The real question is how they will filter for Theanos like companies
When Software Eats Bio
11–16 of 16 posts
Re: When Software Eats Bio
#12Can somebody talk about CRISPR and particularly business ideas around it? I read the recent New Yorker article ( http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/the-gene-hacker... ), but still have a lot of questions!
Check out http://desktopgenetics.com - web based crispr design app
Re: When Software Eats Bio
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next frontier in NGS is long read SMRT (Single Molecule Real Time - PacBio) combined with Oxford Nanopore's technology. That is, very long reads combined with massively parallel transcription that doesn't rely on light emission. Illumina-based tech is not going to be part of the equation. Illumina is really only related to traditional Sanger sequencing in that its sequencing by synthesis.
There is no way that this is going to be the case. It's much more likely to be a combination of Illumina and ONT or ONT alone. PacBio is far too expensive and low throughput to be a challenger outside of niche applications (like genome assembly).
I'm extremely skeptical that ONT's sequencing will become cost effective. Library preps for long range correlation + Illumina will likely dominate; why not get high fidelity + long range off the same instrument and reagents? Dovetail and 10X are two companies doing this right now.
That or a different nanopore tech. After all the time they've spent and the missed promises of ONT's CEO it doesn't look like the current generation will deliver.
Re: When Software Eats Bio
#14The real question is how they will filter for Theanos like companies
Theranos was transparent about the overhyping from the very beginning to somebody with an understanding of bio. It's more shocking that so much of the "tech" media bought it.
Imagine a bunch of old-school bankers or Fortune 500 CEOs from the 90s trying to pick a winning software business. They know "business" so they should be able to apply their knowledge to the software world easily, would be their reasoning. Silicon Valley's picks in biotech, like Theranos, have fairly transparently misapplied "knowledge" in the same way. They look for all the wrong things, attributes that work well in software but not other places: 1) confidence bordering on arrogance, 2) dismissal of experts and standard knowledge disguised as an attempt to "innovate.", and 3) a chance to "hop on" to a rising founder/CEO before they've proven themselves and become super expensive. Similarly, be skeptical of other SV health efforts (such as Google's) unless there are real scientists behind it and also real experience in biotech (not tech).
Complete Genomics (next to LinkedIn and Google) is an example of what happens to a biotech company that has really great tech, but runs the business like a tech company rather than a biotech company. Scale goes completely sideways, they miss the market, and get sold off to a bigger fish and most likely will languish.
Re: When Software Eats Bio
#15Disappointed no one brought up the regulatory hurdles involved when discussing the resistance of the industry to disruption. When the cost to bring a new drug to market is over 2 billion dollars [1], it's hard to see start-ups competing in that environment.
1: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-ne...
Re: When Software Eats Bio
#16Disappointed no one brought up the regulatory hurdles involved when discussing the resistance of the industry to disruption. When the cost to bring a new drug to market is over 2 billion dollars [1], it's hard to see start-ups competing in that environment. 1: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-ne...
Considering that a16z said that they are focusing on software around biotech and not on traditional biotech I think it makes sense that they aren't talking about regulatory hurdles or the cost to bring a drug to market. Eroom's law is a serious problem, and it is hard to imagine a disruptive startup that could compete in that environment.