4 ms·

Overall, this is a fantastic article that touches on a lot of the issues in the biotech. Laypeople hear the term "biotech" and think of bionics, but most firms

Overall, this is a fantastic article that touches on a lot of the issues in the biotech. Laypeople hear the term "biotech" and think of bionics, but most firms operate doing wet-lab work or synthesizing reagents/kits. The academic influence slows everything down and there is active discouragement of "outside the box" thinking. Consumer products are an afterthought for most firms. I think the industry is capable of great things... eventually. But that success will come from a) an area with a much looser regulatory environment than the US, b) a team with a multidisciplinary background (most academics are too narrowly specialized to reliably see the "big picture" that is required to make commercially viable products) and c) a team with funding that far exceeds the current dollar figures we see for some start-ups. Mass spec and NGS are technologies that have become drastically cheaper in recent years and could be consumer ready soon. It's just a matter of being the first person with the funding and desire to bring them to the mass market.

bitwize 6y ago
I don't know what laypeople you're talking to, but when I hear "biotech" I think of drugs and things like CRISPR. Things where it's not the academic influence that slows things down, but the regulatory environment and the general need to have all your ducks in a row w.r.t. safety and efficacy. "Move fast and break things" doesn't cut it for things people put into their bodies.
fatnoah 6y ago
>Overall, this is a fantastic article that touches on a lot of the issues in the biotech. It does miss a couple, especially on the FDA regulation side. In addition to safety and efficacy, the FDA also highly regulates how you can market and promote your product. There are literally teams of people who do nothing but ensure that marketing, training, sales, and promotion all comply with FDA requirements.
dekhn 6y ago
It remains unclear what, exactly, NGS would do to justify its cost (even if it drove to nearly free). It's been sold as a health panacaea for decades and has proven to not be that, repeatedly. Some gene tests are useful but it's clear that most disease phenotypes require much deepeer analysis than we are currently able to apply.
- IntFee588 6y ago
  In general I agree, genetic and even epigenetic testing tends to identify problems at a point where gene therapy is no longer an option, so why bother? But if you can take tissue samples, we're getting to the point were we can detect cancers from SVs and fusions fairly easily. It'd be a easy sale to sell blood tests for leukemia, for example. That alone won't justify the cost, but we're making progress.
  - dekhn 6y ago
    None of those require NGS, though- they can all be implemented using far cheaper methods.

bitwize 6y ago

I don't know what laypeople you're talking to, but when I hear "biotech" I think of drugs and things like CRISPR. Things where it's not the academic influence that slows things down, but the regulatory environment and the general need to have all your ducks in a row w.r.t. safety and efficacy. "Move fast and break things" doesn't cut it for things people put into their bodies.

fatnoah 6y ago

>Overall, this is a fantastic article that touches on a lot of the issues in the biotech. It does miss a couple, especially on the FDA regulation side. In addition to safety and efficacy, the FDA also highly regulates how you can market and promote your product. There are literally teams of people who do nothing but ensure that marketing, training, sales, and promotion all comply with FDA requirements.

dekhn 6y ago

It remains unclear what, exactly, NGS would do to justify its cost (even if it drove to nearly free). It's been sold as a health panacaea for decades and has proven to not be that, repeatedly. Some gene tests are useful but it's clear that most disease phenotypes require much deepeer analysis than we are currently able to apply.

IntFee588 6y ago
In general I agree, genetic and even epigenetic testing tends to identify problems at a point where gene therapy is no longer an option, so why bother? But if you can take tissue samples, we're getting to the point were we can detect cancers from SVs and fusions fairly easily. It'd be a easy sale to sell blood tests for leukemia, for example. That alone won't justify the cost, but we're making progress.
- dekhn 6y ago
  None of those require NGS, though- they can all be implemented using far cheaper methods.