global & local innovation networks & hierarchies in … & local innovation networks...
TRANSCRIPT
Global & Local Innovation Networks& Hierarchies in Medical
Biotechnology
PD Philip CookeUniversities of Cardiff, Toulouse & Aalborg
Presented to Centre for Innovation & Structural ChangeConference
Transforming Manufacturing Hubs into InternationallyCompetitive
Clusters in Medical Technology:The Experiences of Massachusetts and Ireland
Thursday 28th October 2010, Bailey Allen Hall, NUI Galway
Aims of the paper
• To analyse some key dynamics inbiotechnology innovation processes
• To anatomise some key biotechnologyclusters in leading and learning clusters
• To investigate the nature and connectivity ofglobal biotechnology networks
• To identify some key network hierarchies andconsider lessons for Ireland
Main Bioscience Competitors
Country Companies Public Cos. Market Cap.*Revenues* Employees* Pipeline*
USA 1,457 307 €205 bn. €27 bn. 191,000 872UK 331 46 €9.4 bn. €3 bn. 22,000 194Switzerland 129 5 €7.3 bn. €2 bn. 8,000 79France 239 6 €0.5 bn. €0.3 bn. 9,655 31Germany 369 13 €0.5 bn. €0.5 bn. 13,386 15
Table 2: Main International Bioscience Competitors, 2003Source: BIGT (2004)NB: * Public Company Data Only
Product PipelinesCountry Pre-clinical Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Pipeline Products
USA 584 96 148 44 872UK 65 50 56 23 194Switzerland 45 12 11 11 79Sweden 14 8 10 0 32France 16 8 6 1 31Denmark 14 5 5 4 28Italy 9 0 4 3 16Israel 2 3 6 4 15Germany 7 4 3 1 15Norway 8 2 2 3 15Netherlands 9 1 1 0 11Finland 9 1 0 0 10Ireland 2 0 2 3 7Belgium 2 0 1 3 3Total Europe 202 94 107 53 456
Table 3: Product Pipeline of Public Bioscience Companies WorldwideSource: BIGT (2004)
Productivity Decline for Pharma
Date US NCE Approvals R&D Expenditure $ billions(2001)
1963 19 21967 20 21971 18 31975 17 31979 16 31983 16 41987 19 51991 25 81995 25 151996 45 171997 37 181998 23 221999 32 252001 23 30
Table 4: Declining Pharmaceutical Productivity Over TimeSource: BIGT (2004)
United States Pharma-Biotech R&D Split
R&D expenditure
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04
$bn Biotech
Big pharma
US Pharma-Biotech Innovation Performance
New drugs approved by the FDA
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1998 99 2000 01 02 03 04
Biotech Big pharma
Key cluster rankings
Boston Biotech: The Perfect Cluster(Incomers: Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Shire, Lonza)
Addenbrooke’sHospital
CambridgeBiotechnology
Northern VentureManagers Cambridge
University
Pfizer
Lorantis
Cambridge AntibodyTechnology
Domantis
Abbott
Eli Lilly
Astex
Daniolabs
NeurodegenerationConsortium
Gateway Fund
Biotica
Babraham Institute
Babraham Bioincubator
Babraham Technix
Babraham BioscienceTechnologies Ltd Wellcome Trust
Wyeth Amgen AstraZeneca
CambridgeCrytallographic DataCentre
GlaxoSmithKline
GileadSciences
(joint venture)
(CambridgeUniversityadministered)
Institute for MedicalResearch
Challenge Fund
Founderscame outof Pfizermacrolide
templates
Vistide out-license
Hepseraout-license
virtual screeningcollaboration
(Cambridge University)
(funding)
partnership
arthritiscollaboration
(funding)
licensing
licensing
Genzyme
antibodieslicense
validation
(funding)
Boston Cluster
DBFAbroad
DBFNon-proximate
DBFProximate
Research InstituteProximate
DBFR&D Organiser
Research InstituteNon-proximate
Big PharmaProximate
Big PharmaNon-proximate
Sankyo (CA), Kirin (CA), Chugai (CA), Monsanto (MO), Abbott (IL), Bayer (NC),Paine Webber (NJ), Roche (NJ), Pharmacia Upjohn (NJ), Wyeth (PA) ScheringPlough (NJ), DuPont (DL), Rhone Poulenc (PA), Hoechst (NJ), Bristol MyersSquibb (NJ), Merck (NJ).
RWJohnson
(SD)
Stanford(SV)
BurnhamInstitute
(SD)
Alpha-Gene(G.Bos)
GeneticsInstitute(G. Bos)
ArQule(G. Bos)
Dyax(Camb)
Ariad(Camb)
Gene Therapy(G. Bos)
Genzyme(Camb)
Harvard(Camb)
Ontogeny(Camb)
Acadia(SD)
ICA Gen(NC)
Aurora (SD)
Chiron (SF)
Scriptgen(SD)
Scios (SD)
Genentech(SF)
Signal (SD)
Affymax(PA)
Immunex (WA)
Corvas (SD)
Genovo (PA)
Cytogen(PA)
MorphoSys (G) CambridgeAntibody Tech. (UK) Solvay (BE)
California Biosciences Cluster
proximate
roximate
Research Institute
DBF R&D Originator
Research Instituteproximate
Big Pharma Proximate
Proximate
Axys(SF)
Lynx(SV)
Incyte(SV)
Hyseq(SF)
Sanga-mo(SF)
PerkinElmer (SV)
KirinBiosciences
(SD)
Roche (SW), Pharmacia (SD), BASF (G), Hoechst (G), Rhone-Poulenc (F), Novo Nordisk(DK), Novartis (SW), Glaxo (UK), AstraZeneca (SD/UK), Bayer (G), Boehringer Ing. (G)Kirin (J).
Becton Dickinson (NJ), Pharmacia-Upjohn (NJ), Bristol Myers Squibb (NJ), BASF (NJ),Eli Lilly (IN), Abbott (IL), Monsanto (MO), Merck (NJ), J&J (NJ), Hoechst (NJ), Rhone-Poulenc (PA), DuPont (DL), Pfizer (NY), Schering Plough NJ), Novo Nordisk (NJ),Novartis (NY), Parke Davis (NJ), Glaxo (NC), AstraZeneca (MA), Bayer (NC), WarnerLambert (NJ), Procter & Gamble (OH) Boehringer Ingelheim (CT), Roche (NJ).
Irori(SD)
Trega(SD)
Script-gen(SD
Combi-Chem
(SD)Aurora
(SD)
UCSF
Cytovia(SD)
Lum-inex(TX)
ProteinDesign
(SV)
Isis(SD) Ono
(SF) Genentech(SF)
ZymoGenet
-ics(WA)
Ariad(MA)
Siddco (AZ)
Millen-nium(MA)
Biogen (MA)
NWNeu-ro
(OR)
Icos(WA)
Organon(NL)
Allelix(CAN)
Publishing Collaborations: Top 4 US BioscienceJournals
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 3-56-7 >8
UCSD
Salk
SRI
BI
UCSF
SU
UBer
HMS
GH
MIT
HU
NYU
ColmU
RU
UU
USRIT
KI
OUJRH
CamU
MSR
ULSUAS
UTTML
UM
NUSDSI
UToTIT
HeUHaH
UNSW
UCL ICL
NIMR
ZU
BPRCUG
UCop
Graphic 2: Publishing Collaborations in 4 leading US Bioscience Journals
Publishing Collaborations: Top 5 EuropeanBioscience 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
BUMIT
HU HU
MSSM
NYU
ColmU
RU
NVIUU
USRIT
KI
OUJRH
CamU
MSR
ULSUAS
UTTML
UM
NUSDSI
UToTIT
HeUHaH
UNSW
UCL ICL
LRINIMR
ZU
BPRCUG
UCopCBSP
MIPSUM
Graphic 1: Publishing Collaborations in 5 Leading European BioscienceJournals
Global Biotechnology Co-Patenting: 1998-2004
Paris Stockholm Copenhagen
San Diego Toronto
Tokyo
Jerusalem Boston Montreal
New York
Munich Cambridge(MA)
Singapore
Zurich Cam(UK)
London
London
Geneva Oxford
1-2 3-56-8 9+
UCSD
SG, Inc Salk
SRISP
LP
T,Inc SPhU
UCSFSU
G.IncAN
SI
HMSBWH
UMGH
CMCCHU
MITMP
WIBiogen
LugwigNYU
NFC MSK
RU
UP
OUJRH
CAT
CU
UToHSC
UMoMcU
NUSDSI
UUToSEC
HeU
Hadasit
RITKI
ICRTUL
MRC CRCT
ZUETH
FSA
RVAU
MPGFW
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
Immun
olog
y
Molecular
Biolo
gy&Gen
etics
Microbiolo
gy
Neuros
cienc
e
Biotec
hnolog
y&Ap
pliedMicrob
iology
Cell&
Deve
lopm
ental B
iolog
y
Biop
hysics
&Bioc
hemist
ry
HM S
Stanfo rdUni
UCSF
UBerkley
UCSD
RU
M IT
Salk
Cam Uni
KI
Scripps
NYU
UCL
UT
ZurichUni
HebrewUni
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 bioregionsdominate a global innovation system
• No longer dominated by corporate in-house R&D• Regional knowledge domains
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
Conclusions
• Key dynamics in biotechnology innovationprocesses are ‘neo-linear’ Labe-DBFs-Pharma
• Leading biotechnology clusters have richgeographic proximities, learning ones don’t
• The nature and connectivity of globalbiotechnology networks are exclusive and US-led
• Key network hierarchies are Greater Boston andHMS at the global peak.
• Ireland has a global biopharma player (Elan) butlacks cluster specificity. Other small countrieshave DBF clusters