If there's one thing I miss about my time in academia is access to interesting people. I didn't value it back then, but the range of discussions you can have while in a university is extremely broad. Both senior and junior scientists will have no problems in spending a few minutes or hours discussing what they do.

Scipreneurs can leverage this access to people very early on in their journey.

Once you start pursuing an idea, you can validate it through discussions with the people who will understand what you are doing.

Secrets about talking to people

When you discuss with more senior scientists, there's a very high likelihood that they will take on the role of advisors. Professors always think they know better, and if they see you are trying to start a company, they will come up with all sorts of suggestions, from business models to marketing.

However, the most interesting thing you can extract from an interaction with them is whether they have money to buy your solution.

I know it sounds cynical, but most professors are so withdrawn from the lab that the specifics of what you are doing may escape them. Understanding how financing works in the field you are targeting is extremely helpful to plan ahead. Perhaps in that niche people work in core facilities. Perhaps you learn that there are grants exclusively for purchasing equipment. Or, you learn they need some preliminary data to continue with an application.

Understanding how the purchasing decision is made is very important so you don't lose time later on.

The next most valuable interaction with a senior scientist is about the longer-term vision in the field. If someone tells you: "if I could do X then Y would unfold", and you are the one who can do X, then you've hit the jackpot. There's a high likelihood many people want to achieve Y, you just need to show them the way.

Mid-scientists (early career, postdocs, technicians) are normally more approachable, but there's also a chance they only think short-term. The advantage is that probably they have fresh experiences with other devices, so they are a good source of information for the competitive landscape. However, they are not decision-makers.

A postdoc will rarely have the power to purchase an instrument that is meant to be used for much longer than what their contract lasts.

But the frustrations they have with other instruments are a great source of inspiration. Especially technicians will have a very clear understanding of what instruments they enjoy using and which ones they hate. Perhaps because of the prestige of being the only one trained to use it. Or because they are always broken, or they are so slow they have to stay after hours.

Junior scientists (PhDs) are the best entry point to a lab. They will have specific opinions on what they do, but not a broad overview of many techniques around. However, their time is less scarce, so it's easy to convince them to have a chat, and there's a chance they'll bring up your ideas to their supervisors.

They are definitely no decision makers, but most likely they are the ones who will be sent to spend time in your lab checking your technique and reporting back. Having a fluid relationship with them is crucial. They tend to be candid about the ongoing challenges in the lab, and frustrations with what they are trying to achieve.

They should be in the spotlight

When talking to people right before you even formally start a company requires that you put them in the spotlight.

You should not focus on your solution, regardless of how proud you are about it, but you should focus on getting as much information as you can out of them.

The first important aspect is to have a system for documenting your interactions. Especially if you are going to meet a person for a second time after a few months, you should remember as much as possible about what was discussed and check progress: "How's the paper coming along? Was the grant awarded?" Those are fantastic icebreakers.

The second, and perhaps most challenging, is to ask open-ended questions as much as possible. If you ask a closed question like: "Do you use this instrument in your lab?" Is something you could have learned on your own. On the other hand: "What instruments do you use to achieve X"? Will give you infinitely more information.

After all, you care to know how people will place your product about everything they already have available.

Never put them in the position of giving advice on what you are doing. If you ask things like "What do you think about my instrument?" you will build an adverse rapport with them. Suddenly you put them in a powerful position for which they were not prepared.