2009 INDEX OF THE NEW YORK CITY INNOVATION ECONOMY · 2012-09-16 · page study, “Building New York City’s Innovation Economy.” That report provides an extensive analysis of

2009 INDEX OF THE NEW YORK CITY INNOVATION ECONOMY

This report was written by Jim O’Grady and Jonathan Bowles. It was edited by David Jason Fischer and designed by Design Confederation. Additional research by Tara Colton, Lindsey Ganson, Rachel Greene, Keenan Hughes, Steven Josselson, William King, McKenna Morrigan and Farah Rahaman.

We also acknowledge the helpful support we received from the members of an advisory board created for this project. Advisory board members, who provided suggestions and guidance but were not asked to endorse the final study, included: Harold Varmus, President, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (Co-Chair); Kathryn Wylde, President & CEO, Partnership for New York City (Co-Chair); Stuart Ellman, Managing Partner, RRE Ventures; Ted Greenwood, Program Director, The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; David Hirsh, Executive Vice President for Research, Columbia University; David Hochman, Consultant in technology-based economic development, Battelle; Jerry Hultin, President, Polytechnic Institute of NYU; Sharon Mates, Chairman & CEO, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc; Ed Moran, Director, Deloitte & Touche Technology, Media & Telecommunications (TMT) Group’s Tri-State Product Innovation Practice; David Rose, Founding Chair, New York Angels.

This report was made possible by support from The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

General operating support for City Futures has been provided by Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation, The Citi Foundation, Deutsche Bank, The F.B. Heron Foundation, Fund for the City of New York, Salesforce Foundation, The Scherman Foundation, Inc., and Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock.

The Center for an Urban Future is a New York City-based think tank dedicated to independent, fact-based research about critical issues affecting New York’s future, including economic development, workforce development, higher education and thearts. For more information or to sign up for our monthly e-mail bulletin, visit www.nycfuture.org.

The Center for an Urban Future is a project of City Futures, Inc. City Futures Board of Directors: Andrew Reicher (Chair), Margaret Anadu, Michael Connor, Russell Dubner, Ken Emerson, David Lebenstein, Gail O. Mellow, Gifford Miller, Lisette Nieves, Jefrey Pollock, Ira Rubenstein, John Siegal, Stephen Sigmund, Karen Trella, Peter Williams and Mark Winston Griffith.

ABOUT THE INNOVATION INDEX

This index is the first-ever comprehensive, fact-based assessment of New York City’s innovation economy. We publish it at a time when policymakers and economic development officials are be-ginning to grasp how important it will be in the years ahead for New York City to fully capitalize on its enormous scientific assets and develop a large and sustainable innovation economy, a wel-come shift that has been precipitated by the Wall Street meltdown and the steep downturn in the city’s economy. But even while of-ficials in the city, region and state are showing more appreciation and interest in the innovation economy, there remains a dearth of information about the city’s strengths and weaknesses in sci-ence and technology fields. Our index attempts to change that. The 49 tables and graphs that make up this index are de-signed to provide policymakers, business and academic lead-ers, scientists, entrepreneurs and investors with data that illus-trates where New York stands compared to other major cities and regions—including Boston, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego and Raleigh/Durham—on a broad range of indi-cators measuring both existing science and technology as-sets and the level of success at commercializing these assets. Funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, our index assess-es how New York City scientific institutions stack up against institutions in other regions on everything from the num-ber of members of the New York Academy of Sciences to the amount of R&D expenditures made in fields such as environ-mental sciences, physics and mathematics. It examines how the city institutions have fared in R&D funding by the federal government, state and local governments and industry. And it includes detailed breakdowns of how New York City institu-tions have done in technology transfer compared to institu-tions located upstate and in the rest of the downstate region. Our index is not limited to comparing and contrasting aca-demic research institutions. It also looks at how New York stacks up against other cities when it comes to attract-ing venture capital and producing fast-growing technol-ogy companies. We also shed light on which technol-ogy fields in New York attract the most interest from VCs. The index accompanies the Center for an Urban Future’s 48-page study, “Building New York City’s Innovation Economy.” That report provides an extensive analysis of the role that univer-sities and nonprofit research institutions play in New York City’s economy, their potential to be a catalyst for future growth and the challenges the city faces in fully harnessing these institutions for local economic development.

CONTENTS

Section 1: overall reSearch Spending in nYc and other leading tech regionS p. 4 • NIH Funding, 2008 • Federal Funding to Nonprofit Scientific Research Institutions, 2006 • Overall R&D Spending by Colleges and Universities, 2006 • Federal Expenditures for R&D at Colleges and Universities, 2006• State and Local Government Spending at Colleges and Universities, 2006 • Industry-financed R&D at Colleges and Universities, 2006 • Institution-financed R&D at Colleges and Universities, 2006 • All Other Sources of Financing for R&D at Colleges and Universities, 2006

Section 2: reSearch Spending bY Scientific diScipline p. 8• R&D Spending by Colleges and Universities in Life Sciences, 2006• R&D Spending by Colleges and Universities in Engineering, 2006 • R&D Spending by Colleges and Universities in Environmental Sciences, 2006• R&D Spending by Colleges and Universities in Math And Computer Science, 2006• R&D Spending by Colleges and Universities in Physical Sciences, 2006• R&D Spending by Colleges and Universities in Psychology, 2006• R&D Spending by Colleges and Universities in Social Science, 2006

Section 3: Standout inStitutionS in nYc p. 12 • Top 100 Recipients of NIH Support From New York State and New York City, 2008• New York City and New York State Universities and Colleges Among Nation’s Top 200 in Total R&D Expenditures, 2006• New York City and New York State Universities and Colleges Among Nation’s Top 200 in Federally Financed R&D Expenditures, 2006• New York City and New York State Nonprofit Research Institutions Among Nation’s Top 200 Recipients of Federal R&D Funds, 2006• NYC Universities vs. Top 10 U.S. institutions in R&D Spending on Engineering, 2007• Top U.S. Universities and Nonprofit Research Institutions for Seeding Start-ups, 2007• Top 15 U.S. Universities for Licensing Income, 2007

Section 4: nYc’S talent dividend p. 18• Regions with the Most Howard Hughes Medical Investigators, February 2009• Regions with the Most National Academy of Sciences Members, February 2009

Section 5: nYc/nYS breakdownS p. 19• Breakdown of NIH Funding in New York State, 2008• Breakdown of Total R&D Spending at Colleges and Universities in New York State, 2006* Breakdown of Federal Government Financed R&D Spending at Colleges And Universities in New York State, 2006 • Breakdown of State and Local Government R&D Spending at Colleges And Universities in New York State, 2006• Breakdown of Industry Spending on R&D at Universities and Colleges in New York State, 2006• Breakdown of Institutional R&D spending in New York State, 2006• Breakdown of Federal Funding to Nonprofit Research Institutions in NYS, 2006

Section 6: venture Support p. 23 • Most Active VC Firms by Location, 2007 and 2008• Top 10 Regions for Attracting Venture Capital Investment (Number of Deals), 2008• Top 10 Regions for Attracting Venture Capital Investment (Dollar Value), 2008

Section 7: venture Support bY Sector p. 25• Share of Region’s VC Deals Going To Biotech Firms, 4q 2008• Share of Region’s VC Deals Going to Software Firms, 4q 2008• Share of Region’s VC Deals Going to Financial Services Firms, 4q 2008• Share of Region’s VC Deals going to Media and Entertainment Firms, 4q 2008• Share of Region’s VC Deals Going to IT Service Firms, 4q 2008• Share of Region’s VC Deals Going to Medical Devices and Equipment Firms, 4q 2008• Share of Region’s VC Deals Going to Telecom Services Firms, 4q 2008

Section 8: Sbir/Sttr weakneSSeS p. 29• Number of SBIR Awards by Region, 2006• Number of STTR Awards by Region, 2006• Breakdown of SBIR Awards in New York State, 2006• Breakdown of STR Awards in New York State, 2006

Section 9: high tech economY p. 31 • Regions with the Most Companies on the 2008 Deloitte Technology Fast 500 List, 2008• Top Metropolitan Area Ranked by Number of Individuals Employed in Science And Engineering Occupations, 2006• Top Metropolitan Area Ranked by Percentages of Metro Area Workforce Employed in Science and Engineering Occupations, 2006 • Top High-Tech Centers in North America, Ranked by Milken Institute, 2007

Top Regions foR niH funding, 2008

Section 1: overall reSearch Spending in nYc and other leading tech regionS

fedeRal funding To nonpRofiT scienTific ReseaRcH insTiTuTions, 2006

Source: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, FY 2006. Data shows federal obligations for science and engineering research and development and R&D plant to nonprofit institutions.

ToTa

l sp

end

ing

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

Boston

NYC Metro seattle

san Francis

co

los Angeles

New York C

ity

san Dieg

oChica

go

philadelphia

Raleigh/Durh

amBaltim

ore

Source: National Institutes of Health

2

1

am

ou

nT

of

niH

fu

nd

ing

0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

Boston

NYC Metro

New York C

ity

san Francis

co

los Angeles

philadelphia

san Dieg

o

Baltimore

Chicago

Raleigh/Durh

amseattle

Washington, D

C

4

fedeRal expendiTuRes foR R&d aT colleges and univeRsiTies, 2006

Source: National Science Foundation, R&D expenditures at universities and colleges, by state, control, and source of funds, FY 2006

Note: For the NYC total, we allocated 60 percent of Cornell University’s total expenditures to their Ithaca campus and 40 percent to their medical school in NYC.

ToTa

l sp

end

ing

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

NYC Metro

Baltimore

Boston

los Angeles

san Francis

co

New York C

ity

philadelphia

Raleigh/Durh

amChica

go

san Dieg

oseattle

3

4

oveRall R&d by colleges and univeRsiTies, 2006

Source: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Research and DevelopmentExpenditures at Universities and Colleges, FY 2006.


0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$3,000,000,000

NYC Metro

San Francisco

Baltimore

Los Angeles

New York CityBoston

Raleigh/Durham

PhiladelphiaChicago

San DiegoSeattle

R&D

SPE

ND

ING

ToTa

l sp

end

ing

5

sTaTe and local goveRnmenT spending on R&d aT colleges and univeRsiTies, 2006



ToTa

l sp

end

ing

$0

$30,000,000

$60,000,000

$90,000,000

$120,000,000

$150,000,000

san Francis

co

Raleigh/Durh

am

NYC Metro

Baltimore

los Angeles

san Dieg

o

New York C

ity

philadelphia

Chicago

Bostonseattle

indusTRy-financed R&d aT colleges and univeRsiTies, 2006

Source: National Science Foundation, R&D expenditures at universities and colleges, by state, control, and source of funds, FY 2006.


ToTa

l sp

end

ing

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

Raleigh/Durh

amBoston

san Francis

co

NYC Metro

los Angeles

philadelphia

Baltimore

seattle

san Dieg

oChica

go

New York C

ity

5

6

6

insTiTuTion-financed R&d aT colleges and univeRsiTies, 2006



ToTa

l sp

end

ing

7

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

NYC Metro

san Francis

co

los Angeles

Chicago

New York C

ity

Raleigh/Durh

amBaltim

ore

san Dieg

o

philadelphia

Bostonseattle

all oTHeR souRces of financing foR R&d aT colleges and univeRsiTies, 2006



ToTa

l sp

end

ing

8

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

san Francis

co

NYC Metro

los Angeles

Baltimore

Boston

san Dieg

o

New York C

ity

philadelphia

Chicago

Raleigh/Durh

amseattle

7

Section 2: reSearch Spending bY Scientific diScipline

R&d spending by colleges and univeRsiTies in life sciences, 2006

Source: National Science Foundation, R&D expenditures at universities and colleges, by state, control, and science and engineering field: FY 2006

9

10R&d spending by colleges and univeRsiTies in engineeRing

Source: National Science Foundation, FY 2006. Note: Our figure for NYC ($90 million) includes $31 million in spending by Cornell, which is 40 percent of the school’s engineering R&D expenditures. We used the same 40-60 allocation for Cornell in all R&D calculations for this report, at the suggestion of school officials, since Cornell’s medical school is in the city. This provides a decent estimate for some research areas, but not engineering; most of its engineering R&D occurs in Ithaca.

Baltimore

Boston

San Francisco

New York Metro

Los Angeles

Philadelphia

Raleigh/Durham

San DiegoChicago

New York CitySeattle

0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

ToTa

l sp

end

ing

0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

san Dieg

oBoston

NYC Metro seattle

Baltimore

san Francis

co

New York C

ity

los Angeles

Raleigh/Durh

am

philadelphia

Chicago

ToTa

l sp

end

ing

8

R&d spending by colleges and univeRsiTies in enviRonmenTal sciences, 2006


ToTa

l sp

end

ing

11

$0

$30,000,000

$60,000,000

$90,000,000

$120,000,000

$150,000,000

san Dieg

oBoston

NYC Metro seattle

Baltimore

san Francis

co

New York C

ity

los Angeles

Raleigh/Durh

am

philadelphia

Chicago

R&d spending by colleges and univeRsiTies in maTH and compuTeR science, 2006


ToTa

l sp

end

ing

12

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

los Angeles

Baltimore

NYC Metro Boston

san Dieg

o

New York C

ityChica

go

san Francis

co

Raleigh/Durh

am

philadelphia

seattle

9

R&d spending by colleges and univeRsiTies in pHysical sciences, 2006


13

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

los Angeles

san Francis

coBoston

NYC Metro

Baltimore

New York C

ityChica

go

philadelphia

Raleigh/Durh

am

san Dieg

oseattle

R&d spending by colleges and univeRsiTies in psycHology, 2006


14

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

NYC Metro

New York C

ity

philadelphia

Boston

san Francis

co

los Angeles

Chicago

san Dieg

oseattle

Greater

Baltimore

Raleigh/Durh

am

ToTa

l sp

end

ing

ToTa

l sp

end

ing

10

R&d spending by colleges and univeRsiTies in social science, 2006


15

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

NYC Metro Boston

philadelphia

san Francis

co

Raleigh/Durh

am

los Angeles

New York C

ityChica

go

Greater

Baltimore

san Dieg

oseattle

ToTa

l sp

end

ing

11

Section 3: Standout inStitutionS in nYc

Top 100 RecipienTs of niH suppoRT fRom new yoRk sTaTe and new yoRk ciTy, 2008

insTiTuTion locaTion Ranking ToTal niH suppoRTColumbia University New York City 16 $275.4 million Health Sciences

Mount Sinai School New York City 29 $171.5 million of Medicine

University of Rochester Rochester 33 $168.3 million

Yeshiva University New York City 43 $130.7 million

NYU School of Medicine New York City 47 $122.0 million

Sloan-Kettering Institute New York City 53 $110.0 million for Cancer Research

Weill Medical College New York City 54 $108.3 million of Cornell University

Rockefeller University New York City 78 $63.7 million

Cornell University-Ithaca Ithaca 84 $59.4 million

SUNY Stony Brook Stony Brook 90 $51.8 million

New York State New York City 93 $50.5 million Psychiatric Institute

SUNY Buffalo Buffalo 95 $48.8 million

Source: http://report.nih.gov/award/trends/AggregateData.cfm?Year=2008

Note: The data we used for the ranking of institutions receiving NIH grants lists university’s medical schools separately from their main campuses. If we had combined the totals for both Columbia University Health Sciences (# 16 on the list) and Columbia’s main campus (#114), the university’s overall ranking would be higher than 16. The same would be the case for NYU; its School of Medicine was ranked 47th and its main campus was ranked 139th.

16

12

new yoRk ciTy and new yoRk sTaTe univeRsiTies and colleges among naTion’s Top 200 in ToTal R&d expendiTuRes, 2006

Rank insTiTuTion 2006 12 Cornell University* $648.8 million

22 Columbia University $530.0 million

40 University of Rochester $366.7 million

58 SUNY Buffalo $298.0 million

61 New York University $284.2 million

62 SUNY Albany $274.4 million

63 Mt. Sinai School of Medicine $273.2 million

73 SUNY Stony Brook $234.6 million

76 Rockefeller University $215.4 million

88 Yeshiva University $189.4 million

146 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute $70.6 million

182 SUNY Upstate Medical University $37.2 million

188 New York Medical College $34.4 million

198 CUNY - Hunter College $31.3 million

199 SUNY Health Science Center Brooklyn $31.1 million

Source:: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, FY 2006.

Note: Institutions based in NYC are in red.

*Cornell is based in Ithaca, but its medical college is in NYC

17

13

new yoRk ciTy and new yoRk sTaTe univeRsiTies and colleges among naTion’s Top 200 in fedeRally financed R&d expendiTuRes, 2006

Rank insTiTuTion 2006 11 Columbia University $451.2 million

17 Cornell University $390.0 million

29 University of Rochester $278.4 million

42 Mt. Sinai School of Medicine $224.9 million

52 New York University $189.3 million

62 Yeshiva University $153.8 million

64 SUNY Buffalo - all campuses $153.2 million

85 SUNY Stony Brook $113.0 million

91 SUNY Albany $103.8 million

102 Rockefeller University $93.7 million

142 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute $44.7 million

172 SUNY Upstate Medical University $27.2 million

173 New York Medical College $26.6 million

177 SUNY Health Science Center Brooklyn $25.2 million

187 CUNY - City College $21.4 million

Source:: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, FY 2006.

Note: Institutions based in NYC are in red.

*Cornell is based in Ithaca, but its medical college is in NYC

18

14

new yoRk ciTy and new yoRk sTaTe nonpRofiT Re-seaRcH insTiTuTions among naTion’s Top 200 Recipi-enTs of fedeRal R&d funds, 2006

Rank insTiTuTion 200612 Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center $107.0 million

14 Joint Oceanographic Institutions Inc. $96.7 million

21 Calspan-University of Buffalo Research Center $79.4 million

25 Syracuse Research Corporation $65.5 million

32 Roswell Park Cancer Institute $41.5 million

34 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory of $40.7 million Quantitative Biology

75 Feinstein Institute for Medical Research $18.6 million

78 Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center $17.8 million

90 National Development and Research Institute $16.5 million

121 Hospital for Special Surgery $10.2 million

123 Trudeau Institute $9.9 million

127 Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research $9.4 million

147 Population Council $7.0 million

151 Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center $6.6 million

161 New York Blood Center $5.8 million

167 Winifred Masterson Burke Medical Research $5.4 million

170 Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute $5.2 million

178 American Museum of Natural History $4.6 million

179 United Negro College Fund $4.5 million

186 Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research $4.1 million

192 New York Structural Biology Center $3.9 million

Source: National Science Foundation. Federal obligations for science and engineering research and development and R&D plant to nonprofit institutions, FY 2006

19

15

nyc univeRsiTies vs Top 10 u.s. insTiTuTions in R&d spending on engineeRing, 2007

Source: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, FY 2007.

R&

d s

pen

T o

n e

ng

inee

Rin

g

20

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

Johns Hopkins

(1)

Georgia Tech (2

)

penn s

tate (3)MIT (4

)

Texas A

&M (5)

u. Michi

gan (6)

Ohio state (

7)

u. Texas A

ustin (8

)

purd

ue (9)

u. California Berke

ley (10)

Colum

bia (50)

City C

ollege (1

21)

polyte

chnic u

niv. (152)

21Top u.s. univeRsiTies and nonpRofiT ReseaRcH insTiTuTions foR seeding sTaRT-ups, 2007

insTiTuTions sTaRT-ups cReaTed

U. of California System 38

MIT 24

U. of Utah 18

Columbia 12

California Institute of Technology 11

U. of Washington 11

Northwestern 10

U. of Colorado 10

U. of Kentucky 10

oTHeR nyc insTiTuTionsNYU 6

Albert Einstein College of Medicine 2

Mount Sinai School of Medicine 1

Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research 0

Source: Association of University Technology Managers, U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: FY 2007.

16

22Top 15 u.s. univeRsiTies foR licensing income, 2007

insTiTuTion licensing income

NYU $791,200,000

Columbia $135,600,000

U. of California system $97,600,000

Northwestern $85,300,000

Wake Forest $71,200,000

U. of Minnesota $63,300,000

U. of Washington $63,300,000

MIT $61,600,000

U. of Rochester $53,300,000

Stanford $50,400,000

U. of Florida $48,000,000

U. of Wisconsin Madison $46,700,000

U. of Massachusetts $40,700,000

Mount Sinai School of Medicine $23,600,000

U. of Colorado $22,700,000

Source: Association of University Technology Managers, U.S. Licensing Activity Survey: FY 2007.

17

Section 4: nYc’S talent dividend

Regions wiTH THe mosT naTional academy of sciences membeRs, febRuaRy 2009

Source: National Academy of Sciences Membership Directory

nu

mbeR

of

na

s m

embeR

s

24

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

san Francis

coBoston

san Dieg

o

New York M

etro

los Angeles

New York C

ity

philadelphia

Chicago

seattle

Raleigh/Durh

amBaltim

ore

23

Regions wiTH THe mosT HowaRd HugHes medical invesTigaToRs, febRuaRy 2009

Source: Howard Hughes Medical Institute website, February 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Boston

San Francisco

New York Metro

New York City

San Diego

Baltimore

Seattle

Philadelphia

Los Angeles

Chicago

Raleigh/Durham

60

49

4239

19 18 17 15 158 6N

UM

BER

OF

HH

MI I

NVE

STIG

ATO

RSn

um

beR

of

HH

mi i

nv

esTi

ga

ToRs

18

Section 5: nYc/nYS breakdownS

bReakdown of niH funding in new yoRk sTaTe, 2008

Source: NIH Aggregate Data for All Organizations, 2008

new york city

Rest of downstate

upstate

25

67.9%

23.1%

9%

bReakdown of ToTal R&d spending aT colleges and univeRsiTies in new yoRk sTaTe, 2006


50.7%

42.1%

7.3%

new york city

Rest of downstate

upstate

26

19


49.8% 44.3%

5.9%

new york city

Rest of downstate

upstate

27

bReakdown of fedeRal goveRnmenT financed R&d spending aT colleges and univeRsiTies in new yoRk sTaTe, 2006

bReakdown of sTaTe and local goveRnmenT R&d spending aT colleges and univeRsiTies in new yoRk sTaTe, 2006


82.4%

28

new york city

Rest of downstate

upstate

15.6%

2%

20

bReakdown of indusTRy spending on R&d aT univeRsiTies and colleges in new yoRk sTaTe, 2006


24.6%

67.7%

7.7%

new york city

Rest of downstate

upstate

29


34.4%

52.1%

13.6%

30

bReakdown of insTiTuTional R&d spending in new yoRk sTaTe, 2006

new york city

Rest of downstate

upstate

21

Source: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, FY 2006.

36.3%

37.6%

26.1%new york city

Rest of downstate

upstate

31

bReakdown of fedeRal funding To nonpRofiT ReseaRcH insTiTuTions in nys, 2006

22

Section 6: venture Support

32

Source:PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, “MoneyTree Report,” 2007 and 2008.

mosT acTive vc fiRms by locaTion, 2007 & 2008

Silicon ValleyBoston

New York City0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Silicon ValleyBoston

New York City

40

16

5

11

33

2NU

MBE

R O

F VC

FIR

MS

WIT

H 2

0 O

R M

ORE

DEA

LS

NU

MBE

R O

F VC

FIR

MS

WIT

H 2

0 O

R M

ORE

DEA

LS

2007 2008n

um

beR

of

vc

fiRm

s w

iTH

20 o

R m

oRe

dea

ls

nu

mbeR

of

vc

fiRm

s w

iTH

20 o

R m

oRe

dea

ls

20082007

Top 10 Regions foR aTTRacTing venTuRe capiTal invesTmenT (numbeR of deals), 2008

Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, “MoneyTree Report,” Q4 2008/Full-year 2008

nu

mbeR

of

vc

dea

ls

33

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Silicon Valley

New England

NYC Metro

Midwest

LA/Orange County

Northwest

Southeast

DC Metroplex

Texas

Philadelphia Metro

23

Top 10 Regions foR aTTRacTing venTuRe capiTal invesTmenT (dollaR value), 2008

Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, “MoneyTree Report,” Q4 2008/Full-year 2008

am

ou

nT

of

vc

inv

esTm

enTs

(in

thou

sand

s)

34

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

Silicon Valley

New England

LA/Orange County

NY Metro

MidwestTexas

Southeast

San Diego

Northwest

DC Metroplex

24

Section 7: venture Support bY Sector

sHaRe of Region’s vc deals going To bioTecH fiRms, 4q 2008

Source: : PriceWaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree Report, Investments by Industry, 4Q 2008

peRce

nT

of

vc

dea

ls

35

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

San Diego

New England

Greater Boston

Philadelphia MetroplexUSA

DC Metroplex

Silicon Valley

NYC Metro

New York City

sHaRe of Region’s vc deals going To sofTwaRe fiRms, 4q 2008


peRce

nT

of

vc

dea

ls

36

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

DC Metroplex

NYC Metro

Silicon Valley

New York City

New EnglandUSA

Greater Boston

Philadelphia Metroplex

San Diego

25

sHaRe of Region’s vc deals going To financial seRvices fiRms, 4q 2008


peRce

nT

of

vc

dea

ls

37

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

New York City

NYC Metro


Greater Boston

DC Metroplex

New EnglandUSA

Silicon Valley

San Diego

38sHaRe of Region’s vc deals going To media and enTeRTainmenT fiRms, 4q 2008


peRce

nT

of

vc

dea

ls

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

New York City

NYC Metro


Greater Boston

DC Metroplex

New EnglandUSA

Silicon Valley

San Diego

26

sHaRe of Region’s vc deals going To iT seRvice fiRms, 4q 2008

Source: PriceWaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree Report, Investments by Industry, 4Q 2008

peRce

nT

of

vc

dea

ls

39

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

New York City

NYC Metro

New England

Greater BostonUSA

Silicon Valley

San Diego


DC Metroplex

sHaRe of Region’s vc deals going To medical devices and equipmenT fiRms, 4q 2008


peRce

nT

of

vc

dea

ls

40

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

DC Metroplex

USA


Silicon Valley

Greater Boston

New England

NYC Metro

San Diego

New York City

27

sHaRe of Region’s vc deals going To Telecom seRvices fiRms, 4q 2008


peRce

nT

of

vc

dea

ls

41

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

San Diego

Greater Boston

Silicon Valley

New England

New York City USA

DC Metroplex

NYC Metro


28

Section 8: Sbir/Sttr weakneSSeS

numbeR of sbiR awaRds by Region, 2006

Source: U.S. Small Business Administration

42

43

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Boston

Los Angeles

San Francisco

San Diego

Philadelphia

New York MetroSeattle

Baltimore

Raleigh/DurhamChicago

New York City

numbeR of sTTR awaRds by Region, 2006


0

20

40

60

80

100

Boston

Los Angeles

Chicago

San Francisco

San Diego

New York Metro

Philadelphia

Raleigh/Durham

Baltimore

Seattle

New York City

nu

mbeR

of

aw

aRd

sn

um

beR

of

aw

aRd

s

29

bReakdown of sbiR awaRds in new yoRk sTaTe, 2006


17.3%

58.6%24.1%

new york city

Rest of downstate

upstate

44

bReakdown of sTTR awaRds in new yoRk sTaTe, 2006


18.9%

64.9%

16.2%

new york city

Rest of downstate

upstate

45

30

Section 9: high tech economY

Regions wiTH THe mosT companies on THe 2008 deloiTTe TecHnology fasT 500 lisT

Source: Deloitte Technology Fast 500, November 2008.

The Deloitte Technology Fast 500 recognizes North America’s fast-growing technology, media, telecommunications and life sciences companies in terms of percentage revenue growth over five years.

46

San Francisco

Los Angeles

Washington, DCBoston

New York Metro

Philadelphia

San DiegoSeattle

Chicago

New York City

Research Triangle

Baltimore

0

20

40

60

80

10080

50 4741

22 2116

6 625

23

NU

MBE

R O

F CO

MPA

NIE

Sn

um

beR

of

com

pan

ies

31

Top meTRopoliTan aRea Ranked by numbeR of individuals employed in science and engineeRing occupaTions, 2006

meTRopoliTan numbeR s&e employees aRea of s&e as a peRcenT of employees ToTal woRkfoRce1 NYC 308,860 3.8

2 Washington, DC 297,670 10.5

3 Los Angeles 231,900 4.1

4 Boston 180,110 7.4

5 Chicago 179,560 4.1

6 Dallas-Fort Worth 140,140 5.0

7 San Francisco 137,150 6.9

8 Philadelphia 134,980 4.9

9 Detroit 128,430 6.4

10 Seattle 127,070 7.8

11 San Jose 126,090 14.1

12 Houston 117,310 4.9

13 Atlanta 100,560 4.3

14 Minneapolis 100,540 5.7

15 San Diego 76,830 5.9

16 Denver 75,690 6.3

17 Phoenix 70,070 3.8

18 Baltimore 67,930 5.3

19 Miami 65,940 2.8

20 St. Louis 56,520 4.3

Source: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Data comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2006. Note: In the chart, metro area is defined as Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Values for NYC are for 2005. For all other Metro areas, data is from 2006.

47

32

Top meTRopoliTan aRea Ranked by peRcenTages of meTRo aRea woRkfoRce employeed in science and engineeRing occupaTions, 2006 (MINIMuM 25,000 pEOplE EMplOYED IN s&E OCCupATIONs)

meTRopoliTan s&e employees as numbeR of aRea a peRcenT of s&e employees ToTal woRkfoRce1 San Jose 14.1 126,090

2 Durham, NC 10.7 27,770

3 Washington 10.5 297,670

4 Austin 7.9 56,100

5 Seattle 7.8 127,070

6 Boston 7.4 180,110

7 Raleigh 6.9 32,920

8 San Francisco 6.9 137,150

9 Detroit 6.4 128,430

10 Denver 6.3 75,690

11 San Diego 5.9 76,830

12 Hartford 5.8 32,440

13 Minneapolis-St. Paul 5.7 100,540

14 Sacramento 5.4 48,270

15 Baltimore 5.3 67,930

16 Dallas-Fort Worth 5.0 140,140

17 Portland 5.0 49,060

18 Houston 4.9 117,310

19 Philadelphia 4.9 134,980

20 Richmond, VA 4.8 28,650

33 NYC 3.8 308,860

Source: National Science Foundation, Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Data comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics Survey, May 2006.

Note: In this chart, metro area is defined as Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Values for NYC are for 2005. For all other metro areas, data is from 2006.

48

33

Top HigH-TecH cenTeRs in noRTH ameRica, Ranked by milken insTiTuTe, 2007

Metro Area Metro Area Location Share of Tech Employment Quotient N. American Pole Scores (thousands) Wages

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara 244.0 4.6 5.7% 100.0Seattle-Bellevue-Everett 226.3 2.7 3.2% 46.4Cambridge-Newton-Framingham 163.6 3.4 2.8% 45.2 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria 275.7 2.0 4.2% 41.8Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale 376.4 1.6 4.2% 40.2Dallas-Plano-Irving 187.7 1.5 2.4% 21.8San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos 136.4 1.8 2.0% 19.3Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine 147.0 1.7 1.6% 17.7New York-White Plains-Wayne 262.0 0.9 3.9% 16.8San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City 106.4 1.8 2.0% 16.1

Source: Milken Institute, June 2009. Metros were ranked by their performance as “tech poles,” or clusters of high-tech activity. This is based on jobs and wages, as well as the local tech concentration and each metro’s relative share of North American activity. A location quotient (LQ) of 1.0 means the local high-tech concentration matches the average for North America; an LQ of 2.0 is twice that of North America.

49

34

Documents

2009 INDEX OF THE NEW YORK CITY INNOVATION ECONOMY · 2012-09-16 · page study, “Building New York City’s Innovation Economy.” That report provides an extensive analysis of