3 ms·

100 million paying 10k is much more likely. And 1 trillion is in market value, not revenue. Imagine if you could sell a therapy such as a seasonal cure for "com

by cellis 9y ago

100 million paying 10k is much more likely. And 1 trillion is in market value, not revenue. Imagine if you could sell a therapy such as a seasonal cure for "common cancer". Drugs can be insanely profitable and there are already several drug makers in the hundreds of billions of market cap.

Turing_Machine 9y ago
"100 million paying 10k is much more likely." 10K is already well within the range people spend on births (currently about $8k including prenatal and postnatal care). Not to mention the cost involved in raising the child to adulthood. :-) You might even be able to charge $50k or $100k, if it actually got to the point of design-to-order (which, granted, would be orders of magnitude more difficult than simply removing one bad gene). How much would a parent pay to have a kid with the mind of Richard Feynman and the body/appearance of David Beckham, or the mind of Marie Curie and the body/appearance of Kiira Korpi? Quite a lot, I'd imagine.
- bluGill 9y ago
  How much would an insurance company pay to fix high cholesterol, diabetes, cancer etc? I know people spending close $10,000 a year on cholesterol medication. Diabetics' insulin can cost $500 (I don't know how long this lasts), plus the other blood monitoring costs and costs of other complications. Cancer treatment is not cheap but I don't know how to look up the costs. All of the above costs are mostly covered by insurance, but if you work them out, a $100k treatment can pay off in as little as 10 years. Of course there is a difference between ensuring someone's kids don't have a condition and fixing it in someone who is already alive. Will parents make this choice even if insurance pays for it?
  - Turing_Machine 9y ago
    You're absolutely right. And of course someone is paying for the insurance. Even if it's given as part of your employment, that's money that your employer could otherwise be using for other things (maybe even giving it to you as your salary...that's how we got into the employer-provided health insurance mess in the first place -- salary was taxable, insurance wasn't).

by cellis 9y ago

Turing_Machine 9y ago

"100 million paying 10k is much more likely." 10K is already well within the range people spend on births (currently about $8k including prenatal and postnatal care). Not to mention the cost involved in raising the child to adulthood. :-) You might even be able to charge $50k or $100k, if it actually got to the point of design-to-order (which, granted, would be orders of magnitude more difficult than simply removing one bad gene). How much would a parent pay to have a kid with the mind of Richard Feynman and the body/appearance of David Beckham, or the mind of Marie Curie and the body/appearance of Kiira Korpi? Quite a lot, I'd imagine.

bluGill 9y ago
How much would an insurance company pay to fix high cholesterol, diabetes, cancer etc? I know people spending close $10,000 a year on cholesterol medication. Diabetics' insulin can cost $500 (I don't know how long this lasts), plus the other blood monitoring costs and costs of other complications. Cancer treatment is not cheap but I don't know how to look up the costs. All of the above costs are mostly covered by insurance, but if you work them out, a $100k treatment can pay off in as little as 10 years. Of course there is a difference between ensuring someone's kids don't have a condition and fixing it in someone who is already alive. Will parents make this choice even if insurance pays for it?
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  You're absolutely right. And of course someone is paying for the insurance. Even if it's given as part of your employment, that's money that your employer could otherwise be using for other things (maybe even giving it to you as your salary...that's how we got into the employer-provided health insurance mess in the first place -- salary was taxable, insurance wasn't).