11 ms·

To date YC has not shown a good understanding of the life sciences. It's not just about a regulatory burden, but the premise of breaking away from academia, of

by bbgm 11y ago

To date YC has not shown a good understanding of the life sciences. It's not just about a regulatory burden, but the premise of breaking away from academia, of somehow finding a magic bullet and commercializing it, and assuming that biology is somehow like software is flawed. Sure the barriers to entry may be lower, but most science is a slog. There are very few home runs. Next-gen sequencing was a huge breakthrough and happened very fast by life science standards. The drivers came both from academia and industry and by all means it worked really well and remains highly innovative. I completely buy that a different model of funding will help and could be successful. I just don't have a good understanding of whether there is a good understanding of the real scientific challenges and the implications.

hermanmerman 11y ago
YC operates like a startup would: they have a bold hypothesis, something that must be challenged ("most science is a slog"). There is very little chance that they could be right, but in case they are, and they execute well, the benefits could be huge. Speeding up life sciences development cycles the way development cycles in software engineering have been sped up is the goal, but the way to do it is hard and complex and uncertain. It requires funding, perseverance, trial and error, incremental improvements as much as breakthroughs. YC has proven they're good at all of this.
- DaveWalk 11y ago
  Well said. Maybe there is an analogy to software development decades ago -- slow and academic as the norm.
DaveWalk 11y ago
I share your thoughts exactly, and why YC talks about biotech I just can't picture it. I don't doubt their efforts, but I can't picture it. However, I've always thought that with the right network and influence one could make major shifts in a whole industry if the timing is right. As history has shown us, all we need is one breakthrough way of doing things and previously closed doors are busted open. If YC convinces enough people along the biotech foodchain, they can at least get a good crack at it. I'd love to see a post specifically about what they have in mind for biotech.
- bbgm 11y ago
  Me too. I am happy to be proven wrong. There are elements of biotech that could use more risk taking, but they seem to ignore some of more "mainstream" (yet relatively knew) technologies where there may be room for innovation.
omginternets 11y ago
I agree, and this line from Mr. Iseman's post is a great example: >Why give half of the money you raise to your university when you can rent lab space for hundreds of dollars a month? Because: 1. In practice, you don't actually have to give half the money you raise to a university. Universities reap huge benefits from collaborations with the private sector. 2. SBIR/STTR grants come with far fewer strings attached than do funds from VCs. 3. Scientific startups often need credibility, and working with a university all but completely resolves that issue. 4. Universities are not simply a monetary resource; you benefit from (a) access to domain-specific expertise (b) cutting-edge research (c) a pool of highly-educated people to take on as interns and employees. YC should pay special attention to point 2. I'm co-founder a startup that offers cognitive biometric analysis -- we can make inferences on cognitive and affective state through video analysis. We have a general-purpose product (read: large and diverse customer base) and we can go very far with very little funding, so why sell shares when we can get a 50k grant in exchange for some (admittedly tedious) paperwork? Can we go faster with, say, 1 million? Sure, much faster, but then we have to deal with investors who probably don't know much about our product. And more to the point: universities, to a certain extent, behave like VCs.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > we can go very far with very little funding, so why sell shares when we can get a 50k grant in exchange for some (admittedly tedious) paperwork? To be entirely frank, it depends on the field, but I imagine it's easier in many ways to get VC funding than a grant for many projects. Grants are a pain to apply for (there's a reason that full-time grant-writers exist) and the feedback loop is very slow. Compare that to the VC world, where you can quite easily raise a small amount of seed/pre-seed capital quickly, and even when you're rejected, you're likely to hear back quickly[0]. This will be a challenge for YC, because it inherently creates an adverse selection problem. The companies that YC (and all venture funds) want to attract the most are the ones who could win a grant if they applied, not the ones who are seeking venture funding simply because they can't actually survive the grant process[1]. The grant application process is terrible for a lot of reasons, but it does have the side-effect of filtering out a lot of people who simply aren't that serious or invested in their work. For YC, it means a lot more companies to sift through to identify the gems. There are certainly some billion-dollar companies that could not survive the grant process (or simply would prefer not to go through it), but if we're looking strictly at the ratios, it's going to be a lot more challenging for any venture fund to find these 'needles', because the 'haystack' is simply much larger (relatively speaking). [0] If you never hear back from a VC, that means you're probably either rejected or being punted on ("not now, but maybe later"). But that's a good thing - at least you know! If you don't hear back from a grant application after 2 months, that doesn't actually mean anything other than your application may not have been reviewed yet. [1] Possible reasons for failing to win grants: project/business model is simply not valuable, project is not well fleshed-out, company does not have the runway to survive the drawn-out application cycle, etc. All of these apply to the venture world as well, but the cycle there is much faster.
paul 11y ago
What is your evidence for the claim that, "YC has not shown a good understanding of the life sciences"? (and what evidence will change your mind?) Our biotech investments are currently all too young for something huge like an IPO, but many are continuing to grow and prosper. For example, Ginkgo just raised a $45M Series B: http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/23/ginkgo-bioworks-takes-on-zymergen-with-45-million-in-series-b-funding/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/23/ginkgo-bioworks-takes-on-zy...
- bbgm 11y ago
  If you go ask scientists that work in the life sciences, most (at least the ones I know) will say that there are much more fundamental problems that we should be tackling. Synthetic biology is super interesting, and maybe that is the right space for YC to play in, but it's not the needle mover that the tech crowd thinks it is going to be. Trying to understand the mechanisms of GNRH receptors and developing lead candidates that could be potential therapies is just not as sexy as synthetic biology. Would you fund something in that space? But this is where my head just starts spinning "I'm going to help our biotech startups find the partners and tools they need to make wetware at software-like speeds." That's not going to happen. It's not how biology works in a lot of others, and you lose a lot of credibility when you say that. Unfortunately, a lot of founders say that as well. I forget the name of the company, but there was a recent algorithms startup that made it sound like they were (a) going to change pharma with their methods, and (b) what they were doing was new and unique. None of which was true. YC (and others) can do a lot here, but I feel you go in without really understanding the space or the pitfalls. A lot of biotech fails not because of the business model, but because biology hard, the human body is unreliable and illogical, and because our understanding of the science is flawed. I'll get off my soapbox now :-)
  - arihant 11y ago
    While I agree that there are more critical and fundamental problems that need to be solved by us, not all of those problems could be solved by a profit seeking corporation. Also, a lot of such problems should be kept out of hands of people primarily concerned with building a business, because that could be a dangerous way to lead the solution. That said,these problems must be solved. Which is why over the last thousand or so years, we have built a system of universities, public donations, and taxation, so these problems are addressed by right people.
MichaelCrawford 11y ago
There is quite a lot of work in the life sciences that is completely unregulated. The Salmon are dying of asphyxiation and heatstroke in the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. I can come up with many technical measures to mitigate that problem but some of them require a lot of money. Lots of fish hatcheries closer to the Pacific so the salmon don't swim so far inland when they return to their birthplaces to make bacon with the attracive gender.

by bbgm 11y ago

hermanmerman 11y ago

YC operates like a startup would: they have a bold hypothesis, something that must be challenged ("most science is a slog"). There is very little chance that they could be right, but in case they are, and they execute well, the benefits could be huge. Speeding up life sciences development cycles the way development cycles in software engineering have been sped up is the goal, but the way to do it is hard and complex and uncertain. It requires funding, perseverance, trial and error, incremental improvements as much as breakthroughs. YC has proven they're good at all of this.

DaveWalk 11y ago
Well said. Maybe there is an analogy to software development decades ago -- slow and academic as the norm.

DaveWalk 11y ago

I share your thoughts exactly, and why YC talks about biotech I just can't picture it. I don't doubt their efforts, but I can't picture it. However, I've always thought that with the right network and influence one could make major shifts in a whole industry if the timing is right. As history has shown us, all we need is one breakthrough way of doing things and previously closed doors are busted open. If YC convinces enough people along the biotech foodchain, they can at least get a good crack at it. I'd love to see a post specifically about what they have in mind for biotech.

bbgm 11y ago
Me too. I am happy to be proven wrong. There are elements of biotech that could use more risk taking, but they seem to ignore some of more "mainstream" (yet relatively knew) technologies where there may be room for innovation.

omginternets 11y ago

I agree, and this line from Mr. Iseman's post is a great example: >Why give half of the money you raise to your university when you can rent lab space for hundreds of dollars a month? Because: 1. In practice, you don't actually have to give half the money you raise to a university. Universities reap huge benefits from collaborations with the private sector. 2. SBIR/STTR grants come with far fewer strings attached than do funds from VCs. 3. Scientific startups often need credibility, and working with a university all but completely resolves that issue. 4. Universities are not simply a monetary resource; you benefit from (a) access to domain-specific expertise (b) cutting-edge research (c) a pool of highly-educated people to take on as interns and employees. YC should pay special attention to point 2. I'm co-founder a startup that offers cognitive biometric analysis -- we can make inferences on cognitive and affective state through video analysis. We have a general-purpose product (read: large and diverse customer base) and we can go very far with very little funding, so why sell shares when we can get a 50k grant in exchange for some (admittedly tedious) paperwork? Can we go faster with, say, 1 million? Sure, much faster, but then we have to deal with investors who probably don't know much about our product. And more to the point: universities, to a certain extent, behave like VCs.

chimeracoder 11y ago
> we can go very far with very little funding, so why sell shares when we can get a 50k grant in exchange for some (admittedly tedious) paperwork? To be entirely frank, it depends on the field, but I imagine it's easier in many ways to get VC funding than a grant for many projects. Grants are a pain to apply for (there's a reason that full-time grant-writers exist) and the feedback loop is very slow. Compare that to the VC world, where you can quite easily raise a small amount of seed/pre-seed capital quickly, and even when you're rejected, you're likely to hear back quickly[0]. This will be a challenge for YC, because it inherently creates an adverse selection problem. The companies that YC (and all venture funds) want to attract the most are the ones who could win a grant if they applied, not the ones who are seeking venture funding simply because they can't actually survive the grant process[1]. The grant application process is terrible for a lot of reasons, but it does have the side-effect of filtering out a lot of people who simply aren't that serious or invested in their work. For YC, it means a lot more companies to sift through to identify the gems. There are certainly some billion-dollar companies that could not survive the grant process (or simply would prefer not to go through it), but if we're looking strictly at the ratios, it's going to be a lot more challenging for any venture fund to find these 'needles', because the 'haystack' is simply much larger (relatively speaking). [0] If you never hear back from a VC, that means you're probably either rejected or being punted on ("not now, but maybe later"). But that's a good thing - at least you know! If you don't hear back from a grant application after 2 months, that doesn't actually mean anything other than your application may not have been reviewed yet. [1] Possible reasons for failing to win grants: project/business model is simply not valuable, project is not well fleshed-out, company does not have the runway to survive the drawn-out application cycle, etc. All of these apply to the venture world as well, but the cycle there is much faster.

paul 11y ago

What is your evidence for the claim that, "YC has not shown a good understanding of the life sciences"? (and what evidence will change your mind?) Our biotech investments are currently all too young for something huge like an IPO, but many are continuing to grow and prosper. For example, Ginkgo just raised a $45M Series B: http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/23/ginkgo-bioworks-takes-on-zymergen-with-45-million-in-series-b-funding/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/23/ginkgo-bioworks-takes-on-zy...

bbgm 11y ago
If you go ask scientists that work in the life sciences, most (at least the ones I know) will say that there are much more fundamental problems that we should be tackling. Synthetic biology is super interesting, and maybe that is the right space for YC to play in, but it's not the needle mover that the tech crowd thinks it is going to be. Trying to understand the mechanisms of GNRH receptors and developing lead candidates that could be potential therapies is just not as sexy as synthetic biology. Would you fund something in that space? But this is where my head just starts spinning "I'm going to help our biotech startups find the partners and tools they need to make wetware at software-like speeds." That's not going to happen. It's not how biology works in a lot of others, and you lose a lot of credibility when you say that. Unfortunately, a lot of founders say that as well. I forget the name of the company, but there was a recent algorithms startup that made it sound like they were (a) going to change pharma with their methods, and (b) what they were doing was new and unique. None of which was true. YC (and others) can do a lot here, but I feel you go in without really understanding the space or the pitfalls. A lot of biotech fails not because of the business model, but because biology hard, the human body is unreliable and illogical, and because our understanding of the science is flawed. I'll get off my soapbox now :-)
- arihant 11y ago
  While I agree that there are more critical and fundamental problems that need to be solved by us, not all of those problems could be solved by a profit seeking corporation. Also, a lot of such problems should be kept out of hands of people primarily concerned with building a business, because that could be a dangerous way to lead the solution. That said,these problems must be solved. Which is why over the last thousand or so years, we have built a system of universities, public donations, and taxation, so these problems are addressed by right people.

MichaelCrawford 11y ago

There is quite a lot of work in the life sciences that is completely unregulated. The Salmon are dying of asphyxiation and heatstroke in the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. I can come up with many technical measures to mitigate that problem but some of them require a lot of money. Lots of fish hatcheries closer to the Pacific so the salmon don't swim so far inland when they return to their birthplaces to make bacon with the attracive gender.