I really think this is simply a tactic to consolidate market position, by creating a monopoly and artificial scarcity, by raising the barriers to entry on what is otherwise apparently not very defensible tech. "Don't use it until it's safe", is a fairly effective way to stave off competition in medical research and biology in many places. Added to this, is the idea of anticipating and smoothing any regulatory humps by gaining consensus before launch, allowing growth to be faster when it actually does launch.
These are both smooth moves if that's the intent, though I don't think it's sufficient if the tech is really so indefensible.
I think another important consideration is long-term branding. Because the tech is not defensible, there's going to be a whole bunch of competitors, so how can we differentiate ourselves? "We're the ones who did this safest, and we've been about safety from day one."
That's going to be a pretty compelling narrative for human gene therapy suppliers.
It's encouraging to see strategic smarts in science at an early stage in a bio venture that could end up having a very large impact on medicine. So that's really cool, my hat's off to them for these plays. I think the new biotech therapies will need huge monopolies with the resources and motivation to push with the highest standards. After all, for developing biotech, do you really want to be buying your medical future, from a garage startup? Or from a massive name?
So I think it's smart they're clothing themselves in the apparel of major names from day one: caution and safety. It's also exciting to think that right now could be the start of some huge biotech firms of the future, companies that will literally be 10x bigger than the energy companies of today.
Comments
I really think this is simply a tactic to consolidate market position, by creating a monopoly and artificial scarcity, by raising the barriers to entry on what is otherwise apparently not very defensible tech. "Don't use it until it's safe", is a fairly effective way to stave off competition in medical research and biology in many places. Added to this, is the idea of anticipating and smoothing any regulatory humps by gaining consensus before launch, allowing growth to be faster when it actually does launch.
These are both smooth moves if that's the intent, though I don't think it's sufficient if the tech is really so indefensible.
I think another important consideration is long-term branding. Because the tech is not defensible, there's going to be a whole bunch of competitors, so how can we differentiate ourselves? "We're the ones who did this safest, and we've been about safety from day one."
That's going to be a pretty compelling narrative for human gene therapy suppliers.
It's encouraging to see strategic smarts in science at an early stage in a bio venture that could end up having a very large impact on medicine. So that's really cool, my hat's off to them for these plays. I think the new biotech therapies will need huge monopolies with the resources and motivation to push with the highest standards. After all, for developing biotech, do you really want to be buying your medical future, from a garage startup? Or from a massive name?
So I think it's smart they're clothing themselves in the apparel of major names from day one: caution and safety. It's also exciting to think that right now could be the start of some huge biotech firms of the future, companies that will literally be 10x bigger than the energy companies of today.