Interview with IMAGINE IF! Runner Up Neutrocheck

After months of project development, the 8 Cambridge IMAGINE IF! local finalists pitched their science-based venture propositions to a panel of six judges for their chance to qualify for the global finale and to compete for a $4,000 cash prize sponsored by Venn Life Sciences.

To conclude the night FluidX claimed the position of local winner, with Neutrocheck claiming runner up. Ahead of the global final and Health Horizons – Future Healthcare Forum which will take place on June 26-27, 2019 in Cambridge, UK, we had the opportunity to learn a little bit more about each of our Cambridge representatives.

Neutrocheck: Transforming care for patients on cancer chemotherapy

Each year, around 2.2 million patients undergo chemotherapy treatment across Europe. Neutropenic sepsis (NS) is a life-threatening medical emergency that occurs in patients having chemotherapy. NS occurs because chemotherapy suppresses the immune system and, if patients develop an infection during this time, even a mild illness can be fatal. The key blood cell suppressed in NS is known as the neutrophil. Consequently, if a patient on chemotherapy has even mild signs of an infection, they must be brought into hospital immediately and have a blood test to check their neutrophil levels. While awaiting results for 1-2 hours, the patient is given precautionary antibiotics in case they have low neutrophils. Data from patient records at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, shows that almost 60% of these patients turn out to have normal neutrophil levels and therefore did not need to attend hospital. The hard cost to a healthcare provider of each such visit is approximately £700. In 2018, in the UK alone, around £50 million was wasted on these unnecessary visits.

Neutrocheck was launched to develop a transformative new medical device – Neutrocheck – presenting tangible efficiencies in patient care and healthcare resource, both financial and human. Using blood from a small pin-prick, the Neutrocheck device will provide a near-instant measure of a patient’s neutrophil count at home. Neutrocheck is designed to be portable and easy-to-use. Our focus is to produce a fast, reliable and low-cost device which would improve safety and quality of life for cancer patients worldwide, whilst saving healthcare institutions such as the NHS millions of pounds each year from substantially reducing hospital visits.

Neutrocheck is made up of Saif Ahmad, Dr. Fahad Ali, Umaima Malik Ahmad and Dr. Nicole Weckman.

Saif Ahmad

Saif leads Neutrocheck’s day-to-day operations and supports product development. He is a Clinical Lecturer in Clinical Oncology, University of Cambridge. His post-doctoral position enables him to work as both a clinical oncologist at Addenbrooke’s Hospital and a post-doctoral researcher at the
Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute. With a strong network within the oncology field, the Neutrocheck team intend for Saif to support product development, particularly clinical trials, and ensure the device remains fit-for-purpose and, after launch, to focus on business development with
healthcare providers around the world. In July 2018, Saif and fellow team member Nicole Weckman were recognised for their potential and selected as a Canada-UK Postdoctoral Fellow in Innovation and Entrepreneurship which promotes and expands the careers of talented Postdoctoral researchers
to enable them to become future leaders and entrepreneurs embedded in internationally leading centres of excellence in the UK and Canada (https://www.opda.cam.ac.uk/career-development/CanadaUK-fellowships).

Fahad Ali

Fahad is responsible for scientific and technical issues linked with product development and will support marketing. He is a visiting post-doctoral cancer researcher based at the MRC Cancer Unit at the University of Cambridge. He has recently published a number of first-author research articles. Fahad completed his PhD in molecular biology at the University of Liverpool. Over the last 5 years he has also founded and been working in a start-up company that is a specialist healthcare distributor of high quality, innovative medical products including medical devices.

Umaima Malik Ahmad

Umaima leads on finance, business strategy, marketing and sales. She has a broad skill-set covering project and risk management, finance and law. She is a qualified lawyer with nine years of industry experience within financial services and life sciences. She has worked and studied across Europe and the Middle East for companies including Citibank and National Bank of Abu Dhabi. Umaima
completed her undergraduate degree in Law with European Legal Studies from King’s College London. She completed the MPhil in Bioscience Enterprise from the University of Cambridge in 2017 and after working as in-house counsel for Abcam, is now an Associate Director for Business Development Operations at AstraZeneca where she focuses on transaction negotiation and execution for both in-licensing and divestment deals, with a particular focus in the oncology space.

Nicole Weckman

Nicole leads on product development with a specific focus on engineering. She has specific expertise in the development of point-of-care biosensors and currently works as a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Physics, University of Cambridge. She is also a University of Cambridge Canada-
UK Postdoctoral Fellow for Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

We spoke with Neutrocheck’s Saif to get to learn a little bit more about our runner up.

How did team Neutrocheck meet, and why do you as a team get on so well?

Our team are all linked by the University of Cambridge. For instance, Fahad and myself worked in neighbouring labs. Nicole joined last year, and I met her through a University of Cambridge postdoctoral leadership development programme. Her expertise and passion for biosensors meant she perfectly fit in with the business. We all get on fantastically well and whilst passionate about
driving the project forward we have all very much enjoyed the experience too. In particular, we have learnt so much in the last year or so and are hugely grateful to a number of fantastic mentors who have supported us.

Why did you want to go in science?

I think I speak for all of us in saying that one of the best things about science is that we are constantly learning new things. In all of our disciplines, there are so many unanswered questions and often the answers are far from what we were expecting. Being able to apply our scientific knowledge to develop a device that may improve the lives of cancer patients is a fantastic and exciting
opportunity.

What entrepreneurial experiences have helped shaped you so far?

Umaima completed an MPhil in Bioscience Enterprise at the University of Cambridge which has provided her with a diverse knowledge base and skillset to help drive the project forward. But, for all of us this is our first experience of a start-up.

Let’s talk about your project. Where did you get your idea from and what problem does it address? Overall, what impact are Neutrocheck trying to make?

As chemotherapy suppresses the immune system, even a mild illness can be fatal for chemotherapy patients. The suppression of a white blood cell known as the neutrophil, can lead to neutropenic sepsis, a life-threatening medical emergency. Therefore, chemotherapy patients with even mild signs of infection at home are brought into hospital for blood tests to check their neutrophil counts and, while awaiting results, given intravenous antibiotics as a precaution. 6 in 10 patients turn out to have normal neutrophil counts, and therefore did not necessarily need to attend hospital, costing the NHS ~£40 million each year. Neutrocheck are striving to improve the lives for cancer patients worldwide and to deliver safer care and an improved quality of life.

What is your solution and how does it work?

Neutrocheck was launched to develop a transformative new medical device – Neutrocheck – presenting tangible efficiencies in patient care and healthcare resource, both financial and human. The device will be used in the patient’s home to give a near instant measure of the patient’s neutrophil count using blood from a small pin-prick. The Neutrocheck device is designed to be portable and easy-to-use in a home environment, similar to a home pregnancy test. Our focus is to produce a fast, reliable and low-cost device which would improve safety and quality of life for cancer patients worldwide, whilst saving healthcare institutions such as the NHS millions of pounds each year from substantially reducing hospital visits.

Where did you get your idea from?

Working on call in the hospital I am used to seeing patients attend A&E almost every day only to then have to go home because their neutrophil blood count was normal. It seemed like such a simple problem to solve with a home testing device but when I looked into the science behind it, it became clear why such a device didn’t yet exist. However, that was the fun part of the challenge and now we’ve built a team that is striving to solve this problem and potentially benefit many thousands of cancer patients worldwide in future.

Why is it better than competitors?

No other device exists that specifically tackles this problem, however competing devices can provide neutrophil levels for patients at home. These devices are bulky and prohibitively expensive – nearer a thousand pounds as opposed to our device which would cost around £2 to manufacture.

Who are your targeted customers?

Healthcare providers worldwide, both private and government. The NHS would be a potential customer and in fact the North American market would be a prime market opportunity for us.

Interview with IMAGINE IF! Finalist FluidX

To conclude the night FluidX claimed the position of local winner, with Neutrocheck claiming runner up. Ahead of the global final and Health Horizons Future Healthcare Forum which will take place on June 26-27 2019 in Cambridge, UK, we had the opportunity to learn a little bit more about each of our IMAGINE IF! Cambridge representatives.

FluiDx: Early Detection is no longer a luxury

FluiDx is a start-up company developing and producing platforms for monitoring cell culture contamination. Created by three former lab research assistants frustrated with current quality control monitoring technologies, FluiDx harnesses the emerging power of microfluidics to reduce the hassle and time associated with current testing. In addition, FluiDx devices are multi-modal,
enabling detection of multiple pathogen types (mycoplasma, other bacteria, fungus, and viral contaminants).

We are developing a low-cost drop-based microfluidics device to test for contamination in cell cultures. The technology allows for ultra-sensitive pathogen detection within 2 hours, and its multi-modality results in species-specific differentiation, overcoming traditional barriers in contamination screening. Our platform will be 1000x more sensitive than traditional PCR, and
costs only $0.25 to produce at scale. The speed, simplicity, and sensitivity of our technology will empower researchers to keep their hands and heads off cumbersome legacy technologies and on the experiments that will create the next generation medical innovation.

FluidX is made up of Seamus Caragher, Alex Warren and Neil Davey.

Seamus Caragher

Working in labs for the last six years, Seamus knows the challenges of monitoring and maintaining sterility with cell cultures. Frustrated with current technology for contamination testing, he hopes FluiDx will bring simple and effective tools for cell culture to fellow researchers across the globe. Seamus holds a BS in Neurobiology from Georgetown University, where he graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. A British Marshall Scholar, he obtained his MSc in Cancer Sciences from the University of Glasgow and is currently pursuing an MPhil in Bioscience Enterprise at the University of Cambridge.

Alex Warren

Alex brings a wealth of experience working at the intersection of healthcare, biomedical research, and business. As a translational oncology researcher, he saw firsthand how innovative science is hampered and slowed by inefficient quality control methods. Later, working in biotech investment banking, he realized that these challenges are not limited to academic labs. His hope for FluiDx is that it improves the efficiency of R&D in academia and industry.
Alex graduated summa cum laude with a BA in Biology from the University of Pennsylvania. He is currently pursuing an MPhil in Bioscience Enterprise at the University of Cambridge.

Neil Davey

Visiting India each summer, Neil developed a keen interest in issues of access to healthcare technology in resource-limited settings. While a student at Harvard, he developed new microfluidic systems for early and rapid diagnosis of pathogens. He traveled to both Peru and India to conduct clinical studies of these low-cost devices for individuals with malaria. Neil hopes that FluiDx will harness the power of microfluidics to accelerate innovation and enhance the efficacy of biomanufacturing. Neil graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University with degrees in Applied Mathematics & Economics and Global Health & Health Policy. As a Gates Cambridge Scholar, he is currently pursuing an MPhil in Technology Policy.

We spoke with FluidX’s Seamus to learn more about our winning team.

Let’s start by talking about your project. Where did you get the idea behind FluidX from?

Working as research assistants, the three of us were often tasked with performing the culture contamination testing in our labs. The current process is very slow. In discussing Neil’s work producing low cost pathogen detection devices, we realized the great potential to apply that technology to culture testing.

What problem does it address?

Current testing kits are labor-intensive, often expensive, and only test for a single species of contaminant. A lab-based kit takes a minimum of five hours and often involves an hour of hands-on time from a research scientist. We believe that scientists are busy enough with their exciting experiments and should not have to dedicate so much time to this task. More resourced labs and companies often outsource their testing, which is very expensive and often takes several weeks. The delay caused by testing delays scientists to the detriment of patients in need. Conversations with academic researchers, start-up biotech companies, and large pharma R&D scientists have confirmed dissatisfaction with current testing technologies. Likewise, biomanufacturing firms, who utilize thousands of cell lines to produce biologic drugs like Humira, suffer from delays in production caused by current contamination testing. These delays can cause shortages of key biologic drugs.

What is your solution and how does it work?

Our playing-card sized device will be sold as a single-use testing kit and involves a few simple steps seamlessly integrated with existing laboratory infrastructure. First, a small amount of culture media is injected into the device using a hand-held pipette. The structure of the device causes the liquid to become encapsulated in 50 μm water-in-oil emulsions. Drop-based microfluidics partitions these emulsions into discrete reaction vesicles, preventing masking of infectious DNA by healthy cells and enabling unprecedented sensitivity. If present in a drop, pathogen-specific DNA will be amplified, which is then detected based on color change or fluorescence. These changes can then be quantified with a light or fluorescence microscope. Rather than using traditional amplification (PCR), which requires an expensive thermocycler, FluiDx employs isothermal amplification (LAMP) that occurs at a single temperature (60 °C) and can be performed rapidly (~30 minutes) on a battery-operated hot plate or in a traditional incubator.

How long have you been working on it?

Neil has been working on the underlying technology for the past 3 years. FluiDxLab has been in development for the last six months.

Why is your technology better than competitors?

Our competitors’ technologies require lots of engagement from scientists. They are time-intensive, delaying innovative scientific research. In addition, they only test for a single species of contaminant, despite the fact that a multitude of species can cause issues in cell culture facilities. We believe these technologies unnecessarily hinder scientific progress. Our product is simple to use, rapid, and highly sensitive. As one biotech scientist said to us, “if you build it, we will test it. If it works, we will buy it”.

On that note, who will buy this – who are your targeted customers?

The ideal customers for FluiDxLab are academic and industry researchers working with cell cultures, especially human cell lines. Our partners in device design and beta-testing are research labs from leading institutions like UCSF, the University of Glasgow, and Harvard.
FluiDxPro will aim to address the challenges of biomanufacturers. Our ideal customer segments in that space are biopharma companies, contract manufacturing and research organizations, and cell banks.

What impact are FluiDX trying to make?

The hope of the FluiDx team is that our product will make the lives of scientists easier, enabling them to focus their efforts on innovations that will shepherd the next generation of therapies to patients in need.

Does this have translatable benefits for patients?

Patients who currently receive biologic drugs to manage their health will benefit from increased assurance that the drugs they are utilizing are contamination free. In addition, the patients of tomorrow will be treated with better, more effective products created by scientists with more time and resources.

Talking about your team, how did team FluidX meet, and why do you as a team get on so well?

We met at Cambridge. Neil and I are both members of Pembroke College, while Alex and I are in the same program. After a few friendly conversations, it became apparent that the three of us were all interested in innovation and the potential for novel technologies to make real impact in people’s lives. When Neil described his exciting work developing microfluidic technologies for the detection of infectious diseases in low-resource contexts, the three of us realized that this technology has wide applications across a variety of fluids. Given our experiences working in life science laboratories, we identified the frustration surrounding currently technologies.

Why did you want to go in science?

Personally, I was incredibly lucky to have wonderful science teachers throughout my life. I’m a bit of an anomaly in my family by being interested in science and healthcare. I find working in science incredibly exciting. The thrill of a new hypothesis and the arduous process of discovering some small piece of biological puzzle keep me coming back to the bench, despite how frustrating it can be. The fact that working in science, beyond the personal fulfillment, also helps ensure a better life for people make it, in my mind, the perfect field to enter.

If you didn’t go into science, what would you have done?

My grandmother always suggested, only half-joking, that I should go into bartending. I’ve always been a chatty person and she thought a captive audience would be the best thing for me.

What entrepreneurial experiences have helped shaped you so far?

Our team has a mix of experiences that informs our work at FluiDx and drives our company strategy. First and foremost, we have all participated extensively in scientific research. Neil has expertise in infectious disease and microfluidic device design. Alex has worked in clinical and translational cancer research. My work has largely focused on understanding the brain in health and disease, in particular brain cancer.

What are your long-term career plans?

I will be returning to the United States to begin medical school. I hope to become a physician entrepreneur, working to ensure that the exciting work of the basic science community are translating into new and better options for patients in need. Our hope is that FluiDx, by reducing the time scientists spend on ensuring their cultures are contamination free, will help achieve this same goal and accelerate the next generation of discovery.

Interview with Dr Robert Wilkinson from MedImmune

More than 14 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year and more than 8 million of those die. Indeed, it is evident that a revolution in terms of cancer treatment is gravely needed. One field which potentially holds great promise is immuno-oncology (IO). IO therapies aim to induce or enhance the immune system to fight cancer.

To address this topic, the Innovation Forum Cambridge branch hosted the event, ‘Immuno-oncology: A New Era in Cancer Therapy.’ The evening involved talks from industry leaders on the evolution of immuno-oncology: Dr. Robert Wilkinson (Director of Oncology Research, MedImmune), Dr. Mihriban Tuna (Vice President Discovery, F-Star) and Dr. Stephan Thorgrimsen (CEO, Immunitrack).

I was fortunate to speak with Robert and discuss the trends of immuno-oncology and how MedImmune are leading the charge.

Robert Wilkinson is Director of Oncology Research at MedImmune, the global biologics research and development arm of AstraZeneca. Based in Cambridge, his group is charged with the generation and delivery of new candidate biotherapeutics. His research focuses on immunotherapies, as well as tumour targeted therapies using the latest antibody and protein based strategies. Robert has over twenty years of experience in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, in both small and large molecule cancer drug discovery, and translational science. Previously he has held senior leadership roles within AstraZeneca and Cancer Research Technology and has a strong track record in progressing pipeline projects and harnessing novel scientific approaches, technologies and directing multidisciplinary teams. Robert received his PhD in Experimental Immunology from The University of Birmingham and has co-authored over 60 publications in the field of drug discovery, immunology and cancer.

Question: What do you believe has driven this industry-wide push for immuno-oncology?

A few definitions are useful upfront. Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies are a group of treatments for cancer patients which enhance the ability of the immune system to attack their cancer. Ultimately, many of these therapies work by enhancing the ability of T-cells, the work horses of the immune system, to kill tumour cells. The first breakthrough in the IO field came from a group of monoclonal antibody-based therapies that “release the brakes” on T-cells. These therapies are often called ‘immune checkpoint blockade” (ICB) therapies.

To answer your question, the excitement around IO is driven by the extent of the positive encouraging patient clinical responses to these ICB therapies in previously untreatable cancer patient indications. Clinical responses to ICB therapy have been seen in populations of patients who historically responded poorly or transiently to the available standard of care therapies like surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. One such cancer where ICB therapies have had a major impact is melanoma (a kind of skin cancer), and particularly metastatic melanoma (where the cancer has spread to different sites in the body).

One factor that makes the IO field so exciting, is that when cancer patients do respond to ICB therapies, not only do their tumours shrink (regress), but in some instances their responses are long lasting (durable). Patients who show respond to ICB sometimes have responses lasting several years. This is quite different from the normal response to chemotherapy, where most patients will see tumor regression, but their response to treatment is often transient and their cancer will then grow back.

With all therapies, pros and cons exist. In terms of immuno-oncology, what are the cons and how will they be addressed?

One of the cons of IO therapy is that not all patients exhibit a durable, clinical response. In many cancer types, the response rate is around 10-20% when an immuno-oncology therapy is given as a monotherapy. Predicting which patients will benefit from IO therapies will be key to driving up responses and increasing accessibility. Significant collaborative efforts are ongoing between academia and industry to understand why some patients respond to IO therapies and others don’t. Translational studies analysing tumour biopsies from cancer patients before and after immuno-oncology therapy have been insightful. Interestingly, patients lacking T-cells in their tumour before treatment – so called ‘cold tumours’– tend to respond less favourably compared to patients with tumour infiltrated with T-cells before treatment – so called ‘hot tumours’. Several recent studies indicate that the overall number of mutations a cancer has may have a bearing on whether the cancer exhibits a cold or hot phenotype. However, this is a very complex area of science, and there are probably many more factors involved in driving IO response / non-response that remain to be discovered.
Whilst IO is changing the treatment paradigm in several types of cancers, some patients experience immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs). It is believed these adverse events arise from increased activity in the immune system and in many cases, they can be ameliorated by treatment with anti-inflammatory medicines, such corticosteroids. While imAEs can affect any organ or tissue, common imAEs include the gastrointestinal tract (colitis) and skin (dermatitis). Akin to the ongoing translational research to predict patients who will mount an effective anti-tumour response, there are significant efforts around safety biomarkers to identify patients who may be susceptible to imAEs and possibly not suitable for IO treatments.

MedImmune are performing exceptionally well with more than 130 biologics in R&D, and 50 products in development. What do you believe has been MedImmune’s most distinguished achievement thus far, and what product yet to come are you most excited for?

From an oncology perspective, in MedImmune and AstraZeneca we are very proud of the two recent FDA-approvals for the immune-checkpoint monoclonal antibody Durvalumab. Durvalumab recognises a molecule called PD-L1 which is frequently expressed on tumours and functions to ‘switch off’ T cells via a receptor on T cells called PD-1. Importantly, it takes many individuals and teams to develop a medicine. I’ve been personally privileged to contribute to the development of Durvalumab from an early start within the project.

Multiple immunotherapies, developed by many different companies, treating a broad range of cancers are receiving regulatory approval. Where do MedImmune’s technologies stand in the future?

I believe MedImmune is well placed for the future, as the company has invested in a range of different therapeutic platforms. I think it’s important to understand how you want to modulate a target in a disease setting, and then try to match that with a therapeutic platform. In some instances, it may be appropriate to use a monoclonal antibody whilst in other circumstances it may be appropriate to hit more than one target simultaneous and so a bi-specific antibody may be better suited to the job. In other instances, an oncolytic virus which can directly kill tumours and stimulate an immune response might be the way forward – for instance to convert a cold tumour to a hot tumour phenotype.

Following on from that, as MedImmune are so well placed, how do you see the Immuno-oncology sector evolving and how do you see the immuno-oncology field developing as an industry – what hurdles might it face?

I think it’s key to understand the science behind why some patients respond whilst other don’t to immunotherapy. Cancer is a heterogenous disease and some cancer types exhibit certain features which render them more suitable to IO therapy than others. Clearly, we see the different immune phenotypes of hot and cold tumours but understanding what the mechanisms are behind these phenotypes is paramount – be that genetic factors, a patient’s immune status or whatever other aspects of the biology.

Looking to the future, a key objective will be identifying the best combination therapies to bring the benefits of IO to more patients. ICB therapies are being combined with other IO therapies to heat up tumours and improve the presentation of tumour antigens. ICB therapies are also being combined with standard of care chemo- or radiotherapy. An example of this I suppose, is the recent approval of Durvalumab in unresectable stage III non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this disease setting, durvalumab is given to patients after they finish a course of chemo- and radiotherapy treatment.

More personalised approaches in the IO field have the potential to advance responses in some cancer types. Here I am thinking about adoptive cell transfer (ACT) therapies, which involve extracting a patient’s T cells and genetically modifying them to recognise specific tumour antigens, then infusing then back into the patient. Another area showing promise, is the use of personalised cancer vaccines which aim to induce specific immune responses in a patient to their tumor mutations (neoantigens).

I think there are also clearly major advances taking place in the biomarker field. There are some exciting developments in the types of biomarkers we can investigate to understand what is happening in tumour biopsies. Beyond that, the ability to predict responses to therapy using novel biomarkers measurable in the blood (like circulating tumor DNA) could be great for patients, reducing the need for invasive tumor biopsies.

A number of the attendees at the Innovation Forum’s Immuno-oncology event were early stage researchers – PhDs and PostDocs – hoping to pursue a career in industry. From your experience, what advice would you give to thrive in R&D; what skills do you need?

Passion for science is number one! A strong drive to challenge current paradigms of how we treat patients. Resilience, for instance, to be able to pick yourself up if an experiment hasn’t worked and to try it again.

R&D in pharma functions on teamwork. To thrive, one needs to be transparent and share a willingness to help others on the project – that’s a key feature. Sometimes when you’re doing your PhD you might be the only person working on that topic in the lab, or in that research section of a medical institution. That’s probably different to how it is in pharma, you’ve got multi-skilled teams, and everybody has a role to play – so really honing up those teamwork skills is critical.

Leaders Conference 2016 – REGISTER NOW!

The annual flagship event of the Innovation Forum ‐ Leaders Conference 2016 (IF2016) is on sale now!

On the 21-22 September, we will bring together as many as 600 delegates: CEOs, prominent investors and top innovators to head discussions of the latest trends in therapeutics, cleantech and medtech.

Whether you are an industry leader, investor, leading academic or early‐stage entrepreneur, IF2016 offers you the chance to benefit from extensive partnering opportunities, hear key opinions, discuss the latest trends in innovation and find inspiration. Find out what’s on the agenda.

The event will also host the Grand Finale of WHAT IF! – the global competition & accelerator for deep technology startups.

Tickets will sell fast. Get yours while you still can!

Ignite 2016 – Fast-tracking innovation to commercial reality

Are you an ambitious researcher, engineer or scientist looking to transform an innovation and prepare it for commercial reality? Are you looking to invigorate innovation within your company, build skills and strengths in the R&D teams, maximise the potential of new ideas and revitalise business in these challenging economic times? Then the Ignite programme, managed and delivered by the Cambridge Judge Business School Entrepreneurship Centre, could be for you.

Ignite is an intensive, one-week training programme for aspiring entrepreneurs and corporate innovators from the hi-tech and life sciences sectors. Comprised of a blend of practical teaching sessions, expert clinics, mentor sessions and advice from experienced entrepreneurs and innovators, it provides delegates with the tools, contacts and confidence to transform their ideas into successful business projects or ventures. The programme structure enables support to be tailored to fit the individual business idea and to focus on specific issues such as investment readiness, technical and market due diligence.

This open programme has a track record of enabling the creation of many, successful ventures by alumni from across the world. It is estimated that over 250 businesses were created by alumni in the last four years and are still up and running. According to alumni surveys conducted since 2013, more than £200 million in funding was raised and around 4,300 jobs were created by Ignite alumni ventures from 2011-2015.

Peter Suh, New Concepts Manager, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company said:

“The programme challenged me to think outside of the box and injected entrepreneurial spirit to the project. As a result, an inside-looking, narrowly-scoped project turned into a potential new business opportunity for the company. I would strongly recommend the experience for corporate participants at all levels who are working in innovation or new product development.”

Gabriele Corliano, BT Research commented:

“Attending the Ignite week has been a tremendous experience! The course was of great intensity and provided great insights into all the stages of the entrepreneurial process – insights which I now apply in BT Research to maximise the value of new ideas.”

Peng Li, Research Associate Centre for Advanced Photonics and Electronics (CAPE), Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge added:

“Ignite is, with no doubt, the best and quickest way to get educated, trained and connected on all aspects of entrepreneurship. For most of the non-business background participants, it simply opens the door to an entirely new world.”

Find out more about Ignite > www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/ignite

If you’re interested in participating, please read the selection criteria thoroughly to assess whether it is right for you and complete the online application form.

Cover image: Dr Hermann Hauser speaking with students at a previous Ignite programme

Select your branch

Author: Dr Marek Tyl