Why scientists make good founders
Many VCs still believe scientists should not be founders, let alone run companies. They are looking at it completely backwards.
I know many VCs who still believe scientists should not be founders, let alone run companies. Perhaps many who also think scientists shouldnt be VCs
They think deep technical expertise is a handicap for commercial execution, storytelling, and hiring executives. They are looking at it completely backwards. I wrapped up Tech Week last night with an honest fireside chat with and about founder-scientists.
Early-stage biotech founders are surrounded by noise right now.
You see founders from hyperscalers who never took a biology class dismissing regulation and raising massive rounds at unicorn valuations.
The temptation to chase that hype is real. Biology does not care about paper valuations.
Living systems do not bend to market sentiment, and molecules do not validate themselves just because capital is abundant.
A lot of VCs still treat technical depth like a liability.
They assume that spending years in a lab means you cannot sell, you cannot tell a compelling story, and you cannot recruit executives.
Yet some of the highest-performing founders I have backed are scientist-CEOs.
When a scientist-founder pairs ground truth biology with commercial instincts, narrative, and the humility to hire people significantly smarter than them, they build an unfair moat that others cannot replicate.
That was my core message at the Nest Catalyst fireside chat last night: build for the science, ignore the hype, and focus on the data. Grateful to Elena Itskovich, PhD, Goodwin, First Citizens Bank, Silicon Valley Bank who made that conversation possible.
My introvert battery is sitting at zero. Time to close the laptop and unplug for the weekend to recharge.
Originally posted on LinkedIn.
