In theory, commercializing scientific research or a breakthrough idea is no different than commercializing anything else, except that it may be more difficult in practice due to the steps required to turn basic research into something practical and because you are looking for a market for a product rather than designing a product to fit an established or obvious need.
Develop And Commercialize Lifesciences is distinct from creating and maintaining a business, which is a larger endeavor and the topic of a previous Ten Simple Rules essay . Nonetheless, commercialization may be a large undertaking. At one extreme, you could hand over your monoclonal antibody to Sigma, who will distribute it on your behalf to other researchers who may find it useful while paying you a small royalty;
at the other end of the spectrum, you could be involved in developing Herceptin (anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody) from its inception as a mouse-specific antibody to its use as an effective anti-breast cancer drug, a process that took more than a decade. Here, we presume the former—that commercialization is carried out by others, which has advantages and disadvantages—less work for you, but often less control over the commercialization process.
Academics and the business sector have both conducted extensive research on Develop And Commercialize Lifesciences. All major academic institutions have offices to promote and assist scientists in bringing their research to market. As a result, we won’t go into depth in this post, instead focusing on some of the main considerations to consider while working with, or before and after working with, a specialist office.
The following pointers can help you Develop And Commercialize Lifesciences solutions.
Here is how to Develop and Commercialize Lifesciences Solutions;
1. What motivates science does not motivate business.
Scientists assess research by determining if it adds anything new to our world knowledge. Businesses have a distinct motivation, which is to generate money. This creates a significant cultural divide. When the Chinese began to create porcelain for European markets in the 18th century, it was discovered that they simply did not understand the concept of perspective.
Pagodas the size of flower pots developed. Artists understood the symbolism, but Europeans desired realism. And so it is with commercialization: scientists are not prepared for business (some would even argue that doing so violates academic freedom), and businesses are not prepared for science unless they have specialized research divisions—Bell Labs comes to mind here, but it is now an exception rather than the rule.
When two worlds intersect, mediators and interpreters are required to provide a shared understanding and a successful route from research to Develop And Commercialize Lifesciences. Scientists must assemble a team of businesspeople who are “on the same wavelength” as them and can explain and lead them. Businesses, on the other hand, must be able to identify what research universities have to offer and how it may help them.
Interfaces may range from university development offices to corporate outreach units to organizations that specialize in being the interface, such as CONNECT (http://www.connect.org). These are excellent resources that both scientists and prospective commercial partners could make use of.
2. There Is No Single Commercialization Path.
Commercialization of scientific breakthroughs has become more formalized in recent years, thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act (legislation dealing with intellectual property arising from federal government-funded research) , with academia playing an active role in facilitating the translation of its intellectual capital into the business.
There are many options for this, including licensing, royalties, incubation, and in-house development. To partake in the human capital, the industry has relocated geographically near big institutions (e.g., scientific parks).
Underlying all of this work are difficult concerns of how much potential value is locked up in these intellectual assets and how they may best be utilized while being true to the progenitors’ aspirations and creating revenue. There are several routes from the laboratory bench to the store: Develop And Commercialize Lifesciences is half art, part science; part inspiration, and part perspiration.
Most approaches are fundamentally mechanical; some work and others don’t; there is no hidden method. So, if anybody tells you at the outset that it’s a sure thing (or not), don’t trust them—it takes a lot of hard work to determine whether an idea can make it.
And never take advice that says “this is the best method” based on a single example—for every research-driven proposal that becomes popular, hundreds wither away. Because these failures are seldom the topic of extensive case studies, we have no clue why they failed or what lessons we may learn from them.
3. Keep the R and D separate and be realistic.
There is a significant distinction between fundamental research and the Develop And Commercialize Lifesciences. In general, development is carried out by the entity commercializing the product and might be seen as the meeting point of academic and commercial cultures.
Development may be very costly and time-consuming, posing a significant financial risk to the investor, particularly since it is a front-loaded expenditure. The investor must consider concerns such as mass manufacturing (scaling up from laboratory levels), distribution, logistics, price, practicability, marketing, safety, the law, and so on.
Often, one or more of them proves unsolvable, and the breakthrough must wait, maybe for decades, for a solution. Personal genomics is an example of a field where widespread commercialization of a number of concepts has had to wait until next-generation sequencing makes the products viable.
Scientists must also be realistic in evaluating the idea—they often have little notion of the development expenses and frequently believe that fundamental research represents the majority of the value, which is virtually never the case.
4. The market may not exist at first.
The traditional strategy of determining what your factory can produce (referred to as “production-driven” in the jargon) and then determining whether there is a market is generally rejected in contemporary industry.
Of fact, in the case of fundamental scientific research, this is precisely the case—scientists generally examine topics out of intellectual curiosity, with no regard to Develop And Commercialize Lifesciences. Outside of apparent disciplines such as medicines and engineering, the initial study will not be focused on addressing any commercial, market-related challenges, and so the discovery will surely be achieved in isolation of market needs.
Several instances demonstrate the apparent absence of a market. “Who needs music on the go?” one person said of the Sony Walkman. “No one wants a tablet computer that doesn’t have a keyboard,” and so on. Examples like this are sometimes cited to “show” that a good concept will always succeed, but this is simply not true in the vast majority of situations.
It easily avoids the problem that if no ready market exists, one must be created. Money, advertisement, expertise, and time are all required. All of this raises the development expenses.