Ledger · 2026-08-29 · Marine Biotechnology / Cosmetics

Marine-Safe Biomimetic Sunscreen Filters via Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Mycosporine-Like Amino Acids

Rejected

This concept did not clear the framework. The reasoning is published in full below.

Why it failed

Assessment

The concept fails Sub-test B (Like-for-Like) because the claimed performance advantage relies on the molar extinction coefficient of pure isolated MAAs (Porphyra-334/Shinorine), whereas the commercial product being manufactured is a 17.9% semi-purified crude biomass extract. Additionally, by registering as a cosmetic extract (INCI) to avoid FDA OTC drug approval, it cannot legally perform the primary regulated UV-filtering function of Oxybenzone.

Claimed advantage

Molar extinction coefficient of 28,100-50,000 M⁻¹ cm⁻¹ for isolated MAAs vs ~15,000 M⁻¹ cm⁻¹ for Oxybenzone

Named comparator: Standard Organic UV Filters (Oxybenzone)

Also flagged

A rejection is not a claim that the science is wrong. It means the venture case did not survive: the comparator was not what the buyer actually buys, the comparison was not like-for-like, the advantage fell short of a step change, or the capital and time to first revenue were prohibitive.

Assessed 2026-08-29 against seven gates plus the voiding sub-tests. How the method works · Browse all concepts