Team:Uppsala/PolicyPractices MicrobialDesigns
From 2014.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
document.getElementById("tab6").innerHTML = '<br><p>One of the major challenges for starting a company is to get the start-up capital. To understand this and try to find good solutions we have held interviews with several successful entrepreneurs and made a summary of the possibilities to get funding for our first biotech startup.</p><h2>Different sources of capital</h2><p>There are several sources for a startup to get capital, each with their respective positives and negatives. We will discuss about venture capital, private capital and loans, stock market, crowd funding and funds.<br><br>Private capital is going in with your own money to support the startup. This was the most common method used by Ulf Landegren, a professor at Uppsala University that has started several companies. He told us that this is the preferred alternative since it gives you full control over the company. You will have decided what is prioritized and you do not risk it getting sold to other companies when you do not want to sell it. Although according to Vohora et al. (2003)<sup><a href="#reference7">[1]</a></sup> guidance from someone that knows business and industry is very important. You will also lose your money if the company does not break even.<br><br>Venture capital and business angels could be interesting since they do not only provide a source of capital but also experience. Venture capitalists are investors who try to make profit out of funding start-ups and then selling them off at a higher prize. Business angels are similar, but are more focused on helping your company develop. According to Landegren both venture capitalists and business angels have often taken their own loans and are therefore in need of a high return, sometimes as much as five times the invested sum. This might lead to harsh treatment of your idea where you will need to compensate and change it as they need to invest more and therefore will want more control over the company. No matter how much progress your company is doing it will also probably lead to selling of the company within ten years even if your company is doing good. This was the case with Ulfs first company which he started in USA. The company was going good and was sold off at a high profit after about 6 years.<br><br>Another alternative is the stock market, though this can often not be the single source of capital but is coupled with private capital and/or institutions. This is a tougher version of venture capitalists since they will require you to have better proof and a stronger business plan. It will give you more control of the company though, and you can choose how much you want to give away. Biogaia used this alternative together with their own capital. However, they had come further in their business and also had knowledge about industry and entrepreneurship. They do not recommend to use the stock market as a source unless you developed your company further and are good at business plans.<br><br>A new emerging source of startup capital is crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is a term for asking a lot of people to invest a small sum into your idea. Thier profit is often given via pre-orders, given credit and involvement in the process of the idea. Since the sums are often quite small you either need a cheap company to fund or a lot of people. As such, crowdfunding is suited for ideas that have a wide interest amongst the public, eg. everyday products. Making crowd funding work for medical startups can therefore be really tough, and requires you to tackle a disease which affects many and not to expect to get all of your capital via this source. Since quite a low percentage of the population worldwide gets infected with our pathogen, crowdfunding is not suitable for our project. Further on, hospitals are our main customer and will most likely not fund crowdfunding programs.<br><br>A backbone of all startups are funds. There are a large amount of possibilities but most of them do not provide enough capital to fund the entire process; they could even require you to have different sources of funding. However, by combining different funds you could come a long way. Some common Swedish funds are <i>Industrifonden</i>, governmental <i>Almi</i> and <i>Vinnova</i>. Some governments have programs to help you fund certain ideas that would not receive funding otherwise. One example of this is the Orphan Drug Act in the United States, which you can apply for if you are treating rare diseases. It provides support with both protection of your idea via enhanced patent protection and funding via clinical research subsidies. This is perfect for our idea, but would require us to put our focus on the market in the United States.<br><br>To get any of these funding options, presentation of the business idea is vital. Most startups fail to receive funding by not having a good business plan enough, and in particular not having a solid business idea.</p><h2>Summary</h2><p>Your first company should be founded by help of venture capitalist or business angels and funds. That way you will be able to get both the capital and the knowledge to make your company sustainable. Though you need to be ready to sell that company and the idea. If it works out well you will have enough money to pursue the next company with your own capital and therefore control it yourself.</p><ul class="reference"><li><a id="reference7">[1]</a> Lockett A., Vohora A., Wright M., Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies, Elsevier 2003</li></ul>'; | document.getElementById("tab6").innerHTML = '<br><p>One of the major challenges for starting a company is to get the start-up capital. To understand this and try to find good solutions we have held interviews with several successful entrepreneurs and made a summary of the possibilities to get funding for our first biotech startup.</p><h2>Different sources of capital</h2><p>There are several sources for a startup to get capital, each with their respective positives and negatives. We will discuss about venture capital, private capital and loans, stock market, crowd funding and funds.<br><br>Private capital is going in with your own money to support the startup. This was the most common method used by Ulf Landegren, a professor at Uppsala University that has started several companies. He told us that this is the preferred alternative since it gives you full control over the company. You will have decided what is prioritized and you do not risk it getting sold to other companies when you do not want to sell it. Although according to Vohora et al. (2003)<sup><a href="#reference7">[1]</a></sup> guidance from someone that knows business and industry is very important. You will also lose your money if the company does not break even.<br><br>Venture capital and business angels could be interesting since they do not only provide a source of capital but also experience. Venture capitalists are investors who try to make profit out of funding start-ups and then selling them off at a higher prize. Business angels are similar, but are more focused on helping your company develop. According to Landegren both venture capitalists and business angels have often taken their own loans and are therefore in need of a high return, sometimes as much as five times the invested sum. This might lead to harsh treatment of your idea where you will need to compensate and change it as they need to invest more and therefore will want more control over the company. No matter how much progress your company is doing it will also probably lead to selling of the company within ten years even if your company is doing good. This was the case with Ulfs first company which he started in USA. The company was going good and was sold off at a high profit after about 6 years.<br><br>Another alternative is the stock market, though this can often not be the single source of capital but is coupled with private capital and/or institutions. This is a tougher version of venture capitalists since they will require you to have better proof and a stronger business plan. It will give you more control of the company though, and you can choose how much you want to give away. Biogaia used this alternative together with their own capital. However, they had come further in their business and also had knowledge about industry and entrepreneurship. They do not recommend to use the stock market as a source unless you developed your company further and are good at business plans.<br><br>A new emerging source of startup capital is crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is a term for asking a lot of people to invest a small sum into your idea. Thier profit is often given via pre-orders, given credit and involvement in the process of the idea. Since the sums are often quite small you either need a cheap company to fund or a lot of people. As such, crowdfunding is suited for ideas that have a wide interest amongst the public, eg. everyday products. Making crowd funding work for medical startups can therefore be really tough, and requires you to tackle a disease which affects many and not to expect to get all of your capital via this source. Since quite a low percentage of the population worldwide gets infected with our pathogen, crowdfunding is not suitable for our project. Further on, hospitals are our main customer and will most likely not fund crowdfunding programs.<br><br>A backbone of all startups are funds. There are a large amount of possibilities but most of them do not provide enough capital to fund the entire process; they could even require you to have different sources of funding. However, by combining different funds you could come a long way. Some common Swedish funds are <i>Industrifonden</i>, governmental <i>Almi</i> and <i>Vinnova</i>. Some governments have programs to help you fund certain ideas that would not receive funding otherwise. One example of this is the Orphan Drug Act in the United States, which you can apply for if you are treating rare diseases. It provides support with both protection of your idea via enhanced patent protection and funding via clinical research subsidies. This is perfect for our idea, but would require us to put our focus on the market in the United States.<br><br>To get any of these funding options, presentation of the business idea is vital. Most startups fail to receive funding by not having a good business plan enough, and in particular not having a solid business idea.</p><h2>Summary</h2><p>Your first company should be founded by help of venture capitalist or business angels and funds. That way you will be able to get both the capital and the knowledge to make your company sustainable. Though you need to be ready to sell that company and the idea. If it works out well you will have enough money to pursue the next company with your own capital and therefore control it yourself.</p><ul class="reference"><li><a id="reference7">[1]</a> Lockett A., Vohora A., Wright M., Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies, Elsevier 2003</li></ul>'; | ||
- | document.getElementById("tab7").innerHTML = '<br><p>A problem that we have run into during the development of our business idea concerns the profitability of our product. Diseases caused by <i>Y. enterocolitica</i> are generally mild and occur quite infrequently. This makes it unattractive for large medical companies to develop our designs further. This does not necessarily form a problem directly for Microbial Designs, however, because our design activities can initially be financed by public funding.<br><br>The public money flow, however, does not suffice for developing the design to a real-life medical treatment. To show that our designs can result in clinically valuable products, our first design needs to be further developed. In that way, the lack of profitability of our <i>Y. enterocolitica</i>-targeting bacteria results in a bottle-neck.<br><br>Microbial Designs seems to have walked in to a dead end that often traps academics, starting to work with an idea before performing a thorough market analysis. As is remarked in an article from Vohora et al. about spin-off development “universities have lots of well-developed technologies, but with little proof of concept, no proof of market, and no commercial management.” [1]<br><br>To tackle this challenge, our strategical plan would be to redirect our efforts to a pathogen that poses a more imminent threat to human health. If these designs are then developed, it will be more attractive for established medical companies to work further with this specific design. If a design has been successfully developed by these companies that work further downstream in the development process, this will prove the promise of designing microbes for combating disease. Furthermore, it will add a brand new treatment to the inventory that is available for doctors that are fighting antibiotic-resistant diseases.</p><ul class="reference"><li>[1]Vohora A, Wright M, Lockett A. 2004. Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Res Policy 33: 147-175.</li></ul>'; | + | document.getElementById("tab7").innerHTML = '<br><p>A problem that we have run into during the development of our business idea concerns the profitability of our product. Diseases caused by <i>Y. enterocolitica</i> are generally mild and occur quite infrequently. This makes it unattractive for large medical companies to develop our designs further. This does not necessarily form a problem directly for Microbial Designs, however, because our design activities can initially be financed by public funding.<br><br>The public money flow, however, does not suffice for developing the design to a real-life medical treatment. To show that our designs can result in clinically valuable products, our first design needs to be further developed. In that way, the lack of profitability of our <i>Y. enterocolitica</i>-targeting bacteria results in a bottle-neck.<br><br>Microbial Designs seems to have walked in to a dead end that often traps academics, starting to work with an idea before performing a thorough market analysis. As is remarked in an article from Vohora et al. about spin-off development “universities have lots of well-developed technologies, but with little proof of concept, no proof of market, and no commercial management.” <sup><a href="#reference8">[1]</a></sup><br><br>To tackle this challenge, our strategical plan would be to redirect our efforts to a pathogen that poses a more imminent threat to human health. If these designs are then developed, it will be more attractive for established medical companies to work further with this specific design. If a design has been successfully developed by these companies that work further downstream in the development process, this will prove the promise of designing microbes for combating disease. Furthermore, it will add a brand new treatment to the inventory that is available for doctors that are fighting antibiotic-resistant diseases.</p><ul class="reference"><li><a id="reference8">[1]</a> Vohora A, Wright M, Lockett A. 2004. Critical junctures in the development of university high-tech spinout companies. Res Policy 33: 147-175.</li></ul>'; |
</script> | </script> |
Revision as of 14:59, 17 October 2014
Stephanie Herman
Teresa Reinli
Joakim Hellner
Alexander Virtanen
Jennifer Rosenius
Marcus Hong
Miranda Stiernborg
Tim Hagelby Edström
Viktor Blomkvist
Megha Biradar
Niklas Handin
Jonas Mattisson
Arina Gromov
Nils Anlind
Eric Sandström
Gunta Celma
Oliver Possnert
Martin Friberg
Kira Karlsson
Christoffer Andersson
Laura Pacoste
Andries Willem Boers
Home
Failed to load tracking. JS is probably not enabled