Monetize your ScienceTips on how to identify an unmet clinical need that can make you rich.
© DOUG ROSS
Brian Fahey walked into Stanford University Hospital looking for problems. With nearly full access to the hospital’s departments and operating rooms, Fahey’s search seemed unbounded. During this time, he observed a number of patients on ventilators, some of whom succumbed to the potentially lethal problem of developing pneumonia—from the ventilator itself. The problem wasn’t unique to Stanford University Hospital, affecting roughly 60,000 people a year in the United States, with more than half a million patients at risk—a problem that can cost a hospital more than $40,000 per patient. A biomedical engineer by training, Fahey found this problem “particularly compelling,” he says. “People that are on the ventilator are, by definition, critically ill and fighting for their lives, and we have just made them sicker.” During his 6-week-long stint at the hospital, through the Stanford Biodesign’s entrepreneur training program, Fahey and four of his classmates found about 350 problems, or unmet clinical needs. The program brings PhDs, engineers, and clinicians together for a crash course in entrepreneurship in the biomedical sciences. Over the course of 10 months, fellows identify problems and carefully whittle them down to those with marketable solutions. Some even succeed in starting their own company on the basis of projects initiated during the course. While a researcher can apply for a spot in the Stanford program during a sabbatical year, Stanford only admits eight fellows per year; programs like it are similarly small and highly selective. Alternatively, scientists can try to train themselves how to think about their science from a more translational perspective. The first thing that fellows learn is that “the best way for your research to be valuable is to be working on the right thing, [which] starts with a disciplined process of understanding what the need is,” says Stanford Biodesign alumnus Ross Venook. Here are tips on finding the right clinical problems and testing your solution for market feasibility—two of the most important first steps for any entrepreneur.
Finding Needs
Learn to identify an unmet need Don’t try to solve the first need you find, make a list Camp out in a hospital Visit other labs Search the news Also, watch the news for adverse events relating to drugs or medical devices and diagnostics, and scan Medicare and insurance company Web sites for appeals, grievances, and issues they no longer cover. Befriend industry scientists Ask for anecdotes Search a company’s “needs” lists
Check for market feasibility
Whittle down quick and dirty
“The best way for your research to be valuable is to be working on the right thing.
—Ross Venook Find your market size on PubMed Make sure you’re worth at least $500 million Talk to 20 customers
Advanced Tips:
Let the competition guide your strategy Watch for up and coming technologies VentureXpert by Thomson Financial and VentureOne by Dow Jones Financial Information Services, “are very rich databases,” says Yazdi. They provide detailed information on what companies are currently working on and who’s funding them, but tend to be quite expensive. Check to see if your library has an institutional subscription. Check the regulatory and reimbursement requirements Also, check hospital billing codes, Jones adds. Your product may fall under a preexisting code if you are proposing a modification to an existing technology. A technology that requires a new code will be more time consuming and expensive for hospitals, says Jones, potentially making a it less attractive. Advertisement
Rate this article
Return to Top comment: A Different Spin by Brian Fahey [Comment posted 2010-03-03 14:14:02] For the record, I am one of the individuals quoted in this article, and I too am disappointed in the title. Taking this approach to science is not at all about getting rich - there are much faster and much less risky ways to become wealthy than by taking a stab at entrepreneurial science. It's a shame that the valuable lessons in a well-written article are given a spin that suggests that they are primarily intended to boost individual wealth. Rather, I'd say these lessons apply more broadly to the greater good of society. More often than not, research needs to have some translational component for it to benefit society in the short-term. And as the article states, the best way to make your research matter in the short-term is to be working on solvable problems with solutions that can be packaged and distributed in a realistic way. Many scientists are wary of industry and the commercialization process, but the reality is that some form of capitalism must be embraced if you want the benefits of your efforts to reach the people who can be helped.
Personally, I'd hope that the tips in this article help talented and driven scientists start to seek and embrace the business acumen that they'll need to move their research from 'bench to bedside'. If they're successful, the warm-fuzzy feeling that they'll get from making a positive contribution will far outshine any profits they make along the way. Return to Top comment: Balance: Sciences and Money by Jim OReilly [Comment posted 2010-02-15 10:04:16] One of the challenges in today's market is the enormous volume of intellectual property as compared to years ago. Technology has made it easier than ever to create IP assets in a fraction of the time it took in the past. This is good, right? Well, as with almost anything, there are two sides to the coin. The negative side is that with so many life saving and patient quality of life discoveries in the pipeline that there simply isn't enough money to chase the commercialization effort. Competition for the shrinking number of dollars investors are willing to make in seed stage medical device or life sciences technologies is fierce. So, I propose that the best answer is to find those people who like to make money, who can invest in these seed deals and help see them through to commercialization and financial reward (exists) so that they, in turn, will invest in the next deal. Without liquidity and financial return, why would anyone take the risk? Most all successes in this field have provided financial returns to inventors while simultaneously providing real clinical advantage. There is nothing wrong with making money. And the money made very often, if not always, finds it's way back to funding the next amazing science. But once the valve is turned off (no liquidity or value creation) then the whole pipeline gets gummed up. A new whitepaper on this topic will be available shortly. If interested please send me an email to joreilly@upwindmedical.com and I'll be sure to forward as soon as it is published. Return to Top comment: OK, but that won't solve all the pressing problems by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2010-02-08 15:52:20] This sort of idea does have a place in the order of things. Even in the "purest" areas of research the most difficult bit can be to select what to work on.
People do tend to get fixed in their ways, and when this tendency affects medical practice it can be one effective way of slowing the rate of rise of the World's population. On the other hand, nobody is going to make quick money from research in fields such as biological psychiatry. Or even get a grant proposal approved. Perhaps the status quo subtly benefits interested parties. For example, investment in psychiatric research could be frowned upon in places that run a jail economy. Return to Top comment: Back to the garden... by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2010-02-08 14:42:04] "Monetize your Science?" Really?! Is that why you study science then? Hey, here's a new idea! How about we tell college students to study science to help humanity get back on track?
Don't get me wrong. I hear your thesis: "Help others, and help yourself too." But the title of the article was less than inspiring, perhaps because I was listening to Joni Mitchell's song "Woodstock". "We are stardust Billion year old carbon We are golden Caught in the devil's bargain And we've got to get ourselves back to the garden." This about capsulizes the state of "moneyed" science. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like you could appeal to both the entrepreneur and idealist in all of us if you changed the title. How about: "Make Science Count!"? |