NXTin Health sat down with Anton Cherneko, Co-Founder and CEO of Cornea Sense, for a conversation about the company’s work and vision.
His company is developing a medical diagnostic device that helps eye doctors diagnose and monitor eye and metabolic diseases using direct, specific data on ocular surface hydration.
Anton grew up in Kazakhstan, where he went to school — and it was there, during his middle-school years, that he decided he wanted to be a biologist, inspired by National Geographic documentaries. He had always dreamed of becoming one of those adventurers stationed in Madagascar, Brazil and Africa, and from then on, he looked for ways to make that dream a reality. He completed his master’s degree in Siberia and then moved to Finland, where he spent time doing field research. From there, he spent close to a decade building a career in business — starting out in sales and marketing roles and working his way up — before that experience led him to his next big venture in Finland: Cornea Sense.
Now, with Cornea Sense gaining traction, Anton faces a decision common to many European health-tech founders: whether the US — with its larger market and more ambitious investment environment — is the right next stage of growth for the company.
How did Cornea Sense get started?
It began about two and a half years ago through a “research to business” programme — a government initiative funded by the state and universities, designed to help commercialise academic research. By that point, there were already years of hardcore research behind the underlying science, and it was reaching the stage where it was ready to move toward the market. I came across the research announcement to join the project as a commercial champion and got in touch with a good friend of mine who’s an ophthalmologist. His first reaction was, honestly, “This is nonsense.” But once he took the time to think it through, he found a way forward, and that is how we got started. Everything I had learned from my previous companies actually applied here — just on a different scale — on top of the research that had already been done.
The government support helps as we are very R&D-heavy — we have to buy equipment, pay for services, cover salaries — and that is where almost all of the funding goes. Marketing just is not a priority at this stage; we simply don’t have the capacity for it right now.
What is your next goal? Where do you want to take the company?
Right now, the focus is Finland, since we are a university spin-off. But we are at a point where we need to make a key decision this year: do we keep building the company in Europe and run pilots in Europe, or do we start pilots in the US? That’s a completely different path. Some companies do what’s called a “flip” — registering an entity in the US so they can raise money there and run pilots. We are in health tech, which is heavily regulated, so getting the certifications needed for the US market means going through substantial clinical testing and trials. Where we run those trials determines where we are allowed to sell. If we get the CE mark, we can sell across Europe. If we want the US market, we need to find partners there. That’s the decision we are wrestling with this year. At the moment, we have runway into next year, which is part of what is forcing the decision.
What would motivate you to register in the US — closer access to bigger funding, or easier access to a bigger market?
Both, really. What we are building is not something that is currently measurable. We measure corneal hydration, and every time I mention that, people are surprised — why would you even measure that if there’s no established way of doing it? That is why we first need good-quality data, and enough of it, before people start recognising the importance of this metric. Dry eye affects a huge number of people — potentially more than 10% of the population — and it is especially prevalent in certain regions. Asia sees it badly, particularly in children, and the US is also heavily affected. But dry eye is just one condition among several we are looking at. Most treatment in this space is private, both in Europe and the US, but there’s simply more money in the US.
And what is your end goal for the company?
We are building this to exit — to eventually sell the company. Realistically, we see this ending in an acquisition rather than us staying independent for decades — that is how this space consolidates. Large companies already exist in this space, and they grow by acquiring smaller businesses — either absorbing them and continuing development, or acquiring and shelving them. We are already in early conversations with some of the larger players in the space — the kind of thing that tends to happen once the data starts coming in — but it is too early to say more than that. Once we have solid data on corneal hydration and what we are measuring, those conversations will pick back up. Most of these companies are based in the US or Japan, which tells you where our real markets are. If we stay in Europe, our operations will be smaller, the market is smaller, and there is less capital available. US investors are also more willing to take risks. In Europe, there is a lot of talk about “European strategic autonomy” and manufacturing locally, but funding policy remains very conservative. The US is simply more open to investing in innovative ideas. We are trying to find the path of least resistance — we do not need to pile more challenges onto our plate than we already have, and the US might be that easier path.
Do you think that conservative investment mindset is the EU’s biggest challenge?
Very much so. If you want to raise money in the US, you often need three to five times more than you would in Europe, simply because everything costs more there. I have experienced this myself — consultants, regulatory work, legal fees, manufacturing, all of it. Legal help alone can run up to $1,000 an hour in the US, compared to €200–500 in Europe for the equivalent. And it is not just San Francisco — you will pay a premium anywhere in the US. The tax system is also considerably more complex there. So yes, there are real challenges. But at the same time, there is simply more funding available. We are already operating in a complex space — deep tech, health tech — so we have enough on our plate. If there is a relatively easier route, we will take it.
How has Finland been as a base for a startup like yours?
It’s a strong base, honestly. There’s a lot of government support — we received an R&D grant from Business Finland, and our pre-seed round totalled €1.1 million, part of which came from that grant. Once you gain traction with state-owned agencies like Business Finland, they see the potential, and if they have invested once, they are likely to invest again as you hit your milestones — which we have. Proving the potential of what you are developing builds credibility. It also helps that we started as a university project — the state had already invested significant money over the years, first in the research, then in the company, so there’s a natural progression. And when funders see that we are able to bring people who are ready to invest and share the risks themselves, that builds credibility too. Wherever we end up commercially, Finland is where the company and the core R&D stay rooted — this is about market entry, not relocation.
Do you have a medical background yourself?
Not really, no — though I do have a few degrees, four to be precise. I have a PhD in genetics, but in insects specifically — ants. Nothing to do with dry eyes at all! But it turns out those skills transfer more than you’d expect. Once you understand how science works, it becomes much easier to run a spin-off company, because you understand how scientists think. I made the shift from science into business — it took about ten years, starting from entry-level roles and working up to managing sales teams, and along the way I ran two businesses of my own. Cornea Sense was a logical next step: a chance to put all the skills and the network I’d built over that decade to use in running a company. You learn how scientists approach problems and how much freedom they need. You can’t just put a scientist in a room and say, “You’re here nine to five, and I need results by Friday.” It doesn’t work that way.
You mentioned a previous project that failed. What keeps you going, and why do you think this one will succeed? Does it help that you and your co-founder trust each other and believe in the idea?
Enormously. What really helped was the two years we spent in the research-to-business programme — it gave us time to get to know one another properly. Cornea Sense was founded by two people: myself and our CTO, who’s a scientist and had never worked in business before. I’d done it previously, so for her, that shift is happening right now. Those two years made it clear we’d work well as a team, and that made the idea far more fundable.
So — the big question: stay in Europe, or move to the US?
That’s the decision ahead of us. If we start running pilots in the US, the team needs to be ready to relocate — our product is software-enabled hardware, so it still requires a lot of hands-on support, research, and development. So the question becomes: is the team ready to move? Where would we go? Who will go? And can we find the right partner? Every US state differs when it comes to regulation, living conditions, and so on.
What should Europe be doing to keep companies like yours here?
The US makes everything look shinier — you hear endless stories about exits and IPOs. Europe just doesn’t get that same level of visibility. We don’t see enough being promoted at the European level for MedTech spin-offs specifically — a clear message saying, “Here are your options if you’re a company like this.” I’d like to see more of that, and more success stories that people can look to. We need clearer guidance: here are your options, here’s what you need to do, here’s how it’s done, here are the success stories, and here’s how you scale from within Europe. Seeing big success stories genuinely helps — Oura is a great example, and it brings credibility to the whole country as well. I’d also like to see more collaboration at the state level. We’ve actually been asked, “How is it possible you’re a medical device company and you’re not selling anything yet? Why should we give you tax relief?” We’re spending heavily on R&D without revenue — but that’s simply how medical device companies operate during their early years. You innovate, develop, and prove your technology first, and only then do you start selling. Instead of being able to focus on developing, we also have to justify our spending and argue about taxes.
