本集简介
双语字幕
仅展示文本字幕，不包含中文音频；想边听边看，请使用 Bayt 播客 App。
他们向你兜售的未来是AI将让你变得过时或无足轻重。
You're being sold an AI future where you're obsolete or irrelevant.
这种愿景是错误的。
That vision is wrong.
在Palantir，他们正在构建帮助工人并释放其全部潜能的AI。
At Palantir, they're building AI that helps workers and unlocks their full potential.
美国工人是我们国家最强大的力量。
American workers are our nation's greatest strength.
AI不应该淘汰他们。
AI shouldn't eliminate them.
而应该提升他们。
It should elevate them.
Palantir在此讲述他们的故事。
Palantir is here to tell their stories.
从工厂到医院，AI正在将人们从单调工作中解放出来，让他们专注于人类最擅长的事：创造、解决、建设。
From factories to hospitals, AI is freeing people from drudgery, letting them do what humans do best, create, solve, build.
Palantir，让美国人变得不可替代。
Palantir, making Americans irreplaceable.
也许你已经了解过裸卖空。
Maybe you already know about naked short selling.
也许你自己也曾做过股票卖空。
Maybe you personally shorted stocks yourself.
但你知道卖空者差点毁掉超级碗的那次事件吗？
But do you know about the time short sellers ruined the Super Bowl basically?
对我来说，我反应有点慢，但危险信号不断出现，我就想，到底发生了什么？
For me, I was a little late, but red flags went up like, what is going on?
这真的很可怕。
This is this is really scary.
在《金钱星球》节目中，我们讲述金钱背后的故事，解释金钱如何运作。
At planet money, we get the story behind the money to explain how money works.
请在NPR应用或你获取播客的任何平台收听。
Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
大家好，Odd Lots的听众们。
Hey there, Odd Lots listeners.
又到了一年中的这个时候。
It is that time of the year.
我们将在播客中再次进行电话访谈节目。
Again, we are going to be doing a call in show on the podcast.
你们可以向我们提出任何迫切的问题。
You can ask us any of your burning questions.
没错。
That's right.
想咨询我们关于金融、市场和经济学的问题吗？
You wanna ask us about finance markets and economics?
尽管问吧。
Go for it.
想了解我们今年在播客领域的动态吗？
You wanna ask us about the year in podcasting?
尽管问吧。
Go for it.
你想问特蕾西养鸡的情况吗？
You wanna ask about where Tracy is with growing chicken or raising chickens?
养鸡。
Growing chickens.
在她位于康涅狄格州日益扩大的农场里养鸡。
Raising chickens on her on her burgeoning farm in Connecticut.
尽管问吧。
Go for it.
这是你向我们提问的机会。
This is your chance to ask us anything.
乔最喜欢的牛排部位。
Joe's favorite cut of steak.
对吧？
Right?
我最喜欢的牛排部位，还有东村最爱的中餐馆。
My favorite cut of steak, my favorite Chinese restaurant in the East Village.
一切皆可问。
It's all fair game.
好的。
Alright.
你只需将包含问题、姓名、年龄和所在地的语音备忘录发送至oddlots@Bloomberg.net。
All you have to do is send a voice memo with your question, your name, your age, and your location to oddlots@Bloomberg.net.
提交截止日期是12月17日，请尽快发送。
Deadline to submit is December 17, so get them in as soon as you can.
我们很期待听到你们的问题，嗯。
We're looking forward to hearing what what you have to ask, and, yeah.
即将揭晓。
That's coming up.
彭博音频工作室。
Bloomberg Audio Studios.
播客
Podcasts.
广播
Radio.
新闻
News.
大家好，欢迎收听新一期的Odd Lots播客节目
Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots Podcast.
我是特雷西·阿洛韦
I'm Tracy Allaway.
我是乔·维森塔尔
And I'm Joe Wiesenthal.
乔，我们今天早上在做问答环节
Joe, we were doing a Q and A this morning.
没错
That's right.
这是一个
It was a
非常有趣的过程。
lot of fun.
继续说吧。
Go on.
一场现场问答环节。
A live Q and A.
有人问我们是否会制作更多关于医疗保健的节目。
And someone asked a question about whether or not we're gonna do more health care episodes.
哦。
Oh.
我们做得还不够多，对吧？
We don't do enough, do we?
是的，我们确实不够。
No, we don't.
这背后是有原因的。
And there's a reason for that.
我个人对美国医疗体系感到非常畏惧。
I personally am incredibly intimidated by The US healthcare system.
我完全搞不懂它。
I do not understand it at all.
对我来说这完全是个谜。
It is just a complete mystery to me.
但当时我很高兴能回答那个问题，就在同一天
But I was very happy to say in response to that question that this same day
没错。
That's right.
我们正在录制一期医疗主题节目，嘉宾是我们一直很想对话的人。
We're actually recording a health care episode with someone that we've wanted to speak to for for a long time.
我也有同感，首先确实如此。
I'm the same way in the sense that first of all, yes.
我也一样，对医疗体系的运作机制知之甚少。
I'm the same way in the sense that I really do not know much about how the health care system works.
我甚至不知道从何问起才算切题。
I I don't even know where to begin asking the right questions.
这就是你的工作内容。
This is all you do.
你得随机开始一期节目，从中获得下个问题、下期内容的灵感火花。
You have to just start a random episode, and that gives you the germs of the next question, the next episode, the next episode.
但这个体系如此庞大复杂，究竟该先提出什么问题呢？
But it seems so big and sprawling, etcetera, that what is the first question to ask?
所以我们只能直接切入，先选一个主题——正如现在做的这样，或许能由此引出一系列早就该做的医疗专题节目。
So we just have to plunge right in and just pick one, which we're doing now, and then maybe that will lead to the string of health care episodes, we should have done a long time ago.
完全正确。
That's exactly right.
当前医疗领域还有大量新动态，我们不久前刚录制了一期关于中国生物科技企业的节目。
There's also a lot of new stuff happening in health care at the moment, and we've recorded an episode on Chinese biotechs a little while ago.
那真是令人着迷。
That was incredibly fascinating.
确实如此。
Definitely.
我对美国生物科技投资领域的动态非常好奇，我们确实还计划了一期与此有些关联的节目。
I'm very curious to see what's going on on The US side of biotech investing, and we do have another episode planned that's sort of tangentially related to that.
但显然，我们有很多话题可以聊。
But clearly, there's a lot to talk about.
这位嘉宾另一个非常符合Oddlots风格的特点是——我们喜欢那些拥有有趣职业经历的人。
The other very oddlots y thing with this guest is we like people who have interesting career histories.
对吧？
Right?
没错。
That's right.
他们如何走到今天这一步，往往是个非常有趣的问题。
How we how they got to where they are today is often a very interesting question.
要知道，我对那些按部就班走常规路线的人没有任何意见，比如那些读完大学又拿了MBA的人。
You know, I have nothing against people who just took the normal path, people who just sort of, you know, went to college and they got their MBA.
所以好吧，你原谅他们。
So, okay, you forgive them.
我原谅他们。
I forgive them.
这完全没问题。
That's totally fine.
但听听那些可能从'侧门'进入这个领域的人的故事也很有意思。
But it's also interesting to hear about the people who maybe walked in through the side door, so to speak.
确实如此。
Absolutely.
所以我们确实请到了最合适的嘉宾。
So we do, in fact, have the perfect guest.
这位嘉宾不仅对美国医疗体系有深刻见解，还是一位生物科技投资人，同时曾是Chester French乐队的主唱。
We have someone who has a lot of thoughts on US health care and who is also a biotech investor and also formerly the lead singer of Chester French.
那么D.
So D.
A.
A.
沃勒克，欢迎来到我们的节目。
Wallach, welcome to the show.
非常感谢你的到来。
Thanks so much for coming on.
谢谢邀请我，各位。
Thanks for having me, guys.
我可是《Odd Lots》的忠实粉丝。
I'm a I'm a Odd Lots junkie.
这感觉就像参加格莱美奖一样。
So this is like going to the Grammys.
太棒了。
Amazing.
啊，谢谢，你
Aw, thank Did you
曾经获得过格莱美奖吗？
ever win a Grammy?
没有。
No.
别往我伤口上撒盐。
Don't rub me in.
抱歉。
Sorry.
对不起。
Sorry.
我不该提这个的。
I shouldn't have I shouldn't have.
应该说'目前还没有'才对。
Not not yet is the right answer.
还没有。
Not yet.
还没有。
Not yet.
还没有。
Not yet.
我想我的第一个问题应该是：你能和我们谈谈音乐人、医疗健康与生物科技之间的联系吗？以及你是如何进入这个领域的？
I guess my first question should be can you talk to us about the through line between being a musician and healthcare and biotech and how you got into this space?
因为我觉得，至少可以说这不是一个自然的转型。
Because I think, you know, it's not a natural transition, to say the least.
是的。
Yeah.
好吧，我先告诉你我是怎么开始做这个的，然后我会尝试从理论上把它们联系起来。
Well, I'll tell you how I ended up doing this, and then I'll try to connect them theoretically in some way.
可能有点牵强。
It might be a little tenuous.
在我有限的成年生活中，基本上已经经历了三种职业。
I've basically had three careers so far in my limited adult life.
我曾是专业摇滚乐手，在你提到的那支乐队里待了好几年。
I was a professional rock musician with the band that you mentioned for several years.
后来我偶然进入了风投领域，大约十三年前投资了Spotify。
And then I kind of slipped into the venture capital world when I invested in Spotify about thirteen years ago.
作为音乐人，这家公司几乎是私募市场上我唯一能真正理解的标的。
And that was pretty much the only company in the private markets I was well positioned to understand as a musician.
通过这次成功投资，我开始领略风投的魅力，随后涉足不同行业的其他投资，参与了SpaceX、Ripple等多家有趣初创公司。
And through the success of that, I got turned on to how exciting venture capital was, started doing other types of investments across different industries, was involved in SpaceX and Ripple and a bunch of interesting other startups.
最终，我认识的一位朋友创办了一家早期医疗保健公司。
And then ultimately, a guy I knew started an early stage healthcare company.
那是家名为Doctor on Demand的远程医疗初创企业。
It was a telemedicine startup called Doctor on Demand.
当时远程医疗还不是热门话题，因为那时新冠疫情尚未爆发。
And telemedicine at the time was not a hot topic because this is pre COVID.
所以我们主要还是亲自去看医生。
So we still primarily went to the doctor in person.
当我进行那项投资时，我开始深入了解我们的医疗体系，并对其混乱愚蠢的程度感到震惊。
And when I made that investment, I started to learn more and more about our healthcare system and was just blown away by how screwed up and stupid it was.
后来这逐渐演变成对生物技术和其他医疗关键子领域的深入学习。
And then that eventually evolved into learning more about biotechnology and the other sub sectors of healthcare that are critical to medicine.
最终这成为了我的职业。
And it's ended up being what I do.
关于音乐与这些领域的联系，我有几点思考。
In terms of the connection between music and any of this stuff, there are a couple of ways I can think about it.
其一是如今我告诉人们，我的工作就像是科学家的唱片制作人。
One is I tell people now my job is like being a record producer for scientists.
所以两者间存在些许相似之处。
So there's a little bit of a parallel there.
但另一方面，我认为音乐在融合艺术与商业方面存在独特的挑战。
But the other is that I think there's a unique challenge in music to combining art and commerce.
在医疗保健领域也存在类似的并行挑战——如何将医学与资本主义结合？这两者本就不太兼容。
And in healthcare, there's a similar parallel challenge, which is how do you combine medicine and capitalism, which don't naturally go together very well?
这个制作人的比喻非常贴切。
The producer analogy makes a ton of sense.
而且你知道，可能有很多音乐人确实才华横溢。
And, you know, there are probably a lot of musicians who are really brilliant.
他们是出色的音乐家，但无论出于什么原因，机遇没有降临到他们身边，所以未能成功。
They're really great musicians, but for whatever reason, the lightning doesn't strike where they are or doesn't strike nearby, and they don't take off.
可能许多杰出的科学家也是如此，但从卓越科学到商业成功的道路往往充满曲折，在很多方面都令人气馁。
Probably many brilliant scientists, etcetera, but the path from brilliant science to commercial blockbuster can often, I assume, be tricky or dispiriting in many ways, etcetera.
具体到生物科技，在所有投资领域中，它给我的感觉完全是个与众不同的世界。
Biotech specifically, of all the things in investing, biotech strikes me as this whole different world than the rest of investing.
当我想到软件公司时，感觉就像'哦，好吧'。
When I think of a software company, it's like, oh, okay.
他们已经积累了这些客户，而且客户流失率很低等等。
Well, they've accumulated these clients and their churn is low, etcetera.
是啊，这种有市场吸引力的公司看起来会持续增长。
Yeah, this seems like a company that has traction is gonna grow.
说到生物技术，就像是，好吧，这里有个序列专利，可能十年后会被批准用于某种疗法。
When it comes to biotech, it's like, okay, here's some patent on a sequence and maybe ten years from now it'll get approved to something that'll be a therapy.
似乎要困难得多，比如要找出什么样的经验法则可以用来判断这项科学很可能转化为商业成果。
It seems so much harder to figure out like, what are the heuristics that one would use to establish this is a likely this science is likely going to turn into a business.
哦，这绝对没错。
Oh, that's absolutely true.
对投资者来说这完全是另一种范式。
It's like a completely different paradigm as an investor.
我认为典型的生物科技公司就像一袋期权。
I think the typical biotech company is like a bag of options.
公司研发的每一种成功药物都可能价值数十亿美元。
And each one of the drugs that the company is working on in success could be worth billions of dollars.
但这往往至少需要十年时间。
But that's ten years away, often minimum.
因此你试图根据它们的最终潜在规模乘以成功概率来定价。
And so you're trying to price things based on their ultimate potential scale times their probability of succeeding.
不幸的是，从基础成功率来看，成功概率非常低。
And unfortunately, the base rates in terms of probability of success are very low.
以小分子药物为例（这是药物研发的主要领域之一），从最初构想到获得FDA批准并上市销售，基础成功率大约只有5%。
So if you take small molecules, which is one major area of drugs, the base case is like a five percent probability of success from the original idea to an FDA approval and a marketed drug.
相比之下，抗体药物（即所谓的生物制剂）或其他类药物，其先验成功率会更高些，这些药物本质上比小分子药物更可能成功。
Now, you get to a higher sort of prior probability with antibodies or so called biologics, other classes of drugs that are intrinsically more likely to work than small molecules.
但即便如此，在所有情况下你面对的都是很低的成功率。
But still in every case, you're dealing with very low probabilities of success.
作为生物科技投资者，整个挑战在于如何管理这些低概率事件，构建仍然可能盈利的投资组合——尽管每个单独项目成功的可能性都很低。
And the entire challenge as a biotech investor is how do you manage those low probability events and build portfolios that are still likely to make money, despite the fact that each individual project is relatively unlikely to work.
我认为在科技领域，赢家与输家存在这种被充分描述的幂律分布——即极少数公司赚走了所有钱，弥补了大量失败者的损失。
I'd say in tech, there's this well described kind of power law distribution of winners and losers, which is to say a very small number of companies make all the money and pay for the huge number of losers.
在生物科技领域，这种情况在某种程度上仍然存在，但赢家的规模要小得多。
In biotech, that's still true to a degree, but the magnitudes of the winners are lower.
所以一个真正优秀的生物科技投资者，其平均成功率可能比典型的科技投资者更高，但收益没那么大。
And so a really good biotech investor probably has a lower sorry, a higher batting average than the typical tech investor, but the wins are not as big.
我特别好奇的一点是，您如何寻找潜在投资项目？用您之前类比唱片制作人的说法，您是如何在生物科技领域发掘人才的？或者人才如何主动找到您？这个过程与我们通常讨论的软件或科技领域的风投有什么不同？
So one thing I'm really curious about is how you source potential investments and how you find, you know, you use the analogy of the record producer, how you find talent in the space or how the talent kind of finds you and whether or not it's different from, again, the sort of software or tech space that we usually talk about when it comes to venture capital?
要知道，我刚开始做风险投资时，就像我说的，那是十二三年前的事了，当时这已经是资本市场中一个相当成熟的领域。
You know, when I started doing venture investing, was like I said, twelve, thirteen years ago, it was obviously a well established part of the capital markets.
但我当时直接给Coinbase的布莱恩·阿姆斯特朗发了冷邮件，两天后就和他见面了。
But, you know, I cold emailed Brian Armstrong from Coinbase and was meeting with him two days later.
很难形容过去十年有多少资金涌入这个领域。
And it's hard to overstate how much money has rushed in over the past decade.
所以，曾经是资本市场中一个成熟但仍相对边缘的部分，现在却成了所有人思考和谈论的焦点。
So what went from being an established but still kind of marginal part of the capital markets is now all anyone thinks or talks about.
因此，在生物技术领域，我发现进入这个领域更像是当初遇到的风险投资市场。
And so in biotech, what I found getting into this area was that it was more like that venture market I encountered.
相对于市面上想法的质量，资本显得相对稀缺。
There was a scarcity of capital relative to the caliber of ideas that were out there.
因此我认为在某种意义上，项目来源反而更容易，因为有大量优质创意却缺乏资金追逐。
And so I'd say deal sourcing is much easier in a sense because there's less money chasing a huge number of good ideas.
而这些创意绝大部分确实源自美国本土的大学和研究机构体系。
And those ideas by and large do come out of our university and research infrastructure here in America.
世界其他地区如欧洲、中国、印度等地也同样如此。
The same is also true in other parts of the world in Europe, China, India, and so forth.
但真正的挑战在于如何将这些学术概念转化为能盈利的产品。
But it's really the translation of those academic concepts into products that could make money that is the challenge.
这就是我们行业里常说的'死亡之谷'现象。
That's the so called Valley of death that people sometimes talk about in our industry.
如果你走进我国任何一所大学，会发现有海量的绝妙创意，但其中能跨越鸿沟的却寥寥无几。
There are just an immense number of cool ideas if you go into any university in our country, but such a small number of them is ever going to cross that chasm.
部分原因在于，实现这种转化所需的专业知识和人才，与最初发明创造所需的专长并不相同。
And part of that is that the expertise and the personnel required to do that translational work is not the same expertise that is required to do the inventing in the first place.
而这正是大型制药公司所具备的专业优势所在。
And so that is really what the large pharmaceutical companies have a specialized expertise in.
他们培养从事这种转化工作的人才。
They train people in this translational work.
如何从早期科学走向真正的产品？
How do you go from early science to real products?
硅谷正在向你兜售一个未来，在那里你不是过时就是变得千篇一律。
Silicon Valley is selling you a future where you're obsolete or worse identical.
在Palantir，他们见证着不同且革命性的事物——从国防工业基地的再工业化到造船工人提速生产，再到一线工人提升效率，AI正在改变全美的工作方式。
At Palantir they're witnessing something different and revolutionary From re industrializing the nation's defense base to shipyard workers building faster and frontline workers boosting productivity, AI is transforming work across the nation.
AI并没有取代美国工人或迫使他们趋同化。
AI is not replacing American workers or flattening them into conformity.
它正在释放让每个工人不可替代的特质——他们的判断力、工艺和创造力。
It's unleashing what makes each one irreplaceable their judgment, their craft, their creativity.
当美国工人能更强大地做自己时，他们就掌握了未来。
When American workers become more powerfully themselves, they own the future.
Palantir，让美国人变得不可替代。
Palantir, making Americans irreplaceable.
大家好，欢迎收听。
Hello, and welcome.
这里是米歇尔·侯赛因秀。
This is the Michelle Hussein Show.
我是米歇尔·侯赛因。
I'm Michelle Hussein.
我与埃隆·马斯克这样的人对话
I speak with people like Elon Musk
我觉得我已经做得够多了。
I think I've done enough.
还有珊达·莱梅斯。
And Shonda Rhimes.
噢，真可爱。
Oh, that's so cute.
这里将成为每个周末你都能依赖的场所，通过一场核心对话来帮助理解这个世界。
This will be a place where every weekend, you can count on one essential conversation to help make sense of the world.
请加入我，收听并订阅《米歇尔·侯赛因秀》，在彭博周末频道，无论您在哪里获取播客。
So please join me, listen, and subscribe to the Michelle Hussain Show from Bloomberg weekend, wherever you get your podcasts.
你确实问了些有趣的问题。
You certainly ask interesting questions.
当我访问典型风险投资机构的网站，或者看到他们的推特简介之类，上面总会写着‘我们支持优秀创始人’。
When I go to a typical venture capitalist website or I see their Twitter bio or something like that, it'll say, we back great founders.
我就想，谢谢啊。
And I'm like, thanks.
这很有帮助，因为这样就把你们和那些支持垃圾创始人的风投区分开了。
That's very helpful because that distinguishes you from the venture capitalists who back crappy founders.
所以我很高兴选择投资你们。
So I'm glad I'm going to invest with you instead.
生物科技领域的等效说法是什么？
What's the biotech equivalent?
你们行业里每个风投都会说的陈词滥调是什么？就是那些表面上让他们显得与众不同的说辞。
What's the cliche in your industry that every VC says that ostensibly distinguishes them from all the others?
嗯，我不太清楚风投们会怎么说。
Well, I'm not sure what the VCs say.
我是说，从某种意义上来说他们确实同质化了，因为大多数公司看起来都很相似。
I mean, they are kind of commoditized in the sense that most of the firms look pretty similar.
他们雇佣了30名博士和医生。
They employ 30 PhDs and physicians.
这些人的价值在于他们能帮你理清投资决策所需处理的信息。
And the value of those people is that they can make sense of the information that you have to process to invest intelligently in this space.
至于他们青睐的创始人特质，我认为这其实和科技行业是相反的。
In terms of what distinguishes the founders that they like to look at, I'd say again, it's kind of the inverse of what you find in tech.
生物科技行业确实非常看重所谓的'白发经验'。
There's a real premium on quote gray hair in the biotech industry.
因为学习这些东西的唯一方法就是反复实践，并且经历大量失败。
Because the only way to learn this stuff is to do it over and over again and to have had a lot of failures.
而如果你想想软件公司，那些熟悉的套路就是快速失败、迅速转型，对吧？
And if you think about a software company, the tropes you are familiar with are, you know, fail fast, pivot, right?
你知道，就像你推出一个产品，如果效果不好，你可以调整产品设计，转向不同市场，能够非常灵活地适应市场。
You know, like, you launch something, it doesn't work, you tweak the product design, you go into a different market, you can adapt very readily to the market.
在生物技术领域，如果你决定开展一个临床项目，就意味着要投入3000万或4000万美元。
In biotech, if you choose to embark upon a clinical program, you're in for 30 or $40,000,000.
这不是一扇容易退出的门。
That's not an easy door to walk back out of.
因此，那些有多次实践经验的人确实非常宝贵。
And so there's a real premium on people with experience who have done it multiple times.
这与近年来人们发起的一场运动有些冲突，这场运动被不太恰当地称为'科技生物'而非'生物科技'。
That is a little bit at odds in recent years with a movement that people have, I think awkwardly dubbed tech bio instead of biotech.
实际上这些人都是硅谷的科技投资者，和我差不多，他们进入了生物技术领域，认为这个领域即将发生改变，会走上科技行业的发展道路。
And really these are Silicon Valley tech investors, not totally unlike myself, who have gotten into biotech and they think that what's about to change is it's going to go the way of the tech industry.
下一批大公司将会由斯坦福大学毕业的21岁聪明年轻人创立。
And the next big companies are going to be started by really clever 21 year olds coming out of Stanford.
这个假设人们已经测试了好几年。
And that hypothesis people have been testing now for a few years.
我认为现在下结论还为时过早，但这从来不是我们的理论依据。
I'd say it's a little too early to issue a verdict, but that's never really been our theory.
这个假设是否仅仅基于人工智能的介入使药物研发变得更简单？
Is that hypothesis just predicated on AI coming in and making you know, drug development easier?
仅此而已吗？
Is that all it is?
这方面因素很多。
There's a lot of that.
我认为它包含两个部分。
I'd say there are two parts of it.
其中一部分可能比那更有实质性内容。
One of it is maybe more substantive than that.
这有点微妙，但我知道很多人都喜欢琢磨细微差别。
And this is a little nuanced, but I know lots of people like nuance.
真正催生生物技术行业的一大变革（当我使用生物技术这个术语时，我是将其与大型制药公司区分开的）
One of the big transformations that really gave rise to the biotech industry, and when I use that term biotech, I'm distinguishing it from big pharma.
所以生物技术实际上就是指小型制药公司。
So biotech really just means small drug companies.
其中许多都是上市公司。
Many of them are public.
真正催生这个行业的，是大型制药公司在华尔街的要求下降低了早期研究的优先级。
What really gave rise to that industry was the big pharmas at the behest of Wall Street deprioritized early stage research.
因为华尔街表示，你们在这项风险极高的早期探索工作上浪费了大量资金。
Because Wall Street said you're wasting a lot of money on this really risky early stage discovery work.
我们更希望你们做的是让DA这样的疯狂家伙去资助初创企业，等它们成功了再收购。
What we would rather you did was just let all these crazy guys like DA finance startups, and once they work, just buy them.
你知道，虽然要付出更高价格，但不必在早期项目上烧这么多钱。
You know, you're gonna pay a higher price, but you won't be burning all this money on early stuff.
这导致制药公司流失了大量专业技术专家，并催生了所谓的CRO（合同研究组织）生态系统。
What that led to was an exodus of very specialized technical experts from the pharma companies, and it created the so called CRO or contract research organization ecosystem.
因此过去二十年间，形成了一个由众多专业合同组织构成的成熟环境，小公司可以外包许多过去无法完成的工作。
So you now, as a consequence of that, for the past twenty years, have had a very proficient environment full of contract organizations that you can hire as a little company to outsource a lot of work that you couldn't in the past.
所以用科技领域来类比的话，就像是虚拟服务器或云基础设施。
So the best analogy to tech would be sort of like virtual servers, or cloud infrastructure.
就像，你知道的，过去创业时需要在办公室里放满服务器。
Like, you know, to have a startup, you used to have all these servers in your office.
后来发展到某个阶段，就不再需要这样了。
And then at some point, didn't need that.
因此新公司成立的成本大幅下降。
So the cost of new company formation went way down.
所以支持年轻、更敏捷的创业者的部分论据是：看，我们有了这种全新的基础设施，可以让他们以非常灵活的方式创建公司。
So part of the argument for younger, more agile founders has been, look, we got this whole new kind of infrastructure through which they can build companies in a really agile way.
另一个论点，正好针对你的问题，是关于人工智能的。
The other argument, you know, exactly to your question, is around AI.
这个理论基本就是说：看，这些老家伙根本不懂AI。
And that theory is basically, look, these old people don't understand AI.
还是找些硅谷年轻的计算机科学怪才来做这事吧。
Let's get some young Silicon Valley computer science y types to do this.
他们会展示给他们看该怎么做。
And they're gonna show them how it's done.
我觉得这种现象可能不仅限于生物技术领域，存在这样一种幻想——也许在某些情况下确实如此——认为每个行业都必然被那些不懂技术、一直用老方法做事的老古董们所主导。
I feel like that's probably a phenomenon that goes beyond biotech, where there's this fantasy, and maybe in some cases it's even correct, but there is this fantasy that every industry out there must be dominated by old dinosaurs who don't know how to use tech and who have been doing something the same way forever.
现在是2025年了。
And so it's the year 2025.
肯定已经过时了，而他们还没意识到这点。
It must be out of date by now, and they haven't figured this out.
如果我们能...
And if we could just
咳咳，新闻业。
Cough, cough journalism.
是啊。
Yeah.
没错。
Right.
要是我们能雇佣那些天才少年，就能从第一性原理重塑整个行业，比那些传统做法干得漂亮多了。
If we could just hire whiz kids, then we could reinvent the industry from first principles and just do a much better job than the legacy things.
我认为无论是医疗健康还是当下硅谷热衷的工业领域，人们似乎都默认认为资深从业者肯定做错了什么。
And I think whether it's healthcare or whether it's industrial stuff that we see Silicon Valley getting excited about right now, it just feels like the default assumption must be that the veterans are doing something wrong.
而我们单凭脑力就能找出问题所在。
And with pure brainpower, we can figure out what that thing is.
我认为这确实反映了当下很多领域人们的普遍论调。
I think that is a reasonable characterization of what people say today in a lot of different places.
但在我所处的领域并非如此。
And I don't think it's true in my sector.
就像所有关于AI的讨论一样，难点在于平衡两个看似矛盾却可能同时成立的观念。
But as with every conversation about AI, the challenge is balancing two ideas that can be true at the same time, but seem contradictory.
其一是这项技术确实令人惊叹。
And one is that this stuff is amazing.
特别是在生命科学领域，它带来了一些真正的突破——比如去年让DeepMind的Demis Asabas获得诺贝尔奖的AlphaFold，这项惊人发现通过机器学习模型解决了几十年悬而未决的难题：仅凭蛋白质氨基酸序列就能预测其在物理环境中的三维结构。
And it is, particularly in life sciences, responsible for some true breakthroughs, like the breakthrough that won Demis Asabas at DeepMind the Nobel Prize last year with AlphaFold, which was this amazing discovery they made that using machine learning models you could solve a problem that had gone unsolved for decades, which was can you predict from the sequence of a protein's amino acids what three-dimensional shape a protein is going to take in a physical environment.
我刚才抛出了一堆专业术语，但这对于药物研发和药物发现至关重要。
And I just threw around a bunch of terms of art, but this is fundamental to drug development and drug discovery.
所以一方面，你无法否认我们正在经历的这些突破。
So it's like on the one hand, you can't deny these breakthroughs that we're experiencing.
你无法否认，当你与Gemini对话时，它的能力令人震惊。
You can't deny that when you talk to Gemini, it's staggering what this thing can do.
我的意思是，我整天坐在那里让它教我资产定价模型或其他我感兴趣的东西。
I mean, I'm sitting there all day having it teach me about asset pricing models or whatever else I'm interested in.
但与此同时，推动所有投资和跨行业创业的这场宗教运动充满了夸夸其谈，除非你是狂热信徒，否则那些主张简直荒谬。
But at the same time, the religious movement that is powering all of the investment and a lot of the entrepreneurship here across industries is full of hot air and is making claims that are preposterous unless you are a zealot.
简单问一下，如果我们在一个月前进行这场对话，你会说Gemini还是ChadGPT？
Just real quickly, if we had been having this conversation in a month ago, would you have said Gemini or would you have said ChadGPT?
因为我在上个月从ChadGPT转到了Gemini，我只是好奇你一个月前会怎么说。
Because I switched from ChadGPT to Gemini in the last month, and I'm just curious whether you're this is what you would have said a month ago.
一个月前，我同时在使用所有这些工具。
A month ago, I was using all of them.
现在我只用Gemini。
Now I'm only using Gemini.
这很有趣。
It's interesting.
好吧。
Alright.
很好的数据点。
Good data point.
好的。
Okay.
和我们谈谈新药开发的瓶颈问题。
Talk to us about the choke points when it comes to new drug development.
因为我猜想，也许人工智能机器学习可以加速部分研究或发现过程。
Because I imagine, okay, maybe AI machine learning can speed up some of the research or discovery process.
但即使在那之后，你们还必须经历这些非常漫长的临床试验，有些情况下要耗时数十年。
But even after that, you have to go through these really long clinical trials that in some cases take decades.
你认为将新药推向市场的主要障碍是什么？
What are the major, I guess, like stumbling blocks to getting something to the market?
你的问题已经包含了答案。
Your question held the answer.
将药物从概念推向市场的过程，可以形象地比作一个漏斗。
The process of taking a drug from idea to the market, you can think of as a funnel to just use a visual analogy.
漏斗顶部汇集了人们数以百万计的想法。
And into the top of the funnel go all the millions of ideas that people have.
随着流程向下推进，你需要投入越来越多的资金来验证两件事。
And then as you go down the funnel, you're spending progressively more and more and more money to prove two things.
第一是确保药物安全，不会对人体造成伤害或致命风险。
The first is that the drug is safe and won't harm or kill people.
第二是证明药物确实有效，能够改善目标疾病的症状。
And the second is that the drug works and actually modifies the disease that you're trying to treat.
我们这个时代的悲剧在于，验证药物安全有效的唯一方法就是在活生生的人类身上进行试验。
And the tragedy of our moment is that the only way to figure out if drugs are safe and effective is to try them in human beings, living breathing human beings.
这一过程极其耗时，且经济成本高得惊人。
And that is extraordinarily time consuming and incredibly expensive financially.
所以我期待有一天人工智能能在计算机中完全模拟出精确的人类，这样我们就不需要在真人身上进行临床试验了。
So I wish for the day when AI is able to fully simulate an accurate human in the computer, and we don't need to do clinical trials on real people.
但在那一刻到来之前，药物研发所涉及的大部分成本、费用和时间问题仍将困扰着我们。
But until that moment, the vast majority of the cost and expense and time that is involved in drug discovery remains with us.
因此，人们热衷的大多数人工智能技术，其实际效果只是往漏斗顶端注入更多优质创意。
So most of the AI technologies that people are excited about really would have the effect of putting more good ideas into the top of the funnel.
但遗憾的是，这并没有解决我们当前面临的核心问题。
But unfortunately, that doesn't solve a problem that we have.
我们早已被优质创意淹没，真正的症结恰恰在于你提到的那个卡脖子环节或瓶颈。
We already are drowning in good ideas, and the issue is exactly the choke point or bottleneck that you're referring to.
这里其实包含两个问题。
This is really there's actually two questions.
首先，从监管角度而言，是否存在能加速这一过程的低垂果实？
First of all, is there low hanging fruit from a regulatory side to accelerate that process?
人们总喜欢揣测，哦，FDA（美国食品药品监督管理局）肯定超级... 这是另一个方面。
People like to fathom, Oh, the FDA must be super There's another area.
人们会说，哦，FDA肯定效率极低，办事方式单一。
People will say, Oh, the FDA must be super slow and do things one way.
我们本可以加快这个流程。
We could speed this up.
我不确定。
I don't know.
在整个流程中是否存在某个环节——从监管角度或其他方面——能压缩成本或缩短时间线？
Is there somewhere along the process where from a regulatory standpoint or some other thing that either the cost or the timelines could shrink?
还是说主要现实依然是：我们必须在人体上测试这些药物，既昂贵又耗时？
Or is it mostly still just the reality of we have to test these things on humans and that's costly and it takes time?
其实我们什么都不需要做。
Well, we don't need to do anything.
完全可以取消FDA，让任何有好药想法的人直接商业推广，即便因此死人或者药物无效也无所谓。
Could have no FDA and anyone who has a good drug idea just launches it commercially and if some people die from that and it doesn't do anything, that's fine.
顺便说一句，这有点像食品和补充剂的情况。
By the way, that's kind of like the supplement in food.
肽类。
Peptides.
以及我们处理它的方式。
And the way we deal with it.
米尔顿·弗里德曼有个著名观点，认为FDA应该只评估药物的安全性。
Milton Friedman famously thought that the FDA should only assess the safety of drugs.
如果一种药物被证明是安全的，就将其投放市场，让市场根据人们的使用体验来决定是否值得购买。
And if a drug was proven safe, put it on the market and let the market dictate whether people determine they should pay for it based on their lived experience with whether it works or not.
就我个人而言，我更愿意生活在这样一个世界：当我身体出问题时，我能基本相信医生给我的药物已被证实安全有效。
Now, I just personally prefer to live in a world where if I've got something that's going wrong, I can more or less trust that the product my doctor gives me has been proven safe and effective.
这反映出当今我们对药物审批设立了相当高的标准。
And that reflects that we have today a pretty high bar for approving drugs.
但我们当然可以降低这个标准。
But we could certainly lower that bar.
我们可以改变FDA要求的数据类型。
We could change the type of data that the FDA requires.
顺便说一下，中国正在发生这种情况。
And that's what's happening in China, by the way.
我知道你提到过你和我的朋友蒂姆做的另一期节目。
I know you mentioned this other episode you did with my friend Tim.
在中国，监管环境的变化相当迅速。
In China, the regulatory environment has been moving pretty rapidly.
他们这样做是故意的，因为他们希望提高效率。
And they've done that deliberately because they want to be more productive.
他们希望批准更多药物。
They want to approve more drugs.
他们正试图在提高产量和保持高标准之间取得平衡。
And they're trying to strike that balance between being prolific and holding things to a high standard at the same time.
所以，我们拭目以待吧。
So, you know, we'll see.
我想跟进你提到的另一件事，因为我觉得这很重要。
And I just want to follow-up on one other thing you said, because I think it seems important.
像Sam Altman这样的人谈到AI前景时，很多说法都是‘哦，我们能找到治愈癌症的新药’。
Someone like Sam Altman, when he talks about the promise of AI, a lot of it is like, Oh, we could find the next drug that cures cancer.
与此同时，我们会开发这种类似老虎机的系统来生成奇怪视频等等。
In the meantime, we're going to make this sort of slot machine that makes weird videos, etcetera.
但实际上，我们长期目标是寻找这些特效药。
But really, we're trying to find these wonder drugs in long term.
但根据你的说法，候选药物似乎不是稀缺资源。
But from what it sounds like you said, candidates are not where the shortage is.
问题并不在于我们缺乏足够有前景的分子组合。
The issue is not that we lack a number of sufficiently promising molecule combinations.
稀缺性并不体现在这个环节。
The scarcity is not on that at that point.
这是我的看法。
That's my view.
我是说，我会为对方的论点辩护。
I mean, I'll steel man the other argument.
对方的论点可能是：DA，你十分钟前说过这些药物从一开始就有5%的成功概率。
The other argument would be, well, DA, you said ten minutes ago that these drugs have a 5% probability of working from the outset.
如果我们有更好的预测模型，能告诉我们某些候选药物比其他药物更可能成功，那不是很好吗？
You know, if we had better predictive models that told us certain candidates were much more likely to work than others, wouldn't that be great?
我的反驳是：是的，但我们怎么知道我们做到了这一点？
And my rejoinder to that is yes, but how would we know that we've done that?
意思是，如果我们三个人明天发明了一个能产生候选药物概念的黑箱，并且我们确信我们的模型将先验概率从5%提高到了10%，那将是我们真正的革命性创新。
Meaning, if the three of us tomorrow invented a black box that produced drug candidate concepts, and we were certain that our model doubled the prior probability from five percent to ten percent, That would be a truly revolutionary innovation on our part.
但在我们统计上证明我们确实提高了成功率之前，我们需要将这个模型产生的多少候选药物一路推进到获批阶段？
But how many candidates from that model would we need to take all the way to an approval before we had statistically demonstrated that we in fact increased the rate of success.
所以可能已经有人破解了这个密码，谷歌可能已经破解了这个密码，Sam Altman可能已经破解了这个密码，但在我们确定他是否做到之前，有人需要花费300亿美元来开发他提出的药物构想。
So people may have already cracked that code, know, Google may have already cracked that code, Sam Altman may have cracked that code, But someone's gonna need to spend $30,000,000,000 developing the drug ideas he has before we know whether he's done that.
在这笔钱花出去之前，这些都纯属猜测和推销话术。
And until that money is spent, it's pure conjecture and salesmanship.
展开剩余字幕（还有 331 条）
我是巴里·里索兹，邀请您加入我的《商业大师》播客。
I'm Barry Ritholtz inviting you to join me for the Masters in Business podcast.
每周，我们为您带来与塑造市场、投资和商业的人士的精彩对话。
Every week, we bring you fascinating conversations with the people who shape markets, investing, and business.
无论是CEO、基金经理、亿万富翁、诺贝尔奖得主、交易员、分析师、经济学家，还是所有影响市场动向的人士，无论您持有股票、债券、房地产、大宗商品还是加密货币，这些对话都值得一听。
CEOs, fund managers, billionaires, Nobel laureates, traders, analysts, economists, everybody that affects what's going on in the market, whether you own stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, crypto, you really need to hear these conversations.
有时是像迪克·泰勒或鲍勃·席勒这样的行为经济学家。
Sometimes it's behaviorists like Dick Thaler or Bob Schiller.
有时是像彼得·林奇、比尔·米勒、瑞·达利欧这样的基金经理。
Sometimes it's fund managers like Peter Lynch, Bill Miller, Ray Dalio.
有时是作家，比如《大空头》和《点球成金》的作者迈克尔·刘易斯。
Sometimes it's authors, Michael Lewis, author of the Big Short, and Moneyball.
无论讨论什么话题，这些人都是每周搅动市场风云的人物。
Regardless of the conversation, these are the folks that move markets each week.
以上就是由我——巴里·里索兹主持的《商业大师》播客内容。
That's the Masters in Business podcast with me, Barry Ritholtz.
请在苹果、Spotify或您获取播客的任何平台收听。
Listen on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
您实际上是如何评估美国与中国竞争中的机遇的？
How are you actually evaluating opportunities in The US against China competition?
因为如果临床试验是主要瓶颈，而中国似乎正努力使这一过程尽可能高效，那么他们似乎可能具有优势。
Because if clinical trials are the major choke point and if China seems to be trying to make that process as efficient as possible, it seems like maybe they have an advantage.
我的意思是，他们确实有优势。
I mean, they definitely have an advantage.
如果今天要我押注我们这个行业，我会认为中国将成为未来一二十年的重大故事。
And if I had to make a bet today on our sector, it would be that China is going to be the big story over the next decade or two.
我认为这是全球生物技术市场的根本性结构转变。
I think it's a fundamental structural shift in the global biotechnology market.
而且他们的优势是多方面的。
And their advantages are multiple.
我的意思是，优势包括监管方面，也涉及人员方面。
I mean, advantages are regulatory, they relate to the personnel.
我们流失了大量在本校研究生院培养的优秀人才，他们现在都回到了中国。
We have lost an amazing amount of talent who was educated here in our graduate schools and now has gone back to China.
此外，他们能够在临床阶段更快地推进项目，也就是开展临床试验，其速度和规模都远超我们基础设施的承载能力。
And furthermore, they are able to develop things in the clinic, which is to say do clinical trials, a lot faster and at a much higher volume than our infrastructure can handle.
所以他们确实拥有巨大优势。
So they've got big advantages.
那么，关于在美国与中国之间如何进行投资选择？
Now, how do I think about investing in The US versus China?
我不太了解，因为我不懂普通话。
I don't that much because I don't speak Mandarin.
我认为目前对我来说在中国投资会非常困难。
And I think it would be really difficult for me to invest in China today.
但越来越多的美国公司开始将研究过程的某些环节外包给中国企业。
But increasingly, companies in The US are starting to outsource certain parts of the research process to Chinese companies.
而且他们将会越来越多地把临床开发流程的部分环节，比如临床试验，外包到中国。
And increasingly, they're going to outsource parts of the clinical development process, the clinical trials to China.
这将会对
That's going to make a huge impact on
整个行业产生巨大影响。
the industry.
是的，这其实正是我接下来要问的问题。
Yeah, this was actually my next question.
我想知道在中国成功的临床试验对美国这样的市场有多大的可移植性？
I guess how translatable is a successful clinical trial in China to a market like The US?
三四年前，美国的投资者和监管机构可能会告诉你移植性不高，因为他们认为中国人在造假，数据都是编造的，欺诈行为泛滥。
Three or four years ago, what both investors and regulators in The US would have told you was that it's not that translatable because they're liars and they make up all the data and it's rampant with fraud.
这种说法可能有一定真实性，但我觉得其中也掺杂了不少种族主义成分。
And there may have been some truth to that, but I think there was also a good amount of racism.
真正让人们在过去几年改变看法的是，中国完成了一些非常重要的临床试验，起初人们对数据持怀疑态度，但当这些试验在欧洲或美国复现后，得到了非常相似的数据。
And what sort of woke everyone up in the past couple of years was that some very significant clinical trials were done in China, people were suspicious of the data, then they replicated those trials in Europe or The United States and got very similar data.
于是大家开始觉得：哇，也许他们在这方面并没有那么糟糕。
And folks thought, woah, maybe they're not so bad at this.
所以我认为人们的怀疑正在逐渐减少。
So I think decreasingly, people are skeptical.
换句话说，人们越来越信任来自中国的成果了。
And which said less awkwardly, people are trusting more and more what's coming out of China.
中国方面若想将其作为主要战略，就有责任持续提升人们对其工作质量和数据的信任度。
And it's incumbent upon the Chinese to the extent that they want this to be a major strategy to continue enhancing people's trust in the quality of their work and their data.
如果能做到这一点，我认为这将成为一个全球性产业。
If they can do that, I think it's a global industry.
很多公司都是跨国企业。
A lot of the companies are multinationals.
他们不在乎药物是来自美国还是中国。
They don't care if the drug comes out of The US or comes out of China.
这其实不是一个关于私募或风险投资阶段的问题，而是更广泛地关于生物技术领域。
This isn't really a question about private or VC stage investing per se, but about biotech more broadly.
你知道，我以各种方式报道股市已经很久了。
You know, I've covered the stock market for a long time in various ways.
我从未真正花时间去了解过一只公开交易的生物科技股票。
I've never spent any time really getting to know a publicly traded biotech stock.
如果你没有生物学博士级别的理解力，尝试投资生物科技是不是疯了？
Are you insane to try to invest in biotech if you don't have PhD level understanding of biology?
如果一个人不懂科学，真的能在这个行业获得超额收益吗？
Can anyone have alpha in this industry if they don't actually know science?
我觉得这很难。
I think it's tough.
是啊。
Yeah.
看起来确实非常困难
Seems very tough
听着，对，我是说，事情是这样的。
to Look, yeah, I mean, here's the thing.
公开市场的生物科技真正有趣之处在于，很明显主动投资者可以在生物科技领域获得超额收益。
What's really interesting about biotech in the public markets is it's abundantly clear that active investors can have alpha in biotech.
而正如你们所知，在公开股票市场的其他领域，这一点并不明确。
Whereas as you guys know, that is not clear in the rest of the public equity landscape.
因此，尽管在广泛的主动股票管理领域，业绩持续性非常低甚至为负，但在生物科技领域，有一小部分公司几十年来一直表现出色。
And so whereas there is very little, if not negative persistence of performance among active equity managers broadly, In biotech, have a small number of firms that have been doing great for sometimes decades.
而且它们都
And it is And they all
拥有真正的科学专家团队。
have real science expertise on staff.
确实如此。
They do.
而且你知道，他们与通才之间的动态关系，可以说，是他们做了大量细致的工作来理解评估这些公司及其成功概率所需处理的信息。
And and you know, the dynamic between them and the generalists, so to speak, is that they do a lot of very detailed work to make sense of the information you need to process to value these companies and to assess their probability of success.
然后通才们往往会跟随这些专家投资这些标的。
And then the generalists often follow those specialists into these names.
还有这个行业在这些周期中的命运，比如我们正从生物科技持续四年的经济大萧条中走出来，我得提一下这一点。
And the fortunes of the industry in these cycles, like we're coming out of a four year Great Depression for biotech, I should just mention.
这些命运很大程度上取决于通才投资者的板块轮动。
A lot of those fortunes ride on the sector rotations of the generalists.
所以专业投资者必须坚守生物科技领域，因为这是他们的专长。
So the specialists have to stick with biotech because that's what they do.
但企业能否上市、能否获得下一阶段临床试验资金，很大程度上取决于当时通才投资者是否在该领域。
But whether or not companies can IPO, whether or not companies can fund their next clinical trial is largely a function of whether the generalists are in the sector at that moment or not.
我们现在正处在通才投资者重新进入生物科技领域的早期轮动阶段。
And we're just in the midst of the early rotation of generalists back into biotech.
等等。
Wait.
生物科技投资低迷，这只是利率上升的结果，还是有其他因素在起作用？
The biotech investing downturn, was that just a function of higher interest rates, or was something else going on?
这是所有可能出问题的因素同时汇聚的结果。
It was a confluence of everything that could go wrong at the same time.
利率上升确实比其他公司更严重地打击了生物科技股，因为你知道，这些公司十年内都没有现金流，然后突然需要大笔资金。
It was higher interest rates, which really punished these biotech stocks relative to other companies because, you know, no cash flows for ten years, and then a big bolus of money.
因此这些公司对贴现率非常敏感，再加上通才投资者已撤出该领域的这种动态变化，最终是致命的。
So these companies are very sensitive to discount Add to that this dynamic where the generalists had gotten out of the sector that ultimately is fatal.
然后还要考虑到我们在新冠疫情带来的短暂繁荣后经历了如此严重的回落。
And then consider the fact that we had such a come down after the sugar high of COVID.
很明显在疫情期间，曾有过这样一个顿悟时刻——所有人都短暂意识到，这个领域在我们每个人生命的某个阶段，将成为全球经济中发生的最重要的事情。
So obviously during COVID, there was this moment of clarity where everyone for a second recognized that this sector is for each of us at some point in our lives, the most important thing that happens in the global economy.
如果没有生物技术产业，我们都会陷入困境。
Like without the biotech industry, you know, we're all in trouble.
我们总是假装自己永远不会需要这个行业，直到你得了癌症，你父亲得了癌症，孩子患上罕见病时，才会惊呼天啊，真希望我早想过这个问题。
And we kind of go through life pretending like we're never going to need this industry, and then you get cancer, your dad gets cancer, your kid gets some rare disease, and you go, holy cow, I wish I had thought about this before.
也许这些毕生投身于此的人们，并不是伯尼·桑德斯需要打倒的邪恶吸血鬼。
Maybe all these people who are doing this with their lives are not evil blood suckers who Bernie Sanders needs to take down.
我认为这正是人们在新冠疫情中逐渐意识到的部分原因——当我们都变得脆弱，都渴望解决方案时。
And you know, that is, I think part of what dawned on people during COVID when we all were vulnerable and we all were yearning for a solution.
请多谈谈关于新药研发的财务激励机制。
Talk a little bit more about the financial incentives about actually developing new drugs.
我们都知道这个故事：如果你在美国，可以去墨西哥或其他地方以5美元的价格买到同样的药，而在美国可能要花500美元甚至更多。
So we all know the story of if you're based in The US, you can go to Mexico or wherever else and buy the same medicine for, like, $5 as opposed to $500 or perhaps even more in The US.
对此的论点似乎是，大型制药公司需要因其承担的所有研究、努力和风险而获得回报。
And the argument for that seems to be that, well, you know, the big pharma companies need to be rewarded for all the research and the effort and the risk that they actually take on.
而美国似乎就是被选中的地方。
And for some reason, The US seems to be the designated place to do that.
但是，为什么呢？
But, like, why?
这就是我的问题。
Why is my question.
为什么美国药品...
Why US drug Well,
药物开发公司最大的回报来源是美国市场。
the the big bounty for a drug development company is The United States market.
这部分是因为我们作为一个社会已经决定，我们希望获得所有最新最先进的药物，我们希望优先获得，并且不希望拒绝那些可能从中受益的人。
And that's partly because we as a society have decided that we want all the new most advanced drugs, we want them first, and we don't want to deny them to people who could benefit from them.
我们为这些承诺付出的代价是药品价格高于其他国家，而其他国家价格较低是因为他们的政府会决定民众能获得哪些药物。
Now, the price we pay for those commitments is that our drug prices are higher than the prices in other countries, and the reason their prices are lower is because their governments choose which drugs their people will have access to.
他们做出选择后与制药公司协商价格。
And they make those choices and then negotiate the prices with the companies.
他们基本上会对辉瑞或阿斯利康说：如果想在日本销售你们的药品，就必须接受我们给出的价格。
And they basically will say to Pfizer or AstraZeneca, look if you want your drugs sold here in Japan, you're gonna take the price that we give you.
然后制药公司决定是否接受这笔交易。
And then the pharma company decides whether they want to accept that deal or not.
美国作为一个文明社会完全可以选择采用同样的谈判方式。
Now, The United States absolutely could choose as a civilization to negotiate in that same manner.
我们的政府可以替我们决定愿意为每种药物支付多少费用。
Our government could make the choice for us as to exactly what we're willing to pay for every drug.
这样做会带来两个后果。
There would be two consequences to that.
其一是我们将无法获得某些药物。
One is that we would go without certain drugs.
其次，许多药物根本就不会被研发出来，因为制药公司可获取的总利润池将大幅缩小。
The second is that a lot of drugs would not even be developed in the first place because the total pool of profits available to drug companies would be much smaller.
所以我不知道对于世界上应该有多少药物创新这个问题是否存在完美答案。
And so I don't know that there's any perfect answer to how much pharmaceutical innovation we should have in the world.
我们可以选择希望发生多少创新，而我们的选择方式就是决定现有奖励的规模大小。
We get to choose how much innovation we want to occur, and the way we choose that is by determining the size of that bounty that exists.
我们愿意为创新药物开发允许多大的利润池？
How big is the profit pool we want to allow for innovative drug development?
这在很大程度上是由我们的专利法驱动的。
And a lot of that is driven by our patent law.
要记住，在这个行业中，专利就是一种合法化的垄断。
Remember a patent in this industry is a legalized monopoly.
所以我们给予制药公司一段有限时间的合法垄断权，这就决定了他们能从新药中赚取多少钱。
So we give drug companies a legal monopoly for a limited period of time, and that dictates how much money they're able to make off of a new drug.
我们可以缩短专利期限，这样会缩小利润池，药物研发也会随之减少。
We could shorten the patent life, and that would reduce the profit pool and you'd have less drug development.
我们可以取消专利期限，让企业获得永久垄断权。
We could remove the patent life, you could have a permanent monopoly.
相信我，这个行业的规模会在一夜之间翻倍甚至三倍。
And believe me, the industry would double or triple overnight.
所以这是我们必须要做出的选择，这是一个公民选择。
So it's a choice we have to make and it's a civic choice.
你提到了像伯尼·桑德斯这样的人，他们关注制药公司的利润，或者关注药品价格。
You mentioned the Bernie Sanders of the world who, they look at the profits of drug companies, or they look at the prices of drugs.
你知道，如果他们如愿以偿，可能就会减少对药物研发等方面的投资，利润也会减少。
You know, perhaps if they got their way, there would be less investment in drug discovery, etcetera, at all, maybe less profits.
但回到新冠疫情这个话题，另一方面也存在强烈反弹，本质上就是对制药行业前提的深度怀疑——这些科学家在做什么？为什么他们不告诉你这个人们使用了数千年的能治愈这些疾病的根茎植物？他们不想让你知道，这样就能卖他们的产品。
Going back to COVID, however, there was also the backlash on the other side, essentially just this deep skepticism towards the premise of pharma, and that what are these scientists doing, and why don't they tell you about this root that people have used for thousands of years that cured these diseases that they don't want you to know about so that they can sell your stuff.
在一个越来越多的人明显不信任科学专业前提的政治环境下，和我们谈谈投资生物科技的问题吧？
Talk to us about just investing in biotech in a political environment where a growing number of people frankly seem to distrust the premise of scientific expertise?
听着，这很困难。
Look, it's tough.
部分责任确实应归咎于科学界。
And some of the blame certainly belongs with the scientific community.
因为在新冠疫情初期，关于口罩价值的公众沟通不够清晰，甚至可能存在误导性。
Because, you know, to the extent that say in the early days of COVID, communication with the public about say the value of masks was not clear and it was maybe even misleading.
部分疫苗有效性数据的呈现方式不够透明。
Some of the presentation of data regarding the efficacy of the vaccines was not transparent.
这以完全可以理解的方式削弱了公众的信任。
And that eroded the public's trust in a very understandable way.
我并非要为医学或科学辩护，因为我不认为这些是享有特权的祭司阶层。
Now, I'm no apologist for medicine or science because I don't think these are privileged priesthoods.
我认为每个人都应该能够参与并理解科学与医学。
I think every person should be able to be engaged in and understand science and medicine.
不幸的是，整个医学史始于完全将医学科学视为巫术与魔法的时代。
And unfortunately the entire history of medicine began with medical science as total witchcraft and sorcery.
如果追溯到古代，最早自称医生的人客观上对医学一无所知。
So if you go back to antiquity, the first people calling themselves doctors objectively understood nothing.
是的。
Yeah.
所以这从一开始就是纯粹的诡辩。
So this was pure sophistry from the beginning.
而我们正处在这段漫长旅程中，医学正从完全的胡扯和巫术逐渐转变为真正的科学。
And we are on this long journey through which medicine is going from total BS and witchcraft to slowly turning into a real science.
某种配得上科学之名的东西。
Something that deserves to be called science.
医学充斥着大量没有严格证据基础的常规做法。
Medicine is filled with common practices that are not rigorously based on evidence.
这正是我所描述的这段旅程中我们所处阶段的典型特征。
And that is symptomatic of where we are in that journey that I'm describing.
因此我主张医学应该变得越来越科学化。
So I'm an advocate for medicine becoming always more and more scientific.
我认为科学政策制定者、学术界的科学家们需要更透明地进行沟通。
I believe that scientific policymakers, scientists in academia need to do a much better job communicating transparently.
乔，这是建立你所说的那种信任的唯一途径。
That's the only way to engender that kind of trust you're talking about, Joe.
信任至关重要，因为它是这个行业得以存在的许可基础。
And the trust is critical because it is what gives permission to this industry's existence.
等等，多谈谈医疗决策中的自主权问题。
Wait, talk more about autonomy when it comes to medical decisions.
因为你知道，对来美国的非美国人来说，电视上的药品广告是个巨大的文化冲击——他们介绍这种特效药，然后飞快地念完所有风险因素。
Because this is you know, a big culture shock of non Americans who come to The US is drug adverts on TV where they, you know, here's this great drug, and then they read off all the risk factors really, really quickly.
其中总有一条风险是死亡或严重脑损伤之类的
And one of the risks is always death or severe brain damage or something
比如总是会出现自杀倾向
like Suicidal tendencies always
这些风险。
are risk.
而我
And I'm
同样地，我从未主动要求过在电视上看到的药物。
always again, never asked for a drug that I've seen on TV.
我确实记得成年后第一次来美国时，我去开处方药。
I do remember when I first came to The US as an adult, I went to get a prescription.
我找了个新医生，直接说我需要这个药。
I found a new doctor to do that, and I said I needed this thing.
结果医生说，哦，我们必须先做完这些医疗检测才能开药。
And the doctor was like, Oh, well, we have to run all these medical tests before we can give you that.
最后演变成我和保险公司的大争执。
And it ended up in a big argument with my insurance provider.
我记得和别人聊这事时，他们说你应该拒绝医生的检测要求。
And I remember talking to people about that and they were like, Well, you should have pushed back against the doctor about the testing.
我当时就想，我懂什么呀？
And I was like, What do I know?
医生怎么说我就怎么做。
I just do what the doctor tells me.
对吧？
Right?
人们实际上应该有多少发言权？听起来可能有点怪，但考虑到缺乏经验以及世界各地其他医疗体系的运作方式，患者对自己的治疗方案应该有多少决定权？
How much say should people actually it sounds weird, but given the lack of experience and given the way other systems work around the world, how much say should people have in their own medical treatment?
我认为最终他们应该拥有几乎全部的决定权。
I think ultimately they should have almost all of the say.
这是你的身体，最终你必须做出你能做的最佳决定，你应该将医生、护士和其他医疗系统人员视为帮助你做出明智决策的顾问。
It's your body, ultimately you have to make the best decision you can make, and you should regard physicians, nurses, others in the system as consultants who support you in making wise decisions.
不过这里有个例外，那就是我们确实将很多医疗费用社会化了。
The one caveat there however, is that we do socialize a lot of our medical costs.
在许多其他国家，他们完全实现了医疗费用的社会化。
And in many other countries, they completely socialize medical costs.
就你希望我们其他人承担你的医疗费用而言，我确实认为我们需要制定一些关于哪些治疗值得支付的标准。
And to the extent that you want the rest of us to pay for your medical care, I do believe we need to have some standards around what it's appropriate to pay for.
是啊。
Yeah.
我的意思是，目前看来这些决定大多由保险公司做出，而在世界其他地方，这些决定本该由政府来制定。
I mean, at the moment, it seems like most of those decisions are left up to the insurers, which, again, in other places in the world, it would be left up to to the governments to make those decisions.
保险公司是否在这里扮演了另一种限制因素的角色？
Are are insurers the sort of another limiting factor here?
我认为是的。
I believe they are.
我认为私营保险业对美国医疗体系毫无贡献。
I believe the private insurance industry adds zero value to The United States health care system.
几乎为零。
Almost.
我可能说得有点夸张，但在我看来基本就是零价值。
I I may slightly overstate it, but it's close to zero in my book.
而且我真的不认为应该由保险公司来决定哪些医疗护理是合适的。
And I really don't believe insurance companies ought to be the ones making decisions about what medical care is appropriate.
我注意到视频里你有个非常好看的麦克风。
I noticed there in the video, you have a really nice looking microphone.
那是用来录音乐的话筒吗？
Is that a microphone for recording music?
对，这是我唱歌用的。
Yeah, this is the one I sing on.
首先，你声音很好听，而且这麦克风比我们嘉宾常用的那种看起来酷多了。
It's first of all, you sound good, but it also looks a lot cooler than the typical microphone that our that our guest use.
你现在还经常玩音乐吗？
Do you do you are you still are you still playing much music?
是的。
I do.
不过谢天谢地，现在纯粹是玩票性质不用靠它赚钱了，这种状态让我活得自在多了。
But but thankfully now, it's just for fun, not for money, which is a much more comfortable place for it to live in my life.
你对AI生成音乐及其对音乐人的影响有什么看法吗？
Do you think at all about AI generated music and the effect that that's going to have on musicians?
我感觉很多音乐人，比如我在Instagram上关注的，对此都挺焦虑的。
I feel like a lot of musicians, like the ones that I follow on Instagram, there's a lot of anxiety about this.
确实存在这种焦虑。
There is anxiety.
说实话，靠音乐谋生真的非常艰难。
And look, I mean, it's really hard to make a living as a musician.
是的。
Yeah.
一直以来都特别不容易。
Now it's always been really hard.
我甚至无法想象乔治二世宫廷里鲁特琴演奏者的生活是怎样的。
And, you know, I can't imagine what the lifestyle was of a lute player in George II's Royal Court or something.
但你知道，这行当确实不好做。
But, you know, it's a tough business.
当新技术出现可能改变艺术家赚钱方式时，确实令人恐慌。
And it is scary when new technology comes on the scene that might change the way you make money as an artist.
我在Spotify时代就经历过这种冲击。
I lived through that with Spotify.
人们当时对此感到恐惧。
People were terrified of it.
而你知道，幸运的是它所做的
And you know, fortunately what it did
随着时间的推移，本应都像你那样做，接受Spotify并分散自身风险。
over It time should have all done what you did and get long Spotify and then hedge their own risk to it.
不过请继续。
But keep going.
不，但你看，Spotify成倍地增加了唱片音乐行业的总收入，这正是目标所在。
No, but look, Spotify by multiples increased the total revenue of the recorded music business, which was the goal.
嗯。
Mhmm.
所以任务完成了。
So mission accomplished.
现在，看吧，AI将会创作音乐。
Now, look, AI is gonna make music.
我认为所有创意工作者，无论是记者、投资者还是其他人，都会思考如何利用AI来提高效率、增强影响力并创造出更酷的作品。
And I think like all creative people, like journalists, like investors, everyone's gonna think about how they can use it to be more effective, have more leverage, have a cooler output.
我几乎毫不怀疑艺术家们会用AI工具创作出令人难以置信的酷炫原创作品，这已经在发生了。
I mean, I have very little doubt that artists are gonna do unbelievably cool and original stuff with AI tools, and it's already happening.
不知为何，我几乎不担心他们会被淘汰出局。
And for whatever reason, I have very little trepidation that they're gonna be put out of business.
因为我认为音乐本质上是种交流方式。
Because I think ultimately music is communication.
确实
Real
关于这点我快速插一句，当你提到用音乐做出超酷的事情时——
quickly on that, when you talk about doing unbelievably cool things with music.
比如我看到你背景里有架钢琴。
So I see in the background you have a piano, for example.
当我思考AI音乐时，其实像Suno创始人这些AI音乐公司创始人都曾讨论过这个问题。
And one of the things when I think about AI music is and actually, I think, for example, the founder of Suno and some of these other AI music companies have talked about this.
演奏乐器真的很难。
To play instruments is really hard.
那么，我们能否以某种方式将音乐的技艺分离出来——那些人们必须花费无数小时在钢琴上练习音阶才能创作出作品的时光？
Therefore, can we separate in some way the craft of music, the hours that someone has to spend just doing scales on the piano before they can compose something?
如果不需要经历那数千小时的练习，从《玛丽有只小羊羔》开始一步步学习，就能直接创作出美妙绝伦的钢琴奏鸣曲，岂不是很好？
You could wouldn't it be nice if we could just have amazing, beautiful piano sonatas without ever having to had both put in those thousands of hours, Mary Had a Little Lamb and then so forth.
但这确实引发了一个问题：如果从未学习过技艺，一个人能否创造出伟大的艺术？
But it does raise the question to my mind of whether one can create great art if they never had to learn the craft.
我认为通过音乐传达情感的细腻程度，取决于你能感知到多少种表达选项。
I think the nuance with which one can communicate through music is a function of how many options you perceive.
换句话说，如果你对钢琴了如指掌，你就会意识到在任何时刻都有无数创作选择可供支配。
In other words, if you know the piano inside out, you're aware of so many creative choices that are at your disposal at any given moment.
而如果你的表达能力被压缩到只能通过自然语言指令来呈现，
And if your ability to express yourself is squeezed down to what you can put into a natural language prompt,
现在
now
这些音乐创意必须通过语言媒介才能得以实现。
those musical ideas are having to pass through the medium of language to be realized.
这本质上会削弱你表达时的精确度和广度。
And that inherently erodes the resolution and the expansiveness with which you can express yourself.
我
I
感觉这里存在一个危险，就是你可能会偏离主题，大谈特谈口语化倾向，以及思想是否可以脱离语言存在之类的问题。
feel like there's a danger here that you go off on a big orality tangent and whether ideas can exist without words and things like that.
不。
No.
但我确实认为这个回答非常富有洞见。
But I do think this is this that answer is very insightful.
比如，如果你不知道钢琴的演奏极限，真的能创作出伟大的钢琴曲吗？
Like, can you actually create great piano music if you don't know the limits of what the piano can do?
如果你只是试图用语言描述——创作这首美妙的奏鸣曲，我认为这非常困难，而那个回答让我觉得很有道理。
If you're only trying to describe in language, make this beautiful sonata, I think that's very tough, and I thought that answer made a lot of sense.
DA，我们很快就要结束了。
DA, we're gonna have to wrap it up soon.
我还有最后一个问题。
I have one last question.
哦，不。
Oh, no.
我要让你有点措手不及了。
And I'm gonna kind of I'm gonna put you on the spot.
你能为我们唱一小段Odd Lot的歌吗？
Can you can you sing a little Odd Lot song for us?
就唱三小节Odd Lot的歌，我不在乎你现在用Gemini生成，你觉得你能做到吗？
Like three bars of an Odd Lot I don't care if you generate it with Gemini now, you think you could?
让我想想。
Let's see.
我是说
I mean
哦，哇。
Oh, wow.
我要转
I'm gonna turn
这个开。
this on.
让我看看。
Let's see here.
这真的很酷。
This is really cool.
是啊。
Yeah.
如果你
If you
能 为那些没看视频的人说明一下，他正在移动麦克风。
can For those who aren't watching the video, so he's moving his microphone.
他正把麦克风移到键盘旁边。
He's moving his microphone to his keyboard.
好的。
Okay.
你能看到吗？
Can you see?
嗯。
Yeah.
对。
Yeah.
太棒了。
It's great.
是啊。
Yeah.
开始吧。
Go for it.
从这里过来。
Coming through here.
好的。
Okay.
我们试试看。
We're gonna try.
全都是关于特蕾西。
And it's all about it's all about it's all about Tracy.
全都是关于琼。
It's all about it's all about it's all about Joan.
怎么样？
How's that?
相当不错。
That's pretty good.
你的声音很棒。
You have a great voice.
是啊。
Yeah.
确实，如果你
It is If you
想为我们创作片尾曲的话。
ever wanna compose an outro song for us Yeah.
或者类似的东西。
Or something like that.
噢，我很乐意。
Oh, I would love to.
我是两三个播客主题曲的作曲者，不得不说，我很喜欢你们的主题音乐。
I'm I'm I am the composer of two or three podcast theme And I have to say, I love your guys' theme music.
它让我很兴奋，我必须为你们用这个收尾。
It it gets me excited, and I I I gotta end on this for you guys.
要知道，高中时我之所以开始投资，是因为我是个经济学书呆子。
You know, in high school, the reason I got into investing in high school, I was an economics nerd.
哦，是啊。
Oh, yeah.
我听说
I heard
而我的爱好
And my hobby
我听说你实际上写过一篇论文，还赢得了美联储之类的奖项。
I heard that you actually wrote, like, some a paper that won, like, a prize from the Fed or something like that.
所以美联储赞助了一个名为'美联储挑战赛'的学术竞赛。
So the Federal Reserve had this nerd competition they sponsored called Fed Challenge.
有一年我担任高中校队队长，我们去华盛顿特区时，亲眼看到格林斯潘带着他那睿智的面容和双手走出来。
And I was the captain of my high school team one year and we got to DC and we we saw Greenspan walk out with his wise and face and hands.
总之，如果我高中时就听过《奇数批》节目，天啊，我肯定会乐疯的。
And anyways, if I had had Odd Lots listened to in high school, man, I would have been heaven.
因为你们涉及的内容实在太有趣了。
Because you guys touch on so much interesting stuff.
这绝对是年轻人最激动人心的体验，能让他们对商业、经济和金融产生兴趣，并意识到这些不仅仅是枯燥乏味的传统话题。
And this just has to be the most exciting thing for young people to experience in order to get turned on to business and economics and finance and recognize these aren't just boring, you know, staid topics.
它们其实非常迷人。
They're fascinating.
谢谢你这么说。
Thank you for saying that.
我真的很感激。
I really appreciate it.
也谢谢你为我们唱歌。
And also thank you for singing for us.
我想这应该是节目开播以来头一回。
I think that was an all thought first.
确实是头一回。
That was a first.
是啊。
Yeah.
那么
So
是啊
Yeah.
嗯，现场来说，我知道我们之前请过梅尔·哈泽德，那位
Well, on the spot, I know we've had, Merle Hazzard, the
哦，对
Oh, yeah.
没错
Yeah.
乡村歌手兼经济学家之前来过节目，但这次太精彩了
Country singing economist on before, but that was fantastic.
DA·沃勒克，非常感谢你参加节目
DA Wallach, thank you so much for coming on the show.
真的非常感谢
Really appreciate it.
谢谢大家。
Thanks, guys.
谢谢邀请我。
Thanks for having me.
太棒了。
That was great.
真的很有趣，乔。
That was really interesting, Joe.
超级有意思。
That was super fun.
他表现得很出色。
He was great.
他确实相当擅长——虽然他说音乐与生物科技的联系有些牵强，但这种跨界确实有其道理。
He was also pretty good at I know, again, he said it was tenuous, the through line from music to biotech kinda makes sense.
我认为这非常合理，特别是考虑到这些都是初创企业投资，正如我们所知。
I think it makes a lot of sense, especially the fact that you know, these are extreme these are all start up investing as we know.
你知道，这就是幂律现象——你投资的20家公司中可能只有一家会赚走所有的钱。
You know, there's this power law phenomenon where one of your 20 portfolio companies is gonna make all the money.
是啊。
Yeah.
就像彩票一样。
The lottery ticket.
但你看，生物科技就像是彩票中的彩票。
But, you know, like, biotech is like lottery tickets upon lottery tickets.
这里面有太多成败的不确定性。
There's so much success uncertainty.
而且中奖金额也更低的彩票。
Lottery tickets with lower payouts as well.
奖金。
Payouts.
这里面有太多成败的不确定性。
There's so much success uncertainty.
从最初的工作到看到任何市场反响信号之间会经历很长时间，这确实很像音乐行业中的不确定性——要从这100支听起来都很棒、实际上也都很有才华的乐队中选出真正具备商业爆款潜力的。
There's so much time that elapses between the initial work and where you have see if there's any signals of traction, it does feel a lot like the uncertainty that exists in the music industry and selecting which of these 100 bands that all sound great and they're all really talented actually has what it takes to be a commercial hit.
有很多相似之处。
A lot of parallels.
是的。
Yeah.
我觉得恐龙偏见那个观点也很有趣，因为你可以想象，再次回到时间线的问题，在这个行业里要想成功通常需要资历，毕竟一款药物从研发到上市可能要花上十年时间。
I thought the dinosaur bias point was an interesting one as well because you can imagine, again, to the timeline point, you kind of have to be old to have any success in the industry historically just because it can take, you know, a decade to get a particular drug to market.
所以除非你活得够久，否则没多少机会获得那些成功。
So you don't have that much opportunity to have, you know, those wins unless you get old.
而且从不缺乏。
And there's no shortage.
你知道，虽然可能有些监管措施可以实施，但本质上，如果你想知道某样东西是否有效，想知道这种药物是否会危害服用者的生命、是否安全，那么除了进行试验观察结果外，别无替代方案。
There's no you know, there may be regulatory things that can be done, but fundamentally, if you wanna know whether something works and if you wanna know whether this drug is going to kill people who take it or not and whether it's safe or not, there is no substitute for doing a test and seeing what what happens.
回到你关于恐龙的观点或观察，确实很多人都有这种幻想——每当存在任何传统行业时，只要把斯坦福大学的21岁年轻人聚在同一个房间里...
And to to your point or to your observation about the dinosaurs, like, do think that lots of people have this fantasy that anytime there's a legacy industry of any sort, that if you just got 21 year olds from Stanford in the same room
然后给他们一个车库作为工作场所。
And gave them garage to work out of.
车库里的年轻人会比行业老手干得更好。
Garage that they would do it a lot better than the veterans.
这就是Doge的前提假设。
That was the Doge premise.
而Doge现在已经不存在了。
And Doge doesn't exist anymore.
所以
So
是的。
Yep.
我们就聊到这里？
Shall we leave it there?
就到这里吧。
Let's leave it there.
这是本期播客的又一集内容。
This has been another episode of the podcast.
我是特蕾西·阿拉维。
I'm Tracy Allaway.
你可以在特蕾西·阿拉维关注我。
You can follow me at Tracy Allaway.
我是吉尔·维森塔尔。
And I'm Jill Wiesenthal.
你可以在The Stalwart关注我。
You can follow me at the stalwart.
关注我们的嘉宾D。
Follow our guest, D.
沃勒克。
Wallach.
他的账号是D。
He's at D.
A.
A.
Wallach。
Wallach.
关注我们的制作团队：Carmen Rodriguez（Carmen Armen）、O'Bennett（Dashpot）和Kale Brooks（Kale Brooks）。
Follow our producers, Carmen Rodriguez at Carmen Armen dash O'Bennett at Dashpot and Kale Brooks at Kale Brooks.
更多Odd内容请访问bloomberg.com/oddlots。
For more Odd content, go to bloomberg.com/oddlots.
我们有每日通讯和全部节目集锦，您还可以在我们的Discord（discord.gg/oddlots）全天候参与这些话题讨论。
We have a daily newsletter and all of our episodes, and you could chat about all of these topics twenty four seven in our Discord, discord.gg/oddlots.
如果您喜欢Odd Lots节目，希望我们制作更多医疗健康专题，请在您常用的播客平台为我们留下好评。
And if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you want us to do more health care episodes, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite podcast platform.
请记住，作为彭博订阅用户，您可以完全无广告收听我们所有节目。
And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free.
您只需在Apple Podcasts找到彭博频道并按指引操作即可。
All you need to do is find the Bloomberg channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there.
感谢收听。
Thanks for listening.
我是卡罗尔·马瑟。
I'm Carol Masser.
我是蒂姆·斯特内维克，邀请您加入我们的彭博商业周刊每日播客。
And I'm Tim Stenevek inviting you to join us for the Bloomberg Businessweek daily podcast.
现在每天，我们都会为您带来杂志报道，帮助全球领导者保持领先。
Now every day, we are bringing you reporting from the magazine that helps global leaders stay ahead.
我们深入剖析影响当今复杂经济格局的人物、公司和趋势。
We've got insight on the people, the companies, and trends that are shaping today's complex economy.
没错，蒂姆。
That's right, Tim.
我们全面覆盖全球商业、金融、科技新闻，实时追踪动态，并对美国市场收盘进行完整报道。
We're all over global business, finance, tech news, all as it is happening in real time, and we've got complete coverage of The US market close.
可以说，基本上只要是影响金融市场、影响企业、影响流行趋势和舆论走向的事件，我们都会
Gotta say, basically, if it impacts financial markets, if it impacts companies, if it's impacting trends and narratives that are out there, we are on
它。
it.
我们做这件事也乐在其中。
We also have a lot of fun doing it.
《彭博商业周刊》还通过与专家嘉宾的对话，为您带来头条新闻背后的深度分析。
Bloomberg Businessweek also brings you the analysis behind the headlines through conversations with our expert guests.
我们每个工作日都会进行实时播报，并在每日播客中为您呈现最精辟的分析。
And we are doing this all live each weekday, and then we bring you the best analysis in our daily podcast.
在YouTube、Apple、Spotify或您常用的播客平台搜索《彭博商业周刊》。
Search for Bloomberg Businessweek on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen.
下班路上收听，补上工作日错过的精彩对话。
Check it out on your way home from work to catch up on the conversations that you missed during the business day.
周末时收听，可获取整周商业要闻的完整回顾。
And on the weekend, check it out for a complete wrap up of your business week.
这就是《彭博商业周刊》每日播客。
That's the Bloomberg Businessweek daily podcast.
我是卡罗尔·马瑟。
I'm Carol Masser.
我是蒂姆·斯坦诺维奇。
And I'm Tim Stanovich.
立即订阅，在您获取播客的任何平台收听。
Subscribe today wherever you get your podcasts.
关于 Bayt 播客
Bayt 提供中文+原文双语音频和字幕，帮助你打破语言障碍，轻松听懂全球优质播客。