Having the guy who invented viagra
As your chief scientist isn't much of a tout. He wasn't trying to create a drug to help erections, that was a side effect noticed during testing. If it hadn't been that for that accident, it wouldn't have made all those billions.
Is having a chief scientist whose claim to fame is an unintentional side effect really the way to sell your company to investors?
Stamp Collector's fallacy
If I get one more good piece, this pile of dross will be worth something.
Most academics are out of touch with the real world and have little useful to say about it.
(This view, of course, is not conventional among academics, most of whom fancy themselves as possessing deep insight into, and special knowledge of, the workings of the economy and society. In addition to these absurd fancies, most academics also believe – even more absurdly – that they are of nobler and purer character than are the icky likes of entrepreneurs, investors, and other profit-seeking business people – people who are actually willing and able to be productive in ways judged as such by real-world consumers; ways that not one academic in 500 could possibly pull off. Academics, in general, – and like politicians – ought not be taken seriously. A shockingly large number of them are ignorant and officious fools.)
Given the pretentious officiousness of your post, I guess you're one then.