8,760 Hours in Medical Innovation and Translation: What Landscape Have We Witnessed?

On December 15, 2021, exactly one year ago, Orange Fruit Bureau published its first article since its inception, titled “Interviews with 100 Individuals: What Ignites Their Passion for Medical Innovation?” Coincidentally, I was also the author of this article.

I still vividly recall that among the 100 individuals interviewed at the time were scientists, including those who had already launched startups and those who were preparing to do so; there were also representatives from investment institutions, including those consistently focused on early-stage investments and those gearing up to enter the early-stage investment space. In addition, key personnel from technology transfer centers at research universities and institutes, local science and technology bureaus or the Ministry of Science and Technology, innovation centers or incubators, and third-party scientific research service organizations were included. Virtually all core stakeholders in the medical innovation ecosystem were represented in the interview list.

Prior to the interviews, I anticipated that respondents would universally express strong endorsement and high expectations for medical innovation and translation. The actual feedback largely aligned with this expectation, though not entirely; a subset of interviewees appeared not to have “ignited their enthusiasm for medical innovation.”

Of course, they do have their “reasons,” which can be broadly summarized as follows: China has not yet established a sound system and framework for the translation of scientific research achievements; the core responsibilities of our scientists currently remain focused on teaching and clinical practice; most of our research outcomes lack translational value; and we are short of key professionals who truly understand medical innovation and translation.

To be honest, I did not fully understand these so-called “objections” at the time. However, the deeper I delved into this industry and the more closely I aligned with scientists, the more I realized that these “reasons” are grounded in objective facts. Of course, the fervor surrounding medical innovation and translation is equally real, and this industry undoubtedly holds great promise.

However, this is premised on our ability to clearly identify the pain points of the industry, thereby enabling us to accurately define our own positioning. With this in mind, Chengguo Bureau wishes to engage in a heartfelt discussion with everyone, drawing upon what we have seen, heard, felt, and thought over the past year. Specifically, regarding medical innovation and translation, what landscape have we actually witnessed?

Why raise this question? Because in the past year or two, whether among scientists, research institutions, local governments, or industry players represented by investment firms and enterprises, it seems that only substantial investments have been made in innovation and translation, with returns being negligible.

There are, of course, many reasons for this. First and foremost, innovation and translation in the medical field is inherently a long-cycle process. We are currently still in the early-stage layout phase across many segments, so it is unrealistic to expect corresponding returns at present; a period of consolidation and maturation is still required.

From an objective standpoint, the subjective causes primarily stem from deficiencies in our own “professional capabilities.” These deficiencies exist within the system, research institutions, scientists themselves, industry players, and third-party scientific research service providers, all of whom are currently facing various challenges in their respective fields. These issues prolong the timeline for achieving benefits from final outcome translation and may even reduce the efficiency of such translation.

Regardless, medical innovation and translation will remain a “good business” for the foreseeable future.

This perspective can be substantiated from multiple dimensions. First, for the healthcare industry, which requires continuous disruption of existing technologies and the ongoing proposal of superior solutions, innovation is undoubtedly its most vital driving force, a truth that holds at any given time. Coincidentally, China’s healthcare industry is also entering a critical phase that demands “genuine innovation.”

Industries follow development cycles, and innovation is no exception. Against the backdrop of the rapid integration of internet technology into the healthcare sector and an entrepreneurial era dominated by the theme of “domestic substitution,” the low-hanging fruit has largely been harvested. Future opportunities will increasingly belong to those who possess frontier achievements rooted in original innovative technologies.

Therefore, over the past year or two, a significant number of policies have increasingly favored scientists. Research institutions and universities have been gradually “unshackling” scientists, striving to provide them with the optimal environment for innovation and translation. Meanwhile, industry players—primarily investment firms and enterprises—are also focusing their attention on scientists, deeply engaging in this wave of medical innovation and translation through their respective areas of expertise.

And, of course, there are the scientists themselves. On one hand, more domestic scientists are stepping forward, driven by a strong passion for innovation and translation. On the other hand, a cohort of top-tier overseas-trained scientists is gradually returning to China. Some dive directly into research as principal investigators in laboratories; others bring back overseas scientific achievements to establish startups in China; while still others engage deeply in building China’s medical innovation and translation ecosystem, nurturing and supporting a new generation of promising young scientists.

Therefore, medical innovation and translation in China are certainly promising for the future; the current “growing pains” are inevitable but will soon pass.

Since medical innovation and translation have been proven to be a “good business,” how can we deeply engage in this field and secure our share of the profits?

Before proceeding, we must first clarify the core issues currently facing this industry. After all, problems represent opportunities; only those who can identify and resolve these issues are poised to profit from innovation and commercialization.

First, we must recognize that innovation is a filtering process. It selects only those cutting-edge achievements that truly meet the definition of “genuine innovation”—namely, solutions that either address currently unsolvable problems or optimize existing ones in terms of cost, patient experience, efficiency, and other factors.

However, frontier achievements representing “true innovation” have only taken the first step. There remains a significant gap between the laboratory and industrial application, and this stretch may prove even more challenging to traverse. Unlike the relatively pure pursuit of overcoming a technical bottleneck, this phase requires the involvement of many stakeholders; yet, as the number of participants increases, matters often become more complex.

Next, we will elaborate further on the term “complex.”

First, we need to clarify a concept: medical innovation and translation do not simply refer to the final decision-making or the moment of transaction. Rather, they constitute a process. However, this process is not a one-size-fits-all formula; different outcomes require distinctly different stages throughout the entire innovation and translation journey.

Nevertheless, successfully and seamlessly completing this process often cannot be achieved by scientists alone; as they advance, they require the continuous involvement of “partners.”

For instance, during the R&D phase, he requires peers or professionals who can compensate for his technical deficiencies in certain areas; whereas when the technology matures and is ready to enter the market, he needs a figure akin to a “professional manager.” This key individual will assess the value and positioning of the achievement in the market from an industry perspective, and then precisely match it with corresponding industrial resources.

However, we are still far from doing enough in this regard. First, the definition of “technology transfer professionals” remains relatively ambiguous. Second, both the scale and overall quality of such professionals in China are low, with an even smaller proportion specializing in the healthcare sector. Consequently, out of necessity, we observe that in many technology transfer teams at research institutions and universities, this core role is predominantly filled by administrative staff transferred from other positions. These individuals generally lack a thorough understanding of medical innovation and commercialization, and their professional competencies are relatively weak, making it difficult for them to provide meaningful support to scientists during the translation process.

The word “help” needs to be placed in quotation marks, because in many Chinese research institutions and universities, technology transfer centers not only fail to assist but often hinder scientists. For instance, they may require scientists to submit materials of little practical value or participate in activities of minimal significance. Moreover, many such institutions have yet to establish their own systematic frameworks and processes for technology commercialization, leaving scientists with nowhere to turn for support.

Of course, scientists themselves also have certain limitations.

First, in terms of the outcomes themselves, the vast majority lack practical value for commercialization. On one hand, many research outputs were never intended for translation from the outset; they were pursued merely to publish a paper or meet certain scientific performance metrics, meaning the initial motivation was not “pure.” On the other hand, most scientists remain somewhat detached from industry at this stage, resulting in many findings that are ultimately disconnected from market needs. Therefore, although China’s patent volume has risen to rank first globally in the past one to two years, the conversion rate still lags significantly behind the world’s leading levels.

However, this is not the only reason. From a scientific perspective, how researchers plan the translation pathway for their research outcomes and hone their hybrid competencies in translation during this process are both critical to the ultimate trajectory of those outcomes.

Specifically, when scientists achieve a cutting-edge result, the first thing they need to do is make trade-offs, including those related to identity and interests. This is very important because for most scientists, it is difficult to maintain their primary role as researchers while simultaneously taking on the role of entrepreneurs. Additionally, the ultimate benefits from commercialization are proportional to individual efforts, so one should act according to their own capabilities.

When scientists choose to move forward, the second step is to continuously hone their core competencies as qualified entrepreneurs. In this regard, some top U.S. research institutions have excelled by developing comprehensive training programs that can rapidly help scientists transition toward becoming entrepreneurs in a short period of time.

In China, only a handful of research institutions and universities currently possess such capabilities, and even they are still in the exploratory phase. More often than not, scientists have to rely on their own “wild” growth. Of course, if they are fortunate enough to encounter influential mentors or seize favorable opportunities, their professional development may proceed with relative ease. However, such circumstances are rare and cannot be deliberately sought.

Since “key enablers” have been mentioned, attention must turn to industry players, as they are the critical figures who guide scientists through the final few kilometers. While “industry players” is a broad concept, here I wish to focus specifically on investment institutions.

In the past year or two, a clear trend has emerged: investment institutions are focusing on the commercialization of scientific research achievements and investing in early-stage medical projects. However, much like scientists embarking on entrepreneurial ventures, it is not an easy task for investment institutions to invest at such an early stage.

First, can you access a substantial pool of “high-quality” scientists? In other words, as an investment firm, do you have an early-stage healthcare project pipeline for screening opportunities? Second, can you truly “understand” some early-stage healthcare projects? The term “understand” goes beyond its literal meaning; it encompasses multiple dimensions, such as the technology itself, its industrial development prospects, and the chemistry between the technology and the founders. The deeper an investment firm’s understanding, the lower the risk associated with early-stage investments.

The third point is whether you can effectively support early-stage healthcare projects. For investment firms, investing in an early-stage venture is akin to “raising” a child; indeed, many investors ultimately become equity partners in the portfolio companies they back. This is no exaggeration. The defining characteristic of early-stage healthcare projects is that numerous aspects remain undefined. Consequently, investment firms must undertake extensive value-added activities, such as recruiting a CEO for the company, facilitating business collaborations with other enterprises, assisting with commercial implementation, and planning subsequent financing rounds.

In fact, for early-stage healthcare projects, while funding is important, what matters more is the post-investment service capability of institutional investors after they get involved, as well as their ability to nurture the long-term growth of startups. After all, this is not a one-off transaction; it is a prolonged process of mutual growth and shared profitability.

In summary, whether scientists or investment institutions, when focusing on innovation and translation, the first step is to clearly identify their positioning, then continuously strengthen their core capabilities in a specific area, or break down innovation and translation into countless small segments, strategically deploying resources at each stage, ultimately forming a complete and systematic innovation ecosystem.

Regarding the translation of scientific and technological achievements, nearly everyone acknowledges its difficulty, and this is indeed the case. Even in the United States, which has a highly mature ecosystem for medical innovation and translation, the annual rate of industrial conversion remains modest.

And we have only just begun. Many critical links still need to be defined and built. Yet it is precisely for this reason that medical innovation and translation hold irreplaceable value, brim with imaginative potential, and thereby attract broader participation.

Regardless of who you are or what role you play, before becoming deeply involved, you should understand one thing: medical innovation and translation is a multifaceted endeavor. Within this domain, there are numerous specific tasks to be undertaken. For the vast majority of participants, focusing on excelling in just one of these areas constitutes a contribution to advancing medical innovation and translation, thereby enabling you to reap corresponding rewards.

It is not enough to simply understand this point; participants must also align on a unified objective: to identify and incubate cutting-edge achievements that embody “true innovation.” For instance, scientists should drive the development of the medical industry with innovation as the core focus during the R&D process, rather than merely pursuing specific performance targets. Similarly, when selecting investment targets, investment institutions should prioritize technology, particularly focusing on frontier technologies that can genuinely propel the future development of the medical industry, instead of blindly valuing scientists’ reputations or following so-called hot trends.

So, in this process, what can Orange Bureau do as a participant?

In fact, it is quite straightforward. Orange Bureau is an initiative launched by VCBeat, focused on medical innovation and translation. As a venture capital media outlet in the healthcare sector, VCBeat has been deeply engaged in the industry for eight years. During this period, it has accumulated not only extensive experience in industry growth and corresponding industrial resources but also developed a key core competency: the ability to systematically identify potential opportunities in emerging sectors from an industry perspective, rapidly establish structured frameworks and strategies, and thereby help companies already operating in these tracks—or scientists targeting them—achieve rapid growth.

In addition, as a healthcare resource aggregation platform, VCBeat also serves to connect various stakeholders, significantly reducing communication costs and enabling more precise, closer, and more efficient collaboration across the industry.

Therefore, building upon the current landscape of medical innovation and commercialization, Orange Fruit Bureau focuses on three core objectives: first, to lead global innovative technologies; second, to build a communication bridge between academia and industry; and third, to provide substantive support in specific innovation cases, thereby accelerating their translation into practical applications.

For the past year, Orange Bureau has been exploring these three initiatives. Yet this is only the beginning. In the years to come, Orange Bureau will continue its exploration, steadily strengthening its capabilities, with the ultimate aim of becoming a small but pivotal wave in the tide of medical innovation and translation in China.