Navigating science communication from early-stage to IPO

Bringing breakthrough science to market is hard, but communicating it well is a whole other challenge. From earning credibility in a niche scientific field to dealing with the regulatory complexities of an IPO, biotech companies have to learn how to tell their stories well to gain trust, attract investment, and engage the right audiences.

Ariel Kramer knows what she's talking about when it comes to sharing science. She's helped grow BICO from a seven-person startup to a publicly traded company. In this interview, she shares her insights on how to build a solid communication strategy in the life sciences. She also talks about the mistakes startups make, the strategies that actually work, and how biotech companies can position themselves as thought leaders—even when they don't have new data to share.

🎧 Listen to this episode:

Subscribe to the podcast, or watch it on YouTube

📖 Or read the interview:

The interview below is based on the transcript of our conversation but has been edited and rearranged for conciseness and clarity.

The communication challenges of a bioprinting startup

You joined the company BICO when it was just seven people. What were the biggest communication challenges in those early days?

Ariel Kramer: When I initially started with the company back in 2016, it was actually known as Cellink. It was the first company in the world to produce and sell bioink, and it evolved into a 3D bioprinting company. They produce bioprinters, bioinks, and other materials that scientists can use for 3D bioprinting.

I’d say the biggest challenge early on was getting people to understand the capabilities of bioprinting. Was it sci-fi? Was it real? What was actually happening in the labs? How were people using these technologies in real-world applications? And in what areas—regenerative medicine, precision medicine—were they applicable? The challenge was communicating both what was currently happening and what the future possibilities were.

In the beginning, I was new to the field. I had started a PR consultancy on my own and had dabbled in healthcare and biotech. But when I entered the bioprinting space, it was fascinating to see how this machine could potentially print a heart valve or other biological structures. However, people mistakenly thought we were printing full-size organs, which wasn’t happening at the time.

So, our approach was to identify the scientists making progress in this field and highlight their work. We looked for peer-reviewed papers and connected with labs worldwide that were using bioprinting technology—not necessarily with our printers but with other systems or their own custom-built machines. We focused on publishing their research and findings to help the market understand what was actually happening in the field and what the potential was.

From a content perspective, we partnered with various scientists around the world and created something called the Global Ambassador Program. This initiative facilitated research exchange—we shared findings, posted case studies, and provided a platform for scientists to upload and share their bioprinting techniques.

This program was a great way to foster a sense of community within the bioprinting space. It promoted transparency about what others were working on and helped investors, the general public, and the media better understand the opportunities in the field.

How an IPO impacts communication

How did the role of communication evolve as the company grew?

A.K.: Before the IPO, we had more freedom in our content. We could share behind-the-scenes insights, blog more freely, and continue interviewing various experts. But post-IPO, we had to be much more careful about what we put out. We needed to ensure clarity—making sure people understood what we were doing in-house versus what our customers or others in the space were working on.

We wanted to support scientists, even if they weren’t using our products, but it was important to be clear that their work wasn’t necessarily our work.

Anytime we had something to share, we had to issue a press release before the general market found out, ensuring compliance with regulations.

In Sweden, many companies take the path to IPO relatively early. It was interesting to see how other small-cap companies navigated this process and how we could present our story, findings, and company developments in a way that informed the public without overpromising on the science.

What are some of the biggest mistakes startups make before or during this transition to IPO?

A.K: One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen is companies overpromising what the IPO means for the market.

In biotech and life sciences, many companies prematurely release data or make claims about their science that don’t quite hold up. It’s crucial to clearly communicate why you’re IPO-ing, what your company is currently offering, and what stage you’re at. That way, investors, customers, and the public understand exactly where you are and where you’re headed.

Creating an educational hub in biotech

You believe companies should become a kind of news or educational hub for their industry. What does that mean in practice?

A.K.: For startups in this space, it’s crucial to educate the market about how your product is different. But nobody wants to see a feed full of self-promotional content. It’s fine to sprinkle in product updates, but if that’s all you do, it’s a missed opportunity.

Instead, companies should focus on educating their audience about the broader problem they’re solving. For example, if you’re working in AI for drug discovery and rare diseases, you could highlight industry articles on how rare diseases disproportionately affect certain communities or why some patients don’t respond to medications. This approach helps frame the importance of your technology. You can then showcase how your company is tackling these issues in a unique way.

I’m a big fan of featuring third-party research because it does the talking for you. In biotech and life sciences, it takes a long time to generate your own data. So until you have that, it’s helpful to highlight relevant research from universities, institutions, or even other companies.

How does this look in practice?

A.K: I think it’s a mix of channels. LinkedIn is really big within this community. Other platforms can be useful depending on your target audience, but LinkedIn was particularly important for me and for all of our clients. It’s a great tool to educate investors, potential partners, and talent.

We use it to share a mix of content—industry news, updates on what’s happening in the space, and content specifically applicable to the company we’re working with.

We also like to highlight patient stories when possible. Even if a product is still far from reaching patients, adding a human element to the company is really important. For example, if you’re working in cancer diagnostics, the product might still be far from FDA approval. But there’s a lot of emerging data, and the company is making internal progress. By interviewing patients about their experience with late-stage diagnosis and the impact of lacking early detection, you help people understand the real-world problem.

Unless someone knows a person affected by cancer, they may not realize the challenges of diagnosing it early and the missed opportunities due to the lack of reliable tests.

Do you have examples of companies that have done this well?

A.K.: Aside from my own clients, there is Every Cure. David Fajgenbaum is a scientist who went to UPenn, and he actually cured his own disease using repurposed drugs. It’s a fascinating story. He and his team do a great job of creating content that educates the market and shares real-world patient stories. They’ve done an amazing job bringing that first-person narrative to life and explaining why their work is so important.

Do you think this kind of communication is more effective when it comes from the executive or the CEO?

A.K.: Absolutely. Tying in a personal connection is so important. In biotech, everything can feel like "big pharma"—distant and intimidating. Drugs come to market, but people don’t always know who’s behind them. And, regardless of the political climate, there’s always some level of skepticism around healthcare and biotech.

That’s why offering a behind-the-scenes look at the people driving these innovations—their motivations, their personal experiences—can make a huge difference. Many founders have a deeply personal reason for starting their companies, whether they were affected by a disease themselves or had a family member who was. Sharing that story helps humanize the company and makes the mission feel real.

Rather than just putting out generic content about a product, it’s much more impactful when the story comes from a place of passion and a genuine drive to make a difference.

Navigating the data drought in life sciences

What are some common mistakes to avoid with this kind of strategy?

A.K.: One big mistake is that companies often worry when they don’t have data fast enough. Investors always want to see data and sales, but in such a highly regulated field, that takes time.

So instead of rushing, it’s important to find ways to illustrate the potential impact of your product. Even if you can’t release specific client names, you can showcase hypothetical use cases or anonymized success stories. For example, you could say, “We helped an institution in XYZ area achieve this result”—just to paint a picture of how your product is being used.

Another mistake is overpromising. Some companies, when struggling to secure investment, make bold claims or unrealistic timeline projections. But if you overhype something and then fail to deliver, you lose credibility.

For instance, if I had started a bioprinting company and said, “In three years, we’ll be printing hearts and replacing organ transplants with bioprinted organs,” people would think I was crazy. Anyone with real expertise in the space wouldn’t take it seriously.

Unfortunately, I see many companies jump the gun out of fear that they won’t get investment in time. They set aggressive fundraising goals—like saying they’ll raise a certain amount—only to come up short, which makes them look unreliable.

I always advise clients to be cautious. Only share information that is 100% factually accurate, and never give timelines unless you are absolutely certain you can meet them. It’s much better to underpromise and overdeliver than the other way around.

What should companies do when they don’t have new data or a steady news flow to share?

A.K.: I hate the term thought leadership, but writing industry expert pieces is a really effective way to establish credibility in a particular space.

For example, we have a client in the antibody drug discovery space who will be releasing data soon. In the meantime, their founder wrote an article about the challenges of moving from point A to point B using a specific technology. This allowed the company to discuss key hurdles in the field—without directly talking about their own data or products.

As a scientist with 30 years of experience, he was able to demonstrate expertise in the industry. And that instills confidence in the market, among investors, board members, and potential partners. When people see that someone truly understands the technology and the areas where innovation is needed, it builds credibility.

So contributing expert articles to industry trade publications is a great approach. Another strategy is participating in broader industry discussions.

For example, STAT News recently published an article questioning companies that claim to use AI for drug development. That was a great opportunity for companies in this space to respond—not by being self-promotional, but by sharing insights. They could say, “Here are our thoughts on this topic, and here’s how we approach AI differently.”

This approach not only helps CEOs build visibility, but it also strengthens a company’s credibility.

Another key tactic is letting others do the talking for you. We often bring investors into media conversations. So, instead of just offering a journalist an interview with the CEO, we also provide access to an investor who can share why they believe in the company.

Having board members, scientific advisors, or investors vouch for your company adds an extra layer of credibility—especially in the early stages.

Misconceptions about PR in scientific startups

From your experience working with startups, what are the biggest misconceptions founders have about PR and communication?

A.K.: One of the biggest misconceptions is that PR is a quick fix.

We’ve had companies come in saying, “I want to be in The New York Times. I need to be in Forbes. I want to be everywhere. I need to raise $50 million in the next three to six months.” But that’s not how PR works. It’s a long game—it’s about reputation building. If you want instant results, that’s advertising, not PR. Our work is about building credibility, trust, and brand awareness.

Some companies understand this, but others come to PR as a last resort. And that’s the wrong approach.

What we’ve learned over the years is that timing is everything. If you’re hiring a PR agency in a panic, hoping for immediate results, that’s a mistake. Instead, companies should approach PR with a six- to twelve-month mindset.

In the first few months, you should see traction—whether that’s organic growth on LinkedIn, engagement from the right audience, or some industry articles getting placed. These are signs that PR is working.

But one thing founders often misunderstand is ROI. They’ll say, “We want to see ROI.” But what does that mean?

Just because you get featured in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, or CNN doesn’t mean investors will suddenly start writing checks. PR builds credibility, but investors still go through the same due diligence as they would with any other company. It absolutely helps, but it doesn’t guarantee an immediate influx of funding or partnerships.

The biggest mistake I see is companies waiting too long—starting PR efforts when they’re already out of time and resources. If you wait until the last minute, the work becomes rushed and sloppy, and that’s not beneficial for anyone.

Understanding the realities of PR guarantees

Is there a specific PR strategy that works best for biotech or deep tech companies compared to industries that are less scientific?

A.K.: When it comes to putting out news, too much can actually be counterproductive. If a company is constantly making announcements, people start tuning it out. But if a company occasionally shares meaningful updates, it builds curiosity and signals real progress.

Panic-driven PR—where companies feel the need to announce every little thing, like a new board member or a minor internal update—can backfire. If you flood your audience with too much, people stop caring. They’ll just scroll past without clicking.

In other industries, like SaaS or consumer tech, you can get away with a high volume of content because your target market is different. But in science and biotech, you have to be more selective.

This is especially true when pitching journalists. Sometimes, you only get one shot. If a journalist receives multiple irrelevant pitches from the same company, they might start ignoring them—even when there’s real news to share.

I know journalists personally who won’t even open a pitch from certain PR people because they’ve sent them too many off-topic press releases in the past. This is why having an external perspective can help. A founder might think something is newsworthy, but an experienced PR team can assess whether it’s actually going to move the needle.

So the key is being intentional—not just with what you put out, but how you tell the story. Presentation makes all the difference in getting media coverage.

Another mistake companies make when searching for outside PR help is falling for big promises. I’ve seen this happen a lot. Companies want guarantees. And I get it—it’s scary to invest in PR. You’re spending a substantial amount of money, and you want results. So when an agency says, “We can definitely get you into XYZ publication,” it’s tempting to believe them.

But I always tell companies to be skeptical. A couple of years ago, we had a company come to us with huge expectations. I told them, “We can work with you, but I want to tailor your expectations. I don’t think what you’re aiming for is realistic in such a short time.”

And the founder said, “Well, this other agency promised us they could get us into these major publications.” I told him, “Look, I know an editor at one of the biggest tech publications, and his own wife works in PR. Even she can’t get guaranteed coverage through him. If someone is promising you media placements, that’s a huge red flag.”

The reality is, no one can guarantee media coverage. A story can fall through at the last minute for any number of reasons. Even if an editor is interested, if the timing isn’t right, they won’t run it.

And then there are these scams going around. I don’t know if they’re as common in Europe, but in the U.S., I see them all the time. Companies get messages from USA Today or CBS or PBS saying, “If you pay $72,000, you’ll be interviewed by a celebrity.”

And then these companies come back saying, “Well, we paid all this money, we got a beautifully produced interview,” but in the end, it doesn’t reach anyone.

No one watches these shows because they air on obscure channels that nobody has heard of. It’s all pay-to-play PR. Companies would be much better off being strategic and wise about where they invest their money.

Building a career in science communication

You’ve worked in-house at a company going through a scale-up, and now you run your own agency. How would you advise someone looking to break into communication in life sciences?

A.K.: One of the most valuable things I ever did was working in-house at a company. Before that, I was consulting on my own and had worked with various companies, but nothing compares to the experience of being inside a company day-to-day—seeing firsthand the communication and marketing challenges.

At that time, I was wearing multiple hats—marketing, communications, sometimes even sales. When you’re part of a small team, you have to adapt and pivot constantly. That experience was invaluable.

It also gave me a better understanding of what it’s like to be on the other side of the table when hiring an agency. Now, when companies work with us, they value that we’re a small team bringing in industry experts. We operate as an extension of their team.

But some companies prefer the big agency experience. They don’t necessarily want that close, hands-on connection. It really depends on what a company is looking for.

What’s one thing you wish you knew when you first started your career in science communication?

A.K.: I wish I had known not to let anyone pressure me into communicating something before I fully understood it.

I’ve worked with several companies where the founder or CEO insisted, “We need to push this out now. This is big news.” But if that information isn’t properly vetted—or if a journalist doesn’t see it as newsworthy—it can backfire.

I’ll never forget one of my early experiences. I had pitched a journalist but clearly didn’t explain the science correctly. The journalist responded, “I don’t think you understand this, because this isn’t what we’re talking about.”

I was in my early 20s, and I remember feeling so embarrassed. But I realized that my mistake wasn’t a lack of knowledge—it was being too afraid to ask questions. That experience taught me that I had to ask questions, no matter what. If I didn’t fully understand something, it wasn’t just my reputation at stake—it was my client’s.

Luckily, that journalist was incredibly kind. She was a senior reporter at Forbes, and she actually took the time to get on a call with me. She explained what she considered to be real news, what kind of stories mattered in the industry, and what questions I should be asking as a consultant.

That conversation was invaluable, and I’ve carried that lesson with me ever since. Now, I always double-check that I fully understand a topic before crafting a pitch or communicating a company’s message. It makes all the difference.

Let’s compare the two sides of communication—working in-house versus working at an agency. What are the pros and cons of each in terms of career development?

A.K.: When it comes to agency work, one challenge is that sometimes you can feel stuck. Some agencies offer clear career progression—you can move up to VP or even become a partner. But others, especially the larger ones, might be great for learning but lack mentorship opportunities. If you’re overworked and don’t have senior people guiding you, it can be tough to grow.

I often have junior professionals reach out to me for career advice. At my agency, we currently only hire senior consultants because in biotech and life sciences, you really need to understand the science. Asking the right questions is critical. So if you're a junior professional looking to break in, it’s important to find an agency that will properly train you.

On the other hand, working in-house at a company gives you a deep understanding of what it’s really like on the client side. You see firsthand the challenges of communication, PR, and marketing from within the company itself. That experience is invaluable, especially if you later transition to agency work—it helps you understand exactly what companies need from their PR partners.

That said, the workload is very different. At an agency, the expectation is often that you’re always on. You constantly check your phone, monitor emails, and jump on opportunities. Especially in media relations, things move fast—if a TV network needs an expert in the next hour and you don’t respond, they’ll move on to someone else. That’s a missed opportunity.

In-house roles, especially at larger companies, can offer more work-life balance. If a company has a big comms team, only a few people may have that kind of round-the-clock responsibility. But at a startup, communications is often a 24/7 job, just like at an agency.

Personally, I love running my own agency, even though it means I’m never fully off. But I get to work with biotech and healthcare companies that are genuinely trying to make a difference.

Resources for aspiring science communicators

Are there any resources you’d recommend?

A.K.: Ticket to Biotech is a great community. I love their Slack channel. There are so many great resources, and people are really willing to share information. I’ve met a lot of interesting people at all career levels through it.

If you’re a junior professional looking to break into communications or seeking mentorship, it’s a great place to start. Unlike general PR or communications groups, which can be more consumer-focused or tech-oriented, Ticket to Biotech is specific to life sciences. That makes a big difference because people there truly understand the challenges we face in this industry.