4 ms·

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 m

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).
  - omginternets 11y ago
    This is spot on. From where I'm standing, this seems to be a case of a tech VC group applying tech methods to biology. I'm surprised YC is investing in wet science rather than computational life sciences such as cognitive neuroscience, or even bioinformatics.
  - jrkelly 11y ago
    I don't think that is true of the last biotech boom in 80s when recombinant DNA tech was developed. Amgen, Genentech, Biogen, etc, were outsized winners. Just b/c biotech has gone to more of a 'single drug asset, build and flip to a BigPharma' model in recent years doesn't mean it is some permanent law of the industry.

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).
- omginternets 11y ago
  This is spot on. From where I'm standing, this seems to be a case of a tech VC group applying tech methods to biology. I'm surprised YC is investing in wet science rather than computational life sciences such as cognitive neuroscience, or even bioinformatics.
- jrkelly 11y ago
  I don't think that is true of the last biotech boom in 80s when recombinant DNA tech was developed. Amgen, Genentech, Biogen, etc, were outsized winners. Just b/c biotech has gone to more of a 'single drug asset, build and flip to a BigPharma' model in recent years doesn't mean it is some permanent law of the industry.