Innovations in Life Sciences: From Lab to Market
- Stephanie Roulic
- 7 hours ago
- 5 min read
At Startup Boston Week, the session “Innovations in Life Sciences: From Lab to Market” explored one of the hardest challenges in biotech and health tech: how do you actually turn great science into something that reaches patients?
The panel brought together leaders across biotech, healthcare systems, AI drug discovery, and startup operations, including Sheila Phicil, Rachel Salazar, David Cardoso, and Vanita Sood.
And while the conversation covered everything from AI platforms to IPOs to investor dynamics, one theme kept surfacing over and over again: great science alone is not enough.
“Start With the Patient First”
One of the strongest moments from the panel came early in the discussion when Sheila Phicil challenged founders to stop thinking only about the science and start thinking about the humans behind it.
“What that end looks like is a patient is going to be ingesting or being injected with or being cut open and implanted with something you are building,” she explained.
She argued that biotech founders often focus heavily on:
regulatory hurdles
clinical trials
funding challenges
technical validation
while forgetting the broader healthcare system surrounding the product. Instead of focusing solely on “product-market fit,” she encouraged founders to think about “product-system fit.”
That means considering:
patients
caregivers
physicians
hospital systems
insurers
administrators
regulatory bodies
all at the same time.
“If you never lose sight of the patient,” she said, “you have a much higher likelihood of succeeding and getting your product to market.”
The Biotech Market Has Changed Dramatically
Several speakers acknowledged that the biotech funding environment today looks very different than it did even a few years ago.
Rachel Salazar described how investors previously rushed toward platform companies and emerging technologies, often before meaningful validation existed. Now, the expectations are much higher.
Investors want:
clinical data
validated outcomes
clear commercialization plans
differentiated positioning
proof that the science solves a real problem
And for founders, that creates a difficult tension: You need funding to generate the data, but investors increasingly want data before providing funding.
Salazar emphasized that storytelling becomes critical in this environment. “You have to be able to communicate, here’s what I can offer you and here’s what is going to happen,” she explained.
She also reminded founders that resilience matters just as much as the science itself. “You will get a thousand no’s before you get that first yes.”
Platform Companies Have a Focus Problem
One of the more tactical sections of the session focused on AI and platform biotech companies.
David Cardoso explained that platform companies often struggle because they try to do too much at once. “The opportunities are endless,” he said. “But platform companies invariably suffer from a lack of focus.”
Instead of selling the idea of the platform itself, he encouraged founders to:
identify a clear point of differentiation
focus on a narrow set of problems
develop real assets quickly
and prove the platform through outcomes
He noted that many AI companies raised massive amounts of capital during the biotech boom without generating meaningful clinical assets.
And in today’s environment, that approach no longer works. “The science is what gets you to the asset,” he explained, “but at the end of the day pharma cares about your asset.”
Cool Science Doesn’t Automatically Become a Business
Vanita Sood admitted that early in her own career, she often prioritized exciting science over commercial realities. “My science is so cool,” she joked. “Who wouldn’t want it?”
But the panel repeatedly emphasized that innovation only matters if it can function in the real world.
That means founders need to think beyond the lab:
reimbursement
workflows
physician adoption
manufacturing
operational realities
scalability
regulatory pathways
Sheila Phicil gave a COVID-era example where certain vaccines required extremely cold storage temperatures, creating huge operational problems for hospitals trying to distribute them. “The science needs to work in real life,” she said.
Team Quality Can Make or Break a Startup
Another major theme throughout the session was team building. Rachel Salazar explained that in early-stage biotech companies, alignment matters enormously because there are so few people involved initially. “There’s no hiding,” she said. “You are with these people for long hours constantly.”
The panel stressed the importance of:
shared vision
healthy debate
complementary skill sets
humility
operational discipline
and diversity of perspectives
Phicil pushed this even further, arguing that diverse teams are not simply a cultural preference but a scientific advantage. “Science is advanced when we ask better questions and different questions,” she explained.
She also delivered one of the sharpest moments of the session when discussing toxic behavior in technical organizations. “We tolerate competent jerks way too much,” she said.
Her point was clear: brilliance does not excuse poor collaboration.
Scientists Often Underestimate Commercialization Complexity
The panel also spent time discussing one of the biggest transitions researchers face when spinning out companies from academia.
David Cardoso encouraged researchers to recognize that even if they’ve spent a decade developing the science, their commercialization journey is still “day one.”
He advised founders to map every stakeholder involved in the commercialization process early, including:
regulators
clinicians
payers
operators
investors
healthcare systems
and end users
And then actively talk to them. “Go and speak to at least five to ten of each stakeholder type,” he recommended.
He shared an example of a medical imaging company that successfully reached IPO but later struggled because they had failed to consider radiologists’ workflow burdens early enough. One missed stakeholder perspective created major implementation problems later.
Investors Are Part of the Team Too
The panel also got candid about venture capital relationships.Founders in the audience asked how to identify investors who genuinely support the company’s long-term vision instead of simply chasing quick exits.
Salazar emphasized the importance of:
finding aligned investors
building the right syndicate
understanding investor motivations
and recognizing that investors often bring entire networks with them
She also noted that biotech fundraising is deeply relationship-driven. “If they didn’t have the connection, they were going to find someone to make the connection,” she explained about her leadership team’s fundraising approach.
Cardoso added that founders should perform due diligence on investors just as aggressively as investors evaluate startups. “Go and speak to the founders of companies they’ve invested in,” he advised, because once investors join the board, alignment issues become much harder to fix.
Boston’s Biotech Ecosystem Still Matters
Toward the end of the session, the panel reflected on the unique strengths of the Boston biotech ecosystem. Phicil pointed to organizations like:
MassBio
LabCentral
innovation hubs backed by companies like Johnson & Johnson
as critical infrastructure supporting early-stage founders.
Cardoso, who relocated from Australia, described Boston as a “model ecosystem that everyone around the world is trying to replicate.”
He contrasted Boston’s deep capital network with smaller biotech ecosystems that may have world-class science but far fewer commercialization resources, “Boston has done this very, very well,” he said.
The Biggest Lesson: Innovation Has to Leave the Lab
By the end of the session, one idea became incredibly clear: the hardest part of biotech innovation is not always the science itself. It is:
building the right team
understanding the system
navigating stakeholders
aligning incentives
raising capital
operationalizing the product
and staying focused long enough to bring something real to patients
As Vanita Sood summarized at the close of the panel, “You’re not writing a publication. You’re trying to make a drug.”
