7 Lessons On Startup Funding From a Research Scientist

About This Blog

This site is for  entrepreneurs.  A full RSS feed to the articles is available.  Please subscribe so we know you're out there.  If you need more convincing, learn more about the site.



And, you can find me on Google+

Connect on Twitter

Get Articles By Email

Your email:


Blog Navigator

Navigate By : 
[Article Index]

Questions about startups?

If you have questions about startups, you can find me and a bunch of other startup fanatics on the free Q&A website:


Subscribe to Updates


30,000+ subscribers can't all be wrong.  Subscribe to the OnStartups.com RSS feed.

Follow me on LinkedIn


Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

7 Lessons On Startup Funding From a Research Scientist


The following is a guest post by Ty Danco. Ty is an angel investor and startup mentor. Read more of his thoughts at tydanco.com.

My wife isn't in business, but she is wise in the way of funding. Just as I have experience on both sides of the funding table (as an entrepreneur and as an angel), so does she. As a research scientist, she gets her own grants and also reviews grants from others. While she doesn't talk in startup lingo (pivots, minimum viable product, etc.), she has taught me that many of the issues we face as entrepreneurs have a corollary in science. Here's what I've learned from her.science lab

1. Always seek funding from the best people, even when you have easier alternatives.

Before the bootstrappers hang me, I didn't say that you have to raise a lot of money or that you should be working fat. But consider this story: my wife was slaving away writing one particular National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant knowing that the funding rate was ~5%. Why not look for a less competitive foundation to underwrite it instead, I asked. I figured that this could save her time and trouble, and that she could proceed with her experiments that much faster.

That's not how it works, she replied. That's like self-publishing a paper instead of getting it peer-reviewed. If she couldn't convince sophisticated research centers to part with their dwindling cash, she continued, obviously the project wasn't good enough. If it's not good enough to get other people to write a check, it's not good enough to be spending time on. Startup corollaryjust as a paper published in an inferior journal has less impact than the same paper in a good one, when you go for funding, get it from great people. If you have to take dumb money, you're doing it wrong.

Personal application: I'm temporarily self-funding my new startup, FX Aligned, but I'm pitching it to the best East Coast VCs who understand the space. The same logic appliesif I can't convince people who see 1,000 deals that my idea is worth funding, it isn't worth doing.

2. Proposals are always stronger once edited.

Nothing beats peer review, especially from people with deep expertise.

My chat with one VC surprised me. He thought our initial target market was too small. And upon reflection, he was right. At the same time, I was talking to another VC, and I explained to him that we intended to go after that smaller market first, get established, and then work closely with our alpha clients to find solutions to their real pain points. He quoted his senior partner, whose rule was if a new startup is counting on a two-part process to make money, don't fund it. This is exactly the tough love I needed to hear, and it saved me months to time I would have lost if I had self-funded and drunk my own Kool-Aid. We didn't need to do a two-step dance to discover the real market opportunity.

3. If the specific aims of your experiment (company) undergo too many major changes, that's a sign that you haven't thought through the issues yet, and it's too early.

No scientific grant ever makes it from start to finish without changes. Similarly, no VC or angel should be so nave to think that business models turn out perfectly on the first try. However, when a fundamental concept keeps shifting as the idea evolves, there is a problem.

My new company has gone through one major change as we search for product-market fit. However, our edit did not change the core concepts. Our pivot came as we realized that our solution for our original market would, with some minor systems tweaks, serve not only our target market of public pension funds, but now solve an industry-wide problem faced by all institutional managers buying and selling foreign securities. The aim — giving our clients a means to quickly, cheaply, and more efficiently transact foreign exchange without getting ripped-off remains the same, but now the same basic company has a far bigger potential market.

If your concept is not robust at its core, no iteration will help. Before you pivot, ask if the underlying ideas are still valid. If they are, take your time and get the change right.

4. Don't keep it secret.

Scientific grants and paper submissions are kept confidential during the review process to allow for brutally honest feedback, but generally that's the only time of secrecy. The point of science is to advance knowledge, which is done through sharing. Even before a paper is published, preliminary results typically are presented publicly at conferences and ideas are exchanged before the lengthy process of publication. These public discussions can bring in new collaborators, just as startup events can introduce co-founders to each other. Don't hide, network!

Initially I was reticent to talk to angels too much. While my angel friends were good at giving me feedback on presentation matters, none I knew had expertise in fintech, which is where my new company fits in. So I initially wasn't getting a lot of strong commentary. Thanks goes out to James Geshwiler of CommonAngels, however. While he didn't have expertise in my field, he sent me to two angels who did. One of those two angels is now on my Advisory Board, and the other is giving me solid advice on a technical matter that is critical to the company, but outside of my own expertise. What's the result? A lot less risk in our prospects. And besides, as Dharmesh says, stealth mode is for fighter jets — not startups. Read “The Real Reasons Startups Don't Talk

The more you discuss your idea, the luckier you'll get. Never miss a chance to pitch your idea, but then keep your ears open, especially for the chance contacts that can turn out to be key.

5. It's easy to get funding in trendy areas, but focus more on impact.

I've tagged along to dinners with my wife's scientific colleagues, and once heard a story about zebras grazing. Those zebras that want to play it safe in the middle of the pack can get by, but the juiciest grass — and the greatest danger of being eaten is out on the edges. While it's tempting to go where the funding is, science is about more than just getting another grant.

Find a problem worth solving, not just something convenient for funding. And hopefully, that will be something different. The world doesn't need yet another daily deals aggregator.

By the way, no one should go through the rollercoaster that is startup life unless they are a) certifiably crazy, or b) intending to go big. (See Don Dodge on Google Dreaming BIG.) If you're pitching something, make sure it has potential to change the world.

6. Don't even think about pitching a project without preliminary data.

Scientific grants rarely get funded without substantial preliminary data. It's not just about feasibility, i.e., showing that the method can work; in addition, enough data needs to be submitted to statistically demonstrate the likelihood of the project's success.

This one is a little harder in my case, because it will take a few months to crank out a minimum viable product. However, that doesn't mean we can't test out the markets. We're talking with as many institutional investor customers as we can to get their input on what they need.

This is just customer development 101, a la Steve Blank. For startups, customer data is the best data.

7. The first funding is the hardest.

In science, like in startups, the experienced team always has it much easier rounding up backers. That's just the way it is.

That's one reason why I suggest that people who want to start their own companies begin by working for some rocketship company first. Your own startup becomes more bankable because you'll slowly be absorbing experience that will stand you in good stead in your own future startup. Whoever writes a check wants to see a return on that money, be it in science or in startups. You increase your chances of funding success when you de-risk your venture, especially when a team (or lab) has had time to gel previously.

Thankfully, the team at our new company has had success together before. And that, probably more than anything else, makes it easier this time around. Not that this stuff is ever easy

And a bonus, once you have that funding:

Always be running little experiments on the side. Especially those that can surprise you. For more on this, read Eric Ries' book, The Lean Startup. And while you're doing those experiments, make sure that they are sufficiently well-designed to give you answers.

Any other funding lessons from the lab I missed? Please leave a comment.

Posted by Dharmesh Shah on Mon, Jan 16, 2012


Great post! Very interesting idea comparing fundraising in science to fundraising for business.  
So would you say that if you cant get funding from one of the top VC's in your category that the venture is not worth pursuing even if you can still get another VC behind you?

posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM by Don Tarinelli

Great article. We need to learn everything we can in this "hard to raise capital" climate. 

posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 at 1:36 PM by Kip Marlow

Very good one. Points 4-7 are a great reassurance that we are doing it right. Just recently learned to drop the shyness and say out loud that or venture is going to change our target market.

posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM by Ran Hadary

Love the idea of data orientated funding. At http://KickoffLabs.com people ask us why we haven't taken funding yet. A big part of my answer is that we are waiting to prove a bigger market and waiting for the right investors that understand what we are doing.

posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 at 4:06 PM by Josh Ledgard

"If I can't convince people who see 1,000 deals that my idea is worth funding, it isn't worth doing." This highlights the difference between investors and scientists. If all one cares about is returning 5X in a short period of time, then I agree with you. Entrepreneurial scientists however have a longer term perspective. The art is making the two perspectives work together! 

posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 at 4:26 PM by William Brah

Well put. "Always seek funding from the best people, even when you have easier alternatives." This is absolutely true -- your brand is paramount, even if it's not yet public. You cannot build anything on a weak foundation, including credibility. And whether a startup or scientific hypothesis, credibility is key to concept validation and ultimately, success.

posted on Monday, January 16, 2012 at 4:54 PM by Amy Gallant Sullivan

I am not sure whether I agree with "if I can't convince people who see 1,000 deals that my idea is worth funding, it isn't worth doing." The inherent value of an idea does not depend on how many people agree with your view at a conceptual stage. Many paradigm shifting invention and innovation would not even get started if this was used as a rigid criterion. 
Initial funding (external or internal) for an idea is useful only to the extent that it is necessary to project the concepts on a material plane as a baseline, which in turn helps you to show your thoughts to those early adopters who hopefully care about that paradigm shift. 
In case of academic research, they are constantly moving from one paradigm shifting hypotheses to next. They need the money even to get to a baseline projection (MVP) for every idea.

posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 4:43 AM by Robotic Vision

Science is a great discipline to learn from. It's mature, rigorous, and disciplined. 
As well as the funding, there is the whole area of experimentation, testing, hypotheses, data collection, statistical analysis, competition... to learn from 
And watch how they grab they best talent while at University

posted on Thursday, January 19, 2012 at 12:46 AM by Giles Farrow

I agree with #1 - if you need funding you should get it from the best source you can. Absolutely. But can't agree with the idea that if you can't raise $$ it isn't worth doing. Raising $$ is not a sign of success - it just means you now have a shot at success. Even the best VC's are only right, what, 30% of the time? Maybe? $40+mm to Color shows that even the best VCs can be very very wrong. (yes - I understand that the Color saga is not over, but it's not looking good!) 
To imply that getting the blessings of a VC is a requirement for an idea to be a success is not actually what I think you meant to say with point #1 - but that's what ended up coming out.  
As a side note - good luck with FX Aligned!

posted on Friday, January 20, 2012 at 7:30 AM by Chris Patton

Comments have been closed for this article.