It seems to me that the most immediate implication of inexpensive genome sequencing (23andMe et al) is the ability to tailor an individual’s medical care based on their genetic information.
America’s legal system has miles of catching up to do before any genome-informed personalized medicine solutions can come to market. 2008’s Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was necessary to ensure that biomedical research continues to advance and so that patients are comfortable availing themselves to genetic diagnostic tests.
There are really unresolved issues: (1) who should ultimately have access to the results of genetic testing? (2) when should a physician divulge information regarding patients’ liabilities for certain diseases? (3) who can decide that someone’s genome should be sequenced?
Re: 1 In the 90s the Icelandic government contracted DeCODE Genetics as the monopolistic provider of genome testing in order to prevent fragmentation in genetic data libraries, so as to aggregate more genomes to better inform resource allocation for drug production. But in the wrong hands, the government could put this information towards policy measures that might vaguely resemble eugenics-based methods of control. There are pros and cons that have yet to be decided.
Re: 2 Supposing that physicians have access to patients' genomes, the matter arises of if and when to divulge information regarding their liability for certain diseases. The default should be to give the patient the right to any amount of information. The actual amount of this information to be shared by the physician, however, should be determined on a case-by-case basis through a conversation between the physician and the patient in question. The true litmus test for this question is the net benefit to the patient. Supposing that a patient is at low risk for a disease and the treatment for this disease would be expensive and time-consuming, a physician would most likely be less inclined to divulge this liability, but there are still no standards of disclosure- we’ll see what happens.
Re: 3 We’ve already banned insurers and employers from mandating genetic testing, so the closest analogue seems to be the relationship between a parent or guardian and a child. There is precedent that caretakers in a better position to make decisions for a minor or impaired individual should be given the ability to do so. Still, the issue remains of how parents will react to the results of testing. It’s likely that sequencing a baby's genome will eventually become a legal requirement for newborns much like a birth certificate, but until that point the question of who decides and pays for genome sequencing remains.
All things considered, I say fuck it- the legal infrastructure will catch up with personalized medicine and the genetic testing companies and drug manufacturers already making use of the information will be in the best position to take advantage of it. Paddle early.
One thing you're wrong about- RE brokerage is under heavy fire right now and is being attacked by many, many startups.
The strongest moat that’s defended residential RE brokerage from disruption is the interdependent nature of the business. Because both the buyer and seller are represented by agents in most transactions, brokers must collaborate to close deals at the same time as they compete for listings. Buyers’ agents have an incentive only to show their clients homes whose sellers offer them a standard 3% commission. To attract more listings and still retain interest, sometimes seller’s agents offer to cut their own fees while still offering the full price to the buying agent. The reason that this approach hasn’t become widespread and significantly whittled down commission standards is that the vast majority of sellers’ agents are also buyers’ agents, meaning that both parties have a vested interest in preserving the commissions on either side of the table.
Because of this solidarity among buyers’ and sellers’ agents, the only way for the brokerage business to be hacked and rendered truly competitive is for one half of the equation to vanish. Either FSBO listings will have to become so widespread that sellers’ agents largely disappear from the picture or property search, negotiations, and closings have to be made so simple that buyers’ agents fade to irrelevance. But when one side crumbles, both sides do.
IMO, it's far easier to hack the buying-side process than the selling process. RealDirect and DotLoop are interesting in that they try to essentially automate the process of selling a property yourself (RealDirect by providing appraisal services, submitting listings to MLSes, and curating marketing channels etc. and DotLoop by standardizing legal docs/paperwork), but these companies face an uphill battle in convincing sellers that they are every bit as talented at receiving top dollar for their home.
IMO, the best way to hack the industry is to streamline combine a Trulia/Zillow/StreetEasy proprietary MLS with DotLoop's standardized legal/paperwork management system. The one missing piece is data-driven appraisals accurate enough to convince buyers of their worthiness. Nobody's quite got this down yet, but Kwelia seems to be closest. The trouble is that not enough sales data is available to accurately correlate prices to location/amenities/property info. Although most US cities maintain public data mines that contain title documents, many buyers mask their purchase prices with evasive chicanery that reads along the lines of "sold for $10 and other goods of significant consideration".
All that being said, your model of offering perks is an interesting way of convincing attracting clients to an existing brokerage. Partner with some furniture suppliers/local businesses to offer some exclusive discounts and I think you're onto something.
Unfortunately, good subletting opportunities can be quite difficult to find most buildings explicitly prohibit the behavior.
I'm not sure how old you are, but depending on your age, you may be eligible for summer housing through studenthousing.org. NYU and Pace also have great summer dorming options, but they only offer housing for the entire summer rather than for specific time frames (which will likely be a problem given the nature of DreamIt's Israel-NYC time split).
Good thinking! I was thinking about which edutech play was really the most interesting and couldn't quite settle on one. There's really no dominant contender yet, so I'll hold off until the next list.
America’s legal system has miles of catching up to do before any genome-informed personalized medicine solutions can come to market. 2008’s Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was necessary to ensure that biomedical research continues to advance and so that patients are comfortable availing themselves to genetic diagnostic tests.
There are really unresolved issues: (1) who should ultimately have access to the results of genetic testing? (2) when should a physician divulge information regarding patients’ liabilities for certain diseases? (3) who can decide that someone’s genome should be sequenced?
Re: 1 In the 90s the Icelandic government contracted DeCODE Genetics as the monopolistic provider of genome testing in order to prevent fragmentation in genetic data libraries, so as to aggregate more genomes to better inform resource allocation for drug production. But in the wrong hands, the government could put this information towards policy measures that might vaguely resemble eugenics-based methods of control. There are pros and cons that have yet to be decided.
Re: 2 Supposing that physicians have access to patients' genomes, the matter arises of if and when to divulge information regarding their liability for certain diseases. The default should be to give the patient the right to any amount of information. The actual amount of this information to be shared by the physician, however, should be determined on a case-by-case basis through a conversation between the physician and the patient in question. The true litmus test for this question is the net benefit to the patient. Supposing that a patient is at low risk for a disease and the treatment for this disease would be expensive and time-consuming, a physician would most likely be less inclined to divulge this liability, but there are still no standards of disclosure- we’ll see what happens.
Re: 3 We’ve already banned insurers and employers from mandating genetic testing, so the closest analogue seems to be the relationship between a parent or guardian and a child. There is precedent that caretakers in a better position to make decisions for a minor or impaired individual should be given the ability to do so. Still, the issue remains of how parents will react to the results of testing. It’s likely that sequencing a baby's genome will eventually become a legal requirement for newborns much like a birth certificate, but until that point the question of who decides and pays for genome sequencing remains.
All things considered, I say fuck it- the legal infrastructure will catch up with personalized medicine and the genetic testing companies and drug manufacturers already making use of the information will be in the best position to take advantage of it. Paddle early.