The discussion of biotech was interesting. It made clear that Y Combinator is replicating the biotech model of mass production of innovation. Paul said (more

The discussion of biotech was interesting. It made clear that Y Combinator is replicating the biotech model of mass production of innovation. Paul said (more or less) that the risk investing in Biotech was in some ways lower (because it's easier to identify the 20 leading scientists from whom the next wonder-discovery will emerge). I think this correct, but the comparison between that and what YC does is misguided. Those leading scientists are like the companies who've already been through YC, presented on a platter for the big money to get at. So what's the YC equivalent? Paul said it himself - grad school. For Biotech, a PhD program is the way to mass-produce seed-funded innovation. You give someone a few years, let them attack a problem and generate data. The best PhDs coming out get labs and professorships (equivalent to venture funding worth $1-$2 million), etc. Hacking is not science. Therefore a seed-funding model that works for science does not work well for software innovation. YC is the replacement - it's your PhD in software innovation. People go in, work with mentors (I meet my PhD supervisor once a week, and regularly hear talks from the best in the field, just like YC founders). The best innovators come out and get funded for $1-$2 million and hopefully go on.