How Scientists in the Wave of Translational Innovation Can Find the Right Co-Founders

The entry of scientists has unleashed unprecedented vitality in the medical innovation sector.

They have brought cutting-edge research findings into the industry, shifting innovation capabilities from follower innovation to original R&D.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that certain phenomena have emerged in this process: scientists often find themselves ill at ease when stepping out of the laboratory to assume corporate management roles. While they operate with ease at the bench, they frequently encounter confusion when confronting the industrialization of their technologies. They have come to realize that scientific innovation constitutes only part of the broader landscape of technological and product innovation. Beyond scientific research, they need to introduce new capabilities, incorporating industrial and commercial perspectives.

Therefore, in companies founded by scientists, the “scientist + entrepreneurial partner” team structure is becoming increasingly common.

Scientists who spend their years in the laboratory need a partner to jointly commercialize their technologies. This individual must possess a certain level of technical understanding, along with corresponding experience in corporate management and operations, as well as the ability to expand resources, thereby resonating with the scientists. In interviews conducted by VCBeat, nearly all the scientists highlighted the importance of this role in the commercialization of technology.

Based on this, VCBeat Orange Bureau curated a special series titled “Entrepreneurial Co-Founders” in May. Through specific case studies, topic planning, and online panels, we explored and addressed this subject from multiple perspectives. In this article, we will briefly discuss the phenomenon and value of the “scientist + entrepreneurial co-founder” model, examining aspects such as scientists’ motivations for entrepreneurship, the value of entrepreneurial co-founders, and the essential qualities they should possess, to inform our readers.

The original aspiration of scientists who leave their laboratories to launch startups is invariably driven by the ideal of translating basic research into industrial applications.

Through extensive interviews, we have found that although scientists are motivated by different reasons to start businesses, they ultimately converge on the same path. These motivations can be broadly categorized into two closely related groups: one is the desire to translate research into industrial applications; the other is to change the world in a different way.

Nearly every scientist aspires to transform their research findings into end-user products. When a discovery can address specific problems in the market, scientists are highly motivated to translate it into industrial applications, thereby benefiting society.

However, not every achievement ultimately becomes a reality. In the early years, the academic research community placed greater emphasis on pure scholarly inquiry, and scientists often chose to transfer their findings to commercial enterprises, relying on these companies to drive industrialization. Yet, once the technology was transferred, scientists’ influence over its commercialization waned. Companies acquired technologies for various reasons: some sought breakthroughs in their product lines, others bet on the future commercial value of the technology, and still others viewed it as a competitive threat to their own products or technologies. Even companies that initially aimed to industrialize the technology sometimes ended up shelving the achievements due to various force majeure factors.

Therefore, the commercialization path of some transferred technologies deviates from the scientists’ original expectations.

As the awareness of translational innovation continues to strengthen, scientist-led startups have become increasingly common within academic circles. While deep engagement in academic research can change the world, why should translating scientific achievements into industrial applications and everyday life not be regarded as another way to effect global change?

On the industry front, after a period of intense market consolidation, there is growing emphasis on technological innovation. Early-stage investors are no longer satisfied with projects that have already undergone commercialization research; they are even stepping into laboratories to proactively identify and engage with cutting-edge technologies and projects.

Driven by multiple factors, including industrial dynamics, an innovative atmosphere, and emerging investment trends, the medical innovation sector is refining its ecosystem for translating breakthroughs from “0 to 1,” thereby making scientist-led entrepreneurship increasingly commonplace. These scientists are stepping out of their laboratories to take the lead in bridging the “last mile” from research achievements to technological commercialization.

From the moment they decide to start a business, scientists’ roles undergo a transformation. While technological innovation capability remains at the core, as company founders, scientists face more diversified demands from the market regarding their skill sets.

For enterprises, R&D capability is far more than just scientific research prowess; more importantly, it encompasses the capacity for commercializing technologies from the laboratory to industrial application. Only by moving beyond the lab can technology realize its value in the marketplace. This process tests entrepreneurs’ business acumen and their understanding of technology.

On the other hand, as a leader, entrepreneurs need to chart the course for their team and assume the responsibilities of leadership and management. Although scientists also manage projects or research topics in the laboratory, this is fundamentally different from corporate management. This difference is first reflected in personnel composition: laboratories are primarily staffed by researchers and technicians who share similar work attributes and backgrounds. In contrast, a company comprises diverse roles, such as R&D, marketing, business development (BD), administration, sales, and finance. Each role requires different backgrounds. As a company founder, one must also consider what kind of talent is needed for each position and how these individuals should be screened and evaluated.

In exploring commercialization pathways, entrepreneurs and scientists adopt vastly different mindsets. Academic research is an ultimate pursuit of precision, where time and money can be invested without regard to cost to achieve maximum accuracy. However, for businesses, both time and capital are critical resources.

Innovation necessitates R&D investment, but as enterprises, where does the funding come from? If excessive R&D spending leads to final product pricing that exceeds the market’s ability to pay, who will bear the cost? Furthermore, although the technology may be relatively mature, there is still a considerable distance to cover in transitioning from the laboratory to industrial application. This process involves scale-up of manufacturing processes, clinical validation, regulatory submission, and commercial production. However, enterprises do not have access to scientific research grants; apart from self-funding, internal cash flow generation, and support from the government and investors, there are few channels for securing capital. Therefore, how to survive during the R&D phase and maintain R&D investment is a critical issue that entrepreneurs must address.

"As an entrepreneur, one must consider the balance between R&D investment and commercialization."

During the course of a company’s development, entrepreneurs inevitably interact with a wide variety of stakeholders. The growth of innovative enterprises relies on support from both the government and capital markets. As such, entrepreneurs must be able to clearly and concisely communicate their project’s advantages and development goals to investors. Meanwhile, as different types of investors have varying areas of focus, entrepreneurs must also effectively convey their company’s innovative value when engaging with diverse investment institutions.

Finally, when scientists become entrepreneurs, they must promptly adjust their mindset to align with their changing roles. As scientists, they hold academic authority, command absolute decision-making power in the laboratory, and are highly respected externally. However, as entrepreneurs, they must recognize that each team member represents a family, and the company’s survival is paramount. Entrepreneurs may sometimes need to adopt a more humble stance, proactively seeking and securing support from various stakeholders.

Of course, we cannot deny that scientists possess strong learning abilities; within the market, we can observe highly successful scientist-entrepreneurs such as Dr. Yu Dechao of Innovent Biologics. Nevertheless, constrained by various limitations, scientists are often stretched too thin. Given that specialization is key, rather than diverting their energy to mastering entirely unfamiliar skills, it is preferable to allow them to focus on scientific research and leave specialized tasks to professionals.

Based on extensive interviews, we have summarized investors’ concerns about scientist-led startups into three main areas: First, whether scientists possess the managerial capabilities to run a business and have sufficient in-depth understanding of the industry. Second, whether scientists can make objective decisions that benefit the company when facing conflicts between product bottlenecks and commercial interests. Third, how scientists can fully commit if they are unable to dedicate themselves to the startup on a full-time basis. The emergence of the entrepreneurial partner role has largely alleviated these tensions.

Scientists and entrepreneurial partners have clearly defined roles. Scientists ensure technological accessibility at the front end, while the transition from technology to product development and commercialization relies on close collaboration between both parties. For instance, in translating a technology into a market-ready product, scientists are responsible for ensuring its reliability, innovativeness, and technical barriers, whereas entrepreneurial partners complement this by providing commercialization capabilities.

As a co-founder, their responsibility is to enable scientists to focus on their areas of expertise. Scientists excel in basic research, tracking frontier developments, and assessing technological feasibility, but they typically have limited experience in commercialization. Therefore, the support of a co-founder is essential in this process, providing appropriate guidance based on their understanding of the industry and grasp of business pacing.

During the process of translating scientific achievements into commercial applications, most scientists cannot participate on a full-time basis. They need to continue investing in their research work to maintain the cutting-edge and advanced nature of their technologies. In terms of research and development, transforming a technology into a product requires passing through multiple milestones. Especially in high-barrier innovation fields such as biopharmaceuticals and medical devices, it may also involve multiple roles including clinical trials and engineering, necessitating the formation of a team with sufficient capacity to ensure orderly progress. The management of the team, company operations, and maintaining precision in R&D all require the full commitment of entrepreneurial partners.

During our interviews, one scientist lamented, “Finding a co-founder is even harder than finding a wife!”

Although entrepreneurial partners and professional managers share overlapping functions, there is a fundamental distinction between the two. Professional managers are, at their core, employees of the company, whereas entrepreneurial partners are entrepreneurs themselves—partners to scientists on their entrepreneurial journey. In simple terms, while professional managers can move freely between companies, entrepreneurial partners form a community of shared interests with the company—they are building their own venture alongside scientists. So, what qualities does such a role require?

The role of a startup co-founder is predefined: to help scientists turn their ideas into reality. Therefore, in terms of capabilities, the co-founder must complement the scientist’s skills and resources. Industry experience, management expertise, commercialization operational capabilities, and full-time commitment go without saying; however, at a fundamental level, mutual trust and alignment of values between the startup co-founder and the scientist are perhaps even more critical.

We often say, “With the right people, things fall into place.” This adage perfectly describes the relationship between scientists and their entrepreneurial co-founders. Entrepreneurship is an arduous and protracted journey; only those who share mutual trust and common values can become teammates who have each other’s backs.

In the film *American Dreams in China*, there is a scene where, despite various conflicts, disputes, and disagreements among the three founders, a shared goal binds them tightly together, enabling them to join hands and achieve business success. In reality, however, there are numerous cases where companies have suffered significant setbacks due to team disintegration. Ultimately, individuals with different values may hold divergent perceptions of the same matter or person.

In the process of technological commercialization, scientists and entrepreneurial partners must share a unified direction and goal. This unity is neither a zero-sum game between the strong and the weak nor complete overlap; rather, it allows for minor deviations in details while maintaining alignment on the overarching direction. Throughout their collaboration, mutual trust eliminates doubts about each other’s motives, fostering tacit understanding and shared bottom lines when facing difficulties and making critical decisions. Only under such conditions can complementary capabilities emerge, enabling the integration and amplification of the strengths of both scientists and entrepreneurial partners.

Alternatively, we can say that shared values and trust are the prerequisites for a mutually reinforcing relationship.

Where do such individuals come from? Based on our interviews with startup companies, most scientists tend to choose their own students, while a smaller number have found former classmates with industry experience, or connected with like-minded professionals in the field through referrals from their networks.

Students, classmates, social circles, and the secondary reach of those social circles are the primary targets and channels through which scientists seek entrepreneurial co-founders. However, these channels are all limited by the extent of one’s personal network; in reality, scientists hope for a channel that is both precise and broadly covering.

“The most reliable option is to find someone you have previously worked with, or a classmate with whom you share a close relationship.” This feedback comes from some scientist-entrepreneurs. Of course, a significant number of scientists choose to have their students take on this role. Although these individuals may lack industry insight and operational management expertise, they have been involved since the early stages of research, possess an accurate understanding of the technology and the scientist’s vision, and demonstrate strong learning abilities. If these individuals can grow alongside the company during its development, it can indeed be a reasonable choice.

Investors are also ideal candidates for entrepreneurial partners; in some invested projects, we have observed their deep involvement. Investors often view industries through the lens of investment logic and have witnessed the success or failure of many ventures as well as the rise and fall of numerous companies. These experiences are, in fact, invaluable.

Furthermore, incubation platforms affiliated with universities and local governments are also tracking potential entrepreneurial co-founders. During the business incubation process, some of these platforms proactively assist scientists in identifying suitable co-founders. In their efforts to attract investment and foster external collaborations, local governments and universities naturally engage with industry resources, thereby gradually accumulating valuable professional networks.

Moreover, local governments intentionally cultivate their own industrial chains and clusters during investment promotion efforts. These ecosystems not only encompass upstream and downstream supply chains but also attract industry talent and researchers to congregate in the region, thereby laying a solid foundation for corporate development and team building.

Of course, these are just the tip of the iceberg. When seeking co-founders for a startup, scientists must first develop a clear candidate profile, specifying whether they are looking for a strategic partner or a financial partner, and defining the required capabilities, characteristics, and values. Only then should they proceed to search through their personal networks and extended connections. This process often involves repeated screening and elimination.

Finally, we wish to emphasize that while the role of a business co-founder is often essential in the entrepreneurial journey of scientists, the absence of such a partner does not preclude the possibility of success. Regardless of whether this role is filled, scientist-entrepreneurs must remain focused on the tasks at hand. After all, success is built through the accumulation of incremental progress. By taking each step with care, time will ultimately provide the answer.