Thread by @heyjudka

WHY VC? 🧪➡️📈?

I get asked a lot why I chose to go from doing science to investing in science.

Here's my answer: a tale of two technologies. 🧵

Going into my PhD, I wanted to join the startup ecosystem in syn bio. If science was a 2D puzzle, commercializing added a 3rd dimension, an extra challenge -> extra fun.

At the time, two opposite, but highly influential stories were unfolding:

1) Biofuels📉
2) Solar📈

1) Biofuels📉

Biofuels tech was improving quickly and the core technology basically worked! And yet, companies couldn't take off.

The science "worked", yet there were fundamental issues with unit economics and scale-up, terms that were completely new to me at the time.

2) Solar📈

As biofuels fell (& my post-PhD plans with it), solar energy was heating up!

Was there a scientific breakthrough? Nope. It wasn't technical advances, but rather clever financing schemes & scaled mfg that dropped the price of solar panels and fueled solar's rise.

How could two different *scientific* stories create such opposite commercial outcomes?

I saw that I had a lot to learn about how business models, markets, and financing pathways can constrain or enable the commercialization of science.

And, being a scientist, I wanted to learn from and participate in many company stories. I wanted to reason statistically, not anecdotally, about how technical startups succeed of fail. Nowhere is the example rate higher and the content surface area more broad than in VC!

Understanding the 3rd dimension of science commercialization is critical to unblocking it. Scientists should take on the challenge and learn about business, whether through a job at a startup, in VC, or just in a startup-focused academic lab!

It's truly an honor to learn from and work with the brilliant founders, scientists, VCs, and especially my a16z colleagues at the intersection of business x science.

If you're a scientist looking for a path into startups or VC, DM me! I'd love the chance to pay it forward 💞