Personal genomics. Cofounded 23andMe in 2006 with Linda Avey to commercialize genetic testing. Powerful science with huge potential, and 23andMe has helped galvanize the debate over genomics. But the company has an Achilles heal more obvious than its peers': it delivers a wealth of genetic data, but no therapeutic strategy as a follow-up. For us, healthcare innovations either elevate quality, lower costs, or expand access. Genomics applied to a single person can address only the first two criteria; that's "targeted therapy." So while one question nags all personal genomics companies (Lord, Agus, Scott) -- will a person who discovers she is at risk of diabetes, actually take steps to mitigate it? -- for 23andMe, it is more pressing. And unlike its peers, the company does not focus its resources on diseases where risks could be mitigated. How much value is there in revealing to a person that she is at risk of Parkinson's, if there is nothing that can be done? An innovation that is not applied to produce an outcome might just as well be art. (One blogger called 23andMe "navelgazing.") Still, there are huge potential benefits for drug R&D, if the company can price (or fund) its kit low enough to collect genetic information en masse. If this is the long-term plan, then 23andMe is better positioned to succeed than most, as it has access to extremely deep pockets. Once $999, the kit is now just $399. We're told an even cheaper kit is on the way. But will it be cheap enough?

To Fast Company:  "The "spit party" concept was we had people walking around in lab coats that said "spit coach" on the back. It gave a good levity to Davos. People aren't really used to it -- how often do you have to spit in a tube? It requires a bit of coaching because we do require a fair amount of saliva."