[aaavl2821]

I think for non scientists looking to work in biotech, it is critical to also understand how the industry works and how value is created. That's the failure point for most biotech startups -- they dont have a useful application of their tech, or the useful application takes costs too much to develop compared to the value it creates

A practical way to do this is to invest in biotech stocks. This will expose you to clinical data, the regulatory process, and how value is created and destroyed. Evaluating clinical data and unmet medical needs is the core skillset in evaluating market potential of a drug, device, diagnostic or patient-facing software

Having skin in the game will help you focus your learning. But only invest as much as you can afford to lose, treat it like tuition.

[unearthed]

> "That's the failure point for most biotech startups -- they dont have a useful application of their tech."

This is precisely the failure of every academic ever. We can examine this through the Theil-lens where they're trying to create a narrative of uniqueness where their research applies + revolutionizes everything ( when it does not ).

But everyone knows this is not the case. This is the central plague of all academic research, that its the pursuit of novel understanding before useful application.

I would argue that this is more a defining characteristic of the current academic pyramid scheme than biotech startups.

Biotech startups dont go out for VC unless they HAVE a market.

Biotech phds go to the NIH regardless of whether theres a market.

[tikej]

> This is the central plague of all academic research, that its the pursuit of novel understanding before useful application.

Plague of all academic research?! Isn't the point of academic research to understand before application (and quite often application is not the goal at all and that's ok)?

I get that it may seem trivial to apply something, but with high-cost risks of mistakes when they happen in biology/medicine it is not.

The pharma industry learned this the hard way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

It seems to me that some software engineers/computer scientist think that other fields are slow/full stupid people because the progress is not fast. Well the progress is not fast because cost to start is often huge, wetware can't be moved to cloud, stakes are higher than unhappy customers etc.

[goatlover]

> This is the central plague of all academic research, that its the pursuit of novel understanding before useful application.

Uh, not all knowledge is about making products. I hope you meant "all academic research" only in context of biotech startups. And applied science is only part of the scientific endeavor, which is to understand the world, regardless of whether that can be monetized.

[unearthed]

Right. Im not claiming that it is.

However a trait which is more readily attributed to academic research ( not creating a profitable product ) is more applicable to academic research than to startups.

Per the Thiel quote (summarized):

The history of academic research is riddled with scientists making no profit.