An Impatient World
The world celebrates the finished product. We celebrate the vaccine, the software, the elegant device in our hands. We are, however, deeply impatient with the slow, methodical, and often uncertain process required to create it. Science is supposedly a world defined by the integrity of its process, its methodology. Entrepreneurship is a world judged by the timely delivery of a viable product. Dr. Deepti Saini’s career is a case study in the immense friction between these two domains. As a scientist, her identity is rooted in the exacting rigor of the scientific method. As an "accidental entrepreneur," her survival depends on delivering a valuable product to a market that has little patience for the nuances of discovery.
Saini did not bring a specific, pre-defined product to market. Instead, her "product" became the scientific process, offered as a service to other innovators. This model places her directly at the intersection of two conflicting value systems. She must satisfy clients who demand a product's speed and functional certainty while upholding the scientific process's methodical sharpness, bound by unapologetic standards. This raises a question for any technical leader or innovator. How does one maintain the integrity of a process that demands patience and rigor when the world only rewards the speed and certainty of an accomplished product?
"But eventually. Whatever has to go to humans will have to be lab tested. You can't just predict this will work. And you know, go ahead.
An Unwritten Business Plan
Dr. Deepti Saini’s entrepreneurial journey did not begin with a vision board or a detailed business plan. It began with an observation. She was on sabbatical when her former mentor, a retiring professor from the Indian Institute of Science, approached her with the idea of starting a venture. Saini had experience running a corporate lab as an employee. The logic was simple and pragmatic. The question posed was an extension of her existing competence: if you know how to run a lab, why not run your own? The next practical was entrepreneurship.
This "accidental" beginning immediately collided with the formal requirements of the business world. As she and her co-founder sought incubation, they were confronted with a question foreign to their scientific mindset: "What is your business plan?" As she frankly admits, "technical people don't really make great entrepreneurs... lab, folks are lab folks." This was their first encounter with the disconnect between their world and the world of venture. They had an expert-level understanding of the scientific process, but had not yet distilled it into a commercially viable product with a marketing strategy or financial forecast.
However, being equipped with the understanding of an executor rather than the primary visionary provided a significant advantage. Freed from the immense pressure of crafting a grand, overarching business strategy, her role was focused on a domain she had already mastered: building and running a high-functioning lab. This allowed her to learn the "ropes of how business works" from the ground up, through the practical, day-to-day challenges of operations. It was a gradual, iterative education in entrepreneurship, rather than a blind leap into the clouded void of expected business formulas.
Nevertheless, the learning curve was steep. Saini describes the past several years as a "totally different ball game." It has been a continuous education in a new language, a new set of values, and a new way of thinking. She had to reconcile the rigor of the scientific method, which is clear and close to her heart, with the market's demands, honing profitability. Her journey from that first, unwritten business plan tells the story of this difficult embrace.
"Because technical people don't make great entrepreneurs. Even when looking for incubation, we were asked, What is your business plan?"
Determining the Narrative
Credibility is the only currency for an entrepreneur whose product is the scientific process itself. Any force that undermines its integrity is an existential threat to the venture. Saini’s journey as a founder has been a constant navigation of two external forces of perception that threaten to devalue her work before it can be judged on its merits. These are not internal, self-imposed limitations. They are systemic biases that challenge the foundation of her business model, which depends on being seen as a trusted partner.
The first is a geographical bias that permeates global academia. Dr. Saini describes a bias towards the quality of research depending on its point of origin. She explains that the same manuscript sent from a prestigious Western university is accepted with relative ease. That very same work, produced by the same person, when sent from an Indian institution, is often "looked at with suspicion." This is not a critique of the data or the methodology. It is a devaluation of the entire process based on its geography. This systemic skepticism forces many Indian scientists into a delicate position: will they seek the external validation of a "star on their CV" from a Western institution to have their work judged fairly?
The second is a gender bias that reframes her professional identity. Dr. Saini notes that the dynamic of a business meeting changes based on her gender. When she attends with male colleagues, the conversations are purely technical. When she is the sole representative of her company, the questions often shift from the professional to the personal, including inquiries about her family and children. This can be perceived as a potent act of professional disqualification. This shifts the context from her role as a scientist and founder to her role as a woman, forcing her to navigate a set of social expectations that her male counterparts do not face.
Operating at the intersection of these two biases, Saini’s response is strategic narrative control. Her choice to steer conversations toward her passion for inspiring students is not an act of avoidance. It is the refusal to allow her story to be defined by the prejudices she encounters. As a scientist, her focus remains on the work. By consistently redirecting the focus to her mission, she reclaims her agency, forcing the world to engage with her on her own terms: as a scientist and an educator, not as an embodiment of system flaws.
"The similar kind of work when you send out for publication from India is looked at with suspicion, whereas the same work you do at a well-known, reputed lab in the West... it gets acceptance so easily."
"But if out of 100 students I interact with, I even inspire one to go in for research and development, or they get a little more passionate or inspired towards doing lab research. That's what motivates me."
The Cactus in the Cell
For many entrepreneurs, legacy is measured in revenue, market share, or the disruption of an industry. For Saini, the ultimate metric of her success is measured by a different number. It is the number of future scientists she inspires. This is the core of her passion, a philosophy she describes as a "multiplicator for impact." She operates on the clear-eyed understanding that a single scientist's career is finite. Her own 30 years in the lab can only produce so much. But the act of igniting a genuine passion for research in a new generation creates a legacy that is exponential.
This mission directly responds to what she identifies as a fundamental flaw in the Indian education system. She argues that an overemphasis on "theory classes and grades" teaches students to view science, particularly biology, as a subject to memorization rather than a logical process to be understood. They learn from the textbook but do not experience and understand the lab. This system produces students proficient at passing exams but tends to lack a genuine appreciation for scientific discovery's creative, imaginative, and practical work. Her goal is not to train technicians, but to cultivate a new generation of innovative problem-solvers.
A single story illustrates the potential Saini seeks to unleash. A high school student, observing that a cactus plant preserves its own moisture with a natural coating on its leaves, had a simple but brilliant idea. He scraped off this coating, created a gel, and proposed using it as a natural, non-toxic, and biodegradable preservative to extend the shelf life of fruits and vegetables. He then came to her lab to test whether the gel had antimicrobial properties. This, for Dr. Saini, is the essence of scientific thinking. It is an act of observation, imagination, and practical experimentation often stifled by a rigid, grade-focused curriculum.
Ultimately, Dr. Saini's educational work attempts to reframe science for students who have been taught to see science as a "Plan B." She notes that many students end up in biotechnology only because they "didn't get into medicine." She aims to show them that science is not a fallback option, but a deeply creative and viable "Plan A." By giving them hands-on lab experience and encouraging their "creative streak," she aims to transform their perception. Her teachings exceed the textbook's contents by showing them skills on writing their own chapter.
The Human Glitch
The prevailing narrative of our time is one of relentless automation, a future where AI and machines will optimize every aspect of our lives. Dr. Deepti Saini’s work as a biotechnologist offers a firm, reality-based counterargument to this vision. While she engages with new technologies, her philosophy is ultimately grounded in the irreplaceable and unautomatable value of the human variable. This conviction is not rooted in a nostalgic preference but a conclusion based on the hard realities of science and human nature she studied.
In biotechnology, the line is drawn with absolute clarity. Saini is part of a community of startup founders who frequently debate the role of AI in their field. While some predict that AI will completely take over the industry, she holds a more pragmatic view. No matter how powerful a simulation is, any product destined for the human body must undergo physical, hands-on lab validation. The COVID-19 pandemic made this clear to the public. The one non-negotiable step in vaccine development was the rigorous human trial. For her, this is an unbreakable principle. The final test for any product made for humans must be the lab-tested human.
This belief in the necessity of human intervention extends beyond the lab and into her view of society. She questions the long-term viability of a world that replaces all human interaction with automation, using the example of a fully AI-driven restaurant. While such a system might be ruthlessly efficient, it fails to account for a fundamental human need: connection. She argues that people go to restaurants not just to eat, but to socialize and to interact. She posits that a system that removes the human touch misunderstands the very nature of the service it is trying to provide.
This brings her journey as a scientist and entrepreneur full circle. She began as a pure scientist, a practitioner of a methodical, human-driven process, and was challenged to learn the language of the market. Ultimately, her scientific, human-centric values formed her acute business philosophy. She concludes that the most durable value proposition, in both science and business, is the one that respects the messy, inefficient, and essential human variable. The machines can optimize the process. They can never replace the purpose.
"But then you can't do away with that human intervention. It's not like the machines will do all the work that humans do, that's never gonna happen."
What I learned from Dr. Deepti Saini
-
Distinguish Between Process and Product. The world celebrates the finished product but is impatient with the slow, rigorous process required to create it. A successful technical leader must learn to maintain the integrity of their process while satisfying the market's demand for a product.
-
An Unwritten Business Plan Can Be an Advantage. Starting a venture based on core competence rather than a grand, preconceived vision can be a powerful alternative. It allows a leader to learn the "ropes of business" through practical, iterative experience rather than a "blind leap."
-
Credibility is a Tangible Business Asset. Credibility is everything for an entrepreneur whose product is a process, like contract research. Systemic biases, whether geographical or gender-based, are not just social issues; they are direct, existential threats to the business model.
-
The Greatest Legacy is a Multiplier Effect. A leader's impact is not limited to their own output. Inspiring and cultivating the next generation of talent can create an exponential, more lasting legacy than any personal achievement.
-
The Human Variable is the Ultimate Value Proposition. In a world rushing toward automation, the most durable business philosophy respects the messy, inefficient, and irreplaceable human element in scientific validation and customer connection. Machines can optimize the process; they can never replace the purpose.
Comprehension Challenge: Dr. Deepti Saini
Philosophy
Dr. Deepti Saini’s career embodies the fundamental tension between the integrity of a scientific process and the market's relentless demand for a fast, profitable product. She argues that the rigorous, hands-on validation process is non-negotiable for anything destined for humans, regardless of technological shortcuts. This challenge tests a leader's ability to defend the slow, methodical, and "unapologetic standards" of a truth-seeking process against stakeholders focused solely on short-term outcomes.
The Scenario
Imagine 'Anjali,' the founder and lead scientist of a biotech startup with a promising new drug candidate. The early data is positive, but the rigorous, multi-stage validation process required by scientific best practices will take another 18 months. Her investors, eager for a fast ROI to secure the next crucial funding round, are pushing her to use a new AI-driven predictive model to bypass several validation stages and advance the product in just 6 months.
Anjali is presented with two options:
Option A (The "Product" Path): Appease the investors. Use the AI model to accelerate the timeline, creating the appearance of a fast-moving, efficient product pipeline. This satisfies the market's demand for speed and dramatically increases the short-term likelihood of securing the next round of funding. However, it introduces a significant, unquantifiable risk and violates the core principles of the scientific method.
Option B (The "Process" Path): Uphold the integrity of the scientific process. Insist on completing the full 18-month validation, arguing that long-term patient safety and the scientific validity of their work are non-negotiable. This path is slower, more expensive, and carries the immediate risk of losing the current investors who are demanding speed above all else.
The Task
Drawing on Dr. Deepti Saini’s philosophy, what is Anjali's imperative? Should she prioritize the short-term survival of her company by accelerating the "product" (Option A), or should she risk everything to defend the integrity of her "process" (Option B)?
Develop the argument Anjali must make to her investors to justify her choice. How does a leader articulate the long-term value of process integrity to stakeholders who are incentivized to focus only on short-term results?