Disadvantage in life sciences / biotech without STEM background?

Hey guys,

Title says all. I'm currently looking to transition from a megafund to a role at a much smaller but decent fund covering life sciences. I'm super lucky to be in a late stage process right now, especially because I have no bioscience/healthcare exposure in my past deals (all very traditional and boring). I also didn't study STEM in college at all (I majored in philosophy). 

The role I am looking at covers life sciences excluding pharma, with a focus on biotech and agtech.

While I am super interested in this industry (hence why I was able to recruit successfully), I am a little wary of my long-term prospects in the sector, especially since my background doesn't scream STEM. If I go down this route, my endgame is to end up in either VC covering the same sector, or to start/join a startup of my own within the sector. How much will my background hold me back? 

If the resounding answer is, "bad news - yes you will have a glass ceiling / be handicapped by your lack of STEM background and thus will be systemically disadvantaged forever", then there are other sectors I'm interested in which maybe I should go into instead.

While I have been taking some bio/chem MOOCs online, trying to read journals etc, I realize there is only so much I can do to further my understanding and credibility in the space compared to the plethora of PhDs and MDs. Even for those who didn't do grad school, it seems everyone else on my team has majored in biology/chemistry at the minimum.

What is the community's take? In particular if anyone is in this field I'd really appreciate some of your thoughts. 

Alternatively, anyone know if maybe there's a 2-year science degree I can do to quickly rebrand?