Your report highlights that not enough research propositions are considered ‘investment ready’. From a cancer researcher’s perspective, what does investment readiness really mean?

There are really two sides to investment readiness. First, you need all the nuts and bolts in place – your business plan, your valuation and the rest of the regimented documentation investors expect. But the more important part is what I’d call investor readiness. Ultimately, researchers need to be able to sell a compelling proposition. Investors want to know whether a company can generate a significant return. Most VCs are looking for something around a 10x return, knowing that only one company in a portfolio may deliver it.

You have show you have the right team, the right technology, and a credible plan for achieving a major exit in a realistic timeframe. Too often, academics describe their technology, but don’t present a business plan that tells an investor how this is going to make them that return.

What barriers do researchers face when trying to access the specialist capital needed for a spinout?

In the UK, we’ve done a great job of improving access to generalist capital – regional funds, angel funds, and similar initiatives. But spinouts, particularly deep‑tech and life‑science ones like those in oncology, need specialist investors with long-term horizons.

A common situation I hear about is a spinout with three angel investors lined up who all say: “We’ll join the round once you secure a specialist lead”. And finding that specialist lead – whether a domain experienced angel or a specialist VC – is often the key to unlocking the whole round. The problem is we simply don’t have enough of those specialist investors to match the number of spinouts emerging.

At Cancer Research Horizons, we’re trying to help by acting as a specialist oncology seed investor to unlock those early rounds.

The report shows that access to specialist life‑science investors is heavily concentrated in a few regions. How can cancer researchers working outside major clusters gain visibility and attract the right investors early enough?

If you’re outside an investment cluster, you can’t just wait for investors to come to you, you have to take your company to them.

One mistake I often see is universities teaming up regionally but presenting companies from every sector under the sun in a single showcase – climate tech, fusion, engineering, life sciences, software. The issue is that investors don’t hunt like that. Sector‑specific investors don’t want to sit through nine unrelated pitches, so they simply stop attending.

Instead, regions need to group companies by sector, not geography. It’s also a good idea to build long term relationships with relevant investors – bring them onto panels, involve them in early-stage proof-of-concept funding, and get to know them. Investors are overwhelmed with AI generated business plans – when I was researching the report, I kept hearing that they want to return to the more relationship driven approach of the past.

What’s the best way to support cancer researchers who are first-time founders?

We need to build a system that supports all types of academic founders. Some people want to leave university and join the startup, others want to stay in academia but be an active founder, and some prefer to be more passive – lending their IP and oversight but letting postdocs or early career researchers drive the venture. All of these paths are valid, and our systems need to accommodate them.

I think two things are essential. Firstly, de‑risking capital inside universities to free-up proof‑of‑concept and proof‑of‑market funding will let researchers validate ideas before they’re forced to spin out. Spinning out too early is a recipe for disaster. And then secondly, we must surround our universities with accelerators and incubators that can support and provide the early-stage guidance, structure, and mentorship that academic founders – both hands on and hands off – need.

You emphasise the importance of choosing the right investor at the right time. For cancer‑focused spinouts what red flags should researchers watch for when evaluating potential investors or early partners?

That’s a good question, because while there’s plenty of information on how investors will do their due‑diligence a startup – you can find out what they’re going to be interested in, what they’re not, what they want to see – there is very little on how founders should do due‑diligence on investors. Yet this relationship is like a marriage: you may be working with this investor for five to ten years, so you need someone who will genuinely add value.

One red flag is when an investor offers funding but lacks sector expertise – they can’t introduce you to the right contacts, pharma companies, or experienced managers. You can sometimes include one or two such investors if you’ve already secured specialist leads, but you need to be careful.

An even bigger danger is when inexperienced investors give you an inflated valuation. Founders may love it at the time of course – until the next round, when professional VCs will value your company lower than your last round, despite your progress. That leads to a down round, more dilution, and a painful lesson.

The golden rule: choose the right investor and the right valuation, not just the highest valuation.