11–20 of 59 posts
When will people understand the problem with genomics isn't complexity, it is a lack of raw data.
We simply have not collected enough annotation on what every gene does and how it interacts. Without that information, you have diddly-squat.
Hi all! I'm one of the founders of Verge Genomics. We want to change the way drug discovery is done and are passionate about getting much-needed medicines into patients hands within their lifetimes. Happy to answer any questions!
The breathless tone of this TechCrunch article reminds me of this commentary on Atomwise (also a YC biotech): http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2015/03/26/tone_it_down... In my opinion, YC has no idea what they're doing in biotech. Here's a much more credible neuro disease startup that was recently launched: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/05/14/former-... I'm sure Alice and Jason are very intellige…
The breathless tone of this TechCrunch article reminds me of this commentary on Atomwise (also a YC biotech): http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2015/03/26/tone_it_down... In my opinion, YC has no idea what they're doing in biotech. Here's a much more credible neuro disease startup that was recently launched: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/05/14/former-... I'm sure Alice and Jason are very intellige…
I understand that journalists often create a simplified straw-man to contrast to a new and innovative upstart, however as someone who once served as an industry analyst at the intersection of life science discovery and technical computing this article's characterization of how big pharma approach drug discovery seems almost cartoon like in its stereotyping of the discovery and development process at big pharma. Can y…
Hi there - thanks for the interest! For a more technical dissection of some of the genomics approaches we employ to identify neurodegenerative disease targets, check out these reviews: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7266/full/nature0... http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v16/n8/pdf/nrg3934.pdf
The Institute for Systems Biology has been around since 2000. I remember interviewing people in an internal systems biology group at one of the largest pharma companies in the world in 2004 and writing about their work. Admittedly, they were a small unit intended to drive innovation within discovery at that pharma. By 2007 it had been at least tried in most major pharma companies and John Russell was writing about the Awkward Adolescence of Systems Biology.
http://www.bio-itworld.com/issues/2007/sept/cover-story/
Even if your characterization that large pharma prefer a different approach is mostly accurate it is a substantial disservice to the intelligence and hard work of hundreds of scientists who have worked on applying systems biology to the study of disease and treatments.
Maybe I am over-reacting to this article and your video ...but from 2000 to 2004 I heard so many biotech and related software executives tell me that their company was going to solve these same discovery and development problems. Most faded into oblivion, others found a useful niche and a few got targets identified and development started and were acquired by a large pharma to bring them to market.
I sincerely hope that you have discovered a new approach to system biology that will in fact provide breakthroughs. If you have something great let it stand on its own merits; there is no need to misrepresent the hard work and investments of other scientists or the companies they work for.
The breathless tone of this TechCrunch article reminds me of this commentary on Atomwise (also a YC biotech): http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2015/03/26/tone_it_down... In my opinion, YC has no idea what they're doing in biotech. Here's a much more credible neuro disease startup that was recently launched: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/05/14/former-... I'm sure Alice and Jason are very intellige…
Most of the biotech companies coming out of YC are what I'd characterize as total fliers -- unlike the company highlighted by the Forbes article, these startups aren't being founded by a collection of gray-haired biotech executives with a collective 200 years of research experience in a single disease. And that's fine. One of the biggest problems in biotech right now is that everything is too stodgy and conservative. When I got out of grad school, there was no way of starting a biotech company without putting in 20+ years in academia or at drug company. You wouldn't get funding.
If funding a few grad students for oddball biotech startups leads to a single success, it has the possibility of really opening up the field. And in the worst case, very little money will be lost. I think it's a good thing. If nothing else, maybe it'll turn the attention of smart, ambitious people to something more important and meaningful than photo-sharing apps and YuppieFoodDelivery.com v87.0.
Let a million flowers bloom...as long as they all don't try to crowd into San Francisco, that is.
> But Verge Genomics is able to cure brain diseases 1000x more quickly than big pharma by using algorithms Guffaw. Tech journalism at its finest. The company sounds great, but I'm not sure Techcrunch is really doing them a lot of favors by just making stuff up.
The breathless tone of this TechCrunch article reminds me of this commentary on Atomwise (also a YC biotech): http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2015/03/26/tone_it_down... In my opinion, YC has no idea what they're doing in biotech. Here's a much more credible neuro disease startup that was recently launched: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/05/14/former-... I'm sure Alice and Jason are very intellige…
Genomic vapor ware. When will people understand the problem with genomics isn't complexity, it is a lack of raw data. We simply have not collected enough annotation on what every gene does and how it interacts. Without that information, you have diddly-squat.
On the other hand, if you do collect enough data in a particular domain to be able to call some interesting targets, it's straight-forward enough to validate the method. To presume generality (as the scientists probably do not, though as the article and every writeup I've seen here do) is surely foolhardy.
As a side note, if the company wishes to pretty much sell to 'big pharma', why then do they publish these touchy-feely tech-crunch articles at all? Their website is designed for all those web-2.0 ideals of retaining customers and click-through and responsiveness, etc. But I doubt Roche cares about any of those things...