Innovation Pathways Podcast -sarja: Mitä tapahtuu matkalla ideasta vaikuttavuuteen?

Minna Hendolin: Welcome to the University of Eastern Finland's Innovation Pathways Podcast, where science meets real-world impact. [Intro music playing] In this series, we will explore how ideas born in our labs will evolve into innovations, collaborations, and even growth companies. Today, in our very first episode, we will ask the big question: can you really be a top scientist and an innovator at the same time? To answer that, we are joined by two UEF researchers approaching innovation from different perspectives. We have Professor Tarja Malm from A.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecular Sciences, whose innovation thinking developed over time with a long academic career, and Research Council of Finland fellow and group leader, Henri Leinonen, from the School of Pharmacy, who brings an entrepreneurial mindset into academia from early on, saved by his background in pharmacy. I am Minna Hendolin, Director of Impact at UEF, founder of a biotech company myself as well, and I would say an innovation veteran who has been cooking this 'soup' of innovation for decades in various roles. But let us dive into the subject. Innovation can look very different depending on where you stand in your academic career. So Tarja, how did you realise that your research has some commercial or societal potential?

Tarja Malm: I think I kind of grew into it. I do not have any formal educational background on commercialisation. I did my PhD and postdoc work in Jari Koistinaho's research group, and he has extensive experience in bringing innovation into impact, and has established multiple companies, for example. So, I gained extensive hands-on experience in collaborating with companies and working towards commercialisation of our research findings. And Jari kind of brought this culture to the group, which is, I think, not necessarily evident in all academic groups. So for me, this became a continuous side quest, running in parallel with my PhD and postdoc studies, and it provided a valuable insight into the interface between the academic research and the industry.

Minna Hendolin: Great. So, that was already very early exposure to their thinking, that it is really imprinted in everyday's work. What about Henri? What triggered your first steps on the path of innovation?

Henri Leinonen: As in the introduction you briefly mentioned, my background is in pharmacy. That really planted the seed very early in me. So in Finland, many pharmacists, which is provisory here, become entrepreneurs. Many go to pharma industry. So, thinking commercially is quite natural to me. But the real spark came really during my postdoctoral research period in the USA, especially in California, between 2018 and 2021. Suddenly, I was surrounded by people who moved rather fluently between the research industry, start-ups and so on. So, I felt like innovation there was not framed as something separate or risky. It was just a part of how they were thinking about science, I felt. And that experience made me realise that you do not need to wait until later in your career to start thinking about impact. You can stay fully committed to academic research and still be curious about where the work could eventually matter outside of academia.

Minna Hendolin: So, you really went to this hot spot of innovation, to California, and got exposed also very early to that kind of thinking. But have you found any misconceptions? Or what has surprised you really in this about this commercialisation, in your way?

Henri Leinonen: Sure, there are some misconceptions. I think one misconception that I had, and this came really more from studying the technology commercialisation itself rather than from personal experience, was the idea that commercialisation would mean taking major personal financial risks. Because this is not true. I was surprised to learn that in most technology commercialisation cases, you are not expected to put your own money or your home on the line. It is the investors who take the risk, angel investors or venture capitalists, typically. And as a researcher, what you really invest is time and effort. But this is a lot of time and effort, not small time and effort. But this is typical in academia anyway. We invest a lot of time, to begin with, whether there is this innovation conversation path or not. So, as a PI or a group leader, you invest so much time in things that may or may not work. So, it is not so different, in my opinion at least. I would say another misconception was that commercialisation only would start when you have something almost finished, you have a product or something like this. What surprised me was how much of this is actually about learning. It is about learning the problem space. It is about learning from stakeholders, and even from your own assumptions. And especially in academic innovation, it is often a very long path that involves learning through countless mistakes.

Minna Hendolin: Great. So, you really need to go beyond your own comfort zone also, and learn new things. That is a very good takeaway message as well. What about Tarja? What kind of ideas do you have on this?

Tarja Malm: Perhaps my biggest misconception when you are excited about your discoveries has been to assume that this exciting and scientifically very promising innovation is closer to commercialisation than it actually is. Because academic findings, especially those that are novel enough to be published, likely represent only very early stages of so much more longer translational pathway. So in reality, to be able to successfully commercialise something, it still requires a substantial amount of additional data that might not feel academically meaningful or publishable. And this is often difficult to produce, just because at this point, the innovation is too immature, for example, to Business Finland funding schemes. And on the other hand, a bit too incremental in novelty for academic funding schemes. So, in the context of drug development, for example, this could include extensive toxicology or pharmacology or other validation studies that are essential for demonstrating safety, robustness, and real-world applicability. But one might not necessarily carry out all that for academic publication describing a novel therapeutic target.

Minna Hendolin: Sure. That is also something, that you really need to go beyond your comfort zone, but also to find this new knowledge and understanding what it really means to be a part of the innovation journey. But also, in addition to investing your time, like Henri said, you have to also invest in your knowledge and your vision. And there should be this great vision that the further funders and investors are ready to take. This has been very valuable to hear. And I think this really suggests that innovation is not about timing perfectly, but it is something like these new opportunities, those open-ups. So, it is about the culture in the group, that is super important. And then, actually, you do not need to choose between science and innovation, but they both enrich each other. Let us move to the next topic we have planned to discuss today. It is From Ideas to Impact, and those many routes from research to innovation. I would say that there are not only just routes, but it could be also possibilities and new options. These things might sound quite complex, and surely many young researchers especially are now thinking, "How can I navigate in this channel of all these weird words like 'licensing' or 'proof of concept' and different kinds of fundings?" But let us hear what our experts, who have taken these steps, might have on this. Tarja, could you share some concrete examples, how you have been able to navigate in this channel?

Tarja Malm: I think I have learned as I went on. Since establishing my own group, I have been involved in numerous collaboration projects with industry partners. And although these projects were financially supported by the companies, they were structured as academic collaborations, and all the resulting data will be eventually openly published. In addition to that, we have also carried fee-for-service work for small companies. And while these projects were not always scientifically that exciting, they have provided valuable exposure to industry expectations and the way how research is done in an industry or in a company, including timelines and deliverables and milestones. I have also participated in several Business Finland-funded co-innovation projects. These are large consortium initiatives that typically involve multiple companies and research organisations. These create excellent opportunities for multidisciplinary collaboration and industry engagement. I have also led two Research to Business projects, and this way I have gained understanding on how to work effectively with different types of companies and project structures. At this moment, I am running two proof-of-concept funding projects aiming to develop further innovations. So, let us see where these will lead into. And I think the innovation aspects of our activities have actually set up some practical guidelines on how we do research in the lab. For example, we have very specific bookkeeping of all our lab work. We follow detailed SOPs and make sure all contractual issues are established. And also, we scrutinise our findings before we publish, so that we do not lose IPR.

Minna Hendolin: So, in addition to external funding, more funding for your research group, you have also learned a lot when doing these innovative collaborative projects and research. Can you say that you have also done research? Is it high-quality research that you have been able to conduct in these projects?

Tarja Malm: Absolutely. Everything we do is high quality research.

Minna Hendolin: Exactly. That is, I think, something I often hear, "No, it is not research funding. It is something different." But this is, I think, one of the myths that we want to break also, that you can do real, top research.

Henri Leinonen: I think it is one more misconception.

Minna Hendolin: Exactly. Good that you, Henri, added that. What about Henri? Have you got your navigation pathway crystal-clear already for your innovations?

Henri Leinonen: No, Minna. I think at this stage, I am not committed to a single path too early. I am exploring different impact routes and trying to understand what actually makes sense for the type of science we do. That being said, when I think about it strategically, I do see a lot of value in developing invention further internally rather than licensing very early. Because early licensing often captures only a fraction of the potential, whereas developing the work further internally, potentially even towards a spin-off company, this would allow us to mature the science, generate critical data, and significantly reduce the risk before any partnering discussions. And when it comes to collaborations, I would say they are not a goal in itself ever. Collaborations are something I am open to when there is a clear mutual benefit. For example, some complementary expertise, access to infrastructures that we would not otherwise have, or acceleration towards well-defined milestones much better together than alone. One thing that is very good at this point, though, is the proof of concept projects that Tarja also mentioned. They are very attractive at this point because these proof of concept projects allow us to de-risk the science and generate validation data and often leverage non-dilutive funding. And that kind of foundation is extremely valuable, especially in the academic setting.

Minna Hendolin: That is good that you mentioned these proof-of-concept projects. And also, many universities like UEF, we have proof-of-concept funding. Once a year, you can apply for funding for proof-of-concept projects. And then, also Finnish Academy of Science or the Finnish Research Council also have proof-of-concept funding. And I would say that also Business Finland's Research to Business funding is kind of proof-of-concept funding. So, different phases that you can apply for validation funding for your projects. What about Small Things Matter? What kind of milestones you have had, smaller or bigger ones, Henri, if you think about it?

Henri Leinonen: I will just add one more proof of concept. Erkko Foundation. So, private foundations also might have that.

Minna Hendolin: Yes. There are different funding opportunities.

Henri Leinonen: So, there is quite a bit of this proof of concept. But as for the milestone, one small but important milestone for me was when I was pitching our ideas directly to industry for the first time during my postdoc in California, and getting feedback from people deeply involved in drug development and big pharma was extremely valuable. Another and more recent meaningful moment was in 2024 here, locally, at the Tahko ski lift pitch event in Kuopio, where I was pitching our Business Finland Research to Business project. And there, in this ski lift event, we met a mix of angel investors and a few venture capitalists. And even though nothing was signed or decided in the event, this was extremely valuable experience in terms of understanding how early-stage biotech stories land outside of academia. And for me, these kinds of moments have been very important milestones, not only because they lead to immediate outcomes necessarily, but because they accelerate my learning.

Minna Hendolin: That is an extremely important insight. And to early expose your own idea to others, whether it's investors or funders or collaborators, is utmost important. Also, at the UEF University Services, we organise different kinds of events where young researchers or distinguished researchers can really do the pitching and rehearsal and get these ideas and innovations visible for a larger audience. And it is very important to participate in those. But how do you know when to move forward? When do you think that your research is fundamental and when it really shifts towards innovations or a more commercial application side? What do you think, Henri? Is there one or multiple options?

Henri Leinonen: Well, I think it is quite a complex question, but from my perspective, I do not see this as a binary choice. I recognise that fundamental research really needs protection. But on the other hand, certain things can be selectively moved towards applications once they are mature enough. The key really is being intentional. So, protecting the curiosity-driven science while at the same time carefully stress-testing specific elements for impact also outside of academia.

Tarja Malm: Exactly. One needs to very intentionally keep an eye and also mind open for the discoveries. Because in science, it is actually super easy to lose the opportunity to protect the IPR if you really do not pay attention.

Minna Hendolin: That is true. That is very important. And also, to remember that if you anytime realise that there might be something wrong, contact your supervisor, contact the Innovation Services and file the innovation disclosure, and check the background, so that you do not actually lose this uniqueness of your idea too early. But things might not always go well, and things happen and fail. But how to overcome those? Because life is like that. It does not always go like you have planned. Henri, what do you think? Have you ever failed on your path?

Henri Leinonen: I think I have failed way more times than succeeded. When we talk about academic and research projects, this is completely natural. And failure is a friend. You just have to learn from it. That is the point. If you do not learn, then it is a little dumb. But that is the key. And for me, failure in this innovation context particularly is often better described as a re-direction. Especially in academic innovation, many ideas do not fail necessarily because they are wrong, but because of the timing and the context, and the application is not quite right yet. And coming from academia, we are already trained to live with uncertainty and negative results. And what innovation adds is another layer. You might realise that the science is solid, but the use case needs to change, or that the problem you are solving is not the most urgent one right now, but it might be in a decade or so. One important difference compared to business world and academia is that even when the innovation path does not move forward, the work still needs to back into science. This is good for academia. You generate data, you refine hypotheses and often end up with better questions. So, very little of that effort is truly lost. It just changes direction.

Minna Hendolin: I think that is very good description, that it is not the failure, it is more like a re-direction, and you step by step improve the things and learn during your journey. Tarja, what about you?

Tarja Malm: I completely agree with what Henri said. And I have also found that even in the case of failure of these side quests that we do, they are not really true failures. More often, they lead into maybe even unexpected discoveries or new collaboration, or even fresh funding opportunities. So, engaging with non-academic environment really broadens the landscape of possibilities, even if the initial commercialisation goal does not come true.

Minna Hendolin: So, how do you know when things are ready? What happens?

Henri Leinonen: Excellent question. I think I might be a little bit too junior to answer that. Probably, I would just ask some industry people first. But perhaps if I need to say something, I feel like when the scientific uncertainty is passed... For example, in my case, we have drug mechanism and we have pre-clinical data and so on. And now the practical uncertainty becomes more interesting and timely. For example, clinical translation. When the next unknowns are not about mechanism and so on, but they are about feasibility, about validation, and when they are context rather than basic mechanisms, like practical things, that may be the moment when you have the science done. It is not completely done, but you know, if you catch this...

Minna Hendolin: And I would say that there is not only one outcome often from this innovation process or project. Often several different outcomes could be followed then to the next level and the next impact. What about Tarja?

Tarja Malm: In my experience, it is often the experts, like company representatives or the investors, who can really tell whether something is ready for the next step. Or they can tell you what is needed in order for your innovation to be investor-ready. This is why we bring them into our projects early on, because it really helps us to understand what the industry is actually looking for and whether our innovation is something they would be interested in, at least from the start.

Minna Hendolin: And then we come back to the same thing that we already mentioned before, that you have to expose, you have to discuss with people outside the academia, funders, investors, potential customers even, to improve and get the feedback of the feasibility of your idea. But sometimes you might feel alone with your ideas. And universities offer all kinds of services. So, what are your experiences, Henri and Tarja, about those services or help you have got?

Henri Leinonen: I see that the UEF Innovation support makes it very easy to explore ideas without pressure to commercialise. It helps you to think clearly about options and timing while still be protecting the core science that you are doing. Specifically, I think it is less about a single service, these Innovation Services, and it is more about ecosystem. It is about access to people, access to networks, and conversations when you really need them.

Minna Hendolin: What about Tarja?

Tarja Malm: I completely agree with Henri. We work closely with the UEF Innovation Services, in particular with Matti Höytö, who has really supported us on a wide range of topics. And when we start planning a new project proposal, for example, we try to involve him early on. Usually, in the beginning of the planning, with an informal discussion about the idea. And these conversations have been extremely helpful in refining the concept and strengthening the overall proposal. And also, now I have noticed that the UEF has made some very important strategic decisions to support the preparation of not only scientific funding preparations but also Business Finland funding preparations. This is an actual, very important practical support tool for the research groups.

Minna Hendolin: Great to hear. And that is true, Tarja, that we have tried to put a lot of effort in boosting innovations and corporate collaboration and external funding, these special funding tools, but also opening up the proof-of-concept funding for social sciences and humanities' ideas, which is something where there are a lot of potential opportunities. But that is great. And it reminds me of an old African saying, "You need the whole village to raise a child." I think it goes very well with this innovation, that you need the whole ecosystem to raise successful innovations. So, I think the takeaway message, especially for the younger scientists, is that if you have an idea in your mind, you think there might be some unique potential for innovation. So, contact your supervisor, contact the Innovation Services and get things forward. You will find the answer. But we still have one set left. We are already approaching the end of the podcast, but still a couple of really practical things on how to make it work. Because many researchers are worrying about having no time, and combining science and innovation. There is a lot of pressure coming from different angles. So, Henri, how do you avoid putting yourself to shame?

Henri Leinonen: That is an excellent question. And honestly, I am still figuring that out. I have learned that I cannot do everything at once. So, I try to be rather selective about it when I engage with different topics, including innovation. And at this moment, I am really keen to learn from a more experienced perspective. So Tarja, perhaps you have some good practical ideas.

Tarja Malm: I kind of tend to get involved in many different initiatives, and sometimes maybe too many. But on the other hand, they have all been incredibly rewarding. And of course, I cannot do everything myself. And I have learned that the real key is to have a strong team. I have been extremely fortunate to build a highly versatile group with capacity and motivation to drive things forward, including also people who are actually genuinely enthusiastic about creating real-world impact from university innovations. And in fact, this enthusiasm creates further enthusiasm, so it kind of spreads. This is what I would like to achieve.

Minna Hendolin: Yes, this team comes in handy, I think. And often, even when the investors are looking for the idea, these are the capabilities that really need to improve if you want to get things forward. But if you have a lot of things, how do you choose which ideas to push forward then?

Henri Leinonen: You left the most difficult questions at the end. [Chuckles] We kind of touched upon this earlier, I guess, when we talked about asking investors. So, I think this would be a good thing. If you know some investors, you can ask. But in innovative academic research, you do not know upfront which ideas really hold up. If you know already that it is going to work, it is not innovative science. It just has a big risk of failure. So, to deal with that, I rely a lot on brief testing of ideas and being willing to pivot really fast. We never know in advance which ideas will work. So, learning quickly and re-directing is often the most realistic strategy, I would say.

Tarja Malm: This is true. You really have to investigate each idea separately. Also, some ideas are just simply something that needs to be published quickly, and you just have to consider them separately.

Minna Hendolin: I think that might also be something you, Henri, learned in California. If you fail, fail quickly. [Chuckles]

Henri Leinonen: Yes, California is well known of that.

Minna Hendolin: All right. But for the end of this podcast, let us go back to the initial question, can you really be a top scientist and an innovator at the same time? Do they distract each other? Henri?

Henri Leinonen: I think a common myth for academics comes from imagination, that innovation is something that automatically adds a second layer, a second workload on the top of research and teaching and so on. And when that happens, of course, it can be very distracting. But from my perspective, when innovation is integrated thoughtfully, it actually sharpens the scientific thinking. And being forced to articulate why something matters, who it could help, or even what assumption it relies on often exposes new gaps, and those gaps become new important research questions. And I have seen that this way of thinking can also open doors to new funding opportunities without lowering the scientific standards. So, rather than distracting from excellence, innovation can actually reinforce it, as long as it is approached quite selectively and at the right time.

Tarja Malm: I completely agree. I think science is innovative, and it is also innovation. So, these two do not exclude each other. And we all do research because we want to have an impact. And this is important.

Minna Hendolin: That is greatly said. So, innovation is not a separate track. It is an extension of science, curiosity, and it is a part of the societal responsibility. Thank you, Tarja and Henri, for opening this new podcast series with such honest, insightful perspectives. Your journey shows that innovation does not replace science, it grows from it. In our next episode, we will actually explore concrete roots, from idea to commercialisation, real-life examples, how to build successful collaboration beyond the academic world and meet teams who had really worked the path. So, be tuned! And if you are a UEF researcher wondering where to go, this might be the day your innovation journey starts. Thank you!

Tarja Malm: Thank you!

Henri Leinonen: Thank you!

[Outro music playing]