[pedro_caetano]

From what I understand the situation is quite the opposite, there is a huge pipeline of investment both in startups as well as very large corps on the development and application of gene therapy.

As anecdata, Luxturna costs north of a quarter of a million per vial, it treats a fairly rare disease (Leber congenital amaurosis). Roche still poured millions into development.

Bio-tech, specially in a Medical field, is a very difficult business. The strategy for must startups is to get bought by a very large pharma company. The issue is that these companies often run out of runway, specially when dealing with later pre-clinical, clinical, and regulatory costs.

[Fomite]

It's also just hard. Biology is hard. Being a startup in a heavily regulated field, rather than the "What if $Industry but with no regulations?" of the Uber/AirBnB model, and where iteration doesn't necessarily show returns makes life for biotech startups difficult.

[edge17]

The other thing no one wants to say is the technical software/hardware talent in biotech is not as good as broader tech, and the people in charge of these projects are usually coming from a science background first and a technology background second.

[NooneAtAll3]

isn't that exactly what article is saying?

> Bluebird Bio, once a leader with three FDA-approved gene therapies, sold itself to private equity for around $30 million earlier this year, a 99.7% decline from their all-time-high $10b valuation

*investment* is there, market isn't