Read his post, but the basic takeaway is that biotech start-up supply is constrained and the sector is a good one in which to invest because it is currently in a better position to withstand a boom-bust cycle driven by exit pressure.
A follow-up post elaborates on the pretty stark differences between very early stage investment in tech versus biotech.
We believe this insight dovetails with our observation that biotech often requires some very early and extremely high risk proof-of-concept and other validation work that tends to be funded (and increasingly so) by non-traditional capital such as grants, venture philanthropy and so forth. Tech does not have the same challenges, so ideas tend to get to the angel investing stage quickly.
What we do strongly support is investment in hard science, and the licensing, translation and commercialization of research. This is in our view the type of start-up activity that stands the greatest chance of generating the broadest benefit to society in terms of life quality, jobs and economic diversity.