4 ms·

For one thing, it is a genius who is clearly extremely passionate about his work, and who has a lot of money, but he still has to yield to the disease. That is

by bh42222 15y ago

For one thing, it is a genius who is clearly extremely passionate about his work, and who has a lot of money, but he still has to yield to the disease. That is tragic. I wonder is a Steve Jobs of biotechnology even possible? Craig Venter is great, but I just don't see any of his companies growing bigger then Exxon. But if anything should be bigger the Exxon, it is exactly those kind of companies!

Tichy 15y ago
I think biotechnology might be just at the stage that home computing was when Jobs and Wozniack started out.
bl 15y ago
Sorry to be pessimistic, but my sense is, "No, there will not be a Steve Jobs of biotechnology." Mr. Jobs has done a remarkable job producing sleek, fun-to-use, affordable, somewhat disposable devices and building Apple into a company that has a chance of sustaining his principles. Even taking into account the fickleness of the mass consumer market, herding sub-component suppliers, etc., there is a certain predictability to the advances in electronics technology (Moore's "Law", increases in battery performance, etc.) that gives a solid foundation for a regularly growing business. Fashioning aluminum, cadmium, silicon, and lithium is way more predictable than discovering a pharmaceutically-treatable, financially-lucrative metabolic disease. There are certainly smart, extremely hard-working individuals in the biotechnology fields --- perhaps surpassing Mr. Jobs in those qualities, and some we'd certainly label as "geniuses" --- but the fantastically low probability of making even one genuine discovery, and the low odds of successfully developing that into a product, make the kind of serial successes of Apple and Mr. Jobs very unlikely in the biotech field. Biology results just don't flow that easily. Also, there is no clearcut equivalent in biological research to outbidding your competitors for the latest components, streamlining your manufacturing and inventory processes, and relying on economies of scale. I can say this now only with the benefit of hindsight: my negative answer to bh42222's question stems from the fact that we just haven't observed such figure emerge in the last few decades. Craig Venter is a good example to look at. He certainly earned a great victory in the human genome sequencing (and the underlying technologies), but he lacks even a second notable success of that magnitude. It will probably be the purview of someone else to find the utility in the sequenced genome. Dean Kamen may be a prototype figure of this sort, but as nice as his individual inventions are, no single one of them seems rise to the level of a Steve-Jobs-in-the-biotech-field. I may be stunningly wrong on this (and it would be great fun if I was), but I think the probabilities are on my side, and on the side of it not happening. But let's put aside the negativity and allow me to ask this question: Do we need a Steve Jobs of biotechnology to fulfill our expectations of medical advancement? I would guess, "No, we don't. The good people toiling away at it right now are doing the best that can be done."
- mdonahoe 15y ago
  Venter's artificial cell seemed notable.

by bh42222 15y ago

Tichy 15y ago

I think biotechnology might be just at the stage that home computing was when Jobs and Wozniack started out.

bl 15y ago

Sorry to be pessimistic, but my sense is, "No, there will not be a Steve Jobs of biotechnology." Mr. Jobs has done a remarkable job producing sleek, fun-to-use, affordable, somewhat disposable devices and building Apple into a company that has a chance of sustaining his principles. Even taking into account the fickleness of the mass consumer market, herding sub-component suppliers, etc., there is a certain predictability to the advances in electronics technology (Moore's "Law", increases in battery performance, etc.) that gives a solid foundation for a regularly growing business. Fashioning aluminum, cadmium, silicon, and lithium is way more predictable than discovering a pharmaceutically-treatable, financially-lucrative metabolic disease. There are certainly smart, extremely hard-working individuals in the biotechnology fields --- perhaps surpassing Mr. Jobs in those qualities, and some we'd certainly label as "geniuses" --- but the fantastically low probability of making even one genuine discovery, and the low odds of successfully developing that into a product, make the kind of serial successes of Apple and Mr. Jobs very unlikely in the biotech field. Biology results just don't flow that easily. Also, there is no clearcut equivalent in biological research to outbidding your competitors for the latest components, streamlining your manufacturing and inventory processes, and relying on economies of scale. I can say this now only with the benefit of hindsight: my negative answer to bh42222's question stems from the fact that we just haven't observed such figure emerge in the last few decades. Craig Venter is a good example to look at. He certainly earned a great victory in the human genome sequencing (and the underlying technologies), but he lacks even a second notable success of that magnitude. It will probably be the purview of someone else to find the utility in the sequenced genome. Dean Kamen may be a prototype figure of this sort, but as nice as his individual inventions are, no single one of them seems rise to the level of a Steve-Jobs-in-the-biotech-field. I may be stunningly wrong on this (and it would be great fun if I was), but I think the probabilities are on my side, and on the side of it not happening. But let's put aside the negativity and allow me to ask this question: Do we need a Steve Jobs of biotechnology to fulfill our expectations of medical advancement? I would guess, "No, we don't. The good people toiling away at it right now are doing the best that can be done."

mdonahoe 15y ago
Venter's artificial cell seemed notable.