The Life Sciences in New York State

Getting paid to blog

Now this sounds like a cool job. Quote:

A small but growing number of businesses are hiring people to write blogs, otherwise known as Web logs, or frequently updated online journals. Companies are looking for candidates who can write in a conversational style about timely topics that would appeal to customers, clients and potential recruits.

MYTH: "VCs care about what your application looks like."

Christian Mayaud has a very good post today (and a very good blog) on just one aspect of the VC-Entrepreneur relationship. Check it out...

Entrepreneurism in Michigan

Pundits frequently compare New York to Ohio and other Midwestern states, e.g., former industrial powerhouses who are now struggling in our "new" economy with high taxes and low levels of risk capital. Michigan recently had an Entrepreneurship Score Card analysis performed, and the story from the Detroit News is available here.

The picture the article paints of Michigan will sound familiar to anyone familiar with what's happening in New York...high taxes, little risk capital, a big company mentality, etc. However, if you  read the report (a very large PDF file), page 10 has a list of all of the States and their rankings based on Entrepreneurism (how this is all measured is described therein). According to this, NY is tied for 7th, not too far from MA, and well above Ohio and Michigan, the customary benchmarks. In fact, both Michigan and Ohio are ranked near the bottom of the list.

I'm sure the pessimists will have a field day with this report, but I think it's very positive for NY. For one thing, we're ranked much higher than our usual benchmarks. Second, NY is in a bunch which includes other states which I do not think have the resources which we have here in NY. In fact, because of this, I think we're in a better position than some of these other states in terms of attracting risk capital and entrepreneurs.

Erie Canal

The Albany Times Union is running an interesting series on the current state of the Erie Canal. Link.

More thoughts on LinkedIn

On Tuesday, I posted my thoughts on LinkedIn, and I made this comment:

You may connect to someone who has 5,000 contacts, and is 3 degrees away from someone you want to contact, but that 5,000 contact person probably receives a LOT of contact requests. One request recently reached me after two months of being passed through the network.

My assumption was that a super-connector receives so many requests, that she/he cannot possibly process them efficiently. However, Joe Bartling posted this on his blog, and argues quite coherently that this assumption is likely to be false. Quote:

But since I handle all of my requests in 15-30 minutes a month, and
I'm in the top 150 LinkedIn users, why is *anyone* concerned that
their volume might be more time-consuming than that?

I would definitely read his post. It makes a lot of sense.

Thougths on Home-Based Entrepreneurism

I've been working from home on two initiatives for 8 weeks now. A few thoughts:

1. Working from home is great. I get to see the family much more. I've gone from a 3+ hour a day commute to a walk up and down some stairs. Think about it. That's 15 "extra" hours a week! More work and more free time.

2. Since everything (and I mean everything) that I do is directly connected to my success (or failure), I find that I am incredibly focused and much more efficient. Many of the office distractions, politics, etc. are gone. Everything I do is for a clear purpose (this blog, for example). So, that "free" time quickly translates into more work time.

3. Domestic life can and will interfere with professional life. Just this past week alone, we've lost power twice during working hours, we've had a furnace and hot water heater replaced during working hours (and me scrambling to find places to shower), etc., etc. Fortunately, my young children have learned to be reasonably quiet while Daddy is upstairs working, plus earplugs and headphones help. Actually, I have found people to be very understanding when I say that I work from home, and that they may hear children in the background.

4. Networking is critical. When I was in business school, we were told to network at least an hour a week. I think this should be closer to 3-5 hours a week, or ~30 minutes a day. This could be in the form of electronic networking (LinkedIn, Skype), phone/email outreach, breakfasts and lunches, conferences, etc. You just never know who knows who.

5. Income and cash flow are incredibly variable. The checks are less frequent, but bigger than those from a steady job. It helps to have a war chest of funds in the bank. You're going to need them.

6. I find that it is important to have a comfortable, efficient workspace, with everything I need at my fingertips. For the first few weeks, as my workspace evolved, I scrambled to find simple things (pencils, for example). I experimented with different lighting arrangements, I'm on my third chair, etc. The nearby Staples Copy Center (with self-serve copying, fax, and FedEx) is truly my second office.

I still don't know if this will be successful in the long term. I do know, however, that it will be difficult to give this lifestyle up and go back to working in a cubicle for a BigCo...

Thoughts on LinkedIn

I have been using LinkedIn for the past few months as a networking tool. A few comments:

1. I attended a conference few months ago where a number of people from Investment Banks were collecting business cards, but did not have any to distribute. I could understand one person forgetting their cards, but not multiple people from the same bank. Clearly, they wanted to find people, but not be found. LinkedIn offers the opportunity to find people who want to be found, who want to interact and share ideas, who are seeking professional relationships and opportunities.

2. The larger your personal network, the larger your pool of prospects from which you can search and reach out to. Initially, I was restricting myself to people that I know. But, I have changed my approach, and have accepted linkages from people I've never met. Why? This provides a greater opportunity to interact with their contacts, and their contacts contacts. However...

3. The drawback to this in my mind is that it can be overdone. If you link to one of the LinkedIn "sluts" (a term that is used a lot within the LinkedIn community), you have a huge network. But, the reality is that people are busy...too busy to sit there and process LinkedIn requests. You may connect to someone who has 5,000 contacts, and is 3 degrees away from someone you want to contact, but that 5,000 contact person probably receives a LOT of contact requests. One request recently reached me after two months of being passed through the network. I don't have a good answer to this...I'm not even necessarily convinced that it's a problem. However, people have to realize that the connections are not automatic; that some effort and patience is required by every member in the chain for it to work. There is an honor system element to this which I find very interesting.

Overall, I like the service. Over the past two weeks, I have met (via email and phone) several excellent contacts with whom I hope to do business with some day. It does take some effort for it to work well, though, both in terms of seeking new contacts and making connections, as well as helping those who seek contacts through you.

More on "cloning"

Good overview of the South Korean lab which made headlines last week, including a good, simple explanation of what they have done (and not done). Link. More commentary later.

Who are we?

I attended a "Future of Life Sciences Innovation in Tech Valley" last night. It was well attended, and I thought the panel provided some very good observations and insights...at least for the time that I was there, as I arrived monstrously late.

Memo to self: Avoid 787 North from Downtown Albany on a weekday at 5 pm.

One phrase which I heard several times is "We need to do _________." We need to develop more entrepreneurs. We need to support policies which are business-friendly. We need to collaborate more with other institutions in the area. We need to attract more venture capital to the area. And it struck me:

Who is "We"?

I think the challenge we all face is not knowing how to "do" what needs to be done, coupled with the natural human assumption that someone else will "do" what needs to be done. It all seems beyond our reach. How can I attract entrepreneurs? How can I encourage more institutional collaborations?

You are "We"
I am "We"
We are "We"

If I feel that there is a need to stimulate development of local entrepreneurs, then I have to think of a way to do it. Maybe I call a serial entrepreneur and ask him/her to speak at a local networking function or at a university. Maybe I offer to teach a class on networking to university faculty (OK, that may be presumptuous). Maybe I set up a company and offer business planning services to university faculty (hmm...not a bad idea...). Maybe I send an email to my local Congressperson (I have, and they/staff do actually respond. It helps to remind them that you voted for him/her last time, and may/many not the next time.)

I must do something...
You must do something...

Napoleon Hill once wrote (from memory): "Start now with the tools you have in hand. Better tools will emerge as you progress."

This is an important point. We cannot wait until conditions are just right...until we have x amount of square footage or y of investable capital or z Nobel Laureates on local faculty.

Do you want to do something? Email me and let's discuss...

See ya'

There has been a lot of chatter regarding Howard Anderson's "Good Bye to VC" piece. Commentary has been posted by Messrs. Feld, Wilson, and Hibbard. The gist of the piece is that markets are now rational, and thus historical VC returns are now impossible to achieve, especially when there is so much capital chasing few deals. I agree with Fred Wilson, this is nonsense. Pity the VC who depends on an irrational market to generate superior returns. I think this is where the venture capital model truly shines, not only in terms of bringing capital together with interesting technology, but also in adding value via Board activities, networks, etc., etc. This phrase really irritated me (my emphasis):

During the boom times, VCs financed more than 5,000 new companies a year in information technology, communications, biotechnology, and the Internet. The problem is that the buyers of new technology cannot possibly utilize all this stuff. There is a very real limit to what can usefully be deployed.

I didn't realize that biotechnology was "stuff" which we had in abundance. Perhaps he is already aware of the various therapies that are out there to cure diabetes, cancer, because I'm not, and I'm generally on top of "stuff" like this.

Please, Mr. Anderson, don't include biotechnology into your bucket of "stuff".