Science communication and fundraising: explaining your technology to investors
A fund reads dozens of decks a week. Yours must be understood before it is evaluated.
A fundraising round in biotech, medtech or deeptech is decided first on understanding. An investor who does not understand the technology does not judge it bad: they move on to the next deck. Science communication is therefore not an accessory communication exercise, it is the condition for the science to be evaluated.
Here is the method we apply when we support a founding team on its materials: teaser, deck, website and the data room pages aimed at non-specialists.
Contents
Three readers, three levels
A deck passes through the hands of three people who do not read the same way. The analyst or junior associate does the first screening: they have a few minutes and a general scientific culture. The fund's expert, often a PhD or a physician, checks the science in detail. The partner decides on the market, the team and the risk, and only has the summary.
A good deck is therefore built in layers: a sentence, then a page, then the appendix. Each layer is complete for its reader and points to the next. The classic mistake is to write a single version, too technical for the first reader and too vague for the second.
The fifteen-second sentence
Everything starts with a sentence that states the problem, the solution and the evidence. Not the technology: the problem it solves, for whom, and what shows that it works. “We halve the diagnosis time of this condition thanks to this approach, validated on this many patients” is a fifteen-second sentence. “We are developing a proprietary platform based on this technology” is not.
This sentence becomes the title of the teaser, the first slide of the deck and the banner of the home page. If it changes from one medium to the next, the reader doubts.
From data to orders of magnitude
Scientific results are expressed as precise values with their uncertainties. A non-specialist investor needs the order of magnitude and the comparison: twice as sensitive as the reference, one week instead of three, a cost per test divided by ten. The exact value and the confidence interval remain available in the appendix for the expert.
The rule: every figure in the summary answers the question “compared with what?”. A figure without a comparison says nothing to someone who does not know the field.
The mechanism of action in one image
A well-designed mechanism image replaces a page of text. It shows the target, the action and the effect, with three colors at most and a short caption. It helps the analyst understand, the partner remember, and the expert as an entry point to the data.
This image must be the same everywhere: deck, website, conference poster. It is the visual signature of the technology, just like the logo.
Milestones and risks stated clearly
Specialized investors know the stages: proof of concept, preclinical, clinical trial phases, CE marking or FDA approval, reimbursement. Generalists know them less well. A good deck names the milestone reached, the next milestone, what it depends on and what the money raised finances precisely.
Stating the risks is proof of competence, not an admission of weakness. A named risk with its mitigation plan reassures more than a risk-free deck, which any experienced investor reads as a poorly prepared deck.
Evidence rather than promises
Publications, patents, industrial partnerships, grants obtained and the opinion leaders who support the project are evidence. Adjectives are not. Every claim in the deck must be traceable to one of these elements, and the links must be easy to follow from the website.
Publications: full references, with the link to the article.
Intellectual property: scope and territories, without the detail of the claims.
Partnerships and pilot customers: what they are testing and since when.
Non-dilutive funding obtained: amount and body.
Scientific advisory board: names, institutions and actual role.
The mistakes that cost a funding round
Starting with the technology rather than the problem.
Different vocabulary between the deck, the website and the spoken answers.
Figures with no comparison and no calculation basis.
A website that has not been updated since the last milestone, when it is the first thing an investor checks after a first exchange.
A team page that does not say who did what, nor why this team is legitimate on this subject.
No trace of the risks and of what is planned to reduce them.
From the deck to the website
After a first contact, the investor opens the website. They must find the same sentence there, the same mechanism image, the team page, the publications and recent news. A website consistent with the deck confirms credibility; a website out of step destroys it. This is why we treat the website as a component of the fundraising materials, not as a separate showcase.
Going further
Frequently asked questions
When should you work on the science communication of a fundraising deck?
Before the first contacts, as soon as the scientific milestone that justifies the round is reached. The fifteen-second sentence, the mechanism image and the team page must be ready at the same time as the deck, and the website updated before the teaser is sent.
Do you need a different deck for generalist and specialized funds?
A single deck built in layers is enough: summary, body, appendices. Generalist funds stop at the body, specialized funds read the appendices. What changes is the spoken presentation and the data room.
Does simplifying not risk making the science look less serious?
It is the opposite when done well: clearly explaining a mechanism and its limits shows that the team masters it. What makes a deck look unserious are promises without evidence and figures without comparison.
Let's talk about your project
Leading an innovative research project? Looking for a partner who can bring your idea to life beyond the scientific community?
Which type of engagement suits you best?