With the rapid pace of events on the web and the information revolution sparked by the Internet, it’s very easy for the technology industry to think it’s unique: constantly breaking new ground and doing things that nobody has ever done before.

But there are other sorts of business that have already undergone some of the same radical shifts, and have just as great a stake in the future.

Take healthcare, for instance.

We often think of it as a huge, lumbering beast, but in truth, medicine has undergone a series of revolutions in the past 200 years that are at least equal to those we see in technology and information.

The first stirrings of modern chemistry and biology were only just beginning in the 19th century, but by 1967, Christiaan Barnard started transplanting hearts. Similarly, it was only in the 1950s Watson and Crick discovered DNA. Less than 50 years later, the first draft of the human genome was produced. If that’s not rapid, world-shattering change, then what is?

Pharma has also faced other challenges the web industry is only now starting to realize. Products are slow to make, and drugs can take years to design, test and manufacture. Accordingly, R&D spending in pharmaceuticals is very high overall; according to the European Union (PDF), five of the world’s top 10 companies by R&D spend are in drugs or biotechnology (among traditional technology companies, only Microsoft, Nokia and Samsung feature in the list). And it’s a far greater proportion of total turnover (Pfizer spends around one seventh of revenues on research, Apple spends around one dollar on R&D for every 13 it brings in).

And where the planet’s electronics giants spend billions attempting to end piracy and patent infringement, pharmaceutical companies are rapidly adjusting to the fact that they only get 12 years before patent protection ends and other companies can introduce generic drugs. Imagine a situation where Windows 98 was already old enough to be forcibly open-sourced, and you get the idea of how disruptive that might be.

So, what does the pharmaceutical industry have to teach us?

First, be careful. Your property and ideas won’t be yours for long.

Second, while new discoveries are important, revolutions can be reliably predicted, most of the time. From the outside, Barnard’s transplants were a radical shift in surgery. From inside the profession, it was the next obvious step after previous organ transplants.

Third, the way money is being spent will inevitably change. It’s already happening: an issue addressed by the latest VC bulletin from Go4Venture, a London-based advisory group for European entrepreneurs and investors (you can sign up here). Their latest dispatch outlines the state of deal-making in Europe (more of them, but less valuable, as reflected in figures we wrote about last month), and they also point out Europe’s technology financing system is undergoing a significant shift:

[there is a] major structural change in European venture capital financing where corporates will play a more prominent role going forward. Corporates are facing a lasting ex-growth market environment (courtesy of debt-laden Western economies) and realise that internal R&D is rather expensive and just cannot cover the whole front of innovation.

For corporates, investing in start-ups has the added advantage of encouraging a more entrepreneurial culture inside and creating a stream of acquisition opportunities.

Pharma has been there before, in an early move precipitated by proprietary drugs coming off patent, and we are now seeing the pharma model spreading to other IP-driven sectors.

Spending more of the R&D budget on other companies doesn’t just mean acquisition, of course — although the startup world is very familiar with the process and it’s clearly the most common option. Just yesterday, Google spent $60 million making the slightly odd move to buy British price comparison website BeatThatQuote. It could also mean more early investment in small companies, like the $100,000 Microsoft is putting into Moscow-based anti-piracy startup Pirate Pay.

But what it does mean is, ultimately, the growth in the number of deals we’re seeing is going to get faster, and there will be more opportunities for innovative startups and smart entrepreneurs. Twinned with the aggressive, high valuation investing strategy of a company like Russia’s Digital Sky Technologies, it seems more likely than not we’ll see things explode, in Europe and elsewhere, over the next year or two.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

A 2011 NewNet Forecast

A 2011 Mobile Forecast

A 2011 Connected Consumer Forecast

Hullabaloo

Friday, March 04, 2011

No Money For Anything

by digby

I guess women with unwanted pregnancies and cervical cancer are expected to leave the state because otherwise these "savings" aren't going to materialize. Children and cancer are expensive:

While Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) continues to wait out the state's Senate Democrats on his budget bill that would strip collective bargaining rights from public employee unions, a growing number of Wisconsin's abortion-rights advocates worry that they have become his next target.
In 2009, Wisconsin passed a "contraceptive equity" law that requires health insurance plans in the state that cover prescription drugs to include contraceptives. Proponents argued that the measure was necessary to ensure that commercial health providers -- who cover approximately one-third of the state's residents -- don't discriminate against women. "Contraceptive Equity is about fairness, preventing gender discrimination, and access to basic health care," reads a statement on the website for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

Walker's budget released this week would repeal the 2009 law. His budget summary called it an "unacceptable government mandate on employers with moral objections to these services,” adding that it “increases the cost of health insurance for all payers."

The governor is also proposing the elimination of the Title V Maternal and Child Health program, which receives a mix of federal, state and local funds to provide family planning services. Uninsured men and women can currently receive this care, which includes cervical and prostate cancer screenings, access to birth control and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.

Walker's budget estimates that Wisconsin would save $1.9 million annually by eliminating the Title V program, whose money goes to family planning centers such as Planned Parenthood. But Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin spokeswoman Amanda Harrington argued that more than 50 health centers in the state would be deprived of a total of $4 million once the federal and local funds are included. (Planned Parenthood receives roughly one-quarter of that money.) In many cases, Harrington said, these health centers are the only providers in the area and deliver critical care.

Planned Parenthood is not a new target for Walker. While campaigning for governor in April, he told the Wisconsin Right to Life convention that during his time as a state legislator, he was proud of "trying to defund Planned Parenthood and make sure they didn’t have any money, not just for abortion, but any money for anything."

That's quite a statement. Meanwhile down in Texas they're trying to save the silly little girls from themselves:

Women seeking an abortion would have to first get an ultrasound under a measure approved on Thursday by the Texas House of Representatives.

The proposal, the first significant bill considered by the House this year, was designated by Republican Governor Rick Perry as an emergency priority. A similar measure has already been approved by the state Senate.

Women would have to get an ultrasound between 24 and 72 hours before an abortion, the bill says. They would view the sonogram, hear an explanation of the image and listen to the heartbeat, if it is audible.

"We want to make sure that they're fully informed, that they understand the medical consequences, the psychological consequences and everything involved in the procedure," said the bill's author, Republican state Rep. Sid Miller.

Opponents said that the requirement would traumatize women already in a difficult situation. During debate on the House floor, bill opponent Rep. Carol Alvarado held up a trans-vaginal probe used for sonograms early in pregnancy to illustrate what she called a "very intrusive process."

"This is not the jelly on the belly that most of you think," said Alvarado, a Houston Democrat. "This is government intrusion at its best."

I'd say so. Shoving a probe into a woman's vagina for the sole purpose of making her change her mind doesn't sound like a "medical procedure" to me. It sounds like a form of coercive torture. I guess we should be happy they haven't required them to be tasered while they're in there just to make the point. Of course, that might harm the fetus and fetuses are sacred until they're outside the female vessel. (Then it's no holds barred.)

I think it's adorable that so many of our Village scribes continue to insist that the "new conservatives" are just a bunch of fiscal hawks trying to cut the fat, but it's wishful thinking. they are the same old same old, and as I wrote in the previous post, the reason they are fiscal hawks is the same reason they are social conservatives: to stop people they don't like (in this case pregnant women who want to exercise their constitutional right to abortion) from doing things they don't like.

.

digby 3/04/2011 05:30:00 PM

|

bench craft company reviews

About Me 0069

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Making Money With Website

Hullabaloo

Friday, March 04, 2011

<b>News</b> Budgets Busted By Cost Of Covering Disasters

URGENT: Plutonium detected in soil at Fukushima nuke plant: TEPCO <b>...</b>

How To Install Managing <b>News</b> On Ubuntu | HowtoForge - Linux Howtos <b>...</b>

No comments:

Post a Comment