in the financial gap, as do angel investors and a smattering of seed funds within venture groups[4]. But, as a society, if we value science for its impact on society, than we must make a concentrated and creative effort to support the bridge between the lab and the economy.
