4 ms·

> That was 15 years ago. There was no serious effort to improve, and VCs are still much more interested in computing startups than biotech. No, they’re not. Bi

> That was 15 years ago. There was no serious effort to improve, and VCs are still much more interested in computing startups than biotech. No, they’re not. Biotech VC has been bigger than tech VC in terms of absolute funding for decades (based on annual data from the Venture Capital Association). Most years its not even close. Pharmaceutical companies do depend on NIH funding but indirectly: most of their products are now acquired rather than developed in house. Universities spin off their NIH funded projects as biotech startups that are funded by VCs and public investors (biotech startups usually IPO long before they have any revenue, which is one of the reasons there’s so much money in biotech VC) and the small fraction that are most successful in clinical trials are acquired by the pharmaceutical industry.

mike_hearn 2y ago
Could you show me where you're getting that data? Not saying you're wrong, it's just that this contradicts everything I've heard before and I can't find counter-evidence. I checked the NVCA's latest data pack (which is excellent) and it seems to agree with me that tech dwarfs pharma. https://nvca.org/document/q4-2024-pitchbook-nvca-venture-monitor-data-pack/ https://nvca.org/document/q4-2024-pitchbook-nvca-venture-mon... If you go to "Deals x Sector" and then scroll down they split out deals by dollar value by sector and software alone is $89.2B vs $25.3B for pharma last year. But software isn't all of the tech industry, they also have a row for IT hardware startups which is $8.2B. Adding it up the tech industry sees 4x more money flowing into it than pharma despite that most tech startups are selling optional nice-to-haves to people who buy from their own pocket, vs pharma who sells stuff that might be life-critical to people who socialize the costs via insurance. In theory, pharma should dwarf tech. You can't say no to a life saving drug if you need it: it should be easy money. In practice, the VCs interviewed in my source seem to have it right - pharma VC is much less competitive overall.

mike_hearn 2y ago

Could you show me where you're getting that data? Not saying you're wrong, it's just that this contradicts everything I've heard before and I can't find counter-evidence. I checked the NVCA's latest data pack (which is excellent) and it seems to agree with me that tech dwarfs pharma. https://nvca.org/document/q4-2024-pitchbook-nvca-venture-monitor-data-pack/ https://nvca.org/document/q4-2024-pitchbook-nvca-venture-mon... If you go to "Deals x Sector" and then scroll down they split out deals by dollar value by sector and software alone is $89.2B vs $25.3B for pharma last year. But software isn't all of the tech industry, they also have a row for IT hardware startups which is $8.2B. Adding it up the tech industry sees 4x more money flowing into it than pharma despite that most tech startups are selling optional nice-to-haves to people who buy from their own pocket, vs pharma who sells stuff that might be life-critical to people who socialize the costs via insurance. In theory, pharma should dwarf tech. You can't say no to a life saving drug if you need it: it should be easy money. In practice, the VCs interviewed in my source seem to have it right - pharma VC is much less competitive overall.