<story><title>Joining a Different YC</title><url>http://blog.ycombinator.com/joining-a-different-yc</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bbgm</author><text>To date YC has not shown a good understanding of the life sciences.  It&amp;#x27;s not just about a regulatory burden, but the premise of breaking away from academia, of somehow finding a magic bullet and commercializing it, and assuming that biology is somehow like software is flawed.  Sure the barriers to entry may be lower, but most science is a slog.  There are very few home runs.  Next-gen sequencing was a huge breakthrough and happened very fast by life science standards.  The drivers came both from academia and industry and by all means it worked really well and remains highly innovative.&lt;p&gt;I completely buy that a different model of funding will help and could be successful.  I just don&amp;#x27;t have a good understanding of whether there is a good understanding of the real scientific challenges and the implications.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>paul</author><text>What is your evidence for the claim that, &amp;quot;YC has not shown a good understanding of the life sciences&amp;quot;? (and what evidence will change your mind?)&lt;p&gt;Our biotech investments are currently all too young for something huge like an IPO, but many are continuing to grow and prosper. For example, Ginkgo just raised a $45M Series B: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;techcrunch.com&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;23&amp;#x2F;ginkgo-bioworks-takes-on-zymergen-with-45-million-in-series-b-funding&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;techcrunch.com&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;23&amp;#x2F;ginkgo-bioworks-takes-on-zy...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Joining a Different YC</title><url>http://blog.ycombinator.com/joining-a-different-yc</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bbgm</author><text>To date YC has not shown a good understanding of the life sciences.  It&amp;#x27;s not just about a regulatory burden, but the premise of breaking away from academia, of somehow finding a magic bullet and commercializing it, and assuming that biology is somehow like software is flawed.  Sure the barriers to entry may be lower, but most science is a slog.  There are very few home runs.  Next-gen sequencing was a huge breakthrough and happened very fast by life science standards.  The drivers came both from academia and industry and by all means it worked really well and remains highly innovative.&lt;p&gt;I completely buy that a different model of funding will help and could be successful.  I just don&amp;#x27;t have a good understanding of whether there is a good understanding of the real scientific challenges and the implications.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>hermanmerman</author><text>YC operates like a startup would: they have a bold hypothesis, something that must be challenged (&amp;quot;most science is a slog&amp;quot;). There is very little chance that they could be right, but in case they are, and they execute well, the benefits could be huge.&lt;p&gt;Speeding up life sciences development cycles the way development cycles in software engineering have been sped up is the goal, but the way to do it is hard and complex and uncertain. It requires funding, perseverance, trial and error, incremental improvements as much as breakthroughs. YC has proven they&amp;#x27;re good at all of this.</text></comment>