Skip to main content
Tag

life sciences startups Archives - BioHealth Innovation

Georgetown University Research & Innovation Showcase 2026 Recap

By News

On April 22, 2026, Georgetown University hosted its annual Research & Innovation Showcase, bringing together faculty, students, investors, entrepreneurs, and regional leaders for a full day focused on translating discovery into real-world impact. Held at the Rafik B. Hariri Building, the event centered on this year’s theme, “Partnerships Power Possibilities,” highlighting how collaboration drives innovation from lab to market.

“The 2026 Georgetown University Research & Innovation Showcase highlighted the need for strategic partners to achieve research translation and innovation development,” said Tatiana Litvin-Vechnyak, Georgetown’s vice president for technology commercialization. “This year’s event brought together more than 400 investors, entrepreneurs, industry stakeholders, faculty, and students, all critical to our ability to achieve this goal. BHI’s collaboration over the years and sponsorship of the showcase has been crucial to this work.”

BioHealth Innovation was well represented throughout the day, including Founder, President, and CEO Rich Bendis, Entrepreneurs-in-Residence Luis T. Gutierrez, Ray Blanchard, and Steve Wolpe, along with Mona Suliman, Life Sciences Business Strategist. Their presence reflects an ongoing collaboration between BHI and Georgetown that has been in place for several years, where BHI’s Entrepreneurs-in-Residence work alongside Georgetown’s Office of Technology Commercialization and Georgetown Tech Ventures to help evaluate, develop, and advance early-stage technologies toward commercialization.

The program followed a structured flow designed to move from high-level insights to active engagement, beginning with the “Discovery to Impact” opening panel, followed by research presentations, a reverse pitch session with industry and investors, a new venture showcase, and concluding with awards and networking.

The opening panel stood out as a defining moment of the event. Moderated by Georgetown’s Vice President of Technology Commercialization, Tatiana Litvin-Vechnyak, the discussion featured leaders who shared firsthand accounts of how academic research can evolve into FDA-approved products with real patient impact.

“The detailed stories shared during the opening panel made it clear how innovation that begins in an academic setting can successfully translate into therapies that reach patients well beyond the university,” said Luis T. Gutierrez, Entrepreneur-in-Residence.

Across the broader showcase, the diversity of innovation on display was a consistent theme. From cancer therapeutics to AI-enabled research platforms and socially driven ventures, the range of subject matter reflected both the depth of Georgetown’s research and the evolving priorities of the biohealth ecosystem.

“There was a strong variety of startup subject matter represented, which made the event both engaging and insightful,” said Mona Suliman. “The reverse pitch format, in particular, was a great idea and provided valuable insights into how companies and investors are thinking.”

The Industry and Investor Reverse Pitch session drew strong engagement from attendees, emphasizing early-stage conversations and relationship building. Many of the participating organizations were based within the BioHealth Capital Region, reinforcing the importance of local connectivity in driving innovation forward.

“This session really underscored the value of establishing early dialogue between innovators and funders,” noted Ray Blanchard. “It created a space for understanding priorities on both sides before formal investment conversations begin.”

The New Venture Showcase highlighted emerging companies built around Georgetown research, including Pushcart Therapeutics, where BHI EIR Steve Wolpe serves as CEO. A key moment from the session was the first public presentation of the company by Dr. Louis Weiner, Director of Georgetown’s Lombardi Cancer Center.

“The Georgetown showcase was an excellent mix of investors, strategics and Georgetown spinout companies,” said Steve Wolpe, Entrepreneur-in-Residence. “Dr. Weiner’s research was identified by BHI as having great potential for a spinout, and PushCART was co-founded to advance that opportunity. The company is developing DRILL technology that allows immune cells to penetrate solid tumors, and the preclinical data presented was compelling. We are currently closing a seed round with plans to enter first-in-human clinical trials within the next two years.”

The presentation underscored the role that structured partnerships play in advancing promising academic research into venture-backed companies with a clear path toward the clinic.

Beyond the formal programming, the event also benefited from strong participation across the Georgetown community, with attendees spanning faculty, students, alumni, and regional stakeholders. The presence of Nina Albert, Deputy Mayor of Washington, DC, added important context around public sector initiatives supporting innovation and investment across the region, including the city’s efforts to build a stronger venture and startup ecosystem.

“The networking session brought together a great mix of speakers and attendees,” said Suliman. “It created meaningful opportunities to connect across sectors.”

The day concluded with an awards ceremony recognizing innovation and entrepreneurship within the Georgetown community, reinforcing the institution’s ongoing commitment to advancing research with real-world impact.

“The strength of efforts like this is in the partnership,” said Rich Bendis. “As Georgetown continues to expand its startup pipeline and its collaboration with BHI, events like this reinforce that successful commercialization is built through sustained partnership, shared expertise, and consistent engagement across the ecosystem.”

The SBIR/STTR Program Is Paused. Here’s How to Use the Time.

By News

By Jon Nelson, BHI Director of Client Engagement: The SBIR/STTR program is currently paused pending reauthorization. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. On April 2nd, the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act was presented to the President for his signature. Three different outcomes now lay before us.

  • The President could sign the bill into law.
  • The President may choose to neither sign, nor veto the bill, in which case, the bill will automatically become law on April 14th.
  • The President could veto the bill. In this situation, the bill would return to Congress, where a two-thirds majority would be needed in both houses in order to override the veto.

For companies that have been relying on federal funding as part of their near-term financing strategy, the pause is a genuinely difficult disruption. Plans are delayed, timelines shift, and the natural response is to wait until there is more clarity especially when there are countless other priorities competing for attention. That instinct is understandable. However, the teams that emerge from this period in the strongest competitive position will be the ones that resist it.

While this is the first lapse in the SBIR/STTR program since its inception in the 1980s, other large funding opportunities and federal programs have seen similar pauses. Thus, history is instructive here – when a high-demand funding program goes dark and then reopens, submission volume typically reflects the backlog that accumulated during the gap. Companies that were mid-preparation when the pause began, teams that used the intervening time to get ready, and applicants who hesitated will all enter the queue at roughly the same time.

The result is a more competitive review environment. The bar for what constitutes a competitive proposal is effectively higher than it would be in a typical cycle, and where the difference between a thoughtfully developed application and one that was assembled quickly becomes far more apparent for reviewers to see.

What Good Preparation Actually Looks Like

For most applicants, the limiting factor in a competitive submission is not the quality of the underlying science. It is how clearly the proposal communicates that science to a review panel, how convincingly it is positioned within a credible commercialization strategy, and how clearly the proposal demonstrates that this team, with this approach, at this stage of development, is worth funding. Each of those elements takes longer to develop than most first-time applicants expect, and they each suffer when compressed into the final weeks before a deadline.

A strong commercialization narrative requires that holds up under reviewer scrutiny goes through multiple rounds of drafting and refinement. A technical approach that translates well on the page requires careful editing by individuals who understand both the science and reviewer expectations. A budget that avoids unnecessary scrutiny is one that has been reviewed with agency expectations and common pitfalls in mind.

The best time to do this work is now, before the pressure of an open submission window makes careful development difficult.

Getting the Most Out of the Time Available

Beyond the core proposal materials, there is meaningful preparatory work that is often deferred under deadline pressure. Reviewing and organizing preliminary data, identifying the most relevant solicitations to target when the program reopens, aligning internal stakeholders on project scope and budget, and stress-testing the overall narrative against likely reviewer questions are all tasks that benefit from careful attention that is hard to give them when a submission deadline is just around the corner.

This is also the right time to pursue the relationship-driven components of a strong application. Securing letters of support from key stakeholders, whether from clinical partners, academic collaborators, or potential customers, takes time and follow-up, and letters that are clearly written with care carry more weight with reviewers than ones that read as last-minute requests.

Similarly, identifying and formalizing relationships with contract research organizations or other external partners strengthens both the technical credibility of the proposal and the team’s demonstrated capacity to execute. These conversations take time , and teams that have already invested in them are at a clear advantage in a when the submission window reopens.

Working with BioHealth Innovation

At BioHealth Innovation, we work with early-stage founders and research teams throughout the full proposal development process, from identifying the right funding opportunity to building the commercialization narrative and finalizing technical and budget documents.

Teams that engage early enter submission cycles significantly more prepared. In a competitive environment, that head start can make big difference.

If you are serious about competing when the SBIR/STTR program reopens, the right time to start is now.

Contact us at jnelson@biohealthinnovation.org

Search

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

BioHealth Innovation will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing.