News & Insights for Scientists 

The transition from academic research to entrepreneurship is often framed as a radical shift — one that requires scientists to acquire entirely new skills, identities, and mindsets. This assumption is widespread and persistent, yet misleading.

In this series of our News & Insights Series for Scientists, we argue that scientific training already cultivates many of the core competencies required for successful venture creation. Through conceptual analysis, skill mapping, and visual evidence, we show that the distance between “scientist” and “founder” is far smaller than commonly believed.

From this perspective, entrepreneurship is not a foreign discipline for researchers, but a familiar extension of scientific thinking beyond the lab.

The term entrepreneurship often triggers hesitation among scientists. Not due to a lack of ideas, but because it is frequently associated with assumptions about having a specific profile. A prevailing narrative suggests that:

Founders are bold risk-takers, fluent in business language, marketing logic, and financial modeling. 

 

Scientists, by contrast, are often portrayed as specialists — deeply analytical, cautious, and confined to the lab.

This binary view is not only inaccurate; it actively prevents knowledge from reaching society. 

Our editorial journey and mindshift began with a simple but powerful observation.

A turning point came from a widely shared illustration by Elena Hoffer (Founder of Alma.me), which challenged public assumptions about PhD students.

This visual comparison does not exaggerate. It documents reality.

The daily work of scientists already mirrors the work of founders — structurally, cognitively, and emotionally.

In this case, by analyzing widely accepted founder competencies and systematically comparing them with everyday scientific practice, a clear overlap in core abilities becomes evident. 

Scientific work is inherently multidisciplinary, self-organized, and outcome-driven — precisely the conditions found in early-stage ventures.

What surprised us was not that these abilities overlap — but how consistently they appear across scientific practice.

This perspective challenges the assumption that scientists must first “become different” before founding a venture. 

Instead, it suggests that the foundation is already present. What changes is not the underlying skill set, but the field of application. 

Understanding this overlap is critical: 

1. It lowers psychological barriers, corrects false dichotomies between research and entrepreneurship, and
2. It opens space for scientists to explore venture creation as a legitimate, evidence-driven extension of their work. 

Every scientific path is individual. Not every researcher must found a company — and not every idea must become a start-up.

Seen this way, exploring entrepreneurship is not a career decision, but an experiment.

Explore it. Test it. Review it. Improve it.

In the next articles, we show how the skills are overlapping and what you can achieve with it - adapting the field of application. Stay tuned!