Lessons Crossing the Valley of Death

Analytical chemistry should be a powerhouse of innovation. Yet, as it stands, much of the innovation happens within industry, whereas dynamic university spin-offs and successful entrepreneurs are rare. This is surprising, considering that research labs are hubs for knowledge creation, equipped with advanced facilities, and staffed by highly skilled scientists – constantly synthesizing new materials, developing cutting-edge technologies, and designing innovative analytical workflows. Despite this immense potential, most analytical chemistry innovations remain confined to academia, often published as research articles rather than being translated into patents and marketable products. The very few cases that manage to break through the academic sphere face significant challenges in securing adequate funding to support R&D and intellectual property protection services. In other words, they get trapped in the so-called “innovation valley of death.”

Meanwhile, disciplines like biotechnology, computer sciences, and nanotechnology have successfully positioned themselves as leaders in innovation. These fields benefit from now-widespread innovation hubs and incubators, as well as funding opportunities from both governments and private investors that prioritize commercialization and public-private collaboration. Interestingly, analytical chemistry has access to many of these same resources but has not yet leveraged them effectively.

Analytical chemistry is far from achieving its full innovation potential, as opportunities to create tangible impacts beyond research are being missed. This disconnect arises from several barriers, including the absence of clear commercialization pathways for laboratory innovations and, more importantly, the lack of innovation culture, especially within research teams. Analytical chemistry is a relatively conservative and traditional sector characterized by a limited stakeholder collaboration. But for innovation to be successful, university-industry-government collaboration is essential (1). This collaborative framework should prioritize eco-friendly and cost-effective solutions that address routine analysis needs. Industry must focus on entrepreneurs and create space for change in their existing infrastructure. At the same time, innovation and entrepreneurship must become a core value in academia, with researchers developing the skills and mindset necessary to pursue these tasks.

We can see this existing cultural gap when new ideas are born in the lab. Faced with the choice between publishing their findings or protecting the idea’s intellectual property, scientists often opt for the faster and more familiar route to secure their findings, and publish. But, before making that choice, scientists should consider a key question: would further development of this idea fill a gap in routine analytical practice? If the answer is yes, the idea may be a strong candidate for innovation. The next step is to refine the narrative around the idea. Is the validity of the underlying science confirmed? What concept development activities must be completed? What intellectual property protection should be in place? Once these foundations are laid, the next stage involves the technical evaluation of lab-scale prototypes and testing the innovation’s performance. Prototypes are not final products, and several iterations are typically needed before reaching a viable, market-ready solution. Throughout this process, it is critical to have a thorough understanding of how the innovation will be used and focus on the industry as it is, not as one might wish it to be.

Spin-offs often struggle because their founders have limited experience in entrepreneurship and understanding of market trends, customer needs and competitive dynamics. From my experience with my spin-off company ExtraTECH Analytical Solutions, participating in incubators and innovation hubs can be transformative. These ecosystems provide invaluable mentoring by economics experts, as well as fast-track business training. More importantly, they create natural opportunities for networking, partnerships, and access to investors and funding. This support is key for crossing the valley of death and acts as a catalyst for transforming a research concept into a market-ready solution.

Crossing the valley of death is a long and complex journey that cannot be avoided. The goal is simply not to die there. My advice? Do not attempt to cross alone. A “ride-or-die” core team of problem-solvers, doers, and companions, with different skills, is needed to share the workload and help keep spirits high.

As an academic, I found that turning theory into a marketable product was extremely challenging. From the very beginning, we knew the odds were against us, as only few innovations survive the journey across the Valley. We are among the fortunate few who made it. But even if we hadn’t, one thing is certain: despite the challenges, we would do it again and again. Innovation is like scientific experiments: they might not always work, but they show us what works and what doesn’t in real-life scenarios. It is a powerful, self-developing experience that’s shaped me not just as a scientist, but also as a person. It taught me to see science through a new lens – one that focuses on real-world impact and bold opportunities.

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical science news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

I have read and understand the Privacy Notice*

Subscribe