Great scientific ideas need more than capital to survive

This article has been reviewed by a Digital Journal editor and may be licensed for reuse.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration describes drug development as a process that moves from discovery and laboratory research through preclinical testing, human clinical trials, regulatory review, and post-market monitoring. That reality may create a difficult tension for biotechnology. The scientific process often requires experimentation, iteration, and learning from failure. However, the financial system supporting early-stage companies may demand visible return on investment within a relatively short time.

According to the National Institutes of Health, only 13% of R01-equivalent applications received funding in fiscal year 2025, underscoring the intense competition for federal biomedical research funding and the potential importance of additional sources of private-sector support.

The consequences can often extend beyond individual companies. Biomedical research depends on a sustained pipeline of scientific talent, while funding pressures can affect researchers’ career opportunities and shape which research proposals receive support. A National Academies report has previously documented concerns surrounding declining research funding success rates and the effect of those pressures on younger investigators and exploration of new ideas.

Meanwhile, the scientific path from an initial discovery to a usable medicine can be lengthy. The FDA notes that even before regulatory review, drug development requires laboratory and animal testing followed by multiple phases of clinical research, potentially costing hundreds of millions of dollars, with many candidates unable to progress along the way.

For Harold Smith, founder of the Archimedes Center, these realities point toward a problem that often receives too little attention: the gap between a promising scientific idea and the resources required to determine whether that idea actually has merit. 

After decades working in biochemistry, molecular biology, biomedical research, and biotechnology entrepreneurship, Smith has come to view that gap as a defining weakness in the innovation biotech ecosystem. He describes the biotech “Valley of Death” as the period when companies are trying to move from an early scientific hypothesis toward meaningful proof and eventually toward a pharmaceutical partner. In his view, that journey can span 15 to 20 years, yet startups frequently receive capital in increments that are insufficient to support discovery, research, and development.

According to Smith, the waning support for biotechnology, together with the inherent uncertainty in the discovery process, is impeding advances in healthcare research. The danger, he notes, comes when continued funding rests solely on whether each individual experiment produces the anticipated result within the timeframe of the investment. Smith argues that investors and entrepreneurs therefore need a greater tolerance for the discovery process, which can involve setbacks, particularly during the earliest stages of proof of concept. 

Smith’s own experience building biotechnology ventures has also shown him another pressure point. Companies may have to raise capital repeatedly over many years, with each financing round reducing the founders’ ownership and influence in the direction the project needs to go scientifically. For Smith, the answer begins with changing how the industry thinks about what an early-stage biotech company actually needs to achieve success. 

“Capital matters, but money alone cannot create a functioning laboratory capable of supporting proof of concept,” he states. “A company funded with $200,000 or $300,000 of an investment or a grant may still need laboratory space, specialized equipment, utilities, gases, waste removal, service contracts, and technical expertise before meaningful research can begin.” Individual pieces of scientific equipment can cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, he adds, turning what appears to be substantial startup capital into infrastructure costs before an experiment has even started.

This is where Smith sees an overlooked opportunity to support biotechnology and advances in healthcare. He has observed Archimedes companies move from having little more than an idea toward proof of concept within months with appropriate infrastructure. “The difference can be whether a scientist spends their limited capital building a laboratory or actually advancing products,” he remarks.

Smith believes the stakes reach far beyond individual startups. Developing a scientist can itself take many years, from university education through graduate training, postdoctoral research, and an independent career. If talented researchers conclude that biotechnology offers too little opportunity for a career, he argues, the consequences could emerge decades later due to a diminished scientific workforce and talent driving opportunities for breakthrough discoveries.

His motivation in founding the Archimedes Center has consequently become increasingly rooted in making a lasting contribution to early-stage biotechnology. After decades in science and entrepreneurship, Smith shares that his objective is not about extracting financial return from startup companies; it’s about creating conditions in which other entrepreneurs can succeed. “I have spent enough of my life learning how hard it is to move an idea forward,” he states. “If I can remove some of those barriers for the next generation, then I have made a lasting contribution.”

For him, the larger challenge is cultural as much as financial. Smith believes society is part of the discovery team leading to breakthroughs in science and medicine. “It is essential for technology and financial stability to join forces to explore opportunities to improve global healthcare. If better medicines and diagnostics are expected to emerge in a timely manner, the ecosystem surrounding discovery must give researchers enough time, infrastructure, and resources,” Smith states. “The goal is not to fund another company. The goal of the Archimedes Center is to create the conditions where more good ideas get the chance to become discoveries, and everyone has a role to play in it.”