May 1 2009 (Vol. 29, No. 9)
![]() click to enlarge Researchers at Scotland's University of Glasgow are working to improve the safety and efficacy of gene therapy by studying the biology of viruses. (D. Bhella, MRC Virology Unit) | Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, and Cambridge are on everyone’s list of the top biotech clusters. Medicon Valley, straddling the border of Sweden and Denmark, Switzerland’s BioValley, Seattle, and Paris may be on that list, too, and no wonder. These are areas where biotech thrives. Biotech is so successful at attracting brainpower, related industries, and money to regions that today almost everybody is trying to get into the act. Obviously, some regions will fare better than others. Many of these clusters have formed because of local political interest. “Consequently, many of the clusters don’t reach critical mass,” notes Willy DeGreef, secretary general, EuropaBio. There are many great research universities throughout the world, and most regions with a nascent biotech industry have at least one. Good ideas and the scientific capital to bring them to fruition, therefore, are plentiful. It’s the business aspects of growing a biotech cluster that are often most difficult, and that can make the difference between success and mediocrity or even failure. As Glen Giovannetti, global biotech leader at Ernst & Young, points out, “The secret sauce for biotech success is experienced venture capital, experienced management, and a serial entrepreneurial culture.” GEN talked with a number of biotech industry thought leaders to identify some of the most promising emerging biotech clusters. One point they all made is that it’s nearly impossible to choose the best, and that even the term biotech is hard to define. The term “emerging” had some challenges, too. Nonetheless, here are some of the regions that are capturing their attention. |
5/7/2009
Two comments: First, your sources, including Giovannetti from Ernst and Young,underestimate the importance of other professionals such as accountants, lawyers, realtors, and bankers who understand and know how to serve high-risk ventures.
More important, most of these clusters are going to be a huge waste of public resources. The Big Four you mention all developed with little or no government support or public policy intent. The limiting factor in cluster development is the substrate, much as a piece of land can only support a certain crop density. The U.S., with perhaps 300 major medical research institutions, 50 years of massive funding for life sciences R&D, and most of the world's VCs, has still only managed to produce three bona-fide, sustainable clusters. To think that the world can support dozens more within our lifetimes borders on absurd. Many of the public officials, both in the U.S. and elsewhere, who are building "clusters" to satisfy their egos are going to be stuck with a lot of empty buildings.
INTERVIEW:
(BIO) BANKING IN LUXEMBOURG - Interview with Robert Hewitt, Ph.D., CEO, Integrated Biobank of Luxembourg, and European Editor, Biopreservation and Biobanking (published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)
...MORE
News
Articles
Blogs| Most Viewed | Most Emailed | Top Searches |
|---|---|---|
| Unclog the Innovation Bottleneck at our Nation’s Universities | ||
| (Bio) Banking in Luxembourg | ||