Founder-driven life sciences companies
axial.substack.com
Founder-driven life sciences companies
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies
#2This is one key comment that fundamentally differentiates software/hardware from biotech: "Overall the power of recombinant technology and its rapid growth in the 1970s/1990s didn’t necessarily translate into success for new technologies." Powerful abstractions and pervasive feedback loops across the hardware and software stack is what fundamentally enabled rapid innovation in tech; those same ideas haven't developed even close to the same degree in the biotech space.
Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies
#3This is one key comment that fundamentally differentiates software/hardware from biotech: "Overall the power of recombinant technology and its rapid growth in the 1970s/1990s didn’t necessarily translate into success for new technologies." Powerful abstractions and pervasive feedback loops across the hardware and software stack is what fundamentally enabled rapid innovation in tech; those same ideas haven't developed…
One of the reasons why biotech has so low success is that we see it as kinda ok to unleash a half tested app onto people, basically most startup apps out there, while new drugs are extremely hard to get tested.
It's kinda understandable given that some drugs can have serious negative long term effects on people, whereas a buggy CRUD app can't really do much harm in comparison.
While the costs of a "buggy" drug are usually larger than the cost of a buggy app, the benefits of a "good" drug are usually larger than the benefit of yet another app to share pictures, or a uber but for X.
Just see how much it costs to save the economy just from the corona measures. The opposite of that is the benefit of a 1 year increase of people's healthy life spans, much more in fact as only parts of the economy were shut down.
Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies
#4This is one key comment that fundamentally differentiates software/hardware from biotech: "Overall the power of recombinant technology and its rapid growth in the 1970s/1990s didn’t necessarily translate into success for new technologies." Powerful abstractions and pervasive feedback loops across the hardware and software stack is what fundamentally enabled rapid innovation in tech; those same ideas haven't developed…
One of the reasons why biotech has so low success is that we see it as kinda ok to unleash a half tested app onto people, basically most startup apps out there, while new drugs are extremely hard to get tested. It's kinda understandable given that some drugs can have serious negative long term effects on people, whereas a buggy CRUD app can't really do much harm in comparison. While the costs of a "buggy" drug are us…
I think "move fast, and break things" isn't as catchy, when it's harder to ignore that "things" being broken are often people.
Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies
#5Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the reasons why biotech has so low success is that we see it as kinda ok to unleash a half tested app onto people, basically most startup apps out there, while new drugs are extremely hard to get tested. It's kinda understandable given that some drugs can have serious negative long term effects on people, whereas a buggy CRUD app can't really do much harm in comparison. While the costs of a "buggy" drug are us…
I think "move fast, and break things" isn't as catchy, when it's harder to ignore that "things" being broken are often people.
Spot on.
Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the reasons why biotech has so low success is that we see it as kinda ok to unleash a half tested app onto people, basically most startup apps out there, while new drugs are extremely hard to get tested. It's kinda understandable given that some drugs can have serious negative long term effects on people, whereas a buggy CRUD app can't really do much harm in comparison. While the costs of a "buggy" drug are us…
I think "move fast, and break things" isn't as catchy, when it's harder to ignore that "things" being broken are often people.
Yeah "move fast and kill people" doesn't have the same ring to it
Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the reasons why biotech has so low success is that we see it as kinda ok to unleash a half tested app onto people, basically most startup apps out there, while new drugs are extremely hard to get tested. It's kinda understandable given that some drugs can have serious negative long term effects on people, whereas a buggy CRUD app can't really do much harm in comparison. While the costs of a "buggy" drug are us…
I think "move fast, and break things" isn't as catchy, when it's harder to ignore that "things" being broken are often people.
modern pharma R&D is pretty much move fast and break things. All modern pharma firms spend enourmous effort to ensuring that errors are cought as early as possible (shift left) in R&D.
Hundreds of molecule candidates are discarded before reaching Phase 3 trials
Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies
#8[deleted]
Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies
#9This is one key comment that fundamentally differentiates software/hardware from biotech: "Overall the power of recombinant technology and its rapid growth in the 1970s/1990s didn’t necessarily translate into success for new technologies." Powerful abstractions and pervasive feedback loops across the hardware and software stack is what fundamentally enabled rapid innovation in tech; those same ideas haven't developed…
That's because we lack sufficiently precise computational models of biological systems. It is the "fusion power" problem of biotech. There has been some progress, but this isn't an easy problem to solve (just like controlled fusion).
Re: Founder-driven life sciences companies
#10Hi. This is pretty early for this, but I’m looking for some advice for starting a seed fund to advance early-stage startups in cancer immunotherapy. It’s not for me, but someone whom I did some machine learning work, and angel investment with. He’s one of the top names in the field from the early days of cloning to today, veteran of several biotech startups, and likely recent Nobel and Lasker winner advising. There’s a lot we don’t know about the financial side, and I’m trying to figure out whether this is feasible, and what the plan should be. Thanks!