YC Bio • Hacker News Board

Re: YC Bio

#41

Post by kamens » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

forgotpwagain wrote: post #28

kamens wrote: post #10

The more investment and talent going into taking control of our biology and reducing disease, the better. If using your tech skills to help battle disease in an ambitious way is interesting and you wanna learn about a new, quiet startup (top-tier funders, world-class bio folks already on board for you to partner with, rare advisors from tech/bio/pharma), ping me: kamens@gmail.com We're hiring a couple more for our ea…

Just to add a single word -- I think it is very important that investments be well-targeted. And almost all of the time, this means listening to the scientists involved to get a realistic picture of where the domain experts think the field is going and how to best support efforts that are likely to be successful. Sometimes, we have some promising leads on disease that we can begin to chase down. Most of the time, how…

Completely agree. A tight and respectful partnership b/w scientists and technologists is table stakes in any of these ventures.

Re: YC Bio

#42

Post by DoreenMichele » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 9:38 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #40

DoreenMichele wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My father had Alzheimer's. He lived another 3 years after doctors announced he had six months left because my mom was a devoted wife who quit her job to take care of him. He also survived colon cancer in his late 60s for the same reason and I flew out and took care of my sister after her first mastectomy with her first round of cancer. The doctors attributed my father's survival after they wrote him off for dead to m…

> But my life's experience suggests that a) getting fed right b) getting proper care from someone who actually cares about you and c) adequate control over your environment are pretty universal beneficial, regardless of your exact diagnosis. Not sure what your point is. Those things are helpful, can extend healthspan a bit, but they're also completely orthogonal to medicine, and are not solutions.

Wow, completely orthogonal. So, curing Rickets and Scurvy by identifying the nutritional deficiencies behind them us totally not an advance in medicine.

This explains a lot of what is wrong with medicine today. It was different when I was growing up. Doctors would treat all the kids in the family at one time so some infection didn't simply get passed around endlessly. We seem to have stopped doing that, and we wonder why drug resistance is such a problem.

Re: YC Bio

#43

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 9:38 PM UTC

aaavl2821 wrote: post #19

there has been an amazing amount of innovation in bio the last 5 years, but the biggest bottleneck to making more progress is lack of seed funding and shortage of entrepreneurs. So this is great to see I wrote about the opportunity in bio earlier this week and run a program connecting top tier scientists with life sci VCs. If you are interested in bio and don't have a science background, this is the best time ever to…

[deleted]

Re: YC Bio

#44

Post by wuschel » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 9:39 PM UTC

kamens wrote: post #10

The more investment and talent going into taking control of our biology and reducing disease, the better. If using your tech skills to help battle disease in an ambitious way is interesting and you wanna learn about a new, quiet startup (top-tier funders, world-class bio folks already on board for you to partner with, rare advisors from tech/bio/pharma), ping me: kamens@gmail.com We're hiring a couple more for our ea…

Agreed!

Great to see YC address the lab space issue and give a larger cash/equity cut for biotech focused companies.

I am wondering how early/late stage the desired biotech company should be. Right now, many biotech-y YC applications/interview participants seem to be rejected with the comment that they should come back later.

Re: YC Bio

#45

Post by morgante » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 9:40 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #42

TeMPOraL wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But my life's experience suggests that a) getting fed right b) getting proper care from someone who actually cares about you and c) adequate control over your environment are pretty universal beneficial, regardless of your exact diagnosis. Not sure what your point is. Those things are helpful, can extend healthspan a bit, but they're also completely orthogonal to medicine, and are not solutions.

Wow, completely orthogonal. So, curing Rickets and Scurvy by identifying the nutritional deficiencies behind them us totally not an advance in medicine. This explains a lot of what is wrong with medicine today. It was different when I was growing up. Doctors would treat all the kids in the family at one time so some infection didn't simply get passed around endlessly. We seem to have stopped doing that, and we wonder…

It seems like you're more interested in promoting a particular worldview (see your advocacy of a "primary breadwinner") than seeking out medical solutions based on science.

Re: YC Bio

#46

Post by jforman » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #37

jforman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every disease is a different beast, and biology is very hard to tame. We've thrown probably trillions of dollars at cancer over the past few decades, and only in the past few years, with immuno-oncology, has there been any real hope of progress toward broad cures (there was a heady moment after Gleevec, too, but that turned out to be the exception rather than the rule). There was just a huge wave of Alzheimer's treat…

My father had Alzheimer's. He lived another 3 years after doctors announced he had six months left because my mom was a devoted wife who quit her job to take care of him. He also survived colon cancer in his late 60s for the same reason and I flew out and took care of my sister after her first mastectomy with her first round of cancer. The doctors attributed my father's survival after they wrote him off for dead to m…

Home care is important, but technology can make major impacts, too.

Here is a Kaplan-Meier curve for statins:

http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/337/bmj.a2423/F2.large.jpg?wi...

That is a lot of life that these drugs have given a whole lot of people.

AIDS is largely a managed disease now, thanks to therapeutics, starting with AZT.

Steve Jobs thought that he needed better nutrition to manage his disease, and he was wrong. He had a chance of living a much longer life had he let medicine intervene earlier.

(And I had no idea what your gender was until you mentioned it. I'm sorry that you don't feel heard.)

Re: YC Bio

#47

Post by d33k4y » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 9:44 PM UTC

"...it could be one of the best ways to address our healthcare crisis."

It seems to me a great deal more people face a very different question, "how can I afford to live longer?"

Re: YC Bio

#48

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 9:47 PM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #42

TeMPOraL wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But my life's experience suggests that a) getting fed right b) getting proper care from someone who actually cares about you and c) adequate control over your environment are pretty universal beneficial, regardless of your exact diagnosis. Not sure what your point is. Those things are helpful, can extend healthspan a bit, but they're also completely orthogonal to medicine, and are not solutions.

Wow, completely orthogonal. So, curing Rickets and Scurvy by identifying the nutritional deficiencies behind them us totally not an advance in medicine. This explains a lot of what is wrong with medicine today. It was different when I was growing up. Doctors would treat all the kids in the family at one time so some infection didn't simply get passed around endlessly. We seem to have stopped doing that, and we wonder…

I meant that in context of your entire comment tree; e.g. things like:

> Things that are actually health promoting, like having a full-time parent to care for the kids and primary breadwinner, eating right, exercise etc are boring and don't make VCs rich.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you implying something like "why do medicine, if we could eat less 'junk food', work less and smile more instead".

> curing Rickets and Scurvy by identifying the nutritional deficiencies behind then us totally not an advance in medicine

That's indeed the domain of medicine. Which will tell you, "you need more nutrient $X in your diet" as a solution to the problem, instead of "eat healthier" (for values of 'healthier' determined by current fitness fashion).

Re: YC Bio

#49

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 9:53 PM UTC

d33k4y wrote: post #47

"...it could be one of the best ways to address our healthcare crisis." It seems to me a great deal more people face a very different question, "how can I afford to live longer?"

Those two are connected - in particular, issues related to aging are a huge money sink, so just improving healthspan without improving lifespan would not only make a difference to people, but also free up resources in healthcare.

Re: YC Bio

#50

Post by giarc » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 9:55 PM UTC

timrpeterson wrote: post #30

jonlucc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a fellow midwesterner, I agree. It might make sense if the requirement was to move to a bio-rich region (such as San Diego or Boston), but the bay doesn't seem like the place to be for a lab.

Most people who will be qualified will already have lab space wherever they are.

I agree, and if they were required to move, it would take more than the 3 month batch to prepare items for movement. Why not just leave in their location?