A lot of research leads to start-ups, so I would say this is common.
You can be whatever you want, but a scientist and an entrepreneur have very different goals. It’s difficult to do both equally. Nevermind seriousness, it’s actually the objectives that are too different for time to prioritized in an optimal way. To do either right they each require full time attention.
Instead of halfassing both, I’d suggest studying science and then hiring people to make a business of it. That makes a lot more sense than an entrepreneur hiring a scientist - which is also possible, but requires more trust and capital than anyone should have.
Science is much much more productive when you have collaborators and consistent funding. The only thing comparable to an “entrepreneur” science role would be creating a startup company around some innovation you already made.
deleted by creator
Meth lab chemists are science-y or science-adjacent
I mean the google guys have phd’s based around algorithms which is what the whole search engine revolution was about.
Yes, but the field of science they are in will vary a lot. I imagine there are many, many more computer scientists than otherwise.
I imagine there are many, many more computer scientists than otherwise.
Why do you say that? Is it because you’re counting anyone who develops software as a computer scientist? Because you shouldn’t. Computer science is a specific field that merges math, electronics, and engineering.
I have a degree in computer science, so I’m aware of what it includes.
I’m saying it because many founders have degrees in computer science, regardless of whether they use it or not, and the vast majority of startups are technology related.
It’s just a tightly coupled venn. I’d say the next biggest, or possibly bigger, is likely to be business-related degrees, but they (largely) are not science degrees, so it doesn’t answer the question.
Okay but even if someone has a degree in computer science, that doesn’t make the software engineering work they do count as being a scientist. I agree there is some overlap, for example if a startup is trying to push some new boundary of computer science itself and is simply selling a product as a way to further that research goal.
Sure, the question isn’t really clear in that sense. It just asks if there are people with both traits, which there are.
It really depends on what you mean by both terms. Was Tesla a scientist? Was he an entrepreneur? Neil deGrasse Tyson? 23 and Me co-founder Linda Avey and others had a background (BS) in biology and worked as a research assistant before going into business, and I’m sure some of their early hires were biologists with PhDs.
In any case, you have two related points of tension. First, most people we think of as scientists (that is, people who conduct scientific research in academia) have a different personality type than most entrepreneurs. They’re often less money-oriented and less people oriented. People who go down a career path that leads them to studying the Hox genes for forty years are not the kinds of people who go to business school.
The second part is that not a lot of what’s considered pure science is particularly marketable. Again, it depends on your definitions. Is materials science “science?” Does a materials scientist working at 3M count as a scientist? Does such a person working at a startup count as an entrepreneur if they aren’t part of the c-suite and don’t get involved in the business side of the business?
There’s obvious exceptions that work mainly around disciplines. Is a computer scientist a scientist? A lot of them are entrepreneurs. Biotech is a second example. Note that we generally don’t mean “biologist” here - these aren’t evolutionary biologists or ecologists. You’re not going to get funding for a startup that studies the family dynamics of the naked mole rat.
In short, it’s rare because there’s little overlap in personalities or fields of research. There’s certain applied sciences where it’s more common, as long as you’re willing to stretch some definitions a bit.
