Biotech venture capitalist Bruce Booth recently wrote about VC funding in tech versus biotech and his concept of “flux” in entrepreneurial ecosystems.

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.

Screen Shot 2014-09-24 at 5.10.19 PMBottom line: there’s a lot more in tech, and if there was that much early-stage investment in biotech it would create a glut that would be difficult to digest at later stages.

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.

In general we have been illuminating the differences between tech and life science, especially biotech, start-up ecosystems for awhile now (see: here and here), we do not cheerlead for either.

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.