5 ms·
Ingenuity's Pathway Analysis product has been the standard tool big pharma has used for 15+ years. Founded by folks from Stanford, they created their own knowl
by w10-1 3y ago
Ingenuity's Pathway Analysis product has been the standard tool big pharma has used for 15+ years. Founded by folks from Stanford, they created their own knowledge-graph database a decade before they were popular, and have been paying PhD's to curate that database with genetic findings from papers over the last decades. Obviously their analysis also includes the publicly-available databases, and they have their own private genomic databases and expertise from helping many of the first-available genomic services go live.
Still, it's a tough business, and they were bought by Qiagen (to make an end-to-end solution, with moderate success, as the market is strangled by Illumina's control over NGS sequencing). And with exponential growth in information, their early relative advantage likely has waned.
Also note Veeva software, which provides infrastructure for pharma, is a public benefit company, legally devoted to its clients. That's how much power the customer has.
That said, there's something of a revolution in drug discovery as more is being done by small companies with ultra-focused expertise. If they get a viable candidate, a bigger company buys it to marshal through approvals, and then it can be sold again to a marketing company. Focusing on these pop-up drug-discovery companies that evolve out of someone's PhD could be a good niche; I would expect Pharma VC's to prefer funding companies using their favorite computing vendor, for reliability if not insight. Here computational discovery assistance would help a bit, but validating findings and science could be golden.
- pfisherman 3y agoI think the big case study everybody gives is Schrödinger who took 20 years to IPO. The problem is that the market is just not that big. Assume that every single pharma company buys your product - like Schrödinger - where does your revenue top out? You can beat that as a small pharma company with one or two assets that make it to market. So the question is: if the computational platform is so good then why not just be pharma company?
- riwsky 3y ago“If you’re so smart, then why aren’t you rich?”
- petra 3y agoFor a good computational platform, that can pinpoint unique and valuable candidates , isn't there an option to do license/consult in exchange for royalties ?
- pfisherman 3y agoNo. Makes more sense to license the asset (molecule). And even then, big pharma companies won’t talk to you until your molecule is in phase 2. If anybody with an AI pharma start up tells you they plan to make money by licensing their platform, then run the other way because it is a red flag. If you want to see what a real “AI” pharma company looks like check out Vertex pharmaceuticals.