Sci-Founder Fellowship: Helping scientists to start companies(sci-founder.com)
sci-founder.com
Sci-Founder Fellowship: Helping scientists to start companies
http://sci-founder.com
64 comments
Calling this a "Fellowship" is misleading. The funding is an investment. See their FAQ:
I'm not sure "misleading" is a strong enough word in this case. Fellowship has a very specific meaning in academia, and it's not this.
Edit: Perhaps it wasn't intentional, but it will have a bait-and-switch feel for scientists in academia.
Edit: Perhaps it wasn't intentional, but it will have a bait-and-switch feel for scientists in academia.
Fellowships usually require an institutional affiliation and many institutions are borderline predatory when it comes to IP/equity stake in spinoffs.
If you take a fellowship to start a company and then spin that company off from a university, you've gotta be careful to choose the right uni and structure the work appropriately. Some universities will take pretty big stakes when they can.
Calling this a fellowship is a bit confusing, but I'm not sure it's anything more nefarious than perhaps simply misleading/confusing. At least they're up front with the fact that they'll take a 10% stake. Many universities that will try to take a pretty similar stake aren't so up-front.
If you take a fellowship to start a company and then spin that company off from a university, you've gotta be careful to choose the right uni and structure the work appropriately. Some universities will take pretty big stakes when they can.
Calling this a fellowship is a bit confusing, but I'm not sure it's anything more nefarious than perhaps simply misleading/confusing. At least they're up front with the fact that they'll take a 10% stake. Many universities that will try to take a pretty similar stake aren't so up-front.
I'm sorry you feel that way -- we did discuss this when deciding what to call it, but ultimately decided that what the community we aim to create is much closer to a fellowship and peer group of scientists than a VC fund.
We're optimizing how we run things to build a community of scientists over maximizing our financial returns. We care most about about inspiring scientists to pursue translational research with greater resources and team coordination than they may find in a more traditional pathway.
We're optimizing how we run things to build a community of scientists over maximizing our financial returns. We care most about about inspiring scientists to pursue translational research with greater resources and team coordination than they may find in a more traditional pathway.
Then don't misappropriate words or apply them in a contextually incorrect way, thinking you know better or have some keen insight into utilization.
Learn about how scientists actually work and meet them--don't twist the jargon around to suit your marketing needs.
Learn about how scientists actually work and meet them--don't twist the jargon around to suit your marketing needs.
Fellowship also has a specific meaning in Middle Earth, but that doesn't mean that it must match coincide with every other application of the word.
Words can have multiple meanings; sometimes troublesome ones (i.e. 'tabling' an item on the agenda).
Words can have multiple meanings; sometimes troublesome ones (i.e. 'tabling' an item on the agenda).
Scientists, not hobbits, are the target of this fellowship. Most scientists spend at least half a decade of their early career in academia and will therefore use "Fellowship" the way it's used in academia.
It is almost 'insulting' to the scientist community, greedy investors pitching their business as fellowship should be ashamed.
Also, for Life Science startups, this seems like a very small amount of money.
Aren't these businesses generally extremely capitol intensive - expensive equipment, PhD's, etc.
Aren't these businesses generally extremely capitol intensive - expensive equipment, PhD's, etc.
In the long run, for sure -- but often a lot more than people think can be done to start building momentum with a small amount of money for these types of companies. For example, the company I'm currently CEO of started with $250,000 initially, and that allowed us to figure things out to make a lot more progress and raise a lot more funding.
That said if you need more money than what we are offering at the start, our first thing to do will be to help you figure out a greater fundraising process.
That said if you need more money than what we are offering at the start, our first thing to do will be to help you figure out a greater fundraising process.
Is it just me, or does it seem like an odd assumption that this hard-codes the value of the company to $2.5M-$2.7M? I would think they would have a percentage cut they target or a dollar amount they target, and the other variable is filled in based on their assessment of the startup's value at the time?
I think this is very realistic when technology risk is involved in a field that is always going to be capital-intensive, it's so different than software you've got to start with more.
But $400,000 is a lot of money so the confidence has to be there for all, that they will actually make enough progress before the money runs out so that it's comparable to what a more mature operation would have who is worth over $2 Million at least.
Even if the new venture is still ramping up and not yet expected to have marketable products, services, or IP yet, that kind of progress needs to be there or how could further investment be justified.
Basically it can be just one or two top performers actually capable of accomplishing a couple million worth of work, or building something that would otherwise cost almost $3 Million if given this type of opportunity.
OTOH you could get 10 to 20 contributors who each work with lesser resources but could still build equal momentum over a respectable runway.
If either of these or anything in between is built for $400,000 that's a good start for all.
In my field I could dispatch a calibration crew from a single reference instrument, or arrange with a preferred client to maintain theirs as a reference instrument and go labless.
Too bad Theranos ended up taking massive funding instead of you less-well-connected biotech entrepreneurs, so much real progresss could have been deployed instead.
But $400,000 is a lot of money so the confidence has to be there for all, that they will actually make enough progress before the money runs out so that it's comparable to what a more mature operation would have who is worth over $2 Million at least.
Even if the new venture is still ramping up and not yet expected to have marketable products, services, or IP yet, that kind of progress needs to be there or how could further investment be justified.
Basically it can be just one or two top performers actually capable of accomplishing a couple million worth of work, or building something that would otherwise cost almost $3 Million if given this type of opportunity.
OTOH you could get 10 to 20 contributors who each work with lesser resources but could still build equal momentum over a respectable runway.
If either of these or anything in between is built for $400,000 that's a good start for all.
In my field I could dispatch a calibration crew from a single reference instrument, or arrange with a preferred client to maintain theirs as a reference instrument and go labless.
Too bad Theranos ended up taking massive funding instead of you less-well-connected biotech entrepreneurs, so much real progresss could have been deployed instead.
We want teams to feel like peers and not like we're treating some teams more favorably than others -- from my experience having worked at Y Combinator, I think creating a sense where everyone is equal is one of the many things YC has done really well.
I think there's also some opportunity for a community of synergistic biotech entrepreneurs to thrive overall under each different company's business plans where the workers from the ventures that do not have financial success will still have their talents be known quantities to the ventures that do take off, so without failure they could jump right in and become entrepreneurial contributors at a time when good people who can hit the ground running are needed most and hard to find.
Early stage startup valuations are more or less worth the paper that they're printed on. Probably more cost effective to hard-code the valuation to the same number than to try and determine the value for each startup applying.
It's not uncommon for seed funding. YC offers $125k for 7%, which implies a ~$1.8 million post-money valuation.
We're trying to be very upfront that this is a for-profit thing for the creation of for-profit companies. We're calling it a fellowship because we care more about creating a community of scientists starting companies than potential financial returns.
There are other for-profit fellowship programs that have popped up too recently -- for example, the South Park Commons Founder Fellowship.
There are other for-profit fellowship programs that have popped up too recently -- for example, the South Park Commons Founder Fellowship.
What constitutes a scientist? I read that you don't need to be in a PhD program, I am working on a quantum problem in a garage at the moment. We've built a Thor Labs optics lab. This would be amazing for us, Thor labs equipment is expensive and currently need a new laser. This would be amazing
We think we can be most helpful for life science companies, but if you think we could be really helpful still please feel free to apply.
No need for a PhD.
No need for a PhD.
Brilliant, our end goal is an artificial brain. Simulate disease / Alzheimer's / Epilepsy . One of the experiments we would like to run involves mini brains. Filling out the submission form now.
I know it's pedantic, but the company is Thorlabs, not Thor Labs. Sure you've built a lab using their equipment?
Yes, I have been opening many boxes, bags, and munching on lab snacks. I just call them Thor anyway when referencing them. I will take note of your pedantic remark and asses my use of company names.
> We're trying to be very upfront that this is a for-profit thing for the creation of for-profit companies.
If you want to be upfront, don't call it a fellowship. That word has a specific meaning, especially for scientists. It comes with a stipend and is attached to a research institution, neither of which is the case here.
If you want to be upfront, don't call it a fellowship. That word has a specific meaning, especially for scientists. It comes with a stipend and is attached to a research institution, neither of which is the case here.
Indeed, if you look at startup fellowships for scientists that currently exist, fellows don't have to give up IP or equity. Calling this program a fellowship in this context is highly misleading.
As someone who leads a life science tech company and has participated in all fund raising rounds since our pre-seed, let me say: the market right now for life science/tech cos is so hot, a 2.5M pre-money valuation for your idea is likely low.
Also, in science there are federal grants, such as SBIR, which can be for even more (1M), are non-dilutive, and are very gettable.
So this would really be a fall back if you couldn't raise a better round nor get an SBIR...and if those are both the case, it might not be much of a company.
Also, in science there are federal grants, such as SBIR, which can be for even more (1M), are non-dilutive, and are very gettable.
So this would really be a fall back if you couldn't raise a better round nor get an SBIR...and if those are both the case, it might not be much of a company.
> Also, in science there are federal grants, such as SBIR, which can be for even more (1M), are non-dilutive, and are very gettable.
Yeah, this was my initial reaction: but tech transfer $$ is stupid easy to get, especially as a follow-up to a previously funded grant.... who's the market?
Not that I really care, since it's not my money and I'm far from an expert on such things, but "SBIRs and University innovation offices with preferential terms get all the good ideas and leave us with the bottom barrel shit" seems like a pretty big source of risk for this fellowship :/
I'm guessing the network provided by this program is way more effective than what you'd get from a typical university's innovation/tech transfer office, so maybe I'm wrong. But in some sense my evaluation of this program would be that I'm trading a decent sized chunk of the company for access to investors and advisors. Which, I guess, isn't necessarily a bad trade. But I figure this is how most people with access to grant money will think about it.
Yeah, this was my initial reaction: but tech transfer $$ is stupid easy to get, especially as a follow-up to a previously funded grant.... who's the market?
Not that I really care, since it's not my money and I'm far from an expert on such things, but "SBIRs and University innovation offices with preferential terms get all the good ideas and leave us with the bottom barrel shit" seems like a pretty big source of risk for this fellowship :/
I'm guessing the network provided by this program is way more effective than what you'd get from a typical university's innovation/tech transfer office, so maybe I'm wrong. But in some sense my evaluation of this program would be that I'm trading a decent sized chunk of the company for access to investors and advisors. Which, I guess, isn't necessarily a bad trade. But I figure this is how most people with access to grant money will think about it.
Definitely agree that on a team by team basis, there are opportunities to raise money out there that can be less dilutive -- very much might make more sense to do that than apply to work with us if you're in the right position for it too.
We like to think that our program isn't just about the funding on our end but also the mentorship, and there's value to that too (as we've been building our life science startups, we've found there aren't many traditional investors that have built their own life science companies and know the ins and outs of the experience).
Generally speaking, we don't want to be setting custom arrangements for everyone because we think it's super important that people think of each other as peers and that we aren't treating some people better than others.
We like to think that our program isn't just about the funding on our end but also the mentorship, and there's value to that too (as we've been building our life science startups, we've found there aren't many traditional investors that have built their own life science companies and know the ins and outs of the experience).
Generally speaking, we don't want to be setting custom arrangements for everyone because we think it's super important that people think of each other as peers and that we aren't treating some people better than others.
Are you interested in particular types of scientist? I.e., physicists, chemists, biologists? Computer scientists? :)
We think we can be most helpful for people working on life science companies, so mostly focused on that.
Two quick questions: 1) does your comment above mean that it makes little to no sense to apply if a startup is in different (albeit, somewhat adjacent) domain: mine targets materials science and engineering; 2) how do feel about solo founders?
No, please still feel free to apply, we're still happy to consider and see if we can be helpful.
Solo founders are fine with us.
Solo founders are fine with us.
That sounds great, will apply soon then. Your prompt reply is much appreciated.
Any scientists applying need a partner from the software side? Would love to make an impact in something like this!
We have a google form you can fill out here if you are looking for a co-founder: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeHVqqOMBoWa_O3RyuI...
the form seems to need permissions, could you give public access please, thanks!
Billionaires will make the world a better place by investing in fellowships like this than donating money to charities.
I can't disagree more. Yet another accelerator that takes a large ownership stake in a startup for a few months of "mentorship" isn't going to have anywhere near the impact of a well-run non-profit like say the Gates Foundation.
We need more Bill Gates who use their wealth and influence to do things eradicate Polio, reduce infant mortality in the third world, and get to basic sanitation to the half of the world's population that doesn't have it.
We need more Bill Gates who use their wealth and influence to do things eradicate Polio, reduce infant mortality in the third world, and get to basic sanitation to the half of the world's population that doesn't have it.
Blindly donating to charity is the worst thing you can do. There is literally a war going inside every charity on how to best steal the $.
My first job, was at an agency, that was created because a charity was stealing so much and doing so little, so they created their own agency cause most of the money was going advertising/stealing instead of doing actual work.
My first job, was at an agency, that was created because a charity was stealing so much and doing so little, so they created their own agency cause most of the money was going advertising/stealing instead of doing actual work.
I have long held that a place like Costco has done more good for the world than a bunch of conceited snooty egomaniacs sitting around a boardroom table at the Rockefeller Foundation.
This is a great initiative to help scientists take the jump to start their own companies. How many startups will be in the first batch?
We're planning to fund 5-10 individuals or teams to start with.
Hey I'm one of the people starting this fellowship program --
Our hope is to inspire more scientists to start companies-- we really believe that a lot more scientists could become great founders, and companies are often the most effective way to be developing research that can improve or save lives.
Happy to answer any questions that pop up!
Happy to answer any questions that pop up!
Matt you were incredibly helpful back when we went through the YC Fellowship — excited to see you starting this fellowship for Scientists, I'm sure it'll be a great program!
This looks like a really cool program. Is there way for for students currently in PhD programs to engage with folks in the program. It'd be too early for me to apply but would love to connect with folks in the community for collaboration downstream. Also looking for unique applications of my research.
We'll likely have events in the future for people that are thinking about this but aren't ready yet to get started -- the main thing we care about is creating a community of scientist founders to help one another.
Compared to the traditional "PI starts company with venture backing to commercialize their research" model what types of opportunities do you think are uniquely suited to your approach?
It says you provide lab space, is that all in one facility or is it more that you help teams find lab space in the bay area?
Help teams find space through incubator spaces we know -- also this most likely only applies for teams that want to relocate to the Bay Area (otherwise we ask you to tell us how you will get lab space you may need).
Is the program available for people that are not US residents? Or not currently living in the US? thanks.
Yes! No obligation to be living in the US -- you can do from anywhere as long as you will have access to resources you may need to perform your work.
Sweet!
This is nice.
For those downplaying it, remember, an SBIR application is quite onerous and the reporting requirements and non-negligible. It takes a while to get a response (though this is improving), the approval rate is low 15-20% when I applied), and the funding often is less than this (NSF SBIR is ~250K right now.
Yes, giving up equity is hard. Also personally, it seems like science translation occurs on SO much longer timescales that one year might be short to see significant progress.
I might have considered this when starting my company (www.zerok.com)
For those downplaying it, remember, an SBIR application is quite onerous and the reporting requirements and non-negligible. It takes a while to get a response (though this is improving), the approval rate is low 15-20% when I applied), and the funding often is less than this (NSF SBIR is ~250K right now.
Yes, giving up equity is hard. Also personally, it seems like science translation occurs on SO much longer timescales that one year might be short to see significant progress.
I might have considered this when starting my company (www.zerok.com)
Very cool! I like the idea of a longer period (1-year) to develop your idea, good science takes time.
Would have been very cool when I was starting out, hope to see this concept grow.
Would you take on a pure CS idea that has the potential for profitable technologies to be built around it?
Also is there a requirement that you have to have a PHD or would you also consider BS holders?
Also is there a requirement that you have to have a PHD or would you also consider BS holders?
If it was a research oriented idea, maybe, though really we think we can be most helpful to people starting life science companies. If it's more software product oriented, I would encourage you to apply to Y Combinator -- it's a great program.
No hard degree requirements.
No hard degree requirements.
It is purely a research idea at this stage and would benefit from a program purpose built for research. If it wouldn't be a good fit because of your life science focus would you know of any similar programs for CS oriented ideas?
Great initiative! happy to share the news
are you planning on batches in future years? I'm not really ready for this now, but will be in a year or so.
If this goes well, very likely -- for now we're focused on this first group as an experiment though.
What is a scientist?
If I was awarding the fellowship I would decide after I had considered all the applications.