5 ms·

Yeah, wake me up with bioinformaticians (computer programming + biology + statistics) make more than computer programmers. It's an incredibly interesting field

Yeah, wake me up with bioinformaticians (computer programming + biology + statistics) make more than computer programmers. It's an incredibly interesting field, but over-hyped, extremely hard and not particularly profitable.

DrScientist 7y ago
Yep true. But you also missed out that biotechs are trying to cure/treat serious diseases like cancer etc and not simply trying to sell more advertising.
- 1996 7y ago
  No good deed goes unpunished!
- iso1337 7y ago
  This will be an unpopular opinion, but do you think that money could be better spent on other health initiatives like prevention? Is spending 10-100k per month so rich people in developed countries can live a few months longer really that much more moral? Consider that orphan diseases are often not worked on due to either 1) not enough rich people have the disease or 2) only poor people have the disease so it's not worth it. People in developing countries have serious diseases, but there's no money in it so no one is working on it (minus some efforts from people like Bill Gates).
  - fstopmick 7y ago
    I'd be really disappointed if your opinion is unpopular. I completely agree and find it depressing to see how our culture admires Gates as an idol of altruism. He's had impact, sure, in the same way that someone with an infinite river has the ability to extinguish forest fires but extinguishes a few brush fires instead... just enough to outpace his competitors and lock in the perception of being most benevolent. Worst form of social darwinism EVER.
    - throwaway07Ju19 7y ago
      A sibling comment in this thread also applies here. "No good deed goes unpunished!"
  - DrScientist 7y ago
    For lung cancer - yep - banning smoking would not only massively reduce the rates, but also other lung diseases - China is heading for an absolute epidermic here. However, for those people that have or are going to get lung cancer or diabetes or other generally ( not always ) 'self-inflicted' diseases - should we just say - sorry - no treatment - it's you're own silly fault? For heart disease - actually the best treatments are effectively preventative already - in cancer HPV vaccine is aimed at reducing cervical cancer - I've worked with the inventors of that. In terms of 'whataboutery' of should you be spending money on rich peoples diseases ( whether self inflicted or not ), when you could save more lives in other countries with basic sanitation. Well that's a whole different question - a question for collective action through governments or charity - not a question for commercial companies. Commercial companies have to find people able to pay for what they do ( which could be governments or charities ). Personally I don't see why it needs to be either/or - ie why we can't we work on both cure's for cancer and provide clean water?
aaavl2821 7y ago
It's actually very profitable and only overhyped by people that aren't currently profiting from it. Returns to venture investments in biotech have outperformed tech in recent years, some new drugs are generating $5-10B within a few years of launch, and biopharma is the second biggest subsector of VC after software Most people haven't heard of the top biotech VCs and companies because they don't blog or do podcasts but they are very good at what they do And as another commenter said, some of these companies develop drugs that give people with cancer or infants with life threatening genetic disease many more years of healthy life and turn these conditions from death sentences to manageable chronic diseases
- haihaibye 7y ago
  As a sector or select lucky funds? Source? Nasdaq biotech 3y: +20% Nasdaq tech 3y: +75%
  - aaavl2821 7y ago
    As a sector. One source is here: https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbusting-redux/ https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbu... Are you referring to Nasdaq as a whole when you say Nasdaq tech? The Nasdaq components aren't really representative of tech startups: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/quotes/Nasdaq-100-Index-Components https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/quotes/Nasdaq-100-Ind... Biotech startups IPO at a much higher rate than tech startups and IPO on average 3 years after series a: https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/ipo_2018_q12019.html https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/ipo_2018_q12019.html These IPOs give IRRs of 60% on average to series a investors: https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/venture_returns_ipo.html https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/venture_returns_ipo.html Biotech VC portfolios have low loss rates and greater portfolio concentration than tech VCs There have been 10-15 new biotech unicorns a year since 2013 or so, on annual VC funding of $5-15B There are plenty of other sources but i don't have access to them atm
    - haihaibye 7y ago
      Thanks, I haven't been following closely, I should start pitching VCs!

DrScientist 7y ago

Yep true. But you also missed out that biotechs are trying to cure/treat serious diseases like cancer etc and not simply trying to sell more advertising.

1996 7y ago
No good deed goes unpunished!
iso1337 7y ago
This will be an unpopular opinion, but do you think that money could be better spent on other health initiatives like prevention? Is spending 10-100k per month so rich people in developed countries can live a few months longer really that much more moral? Consider that orphan diseases are often not worked on due to either 1) not enough rich people have the disease or 2) only poor people have the disease so it's not worth it. People in developing countries have serious diseases, but there's no money in it so no one is working on it (minus some efforts from people like Bill Gates).
- fstopmick 7y ago
  I'd be really disappointed if your opinion is unpopular. I completely agree and find it depressing to see how our culture admires Gates as an idol of altruism. He's had impact, sure, in the same way that someone with an infinite river has the ability to extinguish forest fires but extinguishes a few brush fires instead... just enough to outpace his competitors and lock in the perception of being most benevolent. Worst form of social darwinism EVER.
  - throwaway07Ju19 7y ago
    A sibling comment in this thread also applies here. "No good deed goes unpunished!"
- DrScientist 7y ago
  For lung cancer - yep - banning smoking would not only massively reduce the rates, but also other lung diseases - China is heading for an absolute epidermic here. However, for those people that have or are going to get lung cancer or diabetes or other generally ( not always ) 'self-inflicted' diseases - should we just say - sorry - no treatment - it's you're own silly fault? For heart disease - actually the best treatments are effectively preventative already - in cancer HPV vaccine is aimed at reducing cervical cancer - I've worked with the inventors of that. In terms of 'whataboutery' of should you be spending money on rich peoples diseases ( whether self inflicted or not ), when you could save more lives in other countries with basic sanitation. Well that's a whole different question - a question for collective action through governments or charity - not a question for commercial companies. Commercial companies have to find people able to pay for what they do ( which could be governments or charities ). Personally I don't see why it needs to be either/or - ie why we can't we work on both cure's for cancer and provide clean water?

aaavl2821 7y ago

It's actually very profitable and only overhyped by people that aren't currently profiting from it. Returns to venture investments in biotech have outperformed tech in recent years, some new drugs are generating $5-10B within a few years of launch, and biopharma is the second biggest subsector of VC after software Most people haven't heard of the top biotech VCs and companies because they don't blog or do podcasts but they are very good at what they do And as another commenter said, some of these companies develop drugs that give people with cancer or infants with life threatening genetic disease many more years of healthy life and turn these conditions from death sentences to manageable chronic diseases

haihaibye 7y ago
As a sector or select lucky funds? Source? Nasdaq biotech 3y: +20% Nasdaq tech 3y: +75%
- aaavl2821 7y ago
  As a sector. One source is here: https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbusting-redux/ https://lifescivc.com/2016/11/biotech-venture-capital-mythbu... Are you referring to Nasdaq as a whole when you say Nasdaq tech? The Nasdaq components aren't really representative of tech startups: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/quotes/Nasdaq-100-Index-Components https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/quotes/Nasdaq-100-Ind... Biotech startups IPO at a much higher rate than tech startups and IPO on average 3 years after series a: https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/ipo_2018_q12019.html https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/ipo_2018_q12019.html These IPOs give IRRs of 60% on average to series a investors: https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/venture_returns_ipo.html https://www.baybridgebio.com/blog/venture_returns_ipo.html Biotech VC portfolios have low loss rates and greater portfolio concentration than tech VCs There have been 10-15 new biotech unicorns a year since 2013 or so, on annual VC funding of $5-15B There are plenty of other sources but i don't have access to them atm
  - haihaibye 7y ago
    Thanks, I haven't been following closely, I should start pitching VCs!