2 ms·

Leo I am not sure how much help I can be as the difficult thing about biotech is the huge background knowledge required to understand the science. This is not a

Leo I am not sure how much help I can be as the difficult thing about biotech is the huge background knowledge required to understand the science. This is not a small undertaking even if it is very interesting. One resource I really do recommend is Derek Lowe’s blog In The Pipeline [0]. I have spent hundreds of hours reading through all his posts (he is amazingly prolific) and the very informed (if cynical) comments. It really helped me understand the problems that come up translating a new scientific discovery into a licensed pharmaceutical. Even if you don’t learn anything you will be entertained by his series on "things I won’t work with” [1]. 0. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/ http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/ 1. http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/things-i-wont-work-with http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/thing...

aaavl2821 9y ago
Would second Derek Lowe. For newcomers to the space I'd also suggest: -the "six rules of reproducibility" -- with software, in general if someone writes code that works on their system you can use that code and get the same result on your system. This is far from the case in biopharma, especially w academic findings. Failing to understand the dangers of the "reproducibility crisis" is a common pitfall for non scientists: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/10/01/six_rule_of_reproducibility http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/10/01/six... -"software eats the world, but biology eats the pipeline" is a professional drug hunters take on the a16z bio thesis. This post references once by Bruce booth. Bruce booth is far from a Luddite and has invested in several computationally driven drug companies (nimbus being one example) but he suggests that there is a ton of potential, but you need to know the dangers before diving in: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/04/28/software-eats-the-world-but-biology-eats-it http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/04/28/sof... -the "lessons for a new medicinal chemist" post is also a great one that shows how hard, yet how fascinating, drug discovery is: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/06/08/lessons_for_a_new_medicinal_chemist http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/06/08/les...

aaavl2821 9y ago

Would second Derek Lowe. For newcomers to the space I'd also suggest: -the "six rules of reproducibility" -- with software, in general if someone writes code that works on their system you can use that code and get the same result on your system. This is far from the case in biopharma, especially w academic findings. Failing to understand the dangers of the "reproducibility crisis" is a common pitfall for non scientists: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/10/01/six_rule_of_reproducibility http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/10/01/six... -"software eats the world, but biology eats the pipeline" is a professional drug hunters take on the a16z bio thesis. This post references once by Bruce booth. Bruce booth is far from a Luddite and has invested in several computationally driven drug companies (nimbus being one example) but he suggests that there is a ton of potential, but you need to know the dangers before diving in: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/04/28/software-eats-the-world-but-biology-eats-it http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/04/28/sof... -the "lessons for a new medicinal chemist" post is also a great one that shows how hard, yet how fascinating, drug discovery is: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/06/08/lessons_for_a_new_medicinal_chemist http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/06/08/les...