Science

In conversation with 6 scientists right now. All want to spin out their tech… I’m pretty sure I can fundraise for each of them… but should I start a deep tech venture studio instead?

☀️🧪🧬🤖
Drug Hunter

Earlier: AI for cancer diagnosis 

Earlierer: PhD Mechanobiology 

aneeshsathe.com

It’s hard to say without specifics. Can you give details on what area they are in, and how much money they need  to build a product?

Working on building zkTLS infra/products. A ruthless empiricist and meme connoisseur.

http://opacity.network

Can’t be super specific, but broadly-
Funding range ranges from $5m-$30m.

Areas:
1. Specific type of blindness detection 
2. Traumatic brain injury prognosis
3. AI to label brightfield images of cancer slides
4. Cancer drug development 
5. Next gen antibody development 
6. AI approaches to drug discovery

Oh I understand the graveyard bit. 

Otoh shared lab space and overheads means lower costs and working directly with scientific founders enables the hands on aspect. The early proof points come from the research labs, which need to be built up further. 

What all of them need is management to give life to good tech.

Studio model is insanely difficult and a graveyard. Need resources to provide support to co’s (ie lab space) which takes away from funding capabilities. Flagship pioneering is an exception, but is super hands on + prioritizes low cost proof points prior to large rounds. Everything is systematized + well resourced.

Building something new. Host: /venturecapital /adventures /theitinerant

@benersing is who I‘d tag for Digital Health related VC questions