Short Answer: It's going to take at least a decade after it hits the market but then we can do things like compare amounts of spending on aging care in pets and humans, quality of life indicators and things like that.
But I don't think that's the only impact this particular kind of project could potentially have.
Long Answer: GDF11 for Pets can truly be a leader in the Bio Tech crowdfunding movement, which as of right now is barely not non-existent. Crowdfunding for stuff like this is bascially unheard of and left entirely to huge scientific corporations. The social impact of bio-tech based start ups becoming as widespread and successful as software ones could be the disruption to big pharma that we've all be waiting for. The social implications of a movement like this are huge.
This blog entry on xconomy.com is all about what could be coming down the pipe for bio tech crowdfunding and how much more progress we could make with smaller, specialized and focused companies doing hyper-niche R&D research directly for the needs of their funders. I can think of a couple hypotheticals showing why I think this could be very successful is to approach medical R &D this way. Say I have a specific illness, if I have the choice of spending $50 dollars on something that sort of works for everyone including me or $100 on something that I know will work for me, I'd wager most people would choose to fund the specific thing that has a much higher chance of working for them.
Though, to be really disruptive, access and related issues will be key and the social impact of disrupting Big Pharma is almost innumerable. Do you guys think my rationale for comparing the bio-tech start up scene and similar hurdles/benefits to the software scene is reasonable? What are some different kinds of hurdles you think are standing in the way?
No comments:
Post a Comment