Hi Jill,
Yes, there is certainly something in what you say.
I am smack in the middle of many of the things you are talking about.... nanoprobes, quantum dots, RNAi, ultra-high resolution proteomic applications to clinical medicine, gene therapy, etc etc. I probably have my finger in far too many pies, but I am very much aware of not just what is going on, but what WILL be going on down the road a piece. Very impressive stuff, very exciting, unquestionably huge steps forward.
That said, my point is mainly that it is essential to distance yourself emotionally from that awe and fascination with the possibilities, lest you become the victim of that. Imagination is fun and essential to progress. But this is business, so I think it prudent to focus carefully and critically on how The Market perceives, judges, and values companies. The Market determines financial reality, not scientists.
Money and science (in a more purist sense, that is) don't mix very well. Matter of fact, one of the things I look carefully at in evaluating a biotech is who is running it. If they are a bunch of brilliant academic scientists, that's a major strike against them. If they have some track record of business success in biotech or selling lemonade or whatever, that's a plus, whether they know how to spell nanotechnology or not. When you look at the history of successful biotechs, one of the key events is that they have to get rid of the brilliant people who started it. So, CRA a year or so ago told Craig Venter where to go and how to get there. And many other brilliant scientists have similarly been summarily dismissed from the companies they started, and thank God for that (in most cases, anyway).
I have a friend in research who wears a badge on her lapel that says:
GO FASCINATE SOMEBODY ELSE !
I think that is both funny and a prudent and fiscally responsible mindset when evaluating biotechs you are thinking of plunking down money on.
T |
