will gather reams of data from DNA, RNA, methylation patterns, and cell processes, and get it all with extreme precision and real-time speed. These technologies will allow physicians to more accurately predict whether a given drug or device is likely to help an individual patient.
“How many companies can come out of that?” Byers asked himself. “Thousands.”
Byers on what’s happening in D.C. politics and its impact on the life sciences:
Byers pointed to an example of an antibiotic company developing a treatment for deadly MRSA, which ran a great trial, and had a great outcome. Yet when it asked the FDA what it thought, the agency said “why don’t you do another trial?” The agency’s requirements for approvals appear to be continually going up, particularly for new medical devices, Byers said. Although he described himself as a “fan” of the FDA, and a supporter of budget increases to enable it to hire more great scientists, he was downright bearish on what the agency’s requirements have done to the biotech industry.
“The attitude is the worst I’ve seen in my career,” Byers said.
Combine that with talk of increasing capital gains taxes in Washington, and Byers said he’s not happy with President Obama. “I helped get him elected, and I’m very frustrated,” Byers said.
Toward the end, Byers joked that “I got my angst out” on the macro issues, but that he’s still very optimistic about the innovation happening in the life sciences industry.
Susan Desmond-Hellmann on how innovation usually gets transferred between academia and industry, and how it could improve:
“Both want access to innovation,” Desmond-Hellmann said. “We need to be able to bring people together in more effective ways.” Scientists do this naturally, usually on a one-to-one level when they meet at
