Unlike software startups that can "fail fast" and pivot cheaply, a single biotech clinical program costs tens of millions. This high cost of failure means the industry values experienced founders who have learned from past mistakes, a direct contrast to Silicon Valley's youth-centric culture.

Related Insights

Silicon Valley's default response to crazy ideas is curiosity, not cynicism, which fosters greater ambition. Crucially, the culture values the experience gained from failure. A founder who raised and lost $50 million is still seen as a valuable bet by investors, a dynamic not found in other ecosystems.

Unlike tech investing, where a single power-law outlier can return the entire fund, biotech wins are smaller in magnitude. This dynamic forces biotech VCs to prioritize a higher success rate across their portfolio rather than solely hunting for one massive unicorn.

A significant portion of biotech's high costs stems from its "artisanal" nature, where each company develops bespoke digital workflows and data structures. This inefficiency arises because startups are often structured for acquisition after a single clinical success, not for long-term, scalable operations.

Since startups lack infinite time and money, an investor's key diligence question is whether the team can learn and iterate fast enough to find a valuable solution before resources run out. This 'learning velocity' is more important than initial traction or a perfect starting plan.

When evaluating senior candidates, don't view a failed entrepreneurial venture as a negative. It often indicates valuable traits like risk-tolerance, scrappiness, and resilience. These leaders have learned hard lessons on someone else's dime, making them potentially more effective in a new organization.

Unlike most biotechs that start with researchers, CRISPR prioritized hiring manufacturing and process development experts early. This 'backwards' approach was crucial for solving the challenge of scaling cell editing from lab to GMP, which they identified as a primary risk.

Responding to Wall Street pressure to de-risk, large pharmaceutical firms cut internal early-stage research. This led to an exodus of talent and the rise of contract research organizations (CROs), creating an infrastructure that, like cloud computing for tech, lowered the barrier for new biotech startups.

A biotech investor's role mirrors that of a record producer by identifying brilliant talent (scientists) who may lack commercial experience. The investor provides the capital, structure, and guidance needed to translate raw scientific innovation into a commercially successful product.

The career arcs of venture and buyout investors differ starkly. VCs rely on networks relevant to young founders, leading some to retire by 45 as connections become stale. In contrast, buyout investing is an apprenticeship business where age and experience are increasingly valued.

The path for biotech entrepreneurs is a long slog requiring immense conviction. Success ("liftoff") isn't just a clinical trial result, but achieving self-sustaining profitability and growth. This high bar means founders may need to persevere through years of market indifference and financing challenges.

Biotech Startups Place a Premium on "Gray Hair" Because a Single Mistake Costs Millions | RiffOn