@Jason It's also worth noting that some view or viewed the tech as too researchy for a startup. That's in the eye of the beholder I guess. In some sense they are right, there is a lot of research to be done. In another sense, I don't think relatively much will be needed to make something that is ultimately commerciallly useful. There are startups that work on things requiring just as much research. Assuming you could get the funding, by the time you did the research, I imagine it would be so derisked as to make investment significantly more competitive. Long time horizon required to get to product is also probably a reason, though an acquisition is an early exit opportunity for biotech startups.

@Jason Yes, I have talked to some VCs and yes, I was largely unsuccessful (I did get 2 angels to believe in me enough to give me $20K through Z fellows) and have since won grants such as those from Emergent Ventures and New Science. You will note that all of these sources look for “people off the trodden path”.

I would wager that credibility has been the biggest concern. The research is not published and I only have an MS degree to my name (I think I’ve done the work of a PhD student, but that’s my opinion and there’s no way for you to know that, though I guess you could look through my linkedin awards and surmise I’m reasonably smart). You have to imagine, when I was initially pitching these people, the microfluidic blood vessel technology I was talking about was extremely new. Even today, many people have not heard of it, but even more so 5 years ago. At the time, there were several new bioprinting startups and I think those got quite a bit of attention (since then, none of them have even remotely delivered on their promises despite raising tens of millions of dollars). I also think that many of the people I was talking to didn’t fully understand the technology (e.g. no bio background, or no background in the specific technology I was discussing).

Lack of a cofounder was a major concern stated numerous times. Probably for several reasons: a lot of work for 1 person, I hadn’t started a company before, control, less risk (e.g. if founder dies), etc… I think these are valid reasons, but I maintain that the risk of bringing on someone for the sake of having a cofounder is a recipe for disaster, especially when I strongly believe the technology has significant potential. Despite looking, I have not found someone I consider an ideal cofounder. Part of that is probably due to having an insufficient network. If money was not a problem, I would prefer to hire someone and work with them for a bit (say a year) and then give them cofounder equity if they were good. I think this would be a much safer way to find a quality cofounder.

I had no resources when I initially approached potential investors and I did not have the plan that is currently presented here. At least now, I have the tools and funds to grow the blood vessels to show to investors (it is my hope that this will address the credibility problem). This was very difficult to overcome given that I was working outside of academia and could barely afford rent/food when I started on this.

As for possible reasons why nobody has done what I’m doing, I think there are several. First, out of the millions of ideas one can pursue, you would have had to have had the one I had. Just from the relatively small number of people working on this problem, that’s a big limiting factor (someone just has to have the idea!). Even if you had the idea though, you’d have to do the experiment. I was actually discouraged from doing it initially as it was deemed “too risky”. Even if you did the experiment (and solved the many technical problems that arose), you would have to interpret the results the way I did to realize its potential. It’s conceivable that many people just dismiss this technology as interesting, but not having therapeutic potential or needing more research (which is what I honestly believe many people do when they encounter it). Realizing its potential and thinking of how to develop it further into a therapy requires piecing together multiple insights and experimental results from 2 different fields. Honestly, that’s extremely difficult. In some sense, one could argue I was just lucky to read the right papers. Another final reason I’ll give is that people develop tunnel vision in their own research. If you made a career out of bioprinting, you will probably just stick to that, whether or not it’s the right approach. If you’re busy trying to execute on a different idea to grow blood vessels, you might not have the time to keep abreast of the latest technologies or ther ability to divert your attention/resources to a different approach. If you’re a broad biotech investor, you certainly have less time to keep up, and even more so if you are not a biotech investor.

At the end of day, to know whether or not the technology will truly work, one just has to do the experiments. That’s what I am seeking funding for. Given the potential life saving benefits, I think it is worth throwing money at. Again, perhaps due to insufficient network, I just haven’t met the right people who would throw money at this. When I first started seeking out investors, Manifund didn’t exist, Emergent Ventures didn’t exist, Z fellows didn’t exist, New Science didn’t exist, Homebrew Bio didn’t exist. I imagine people exist that would fund this work, I just haven’t met enough of them.