5 ms·

Thank god VC's aren't monopolistic or driven towards short terms solutions for quick profits.

onphonenow 4y ago
Correct. The problem with existing research is that it simply isn't that open to new ideas, particularly once funding streams are in place (because shifts in funding mean job losses, institutional impacts etc). As you are pointing out, VC's often see monpolies as something to disrupt. So you'll take the taxi industry for example. A govt sanctioned monpoly with horrible service and low insurance limits. They'll make a play with something like uber. Hotels -> airbnb / VRBO And the list goes on. You point out how VC's don't focus on short term profits. While I would agree, some however would argue that VC's should focus MORE on short term profits. I personally think too many money losing businesses are subsidized for way too long with VC money. In biotech that may be a good or necessary thing, but personally think this longer view is a bit of a negative.
- marricks 4y ago
  My comment was extremely flippant. Let me provide an example to explain my point of view. Cancer research can appear very stagnant. Pharma companies and researchers funnel money into existing solutions and combinations of existing solutions which increase life expectancy by a few months, and quality of life by a few degrees. Not much foundational research on cures, and why should there be when every new drug which leads to slightly better outcome will be purchased by patients who will do anything to live a bit longer? Now, how in the hell would VC be expected to improve that landscape? The ideal solution is a cheap therapy which cures cancer. Maybe a cancer vaccine. Where's the money in a 50 (or even 1k) tailored vaccine to cure a cancer when a slightly new combination of cancer drugs can cost $50,000 a month for the rest of the life of a patient? I'd argue VC don't think long term for the benefit of anyone except themselves. They'll invest in a moonshot if it disrupts an industry for their benefit (e.g puts all taxi drivers out of work) but not if it eliminates an industry (e.g cancer research). There's way more money in funding a slightly different cancer drug.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    >Where's the money in a 50 (or even 1k) tailored vaccine to cure a cancer when a slightly new combination of cancer drugs can cost $50,000 a month for the rest of the life of a patient? Profit isn't revenue, for one thing. Does that hypothetical $50k/month treatment cost $49,999/month to manufacture? That's the story for a lot of drugs.
    - vkou 4y ago
      Hypothetically, yes. Practically, that almost never happens. The reason the treatment costs $50k/month is because there is no alternative, and that's how much insurance will pay for it. Whether or not the unit economics are $49,999/month or $49/month has no bearing on this. Treatments aren't commodities, they aren't apples at the grocer, where if the prices are too high, you just go to a competitor across the street.
      - killjoywashere 4y ago
        Ok, so here's a thought: who makes money if people don't die of cancer? Let's assume they're all retirees. Agriculture, housing, the local taxation authority, and possibly their immediate kin (assuming, on average, people love their parents and want to spend time with them). Maybe Monsanto, Toll Brothers, and local governments should be funding cancer research?
      - dekhn 4y ago
        I work in pharma. Pricing in pharma for drugs like that is complicated. Usually these drugs do actually require rather expensive manufacturing processes, that have to run in extremely large facilities with extensive QA, but in fairly small batches. More importantly, every major pharma has a compassionate use program that helps people who can't afford the drugs get them, through offsets and credits. I understand the desire to make pharma look like pure-evil profit mongers, but the reality is that this is not an easy business to be in.
        cmeacham98 4y ago

Correct. The problem with existing research is that it simply isn't that open to new ideas, particularly once funding streams are in place (because shifts in funding mean job losses, institutional impacts etc). As you are pointing out, VC's often see monpolies as something to disrupt. So you'll take the taxi industry for example. A govt sanctioned monpoly with horrible service and low insurance limits. They'll make a play with something like uber. Hotels -> airbnb / VRBO And the list goes on. You point out how VC's don't focus on short term profits. While I would agree, some however would argue that VC's should focus MORE on short term profits. I personally think too many money losing businesses are subsidized for way too long with VC money. In biotech that may be a good or necessary thing, but personally think this longer view is a bit of a negative.

marricks 4y ago
My comment was extremely flippant. Let me provide an example to explain my point of view. Cancer research can appear very stagnant. Pharma companies and researchers funnel money into existing solutions and combinations of existing solutions which increase life expectancy by a few months, and quality of life by a few degrees. Not much foundational research on cures, and why should there be when every new drug which leads to slightly better outcome will be purchased by patients who will do anything to live a bit longer? Now, how in the hell would VC be expected to improve that landscape? The ideal solution is a cheap therapy which cures cancer. Maybe a cancer vaccine. Where's the money in a 50 (or even 1k) tailored vaccine to cure a cancer when a slightly new combination of cancer drugs can cost $50,000 a month for the rest of the life of a patient? I'd argue VC don't think long term for the benefit of anyone except themselves. They'll invest in a moonshot if it disrupts an industry for their benefit (e.g puts all taxi drivers out of work) but not if it eliminates an industry (e.g cancer research). There's way more money in funding a slightly different cancer drug.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  >Where's the money in a 50 (or even 1k) tailored vaccine to cure a cancer when a slightly new combination of cancer drugs can cost $50,000 a month for the rest of the life of a patient? Profit isn't revenue, for one thing. Does that hypothetical $50k/month treatment cost $49,999/month to manufacture? That's the story for a lot of drugs.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Hypothetically, yes. Practically, that almost never happens. The reason the treatment costs $50k/month is because there is no alternative, and that's how much insurance will pay for it. Whether or not the unit economics are $49,999/month or $49/month has no bearing on this. Treatments aren't commodities, they aren't apples at the grocer, where if the prices are too high, you just go to a competitor across the street.
    - killjoywashere 4y ago
      Ok, so here's a thought: who makes money if people don't die of cancer? Let's assume they're all retirees. Agriculture, housing, the local taxation authority, and possibly their immediate kin (assuming, on average, people love their parents and want to spend time with them). Maybe Monsanto, Toll Brothers, and local governments should be funding cancer research?
    - dekhn 4y ago
      I work in pharma. Pricing in pharma for drugs like that is complicated. Usually these drugs do actually require rather expensive manufacturing processes, that have to run in extremely large facilities with extensive QA, but in fairly small batches. More importantly, every major pharma has a compassionate use program that helps people who can't afford the drugs get them, through offsets and credits. I understand the desire to make pharma look like pure-evil profit mongers, but the reality is that this is not an easy business to be in.
      - cmeacham98 4y ago