Chris Lykke Christiansen

Chris Lykke ChristiansenOct 16, 2026

Come work with us! We are looking for an experienced 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁 / 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 to join us on a consultancy or part-time basis. At Lifebloom, we work with cyanobacteria, one of the oldest forms of life on Earth 🦠🌍 These tiny microorganisms have incredible potential as sustainable factories for the next generation of high-performance cosmetic ingredients. After screening 100+ cyanobacterial molecules, we identified an overlooked molecule with exciting potential for skin and hair care. Now we are working to bring it to market. But developing an innovative ingredient is only half the challenge. We also need to demonstrate its performance in real skincare formulations. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂! We're looking for someone with proven experience in developing high-quality skincare formulations, both on paper and hands-on in the lab. You'll work directly with our founding team to develop formulations for clinical efficacy studies and customer sampling, while providing technical and strategic guidance. 📍 Ideally based in Denmark, with access to a formulation lab. Otherwise, we have lab facilities in Malmö. 👉 Full job description and application details: https://lnkd.in/eCq-WEQK If this sounds like you, or someone you know, we'd love to hear from you. Jan Karlsen Andreia Lopes

Chris Lykke ChristiansenOct 7, 2026

We are a technical-commercial founding team, and I see that as a huge advantage. When starting Lifebloom, I knew very little about biotechnology. I entered a scientific field with a commercial lens. Instead of starting with what was scientifically possible, my instinct was to ask: What problem does this solve? Is it better than existing solutions? Over time, I have learned a lot of science. I needed to understand what our molecules do, why they do it, their mode of action, how they compare with other materials, and where the scientific evidence is strong or weak. But I don’t need to know every detail of our tech. My co-founder, Jan does that. I need to understand the science well enough to make good strategic and commercial calls. And I think there is an advantage to stopping there. Science gives you an enormous number of interesting directions to pursue. A CEO’s job is not necessarily to understand every detail. It is to identify which details matter commercially and turn them into decisions about where to focus the company. Great science is not the same thing as a great product. A scientifically fascinating molecule can still solve no meaningful customer problem. It can be too expensive, impossible to formulate, difficult to scale, poorly differentiated, or simply something nobody wants to buy. And even when great science becomes a great product, the product still doesn’t sell itself. It needs positioning. Evidence. A compelling narrative. Distribution. Relationships. Persistence. Sales. My co-founder will tell you how to make the molecule. I will tell you why we should make it in the first place, and why anyone should care. That combination is what makes Lifebloom a strong founding team.

Chris Lykke ChristiansenOct 20, 2026

Here is what I have learned from working a decade in personal care (which feels strange to say). Beauty and personal care looks like a science-driven industry from the outside. And science does matter. But inside the industry, the final decisions about claims, ingredients, and stories are often made by marketing. Back when I was building NØIE, we tried hard to work the other way around. We did not choose ingredients because they made a good story. We built products around what the evidence showed us. I am happy to see Christian and the team still staying true to that today. Other brands do this too. But most of the industry is marketing-led. That has become much more obvious to me now that I have moved upstream, from building brands to building the ingredients those brands buy. I am seeing a clear tension between science and marketing. You need science to open the door to marketing. But when marketers make the final calls, there’s a tendency for the science to be designed, interpreted, and packaged around the story they want to tell. An in vitro effect becomes a mechanism. A mechanism becomes a clinical narrative. A correlation starts sounding like causation. And before long, claims like cellular rejuvenation, DNA protection, epigenetic anti-aging, and mitochondrial activation are used with more certainty than the evidence can actually support. As an ingredient company, that leaves us with an uncomfortable question. 𝗗𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆, 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺? Commercially, I understand the temptation. If everyone else is selling a compelling biological story, showing up with a more honest but less exciting one is a hard sell, especially when the buyer is thinking in sales numbers rather than scientific certainty. But maybe that is exactly what the industry needs more of. A clearer separation between what was measured, what is inferred, and what is still just a marketing hypothesis. I’d love to hear from cosmetic scientists, formulators, AND marketers: 𝗗𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝘀?