5 ms·

What is your evidence for the claim that, "YC has not shown a good understanding of the life sciences"? (and what evidence will change your mind?) Our biotech

by paul 11y ago

What is your evidence for the claim that, "YC has not shown a good understanding of the life sciences"? (and what evidence will change your mind?) Our biotech investments are currently all too young for something huge like an IPO, but many are continuing to grow and prosper. For example, Ginkgo just raised a $45M Series B: http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/23/ginkgo-bioworks-takes-on-zymergen-with-45-million-in-series-b-funding/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/23/ginkgo-bioworks-takes-on-zy...

bbgm 11y ago
If you go ask scientists that work in the life sciences, most (at least the ones I know) will say that there are much more fundamental problems that we should be tackling. Synthetic biology is super interesting, and maybe that is the right space for YC to play in, but it's not the needle mover that the tech crowd thinks it is going to be. Trying to understand the mechanisms of GNRH receptors and developing lead candidates that could be potential therapies is just not as sexy as synthetic biology. Would you fund something in that space? But this is where my head just starts spinning "I'm going to help our biotech startups find the partners and tools they need to make wetware at software-like speeds." That's not going to happen. It's not how biology works in a lot of others, and you lose a lot of credibility when you say that. Unfortunately, a lot of founders say that as well. I forget the name of the company, but there was a recent algorithms startup that made it sound like they were (a) going to change pharma with their methods, and (b) what they were doing was new and unique. None of which was true. YC (and others) can do a lot here, but I feel you go in without really understanding the space or the pitfalls. A lot of biotech fails not because of the business model, but because biology hard, the human body is unreliable and illogical, and because our understanding of the science is flawed. I'll get off my soapbox now :-)
- arihant 11y ago
  While I agree that there are more critical and fundamental problems that need to be solved by us, not all of those problems could be solved by a profit seeking corporation. Also, a lot of such problems should be kept out of hands of people primarily concerned with building a business, because that could be a dangerous way to lead the solution. That said,these problems must be solved. Which is why over the last thousand or so years, we have built a system of universities, public donations, and taxation, so these problems are addressed by right people.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  > I forget the name of the company, but there was a recent algorithms startup that made it sound like they were (a) going to change pharma with their methods, and (b) what they were doing was new and unique. None of which was true. Here's the relevant thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9924807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9924807
- tdaltonc 11y ago
  Wouldn't any CS academic also look at every YC software startup and say, "there are much more fundamental problems that we should be tackling."? Biological engineering can and should be a thing separate for biological sciences. You do not always need to understand biology to be able to hack with it; it's robust that way. Maybe biology can't breakout the way software has, but on the off chance that it could, it's worth having a lot of people trying to figure out how.
  - w1ntermute 11y ago
    CS academics would have no interest in the majority of YC software startups, because most of them are not innovating in CS, they're just using software as a tool for business model innovation. Biotech startups are fundamentally different in that they're driven by scientific advances, which is exactly what life scientists in academia are trying to produce.
    - tdaltonc 11y ago
      That's exactly my point. Silicon valley used to be driven by scientific advances too. But at some point the science got good enough that the engineering and business logic decoupled from the science. That will happen in biology, maybe it's now.
      - w1ntermute 11y ago
        > at some point the science got good enough that the engineering and business logic decoupled from the science. That will happen in biology, maybe it's now. It's definitely not now. The thing holding back biotech isn't business model innovation, it's technical difficulties - what the scientists are tackling. You can't compare semiconductor innovation to biological research - one system was man-made to be as reliable and robust as possible, whereas the other one is still largely utterly incomprehensible. My sense is that the vast majority of people on HN touting rapid advances in biology have never actually spent any time reading up on the scientific literature, and haven't spent any time doing life science research. The same goes for most of the YC partners, which has led to their selecting companies that often have fatal flaws that are immediately apparent to anyone with life sciences expertise.
- paul 11y ago
  If you know great scientists solving important problems, please encourage them to apply :) That said, great research projects do not necessarily translate into great startups. People doing fundamental research with no clear path to market likely aren't a great fit for the program at this time.
  - w1ntermute 11y ago
    Your problem is that great (life) scientists solving important problems have no interest in (or need for) YC. They'll just go to Noubar Afeyan, Bruce Booth, or Bob Nelsen.
    - jrkelly 11y ago
      Mmmmm. Flagship (Noubar's shop) mostly incubates it's own companies (same with 3rd Rock) and uses VC partners as founding CEOs -- so if you are a missionary founder it's not really a fit. In general the pharma VC ecosystem is way more "professional executives"-minded. It's a stark contrast to tech venture ecosystem that goes for young founder leadership. So if you are a great, recently graduated life scientist solving important problems and want to build your own company I'd still consider YC.
      - w1ntermute 11y ago
        I don't think that young founder-driven companies make sense in biotech. Young founders do well in tech because business model innovation requires contrarian thinking, which young people (who are naive and lack preconceptions) are more likely to do. Also, software engineering can be learned at home for very little money, on one's own, even at a very early age. In biotech, once the technology has been developed, the innovative component has largely been completed. And it's the top scientists that have the institutional knowledge and non-dilutive funding to make that happen. The reason there are so many unmet needs in healthcare isn't for lack of trying or a lack of original thought in the top academic research labs - you can be sure that Bob Langer isn't just trying to up his h-index. That said, you are right that a recent graduate won't be able to found a company in that model. That's mostly irrelevant though, since recent graduates are rarely capable of creating scientific breakthroughs on their own.
- omginternets 11y ago
  >"I'm going to help our biotech startups find the partners and tools they need to make wetware at software-like speeds." This is spot-on. The "quickly move to market" approach of the typical VC simply does not work here. Good science -- in which I include money-making science -- takes time. There's a lot more fiddling involved, as we can't manipulate the system at all levels. >I'll get off my soapbox now :-) Please stay on it. It's refreshing.
OopsCriticality 11y ago
Honestly? The pattern of biotech groups that YC has invested in, signals that YC is in over its head. They're the sort of selections that smart people would make, but not the sort of selections that smart people with domain experience would make. You reference Gingko, but that company is (in my opinion) uniquely viable in terms of YC biotech investments. Of course, my perspective is based on media reports (famously unreliable), by public information, and by my own experience in biotech. I would love to be completely wrong, and I could easily be completely wrong since I don't have access to the information that you do. Also, maybe an outside perspective is what is needed in biotech—good things happen when smart people from other disciplines cross-pollenate. Also, my own startup is not yet successful, so I criticize from within a lovely glass house surrounded by stones. That said, based on what is public, I don't have confidence in YC's biotech investments. I am hesitant to even consider applying, given with what is publicly available. I don't think this is an appropriate forum to be specific with criticisms, nor do I wish to be a "negative Nancy" with YC's new push—if YC could do a fraction of what it did in software in the biotech area, it'd be amazing. I would however like to offer one particular outsider's perspective.
- ScottBurson 11y ago
  > The pattern of biotech groups that YC has invested in, signals that YC is in over its head. Maybe this is exactly why you should apply :-) > You reference Gingko, but that company is (in my opinion) uniquely viable in terms of YC biotech investments. Remember VC economics and the power-law distribution of returns. One big winner pays for a lot of small losing bets.
  - w1ntermute 11y ago
    > Remember VC economics and the power-law distribution of returns. One big winner pays for a lot of small losing bets. The calculus is actually quite different in biotech. With proper scientific due diligence (read: late-stage cherry-picking), there are usually more (but smaller) winners and fewer (but larger) losers in biotech than in tech. The absolute number of winners may still be smaller than the number of losers, but there isn't a tech-style power-law phenomenon. This is partly because the needs are often very well understood in the life sciences, so the size of the opportunity isn't that uncertain. It's whether or not the science will pan out that is uncertain (which can be very costly to find out and with little recourse - you can't easily pivot on a therapeutic, particularly if that happens late in clinical trials).

by paul 11y ago

bbgm 11y ago

If you go ask scientists that work in the life sciences, most (at least the ones I know) will say that there are much more fundamental problems that we should be tackling. Synthetic biology is super interesting, and maybe that is the right space for YC to play in, but it's not the needle mover that the tech crowd thinks it is going to be. Trying to understand the mechanisms of GNRH receptors and developing lead candidates that could be potential therapies is just not as sexy as synthetic biology. Would you fund something in that space? But this is where my head just starts spinning "I'm going to help our biotech startups find the partners and tools they need to make wetware at software-like speeds." That's not going to happen. It's not how biology works in a lot of others, and you lose a lot of credibility when you say that. Unfortunately, a lot of founders say that as well. I forget the name of the company, but there was a recent algorithms startup that made it sound like they were (a) going to change pharma with their methods, and (b) what they were doing was new and unique. None of which was true. YC (and others) can do a lot here, but I feel you go in without really understanding the space or the pitfalls. A lot of biotech fails not because of the business model, but because biology hard, the human body is unreliable and illogical, and because our understanding of the science is flawed. I'll get off my soapbox now :-)

arihant 11y ago
While I agree that there are more critical and fundamental problems that need to be solved by us, not all of those problems could be solved by a profit seeking corporation. Also, a lot of such problems should be kept out of hands of people primarily concerned with building a business, because that could be a dangerous way to lead the solution. That said,these problems must be solved. Which is why over the last thousand or so years, we have built a system of universities, public donations, and taxation, so these problems are addressed by right people.
w1ntermute 11y ago
> I forget the name of the company, but there was a recent algorithms startup that made it sound like they were (a) going to change pharma with their methods, and (b) what they were doing was new and unique. None of which was true. Here's the relevant thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9924807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9924807
tdaltonc 11y ago
Wouldn't any CS academic also look at every YC software startup and say, "there are much more fundamental problems that we should be tackling."? Biological engineering can and should be a thing separate for biological sciences. You do not always need to understand biology to be able to hack with it; it's robust that way. Maybe biology can't breakout the way software has, but on the off chance that it could, it's worth having a lot of people trying to figure out how.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  CS academics would have no interest in the majority of YC software startups, because most of them are not innovating in CS, they're just using software as a tool for business model innovation. Biotech startups are fundamentally different in that they're driven by scientific advances, which is exactly what life scientists in academia are trying to produce.
  - tdaltonc 11y ago
    That's exactly my point. Silicon valley used to be driven by scientific advances too. But at some point the science got good enough that the engineering and business logic decoupled from the science. That will happen in biology, maybe it's now.
    - w1ntermute 11y ago
      > at some point the science got good enough that the engineering and business logic decoupled from the science. That will happen in biology, maybe it's now. It's definitely not now. The thing holding back biotech isn't business model innovation, it's technical difficulties - what the scientists are tackling. You can't compare semiconductor innovation to biological research - one system was man-made to be as reliable and robust as possible, whereas the other one is still largely utterly incomprehensible. My sense is that the vast majority of people on HN touting rapid advances in biology have never actually spent any time reading up on the scientific literature, and haven't spent any time doing life science research. The same goes for most of the YC partners, which has led to their selecting companies that often have fatal flaws that are immediately apparent to anyone with life sciences expertise.
paul 11y ago
If you know great scientists solving important problems, please encourage them to apply :) That said, great research projects do not necessarily translate into great startups. People doing fundamental research with no clear path to market likely aren't a great fit for the program at this time.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  Your problem is that great (life) scientists solving important problems have no interest in (or need for) YC. They'll just go to Noubar Afeyan, Bruce Booth, or Bob Nelsen.
  - jrkelly 11y ago
    Mmmmm. Flagship (Noubar's shop) mostly incubates it's own companies (same with 3rd Rock) and uses VC partners as founding CEOs -- so if you are a missionary founder it's not really a fit. In general the pharma VC ecosystem is way more "professional executives"-minded. It's a stark contrast to tech venture ecosystem that goes for young founder leadership. So if you are a great, recently graduated life scientist solving important problems and want to build your own company I'd still consider YC.
    - w1ntermute 11y ago
      I don't think that young founder-driven companies make sense in biotech. Young founders do well in tech because business model innovation requires contrarian thinking, which young people (who are naive and lack preconceptions) are more likely to do. Also, software engineering can be learned at home for very little money, on one's own, even at a very early age. In biotech, once the technology has been developed, the innovative component has largely been completed. And it's the top scientists that have the institutional knowledge and non-dilutive funding to make that happen. The reason there are so many unmet needs in healthcare isn't for lack of trying or a lack of original thought in the top academic research labs - you can be sure that Bob Langer isn't just trying to up his h-index. That said, you are right that a recent graduate won't be able to found a company in that model. That's mostly irrelevant though, since recent graduates are rarely capable of creating scientific breakthroughs on their own.
omginternets 11y ago
>"I'm going to help our biotech startups find the partners and tools they need to make wetware at software-like speeds." This is spot-on. The "quickly move to market" approach of the typical VC simply does not work here. Good science -- in which I include money-making science -- takes time. There's a lot more fiddling involved, as we can't manipulate the system at all levels. >I'll get off my soapbox now :-) Please stay on it. It's refreshing.

OopsCriticality 11y ago

Honestly? The pattern of biotech groups that YC has invested in, signals that YC is in over its head. They're the sort of selections that smart people would make, but not the sort of selections that smart people with domain experience would make. You reference Gingko, but that company is (in my opinion) uniquely viable in terms of YC biotech investments. Of course, my perspective is based on media reports (famously unreliable), by public information, and by my own experience in biotech. I would love to be completely wrong, and I could easily be completely wrong since I don't have access to the information that you do. Also, maybe an outside perspective is what is needed in biotech—good things happen when smart people from other disciplines cross-pollenate. Also, my own startup is not yet successful, so I criticize from within a lovely glass house surrounded by stones. That said, based on what is public, I don't have confidence in YC's biotech investments. I am hesitant to even consider applying, given with what is publicly available. I don't think this is an appropriate forum to be specific with criticisms, nor do I wish to be a "negative Nancy" with YC's new push—if YC could do a fraction of what it did in software in the biotech area, it'd be amazing. I would however like to offer one particular outsider's perspective.

ScottBurson 11y ago
> The pattern of biotech groups that YC has invested in, signals that YC is in over its head. Maybe this is exactly why you should apply :-) > You reference Gingko, but that company is (in my opinion) uniquely viable in terms of YC biotech investments. Remember VC economics and the power-law distribution of returns. One big winner pays for a lot of small losing bets.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  > Remember VC economics and the power-law distribution of returns. One big winner pays for a lot of small losing bets. The calculus is actually quite different in biotech. With proper scientific due diligence (read: late-stage cherry-picking), there are usually more (but smaller) winners and fewer (but larger) losers in biotech than in tech. The absolute number of winners may still be smaller than the number of losers, but there isn't a tech-style power-law phenomenon. This is partly because the needs are often very well understood in the life sciences, so the size of the opportunity isn't that uncertain. It's whether or not the science will pan out that is uncertain (which can be very costly to find out and with little recourse - you can't easily pivot on a therapeutic, particularly if that happens late in clinical trials).