5 ms·

I get that, but there are biotechs that can get funded on an order of magnitude of tens or hundreds of millions. If the Vision Fund with $100 billion can't make

I get that, but there are biotechs that can get funded on an order of magnitude of tens or hundreds of millions. If the Vision Fund with $100 billion can't make biotech investments work, who could? That's kind of my point; if Vision Fund at scale can't make risky investments work, who could? The only alternatives are the existing profit-machines like Google (Google X) or governments. I am also not the only one with this thought; Professor Andrew Lo of MIT has a final chapter in his book "Adaptive Markets" about how he might structure a similar "big problem solving fund" akin to the Vision Fund but with arguably bolder ambitions. https://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Markets-Financial-Evolution-Thought/dp/0691135142 https://www.amazon.com/Adaptive-Markets-Financial-Evolution-... https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2784-can-financial-engineering-cure-cancer-a-talk-by-dr https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2784-can-fi... And before someone argues that "they're likelier to lose a lot of money trying riskier investments", they just seemingly lost a lot of money on the "easier" investments. So if you're going to lose money, I'd rather it be on trying to solve hard problems than paying Adam Neumann.

codesushi42 7y ago
You are missing the point. Do you know anything about this industry? Biotech is not anything like your "traditional" tech companies, they operate in a completely different dynamic. It is not risky in the same way. It can take many years to realize that your proof of concept is a failure, and there's no "pivoting" like in the tech bro world. Are you prepared to realize that after 10 years and many millions of dollars later you will be unable to even try to sell whatever you were researching? You are at the mercy of the FDA. You can expedite this a bit by going the medical devices route instead of developing therapeutics or pharmaceuticals for instance, but it will still take you years to go from R&D to market. If you ever get there. This is why phony genomics software platforms are all the rage today. but there are biotechs that can get funded on an order of magnitude of tens or hundreds of millions. If Vision Fund at scale can't make risky investments work, who could? Again, you are completely ignorant of this space. Biotech is not the same problem. You can't just throw more money at it and expect to see results like you can in a growth market defined by first-mover advantage and outspending your competition. Biotech is insanely risky, as is any other scientific endeavor. It is science and experimental. It is not a chat app, real estate scam, or overpriced juicer. The comparison makes no sense.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "This is why phony genomics software platforms are all the rage today." Examples?
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    Plenty of sequencing software start ups, platforms, etc that are doomed to fail in this over saturated space.
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  I have a good friend who is a cancer researcher and they're 5 years in and think they might be able to commercialize something in another 3. Realistically, they're assuming it will be closer to five. While I have massive respect for the people with the insight, patience, and understanding to tackle biotech, I can't imagine spending 8-10 years for the hope that maybe you've done something useful.. and then figure out if you can sell it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    Exactly this. OP doesn't seem to get it. It takes a long time and "launching" is never certain. Thank you sir.
- bontaq 7y ago
  I don't think your point makes sense. Obviously venture capital exists for biotech. Since the vision fund lost a bunch of money on safer bets, it would've been better if they lost it on risky biotech bets.
  - codesushi42 7y ago
    Huh? I guess if they had a crystal ball.
- 7y ago

codesushi42 7y ago

You are missing the point. Do you know anything about this industry? Biotech is not anything like your "traditional" tech companies, they operate in a completely different dynamic. It is not risky in the same way. It can take many years to realize that your proof of concept is a failure, and there's no "pivoting" like in the tech bro world. Are you prepared to realize that after 10 years and many millions of dollars later you will be unable to even try to sell whatever you were researching? You are at the mercy of the FDA. You can expedite this a bit by going the medical devices route instead of developing therapeutics or pharmaceuticals for instance, but it will still take you years to go from R&D to market. If you ever get there. This is why phony genomics software platforms are all the rage today. but there are biotechs that can get funded on an order of magnitude of tens or hundreds of millions. If Vision Fund at scale can't make risky investments work, who could? Again, you are completely ignorant of this space. Biotech is not the same problem. You can't just throw more money at it and expect to see results like you can in a growth market defined by first-mover advantage and outspending your competition. Biotech is insanely risky, as is any other scientific endeavor. It is science and experimental. It is not a chat app, real estate scam, or overpriced juicer. The comparison makes no sense.

perl4ever 7y ago
"This is why phony genomics software platforms are all the rage today." Examples?
- codesushi42 7y ago
  Plenty of sequencing software start ups, platforms, etc that are doomed to fail in this over saturated space.
caseysoftware 7y ago
I have a good friend who is a cancer researcher and they're 5 years in and think they might be able to commercialize something in another 3. Realistically, they're assuming it will be closer to five. While I have massive respect for the people with the insight, patience, and understanding to tackle biotech, I can't imagine spending 8-10 years for the hope that maybe you've done something useful.. and then figure out if you can sell it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- codesushi42 7y ago
  Exactly this. OP doesn't seem to get it. It takes a long time and "launching" is never certain. Thank you sir.
bontaq 7y ago
I don't think your point makes sense. Obviously venture capital exists for biotech. Since the vision fund lost a bunch of money on safer bets, it would've been better if they lost it on risky biotech bets.
- codesushi42 7y ago
  Huh? I guess if they had a crystal ball.
7y ago