51–60 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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 cou…
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.
Calling this a "Fellowship" is misleading. The funding is an investment. See their FAQ: Q: How much equity does Sci-Founder take in my company? A: There are two funding options we offer: $250,000 for 10% equity $400,000 for 15% equity
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.
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.
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 cou…
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.
Calling this a "Fellowship" is misleading. The funding is an investment. See their FAQ: Q: How much equity does Sci-Founder take in my company? A: There are two funding options we offer: $250,000 for 10% equity $400,000 for 15% equity
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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
Calling this a "Fellowship" is misleading. The funding is an investment. See their FAQ: Q: How much equity does Sci-Founder take in my company? A: There are two funding options we offer: $250,000 for 10% equity $400,000 for 15% equity
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 great…
Learn about how scientists actually work and meet them--don't twist the jargon around to suit your marketing needs.