We’ve heard a lot about the risk of COVID-19 spread in school-aged children, but what about younger kids? ​

I began advocating for preprinting platforms when I first discovered bioRxiv in grad school and haven't stopped. These platforms make scientific studies available – without a paywall – before they are published in academic journals. But they should be read - and used - with caution.

Validating market demand for a new food or exercise trend is one thing, but how do biomedical researchers investigate the market viability of new clinical applications? The National Science Foundation (NSF) recognized the need for innovators to explore product/market fit before product development and pioneered the NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps™) program as a solution in 2012. The I-Corps provides scientists and engineers with funds and educational support to assess the commercialization potential of basic research projects.

When I ask young biomedical startups to tell me their value proposition, they often respond with a generic sentiment that echoes Annie's proclamation above: "Our technology/process/platform/methodology is better than that of our competitor." This response doesn't surprise me, but it doesn't suffice as a value proposition. Technology that's touted as simply "better" will get overlooked by stakeholders every time because this claim is temporary and not testable. Let me explain.

My transition from clinical dietitian to research scientist wasn’t just a change in careers: I entered a new reality. I repeatedly saw differences between the reality of the clinic and that of the lab discourage collaboration between physicians and scientists, impeding the development of clinically relevant innovations. How do we fix this dilemma?