Welcome back to “Innovators & Insights,” an interview series hosted by Chris Strohsahl, President & CEO of Drummond Scientific, where leading minds in the life sciences industry share the latest industry trends, groundbreaking innovations, and pivotal stories from their professional journeys. In this edition, Chris spoke with Rana K. Gupta, Executive Director of the MIT Deshpande Center for Technological Innovation. Together, they explore the conversations, skills, and mindset required to commercialize breakthrough technologies, as well as the multiple pathways that enable scientific discoveries to move beyond the lab and deliver real-world impact.
Chris Strohsahl: At the Deshpande Center, you’re helping move technologies out of the lab and into the real world. How do you talk about that mission in a way that resonates with faculty and students?
Rana K Gupta: I always start with a simple question: “What’s your objective?” For researchers tackling commercialization on top of an already demanding day job, genuine passion and commitment are essential.
During those conversations, it’s important to help researchers understand how moving from academia into the market will require different skills and a fundamental mindset shift. Researchers are suddenly having to think about products, customers, value propositions, and profitability—concepts that may be far removed from their academic training. It’s a big leap, but our role is to guide them through the commercialization journey and help them learn by doing.
CS: I can tell you’re incredibly passionate about translating lab research and technologies into real-world products. What drew you to this kind of work?
RG: I knew coming out of college that I wanted to work in business. What I eventually realized is that the most rewarding part is the very beginning: working with promising university technologies and the researchers behind them.
If you look at the full spectrum of business, from early discovery to corporate life, this is the juncture where I feel I can have the greatest impact. I’m deeply fascinated by science, but I don’t think the way scientists and engineers do. I’m there to help researchers achieve their objectives and translate their work into the kind of real-world impact they envision.
CS: What brought you to the Deshpande Center?
RG: 25 years ago, I was an early-stage venture capitalist working closely with scientific founders, and when I joined Boston University in 2018 as Director of Faculty Entrepreneurship, I gained a very different vantage point. I sat at the academic level where I had the opportunity to help a much wider group of researchers think through the commercialization process and have a much larger impact.
The Deshpande Center became a natural extension of that work. While MIT’s reputation as a global leader is well known, what really attracted me was the platform it provides to experiment. It offers the freedom to test new approaches and models for supporting commercialization. That ability to innovate in how we help researchers was a big part of what drew me here.
CS: How do humility and balance play a role in your work?
RG: When I’m working with scientists, it’s important to me that they understand a few things upfront. First, this isn’t about me or my ego. Second, I’m very clear about what I don’t know, and I want them to see that.
I learned early on that I’m most effective when I’m working with scientists who also recognize that balance: they know their science and engineering deeply, and they’re open to learning the business side. That sense of complementarity is where the work becomes most rewarding.
CS: There’s a common belief in the venture world that founders who don’t succeed the first time are often better prepared the second or third time around. Do you see that pattern with faculty who go through your process, don’t get funded, and then return a year or two later?
RG: I don’t really frame it in terms of success or failure. What matters much more to me is whether someone has demonstrated real passion and commitment.
Whether a particular effort worked or didn’t work is secondary. What I’m looking for is whether they acted on their idea, put in the work, and caught the bug. When someone shows that level of engagement and follow-through, that’s the signal that really matters.
CS: How can you tell when someone has caught the entrepreneurial bug?
RG: Have they gone out and talked to customers? Have they actively sought critical feedback, or are they just looking for validation that their idea is great? That willingness to engage with the marketplace—and to hear what it has to say—is essential.
Because this work sits on top of an already demanding research career, it really comes down to passion. Have they shown a desire to learn beyond their science? Curiosity and initiative are huge factors.
CS: How often do you see researchers come in with a clearly defined problem they’re trying to solve, versus a solution that’s still looking for the right problem?
RG: Because these ideas are born out of science and research, they usually start as solutions looking for a problem, a classic technology-push model. But we also hear from researchers who have spoken to the market and identified a problem––and that’s where the hard work begins. You may have a real need, real customer interest, and a clear gap, but if the economics don’t support a viable, profitable product, it won’t make it to market. That reality check is a critical part of the process.
CS: You’ve seen many academic and early-stage technologies successfully make the leap into real products. In your view, is there a defining characteristic that separates those that ultimately have societal impact from those that don’t?
RG: While there isn’t a single defining factor, I often come back to passion and commitment. Timing plays an enormous role, too. You can do everything right, but the timing is just wrong.
As we’ve both witnessed, there are so many unpredictable factors when you’re working with a corporation. There are so many things that can go right or wrong regardless of what you do, so I try to focus on what we can control: doing the best work possible, making thoughtful decisions, and preparing as well as we can.
CS: Passion clearly matters, but there are many different paths to commercialization—licensing, starting a company, or even selling the IP outright. For a faculty member, researcher, or graduate student who feels that pull but isn’t sure which path to take, how do you guide them?
RG: My first piece of advice is always to talk to their peers. Go speak with people who have already done this. We learn from a very young age that some of the most powerful learning comes from our classmates, and that doesn’t stop in academia. Peers can share firsthand why they chose a particular path, what they learned, what surprised them, and what they would do differently. Those conversations are often the most valuable starting point for someone deciding how to approach commercialization.
CS: Finally, what’s one book that has changed the way you see the world or go about your life?
RG: Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck.
