7 ms·

This reminds me of the recent Phase 2 failure of UBX's UBX0101 senolytic drug. The highly experienced team's entire strategy was built around eliminating as muc

This reminds me of the recent Phase 2 failure of UBX's UBX0101 senolytic drug. The highly experienced team's entire strategy was built around eliminating as much risk as possible prior to Phase 2 and yet they still failed miserably. Biotech just seems brutal, from the outside at least. For a very interesting but pre-failure interview of UBX: https://peterattiamd.com/neddavid/ https://peterattiamd.com/neddavid/

epicureanideal 6y ago
Has anything changed recently, or is biotech still far less well compensated than software, relative to years of experience and education?
- natechols 6y ago
  At least in the bay area the gap is enormous - and biotech is not known for paying poorly!
  - epicureanideal 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying biotech is better paid in the bay area?
    - WanderPanda 6y ago
      No he is saying the other one is overpaid
- dekhn 6y ago
  tier-1 biotech in the bay area (genentech, gilead, etc) pays less than tier-1 tech (google, facebook, etc), but that's mainly because FAAMG pay such absurdly high base salaries. The difference is less profound for tech folks at biotech companies than it is for biotech people. Certainly when I worked at a biotech startup for a year, after leaving FAAMG, I was able to negotiate the same base salary, but base salary is only a part of total comp...
- celinehh94 6y ago
  Hey! I’m the author. Biotech is not as well comp’ed, especially when you compare years of experience. For context, senior (Director, VP) levels make low to mid 200s, PhDs with work experience make mid 100s, and straight out of grad school make 80-120s This doesn’t take into account equity, which most bio hires have zero context for and are easily taken advantage of when negotiating. I give equity packages in line with tech standards, but I could have cut them by 3-5X and still been competitive with the standard bio co.
  - t_serpico 6y ago
    unrelated, but I browsed your company website and think the idea is brilliant (especially after reading this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.12737 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.12737, which confirmed my initial speculation).
t_serpico 6y ago
I think we still lack fundamental tools that can allow anyone to say with reasonable certainty that drug X will work. All you can do is eliminate as much as risk as possible, but if you don't know baseline risk and how much each precautionary step actually reduces the risk by, you're still shooting in the dark. The only people that can 'win' in biotech are investors or pharmaceutical companies, namely those who can take a portfolio approach.

epicureanideal 6y ago

Has anything changed recently, or is biotech still far less well compensated than software, relative to years of experience and education?

natechols 6y ago
At least in the bay area the gap is enormous - and biotech is not known for paying poorly!
- epicureanideal 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying biotech is better paid in the bay area?
  - WanderPanda 6y ago
    No he is saying the other one is overpaid
dekhn 6y ago
tier-1 biotech in the bay area (genentech, gilead, etc) pays less than tier-1 tech (google, facebook, etc), but that's mainly because FAAMG pay such absurdly high base salaries. The difference is less profound for tech folks at biotech companies than it is for biotech people. Certainly when I worked at a biotech startup for a year, after leaving FAAMG, I was able to negotiate the same base salary, but base salary is only a part of total comp...
celinehh94 6y ago
Hey! I’m the author. Biotech is not as well comp’ed, especially when you compare years of experience. For context, senior (Director, VP) levels make low to mid 200s, PhDs with work experience make mid 100s, and straight out of grad school make 80-120s This doesn’t take into account equity, which most bio hires have zero context for and are easily taken advantage of when negotiating. I give equity packages in line with tech standards, but I could have cut them by 3-5X and still been competitive with the standard bio co.
- t_serpico 6y ago
  unrelated, but I browsed your company website and think the idea is brilliant (especially after reading this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.12737 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.12737, which confirmed my initial speculation).

t_serpico 6y ago

I think we still lack fundamental tools that can allow anyone to say with reasonable certainty that drug X will work. All you can do is eliminate as much as risk as possible, but if you don't know baseline risk and how much each precautionary step actually reduces the risk by, you're still shooting in the dark. The only people that can 'win' in biotech are investors or pharmaceutical companies, namely those who can take a portfolio approach.