The Low-Coste Innovation Blog welcomes YOU

Welcome to the digital era of biology (and to this modest blog I started in early 2005).

To cure many diseases, like cancer or cystic fibrosis, we will need to target genes (mutations, for ex.), not organs! I am convinced that the future of replacement medicine (organ transplant) is genomics (the science of the human genome). In 10 years we will be replacing (modifying) genes; not organs!

Anticipating the $100 genome era and the P4™ medicine revolution. P4 Medicine (Predictive, Personalized, Preventive, & Participatory): Catalyzing a Revolution from Reactive to Proactive Medicine.

After low-cost airlines (Ryanair, Easyjet ...) comes "low-cost" participatory medicine. Some of my readers have recently christened this long-lasting, clumsy attempt at e-writing of mine "THE LOW-COSTE INNOVATION BLOG". My name's Catherine Coste. I've earned myself two MIT digital diplomas: 7.00x and 7QBWx. Instructor: Eric Lander PhD.

My motto: Go Where You Are Celebrated, Not Where You Are Tolerated.

I love Genomics. Would you rather donate your data, or... your vital organs?

Audio files on this blog are Windows files ; if you have a Mac, you might want to use VLC ( to read them.

Concernant les fichiers son ou audio (audio files) sur ce blog : ce sont des fichiers Windows ; pour les lire sur Mac, il faut les ouvrir avec VLC (

Appel à témoignage - Please share your experience - Teilen Sie Ihre Erfahrungen mit ! Don d'organes - Organ Donation - Organspende :

Appel à témoignage : lettre ouverte aux proches confrontés à la question du don d'organes (lire)

Please share your experience : letter to the attention of next-of-kin of donor-eligible individuals (read)

Im Krankenhaus oder in der Klinik wurden Sie nach dem mutmasslichen Willen Ihres Verwandten gefragt : ob er oder sie sich für Organspende ausgesprochen habe. Bitte teilen Sie Ihre Erfahrung mit ! (lesen)

Avertissement :

Merci de ne PAS poster de messages concernant la vente d'un organe et comportant des coordonnées téléphoniques, e-mail, etc. La loi française interdit la vente d'organes.

Affichage des articles dont le libellé est MANAGEMENT. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est MANAGEMENT. Afficher tous les articles

"Hackers are Innovators. Creativity is as important as literacy"

"Homo Sapiens is a profit-driven species"

"Personnellement je pense que la génomique pourrait à terme réduire le marché de la médecine réparatrice ... et cela ne doit pas plaire à certains ... il faut toujours essayer de comprendre pourquoi les gens disent ce qu'ils disent ... sachant que l'Homo Sapiens est guidé par son intérêt ..."

"My personal opinion is that genomic precision medicine will eventually disrupt replacement medicine... Now some people will embrace the change, some others won't, depending on where their interest lies. Homo Sapiens is a profit-driven species."

Jean-Michel Billaut, a French start-up validator.

"A life science recruiter's blog on placing R&D professionals"

In 10 years we will be replacing genes; NOT organs

"20% Doctors Included"

Article by Vinod Khosla:

"Healthcare today is broken. It’s the result of approaching medicine according to practice and tradition, rather than real science primed by objective data, and unencumbered with the conflicts of interest that lead to suboptimal results. Doctors today are doing the best they can given the current system, but we should embrace the new opportunities ahead of us.
Technology will reinvent healthcare as we know it. It is inevitable that, in the future, the majority of physicians’ diagnostic, prescription and administrative work, which over time may approach 80-percent of total doctor time, will be replaced by smart hardware and software. Healthcare will become more scientific and more consistent, delivering better-quality care with inexpensive data-gathering techniques, continual monitoring, more rigorous science and more available and ubiquitous information leading to personalized patient insight. Many new findings will be outside the reach of most physicians because of the volume of data and the unique holistic insights that data will provide about a patient’s very complex condition. Hundreds of thousands or even millions of data points may go into diagnosing a condition and monitoring the progress of a therapy or prescription, well beyond the capability of any human to adequately consider.
This evolution from an entirely human-based healthcare system to an increasingly automated system will take time, and there are many ways in which it can happen. Today’s traditional approaches will get better as new approaches, and even new medicine, will be invented. The remaining 20-percent of physicians’ work will be AMPLIFIED, making them even more effective. Doctors will be able to operate at substantially improved levels of expertise in multiple domains, and they also will be able to handle many more patients. The primary care physician and maybe even the nurse practitioner may be able to operate at the level of six specialists handling six areas of care for one patient with multiple comorbidities in a more coordinated and comprehensive manner without inter-specialist conflicts. This transition will affect each group of actors in the current system differently. Some constituencies will be affected favorably in some dimensions and worse in others, but the net benefit will be substantially positive for society and individual patients but it is likely that a focus on science, data, and personalization will lead to plenty of unintended benefits that we cannot anticipate today. Nurses will be made much more capable by technology, often replacing the functions only doctors perform today. New medical insights, including ones we cannot yet envision, will be commonplace, and the practices we follow will be substantially better validated by more rigorous scientific methods.
My statements are not forecasts that the hospital burn unit or emergency department will run without any humans on staff. Though the early changes will appear underwhelming and clumsy, by 2025 they will seem obvious, inevitable and well beyond the changes we might envision today. Expect today’s expert doctors to think these changes are implausible when they are asked about this possibility, and expect the classic response of “human judgment will not be replaced by technology” from people who are not qualified to judge what software technology in 2030 might be capable of.  Of course, the possibility also exists that a much more cooperative system leveraging both humans and technological systems in their respective strengths may also evolve, as proposed in the book Race Against the Machine, but the core functions necessary for complex diagnoses will more than likely be driven by machine judgment instead of human judgment.
The transition will happen in fits and starts along different pathways with many course corrections, steps backward and mistakes as we figure out the best approach. Given the importance of having clarity on what I hypothesize as my forecasts, I want to be clear that they are only directional guesses rather than precise predictions. Further, though many different disciplines will contribute to the innovation in medicine like biological research or new device development, I am mostly concerned with the contributions of digital health technologies to medical innovation. This should not be underemphasized, as these contributions, though potentially the most significant, are also the most variable, and hardest to predict in direction, timelines and scope..."

"Big Data, Genetics and Translation"

"Drugs act on these targets. Drugs are often small molecules and sometimes proteins, like antibodies, that will change the activity of a biological target. A drug has to be able to enter the body, do what it was designed to do and not mess around doing other things. Pharmaceutical companies are really good at making these.
Clinical trials involve giving a new (or repurposed) drug to a group of consenting people. They are jaw-droppingly expensive. Unfortunately, the vast majority (90%) of drugs ultimately fail to make it through clinical trials. A large proportion of those fail because the information on which they were based, from right at the start – the target protein– was not quite right.
What’s the problem? In short, it is that a billion-dollar phase III clinical trial is a very expensive way to discover that your drug wasn't changing the right target."

"Which of these clusters do you think has the brightest future ahead in biopharma?"

"Top 8 Biopharma Clusters in Asia"

  • #8. Malaysia

    "Next year marks 10 years since the country established its National Biotechnology Policy aimed at growing the industry into a 5% contributor to GDP by 2020. With six years to go, Malaysia has some accomplishments—including its number of companies (seventh with 200 as of 2012), thanks in part to the BioNexus incentives program. A Malaysian billionaire, Genting Group Chairman Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay, is lead investor in J. Craig Venter’s Human Longevity, which vows to assemble the world’s largest human gene sequencing operation. And on Wednesday, Indonesian-based Kimia Farma said it will expand its Malaysian presence beyond a single dispensary in Sepang: 'The number will increase. Our sales in Malaysia have continued to increase,' corporate secretary Djoko Rusdianto told Antara News. Malaysia also placed eighth in patents (1,190) and R&D spending ($4.953 billion in 2011)."
  • #7. Singapore

    "The dazzling Biopolis that anchors Singapore’s biopharma industry reflects how far the multi-ethnic city-state has come in building one of Asia’s fastest-growing industry clusters. Singapore hosts many of the largest industry giants including, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Roche, which account for many of its biopharma jobs (37,735 in 2012). The country is sixth in venture capital ($17.7 million to three companies), and sixth in patents (3,068), but lower in number of companies (eighth at 95 as of 2012), and R&D (seventh at $6.987 billion, of which more than $1.5 billion is for biomedical research)—though considerable research activity occurs at 30 public-sector institutes under the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (known as A*STAR) and the Ministry of Health."
  • #6. Australia

    "Despite embracing biopharma later than many Asian countries, Australia is actually second in the number of biotech and pharma patents (10,599), and fourth in number of companies (527 in 2011). The country saw investors flock to biopharma following the collapse of gold prices and an imploding mining sector, boosting both giants like ASX and new launches: 'How biotech finally boomed,' the Sydney Morning Herald headlined a feature on the industry in January. Australia ranked fifth in venture capital awards ($26.1 million to five companies) and sixth in IPOs ($6.8 million to Algae Tec in 2011). The land Down Under is also sixth in R&D spending (about $20.5 billion in 2010) but lags in number of jobs (13,000 as of last year)."
  • #5. Taiwan

    "Officials have set their sights on growing biotech for some two decades, and since 2007 have passed three laws designed to improve the business climate, joining with private funds to raise more than $2 billion for startups. One priority has been government R&D funding, where Taiwan ranked fourth by spending about $27.5 billion. That spend has helped build jobs (19,332 in 2011) and homegrown businesses, where Taiwan ranks fourth in IPOs ($25.1 million to a single company, Taiwan Liposome in 2012) and sixth in number of companies (400 in 2011). The country ranked seventh in both patents (2,281) and 2013–14 venture capital, thanks to the $17 million won by Senhua Biosciences in December."
  • #4. South Korea

    "Taking office last year, President Park Geun-hye excited biopharma industry leaders with her vision of a 'second miracle on the Han River.' The first was the transformation of the country a generation ago into an economic powerhouse by tying manufacturing with growth in several tech sectors—including biopharma, where South Korea shines in number of existing companies (second at 857 in 2010) and R&D spending (third at $65.394 billion in 2012). Earlier this month, Sanofi Pasteur said it will join homegrown SK Chemical to build a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine plant in Angdong. Domestic public company growth has stayed steady; South Korea finished fourth in patents (8,739) and fifth in IPOs ($17.5 million raised by a single company, Seegene) but startups lag, judging from a dearth of 2013–14 venture capital awards."
  • #3. India

    "FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., tried to balance criticism of some Indian drug manufacturers with praise for the country’s progress in building one of Asia’s biggest biopharma clusters with some 50,000 jobs (as of last year) during her recent trip to the subcontinent. Yet these days, even some industry professionals are critical; Krishna Ella, CMD of Bharat Biotech, complained: 'Students who graduate do not even know how to handle lab equipment sometimes.' India’s strengths are in company growth, ranking second in VC activity (more than $66 million to four companies) and fourth in IPOs (thanks to Claris Lifesciences raising $80 million in 2010). However, the country is fifth in both number of companies (about 500 as of last year) and at least fifth in R&D spending (figures range from $24.3 billion in 2007 to an estimated $40 billion in 2012), as well as fifth in patents (4,793)."
  • #2. Japan

    "The Land of the Rising Sun may soon be eclipsed in biopharma by China, whose great leap forward over a generation contrasts with Japan’s economic stagnation. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vows to grow a biotech industry alongside the legacy cluster of pharma giants, in part by speeding up decisions on new drugs and stepping up R&D spending; the nation will soon consolidate three agencies into a single research funding source akin to the U.S. NIH. Japan trails China in overall R&D funding (second at $151.8 billion in 2012); biomed R&D numbers vary wildly. There’s no question Japan’s on top in patents (39,797) and recent IPOs (nine companies raising $2.636 billion)—though the IPO figure was skewed by Otsuka Holdings’ $2.4 billion offering in 2010—while Japan finished third in companies (538 in 2011) and fourth in venture capital ($47.1 million to four companies)."
  • #1. China

    "China didn’t grant patents until 1984, and didn’t issue patents for biopharma inventions until eight years later. That explains why the world’s most populous nation, which is at or near the top in many of GEN’s cluster criteria, places only third in biotech and pharma patents with 9,302. In the decades that have followed, China has caught up impressively in biopharma, leading Asia in R&D spending ($160 billion biomedical of a $243.4 billion recorded by OECD), companies (7,500 as of last year), jobs (more than 250,000 as of last year), and venture capital ($73.9 million to five companies), while coming in second to Japan in IPOs (just under $2.1 billion raised by an Asian-leading 14 companies). Years of massive government spending on research explains why, as does a domestic pharma-and-herbal medicine sector growing with global biopharma giants, many drawn by lower-than-Western labor costs."