Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

techiatric.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

#21

Post by woah »

tikhonj wrote: post #19
untilHellbanned wrote: post #2

As a biologist with over a decade of experience in areas relevant to these startups, I appreciate the movement into biotech, but I'm unimpressed with the actual products. While everyone might poo-poo academia, it would take little effort to find 100s of projects at universities across the world that are better versions of these projects. As much as YC dominates software applications, they are woefully inferior in bio…

I actually agree. Exactly the same is true for most software coming out of YC. But that's not bad at all: the point of YC is not to do cutting-edge research—although a few companies do—but to execute and take a product to market. It's a vital part of an idea's development, but at a later stage than academic research. University projects are incredibly valuable, but only the rare exception produces something commercia…

Yea I mean look at Airbnb. It is, (in software jargon) a "crud" app. Virtually any software project you could care to choose in academia today is more advanced than airbnb's tech.

Re: Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

#22

Post by lvs »

comrade1 wrote: post #9

There's a big difference between the 5 - 15 years and billions of dollars to product in biotech/pharma, and the few at most years and relatively cheap amount of money for the payoff in software. And if you think there are shortcuts like uber and airbnb, there are not. Even 23 and me, a pretty innocuous idea, is essentially a failure.

Yes, you're absolutely right, and YC and other SV funders really have no clue what they're doing. It's a boon for biotech startups because the relevant VCs are very puckered up right now when it comes to biotech/pharma.

Re: Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

#23

Post by dluan »

coherentpony wrote: post #18
dluan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty large and unfair statement, and I'd like to know how you are measuring failure. 23andme has created an affordable market for personal genomics, single-handedly forced modernization in regulation and policy, built a mineable database of live genome data that is helping researchers find cures, and amassed nearly 1M paying customers. I'd love for you to say that just because they aren't yet profitable me…

> 23andme has created an affordable market for personal genomics Fair. > single-handedly forced modernization in regulation and policy Personal DNA kits were not pioneered by 23andme. The NHS in the UK sends out personal kits to test for colon cancer. One rather smart child, Jack Andraka [1], devised a personal kit to test for pancreatic cancer. And regulation in FDA policy is constantly shifting and changing. A nota…

One of the biggest challenges they've had to and continue to try to overcome is an outdated policy system around personal health data, within the U.S., and I'm not sure if Jack Andraka has attempted to mass produce and mass release his pancreatic kit. The statement was about their recent FDA battles, not about 'advancing science'.

The 23andme dataset provides more value than HGP since it's an dataset of active participants. I don't know too much about the specifics or privacy mechanics, so I can't comment on how, but this article is an example (http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_27487046/23andme-quest...). The way researchers are using the dataset is very different because they are able to do followups. That's a very significant difference, it's why they have pharma companies lining up to get access to the dataset.

Last I heard, they were closer to 1M than 850k, unfortunately can't find any live stats. Maybe someone else can chime in?

I don't have any affiliation, and I'm surprised that you'd assume so. I recognize that there's an overeagerness from both startup people and academics to crap on biotech startups, rightly or wrongly. I haven't quite figured out why spectators are motivated to do so.

Re: Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

#24

Post by untilHellbanned »

paul wrote: post #13
untilHellbanned wrote: post #2

As a biologist with over a decade of experience in areas relevant to these startups, I appreciate the movement into biotech, but I'm unimpressed with the actual products. While everyone might poo-poo academia, it would take little effort to find 100s of projects at universities across the world that are better versions of these projects. As much as YC dominates software applications, they are woefully inferior in bio…

Care to give a few specific examples? Also, these are companies, not "projects" -- it's important to understand the difference.

I called them all projects.

Haploid genetics[1] is just one example of a technology that is doing real, far reaching stuff in human genetics (sorry, SNPs). There's numerous companies being developed from discoveries using this technology.

I love YC (and huge props to you personally for all the amazing things you've contributed, I'm very honored to be speaking with you), but in talking to many colleagues, the money involved $100K or the hype machine involved in YC just doesn't move the needle in biology. So, you're unlikely to get any real players interested.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21866103

Re: Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

#25

Post by chmille4 »

coherentpony wrote: post #18
dluan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty large and unfair statement, and I'd like to know how you are measuring failure. 23andme has created an affordable market for personal genomics, single-handedly forced modernization in regulation and policy, built a mineable database of live genome data that is helping researchers find cures, and amassed nearly 1M paying customers. I'd love for you to say that just because they aren't yet profitable me…

> 23andme has created an affordable market for personal genomics Fair. > single-handedly forced modernization in regulation and policy Personal DNA kits were not pioneered by 23andme. The NHS in the UK sends out personal kits to test for colon cancer. One rather smart child, Jack Andraka [1], devised a personal kit to test for pancreatic cancer. And regulation in FDA policy is constantly shifting and changing. A nota…

I figured I could add a little clarification to this comment.

* The human genome project created a "single" genome (thats not quite right, but close enough for this discussion). This was and is incredibly useful, but a single genome can only do so much. To answer population genomics questions (e.g. is this mutation common and therefore probably not disease causative) you need lots of people and the more the better.

* The 23andme dataset is not whole genome data, but instead some subset of genomic locations that they consider more interesting. Still valuable but not as much as whole genome data.

Also, for big whole genome datasets you can check out the 1000 Genomes Project, which has somewhere north of 2000 genomes. And there are many more big datasets in the works, which will continue to be incredibly useful!

Re: Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

#26

Post by untilHellbanned »

bkolko wrote: post #20
untilHellbanned wrote: post #2

As a biologist with over a decade of experience in areas relevant to these startups, I appreciate the movement into biotech, but I'm unimpressed with the actual products. While everyone might poo-poo academia, it would take little effort to find 100s of projects at universities across the world that are better versions of these projects. As much as YC dominates software applications, they are woefully inferior in bio…

I'm a YC founder (current batch; Shift Labs) and also a tenured full professor at an R1 university. I've got a pretty good view from both sides of this fence. I've spent over 20 years as a faculty member at research universities, produced PhD students, raised millions in grant money, written dozens of articles, yadda yadda yadda. Universities are really great for many things. They are even really great at commerciali…

This is great and all, but I'm not talking about academia vs. industry/YC. I'm talking about the actual products. They just aren't very good.

Re: Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

#27

Post by untilHellbanned »

sama wrote: post #16
untilHellbanned wrote: post #2

As a biologist with over a decade of experience in areas relevant to these startups, I appreciate the movement into biotech, but I'm unimpressed with the actual products. While everyone might poo-poo academia, it would take little effort to find 100s of projects at universities across the world that are better versions of these projects. As much as YC dominates software applications, they are woefully inferior in bio…

The difference between companies and projects is huge. We look for companies.

I called everything a project. See my response to Paul.

Re: Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

#28

Post by paul »

comrade1 wrote: post #9

There's a big difference between the 5 - 15 years and billions of dollars to product in biotech/pharma, and the few at most years and relatively cheap amount of money for the payoff in software. And if you think there are shortcuts like uber and airbnb, there are not. Even 23 and me, a pretty innocuous idea, is essentially a failure.

I was also told by the HN crowd that Facebook is a fad that would never make any money :)

The best investments always take a long time. Fortunately we are very patient investors, happy to fund "crazy" things like nuclear fusion and cancer treatments.

Re: Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

#29

Post by dluan »

comrade1 wrote: post #15
dluan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty large and unfair statement, and I'd like to know how you are measuring failure. 23andme has created an affordable market for personal genomics, single-handedly forced modernization in regulation and policy, built a mineable database of live genome data that is helping researchers find cures, and amassed nearly 1M paying customers. I'd love for you to say that just because they aren't yet profitable me…

They are not profitable and they are not able to fulfill their original mission due to FDA regulations.

I think a reasonable observer would expect FDA regulations to change.

Re: Y Combinator ups the ante with bio startups for 2015

#30

Post by srunni »

lvs wrote: post #22
comrade1 wrote: post #9

There's a big difference between the 5 - 15 years and billions of dollars to product in biotech/pharma, and the few at most years and relatively cheap amount of money for the payoff in software. And if you think there are shortcuts like uber and airbnb, there are not. Even 23 and me, a pretty innocuous idea, is essentially a failure.

Yes, you're absolutely right, and YC and other SV funders really have no clue what they're doing. It's a boon for biotech startups because the relevant VCs are very puckered up right now when it comes to biotech/pharma.

> the relevant VCs are very puckered up right now when it comes to biotech/pharma.

There are some great posts on the LifeSciVC blog on this topic (and I highly recommend reading all the posts on there for anyone interested in biotech startups):

* Where Does All That Biotech Venture Capital Go?: http://lifescivc.com/2015/02/where-does-all-that-biotech-ven...

* Venture-Backed Biotech Today: Reflections On Exits, Funding, and Startup Formation: http://lifescivc.com/2015/01/venture-backed-biotech-today-re...

* Talent: The Biggest Issue In Biotech Boardrooms Today: http://lifescivc.com/2014/09/talent-the-biggest-issue-in-bio...

* Early Stage Biotech Venture Scarcity: Fitness, Fear, And Greed: http://lifescivc.com/2014/09/early-stage-biotech-venture-sca...

* Startups, Exits, And Ecosystem Flux: Bullish For Biotech: http://lifescivc.com/2014/09/startups-exits-and-ecosystem-fl...

An excerpt (italics added by me):

> Why is biotech startup supply so constrained? First, there aren’t dozens of breakthrough biomedical ideas created every day; while substrate for startups is very rich, figuring out which are likely translate successfully into high impact medicines diminishes the viable number of big, attractive ideas quickly. Second, there are very few biotech venture investors still active today, and fewer still that are focused on early stage company creation. Third, and of critical importance, it’s not easy to start biotech companies, and in most cases requires entrepreneurs with decades of apprenticeship inside larger R&D organizations – navigating the drug discovery and early development process requires experience well beyond simply advanced degrees (MD/PhD).

* High-Performing Boards in Early Stage Biotech: http://lifescivc.com/2012/03/high-performing-boards-in-early...

Another excerpt:

> The nature of the problems and people involved are very different [between tech and biotech]: Internet-enabled Tech startups launch products on tiny amounts of capital, led by Lean Startup Ninja’s and 22-year old soon-to-be-billionaires, these companies can iterate rapidly around things I don’t understand, minimally viable products, and real-time market feedback...Compare that to Biotech. We are trying to manage the challenge of science-based businesses: biology is full of “unknown unknowns”, drug R&D has long and unforgiving timelines, we face very high project attrition rates, we have to work in a highly regulated environment, capital intensity is typically higher, etc… The people involved are also different: the typical senior team has some grey hair and often collectively has 100+ years of experience in (or biases from) drug R&D.

Life science VCs see themselves and their industry as very different from the tech industry.

Post reply on HN