A University Hospital Bonn team explains how market research validated demand and cut risk while shaping their antiviral nasal spray project.
Proving a molecule works in a lab is one problem. Proving anyone will actually use, prescribe, or pay for the product built around it is a completely different one. A recent B2B International podcast episode traces exactly how that second problem gets solved, through the story of COLDEX, an antiviral nasal spray project developed at the University Hospital Bonn.
Dr Christine Wübben, a postdoctoral researcher, and Sandra Lewash, a PhD researcher, both work within the ImmunoSensation Cluster of Excellence at the University Hospital Bonn. Their project builds on research into immunostimulatory RNA published by Gunther Hartmann’s team in Science back in 2006, aiming to translate that basic immunology into a nasal spray for the early treatment of viral respiratory infections.
Scientific Proof Isn’t the Same as Market Proof
Once the team demonstrated that their ligand worked in cell culture models, a new set of questions replaced the scientific ones: What is the unmet need? Who are the target users? What is the commercial potential?
Sandra Lewash explained why the team initially tried to answer these questions themselves, and why that didn’t work: “As scientists, we’re deeply immersed in our research and don’t always have the perspective needed to assess market opportunities objectively. That’s when we decided to work with an external agency. We needed expertise, experience and an independent point of view.”
The market research itself was funded through the GO-Bio Initial Funding Program, a detail that highlights something often overlooked: funding bodies increasingly expect scientific researchers to validate commercial assumptions, not just prove a mechanism works, before committing further resources.
Even the Product Format Was an Open Question
One of the biggest unknowns wasn’t just who would use COLDEX, but what form it should even take. Dr Christine Wübben said the team considered several different approaches before research pointed them toward a nasal spray as the most promising direction. They also needed to determine whether prevention or treatment represented the stronger initial market opportunity, since an antiviral spray could theoretically serve either purpose, but not with equal ease.
That distinction turned out to matter more than expected. As Wübben put it: “In a therapeutic setting, there is a clear disease that people want treated. The need is immediately visible. Prevention is different. You first need to convince people that prevention is worthwhile before they even consider adopting a solution.”
What Actually Surprised the Researchers
The team’s research involved interviews with healthcare professionals, patients, and hospital stakeholders. One finding stood out clearly: physicians were skeptical of the product’s broad antiviral activity, a property the scientific team viewed as one of its core strengths, and wanted much stronger evidence before accepting the claim.
Lewash described the gap this revealed: “That was an important learning for us because it highlighted the gap that can exist between scientific understanding and market acceptance. What seems straightforward to researchers isn’t necessarily obvious to potential users.”
Because there is nothing directly comparable already on the market, she noted, people naturally approach a new mechanism with caution, meaning the team will need to invest as much in clear communication as in the science itself.
Patient interviews surfaced a separate, more basic gap: many participants weren’t fully aware of what medications they were already taking or why, reinforcing just how much education matters even for products that already exist.
Reducing Risk Before Committing Resources
Wübben was direct about what the research was ultimately protecting against: “The biggest risk is developing something that nobody wants or needs. If there is no market demand, there’s no point investing significant resources into development.” Beyond demand, the research also helped the team think through regulatory barriers and development costs before committing to a specific path.
Asked when market research should ideally enter the innovation process, Wübben’s answer was unambiguous: as early as possible, and continuously rather than as a single one-off study, since both markets and competitive landscapes shift over time.
Lessons Beyond This One Nasal Spray
Both researchers pointed to lessons that extend well past their own project. Wübben emphasized that innovation requires collaboration across disciplines, business experts, market researchers, clinicians, and regulatory specialists, rather than happening in scientific isolation. She also noted a broader implication for research institutions: market thinking should be integrated earlier into the innovation process, alongside scientific development rather than after it.
Lewash’s advice to other researchers considering market research was practical rather than aspirational: start earlier than feels necessary, and know that meaningful early insight doesn’t require an external agency from day one. Publicly available data, industry reports, and direct conversations with potential users can all begin the process before a formal research budget exists.
The insights ultimately did more than shape COLDEX’s development roadmap. According to Lewash, they also strengthened the team’s subsequent grant applications, giving reviewers concrete evidence of commercial potential rather than scientific promise alone.