Starting a Medical Technology Venture as a Young Academic Innovator or Student Entrepreneur

Abstract

Following the footprints of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, there has been a misconception that students are better off quitting their studies to bring to life their ideas, create jobs and monetize their inventions. Having historically transitioned from manpower to mind power, we live in one of the most rapidly changing times in human history. As a result, academic institutions that are supposed to be pioneers and educators of the next generations have started to realize that they need to adapt to a new system, and change their policies to be more flexible towards patent ownership and commercialization. There is an infrastructure being developed towards students starting their own businesses while continuing with their studies. This paper aims to provide an overview of the existing landscape, the exciting rewards as well as risks awaiting a student entrepreneur, the challenges of the present ecosystem, and questions to consider prior to embarking on such a journey. Various entities influencing the start-up environment are considered, specifically for the medical technology sector. These parties include but are not limited to: scientists, clinicians, investors, academic institutions and governments. A special focus will be set on the seemingly unbridgeable gap between founding a company and a scientific career.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

References

  1. 1.

    5 Steps in the Journey of a Medical Device Startup (press release). Lassonde Entrepreneurship Institute (University of Utah), January 6, 2015, 2015.

  2. 2.

    Acs, Z., S. Desai, and J. Hessels. Entrepreneurship, economic development and institutions. Small Bus. Econ. 31(3):219–234, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Allen, R. H., S. Acharya, C. Jancuk, and A. A. Shoukas. Sharing best practices in teaching biomedical engineering design. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41(9):1869–1879, 2013.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Angel Resource Institute SVB, CB Insights. The HALO ReportUS Angel Group Update: 2013 Year in Review. Angel Resource Institute and Silicon Valley Bank, CB Insights, 2014.

  5. 5.

    Audretsch, D. Standing on the shoulders of midgets: the U.S. small business innovation research program (SBIR). Small Bus. Econ. 20(2):129–135, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Cassar, G. The financing of business start-ups. J. Bus. Ventur. 19(2):261–283, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Chun, A. L. Start-ups: how to be an entrepreneur scientist. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2015. doi:10.1038/nnano.2015.235.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    College startups on the rise as students flock to entrepreneurial pursuits. Red Herring, August 15, 2014, 2014.

  9. 9.

    Di Gregorio, D., and S. Shane. Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Res. Policy 32(2):209–227, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Diage, T. Planning for Successful Medical Device Reimbursement: So Your Device is Cleared, Now What?. Northwood: NAMSA, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Geuna, A., and F. Rossi. Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Res. Policy 40(8):1068–1076, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Goldfarb, B., and M. Henrekson. Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Res. Policy 32(4):639–658, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Gura, T. Robert Langer: creating things that could change the world. Science Careers, 2014.

  14. 14.

    Ham, S. T. Mapping the Medical Device Development Process. San Luis Obispo: California Polytechnic State University, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hologic to Acquire Sentinelle Medical (press release). HOLOGIC—The Science of Sure, 2010.

  16. 16.

    Huggett, B. Top US universities and institutes for life sciences in 2013. Nat. Biotechnol. 32(11):1085, 2014.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kost, J., S. Mitragotri, R. A. Gabbay, M. Pishko, and R. Langer. Transdermal monitoring of glucose and other analytes using ultrasound. Nat. Med. 6(3):347–350, 2000.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Lissoni, F. Academic patenting in Europe: an overview of recent research and new perspectives. World Pat. Inf. 34(3):197–205, 2012.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lissoni, F., and F. Montobbio. The ownership of academic patents and their impact. Rev. écon. 66:143–171, 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Monosoff, T. Creating a Product Prototype. Entrepreneur, 2005.

  21. 21.

    Müller, E., and V. Zimmermann. The importance of equity finance for R&D activity. Small Bus. Econ. 33(3):303–318, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Nazar, J. 16 Surprising statistics about small businesses. Forbes. September 9, 2013.

  23. 23.

    Osawa, Y., and K. Miyazaki. An empirical analysis of the valley of death: large-scale R&D project performance in a Japanese diversified company. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 14(2):93–116, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Palfrey, J. Intellectual Property Strategy. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ries, E. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Business (1st ed.). New York: Crown Business, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Robert, W., A. M. Farlie, E. J. Reedy, and J. Russell. The Kauffman Index 2015—Startup Activity. Kansas: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Schreyögg, J., M. Bäumler, and R. Busse. Balancing adoption and affordability of medical devices in Europe. Health Policy 92(2–3):218–224, 2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Shreefal, M. Paths to entrepreneurship in the life sciences. Nat. Bioentrep. 2004. doi:10.1038/bioent831.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Spross, J. Obama’s middle-out economics is good. Bottom-up economics is better. Week, 2015.

  30. 30.

    Stevens, G. A., and J. Burley. 3,000 Raw ideas equal 1 commercial success!. Res. Technol. Manag. 40(3):16–27, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Tcherneva, P. R. Reorienting fiscal policy: a bottom-up approach. J. Post Keynes. Econ. 37(1):43–66, 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    The European Medical Technology Industry in Figures. MedTech Europe, 2013. http://www.medtecheurope.org/sites/default/files/resource_items/files/MEDTECH_FactFigures_ONLINE3.pdf. Accessed 3 May 2017.

  33. 33.

    The Top 20 Reasons Startups Fail. CB Insights, 2014.

  34. 34.

    Volpatti, L. R., and A. K. Yetisen. Commercialization of microfluidic devices. Trends Biotechnol. 32(7):347–350, 2014.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Walden, S. Startup Success by the Numbers. New York: Mashable, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wang, J., and P. Shapira. Partnering with universities: a good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms? Small Bus. Econ. 38(2):197–215, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Willoughby, K. W. Intellectual property management and technological entrepreneurship. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 10(6):1, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Yazdi, Y., and S. Acharya. A new model for graduate education and innovation in medical technology. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41(9):1822–1833, 2013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Yetisen, A. K., L. R. Volpatti, A. F. Coskun, S. Cho, E. Kamrani, H. Butt, A. Khademhosseini, and S. H. Yun. Entrepreneurship. Lab Chip 15(18):3638–3660, 2015.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professors Alireza Khademhosseini (Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology), Robert Langer (MIT) and President Ronald J. Daniels (Johns Hopkins University) for helpful discussions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir Manbachi.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. AM and KTT are affiliated with a Canadian start-up called Spinesonics Medical, Inc. (this company is not mentioned in this manuscript). NT and ML are Entrepreneurial Neurosurgeons affiliated with start-ups, but their companies are not mentioned in this manuscript. HB was a Visionary in a product called Gliadel™, which is named in the manuscript as an example of successful academic entrepreneurship (no commercial endorsement). All individuals named in the case studies have agreed to their names being published in this article.

Additional information

Associate Editor Arash Kheradvar oversaw the review of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manbachi, A., Kreamer-Tonin, K., Walch, P. et al. Starting a Medical Technology Venture as a Young Academic Innovator or Student Entrepreneur. Ann Biomed Eng 46, 1–13 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-017-1938-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Entrepreneurship
  • Bioentrepreneur
  • Student entrepreneurship
  • Medical devices