3 ms·

Not interested. Unlike the "normal" tech field, biotech and pharma is an extremely high risk investment and if you aren't a life scientist, it's almost impossib

Not interested. Unlike the "normal" tech field, biotech and pharma is an extremely high risk investment and if you aren't a life scientist, it's almost impossible for you to separate the wheat from the chaff or do any kind of due diligence. A "cell biology 101" course won't help with that, you'd need a bachelor's degree at the very least. It's biology at the end, and biological systems are so complex that it costs billions to develop a drug, and you don't have a guarantee that you will find a working drug.

aaavl2821 8y ago
Thanks for sharing your feedback, I certainly hear those points often and they are understandable concerns. I'll provide feedback below for others who may share these concerns: Biopharma is a high risk investment, but I'd challenge the notion that biotech investing is any more risky than tech, and suggest it's potentially more rewarding. In the last few years biotech VCs have actually done better than tech VCs [0]. Most exits happen years before FDA approval. Of the 46 major VC-backed biotech IPOs in 2018, the average company went public 3-4 years after founding and was in Phase 1 clinical studies. Recently there have been several biotech startups that went from first VC round to $8-10B+ exit in less than five years. Kite Pharma, which was acquired for $12B 5 years after Series A, grew to that size faster than SpaceX, Twitter, Pinterest or Dropbox. You do need knowledge of life science to invest in biotech, but you don't necessarily need a PhD. I know successful biotech CEOs, VCs, hedge fund investors, etc who don't have science backgrounds. And even PhDs find that their expertise, which is in a very narrow field, does not apply to technical evaluations of other fields. A cancer biologist will not be an expert in pharmacodynamics, toxicology, clinical trial design, or protein engineering. You do diligence in biotech by finding experts in all of those areas and drawing upon their knowledge. A cell biology 101 course won't make you a good investor, but neither will a PhD. Most of what you learn in a PhD or undergrad bio degree won't help with biotech investing, and you will still need to learn a lot after getting those degrees. The best way to learn how to invest is to do it, only investing what you can afford to lose, and under the guidance of experienced investors. PhDs or MDs absolutely help, and are the best way to learn about science, but are they the best way to learn biotech investing? The course wouldn't make you a successful biotech investor, but it would provide a foundation for people to learn more efficiently. I think that if you actively invested in biotech for 5 years with guidance from mentors -- even with no science background -- you'd be a better biotech investor than if you did a PhD without doing much investing [0] https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbusting-redux/ https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbu...

aaavl2821 8y ago

Thanks for sharing your feedback, I certainly hear those points often and they are understandable concerns. I'll provide feedback below for others who may share these concerns: Biopharma is a high risk investment, but I'd challenge the notion that biotech investing is any more risky than tech, and suggest it's potentially more rewarding. In the last few years biotech VCs have actually done better than tech VCs [0]. Most exits happen years before FDA approval. Of the 46 major VC-backed biotech IPOs in 2018, the average company went public 3-4 years after founding and was in Phase 1 clinical studies. Recently there have been several biotech startups that went from first VC round to $8-10B+ exit in less than five years. Kite Pharma, which was acquired for $12B 5 years after Series A, grew to that size faster than SpaceX, Twitter, Pinterest or Dropbox. You do need knowledge of life science to invest in biotech, but you don't necessarily need a PhD. I know successful biotech CEOs, VCs, hedge fund investors, etc who don't have science backgrounds. And even PhDs find that their expertise, which is in a very narrow field, does not apply to technical evaluations of other fields. A cancer biologist will not be an expert in pharmacodynamics, toxicology, clinical trial design, or protein engineering. You do diligence in biotech by finding experts in all of those areas and drawing upon their knowledge. A cell biology 101 course won't make you a good investor, but neither will a PhD. Most of what you learn in a PhD or undergrad bio degree won't help with biotech investing, and you will still need to learn a lot after getting those degrees. The best way to learn how to invest is to do it, only investing what you can afford to lose, and under the guidance of experienced investors. PhDs or MDs absolutely help, and are the best way to learn about science, but are they the best way to learn biotech investing? The course wouldn't make you a successful biotech investor, but it would provide a foundation for people to learn more efficiently. I think that if you actively invested in biotech for 5 years with guidance from mentors -- even with no science background -- you'd be a better biotech investor than if you did a PhD without doing much investing [0] https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbusting-redux/ https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbu...