How we evaluate science-led deals without pretending to be scientists

We are not scientists, and we don't pretend to be. Every deal we've worked on that involves clinical data, a patent estate, or a regulatory pathway has involved bringing in someone who actually knows the science — because pretending otherwise would be a disservice to everyone at the table, including us.

What we do instead is something more specific: we know what questions a commercial banker needs answered before capital moves, regardless of the underlying science. Is the IP actually owned by the entity raising money, cleanly, with no unresolved assignment issues? Is the regulatory pathway the founder describes the one that actually applies in the relevant jurisdiction, or an optimistic version of it? Does the use-of-funds match the milestones that would actually de-risk the business, or does it just extend the company's runway without changing its risk profile?

Those are diligence questions, not science questions, and they're the ones that get skipped when a deal is exciting enough that everyone wants to believe the pitch. We've seen good science attached to bad deal structure, and we've seen ordinary science oversold by people who understood the commercial mechanics better than the underlying research. Both are traps. Telling them apart is the job.

So when we bring a science-led opportunity to a client or an investor, here's what that means in practice: the technical claims have been reviewed by someone qualified to review them, not by us — and the commercial structure, the IP position, and the capital plan get the same scrutiny before anything goes further.