(1) Issue of Science paper already clear. Context of Rick's post, I thought, was gene therapy. Thus my confusion. BTW, there is another key GZMO Science paper, this one pretty "old", 1993 or so, and that is the one describing SAGE. Actually, they may be two SAGE papers in Science. None of those had GZMO people as authors, but they are certainly GZMO relevant.
(2) Thanks for the "non-biological" analysis. Very good points all. The only issue (see RW Reeves' posts on this) is the possible limitation on upside given the GENZ connection. So, yes GENZ will not willingly let its children fail, but if it looks like one of them is going to be very successful, GENZ has the right, and duty to its own shareholders, to take it out at a relatively small premium. But, see and argue with Reeves on this. I am just summarizing his arguments. After all, the advantages you list come at a price, so to speak.
(3) As for the Harvard MBA, I'd say I take a MS in Chem E from Wash U any day (someone named Mark Levin, for example) -g-
PB |
