FRST Postgraduate Careers Workshop – A career in science: Where to from here

23 11 2008

frst_logo

The FRST Postgraduate Careers Workshop is an annual day long event of seminars held in conjunction with the MacDiarimid Young Scientist of the year award (MYSY).

The day was broken up into three sections: an overview of science research funding, a roundtable discussion (a panel of 6 scientists sharing their career background and tips/hints) and a seminar on ‘Getting your research out there’. I was disappointed to see there were no speakers from the private industry. All were from CRIs or the Universities (AUT or UoA).

Unable to put aside a whole day for the event I decided to solely attend the final session of the day i.e. ‘Getting your research out there’. I was particularly interested to see what the diverse panel of presenters had to say in relation to the commercialisation of research as a means of getting your research out there.

The first speaker was Prof Darius Singh from AUT, director of the Engineering Research Institute and Centre for Advanced Manufacturing Technology at the University. Previously Darius worked as Ford’s Global Technology Manager for 15 years. He was involved in the FRST’s TIF programme, where students are recruited to conduct their postgraduate studies in conjunction with a company. In Darius’s case this involved a PhD with Ford in the computer modelling of the company’s manufacturing processes. Being embedded within the industry he found that his research adopted the companies policy of knowledge extraction through implementation of his research into the company’s operations. He termed this as R,D & D – Research, Development and Deployment. Contrary to what academic scientists think, this deployment does not happen simply by publishing. Other forms of knowledge dissemination he utilised were conference presentations and particularly trade magazines [ a method which directly targeted a large audience who would gain benefit from it]. Darius concluded by noting the difficulties studying and working in the gap between academia and industry 1- communication: The need to change how you communicate when your audience changes. 2- Staying on track vs. Exploratory.

The second speaker was Dr. Temoana Southward, Principle Engineer at Altitude, a subsidiary of Air NZ that designs innovative aerospace interiors. Like Darius, Temoana was also involved with the TIF programme but with Air NZ. He mentioned that he saw Darius’s deployment term integrated into the development component of R&D as in his experiences he viewed R&D as a more applied concept to begin with. Temoana offered some quick pointers regarding turning to the private industry for a career. Find out what the company’s ‘drivers’ and sell yourself on that basis. He found that despite being a postgraduate student, you are purely seen as JUST a ‘student straight out of uni’ that has no experience and therefore your potential employer is unsure of the actual skills you bring to the company. This is despite possibly being involved in industry projects from the programs like TIF. Because of this you need to sell yourself.

Next up was Dr Luke Krieg, Commercialisation Manager at AUT. The two previous speakers mentioned that the securing of intellectual property was a speed hump on the route to publication while being immersed in a commercial environment for their research. However in a timely manner Luke highlighted that patents are in fact a publication themselves and once you secure the IP you are free to publish.

Where the two previous speakers focused on getting research out there in terms of internal implementation, Luke focused purely on commercialisation. This involved three components:

1- Contract research – Self explanatory. All IP rights are typically signed over to the contractor including a clause which ensures commercialisation of the research is pursued.

2- Licensing/patent – Luke mentioned this is typically where scientists are conducting ‘blue skies’ research and they come across something potentially useful i.e. a cure for cancer. They obviously want to make sure it is put into use but don’t have the ability/ skill, money, desire to do so. The success of licensing is highly dependent on whether IP can be established as to safe guard the value for a company willing to invest

3- Starting a company – pointed out a hard road ( One I’m willing to take)

In support of his pro-commercialisation of research stance he pulled out NZ’s OECD rankings illustrating our lack of R&D expenditure as a share of GDP. Particularly big NZ businesses don’t spend enough compared with overseas counterparts. This is resulting in less value added exports meaning less R&D opportunity in NZ leading to a vicious cycle for all us emerging scientists. Luke went on to state why this is happening 1 – NZ Businesses have yet to learn to ‘invest’ rather than ‘spend’ on R&D. 2- Limited growth ambition (stop once you get the 3Bs). Interestingly he mentioned 42 Below selling off to Bacardi as one of these, despite the founders reinvestment their money back into new fledgling businesses. And 3 – Transitioning overseas. He concluded by pushing the idea that there is ‘life after publication’ – i.e. don’t let thesis/ publications gather dust make sure research is followed through and translated into products/services/methods etc. Following Luke’s presentation I put forward a question concerning an area I have taken recent interest into. Question: ‘ How does AUT manage the IP interests of students’. Answer: Depends on situation i.e. contracted research, where the funding has come from. Like in most cases it depends on the contribution of the universities resources to the generation of this IP. So, typically the IP is owned by the university but the benefits derived from the IP {royalties) are proportional to the contribution of the researcher. Also, like the University of Auckland a discussion with the student prior to undertaking such research is advised to address these IP issues. However I did sense a degree of uncertainty towards the topic, something I believe is quite a national phenomenon and an issue I have begun to investigate further – I will report at a later date.

The final speaker for the session was John Tyrrell, Business Manager for FRST. Like Luke, John developed a passion for bringing science research to market. He has a background in Zoology and Ecology combined with molecular biology and has profound experience in algal blooms including a patent for a diagnostic used for their management. John mainly focused on how he sort to build and diversify his skill set as he went through his various career steps whether it was marketing and sales with Biolab Ltd or working with engineers in his postdoctoral studies enabling the development of his research. He also advocated common goal research collaboration.

To round up the session Murray Bain, CEO of FRST, addressed the crowd with some very pleasing words concerning how we make sure value is extracted from our research. Discussions with his Finnish counterparts around how they ensure research gets commercialised resulted in a confused response - it just isn’t a question over there, it just happens. His search for further answers led him to MIT, a highly innovative and entrepreneurial university where their academic environment is wrapped in an ecosystem of entrepreneurship (something the UoA is also trying to develop). For example entrepreneurs get in touch with scientists at the very early stages of their research, establish a relationship which will carry on through until a commercial opportunity is developed. I can draw similarities with the Entrepreneur in Residence programme at the University of Auckland.

Murray regularly pointed to two of NZ’s great scientists Prof. Paul Callaghan and Prof Peter Hunter mentioning they both ‘wished they started to think about commercialisation earlier’ on in their careers – of course this was MUSIC TO MY EARS. Both of them remain in the research space but are very commercially aware individuals – Callaghan with Magritek and Peter Hunter with the commercial ventures coming out of the Bioengineering Institute, UoA.

Murray was questioned about the influence of the recent government change on FRST. Because of the predicted deficits to come, it is believed that there won’t be a lot of new money. He pointed out that there are several changes including the slash of the R&D tax credit and the removal of the FFF. The result, funds being directed away from private and into public organisations. However the true affect is not known as through private:public collaborations the effect may neutralise. He concluded that he wanted an even portfolio of investment ranging from early stage to ‘close-to-commercialisation research.

Quote: ‘Innovation is now the fuel for our economy’

Within his speech he illustrated quite a neat but simple concept of how money moves around. I thought I’d add ‘Invention’ in there as well just for completeness sake.

money-to-money

frst-workshopfrst-workshop2

Related Information:

MIT Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

1: http://www.technologyreview.com/article/14761/

2: http://homepage.mac.com/a.mitchell/kenmorse/ken_morse.pdf [ Ken Morse, MD of MIT Entrepreneurship Centre, returns to NZ to run a global sales strategy workshop each year http://www.entrepreneurshipnewzealand.com/ ]

3: http://www.signallake.com/innovation/TheEntrepreneurshipEcosystem.pdf





FastPitch - ready, get set, pitch!

17 11 2008

The ICEHOUSE FASTPitch finals were held on the 12th November at the University of Auckland Business School

Before the competition got underway, Geoff Ross provided some perspective on NZ entrepreneurship. Since his vodka success, Geoff has formed an investment company in conjunction with the other 42 Below founders called the The Business Bakery (baking businesses into bigger businesses). So far the bakery has invested in 3 ventures; The Hyperfactory, Ecoya (A high value candle company) and a outdoor fabric company that uses fibre technology from AgResearch.

NZ is a great place to be an entrepreneur as it is prevalent through our culture. Early farming required fast thinking and resourcefulness. They faced many challenges with solutions based around the No.8 wire mentality. This early entrepreneurship was born out of fight or flight situation. The early farmers had no choice and as a result they poured everything in, leaving no option but to succeed. Geoff believes a similar opportunity is presented to us today with regard to our belittled OECD standings.

Unlike in these earlier periods, there are now a lot of inter/ national business successes that young start-ups can feed from providing faith, knowledge from experiences, drive and motivation. For example 42 Below story. The company sold for 138 million in just 4 years. What if there were 10 ‘42 Belows’ sold off each year ? Consider the income for NZ then. However in order to get to this stage Geoff noted we as NZers need to work on our commitment to our ventures. This was summed up in the quote

‘your first angel investor is yourself’

Other pointers he offered included (taken from his experiences from his recent investor perspective):

  • Procrastination – the perfect business plan does not exist. He would rather see a business than a business plan
  • He vouched for ideas with scale that bypass the traditional means of growing a company through injecting additional human resources.And committed founders that are able to listen to everyone, but also know when to ignore
  • NZers don’t tend to sell ourselves as good as well as we should. Pitches are important and cane lead to your businesses/ ideas being sold within the first sentence. E.g. The Apprentice – ‘ like survivor but in a boardroom with Donald Trump’
  • 42 Below was sold for 7 x revenue when the company was actually losing money. It was only cash flow positive for one month. Our companies should be looking to rapidly build themselves as an asset rather than being concerned with a company dividend.

Onto the competition – 12 finalists with 60secs and 1 powerpoint slide each. From my angle (refer to my scorecard below) the winners were quite clear. They each presented a passionately smooth pitch (most importantly being under time) which clearly defined a great idea. From 75 entries and 3 weeks to prepare the ultimate pitch, I expected a higher quality to come through. It might have been the nerves but I felt many teams did not portray a burning desire to win. Those that did obviously won.

Icehouse Article

Previous press release (has finalists’ descriptions)

Graeme’s Scorecard

Infogrid – 6/10 - Overtime

RAVEBuild – 5/10 - Overtime

uLEARNnCare -6 /10 - Overtime

ClicktheClam – 7.5 /10 – Short and sweet [ Spark 40K Runner-up] - Best Presentation Skills

Wurka - 7/10

Puku – 7/10

Graham – 7/10 – quite a cool concept, good potential

Nikki – 8/10 – clear passion - People’s Choice and Best IP

Optimal Workshop – 8/10 – very smooth - Best Investment Opportunity

ePST - 7/10

BE Intent – 7/10

Pocket Vouchers 8/10 – A concept that works [speaking from experience] - Overall Winner

fp1fp2fp5





An update …

6 11 2008

Around the Blogs

  • Ever wished you could simply forget bad experiences - now you can – My Biotech Life
  • Time to sort those papers – FierceBioResearcher
  • i-phone applications for scientists - BitesizeBio (i-phone applications are a great example of pure innovative genius)
  • Biotech and the Credit Crunch - FierceBiotech

Updates

  • FAST Pitch Competition. After much deliberation about whether I should enter the competition last week, I finally decided against it. It was not the fact that I couldn’t prepare a stunning 60sec pitch J , but whether an early stage proposal (I wouldn’t call it a venture at this stage) would eligible or ‘serious’ enough for the competition. I mean for starters the only prize categories that would be applicable would be ‘Best Presentation Skills’ and ‘Audience Choice’. So I left it for next year when the proposal may be transformed into a venture. Aside from my entering jitters, they have recently announced the finalists for the competition cutting down 75 budding entrepreneurs to 12 finalists who will be pitching on the 12th of November at the UoA Business school. The event has already filled up and should be a great night especially with Geoff Ross as the keynote speaker. It is also great to see the Spark 40K runner up, Click the Clam in the finals.
  • Another ICEHOUSE event happening next week is the KICKSTART Seminar on the 13th Nov. Apparently it’s a full on day consisting of workshops, discussions and seminars from 7.30am till 4pm. It aims at providing early entrepreneurs with a skill set to launch their venture. Fortunately I have been asked to attend (free) through the University.
  • Another important update is that the 2010 Greencard lottery has been open for a month or so now and will close on the 1st December. Apparently approx 260 kiwis are successful each year. So I think I’ll give it a go this year. Its all online this time and as always the hardest thing to do is providing a strict ‘to the book’ photo of yourself - remember don’t bother smiling.
  • Kickstart (different to above mentioned icehouse seminar) & Audacious – After the MBE forum with Peter Fennessy, I went back to the Kickstart/ Audacious website to investigate their mentoring schemes. The program that Peter is involved is the Business Coaching/Mentoring and the ‘ food for thought’ (business version of pdf) services. At UoA, the Spark program also does this through their 40K Challenge where finalists are paired up with mentors to aid them in compiling their business plans (this can also continue post competition). Also through spark there is also a colloquial opportunity whenever there is a need to link up with someone such as a mentor. However there may be an opportunity to set up a formal approach, similar to kickstart, where several ‘gurus of business’ are available for contact outside the challenges for advice/mentoring purposes.

Random

  • According to Doing business project NZ now ranks 2nd as the country with the greatest ease to do business in (out of 181 economies).
  • If in doubt over which party to vote for have a look at the Bill and Ben Party (Check the back of your Party list brochure). The guys from Pulp Sport have teamed up to create their own party. With tertiary students making up 14% of the NZ population, they may get close to that 5% threshold.

thebillandbenpartysmlbillandben

untitled





The R&D Policies: the good, the bad and the lack of

6 11 2008

Well the elections, whether it be NZ or US, seem to be on the tip of everyone’s tongue lately. It’s actually hard to avoid them in your day to day living whether it is TV debates, the latest attack on an MP in the papers or Rodney Hide on the street in his unapproved electoral finance canary yellow jacket.

Being 23yo, I have only had the chance to vote once before and even then I refused to vote due to the lack of a party that provided adequate leadership or wise policies. This time round the prior has remained exactly the same (even with a new National candidate in the picture) with some improvement on the latter. Personally I am swung towards National simply due to a need for a change of government (9 years is long enough Helen). Furthermore the two leading parties which supposedly form the right and left sides of government have become so similar that is hard to go wrong.

Despite my prejudged vote, being in the R&D arena I started surfing through National’s and Labour’s R&D policies. Below I have provided comment / opinion on the various aspects of each party’s policy.

Labour (Click here for policy URL)

FFF – Earlier this year the government introduce the Fast Forward Fund, a $700million fund for investment in food and pastoral sector over the next 10 to 15 years. Labours election policy simply states to retain this fund. Refer to comments about his fund under Nationals policies.

The 15% R&D Tax credit was also introduced this year to help stimulate private sector investment in R&D. Labour is looking to retain this

Vote: RS&T (the entire fund of MoRST approx 650 million, makes up Marsden funds etc) – Labour is looking to make 1/3 non contestable funding in three years.

Labour will in the next 3 budgets increase funding for the Marsden Fund, Health Research, and new Transformational R&D (including new materials) as well as renewable energy research, social research and funding to address the needs of researchers early in their careers (yet they do not specify how much).

The current split in public sector research, science and technology investment is approximately 40 percent basic research, 40 percent strategic research and 20 percent pre-commercial development. This is likely to shift towards basic research to balance the expected increases in private sector investment at the other end of the spectrum. I think the current balance is sufficient, greater than 40 percent of non applied basic research would be too excessive.

National (Click here for policy pdf)

Discontinuing the R&D Tax Credit and Funding More Science

“Discontinue the R&D tax credit and use $315 million of the savings to boost funding for research and science over the next three years. This boost includes $157.5 million for the Performance Based Research Fund, the Marsden Fund, and the Health Research Council, and $157.5 million for secure funding of Crown Research Institutes.” The $315 million is approx a third of the savings from the tax credit (over 3 years). The other savings from it go to the personal tax cut scheme.

This cutting of the R&D tax credit definitely created a stir and bagging from the R&D industry and the taxation industry (no surprises there, as less tax regulations = less business for them). Check out the below links for the reactions to Nationals decision.

ARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE 3

Apart from the ugly results delivered in the PREFU (resulting in the complete cutting of the credit from the reduced 10% rate) they cite some interesting reasons for cutting the tax credit.

The objective of the tax credit was to increase investment in R& D. However they believe that the credit would simply be subsidising R & D that would have happened anyway. While this justification is true, it still misses a point. The credit frees up additional money to allow R&D projects to be undertaken that previously that weren’t financially feasible.

It is also not clear how much additional R&D this will encourage. Specifically the means of how to measure this increase/decrease ? How would they distinguish from companies simply claiming more expenses under R&D expenditure?

A good result of the cut is that it also frees up some cash for injection into a CRI dedicated fund and other basic research funds.

Ultimately does this mean there is a net loss of approx $700 million over three years that would otherwise be savings from R&D expenditure due to the presence of the tax credit? When I put it like that I does definitely sound like R&D is missing out on A LOT.

Secure Funding for CRIs

Set up a new secure funding allocation for Crown Research Institutes, made up initially from: Savings from discontinuing the R&D tax credit and the funding currently in the CRI Capability Fund. This may also free up funding sources previous hunted by CRI researchers.

Boosting Primary Sector Research

Wind up the Fast Forward Fund. My personal opinion on this fund is that its very focus on food and pastoral science is its downfall. Of course being in the human therapeutics area I’m most likely biased, but I believe despite our strong history in agriculture, other areas of science research (biomedical for example) deserve equal attention. Especially considering how well of human health biotech companies have been doing (Neuren, LCT, Protemix, Coda to name a few).

On first look you may think that all of AgBio comes under the FFF, however it does miss out a lot of important and economically significant fields/sectors such as wood, wool and hides.

Being a separate fund it also requires own management structure i.e. wasted money. National’s solution uses existing infrastructure to deliver the funds.

Instead the money will be directed into three areas.

  1. Establish an international centre for research dedicated to the reduction of on-farm greenhouse gas emissions, and fund it at $20 million a year. – Not my favourite course of action as there are already groups researching this e.g. vaccination of cows to cut down methane producing bacteria in the rumen. Simply funding the projects already in place such as 5 mill over 5 years.
  2. Boost funding within Vote RS&T for primary sector and food research by $25 million a year. National actually states the funding increases to be made.
  3. Boost funding for research consortia in the primary and food sectors by $25 million a year. Note compared to the FFF this funding scheme contains a broader Agritech/bio focus. Rather than a 10-15 year 700 million commitment , they are only committed to a $210 million over three years

Prime Minister’s Prize for Science

Introduce annual Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science, and make $1 million a year available to fund them. I don’t think this is necessary is there are other National science prize schemes already in place e.g. MacDiarmid Young Scientist of the Year

Science at the Heart of Government

Create a new role of Prime Minister’s Science Adviser. This role will be filled by a scientist seconded for a time from the sector. I thought this was already in place as Nick Bain previously filled this/ or similar position.

Reducing Compliance Costs

Reduce compliance costs and unnecessary bureaucracy within the science system. Great point! To bad they can’t extend the reduction of bureaucracy and over-management  through to other departments.

Overall it seems like National is severely cutting R&D investment and investing a portion of the savings back into R&D through other channels to soften the blow. With such it makes me wonder where Labour is actually getting the money for their income tax cuts. However it looks like National has put a lot more thinking gone into National’s policies. However both proposals, as expected, are far from perfect. For example one area of concern, not addressed by either party is the funding structure and operation. Too much time is spent writing unsuccessful grant applications. This is time which could have been spent increasing R&D expenditure. There needs to be a consolidation somewhere along the line.

Other side mentioned intentions of National include the rewarding of IP inventors in CRIs and increased student co-supervision in CRIs, which is already happening especially with HortResearch





Chiasma Career Catalyst Session 3

27 10 2008

Commercialisation - Turning Science into a Business

Speaker: Adam Podmore, UniServices Business Manager in Biotech/ Pharma

Adam provided a view of science commercialisation using the ‘UniServices’ approach as an example. While I had come across most of the content before in other commercialisation/ funding workshops, I found their process for analysing new inventions/ideas quiet insightful. This matched with the activity provided students with a great introduction into the world science research commercialisation.

Facts about UniServices

  • conduct contract research on behalf of external parties  while also commercialising the IP generated within the University
  • Predicted to generate $140 million in 2012
  • Have spun out 23 companies, approx 7 being in the biotech area. They are aiming to achieve 3-4 more a year.
  • Employ a stage gate model (refer to figure below)
  • Inventors take 33% of the benefits extracted from the IP. For students, the reliance is on their supervisor to see their IP interests are managed and accounted for.
  • UniServices have created a seed fund based on superannuation funds from Australia in order to get companies across the ‘valley of death’.
  • Funding is given for proof of concept studies $5-15K, Stage 2: 10-100K allowing prototype development/ in vivo data to get get ready for the industry. This is followed by seed funding and development of a full business plan resulting in the spinning out of a company of licensing of the technology.

Figure: The Stage Gate Model to Commercialisation for UniServices Ref: UniServices Intranet

Analysing ideas- To analyse whether to invest in research of a commercial nature, UniServices employs 5 areas of criteria to score a proposal.

  • Business strategy - does it fit the business profile
  • Technical success - resources required, manufacturing capacity and skills capability
  • Does it have commercial success - its market, competitors, uniqueness
  • Reward - investment required? What will be the return? How long will a return take?
  • The X FACTOR

Funding avenues for biotech

  • basic research grants
  • spin out a company and raise investment or license - is the the company based on a platform technology? More likely to spin out rather than license if the IP is a platform technology with multiple applications.
  • Seed funding - typically earlier than VCs ranging from 100k- 1mill
  • VC - Series A 10mill (can be instead of seed), Series B 30mill (typically for phase 2, trying to achieve a 5x return)
  • IPO - a hard road to take
  • Trade Sale - favoured exit strategy

Example: Proacta - the makers of PR-104, a small molecule prodrug targeting hypoxic tumours.

‘04 - 8million Series A funding from GBS Ventures, Genetech/Roche, No.8 Ventures/ Endeavour Capital

‘07 - 35million in Series B funding from Claris and Delphi Ventures

ACTIVITY:

Assess whether we (controllers of a seed fund) would invest (1.5 million) in a new small molecule anti-cancer compound, SN28049 . A profile of this technology can be found at: http://www.uniservices.co.nz/pageloader.aspx?page=1487d8d0d82

Based on point scoring scale using the criteria under ‘analysing ideas’ our decision was - ‘Yes, grant funding but in the form of milestone payments’. The team has a strong proven ability to commercialise successful chemotherapeutics. The drug itself exhibits a strong profile in both toxicology and efficacy data with clear benefits over competing drugs.






Careers in the Life Sciences

22 10 2008

I found a great diagram that explains the diversity in careers that one can have in the life science (and wider biotech) industry. The circled branches typically resemble the limitations of students’ career perceptions. Hopefully with Chiasma around this is broadening.

Taken from ‘Career Opportunities in Biotechnology and Drug Development’ by Toby Freedman





www.madefromnewzealand.com

21 10 2008

A new site focused on linking together the complementary talent, skills, experiences and knowledge of NZ entrepreneurs to help new local businesses to start-up.

Herald article





MBE Forum: Peter Fennessy - AbacusBio

21 10 2008

“Start-ups: intuition and insouciance or the 10 things I wish I had known 20 years ago”

The last Bioscience Enterprise forum for the year featured AbacusBio founder and Managing Director Peter Fennessy. Peter has an extensive R&D background including a PhD in Biochemistry and Nutrition and 5 years applied research with AgResearch. He is also a Board member of Blis Technologies, NZBIO and the NRCGD. AbacusBio is a new venture consulting business that bridges AgBio science and business.

Throughout Peter’s presentation he focused on 4 areas of advice for a business start-up:

1:Things he would have love to have known 20 years ago (both as himself and as an investor)

  • Attitude – have to keep it fun, grounded, regular reality checks with an outside interest.
  • Mentor – Peter stressed the usefulness of a mentor but be clear what you want from them. In a later side note, Prof. Wendell Dunn (Foundation Chair in Entrepreneurship, UoA) stated that there were 3 types of mentor:mentoree interactions: 1- personal (focused on the development of the person) 2- the confidant 3- technical/ focused on the business. Peter, despite being a mentoree himself, he too is a mentor for students at the University of Otago that are looking to start their own businesses. I believe this is under the KickStart Program.
  • Realise your weaknesses
  • What are you trying to do? Are you creating a business or buying a job. The motivation needs to be there.

2:‘Doing It’

  • If your project has a strong need associated with it get it in the market ASAP as early adopters will test and give you valuable feedback to continue to develop your product.
  • Kill it quickly. Find out what will kill your product. Because of his links with Blis Tech he made reference to Probiotics. Stability is the Achilles heel of a probiotic product (good news for Encoate).
  • Be Flexible – The business you thought you were in might not be your actual business. Your business concept may be premature- let it evolve.

3:Ideas

  • Expose yourself to them – read read read
  • Don’t be too precious about your ideas – to test it you need to share it. Peter mentioned it’s not so much the idea but how you put it into practice that counts, providing the PCR technology as an example.
  • ‘Ideas are easier than actually following them through’
  • Recommended 2 authors – Jim Collins ( and Clayton Christensen (The Innovators Dilemma)

4: The Business Concept

  • It is always harder to sell a product than what you think
  • The technology is important but not everything
  • What is your point of difference in the market?
  • What is the IP situation around your innovation?

Blis Tech produced the first oral probiotic in the world. Other probiotics are typically found in dairy products for consumption. It was a throat spray that prevented strep throat infections having particular benefit on board long flights. Nestle have recently signed off on a deal with Blis for use of their product in an infant formula and has significantly boosted the creditability of the company and its hopes of profitability.





Job cuts at AgResearch - Am I missing something ?

15 10 2008

Last week AgResearch announced plans to cut jobs to the tune of $5 million worth [Herald article]. Their reasoning being, in order to return a “more satisfactory profit”. Building on my MBE Forum- NIWA post, apparently CRIs are expected to turn a profit, I should hope so, a small one at that.

However CRIs along with our Universities act as the primary developing grounds for our emerging scientists and knowledge centers where research heavily aligned with this country’s core competencies is built upon (i.e the AgBio field). Job cutting at these institutions simply begins to strip NZ’s talent pools and knowledge tanks, sending scientist offshore and halting the research they once directed.

What kind of job security do scientists have in this country if a position at a government funded institution is not stable ? Retaining and developing talented staff should be paramount to their profit driven objectives. Don’t get me wrong, I strongly believe CRIs should be acting more like corporates in terms of fulfilling their commercial potential. My quarrel lays with in how they execute this, there are better ways than taking what seems a lazy approach to keep JUST out of the red. Say….. see where you can offer more services or contract research or begin to reel in the value from your IP banks. 35 available licensing opportunities x 150K each - there’s your 5 million (plus a little for a ‘healthy’ surplus). I know its not that simple, but I’m sure it can’t be that hard either.

PS: My frustration begins dissipates as I find they do have their own pre-seed fund.

Update 4/11/08 - Maybe they took my advice :) - LINK





Win a $5000 website with Domainz

15 10 2008

DOMAINZ has a competition running until Dec 5th for NZ registered companies. The winner receives a professionally built website worth $5000. To enter contestants have to pitch their business idea in 25 words or less. As the term and conditions state, ‘ the most creative entry will win the prize’. Check it out, getting paid $200 a word sounds like a good deal to me.

LINK