I often wonder if starting a company, even in biotech, means putting innovation aside and turning instead to less challenging but essential tasks – things like refining products or services, managing marketing and sales, handling finances, and everything else it takes to run a strong company.
These are the tasks that must be done -and done extremely well. Otherwise, even with a great product or service, success is far from guaranteed. The company might not fail, but it could linger in the ‘living dead’ zone, or -as is often the case- face a quick acquisition, where founders bring the technology, but others capture the long term benefit. Although this is considered as a success story, I am not sure that it is.
When we first started building the ‘eyes’ at BIOEMTECH, I realized that scientific innovation had to take a step back. To turn it into a real product, we had to focus on practical elements -mechanical parts, user interface, manuals, technical documentation. Robustness and stability became key, along with redesigning the systems so they could be serviced easily out side the lab.
On the other hand, it was important to select components that would balance performance with cost, while also ensuring availability and securing alternative suppliers when needed. As engineers, we were aware that better options existed and that new publications suggested promising directions to explore. However, every new development would risk turning the product into an endless project. And of course, no update should be in the plan for a year or more.
At some point, you truly believe your product is ready, the website is live, LinkedIn posts are out, campaigns are running …and then silence. Nothing happens. You attend conferences, invest in booths, meet people who seem genuinely enthusiastic… but the momentum you hoped for doesn’t come. Instead, you face questions, skepticism, and requests that make you wonder if you should start all over again. But there is not time and money to redesign your product.
If you stay open to feedback, remain persistent – and perhaps get a bit lucky, you stop thinking like a researcher and begin to see from the end user’s perspective. It’s no longer about building technology for publication; it’s about truly understanding customer needs. You start asking yourself: “What problem am I really solving? Would I invest 100K in this? Would I buy from someone like me?”. For sure, this is far away from experimenting and writing papers.
And then, slowly, you see it happening. Your technology is appreciated, the first installations are in place, and interest begins to grow. Marketing becomes essential, distributors are contacted, new people join the team, and you start thinking of how to supporting a growing installation base. You organize user meetings, gather feedback, and new ideas and features continue to emerge. But you also realize that updating all systems or managing multiple versions in parallel isn’t sustainable.
And this can feel like another disappointment for the researcher inside you. The hardest part is behind you — the technology works, the product is established, and the market wants it. Yet you can no longer freely experiment, test every new idea, or publish results at every conference. Sometimes even small upgrades must remain confidential, so they aren’t adopted too quickly by others. It’s natural to wonder: has entrepreneurship killed innovation?
And then the first publications from your clients begin to appear. Researchers start using your technology for their own discoveries. What began as a couple of niche products now enables dozens -and eventually hundreds- of scientists to generate new knowledge across diverse fields. That’s when you realize: entrepreneurship didn’t kill the researcher inside you; It multiplied your impact!