Funding, Deals & Partnerships: BIOLOGICS & MEDICAL DEVICES; BioMed e-Series; Medicine and Life Sciences Scientific Journal – http://PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com
I would like to announce our special issue in the California Management Review on CrowdFunding (thank you to Olav Sorenson for co-editing and the Kauffman Foundation for support). We have a broad and practical set of articles that should appeal to practitioners and academics alike (please see this linkfor the special issue introduction by Olav and myself).
The landscape of CF can be quite confusing; Peter Younkin and Keyvan Kashkooli give us a mapping of the landscape by asking a simple question, namely, what problems does CF solve? Gary Dushnitsky and his co-authors provide a rich description of CF in Europe; they identify the surprising strength of national boundaries. Ethan Mollick and Alicia Robb provide us an easily understood synopsis of their research on the importance of CF for under-served entrepreneurs. Carina Thurridl and Bernadette Kamleitner help aspiring entrepreneurs understand how to bundle the optimal set of rewards to attract backers. Ajay Agrawal and co-authors describe a recent trend in CF, namely, the emergence of lead investors and syndicates. Finally, Valentina Assenova and Olav lead a round table discussion of industry leaders, including Jason Best, Mike Cagney, Douglas Ellenoff, Kate Karas, Jay Moon, Sherwood Neiss, and Ron Suber. Happy reading!
Envisage-Wistar Partnership and Immunacel LLC Presents at PCCI
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD
The Pharmaceutical Consulting Consortium International (PCCI) June Meeting: Envisage-Wistar Partnership and Immunacel LLC
An early stage healthcare venture creation and management firm
Presenter: Vic Subbu, COO of Immunacel & Managing Partner of Envisage and Heather Steinman, VP of Business Development & Executive Director Tech Transfer Wistar Institute
Much has been said lately about how to improve the tech transfer situation. Wistar is meeting this challenge. Immunacel is the first of a series of developmental challenges and the Envisage-Wistar partnership solution becomes the meat of the evening’s discussion.
The Wistar Institute is the nation’s first independent institution devoted to medical research and training. The Wistar Institute has evolved from its beginnings as an anatomical teaching museum to its present-day status as an international leader in basic biomedical research.
Envisage LLC is an early stage healthcare venture creation and management firm. By focusing on key healthcare segments, Envisage aims to identify and advance promising healthcare innovations into value-add ventures.
IMMUNACCEL LLC is a Wistar Institute spin-out focused on accelerating the development of immune-mediated treatments for cancer and other unmet medical needs:
MMUNACCEL’s 3-D cancer-immune cell organotypic culture system is a physiologically relevant culture system utilizing primary human cancer cells and cytotoxic T cells (CTL) generated from patient T-cells, amongst fibroblasts and collagen assembled in a 3-D organotypic model.
Other related articles on PCCI and Philadelphia Biotech were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal, include the following:
Podcast Review: Quiet Innovation Podcast on Obtaining $ for Your Startup
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
I wanted to highlight an interesting interview (What it Really Takes to Get Money for Your Startup) with David S. Rose, serial entrepreneur and Founder and CEO of Gust.com, which is a global collaboration platform for early stage angel investing, connecting hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs and investors in over 75 countries. The interview with David and CFA John P. Gavin was broadcast on the podcast Quiet Innovation (from PodCast Addict @Podcast_Addict) from. I had tweeted it out on my Twitter account below (see the http link)
… but will include some notes from the podcast here. In addition you can link to the podcast directly using the links below:
David Rose discusses how there are hundreds of thousands of new ideas, some which are great some which are not… having an idea may be an initial step but for an investor to even consider your idea it is more important to have
EXECUTION
This is what David feels is critical to investors, such as himself, to decide whether your idea is investable. A startup needs to show they can accomplish their goal and show at least a rudimentary example of this, whether it is putting up a website or writing up a design blueprint for a new widget. He says starting a business today (either tech or manufacturing) requires a lot less capital than years ago (unless you are starting a biotech). He gives an example of internet startups he had founded in the 90’s versus today… in the 90’s you needed $2 million… today you can do it for $2,000. But the ability to show that you can EXECUTE this plan is CRITICAL.
David sites three aspects which are important to investors:
Integrity – Be humble about yourself. He says there are way too many people who claim ‘our idea is the best’ or ‘we do it better than anyone’ or ‘we are the first to have this idea’. As he says Jeff Bezos of Amazon was not the first to have the idea of selling books over the internet, he just EXECUTED the plan extremely well.
Passion- Investors need to see that you are ‘all in’ and committed. A specific example is angels asking how much money have you put into your idea (skin in the game)
Experience- David says there are TWO important types of experience in developing startups and both valid. The first is how many startups have you done and succeeded and the second is how many startups have failed. He says investors actually like if you have failed because they are learning experiences, just as valuable if not more than having startups always succeed. Investors need to know how you can deal with adversity. All three points goes back to execution.
David Rose gave some reading suggestions as well including
Eris Reese’s post The Lean Startup in his blog StartUpLessonsLearned – being frugal (gets back to what he said about not needed as much capital as you would think i.e. Don’t Burn Through the Cash) and also get metrics on your startup or idea (as long as you have the IP). He suggests taking out an ad to see what the interest is out there. You can measure the clicks from the ad and use that as a marketing tool to potential investors i.e. Getting Feedback
Some other posts on this site about Investing and Startups include:
Protecting Your Biotech IP and Market Strategy: Notes from Life Sciences Collaborative 2015 Meeting
Achievement Beyond Regulatory Approval – Design for Commercial Success
Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.: Reporter
The Mid-Atlantic group Life Sciences Collaborative, a select group of industry veterans and executives from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device sectors whose mission is to increase the success of emerging life sciences businesses in the Mid-Atlantic region through networking, education, training and mentorship, met Tuesday March 3, 2015 at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia (USP) to discuss post-approval regulatory issues and concerns such as designing strong patent protection, developing strategies for insurance reimbursement, and securing financing for any stage of a business.
The meeting was divided into three panel discussions and keynote speech:
Panel 1: Design for Market Protection– Intellectual Property Strategy Planning
Panel 2: Design for Market Success– Commercial Strategy Planning
Panel 3: Design for Investment– Financing Each Stage
Keynote Speaker: Robert Radie, President & CEO Egalet Corporation
Below are Notes from each PANEL Discussion:
For more information about the Life Sciences Collaborative SEE
Panel 1: Design for Market Protection; Intellectual Property Strategy Planning
Take-home Message: Developing a very strong Intellectual Property (IP) portfolio and strategy for a startup is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT for its long-term success. Potential investors, partners, and acquirers will focus on the strength of a startup’s IP so important to take advantage of the legal services available. Do your DUE DIGILENCE.
Panelists:
John F. Ritter, J.D.., MBA; Director Office Tech. Licensing Princeton University
Panel Moderator: Dipanjan “DJ” Nag, PhD, MBA, CLP, RTTP; President CEO IP Shaktl, LLC
Notes:
Dr. Nag:
Sometimes IP can be a double edged sword; e.g. Herbert Boyer with Paul Berg and Stanley Cohen credited with developing recombinant technology but they did not keep the IP strict and opened the door for a biotech revolution (see nice review from Chemical Heritage Foundation).
Naked patent licenses are most profitable when try to sell IP
John Ritter: Mr. Ritter gave Princeton University’s perspective on developing and promoting a university-based IP portfolio.
30-40% of Princeton’s IP portfolio is related to life sciences
Universities will prefer to seek provisional patent status as a quicker process and allows for publication
Princeton will work closely with investigators to walk them through process – Very Important to have support system in place INCLUDING helping investigators and early startups establish a STRONG startup MANAGEMENT TEAM, and making important introductions to and DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIOPS with investors, angels
Good to cast a wide net when looking at early development partners like pharma
Good example of university which takes active role in developing startups is University of Pennsylvania’s Penn UPstart program.
Last 2 years many universities filing patents for startups as a micro-entity
Comment from attendee: Universities are not using enough of their endowments for purpose of startups. Princeton only using $500,00 for accelerator program.
Cozette McAvoy: Mrs. McAvoy talked about monetizing your IP from an industry perspective
Industry now is looking at “indirect monetization” of their and others IP portfolio. Indirect monetization refers to unlocking the “indirect value” of intellectual property; for example research tools, processes, which may or may not be related to a tangible product.
Good to make a contractual bundle of IP – “days of the $million check is gone”
Big companies like big pharma looks to PR (press relation) buzz surrounding new technology, products SO IMPORTANT FOR STARTUP TO FOCUS ON YOUR PR
Ryan O’Donnell: talked about how life science IP has changed especially due to America Invests Act
Need to develop a GLOBAL IP strategy so whether drug or device can market in multiple countries
Diagnostics and genes not patentable now – Major shift in patent strategy
Companies like Unified Patents can protect you against the patent trolls – if patent threatened by patent troll (patent assertion entity) will file a petition with the USPTO (US Patent Office) requesting institution of inter partes review (IPR); this may cost $40,000 BUT WELL WORTH the money –BE PROACTIVE about your patents and IP
Panel 2: Design for Market Success; Commercial Strategy Planning
Take-home Message: Commercial strategy development is defined market facing data, reimbursement strategies and commercial planning that inform labeling requirements, clinical study designs, healthcare economic outcomes and pricing targets. Clarity from payers is extremely important to develop any market strategy. Develop this strategy early and seek advice from payers.
Panelists:
David Blaszczak; Founder, Precipio Health Strategies
Terri Bernacchi, PharmD, MBA; Founder & President Cambria Health Advisory Professionals
Paul Firuta; President US Commercial Operations, NPS Pharma
Panel Moderator: Matt Cabrey; Executive Director, Select Greater Philadelphia
Notes:
David Blaszczak:
Commercial payers are bundling payment: most important to get clarity from these payers
Payers are using clinical trials to alter marketing (labeling) so IMPORTANT to BUILD LABEL in early clinical trial phases (phase I or II)
When in early phases of small company best now to team or partner with a Medicare or PBM (pharmacy benefit manager) and payers to help develop and spot tier1 and tier 2 companies in their area
Terri Bernacchi:
Building relationship with the payer is very important but firms like hers will also look to patients and advocacy groups to see how they respond to a given therapy and decrease the price risk by bundling
Value-based contracting with manufacturers can save patient and payer $$
As most PBMs formularies are 80% generics goal is how to make money off of generics
Patent extension would have greatest impact on price, value
Paul Firuta:
NPS Pharma developing a pharmacy benefit program for orphan diseases
How you pay depends on mix of Medicare, private payers now
Most important change which could affect price is change in compliance regulations
Panel 3: Design for Investment; Financing Each Stage
Take-home Message: VC is a personal relationship so spend time making those relationships. Do your preparation on your value and your market. Look to non-VC avenues: they are out there.
Panelists:
Ting Pau Oei; Managing Director, Easton Capital (NYC)
Manya Deehr; CEO & Founder, Pediva Therapeutics
Sanjoy Dutta, PhD; Assistant VP, Translational Devel. & Intl. Res., Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
In 2000 his experience finding 1st capital was what are your assets; now has changed to value
Notes:
Ting Pau Oei:
Your very 1st capital is all about VALUE– so plan where you add value
Venture Capital is a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP
1) you need the management team, 2) be able to communicate effectively (Powerpoint, elevator pitch, business plan) and #1 and #2 will get you important 2nd Venture Capital meeting; VC’s don’t decide anything in 1st meeting
VC’s don’t normally do a good job of premarket valuation or premarket due diligence but know post market valuation well
Best advice: show some phase 2 milestones and VC will knock on your door
Manya Deehr:
Investment is more niche oriented so find your niche investors
Define your product first and then match the investors
Biggest failure she has experienced: companies that go out too early looking for capital
Dr. Dutta: funding from a non-profit patient advocacy group perspective
Your First Capital: find alliances which can help you get out of “valley of death”
Develop a targeted product and patient treatment profile
Non-profit groups ask three questions:
1) what is the value to patients (non-profits want to partner)
2) what is your timeline (we can wait longer than VC; for example Cystic Fibrosis Foundation waited long time but got great returns for their patients with Kalydeco™)
3) when can we see return
Long-term market projections are the knowledge gaps that startups have (the landscape) and startups don’t have all the competitive intelligence
Have a plan B every step of the way
Other posts on this site related to Philadelphia Biotech, Startup Funding, Payer Issues, and Intellectual Property Issues include:
1st Pitch Life Science- Philadelphia: “Eavesdropping on Investors’ Closed Door Discussions”
Mid Atlantic Bio Angels group (MABA), an angel investor group focused exclusively on new and emerging life science companies hosted a meeting Tuesday, September 16 2014 5:30pm – 8:30pm Other TimePresented by:
“Eavesdropping on investors‘ closed door discussions” gives entrepreneurs the inside track on what happens after a start-up company presents to investors. Typically, after a start up company’s team leaves the room investors have a private discussion about whether the opportunity merits further investigation and possible investment. 1st Pitch Life Science-Philadelphia offers local company presenters and audience participants the chance to listen in on these closed door discussions to learn what really matters to investors. This event offers excellent networking opportunities for investors, university technology transfer professionals, entrepreneurs, and business professionals in the Philadelphia entrepreneurial ecosystem. It provides a supportive learning environment for entrepreneurs.
“
For more information about Mid-Atlantic BioAngels and to make a submission for evaluation of your startup please visit their
Mid-Atlantic Bioangels was formed in 2013 to provide an unmet need in the Mid-Atlantic region for early-stage life-science entrepreneurship, providing early life science entrepreneurs a venue to present their companies, obtain funding and provide mentoring, feedback, networking, and information for corporate development. A great article by Kira M. Newman can be found here
Hastke Inc is a device company with a best-in-class, real-time 3D visualization technology that can de-risk the drug development process for pharma. In the future, their technology has the potential to become an important diagnostic tool for physicians.
LytPhage is a new biotech company using novel bioengineering to develop therapeutics to address the worldwide crisis of antibiotic resistant organisms. They are developing a treatment for vancomycin resistant systemic infections with their platform, which can be adapted for other problematic organisms.
RAbD Biotech uses proprietary computational methods to design biologic agents capable of treating severe diseases. RAbD’s lead product candidate is a potential first-in-class treatment for ovarian cancer, a disease characterized by late detection, few therapeutic options, and high mortality.
The meeting format includes:
15-20 minute meeting presentation
group discussion/questions
panel opinions (panel of experienced venture capitalists)
Notes from the meeting will be put in future postings.
Please also see Twitter handles for meeting coverage using the following hashtags and handles
The Bioscience Crowdfunding Environment: Will Crowdfunding be the Bigger, New VC
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
Pharmaceutical Consulting Consortium International Inc. (PCCI) recently presented their 7th annual Roundtable “CROWDFUNDING FOR LIFE SCIENCES: A BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS?”, a panel discussion on how this new funding mechanism applies to early stage life science companies and changes the funding landscape.
A major provision in the recently passed JOBS Act resulted in Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) rule changes revolutionizing the way companies can raise capital, with some figures in the range of $11 trillion dollars. Companies, startups, and entrepreneurs can, in a manner, now go directly to the individual investor and raise capital. This method is generally referred to as CROWDFUNDING.
As explained by Mark Roderick, moderator for the meeting, there are two main types of approved crowdfunding:
Donation-based Crowdfunding – Popularized by the crowdfunding platform Kickstarter, this method of raising capital can accept small donations from anyone for an idea/project to be completed. The donor may either get a free token of appreciation or access to enjoy the fruits of the project, for example, a watching a movie funded by the donor. Some scientific researchers have used Kickstarter as a method to fund their research.
Investor-based Crowdfunding– This type of crowdfunding involves the actual transfer of securities, and investors must qualify according to rules set by the SEC and go thru brokers, or portals, like the bioscience and healthcare internet portal Poliwogg.
Investor-based crowdfundingwas discussed at the meeting. There are five different mechanisms with this type of funding: Title II (Rule 506c), Title II, Title IV, Existing Regulation A, and Rule 504. The main focus of the meeting was on Title II as, according to Mr. Roderick, involves the mechanism most suited for biotech startups, while rules for Title III still need to be finalized.
Title II crowdfunding requires that “accredited” or “qualified” investors (those who make at least $200,000/year or net worth $1 million US) go through licensed dealer internet nodes (or Portals) like Poliwog. The Portal will have lists of startups they deem legitimate which investors can choose from. For instance the Epilepsy Foundation uses Poliwog to fund certain projects.
The panelists discussed matters including:
How crowdfunding is different than other mechanisms like venture capital
What are the regulations and financial responsibilities for both biotech and crowdfunder
Liabilities
Due-diligence issues
The panelists included:
Mark Roderick, moderator. Mark is an attorney at Flaster/Greenberg PC (@CrowdfundAttny on Twitter) and has developed great experience and expertise in the details of crowdfunding. He maintains a Crowdfunding blog www.crowdfundattny.com, which contains information and links about the JOBS Act and crowdfunding.
Recent estimates place Title II Crowdfunding capacity to $1 Trillion.
Venture Capital (VC) had estimated only $5 Billion bio-investment in 2013.
Where does the rest go?
Mr. Skerret noted that bioangels can only take you so far but thinks that crowdfunding may fill this “valley of death”.
Liabilities
Crowdfunding is SELLING SECURITIESso there is liability, disclosure and nondisclosure issues.
Title II contains 580 pages of regulations and SEC needs a licensed intermediary.
Due-Diligence
Barbara Schiberg also noted that with VCs or bioangels groups you also get s support network, basically their rolodex of contacts and KOL’s and experts. With Crowdfunding like Poliwog they just handle linking investors with entrepreneur. Any contact is done through social media and the crowd.
BioAdvance hires experts – may take months to years to get expert opinion
Poliwog only has responsibility to investor to make sure company is legitimate. They don’t do extensive due diligence like bioangels. Most crowdfunding do not have extensive networks of professionals.
To obtain a video recording of this meeting and get more information please go to PCCI’s web site at http://www.rxpcci.com/meetings.htm.
Other posts on this site related to FUNDING and Bio Investing include:
Pharmaceutical Consulting Consortium International Inc. presents their 7th annual Roundtable on Crowdfunding for the Life Sciences and how this funding mechanism applies to early stage life science companies and changes the funding landscape. The conference will examine the types of crowdfunding out there and attempts to answer many questions including:
Which one is right for which new companies at which stage of the funding process?
And how will choosing the right or wrong one influence follow-on funders and funding rounds?
Will the advent of crowdfunding speed up the investment process?
Will it really bridge the yawning “valley of death”?
The panel is made up of notables and practitioners who will be called upon to deal with the pros and cons of crowdfunding in real life and let them discuss how all this is likely to apply to life science entrepreneurs and investors.
The panel includes:
Mark Roderick, Attorney Flaster/Greenberg PC (Moderator)
Valerie Gaydos, President, Capital Growth (represents angel/venture community)
Samuel Wertheimer, Chief Investment Officer, Poliwogg Darrick Mix
Duane Morris, LLP (journalist who covers crowdfunding
Register by clicking on www.rxpcci.com and following directions The event will be webcast.
Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence had recently launched a new, real-time based methodology for meeting coverage using social media as a platform to foster discussion and commentary.
This new method was successfully used and curated at the 2nd Annual Sachs Cancer Bio Partnering &Investment Forum at the New York Academy of Sciences and will be featured at the forthcoming Sachs Global Conferences in 2014 and 2015.
Tycho Brahe, where art thou? Today’s Renaissance of the Self-Funded Scientist!
Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
Every scientist usually can describe an event or an admired historical figure as their pivotal point of inspiration which led them to embark on a scientific career.
I will admit there were two points of inspiration: the first was Jacques Cousteau while watching his program Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau.
The other (and please don’t laugh) was reading about the intellectual duel and collaboration between two of the greats in astronomy and mathematics: Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler, two historical figures responsible for our modern-day understanding of the universe and planetary motion. For some reason I had romanticized the study of science, envisioning days in the laboratory wearing renaissance garb while striking medieval vogue poses (just kidding). But back then, accurately determining planetary motions and mapping the stars was a real big deal, as trade ships would rely on the positioning of stars as their heavenly GPS system. Otherwise you might be trying to establish a new trade route to India and wind up somewhere… say America.
Tycho Brahe (1546-1601; born Tyge Ottesen Brahe) was a Danish nobleman and scientist who made the most accurate measurement of planetary motion and positioning of the stars, which enabled another great astronomer, Johannes Kepler, to deduce the laws of planetary orbits. His measurements allowed Kepler to prove Copernicus’s sun centered theory (Earth revolves around the sun). An interesting history of Brahe, The crazy life and crazier death of Tycho Brahe, history’s strangest astronomer, gives some in-depth look at this intriguing historical figure.
Now back then science, as is the case now, costs money; and the two ways to get that money was either find a wealthy backer (like a king) or have a rich uncle who leaves a great inheritance. Well Tycho did have a rich uncle who left him a lot of money, but instead of just sitting around spending it on jewelry, he used a great portion of his inheritance to build his 1st observatory to make his important measurements and also discover a supernova (published in De Nova Stella), breaking the dogma at the time that stars never changed their appearance or position.
(Photo Credit: Wikipedia)
There have been other examples of self-funded scientists including:
i. Luther Burbank (b:1845) who led the way for plant genetics. After developing the Burbank potato he used the money from his nursery business to buy a farm to conduct plant breeding experiments
ii. Dr. Edward Jenner who used his own funds to develop the first smallpox vaccine and later awarded money from Parliament for his development
iii. Ritu Levi Montalcini, M.D.: Dr. Montalcini discovered nerve growth factor together with Stanley Cohen (both awarded Nobel Prize). After earning an MD in Turin, Italy in 1938 she was unable to work as Mussolini banned Jews from holding professional positions. So she moved to Belgium but when the Nazi’s took over she fled back to Turin and made a secret lab to study the development of neurons in chick embryos.
Now as many government science budgets are tightening some scientist are returning to self-funding and alternative models in order to continue their research.
The Ronin Institute
One such example is the Ronin Institute, founded by Dr. Jon Wilkins, Ph.D., where scientists who may not have institutional support, band together in a sort of virtual Institute which supports publication and grantsmanship. The mission and values of the Ronin Institute (which can be found here) includes creating new models for the conducting, funding, collaboration, and dissemination of scholarly research to get researchers back to what they do best: RESEARCH.
The following is an excerpt from the article about independent researchers:
“
One of us (Jon Wilkins), has set out to promote and support independent scholarly research through the founding of the Ronin Institute. The Ronin Institute acts as an aggregator for the fractional scholars of the world, providing an institutional affiliation, connection with other fractional scholars, and support for conference travel and grant applications.
When people are doing something that they are passionate about, they work harder and produce a better product. Thus, underemployed scholars represent in some sense a good that is currently trading well below its actual value. By providing a mechanism for those who wish to conduct research, we can allow these people to engage in their passions while growing the base of scholarly knowledge, which in turn has the potential to create further economic growth.
Through the Ronin Institute, we will be harnessing the skills and talents of thousands of underemployed researchers.
Two other great articles on “gentlemen scientists” or self-funding scientists can be found at the Singular Scientist blog post entitled “Self-Funding in Science” and a 1998 Science article by Jon Cohen entitled Scientists Who Fund Themselves. In each case, scientists felt freed up from the financial overhead accompanied with big institutions and realized more time for their research.
Alternate Funding Source: CROWDSOURCING
The passage of the JOBS act has relieved some of the pressures off obtaining funding for companies through crowdfunding mechanisms. Scientists are also turning to crowdsourcing mechanisms to fund their research. An article in the Washington Times (Scientists discover ‘crowdfunding’ as a way of replacing research grants) highlights some of the successes and science-related crowdfunding sites that exist.
Digital Tools and Lab Space for the Self-Funding Scientist
Dr. Elizabeth Iorns, breast cancer researcher and founder and CEO of Science Exchange, an online marketplace for ordering science experiments from various nationwide and worldwide labs, explains in a three-part Nature blog post “Research 2.0.1: The future of research funding” how the traditional government-based grant-funding model may transition into a more crowdfunding model. For example Science Exchange allows you to order common laboratory procedures (for example immunohistochemistry or bioinformatics analysis or gene sequencing) from a list of participating labs in the marketplace. Prices are usually reasonably priced.
Finding Lab Space: Biohacker Labs
The last piece of the puzzle is finding rented space and equipment to do research. A new type of laboratory space, small, nimble, and priced and equipped to fit the independent researcher is cropping up. Termed biohacker labs or hackubators, these small rented communal spaces are different from the traditional bio-incubators or science centers which sprang up decades ago to foster the biotech revolution. This phenomenon is explained quite nicely in a Science article by Virginia Gewen “Biotechnology: Independent Streak”. These spaces can go for $100-400 a month, much less than $900 a month for incubator space. Most of the investigators highlighted in the article get funds through crowdsourcing.
One such hackubator lab is Bio, Tech and Beyond, a DIY lab in San Diego which supports numerous projects using 3D printing, cell culture, and sequencing. These type of DIY biolabs are springing up all over, based on the idea from tech hacker DIY labs, although before the expense seemed to be the limiting factor. Now it appears the internet is once again revolutionizing another industry, namely that of the independent bio researcher
…. Sans the 16th century fashion (what a shame!)
Other posts on this site about Science Funding, Crowdsourcing, and Open Innovation include:
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22