Business Encounters: Life Scientist

Clinical Tools Wins $200K SBIR Award to Explore Life Science Entrepreneurship

|

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 5/01/2019

[Chapel Hill, NC – May 1, 2019] – Clinical Tools, Inc. won a $200K Phase I SBIR grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of General Medical Sciences to begin development of the OpenPipe Simulation Experience to Enhance Entrepreneurial Intent and Self-Efficacy. OpenPipe will be a 3D computer role-playing simulation to help post-doc and early-stage life science researchers explore factors that impact entrepreneurial intent and self-efficacy.

The life scientist is key to unlocking the commercial and health impact value of life science research. Unfortunately, scientists have few resources to assess the emotional and logistical ramifications of the challenging change from scientific explorer to entrepreneur. The proposed simulation and decision support experience helps the life scientist explore entrepreneurship, assess entrepreneurial intent, build confidence, and enhance team-building skills. Through subsequent action, they potentially unlock scientific findings that can impact real-world health outcomes.

The simulation will include a game-style interface where life scientists can make decisions on how to best address challenges related to entrepreneurship and experience the outcomes, as well as build knowledge and learn techniques to move from life science to business success!

About Clinical Tools and Health Impact Studio:

Clinical Tools, Inc. (CTI) is a diverse group with expertise in medicine, psychology, public health, basic sciences, programming, project and program management, gaming, information technology, and communications. Based in Chapel Hill, the company has a 20+ year history of success with SBIRT-developed products.

Health Impact Studio, a division of Clinical Tools, utilizes gaming technology to create healthy lifestyle change. The company combines expertise from medicine, psychology, public health with gaming, to create innovative games to positively impact health. Health Impact Studio creates games for healthcare professionals, medical students, and the general public on topics like obesity, addiction, and nutrition.

~~

For Further Information

Company: Clinical Tools and Health Impact Studio

Email: games@healthimpact.studio

Website: BioStartUpAdvice.com

Founder, President, and Vision Leader: Bradley Tanner, MD, ME

About Health Impact Studio

We are a dedicated team of developers and researchers with the mission to improve the health of individuals through novel technology including games, virtual reality, and role-playing simulations. We welcome input from the full range of stakeholders to create a customer experience with the broadest applicability to improving health outcomes.

Keep Reading

Funding Advice from a Recent Conference in Raleigh

Recently, we attended the CED Tech Venture Conference in Raleigh. There were an excellent set of presentations, many relevant to the future life science entrepreneur. The most notable comment came from Silicon Valley Venture Capitalist John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins. He was intimately involved in support of Amazon, Google, and Apple. He is an icon in the VC field.

The co-presenter asked him what he felt was the most potentially lucrative area for investment going forward. His answer was to ask the presenter how much money is spent on Google and Facebook versus how much of the money is spent on healthcare. With healthcare spending at over 17% of GDP in 2015, the winner is far away healthcare; more than 50 times as much. So his enthusiasm regarding entrepreneurship was in the life sciences. One of the most influential financiers believes that now is the time for an entrepreneur with life science background to pursue a business in order to address a health-related issue.

The conference had some unique Investor Reverse Pitches. It was clear that venture capitalists have particular interests they will fund. For example, the Stanley Tools folks are interested in material science and batteries (no surprise). But others started out saying they are interested in life sciences and then clarified that only a tiny portion of life science interested them.Assume that someone seeking funding would only be able to identify perhaps 2 out of 20 VC firms that would fund a startup with overlapping interests. Also, VCs are primarily interested in later stage companies and large amounts of capital. So, for the early stage entrepreneur, VC holds little potential. Apparently, the days when John Doerr gave money to Google’s founders (even though they didn’t seem to like business) and money to Jeff Bezos (even though he didn’t have a business plan) are very much over.

The presentations by many companies at the conference were excellent. They did a nice job of conveying a simple pitch, outlining their unique value proposition, and providing some financial data to back it up. All of the CEO presenters at this conference were well-funded. The companies that presented were looking for funds to expand globally and already had substantial success. They echoed the above finding. VC is for companies in later stages and a proven business model.

Finally, we were inspired by the Entrepreneur Workshop + Lunch with Scot Wingo by Robbie Allen, Founder & Executive Chairman, Automated Insights. He spoke on “Building a Startup Culture that Scales.” Mr. Allen explained the secret of success for his small business; the low-key atmosphere of the company was the driving force. He knew his employees would work hard and they needed to have a comfortable environment which supported energy and enthusiasm. And to that end he included a ping pong table, which was apparently well-used.

He worried at first that this would make his company look childish, but he found the employees were quite enthusiastic, and in fact it didn’t harm productivity at all. More importantly, he found that when his investors visited the office, they viewed the ping pong table in a positive light. They felt the ping pong table showed that his company was a dynamic and fun place to work. They noted that his space would be attractive to current and future employees. In fact, his employee retention was phenomenal.

Even as the company proliferated and at times was overly crowded, given limited office space, the team morale remained high. His message: Be yourself. If you are someone who enjoys a playful atmosphere, then create a corporate culture that works for you. And you’ll be surrounded by people who share you vision of a comfortable work environment.

Photo Credits: WikiBasti – Own work, Public Domain, Link

Climbing the Entrepreneurial Mountain

In Jumping To (False) Economic Conclusions, Austin Parker reminds his readers that changing one’s pursuit is all about perspective. So ask yourself, am I blaming my situation on other people? Am I looking at others and seeing them as examples of successful change or as evidence that the challenge is so great that I will never succeed?

He also brings up the important topic “Is business good or evil?” Who wants to go into a field of crooks unless one is already crooked? Sure, there was Enron, but do you shop on Amazon? Do you use a smartphone? Who provides your news? The second perception to challenge is that business is bad.

In this blog and others, let’s attack the doubt that says the mountain between you and entrepreneurship is too high to climb.

First of all, who wants to climb Mr. Everest on their own? Who would make it to the top without the Sherpas, much less the folks who take you to the top, those in the base camps, and the ones tracking the weather? So, no, you are never going to be able to climb the entrepreneurship mountain alone, and you would be a fool if tried (and in the case of Everest, dead).

Luckily the National Institutes of Health (NIH) wants you to climb that mountain. The government is on your side. The NIH 2016-2020 strategic plan specifies a goal to “fuel the U.S. biomedical industry and keep our Nation globally competitive”1. To achieve this aim, NIH understands that it must overcome challenges to maximize the return on biomedical research investment2,3, and foster the transformation of health science innovation into commercial products4. That means they are there to help you.

NIH’s SBIR program is a proven means for investigators to obtain rapid and substantial funding in a
relatively short term. I emphasize Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) funding due to the:

  • plethora of support opportunities
  • ease of the process
  • your familiarity with academic grant writing (vs. business planning)
  • NIH’s strong support for the SBIR program

Possible NIH resources include the:

References

  1. NIH-Wide Strategic Plan. Natl Inst Health NIH. October 6, 2015.
  2. Eisenstein Michael. Assessment: Academic return. Nature. May 5, 2016;533(7601):S20-S21. doi:10.1038/533S20a.
  3. Macilwain Colin. Science Economics: What Science Is Really Worth. Nature. June 10, 2010;465(7299):682-684. doi:10.1038/465682a.
  4. Wapner Jessica. Technology transfer: The leap to industry. Nature. May 5, 2016;533(7601):S13-S15. doi:10.1038/533S13a.

Photo Credit: The image “Climbing through the Yellow Band, Mt. Everest, -May 2007” (22 May 2007, 800 × 600 [282 KB] jpg) was taken from Brian-Everest photos Photo 44 of 51 by Lloyd Smiths. This file is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Television DTC Ads from Pharma (Part 2 of 5)

I agree with the AMA’s proposed Ban on DTC Ads of Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices. To me, the logic of the ban is that the only other country in the world that allows direct-to-consumer drug ads is New Zealand. My goal in this blog is not to repeat the various pros and cons cited for DTC ads1. Although, for the record, my interpretation is that the cons far outweigh any perceived pros.

My goal instead is to shed light on how these ads work and what makes DTC pharma ads effective advertising. I selected what are considered the best DTC pharma ads per Rand Marketing (Mar 27, 2016).

Zoloft

  • Issue highlighted: Product corrects a chemical imbalance in the brain that leads to depression in the target market of individuals with sadness.
  • Value proposition: The ability to relieve sadness. It engages the user via “cuteness” that is taking a fairly depressing (sorry) topic and making it seem kid like and cute – and potentially beatable.
  • Call to action: Viewers are urged to talk to one’s doctor about Zoloft (not depression). They also highlight an ad in a magazine (Shape) and a phone number to call. Taking this action is expected to yield benefit to the viewer in terms of relieving depression.
  • Objective Measurable? The ad is highlighted as one of the most effective DTC ads ever. I feel the objective was measurable since data related to prescriptions is readily available and the company could measure changes in prescriptions in the markets where the ad was shown. I also feel the effect of ad was quite attainable at the time it was aired. It provided a clear call to action and doctors were likely to follow up by prescribing the drug that the patient requested.
  • Other notes: At the time there were only 2 SSRIs, and sertraline (Zoloft) had a better profile than fluoxetine (Prozac). Furthermore, depression as a medical condition was relatively unknown yet had been introduced already by the success of fluoxetine (Prozac).

AstraZeneca

  • Issue highlighted: A brand that cares about healthy eating. The target market here is people who eat sugar and unhealthy food.
  • Value proposition: This company can give you advice on how to lower triglycerides and eat more healthy food. It engages the user via pictures of appetizing food (bacon sizzling), people gorging on food, and most importantly humor via the two talking fish.
  • Call to action: The ad does not have an explicit call to action. The only benefit is that one is now aware that a drug company cares about health eating. When the listener runs across marketing by the company they may see it in a more positive light rather than a manipulative ploy to highlight their drug (which relates to diabetes). I think the ad is really funny, and the objective of putting a positive spin on the company’s brand should be easy to attain and measure via surveys and activity on social media (something they highlight in the ad).

Lipitor

  • Issue highlighted: the ability of the product to lower cholesterol to the target market of people with measured high cholesterol or people who are worried that they may have high cholesterol.
  • Value proposition: Lipitor will decrease heart disease (although the ad only mentions data that shows value in folks with existing heart disease, the ad implies value for anyone with high cholesterol). It engages the viewer via a healthy nature scene, someone rowing, and calm peaceful music to instill a sense of calm and vitality.
  • Call to action: The ad’s call to action is “ask your doctor if Lipitor is right for you,” and visit the website. That action is expected to yield a prescription and secondary benefit of lower cholesterol and decreased risk of heart disease.
  • Objective measurable? Yes, because prescribing habits are obtainable on a pharmacy level. The outcome was also attainable because people are always anxious about heart disease and cancer and cholesterol is a familiar and simple number that they can understand in terms of risk (a fact that is very much in dispute).

Rozerem

  • Issue highlighted: The ad highlights the ability of the drug to help you sleep better to a target market of folks with occasional insomnia (pretty much everyone).
  • Value proposition: The apparent value proposition is that this drug can help the person sleep but is not addictive and can be taken when needed. It engages the user via compassion for the person who can’t sleep [he looks awful], humor with honest Abe Lincoln, and an animal chatting.
  • Call to action: Ad says to “talk to your doctor” but doesn’t mention the specific drug to request that is expected to yield improved sleep to the viewer who receives the prescription.
  • Objective measurable? I feel the objective was measurable because prescribing habits are obtainable on a pharmacy level. The outcome (increased prescribing) was also attainable mostly because at that time most other sleep aids had been labeled as dangerous so the product was unique in the marketplace. This is perhaps why they don’t mention the specific drug for which to ask.

Vytorin

  • Issue highlighted: The cholesterol lowering feature of the product to a target market of individuals with high cholesterol.
  • Value proposition: This drug will be more effective at lowering cholesterol than its competitors because it lowers absorption of cholesterol and production of cholesterol. It engages the viewer by presenting picture of attractives food and people with funny poses and expressions.
  • Call to action: “Ask your doctor about adding Vytorin.” They also provide a phone number to call. Such action is expected to yield the benefit of lower cholesterol to the viewer.
  • Objective measurable? I feel the objective was measurable because prescribing habits are obtainable on a pharmacy level. The outcome was also attainable because cholesterol is perceived as a marker of health danger, so the public sees lowering cholesterol as a worthwhile goal in of itself.

Overall the ads use a variety of techniques and a fairly simple “talk to your doctor” call to action. They focus on areas of challenge or frustration and offer a simple and targeted solution. When a drug is mentioned the possible downside is read by the voice-over but not visually displayed, thereby implying that the advertised product would be a simple solution to their problem.

References

  1. Ventola C Lee. Direct-to-Consumer Pharmaceutical Advertising. P T. 2011;36(10):669-684.

Picture Credit: Wikipedia user Royeligio

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments