The fate of the US biotech start-up 23andMe was entirely predictable; it just took too long (Lex, March 26).
In 1998 I founded DNA Sciences (yes! dna.com) with formidable venture backing and an august board including Jim Watson (who with Francis Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA) and Jim Clark (co-founder of the Netscape browser company).
On August 1, 2000 we launched the web-based Gene Trust, a platform to recruit patients online to participate in studies to identify the genetics of common disease. Thousands participated. At our peak we were spending $3mn a month.
Six years later, long after the demise of DNA Sciences, 23andMe essentially copied our efforts but focused almost entirely on brand creation making DNA collection “celebrity cool”. Indeed, they created significant brand awareness. What they apparently have not experienced was our own early “epiphany” that doing genetics was not a business model. This revelation was true for the other significant companies sequencing and genotyping — Incyte Corp, deCode Genetics, Celera Genomics, to name a few. Though deCode has been fantastically productive doing first-rate genetic studies, it nevertheless had to find a sponsor in Amgen to sustain its efforts. Indeed, Big Pharma, most significantly GSK, has “dabbled” in genetic studies to the tune of billions with very little to show for it over the last 25 years.
The brand equity of 23andMe has been destroyed and leaves a stain on such efforts, given the low quality of the personal medical data and the constant threat of breaches. DNA sequence is now a commodity and large-scale efforts, sponsored by the government and foundations such as UK Biobank, render commercial efforts inadequate and irrelevant.
Genetics has an unbelievable allure, perhaps even more to non-geneticists, but most DNA data is gangue, not ore. It is the individual prospectors mining big DNA databases who occasionally hit pay dirt.
Hugh Young Rienhoff Jr MD
CEO, Aluco BioSciences
San Carlos, CA, US
