Pitching Pandemic Response Technologies – Audience Guide
In one of the session activities this week, you will imagine you are the CEO of a company developing the technology you researched for your case study. You have been invited to a (fictional) meeting with policymakers and funders who are keen to accelerate innovation in pandemic response technologies.
One member of the cohort will pitch their technology, while the rest of your cohort adopts the following roles:
- Policymaker
- Venture Capitalist
- Philanthropic Grantmaker
- Government Advanced Research Agency
This document gives some context on the different members of the audience and the type of questions they might ask.
Policymaker
[E.g. A senator, civil servant, or high-ranking official in a health department]
An individual involved in formulating, influencing, or enacting policies and laws, typically within government. Their motivations are to implement effective policies that protect public health, maintain economic stability, and ensure national security.
Suggested questions:
- What regulatory changes would be needed to implement this technology, or to speed up its development and deployment?
- How could this technology be scaled up quickly in the event of a sudden pandemic outbreak?
- What kind of public education or communication strategy would be needed to ensure effective adoption of this technology?
- How might this technology impact different demographic groups in our country? Are there any equity concerns?
- What potential economic impacts (positive or negative) could this technology have on various sectors of our economy?
Pitch rating criteria:
The audience will be asked to rate the pitch after a Q&A.
- Would actively oppose this technology
- Sceptical, significant concerns need to be addressed
- Neutral, needs more information or refinement
- Supportive, with minor reservations
- Would champion this technology and push for its immediate implementation
Venture Capitalist
[E.g. Andreessen Horowitz or Sequoia Capital]
An investor who provides capital to startups or small businesses with high growth potential. Their motivations are to identify and invest in high-potential technologies that could provide significant financial returns.
Suggested questions:
- How will your company make money from this technology, especially in non-pandemic times?
- What makes your technology better than other similar products or solutions?
- What challenges do you expect to face in bringing this technology to market?
- Why do you think people or organisations will want to buy or use your technology?
Pitch rating criteria:
The audience will be asked to rate the pitch after a Q&A.
- Would not invest under any circumstances
- Might consider a small investment if major changes are made
- Interested, but needs more convincing or development
- Would invest a moderate amount, pending due diligence
- Would invest heavily (e.g., $100M+) and advocate for other VCs to join
Philanthropic Grantmaker
[E.g. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, or Open Philanthropy]
Works for a foundation or trust that provides funding for charitable causes. Their motivations are to support initiatives that can have a significant positive impact on global health, wellbeing and pandemic preparedness. They often focus on the cost-effectiveness of their grants and benefitting populations who are underserved by other sources of funding.
Suggested questions:
- How would you measure and evaluate the impact of your technology for preventing or mitigating pandemics?
- Why is philanthropic funding necessary for your project? Why can't it be funded through commercial means or government grants?
- How will you ensure that the benefits of your technology reach the most vulnerable populations who are often overlooked by market-driven solutions?
- What is your plan for sustaining the impact of this technology beyond our initial grant?
Pitch rating criteria:
The audience will be asked to rate the pitch after a Q&A.
- Does not align with our mission, would not fund
- Minimal alignment, might consider a small pilot grant
- Moderate alignment, would consider a medium-sized grant with conditions
- Good alignment, would likely provide substantial funding
- Perfect alignment with our mission, would provide maximum possible funding and long-term support
Government Advanced Research Agency Representative
[E.g. ARPA-H in the US, ARIA in the UK, or SPRIN-D in Germany.]
A government agency focused on high-risk, high-reward research and development. Their motivations are to identify and support transformative technologies that could significantly advance the field of pandemic preparedness and response, as well as boosting the reputation of their country as an innovation hub. They often focus on technologies which are at a very early stage and/or require large upfront investment.
Suggested questions:
- How could this technology position our country as a leader in pandemic preparedness innovation?
- What are the potential dual-use applications of your technology?
- How do you plan to collaborate with other researchers and institutions in developing this technology?
- Could this technology lead to spin-off innovations in other fields? If so, which ones?
- How might this technology contribute to our country's economic competitiveness in the long term?
Pitch rating criteria:
The audience will be asked to rate the pitch after a Q&A.
- Not innovative enough, does not meet our criteria
- Somewhat interesting, but too many risks or limitations
- Promising concept, but needs significant refinement
- Highly innovative, would likely fund with some adjustments
- Groundbreaking proposal, would fast-track for maximum funding and support