2.7.12 | Arundhati Parmar

Of bruised egos and hurt feelings: A tale of a scorned startup-founding scientist

That some academics don’t necessarily make good business executives is a well-worn fact. And it’s not uncommon that founders — researchers or otherwise — often step aside, or are sometimes jettisoned in the interest of the firm.

But the question is how should founders behave when they are cut off from the company they created? Is it in their interest to go quietly? Or show that they have been hurt?

Dr. Doris Taylor, who drew international attentionin 2008 when she and her team created a beating heart at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Cardiovascular Repair, appears to have taken the latter route.

Taylor’s efforts led to the creation of Miromatrix Medical in February 2010, which licensed that technology from the university to find commercial applications. Taylor assumed a board seat while veteran healthcare industry CEO Robert Cohen was installed as the company’s chief executive. But five months later, Taylor was voted off the board. Apparently, she clashed with the CEO. At the time, the University stated that “Dr. Taylor remains a productive and valued faculty member of the University of Minnesota.”

Not any more. In late January, the Texas Heart Institute announced that it had hired her away from the University of Minnesota.

Taylor made it clear to the Star Tribune that being removed from the board “was one factor in her decision to leave Minnesota.”

Clearly it was a big enough factor to warrant mentioning to a reporter, and once again it demonstrates how hurt Taylor must have felt to be removed.

I refrain from judging whether it was necessary for her to be removed because I am not privy to what went on — comments at the bottom of the Star Tribune story seem to indicate she was a very difficult personality and I have heard the same from someone who did not wish to be quoted.

But that is not important.

I wonder whether it is even in Taylor’s own interest to draw attention to any bad blood. Miromatrix is a startup and has a long way to go before it is deemed a market success. Taylor owns shares in that firm.She has much to gain if the company does well.

And maybe financial self-interest should be what scorned founders focus on, unless the company is involved in some kind of illegal activity that they wish to highlight. Because for someone of Taylor’s talents, her energies are probably better directed at coming up with the next breakthrough idea that will change medicine.

Arundhati Parmar

Arundhati Parmar is the Minnesota Bureau Chief for MedCity News.

more

Tags: medical devices, Minnesota, Miromatrix

Comments Post a comment

“Because for someone of Taylor’s talents, her energies are probably better directed at coming up with the next breakthrough idea that will change medicine.”

. . . . so another man can come along and reap the benefits of her work. Five months is very fast, and I don’t care how “difficult” the personality (read “she is a woman”) if it were a man he would still be there. What a sexist article! I would leave too and let it be known.

Comment by Rina Renno — February 8, 2012 @ 9:15 am

Ms. Rina Renno,

Bull Roar. The article is written by a woman. This has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with a disruptive, insecure showboat appropriately being shown the door.

Comment by Dianne Swensen — February 8, 2012 @ 9:56 am

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” (Gandhi) Posted on Dr. Taylor’s office door. Comments of Dr. Taylor being difficult may be true or not. We all have our prickly side. Those that learn to recognize the why for that prickly behavior in one and another may be able to work through those moments and advance the science or the common good, those that can’t may lose great opportunities to be part of changing the future. Texas Heart Institute is a premier institution with many firsts in cardiovascular research as is the Univ. of Minn. I may be wrong but, maybe Texas Heart and Doris win this one…..

Comment by ARRobinson — February 8, 2012 @ 12:13 pm

From the strib comments section sums it up:
“I worked in her lab for about 6 months and I was astounded she was able to stay in a position of authority. There was something “off” about her ethics. After a series of white lies she kept asking me to tell other people I couldn’t take it any more and quit. I left wondering how much of her work really was hers. Don’t get me wrong, she did grab on to innovative ideas and tried to push them through, but it seemed mostly about her and not about the science.”
She’s Texas’s problem now.

Comment by SJHanson — February 8, 2012 @ 1:11 pm