4 ms·

The simple fact of the matter is that the (consumer-facing) tech industry is much more sexy than pharma, by virtue of people consciously interacting with tech p

The simple fact of the matter is that the (consumer-facing) tech industry is much more sexy than pharma, by virtue of people consciously interacting with tech products on a daily basis. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry these days wants to make a mobile or web app, and it's getting easier for them to do so with each passing year. In comparison, biotech doesn't have this phenomenon, which makes it a good industry to get into if you know what you're doing.

mindcrime 13y ago
"Sexy", maybe. Depending on how you define that, and on your perspective. But more important in the general sense? I think you'd have a harder time supporting that argument if you tried to make it. And anyway, I don't think anybody is arguing for a "black and white" world where one or the other of these deals gets all of the media attention and the other goes completely ignored... it seems that the call is to acknowledge both and treat them both as potentially very important.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  > But more important in the general sense? I think you'd have a harder time supporting that argument if you tried to make it. I'm not suggesting it's more important - quite the opposite. Pharma is very important. It's just not as accessible or comprehensible to the general public. So if you're looking to start a company, on average, you'll find that the competition is scarcer in pharma than in tech. How often does a 17 year old singlehandledly found and sell a company for $30 million to big pharma?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 13y ago
    The problem is the overwhelming majority of 17 year olds don't know enough to make useful pharma research. And other than research not much really scales well-enough to be worth 30 million. Think of it this way computer research goes back around 100 years, medical research goes back well over 2,000 years. There is simply less low hanging fruit left. PS: Consider this there is a large but finite number of reasonably stable chemicals with 10 atoms or less. All of them have been considered as to there medical impacts. (There toxicity if nothing else.)
    - refurb 13y ago
      Not to detract the discussion, but 10 atoms or less? Ethanol is about as simple as it gets and that's 9 atoms. You're setting the bar way too low. If you start to look at possible drugs that have molecular weights of less than 500, we haven't scratched the surface of what's possible.
      - Retric 13y ago
        N20 is a rather potent drug and 3 atoms, although plenty of people would consider pure oxygen as the simplest useful drug.
    - w1ntermute 13y ago
      > The problem is the overwhelming majority of 17 year olds don't know enough to make useful pharma research. There's more to it than that. The reason why the overwhelming majority of 17 year olds don't know enough to make useful pharma research is because it's not so easy to learn those skills and gain that knowledge. Any 17 year old can teach himself to code and get valuable, real-world programming experience (and an actual job, for that matter) with nothing more than a laptop and an internet connection - everything else is free. He can then start a company, all from his parents' home. You cannot say the same about pharma. The capital investment needed is much higher, the regulations are much stricter, and blind trial-and-error isn't an option unless you want to put your own life at risk. To put it simply, you're quite literally in the (human) meatspace.
goetzliedtke 13y ago
Actually, the ability to make drugs or biologicals is quickly dropping in complexity. Right now, one can design drugs and biologicals on one's workstation. There are production agencies that can make one's design real. The only reason this is not as accessible and known as 3D printing is that the design phase requires much more specialized knowledge. It's not unlike designing one's own circuit board and getting one of the shops to print it for you.
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  > Actually, the ability to make drugs or biologicals is quickly dropping in complexity. Right now, one can design drugs and biologicals on one's workstation. Uh, no you cannot. I have worked on these exact sorts of problems, and we are nowhere near being able to "design drugs and biologicals on one's workstation."
  - leohutson 13y ago
    Dr. Alexander Shulgin managed to some pretty groundbreaking drug design in his small home laboratory. Of course it was hardly rigorous, and his analysis of what he made was mostly subjective rather than scientific, but it seems kind of analogous to what a hacker does vs what an engineer does.
    - w1ntermute 13y ago
      I'm not sure how this is related to the technical issue of not being to just "design" drugs on a computer and have them "printed out." > in his small home laboratory. You can certainly work out of a home laboratory, if you so desire. The location is not particularly relevant. But it will definitely cost you a lot more than a laptop and internet would. And even then, what Shulgin did was quite limited by his capital resources. > it seems kind of analogous to what a hacker does vs what an engineer does. Don't forget that he already had a PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley. If he had just tried to learn like a "hacker," he would have either bankrupted or killed himself (or killed someone else and ended up in jail). And even then, he got raided by the DEA and fined $25000 (the regulation issue).

mindcrime 13y ago

"Sexy", maybe. Depending on how you define that, and on your perspective. But more important in the general sense? I think you'd have a harder time supporting that argument if you tried to make it. And anyway, I don't think anybody is arguing for a "black and white" world where one or the other of these deals gets all of the media attention and the other goes completely ignored... it seems that the call is to acknowledge both and treat them both as potentially very important.

w1ntermute 13y ago
> But more important in the general sense? I think you'd have a harder time supporting that argument if you tried to make it. I'm not suggesting it's more important - quite the opposite. Pharma is very important. It's just not as accessible or comprehensible to the general public. So if you're looking to start a company, on average, you'll find that the competition is scarcer in pharma than in tech. How often does a 17 year old singlehandledly found and sell a company for $30 million to big pharma?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 13y ago
  The problem is the overwhelming majority of 17 year olds don't know enough to make useful pharma research. And other than research not much really scales well-enough to be worth 30 million. Think of it this way computer research goes back around 100 years, medical research goes back well over 2,000 years. There is simply less low hanging fruit left. PS: Consider this there is a large but finite number of reasonably stable chemicals with 10 atoms or less. All of them have been considered as to there medical impacts. (There toxicity if nothing else.)
  - refurb 13y ago
    Not to detract the discussion, but 10 atoms or less? Ethanol is about as simple as it gets and that's 9 atoms. You're setting the bar way too low. If you start to look at possible drugs that have molecular weights of less than 500, we haven't scratched the surface of what's possible.
    - Retric 13y ago
      N20 is a rather potent drug and 3 atoms, although plenty of people would consider pure oxygen as the simplest useful drug.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    > The problem is the overwhelming majority of 17 year olds don't know enough to make useful pharma research. There's more to it than that. The reason why the overwhelming majority of 17 year olds don't know enough to make useful pharma research is because it's not so easy to learn those skills and gain that knowledge. Any 17 year old can teach himself to code and get valuable, real-world programming experience (and an actual job, for that matter) with nothing more than a laptop and an internet connection - everything else is free. He can then start a company, all from his parents' home. You cannot say the same about pharma. The capital investment needed is much higher, the regulations are much stricter, and blind trial-and-error isn't an option unless you want to put your own life at risk. To put it simply, you're quite literally in the (human) meatspace.

goetzliedtke 13y ago

Actually, the ability to make drugs or biologicals is quickly dropping in complexity. Right now, one can design drugs and biologicals on one's workstation. There are production agencies that can make one's design real. The only reason this is not as accessible and known as 3D printing is that the design phase requires much more specialized knowledge. It's not unlike designing one's own circuit board and getting one of the shops to print it for you.

w1ntermute 13y ago
> Actually, the ability to make drugs or biologicals is quickly dropping in complexity. Right now, one can design drugs and biologicals on one's workstation. Uh, no you cannot. I have worked on these exact sorts of problems, and we are nowhere near being able to "design drugs and biologicals on one's workstation."
- leohutson 13y ago
  Dr. Alexander Shulgin managed to some pretty groundbreaking drug design in his small home laboratory. Of course it was hardly rigorous, and his analysis of what he made was mostly subjective rather than scientific, but it seems kind of analogous to what a hacker does vs what an engineer does.
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    I'm not sure how this is related to the technical issue of not being to just "design" drugs on a computer and have them "printed out." > in his small home laboratory. You can certainly work out of a home laboratory, if you so desire. The location is not particularly relevant. But it will definitely cost you a lot more than a laptop and internet would. And even then, what Shulgin did was quite limited by his capital resources. > it seems kind of analogous to what a hacker does vs what an engineer does. Don't forget that he already had a PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley. If he had just tried to learn like a "hacker," he would have either bankrupted or killed himself (or killed someone else and ended up in jail). And even then, he got raided by the DEA and fined $25000 (the regulation issue).