That was my first thought - my other comment put the initial onus on the journalist for creating a strawman opponent. However, when writing my second comment with a little history of systems biology - including within large pharma - I thought I should go watch the video. The founders basically say the same kind of stuff in their video. So we cannot blame it all on the journalist.

Ahh, I should have watched the video before I had the knee-jerk reaction to be so charitable. They could have just done what grad students are basically trained to do: use your narrow expertise to bullshit people and tie in some buzzwords that grant funding agencies like to hear. I hope I am just being cynical and that YC knows what they are doing here.

Our video definitely was geared toward a lay audience, but we tried not to use buzzwords and bullshit and to explain the science in a more accessible way. I'm curious to know what what bothered you about the video and we will try to communicate better - at least for me, conveying scientific ideas in an understandable way has been pretty challenging and I had hoped we did a good job in the video.

Does YC provide advice to tech companies about communicating complex ideas to not so technical writers and a non technical audience?

YC doesn't provide advice about this in a systematic way, but we have been trying to learn how to engage the lay public mostly from talking to other YC founders. It's hard to communicate the exact details that we want to share, but I hope that the spirit of our ideas comes across clearly.