[kamens]

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: [e-mail]

We're hiring a couple more for our early team and specifically looking for data, infra, and ML engineers. No specific bio background required. Staying quiet for now, can share more when we talk.

[forgotpwagain]

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, however, we have no idea where to begin, and so a shotgun basic science approach may ultimately be more fruitful. Every subfield is different and difficult to master, which is why it is so important to engage with the people who actually do the work.

I know the tone of this sounds like I'm beating a dead horse. I'm sorry.

[kamens]

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

[wuschel]

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.