A story came up during the panel that really stayed with me.

A biotech founder, trained as a scientist with deep domain expertise and years at the bench walked into a pitch meeting with a VC associate. The associate, maybe 24 years old, had a BS in Finance and had never worked in life sciences.

Within minutes, he started grilling her: Do you even know your numbers? Have you thought about unit economics?

She had. Extensively. But the way he asked - dismissive, almost condescending - made it clear he didn't think a scientist could possibly understand the business side.

She didn't get the check from that fund.

But she kept going. She refined her pitch. and found investors who understood both the science and the business.

Eventually raised from a top-tier firm that got what she was building.

And the young associate? He came back later, hat in hand, asking if there was still room in the round.

There wasn't.

Here's why this story matters: we don't have enough investors who truly understand the science and appreciate the bio founder journey.

When you're evaluating a novel therapeutic mechanism or a platform technology, pattern recognition only gets you so far.

If you don't understand the underlying biology or the journey from the bench to biotech, you're guessing. And guessing at the early stage is how you miss the best opportunities - or worse, fund the wrong ones.

But there's an opportunity here too. Scientists who understand both the bench AND the business are uniquely positioned - whether as founders, advisors, or investors.

The industry needs more of you on both sides of the table.

This has been the main driving force behind Bio Founder GPS, so I was genuinely excited to find partners on this mission.

Here's what stood out to me from the conversation, and what it means for founders navigating this market.

In the beginning of the panel, one of the investors made an observation that stuck with me: “If everybody's going to the right, I'm going to go to the left - because if I go with everybody else, I'm going to get trampled.”

But she wasn't just talking about being contrarian for its own sake. Her point was about identifying technologies that will fundamentally change the landscape - not chasing the incremental solutions everyone else is piling into.

The example she gave was room-temperature DNA/RNA storage. This is not necessarily a “flashy” idea. But if you solve that problem, you've unlocked something massive - regardless of which application or company ends up winning the attention game.

Quantum computing came up too. We're still early - a few panelists noted we're seeing quantum chip companies, but not much in actual computing yet. Consumer applications are just starting to emerge. But when the infrastructure is ready, whoever built the enabling layer will be well-positioned.

The pattern here isn't about picking the right trend. It's about asking: what has to be true for an entire category to take off? And then betting on, and nurturing, that transformation.

Let's be honest about what's happening: bigger funds are getting bigger, while emerging managers are struggling to raise. The capital is concentrating.

This creates a catch-22 that has direct impact on founders: you need capital to de-risk your science, but investors want de-risked science before they'll write a check.

It's the biotech version of “you need experience to get the job, but you need the job to get experience.”

Here's why this matters: fund size shapes investor behavior. A $500M exit is life-changing for a $50M fund - it can return the whole fund and then some. But for a $1.5B fund? It doesn’t move the needle in a significant way.

They need billion-dollar outcomes, and they need to bet on them with conviction. Which means they need later-stage, more de-risked opportunities.

In my view, this is one of the biggest bottlenecks in deep tech right now, and it leads to two fundamental questions:

One: how do we unlock more capital to back early-stage science? And two: how do we lower the barrier to entry and the costs to validate that science in the first place?

In my view, finding an answer to these questions will breathe life into our ecosystem in a much bigger way than any IPO liquidity event ever will.

Here's something that came up in the panel that I think deserves more attention: venture capital may be straying from its roots as an asset class that makes bold bets.

The original promise of VC was to fund the crazy ideas - the ones that look crazy until they seem obvious in hindsight.

But when everyone chases the same trends, when funds get so big they can only swing at sure things, that boldness gets lost.

We need more emerging fund managers willing to bet on the less obvious. As one panelist put it: “It's actually a responsibility of venture capital to think about the things that aren't obvious.”

The lack to do so, then, may be not so much a lack of capital or economics - as a lack of imagination.

I was encouraged to hear how closely the panel's advice aligned with what many of you have shared with me.

Here's what it means in practice for founders:

First, understand which funds are actually right-sized for your stage and potential exit. A fund that needs a $2B outcome isn't the right partner for a company that could be a fantastic $300M acquisition.

Second, if you're building enabling infrastructure rather than a consumer-facing application, lean into that positioning. There's less competition for investor attention, and often more patient capital.

Third, seek out emerging managers. They have appetite for earlier, bolder bets - and they're building their track records, which means they may fight harder for you.

Here's what surprised me most about the panel: almost every investor described their path into VC as “accidental.”

One came through angel investing and learned to code so she could evaluate technical founders. Another built an ecosystem in Chicago and launched a fund to fill a capital gap she kept seeing. Another worked in tech transfer and commercialization before realizing she wanted to be on the investment side. My own path wound through global health, pharma, and business development before I found my way to venture.

No one followed a playbook, which should be good news to many of us. There isn't one.

But when I looked at what actually got them there and what makes them successful now, a clear pattern emerged.

What was even more compelling, was that those skills had direct overlap with what you need to successfully build an early-stage biotech:

This isn't a coincidence. Both paths require you to build conviction around an idea that others might not yet see, communicate it clearly enough to attract resources, and prove yourself through results rather than credentials.

Just like for a fist time VC raising their first fund, raising capital for a bio founder is a full-time job. It's the CEO's job. You can't outsource it in the beginning - and frankly, you shouldn't want to.

I know that's not what most technical founders want to hear. You'd rather be in the lab, advancing the science. But the skills you build while fundraising - storytelling, relationship management, understanding what motivates capital allocators - ARE the skills that make you a better operator.

VCs are fiduciaries. They have a responsibility to return money to their LPs, period. When you understand that pressure, you start to see why they ask the questions they ask, why they need the milestones they need, and why “great science” alone isn't enough.

Because great science, even great technology, does not automatically make a great business. The founders who internalize this early have a massive advantage.

Whether you're trying to break into VC or build a successful biotech, the fundamentals are the same:

One panelist said something that stuck with me: "Be a giver. Have people think of you as a solutions provider. That's how doors open without you having to ask."

That advice applies whether you're trying to get into venture or trying to get a term sheet.

A few books and resources came up during the panel, so I thought I'd pull together a list - both for those exploring a career in VC, and for founders who want to better understand how investors think.

If you're serious about exploring the VC path, these programs came up in conversation. For biotech founders, they're also valuable connection points - a way to build relationships with emerging fund managers well before you need to raise:

Whether you're VC-curious or just want to understand how investors think, I hope this was useful.

The main takeaway: the skills that help someone break into venture - developing a thesis, building in public, leading with value, becoming fluent in the language of capital - are the same skills that make founders successful.

The paths are more connected than most people realize.

And the industry needs more scientists on both sides of the table.

If this issue sparked something for you, I'd love to hear about it. Thinking about the VC path? Reply and tell me what's drawing you in, or what's holding you back.

Know a scientist who should read this? Forward it their way.

See you next week!

- Vadim

PS: If you have someone on your team helping with fundraising or know another founder who could benefit from being in this community - I’d love to include them. They can join us here: [Join the Community]