Pebble: Turning 'Virtual' to 'Actual'

I've watched the story of Kickstarter darling Pebble with great interest. Last year, their humble $100,000 goal to build a "Dick Tracy-style" smart-watch exploded into a ten million dollar campaign almost overnight. With the increased demand (~70,000 backers) came headaches - suddenly, Pebble had to have engineers, infrastructure, supply chains, and every other concern of a physical, bricks-and-mortar company.

A Bloomberg article from this morning, "Pebble Learns Why Most Startups Make Software," neatly summed up the situation: "Hardware is Hard." It's a similar sentiment to that expressed by many small biotechs: You need molecules made to test your theories and cure your target disease, but you don't want the staff, shipping, or facility overhead sitting on your cost sheet.

Thus, Pebble mimics a 'Virtual' Pharma company, where you get most everything done by off-site CROs. The model works great when you can control demand, whether shipping watches or drugs, but you have less control over how fast either gets done since you aren't personally building them!

Result: Customers get angry, or clinical trials get delayed.

I need to do more digging to paint a full picture, but the situation also mirrors Big Pharma. Over the past few decades, as mergers occur, labs are closed, equipment sold off, and long-time staff let go, pharma has found itself in a similar predicament: Who makes the molecules? For now, the outsourcing boom continues unabated, but one wonders if tech cautionary tales like Pebble's will inspire the next generation of pharma start-ups to move back to a model with (gasp!) actual chemists, hoods, and reagents.

Here's to incubators and shared synthesis spaces.

Don't You Want a 3-D Model of Meth?

Respectfully stolen from E.P.

I know I do! But that's not the only reason I'm donating $25 to Prof. Ethan Perlstein's Crowdsourcing Discovery project. In the States, today usually marks the start of the fevered Christmas shopping season - 'Black Friday' - so if you can afford to drop $200 on a laptop, or $500 on a flat screen TV...why not $25 to support science?

I know the arguments:

"Others will give, so I don't need to"
"I don't like the idea of supporting research into illegal drugs"
"So little money ($25K) can't possibly make a dent into real science"
"I already give to other charities"

OK, I hear you, but let me try to convince you. When's the last time you spent $25 on a single purchase? I'd guess that you bought an article of clothing, maybe some DVDs, or perhaps a lunch out? So...why not science? This money goes directly to research. No middlemen, no agencies, just scientists, equipment, and radioactive amphetamines!

What's not to like?

Christmas Cactus, Nov. 2012

Take the long view: As scientific funding becomes tighter for early-career academics and Fellows alike, this funding mechanism will play an ever-increasing role in supporting risk-takers and entrepreneurs. Look at the winners thus far on Indiegogo, Kickstarter, or RocketHub. Watches? Albums? Clothes? I say it could just as easily be Microscopes, Cells, and Chemicals.

Just in case your thumb locks up from excessive scrolling, I've pasted the project link here one more time. And I'll give Ethan's group the final word:

"Short-term rewards: the thrill of discovery, for us and for you. 

Long-term rewards: the increased certainty of new, more effective mental health drugs and more accurate diagnoses for everyone."

**P.S. Even Derek's into this! Again, what's not to like?