11 ms·

For biotech, I'm interested in understanding why YC would be a better choice than the SBIR/STTR route.

w1ntermute 11y ago
They don't have the domain expertise, so it's comparatively easier to trick them with some startup buzzwords and a slick "vision".
- jerf 11y ago
  This type of domain expertise may not be perfectly purchaseable, but it is purchaseable, and given the money involved, I'm sure they will. (And partially have already.) Also, gaining the relevant knowledge to filter nonsense from sense here isn't necessarily as hard as you might think. And some of the filtering can be done with information theory, basic economics, probing deeper until you find the "and them some magic happens!" step, and some other non-biological tools that apply everywhere. I'm not saying it's easy, it's still months of work potentially, but it's only months. You don't actually need a PhD for nonsense filtering.
thearn4 11y ago
I am imagining that what they're going for will be biotech problems that can be addressed as software problems in disguise (since they would most certainly be in the right place and connected to the right people for that). Those connections may be worth more than the $2M or from SBIR (assuming they reached phase II), for companies that are fundamentally software shops. Otherwise, I'm very curious what their strategy is for breaking into the bioscience and technology space in a broader sense, and if that would lead them to opening shop in other metro areas outside of the bay area.
- thecosas 11y ago
  San Diego would be a nice place to have a base of operations for getting more involved in biotech.
  - w1ntermute 11y ago
    Let's be honest - the only place that really matters for biotech is Boston, and the movers and shakers there have no desire or need to work with YC or anyone in Silicon Valley. San Diego's biotech scene is mostly just companies mindlessly pursuing cheaper and faster sequencing.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      I wouldn't call that 'mindlessly', faster sequencing is going to unlock a whole slew of new offerings just like 'faster transistors' powered the computer revolution.
      - w1ntermute 11y ago
        That's a terrible analogy, and here are two good links on why: http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2015/03/cancer-genomics-and-technological.html http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2015/03/cancer-genomi... http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/reading-the-human-genome-with-sydney-brenner/much-ado-about-nothing-systems-biology-and-inverse-problems http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/reading-the-human-geno...
    - CPLX 11y ago
      > the only place that really matters for biotech is Boston The Washington DC area I believe disproves your hypothesis.
      - w1ntermute 11y ago
        DC doesn't even come in the top 4 for biotech. The top 4 are probably Boston, SF, San Diego, and Seattle.
        OopsCriticality 11y ago
        What about RTP?
        11y ago
- OopsCriticality 11y ago
  Yes, I too could see YC bringing value to a software-intensive project. Perhaps I put too much weight on the "wetware" mention in the link, that makes me think "wet lab". I would be fascinated to hear how they will handle the regulatory challenges, and how they bridge the cultural differences inherent to a group in a regulated industry vs. the more stereotypical software startups.
tlb 11y ago
They're not mutually exclusive -- some YC startups have gotten SBIR funding too. In addition to money, YC provides advice, community and connections useful for building a startup company.
sama 11y ago
Money is among the least useful things YC gives. There are a lot of ways to get money; good advice and a strong community are very hard to find.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Advice on how to build a scaleable web company is not universally applicable on how to build biotech companies.
  - sama 11y ago
    Advice about how to create a good startup turns out to be more generalizable that I originally thought. The hardest problems--mostly around people--are more similar than they seem.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      > The hardest problems--mostly around people--are more similar than they seem. That's a good point and reflects my own experience. But I'd be hard pressed to generalize what I've learned in my career in IT/IT related start-ups and take that and apply it to say a company that creates a new medicine or one that tries to commercialize some new medical instrument. The sales avenues in that domain are radically different from 'just' IT based start-ups and just like I wouldn't see a bio-tech person run an IT firm the reverse probably holds true as well, ditto for advice to such management. I recently had a long and in-depth look at an organization that sells a lot of physical goods on-line and even in that case there was so much domain knowledge wrt to the retail portion of it that without a CEO with significant knowledge in that particular field they wouldn't have stood a chance. Anyway, you're doing pretty good so far, can't wait to see you prove me wrong :)
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
etrautmann 11y ago
Two possibilities (among many others) 1) SBIR/STTRs are specific solicitations that serve the specific goals of funding agencies. If you don't see one that matches your tech exactly, it's a nonstarter. 2) Often times, the call for proposals are written with a specific company in mind that the funding agency already has some relationship with or interest in funding. Breaking into this can be challenging for a new company to learn the landscape.
- OopsCriticality 11y ago
  NCI SBIR/STTR applications can be contract solicitations for specific problems, as you point out. The majority are (as I understand it) funded however through the omnibus solicitation, which can be directed to high-priority research areas or to general problems within the scope of the NCI. I assume the same is true for other NIH agencies.
liseman 11y ago
It's about optionality: startups of all types can now do more with less. SBIRs, access to college labs, in-house prototyping facilities: these can certainly help, but what's exciting is that they're no longer required to iterate on prototypes. So little funding and time is that it looks a lot like software.
- OopsCriticality 11y ago
  So you're looking for a class of problems that you can better address than the existing system? Something for which SBIR/STTR takes too long to fund, needs more money/support than self bootstrapping, doesn't need exotic equipment, etc.
jrkelly 11y ago
I'd recommend an SBIR/STTR (or other govt grants) first for wet-lab biotechs - it's a good source of patient money while you show early technical traction. YC after you've got things rolling can be throwing gas on a fire. It was for us (Ginkgo Bioworks, S14). Awesome founder community/ partner advice / investor connections.
- bbgm 11y ago
  SBIRs have been super effective for many people. It takes time to show technical feasibility and building up real partnerships. SBIRs are well designed for that but also don't allow you to overspend.
- OopsCriticality 11y ago
  That's an interesting thought, SBIR then YC. How would you recommend dealing with the SF relocation issue? I ask from the prospective of a biomedical startup not in CA.
  - jrkelly 11y ago
    We didn't relocate to SF. We are in Boston and kept the lab and the majority of the team there while we did YC. + lots of red-eyes.

They don't have the domain expertise, so it's comparatively easier to trick them with some startup buzzwords and a slick "vision".

jerf 11y ago
This type of domain expertise may not be perfectly purchaseable, but it is purchaseable, and given the money involved, I'm sure they will. (And partially have already.) Also, gaining the relevant knowledge to filter nonsense from sense here isn't necessarily as hard as you might think. And some of the filtering can be done with information theory, basic economics, probing deeper until you find the "and them some magic happens!" step, and some other non-biological tools that apply everywhere. I'm not saying it's easy, it's still months of work potentially, but it's only months. You don't actually need a PhD for nonsense filtering.

thearn4 11y ago

I am imagining that what they're going for will be biotech problems that can be addressed as software problems in disguise (since they would most certainly be in the right place and connected to the right people for that). Those connections may be worth more than the $2M or from SBIR (assuming they reached phase II), for companies that are fundamentally software shops. Otherwise, I'm very curious what their strategy is for breaking into the bioscience and technology space in a broader sense, and if that would lead them to opening shop in other metro areas outside of the bay area.

thecosas 11y ago
San Diego would be a nice place to have a base of operations for getting more involved in biotech.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  Let's be honest - the only place that really matters for biotech is Boston, and the movers and shakers there have no desire or need to work with YC or anyone in Silicon Valley. San Diego's biotech scene is mostly just companies mindlessly pursuing cheaper and faster sequencing.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I wouldn't call that 'mindlessly', faster sequencing is going to unlock a whole slew of new offerings just like 'faster transistors' powered the computer revolution.
    - w1ntermute 11y ago
      That's a terrible analogy, and here are two good links on why: http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2015/03/cancer-genomics-and-technological.html http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2015/03/cancer-genomi... http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/reading-the-human-genome-with-sydney-brenner/much-ado-about-nothing-systems-biology-and-inverse-problems http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/reading-the-human-geno...
  - CPLX 11y ago
    > the only place that really matters for biotech is Boston The Washington DC area I believe disproves your hypothesis.
    - w1ntermute 11y ago
      DC doesn't even come in the top 4 for biotech. The top 4 are probably Boston, SF, San Diego, and Seattle.
      - OopsCriticality 11y ago
        What about RTP?
      - 11y ago
OopsCriticality 11y ago
Yes, I too could see YC bringing value to a software-intensive project. Perhaps I put too much weight on the "wetware" mention in the link, that makes me think "wet lab". I would be fascinated to hear how they will handle the regulatory challenges, and how they bridge the cultural differences inherent to a group in a regulated industry vs. the more stereotypical software startups.

tlb 11y ago

They're not mutually exclusive -- some YC startups have gotten SBIR funding too. In addition to money, YC provides advice, community and connections useful for building a startup company.

sama 11y ago

Money is among the least useful things YC gives. There are a lot of ways to get money; good advice and a strong community are very hard to find.

jacquesm 11y ago
Advice on how to build a scaleable web company is not universally applicable on how to build biotech companies.
- sama 11y ago
  Advice about how to create a good startup turns out to be more generalizable that I originally thought. The hardest problems--mostly around people--are more similar than they seem.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > The hardest problems--mostly around people--are more similar than they seem. That's a good point and reflects my own experience. But I'd be hard pressed to generalize what I've learned in my career in IT/IT related start-ups and take that and apply it to say a company that creates a new medicine or one that tries to commercialize some new medical instrument. The sales avenues in that domain are radically different from 'just' IT based start-ups and just like I wouldn't see a bio-tech person run an IT firm the reverse probably holds true as well, ditto for advice to such management. I recently had a long and in-depth look at an organization that sells a lot of physical goods on-line and even in that case there was so much domain knowledge wrt to the retail portion of it that without a CEO with significant knowledge in that particular field they wouldn't have stood a chance. Anyway, you're doing pretty good so far, can't wait to see you prove me wrong :)
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

etrautmann 11y ago

Two possibilities (among many others) 1) SBIR/STTRs are specific solicitations that serve the specific goals of funding agencies. If you don't see one that matches your tech exactly, it's a nonstarter. 2) Often times, the call for proposals are written with a specific company in mind that the funding agency already has some relationship with or interest in funding. Breaking into this can be challenging for a new company to learn the landscape.

OopsCriticality 11y ago
NCI SBIR/STTR applications can be contract solicitations for specific problems, as you point out. The majority are (as I understand it) funded however through the omnibus solicitation, which can be directed to high-priority research areas or to general problems within the scope of the NCI. I assume the same is true for other NIH agencies.

liseman 11y ago

It's about optionality: startups of all types can now do more with less. SBIRs, access to college labs, in-house prototyping facilities: these can certainly help, but what's exciting is that they're no longer required to iterate on prototypes. So little funding and time is that it looks a lot like software.

OopsCriticality 11y ago
So you're looking for a class of problems that you can better address than the existing system? Something for which SBIR/STTR takes too long to fund, needs more money/support than self bootstrapping, doesn't need exotic equipment, etc.

jrkelly 11y ago

I'd recommend an SBIR/STTR (or other govt grants) first for wet-lab biotechs - it's a good source of patient money while you show early technical traction. YC after you've got things rolling can be throwing gas on a fire. It was for us (Ginkgo Bioworks, S14). Awesome founder community/ partner advice / investor connections.

bbgm 11y ago
SBIRs have been super effective for many people. It takes time to show technical feasibility and building up real partnerships. SBIRs are well designed for that but also don't allow you to overspend.
OopsCriticality 11y ago
That's an interesting thought, SBIR then YC. How would you recommend dealing with the SF relocation issue? I ask from the prospective of a biomedical startup not in CA.
- jrkelly 11y ago
  We didn't relocate to SF. We are in Boston and kept the lab and the majority of the team there while we did YC. + lots of red-eyes.