i keep hearing that ceding R&D to china is nbd because the IP is worldwide and we will still be able to mfg the drugs in the West. but this really side steps the obvious fact that the ability to develop your own drugs will be lost, like that isn't a problem or necessarily a consequence
big pharma being demonstrably incapable of early stage R&D is basically the same experiment with the results staring us in the face. we can talk about incentive structures too, but i think the point still stands.
let the best teams win in the global market place, sure, but let's not act like early stage R&D going to China is consequence free. it's a skillset and we could lose it.
@_Biotech_iQ I laid out some of my thoughts here, Iโll briefly summarize and say US biotech exhibits fragile characteristics and needs to expand capacity in addition to badly needed regulatory reform (FDA, IP).
The biotech industry is still optimizing around assumptions inherited from the peak-globalization era: concentrated hubs, frictionless capital flows, and efficiency above all else. But efficiency gains for a system optimized for a world that no longer exists are marginal at best
@jrkelly@LifeSciVC Relatedly, I think @daphnezohar is exactly right. Policymakers are clearly worried about competitiveness, capacity, and strategic dependence.
"Don't change anything" is not a strategy.
@jrkelly@LifeSciVC LP-driven venture capital, (driven by pensions, endowments, etc.), is not designed to maximize national competitiveness. VCs optimize portfolios. Capital flows toward proven business models, hubs, & talent pools. That's great if the future looks like the past.