Elizabeth Iorns, founder of Science Exchange, discusses running a marketplace company and the growing presence of scientists in biotech. Science Exchange is an online marketplace for outsourcing science experiments. Iorns shares her perspective on the rise of scientists in the biotech field and the shift from academia to startups. Science Exchange helps organize the fragmented market for research by providing a centralized platform for researchers to connect with service providers. The platform reduces price variations and allows researchers to compare options and access services more efficiently. Starting a startup from research at a university can be challenging, but joining an accelerator like Y Combinator and taking advantage of easier licensing options can help navigate the process. There is a trend of people moving from academia to startups, driven by the increasing viability of entrepreneurship as a career path. Science Exchange faced challenges in building their marketplace but implemented quality assurance and multiple iterations to understand the value of providers. The biggest challenge as a CEO of a marketplace company is scaling while staying focused. Biotech startups have seen an increase due to advancements in biology and access to capital. Biotech and software industries have similarities in terms of people and funding, but the nature of the science and milestones differ. Science Exchange is revolutionizing the biotech industry by speeding up experiments and simplifying the FDA process. Biotech founders often fail to prioritize essential experiments, and a business co-founder is not always necessary. Non-scientists interested in biotech can enter the field without a PhD, focusing on areas where patients are willing to pay. The game-changing decision for Science Exchange was the implementation of the reproducibility initiative. Science Exchange will continue to enable scientific breakthroughs and facilitate collaboration and connections in the future. Exploring new approaches and taking quick action are important in the biotech space. Credentials can be advantageous but not always necessary for success. Elizabeth Iorns left academia when she started Science Exchange and received support from her boss. Science Exchange ensures quality control through supplier qualification and continuous monitoring.
Introduction
Elizabeth Iorns, a cancer biologist and founder of Science Exchange, discusses running a marketplace company and the growing presence of scientists in biotech.
- Started Science Exchange in 2011 as an online marketplace for outsourcing science experiments
- Part of Y Combinator summer 2011 batch, one of the first biotech companies in YC
- Chairman of Reformer Therapeutics and part-time partner at YC, advising biotech companies
- Shares perspective on the rise of scientists in biotech field
Shift from academic to startup route. Where did the idea come from?
Elizabeth Iorns had the idea to start Science Exchange, a technology company that aims to streamline the research process by providing a centralized platform for researchers to connect and collaborate. Inspired by platforms like Odesk and Elance, she created a marketplace of experts to solve the inefficiencies and complexities of scientific research collaborations.
How Science Exchange helps organize the very fragmented market for research?
- Science Exchange provides a platform for researchers to connect with service providers in the fragmented market for research.
- The platform addresses the problem of inefficiency and lack of information in the market.
- Wide price variations for the same experiments are reduced by offering a centralized marketplace.
- Researchers can compare options and access services more efficiently through Science Exchange.
Was it difficult to make the switch and not work on the one thing that you focused on during research?
The difficulty of transitioning from academic research to working on a startup and the challenges associated with tech transfer from universities are discussed in the transcript snippets. The key points include concerns about ownership of ideas in academia, seeking guidance from the tech transfer office, lack of role models and infrastructure for startups, learning about Y Combinator and deciding to apply, the significant barrier of tech transfer for startups, and advice on navigating the tech transfer process.
Advice for people who want start a startup from a research at University? Sometimes it’s a huge obstacle from universities. How can they navigate?
Starting a startup from research at a university can be challenging due to obstacles such as funding and licensing. Here are some key points to navigate this process:
- Join an accelerator like Y Combinator after generating a significant amount of R&D from grant-funded work.
- Universities are trying to become more startup-friendly by creating easier ways to license research results.
- However, licensing is still a significant hurdle for startups.
- It is unclear if academics as a whole are moving more towards startups, as this observation may be specific to the San Francisco area.
Do you think there is a overall trend in people moving from academics into startups?
There is a trend of people moving from academia to startups, driven by the increasing viability of entrepreneurship as a career path and the ease of creating companies with the help of infrastructure like Y Combinator, Stripe, and AWS. In the science space, barriers to entry are being lowered with initiatives like Lab Central and QB3, which provide cost-effective lab space. However, it is still challenging for scientists, particularly PhD and postdoc scientists, to become the founders of companies based on their own discoveries. Often, well-established principal investigators (PIs) become co-founders to provide legitimacy and attract funding. The goal is to change this structure and allow scientists to be the true founders of their companies.
- Increasing number of people are leaving academia to join startups
- Entrepreneurship is becoming a more viable career path
- Infrastructure like Y Combinator, Stripe, and AWS make it easier to create companies
- Initiatives like Lab Central and QB3 provide cost-effective lab space for scientists
- PhD and postdoc scientists face challenges in becoming founders based on their own discoveries
- Well-established principal investigators often become co-founders to provide legitimacy and attract funding
- The goal is to allow scientists to be the true founders of their companies
How did you get your first users for Science Exchange marketplace?
Science Exchange, a B2B marketplace for scientific services, faced challenges in building their platform. They started with an MVP approach but realized the need for a curated marketplace with visible supply. To ensure quality, they implemented Quality Assurance to qualify and contract providers. Managing projects with providers from different parts of the world required multiple iterations to understand their value. Science Exchange serves as a successful example of a B2B marketplace.
- Science Exchange faced challenges in building a marketplace for scientific services
- They started with an MVP approach but realized the need for a curated marketplace with visible supply
- Quality Assurance was implemented to qualify and contract providers
- Managing projects with providers from different parts of the world required multiple iterations to understand their value
- Science Exchange operates in the B2B sector and is a successful B2B marketplace.
What was more difficult – Supply or demand?
The difficulty between supply and demand in the biotech industry was fairly straightforward. Providers of services in the industry faced challenges similar to those on the demand side. The key lesson learned was that for the platform to be effective, it had to be used for all projects with external partners. Without the participation of established players on the supply side, it would be difficult to form enterprise partnerships using the platform.
Do you remember on the demand side, the very first customer? What were they? What did they do?
- The first customer of Science Exchange was a scientist friend who provided valuable user feedback and found cost-effective options through the platform.
- The founders were excited when a customer unrelated to them used the platform for a microarray experiment.
- The founders discussed the product-market fit and the metrics they used to define it.
So we talked a lot about at Startup School, product market fit. For you what was that like? When did you know you had that? And how did you define it? And what metrics were you looking at?
The most profound aspect of the text is that product-market fit is achieved when a large pharmaceutical client starts using the platform for their entire discovery research process.
- Product-market fit is determined by understanding if what you are doing has never been done before and if it can only be done by your company.
- Metrics such as customer feedback and adoption rates are used to measure product-market fit.
- The main competitor in the industry is the status quo, as many companies still rely on outdated processes.
- Convincing companies to transition to a new platform is a significant challenge.
- The reproducibility initiative aims to ensure that experiments can be replicated to validate their results.
Reproducibility Initiative (reproduce to validate experiments) - why has this never been done? Was it a money problem or can only Science Exchange solve?
The Reproducibility Initiative aims to replicate and validate scientific experiments, but it faces controversy and uncertainty about its value and efficiency. Science Exchange is seen as a potential solution, providing a network of researchers with resources for replication. The initiative covers areas such as antibody validation, reanalysis of epidemiology results, and replicating published results. Replicating results in the pharmaceutical industry is less controversial, but public applications face resistance. The cultural norm of not publishing replication studies and fear of negative career impact contribute to the controversy. However, the initiative has shown that most published results are not reproducible, highlighting the need for further study and understanding. The complexity of factors contributing to non-reproducibility is acknowledged, and further research is deemed necessary.
What are the two top two complex factors?
The lack of reproducibility in scientific experiments and the differences in validation processes between academia and pharmaceutical companies are the two top complex factors discussed in the video.
- In academia, there is often a lack of documentation, control experiments, and consideration of variability and reproducibility, leading to potential noise in published results.
- Pharmaceutical companies have standardized operating procedures, thorough validation processes, and efficient tech transfer, which increases the probability of reproducibility.
- The CEO of Science Exchange, the marketplace company, is challenged with addressing these issues and improving the reproducibility of scientific research.
What is the biggest challenge as a CEO of a marketplace company that you have today? And how has that challenge morphed over time?
The biggest challenge as a CEO of a marketplace company is scaling the company, while staying focused and disciplined. This challenge has evolved over time from getting the conservative pharmaceutical industry to use the platform to executing against tight deadlines with large partners. The challenge is to not take on too much as the company grows.
There has been this implosion of biotech startups recently, especially in Silicon Valley, what do you think that is? What are the causes for this?
There has been a recent increase in the number of biotech startups worldwide, driven by unprecedented access to capital and advancements in biology. Key points include:
- Advancements in biology, particularly in therapeutic modalities like gene therapies, cell-based therapies, and RNAi, have created new opportunities for commercial products.
- Unprecedented access to capital has made it easier for entrepreneurs to start biotech startups.
- Experienced individuals from the pharmaceutical industry are entering the biotech sector, bringing their expertise and knowledge.
- Running a biotech startup presents unique challenges and considerations compared to software startups.
Are there any similarities between biotech and software?
The similarities and differences between biotech and software industries are explored in this video. Key points include:
- Similarities in terms of people, funding, and building a good culture
- Main difference lies in the nature of the science: biotech outcomes cannot be changed, while software allows for flexibility and product development
- Biotech focuses on key milestones to demonstrate drug effectiveness, while software uses the concept of Minimum Viable Product (MVP) which does not directly apply to biotech.
What does an MVP mean in biotech?
An MVP (Minimum Viable Product) in biotech is different from other industries due to the lack of commercial revenue until a product is approved. Biotech companies often rely on partnerships for funding clinical development. However, there is a trend of biotechs commercializing their own products, especially in rare diseases, by building their own sales force and distribution channels. This allows founders to bring products to market without being acquired.
Key points:
- Biotech MVPs don't generate commercial revenue until approved
- Partnerships with larger companies fund clinical development
- Biotechs are now commercializing their own products
- Rare diseases are a focus for this trend
- Building sales force and distribution channels enables independent market entry
What has changed that has allowed a small companies product to go-to-market without getting acquired?
Small biotech companies are now able to bring their products to market without being acquired due to several factors, including access to sufficient capital, FDA strategies for smaller clinical trials, building patient advocacy networks, collaborating with key opinion leaders, and the emergence of startups focused on expediting the FDA process.
Science Exchange is helping speed up experiments, trolls, and getting through the FDA process.
Science Exchange is revolutionizing the biotech industry by speeding up experiments and simplifying the FDA process. They offer affordable regulatory infrastructure and expertise, previously inaccessible to many. Y Combinator has also invested in Enzyme, a company with a similar mission. The aim is to create software-like infrastructure for biotech. Biotech founders often make mistakes by not seeking advice or mentorship and engaging in detrimental actions.
Common mistakes you've seen biotech founders make? What do you just need and what do you avoid at all costs?
Biotech founders often fail to prioritize essential experiments, hindering startup progress. Determining if the science works is crucial for the company's future. Having a business co-founder is not always necessary for success in biotech startups.
What do you think about the need for a business co-founder and should that be a goal?
The need for a business co-founder in biotech is not essential, but can be beneficial. The co-founder should be someone who hustles, figures things out, and works well with the founder. Business skills can be learned, and it is important for the CEO to recognize their strengths and weaknesses and bring in top talent when needed. Hiring a CFO as the company grows can be advantageous. When starting out, it is crucial to find people who are passionate about solving the same problem and who the founder enjoys working with. Going back to school for a PhD is not necessary for individuals interested in getting into biotech without a scientific background, but finding a potential path is important.
Non-scientists who are interested in biotech, what should they do? Get a PhD or what's the potential path?
Non-scientists interested in biotech have the potential to enter the field without obtaining a PhD. Opportunities in bioinformatics and analysis tools exist for those without lab experience. Some successful biotech companies have been founded by non-scientific founders who self-taught themselves about the industry. Focus on developing products in areas where patients are willing to pay, as adherence to medications can be challenging in diseases where patients do not feel sick.
Decisions you’ve made that was a game changer (inflection point)?
The game-changing decision for Science Exchange was the implementation of the reproducibility initiative, which brought unexpected branding changes and pharmaceutical partnerships. It showcased the potential of Science Exchange and opened doors for future growth.
100 years from now, what do you think Science Exchange will be?
Science Exchange will continue to enable scientific breakthroughs by providing infrastructure for collaboration and connections, ensuring scientific research persists 100 years from now. The company's purpose is to facilitate scientific advancements, regardless of future changes. The significance of the scientific method in driving scientific progress is also highlighted.
Key points:
- Science Exchange will persist in the future, supporting scientific research and breakthroughs.
- The company provides infrastructure for collaboration and connections.
- Scientific advancements will continue to be facilitated by Science Exchange.
- The scientific method plays a crucial role in driving scientific progress.
Q1 - whether we should look at new approaches too, instead of just looking at correlations to look for causality in a space with unknowns?
The question at hand is whether we should explore new approaches rather than solely relying on correlations to establish causality in a field with unknowns. The key points discussed include:
- Designing experiments to manipulate a controlled system and observe the resulting output to test hypotheses.
- Utilizing correlations with real-world data to generate new theories, which can then be validated in the laboratory using model systems.
- The focus is on determining the steps required to swiftly progress from an idea to a minimum viable product (MVP).
Q2 - Idea to an MVP in a short space of time, and the steps that required to do that?
Taking quick action and dedicating time is crucial in launching a biotech company. The speaker shares their experience of applying to Y Combinator and the challenges of finding a technical co-founder. Despite obstacles, they built an MVP in two weeks and secured a spot in Y Combinator. During the program, they focused on launching the company and demonstrating demand and supply understanding. Credentials are also important in the biotech space.
Q3 - Importance of credentials in the biotech space?
Credentials in the biotech space can provide a significant advantage, but they are not always necessary for success. Individuals without traditional credentials have been successful by demonstrating deep knowledge and understanding of the field. Personal motivation and a strong drive to solve a specific problem can serve as a substitute for formal credentials, allowing access to top scientists and resources needed to start a biotech company. A scientific team with PhDs is essential, but it is possible to be a co-founder without a PhD.
- Credentials in biotech can be advantageous but not always necessary for success
- Deep knowledge and understanding of the field can compensate for lack of traditional credentials
- Personal motivation and drive to solve a problem can substitute for formal credentials
- Access to top scientists and resources can be gained through demonstrating expertise
- A scientific team with PhDs is essential, but co-founders without PhDs are possible.
Q4 - when did you decide to leave academics?
- Elizabeth Iorns left academia when she started Science Exchange and received support from her boss
- Her boss allowed her to take three months off and looked after her lab
- Once her idea became successful and funding was raised, she chose not to return to academia
- Having a supportive mentor is crucial, as many PhD students and postdocs face opposition from their bosses when starting a company.
Q5 - Quality control in a two sided marketplace?
Science Exchange, a two-sided marketplace for scientific research services, ensures quality control through supplier qualification and continuous monitoring. The platform's structure sets clear expectations and deliverables. Science Exchange's high Net Promoter Score indicates better performance and accountability.
- Science Exchange qualifies all suppliers before they are available on the platform
- Continuous monitoring process to assess transaction performance
- Platform's structure outlines deliverables and sets expectations upfront
- Science Exchange's Net Promoter Score is significantly higher than industry average