290 likes | 560 Views
Signs of Life The Growth of Biotechnology Centers in the U.S. Joseph Cortright Heike Mayer. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy June 2002. Roadmap. Introduction to Biotech Industry Key Findings Detailed Results Lessons. Trends in Economic Development.
E N D
Signs of LifeThe Growth of Biotechnology Centers in the U.S. Joseph Cortright Heike Mayer The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy June 2002
Roadmap • Introduction to Biotech Industry • Key Findings • Detailed Results • Lessons
Trends in Economic Development • The Next Silicon Valley • Battle for the Dot.Coms • Biotech: NBT (The Next Big Thing) • 83% of local development agenciesplace bio among their top two priorities • 41 States have biotech programs
Definitions & Methods • Biotechnology • Firms using genetic and cellular techniques • Biomedicine: diagnostic/therapeutic • Industry-developed definitions & data • Top 51 Metropolitan Areas • Census-defined CMSA/PMSA list
Industry Segmentation Pharmaceuticals • Very large, global firms • Top ten average $15 billion sales • Assets are products, distribution, manufacturing expertise • Very Profitable Biotechnology • Small, mostly single establishment firms • Top ten average $700 million sales • Principal assets are people, research and future potential • Lose Money
Biotech Basics • 25,000 NIH-funded research projects • 5,000 biomedical patents • 400-500 drugs in development • 100 drugs on or near market • 10 products account for nearly all sales
Nine Metros Dominate Seattle Boston New York Philadelphia San Francisco Pharmaceutical Centers Biotech Leaders Biotech Challengers Why these nine? Special Cases Washington- Los Angeles Research Triangle Park San Diego
NIH Grants Patents Venture Capital R&D Partnerships Startup Firms Established Firms Two Pillars of Biotech Development Research Commercialization
Leaders vs. the Pack Average Levels of Activity Top 9 Bottom Metric Centers 42 NIH$ (millions) 812 104 Patents 2,641 263 Venture Capital 957 27 R&D Alliances 1,089 11 New Firms 35 2.3 Large Firms 24 1.5 _________ Biotech VC Firms 47 4
Research Dispersing Top 9 Centers Share 1980s 1990s NIH$ 63% 59% Patents 71% 68%
Commercialization Concentrating Top 9 Centers Share 1980s 1990s Venture Capital* 81% 86% R&D Alliances* 89% 96% New Firms 61% 77% *Base data from early to mid-1990s
NIH Funding Research Grants, 2000 (Millions) 3rd
Biotech Related Patents Patents Awarded, 1990-1999 5th
Venture Capital Investment, 1995-2001 (Millions) 9th
R&D Alliances Value of R&D Alliances, 1996-2001 (Millions) 6th
Biotech Startups New Biotech Firms Started Since 1990 6th
Established Biotech Companies Firms with 100 or more employees 4th
Washington/Baltimore Cluster • Research Assets • Johns Hopkins, National Institutes of Health • Cadre of Biotech Firms • Human Genome Sciences, Celera, Med-Immune, Alpharma, Genvec, Neurologic, Macrogenics • Dozens of others in biotech & related fields • BIO: National Industry Association
Washington/Baltimore Report Card • Clearly among the top 9 • Very strong in research • High levels of NIH funding • High volume of patents • Not as strong in commercialization • $85 million in venture capital • $17 million in R&D alliances with big Pharma • Heavily concentrated in Rockville-Gaithersburg
Four Lessons • Biotech tends to cluster • Leaders have an edge • Entrepreneurship & venture capital are key • Outlook for biotech-led economic development
Biotech Tends to Cluster • Talent is drawn to where firms are; firms form where talent is • Powerful business advantages from agglomerations • A case of QWERTYnomics • Lock-in to particular arrangements
Leaders have an Edge • Falling (further) behind the Leaders • Biotech is concentrated and growing moreso • Leaders are: • 5 to 10x bigger than followers in research and • 30 to 100x bigger than followers in commercialization
Entrepreneurship is Key • Research base is necessary but not sufficient • Commercialization Assets • Entrepreneurial researchers • Industry-relevant talent • Technical • Managerial • Venture capital--surprisingly localized
Outlook for the “Bottom 42” • Biotech strategies are • Expensive • Risky • Time-consuming
Modest payoffs, so far • No biotech firm is among 25 largest private employers in a metro • Biotech averages about 3.5% of manufacturing employment in 9 leading centers • Most biotech firms stay small; successful firms sell or license to big Pharma
A flawed analogy? • Is biotech the next big thing? • Real breakthroughs and benefits, but: • No “Moore’s Law” for biotech • Not progressively less expensive than preceding generations of projects • More like nuclear power?
Conclusions • Place still matters, even in a quintessential knowledge industry • Not just research, but the ability to turn ideas into businesses • The power of clustering provides decisive business advantages