CS academics would have no interest in the majority of YC software startups, because most of them are not innovating in CS, they're just using software as a tool for business model innovation.

Biotech startups are fundamentally different in that they're driven by scientific advances, which is exactly what life scientists in academia are trying to produce.

That's exactly my point. Silicon valley used to be driven by scientific advances too. But at some point the science got good enough that the engineering and business logic decoupled from the science. That will happen in biology, maybe it's now.

> at some point the science got good enough that the engineering and business logic decoupled from the science. That will happen in biology, maybe it's now.

It's definitely not now. The thing holding back biotech isn't business model innovation, it's technical difficulties - what the scientists are tackling. You can't compare semiconductor innovation to biological research - one system was man-made to be as reliable and robust as possible, whereas the other one is still largely utterly incomprehensible.

My sense is that the vast majority of people on HN touting rapid advances in biology have never actually spent any time reading up on the scientific literature, and haven't spent any time doing life science research. The same goes for most of the YC partners, which has led to their selecting companies that often have fatal flaws that are immediately apparent to anyone with life sciences expertise.