I've never seen anyone attempt blue books for anything else.
I've never seen anyone attempt blue books for anything else.
I'm not sure about the thesis that this is primarily fallout from free money and suppressed interest rates though. That was really a '22 story, and even with long and variable lags, that element has been in play for a while now.
Oversupply of talent definitely sounds like a good argument though. I'll posit there has been some disruption by recent developments in the industry. Also, while metaverse and crypto startups may be passe, the AI scene has disgusting amounts of hype and money, and crypto ain't dead either, which brings me back to the earlier point that I do think some disruption is there to fill the gap in the narrative.
Even as interest rates went up the VCs still had committed funds to distribute for a year to 18 months. Then the biotechs had runway for 1-2 years from that. Now that’s all gone, and they can’t raise their next series. In the meantime, C> plus synbio is recently having a lower win rate than hoped for.
That plus all the money that is there is all going to AI companies due to the shorter time to return / higher potential roic / hype.
A true pivot of Kodak was moving from just doing chemicals for film to doing chemicals for the pharmaceutical industry. That actually involved employees changing what they do, changing factory equipment, etc.
Hypothesis 1: statisticians love good data sources, and with its many games, innings, and types of hits / pitches it’s a great source.
Hypothesis 2: makes you seem more interesting at dinner parties
hypothesis 3: a natural overlap of preferences
If you have a slightly different form of a much more common ailment, there probably is good hope that eventually patient specific gene therapy for you will be something of a routine. You may be taking extra risks because of the lack of available research, but I'm sure any patient can become well informed enough to make the choice for themselves. I'm not saying it's commonplace or anything yet, but the tools are there or almost there to fix a slightly incorrect single gene issue (like a single point deletion or letter swap, etc).
Like just look
https://www.idtdna.com/pages/products/crispr-genome-editing/...
obviously this is for research and not in vivo human treatment which takes quite a bit more care and specifics to target whatever tissues / organs / whatever is broken in you...
but the reagents for doing custom sequence edits are priced for research in the hundreds of dollars. sure once an established research program finished and got approved they'd spend tens or hundreds of millions and charge each patient millions
but it's not insane to imagine a biohacker curing you in their garage for $5,000 while only maybe killing you
Given that, I think there's a lot of hope that custom gene therapy will become commonplace and relatively affordable.
So $5k is a massive stretch. I do think costs are coming down. But don’t want to oversell current state of “garage hacking” either.
(1) As an engineer, I prefer to be managed and guided by someone who actually knows what I work on, preferably better than I know it.
(2) A manager who actually understands the tech is often better at unblocking the team.
(3) Since senior IC openings tend to grow very thin as you become older, TLM path might be a viable career path for at least some.
Can this role work if we don't expect IC output from the TLM beyond what they themselves take on for their own satisfaction and growth?
As a manager of people who know far more about the things they do than I do, my goal is to assist and ensure in the right place (for them and the org). It’d be foolish for me to hire peons who know less than me.