Industry players

All scientists are driven by curiosity, and biomedical researchers are no exception to that rule. But pursuing basic science doesn’t just mean unpacking nature’s mysteries: It frequently results in scientific discoveries that lead to new medical treatments to relieve suffering and save lives.

For instance, some recent studies have estimated that more than 25 percent of new medications coming to market originated in academia, with public sector contributions rising rapidly over the past decade. Whether looking for the next novel antibiotic or a first-in-class gene therapy, industry has come to keep a close eye on research from the public sector. Yet, that path from bench to bedside remains long and winding. Success requires time, money, and the cooperation of many disparate groups, from researchers and investors to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. At the earliest stages, however, it often falls to the institution itself to spot the potential. Without internal support building the case for commercialization, promising scientific research may never get the wider exposure it deserves.

“If that happens, the public misses out on findings that would make life better,” says Jeanne Farrell, associate vice president overseeing the Office of Technology Transfer at The Rockefeller University.

Farrell is one of several individuals fostering the bridge between academia and industry at Rockefeller. With the ultimate goal of helping academic discoveries become products with tangible societal benefits, this team lays critical groundwork to pave the way for commercialization, by working closely with inventors on the filing of patents, coaching scientists as they frame their ideas for investors, and partnering with researchers to think through all the myriad possibilities. In streamlining the larger translational pipeline and leveraging Rockefeller’s considerable resources—from internal funding sources to an on-site startup incubator—Farrell and her colleagues are “looking to light that spark which will create an opportunity.”

We explored what it takes to create that kind of vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystem in a roundtable conversation with Farrell and her colleagues Bruce Conway and Carlo Yuvienco. Farrell’s team looks for ways to create commercial opportunities for discoveries made at the university, from partnerships to new businesses.

Yuvienco (left), Farrell, and Conway use complementary strategies to find paths to commercialization.

Conway is the founding director of the Black Family Therapeutic Development Fund at Rockefeller (formerly the Robertson Therapeutic Development Fund), where he draws on his background in the pharmaceutical industry and the startup world to create internal de-risking funding opportunities and provide mentorship for researchers looking to best position their work for advancement outside of the university. Yuvienco is the director of the Ford Center Incubator at Rockefeller, where he brings in promising early-stage life science companies spinning out of Rockefeller labs and beyond.

First things first: What are the raw ingredients needed to create a fertile environment for commercialization?

CY: For any kind of economic development, you need three factors: capital, resources (meaning a physical infrastructure that makes discovery convenient), and people. But you also need that X factor: inspiration. The three of us come at this from different angles: I’m working to create a new kind of space on campus, one that supports startups during that tenuous moment when they transition from an academic environment to the marketplace.

I used to work for the City of New York under the de Blasio administration, serving as deputy director of life sciences at the NYC Economic Development Corporation. We studied what elements were common across the most effective incubators, and proximity to academic institutions turned out to be paramount. Yet before we launched earlier this year, there were no incubators focused on biomedical science on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, despite the incredible concentration of top biomedical institutions.

JF: A lot goes into setting the stage. Externally, you have to develop strong relationships with companies and investors, and internally you have to really know your scientists and their science. Only then can you build the story and the strategy that help bridge those two worlds. You also need a team that’s flexible, creative, and nimble—these projects can take years to develop, with a lot of pivoting along the way. Having leadership that appreciates how bringing products to market aligns with the institution’s mission has allowed us the latitude to do that.

“A lot goes into setting the stage. Externally, you have to develop strong relationships with companies and investors, and internally you have to really know your scientists and their science.”

BC: The funding piece is huge here. Look at any number of startup companies or IP licensing deals that made it to market, and you’ll see a huge reason their technology advanced was because the group had access to directed funding. We recognized that, and so in recent years, we found ways to fund great research that wouldn’t necessarily be considered fundable using traditional mechanisms, such as through the NIH or NSF. Traditional funding also has a big lag time between being awarded the money and receiving it. We’ve turned that cycle upside down. The system we have in place can fund promising projects just weeks after a researcher’s proposal is approved. That keeps the momentum going.

Investors and other industry players aren’t always good at seeing the therapeutic significance of basic research. And not all scientists are born entrepreneurs. How do you help both parties recognize real-world applications?

JF: Rockefeller is focused on important scientific questions in the context of academia, but often discoveries from that kind of research lend themselves to the creation of new chemical entities, biologics, devices, research tools, and other enabling technologies that have application in the commercial world. We do whatever we can to protect the integrity of the science while clearing the hurdles to commercialization. One main focus of my team is promoting and giving visibility to work that might otherwise not get enough attention from investors and industry players. Once we see that potential and visualize what the application could be, in collaboration with our scientists, we look for good industry partners. Sometimes established pharma companies see the discovery as not mature enough to go straight into their development pipeline, and so creating a startup company may be the best way to advance it. That’s where the partnership with our scientist inventors comes into play. Starting a company is a long, difficult road that isn’t for everyone. We aren’t asking our scientists to be entrepreneurs, but just to be open to that road as a way to move a discovery further.

BC: A lot of my focus has been on helping researchers hone their pitches—put simply, helping them learn to speak the same language as investors. How someone talks about their proposed research project is so important. And it pays off not just when it comes to securing funding in those individual instances. I’ve seen how transformative this has been on a larger scale. When our academics learn to communicate in this way, industry has really taken notice. These conversations are a big reason why there is this growing network of external experts in commercialization who are excited about what the university is doing.

I also work with researchers to conduct the kinds of experiments—generating the specific kinds of data—that a pharmaceutical company needs to recognize a wise investment. My team has been doing this for over a decade now. Rockefeller was one of the first institutions to step in and say, when we see a promising therapeutic target, we’ll do this kind of extra R&D to expedite it.

Entrepreneurship is often seen as a numbers game—we own this many patents, our labs have spun out this many companies, and so on. But focusing on those stats can obscure the actual level of impact. How many of those companies are viable? How many of those patents led to viable products? Knowing that, how do you focus on creating a translational culture that generates real, lasting benefits?

BC: Our university’s global ranking in high-impact citations regularly outranks larger scientific institutions such as Harvard, Stanford, and MIT. Across the board, the emphasis at Rockefeller is quality, not quantity. We think about patents in the same way; we’re not interested in just filing as many as we can. We want to maintain that quality in the translational work we do in-house, which means being selective about the projects we work on.

CY: Likewise, we aren’t afraid to challenge incubator applicants and ask whether their business proposal is really the best shot at solving an unmet need. One of the things that attracted me to Rockefeller is the focus on creating stronger, better companies, not just a high volume of patents. In turn, investors will know that companies coming out of here are better positioned to succeed in the market.

“Every project is different and has to be thought through carefully. We have to be bold and willing to take a smart risk on a new idea.”

JF: Just starting more companies than the year before or having more patents granted than the year before doesn’t say a lot about progress or quality, so it’s important to understand what you’re measuring when you’re looking at metrics for success. We think of success in highly individualized terms. Sometimes that means filing a patent alongside publication, which helps create an incentive structure for companies to then invest time and money in developing the potential product. Sometimes there isn’t a role for what our office does, and the best way to get the discovery implemented is through a great publication. Every instance is different and has to be thought through carefully. We operate under the philosophy that, since we’re often at the cutting edge of new fields that don’t yet have any reference point or clear path for commercialization, we have to be bold and willing to take a smart risk on a new idea.

Can you talk about some of your favorite recent success stories?

JF: In 2023, my team hosted an invitation-only Startup Summit specifically for Rockefeller startup companies that were still in the conceptual stage, but far enough along to be ready to seek management and funding. We wanted to help them keep up their momentum by connecting them with investors at that crucial juncture. One of the eight companies pitching that day received backing less than three months later from an investor we’d brought to the summit. Similarly, we were also proud to nominate another startup company for a pitch day at Alexandria Real Estate Investments, a major venture capital firm, the same year. Our company won, and they got a rent-free year in their laboratory space as just one of their prizes. It’s notable that this company’s technology was initially funded with several awards from the therapeutic development fund—showing how all of these pieces work hand in hand.

CY: We’ve got a lot of exciting things happening at the incubator right now—I’m just not allowed to talk about them publicly yet, due to confidentiality agreements. Broadly speaking, I will say something interesting I’ve seen is how much more active investors are today than they were 10 to 20 years ago, in terms of funding and establishing companies in NYC. That’s been exciting to watch, and it’s interesting to think about how we can contribute to that momentum.

There are lots of moving parts here, some more esoteric, some very practical, from seeing promising ideas to imagining the applications and connecting with investors and licensing opportunities. How do you juggle that?

BC: We work together closely. The Office of Technology Transfer is the eyes and ears for the rest of us. I’ll attend Jeanne’s staff meetings to keep abreast of new developments, and we bring her team in when we’re reviewing a proposal, to help them understand what investors might have to say about a project in progress. I also lean on Carlo’s expertise for several projects, and Carlo will often invite me over to meet with investors who are involved in the incubator.

CY: It’s no wonder that most biotech startups—like most startups in general—fail. How does one increase the odds of success? Jeanne, Bruce, and I all contribute our expertise in different ways. This is why it’s been essential to have them participate in the incubator’s selection process, providing complementary insights from the numerous angles from which startup opportunities must be assessed.

JF: As you can see, there’s a lot of crosstalk here. My team in the tech transfer office tries to engage before there’s an invention to speak of, by learning about the research in a lab and getting connected to the researchers.

A big part of our job is establishing credibility with the investigators. Sometimes we’re the first people outside of the lab to see new data. That can be a very special moment, but nobody is going to share that moment with us unless they first trust us and understand how my team plays a role in creating an early and implementable strategy around potential commercialization.

When there is something that can benefit the public good coming out of this research, we all have an interest in doing our best to make that happen. In serving as a liaison between academic science and industry, we’re most effective when we work in collaboration with our researchers; after all, they know their research best. I always say to them, just come talk to us—early and often.