The Life Science Executive’s FUNDRAISING MANIFESTO · to invest in a particular sectorʼs...

The Life Science Executive’s

FUNDRAISING MANIFESTO

BEST PRACTICES FOR IDENTIFYING CAPITAL IN THE BIOTECH AND MEDTECH ARENAS

Dennis Ford

PUBLISHED BYLife Science Nation

9-B Hamilton Place, Boston, MA 02108www.lifesciencenation.com

Copyright © 2014 Dennis Ford. All Rights Reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, orotherwise without prior written permission of the publisher.

All brand names, product names, and services identified in this book aretrademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners and remain theexclusive property of their respective owners. The publisher’s use of suchtrademarks or registered trademarks in this book is solely for editorial purposes and is not intended to convey endorsement or other affiliations therewith.

This publication is designed to provide information about the author’s philosophyof marketing. It is sold with the understanding that the application of thisinformation can vary widely from case to case based upon the specific or uniquefacts involved and does not constitute recommendations for specific situations.Readers should consult with a professional for specific advice. The author andpublisher provide this information without warranty of any kind (express orimplied), including without limitation any warranty concerning the results to beobtained from using such information. Neither the author nor the publisher shall beheld liable for any loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by the informationcontained in this book. The author and publisher have taken care in the preparationof this book and assume no responsibility for errors or omissions.

Printed in the United States of America.ISBN: 978-0-9903251-0-9First Edition: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

For information about special discounts or bulk purchases, please contact LifeScience Nation: 617-600-0668 or [email protected].

Cover Design: Red Door Media (www.reddoormedia.com) and Nono Hu,Marketing Manager, Life Science Nation

Interior Design and Composition: Marian Hartsough ([email protected])Editor: Wendy Herlich ([email protected])Cartoonist: Ryan Hannus ([email protected])Project Management: Neuhaus Publishing (www.neuhauspublishing.com)

SECTION FIVE

Addendum

A D D E N D U M A

Are you a researcher looking to starta new venture around a discoverymade in your laboratory? Perhaps youhave already raised some seed moneyfrom your friends and family and arenow seeking funds to sustain andexpand your startup. In the past, thenext step on your road to commercial-ization would doubtless have been toseek funding from angels and venturecapital funds; today, however, the envi-ronment for financing an early-stage lifescience venture looks strikingly differ-ent from that familiar landscape of pastdecades.

Following the economic downturnsof 2008 and 2011, the profiles of thoseinvesting directly in biotech startupshave changed; many traditional in-vestors have curtailed their mandates

and reduced their allocations to early-stage life science companies, and newtypes of investment entities haveemerged in their stead. Entrepreneursalso have to come to grips with the shift-ing regulatory environment that defineshow private capital is raised, who canserve as liaisons between entrepre-neurs and investors and the type of in-dividuals who can participate in financ-ing a startup (Box 1).

If you are seeking funds for astartup, you need to be aware of therange of investors and investment vehi-cles available, as well as the pros andcons of each route. In this article, weprovide a brief primer to help you navi-gate your path through the new investorlandscape and find the right investmentpartners for your company.

The View Beyond Venture CapitalDennis Ford & Barbara Nelsen

This article first appeared in Nature Biotechnology, Volume 32, 2014.

Fundraising is an integral part of almost every ayoung biotechʼs businessstrategy, yet many entrepreneurs do not have a systematic approach for iden-tifying and prioritizing potential investors—many of whom work outside of tra-ditional venture capital.

Why and how did the funding land-scape change?

The big changes in the life scienceinvestor landscape start with the ven-ture capitalist (VC). In the past, venturecapital funds were typically capitalizedby large institutional investors that con-sisted of pensions, endowments, foun-dations and large family offices with$100 million to $1 billion in capitalunder management. Traditionally, themajority of these institutions maintaineda low-risk, low-return portfolio of stocks

and bonds that offered predictable andstable returns. A few decades ago, fundmanagers adopted a strategy of puttinga small portion of the assets undermanagement into higher-risk, higher-return vehicles, such as hedge funds,private equity funds and venture capitalfunds. This generally worked well untilthe 2008 and 2011 economic down-turns.

During the downturns, it quicklybecame apparent that entrusting capi-tal to third-party alternative fund man-

T H E L I F E S C I E N C E E X E C U T I V E ’ S F U N D R A I S I N G M A N I F E S T O218

© Copyright 2013 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved.

The US National Institutes ofHealth has redefined who can qual-ify for Small Business InnovationResearch (SBIR) loans, opening theprogram up to companies who haveventure capital investors, which wasformerly a barrier to qualification. Inaddition, the passing of the Jump-start Our Business Startups (JOBS)Act has added complexity to the reg-ulatory environment surrounding fi-nancings, with Title II of the Act al-lowing companies to raise capitalthrough general solicitation of ac-credited investors and Title III allow-ing companies to crowdfund equityinvestments from unaccredited in-vestors. Federal and state lawshave heavily enforced regulation onexactly who can invest—only thoseabove a certain income and networth can be deemed an accreditedinvestor. Currently, these two newexceptions created by the JOBS Act

cannot be used together as part ofthe same fund-raising round, whichleaves startup companies in a con-tradictory legal landscape.

In addition, the Financial Regula-tory Authority and the Securities andExchange Commission have clearlystipulated that any person or entityrepresenting buyers and sellers ofsecurities must be licensed to do so.As an aspiring entrepreneur in the lifescience arena, you will encounter amyriad of finders of capital, profes-sional deal sourcers, third-party mar-keters, broker dealers and investmentbanks all aiming to connect you withcapital. The important take-homemessage is caveat emptor, or buyerbeware. The gray space surroundingthe legal environment is in flux, andthus the viability of the entitiesinvolved in the raising of capital mustbe vetted and understood

BOX 1 State and federal fundraising regulations in flux

agers was no longer an effective strat-egy, and investors began to withdrawcapital. The main reason for the with-drawal (especially from VCs in theearly-stage life science space) wasgenerally meager returns across theasset class; despite the high risk andlong lockup periods that investorsaccepted in return for a promise of pre-mium performance, VCs were often notreturning any more capital thaninvestors would have earned by makingmore liquid investments in the publicsmall caps market. Returns from ven-ture capital funds have not outper-formed the public markets since thelate 1990s (ref. 1). A second reasonwas that returns earned by investing inVCs were offset by substantial costs;fund managers typically charged a 2%management fee on the money theyreceived. This of course is palatablewhen a manager is returning great prof-its but is not such a strong propositionduring a period of consistent losses. Yetanother reason for the withdrawal, andthe most troubling, was that a generallack of transparency and long lockupperiods turned many funds into ʻcapitaltrapsʼ from which investors could notwithdraw and were unable to influencethe decisions of the managers.

Many VCs failed to prove to institu-tional capital managers that they werecapable of identifying and vetting win-ners in the life science sector despitebeing paid handsomely to do just that.That said, of course there remains asubset of early-stage VCs who consis-tently pick winners and have outper-formed through these tough times, butthese well-known firms are in a distinctminority. Lack of returns and steep

management fees became a bone ofcontention that prompted a lot of insti-tutional investors to withdraw their cap-ital from the fund managers and in-stead do their own alternative investing.Thus, VCs lost a valuable fundingsource (a Kaufmann Foundation reportdetails one institutionʼs reflections onbacking away from VC investments)2

and, as a result, institutional investorsand large single- and multi-family of-fices often do direct alternative invest-ment—essentially, taking a similar per-centage of their funds and investing inearly-stage opportunities with the samepotential for high returns but in whichthe institution maintains control ratherthan ceding oversight to a VC. Theseinvestments can occupy anywherefrom 2–10% of their assets under man-agement.

This change in tactical investmenttechnique coincides with a growingtrend for passion, philanthropic andsocial investment as part of aninvestorʼs criteria. This is especially soin the life science sector, in which thesocial impact of investment dollarscan be huge. New, more engaged andinformed investment vehicles such aspatient groups and philanthropic ven-ture funds have entered the space for-merly occupied by underperformingVCs.

Corporate pharmaceutical compa-nies are also undergoing drastic strate-gic changes. Facing aging portfolios ofon-the-market drugs and an impendingpatent cliff, big pharma must restockthe pipeline with innovative assets, andmany companies are turning to aca-demic research collaborations, licens-ing, investment—through corporate

A d d e n d u m A : T h e Vi e w B e y o n d Ve n t u r e C a p i t a l 219


venture capital—and mergers and ac-quisitions as an alternative to in-houseR&D at the early stage. This cherry-picking strategy of plucking innovationemerging from academia has becomea ubiquitous strategy among the toppharmaceutical firms globally. Big phar-ma not only offers a huge source ofcapital for early-stage companies butalso provides access to distributionchannels for the market, discovery anddevelopment expertise and many otherresources.

In addition, across the space, manyof the remaining active VCs, new virtualpharmaceutical firms (for example, EliLillyʼs Chorus Group, based in Indi-anapolis; Karolinska Development,based in Stockholm; Accelerator Corp.,based in Seattle; Apple Tree Partners,based in Princeton, New Jersey; andVelocity Pharmaceutical Development,based in San Francisco) and mid-levelprivate equity entities (for example, Her-cules Technology Growth Capital,based in Palo Alto, California; Burrill &Co., based in San Francisco; OmnesCapital, based in Paris; and Auxo Man-agement, based in Mississauga, On-tario, Canada) are executing a businessmodel of buying assets low, developingthem through early-stage clinical trialsand then selling them high. These enti-ties essentially institute a strategy ofaggregating low-cost, early-stage as-sets around particular indications, out-sourcing the clinical process and thendeveloping or redefining channel rela-tionships that can create outsized re-turns. They aim to maximize capital ef-ficiency and create a lean portfolio ofhigh-quality assets primed for marketentry.

Focused investor mandates versus opportunistic investors

Two investment strategies dominatein todayʼs investor environment. One isbased on using traditional market analy-sis and creating a structured mandateto invest in a particular sectorʼs productsand/or services. Typical considerationsinclude determining which key indica-tion areas or phases of developmentwill bring the greatest return on invest-ment. This type of ʻdeep diveʼ marketanalysis will consider major epidemio-logical, macroeconomic, demographic,regulatory and reimbursement shifts.The result is a so-called investmentmandate. The investor has predeter-mined what sector, indication and stageof development they wish to pursue andformalized the resulting research datainto a specific set of criteria for invest-ment. Remember, investing in an early-stage venture means getting in for lesscapital and more risk, and these twofactors are all part of the bet. The goalof any life science entrepreneur is tofind an investor that is a fit. Matching aninvestment mandate with your com-panyʼs offering is one tried-and-true wayto be considered for funding.

On the other end of the spectrum areopportunistic investors—ones that donot limit their investment mandates to aparticular sector or indication (for exam-ple, small molecule or gene therapy, ordiabetes or oncology). Rather than bet-ting on a specific technology, disease,development phase or service, anopportunistic investor wants to play inthe entire life science arena, and theybelieve that creating a specific mandatewould limit the rest of the market outsidethat mandate; they prefer to pick and



choose anything interesting and excitingthat surfaces. This could be the latestgroundbreaking medical device, a newdynamic therapeutic or a next genera-tion diagnostic capability; all are fairgame to an opportunistic investor.Oftentimes, these are ʻgutʼ investorswho are driven by a belief in the technol-ogy and/or management team, and theymake judgments on a one-off basisregarding whether or not to allocate.

This dual dynamic of specific man-date versus opportunistic investmentstrategy permeates all the categoriesof life science investors, and indeedeach has its upsides and downsides.Because there are experts in bothstrategies with capital to invest, afundraising entrepreneur must beaware of this dynamic.

You will hear opinions from all overthe life science universe about how tofind investors and create a dialog withthem. Life Science Nation (LSN), basedin Boston and for which Dennis Ford isCEO, distributes a weekly newsletterthat covers and frames current per-spectives on life science investment(http:// blog.lifesciencenation.com/).

The investor landscape has changed,and the old and new categories ofinvestors are morphing as the lifescience market changes and movesforward (Fig. 1). Let us take a freshlook at the current lineup of life scienceinvestors.

Getting startedRaising funds for a venture is a

process not wholly unlike that of ob-taining grants for research. Not only doyou need to identify and approach theright funding bodies (and ascertain thatyou are eligible and understand howmuch money is available) but also youneed to appreciate what specific areasof research are ʻhotʼ, what the applica-tion guidelines are and how to tailoryour application to best appeal to eval-uators and showcase your research soyou have the best chance of getting anaward.

Beyond turning to the people whoknow you best and already have causeto believe in you (friends and family), thekey to fundraising success is identifyingthe right pool of potential investors foryou (Box 2). Some of these are tradi-



Figure 1 The life science investor landscape. (a) The traditional landscape. (b) Whatthe new landscape looks like.



Angels. High–net-worth individualsusually with an interest in a particulartype of product, service or industry.Many are successful entrepreneursthemselves.

Corporate venture capital. Largepharmaceutical and biotech companiesʼinvestment arms. For these strategicfunds, investments are driven not onlyby financial returns but also by thedevelopment of relationships that couldlead to future strategic collaborationsand product opportunities.

Family and friends. These personalcontacts typically provide capital forproducts that are in the earliest phaseand are drawn to invest on account ofa close connection to the founders ofthe company. As they are not profes-sional investors and may lack familiaritywith the life science industry, they maynot have realistic expectations for thedevelopment of the venture. Usingthese personal bonds as a source ofcapital runs the risk of straining them.

Family offices and/or privatewealth. Family offices and/or privatewealth firms represent the collective es-tate and assets of ultra-high- net worthindividuals. They have large amountsof capital, a sophisticated institutionalapproach toward investments and along-term outlook, and many also havean interest in philanthropy.

Foundations, nonprofits and pa-tient advocacy groups. Often groupedunder the heading of venture philanthro-py, these groups not only provide grants

for basic academic research but also useventure investing principles to speed thedevelopment of drugs in their areas ofinterest and return capital for the fundʼsfuture work. (For an inventory of thesegroups, see http://train.fastercures.org/TRAINInventory/).

Federal government. In the UnitedStates, federal funds are available fromthe Small Business Innovation ResearchProgram (SBIR), the Small BusinessTechnology Transfer Program (STTR)and the US National Institutes of Health,in addition to other government depart-ments that have an interest in some spe-cific life science projects, such as theDepartment of Defense or Departmentof Agriculture.

Regional economic developmentagencies. Economic developmentgroups provide resources to start com-panies locally. These can take manyforms such as job growth incentive taxcredits, the Strategic Cash Fund Incen-tive, enterprise zone tax credits, localgovernment initiatives, state collegespin-out funds and venture capitalfunds seeded by regional governments.Visit your local and state economicdevelopment agencies to learn the vari-ety of resources available to you.

Super angels. Large groups ofangels that increase the effectivenessof angel dollars. These investors haveorganized themselves into regional ornational networks to increase the sizeof their investment pool and developnew strategies.

BOX 2 A glossary of investors


tional funders of early-stage ventureswho will doubtless be familiar to you butwhose attitudes toward investing arechanging; others are new players in thespace or new entities entirely.

Venture capital. Historically, venturecapital has been a primary source offunding for startup and growth compa-nies, but in recent years the life sciencespace has witnessed a contraction ofventure capital funds, with many activefunds moving investments to later-stagecompanies. First-round funding has es-pecially fallen off.

Data from the National Venture Cap-ital Association in Arlington, Virginia,and media and information firm Thom-son Reuters in New York show that in2006, 294 first-round allocations wereplaced into life science companies, rep-resenting 23% of the total; by 2012, thecorresponding figures had decreasedto 149 rounds and 12.8%. In fact, 2012saw the lowest level of first-round ven-ture capital financings of life sciencecompanies since 1995 (ref. 3). A recentevaluation of deals by the onlinenewsletter Xconomy cites only 32 ven-ture capital firms investing in early-stage life science companies in thepast few years4. Financial databaseprovider PitchBook, based in Seattle,recently published a report that docu-ments the decline in volume of VCdeals while showing that the medianvaluation of companies receiving ven-ture capital funding has been rising5—a sure indication that VCs are backingaway from risky early-stage projectsand are instead putting their shrunkensupply of dry powder into less risky,more developed companies.

One additional wrinkle on the earlystage investment landscape is thatmany venture capital firms, such asAtlas, Third Rock and Flagship, allbased in Cambridge, Massachusetts,now create companies in house andare not typically conduits for fundingexternal startups. They rely heavily ontheir own internal networks of key opin-ion leaders and entrepreneur insidersfor these ventures. Kevin Starr, a part-ner at Third Rock, said recently, “Lastyear, we saw 982 outside plans. Weinvested in zero”6.

The good news is that Third Rockand others are looking for transforma-tive platforms and technologies to buildnew companies. If you are thinking ofstarting a company, you should con-sider developing relationships withthese funds and their partners now. Allhave scientific advisory boards, and alluse scientific domain experts to evalu-ate opportunities. Let them know whoyou are, your area of expertise and whyyou are interested in working with them.

Corporate venture capital. Thecorporate VC is distinct from a tradi-tional VC on many levels. CorporateVCs are largely the product of profoundshifts among large pharmaceutical andbiotech companies. As mentioned pre-viously, an aging marketable drug port-folio among the top pharmaceuticalcompanies has led to a scramble forassets to feed dry pipelines. In the past,such pipeline gaps would be filled bythe work of in-house pharmaceuticalR&D, but in recent years this internalresearch has been cut from bigpharmaʼs budgets. Instead, companieshave been finding it more cost effective


to outsource the risks of early-stageresearch by acquiring emerging assetsfrom third parties and by making use ofvirtual development services.

Entrepreneurs and scientific foundersneed to appreciate the distinction be-tween corporate development and cor-porate venture. Corporate venture capi-tal invests in companies developingbreakthrough technologies that the firmbelieves have long-term disruptive po-tential; corporate development seeks tomake tactical partnerships to fill near-term pipeline requirements by purchas-ing or licensing an asset. Because ofthis distinction, pharmaceutical compa-nies often provide several different fund-ing sources for emerging companies.This fundamental business change is

creating more opportunities for startupsto engage with the pharmaceutical gi-ants, which offers great possibilities fora new entrepreneur.

Recently, several pharmaceuticalfirms have launched innovative fundconcepts targeting life science entrepre-neurs. For example, both the NovartisOption Fund and the Boehringer Ingel-heim Venture Fund, which recentlyopened in Cambridge, Massachusetts,provide seed capital to highly innovativeventures, and Lilly Ventures funds exter-nal molecule development7. More infor-mation about pharmaceutical venturefunds specifically focused on universityinventions and spin-outs is provided inTable 1, and information on databasescan be found in Box 3.



Angels. In addition to family andfriends, angels and ʻsuper angelsʼ typ-ically provide capital for companiesthat are in the earliest phase. In 2012,angels invested a total of $1.1 billionin 783 deals (primarily in first funding),with 27% of that invested in thehealthcare and life science sector8.National chapters, syndications withother angel funds and single-sourceonline application platforms (for ex-ample, http://gust.com/) have made it

easier for a bioentrepreneur to gainaccess and visibility with angel in-vestors. Angels are now part of largerinvestment pools and have the abilityto execute sophisticated investmentstrategies and provide funding at high-er levels than in the past, perhaps par-ticipating in multiple rounds of financ-ing. This makes these groups a viableform of financing your startup throughan exit, depending on the capital needsand time horizon of your venture. The



You will need to find the databaseproviders producing the most relevantand up-to-date information to help youin your search for investors. In choos-ing a source, you will want to under-stand how the database aggregatesinformation. Some of these vendorscollect data by amassing publiclyavailable content such as pressreleases. Others follow websites thatcover licensing deals or financings

that have been made public, or theyconsolidate articles from certain pub-lications. The databases with the mostup-to-date information leverage ateam of researchers to collect datathrough one-on-one interviews withinvestors. The fresher the data, themore effective and efficient you canbe in fundraising. To help start yoursearch, we provide a list of startingpoints for a search in Table 5 below.

BOX 3 Databases and other resources to start your search for investors

top ten groups in terms of activity areshown in Table 2. To find comprehen-sive information about angel investmentfunds, who and where they are, whatthey invest in and the best way to setup a meeting with them, visit the AngelResource Institute website and the An-gel Capital Association website.

Remember that you may be gettingmore than money when an angel fundinvests in your company. An angelgroup can be a source of deep expert-ise and connections that provides morevalue in growing the company than thecapital itself. Many life science angelsare themselves successful entrepre-neurs in the field and may offer youaccess to the resources and partner-ships that supported their own success.You should put just as much effort intoyour business plan and investor pitchas you would when approaching a typ-ical venture capital firm.

Government agencies. This is avery broad category ranging from fundswithin research institutions to local eco-

nomic development initiatives tonational and international entities. Thelevel of Small Business InnovationResearch (SBIR) funding is set to growin the next year. If you have not alreadyconsidered applying for SBIR or SmallBusiness Technology Transfer (STTR)grants, you should do so immediately.A concise overview on how to apply forthese funds was published in NatureBiotechnology9.

The US National Institutes of Healthhas many funding options available forentrepreneurs and young companies,particularly for those conducting clinicalor translational research. The total dol-lar value awarded for clinical researchat the NIH reached more than $10 bil-lion in 2012, and in 2013 it was largerthan the total awarded to any other spe-cific field or stage of research10. Eightypercent of National Institutes of Healthfunding opportunities are not part of therequest-for-proposal process, so youwill need to work directly with programdirectors to apply. This may seemdaunting, but direct outreach to the



agencies or to those who assist indeveloping nondilutive funding (forexample, the FreeMind Group) is thebest route11.

Many local and regional governmentagency funds also exist for innovationand startups in the life science area.The most visible of these are in states,such as Massachusetts and California,that have mounted large initiatives togrow sectors of the life science indus-try. In Massachusetts, the $1 billion LifeSciences Initiative provides funding inmultiple ways, including up to $750,000for new life science companies to helpleverage additional sources of capital.The California Institute for Regenera-tive Medicine (CIRM), based in SanFrancisco, still has $1.8 billion in un-earmarked funds to invest in stem celland regenerative medicine, and it fundscompanies at every stage providedthey have a substantial presence inCalifornia. As with all funding sourcesdiscussed in this article, substantial re-search may be required to find thesefunds, identify their criteria for invest-ment and determine how to apply forthem. But it is well worth the time andenergy; these groups are committed tothe success of life science startups intheir region and, in addition to funding,will offer you access to a wealth of localresources and industry expertise.

Do not be discouraged if you arenot in a funding hub such as Massa-chusetts or California. The large num-ber of angel funds, innovation centersand venture capital firms in these lo-cations come with an equally high levelof competition for these resources. For

entrepreneurs outside of these clus-ters, there are many other governmentand economic development initiativesthat can be tapped. These most oftentake the form of seed stage investmentfunds whose mandate is to facilitatestartup activity from local institutions(particularly state universities) and torecruit companies to the region by of-fering relocation grants and access tobiocluster facilities. Representative ex-amples include Connecticut Innova-tions in Rocky Hill, Connecticut; theKentucky Seed Fund in Louisville, Ken-tucky; the Maine Technology Institutein Brunswick, Maine; and Illinois Ven-tures in Chicago. Many such funds ex-ist; in the United States, there are cur-rently 36 state-run venture funds in 30states12. Economic development groupsalso provide resources to start compa-nies locally. These can many forms, in-cluding convertible debt, equity invest-ment, infrastructure support, sharedresources and tax credits, refunds andincentives. Many states also encourageinnovation by providing tax credits forangel investors. To date, 27 states pro-vide such credits (see http://www.an-gelcapitalassociation.org/ public-poli-cy/existing-state-policy/). Get moreinformation from your local or stateeconomic development agency aboutoptions available in your area. Do notunderestimate their desire to keep youlocal and grow the local economy. Wehave seen cases in which economicdevelopment groups put together newfunding mechanisms to keep break-through technology in-state for compa-ny formation.



New sources of funding for startups

With reduced resources and lessappetite for risk, VCs are moving awayfrom high-risk, early-stage companies.Fortunately for entrepreneurs, otherclasses of investors are coming to thefore to take advantage of the VCretreat. These include patient advocacygroups and foundations, big biotechand pharmaceutical companies, andventure philanthropists.

Table 3 represents the results of asearch we did in the Life ScienceNation investor database. The goal wasto ask a simple yet compelling ques-tion: How many investors and whatinvestor category are presently inter-ested in investing in early-stage thera-peutics from preclinical discovery all theway to phase 1 trials?

There are thousands of VCs glob-ally. Of those that Life Science Networkhas researched or interviewed, 572claim that they are investing in earlystage life sciences. However, statedactivity does not necessarily reflectactual activity, as published deal flowmetrics do not support these claims ona total basis. It is common for investorsto claim that they are active to ʻstay inthe gameʼ, even when they are notinvesting.

Patient advocacy groups andfoundations. Foundations, nonprof-its and venture philanthropists havetraditionally been more focused onfunding academic research. Indeed,collectively these entities providemore than half a billion dollars in bio-medical research grants annually.



Most such groups are focused on cur-ing one specific disease, so qualifyingfor funding from them requires a clearconnection between your innovationand their mission. Beyond the well-known groups, such as the Michael J.Fox Foundation in New York, theJuvenile Diabetes Research Founda-tion in New York, Susan G. Komen forthe Cure in Dallas and the Leukemiaand Lymphoma Society (LLS) in WhitePlains, New York, there are many lessprominent nonprofits that also fundresearch, such as the Bluefield Proj-ect in San Francisco, which fundsresearch on treatments and cures forfrontotemporal dementia. Althoughthese groups are historically bestknown for supporting academicresearch, the vast majority—90%—will now consider partnering with com-mercial biotech companies13.Partnerships can span all stages ofresearch and development, from dis-covery through clinical trials. Morethan one-third of these entities havesupported at least one clinical trial.Indeed, Todd Sherer, CEO of theMichael J. Fox Foundation has said,“We are definitely seeing the need forfoundations to support companieseven through a phase 2 clinical trial.”

LLS provides a clear example ofhow the work of foundations is chang-ing. This foundation has been in exis-tence for 60 years, but up until 6 yearsago, it funded only academic or institu-tional research. When funding began tomigrate away from early-stage, LLSʼsleadership decided to change direction.According to John Walter, the founda-tionʼs CEO, “We saw that venture dol-lars were drying up in the blood cancer

area, and there was insufficient fundinggoing into preclinical and clinicalresearch. So strategically, LLS made ashift to fund this gap.”

In this next fiscal year, close to 30%of LLSʼs funding allocation will beinvested in new therapies and compa-nies that are making a difference topatients. And this strategic shift alsobrings success to the companies inwhich LLS invests. Currently, LLS isactively shepherding 15 assets throughits Therapy Acceleration Pipeline pro-gram, which seeks to bring blood can-cer therapies to market. These assetsrange from preclinical to phase 3, andLLS has successfully brought severalof its Therapy Acceleration Pipelinecompanies toward the market withgreat speed. This is accomplished bycollaborative resource sharing, invest-ment and creation of the right industryconnections. One notable example waswhen LLS provided capital to AvilaTherapeutics, which was based inCambridge, Massachusetts, to initiateclinical trials of one lead candidate;Avila was subsequently acquired byCelgene, based in Summit, New Jer-sey, in 2012. Another example camewhen LLS also committed to provide upto $7.5 million in milestone-based fund-ing to Epizyme, based in Cambridge,Massachusetts, in 2011, which went tosupport a phase 1 trial for a mixed-lin-eage leukemia therapy.

These partnerships often focus onfunding a specific project, such as aclinical trial, and may include milestonepayments for development success; inthe case of Onconova Therapeutics inPennington, New Jersey, for example,LLS provided $8 million in funding to



pay for a phase 3 trial. Foundationsalso are providing money for seed fund-ing enterprises; for example, Beats ofLaughter in Westport, Connecticut, afoundation specializing in oncology,provides tranches of $200,000 for seedinvestments; the Beyond Batten Dis-ease Foundation in Austin, Texas, pro-vides funding for ventures as well asresearch in academic institutions focus-ing on the neurological disorder; andCures Within Reach in Skokie, Illinois,also offers funding (~$100,000) for ven-tures focusing on unmet needs.

Applying to a nonprofit or foundationfor a basic research grant in your areaof study can be an effective way to gainvisibility and credibility with the organi-zation; building these early connectionscan be of great use for developing andfunding a startup in the future. Muchlike the other organizations that you areaccustomed to applying to for grantfunding, these organizations will put outrequests for proposals for basicresearch and translational developmentprojects, and they have links and pro-gram coordinators listed and accessi-ble through their websites. Many ofthese groups can be accessed throughFasterCures, who has The ResearchAcceleration and Innovation Network(TRAIN), which lists profiles for 55organizations that provide $600 millionin medical research grants annually.About half of TRAIN groups have sup-ported at least one clinical trial, morethan half incorporate advocacy effortsinto their work in fighting disease andnearly 9 out of 10 partner with biotechand pharmaceutical companies. Foun-dations that are not able to provide youwith financing may still wish to partner

with you to share other resources (forexample, access to their scientificexpertise) and vital research resources(for example, tissue samples or reg-istries of patients who may be able toparticipate in human clinical trials).

Big biotech and pharma. In thepast, large pharmaceutical and biotechcompanies stayed away from invest-ments in very early-stage companiesbecause of the amount of risk involved.Any involvement in startup companieswas through their corporate venturefunds. Now, however, that is changing.Several firms are looking for opportuni-ties to fund assets in earlier stagedevelopment, and many of the largerfirms have decided that early-stagedirect investment may be a viable alter-native to spending funds on traditionalin-house R&D.

One new avenue for big biotech in-volvement is the creation of incubators,such as New Brunswick, New Jersey–based Johnson & Johnsonʼs InnovationCenters in California, Boston, Londonand Shanghai; Bostonbased BostonScientificʼs center in Shanghai; andLeverkusen, Germany–based BayerʼsCoLaborator in San Francisco. Thesecenters provide early-stage researcherswith space, equipment, operations,business support, industry networksand conduits to strategic partnering.By working at an innovation center, astartup can enjoy a ʻbig-company ad-vantageʼ that is more robust than whatis offered by traditional, stand-aloneincubators.

Family offices. These entities areentrusted with the money of wealthy



individuals and families. There are twotypes of family office: single-familyoffices (SFOs), in which a group offinancial professionals manages capitalfor one family, and multi-family offices(MFOs), which invest on behalf of anumber of client families. As maintain-ing a family office is expensive, SFOstend to be the preserve of only thewealthiest; typically, SFOs are onlyformed by families with a net worthexceeding $100 million. These familiesare therefore often well known; theyeither own companies, such as Ander-sen Windows in Bayport, Minnesota;Jennie-O Turkey in Austin, Minnesota;and Hormel in Austin, Minnesota, orfounded enterprises, such as Fidelity inBoston; Cargill in Minneapolis; andCarlson in Minnetonka, Minnesota. Inaddition to managing the vast fortunesof these families, family offices alsoperform other functions, such as gen-erational planning, legal and tax serv-ices and preserving the familyʼs legacythrough philanthropic work; it is theseadditional functions that distinguishMFOs from other multi-client financialadvisors or wealth managers.

In the past, family offices haveinvested in alternative assets, such asVCs and hedge funds as limited part-ners. But the poor returns from thesefunds have encouraged family officesto take more control of their own alter-native investments. Some SFOs haveformed family investment vehicles thatinvest as VC or private equity funds butwhich do not accept outside capital;others see direct private placements asone of a diverse range of assets inwhich to place the familyʼs wealth.

Family offices have already played arole in early-stage life science invest-ing, especially in Europe14.

Beyond the basic distinction be-tween SFOs and MFOs, family officescan be highly varied. Some family of-fices combine investment and philan-thropic goals, whereas others haveformed family not-for-profit foundationsthat are administered separately fromthe familyʼs wealth-preservation activi-ties. A family officeʼs philanthropic workwill be directed by the personal goalsof the family; within the life science sec-tor, this may mean a focus on a diseasethat has affected the family or a high-impact area in which the family feels itcan make a real difference in the world.Like other nonprofits in the life sciencespace, family philanthropic foundationsmay have historically focused on basicresearch but are now supporting com-mercial research for much the samereasons; basic research takes a longtime to deliver new treatments to pa-tients, and wealthy families want to seethe social impact of their investmentsin a shorter time frame. As with diseasefoundations, receiving an academic re-search grant from a family foundationmay serve as a gateway to future start-up funding.

Some family offices have createdinnovative business models to transi-tion scientistsʼ discoveries to commer-cial entities. One example is theHarrington Project in Cleveland, a$250 million US initiative to supportthe discovery and development oftherapeutic breakthroughs by physi-cian scientists. Created by a familyoffice, the Harrington Project starts



with a grant-funding phase open toinventors nationwide for advancingdiscoveries through an innovation cen-ter that supplies hands-on resourcesand expertise. Then inventions andplatforms are moved to an accelerator,BioMotiv, to create companies.

Family offices have a reputation forelusiveness and secrecy, but LSN hasdiscovered that this is ultimately mis-leading. As with other types of investor,LSN researchers call family offices andconduct interviews regarding theirinvestment criteria. These one-on-oneinterviews result in written mandatesapproved by the family office, and com-panies that use LSN as a fundraisingpartner can vet themselves againstthese mandates to assess whetherthey are a good fit for the family officeʼscriteria.

Like many investors, family officesoften have a ʻkeep below the radarʼmentality, as financial confidentialityand protecting proprietary strategiesare of great importance to investors(perhaps more so to SFOs than tomany firms because their investors areso easily identifiable and have a distinctneed for privacy). However, all invest-ment entities need some visibility toattain deal flow. A typical family officemight receive a hundred blind e-mailsor cold calls a week, and becausemany of these solicitations are poorlymatched to the office, they create a lotof needless noise and wasted time.One way family offices filter their dealsis to use trusted networks, such asLSN, which provide a flow of suitableopportunities that fit the firmʼs mandate.Being a perfect fit can be worth more

than getting a direct referral, as a refer-ral that is a poor fit is still a waste of afamily office investorʼs time.

More about seed fundsBioMotiv, the aforementioned institu-

tional startup seed fund, is one of themany new funds and funding modelsthat have arisen to address the fundinggap for early-stage technologies. Somefunds, such as Allied Minds in Boston,appear on the surface to be fairly tradi-tional venture capital firms. But theyhave an unusual mandate—in thisfundʼs case, commercializing early-stage, government-owned technologiesto create startup companies from inno-vations in US universities and federalresearch institutions.

Another example is T1D Innovations.Recently created through a partnershipbetween the Juvenile Diabetes Re-search Foundation and PureTech Ven-tures in Cambridge, Massachusetts,T1D is focused on finding promising,transformational ideas in the area of type1 diabetes from research institutes anddeveloping them from concept to com-pany. Beyond the specific therapeuticmission, T1Dʼs ʻsyndicate nowʼ strategyis unique; the fund has attracted $30million in funding from other nonprofitsand strategic and financial investors andwill use the cash to start eight to tenprojects. For those projects that surviveto become new spin-out companies,T1D hopes that these companies will goon to find a pharmaceutical partner tohelp further develop their programs, orland a series A round from traditionalventure investors to get themselves offthe ground.

C h a p t e r T i t l e 233


Internal or external outbound direct canvassing

There is a risk that academics andearly-stage entrepreneurs will be drawninto a Wild West of business coaches,mentors, accelerator programs andventure centers that broadcast a floodof ʻexpert fundraising adviceʼ eitherfrom advisors who have not raisedmoney themselves lately or from con-sultants and mentors who have notever actually raised capital. The realityof outbound campaigns and 9–12-month fundraising roadshows isunknown to these advisors, and theymay waste a new entrepreneurʼs timeby perpetrating myths and promotingstrategies from an outdated playbook.There are plenty of third-party fundrais-ing entities that have updated, relevantexperience and are indeed good. Thegood ones have strong connectionsand a current Rolodex, but their reachis often regional; the best have a globalinvestor network.

As an early-stage entrepreneur, youhave to make a fundamental judgmentcall as to whether you should conductbusiness development and investoroutreach activities inhouse using yourexisting management team or hire oneor more experienced fundraisers to doit for you (Box 1). If you decide it is notsomething your team can usefully puttheir time toward, the alternative is tooutsource the process to a third-partyfundraising partner. It is essentially amatter of matching commitment andability and knowing what you can andcannot do. If you cannot make out-bound calls and send engaging e-mailsto strangers, then you need to partnerwith someone who can.

It costs money to raise money. Cre-ating effective marketing materials,conducting a targeted campaign andfollowing up on funding leads demandsboth a time and financial commitment,and fundraising therefore requires thatyou have the necessary dedicationright from the start.

To raise money effectively you mustthink strategically. The place to start isto think about the major expenses in amoney-raising campaign (Table 4).

Devising a strategyGiven the challenges and opportuni-

ties that this article has outlined, howshould bioentrepreneurs prioritize theoptions potentially available for fundingtheir new enterprises? A closer look atjust a few companies who raisedmoney in the past year shows a mix oftraditional and new investors participat-ing in a single deal (Fig. 2). A review ofdeals this past year in California andMassachusetts, the two states with thegreatest amount of investment in lifescience, demonstrates the broad vari-ety of these funding alternatives inaddition to traditional venture capital.You should thus consider them all.

Initially, the stage of development ofyour enterprise is a key filter in helpingto identify the types of investors thatwould likely be a fit. Having identifiedinvestors compatible with your stage ofcompany development, you should thentarget those whose market focus andkey investment criteria fit with yourfirmʼs goals and profile. Are youaddressing an unmet need for a partic-ular patient population? Does your inno-vation solve a problem that is relevantto the military or veterans? The answers





Figure 2 Examples of investor diversity in fundraising for early-stage life sciencecompanies. Data from deals closed in the last 12 months.

to questions like these will help youidentify which of the various sources ofcapital described above—angel funds,foundations, nonprofits or corporateventure funds—are most likely to pro-vide funding to you. Almost all investorshave a particular focus, and identifyingthose that match your company willimprove your fundraising chances.

Lastly, do not forget geography. Areany investors a walk, car ride or shortplane trip away? This may seem anobvious approach from a logistics per-spective, but there are multiple reasonsto look locally. Investors need to becourted over long periods of time. Prox-imity makes this easier, particularlywhen you are engaging with smallerinvestment groups that have more lim-ited footprints; most angel networksinvest only in a particular locality.

It is worth considering not only yourpresent capital needs but also your com-panyʼs projected future needs. If you aredeveloping a drug or a medical device,your company will need as much as tensof millions of dollars of external fundingfrom several capital raises spreadacross a span of years before attaininga revenue stream. It is never too soon tothink about what your company willneed further down the line. Establishinga dialog with later-stage investors earlyand visiting often streamlines the financ-ing of the organization over time, reduc-ing the amount of effort and resourcesrequired for further rounds over theorganizational life cycle.

Attempting to identify the appropri-ate investors to contact now and in thefuture can be a challenging endeavor,but there are many database servicesthat provide information on the varietyof investors available (Box 3 and Table5). These services can aid you in devel-oping an outreach strategy tailored toyour profile, position and objectives.

ConclusionsThe fundraising landscape for early-

stage life science companies haschanged dramatically over the pastseveral years. Venture capitalists maynot always be the first, or even the mostattractive, category of investor for yourcompany. Entrepreneurs and youngcompanies need to look toward new,emerging categories of investors toprovide the funding that was historicallyprovided by venture capital. Corporateventure funds, angels and angel net-works, government agencies, founda-tions, patient advocacy nonprofits,family offices and hybrid funds are allactively investing in this sector.

This pace of change in the invest-ment landscape now requires, morethan ever, that entrepreneurs be nim-ble, informed and flexible. Creating atarget list of investors that includes thenewly emerging sources of capital, andfocusing on those with a clear fit andstrong interest in the companyʼs stageand business, will increase the proba-bility of fundraising success.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors are grateful to Maximil-

ian Klietmann, Danielle Silva and LucyParkinson of Life Science Nation forresearch on this article. The authorswould also like to thank the followingindividuals for their time and discus-sions: Vincent Miles, partner at Abing-worth Life Science; Susanna Ling,associate director at the Milken Insti-tute; John Walter, CEO at the Leukemiaand Lymphoma Society; MelindaRichter, CEO at Prescience Interna-tional and head of operations atJanssen Labs; Todd Sherer, CEO atthe Michael J. Fox Foundation; andRam May-Ron, managing partner atFreeMind Group.

COMPETING FINANCIAL INTERESTS

The authors declare no competingfinancial interests.

1. Mulcahy, D., Weeks, B. & Bradley,H.S. We have met the enemy… and heis us. Ewing Marion Kauffman Founda-tion, http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/research%20reports%20and%20 covers/2012/05/we%20have%20met%20the%20enemy%20and%20he%20is%20us(1).pdf (2012).

2. Ewing Marion Kauffman Founda-tion. Institutional limited partners mustaccept blame for poor long term returnsfrom venture capital, says new Kauff-man report. Ewing Marion KauffmanFoundation, http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/2012/07/institu-tional-limitedpartners- must-accept-

blame-for-poor-longterm-returnsfrom-venture-capital-says-new-kauffman-report (2012).

3. P ricewaterhouseCoopers. Life sci-ences venture capital funding drops14% during 2012, according to the Mon-eyTree report. PricewaterhouseCoop-ers, http://www.pwc.com/us/en/press-releases/2013/2q-life-sciencesmoneytree. jhtml (2013).

4. Timmerman, L. Whoʼs still activeamong the early-stage biotech VCs?Xconomy, http://www.xconomy.com/national/2012/07/02/whos-still-active-among-the-earlystage- biotech-vcs(2012).

5. P itchBook. 4Q 2013 Venture Capi-tal Valuations & Trends Report. Pitch-Book, http://pitchbook.com/4Q2013_VC_Valuations_and_Trends_Report.html (2013).

6. L edford, H. Biotechnology: thestart-up engine. Nature 501, 476–478(2013).

7. von Krogh, G., Battistini, B., Pachi-dou, F. & Baschera, P. The changingface of corporate venturing in biotech-nology. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 911–915(2012).

8. Angel Resource Institute & SiliconValley Bank. 2012 Halo report: angelgroup update year in review. AngelResource Institute, http://www.angelre-sourceinstitute. org/research/halo-report.aspx#2012HaloReport (2013).

9. Beylin, D., Chrisman, C.J. & Wein-garten, M. Granting you success. Nat.Biotechnol. 29, 567–570 (2011).

10. US National Institutes of Health.Estimates of funding for variousresearch, condition, and disease cate-



gories. U.S. National Institutes ofHealth, http://report.nih.gov/ categori-cal_spending.aspx (2013).

11. L aursen, L. Grant applications:find me the money. Nature 486, 559–561 (2012).

12. Cromwell Schmisseur LLC. Infor-mation and observations on state ven-ture capital programs. U.S. Departmentof the Treasury, http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/ sb-programs/

Documents/VC%20Report.pdf (2013).

13. FasterCures. Honest brokers forcures: how venture philanthropy groupsare changing biomedical research.FasterCures, http://www.fastercures.org/assets/Uploads/ PDF/HonestBrokers.pdf(2013).

14. Senior, M. Family offices bolsterearly-stage financing. Nat. Biotechnol.31, 473–475 (2013).



Adapted from Ford, D. Outsourcing your fundraising efforts: the conundrum for lifescience CEOs. Life Science Nation, http://blog.lifesciencenation.com/2013/02/20/outsourcing-your-fundraisingefforts-the-conundrum-for-life-science-ceos/ (2013).

Dennis Ford is founder and CEO of Life Science Nation, Boston, Massachusetts,USA. Barbara Nelsen is founder of Nelsen Biomedical, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected].

A D D E N D U M B

The legal landscape and require-ments for a life sciences company tofundraise in the US are a nightmare, toput it gently. Guidelines changed recentlywith the Jumpstart Our Business Start-ups (JOBS) Act, and the sheer numberof investment strategies for a life sciencestartup executive to understand and pur-sue are staggering. Add in outdated tac-tics and dried up bank accounts of tradi-tional venture capitalists (VCs), andmany in the life sciences field are leftjaded and skeptical about fundraisingcompletely. Or, as Life Science Nation(LSN) Founder Dennis Ford puts it,“When I started my company, I spent 18months traveling around the world goingto tons of investor conferences, but realinvestors were nowhere to be found. TheVCs in this space just couldnʼt get anyreturns and no longer have the moneywe need.”

Using that premise, he set out on amission to reinvent the way investorsand entrepreneurs share information,negotiate, and now, how the marketsthemselves work. The premise isbased on fit. Changing the preexistingshotgun approach for raising capital toa more efficient model. He has createda match.com like environment for lifescience investors and entrepreneursbased on targeting investors that havedeclared an interest in a particular sec-tor or subsector.

According to those in the field, thefuture of life science investment is notthe phase two and three ventures of thepast. Translational and early-stage fund-ing are the places where real value isfound, and where the US investmentworld is headed whether investors areready or not.

Reinventing Investment: The Funding Landscape of Life Science Shifts for Good

Nicole Fisher

This article first appeared on Forbes.com, March 31, 2014.

Connecting Products, Services And Capital

At LSNʼs most recent RedefiningEarly Stage Investments Conference(RESI), as many as 10 different cate-gories of life science investors wereshowcased and their respective earlystage investment strategies were pre-sented and debated. Mr. Ford asserts,“Each of the categories of early stagelife science investor has its own per-sonality. Family offices, virtual Phar-maʼs, and patient groups all have theirown reason for investing, and thefundraising scientist/CEO should un-derstand the nuances of each investortype. The RESI conference is uniquebecause the investor panels essen-tially explain to the entrepreneurs howbe efficient and effective in targetingthe right capital.

The goal of the conference settingwas not only to give life science com-panies a space to connect and createdialogue with potential investors, butalso educate everyone in the ecosys-

tem by introducing new players andstrategies. The workshops and panelsat RESI ranged from How to Value YourStartup to Commercialization of Aca-demic Technology to investor debatesfocused on rare diseases and howorphan indications can influence invest-ment decisions.

There is a real need for a RESI likeconference, that to date has gonegreatly unmet according to SusannaLing, Director of Business and ProgramDevelopment at EBD Group. “While thefinancial markets have improved in thebiopharmaceutical sector in the pastyear, there is still a strong need forfunding of early-stage companies andresearch. It is good to see qualityinvestment opportunities matched by adiversity of investors with the flexibilityto participate in new types of financialmodels” she says.

A new feature of the RESI confer-ence was the RESI Challenge where32 selected companies were givenspace on the exhibit hall floor to pitch


© Copyright 2014 Forbes.com LLC. All rights reserved.

The old investor landscape (a) has shifted to a new landscape (b)

their companies to investors who votedwith “RESI money”. Mr. Ford wasdelighted to announce that threefemale CEOʼs took first, second andthird place.

New Roles In InvestingMs. Ling further contends that, “The

growing role of venture philanthropists,family offices, and public/private part-nerships is helping to bridge the fund-ing gap of innovative research that cango onto attract more traditional capitalat a later stage of development.”

While a few investment approachespresented at RESI were traditionalstrategies wrapped in new verbiage,most were disruptive to conventionalscience investment. For example, GregSimon, CEO of Poliwogg who attendedhis second RESI Conference, saysthat, “each year a greater percentageof attendees get that this is the end ofthe old investment strategies and thebeginning of the new. There is a lotmore money available for the 97% thatVCs donʼt look at instead of the 3% thatVCs normally look at.”

The premise of their work at Poli-wogg, is to create platforms and met-rics to let people invest in emergingcompanies in several ways by makingthe cost of entry go down.

A Fresh Take On The OldPreviously pulling together financing

from the ever-expanding types of capi-tal available was making an alreadycomplex and time-consuming fundrais-ing process more so. Mr. Fordʼs com-

pany LSN also curates an early stagelife science investor database. His firmcovers these new investor categoriesthrough one-on-one interviews with hisresearch team, then publishing investorprofiles that are easily searched byfundraising clients. The investors areeager to participate because by declar-ing their interest to the LSN researcherhe can get entrepreneurs that meetinvestment criteria.

“Non-traditional and more flexibleinvesting models that support transla-tional and early-stage funding are justemerging, but the JOBS Act and thepower of the internet to create wide dis-tribution will bring new investors andmake these models thrive,” said SeanSchantzen, whose company, Health-fundr, is building an online platform toenable these models.

Like the RESI Conference itself,“Simply pulling together everyone inter-ested in early-stage life science invest-ing will create enormous value forinvestors and startups. The internet isan enormously powerful tool to amplifyrelationships and participation in early-stage life science investing,” said Mr.Schantzen.

More traditional lead investors suchas Hub Angels Investment Group usu-ally invests about $250K with veryactive involvement. However, to takefinancial risk out, they prefer, like every-one else, to finance alongside otherangel groups.

Although, as one RESI participantjoked, “When you get a conventionalangel investor, itʼs like having a plural

A d d e n d u m B : R e i n v e n t i n g I n v e s t m e n t 241


marriage,” with lots of stakeholdersmaking decisions.

Old Models Give WayThe shift toward new approaches

for investing can also be seen span-ning across new areas of the life sci-ence ecosystem, including ContractResearch Organizations (CROs) andnonprofit organizations.

It is these kinds of differences in theearly-stage landscape that the LSNteam hope to educate life science exec-utives on. With more knowledge of thechanging scene, and targeted capitalraising efforts, the entire space couldbecome more efficient.

According to Dr. Nicole Pardo, CEO

of Remind Technologies, a smart-phone medication dispenser, it isworking. She says her startup, “Cameto RESI to explore funding opportuni-ties for our company. We are raisingour seed round and we found the con-ference to be a perfect mix betweenlife science focused investors andlarger companies to potentially partnerwith.”

This new space is shifting quicklysays Mr. Ford. “The news in life scienceis that the firmament is shifting, newinvestor types are filling the voidvacated by the VCs, new compellingadvances in technology are surfacingat an unprecedented rate, and we areentering a golden age.”



Nicole Fisher is the Founder and Principal at HHR Strategies, a health careand human rights focused advising firm. Additionally, she is a Senior PolicyAdvisor and health policy expert on health economic analyses mainly focusingon Medicare, Medicaid, and health reform, specifically as they impact womenand children. Nicole runs a Health Innovation and Policy page at Forbes.com.

About the Company

Life Science Nation (LSN) is a premier provider of investor data and marketintelligence in the life science arena.

LSN operates the leading private investor database for fundraising inearly stage biotech and medtech. The database is composed of easily search-able, self-declared criteria from over 5,000 active global investors. The datais curated by a research team that maintains an active dialogue with theseinvestors on a quarterly basis to ensure current and fresh data. The platformincludes profiles from family offices, angels, big pharma, corporate venturecapital, private equity funds, hedge funds, foundations, venture capitalfunds, and other institutional-quality investors.

LSN also operates a platform of over 35,000 life science companies fromaround the world, with a particular focus on small and emerging compa-nies. This data is sourced from exclusive partnerships with more than 40of the world’s largest regional bioclusters and is predominantly self-declaredinformation. This platform provides actionable data to asset scouts, deal-sourcing professionals, and business development executives.

LSN is the producer of the Redefining Early Stage Investments Confer-ence (www.resiconference.com), a global early stage partnering conferencefocused on educating early stage entrepreneurs on recent shifts in earlystage fundraising. The event’s purpose is to connect global life scienceinvestors with emerging technology from around the world.

LSN publishes a weekly newsletter that focuses on early stage life scienceinvestment and has a readership of over 15,000. In addition, the companysponsors a series of educational boot camps aimed at helping entrepreneursdevelop branding and messaging around their technologies and learn aboutoutbound fundraising strategies and tactics.


The Life Science Executive’s FUNDRAISING MANIFESTO · to invest in a particular sectorʼs...

Documents

Transcript of The Life Science Executive’s FUNDRAISING MANIFESTO · to invest in a particular sectorʼs...