We Built a Hacker News for Biotech(news.harlembiospace.com) |
We Built a Hacker News for Biotech(news.harlembiospace.com) |
I kinda thought subreddits took a lot of the wind out of those sails.
Not saying it can't be improved.
A lot about hacker news could be improved, I think, like adding a JSON api by default and being able to control the depth level of comments. More importantly though, I think the simple format facilitates discussion a lot better than the noisy, avatar-riddled nightmares like phpbb, etc.
In the early days HN felt absolutely hardcore to me. Comments were clearly part of an extended (or future) Y-Combinator application (and last time I checked, the Y-Combinator application form is still asking for your HN account) and there was absolutely no bullshit.
This was particularly clear in discussions about games - they were strictly about the technical or sociological aspects, no one would ever admit to playing (everyone's working on their starup, right?). I remember the first tentative comments from the player's perspective being scoffed at, and even today I feel a little dirty in those EVE online threads, heh.
Point is, knowing that "pg" was watching has always ensured a high quality of comments, and indirectly made HN the place to be.
Back to /r/programming it is then.
But maybe I'm old, and too familiar with HN, and too resistant to change, but HN's fuck-it-just-fill-the-column-with-a-table layout is comfortable in ways that I've only noticed when doing direct comparisons to HN-like sites.
In regards to the OP, I think that what HN loses in information density, it gains in "zen"...On the front page, there's simply less "conflict"...my mind feels more relaxed at looking at a single flat list...and when I click through to the comments, seeing just a long (and admittedly, too wide) column of comments. With the OP, my mind has to divide itself between scanning the list on the left and whatever may be on the right...and even if the right side is mostly blank (as it is with empty threads), something in my subconscious thinks that something is wrong...it's enough cognitive burden to make the experience not as effortless as it is with HN.
But I may be stretching here...HN works instinctively because I read it enough for its quirks to be instinctive. But the bigger picture is that HN, day in and day out, provides good reading material and almost never fails to disappoint in the comment threads...so any HN-clones, regardless of improved UI, still have that major hill to adoption to climb.
There's a "hello world" to biotech, no doubt; extract some DNA from strawberries or explore the tiny world with a consumer microscope.
But then what? There doesn't seem to be much potential mid-tier work to be done in biotech. In contrast with software where there is a very visible ladder you can climb.
Most of the biotech work seems to be in research, not development (unless you own a huge firm)
Where does one go after they've exhausted the basics, and how can you make money off of this stuff without working in a expensive lab for somebody else?
Background: Every time there's a new forum site, people often ask, "why not just create a subreddit or facebook group, etc". That would save much code, debugging, & traffic/marketing.
However, the reason people still create 3rd party forum sites is not out of foolishness. Rather, they are trying to control the community, & harvest the benefits of the community over time (by either influencing the community, or selling to the community, or both or more).
I like HN because it's better quality. The harvesting/controlling forces are very benign, & the community here is great at keeping things relevant.
It is a huge challenge, though, to build up a quality community anywhere.
Whilst I agree with danso's comment below, that there is too much to look at on harlembiospace.com vs. HN, I think a hybrid between the two would be great.
HN list layout with keyboard navigation!
Infact, if someone could build that into my Chrome HackerNews Extension suite I would be very happy!
Thanks to maccman for a great platform to build on
I'm not a big fan of the mobile version, but that's no critique. I haven't liked any of the mobile HN versions; I just use the regular site and zoom in anytime I want to vote on a submission or comment.
My only suggestion: I'd like to see the number of comments in the sidebar, so I know which articles already have active conversations going.
Nice work!
Hacker news -- https://news.ycombinator.com/
data scientist -- http://www.datatau.com/
Designers -- https://news.layervault.com/stories
finance -- http://www.boredbanker.com/
JavaScript -- http://www.echojs.com/
marketing -- http://www.inbound.org/
new Ideas -- http://firespotting.com/
growth hacking -- http://growthhackers.com/
tech -- https://lobste.rs/
finance (one more) -- http://www.streeteye.com/
biotech -- http://news.harlembiospace.com/
Others -- http://skimhn.com/ http://hckrnews.com/
(please add more)
PS Also very happy to check out OP's take on building an HN "clone". I am a math and science teacher, and keeping up with current science always makes my classes more interesting and relevant.
[edit: is this it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7399336 ]
F*ck it - list all the great aggregates like Hacker News.
> F*ck it - list all the great aggregates like Hacker News.
Got a link?
I really want this to work well.
I need an HN for biotech.
Sacha Greif's telesc.pe makes this really, really easy and it's all real-time.
Here is the one my team posted if you are interested: https://solvers.io/projects/R4Gr5vQTC8srHktEe
But there is still a desire to develop biological therapies and tools and businesses around them; I think it stems from the close ties --almost symbiotic ties -- between biotech and academia. It reminds me of the earlier days of computing, where those with big ideas were either working at an academic institution or closely associated with it in some way.
If you are affiliated with an institution, the barrier to start working on something "homebrewed" can be quite low. There has been a great upswing of biotech incubator spaces in the past 5-10 years; I presume this has to be partly driven by demand.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27680/...
http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2009/02/06/sticking-it-to-the...
Also nowadays there are biotech incubators with all the basic equipment where you can rent a bench for around $2k/month.
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v19/n12/full/nm1213-1556.ht... [Paywall]
[0] http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/18/aws-for-life-science-with-4...
For thousands of years, humankind has used biotechnology in agriculture, food production, and medicine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotechnology
It seems to me any farmer or homemaker can do "biotech." The question I have is not how can it be done but how do you market it? It seems to me the issue is one of getting taken seriously. The barrier to "entry" is not that high. You can do "biotech" in your kitchen or backyard. But finding a way to reach consumers, finding a way to monetize it, finding a way to convince people you aren't one of those folks wearing a tinfoil hat with a diagnosis of "batshit insane" -- those are challenges.
My original submission was a complete dud without a single upvote ~23 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7339368
I went to sleep feeling defeated after 2 months of work and went back to the drawing board in the morning.
I've been experimenting with various forms of advertising over the last few weeks since a one markmassie submit this to moderate traction ~19 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7364288
Unfortunately I was completely unaware of markmassie's submission (I was under the impression that it was impossible to submit the same URL twice to HN) trending on HN and was only able to defend my site and encourage adoption of it about 14 hours after the submission had made the front page and trickled down to the 3rd or 4th page on HN.
So no, I wouldn't say I have "succeeded" yet, but readership and commenting is slowly building: https://cryptanalys.is/newcomments.php
And we seem to have peaked some interests in india apparently: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/cryptanalys.is
"Soylent is a food substitute intended to supply all of a human body's daily nutritional needs, made from maltodextrin, rice protein, oat flour, canola oil, fish oil, and raw chemical powders." -Wikipedia
One thing we have in our favor for Biotech Pulse is the baseline community of 19 early stage companies and their teams here at Harlem Biospace. We are hoping since this community already exists in the shared space that this will be a strong seed for the online community to grow from.
That said, there are many biotech incubators across the country, so perhaps this isn't my/your favorite. But even so, I commend them for getting the site off the ground.
However, reading the team, I haven't really found any names I instantly recognize for doing something big/memorable for the industry. I'm not saying they're not qualified, they certainly are. (I'm in the biotech/biomed scene)
[Update: Before you read this wall 'o text, please consider the comment in the context of the update at the bottom.]
I disagree, YC is not an incubator. Well, to be fair, incubator is kind of a nebulous term.
I define incubator as: "entity that charges entrepreneurs for privileged access to ostensibly valuable [x y z]" or "entity that hires so called 'entrepreneurs in residence' to build companies under its roof in exchange for exorbitant equity."
YC is only superficially similar to whatever you would describe Harlem Biospace as.
The essential difference is in how the two types of entities derive value from their offering.
The distinction is that [YC, 500S, TechStars] invest in the upside of companies. Harlem [and its ilk] make money per unit of offering sold [units of monthly [x y z] access].
The reason "incubators" (the ones that charge entrepreneurs) are usually worse than the YC's of the world is because they adversely select for all the wrong things, as a side effect of their design.
Since an incubator ostensibly helps startups win big, why charge per unit [startup]? Why not invest in portfolio upside?
Per unit charges seem to be a good way of making money in the near term, at a constant rate (might not be sustainable if companies don't succeed in the long run.)
Upside investment seems like a good way to make money in the long run (assuming you are sufficiently able to (a) pick the right startups and/or (b) influence them to succeed.)
So investment seems to signal that you believe that you can do (a) and/or (b).
Sure, an investment portfolio may lose money on most of the companies. However, if it has a group of companies of sufficient expected success, one will likely reap massive returns.
If the value investors provide is worth enough to attract the right kinds of founders, the expected value of investing in entrepreneurs should exceed the expected value of charging entrepreneurs.
In the long run, charging per unit of offering, may signal that the long-term value of the seller's [x y z] offering is relatively low when compared to entities that are willing to invest in entrepreneurs.
Basically, if you value the unit cost higher than the investment return you are signaling that you (a) can't pick good startups and/or (b) you can't help a sufficient number succeed.
What kind of entrepreneur would want to go to that entity?
Since portfolio companies tend to return value later in their timeline, long-term value of offering is what matters. The YC's of the world are willing to eat the short-term costs and bet that they will influence some startups to return big.
The Harlem's of the world are making a constant per unit income, but are unwilling to bet on the long tail equity upside.
These incubators are not equivalent to [YC, 500S, TechStars], they are glorified co-working spaces.
[Update: If you've read this far, please see the discussion further on the thread. I unfairly characterized Harlem as an "incubator". Harlem Biospace certainly offers value. I do stand by my comment on "incubation" in the context of consumer internet companies. It's a different ball game for capital intensive industries. One aspect of Harlem is that it is affordable lab space that is group funded. Undeniably important.]
I don't think I'm that insightful, but thanks. I get the feeling we need "related" tags or something.
Edit: Apparently not. If anyone wants to see his post, they need to turn on show dead.
Whether or not our model changes in the future remains to be determined, however, as Dave mentions in his next comment the long timeframe tech risks inherent to investing in many early stage biotechs present some unique challenges to a YC model in biotech.
I stand by my original statement about "incubators", but now I'm weaseling out of calling you an "incubator". You definitely add essential early value.
Capital intensive companies definitely have different requirements than consumer internet companies at inception.
I'm really sorry about mis-characterizing you.
If it were up to me, I might consider re-branding as a sort of bio-coworking space or bio-collaborative space. For some reason, the word "incubator" makes me think 1999 Silicon Valley. But that's probably just me.
It would be really cool if you started investing, too.
Best of luck, I genuinely want you to succeed.
I'd like to point out, however, that there several thriving biotech incubators around the country. Surely the demand must be coming from somewhere when tenants must be found to pay the bills. Indeed, I think the startups that enter an incubator space are well aware of the rent prices, and do so to to take advantage of the certified lab space provided which is impractical to build on one's own.
A takeway from all this, for me, is that I'm wondering what one could do to make a biotech-focused YC a workable model. Unfortunately, the (comparatively) glacial pace of biotech startups dampens a lot of enthusiasm.
Yep, I was just about to update my answer with the following:
--[I want to emphasize that there isn't inherently wrong with co-working spaces. They just aren't in the same class as [YC, 500s, Techstars]
Also, I read up on Harlem, they claim that they are providing laboratory space. That's a pretty solid value add. So I can understand why they may be wary of losing their investment in capital.
I didn't consider this, but there is an argument to be made that things are different in more capital intensive industries. Unlike software, the incubator model may be more palatable in these industries.
Still, I think they should hypothetically re-price equity demands compared to software equity demands, not charge per unit. Just demand more equity.
Charging entrepreneurs is still bad signaling and can lead to adverse selection (if you market yourself as being equivalent to [YC 500s Techstars])--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A takeway from all this, for me, is that I'm wondering what one could do to make a biotech-focused YC a workable model. Unfortunately, the (comparatively) glacial pace of biotech startups dampens a lot of enthusiasm.
Honestly, I think it's a bit early for the YC model in biotech. Too many subsets of the market are just too capital intensive, time expensive, and subject to regulatory burden.
However, with exciting technologies like CRISPR and high throughput sequencing starting to come on to the scene, genetic engineering and DNA derived technologies may be much more viable as a low capital cost subset of the market. Also, DNA looks suspiciously like software embedded on extremely high density storage tape to me... :)