3 ms·

The "no" in this context is addressing whether cultured meat will ever be economically viable at scale, not just scientifically possible. The article suggests a

The "no" in this context is addressing whether cultured meat will ever be economically viable at scale, not just scientifically possible. The article suggests a compelling argument against this viability, in that the breakthroughs needed for commercially viable cultured meat would also revolutionize the far more lucrative pharmaceutical industry. The fact that these advances haven't been achieved in pharma, despite massive financial incentives and decades of research, is strong evidence of their fundamental difficulty or impracticality. For instance, even the most efficient cell lines used in pharmaceuticals aren't efficient enough for low-cost production of bulk cell mass. This implies cultured meat companies are attempting to solve problems that have long eluded a much larger, better-funded industry. The absence of these breakthroughs in pharma, where the financial rewards would be enormous, suggests they may be fundamentally unattainable with foreseeable technology.

ben_w 2y ago
> unattainable with foreseeable technology This I agree with; it's just… well, I'm 40 now[0], and a lot of biology that can be done today involved technology that was not foreseeable when I was born. So, yes, pharmaceuticals getting the hard problems solved first, sure — I'd say that I'd know not to invest in vat-meat startups until pharmaceuticals companies have solved problems I'm oblivious to except for the logical impossibility with such a test. [0] aaaaaaa
fabian2k 2y ago
The limits in pharma aren't production, they're figuring out which 10% of drugs will get through all the clinical trials.
- benzible 2y ago
  While drug discovery may be the most lucrative opportunity overall, production costs remain significant in pharma, especially for biologics and cell therapies, and breakthroughs in these areas are well worth pursuing. CAR-T treatments, which use similar technologies to cultured meat, have manufacturing costs of $95,000-$156,000 per dose [0]. For generics and biosimilars, more efficient production could be a major competitive advantage. The fact that we haven't seen breakthroughs in this area, despite clear financial motivation, suggests these are not easily solvable problems. [0] https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/car-t-manufacturing-challenges-and-costs-take-center-stage https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/car-t-manufacturi...
  - dado3212 2y ago
    CAR-T treatments are expensive because they’re individualized. The process has to be repeated per-individual. That’s completely different from lab-meat.
    - benzible 2y ago
      I was responding to the parent poster's assertion that the only area worth focusing on in pharma is drug discovery, but you're right that CAR-T is very different. Monoclonal antibodies are a more apt analog. Key economic drivers in monoclonal antibody production include fermentation titer and overall yield, as highlighted in the article "Process economics of industrial monoclonal antibody manufacture" from ScienceDirect [0]. These same factors—cell density and yield—are also critical for lab-grown meat production. The persistence of process-related challenges in both industries, despite significant financial motivation to solve them, underscores their complexity. This relates back to the "fractal no" concept from the original article, where each obstacle in cultured meat production is composed of many smaller obstacles. Importantly, monoclonal antibodies can sell for thousands of dollars per gram, orders of magnitude more than meat, yet even with this immense profit incentive, the pharmaceutical industry hasn't solved these bioprocessing issues. This suggests that cultured meat production, with its much lower profit margins, faces an overwhelming set of challenges, [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570023206006337 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S15700...

ben_w 2y ago

> unattainable with foreseeable technology This I agree with; it's just… well, I'm 40 now[0], and a lot of biology that can be done today involved technology that was not foreseeable when I was born. So, yes, pharmaceuticals getting the hard problems solved first, sure — I'd say that I'd know not to invest in vat-meat startups until pharmaceuticals companies have solved problems I'm oblivious to except for the logical impossibility with such a test. [0] aaaaaaa

fabian2k 2y ago

The limits in pharma aren't production, they're figuring out which 10% of drugs will get through all the clinical trials.

benzible 2y ago
While drug discovery may be the most lucrative opportunity overall, production costs remain significant in pharma, especially for biologics and cell therapies, and breakthroughs in these areas are well worth pursuing. CAR-T treatments, which use similar technologies to cultured meat, have manufacturing costs of $95,000-$156,000 per dose [0]. For generics and biosimilars, more efficient production could be a major competitive advantage. The fact that we haven't seen breakthroughs in this area, despite clear financial motivation, suggests these are not easily solvable problems. [0] https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/car-t-manufacturing-challenges-and-costs-take-center-stage https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/car-t-manufacturi...
- dado3212 2y ago
  CAR-T treatments are expensive because they’re individualized. The process has to be repeated per-individual. That’s completely different from lab-meat.
  - benzible 2y ago
    I was responding to the parent poster's assertion that the only area worth focusing on in pharma is drug discovery, but you're right that CAR-T is very different. Monoclonal antibodies are a more apt analog. Key economic drivers in monoclonal antibody production include fermentation titer and overall yield, as highlighted in the article "Process economics of industrial monoclonal antibody manufacture" from ScienceDirect [0]. These same factors—cell density and yield—are also critical for lab-grown meat production. The persistence of process-related challenges in both industries, despite significant financial motivation to solve them, underscores their complexity. This relates back to the "fractal no" concept from the original article, where each obstacle in cultured meat production is composed of many smaller obstacles. Importantly, monoclonal antibodies can sell for thousands of dollars per gram, orders of magnitude more than meat, yet even with this immense profit incentive, the pharmaceutical industry hasn't solved these bioprocessing issues. This suggests that cultured meat production, with its much lower profit margins, faces an overwhelming set of challenges, [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570023206006337 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S15700...