Bioeconomy Platforms, Distributed Knowledge & Related

VarietyPhil Cooke

Centre for Advanced Studies

Cardiff University

Methods

• As first a UK study, a postal questionnaire survey of medical genomics biotechnology firms – 20% RR

• Identification of UK bioregions• Identification of global bioregions• A scientometric mapping of co-publishing

activities among ‘star’ bioscientists in global bioregions

• Interviews with UK survey respondents• Analysis of public and private genomic markets

Indicators• Age R&D/T mean – 21% (’02)

– <1989 (66) Patents – 47% respondents– 1990-1995 (17) Mean Patents - 5– 1996-2000 (56) Collaborations – 77%– 2001- (17) Clustering – 78%

• Turnover Co-op Inno – 70%– 1999 £900 m. Co-op Reg. – 18%– 2003 £1,726 m. Co-op UK – 23%

Co-op EU – 18%Co-op Global -28%

Indicators – R&D Co-operations

• R&D Co-operation Aims:– New Product to Market – 86%– Develop Patent – 71%– New/Improved Product to Firm – 57%

• R&D Cooperations Highlights:– Top Regional R&D Partner – University (30%)– Top UK R&D Partner – University (43%)– Top EU R&D Partner – Customer/Supplier (30%)– Top N. American R&D Partner – Customer (35%)– Top Asian & RoW R&D Partner – Customer (13%/8%)

Addenbrooke’s Hospital

Cambridge Biotechnology

Northern Venture Managers Cambridge

University

Pfizer

Lorantis

Cambridge Antibody Technology

Domantis

Abbott

Eli Lilly

Astex

Daniolabs

Neurodegeneration Consortium

Gateway Fund

Biotica

Babraham Bioincubator

Babraham Technix

Babraham Bioscience Inst Technologies Ltd Wellcome Trust

Wyeth Amgen AstraZeneca

Cambridge Crytallographic Data Centre

GlaxoSmithKline

Gilead Sciences

(joint venture)

(Cambridge University administered)

Institute for Medical Research

Challenge Fund

Founders came out of Pfizermacrolide

templates

Vistide out-license

Hepsera out-license

virtual screening collaboration

(Cambridge University)

(funding)

partnership

arthritis collaboration

(funding)

licensing

licensing

Genzyme

antibodies license

validation

(funding)

Core Biotechnology Clusters Comparative US and European

Performance Indicators

Location DBFs Life Scientists VC Big Pharma

Funding

Boston 141 4,980 $601.5 m. $800m./annum 96-01 San Francisco 152 3,090 $1,063.5 m. $400m./annum 96-01 San Diego 94 1,430 $432.8 m. $320m./annum 96-01 Toronto 73 1,149 $120.0 m. $89 million (2002) Montreal 72 822 $60.0 m. $120 million (2002) Jerusalem 172 1,015 $300.0 m. $54 million (2002) Munich 120 5,500 $266.0 m. $54 million (2001) Berlin 100 3,700 $122.0 m. $30 million (2001) Medicon Valley 104 5,950 $80.0 m. $300 million (2002) Stockholm-Upp. 87 2,998 $90.0 m. $250 million (2002) Cambridge 84 2,650 $250.0 m. $105 million (2000) Zurich 70 1,236 $57.0 m. $85 million (2002) Oxford 59 3,250 $100.0 m. $90 million (2002) Paris-Evry 58 1,800 $60.0 m. $40 million (2001) Rhineland 54 1,250 $30.0 m. $40 million (2000) Singapore 38 1,063 $200.0 m. $88 million (2001) Rhein-Neckar 37 3,200 $40.0 m. $20 million (2000) Scotland 24 3,600 $35.0 m. $125 million (2002)

Sources: Cortright & Mayer, 2001; NIH; NRC; BioGenTech, Cologne; BioM, Munich; BTH Heidelberg; BioTop, Berlin; VINNOVA, Sweden; Dorey, 2003; ERBI, UK, Kaufmann et al, 2003, Oxford Bioscience Network, 2003; Scottish Enterprise, 2003.

Global Bioscience Publication Shares

HMS

HMS HMS

HMS HMS

HMS

Stanford Uni

Stanford Uni

Stanford Uni

Stanford Uni

Stanford Uni

UCSF

UCSF

UCSF

UCSF

UCSF

UCSF

UCSF

UBerkley

UBerkley

UBerkleyUCSD

UCSD

UCSD

UCSD

UCSD

UCSD

RU

RU

MIT

MIT

MIT

Salk

Cam Uni

Cam Uni

Cam Uni

Cam Uni

KI

KIKI

Scripps

Scripps

Scripps

NYU

NYUUCL

UT

Zurich Uni

Zurich Uni

Hebrew UniHMS

Stanford Uni

Stanford Uni

UBerkley

UCSDRU RU

RU

RU

RU

MIT

MIT

MIT

SalkSalk

Salk

SalkCam Uni

Cam Uni

KI

Scripps

NYU

UCL

UT

UT

Hebrew Uni1.00

10.00

HMS

StanfordUni

UCSF

UBerkley

UCSD

RU

MIT

Salk

Cam Uni

KI

Scripps

NYU

UCL

UT

ZurichUni

HebrewUni

Publishing Collaborations: Top 4 US Bioscience Journals

Stockholm Sydney

Uppsala Lund Copenhagen

San Diego San Fran Toronto

Tokyo

Boston Montreal

Jerusalem

New York

Cambridge(MA)

Singapore

Zurich

Cam(UK)

London

Geneva London

Oxford

1-2 3-5

6-7 >8

UCSD

Salk

SRI

BI

UCSF

SU

UBer

HMS

GH

MIT

HU

NYU

ColmU

RU

UU

US

RIT

KI

OU

JRH

CamU

MSR

UL

SUAS

UT

TML

UM

NUS

DSI

UTo

TIT

HeU

HaH

UNSW

UCL ICL

NIMR

NIMR

ZU

BPRC

UG

UCop

Graphic 2: Publishing Collaborations in 4 leading US Bioscience Journals

Publishing Collaborations: Top 5 European Bioscience Journals

Stockholm Sydney

Copenhagen

Uppsala Lund

San Diego San Fran Toronto

Tokyo

Jerusalem Boston Montreal

New York

Munich Cambridge(MA)

Singapore

Zurich

Cam(UK)

London

Geneva London

Oxford

1 2-3

>4:

UCSD

Salk

SRI

BI

UCSF

SU

UBer

HMS

GH

BU MIT

HU HU

MSSM

NYU

ColmU

RU

NVI

UU

US

RIT

KI

OU

JRH

CamU

MSR

UL

SUAS

UT

TML

UM

NUS

DSI

UTo

TIT

HeU

HaH

UNSW

UCL ICL

LRI

NIMR

NIMR

ZU

BPRC

UG

UCop

CBSP

MIPS

UM

Graphic 1: Publishing Collaborations in 5 Leading European Bioscience Journals

Main Global Bioscience Co-publicationsFigure1: Publishing Collaborations

Stockholm Sydney Paris

Uppsala Lund Copenhengen

Grenoble

San Diego San Franc Toronto

Tokyo

Juresalem Boston Montreal

New York

Munich Cambridge(MA)

Singapore

Zurich Cam(UK)

London

London

Geneva Oxford

3 4-6

7-8 >10

UCSD

Salk

SRI

BI

UCSF

SU

UBer

HMS

GH

MIT

MI

HU

NYU

ColmU

RU

UU

SU

RIT

KI

OU

JRH

CamU

MSR

UL

SUAS

UT

TML

MU

NUS

DSI

UTo

TIT

HeU HaH

HHHaH

UNSW

UCL ICL

NIMR

NIMR

ZU

BPRC

UG

Ucop

CBSP

UM

MIPS

PU

INS

UG

Bioscience Led The Way

• 1992-2002 biochemistry & molecular biology most cited US & EU patent fields >46%.

• Pharmaceuticals firms outsourced 30% 2003 R&D budgets. Reached 50% by 2005, expected 2010

• Bioregions co-publish with each other and leading bioregions dominate a global innovation system

• No longer dominated by corporate in-house R&D

Now Others Follow• Open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003)• Philips ‘Sense & Simplicity’ rebranding, R&D

strategy based on ‘open innovation’• Cisco & Microsoft practise ‘open innovation’

through acquisition• Dupont closed its central laboratories • Lucent, IBM practise ‘open innovation’• German auto industry now managed by Frankfurt

design & engineering consultancies• Procter & Gamble/Gillette funded by ‘C&D’ open

innovation

US Industrial R&D Outsourcing 1981-2001

Company Size 1981 1989 1999 2000 2001 <1,000 employees 4.4 9.2 22.5 22.1 24.7 1,000-4,999 6.1 7.6 13.6 15.2 13.6 5,000-9,999 5.8 5.5 9.0 8.3 8.9 10,000-24,999 13.1 10.0 13.6 14.0 13.0 25,000 + 70.7 67.7 41.3 39.5 39.0 Table 1: Percentage of US Industrial R&D By Size of Enterprise Source: NSF (2003-5). Research & Development in Industry, 2001.

Interim Conclusions

• Genomic Medical Biotechnology is conducted in many new or pre-existing biotechnology firms

• Geographical Clustering in Bioregional Innovation Systems is Normal

• Global Research and Publication Linkages are Strong Among ‘Stars’ in Centres of Excellence

• R&D Outsourcing of R&D by Pharma is now 50%• Reconfiguration of Global Economic Geography

Dynamism• Genomic Medical Biotechnology an Industrial

Emulation Model

A generalised theoretical framework for knowledge driven economic development

Asymmetric Knowledge Endowment

Regional Knowledge Domains (e.g. Epistemic Communities)

Regional Knowledge Capabilities

Open Innovation(Raises Outsourcing)

Related Variety (Raises Absorptive Capacity)

Spatial Quasi-Monopolies (e.g. Clusters)

Increasing Returns (to Variety)

Some cross-sector ‘platform’ candidate innovation biographies in firms & regions arising from WP3

Food Biotechnology ICT New Media KIBS Automotive Tourism

Branding

Culinary Tourism

Wine Tourism

DANFORS

Revitalise Food-River Tourism (e.g. Douro)

Oenotechnology Guidance Systems

Knowledge Intermediaries

Food Biocluster

Functional Foods

Vehicle Processing Systems

Biofuels

Bioengineering

Bio-imaging

Firm Level Innovation BiographiesEURODITE, Toulouse Targets for Innovation Investigation Research in Aquitaine, France integrates the wine industry and biotechnology

to develop the new field of Oenotechnology In Emilia-Romagna, Italy meat industry the Food and ICT industries have

collaborated to produce Biosensors for testing the maturity of Parma ham The German automotive industry is actively engaged in innovative activity

with a number of farms and agricultural research institutes in Brandenburg to develop Biofuels

In Bavaria, bioscientific knowledge on milk-based Lactobacteria are the subject of research collaborations with the brewing and fermentation industries

In Bornholm and North Jutland, Denmark the Agro-Food and Tourism industries are collaborating on innovatory Culinary Tourism activities also involving the delineation of Food Cultures involving anthropological research

Innovation research in Midi-Pyrénées, France focuses on specialised tourism-based vehicle guidance systems integrating knowledge from Aerospace, Automotives and ICT with that from Tourism, Agro-food and Bioscience

In Hordaland (Bergen), Norway Tourism demand to experience Aquaculture processes in organic fish farms has led to interactions between the Agro-Food industry, New Media, ICT and Knowledge-Intensive Services to realise a network facility

In Jura, Switzerland the traditional Watch-making industry is being transformed into a Tourism asset by formation of Agro-Food, Tourism, ICT, New Media and traditional fine-mechanics ‘experience economy’ networks

Conclusions• Clusters are research and innovation in

proximity but distant networks key also,• US clusters dominate global biotechnology,• Similar, though less scale, in Europe,• Some European highlights,• US clusters have more resources, including

public and private (VC & pharma) investment,• Notice how biotechnology, even biopharma is

a far bigger ‘platform’ than is generally assumed

• Then notice how its platform character attracts innovators from distant sector spaces.