4 ms·

I think that what is different now is the cost of trying out a new idea. A biotech team is able to try something out without buy-in from academia or the big bio

I think that what is different now is the cost of trying out a new idea. A biotech team is able to try something out without buy-in from academia or the big bio-tech firms. They need some money, but much less than they would have needed 10 years ago.

Fomite 13y ago
And that is very cool. But frankly, is as true in academia - a new assistant prof. has the startup funding to try something big and splashy without bankrupting the lab. "Biotech is getting cheaper" applies to both groups.
- dnautics 13y ago
  Yes, but how are new assistant professors selected?
  - danieltillett 13y ago
    It is not how they are selected that is the problem - it is what they need to do to get tenure. This is what kills all innovation.
    - dnautics 13y ago
      selected based on how many nature/science (Cell/PNAS/PLOSBio) papers you have. You could have 5 papers in lower journals where you've invented a miracle drug and never get a faculty position.
      - Fomite 13y ago
        Of the members of my committee, and the chair of my former department, there are all of zero publications in Science/Nature/Cell or PLOS Biology. While often a shorthand for what you need, it's hardly a generalizable statement. These are all very good researchers, tenured, with positions at R1 universities. And all of them in fields appropriate to this particular discussion.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - Fomite 13y ago
    Hell, the same can be true of postdocs. Or grad students. I know I've gotten at least one paper thanks to cheap computational resources for unfunded musings. As for @danieltillett's comment, "What you need to do for tenure" does indeed promote some conservative and safe thinking, but: 1. Post-tenure you have a great deal more freedom. 2. I'm not convinced it's more conservative research generating than "We need to keep the VCs/Shareholders/etc." happy. 3. A big, splashy, innovative paper that makes it into Science/Nature/Cell/etc. is a high risk but high reward play.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

Fomite 13y ago

And that is very cool. But frankly, is as true in academia - a new assistant prof. has the startup funding to try something big and splashy without bankrupting the lab. "Biotech is getting cheaper" applies to both groups.

dnautics 13y ago
Yes, but how are new assistant professors selected?
- danieltillett 13y ago
  It is not how they are selected that is the problem - it is what they need to do to get tenure. This is what kills all innovation.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    selected based on how many nature/science (Cell/PNAS/PLOSBio) papers you have. You could have 5 papers in lower journals where you've invented a miracle drug and never get a faculty position.
    - Fomite 13y ago
      Of the members of my committee, and the chair of my former department, there are all of zero publications in Science/Nature/Cell or PLOS Biology. While often a shorthand for what you need, it's hardly a generalizable statement. These are all very good researchers, tenured, with positions at R1 universities. And all of them in fields appropriate to this particular discussion.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- Fomite 13y ago
  Hell, the same can be true of postdocs. Or grad students. I know I've gotten at least one paper thanks to cheap computational resources for unfunded musings. As for @danieltillett's comment, "What you need to do for tenure" does indeed promote some conservative and safe thinking, but: 1. Post-tenure you have a great deal more freedom. 2. I'm not convinced it's more conservative research generating than "We need to keep the VCs/Shareholders/etc." happy. 3. A big, splashy, innovative paper that makes it into Science/Nature/Cell/etc. is a high risk but high reward play.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]