From Discovery to Impact: What Stanford’s SPARK Program Teaches Us About Turning Science into Medicine
Turning scientific discoveries into real treatments is a complex, expensive and uncertain process. For many promising ideas, the journey stops long before it ever reaches patients. This gap, often called the “valley of death”, lies between laboratory discovery and clinical application. Stanford’s SPARK program was created to help researchers navigate that gap.
SPARK’s mission is to de-risk early-stage therapeutic and diagnostic projects by providing expert mentorship, targeted funding, and real-world insight into drug development. Since its founding, over 50% of projects completing SPARK have been licensed and/or advanced to clinical trials, including the recently FDA-approved heart disease therapy Attruby™ (acoramidis) for ATTR-CM.
Unlike traditional grant-based accelerators, SPARK is built around a culture of generosity and learning. Seasoned professionals including scientists, clinicians, regulatory experts, investors, and entrepreneurs volunteer their time to mentor teams. Importantly, SPARK does not force consensus. Instead, projects benefit from multiple expert perspectives across the entire drug development spectrum, reflecting the reality of real-world decision-making.
Learning the Translational Process as a PhD Student
I gained firsthand insight into this process through CSB 240 A/B: A Practical Approach to Drug Discovery and Development, a two-quarter course closely integrated with the SPARK program.
In the course, students work in interdisciplinary teams to build a therapeutic proof of concept into a clinically viable and commercializable treatment. Each year, the instructors select a single disease area, typically one with a major unmet medical need and a history of translational failure: exactly the type of high-risk space that often struggles to attract early funding.
Each week focused on a different stage of the drug development pipeline:
Early discovery and target selection
Preclinical development and toxicology
Regulatory strategy
Clinical trial design
Commercialization and investor engagement
Rather than learning these concepts in the abstract, we learned directly from people who had industry experience. Our mentors included IP and patent attorneys, pharmacologists, regulatory experts, clinicians, biotech founders, and investors.
As a PhD student primarily trained in basic research, this experience was eye-opening. It gave me a framework to think about what it would actually take to move scientific insights beyond publications and toward patients.
Advice for Aspiring Biotech Founders
Insights from SPARK Co-Founders Professors Daria Mochly-Rosen and Kevin Grimes
To gather advice for students interested in launching biotech ventures, we spoke with Professors Daria Mochly-Rosen and Kevin Grimes, co-founders of the SPARK program. Across our conversation, their guidance consistently returned to one central idea: start with the end in mind. Below are several high-level takeaways from the interview.
Q: What advice do you have for students to balance their time spent between advancing core science through research and understanding the market and translational potential of their work?
A: Unmet need comes before marketability
One of the most important lessons, according to Daria, is to think early about unmet medical need- not just scientific novelty or market size. Strong projects begin with a clear understanding of who the patient is, what problem truly needs solving, and whether the biological target is actually relevant to that problem. Kevin, drawing on his clinical background, emphasized the importance of focusing on high-confidence targets grounded in patient reality rather than elegant biology alone.
Q: What are common strategic missteps you've seen in early projects that otherwise had strong science?
A: Learn to change and adjust- get advice and actually use it
A frequent pitfall is what Daria refers to as the “hammer-and-nail” problem: forcing a favored technology or target into an indication where it may not be needed or optimal. Her advice was direct- don’t fall in love with the target. Drug development is an iterative learning process, and teams must be willing to adapt as new data emerge. Revisiting the patient perspective regularly is essential, including asking whether the proposed therapy is something patients truly need.
Kevin highlighted another recurring issue: bringing clinicians or disease-area experts into the conversation too late. This often leads to impractical development plans or overly toxic therapeutic approaches. He noted how surprising it is how late physicians are sometimes consulted, given how critical their input is. Understanding who you are speaking with (and why) is just as important as getting advice in the first place.
Q: What makes a student biotech pitch stand out to investors, especially when data is still limited?
A: When data are early, what matters most to investors is depth of understanding.
As Kevin put it, “completely wrapping your head around the problem you’re solving makes all the difference.” Strong pitches demonstrate a sophisticated grasp of the disease landscape, a clear articulation of the unmet need, and thoughtful consideration of development- not just discovery. This requires thinking beyond a proof-of-concept academic story and showing awareness of the translational path ahead.
Both professors again emphasized caution around engaging investors too early or without confidentiality protections. Understanding who you are talking to, and tailoring conversations appropriately, is critical. (One of SPARK’s core roles is helping teams refine promising ideas to the point where development candidates are clearly defined or approaching IND readiness).
Q: Last year the FDA approved the heart disease medication Attruby™ / Acoramidis (ATTR-CM), a drug developed through SPARK, what do you attribute to its success?
A: Deep understanding of the problem, and motivation
From a translational perspective, its success stemmed from several key factors: a deep understanding of disease biology, recognition that certain protein mutations confer natural protection, and strategic recruitment of the right chemistry expertise.
Notably, the project’s originator was not a chemist- but she understood the problem thoroughly and built the right team around it. Her motivation was exceptional, and she consistently returned to SPARK mentors to address concerns and refine the approach. That clarity of vision, combined with mentorship, proved decisive.
Q: Is Translation “Worth It” During a PhD?
A: There are tradeoffs to consider
Drug development demands enormous time and effort, and there is a real tradeoff- especially during graduate training. Both professors emphasized that finishing the PhD must come first. That said, learning translational thinking during this stage can be uniquely valuable.
As Daria reflected, “There is nothing like meeting a patient who was treated by a drug you helped develop.” The advice was clear: don’t rush, don’t panic if someone else pursues a similar idea, and trust that if you have one good idea, you’ll have others. The key question isn’t whether to pursue translation, but when.
Getting Involved with SPARK
The SPARK course (CSB 240 A/B) is offered in the winter and spring, and the program also hosts confidential, in-person weekly seminars where industry experts offer candid advice on how to de-risk projects. For students interested in the intersection of science, medicine, and entrepreneurship, SPARK provides an unmatched opportunity to learn how discoveries become real treatments.
Learn more: