3 ms·

> ...most startup companies aren't doing anything new. How many different food-delivery services has YC funded? Photo-sharing services? Video startups? AirBnB w

> ...most startup companies aren't doing anything new. How many different food-delivery services has YC funded? Photo-sharing services? Video startups? AirBnB wasn't anything new in 2007, either. Dropbox was criticized because everyone knew that file sharing had been done before. There's a fundamental difference between trying something again where the customers weren't receptive and trying something again where the product couldn't be created. Customer reception can change over time, often quite rapidly and drastically, making previously failed business models successful (ex: Webvan -> Instacart). But nature doesn't just change (at least not over short timescales). Moreover, as cge explains elsewhere in this thread, you cannot really iterate in biotech: > Good ideas in software might not catch on, but good ideas in science more often than not turn out to be entirely wrong. Do a closed beta of your software, too, and while your users might not end up liking the software much, it's very unlikely that it's just going to fundamentally fail to work at all. Clinical trials can often end up that way. Contrast this to business model-based innovation in tech, where a slight tweak can be the difference between a unicorn and a dud.

timr 11y ago
The difference between success and failure in biotech lead generation is finding a good lead. That's something that is strongly influenced by luck. I can point to famous researchers who have made entire careers out of this sort of momentary serendipity, actually.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  Yes, that is exactly my point. You cannot iterate your way to a serendipitous discovery.
  - timr 11y ago
    Actually, that's the only way you get to a serendipitous discovery: you make lots of shots, and some of them go in the goal.
    - w1ntermute 11y ago
      > you make lots of shots, and some of them go in the goal That's not iteration, that's banging your head against a wall and praying for a miracle. Iteration implies methodically and continuously moving towards an optimal solution, not heading back to the RNG after each failed attempt.
chenja 11y ago
We definitely didn't invent systems biology for drug discovery. But Google didn't invent search engines either, I think that we have a fresh and novel approach which is really differentiated by the details. Another thing I think is different about the industries is that while there are tons of food delivery and photo-sharing startups, there's no really effective/disease modifying treatments for common diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, ALS, etc, so I think there's plenty of space for any number of new approaches to be tested in the field. I feel it's more worthwhile than pumping billions more into failed antibodies against beta amyloid, as seems to be the trend nowadays.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  > We definitely didn't invent systems biology for drug discovery. But Google didn't invent search engines either This is a flawed analogy, because Google's success is largely attributable to business model innovation (AdSense), rather than any core technology, such as PageRank. After all, Robin Li published Rankdex two years before Brin/Page published PageRank, and we all know how trivial it is to engineer around software patents. > Another thing I think is different about the industries is that while there are tons of food delivery and photo-sharing startups, there's no really effective/disease modifying treatments for common diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, ALS, etc, so I think there's plenty of space for any number of new approaches to be tested in the field. That's because the bottleneck in tech is (a) identifying problems actually worth solving and (b) a business model that will lead to a sustainable company. Achieving success means creating a business and iterating to a position of dominance. There was never any question regarding the technical feasibility of Airbnb's site or Uber's app. It was (and still is) all about things like whether Airbnb could create trust between hosts and guests, and whether Uber could navigate the regulatory landscape. The biomedical space could not be more different. Everyone with a half a clue knows that neurodegenerative diseases are a problem. Nobody who knows the industry is questioning that tons of customers for your (potential) product exist, or that they'll pay boatloads of money for a treatment or cure. The gigantic elephant in the room is whether your product works. Nothing else really matters.

timr 11y ago

The difference between success and failure in biotech lead generation is finding a good lead. That's something that is strongly influenced by luck. I can point to famous researchers who have made entire careers out of this sort of momentary serendipity, actually.

w1ntermute 11y ago
Yes, that is exactly my point. You cannot iterate your way to a serendipitous discovery.
- timr 11y ago
  Actually, that's the only way you get to a serendipitous discovery: you make lots of shots, and some of them go in the goal.
  - w1ntermute 11y ago
    > you make lots of shots, and some of them go in the goal That's not iteration, that's banging your head against a wall and praying for a miracle. Iteration implies methodically and continuously moving towards an optimal solution, not heading back to the RNG after each failed attempt.

chenja 11y ago

We definitely didn't invent systems biology for drug discovery. But Google didn't invent search engines either, I think that we have a fresh and novel approach which is really differentiated by the details. Another thing I think is different about the industries is that while there are tons of food delivery and photo-sharing startups, there's no really effective/disease modifying treatments for common diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, ALS, etc, so I think there's plenty of space for any number of new approaches to be tested in the field. I feel it's more worthwhile than pumping billions more into failed antibodies against beta amyloid, as seems to be the trend nowadays.

w1ntermute 11y ago
> We definitely didn't invent systems biology for drug discovery. But Google didn't invent search engines either This is a flawed analogy, because Google's success is largely attributable to business model innovation (AdSense), rather than any core technology, such as PageRank. After all, Robin Li published Rankdex two years before Brin/Page published PageRank, and we all know how trivial it is to engineer around software patents. > Another thing I think is different about the industries is that while there are tons of food delivery and photo-sharing startups, there's no really effective/disease modifying treatments for common diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, ALS, etc, so I think there's plenty of space for any number of new approaches to be tested in the field. That's because the bottleneck in tech is (a) identifying problems actually worth solving and (b) a business model that will lead to a sustainable company. Achieving success means creating a business and iterating to a position of dominance. There was never any question regarding the technical feasibility of Airbnb's site or Uber's app. It was (and still is) all about things like whether Airbnb could create trust between hosts and guests, and whether Uber could navigate the regulatory landscape. The biomedical space could not be more different. Everyone with a half a clue knows that neurodegenerative diseases are a problem. Nobody who knows the industry is questioning that tons of customers for your (potential) product exist, or that they'll pay boatloads of money for a treatment or cure. The gigantic elephant in the room is whether your product works. Nothing else really matters.