Upload
vincent-walsh
View
31
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Analysis of Biotechnology Cluster Drivers with
Emphasis on the Atlantic Region that was
Incorporated within the EU
Interreg ShareBiotech Project
Vincent John Walsh
(BSc. Hons. Toxicology)
A thesis submitted to Athlone Institute of Technology in
accordance with requirements for the award of
Masters of Science by Research
Based on research carried out under the co-supervision of
Dr. Paul Tomkins and Professor Neil J Rowan
September, 2014
2
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Origins of Biotechnology 16- 20
1.2. The Nature & Scale of Biotechnology Research 20 – 21
1.3. Economics of the Biotech Sector 21– 25
1.4. Biotechnology Promising a Brighter Future 25 – 27
1.5. Collaboration between Universities & Industry 27 – 29
1.6. Research Infrastructure 29 – 30
1.7. Core Facilities 30– 33
1.8. Core Facilities & HEI’s 33 – 35
1.9. Laboratory Informatics 35-
1.10. Biotechnology Development in Europe 36 - 39
1.11. Industry Collaboration 39 – 41
1.12. IP & Tech Transfer 41 –
1.13. Clusters 41 – 45
1.14. The Clustering Concept 45 – 46
1.15. The Importance of Clusters 46 - 48
1.16. Clusters in Ireland 48– 50
1.17. BioPharma Cluster Ireland 50 – 51
1.18. Development of the Indigenous Biotech Sector 51– 52
1.19. Porters Theory on Clusters 52– 53
1.20. Typology of Clusters 53– 56
1.21. The Cluster Life Cycle 56 – 58
1.22. HE Networks & Clustering 58 –
1.23. Social Networking 58 - 59
1.24. Virtual Networking 59 – 60
1.25. Impact of Communication Technology 60 – 61
1.26. Transnational Collaboration ` 61 -
1.27. Tech Translator 61 –
1.28. Key Enabling Technologies 61– 63
1.29. Life Science Research that isn’t Biotech 63 – 67
1.30. Aims and Objectives of this Project 67 – 72
3
1.31. Research Justification 72 –
Chapter 2 METHODS
2.1. Research Approach 74 - 75
2.2. Technology Core Facilities 75 –76
2.3. Studies and Action Plan to Reduce the Gap… 76 –
2.4. Summarised Research Surveys 76 –
2.5. ShareBiotech Companies Survey 76 – 78
2.6. ShareBiotech Research Groups Survey 78 – 80
2.7. ShareBiotech Technology Core Facilities Survey 80 – 81
2.8. Presentation of ShareBiotech Needs Report 82 -
2.9. ShareBiotech Life Sciences TCF Booklet 82 – 83
2.10. The ShareBiotech TCF Audit 83 - 86
2.11. Regional Technology Translators (Pilot Action) 87 –
2.12. Organisation of Local Technology Meetings 87 –
2.13. Selection of Local Technology Meeting Domains 87 –
2.14. Natural Products LTM 87– 89
2.15. Towards 21st Century Toxicology Framework Document 89 – 90
2.16. Expert Interviews 91 –
2.17. Dissemination of Information and Colloquia 91 – 92
2.18. Biotechnology Clusters 92 –
2.19. Transnational TCF Model 92 – 94
2.20. The CIRCA Group Consultants 94 –
2.21. The Darcy Report 95 – 96
2.22. ShareBiotech Report to Support the Growth… 96 - 97
2.23. ShareBiotech Technology and Training Offer… 97 – 98
2.24. Instruments to Foster Technology Transfer… 98 – 99
2.25. Analysis of Life Science TCF’s Business Models… 99 – 101
Chapter 3 RESULTS 103 -
3.1. ShareBiotech Biotechnology Techniques Competencies … 103 –
3.2. Biotechnology Competencies and Regional Needs Survey… 103 – 106
4
3.3. Innovation in ShareBiotech Regions 106 – 108
3.4. ShareBiotech Research Groups Survey Results 109 – 131
3.5. ShareBiotech Companies Survey Results… 131 – 154
3.6. ShareBiotech TCF Survey Results 155 –
3.7. Instruments to Foster Technology Transfer… 155 – 156
3.8. ShareBiotech Technology Transfer Survey Results 157 – 159
3.9. Answers to Technology Transfer Survey Questions 159 – 172
3.10. Natural Products Companies Surveyed in Ireland 172 – 181
3.11. Local Technology Meeting Organised in Ireland 181 – 185
3.12. The ShareBiotech Private Company/BRI Audit 185 – 190
3.13. Software for TCF Management 191 –
3.13. Implementation of CIRCA Report Recommendations 191 – 197
3.14. The Darcy Report 197 – 199
3.15. Expert Interviews 200– 203
3.16. Profiles of Experts Interviewed 204 – 209
3.17. Main Points in Expert Interviews 209 – 261
3.18. Recommendations to Strengthen the Biotech… 261 – 265
3.19. Biotechnology Education & Training Needs Offer… 265 – 272
3.20. Recommendations to Improve the Offer of Training… 272 – 274
3.21. Characterisation of ShareBiotech LTM’s 275 –
Chapter 4 DISCUSSIONS
Opening 277 – 278
4.1. INTERREG IV 278 – 280
4.2. Fragmentation of Biotechnology in Europe 280 – 282
4.3. Sustainable Growth for Europe 282 – 283
4.4. ShareBiotech Activity 3 Surveys 283 – 294
4.5. Natural Products Companies in Ireland 295 – 298
4.6. Success Factors in Biotechnology Today 298 – 300
4.7. US versus European Biotechnology 300 – 301
4.8. Technology Core Facilities 301 – 305
4.9. Instruments to Foster Technology Transfer… 305 – 307
4.10. ShareBiotech E&Y TCF Report 307 –
5
4.11. Expert Interviews Discussed 307 – 314
4.12. The Circa Report Discussed 314 – 316
4.13. The Darcy Report Discussed 316 – 317
4.14. University –Industry Collaborations 317 – 320
4.15. Biotechnology Education; Training …Discussed 320 – 322
4.16. The Future of Biotechnology 323 –
4.17. The Virtual Biotech Model 324 – 326
4.18. Technologies Supporting Virtual Organisations 326 – 329
4.19. A Sustainable Bio Economy for Europe 329 – 330
4.20. SME’s in Ireland and Europe 330 – 331
4.21. Conclusion 332 – 333
4.22. Future Work – Horizon 2020 333 – 335
Appendices
Appendix 1 ShareBiotech Company Survey
Appendix 2 ShareBiotech Research Groups Survey
Appendix 3 ShareBiotech Technology Core Facilities Survey
Appendix 4 ShareBiotech TCF Audit
Appendix 5 ShareBiotech Education Needs & Offer Questionnaire
Appendix 6 ShareBiotech Deliverables (1 – 15)
Appendix 7 Toxicology 21st C Agenda
Appendix 8 ShareBiotech Email Contact List
6
List of Figures
Fig. Number TITLE PAGE Figure 1.1 US Biotechnologies year by year 23
Figure 1.2 Innovation capital in the US year by year 24
Figure 1.3 Irelands cluster map shows Biotechnology/Pharmaceutical clusters 49
Figure 1.4 Bio pharma and Bio-chem sector employment projections/past/future 52
Figure 1.5 Michael Porters Diamond Cluster Model. Source 53
Figure 1.6 Hub and Spoke cluster model 54
Figure 1.7 Satellite Platform cluster model 54
Figure 1.8 State Anchored / State cantered cluster model 55
Figure 1.9 The Triple Helix Model 56
Figure 1.10 The Cluster Lifecycle 57
Figure 3.1 Populations of ShareBiotech Regions 104
Figure 3.2 Economic Indicators Index 105
Figure 3.3 Employment Indicators Index in Atlantic Area 106
Figure 3.4 Innovation Indicators Index ShareBiotech Regions 107
Figure 3.5 Summary of Biotech Company Domain & Regional Location 108
Figure 3.6 Summary of Research Centre Domain & Regional Location 108
Figure 3.7 Main Specific domains of the Interviewed RG’s % Total 110
Figure 3.8 Main Scientific domains of the RG’s in ShareBiotech Regions 111
Figure 3.9 Scientist’s & Technicians employed in RG’s 111
Figure 3.10 Number of Scientists and Technicians employed in RG’s in July 2010 112
Figure 3.11 Collaboration of the RGs in 2010 with other institutions/enterprises 113
Figure 3.12 Types of Collaboration of the Research Groups with institutions/enterprises 113
Figure 3.13 Characterization of Collaboration of RGs with institutions/enterprises 114
Figure 3.14 Participation of RG’s in one or several technological networks 114
Figure 3.15 Research groups that hold registered patents 115
Figure 3.16 RG’s that do not have patents but consider patenting in the future 115
Figure 3.17 DNA/RNA Biotechnology Techniques Uses and Needs in RG’s 117
Figure 3.18 Proteins and Other Molecules Biotechnology Techniques Uses and Needs 118
Figure 3.19 Proteins and Other Molecule Techniques Internal and External Use 118
Figure 3.20 Tissue Culture and Engineering Biotechnology Techniques uses & needs 119
Figure 3.21 Tissue Culture and Engineering Biotech Techniques Int/External Use 120
Figure 3.22 Gene and RNA Vectors Biotechnology Techniques Uses and Needs 121
Figure 3.23 Gene/RNA Vector Biotechnology Techniques Internal and External Use 121
Figure 3.24 Biological Resources and Associated Facilities Uses and Needs 122
Figure 3.25 Biological Resources and Associated Facilities Internal and External Use 123
Figure 3.26 Imaging and Related Instrumentation Uses and Needs 124
Figure 3.27 Imaging technologies accessible internally & externally 124
Figure 3.28 Process Biotechnology Uses and Needs 125
Figure 3.29 Process Techniques Internal and External Use 126
Figure 3.30 Nanobiotechnology Techniques Uses and Needs 127
Figure 3.31 Nanobiotechnology Techniques Internal and External Use in the AA 127
Figure 3.32 Bioinformatics Techniques Uses and Needs within the Atlantic Area 128
Figure 3.33 Bioinformatics Techniques Internal and External Use in the RG’s 129
Figure 3.34 Training needs regarding techniques and related skills of the RG’s 130
Figure 3.35 Training needs regarding techniques and skills of the RG’s by region 130
Figure 3.36 Other needs of the research groups for the advance of R&D activities 131
Figure 3.37 Other needs of the research groups for the advance of R&D by region 131
7
Figure 3.38 Main specific domains of the interviewed companies - % Total Answers 132
Figure 3.39 Main Specific domains of the interviewed companies by region 133
Figure 3.40 Number of persons employed in the companies. In July 2010 133
Figure 3.41 Number of persons employed in surveyed companies in July 2010 134
Figure 3.42 Network Membership of Interviewed Companies by Region 135
Figure 3.43 Network membership of companies by region (%) 135
Figure 3.44 Enterprise group membership of companies by region (%) group 135
Figure 3.45 Role of Biotechnology in the companies - % Total Companies 136
Figure 3.46 Role of Biotechnology in the companies- % Total by region 136
Figure 3.47 Role of Biotechnology in the companies - % Total by region 137
Figure 3.48 Geographic markets where companies sold goods/services 2008 to 2010 137
Figure 3.49 Geographic markets where companies sold goods/services 2008 to 2010 138
Figure 3.50 Geographic markets where companies sold goods/services 2008 to 2010 138
Figure 3.51 Development of R&D activities - % Total Companies 138
Figure 3.52 Means of execution of R&D activities by companies - % Total Answers 139
Figure 3.53 Intellectual Property of the companies - % Total Companies 139
Figure 3.54 Barriers to your R&D capacity - % Total Answers 139
Figure 3.55 DNA/RNA Biotechnology Techniques Uses/Needs companies 141
Figure 3.56 DNA/RNA Biotechnology Techniques Internal/External uses companies 142
Figure 3.57 Proteins and Other Molecules, Techniques, Uses/Needs companies 142
Figure 3.58 Proteins and other molecules Techniques Internal/ External Uses 143
Figure 3.59 Tissue Culture/Engineering Biotechnology Techniques Uses/Needs 144
Figure 3.60 Tissue Culture and Engineering Biotechnology Techniques Int/Ex Uses 144
Figure 3.61 Gene/RNA Vectors Biotechnology Techniques Uses/Needs companies 145
Figure 3.62 Gene and RNA Vectors Biotechnology Techniques and External uses CO 146
Figure 3.63 Biological Resources/Associated Facilities Biotech techniques U/N CO 148
Figure 3.64 Biological Resources/Associated Facilities Biotech Techniques U/N CO 147
Figure 3.65 Imaging & Related Instrumentation Biotechnology Techniques U/N 148
Figure 3.66 Imaging & Related Instrumentation Biotechnology Techniques U/N CO 148
Figure 3.67 Process Biotechnology Techniques U/ N in Interviewed Companies 149
Figure 3.68 Process Biotechnology Techniques Internal and External Uses CO 149
Figure 3.69 Nano-biotechnology Techniques U/N in Interviewed companies 150
Figure 3.70 Nano-biotechnology Techniques Internal & External Uses Companies 150
Figure 3.71 Bioinformatics Techniques Uses and Needs 151
Figure 3.72 External and internal sourcing of Bioinformatics Techniques Companies 152
Figure 3.73 Company Training Needs % 152
Figure 3.74 Company Training Needs 152
Figure 3.75 Other Needs for Advancement of R&D Activities in Companies % 153
Figure 3.76 Other Needs for Advancement of R&D Activities in Companies Region 153
Figure 3.77 Technology Transfer Survey Response by Country 157
Figure 3.78 Regional Response to Technology Transfer Survey 157
Figure 3.79 Number of people working in innovation services and technology transfer 158
Figure 3.80 Type of instruments used to facilitate TT by interviewed organisations 158
Figure 3.81 The structure of TT Survey results analysis 159
Figure 3.82 Technology Transfer through student placement 160
Figure 3.83 Technology Transfer through joint supervision 161
Figure 3.84 Technology Transfer through joint conferences 162
Figure 3.85 TT through training and continued professional development 163
Figure 3.86 TT through secondment results in ShareBiotech partner areas 164
Figure 3.87 % TT through training and continued professional development 165
Figure 3.88 TT through contract research (service supply) & consultancy 167
8
Figure 3.89 TT through legislation, communication tools/incentives to support spin-outs 167
Figure 3.90 Technology Transfer through shared facilities 168
Figure 3.91 Technology Transfer through patents 169
Figure 3.92 Technology Transfer through licensing and project maturation 170
Figure 3.93 Spider web graph representing the results of the ShareBiotech audit 186
Figure 3.94 Spider graph representing the BRI AIT audit results 188
Figure 3.95 Bioscience Research Institute AIT analysis in terms of flows 189
Figure 3.96 Projected optimal staff domains for the AIT Microscopy TCF 190
Figure 3.97 BRI Management Organization Chart suggested in the CIRCA Report 195
Figure 3.98 Main organizational relationships of the TCF 197
Figure 3.99 Scope of service provision in relation to the BRI - TCF 198
Figure 3.100 Accreditation Model suggested by CIRCA for BRI compatible to ISO 13485 199
Figure 3.101 Representation of the level of agreement between the 7 core experts
regarding 32 common theme questions 202
Figure 3.102 Representation of the level of agreement between the 7 core experts
regarding Q1 to Q10 202
Figure 3.103 Representation of the level of agreement between the 7 core experts
regarding Q11 to Q21 203
Figure 3.104 Representation of the level of agreement between the 7 core experts
regarding Q22 to Q32 203
Figure 3.105 Represents the number of yes answers agreed by all 7experts interviewed 203
Figure 3.106 Number & Type of Formal Higher Education Biotechnology Degrees AA 266
Figure 3.107 Vocational courses related to Biotechnology identified per region 267
Figure 3.108 Types of vocational training offer per region 268
Figure 3.109 Classification of the Current offer in Biotechnology Courses 268
Figure 3.110 Training needs identified by research groups 269
Figure 3.111 Training needs identified by companies 270
Figure 3.112 Soft skills in the field of biotechnology requiring short-term training 272
Figure 3.113 Analysis of the uptake of ShareBiotech Mobility Grants 274
Figure 3.114 Analysis of ShareBiotech Funded LTM’s 275
9
List of Tables
Table
No.
Title Page
Table 1.1 Irish BioPharma Clusters Breakdown of Irish companies per sub-sector 44
Table 2.1 Audit Questions TCF 85 -86
Table 2.2 TCF's interviewed by E&Y 100
Table 3.1 Valid Questionnaires Collected the ShareBiotech project 104
Table 3.2 Number of Students in the research groups in the Atlantic Area in July 2010 112
Table 3.3 Age of Interviewed companies in the Atlantic Area- Descriptive Statistics 134
Table 3.4 Barriers to R&D Capacity of the Interviewed Companies by Region 140
Table 3.5 Access Capacity Ratio (Total Internal and External Accesses by Total
Access) 153 - 154
Table 3.6 Irish organizations interviewed Re. Technology Transfer Survey 156
Table 3.7 Results Synthesis Table of Technology Transfer Survey 171 - 172
Table 3.8 Natural Products companies interviewed in Ireland 173- 175
Table 3.9 Biotechnology SME categories for selection of LTM’s 175- 179
Table 3.10 Brief Analysis Results of N.P. Company Telephone Interviews 180 - 181
Table 3.11 SWOT Analysis of Bioclin resulting from the TCF audit 187
Table 3.12 Audit Recommendations for Bioclin recommended by TechToolNov 188
Table 3.13 SWOT Analysis BRI resulting from the TCF audit 188
Table 3.14 The recommendations of the ShareBiotech audit of the BRI 189
Table 3.15 List of selected laboratory core facility management systems i.e. LIMS 191
Table 3.16 Consensus between Experts answers to questions 1 to 33 249 - 251
Table 3.17 Recommendations to Support the Growth of a Bio-Based Economy 263 - 265
10
List of Abbreviation
3D Three Dimensional
AA Atlantic Area
AAP Atlantic Area Program
ACC Access Capacity Ratio
ADA Adenosine Deaminase Deficiency
AFBI Agri Food and Bioscience Institute
AGBR Association of German Bio Regions
Agri Agricultural
AHU’s Air Handling Units
AIT Athlone Institute of Technology
AMDeC F.I.R.S.T. Facilities, Instrumentation, Resources, and Services & Technologies
API Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre
ARE Applied Research Enhancement
B2B Business to Business
BBSRC Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
BBT Babraham Bioscience Technologies
BBT Babraham Bioscience Technologies
BI Biotechnology Ireland
BIF Bio Incubator Forum
BMW Border midlands Western
BRC’s Biological Resource Centres
BRI Bioscience Research Institute
BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
CAMI Centre for Advanced Medical Imaging
CCEB County and City Enterprise Boards
CCMAR Centre for Marine Research (Portugal)
CCR Centre for Commercialization of Research (Ontario)
CCR Centre for commercialisation and Research
cDNA Complementary Deoxy Nucleic Acid
CEBR Council of European Bioregions
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CFMS Core Facility Management System
CIIMAR Interdisciplinary Centre of Marine and Environmental Research
CIT Cork Institute of Technology
CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France)
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
COO Chief Operating Officer
CRIA Centre for Knowledge Transfer (Portugal)
CRITT Innovation et Developpemente de la Sante en BRETAGNE
CRO Commercial Research Organisation
CSIC Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (Spain)
CVs Curriculum Vitae’s
DABT Diplomat of the American Board of Toxicology
DBF’s Dedicated Biotechnology Firms
DCU Dublin City University
DDD Drug Discovery & Development
DETE Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment
DIHK Committee for Industry and Research in the German Chamber of
Commerce and Industry
DNA Deoxy Ribo Nucleic Acid
DOE Department of Energy
DSC Differential Scanning Colourimetry
E&Y Ernst & Young
EC European Commission
11
ECO European Cluster Observatory
ECVAM European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods
EFPIA European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
EFTA European Free Trade Association
EI Enterprise Ireland
EICFP Enterprise Ireland Commercialisation Fund Programme
EIR Entrepreneur In Residence
EITTS Enterprise Ireland Technology Transfer Supports
EOP’s Equipment Operating Sheets
ERA-IB European Research Area Industrial Biotechnology
ERA-MB European Research Area Marine Biotechnology
ERBI Eastern Region Biotechnology Initiative
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ES Spain
ESOF Euro Science Open Forum
ETB EuroTrans Bio
EU European Union
F S National Training and Employment Agency
FDA Food and Drug Administration
Fig Figure
FISH Fluorescence in-situ Hybridisation
Forfás Ireland's Policy Advisory Board for Enterprise and Science
FP Framework Project
FR France
GC Gas Chromatography
GCMS Gas Chromatography Mass Spectroscopy
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GE Gene Expression
GLP Good Laboratory Practice
GMC’s Genetically Modified Crops
GMIT Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology
GMO’s Genetically Modified Organisms
GMP Good Management Practice
GPC Gel Permeation Chromatography
GSK Glaxo Smyth Kline
H&E Higher Education
HEA Higher Education Authority
HEI Higher Education Institute
HEIs Higher Education Institutes
HGP Human Genome Project
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
HP Hewlett Packard
HPLC High Performance Liquid Chromatography
HQ Head Quarters
IBA Irish Biotechnology Association
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IDA Industrial Development Agency (for Inward Investment)
IDR Invention Disclosure Reports
IGN Spanish Instituto Geografico Nacional
IGR-IAE Institut D’administration des Enterprises de Rennes – Institut de Gestion de
Rennes
ILab Intelligent Laboratory Management
ILO Industry Liaison Officer
IMI Innovative Medicines Imitative
INMRP Irelands National Marine Biotechnology Programme
INRA Institut national de la recherche agronomique
INTERREG The Cross Border Territorial Co-operation Programme for Northern
12
Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and Western Scotland
IP Intellectual Property
IPO’s Intellectual Property Owners
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
IRAM Institute of Millimeter Radio Astronomy
IRCSET Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology
IRL Ireland
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
IST Irish Society of Toxicology
IT Information Technology
ITB Institute of Technology Blanchardstown
ITEM Institute of Toxicology and Experimental Medicine (Munich)
ITT Institute of Technology Tallaght
JISC Joint Information Systems Committee
JPI Oceans Joint Programing Initiative Healthy and Productive Seas and Oceans
KBE Knowledge Based Economy
KET’s Key Enabling Technology’s
KET’s Key Enabling Technologies
KIC’s Knowledge and Innovation Communities
LBN London Bioscience Network
LBN London Biotechnology Network
LC MS Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectroscopy
LE Large Enterprise
LIMS Laboratory Information Management Systems
LMB Laboratory of Molecular Biology
LTD Limited Company
LTM Local Technology Meeting
MaRS MaRS Discovery District Canada
MD Managing Director
MIRC Midlands Innovation Research Centre
MMI Molecular Medicine Ireland
MRC Medical Research Council (Cambridge)
MRes Masters in Research
MRI Materials Research Institute (AIT)
MS Multiple Sclerosis
MSc. Master of Science
NBP National Biotechnology Programme
NCBES National Centre for Biomedical Engineering Science
NCBI National Centre for Biotechnology Imaging
NCBI National Centre for Biotechnology Imaging
NFWDP New Frontiers Entrepreneur Development Programme
NHGRI National Human Genome Research Institute
NIBRT National Institution for Bioprocessing Research & Training
NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
NMR Nuclear Magnetic Resonamce
NUIG National University of Ireland Galway
NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
NYDC New York Development Corporation
OBIO Ontario Bioscience Innovation Organisation
OCE Ontario Centre of Excellence
OCE Ontario Centre of Excellence
OECD Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development
ONE Ontario Network of Excellence
OSI Ordinance Survey Ireland
P&G Procter & Gamble
PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction
PET Positron Emission Tomography
13
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy
PHA Polyhydroxyalkanoates
PI Principle Investigator
PLA Polymer Polylactic Acid
POC Proof of Concept
POI Program in Open Innovation
Post-Grad Postgraduate Course
PT Portugal
qPCR Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
R&D Research & Development
RDA Regional Development Agency
REACH Regulation Evaluation Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
REF Reference
RG’s Research Groups
RI Research Infrastructure
RNA Ribo Nucleic Acid
RO’s Research Organisations
ROI Return on Investment
RTP Research Triangle Park
RT-PCR Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction
S&E Southern & Eastern
S&T Science & Technology
SCC Stockholm Science City
SFI Science Foundation Ireland
SiRNA Small Interfering Ribo Nucleic Acid
SME Small to Medium Sized Enterprise
SNP’s Small Nucleotide Polymorphisms
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SPECT Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
STEM Science Technology Engineering and Maths
TA Thermal Analysis
TCD Trinity College Dublin
TCF Technological Core Facility
TCI The Competiveness Institute
TDL Technology Development Laboratory
TOF Time-Of-Flight 9Spectroscopy
TT Technology Translator
TTO Technology Transfer Office
TTP’s Technology Transfer Pathways
UCC University College Cork
UCD University College Dublin
UK United Kingdom
UKBI United Kingdom Business Incubation
UL University of Limerick
UMIC University of Manchester Innovation Company
UniMAP University of Malaysia, Perlis
US United States
USPTO US Patent and Trademark Office
VC Venture Capital
VP Vice President
VREs Virtual Research Environments
WIT Waterford Institute of Technology
14
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
There are a number of people without whom this thesis might not have been written, and to
whom I am greatly indebted. I have had the privilege to work with many talented individuals
who have made contributions to my research experience. My supervisor, Dr. Paul Tomkins
has been, and will always remain an excellent role model for me. Despite his busy schedule,
Paul always found the time to discuss anything and instilled in me the confidence to
continue and maintain belief in the worth of this endeavour. His dedication and commitment
to science and education is truly inspiring and remarkable. Special thanks to Paul’s wife
Collette who welcomed me into their home on many occasions and extended to me
unequalled hospitality, countless dinners and cups of coffee, but most of all, her warm smile
and endless support. I offer my sincere gratitude to my other co-supervisor, Professor Neil
Rowan, for the considerate ways in which you challenged and supported me throughout the
whole of this work – knowing when to push and when to let up.
Thanks to Siobhan, Anita, and Lorna, who played very important roles along the journey, as
I tried to make sense of the various challenges I faced and in providing encouragement at
those times when it seemed impossible to continue.
This dissertation is also dedicated to my brilliant and outrageously loving and
supportive partner, Lorenza Scavino. I extend warm gratitude to my sister Colette and my
three sons, Clive, Mark, and Ian for their belief in my ability.
I wish to thank Professor Horst Domdey, Dr. Martino Picardo, Dr. Claire
Skentelberry, Dr. Mario Thomas, Dr. Tony Jones, Dr. Derek Jones, and Dr. Mary Skelly, for
agreeing to be interviewed by me. Their insight, input, and influence were invaluable to the
writing of this dissertation.
I would like to thank all the members of the ShareBiotech consortium from the four
partner regions (Spain, Portugal, France, and Ireland) whose warm welcoming cultures,
enthusiasm, and professionalism, were a breath of fresh air and made the ShareBiotech
project a pleasure to be part of.
Also, the generous financial support of the EU Interreg Sharebiotech Project and the
Bioscience Research Institute in AIT for giving me the opportunity to carry out this work
and for believing in my ability and trusting me to represent them on the European stage.
Finally and most importantly, I dedicate this work to those who are loved and sadly
missed, but never forgotten, and were pillars of strength to me; my wife Gillian, my mother
Julia, my sister Jacqueline, her loving son Ross, and my father Christopher.
Bealtaine n-anamacha a bheith ina shuí ar dheis Dé.
15
Abstract
Analysis of Biotechnology Cluster Drivers identifies successful models and
strategies in Europe and throughout the world that contributed to their success and
development. This constitutes a complex and frontier study that sets out to review,
examine and experiment with factors perceived to limit the development of positive
biotechnology cluster drivers in the life science technology sector of the Alantic
area, which was addressed under the EU Interreg Sharebiotech project. This
collaborative project, in keeping with Interreg structure, was divided into 7 inter-
related activities. Although my studies are framed around specifically activity 3
(addressing studies and action plan to reduce the gap between life science technology
supply and demand) that also encompassed comprehensive interviews with leading
experts in this field (activity 7); this thesis also describes the main outputs of all 7
activities as to view in isolation would both diminish and skew interpretation and
relevance of the former. It is also relevant to convey that this author also contributed
significantly to all 7 activities during the life time of this Sharebiotech Project.
The main intention of this study, through the ShareBiotech project, was to strengthen
the biotechnology sector of the Atlantic Area, through the maximisation of the
benefits of life science research infrastructures and skills, for the economic
development of the partner regions and of the Atlantic Area as a whole. This
research endeavoured to understand the reasons behind a weaker biotechnology
sector in the Atlantic Area; to identify infrastructure gaps and needs and to analyse
the drivers for success in other areas of Europe and the US through the clustering
model. The ShareBiotech project went far beyond just conducting an inventory and
offering existing technologies: it promoted a bottom-up approach and endeavoured
in partnership with stakeholders to find appropriate technological answers by
adapting the technology offerings.
Core aspirations of the project included (a) to facilitate wider sharing of knowledge
and technology within the Atlantic Area, across life science fields (Health, Marine
research, agriculture and food) and related high-tech transversal domains
(bioinformatics, imaging, and nanotechnologies), and between academia and
industry, (b) to reinforce regional service provision of technologies for researchers
(both public and private) in line with the identified needs, (c) to create the basis of a
transnational network of Technological Core Facilities (TCFs), in order to provide
technological services at the transnational level, (d) to foster technology absorption
in the less technology-intensive sectors and companies, in particular through
explaining applications of complex and recent technologies to SMEs and (e) to in
increase the profile and the visibility of the biotechnology sector of the Atlantic
Area, in order to make it an attractive choice for networking, cooperation and
locating business.
Findings showed that collaboration between industry, government, and HEI’s is
vital to the economic future of the EU, and is vital to the recovery of Ireland’s
economy. It is anticipated that this research will elucidate a model that can be
implemented in the Atlantic Area encompassing Ireland. This study also reported on
niche specialist areas of expertise and service provision across the EU Atlantic
region.
16
1 Introduction
1.1 Origins of Biotechnology
This project embraced a selected analysis of the status of aspects of biotechnology
research and associated industry across elements of the Atlantic Region of the EU,
with novel follow-on research focused on the potential benefits of collaboration
models, knowledge transfer and access to technology facilities. This unique Intereg
project reflected the current and growing importance of biotechnology to the EU in
terms of society, life quality, environment and life sciences and benefits and the
associated industry, economic, technology and knowledge impacts. Before
introducing the formal tasks and objectives of this research, it is necessary to review
aspects of biotechnology and the potential origin of the drivers of this project.
Elements of this review comply with the traditional prior project time period, but
some embrace a parallel time frame and even more recently, when appropriate.
While some basic elements of biological knowledge would inevitably have slowly
accumulated since the origins of Homo sapiens in Africa about 200,000 years ago
and indeed their predecessors, it is inevitably only since the development of human
capacity to record and retain evidence of ideas and activities that a notion of aspects
of scientific history exists. There is nevertheless evidence of oral transfer to
generations of acquired knowledge, about 10,000 years ago. Initial knowledge
drivers as a capability evolved, would have been associated with attempted self-
understanding and basic understanding of surrounding plants and animals. The
literal word ‘biology’ may have originated in the 18th
C, but initiation of the former
can be associated with ancient cultures in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China,
although a more structured notion of biology probably derives from the more secular
tradition of ancient Greek philosophy (Magner, 2002). The overview of biology as a
discipline embracing the knowledge of living things progressed in the 19th
C as a
precursor of current terms, such as 20th C life sciences (Agar, 2012). In all
disciplines, the acquisition of information, the analysis of complexities and
pragmatic progression of knowledge and exploitation, accelerates with the passage
of time and consequently the scale, complexity and number of definitive derivatives
17
of biology has expanded enormously over the past two decades (Buchwald & Gray
2008).
There are now at least 42 divisions of the biology domain embracing everything
from agriculture to traditional zoology and a minimum of at least 10 further sub-
divisions of some of these (Gum et al., 2004). A key life science division is
biotechnology. There are a number of definitions of biotechnology, but a commonly
cited generic definition is that of the OECD:
"The application of science and technology to living organisms, as well as
parts, products and models thereof, to alter living or non-living materials for the
production of knowledge, goods and services" (OECD, 2009). Biotechnology is
consequently in part, the deployment of biological processes, organisms, or systems
to generate products that influence or enhance life – this tends to imply
commercialisation of research. The origin of the term, ‘biotechnology’ is associated
with Kéroly Ereky in Hungary in 1919, who used it to describe a means of
generating enhanced porcine products.
As part of the history, as far back as 10,000 years, selective breeding of plants and
animals was practiced, and alcohol fermentation has been carried out for at least
6000 years. However, it was not until the middle of the 20th
century, when a number
of fundamental discoveries were made, that the potential of biotechnology to impact
greatly on human health and well-being was recognised.
In a 20th
C context, the beginnings of biotechnology are consequently
associated with farmers and the farming industry of plants and animals. However,
many reviews and discussions of biotechnology tend to reflect the history of the
discipline as originating before this formal title.1 In reality, a crucial period that
influenced the current definition of biotechnology, implying a capacity to change
integral biological systems, occurred in the 1970s and hence a modern interpretation
of the origins of biotechnology is associated with the advent of genetic engineering,
despite the prior discovery of DNA structure in 1953 (Watson & Crick, 1953). This
respected crucial 1970s development was that of recombinant DNA technology by
Cohen & Boyer (Cohen & Boyer, 1973). Recombinant DNA permitted the first
transfer of a selected section of DNA between E. coli bacteria. This effectively
1 The Biotech Industry Organizations website Bio.org, 2014
18
represented a future capacity to bioengineer cells and organisms and subsequent
protein synthesis. The contributory significance of Boyer and the VC Robert
Swanson, to the advent of biotechnology is further evidenced by his founding in
1976 of the world’s first significant and domain associated, biotechnology company,
Genentech. This company ultimately grew to a value of $47b by 2009, was
responsible for the first human gene expressed product in bacteria, somatostatin in
1977 and was eventually taken over by Hoffmann-La Roche in 2009.
While, the biotechnology industry first arose in the United States in the
1980s, subsequently, a combination of creative biologists, venture capitalism, and
the influential support of state and local governments generated a series of major
biotechnology clusters, including San Francisco, Boston, San Diego, Seattle,
Maryland, and North Carolina, although this term was not fully appreciated then.
Conversely, commercial biotechnology took longer to develop in Europe, except for
the UK. The EU emphasis on government support was important, but as per the
USA, it was recognised many years ago that significant other factors were required,
including good relations with academic departments that specialize in the life
sciences, the availability of educated venture capital, and the development of critical
masses of companies involved in biotechnology and related activities.2
Examples of other influential developments would include: field testing of
genetically engineered plants (1985); patenting of genetically modified (transgenic)
animals (1988); Animal cloning (Dolly the sheep, 1997); and the publishing of a
complete human genome sequence (2003). In recent years the five major
interdisciplinary breakthroughs, - (i) gene sequencing; (ii) developments in
recombinant DNA technologies; (iii) advances in imaging techniques; (iv) the
growth and nature of internet\we development; and (v) nanotechnology - have
played a significant role across the biotechnology sector.
Selected, additional important developments include: in 1980 the US Supreme
Court ruled that genetically altered life forms could be patented, a Supreme Court
decision that allowed the Exxon oil company to patent an oil-eating microorganism.
In 1982, Genentech received approval from the Food and Drug Administration
2 Science advertising supplement, May 7, (1999) p989
19
(FDA) to market genetically engineered human insulin. In 1985, genetic finger-
printing was used for the first time in a court room as evidence of an individual’s
presence at a crime scene. In 1990 the first gene therapy took place on a four-year-
old girl with an immune-system disorder called ADA deficiency and the Human
Genome Project (HGP), the international effort to map all the genes in the human
body was launched at an estimated cost of $13 billion between the US & UK. Kary
Mullins won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1993, for inventing the technology of
polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
In addition, 1977 researchers at Scotland’s Roslin Institute cloned a sheep called
Dolly from the cell of an adult ewe – the first substantial mammalian clone. 1988
saw a rough draft of the Human Genome map showing the locations of more than
30,000 genes. On 14th
of April 2003, The International Human Genome Consortium,
led in the United States by the National Human Genome Research Institute
(NHGRI), and the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Welcome Trust Sanger
Institute in the UK, announced the successful completion of the Human Genome
Project more than two years ahead of schedule.
On the 20th
of May 2010, Craig Venter created the genome of a bacterium from
fundamentals and incorporated it into a cell to make first partially synthetic life-
form. The new organism was based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in
goats, but at its core was an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed in vitro.
However, further advancement in full synthetic organism development has not
progressed significantly since.
To return to more fundamentals regarding this discipline, biotechnology as a
broad discipline embraces sub-disciplines, which have now become labelled as red,
white, green, and blue. Red biotechnology implies medical processes such as
biopharma, or using stem cells to regenerate damaged human tissues and the future
capacity to generate entire organs in vitro. White or grey biotechnology implies
industrial processes such as the production of new chemicals or the development of
new fuels for vehicles. Green biotechnology relates to agriculture and involves such
processes as the development of pest-resistant grains or the accelerated evolution of
disease-resistant animals. Blue biotechnology, encompasses processes in marine and
aquatic environments, including sustainability of oxygen production and control of
hazardous fresh and marine organisms (Marine Biotechnology & Developing
20
Countries, 1999). Bioinformatics is an interdisciplinary domain, which analyses
biological systems via complex computational systems and consequently is
responsible for a huge proportion of bio-data, and significantly contributed to some
of the advanced recent biotech developments, previously cited (Wang, 2012).
There is a tendency to predominantly equate biotechnology with biopharma,
but the average time required to generate a biopharma product, the risk of failure and
the subsequent regulatory process implies significant development costs despite the
potential for subsequent substantial profits and important bio-impacts. This has
reflected a greater recognition that other biotech domains must develop more and
produce commercial outputs in shorter time frames. This has particular relevance to
many elements of the Atlantic Region of Europe, where one might expect that
biotech territories such as marine, energy, food and chemicals to receive specific
focus and motivation.
1.2 The Nature & Scale of Biotechnology Research
An indication of the breadth of biotechnology, would minimally embrace the
following sub-disciplines:
Agricultural Biotechnology • Plant biotechnology
• Animal biotechnology
• Biofertilisers, biocides, biological additives, microbial pest control, hormones,
pheromones etc
Aquaculture/Marine Biotechnology • Fish health & nutrition
•Broodstock genetics & breeding
• Bioextraction & marine bioprospecting
Environment • Biofiltration & treatments
• Bioremediation, waste management, phytoremediation
• Diagnostics
Food Production and Processing • Food processing
• Functional foods, additives, nutrichemicals
Forest Products • Silviculture
• Enhanced industrial bioprocessing
21
Human Health • Diagnostics
• Therapeutics
• Gene therapy
• Genomics/ Proteomics/ Bioinformatics/ Bioprospecting – genomics & molecular
analysis
Industrial Biotech and General Biochemicals • Custom bio-synthesis of biologicals
• Bioprocessing
• Custom synthesis of fine chemicals
Medical Devices, Equipment/Supplies and Bioengineering • Equipment manufacture, instruments, consumables, reagents
• Bioengineering, large scale fermentation & contract manufacturing, down-stream
processing
Mining/Energy/Petroleum/Chemicals • microbiologically enhanced petroleum/mineral recovery – biofuels/bioenergy
• Cleaner industrial bioprocessing
Nanotechnology • New materials design, therapeutics, manufacturing processes
Specialist Service Provider • Contract research and development to the biotechnology industry
• Consulting to the biotechnology industry
Agriculture is a major focus for biotechnology predominantly because societies need
to increase food production via lower cost as population density grows. Early
biotech developments to protect the environment led to reduced use of agro-
chemicals like pesticides, fertilizers and rodenticides. More recently it has generated
environmental friendly crops such as insect-resistant, herbicide-tolerant species and
crops that can fix nitrogen. Other elements of agricultural biotech development,
particularly GM crops have of course generated fears and concerns in many
countries – issues which have still not be fully addressed (Soetan, 2011).
Within biotechnology disciplines, there is a substantial portfolio of unique
biotechnology methods as well (Jungbauer, 2013).
1.3 Economics of the biotech sector
Analysing factors and variables that influence the economic growth of the biotech
sector is now routine and indicative of the importance of this domain in many
22
developed countries (Aggarwal, 2011). In 2009, the bio-based economy in Europe
was estimated to be worth 2 trillion euros in annual turnover derived from
biotechnology related activities alone and provided 20 million jobs.3
The health and industrial sectors that either use biomass or have applications for
biotechnology accounted for 5.6% of GDP in Europe in 2004 (compared to 7.4% for
information and communication technology).
In the decade before the recent economic crisis, the US biotechnology
industry was expanding as expected. According to Ernst & Young’s annual global
biotechnology reports measured in 2008 dollars, US biotechnology revenues
increased from $20 billion in 1996 to $70.1 billion in 2008, while R&D spending in
the industry increased from $10.8 billion to $30.4 billion. In 1996 the industry had
1308 biotech firms, of which 260 were publicly listed; and in 2008, 1754 companies,
of which 371 were publicly listed. Employment in the industry increased from
118,000 in 1996 to a peak of 198,300 in 2003, before declining to 187,500 in 2004
and 170,500 in 2005, and then rising again to 190,400 in 2008 (Lazonick & Tulum
2011). An accurate comparison EU and US biotech economic status based on these
published reports is not simple. In reality, the US hosts the largest biotech sector.
The global biotechnology industry rebounded strongly in 2013, during the
time frame of the ShareBiotech project. Public companies achieved double digit
revenue growth and there was a sharp rise in funds raised. Product successes have
boosted revenues, brought in investors, and large companies have been motivated to
invest strongly in R&D. However, much of the industry’s growth was driven by a
relatively small group of commercial stage companies, which spurred on the rest of
the industry to achieve greater efficiency in their drug development efforts. In an
Ernst & Young report, several findings emerged in their analysis of key performance
indicators.4 These key findings were as follows:
Revenue climbs: Companies in the industries established biotech centres (US,
Europe, Canada, and Australia) generated revenues of US$98.8B, a 10% increase
from 2012. However, virtually all growth came from 17 US based commercial
3 Ernst & Young, 2012, “What has Europe got to offer Biotechnology Companies
4 Ernst & Young report (Beyond Borders, 2014)
23
leaders, defined as companies with revenues in excess of US$500M. European top-
line growth slowed but profits soared.
R&D spending rebounds: R&D spending rebounded forcefully, up 14% from the
previous year, mainly driven by a 20% increase in US spending. This was the first
time since the onset of the global financial crisis that R&D growth outpaced revenue
growth.
Net income slips: Net income was down by US$0.8B, driven in part by the
US$3.7B increase in R&D expenditures during the year.
Market capitalization grew considerably, by 65% to US$791B, catalysed by strong
performances from commercial leaders, which increased overall confidence in the
sector.
Figure 1.1: Funding growth: Biotech companies in North America raised US$31.6b in
2013, a sharp increase from the US$28.7b raised in 2012 and the second highest total since
2003. Fifty biotechs (in the US, Canada and Europe) debuted on the public markets in 2013,
raising US$3.5b, a 300% increase compared to 2012 and the highest one-year total since
2000. (Source: E&Y, Capital IQ, Bio Century and Venture Source)
While, the impact of the financial crisis on the biotech, and in particular, the
biopharma sector was first recognised in 2009, (Lazonick & Tulum 2011), and
despite being a core science and requiring innovative, creative and deliverable
science, as a business it is inevitably driven by money and associated profits, within
a capitalist society.
24
Figure 1.2: Innovation capital; defined as the amount of equity capital raised by companies
with less than $US500M in revenues; increased by 36% and comprised the majority of total
funding for the first time since 2010. Driven by a strong IPO market, US companies raised
US$14.8B in innovation capital in 2013, the largest amount in any year in the last decade,
and 59% of the total capital raised. Meanwhile, the commercial lenders raised US$10.5B in
2013, despite a drop in debt of nearly 50% since 2011. (Source: E&Y, Capital IQ, Bio
Century and Venture Source)
In reviewing biotech start-ups in Finland, the authors after analysis decided,
that a high profitability and low growth biotech firm is more likely to make the
transition to high profitability – effectively higher growth than a firm that starts off
with low profitability. Also, a biotech venture that demonstrates high growth but low
profitability is less likely to become a profitable firm than one that demonstrates both
low growth and low profitability, (Brannback et al., 2009).
This confirms that for biotech companies, previous growth alone is not a
reliable indicator of future performance. Consequently backing fast growing biotech
start-ups does not guarantee business success. Brannback et al., (2009) suggest that
an assessment of the company’s internal resources, capabilities and market potential
could be more useful for prediction.
The global biotech industry is characterized by its requirement for large R&D
investments sometimes associated with uncertain results and infrequent benefits.
This complexity has enforced the belief that governments should positively influence
the sector. The USA as a leader in R&D spending and its consequences, has recently
contributed to its economic recovery by investing in innovation, education and
infrastructure to create future jobs and industries, (Sohn et al., 2013). Strategies to
achieve these objectives include an increase of investment in patent management.
25
The United States has proposed to give the US Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) full access to its fee collections and to strengthen USPTO’s efforts to
improve the speed and quality of patent examinations through a temporary fee
surcharge and regulatory and legislative reforms. It should be appreciated as well
that Germany and Austria support SME R&D development and that the majority of
companies, small and large are privately owned, and not dependent on shareholders.
The 2008 global economic crisis has placed far more pressure on government
policies to support economic recovery. However, R&D investments by emerging
economies like China, Brazil and India are expanding at rates often higher than those
in the US, and some European cuts in R&D spending could negatively impact on EU
biotech development as well as determine the number of biotech transfer contracts in
the future. While public sector cuts may improve investor confidence, it accelerates
the decline of science and technology. Biotechnology is one of the sectors most
sensitive to economic investment, implying that it does need government support,
including in the US. A relatively simple model is that public authorities should
facilitate technology transfer from universities and public research organizations to
industry (Sohn et al., 2013).
One nature of technology start-up company change over the past two decades
is that more young and even old people are now involved in the process. A recent
US study showed more University graduates initiating companies than their
academic staff (Åstebroa et al., 2012).
1.4 Biotechnology - Promising a Brighter Future for Europe and the World
Biotechnology contributes to everyday lives, from clothes and how they are washed,
food and the sources it comes from, medicines and even the fuel for transport.
Biotech already plays, and must continue to play, an invaluable role in meeting
people needs.
From new drugs that address medical needs and fight epidemics and rare
diseases, to industrial processes that use renewable feedstock instead of crude oil to
lower the impact on the environment and crops that are able to grow in harsh
climatic conditions and ensure safe and affordable food, biotech can and will
generate economic, social and environmental merits. The development of new
technologies promises a brighter future for the EU and globally. To drive
26
biotechnology forward it needs support from policy makers that supports risk-taking
and the public need to be better informed about how biotech can create a healthier,
greener, more productive, and more sustainable economy.
Healthcare biotech is already benefiting millions of people globally through
treatment of, cardiovascular disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, cystic
fibrosis, leukaemia, diabetes, hepatitis, and other rare and infectious diseases.
Healthcare biotech is estimated to account for more than 20% of all marketed
medicines and it is predicted that by 2015, 50% of all medicines will be biotech.5
Biotech will ultimately generate more “Personalised Medicine” to diagnose what an
individual patient’s problems are and apply treatment to suit the specific needs of the
patient. The European healthcare biotech comprises in excess of 1,700 companies
and has a market value of more than €17B. The provision of jobs in the healthcare
biotech sector in Europe more than doubled from 2000 to 2008, showing an increase
of 158%.6
Industrial biotech helping to minimise mans impact on the environment while
boosting manufacturing output has generated increased employment. Industrial
biotech or “white biotech” used microorganisms and enzymes in the production of
detergents enabling clothes to be washed at lower temperatures, and in the
production of paper and pulp, clothing, chemicals etc., is done in a more
environmentally, efficient way that uses less energy, less water and produces less
waste. Agricultural products and organic waste can be used to produce biofuels e.g.
bioethanol, bio-diesel.7 In the battle against “climate change”, white biotechnology
can save energy in production processes which lowers the emission of greenhouse
gasses, a reduction of between 1B and 2.5B tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year by
2030.8 Europe is a world leader in the production of enzymes, and produces 75% of
the world’s enzymes.9
5 OECD, 2012: The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda
6 Office of Health Economics, UK
7 Europa Bio, 2008
8 WWF Denmark, 2009
9 EU Commission, 2010
27
Agricultural biotechnology or “Green Biotech” can increase the food yield
from land by 6% to 30% which helps protect biodiversity and wildlife, (Gilbert,
2010). Agricultural biotech offers built-in protection against insect damage,
resulting in a reduction of pesticide spraying. Green biotech reduces fuel use and
CO2 emissions, and less land is required enabling farmers to grow more food,
reliably, in harsher climatic conditions.10
In 2009, this was equivalent to removing
17.7 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing 7.8
million cars from the road for one year.
Agro biotech plants protect themselves against weeds and pests, so there is
less soil disturbance and this increased the efficiency of water usage and will also
reduce the risks of flooding as the soil will be better able to maintain water via
absorbance.11
By offering new improved and adapted agricultural crops such as
drought or saline resistant plants, agricultural biotech can contribute to the
Millennium Development Goals on reducing poverty and can help increase food
security for a growing global population estimated to reach 10b by the year 2050.12,13
It is likely that the use of the different sectors in biotechnology as sustainable
technologies will be a major contributor to cater for an ever-growing population.
1.5 Collaboration between Universities & Industry
As expected, industrial firms use a variety of relationships with university research
centres to contribute to development. Large companies have higher intensity
knowledge transfer and research support relationships in order to strengthen skills
and knowledge and gain access to university facilities for advancing non-core
technologies. Conversely, SMEs employ technology transfer and cooperative
research relationships in order to strengthen skills and knowledge and gain access to
university facilities for advancing core technologies (Santoro & Chaktabarti, 2002).
10
www.pgeconomics.co.uk
11 Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the US, 2010
12 http://www.gatesfoundation.org
13 WHO, 2010
28
In Germany, specific HEIs, particularly Fraunhofer’s are focused on working with
companies and attract a third of their funding as a consequence.
A recent PwC report14
regarding Regional Biotechnology generated a number of
recommendations, including:
KBBE Aspects (Knowledge Based Bio-Economy) - ~ 9 recommendations,
including increase funding for SMEs and creating more translational research
centres in specific KBBE domains
Funding
Incubators – create new bio-incubators at cluster or regional level
Technology Transfer (TT)
Cluster Organisations – 10 recommendations, but does not specifically
identify enhanced HE interaction or Core Facilities as issues, although there
is a previous reference to incubator facilities. A more detailed review of
cluster issues will follow.
Entrepreneurial Culture
A partial emphasis of this proposal is again linkage, networking and formal clusters,
but rather simplistically does not draw attention to the benefits of accessible
technology facilities and the potential cost savings of HEI connections. While, this
project inevitably supports and promotes the benefits of biotech industry-HEI
connectivity, it is accepted that a large proportion of HEIs in many countries have a
history of slow delivery of industry research requirements, knowledge insecurity and
lack of understanding of business needs and mode of operation.
The formal recognition of the importance of HEI-business collaboration for
innovation and subsequent exploitation did occur many years ago and Germany did
introduce the first Fraunhofer institutes in 1949. Despite the existence of vocational
orientated Polytechnics in the UK from the 1960s, the sector was converted to
standard university in 1992, with a resultant decline in industry interfacing. Other
countries such as Ireland retained its more minor equivalent, the subsequent Institute
of Technology.
The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration was a report
by Richard Lambert, published in the UK in 2003, which aimed at improving the
relationships between the HE science base and the business community (Lambert,
2003). The UK Lambert Review recommended significant enhancement of the scale
14
PwC 2012
29
and quality of business–university collaboration. Since the 2008 crisis, that request
has probably grown further in part associated with funding.
Networking between universities and the business community is a critical
component of an efficient innovation ecosystem (Wilson, 2012). There are several
established networking tools at national and regional levels that create links between
universities, business and research technology organisations.
The loss of manufacturing industry has encouraged countries like the UK to
promote innovation in newer areas such as biotechnology. The emergence of the
‘bioeconomy’, however, has been highly uneven, with concentrations of activity in
certain countries and particular regions in those countries. In the UK, for example,
there are four major concentrations of the bioeconomy, each of which depends on
selected types of knowledge inputs into the innovation process and physical status of
the region (Birch, 2009). These factors include - differences in public science base,
knowledge spill overs and extent and size of biotech firms. Some regions have large
firms that can provide an ‘anchoring’ effect.
Lambert very much concluded that to increase knowledge transfer requires an
increase in research activity and demands amongst the non-academic communities,
rather than increasing the supply of ideas and services from universities. Over the
following decade, the quality, quantity and nature of industry-HEI collaboration in
the UK does appear to have increased (Santoro & Chakrabarti 2002, Hewitt-Dundas
2012, Wilson 2012,). These important points have been considered retrospectively
in the context of the foundation and delivery of this research project.
1.6 Research Infrastructure
Since the advent of microprocessors and subsequent engineering and software
development, research instrumentation and infrastructure have evolved considerably
in all science domains.
It has been predicted that the 21st century will see significant growth of a
bioeconomy based on applications of biotechnology as important and influential as
the IT was at the end of the 20th century (Lex, 2008).
Research infrastructure has become a major theme of EU strategy to grow research
and its economic outputs. The ERA-NET scheme was launched in 2002 as part of
the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). It was designed “to step up the cooperation
30
and coordination of research activities carried out at national and regional level in
the Member States and Associated States, through the networking of research
activities, including their mutual opening and the development of joint activities”. It
therefore represented one element of progression towards the creation of the
European Research Area (ERA).
Research infrastructures (RIs) are of strategic importance in the context of the
European Research Area. Excellence in research requires excellent infrastructures,
for data collection, management, processing, analysing and archiving; this is the case
in all disciplines. Infrastructures are imperative for the advancement of science and
for scientific communities; they lead scientific development in new directions, create
an attractive research environment, and support international collaboration.15
1.7 Core Facilities
HEIs have long been recognised as a source of skill sets and research technologies,
including core facilities, (Santoro & Chakrabarti, 2002). A core facility is a
centralized, shared resource that provides scientific investigators with access to
instruments, technologies, services and expertise – this is consequently sometimes
now referred to as a technology core facility (TCF), an abbreviation that will be used
in this project.
A recent analysis of selected US TCFs16
explored a number of issues that can
influence their sustainability, organisation and operation of:
1. Cutting services or raising rates
2. Growing institutional use
3. Marketing services outside of the HEI
4. Better managing equipment transactions
5. More proactively managing start-up packages
6. Exploring possible core consolidation or shut-down
7. Sharing core personnel and creating satellites
8. Developing inter-institutional core partnerships
9. Crafting more disciplined core financial arrangements.
A number of these issues arose during the conduct of this project as well, the
consequences of which will be raised in the Discussion.
15 Science Europe (http://www.scienceeurope.org/), ERA Instruments (http://www.era-instruments.eu/)
16 California Nano-Systems Institute, UCLA, 2012
31
All biotech domains within the life sciences require access to core facilities to
resource advanced research, (Janssens et al., 2010).
High throughput screening (HTS) core facilities generate large amounts of data and
it is recognised that they benefit significantly when managed by appropriate
software, (Tolopko et al., 2010). Similarly, microarray core facilities are
commonplace in biological research organizations, and need systems for accurately
tracking various logistical aspects of their operation, particularly concerning the
number of test samples and the handling of data. A simple solution is to use
Microsoft Excel for tracking the transactions, but this often requires redundant data
entry into multiple spreadsheets, and is prone to error. Lab information management
systems (LIMS) software addresses this problem by storing information in
interrelated tables with more rigorous data entry mechanisms in place to prevent
inaccuracies and reduce redundancy charges that researchers incur necessitate a
highly organized and accurate system for managing this information, (Marzolf and
Troisch, 2006)
The cost and scale of core facilities influences the need for shared access,
(Murray 2009). The concept of core facilities is now widely accepted and
increasingly recognised that a management model must be applied to ensure viable
outcomes (Haley, 2009).
Core facilities are a common base model in the design of academic, non-
profit and commercial biological research organizations as well. In this model,
multiple research groups utilize the specialized resources provided by core facilities,
such as cell culture, sequencing, and genotyping and microarray services. Often
there is a mechanism by which these facilities charge the individual research groups
for the products and services they provide to them – in such a HEI model, individual
Departments have to pay the corresponding TCF for access to resources. Managing
a core facility typically involves keeping records of consumables, tracking samples
processed, and recording charges to researchers for products and services provided to
them. The considerable number of samples processed and the substantial charges that
researchers incur necessitate a highly organized and accurate system for managing
this information
Due to the rapid and wide development of laboratory technology, the speed at
which knowledge becomes redundant is increasing, implying regular training up-
32
skill provisions. With each new testing instrument purchased and each new product
to be tested in a laboratory, the gap can be wider. In order to prove its competence
and become accredited, a laboratory must also prove their staffs are competent. In
order to keep up with changes constantly occurring, laboratories have to constantly
manage the competence of their staff. Effective and efficient management of the
staff competence, knowledge, skills, education, and training can be a very
demanding requirement of the standard, especially for those laboratories which
operate in a free market and have little or no external financial support, (Stajdohar-
Paden, 2008).
iLab Solutions Inc., an example of a company that specialises in management of
core facilities, together with some competitors was subject to a review within this
project. The company conducted an annual survey of US TCFs in 2011 to review
structure and progress.17
In total, 246 individual core managers and directors from
over 1001 institutions, representing more than 30 different core types, responded to
the survey. This study shows that business growth and utilization rates increased
from 2009 to 2010 (60% of cores with growing volume, 7% experiencing declines).
The survey also indicated a number of key issues in core operations:
Most cores charge for services (93% of cores);
Chargeback income provides the most important revenue stream (49% of
revenues);
Core managers tend to spend the largest portion of their time directly
providing services to their customers (56 hours per month);
Labour constitutes the largest area of expense (50% of expenses);
Most TCFs still rely on basic spreadsheets to manage administrative tasks;
The most common means of staying at the forefront of the core’s scientific
interest are through word-of-mouth and conference attendance;
Social media have made only limited inroads in the core community; and
Most cores do not track the publications which result from their services.
The most recent 2013 iLab survey, was based on only 60 institutions in the US, EU
and Asia Pacific and the results suggest, demand for access to TCFs continues to
rise, but this is reducing the capacity of TCFs to undertake their own research and
17
iLab 2011http://www.ilabsolutions.com/
33
pressure demands consume staff time and require adoption of new tools to manage
the process.18
1.8 Core facilities & Higher Education Institutions
Formal as opposed to traditional informal, location, resourced and managed core-
facilities are becoming a principle component of science parks and physical
interfacing between industry and HE. For example, the Daresbury Science &
Innovation Campus – Innovations Technology Access Centre (I-TAC) provides
access to some core facilities for start-ups, which emphasises the importance of cost
effective access to fundamental and advanced technology and research facilities.19
The notion of networked core facilities has evolved in many countries and the
web is a common mode of connection and interfacing. The Victorian Platform
Technologies Network (VPTN) in Australia has some correlation with ShareBiotech
objectives. The network has currently 111 facilities over 38 different Universities,
Medical Institutes and Government organisations. Monash University was one of
the main organisations involved in setting up and developing the VPTN. The
network primarily focuses on biomedical and nanotechnology facilities. VPTN
focuses on core facility management systems that will bring better access and
awareness of the networks facilities and their efficiencies. In keeping with
ShareBiotech but effectively progressing further as a real network, VPTN also
engaged with EU, US and Israeli IT companies to set-up core facility management
software that will be integrated across the State so that all the facilities in the
network are visible and can be booked from one site. This required the setup of a
web interface on the front of the software where any customer can access the
required facility. The facilities and host organisations have control over their
facilities and who they approve to access, rules and custom configuration, in return
they allow the VPTN to collect high level information (desensitized) about usage and
capacity to give back to the State government to help in planning and future
investment decisions.
In the USA, AMDeC F.I.R.S.T. ™ (Facilities, Instrumentation, Resources, and
18
http://www.ilabsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/20130830-BMS2013.pdf
19 www.stfc.ac.uk/itac
34
Services & Technologies) was established in 1997, as a real-time web resource
hosting up-to-date information about technology and research resources available at
biomedical core laboratories in the New York tri-state area. AMDeC F.R.S.T.
effectively networked 100 Core Facilities, 300 services, and 400 instruments listed
on AMDeC F.I.R.S.T., available for immediate use on a discounted, fee-for-service
basis.
AMDeC definitely contributed to collaborative biomedical research via team science
initiatives, member services focused on cost savings and access to innovative core
facilities, and private sector partnership with the academic biomedical research
community. However, as a not-for-profit virtual TCF, AMDeC closed in 2013 due
to financial problems.
Traditionally, the presence of experienced academics and the generation of
able graduates were always considered obvious benefits for any technology sector.
It is a simple reality that in many advanced countries over the past twenty years, as
the percentage of a population attending third level HE has increased, the standard
and quality of programmes delivered has declined, despite the introduction of greater
regulatory structures and metric records. The poorer laboratory skills of many
graduates and postgraduates can consume more time and cause problems to industry.
It is crucial that a core facility must have experienced staff and provides proper
updated training for users (Piston, 2012).
Core facilities generally as previously indicated, implies relatively advanced,
complex technology that is not easy for small companies and organisations to
procure and manage themselves, hence a need for sub-contraction or collaborative
access. However, the advent of small cheap IT technology such as Arduino and
Raspberry pi may have some positive effect in the future on the design, nature,
access and cost of some selected laboratory tools (Pearce, 2012).
Obviously, HEIs are not just involved in industry collaboration in this
context, but are a major generator directly and indirectly of companies, mainly via
spin-offs. A recent analysis suggests that the local environment where the university
spin-off process is initiated appears to influence the development of other technology
dependent business ventures, (Rasmussena et al., 2014).
The escalating scale of laboratory technology development, the increased
need for access to selected core facilities and the introduction of a variety of
35
mechanisms in the US, EU and elsewhere to facilitate this process, particularly for
SMEs, contributed to the generation of an element of this project programme.
A traditional high ranking university engages in teaching and research and
resources and funds both effectively and students engaging in undergraduate degrees
are aware of on-going research. Delivering research for industry within an HEI does
however impose different requirements and nature relative to traditional academic
research. Consequently many universities (and IoTs in Ireland) conduct mainly
teaching, while research is located in specialized institutions where there are no
students or some postgrads/postdocs registered in a traditional university, examples
being CNRS/CSIC/Max–Planck and Fraunhofer in Germany. Because of its similar
work and structure, the Max Planck Society traditionally maintains close institutional
relations with both the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
and the Spanish Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC). There is a
cooperation contract with both organisations to promote collaboration in the form of
cooperation projects and joint research programmes.
The Laboratories Europeens Associes (LEA; currently 6), and the
Groupements de Reserche Europeen (GDRE; currently 8) have been very successful
with work undertaken with the CNRS and the CSIC, also maintain large research
facilities, including the Institute of Millimeter Radio Astronomy (IRAM); jointly
with the CNRS and the Spanish Instituto Geografico Nacional (IGN).
1.9 Laboratory Informatics
Laboratory informatics is defined as the specialized application of information
technology to optimize and extend laboratory operations. It encompasses data
acquisition, lab automation, instrument interfacing, laboratory networking, data
processing, specialized data management systems (such as chromatography data
systems), laboratory information management systems, scientific data management
(including data mining and data warehousing), and knowledge management
(including the use of electronic laboratory notebooks). Laboratory informatics has
risen with the tide of informatics in general and is one of the fastest growing areas of
laboratory-related technology.
36
1.10 Biotechnology Development in Europe
In the late 90s, some EU members did believe that technology policy should have a
model that relates to and supports regions on the basis that many tech sectors,
particularly biotech tend to develop within relatively close geography. The German
Federal Government initiated a contest, in which Germany’s leading Biotech regions
could compete for public funding (Dohse, 2000). This implementation was in
recognition of the fact that the US and UK had developed significant biotech sectors,
while Germany still retained a substantial chemical industry, it had been slow to
progress biotechnology. In the UK, Lord Sainsbury’s 1999 report, Biotechnology
Clusters, the UK held the largest biotech sector in Europe and was 2nd
to the US,
(Sainsbury, 1999). The Report made a number of recommendations to rely on the
cluster model to increase networking and the resultant scale of the bio sector – but in
the next few years the UK biotech sector declined considerably. Despite the loss of
multiple numbers of large biotech companies, most bought up, in recent years, the
UK biotech sector has grown again, with an emphasis on biopharma and clustering.
2013 showed significant recovery by the UK biotech sector in terms of number of
start-ups, number of public companies, and growth in value of company and scale of
anticipated new products, especially drugs (Ledford, 2013).
At the time in Germany, as part of the Federal Government model, a cluster
centre eventually subject to interview by this project (see Methods & Results
sections), was funded under this regional approach. Germany’s federal status tends
to support this approach, while some EU members and Atlantic Region sectors such
as Ireland, UK and France tend to revert more to capital control. However, within
the German federal structure, inevitably selected public and private organisations
may be prevented from initiating certain technologies, if they are considered to be in
conflict with another region.
The State had a major role in 1985-1995 in stimulating the initiation of the
biotech sector in Germany, although substantive private investment was also a key
driver (Champenois et al., 2009)]. Engagement of government in biotech initiation
other than public sector research did occur in a number of EU countries, while the
US might always present as private driven, the State would contribute via policies,
funding and resources.
37
More recently, there has been interest in examining the biotechnology sector
in new EU Member States and prospective candidate countries. Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Poland and Estonia were shown to be the main new members
demonstrating biotech development (De Greef & Frei, 2009). In part, these
countries are attracting outsourced contracts from other EU countries and globally on
the basis of cost and delivery, although sustainable growth on this basis is unlikely
due to competition with China and India.
In the early 2000s, growing EU authority recognised that Europe tended to
underperform in producing globally competitive technology companies and wanted
to implement methods to address this. One such approach was the EuroTrans Bio
(ETB) programme, still in progress (Abbanant, 2004). The overall objective of
EuroTrans-Bio (ETB) is to provide the European biotech industry with a funding
program dedicated to foster cooperation of R&D&I active SMEs (R&D &
Innovation) and their academic partners across European Member States (MS). The
strategic approach towards this program is presented by focusing on two essential
components:
• Increase impact by transferring national resources into the European Research Area
(ERA)
• Leverage of FP/H2020 funds and sustainability of the ERA-NET scheme20
In the mid-2000s, an optimistic EU aimed to achieve a goal of becoming the
foremost knowledge-based economy in the world and a true ‘Innovation Union’, in
which biotech SMEs were considered vital. As is later discussed, this aspiration has
yet to be achieved. Increasing connectivity between SMEs and larger companies and
HEIs as an element of enhanced regulatory and policy framework was part of
EuropaBio’s SME Platform.
The Europa-Bio report, year 2013, 2014 cited a number of issues affecting the
biotech sector, which was defined as largely being based and dependent on SMEs.
1. Biotech is high-cost, high risk and long term. As a result, many biotech
companies remain non-profit for quite some time and this consequently
20 https://www.eurotransbio.eu/lw_resource/datapool/_items/item_71/prague_fiche_eurotrans-bio-
final.pdf
38
implies high risk for external investors compared to other disciplines such as
IT.
2. Most biotech SMEs are funded by capital, rather than by cash flow, so that
when sources of capital decline the company survival is at risk.
3. Biotech products have to undergo long and expensive development and
regulatory approval procedures and funding for these stages has been difficult
in the EU.
4. Many EU biotech companies are not traditional SMEs (less than 250
employees) but are micro-enterprises consisting of <10 staff and their
capacity to deal with administrative burdens is therefore low.
In 2008, a senior EU biotech official, Maurice Lex published a paper confident that
post FP7, and new investments in R&D and business and infrastructure will ensure
that biotech develops significantly in the EU in 21st C – this is in keeping with the
previously cited earlier 2000 aspiration (Lex, 2008). How and where and the effect
of different political governance of course cannot always be predicted.
A high proportion of European citizens in a 2010 survey were optimistic about
biotechnology (53% optimistic; 20% ‘didn’t know’). They were however even more
optimistic about brain and cognitive enhancement (59%; 20% didn’t know),
computers and information technology (77%; 6% didn’t know), wind energy (84%;
6% didn’t know) and solar energy (87%; 4% didn’t know), but were less optimistic
about space exploration (47%; 12% didn’t know), nanotechnology (41%; 40% didn’t
know) and nuclear energy (39%; 13% didn’t know) (Gaskell et al.,2010).
Time series data on an index of optimism showed that energy technologies – wind
energy, solar energy and nuclear power – are on an upward trend – what is called the
‘Copenhagen Effect’. While both biotechnology and nanotechnology had seen
increasing optimism since 1999 and 2002 respectively, in 2010 both showed a
similar decline – with support holding constant but increases in the percentages of
people saying they ‘make things worse’. With the exception of Austria, the index for
biotechnology was positive in all countries in 2010, implying more optimists than
pessimists – however, Germany joining Austria in being the least optimistic about
biotechnology and in only three countries (Finland, Greece and Cyprus) was there an
increase in the index from 2005 to 2010.21
There is nevertheless, a strong possibility that
21
Europeans & Biotechnology in 2010, EC Survey
39
positive belief in biotechnology has further enhanced since 2010, even if the majority of
citizens are not really aware of the breadth of the discipline and its potential future impact.
Prior to the initiation of ShareBiotech, it was apparent that Europe’s biotech
sector had tripled in size over the previous decade, expanding to include 2,350
companies in 2006 compared with the 700 that only existed in 1996. Post-2008,
cluster development became a major EU issue. Even in 1996, Germany’s Bio-
Regio Initiative program devoted the deutschmark equivalent of $84 million to
finance biotech cluster development with an outcome of a lot of new companies.
Maintaining success and continuous commercial innovation is not however
predictable and according to a 2007 survey conducted by the German Ministry of
Education and Research a proportion of such companies failed. The BioCluster
2021 differs from the original model in that it is specialising to seek to develop
centres of industrial expertise, such as biocatalysis, biopolymers and protein
production, (Nasto 2008).
1.11 Industry Collaboration
An analysis fourteen years ago attempted to determine what issues influenced
industry collaboration in research (Hagedoorn et al.,2000). According to this study,
companies may participate in research partnerships in order to:
Reduce transaction costs in activities subject to incomplete contracts;
Broaden the effective range of activities;
Increase efficiency, synergy, and effectiveness via the creation of networks;
Access external complementary technologies and capabilities to support new
developments with business benefits;
Promote organizational learning, internalize core competencies, and enhance
competitiveness;
Create new investment options in high-opportunity, high-risk activities;
Internalize knowledge spill-overs and enhance the exploitation of research
results, while increasing information sharing among partners;
Reduce R&D costs;
Pool risk and co-operative competition.
This analysis went on to claim that Governments have promoted and supported
research partnerships in order to:
Correct market failures in R&D investment, particularly in the context of
invalid research;
Accelerate technological innovation, aiming at increased international
competitiveness; and
Increase technological information exchange among firms, universities, and
public research institutes.
40
Despite the multiple reasons and drivers identified in this 2000 review, it also
confirmed that there can be negative effects associated with collaboration. Despite
the range of benefits, partnerships and collaborations can potentially block
competition and create various kinds of static and dynamic monopolies.
Nevertheless, this relatively early analysis states a predominant benefit that
associates with a basis for many, collaborations and networks, the desire to reduce
R&D costs. Access to advanced technology facilities and the necessary skills to
generate viable outcomes, is an increasingly accepted issue and became core
exploratory task of this project.
There is a tendency in a number of EU countries including Atlantic Region,
such as, Portugal, Italy, Austria and France, for their universities to preferentially
recruit former graduates. This model, while no doubt creates a positive internal
environment, automatically reduces connectivity with global institutions and
associated networks, and the attraction of different knowledge and experience (Niosi,
2011). Conversely, the US encourages interregional university networks and
collaborations with R&D companies and public laboratories – this culture developed
in the UK as well and more recently aspects of it were applied in Ireland. A
common language across the US is no doubt another obvious advantage to facilitate
linkage and communication. Despite, a tendency of the EU to utilise English as a
leader language, in reality it has more than 20 major languages plus many regional
ones, which accounts for basic communication difficulties and reduces mobility and
as a result, interaction between HEIs and companies across the EU (Niosi, 2011).
The fact that the majority of important global science and technology publications
are in English, imposes an information need on practising scientists, but inevitably
language and HE and business culture differences across the EU reduce
communication and mobility relative to similar scale regions in the US – this is an
issue that will decline with the passage of time. Formal EU policy to encourage
cross-country collaboration and web technologies have accelerated research and
business interactions across the EU significantly, but most European researchers still
tend to live in a region within a single European country (Eurobarometer, 2008).
In reality, bringing the best researchers, developers and resources together ultimately
benefits from global rather than just national or regional links, and this of course is a
41
practice being pursued by some key companies and HEIs. The ShareBiotech project
explored some innovative Atlantic Region mechanisms for mapping and enhancing
cross-regional networks.
1.12 IP & Tech Transfer
Patenting became a larger and more important exercise for US universities by the
early 2000s and this different strategy also occurred in the UK but probably to a
lesser extent in EU universities (Owen-Smith, 2003). By 2014, the situation is
extended in most nations. Certainly, IP is now global and biotech is a major section
of patents (Singh et al., 2009).
In recent years while the demand for patenting in biotech has increased,
achieving it has become more complex despite the actual numbers increasing
significantly in most countries. A biotech patent not only needs to be innovative, but
also highly effective and specialised (Simon and Scott, 2011). Registering a patent
usually supports the attraction of more funding and investment to progress the
commercialisation and for biotech products that require considerable development
time, this is a traditional requirement.
The biotech industry reflecting the time and cost of product development and
the fact that the latter goes through multiple stages, is prone to the generation of
many patents to secure protection and enhance company value. This has been a core
biotech model for many years (Taylor et al., 2000). In the US, where multiple
alliances with partners will be set-up by a company to secure funding and support, a
greater scale of specialist research inevitably follows (Zidorn and Wagner, 2012).
As the company progresses, more specialist research will occur (Kim, 2011).
1.13 Clusters
Biotech firms obviously have to develop new products to create business value,
(Deeds et al., 1999). The exchange of ideas across industries, when it occurs depends
on a number of activities, individuals and resources, but physical location is a
contributory factor, (Desrochers & Leppälä, 2011). Physical location maybe
facilitated by participation in a cluster structure as indicated in the previous account
of cluster evolvement and issues.
42
A cluster typically assumes a group of interconnected companies and other
institutions embracing amongst other, services, manufacturing, suppliers and HEIs
within a region (Su and Hung, 2009). Clusters are probably a common structure for
biotech, because, the time, costs and resources required for biotech product
development are frequently so large, that independent start-ups would typically have
difficulty progressing a development. Key individuals, economics and dynamic
networking no doubt influence the initiation and growth of a cluster. While,
referencing to clusters tends to cite the historical classics, Boston, Cambridge, Bay
Area (etc.), as defined by Porter (Porter 1998), there are numerous new,
‘spontaneous’ biotech clusters developing in designated areas across the world.
More extensive geographical linkages are an element of this project.
W.W. Powell of Stanford University believes three elements are critical to the
formation of productive business clusters (Powell, 2010):
•Multiple types of organizations
•A catalytic anchor tenant that protects the openness of the community and allows
multiple views to be heard.
•Cross-cutting local networks
The first and third of these are highlighted by many other analyses as well and
represent a basis of an aspect of the ShareBiotech approach.
Since 2008 there has been expanded EU emphasise on the importance of clusters and
networks for development of the biotech sector, (NetBioCluE 2008). While initial
clusters such as Cambridge, which commenced in the early 70s were occurring long
before the impact of modern networking, networking is considered an important
element and as previously stated, the EU has for some years been convinced that
clustering has positive impacts on economic development, (Ketels 2012). Ketels
report defined four network programmes with potential for economic growth and
these emphasise networking and formal cluster creation:
1. Support of networks in emerging industries and clusters
2. Establishment of national cluster platforms to provide shared services and
connect firms across regions
3. Support for networks of SMEs active in areas with positive externalities, like
innovation and exporting to new markets
4. Networks as part of more comprehensive efforts to enhance regional
competitiveness
43
The nature of networking has of course changed since the advent of the web. For
example, social networks initially linked to career mobility emerged and became an
important element of skills and idea sourcing within the San Diego biotechnology
cluster, and formal government drivers in Southern Germany (Casper, 2007). The
nature of communication in virtually all elements of human society has obviously
changed dramatically since the development and progression of internet technology
and the generation of the web. With multiple aspects of communication being
critical to the delivery and success of clusters, all standard techniques are
implemented, and not surprisingly, a cluster in Scandinavia, devoted to wireless
communication technology, employs and exploits these current and emerging
systems to facilitate the cluster (Richter & Park, 2012). This also supports the view
that a cluster must innately be a promoter, disseminator and user of new
technologies.
Since Porter’s work, there have been numerous analyses and proposed
models regarding cluster development, most of which, distinguish,: (i) spontaneous
clusters, that are the result of the spontaneous co-presence of key factors; (ii) policy
driven clusters, that are initiated and driven by the strong commitment of key
government leaders in an attempt to address industrial decline or as a deliberate
decision to generate a biotech sector. In some regions or countries, both forms of
cluster creation may exist. Biotech clusters in EU, except the UK is largely
government policy driven. The Heidelberg cluster in Germany, largely biotech had
to inevitably address survival and growth when the public funding subsequently
declined (Chiaroni & Chiesa, 2006). A decline in public funding, supportive of
cluster management and development has not since been uniformly addressed across
the entire EU.
A recent Irish report devoted to innovation did not fully embrace the funding
issues. It embraced amongst other basic topics, Knowledge Transfer, Skills Strategy,
Innovation through public procurement, regional innovation through networks,
clusters and gateways, IP. The ‘gateways’ referred to a government intention to
bring networks of towns together. The Gateway model was never implemented and
has now effectively disappeared. The report, despite the title is not innovative and
probably indicative of government knowledge deficits regarding the real world of
44
science/tech and transfer that generates innovative companies, (Innovation in Ireland
– Policy Report 2011).
The 2009 EI summary of aspects of the Irish biopharma and biotech sectors
implied the existence of clusters. Table 1 is evidence of collaboration between
selected companies, but is not indicative of a traditional cluster; evidence of
connection with HEIs not present. A number of the cited companies are SMEs and
their collaboration in effect reflects sub-contraction of work. Within the EU,
promotion of particular models tends to persuade many members to claim their
commitment to them, even if real evidence is limited.
Table 1.1: Breakdown of Irish companies per sub-sector
Source: Enterprise Ireland; Irish Bio pharma Clusters 2009
Ireland’s national biotechnology program is driven from its government’s significant
emphasis on the sector through dedicated funds targeting technology
45
commercialization, R&D infrastructure development and enhancement, and
marketing efforts looking to bring international talent and facilities in-country.
Almost every major university has resources focused on biotechnology studies due
to commitment of the government’s program for research in Third Level Institutions.
However, post “Celtic Tiger” the government embarked on a program of austerity
which saw reduced funding for research to HEI’s research projects which has done
little for Ireland to position itself as a leading European-based location for several
industries, including biotech. Among Ireland’s challenges, it must maintain its focus
in life science fields to grow and retain its related commercial base, and ensure that
academic/industry collaboration, technology transfer and commercialisation efforts
maximise investment in the biotech area. Addition efforts to gain critical mass and
clusters within the sector are needed to ensure that key portions of the R&D and
commercialization activities remain located within Ireland to develop a domestic
expertise to encourage future development, thereby creating a virtual cycle of
innovation; Department of Trade & Enterprise, (DETE, 2008).
The 2011 OBN BioCluster Report review of the Oxford biotech cluster
presents and raises some interesting points in terms of people and finance:
The scale and success of the clusters around Boston, the Bay Area and San Diego
reflects that the companies access the resources and networks that the clusters offer.
This translates into remarkable statistics; nearly 17% of residents in the State of
Massachusetts are now employed in the life sciences sector. Despite a very long
cluster history, some years ago it was pronounced that the UK would need to
stimulate innovation in biotech clusters to have a significant impact, (Rees 2011).
The Oxford cluster relative to Cambridge does appear to be interesting. The amount
of investment in the bioscience industry in Oxford increased between 2008 and 2011
from $108 million to $168 million and from $433 million to $874 million in the UK
from 2007 to 2010, respectively, despite the global financial crisis. However, in
Oxford and the UK overall, the primary biotech sector for investment continues to be
the traditional DDD (Drug Discovery & Development), rather than newer sectors.
1.14 The Clustering Concept
Cluster development also referred to as “cluster initiative or Economic Clustering “is
the economic development of business clusters. Since the cluster model was first
46
proposed by Michael Porter in 1990, it has attracted attention from governments,
consultants and academics. The cluster concept has been adopted globally by many
governments and industry and has been recognised as a means to stimulate urban and
regional economic growth. A continuing trend of cluster initiatives was adopted in
the 1990s globally. The first comprehensive global study of cluster initiatives was
reported in the “Cluster Initiative Greenbook” which was published by Orjan Sovell,
Christian Ketels and Goran Lindgvist (2003), with a foreword by Michael Porter.
The report was presented at the annual meeting of” The Competiveness Institute”
(TCI) in Gothenburg in 2003 and a follow up study in 2005 covered more than 1400
cluster initiative organisations globally.
SMEs, public or private companies and multinational organisations represent
the core of the cluster, the evolution of these elements and the relationships they
form between them shape the cluster development model; regardless of its size,
complexity and specialisation of production processes, the complexity of the cluster
is given by the number of firms that form it.
1.15 The importance of clusters
Economic agglomerations, or clusters, have captured the attention of policy advisors
worldwide. Many countries (e.g., Canada, Australia, Germany and the United
Kingdom) have adopted clustering as a preferred economic strategy for generating
higher rates of invention, innovation and economic growth (Ryan & Phillips, 2003).
Porter (1998: 197) defines clusters “as geographic concentrations of interconnected
companies, specialised suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and
associated institutions” (Porter, 1998). A successful or potentially successful cluster
commonly has a strong base of university and government labs and production
facilities, which provide access to expensive specialised skills and machinery, as
well as a significant amount of informational knowledge that is not visible is
embedded in the larger community – also known as tacit knowledge. The
development of a cluster is more than just co-location; it provides an environment
for relationships. As a result, the organisations that are active within a cluster both
compete and collaborate, thereby facilitating the growth of the local economy.
The analogy of the cluster ‘jig-saw’ puzzle (Martin & Sunley, 2002) may be
used to characterise a successful cluster, as it contains all the necessary ‘pieces’ –
47
actors and functions – in order to be effective. Each piece is ideally accessible within
the region but the community may need international connections in order to access
all functions needed for the economy (Phillips, 2002). A cluster, like an organism,
experiences origin, growth, and decline/reorientation. A cluster can be
“spontaneous” or “policy driven” through their life-cycles. This study addresses two
research questions: What is the success factors affecting the formation of biotech
clusters? How can we emulate the success factors that shape the configuration of a
successful biotech cluster in the Atlantic Area?
We conduct a case analysis of four clusters namely the BIOM
Biotech Cluster
in Munich, Stevenage Bio-catalyst, Biocant Portugal, and the Babraham Cluster
Cambridge UK. We also conduct in-depth interviews with the CEO of the Council
of European Bioregions (CEBR), and the director of the Ontario Centre of
Excellence (OCE). To understand the dynamics of different types of clusters is
expected to benefit both policy makers and academic researchers. These results are
crucial in the formation of a knowledge based economy. A concern regarding the
current decade EU strategy is that the priority of life science or biotechnology
contribution in the form of a bioeconomy has been diminished (EuropaBio, 2010).
The global financial crisis since 2008, negatively impacted on the end of the Lisbon
Strategy, but prior studies indicated that the EU biotech sector was not cohesive or
sufficiently mature (Wolfe & Gertler, 2004).
Clusters have been a popular research area for economists and geographers for
decades. Michael Porter (Harvard Business School) examined industrial clusters
from the perspective of business strategy and discussed the national and regional
competiveness. There remains a lack of consensus over how clusters are started and
to what extent their emergence can be set in motion by conscious design or policy
interventions (Moran, 2007). Clusters evolve as well as interact with other clusters
and with the political, entrepreneurial, and other social environments. This thesis
attempts to understand the “genetics” and “evolution” of clusters and examines
constructive directions for development of biotech clusters in the Atlantic area. We
also investigate how access to Technology Core Facilities benefits SMEs, and
ultimately plays a significant in the development of biotechnology clusters.
Clusters differ in their origins. According to Porter (Porter, 1998), the birth of a
cluster might be rooted in historical circumstances, prior existence of supplier
48
industries, or even chance. Clusters can be created by a confluence of events:
opportunity, existence of raw materials (including ideas, skilled human capital etc.),
emergence of an anchor firm, or some unexpected events, such as downsizing of the
public sector inspiring local entrepreneurs (Feldman, Francis, Bercovitz, 2004).
Chiaroni and Chiesa suggest two major forms of cluster creation in the biotech
industry: (1) spontaneous clusters that are the result of spontaneous co-presence of
key factors: and (2) policy-driven clusters, that are triggered by the strong
commitment of governmental actors whose willingness was to set the conditions for
the cluster creation, either as a response to an industrial crisis or as a deliberate
decision to foster the biotech sector (Chiaroni and Chiesa, 2005). The Biocant
Cluster in Canthanede Portugal, the first biotechnology cluster in Portugal is an
example of the emergence of a policy-driven cluster. An interview with Mariana
Brandano, technology transfer officer with the Biocant cluster elucidated the steps
taken by the regional government of Canthanede for the development of the Biocant
cluster. The ShareBiotech project aims to strengthen life sciences and the biotech
sector in the Atlantic area, create a network of biotechnology core facilities, foster
collaboration between SMEs, HEIs, Research centres and industry, improve access
to infrastructures and skills for R&D and basic research, and make the Atlantic area
an attractive choice for networking, collaboration and business.
1.16 Clusters in Ireland
There are a number of possible clusters in Ireland which involve several desirable
aspects of a national system of innovation:
1. Close linkages between industry and higher education
2. Effective knowledge flows between customers
3. Collaborative focused attention to common problems
The three major cluster groupings in Ireland are Bio/pharma, Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) and internationally traded services.
The concepts of clusters and networks are well known to Irish policy-makers. As far
back as 1992, the report of the Industrial Policy Review Group recommended the
promotion of industrial clusters focused on niches of national competitive advantage.
Additionally, a number of enterprise development support programmes highlight the
advantages of clusters as being desirable or necessary to improve productivity. Irish
49
policy-makers must recognise that successful companies draw on external influences
and internalise the benefits. The local availability of a critical mass of expertise, in
institutions and in other businesses significantly assists this process. The building of
clusters and linkages between companies, third level institutions and international
partners again, helps company’s access local, national and international knowledge
and expertise.
Figure I.3: Irelands cluster map shows Biotechnology/Pharmaceutical cluster
concentrations in the main cities of Ireland Source: ‘Knowledge and Enterprise Clusters in
Ireland’ (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment 2008)
Ireland can be characterised as having both a policy push and bottom-up approach to
cluster formation. There are a number of government-funded initiatives that seek to
promote the establishment of clusters. Additionally, a number of putative clusters
arose as a result of Ireland’s successful Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policies.
Ireland has benefited both from its focus on a number of high growth sectors such as
IT and bio/pharma and its exploitation of “first-mover advantages” by which it first
50
attracted a major company in a target sector to Ireland making it easier to entice its
sub-suppliers to do likewise.
The closer integration of the two economies on the island into a rapidly
evolving all-island economy has been reflected in and reinforced by the development
of an increasing number of mutually beneficial Collaborative Business Networks in
areas such as software, digital media and healthcare.
Biomed Ireland is on an all island basis and regionally through initiatives such as the
North West Science & Technology Partnership (NWSTP) — all of which have
received facilitation and project funding from InterTradeIreland. In addition, the
Governments of the United States of America, Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland have come together for a unique initiative to advance scientific progress in
fields that will have a potential positive impact on the health and economics. As part
of its overall remits to encourage both national and international collaboration, and
specifically in the context of North-South initiatives in science and technology,
Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) strongly encourages research collaboration
between SFI funded researchers and researchers in Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) in Northern Ireland.
1.17 Bio/pharma cluster Ireland
The bio/pharma cluster incorporates a number of important sub-sectors including
pharmaceuticals, pharma, biotechnology and medical devices. Foreign direct
investment in the Irish bio/pharma sector began 40 years ago when Squibb (now
Bristol-Myers Squibb) became the first overseas pharmaceutical company to locate
in Ireland. Currently 20 of the top bio/pharma companies in the world have located
in Ireland. The Pharmaceutical sub-cluster in Ireland is supported by a sophisticated
infrastructure of serviced sites, public utilities as well as specialist support
companies and services.
There is a large congregation of pharmaceutical companies in the Cork city
area and linkages have been established with the two main HEI’s in Cork, University
College Cork and Institute of Technology, Cork. Additionally, the Cork
pharmaceutical cluster has resulted in the development service businesses’ in areas
such as plant design, construction, and supply chain and recruitment services.
51
There are also smaller geographical groupings of pharmaceutical companies in the
mid-west and south-east regions. In Dublin, Wyeth, which has been operating in
Ireland since 1974, has established one of the largest integrated biopharmaceutical
campuses in the world. It is the only facility in Europe to manufacture biotech,
vaccines and small molecules under one roof.
The arrival of several large multinational companies in Galway resulted in
the development of the medical devices cluster based primarily around Galway city.
This in turn created the development of an indigenous sub-supply base and, assisted
by Enterprise Ireland, a number of these Irish-owned companies have become
significant international players in their own right within the medical device sector.
Sligo and the midlands region are also medical device “hot-spots”. The bio/pharma
cluster in Ireland is commencing a new phase of development triggered by the multi-
billion euro investment that the Irish Government is making in basic research in
biotechnology and ICT.
1.18 Development of an indigenous biotech sector
Taking into account the current state of the post-Celtic Tiger economy, it is vital to
focus on the development of the indigenous biotech sector in Ireland because
Ireland’s dependence on FDI is not conducive for the long-term development of a
strong, vibrant and sustainable economy. The present policies relating to innovative
industrial developments in the bio-sector are not working optimally (Fig. 1.4).
Reports show that the main issue undermining the development of the indigenous
biotech sector is the lack of entrepreneurial developments caused by the presence of
inter-related structural weaknesses. There has been a failure to address the issues
owing to the fragmented manner of the on-going initiatives, and the top-down
approach in which they have been conceived and implemented.
There exists an urgent need for the introduction of an all-encompassing
framework to create a support ecosystem that supports entrepreneurial and
innovative activities throughout the sectors value-chain. To achieve this initiative, a
long-term forward looking roadmap, irrespective of electoral and business cycles
needs to be implemented. There is also a need for sustainable private sector input to
develop Ireland’s indigenous biotech sector.
52
Figure 1.4: Bio pharma and Bio-chem sector employment past and future projections
(Ireland) Source: EGFSN Industry estimates
1.19 Porter’s theory on Industrial Clusters
Michael Porter in his Competitive Advantage of Nations (1990), through his analysis
of the factors determining national competitiveness, stated: “The basic unit of
analysis for understanding National Competitive Advantage is the industry,
“Nations succeed not in isolated industries, but in clusters of industries connected
through vertical and horizontal relationships”, (Porter, 1998: 73).
Porter initially argued that individual nations gain competitive advantage in
particular industrial sectors that compete internationally, and that successful sectors
portray strong tendencies to concentrate within particular regions. In a revised
edition (1998), Porter adjusted his geographic focus to include non-internationally
competitive regional industries. At a national level, Porter conceived clusters as
broad industry groups linked within the overall macro economy. At the regional
level, the constituent elements share common regional locations, including urban
areas, labour markets, and/or other functional economic units (Porter, 1990, 1998).
Porter defines clusters as “geographic concentrations of interconnected companies,
specialist suppliers, and service providers, firms in industry, and associated
institutions, (e.g. universities, standard agencies, trade associations) in a particular
field that compete but also co-operate” (Porter, 1998). The interconnections are
53
characterised by vertical, i.e. supply chain, and horizontal relationships, e.g. the
presence of common customers, and technology. The linkages and interdependencies
among actors in value chain activities are at the centre of the concept (Porter, 1998;
Enright & Roberts, 2001).
Porter focuses on the importance of close proximity in facilitating synergistic
interactions between actors that generate innovations and innovation by facilitating
information/knowledge and technology transfers through repeated trust based
exchanges, i.e. networks. Only through constant innovation, improvement and
upgrading, including product, process and organisational methods innovation, can
competitive advantage be attained and sustained. The nature and sources of
competitive advantage differ widely amongst industries, and cannot simply be
equated with economies of scale or labour cost differences, (De Witt, 2001).
Porter proposed a 'diamond' (Figure: 1.3) of four broad determinants of
national competitive advantage, i.e. Factor Conditions, Demand Conditions, Related
and Supporting Industries, and Firm Strategy, Structure and Rivalry.
Figure 1.5: Michael Porters Diamond Cluster Model. Source: “The Competitive
Advantage of Nations”, 1990
1.20 Typology of clusters
Hub and Spoke Cluster Model
In a hub and spoke cluster model, (Figure 2.4) a few dominant firms represent the
core of the cluster and are surrounded by smaller firms that have direct links to them.
The smaller hub-companies are mainly service provision company’s e.g. raw
materials, reagents, or have a specialized role in R&D. The small firms trade
directly with the large ones and depend on their client strategy. The hub firms define
the relation inside the cluster and its dynamics. An example of a dub and spoke
54
cluster was the Detroit Automobile Cluster that was concentrated around the “Big
Three” auto manufacturers.
Figure 1.6: Hub and Spoke cluster model. Source: Markusen, 1996
Satellite Platform Cluster Model
In a satellite platform cluster (Figure 2.5) a group of branch facilities of externally
based multi-plant firms, (Markusen, 1996) are located in a particular geographic
region in order to benefit from government facilities or low costs with supplies and
workforce. One of the characteristics of the satellite platform cluster is that there are
no relations between satellite firms and they are entirely controlled by the remotely
located parent firm.
Figure 1.7: Satellite Platform cluster model: Source: Markusen, 1996
State Anchored/State Centred Cluster Model
55
The last category, the state centred (He & Fallah, 2011) or state anchored cluster
(Markusen, 1996) (Figure 2.6), is defined around a public, governmental or non-
profit organisation that dominates the region and the economic relationship between
cluster members. This entity, e.g. the Cambridge Cluster in the UK, is surrounded by
numerous small firms that benefit from public-private contracts. The state centred
cluster model can be compared to a hub-and-spoke cluster model, where there is one
key dominant player that is not controlled by the private sector.
Figure 1.8: State Anchored / State cantered cluster model: Source: Markusen, 1996
/ He & Fallah, 2011
Hybrid Clusters
In some cases, the birth of a cluster is the result of hybrid processes. Two major
cases in San Diego and Milano support this. In the case of San Diego there was
already a high-tech cluster focused on ICT that grew up spontaneously in place. The
crisis of the military market brought a strong decline of the cluster, which was
converted to biotech through supporting actions of local government. Several
initiatives were created to support the process.
In the case of Milano the government actors played a key role in supporting
the management buyouts. Therefore, the small cluster that grew up in Milano was
the result of the entrepreneurial initiatives of individuals supported by the public
actors in the development of their ventures. No central actors played a role in the
process.
The Triple Helix Model
The triple helix model is based on close cooperation between the three actors:
56
1. Universities and research centres are involved in projects, financed by the
private sector, to deliver technology, knowledge and to innovate; new
business can be created using spin-off technology and financial support from
private companies.
2. The business sector involves higher education in research projects and
supports private entrepreneurship.
3. Government financed research; in the US, military research facilities generate
economic clusters through outsourcing different services to private
companies: regional development initiatives and projects which support the
development of technological parks can represent the starting point for future
agglomerations that can lead to a cluster.
Figure 1.9: The Triple Helix Model: Source: (Etzkowitz, 2002)
1.21 The Cluster Lifecycle
Clusters Lifecycle
Several approaches are used to describe the dynamics of industry during different
stages of development. The industry life cycle approach explains industrial change
in analogy to the product life cycle (Vernon, 1996). An industry follows cyclical
development patterns similar to a product and Klepper (1997) distinguishes three
different stages of an industry life cycle; embryonic, growing and mature:
“In the initial, exploratory or embryonic stage, market volume is low,
uncertainty is high, the product design is primitive, and unspecialized machinery is
used to manufacture the product. In the second, intermediate or growth stage, output
57
growth is high, the design of the product begins to stabilize, product innovation
declines, and the production process becomes more refined as specialized machinery
is substituted for labour. Entry slows and a shakeout of producers occurs. Stage
three, the mature stage, corresponds to a mature market. Output growth slowly, entry
declines further, market shares stabilize, innovations are less significant, and
management, marketing, and manufacturing techniques become more refined”
(Klepper, 1997:148).
Kamarulzaman, Richardson, Aziz, (2011), developed a research framework
for their study on cluster lifecycles which was an enhancement of the various cluster
lifecycles reviewed. The model has six stages – Antecedence, Embryonic Cluster,
Developing Cluster, Mature Cluster and Declining Cluster.
Figure 1.10: The Cluster Lifecycle: Source: Boja, (2011)
Six Stages in Cluster Lifecycle
1. Antecedence is the early aspect that shows or helps to provide the impetus
for clustering. It could be organic development or engineered.
2. Embryonic Cluster, the cluster shows signs of agglomeration and
economies and the actors are benefiting from it as well as beginning to
actively form linkages and networks.
3. Developing Custer’s, critical mass has been reached and linkages are active
within the cluster as well as links with external parties are being developed.
58
4. Mature Clusters, the cluster has peaked and its key denominator industry or
technology has matured. Growth and performance are showing a marked
slow-down.
5. Declining Cluster, the cluster has peaked and is starting to experience slow-
down in growth and performance.
6. Transformation Stage is when the mature cluster is showing signs of new
growth. The cluster is re-entering the early stages of its lifecycle; depending
on how different the new focus is will determine at which stage the cluster
will re-enter the lifecycle.
1.22 HE, Networks & Clustering
The development of technology clusters in countries subject to recent rapid change
and are now major economies such as China and India, has attracted significant
external and internal reviews and analysis. These development approaches adopted
probably include 1) a focus on creating new knowledge in companies as well as
universities and laboratories, 2) encouragement of innovation at all levels, 3)
regional agencies were always involved, but they did experience economic
development difficulties sue to the complexity of how knowledge growth occurs.
Companies are intrinsically more focused and better equipped than public sector
HEIs to create usable knowledge to address problems, driven by commercialization.
This assumes they engage in R&D and/or are closely linked to research
organizations. Official proclamations are that Bangalore and Shanghai have great
research institutions. However, recent analysis suggests that SMEs in both Bangalore
and Shanghai that ideally would be innovative were not connected sufficiently to
research institutes for innovative knowledge access or generating innovation
themselves, (Miller et al., 2010). This implies that these country regions do need to
initiate greater network communication and sector interfacing.
1.23 Social Networking
In recent years social networks have selectively become part of the network for
linking senior managers employed in biotechnology firms in San Diego, California,
(Casper 2007). Labour mobility within the region also generated a large network
linking managers and firms.
59
Social networking is inevitably involved in some version of biotech networks
in Ireland, but these are not formal cluster models (Van Egeraat & Curran, 2010).
Van Egeraat & Curran’s analysis suggests that in the Irish biotech industry, a digital
ecosystem (network) connecting key people has little impact on regional
development in terms of initiating projects that would contribute to cluster
formation. The detected number of collaborations was deemed too small. In this
context, the expectation is that a more general and effective digital ecosystem that
could connect virtually all regional biotech industry and research would contribute to
business and technology growth of a region.
Their analysis agrees that innovation is influenced by engagement with public
organisations and ‘communities’ where information exchange is relatively open.
Universities are a major member of the public sector, but despite political aspiration
and a HE desire to attract alternative funding, Ireland has relative poor HE-industry
collaboration.
1.24 Virtual Networking
The notion that a group of researchers and or developers can effectively collaborate
as parties in a single entity despite significant geographical distribution is a product
of particular EU and subsequent global partnering and the advancement of web
technology.
The virtual research environments (VREs) are still an emerging concept and
their definition is still evolving. The UK Joint Information Systems Committee
(JISC), states that “The term VRE is now best thought of as shorthand for the tools
and technologies needed by researchers to do their research, interact with other
researchers (who may come from different disciplines, institutions or even countries)
and to make use of resources and technical infrastructure” (JISC, 2010). The
advancement of web technology obviously contributes to this process (Myhill et al.,
2009).
A further 2010 JISC report, ‘The VRE Landscape Study’ aimed to
investigate international developments in Virtual Research Communities (VRCs)
and to evaluate them in relation to the activities in the JISC’s VRE programme.
The study examined programmes in a number of key countries along with significant
projects and communities as well as some countries where developments on this
60
front are just beginning. There has been a great deal of activity over the past few
years in terms of prototype and demonstration systems moving into the mainstream
of research practice. Notable trends are emerging as researchers increasingly apply
collaborative systems to everyday research tasks (Carusi & Reimer, 2010). A 2011
Irish related research review expressed a positive future regarding VE (Connolly &
Wusteman, 2011).
The core element of the A5A6 programme in the project was the concept that
enhanced virtual models could permit real time connection between complementary
core facilities in diverse geographies.
There is a general acceptance that a virtual research environment (VRE)
helps research groups to manage some or all of these tasks collaboratively, online.
The JISC report believes such VREs must be customised to suit the particular
partners, (Van Till 2010). According to the JISC-commissioned VRE Landscape
Study, a VRE is an electronic web-based environment that typically serves at least
two of the following functions:
Provides access to data, tools or resources
Enables cooperation or collaboration with other researchers at the
same or different institutions
Enables cooperation at the intra – and inter-institutional level
Preserves or takes care of data and other outputs
1.25 Impact of Communication Technology
An extreme form of networking is Crowd Sourcing, a medium by which a large
number of citizens within a region or country or indeed, now globally become aware
of a request for contribution. A major form of crowd sourcing relates to agreed
access to millions of computers that are free or not engaged in demanding work,
representing connection of multiple processor power. This concept may have
initiated in the mid-1990s, but it was the SETI@home project, launched in 1999, that
first attracted the PC-using public’s imagination. This was an attempt to detect the
presence of extra-terrestrial intelligence by analysing radio signals from space.
Active crowdsourcing involves the direct participation of users rather than their
computers alone and has had some success in the commercial biotech sector. Among
life science companies, Eli Lilly of Indianapolis has been a leader in the field of
internet-led open innovation, (Sansom, 2011).
61
Start-up biotech companies have been advised to join an established cluster,
(Buhler et al., 2007). Europe has become home to leading life sciences and
biotechnology industry clusters (Porter, 1998) active in medicine/healthcare,
agriculture/food and industrial/environmental areas. In Europe, life sciences and
biotechnology clusters are geographically concentrated in regions and countries with
a long tradition of life sciences research and activities in related industries such as
pharmaceutical, chemical, agro-production and medical technology. Biotechnology
clusters are contributing to the growth and development of the biotechnology
industry by ways of stimulating and fostering the academic and industry
collaborations for improved knowledge base and commercialisation of research
findings.
1.26 Transnational Collaboration
Co-authorship is one form of marker of transnational collaboration, (Hansen &
Hansen 2006). Action plans and strategies are mostly focused on trans-regional and
trans-national collaborations, improved and more efficient access to
information/collaborative networks, and technology transfer, funding programs and
finance.
1.27 Tech Translator
A recent analysis of the Irish biotech sector and associated networks recognised the
need for a technology translator type of role on a regional basis (Van Egeraat &
Curran 2010).
1.28 Key Enabling Technologies (KET’s) & R&D
The main driving force behind new innovations is key enabling technologies
(KET’s). the EU needs a strong innovative performance in order to equip itself with
all the means needed to address societal challenges such as fighting climate change,
overcoming poverty, and improving resource and energy saving. This path will
make Europe attractive for global opportunities leading to sustainable employment
with high quality jobs. KET’s are knowledge intensive and associated with high
R&D intensity, rapid innovation cycles, high capital expenditure and highly-skilled
employment. They enable process, goods and service innovation throughout the
62
economy and are of systemic relevance. They are multidisciplinary, cutting across
many technology areas with a trend towards convergence and integration. KET’s
can assist technology leaders in other fields to capitalise on their research efforts (EU
Competiveness Council, 2009).
SME’s play an important role in the creation of new technologies, and they
provide inputs and innovative solutions for global companies. For an SME to
succeed it must have access to cutting-edge technologies. This should result in a
modernisation of the industrial base and in the strengthening of the research base in
Europe and the Atlantic Area. Policy makers need to put in place the right
framework conditions and support instruments for strengthening Europe’s
biotechnology capacities for the development of KET’s.
Europe has good research capabilities in some key enabling technology areas,
but Europe is weak when it comes to commercialising research results. Countries
need for KET’s are governed by the strengths and limits of their research and
industrial landscapes. What generates a critical mass in one country may not be
applicable to a different country. The EU faces significant obstacles in achieving a
wider deployment of KET’s. The EU has been less effective than the US and some
Asian countries in terms of commercialisation and exploitation of Nanotechnologies,
some aspects of photonics, biotechnology or semi-conductors. These are all areas
where substantial public R&D efforts are undertaken, however, they do not
sufficiently translate into economic or societal gains. There are several reasons for
this:
The EU does not effectively capitalise on its own R&D results (ec.europa.eu,
2009). This results in expensive research, both from public and private
sources undertaken in the EU being commercialised in other regions. This
can endanger the future research capabilities of the EU, and there is a loss of
revenue and employment. It is vital that the necessary infrastructure and
cutting edge technologies are available to SME’s to bring innovative
products to commercialisation.
Public understanding and knowledge of key enabling technologies is often
lacking. There needs to be a proactive strategy bringing stakeholders
together to address public concerns or fears to avoid delays in introducing
new technologies in the EU.
63
There is a shortage of skilled labour tailored to the multidisciplinary nature of
KET’s. Europe has leading-edge research capabilities and can leverage a
substantial knowledge base in science and engineering (Eurostat, 2006).
There needs to be more emphasis on the development of science, technology,
engineering and maths (STEM) graduates. The knowledge transfer between
researchers, entrepreneurs, and financial facilitators needs to be strengthened.
Students and professors need stronger incentives to commercialise research
results to increase spin-offs from university research.
The economic slowdown has affected the flow of venture capital. Due to the
high development costs and level of uncertainty, the availability of risk-
venture capital is crucial. In comparison to the US, who concentrates their
venture capital on more advanced projects/technologies; EU research teams
need to seek venture capital at too early a stage when the risks are often too
high for both the investor and the research organisation.22
The fragmentation of the markets for innovations is a major weakness caused
by e.g. different regulations, standardisation, certification and public
procurement procedures across the Member States. Joint technology
initiatives instruments could be simplified and strengthened and the role of
technology platforms could be expanded and co-ordination among platforms
enhanced. A strong integration between experimental research, innovation
and industrial exploitation is essential.
1.29 Life Science Research that isn’t Biotech
Relationship between all areas of science/knowledge:
To return to fundamentals, science represents the acquisition of human knowledge
and understanding of their micro and macro environments, implying everything that
effectively can be defined in atomic and sub-atomic structures. The term ‘science’,
of course implies knowledge. The growth of that knowledge now extends to new
complexities such as anti-matter, dark matter and dark energy, but the formal domain
of natural sciences embraces, astronomy, biology, chemistry, Earth sciences and
physics.
22
Science, Technology and Innovation key figures report, 2005
64
The notion that life originated from the first development of nucleic acids,
probably RNA derivatives, capable of replication and hence continuity, implies
enhanced self-organisation. RNAs are now considered quite simple and efficient
replicators, despite their capacity to transfer potentially enormous amounts of data,
(Folkert, 2012). This more recent interpretation also implies that the distinction
between living and non-living materials is not as large as previously considered,
(England 2013).23
There are five branches of natural science: astronomy, biology, chemistry,
the Earth sciences and physics. This distinguishes sciences that cover inquiry into the
world of nature from humanities such as linguistics, anthropology, literary science
and from formal sciences such as mathematics and logic.
The natural sciences are the sciences that seek to elucidate the rules that
govern the natural world through scientific methods, the cornerstone of which
is measured by quantitative data. Based on formal sciences, they also attempt to
provide mathematical (either deterministic or stochastic) models of natural
processes. The term "natural science" is used to distinguish the subject from
the social sciences, such as economics, psychology and sociology, which apply
the scientific method to the study of human behaviour and social patterns;
the humanities, which use a critical or analytical approach to study
the human condition; and the formal sciences such as mathematics and logic, which
use an a priori, as opposed to empirical methodology to study formal systems.
Science represents the acquisition of human knowledge and understanding of their
micro and macro environments, implying everything that effectively can be defined
in atomic and sub-atomic structures. The term ‘science’, of course implies
knowledge. The growth of that knowledge now extends to new complexities such as
anti-matter, dark matter and dark energy, but the formal domain of natural sciences
embraces, astronomy, biology, chemistry, Earth sciences and physics. The notion
that life may have originated from the first development of nucleic acids, probably
RNA derivatives, capable of replication and hence continuity.
Life science as a discipline reflects knowledge representing physics and
chemistry, but as a level of advanced matter, it inevitably employs and displays
23
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2013/12/02/why-life-does-not-really-exist/
65
unique structures and mechanisms – the extreme complexities of which are not fully
understood. This status also relates to other recent controversial concepts such as
that previously cited, (England 2013).
Biotechnology is viewed as a life science division that tends to progress to
and reflect commercialisation of research. Since the formal status of a biotech sector
in 1979, the US has been the most successful country, but has still inevitably
witnessed aspects of business decline over the post-2008 global economic crisis that
embodies the ShareBiotech period. The public sector division of biotech declined by
~ 24% from 2008 until 2013 and the number of private companies also decreased.
The post-2012 recovery has shown changes in how start-ups progress and in funding
models.
The EU biotech decline post-2008 was less dramatic than in the US, but by
2013, it still represented fewer public and private sector biotech companies than the
US. By the early 2000’s despite the formal growth of biotech in Germany, the UK
still hosted the largest elements of biotech research and associated industry, but in
part because of political decisions, the sector subsequently declined. In the current
time, however, in part due to R&D networking and finance, the biotech sector is
undergoing recovery in the UK, while the German sector growth is reducing,
possibly due to diversions to other business domains.
There is a tendency in a number of EU countries including Atlantic Region,
such as, Portugal, Italy, Austria and France, for their universities to recruit former
graduates. This model, while no doubt creates a positive internal environment,
automatically reduces connectivity with global institutions and associated networks,
and the attraction of different knowledge and experience (Niosi, 2011). Conversely,
the US encourages interregional university networks and collaborations with R&D
companies and public laboratories – this culture developed in the UK as well and
more recently aspects of it were applied in Ireland. A common language across the
US is no doubt another obvious advantage to facilitate linkage and communication.
Despite, a tendency of the EU to utilise English as a leader language, in reality it has
more than 20 major languages plus many regional ones, which accounts for basic
communication difficulties and reduces mobility and as a result, interaction between
HEIs and companies across the EU (Niosi, 2011). The fact that the majority of
important global science and technology publications are in English, imposes an
66
information need on practising scientists, but inevitably language and HE and
business culture differences across the EU reduce communication and mobility
relative to similar scale regions in the US – this is an issue that will decline with the
passage of time. Formal EU policy to encourage cross-country collaboration and
web technologies have accelerated research and business interactions across the EU
significantly, but most European researchers still tend to live in a region within a
single European country.
In reality, bringing the best researchers, developers and resources together
ultimately benefits from global rather than just national or regional links, and this of
course is a practice being pursued by some key companies and HEIs. The
ShareBiotech project explored some innovative Atlantic Region mechanisms for
mapping and enhancing cross-regional networks.
In all countries, biotechnology is heavily dependent on public research
conducted in universities and government laboratories. Biotechnology is not a single
industry, but obviously embraces a large and very diverse range of technologies.
Many years ago, eight key issues influencing biotech development in the US, but
relevant elsewhere, where identified (Bartholomew, 1997). Some of these are still
current issues and this project engaged in analysis to confirm this relevance.
(a) The level and patterns of national funding of basic research;
(b) The linkages with foreign research institutions;
(c) The national tradition of scientific education;
(d) The degree of commercial orientation of research institutions;
(e) Labour mobility between university and industry;
(f) The venture capital market;
(g) The role of government in technology diffusion; and
(h) Technological accumulation in related sectors.
As previously highlighted, the creation of the first substantial biotech company,
Genentech in 1976, eventually led to the attraction of venture capitalists who were
experienced in information technologies to biotechnology in the 1980s.
The EU certainly believes that networking needs to expand and evolve in
nature to contribute to innovative technology development, the CReATE programme
67
launched in FP7 2008 was one such initiative, which more recently became absorbed
by a German company.24
As part of numerous indicators that the European economy and scale of
innovation are not working as effectively as in the past and relevant to many other
countries, The Economist published a graph of the 3 largest internet companies in the
top 50 countries (Economist Jul 7th
, 2014). The three largest companies per country
do not embrace the full internet sector, but is a viable indicator:
USA>China>SouthAfrica>Japan>SouthKorea>Russia>Israel>UK>Sweden>German
y>Argentina>Canada>Australia>Finland>NewZealand>Ireland>Brazil>France>Ital
y>Estonia>India>Spain>CzechRepublic>Hungary>Denmark>Poland>Singapore>Sl
ovenia>Turkey>Vietnam>Taiwan>Malaysia>Belgium>Ukraine>Netherlands
These rankings implied that the EU rankings are: 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33, and 35. The UK remained the highest despite a tradition
for the past decades of continuously selling off large companies with their frequent
subsequent loss. The internet is obviously not biotech, but now all industry employs
and benefits from internet technology and internet/web technology is continuously
influencing and changing how the business world and societies in general function.
The presence of the US and China and Japan at the top is not surprising, but the
success of South Africa is more unusual and the dominance of South Korea, Russia
and Israel over EU members. This does not equate to biotechnology, but does
clearly display how a selected technology domain displays great diversity of
development in different countries, not always, the richest.
1.30 Aims and Objectives of this Project
This selected view of biotechnology reveals the scale of and breadth of the discipline
and its substantial growth in terms of knowledge development, related industry and
impacts on the environment and all living entities, since it’s very recent birth. The
study also reveals some of the inherent impediments to faster and more effective
biotech development:
24
http://innovation.mfg. e/de/projekte/archiv/create-1.1352d
68
Biotech research is generally expensive in terms of the costs of consumables,
advanced technologies, the required skill sets and the time required to complete
work.
HE biotechnology education, which in addition to the acquisition of
necessary knowledge and innovative thinking, requires substantial time and
resources devoted to laboratory work and probably more traditional markers of
effective learning. In reality, in keeping with most other disciplines, a significant
proportion of HEIs in a variety of countries have effectively reduced the level and
nature of the HE process and outcome. This will ultimately have negative impacts
on the progression of disciplines such as biotechnology.
Networking, collaboration, clustering are important mechanisms that assist
the connection of the right people, of finance attraction, of resource access,
development of new R&D and business models. The models behind these practices
need to be advanced further to ensure, access and occurrence does happen in the
optimal way.
Parts of the Atlantic Region are relatively small and consequently restricted
in what aspects of biotechnology they currently engage. EU FP funding has brought
researchers together across the EU for decades, but in the absence of a United States
of Europe, the degree of viable transnational connectivity is not as high as expected.
The nature of transnational networking, collaboration and clustering effectively
needs to be progressed.
ERA Instruments was an FP7 project that brought together stakeholders such
as funding agencies, ministries, charities and research performing organisations
across 12 countries with 16 partners with an interest in mid-sized instrumentation
and centres for mid-size research instrumentation in the life sciences. The project
included evaluation of core facility organisation in Canada and Japan and the project
outcome influenced assignment of funding in Horizon 2020 to generate new major
EU core facilities particularly in biotechnology (Guebitz, 2011). This project was to
some extent a regional version of this. Transnational biotech company mergers and
takeovers can effectively generate networks between the historical facilities and new
local connections. Such a network is dependent on key people and emphasis on
evidence of continuous R&D business benefits (Baraldi and Strömsten, 2009).
69
Transnational linkage models in S&T were destined to be weak in the EU in
1999, implying a need for 21st C progression (Grande & Peschke, 1999).
The objectives of this project were in part intended to review, analyse and
experiment with ways to address some of these perceived biotech problems and as an
Interreg funded project, the work was conducted across all participating regions to
generate new baseline data regarding the status of biotechnology (A3), with
subsequent project activities devoted to post A3 analysis and some partial address
models.
1.31 Project Overview
The core project that was developed to address many of the issues raised in this introductory
chapter is briefly described in the following section. The project in keeping with Interreg
structures was divided into 7 Activities, most of which had defined sub-actions. While my
studies contributed to all 7 inter-related activities, activity 3 and 7 constitute the majority of
my efforts for this thesis that are highlighted in red below.
Activity 1 Management & Coordination of the project.
Activity 2 Communication and dissemination: raising the technological, scientific and
business profile of the Atlantic Area biotechnology sector.
Activity 3 Studies and action plan to reduce the gap between life science technology supply
and demand (Lead Partner UALG). Main focus of my research for this study.
This activity was aimed at detailing and harmonising the existing knowledge about
technology offer and needs within the partner regions and the Atlantic area, to measure the
gap between technology supply and demand and finally to effectively generate the data to
specify the action plan that will be implemented within Activity 4 and 5 to reduce this gap.
Action Nº 1
Common methodologies
This action will establish common methodologies to study the technological offers and
needs.
Action Nº 2
Evaluation of technology needs (demand side)
In each region, the methodology defined in Action 1 will be implemented to evaluate
technology needs. It will consist of analysing existing data and local stakeholders’
knowledge (e.g. clusters) and realising additional surveys to assess both public and private
R&D performers’ needs for life science advanced technologies and corresponding research
skills.
Action Nº 3
Technology resources of Partner regions (supply side)
Within Action 3, ShareBiotech Partners will produce a source book presenting technology
resources of the participating regions (supply side): mapping of TCFs (Technological Core
70
Facilities), typology of TCFs (ownership, access, current types of uses and users, service
provision etc), and summary of skills (human resources and Intellectual Property linked with
TCFs).
Action Nº 4
Integration of offers and needs into an appropriate action plan
Action 4 will mainly consist in a workshop aim to: 1) precisely measure the gap between
technology supply and demand within the partner regions, and 2) propose concrete and
tailored solutions to reduce the gap (action plan).
Action Nº 5
Publication of recommendations
Activity Nº 4 Develop regional technological services, structure a transnational network and
facilitate access. (Lead Partner CRITT)
The general aim of this activity was to organise and structure commercial service supply
specially adapted to companies on the basis of partners’ Technological Core Facilities’.
Action Nº 1
Identification of best practices
Action 1 aimed at identifying best practices for technological service supply to benefit the
consortium.
Action Nº 2
Selection of relevant TCFs
Action 2 will analyse and select, in each region, the Technology Core Facilities most likely
to achieve service supply structuring during the project lifetime, and most relevant to answer
identified companies’ needs.
Action Nº 3
Set up new services
Action 3 consisted of developing services in practical terms, i.e. a comprehensive offer in
each region (service specifications, price, catalogue…). A Charter will be developed (list of
items for eligibility to the ShareBiotech network of core facilities and services in order to
comply with common quality criteria). The project will strive to give access to new services
and not to generate unfair competition with existing profit-making companies offering
services.
Action Nº 4
Improving quality of services and TCFs
Action 4 will stimulate quality improvement of TCFs and services. Partners will encourage
appropriate processes of standardisation of methods, and of quality certification of services
and/or technological facilities (e.g. ISO 9001 process) in order to ensure traceability and
good reporting.
Action Nº 5
Setting partnership “rules of the game” for transnational shared access to TFCs and
services
Action 5 is aimed at generating partnership rules for preferential access to TCFs and services
among ShareBiotech Partners. The ShareBiotech partners worked together to develop clear
71
rules on how users from partner organisations (phase I) will access the TCFs and services
provided through the ShareBiotech project, focusing on providing a streamlined mechanism
that will direct users to the most appropriate core facilities.
Activity nº 5 (Lead Partner, University of Navarra)
Foster collaborative research, innovation and technology transfer by connecting people
The objective of this activity was to stimulate links between academia and industry, in order
to generate new research projects, innovation and technology transfer, notably by connecting
people from different life science fields (human health, food, marine biology,
bioinformatics, etc.) and cultures (research/business).
Action Nº 1
Regional technology translators (pilot action)
This Action explored the function of “technology translator” (or “facilitator”) within the
ShareBiotech regions.
Action Nº 2
Identify and participate in colloquia
In Action 2, Partners identified colloquia and seminars of interest for the project, about 1)
multi-disciplinary topics and approaches corresponding to research and technology needs
identified in Activity 3
Action Nº 3
Organise local technology meetings
Partners organised local technology meetings, at least 2 in each country each year (and at
least 1 in each region).
Action Nº 4
ShareBiotech training and mobility plan
In Action 4, the ShareBiotech consortium defined a training and mobility plan for
researchers, PhD and postgraduate students, innovation and technology transfer officers,
companies’ R&D staff, trainees and technicians from project partners’ personnel and related
stakeholders of the participating regions.
Action Nº 5
Action 5: Implementation of training and mobility plan
Action 5 consisted of effectively providing mobility and training opportunities to partner
regions and Atlantic Area’s stakeholders
Action Nº 6
Action 6: Identify and mobilize instruments to foster technology transfer
In order to better exploit research results and transform them into innovations that generate
growth, the Consortium proposed to provide focused information on how to implement
technology transfer on the managerial and on the financial level, in connection with the
ShareBiotech specific demand.
Activity Nº 6 (Lead Partner AIT)
Steps towards the Atlantic Area Bio-Technology Translational Centre (Capitalisation
Activity)
72
The aim of this Activity was to capitalise on the core activities carried out in the
ShareBiotech project, through the experimental design of the Atlantic Area Bio-Technology
Translational Centre. The Centre was aimed at translating technology and knowledge needs
(demand) from industries and researchers into convenient, understandable and accessible
solutions. This effectively evolved into a concept of how TCFs could effectively be brought
together in effective collaborative ways to permit better access delivery – this explored
virtual models.
Activity No 7 (Lead Partner AIT). Also a core deliverable of my MSc by Research project).
Comprehensive interviews with seven selected experts to explore multiple aspects of the
fundamentals of this project (embracing more than 159 questions with sub-questions).
The project was initiated in Jan 2010 and ran for three and a half years with the final reports
effectively generated at four years.
1.32 Research Justification
There is a lot of interest in the evolution of R.I. for science over the last two
decades. Effective models are needed to allow access to facilitate research. The
evidence that this work is vital is supported by the many similar projects funded by
the EU. Analysis of the impact or R.I. access on cluster development is novel and
has not been done before. The Analysis of Biotechnology Cluster Drivers will
identify successful models in Europe and throughout the world and the different
strategies that contributed to their success and the development of the smart
economy as anticipated by the Horizon 2020 initiative. These findings will show that
collaboration between industry, government, and HEI’s is vital to our economic
future, and vital to the recovery of Ireland’s economic recovery. It is anticipated and
indeed hoped that this research will elucidate a model or part of a model that can be
implemented in the Atlantic Area, and vitally in Ireland. It is also the goal of this
research, to identify niche areas and present a proposal for funding for a follow on
project to further develop Irelands Biotechnology Industry, in particular SMEs which
account for 70% of Ireland’s employment.
74
2 Methods
2.1 Research approach:
Denscombe, (2000) stated that qualitative and quantitative are the two major
methods that are used in social science, even though the former might be considered
the predominant one. The qualitative study is concerned with the aims of a
researcher to transform what is reported and observed in written words. The
qualitative research is helpful to transform recorded interviews into transcripts, the
descriptions of pictures in words and observations are converted into field notes. It
does not endeavour towards simplifying the problem. Quantitative research is
innately connected with data generation and analysis and deeper understanding to
solve the problem area (Saunder, 2007). The main intention of this study through the
ShareBiotech project was to strengthen the biotechnology sector of the Atlantic
Area, through the maximisation of the benefits of life science research infrastructures
and skills, for the economic development of the partner regions and of the Atlantic
Area as a whole. The hypothesis was that the biotechnology sector in the Atlantic
area has failed to evolve at the same rate as the rest of Europe and that access to
Technology Core Facilities (TCF’s) was vital to the success of early-stage start up
biotechnology companies and a driver for cluster development. This research
endeavoured to understand the reasons behind a weaker biotechnology sector in the
Atlantic Area; to identify infrastructure gaps and needs and to analyse the drivers for
success in other areas of Europe and the US through the clustering model.
The starting point of the project was to identify the needs for modern biotechnology
in the Atlantic Area resulting from the development of basic and applied research in
life sciences. The ShareBiotech project went far beyond just conducting an inventory
and offering existing technologies: it promoted a bottom-up approach and
endeavoured in partnership with stakeholders to find appropriate technological
answers by adapting the technology offerings. To reiterate, research methods were
chosen in line with the operational objectives of the ShareBiotech project, namely:
1. Facilitate wider sharing of knowledge and technology within the Atlantic
Area, across life science fields (Health, Marine research, agriculture and
food) and related high-tech transversal domains (bioinformatics, imaging,
and nanotechnologies), and between academia and industry.
2. Reinforce regional service provision of technologies for researchers (both
public and private) in line with the identified needs.
75
3. Create the basis of a transnational network of Technological Core Facilities
(TCFs), in order to provide technological services at the transnational level.
4. Foster technology absorption in the less technology-intensive sectors and
companies, in particular through explaining applications of complex and
recent technologies to SMEs.
5. Increase the profile and the visibility of the biotechnology sector of the
Atlantic Area, in order to make it an attractive choice for networking,
cooperation and locating business.
2.2 Technology Core Facilities (TCF’s)
A core element of the ShareBiotech project was the recognition of the importance of
technology core facilities within a research facility and the progression of
mechanisms to disseminate them, improve their organisation and structure and make
them more accessible and collaborative, particularly to facilitate development of the
biotech industry, within the Atlantic Region. ShareBiotech notably aimed to make
access to technological core facilities easier for companies, in particular SMEs.
Definition
A Technical Core Facility is “a set of equipment and associated expertise, which
operating capacity is available to public or private organisations with a view to
offering access to high-level technologies for R&D” or “Technology Core Facilities
are a combination of laboratory instrumentation and associated skills which are
required in the performance of research and other technical functions, but which are
generally too expensive, complex or specialised for individuals and small groups of
researchers to use sustainably. TCF’s may be public or private and are generally
open to a wide range of users”.
Nature of Data
The empirical part of this Master’s thesis draws from both primary and secondary
sources. Data sources include interviews, industry studies, journals, newspapers,
websites, reports, industry statistics, conferences, and experts in the relevant fields of
biotechnology.
Primary Sources
For primary data we relied primarily on conducting in-depth interviews with
different stakeholders in the biotech industry. By conducting interviews, we took a
communicative approach, which offered the benefits of versatility and in-depth
information. The format allowed conversations to be directed towards the chosen
76
theme of the study, which left respondents free to openly express their opinions. In-
depth interviews allowed us the flexibility to probe and highlight contextual issues
that might have ordinarily remained hidden.
2.3 Studies and Action Plan to Reduce the Gap between Life
Science Technology Supply and Demand This activity was aimed at detailing and harmonising the existing knowledge about
technology offer and needs within the partner regions and the Atlantic Area; at
measuring the gap between technology supply and demand, and finally at specifying
the action plan to be implemented to reduce this gap. Three detailed surveys were
commissioned by the ShareBiotech consortium to map the number of biotechnology
SMEs and multinational companies, Research Organisations (ROs), Technology
Core Facilities (TCFs) operating in the Atlantic area among the partner regions
(Ireland, Spain, France, Portugal) i.e. ShareBiotech Companies Survey;
ShareBiotech Research Groups Survey; ShareBiotech Technological Core Facilities
Survey. The surveys were developed by the European project “ShareBiotech”, with
the objective to reinforce the important contribution that Life Sciences and
biotechnology can offer towards the development of the Knowledge-Based
Economy, in the Atlantic Area (www.ShareBiotech.net). The surveys specifically
aimed at detecting the needs of companies, research organisations and TCFs in life
sciences and biotechnology sectors regarding access to TCF’s, advanced techniques
and associated expertise. The surveys also mapped existing technologies, level of
access to SME’s, duplication, training available, maintenance, risk of obsolescence
etc. In the Border Midlands & West (BMW) region of Ireland, 24 Research Groups
(RG’s) and 11 Small &Medium sized Enterprises (SME’s) were surveyed while 31
RG’s and 26 SME’s were surveyed in the Southern & Eastern (S&E) region of
Ireland. The Technology Core Facilities survey was disseminated to 54 identified
TCF’s incorporating the BMW and S&E regions. The surveys were disseminated via
email and follow on communication was used including telephone calls to encourage
a greater critical mass of respondents.
2.4 SUMMARISED A3 SURVEYS
2.5 ShareBiotech Companies Survey: (Ref. Appendix 1) The Companies Survey was directed towards the person responsible for the companies R&D. The
survey was divided into seven parts with each part having several subsections.
77
Part 1 collected general information about the company under the following
headings: a) Name of the company?
b) The year the company was set up?
c) The company address?
d) The company’s main activities?
e) The main scientific domains of the company
f) The company website?
g) Was the company a member of networks
h) The number of persons employed in the company
i) Was the company part of an enterprise group?
j) In which country was the head office of the group located?
k) The contact person within the company
Part 2: Products (Goods and Services) and Interest in Biotechnology
1. A description of the company’s three main products?
2. Was biotechnology was central to the company’s activities or strategy?
3. Was the company developing products or processes requiring biotechnology?
4. In which geographical markets did the company sell goods or devices during the three years
2008 to 2010?
Part 3: R&D Activities and Collaboration
Collected general information regarding R&D activities and collaboration:
1. Did the company conduct R&D activities?
2. Describe relevant in house/collaborative projects using advanced technologies?
3. Describe outsourced R&D projects using advanced life sciences technologies?
4. Had the company registered patents?
5. Had the company bought patented rights/licenses?
6. What was the main R&D question/problem the company was currently facing?
7. How the company intended to answer/solve the identified problems?
Part 4: Barriers to R&D Activities
Collected general information regarding barriers to R&D encountered by the company
1. Cost of R&D activities, access to technology/information/skills, regulatory requirements,
public perception/acceptance, patent rights, licencing costs.
2. Explain the barriers identified?
Part 5: Specific uses and needs for biotechnology and related techniques
Part 5 consisted of 12 specific categories labelled A to L. Parts A to L was defined by OECD
categorisation. In each section of Part 5 (A to J) the OECD category was divided into two sections,
i.e. USES (which of these techniques does your company use?) And NEEDS (which of these
techniques would your company like to access?). Part 5 sections A to J., also determined whether the
suggested techniques were accessed internally or externally. In the sections A to J, under USES,
companies were asked to identify which techniques the company used and for what, and to specify if
this was a regular, or an occasional need. The companies were also asked to specify how they
accessed these techniques i.e. internal or external access; was the company a public or private
structure; was the company located in their country or abroad.
In the NEEDS section of Part 5; A to J, the companies were asked to choose from a list what
techniques they would like to access; what the company needed these techniques for, and to explain
what barriers existed in accessing these techniques?
Part 5; Question Titles A to J
Because the share biotech companies’ questionnaire was substantial, it was decided not to list all the
techniques highlighted in Part 5 Sections A to J, however, the full questionnaire was represented in
Appendix I
78
A. OECD category DNA/RNA (genomics, pharmacogenomics, gene probes, genetic
engineering, DNA/RNA sequencing/synthesis/amplification, gene expression profiling, and
use of antisense technology).
B. OECD category, proteins and other molecules (sequencing/synthesis/engineering of proteins
and peptides (including large molecule hormones); improved delivery methods for large
molecule drugs; proteomics, proteins, isolation and purification, signalling, identification of
cell)
C. OECD category, Cell, tissue culture and engineering (cell/tissue culture, tissue engineering
(including tissue scaffolds and biomedical engineering), cellular fusion, vaccine/immune
stimulants, embryo a manipulation.
D. OECD category, Gene and RNA vectors (gene therapy, viral vectors)
E. Category. Biological resources and associated facilities.
F. Category, Imaging and related instrumentation DNA/RNA
G. OECD category Process biotechnology techniques (fermentation using bioreactors,
bioprocessing, bioleaching, biopulping, biobleaching, biosulphurisation, bioremediation,
biofiltration and phytoremediation
H. OECD category Nanobiotechnology (applies the tools and processes of Nano/
microfabrication to build devices for studying Biosystems and applications in drug delivery,
diagnostics
I. OECD category. Bioinformatics (construction of databases on genomes, protein sequences,
modelling complex biological processes, including systems biology)
J. Other (additional category)
K. Training Needs; do researchers, engineers or technicians from the company have training
needs regarding techniques and related skills? If the respondent answered yes, he/she was
asked to elaborate as to those needs.
L. Did the company have other needs for the advance of R&D activities? If the respondent
answered yes, he/she was asked to elaborate as to those needs.
PART 6 was optional and asked for additional information about the company.
PART 7 interviewers’ synthesis and feedback under the following headings:
Main needs as regards techniques?
Main barriers for access to specific techniques?
Main needs as regards training?
Specific needs (1 – 3) that ShareBiotech could address in its lifetime?
General comments on the information reported?
Suggestions for improvement?
2.6 ShareBiotech Research Groups Survey (Ref. Appendix 2)
Part 1 collected general information about the research group under the following
headings:
a) Name of the research group?
b) Address of the research group?
c) Main scientific domains of the research group?
d) Specific dominant scientific domain of the research group?
e) Identification of the research unit associated with the research group website of the research
group?
f) Number of persons employed in the research group-research, technical, and administration,
in July 2010, in headcount units?
g) Number of masters students in the research group in July 2010?
h) Number of Ph.D. students in the research group in July 2010?
i) Number of post-docks students in the research group in July 2010?
j) Contact details of the person interviewed?
Part 2: Uses and Needs for Biotechnologies and Related Techniques
79
Part 2 of the ShareBiotech Research Groups Survey consisted of 12 categories labelled A-L. The
research groups were given a list of techniques in one column (USES) in each category and asked to
indicate if they used these techniques and if access was internal or external. In each category (A - L)
the research groups were asked what they used the specified techniques for, and how they accessed
the specified techniques i.e. internal or external access, public or private structure, nationally or
internationally? The second column (NEEDS) gave a list of techniques and asked the research groups
to indicate which of these techniques they would like to access. The research groups were also asked
what they needed these specific techniques for and what the barriers were to accessing the specified
techniques.
Part 2: Uses and Needs for Biotechnologies and Related Techniques Categories
A. OECD category DNA/RNA: genomics, pharmacogenomics, gene probes, genetic
engineering, DNA/RNA sequencing/synthesis/amplification, gene expression proofing, and
use of antisense technology?
B. OECD category, Proteins and other molecules: sequencing/synthesis/engineering of proteins
and peptides (including large molecule hormones); improved delivery methods for large
molecule drugs; proteomics, protein isolation and purification, signalling, identification of
cell?
C. OECD category, Cell, tissue culture and engineering (cell/tissue culture, tissue engineering
(including tissue scaffolds and biomedical engineering), cellular fusion, vaccine/immune
stimulants, embryo a manipulation?
D. OECD category, Gene and RNA vectors (gene therapy, viral vectors)?
E. Category. Biological resources and associated facilities?
F. Category, Imaging and related instrumentation DNA/RNA?
G. OECD category Process biotechnology techniques (fermentation using? bioreactors,
bioprocessing, bioleaching, biopulping, biobleaching, biosulphurisation, bioremediation,
biofiltration and phytoremediation?
H. OECD category Nanobiotechnology (applies the tools and processes of Nano/
microfabrication to build devices for studying Biosystems and applications in drug delivery,
diagnostics?
I. OECD category. Bioinformatics (construction of databases on genomes, protein sequences,
modelling complex biological processes, including systems biology)?
J. Other (additional category)?
K. Training Needs; do researchers, engineers or technicians from the company have training
needs regarding techniques and related skills? If the respondent answered yes, he/she was
asked to elaborate as to those needs?
L. Did the company have other needs for the advance of R&D activities? If the respondent
answered yes, he/she was asked to elaborate as to those needs?
Part 3: R&D Collaboration
Part three consisted of four subsections; A – D; relating to collaboration is with other
institutions/enterprises in biotechnology R&D. The questions asked were:
A. In 2010, did your research group collaborate with other institutions/enterprises in
biotechnology R&D; locally or regionally within your country, nationally, with other
European Union countries, EFTA or EU candidate countries, and all other countries?
B. Was the research unit, part of one or several technological networks, and if so which ones?
C. A description of one or two relevant research collaborative projects that the research group
had implemented?
D. A description of one or two technical services (outsourced R&D) that they research group
had recently requested i.e. the date, service and supplier, purpose, advantages/disadvantages?
Part Four: Patents
Part four consisted of two questions; A - B.
A. Did the research group have any registered patents?
B. If no, would the research group consider patenting in the future?
Part 5: Additional Information about the Research Group. This section was optional.
80
Part 6: Interviewers Synthesis and Feedback
Each interviewer wrote a short report after every interview under the following headings:
Main needs as regards techniques?
Main barriers for access to specific techniques?
Main needs as regards training?
Specific needs (1-3) that ShareBiotech can address during its lifetime?
General comments on the information report?
Suggestions for improvement?
2.7 Technology Core Facility (TCF) Survey (Ref. Appendix 3)
This phase of the questionnaire enabled identification of TCFs within the ShareBiotech regions, their
technologies, expertise, and their access policies. A portal to this information was constructed on the
ShareBiotech website and this information was disseminated to all identified biotechnology
stakeholders in the Atlantic Area. The Technology Core Facilities were identified and located by
several means i.e., Biotechnology Ireland (www.biotechnologyireland.com); Molecular Medicine
Ireland (www.molecularmedicineireland.ie); Enterprise Ireland (www.enterprise-Ireland.com);
internet, phone interviews, HEI websites, and research. The ShareBiotech Technology Core Facilities
Survey consisted of seven sections, each part having several subsections.
Part 1: General Information about the TCF
Part 1 consisted of 18 subsections labelled A-R. The following questions were asked:
A. Name of the TCF?
B. The main purpose for which the TCF was created?
C. Year of starting operation?
D. Websites?
E. Address of TCF?
F. Main scientific domains of the TCF?
G. The domain of expertise of the TCF?
H. The main competitive advantage or distinguishing feature of the TCF?
I. The most recent equipment upgrade?
J. Host organisations of the facility?
K. Responsible Person?
L. Contact person (the interviewee)?
M. Dimensions of the premises?
N. Location i.e. single-sited or distributed, city and country, where the TCF was located?
O. Human resources i.e. people working to operate the TCF, whether full-time or part-time?
P. Identification of main equipment; date of purchase/acquisition?
Q. Quality certification?
R. Confidentiality procedures?
S. Networks i.e. was the organisation part of one or several networks, specifically,
technological networks, and if so which ones?
Part 2: Access to Techniques and Services
Part 2 consisted of seven questions A-G. The questions asked were as follows:
A. The TCF was asked to give a short description of access policies and procedures for users,
i.e. was the technique for internal use; through collaborations with external institutes; for
service provision externally; was training available on this Technology Platform.
B. Where the technology offer was available?
C. A detailed list of all services and/or products offered?
D. Did the TCF have a price list for these services and if so where was it available?
E. Who were the main clients or external users?
F. Did the TCF intend to acquire new clients or external users in the future, and if so what type?
G. A description of one or two projects for clients or external users?
Part 3: Specification of Offered Techniques and Expertise
81
Part 3 was divided into 5 categories i.e. DNA/RNA, proteins and other molecules, cell and tissue
culture and engineering, Gene and RNA vectors, biological resources and associated facilities. A list
of techniques was associated with each category and respondents were asked to tick a box if they
offered the specified technique or techniques.
Part 4: Needs and Future of the TCF
Part four consisted of three questions. The questions asked were as follows:
A. Did researchers, engineers, or technicians from the TCF have training needs regarding
techniques and related skills, and if yes, to submit an explanation of the training needs
required?
B. Did the TCF have other needs for the advancement of R&D activities?
C. What were the projects of the TCF for the next few years?
Part 5: Capacity Indicators
Part five was in the form of a Table and was divided into three sections; A-C
A. Openness of the TCF: this concerned the 2008-2009 operating capacity of the TCF dedicated
to external activities in percentage of total operating capacity? The number of research
groups using the TCF from outside the host organisation? The number of companies using
the TCF from outside the host organisation? And the average 2008-2009 occupancy rate in
instrument/machine in percentage total capacity?
B. Valourisation: two or three examples of significant scientific articles in international journals
between 2008-2009-2010? Significantly, using techniques present in the TCF? The number
of spin-off companies created from the TCF since 2000? The number of contracts with
companies? The number of patents related to present techniques and in which
domains/themes?
C. Education: was the TCF involved in advanced training programs i.e. Ph.D., or Masters
Level? Was the TCF involved in continuing education?
Part 6: Additional Information about the TCF.
Part 6 was optional and related to the TCF’s infrastructure, leading research, and industry interactions.
Part 7 Interviewers Synthesis and Feedback
Part 7 was comprised of two sections, Criteria Verification and Interviewers Synthesis.
Criteria Verification: the following criteria were defined as a departure point to include a specific
infrastructure as a TCF:
a) Did the facility, collect a relevant set of high-level equipment and competencies in the
biotech field, in the view of share biotech partners and did it have the capacity to maintain a
cutting-edge level?
b) Did the facility have a decision-making capacity, i.e., a dedicated management or scientific
committee?
c) Did the facility encompass research, development, or innovation activities in the core of its
objectives?
d) Was the facility open to external users for collaborative projects or through service
provision?
Synthesis: the synthesis in English provided a short description needed for the construction of the
ShareBiotech website map. The synthesis was written under the following headings:
A summary in English of question “domain of expertise” (PART 1) maximum of 1000
characters?
A summary in English of question “competitive advantage or distinguishing feature” (PART
1) maximum of 600 characters?
A list in English of techniques/services offered (PART 2)?
Access procedures, in English?
Main needs as regards training?
General comments on the information report?
Suggestions for improvement?
82
2.8 Presentation of ShareBiotech Needs Report
Data collection was performed at regional level by local ShareBiotech partners
between September 2010 and February 2011. In total 55 researches group surveys
and 37 company surveys were collected in Ireland BMW & S&E regions. A database
of the information was compiled outlining each question in the extensive
questionnaire and the answers. The information was sent to CRIA Regional Centre
for the Innovation of the Algarve Division of Entrepreneurship and Technology
Transfer, University of Algarve where statistical analysis was carried out on the
survey results collected in the four partner regions. The team led by DR. Hugo Pinto
collated the information and produced an OECD document entitled Biotechnology
Competencies & Technology Regional Needs; Final Report; “Action Plan to Reduce
the Gap Between Life Science Technology Supply and Demand” in April 2011;
(ISBN 987-989-8472-12-0) (Appendix 5). The publication outlined the results of the
Companies and Research Groups surveys within the ten partner regions.
The report was encompassed by Activity 3 “Action plan to reduce the gap between
life science technology supply and demand”. The project created a common
approach for surveying needs offers. This methodological scheme was implemented
by the ShareBiotech partners in their regions in the evaluation of biotechnology
infrastructures, competencies, and needs. The statistical analysis of the four partner
regions defined the path the ShareBiotech Project would take by providing an
informed view of the current status of the biotechnology sector in the Atlantic Area.
2.9 ShareBiotech Life Science TCF Booklet 2012
The ShareBiotech Technological Core Facilities Survey was compiled for the
purpose of gathering information about advanced techniques in life sciences and
biotechnology for R&D in order to facilitate access for companies and researchers.
Following identification of the TCF’s, a short description of each was presented on
the ShareBiotech website. A TCF booklet was published listing all the TCF’s
identified in the Atlantic Area (Ireland, Spain, France, and Portugal) and the TCF
Booklet was disseminated to stakeholders throughout the Atlantic Area. The booklet
“ShareBiotech Life Science Technological Core Facilities 2012” (Appendix 6)
gathered high-profile Technological Core Facilities in the partner regions open to
external users. The objective of ShareBiotech was to improve and promote access to
83
such facilities to support research and innovation in life sciences and biotechnology.
The information was shown in a one page summary of each TCF came under the
headings:
1. Location
2. Key words
3. Address
4. Contact details
5. Domains of Expertise and Services Offered
6. Techniques and Examples of Application
7. Access Policy
The market applications of the key technologies identified came under the
headings:
1. Human Health
2. Animal Health
3. Cosmetics
4. Agriculture, Animal Breeding, Plant Science
5. Agri-food Industry Nutrition
6. Environment Energy
The following key technologies were adapted from OECD categories:
1. DNA/RNA
2. Proteins and Other Molecules
3. Cell/Tissue Culture and Engineering
4. Gene and RNA Vectors
5. Biological Resources and Associated Facilities
6. Imaging
7. Process Biotechnology Techniques
8. Nanobiotechnology
9. Bioinformatics and Biostatistics
2.10 The ShareBiotech TCF Audit
Objectives
Activity 4 of the ShareBiotech project endeavoured to help TCF’s become more
professional so that access was easier and service more satisfactory to
users/customers of the TCF. A consultancy was appointed to participate in achieving
the objective of Activity 4.25
The methodology consisted of the implementation of an
audit of the TCF’s facilities, management, competencies, access policies, etc. (Ref:
Appendix 4). A training workshop was organised in the University of Nantes to train
the ShareBiotech members selected to implement the audit.
25
D. Martin; A. Devillez; ToolTechNov, University de Nantes, France
84
Ten of the TCF’s identified in Ireland (BMW Region/S&E Region) were
selected based on their technology offer, access policy, GLP/GMP (Good Laboratory
Practice/Good Management Practice), and management policy. From this list, two
TCF’s were shortlisted from each partner region to develop the pilot model for the
ShareBiotech Transnational Model of Technological Core Facilities. The relevant
person in the TCF’s was contacted and asked if they were willing to participate in
the audit. On receiving their approval an appointment was organised with the
appropriate person for completion of the audit. The completed audits were sent to the
independent experts for analysis and a report was issued at a follow up meeting in
Nantes, France. The recommendations of the independent experts were relayed to the
participating TCF’s through a face to face meeting with the ShareBiotech member
and TCF manager. The audit identified the gaps and needs within the TCF and
suggested the implementation of measures to address the deficits to improve the
professional running of the TCF. ShareBiotech funding of €18,000 was made
available to facilitate a collaborative project between the two TCF’s.
The initial audit of the BRI, AIT, and Bioclin/Intertek26
facilities supported a
TCF status but for Intertek recognised the lack of research engagement and for AIT
the obvious issues of, unsustainable funding, insufficient permanent staff, and
technical support, equipment upgrade/maintenance/replacement budget, marketing of
profile and services. A proposed A4 solution was to develop a public-private
partnership to partly address some of these issues and provide a basis for further in-
house progression. One lab in the CBBR, now branded as the Bioscience Research
Institute (BRI) would be devoted to selected bio-similar analysis work (although this
would require engagement in cell culture etc), that Intertek would manage, i.e. AIT
provides TCFs and Intertek manages and implements quality structure and
operation/maintenance budgets etc. Outcomes would transfer to Intertek for
necessary GLP repeats. There was a lot of ShareBiotech interest in this model, so
some brief statement re types of public-private sector collaboration that can mutually
enhance operation of and access to TCFs should be made. CIRCA focused on
proposals to address more fundamental aspects of TCF structure and delivery –
staffing, access, maintenance, budget etc.
26
Intertek is a UK multinational analytical company. The Athlone division is now private and restored
as Bioclin Ltd
85
Table 2.1.TCF Audit Questions (Ref. Appendix 4)
Identification of the Technology Core Facility
Q1 Date of creation?
Q2 Date of audit?
Q3 Name of TCF?
Q4 Website of the TCF?
Q5 Country?
Q7 TCF main fields of activities and/or expertise?
Q8 Do you have accreditation? (Yes or No)?
Q9 Do you have standard operating procedures? (Yes or No) What are they? i.e. GMP/GLP
Q10 Do you have a quality system? (Yes or No). What are they?
Q11 Fundamental research projects? Number? Number as collaborative? Number as leader?
Q12 Applied research projects? Number? Number as collaborative? Number as leader?
Q13 Services? Number? Number as collaborative? Number as leader?
Q14 TCF manager name? Phone? Email?
Q15 Status? Public sector employee (Y/N)? Private sector employee (Y/N)
Q16 Is the TCF a legal entity? (Yes or No). Legal form of the TCF?
Q17 If the TCF is a part of broader organization, name of this organization?
Q18 Legal ease for hiring or dismissing permanent personnel for the TCF 'activities (from 1 [very
difficult] to 4 [very easy])?
Q19 Do the researchers working in the TCF consider their involvement in the TCF beneficial for
their careers? (From 1 [yes] to 4 [no])?
Governance
Q1 Does the TCF have its own: Scientific committee (Y/N)? / Management committee (Y/N)?
Since when? Number of members? Number of clients/users? Number of external experts?
Q2 Name of public entities supporting the TCF& since when? Name of private entities, including
foundations, supporting the TCF (involved in the governance of the TCF) & since when?
Q3 Name of research teams (directly and steadily) associated with TCF activities? Number of
researchers? Core competences?
Resources Allocated to the TCF
Q1 Human Resources? Researchers, PHD Students, Technicians, Administrative staff: Total
number? Public sector employee? Private sector employee? Permanent contract of
employment? Fixed term contract of employment? Grants? Other?
Tangible / Intangible Resources
Q1 Equipment owned? Risk of obsolescence by future technology (L M H)? Year of purchase?
Public finance part? Private finance part? Annual maintenance, calibration and energy costs?
Utilization rate (% in last year)?
Q2 Equipment leased? Risk of obsolescence by future technology (L M H)? Calibration and
energy costs? Contract year? Utilization rate (% in last year)? Contract term (No. of years)?
Contract clause for renewing equipment (Y or N)?
Q3 Reference number of patents and software (input required for activity of TCF) (name or
number)? Duration of license contract (No. of years)? First year annual associated cost in €?
Annual associated cost in € per year (following years? Public assignees (Y / N)? Private
assignees (Y / N)?
Main Outputs of TCF
Q1 Intellectual property generated? Patent priority document (national)? Extended and PCT
patents? Software (with an IDDN)? Brand? Design?
Other outputs In 2010, for the TCF
Q1 Turnover of the TCF? Licensing contracts on IP? Sale contracts on IP? Service contracts?
Consultancy (a known solution to be applied)? Training sessions? Research contract (public
financing)? Research contract (private financing)? Other research contracts?
Q2 In 2010 for the TCF: Free licencing on IP? Free services? Free consultancy? Free training?
86
Differentiated Price Policy; Type of Expenses?
Q1 Equipment depreciation? Maintenance? Infrastructure? Accreditation? Certification? IP
costs? Training session? Human resources? Consumables? Profit margin?
Networking Activities
Q1 Workshops or seminars with international partners? Workshops or seminars with national or
regional partners? Joint conferences with private companies? Involvement in European
programs? Involvement in national / regional research programs?
Q2 NETWORKING ACTIVITIES IN THE LAST 5 YEARS: Publications in scientific
international journals produced by or through the use of the TCF? Scientific publications
through the use of TCF with acknowledgement of the TCF? Publications in professional
magazines? Involvement in foundations? Creation of spin off (legal entity)?
A Rapid Overview of TCF
Supplier/customer links? Do you think that your customers can find services and products
similar to your TCF in your country? Size of national competitors (No. of employees)? Do
you think that your customers can find services and products similar to your TCF in an
international context? Size of international competitors (No. of employees)? Standardization,
certification? Recognition strategy put in place by TCF? Belonging to a platform network?
Acknowledgement of TCF by research teams? Obsolescence of technologies implemented?
Do you have a training strategy? Utilization rate of resources? Services offered? Protection
strategy (patent)? Communication and marketing strategy? Website? Publications in
professional magazines? Future rival technology? New opportunities in the field? How do
you guarantee confidentiality?
Complementary Information
Q1 According to your expertise, what are the main difficulties for SMEs to access your TCF?
Q2 Do you have some specific requests and partnership proposals from SMEs?
Q3 Does the TCF play a strategic role in any cluster and if "yes" how can you characterise this
role?
Q4 According to your opinion what would be the three main challenges for you TCF :
At short term (for 3 to 12 months)? At middle term (for 1 to 3 years)?
2.11 Regional Technology Translators (Pilot Action)
The Regional Technology Translators (pilot action) analysed the function of
“Technology Translator” (“or facilitator”) within Ireland (BMW/S&E) regions and
France, Portugal and Spain. One person from each region was identified and was in
charge of directing a technology demand towards an appropriate answer. The
demand whether vague or complex was translated into a precise need and a
technological solution was offered. Technology Translator meetings were held every
two weeks between the ShareBiotech Regions via phone/Skype to translate identified
needs into concrete solutions.
The identified needs and answers were originally posted on The BiotechKnows
Website (http://thebiotechknows.com/); Google Spreadsheet and later on the
ShareBiotech website. The BiotechKnows was a scientific networking and
consulting platform developed by the EPISODE Project
(http://www.episodeproject.net/) that was financed by the European Commission's
Framework Programme 7 (FP7).
87
2.12 Organisation of Local Technology Meeting’s (LTM’s)
Project partners were obliged to organise at least two Local Technology Meetings
(LTM’s) in each country per year and at least one in each region. The meetings took
the format of specialised colloquia/workshops to present an overview of available
technologies and their potential applications. Alternatively, the meetings could take
the format of presentations of specific technologies to a targeted audience of SME’s
or researchers identified as having special interest i.e. specific industries that had
already shown interest in accessing research and technological networks. The role of
Technology Translator (TT) was beneficial in identification of the specific
industries.
2.13 Selection of Local Technology Meeting Domains
It was decided to hold three LTM’s in Athlone Institute of Technology (AIT). To
select the themes for the LTM’s the companies and research groups surveyed were
categorised into the areas of biotechnology in which they specialised. The following
domains were identified:
1. Biotechnology SME’s Antimicrobial/Biocides
2. Biotechnology SME’s Controlled Environments
3. Biotechnology SME’s, Miscellaneous
4. Biotechnology SME’s Veterinary
5. Biotechnology SME’s/Drug Development
6. Biotechnology SME’s/ Health Care/Tests And Biotechnology SME’s/
Healthcare/Bio-products
7. Biotechnology SME’s/ Medical Devices
8. Biotechnology SME’s/ Drug Delivery And Biotechnology SME’S/ IT
9. Natural Products
2.14 Natural Products LTM
The meeting was focused on SME members of the Natural Products Biotechnology
Sector in Ireland and endeavoured to clearly identify company perceptions of deficits
regarding partnership, collaboration, and access to core facilities, required skills,
training, and effective networking within Ireland, the Atlantic Area of Europe and
beyond, finance and investment etc.
To proceed with the Natural Products LTM it was necessary to identify companies
and stakeholders in this area. The majority of companies identified were involved in
the harvesting of seaweed and other sea vegetables for the production of
88
biopharmaceuticals, cosmetics, health foods, animal feeds, Bio-fuels, and other
domains. Companies were identified using; Biotechnology Ireland Directories,
Enterprise Ireland Directories, The Marine Institute NUIG, Internet Websites, and
phone calls. Emails were sent to companies with a cover letter detailing the
ShareBiotech project and to establish the willingness of companies to engage with
the project and participate in phone interviews to identify specific needs in their
industry that could be addressed in the life-time of the ShareBiotech project.
A table of companies was drawn up detailing the company name, specific activities,
summary of identified needs, address and contact details (Ref. Table 3.8). A survey
was compiled to ascertain the gaps and needs of the companies regarding R&D,
access to technology core facilities, regional and National Government support,
access to training and skills, and funding. The interviews were conducted by phone,
where a description of the ShareBiotech Project was given, and its possible benefits
for the companies as well as the questions. Each interview lasted approximately
thirty minutes. Following analysis of the interviews, the concerns expressed by the
companies were tabulated to identify common themes among the answers. The
identification of commonalities focused the areas which could be addressed in a half-
day meeting, and the identification of experts who could suggest solutions to the
problems highlighted during the interviews. This information also facilitated the
mapping of the Natural Products Biotechnology Sector in Ireland.
The Natural Products LTM was planned to take place on May 3rd
in AIT
2012. However, when potential attendees were contacted, it emerged that this date
was not suitable for the majority of SME representatives and would have resulted in
low attendance. It was decided to reschedule to a later and more suitable date for all
concerned.
Two LTM’s were rescheduled to take place on September 3rd
and 4th
2012 in
Athlone Institute of Technology. The theme for the first meeting was “Natural
Products: Technology Needs” (Appendix 7) and was scheduled to run from 12:30
pm to 05:00 pm. Again, the speakers identified for the original meeting were
contacted and asked if they were available to present on the new date. Most of the
original speakers agreed to give presentations and some new speakers were
identified. The meeting agenda was disseminated to the same attendee base
originally identified in the phone interviews.
89
The theme for the second LTM “Decontamination: Technology Needs” (Appendix
8) took place on September 4th
in the same venue and over the same time frame. The
meeting focused on SME’s in the hygiene and disinfection sector and sought to
address needs identified in the original phone interviews. Speakers were also chosen
on this basis both nationally and internationally. The meeting agenda was
disseminated to the already identified potential attendees in the natural products
sector. Both meetings were video recorded and uploaded to U-Tube and the link was
disseminated to all ShareBiotech partners and stake holders in the natural products
sector which facilitated broad access to the meeting presentations and
recommendations.27
2.15 Towards 21st Century Toxicology (November 4th/5th 2011)
A major international toxicology conference was held at Athlone Institute of
Technology (AIT) on Thursday and Friday, 3-4 November (Appendix 9). The
conference, entitled, “Toward 21st Century Toxicology”, represented a collaboration
between the Irish Society of Toxicology (IST, and the EU ShareBiotech project as
initiated by the AIT ShareBiotech team.
This conference attracted some very significant researchers and leaders in
this field from across Europe and the US. Prof Thomas Hartung of John Hopkins
University Bloomberg School of Public Health and former head of ECVAM
(European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods) who was involved in
the implementation of the US National Research Council vision document “Toxicity
Testing in the 21st Century – a vision and a strategy”.
Dr Eckhard von Keutz, the Senior VP, Head of Global Early Development, in
Bayer Healthcare, responsible for their toxicology and committed to effectiveness
and efficiencies. Dr David Dix, Deputy Director of the National Centre for
Computational Toxicology in the US described some of their innovative and
significant robotic and IT toxicology developments. Dr Richard Brennan of DABT
27
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG5Iut7dmuA),
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z6hZ_41Uds
90
(Diplomat of the American Board of Toxicology) of Thomson Reuters in San Diego
in the US was involved in development of software under systems biology for
applications in toxicology. Prof Richard Walmsley of Gentronix Ltd and the
University of Manchester had developed new approaches for genotoxicology
screening and Dr Annette Bitsch from the ITEM Fraunhofer in Hannover in
Germany discussed the evolving regulatory impact on toxicology development and
adoption. Dr Sophie Rocks of the University of Cranfield in the UK presented
research conducted in the new and challenging area of nanotoxicology, while Dr
Olivier Kah, a Research Director in the University of Rennes described new
advances in in-vivo approaches. The conference hosted presentations by AIT
researchers and overlap between toxicology testing methods and modern
biotechnology in-vitro analysis methods, and the possible impact of the
ShareBiotech transnational translational network of Technical Core Facilities on the
toxicology sector. The REACH Project (Regulation on Registration, Evaluation,
Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals) was implemented in 2007. One of
the main reasons for developing and adopting the REACH Regulation was that a
large number of substances have been manufactured and placed on the market in
Europe for many years, sometimes in very high amounts, and yet there has been
limited information on the hazards that they might pose to human health and the
environment. It was considered that there was a need to fill these information gaps
which would help to ensure that industry was able to assess hazards and risks.
Posters from researchers in AIT, NUIG, and UCD were exhibited. A member of the
AIT ShareBiotech team gave a presentation entitled “Core Facilities Impact on
Toxicology-ShareBiotech” illustrating the identity and implementing the necessary
risk management measures in order to protect human health and the environment.
Dr. Paul Tomkins gave a presentation on 3D cell toxicology models. The REACH
project supports implementation of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement)
to reduce testing of substances on animals, and promotes the use of Omics
technologies i.e. genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics etc., biotechnology
techniques as alternatives to animal testing. During the presentation some of these
alternative technologies were highlighted.
91
2.16 Expert Interview
As part of the overall project and in particular, the Transnational TCF Model, a
series of extensive interviews with experts that were involved in biotech sector
partnering, collaboration and networking were undertaken. All selected experts in
addition to their current role had a long history of participating in innovative
biotechnology development – full profiles were included in the interview report.
The experts were contacted by email and briefed on the ShareBiotech Project and
asked if they were willing take part in interviews and asked to provide dates when
they would be available. Once the experts were recruited questions were then drawn
up that corresponded to their area of expertise in the biotechnology sector. Although
some questions were generic the main body of questions varied from expert to
expert. The questions were emailed to the interviewees at least one month prior to
interview. The interviews were carried out via face-to-face meetings, telephone, and
Skype. The following people agreed to be interviewed:
Prof Horst Domdey (MD of BioM Biotech Cluster Development GmbH
Munich, Germany), Dr. Martino Picardo (Dir Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst,
London, U.K.), Mary Skelly (MD Microbide Ltd Ireland/USA), Dr. Mario
Thomas (Dir Ontario Centre of Excellence, Ontario, Canada), Dr. Terry Jones (Dir
One Nucleus, London, U.K.), Derek Jones (Dir Babraham Bioscience Technologies
Ltd, London, U.K.), Dr. Claire Skentelbery (Head of Council for European Bio
Regions (CEBR), Belgium).
A full list of the presented questions is given in Appendix ??
2.17 Dissemination of information and colloquia
An email list of approximately 400 contacts was created (Appendix 10) containing
organizations and people (companies, research groups, core facilities, academics,
experts in biotechnology, clinicians and biotechnology stakeholders) that were either
directly or indirectly involved in biotechnology. Members from industry and national
organizations e.g. Enterprise Ireland were invited to form part of the ShareBiotech
steering committee. The ShareBiotech newsletter (Appendix 11) was published
every 3 months and contained contributions from the four partner regions such as;
latest developments in the ShareBiotech project, SME success stories, events,
meetings, conferences, links to services, etc. The newsletter was disseminated via
email to all contacts. ShareBiotech meetings were held approximately every 3
92
months in one of the partner regions to update partners on the progress of the project
and to plan the next steps. These meetings were attended by representatives of all the
partner regions and stakeholders from the Atlantic Area and outside were
encouraged to attend meetings and conferences to present successful biotechnology
models. Workshops were organized during meetings to tease out problems related to
the project as they arose. The “ShareBiotech Mobility Grant Scheme” (Appendix 8)
facilitated travel expenses and living costs for attendees. A study visit by partners
from France, Spain and Portugal was organized, where a delegation visited centers of
excellence in Ireland. The study group visited the Conway Center in UCD, CAMI in
St James’s Hospital, Shannon ABC, NCBES in Galway NUIG, and Intertek in
Athlone.
2.18 Biotechnology Clusters
As the ShareBiotech Policy evolved it became clear that the concept of clustering,
first identified by Maskell (2001) and Porter (1998) in relation to the development
and success of biotechnology could not be overlooked. Much literature was studied
in relation to clustering and biotechnology clusters of different types
(spontaneous/policy driven) and at different stages of evolution were identified in the
U.S, U.K. Europe and Asia. CEO’s of successful clusters were interviewed and
asked what made them successful and asked for their opinions on the global
biotechnology industry and its potential contribution and benefit to mankind. Experts
were also asked for their views on the development and potential of the Irish
biotechnology industry. Experts were asked whether the ShareBiotech Model of
Transnational TCF’s was a viable model that would foster collaboration between
member states and positively impact the development of the Knowledge Based
Economy (KBE).
2.19 Transnational TCF model
One of the objectives of the ShareBiotech project was to develop a pilot
transnational network of Technological Core Facilities within the partner regions.
Initially, Potential TCF’s were identified, ten in total, and two were ultimately
selected to engage with the development of the transnational network of TCF’s. The
organisations selected were Bioclin; a subsidiary of Intertek Athlone and the
93
Bioscience Research Institute (BRI) located at the East campus of the Athlone
Institute of Technology (AIT).
Prof Dominique Philippe Martin, Dr. Arnaud Devillez, and Dr. Audrey
Tremeau of IGR-IAE Rennes conducted the TCF audits of assigned facilities of all
partners and issued a long term diagnosis at the University of Nantes meeting in
April 2012. The analysis took cognisance of fundamental variables that influence
viable and sustainable operation – status of core facilities, projects, funding, human
resourcing, access and utilisation rates, and cost models. The final form of analysis
presents data in two forms, action and status flow chart and a table of linked
strengths and weaknesses.
The results were relayed to both TCF’s and funding of €18,000 was made
available for a small collaborative project. Unfortunately, at this time, Bioclin was
taken over by Intertek and a change in policy prevented the progression of the
collaborative project. It was decided to take on board the audit analysis and set about
upgrading and improving the service provision of the BRI.
Technology Core Facilities (TCFs) as a progression of the term core
facilities, refers to laboratory instrumentation required by many investigators to
conduct their research, but are generally too expensive, complex or specialized for
individual and small group researchers to provide and sustain themselves. The scale
of impact of such technologies grow further when SMEs and other industry domains
are included – their R&D can benefit considerably from access to advanced
technologies, but this generally must occur via some collaboration model, frequently
with public sector research centres. The increase in costs, enhanced skills sets,
knowledge, research impact and data generation and reduced shelf life of many core
facilities over the past decade has been recognised in many countries and has
reflected the generation of specialist research centres and enhanced collaboration
models and media. The necessary skill sets, service and funding model and
accelerated need for equipment updating or replacement due to accelerated
technology development all contribute to significant annual costs and readily
distinguish those research facilities that can professionally achieve these objectives
from those who cannot. This sector of Activity 4 in ShareBiotech was devoted to
developing a positive outcome to the prior selected TCF analysis.
94
The prime objective of this element of Activity 4 was to undertake work that
would address the findings and related matters of the audit, to positively impact on
the future nature of technology core facilities in AIT research centres.
2.20 C.I.R.C.A. Group Consultants
A tender went out for a consultant to review the capacities of AIT to identify those
services which were likely to become viable Technological Core Facilities of
relevance to the ShareBiotech concept. For each of these services, but particularly
for the Centre for BioPolymer and BioMolecular Research, the consultant was
required to do the following:
1. Review of TCF audit and plan
2. Designation of TCF Instruements
3. Pilot TCF selection
4. Management software review
5. Development of organisational model
6. TCF SOP documentation
7. Designation of support staff roles
8. Selected quality approval
9. Designation of access criteria
10. Operation cost calculation and budget
11. Identified training needs and courses
12. Review of Public Private Sector models
13. Maintenance costs and budgets
The review consisted of investigating:
The Technology Core Facilities plan and the definition and selection of its core
equipment and instrumentation.
The organisation of the management of the facility including quality control
procedures, calibration and maintenance programs
The core personnel and support staff, and their training programs
The financial system including budgets ,costs and accounting control
Other aspects that included facility and instrumentation access, and prior
successful activities in Public Private partnerships
The long-term aim of the TCF was to create a resource of activity which would
enhance the reputation of AIT as a centre for research and training in the midlands
region, and which would also develop collaborative linkages between AIT and
regional and national industry. However, it was also necessary to develop a plan for
equipment replacement and enhancement, and for skill development and acquisition.
95
2.21 The Darcy Report
Following on from the recommendations of the TechToolNov Audit, Darcy
Consultancy Services were engaged to review the recommendations of the audit and
to suggest a TCF model (i.e. BRI, AIT) that was fit-for-purpose to embrace
public/private collaborative projects and was capable of interfacing with SME’s on
several levels. The “ShareBiotech TCF Report” was published in 2012 (Appendix
21). The work carried out by Darcy Consultants was in the following 14 areas:
1. Review of TCF audit plan (TechToolNov): 2. Designation of TCF instrumentation: The key input into this work package
element was understanding the business needs for specific instrumentation
and the degree of customisation required. The possibility of short-term rental
or provision of instrumentation as a demonstration facility was explored with
providers.
3. Pilot TCF selection: 4. Management software review: A review was undertaken as to software
requirements mecessary to meet stakeholders expectations e.g. management
software including project management software, LIMS (Laboratory
Information Management Software), bridging software to integrate
istrumentation software into LIMS, and software related to operational
software management e.g. temperature, and humidity monitoring aswell as
data-prodcessing software.
5. Development of organisational model: The organisational model was
developed to ensure the maximum potential for the centre by means of a
review of core skills required specifically from an instrumentation and
analytical perspective e.g. validation, maintenance and calibration.
6. TCF/SOP documentation: Equipment Operating procedures (EOPs) were
prepared, approved and controlled as part of an overall documentation control
system. Existing procedures were revised to ensure compliance with selected
industry standards.
7. Designation of support staff roles: Support personnel will be identified in
areas such as calibration, maintenance (both facility and instrument) as well
as software validation. It pas planned to supply contracts to specify
requirements and other elements of the service provision where external
contractors were required for specialised services.
8. Selected quality approval: The quality certification route were assessed
based on the needs of the stakeholders, e,g ISO 13485 Quality management
systems compliance would be sufficient for medical device/ diagnostics
research and development but some pharma and medical device companies
performing validation studies or similar would require certification to ISO
17025.
9. Designation of access criteria: Access to the laboratory facilities and use of
the instrumentation were determined so as to ensure that firstly the safety of
all personnel was ensured. In addition it was essential to safeguard the
integrity of the facility and the instrumentation in terms of both the
competence of the users and also the materials being brought into the facility.
96
Policies were developed regarding access, working restrictions e.g after
hours/alone and a pre authorisation process were developed for materials
being brought into the facility as well as the disposal of such materials.
10. Operation cost calculation and budget: A costing model was proposed for
approval in terms of intial capital expenditure, preparation of operational
budget and lifecycle costing on instrumentation.
11. Identified training needs and courses: A training matrix including training
needs was prepared as part of this element of the work package. This
document served as record of training performed internally on SOPs , EOPs
and other policy documentation as well as external training.
12. Review of public/private secdtor models Data was presented in relation to
other Public Private sector models e.g Teagasc, Moorepark where access was
available to industry to highly specialised instrumentation and processing
facilities for research and development work as well as pilot batch production
on a Toll basis. Other models were also be reviewed.
13. Maintainance costs and budgets: Costings were prepared for annual
calibration and maintenance of the instrumentation as well as revalidation
requirements e.g of the Water system, AHU (Air Handling Units) as
applicable. Also consumable costs e.g filters, were included.
2.22 ShareBiotech Recommendations to Support the Growth of a
Bio-Based Economy (APPENDIX 6)
The report “ShareBiotech Recommendations to Support the Growth of a Bio-
Based Economy” was compiled by Bruno Sommer Ferreira Data Collection and
Revision: ShareBiotech Consortium Partners. All partners were asked to forward
relevant data from their own regions regarding instruments in place for the
development of a Bio-Economy. The report was published in November 2012.
First the required data to assess the fit between the existing research infrastructure
and the needs identified at local, national, and transnational level was sourced. The
information collected by the Activity 3 ShareBiotech Survey, namely the mapping of
“Biotechnology Competencies and Technology Regional Needs” was used together
with publically available information on the local economy of the various regions in
the project, including businesses for which biotechnology is not the core activity but
can benefit from biotech-based tools, processes, or products. Additionally, a
questionnaire was sent to local experts of each region participating in the
ShareBiotech Project. Further information on existing biotech clusters and bio-
businesses was used. Also, the short to long-term EU policies and available financial
instruments for inter-regional, transnational, and inter-sectorial cooperation were
taken into account.
97
Each region participating in the ShareBiotech project was profiled. These
profiles aimed to briefly characterise the economy of the regions, the research and
innovation support initiatives, both public and originating from the private sector,
and provide a brief assessment of the innovation landscape in biotechnology and
related sectors. Local experts were interviewed to get the most up-to-date critical
assessment to provide in-depth regional insight.
For the purpose of this analysis, the regions of the same country were grouped
together, since the influence of the national strategies, policies and economic
environment remained determinant, although regional specificities were mentioned
whenever relevant. As such, Pays de la Loire and Bretagne were referred as French
regions, Border, Midland, and Western and Southern and Eastern were referred as
Irish regions, and Algarve, Centro, and Norte, were referred as Portuguese regions.
Only one region from Spain was involved, which was Navarra. Each region was
surveyed under the headings, (1) Economy (2) Policy (3) Access to finance (4)
Clusters and (5) Snapshot of the Biotech Ecosystem. A report entitled
“ShareBiotech Recommendations to Support the Growth of a Bio-Based
Economy” was organised by Biocant Technology Transfer Organisation and
prepared by Bioingenium Lda in November 2012. (www.sharebiotech.net).
2.23 ShareBiotech Biotechnology Education “Training Offer &
Needs in the Atlantic Area”
One of the objectives of ShareBiotech was to stimulate links between academia and
industry using several instruments one of which was to connect people from different
life science fields, and cultures through training and mobility and development of
workshops i.e. LTM’s (Local Technology Meetings). Following in-depth research
the report “Training Offer & Needs in the Atlantic Area” was published by the
ShareBiotech consortium in 2013 (www.sharebiotech.net). All partners contributed
to the publication of the report. In the context of the European strategies and
recommendations to improve Education and training in Life Sciences as a base for a
sustainable Bio-economy, the report aimed to identify the skills and training needs in
the area of biotechnology in the Atlantic Area and to provide recommendations to
improve the training offer and education in this area.
98
The research was divided into 5 parts; (1) Snapshot of the ShareBiotech Regions,
(2) Biotechnology Training Offer in the Partner Regions, (3) Biotechnology Training
Needs and Deficits (Gap Analysis), (4) The Contribution of ShareBiotech to Biotech
Training in the Partner Regions, and (5) Main Conclusions and Recommendations to
Improve the Offer.
A questionnaire “Questionnaire on Biotechnology Education Needs &
Offers” (Appendix 12) was compiled; containing questions that traversed several
different aspects encompassed by the training report was directed to relevant
participants of the project consortium. The analysis of the answers to the
questionnaire is presented in the results section of the thesis. The questionnaires
were completed by a total of 15 people belonging to organisations such as local
universities, research centres, vocational schools, entrepreneurs, innovation and
technology transfer agencies and technology parks. All answers were compiled and
analysed and were represented in graphical format.
2.24 Instruments to Foster Technology Transfer in Life Sciences
Technology Transfer is the process of transferring “skills, knowledge, know-how,
technologies, manufacturing methods, manufacturing samples, among governments
or universities, and other organisations to ensure that scientific and technological
developments are accessible to a wider range of users, who are then able to further
develop and exploit the technology into; new products, processes, applications,
materials, or services”.
An “Educational Needs Questionnaire” containing 12 questions (Appendix 6)
was compiled by the ShareBiotech consortium with the objective to identify
instruments – and more particularly incentives that have been developed for the
implementation of technology transfer at regional, national, or European level. To
this end, the ShareBiotech partners interviewed local, national, and European
organisations in their regions that supported technology transfer to identify the
instruments/incentives they were using e.g. (call for projects, grants, contests, prizes,
web tools, fairs, and innovation and technology meetings, networking activities etc.).
These were organisations such as Technology Transfer offices in universities,
research centres, technology parks, innovation centres, funding agencies, clusters,
and any organisations that develop or used incentives to foster technology transfer. A
99
total of 50 organisations associated with technology transfer were contacted within
the ShareBiotech partner regions, 12 of which were Irish Organisations.
The questionnaire went through 12 questions referring to the transfer
channels or pathways listed below, and defined in the article “Innovation: a
knowledge transfer perspective” (Alexander. A., Childes, 2011). The identification
of technology transfer instruments via the questionnaire allowed for the comparison
of technology transfer strategy between the ShareBiotech Regions.
Technology Transfer Pathways (TTP’s):
1. Student placements/Graduate employment
2. Joint supervision
3. Joint conferences
4. Training & Continuing Professional development
5. Secondment (simultaneously working for public and private organisations)
6. Collaborative research
7. Contract research& Consultancy
8. Spin-outs
9. Shared facilities
10. Patents
11. Licences
2.25 Analysis of Life Sciences Technology Core Facilities Business
Models in Europe
State-of-the-art technology is a crucial asset for actors in the biotechnology domain,
who need to commit considerable financial resources, to own, operate, and renew
their equipment. TCF’s are a set of laboratory instruments and their associated skills
which are required in the performance of research and other technical functions, but
which are generally too expensive, complex, or specialised for individual and small
groups of researchers to provide and sustain by themselves. TCF’s may be public or
private and are generally open to a wide range of users.
The ShareBiotech consortium contracted Ernst & Young to conduct a study
on the business models of European TCF’s. The aim was for ShareBiotech to obtain
an overview of the various business models adopted by TCF’s and an analysis of
their obvious strengths and weaknesses and to inform ShareBiotech partners and
TCF managers of business and management practices as well as suggested
development strategies. Fifteen TCF’s across Europe were sampled and various
aspects of their organisation such as: activity, partnership, governance, staff
organisation, IP management, and marketing and promotion strategy were
100
considered. The 15 TCF’s were chosen from a list of 110 TCF’s suggested by the
partner regions. Among the 15 TCF’s, three categories of TCF’s emerged based on
the focus of their activities.
Profit Orientated TCF’s (N=5) maximise profit by providing a highly specialised
service offer to private and public clients
Local Innovation Support TCF’s (N=6) participate to the regional or national
economic development by giving access to cutting-edge technologies to both
researchers and SME’s, or start-up companies.
Research Community Focused TCF’s (N=4) supporting the development of
research activities and the enlargement of the community knowledge basis by
providing easy and affordable access to state-of-the-art equipment, mainly to the
global academic community.
The business models of all TCF’s were analysed on a “Cartesian Space”
(access policy v service offer) which allowed the clustering of the TCF’s. In order to
guarantee a wide range of structures and business models the selection of TCF’s
included a broad range of scientific infrastructures from spin-off companies to TCF’s
integrated into a Bio-park. The following organisations were interviewed:
Table 2.2 TCF's interviewed by E&Y
TCF Location Contact Title
Animascope France Mr. Christ Serra Business Developer
AROS Applied Biotechnology Denmark Mr. Thomas Thykjaer CEO
Barcelona Science Pk Spain Mr Jesus Purroy Scientific director
Biocant Portugal Prof. Carlos Faro Scientific director
Biocentre Oulu Finland Dr. Pirkko Huhtala Centre Coordinator
Cell Imaging Unit Portugal Mr. Jose Feijo Director
CIMNA France Mr Regis Josien Scientific director
Fondaziene Filatete Italy Mr Mario Selarno Business Director
Genoscrene France Frederic Antigny Business Director
GIGA Belgium Mrs Christina Fransen Business Director
MPI-CGG Germany Mr Ivan Baines CEO
TIC Strathclyde University Scotland Catherine Breslin Development Mngr
Biotec Centre University Oslo Norway Elisa Bjorgo Project Manager
Spinovation Netherlands Mr Fredrick Girard CEO/Founder
UCD Conway Centre Ireland Mr Brendan Professor
101
To achieve the objectives of the survey, E&Y adopted a methodology based on
bibliography and interviews as follows:
Review of literatures regarding business issues of TCF’s
Expert selection of criteria to ensure a good approach to the study
Interview with 2 experts in academic research and industry
Interviewed 15 managers/directors/coordinators of selected TCF’s
Analysis of information gathered via conference calls
The criteria used for the selection of TCF’s consisted of:
Geographic location
Ownership (public/private/hybrid)
Experience i.e. broad potential application versus specialised
Type of activity i.e. collaboration, training, R&D, service
Type of users i.e. public, private, SME, start-up, industry
Existence of partnership i.e. public, private entity, CRO, equipment supplier
On the basis of the selected criteria, 18 European TCF’s were contacted via email to
arrange a phone interview and 15 accepted.
A list of analysis criteria was drawn up to identify the main items required to
comprehensively investigate and determine the business models operated by the
TCF’s:
Objective of the TCF
Governance
Legal structure
Ownership, financing & budget (public, private, hybrid, grants, self-financed)
Activity and service offer
User and client portfolio
Staff and organisation
Structure of pricing and fees
Partnership and collaborative projects
IP and confidentiality management
Development strategy
Key success factors
103
3 Results
3.1 ShareBiotech Biotechnology Competencies and Techniques
Regional Needs Survey (Activity 3)
This section of the results chapter highlights the results of the three surveys used to
map the current trends and infrastructures in the biotechnology sector in the Atlantic
Area, i.e. the Companies Survey, Research Groups Survey, and Technological Core
Facilities (TCF’s) Survey. The surveys were generic across the four member states.
The information gathered was vital in determining the future direction and activities
of the ShareBiotech project to develop an action plan to strengthen the biotechnology
sector in the Atlantic Area. The results were published in the OECD document
entitled Biotechnology Competencies & Technology Regional Needs; Final Report;
“Action Plan to Reduce the Gap Between Life Science Technology Supply and
Demand” (Pinto, Cruz, 2011) in April 2011; (ISBN 987-989-8472-12-0).
3.2 Biotechnology Competencies and Regional Needs Survey
Results
The document resulting from the Biotechnology Competencies and Regional Needs
Survey suggesting an action plan to reduce the gap between life science technology
supply and demand was prepared by CRIA, Regional Centre for the Innovation of
the Algarve; Division of Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer, University of
Algarve. The work was carried out by the ShareBiotech consortium within the
ShareBiotech project co-financed with the support of the ERDF (European Regional
Development Fund) – Atlantic Area Program (AAP).
The results were part of ShareBiotech Activity 3, which aimed to establish an
action plan to reduce the gap between life science technology and demand. The
challenge of this activity was to improve current methodologies of surveying
technology requirements. In this activity a common methodology was established for
surveying needs and offers (document available online at (www.sharebiotech.net)
and was implemented by ShareBiotech partners in their regions in order to catalogue
biotechnology infrastructures, competencies and needs. The ShareBiotech supply
and demand analysis included NUTS ΙΙ level (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for
104
Statistics) in the Atlantic Area (Figure 3.1). This work also fostered another
ShareBiotech deliverable; the “Strategic Recommendations and Action Plan to
Reduce the Gap between Life Science and Technology Supply and Demand”
Table 3.1: Valid Questionnaires Collected the ShareBiotech project
Regions Research Groups Companies
ES – Comunidade de Navarra 13 11
FR – Pays de la Loire 5 13
FR – Bretagne 26 29
IE – Border, Midlands & Western 24 11
IE – Southern & Eastern 31 26
PT – Norte 18 3
PT – Algarve 28 10
PT – Centro 40 28
PT – Lisbon - 11
TOTAL VALID INTERVIEWS 183 143
Data collection was carried out at regional level by ShareBiotech partners between
September 2010 and February 2011. In total, 183 valid research groups’
questionnaires were collected and 141 valid company questionnaires (Table 3.1).
The following section shows the results of the ShareBiotech company and research
centre surveys in graphical format.
Populations of ShareBiotech Regions
Figure 3.1: Populations of ShareBiotech Regions Source: Personal Elaboration based in EUROSTAT data
In terms of population (Ref: Figure 3.1) there was a large discrepancy between
regions with some having more than 3 million inhabitants (Bretagne, Pays de la
105
Loire and North Portugal) and others around half a million inhabitants. Similar
discrepancies occurred between regions for population density.
ShareBiotech Regional Economies
Figure 3.2: Economic Indicators Index Source: Personal Elaboration based in EUROSTAT data
In relation to economic indicators (Ref. Figure 3.2) both Irish and French regions
had stronger performances in GDP level compared with the Portuguese regions. The
Portuguese regions faced a problem of difficulty to catch-up. Irish regions were the
best performers in relation to economic growth, but the World economic crisis (2009
to present) has had a dramatic impact in the Atlantic Area regions particularly in
Ireland.
106
Employment in ShareBiotech Regions
Figure 3.3: Employment Indicators Index in Atlantic Area Source: Personal Elaboration based in EUROSTAT data
Regarding employment (Fig 3.3), the employment rate was higher in Centro region
Portugal, Algarve Portugal and SE Ireland. Employment in high-technology sectors
and Human resources in S&T in Irish and French regions were clearly higher than
other ShareBiotech regions. Navarra had a very strong graph in human resources in
S&T but had less in high-technology sectors indicating significant potential existed
for stimulating uptake of technology and innovation by companies.
3.3 Innovation in ShareBiotech regions
In the area of innovation and R&D (Ref. Figure 3.4) Navarra lead all other
ShareBiotech regions and had a higher R&D expenditure as a percentage of regional
GDP and Bretagne followed close behind. Navarra and SE Ireland were the regions
with the highest proportion of their population aged 25-64 educated to tertiary level
107
followed by Bretagne and Algarve, Portugal had the lowest level. This Spanish
region was a runner-up in patents where Bretagne was the most relevant region with
an annual average of 309.1 patents by million inhabitants. The Algarve was the
weakest ShareBiotech region in this kind of indicator; in fact, Portuguese regions
were in general poorer performers.
Figure 3.4: Innovation Indicators Index ShareBiotech Regions Source: Personal Elaboration based in EUROSTAT data
108
Regional Location & Operational Domain of Surveyed Companies & Research Centres
2 21
2
5
23
1 10
3
10
1
24
0 01
0
2
0 01
01 1
01
0
7
0
5
10
15
20
25
Num
ber
S&E
BMW
Figure 3.5 Summary of Biotech Company Domain & Regional Location
Figure 3.5 depicts the regional location and operational domains of research centres
and companies in the Irish BMW & S&E regions
6
13
1 10 0
12
10
34
21
0
4
1 1 12
1
36
10 0 0 0
2 20 0 0
10 0 0
32
01
0 0 0 0
12
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Bio
me
dic
al
Bio
me
d/F
un
ctio
n F
oo
d
Bio
an
alys
is
An
ima
l Sci
ence
Syn
thes
is/C
he
m B
iol
Tis
sue
En
gin
eeri
ng
Bio
En
gin
eer
ing
En
viro
n/H
lth
Bio
tech
Bio
-na
no
Bio
chip
s
Ge
ne
tics
Bio
info
rmat
ics
Dru
g D
eliv
ery
Neu
roSc
i
Ce
ll B
iote
ch
Dia
gno
stic
s
Bio
ph
arm
a
Nat
ura
l Pro
du
cts
Foo
d S
afe
ty
Ph
oto
nic
s
Syst
ems
Bio
logy
Agr
i Fo
od
/Bio
E
To
tal
Nu
mb
er
S&E
BMW
Figure 3.6: Summary of Research Centre Domain & Regional Location
Figure 3.6 displays the domain and regional location of surveyed research centres.
109
3.4 ShareBiotech Research Groups Survey Results
The analytical unit of R&D demand was the research group. A research group was
defined as a “stable group sharing scientific objectives led by one or more scientists
and contains several members, both senior and young researchers and technical
support staff”. The group is usually a sub-division of a broader organization, a
research unit, and is responsible for the development of specific research lines. Even
if the group has scientific autonomy it answers to the research unit director. Groups
developed specific projects in research, development, and innovation with particular
resources, infrastructures, and equipment. Research groups were selected in
preference to research units as one of the analytical units in the ShareBiotech
evaluation because generally they were more homogeneous in their technology needs
and research lines. The research groups participating in the questionnaire were
selected in the partner regions by identifying: i) research units receiving funding to
carry out bioscience-related research and/or development activities, ii) research
institutes in relevant fields, iii) university departments that had an interest in
bioscience, and/or iv) research units in hospitals. Each local partner sent the
questionnaire to a sample of research groups, as defined using the criteria and search
techniques outlined. However, it is important to note that the survey responses were
not necessarily representative of the weight and importance of research groups in
each region. In total 183 research groups were surveyed by the ShareBiotech
consortium. In the following pages the main results of this survey are analysed in
detail.
General Presentation of Interviewed Research Groups
The first part of the questionnaire was dedicated to the characteristics of the research
groups. One of the questions was aimed at identifying the main domains of activities.
Each research group chose as many research domains as necessary to describe their
activity.
110
3.4.1 Domains of Activity of Interviewed Research Groups
Figure 3.7: Main Specific domains of the Interviewed research groups - % Total
Answers
The main scientific domain of interviewed research groups in ShareBiotech was
from Human Health (25.5%). In addition, Environment (11.3%), Bioinformatics
(9.1%) and Marine Sciences (8.9%) were also well represented (Figure 3.5).
Some regional differentiation occurred in the relative importance of the research
domains in ShareBiotech regions, Human Health was the main focus. The exception
was (Figure 3.6) Bretagne where research in Environment and Human Health
predominated; in North Portugal research in Animal Health and Environment
predominated and, finally, in the Algarve research in Marine Sciences and the
Environment predominated.
The large healthcare area of biotechnology in most regions was driven by the
Biopharma/diagnostics/biologics sectors. The drug migration to large molecules was
still very much in progress and the inherent need and demand for healthcare with a
growing aging population in Europe and eventual advent of personal medicine etc.
will continue to ensure the growth and dominance of this sector.
111
Figure 3.8: Main Scientific domains of the research groups in ShareBiotech regions
- % Total Answers
Size of Interviewed Research Groups
Figure 3.9: Number of scientists and technicians employed in research groups in
July 2010 – Percentage of the % Total Number of RGs responding to the
questionnaire
The most frequent (40.8%) size class of RGs was 0-10 employees (Figure 3.9) and
over 82.8% of the RGs had no more than fifty members. The exception was Ireland
in which a significant percentage of RGs had more than fifty members, followed by
BMW with 66.7% and S&E Ireland with 52.0% (Figure 3.10).
17.5%
23.8%
17.7%
37.7%
43.3%
14.0% 12.3%
32.0%
15.0%
4.8% 4.8% 5.7% 5.0%
.0%
11.0% 9.0%
5.0%
14.3% 11.3%
9.4% 8.3% 10.0%
8.2% 11.0%
.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
ES - ComunidadForal de Navarra
FR - Pays de laLoire
FR - Bretagne IE - Border,Midland and
Western
IE - Southern andEastern
PT - Norte PT - Algarve PT - Centro
Human Health Animal health, Veterenary
Agriculture (including animal breeding), aquaculture and silviculture Agri-food (including beverages)
Nutrition, nutraceuticals Cosmetics
Environment Marine Science
Industrial processing Bioenergy
Bioinformatics Other
40.80%
24.30%
17.80%
17.20%
0 →10 10→25
25→50 >50
112
Figure 3.10: Number of Scientists and Technicians employed in RG’s in July 2010 -
% of the Total Number of RG’s responding to the questionnaire per region
The dimension of the RG’s in Ireland impacted positively on the numbers of Masters
and PhD. Students and employed Post-doctoral Scientists. However, the financial
collapse since 2008 negatively impacted on trained MSc and PhDs and higher
education (H&E) metrics. Other ShareBiotech regions in which over 50% of
research groups contained greater than 10 members were Centro-PT, North-PT, and
Navarra (Table 3.2). While research groups in BMW and S&E regions of Ireland
had a similar range of scale, there were significantly more centres and groups in the
S&E and mean post graduate numbers per group were higher in S&E, (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Number of Students in the research groups in July 2010
Regions Master’s students PhD students Post-doc students
Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean ES - Comunidad Foral de
Navarra 0 40 6.92 0 57 8,75 0 6 2,58
FR - Pays de la Loire 1 5 2.8 0 10 4,6 0 2 0,6
FR - Bretagne 0 10 3.21 1 12 4,36 0 4 1,46
IE - Border, Midland and
Western 0 5 1.86 0 80 17,53 0 180 19,47
IE - Southern and Eastern 0 16 5.83 1 250 30,47 0 120 17,92
PT – Norte 0 18 4,53 1 13 4,78 0 7 3
PT – Algarve 0 7 2,56 0 10 2,62 0 9 1,73
PT – Centro 0 42 7,46 0 54 7,11 0 38 2,89
ShareBiotech Total Sample 0 42 4,8 0 250 8,98 0 180 5,36
113
Collaboration activities of interviewed research groups
(Figure 3.11) illustrated the geographical scope of collaborations of RGs with other
institutions/enterprises. This analysis unmasked the highly collaborative nature of
biotechnology and a high level of collaboration occurred at the national level (84%
of RGs responded positively to this level of cooperation that represented 30% of the
total number of collaborations registered).
Figure 3.11: Collaboration of the RGs in 2010 with other institutions/enterprises in
biotechnology R&D - Percentage of the Total Number of RGs responding to the
questionnaire on a Geographical Scale
Figure 3.12: Types of Collaboration of the Research Groups with
institutions/enterprises in biotechnology R&D - % Total Answers
The intensity of cross frontier collaboration also gave an indication (Figure 3.12) of
internationalization of RGs in the ShareBiotech regions and was very similar for all
81.7
84.0
72.2
48.0
18.3
16.0
27.8
52.0
.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Local/Regional
National
Other European Union (EU) countries, EFTA, or EUcandidate countries
All other countries No
Yes
29.20%
30%
25.80%
15%
Local/Regional
National
Other European Union (EU)Countries, EFTA, or EUCanditate countries
All other countries
114
regions. PT-North, Navarra and Bretagne are slightly ahead of other ShareBiotech
regions in this respect
Figure 3.13: Characterization of Collaboration of RGs with institutions/enterprises
in biotechnology R&D - % Total Answers in each region
The internationalization of RGs may have been aided by technological networks and
more than two thirds of those responding to the questionnaire indicated that the
research units they were part of participated in technological networks (Figure 3.14).
This further highlighted the value of networks as a means of stimulating
communication, technology transfer and their importance in generating a critical
mass across Europe.
Figure 3.14: Participation of research units in one or several technological networks
- % Total Answers
69.30%
39.70% No
Yes
115
Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property (IP) rights are commonly identified as a critical subject in the
area of biotechnology. There was significant pressure to patent biotechnology
inventions, products and processes, to protect potentially economic valuable
knowledge. Commonly, the creation of new companies in this domain began with
researchers patenting their inventions and starting spin-off ventures. Slightly more
than half of the research groups who participated in the survey had registered patents
(Figure 3.15) and of those not holding patents 76% confirmed their interest in
patenting in the future (Figure 3.16). The number of patents leading to a
commercially relevant, exploited product yielding a financial return was not
quantified in the survey. Similarly, the relative importance of patenting versus
publication was not established nor was the factors that led R&D performers to
advance with patenting. However, there were several negative aspects related to
patenting, which included the fact that IP protection delayed or impeded research
collaborations, the EU lacked a common patent model and Higher Education
Institutes (HEI) needed a liberal policy to facilitate collaboration and development.
Figure 3.15: Research groups that hold registered patents - % Total Research
Groups
Figure 3.16: Research groups that do not have patents but consider patenting in the
future - % Total Research Groups
52.80% 47.20% Yes
No
76%
24% Yes
No
116
Confronting Needs and Biotech Capabilities (Uses) in Research
Groups In this section Needs (capacities which the research groups wished to acquire) and
Uses (were the existing biotechnology capacities in research groups) of RGs were
compared. One objective of this section was to establish the RGs perceived
technology needs and pre-existing capabilities and give them a regional and
transnational dimension. To this end in the following series of figures indicated side
by side technology capabilities and needs for each specific technique considered in
the questionnaire.
Approach taken to analyse data: The data represented a multiple response
approach, i.e., the total number of responses included multiple responses to the same
question by each group and was used to sum one hundred per cent for each category.
Regarding external and internal the percentages should be read as follows; the total
regards the sum of all uses (or needs) that sums 100% evidencing simultaneously the
specific techniques that were more relevant to total and the internal and external
access importance. In the end of this section, a table was presented that assumed a
different point of view, the relevance a particular type of access (internal or external)
to the total use of a specific technology.
The “specific techniques needs and uses” surveyed were defined using an
established OECD proposal and then adapting it to create a more complete list-based
definition that met the requirements of the ShareBiotech consortium objectives. The
techniques section of the questionnaire aimed to establish what were currently the
most used and needed techniques in the ShareBiotech regions and encompassed: 1.
DNA/RNA, 2. Proteins and other molecules, 3. Cell/tissue culture and engineering,
4. Gene and RNA vectors, 5. Biological resources and associated facilities and 6.
Imaging and related instrumentation
117
Category 1 – DNA / RNA
Figure 3.17: DNA/RNA Biotechnology Techniques Uses and Needs in the Research
Groups - % Total Answers
Regarding the category DNA/RNA the most used techniques are PCR and
Sequencing. The most notable needs were associated with access to antisense
(silencing RNA) technology and transcriptomics with DNA/RNA microarrays the
most needed technique and a substantial gap occurs between capabilities and needs
(Figure 3.16).
Analysis of the mode of access to DNA/RNA techniques revealed that the
expensive cutting-edge techniques requiring large specialised equipment such as
sequencing and transcriptomics (including DNA/RNA microarray) was frequently
covered by external facilities (Ref. Figure 3.17).
Considering the Biotech field in general the majority of sequencing was
performed by contract companies and it appeared that there were adequate numbers
available to meet demand in the EU, US and more recently China and the recent
reduction in costs have significantly increased accessibility. Gene Expression (GE)
analysis in the biotech area in general was increasing and while some labs employed
cDNA arrays, the dominant technology was affymetrix both in user HEIs/companies
and service providers. Although not a factor specifically analysed in the survey a
general problem with this research domain was associated with the quality of GE
analysis and also generally high costs and means of data analysis. Needs in this area
17.4%
14.7%
10.3%
10.4%
11.2%
13.2%
7.9%
8.3%
6.6%
11.2%
13.3%
10.7%
14.5%
14.5%
9.8%
13.5%
10.7%
1.9%
.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
PCR / qPCR / RT-PCR
Sequencing
Genotyping
Transcriptomics
DNA / RNA microarray
Northern and Western blots
Antisens technology (SiRNA)
Gene Probes (e.g. FISH technology)
Other Needs
Uses
118
were also closely linked to lack of capacities in the area of bioinformatics an
essential component of GE.
Category 2 – Proteins and Other molecules
Figure 3.18: Proteins and Other Molecules Biotechnology Techniques Uses and
Needs
In the category of Proteins and Other molecules) (Figure 3.19) the most commonly
used techniques were Monoclonal and Polyclonal antibodies and Protein isolation
and purification. Metabolomics, Proteomics, and Sequencing of proteins and
peptides were the most needed techniques.
Figure 3.19: Proteins and Other Molecule Techniques Internal and External Use
In common with the category DNA/RNA, techniques for proteins and other
molecules were high tech and expensive and tended to be required by RGs with
119
intermediate frequency to respond to specific scientific questions and required a high
level of technical expertise, access to very specific installations and instrumentation.
For these reasons, production of Monoclonal and Polyclonal antibodies, synthesis
and engineering of proteins/peptides and sequencing of proteins/peptides was
frequently carried out in specialized external facilities (Figure 3.19)
The surveys highlighted that a great number of interviewed research groups
used and also needed cell and/or tissue culture systems. This was not surprising as
numerous scientific domains made use of this technology. Moreover, this trend was
likely to intensify in coming years because of the increasing regulatory burden,
which is becoming more and more restrictive for animal testing. Therefore, it was
foreseen that in the medium to long-term cell and tissue systems will progressively
replace animal models. Moreover, the number of available cell lines and specialized
mediums and culture systems (such as, 3D) is constantly increasing making the use
of in vitro cell culture relevant for an ever wider range of “testing” situations
Figure 3.20: Cell Tissue Culture and Engineering Biotechnology Techniques Uses
and Needs
120
Figure 3.21: Cell Tissue Culture and Engineering Biotechnology Techniques
Internal and External Use
With regards to the other techniques in the category, cell/tissue culture and
engineering (Figure 3.20) the uses and needs were quite similar excepted for
embryo manipulation, which was mastered by relatively few of the RGs surveyed in
each of the ShareBiotech regions.
With the exception of cell / tissue culture, all the techniques of this category were
equally used internally or in external facilities (Figure 3.21). The relatively easy
accessibility of these techniques, notably regarding cost of instruments and the
frequency and “core” use of cell culture to rapidly test hypothesis and elaborate new
experimental paradigms, could explain the frequent internal access. The survey did
not determine the factors that lead some group to access external resources.
However, it may be a consequence of a number of factors which may include the
need for access to high throughput screening methods or specialized imaging
techniques and additionally the fact that a number of scientists such as
bioinformaticians and chemists need biological data coming out from cell and tissue
models and did not have the training and / or expertise to realize experiments
themselves.
Category 4 – Gene and RNA Vectors
The category of Gene and RNA Vectors (Figure 3.22) covered a wide range of
techniques that encompassed manufacture of vectors and also their application for
transgenesis of a wide range of organisms.
121
Figure 3.22: Gene and RNA Vectors Biotechnology Techniques Uses and Needs
In the category of Gene and RNA vectors, the most used technologies corresponded
to micro-organism transgenesis, synthetic vectors and viral vectors (Figure 3.22).
The frequent usage of such technologies was unsurprising as numerous research
groups performed molecular biology experiments that encompassed steps of micro-
organisms transgenesis. Concerning synthetic and viral vectors, these technologies
were used routinely to introduce nucleic acids in cells in vivo and in vitro, and
consequently were common methods for research groups studying genes expression
and performing molecular biology experiments. An interesting observation in this
category was that relatively few research groups surveyed had the capacity to
perform vegetal (plant) transgenesis (i.e. genetic modification of plants), and
numerous RGs responded that they would like to have access to this technique. It
seemed that the public perception and legislation were important barriers for access
to this technique and these factors were cited by several of the researchers who were
interviewed.
Figure 3.23: Gene/RNA Vector Biotechnology Techniques Internal and External
Use
122
Access to Gene and RNA vector techniques was approximately half internal and
half external (Figure 3.23). The most frequently out-sourced technology
corresponded to animal transgenesis which was a lengthy process that normally was
infrequently required by research groups and required a high level of know-how and
skills and also specialized facilities. Moreover, there was evidence of a strong market
offer with specialized facilities retaining transgenic animal lines for “off the shelf”
purchase.
Category 5 – Biological Resources and Associated Facilities
This category covered access by research groups to specialised experimental
facilities for experiments with animals and plants, access to curated collections (e.g.
DNA, RNA, fixed specimens, blood samples etc.) and to model organisms.
Figure 3.24: Biological Resources and Associated Facilities Uses and Needs
The most important items highlighted in the category Biological resources and
associated facilities, both for uses and needs, corresponded to (i) biological
resources centers (BRC), (ii) housing and facilities for animal experimentation, (iii)
micro-organisms models and (iv) animal models (Figure 3.24). These four items
were clustered in one type of use (or need): “biological materials and associated
facilities”. A relevant aspect was that this general need could partially be
addressed by ShareBiotech through improving the visibility and access to BRCs
and related facilities.
123
Figure 3.25: Biological Resources and Associated Facilities Internal and External
Use
As expected, the majority of interviewed research groups accessed biological
resources and animal models in facilities that were external to their research unit
since relatively few of them maintained and administered collections of biological
samples or animal models (Figure 3.25) Interestingly the majority of research
groups working on plant breeding had access to experimental facilities and this was
probably related to the relative facility of their maintenance. In contrast specialized
animal facilities and experimental farms were accessed external to the research units
by 50% of the research groups of the survey.
Category 6 – Imaging and related Instrumentation
Imaging techniques have undergone a significant advance in the last decade and this
section of the survey assessed use of traditional methods of optical microscopy as
well as modern highly advanced and specialized methods.
124
Figure 3.26: Imaging and Related Instrumentation Uses and Needs
In the category, ‘Imaging and related instrumentation’, all techniques displayed a
similar profile for uses and needs with the exception of confocal and fluorescence
microscopy that were more widely used by research groups (Figure 3.26) It
appeared that such imaging techniques, despite the cost of instrumentation and
maintenance, were becoming more routinely utilized by research groups. In general
the survey highlighted an approximately similar need for methods that required
access to expensive, high maintenance equipment such as, radiography, ultrasound,
electron microscopy, SPECT, positron emission tomography, computed tomography
and magnetic resonance imaging, which reflected the potential of such methods to
address a series of research questions.
Figure 3.27: Imaging technologies accessible internally & externally
6.7%
5.0%
5.5%
4.7%
8.6%
16.2%
14.0%
8.8%
12.7%
5.2%
4.7%
6.4%
1.5%
8.6%
7.5%
7.7%
7.5%
9.2%
8.6%
9.9%
8.2%
14.4%
7.2%
6.8%
3.3%
1.0%
.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
Magnetic resonance Imaging
Computed Tomography
Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
SPECT: Single Photon Emission…
Optical Imaging: bioluminescence
Optical Imaging: fluorescence
Optical Imaging: confocal imaging
Optical Imaging: (multi)photonic imaging
Electronic microscopy
Ultrasounds
Radiography
Infra-red imaging
OtherNeeds
Uses
6.1% 5.7% 5.9% 5.4%
10.2% 17.4%
12.5% 9.0% 8.6%
6.1% 5.9% 6.3%
.8%
10.0% 3.9%
4.4% 3.3%
4.4% 10.0%
16.7% 5.6%
20.6% 5.0%
6.1% 8.3%
1.7%
.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
Magnetic resonance Imaging
Computed Tomography
Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
SPECT: Single Photon Emission Computed…
Optical Imaging: bioluminescence
Optical Imaging: fluorescence
Optical Imaging: confocal imaging
Optical Imaging: (multi)photonic imaging
Electronic microscopy
Ultrasounds
Radiography
Infra-red imaging
OtherInternal Use External Use
125
Electron Microscopy, Confocal Microscopy, and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
(NMR) were mainly used in external facilities (Figure 3.27) most likely because of
the extremely high cost of instrumentation and the specific expertise required
mastering these techniques. Other techniques were little externalized.
Category 7 – Industrial Processes
Figure 3.28: Process Biotechnology Uses and Needs
The category Industrial Processes encompassed several different areas Bioenergy,
Biocatalysts, and Fermentation. In the category Industrial Processes, it was
interesting to notice that Fermentation was much more used by researchers to
produce enzymes than to produce active compounds or food and beverage (Figure
3.28). This technology was indeed necessary for the production of numerous
microorganisms’ enzymes that were either studied or used as biological tools by
researchers. Besides, the most needed technique corresponded to fermentation for the
production of active compounds. Finally, fermentation for the production of
biomaterials and bio-based building blocks were barely used by researchers but were
needed as much as other techniques of the category;Fermentation for biomaterial
production and Fermentation for Bio-based building blocks production.
126
Figure 3.29: Process Techniques Internal and External Use
The analysis of access ratio for industrial processes indicated that the majority of
researchers conducting fermentation for food or beverage or producing their
enzymes by a fermentation process used the equipment of their own research unit
(Figure 3.29). In contrast, for the production of active compounds, most of the
research groups externalized this process. The latter may be a consequence of a
number of different factors, related to the nature of compounds to be extracted,
capacity to scale-up production, the purification processes which may have required
specific facilities with know-how and appropriate instrumentation.
Category 8 – Nano-Biotechnologies
Nano-biotechnology was identified as a relatively recent research area that has
rapidly been adopted by Pharma and had relevance for the medical devices sector.
Associated research involving nano-biotechnology was in the field of risk
assessment, toxicity and monitoring. All techniques from the nano-biotechnology
category were used and needed similarly, although nano-encapsulation of bioactive
products was the technique most frequently used and access was internal. (Figure
3.30)
17.2%
26.6%
12.5%
3.1%
3.1%
14.1%
12.5%
10.9%
7.1%
14.3%
21.4%
.0%
7.1%
14.3%
14.3%
21.4%
.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
Fermentation for food or beverage production(traditional fermentation)
Fermentation for enzymes production
Fermentation for active compounds production
Fermentation for biobased building blocks production (succinic acid, propanediol,
butanol, glycolic acid …)
Fermentation for biomaterials production (PHA, PLA, …)
Biocatalysis : enzymatic hydrolysis orenzymatic organic synthesis
Bioenergy : 1st, 2nd , 3rd generation
Other
Internal Use External Use
127
Fig. 3.30: Nano-biotechnology Techniques Uses and Needs
Fig. 3.31: Nano-biotechnology Techniques Internal and External Use in the Atlantic
Area
Concerning access to the Nano-biotechnology techniques, internal and external
accesses were quite similar. The most externalized technique was the
characterization of Nano-particles probably as a consequence of the need for
specialized equipment more typical of materials sciences coupled to expertise and
know-how in the area (3.31). Although not visible in the data presented the numbers
14.5%
13.3%
7.8%
12.7%
10.8%
14.5%
12.0%
13.3%
1.2%
17.1%
12.2%
12.2%
9.8%
7.3%
19.5%
9.8%
7.3%
4.9%
.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
Nanoencapsulation of bioactive products
Nanoparticle formulation
High trough-put experimentation, micolabs,microrobotics
Active coumpond delivery methods(vectorisation)
Nanostructures
Characterization of nanoparticles
Incorporation of chemical ligands to thenanoparticle surface
In vitro citotoxicity evaluation ofnanoparticles
Other
Internal Use External Use
128
of RGs involved in Nanobiotechnology was relatively small compared to more
conventional research areas such as DNA/RNA, proteins.
Category 9 – Bioinformatics
Figure 3.32: Bioinformatics Techniques Uses and Needs within the Atlantic Area
The most used and needed item of the category Bioinformatics corresponded to
Data Analysis and Biostatistics (Figure 3.32). However, the surveys revealed that
the other bioinformatics disciplines were also considered important and both used
and also needed. With the development of high throughput biology techniques
(genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, etc.), bioinformatics became a crucial tool for
data interpretation.
13.3%
9.7%
16.4%
12.6%
8.4%
6.6%
8.8%
6.6%
7.8%
9.2%
.5%
10.3%
10.3%
12.1%
9.6%
8.6%
8.0%
10.0%
9.2%
10.2%
10.5%
1.1%
.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
Data storage
Construction and management of databases
Data analysis and biostatistics
Sequence analysis
Structural analysis, molecular modelling
Insilico tests (virtual screening)
System modelling (biological processes,ecosystems,etc.)
Integrative biology
Software development
Computing power (calculation)
OtherNeeds
Uses
129
Fig. 3.33: Bioinformatics Techniques Internal and External Use in the Research
Groups
Interestingly, despite the relative accessibility of bioinformatics tools, approximately
50 % of bioinformatics analyses were externalized (Figure 3.33). This may be the
consequence of a number of different factors not evident from the analysis but
identified by the project participants; I) many biologists were not trained in the use
of bioinformatics tools and had to outsource the analysis of their results to
specialized platforms, ii) the large datasets generated by next generation sequencing
required significant computational power and computing know-how to handle very
large data sets and convert raw sequence data to assembled genome/transcriptome, or
conduct digital counts of transcript abundance. In fact, part of the offer with next
generation sequencing which was frequently conducted out of house included data
assembly and preliminary data analysis to allow verification of sequencing quality.
Moreover, the high cost of informatics infrastructures that required informatics
expertise and maintenance and the general policy of data release into the public
domain via established public databases e.g. National Centre for Biotechnology
Imaging (NCBI) generally did not favor the development of onsite computing
resources.
14.3%
10.6%
17.8%
14.4%
7.2%
6.5%
8.0%
5.6%
7.4%
7.8%
.6%
12.5%
10.4%
15.3%
11.1%
9.0%
6.9%
8.3%
6.9%
5.6%
13.2%
.7%
.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
Data storage
Construction and management of databases
Data analysis and biostatistics
Sequence analysis
Structural analysis, molecular modelling
Insilico tests (virtual screening)
System modelling (biological processes,…
Integrative biology
Software development
Computing power (calculation)
Other
Internal Use External Use
130
Training Needs in Biotechnology of Research Groups
The majority of research groups highlighted the need for training in relation to
specific Biotechnology skills (Figure 3.34).
Figure 3.34: Training needs regarding techniques and related skills of the research
groups - % Total RG
The need for training varied in the ShareBiotech regions, for example, over 90% of
the Irish research groups involved in the survey indicated that they had specific
training needs while only 58% of research groups in Navarra identified training
needs in the area of Biotechnology (Figure 3.35).
Figure 3.35: Training needs regarding techniques and related skills of the research
groups in each region - % Total by Region
Other needs were not so well detected by RGs in general (Figure 3.36). A much
bigger proportion of Ireland RGs highlighted the fact there were problems. Algarve
RGs (57.7%) also highlighted the existence of problems limiting research that were
in addition to training needs (Figure 3.37)
78.10%
21.90% Yes
No
131
Figure 3.36: Other needs of the research groups for the advance of R&D activities
Figure 3.37: Other needs of the research groups for the advance of R&D activities in
each region
3.5 ShareBiotech Companies Survey Results: Needs for advanced
techniques in Life Sciences
Companies
A company was defined as a private organisation that developed specific business in
order to supply products, goods, or services. It had functional autonomy and judicial
personality. The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
(OECD) analysis suggested the firm-level as the adequate scale to understand the
behaviour of the private sector (OECD, 2005; A Framework for Biotechnology
Statistics, OECD, and Paris). The ShareBiotech project focused companies with
particular interest in biotechnology. Detecting such companies was not easy. The
partnership followed referred methods to locate these companies (Statistics New
Zealand (2010), New Zealand’s Bioscience Survey 2009) searching particular
keywords in the legal and/or trading names such as:
60%
40% Yes
No
50.0
40.0
30.8
95.5
93.3
35.3
68.2
42.9
50.0
60.0
69.2
4.5
6.7
64.7
31.8
57.1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ES - Comunidad Foral de Navarra
FR - Pays de la Loire
FR - Bretagne
IE - Border, Midland and Western
IE - Southern and Eastern
PT - Norte
PT - Algarve
PT - Centro
Yes No
132
1. Bioinformatics, Bioprocessing, Bio reagent’s, Biotechnology,
Biotransformation’s, Chromatography, Clonal, Concentrates, Extract,
Extraction, Fluid Extraction, Functional Foods, Genetics, Genomics,
Industrial Microbiology, Monoclonal, Neutraceuticals, Proteomics,
Supercritical, Transgenic
2. Biotechnology national associations lists
3. Firms from other surveys that reported biotechnology activities
4. Firms on the national and bio products association lists
5. Companies operating in economic activities that are users of particular
streams of biotechnology
6. Firms receiving funding to carry out bioscience-related research/or
development activities
In total 143 companies were surveyed by ShareBiotech and 37 of total were
surveyed in the Ireland BMW and S&E regions. The main specific domain of
interviewed companies (Figure 3.3) was Human Health similar to research groups.
In contrast, Animal Health and Agri-food were more represented in companies. In all
ShareBiotech regions, Human Health was the most represented domain. A total of
nine regions in the Atlantic Area were surveyed (Table 3.2). The biotechnology
domains of interest identified in the ShareBiotech Regions were as follows:
Human Health; Agri-food including beverages; Cosmetics; Marine Science;
Bioenergy, Other; Agriculture including animal breeding, aquaculture and
silviculture; Nutrition, neutraceuticals; Environment; Industrial processing;
Bioinformatics; Animal Health, Veterinary (Figure 3.36).
Figure 3.38: Main specific domains of the interviewed companies - % Total
Answers
133
Figure 3.39: Main Specific domains of the interviewed companies - % Total
Answers by region
The large majority of companies interviewed were small to medium sized enterprises
(SME’s). The research showed that 74.6% of the companies had no more than fifty
workers. Larger companies, with more than 250 employees represented 9.8% of the
total companies surveyed (Figure 3.39).
Figure 3.40: Number of persons employed in the companies. In July 2010 – Total
Answers
South East Ireland, Navarra, and Pays de la Loire were the regions that surveyed the
greatest number of companies with > 250 employees in addition to companies with
fewer employees. Compared with other ShareBiotech regions Portuguese companies
generally had < 25 employees (Figure 3.41).
.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
ES -Comunidad
Foral deNavarra
FR - Pays dela Loire
FR - Bretagne IE - Border,Midland and
Western
IE - Southernand Eastern
PT - Norte PT - Algarve PT - Centro PT - Lisboa
Human HealthAgriculture (including animal breeding), aquaculture and silvicultureAgri-food (including beverages)Nutrition, nutraceuticalsCosmeticsEnvironment
59% 15.60%
15.60%
9.80%
0-25
25 - 50
50 - 250
> 250
134
Figure 3.41: number of persons employed in surveyed companies in July 2010 by
region
The age of companies is often used as an indicator of experience. The ShareBiotech
average year of setting up a company was identified as 1994. French and Irish
companies were in general older than this, and Portuguese and Spanish companies
were younger, which gave some insight for the sectors maturity in the different
regional contexts (Table 3.2).
Table 3.3: Age of Interviewed companies - Descriptive Statistics
Regions Year of Setting - up
Minimum Maximum Mean ES – Comunidade de Navarra 1963 2010 1998
FR – Pays de la Loire 1933 2008 1989
FR – Bretagne 1927 2010 1993
IE – Border, Midlands & Western 1969 2005 1996
IE – Southern & Eastern 1967 2008 1994
PT – Norte 1987 2010 2000
PT – Algarve 1986 2009 2002
PT – Centro 1852 2010 1989
PT – Lisbon 1995 2009 2005
ShareBiotech Regional Average 1852 2010 1994
Of the companies surveyed 73.7% participated in Networks and 36.2% were parts of
enterprise groups (Figure 31).
135
Figure 3.42: Network Membership of Interviewed Companies by Region
French and Irish companies were found to have more participation in networks, i.e.,
clusters, scientific parks, company associations, and other forms of intensive
collaboration (Figure 3.43).
Figure 3.43: Network membership of companies by region (%)
The participation in enterprise groups was very variable across the ShareBiotech
regions and ranged from 0% in the Algarve (PT) and 15% in Pays de la Loire
(France) to 100% in the North of Portugal (Figure 3.44).
Figure 3.44: Enterprise group membership of companies by region (%) group
136
Biotechnology played a central role in company activities and strategy and 79% of
the companies that responded to the survey indicated that they were developing
products or processes that required the use of biotechnology (Figure 3.45).
Figure 3.45: Role of Biotechnology in the companies - % Total Companies
Biotechnology was found to have a central role in the majority of the companies
surveyed. However, in the Algarve, BMW (Ireland) and Navarra a significant
number of companies surveyed did not have biotechnology intergrated into their
central strategy (Figure 3.46).
Figure 3.46: Role of Biotechnology in the companies- % Total by region:
biotechnology is central to your company activities or strategy?
137
Figure 3.47: Role of Biotechnology in the companies - % Total by region: Is your
firm currently developing products or processes that require the use of
biotechnology?
National markets were considered to be most important to the companies which
responded to the survey. In parallel, there were a very expressive percentage of
European and International exports (Figure 3.48).
Figure 3.48: Geographic markets where the companies sold goods or services from
2008 to 2010 - % Total Companies for Each Geographical Market
National sales represented 29.2% of total trading by companies (Figure 3.49) No
significant differences were registered in national patterns between the ShareBiotech
regions (Figure 3.50).
138
Figure 3.49: Geographic markets where the companies sold goods or services from
2008 to 2010 - % Total Answers
Figure 3.50: Geographic markets where the companies sold goods or services from
2008 to 2010 by region - % Total by region
Almost all companies surveyed (95.8%) indicated that they developed R&D
activities (Figure 3.51). The high rate of R&D was expected as a large proportion of
interviewed companies had activities in the biotech area and R&D intensive activity.
Even the regions such as Navarra and the Algarve that included in the survey
companies not classified as having biotechnology as a principal activity also
indicated they had significant R&D activity. Of the R&D activities, 41.5% were
performed in-house, 39.3% were outsourced and 19.2% by collaborative R&D
projects (Figure 3.52).
Figure 3.51: Development of R&D activities - % Total Companies
25.80%
29.20% 25.30%
19.70% Local/Regional
National
Other European Union (EU)Countries, EFTA, or EUCanditate countriesAll other countries
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
ES - Comunidad Foral de Navarra
FR - Pays de la Loire
FR - Bretagne
IE - Border, Midland and Western
IE - Southern and Eastern
PT - Norte
PT - Algarve
PT - Centro
PT - Lisboa
Local/RegionalNationalOther European Union (EU) countries, EFTA, or EU candidate countriesAll other countries
95.80%
4.20%
Yes
No
139
Figure 3.52: Means of execution of R&D activities by companies - % Total
Answers
Figure 3.53: Intellectual Property of the companies - % Total Companies
IPR was a strategic domain for companies operating in biotech and related fields and
this was reflected in the responses to the survey as 61.9% of companies held
registered patents and 45.5% had bought patent rights (Figure 3.53).
When questioned about the main barriers to conduct R&D, companies indicated that
cost was the main inhibitor of such activities. Other very significant barriers were
access to technology and regulatory requirements (Figure 3.54).
Figure 3.54: Barriers to your R&D capacity - % Total Answers
41.50%
39.30%
19.20% In-house R&D activities
Collaborative projects
Outsourced R&D activities
140
Cross-referencing R&D barriers and the regions in which the companies were
located the main barriers per region were identified (Table 3.3). Costs were always
the most relevant aspect inhibiting R&D, but had differing degrees of relevance
across the ShareBiotech regions. In Navarra, access to skilled human resources was
also considered a constraint for R&D, in Pays de la Loire, Bretagne and Algarve
regulatory requirements were highlighted as a crucial limitation, in Centro and BMW
easy access to technology constrained R&D. Patent rights were also considered a
limiting factor for R&D in companies in BMW and the North of Portugal.
Table 3.4: Barriers to R&D Capacity of the Interviewed Companies by Region
Costs to
conduct
R&D
activities
Access to
technology
Access to
information
Access to
skilled
human
resources
Public
perception/
acceptance
Regulatory
requirements
Patent rights held by
others/high licencing
costs
o
t
h
e
r
ES –
Comunida
de de
Navarra
■■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ -
-
-
FR – Pays
de la Loire
■■■■ ■■■ ■■ --- --- ■■■ ■■ ■
FR –
Bretagne
■■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■
IE –
Border,
Midlands
& Western
■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■■ ■
■
IE –
Southern &
Eastern
■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■
■
PT – Norte ■■■■ ■■■ --- --- ■■■ --- ■■■ -
-
-
PT –
Algarve
■■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ --- ■■■■ --- ■
■
PT –
Centro
■■■■ ■■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■
PT –
Lisbon
■■■■ ■■ --- ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■
(Legend: ■0% - 5%; ■■ 6% - 15%; ■■■ 16% - 25%; ■■■■ > 25%)
Confronting Needs and Uses in Companies to Research Groups
This section briefly reviewed the perceived needs and uses in companies of the main
biotechnology methods highlighted in the survey and compared this to the research
groups. The approach taken to analyse needs and uses was similar to that applied to
141
research group’s analysis and permitted direct comparison of trends in both groups
of stakeholders.
Category 1 – DNA/RNA
In common with the research groups, the surveys highlighted that:
1. The most used techniques of the DNA/RNA category were PCR and
Sequencing
2. The most important need was DNA/RNA microarray (Figure 3.55).
A reason cited to explain companies need for microarray was the complexity of the
technique that meant it was still not adapted for routine experiments.
Figure 3.55: DNA/RNA Biotechnology Techniques Uses, and Needs in Interviewed
Companies [Uses N = 408; Needs = 289]
In common with research groups in companies the most externalised techniques of
the DNA/RNA category corresponded to sequencing. This was probably because of
the high cost of the instrumentation and the ease of access to the relatively cheap,
good quality external services (Figure 3.56). Routine techniques such as antisense
technology and northern blots were used internally in common with what occurred in
research groups, but PCR analysis, a fairly common technique was often provided by
external suppliers, according to the interviews.
142
Figure 3.56: DNA/RNA Biotechnology Techniques Internal and External Uses in
Interviewed Companies – [Internal Use N= 282; External Use N= 126]
Category 2: Proteins and Other molecules
Surveys revealed that interviewed companies had similar uses and needs of all
techniques in the proteins and other molecules category. Therefore, no particular
technique was highlighted in this category as more important or relevant.
Figure 3.57: Proteins and Other Molecules, Techniques, Uses and Needs in
Interviewed Companies – [Uses N= 399; Needs N= 343]
Surveys revealed that interviewed companies had similar uses and needs of all
techniques in the proteins and other molecules category. Therefore, no particular
technique of this category was highlighted as more important/relevant (Figure 3.58)
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00%10.00%12.00%14.00%
Other
Matabolomics
Monoclonal & polyclonal antibodies
Improved delivery methods for large-…
High through-put screening and…
Structural analysis
Proteomics
Protein isolation and purification
Synthesis & engineering of proteins &…
Sequencing proteins & peptides
Needs
Uses
143
Figure 3.58: Proteins and other molecules Techniques Internal and External Uses
Cutting edge techniques such as structural analysis, proteomics or sequencing of
proteins were more used in external facilities (Figure 3.58). The techniques require
either sophisticated instrumentation (e.g. Mass Spectrometry) or specific techniques
that encourage companies to perform their experiments in specialised facilities
(TCF’s). Some techniques like metabolomics’ and monoclonal/polyclonal antibodies
were not frequently externalised. It is possible that the response to the question
might have been misinterpreted and that some companies perceived, - “Do you use
antibodies?” with “Do you produce antibodies?” If the response was to the first
option, this could explain why access to monoclonal/polyclonal antibodies was
mainly internal. Although a strict methodology was used to implement the
questionnaire and to train interviewers, it was not possible to rule out issues relation
to interpretation of questions.
Category 3 – Cell/Tissue Culture and Engineering
In this category, cell/tissue culture techniques were more used and needed than other
techniques (Figure 3.59). The same observation was made for research groups
because there are numerous scientific domains in which this technology can be used.
This trend should be reinforced in coming years as these techniques substitute animal
testing, which has become more heavily regulated. Therefore, it was estimated that
cell and tissue culture will progressively replace animal models and the number of
cell lines available had greatly increased.
144
Figure 3.59: Cell Tissue Culture and Engineering Biotechnology Techniques Uses
and Needs in Interviewed Companies [Uses N= 192; Needs N= 159]
Figure 3.60: Cell Tissue Culture and Engineering Biotechnology Techniques
Internal & External Uses in Interviewed Companies [Internal Use N= 155; External
Use N=46]
The majority of techniques in Cell/Tissue Culture and Engineering were used
internally (Figure 3.60). The only technique that was significantly externalised
corresponded to cell/tissue culture which was in contrast to the situation in research
groups. The latter was thought to result from the specific infrastructure requirements
needed for cell culture which were costly to maintain and required dedicated space
and possibly encouraged companies to perform their experiments in external
facilities.
Category 4 – Gene and RNA Vectors
Except for plant transgenesis Genetically Modified Organisms (G.M.O.s), all
techniques in this category were used and needed (Figure 3.61). The most used
techniques corresponded to vectorization methods and to microorganism
11%
4.50%
11%
12%
15%
11%
37%
15%
2.50%
13%
15%
16%
12.50%
27%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Other
Embryo manipulation
Cellular therapy, stem cells
Recombinant vacine
Vaccine/Immune stimulant
Tissue engineereing (e.g. medical…
Cell/tissue culture
Needs
Uses
18%
10%
18%
19%
32%
23%
90%
16%
5%
14%
16%
18%
10%
34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Embryo manipulation
Cellular therapy, stem cells
Recombinant vacine
Vaccine/Immune stimulant
Tissue engineereing (e.g. medical…
Cell/tissue culture
Internal use
External use
145
transgenesis. This was thought to be a consequence of the numerous molecular
biology experiments that encompassed steps of microorganism transgenesis.
Synthetic and viral vector technologies were also used to routinely introduce nucleic
acids into cells in-vivo and in-vitro, and were used by a lot of companies interviews
that studied gene expression and performed molecular biology experiments. An
interesting result in this category was the observation that few companies performed
plant transgenesis (i.e. G.M.O.s) although many expressed a need for the technique.
It was presumed that public perception and legislation were important barriers to
accessing this technique.
Figure 3.61: Gene & RNA Vectors Biotechnology Techniques Uses & Needs in
interviewed companies [Uses N= 155; Needs N= 177]
The surveys demonstrated that numerous companies externalised their vectorization
experiments to specialised facilities (Figure 3.62). This may be explained by the
fact that manipulation of viral vectors required specific labs compliant wit safety
regulation. Therefore. Technological Core Facilities (TCFs) or Contract Research
Organisations (CROs) having specialised technologies and with appropriate
infrastructure could facilitate this need. For example, in France, the Biogenouest
TCFs network had two platforms specialised respetively, in viral vectors and
synthetic vectors. Animal trangenesis was performed mainly internally in companies
in contrast with research groups. The quality standards required in companies (GLP,
etc) was suggested as a reason for the lack of externalisation in public animal
transgenesis facilities.
146
Figure 3.62: Gene and RNA Vectors Biotechnology Techniques and External Uses
in Interviewed Companies [Internal Use N= 136; External Use N= 11]
Category 5 – Biological Resources and Associated Facilities
In the category Biological Resources and Associated Facilities the surveys revealed
almost the same pattern for research centres and companies (Figure 3.63). The four
most needed items corresponded to (1) B.R.C.s, (2) housing and facilities for animal
experimintation, (3) micro-organism models, (4) animal models. This was an
interesting observation since ShareBiotech aimed to improve the visibility and access
to B.R.C.s and related facilities.
Figure 3.63: Biological Resources & Associated Facilities Biotechnology
Techniques Uses & Needs in interviewed companies [Uses N=290; Needs N= 236]
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Other
Synthetic vectors
Viral vectors
Micro-organism transgenesis
Vegetal transgenesis
Animal transgenesis
Gene therapy
Internal Use
External Use
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Other
Biological Resource Centres, Banks,…
Animal breeding
Housing facilities for animal…
Plant models
Needs
Uses
147
Figure 3.64: Biological Resources & Associated Facilities Biotechnology
Techniques Uses & Needs in interviewed companies [Internal Uses N=214; External
Needs N= 105]
With the exception of Micro-organisms models (widely used for molecular biology
experiments), the four most needed items indicated in (Figure 3.64). were mainly
accessed in external facilities reinforcing the potential role of ShareBiotech in
increasing the visibility of B.R.C.s and related facilities.
Category 6 – Imaging and related Instrumentation
In the Imaging and related Instrumentation category, the most used technologies
corresponded to Electron microscopy and Optical imaging techniques (Figure 3.65).
This was not surprising since these techniques were used to characterise numerous
matrices in various fields of activity (e.g. observation of emulsions in cosmetics, of
microorganisms in the food industry, of human cells in medical companies, etc.).
Other imaging techniques (i.e. non-microscopic techniques) were less used but were
of great interest since numerous needs were registered by the surveys. The majority
of techniques in this category were initially devoted to medical applications,
(Radiography, Ultrasound, Tomography and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) but were
widely applied in other activities such as agriculture (e.g. N.M.R. can be used to
characterise the structure and presence of water in vegetables.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Other
Experimental items
Biological Resource Centres,…
Plant breeding
Animal breeding
Housing and facilities for plant…
Housing facilities for animal…
Micro-organism models
Plant models
Animal models
Internal Use
External Use
148
Figure 3.65: Imaging & Related Instrumentation Biotechnology Techniques Uses &
Needs in Interviewed Companies [Uses N=369; Needs N= 389]
Electronic and Confocal microscopy were mainly used in external facilities likely
because of the extremely high cost of instrumentation and the specific expertise
required in operating these techniques (Figure 3.66). Other optical imaging
techniques were less externalised due to the fact that numerous companies have
invested in optical microscopes and robots.
Figure 3.66: Imaging & Related Instrumentation Biotechnology Techniques Uses &
Needs in Interviewed Companies [Internal Use N= 190; External Use N= 90]
2%
6%
6%
6.60%
12.50%
10.20%
14%
10%
5%
6%
6%
7.50%
1%
8%
7.50%
7.30%
9%
9.50%
9.50%
7.50%
7%
8%
8%
8%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
Other
Infra-red imaging
Radiography
Ultrasound
Electronic microscopy
Optical Imaging (multi) photonic…
Optical Imaging, Fluoresence
Optical Imaging, Bioluminesence
SPECT. Single Photon Emission…
Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
Computed Tomography
Magnetic Resonamce Imaging (MRI)
Needs
Uses
3%
10%
10%
4.50%
29.50%
22%
37%
24%
5%
4%
8%
6%
3%
5%
5%
2.80%
8.50%
15%
19%
16%
4%
3%
5%
14%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Other
Infra-red imaging
Radiography
Ultrasound
Electronic microscopy
Optical Imaging (multi) photonic…
Optical Imaging, Fluoresence
Optical Imaging, Bioluminesence
SPECT. Single Photon Emission…
Positron Emission Tomography…
Computed Tomography
Magnetic Resonamce Imaging (MRI)
Internal Use
External Use
149
Category 7 - Industrial Processes
In the category of Industrial Processes, fermentation techniques to produce active
compounds, enzymes and food/beverage were much more uses and needed than
other techniques (Figure 3.67). The survey results showed that Technological Core
Facilities (T.C.F.s) that specialised in fermentation technology were needed in the
Industrial Process Category.
Figure 3.67: Process Biotechnology Techniques Uses and Needs in Interviewed
Companies [Uses N= 86; Needs N= 49]
Except for fermentation techniques for biomaterials and enzyme production, most of
the Industrial Process Category was almost equally used in internal and external
facilities (Figure 3.68). This was probably linked to the interviewed companies
structure and objectives (R&D or production of goods), which meant that a step of
the R&D or industrial process was often externalised, such as, the development of
the process (before scale-up) or the mass production (i.e. small size production was
performed internally).
Figure 3.68: Process Biotechnology Techniques Internal and External Uses in
Interviewed Companies [Internal Use N=62; External Use N=26]
7%
6%
10.20%
8%
6%
25%
3%
6.50%
6.50%
0%
6.50%
37%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Other
Bioenergy: 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation
bBiocatalysts: enzymatic hydrolysis…
Fermentation for Biomaterial …
Fermentation for Biobased building …
Fermentation of active compounds…
Needs
Uses
15%
12%
12%
20%
10%
53%
29%
49%
6%
4.40%
4.40%
4.40%
6%
26%
21%
27%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
Bioenergy: 1st, 2nd, 3rd…
bBiocatalysts: enzymatic…
Fermentation for Biomaterial …
Fermentation for Biobased …
Fermentation of active…
Fermentation for enzyme…
Fermentation for food and…
Internal Use
External Use
150
Category 8 – Nano-biotechnologies
In common with what occurred with the research groups, it was difficult to identify
companies’ specific needs and uses for the techniques in the Nano-biotechnology
category (Figure 3.69).
Figure 3.69: Nano-biotechnology Techniques Uses and Needs in Interviewed
companies [Uses N= 35; Needs N= 25]
Figure 3.70: Nano-biotechnology Techniques Internal & External Uses in
interviewed companies
2.50%
11%
14%
12.50%
8%
8%
11%
17%
15.20%
3%
12.50%
11%
14%
13%
12%
12%
13%
12.50%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%
Other
In-vitro cytotoxicity evaluation ofnanoparticles
Incorporation of chemical ligands tothe nanoparticle surface
Characterisation of nano-particles
Nanostructures
Active compound delivery methods(vectorisation)
High through-put experimentation,microlabs, microbiotics
Nanoparticle formulation
Nanoencapsulation of bioactiveproducts
Needs
Uses
151
Despite the cutting edge character of Nano-biotechnologies, the surveys revealed
that all the techniques of this category were used in internal facilities (Figure 3.70).
However, techniques such as in-vitro cytotoxicity evaluation of nanoparticles and
Nano encapsulation of bioactive products were externalised
Category 9 - Bioinformatics
Surveys revealed that all bioinformatics techniques are used and needed by the
interviewed companies (Figure 3.71). The most used and needed techniques
correspond to sequence analysis and data analysis and biostatistics and also to
construction and management of databases and data storage. In common with
research groups, companies had significant volumes of data that could not be
managed without bioinformatics tools.
Figure 3.71: Bioinformatics Techniques Uses and Needs
All techniques in bioinformatics were used approximately equally internally and
externally (Figure 3.72). Significant demand existed for bioinformatics from both
Companies and research groups. The ShareBiotech project clearly could contribute
to “fill the gap” by reinforcing bioinformatics in participating TCFs and also through
the organization of training sessions to enable more companies (and researchers) to
internalize a part of their analyses.
152
Figure 3.72: External and internal sourcing of Bioinformatics Techniques for
companies was more or less equal
Company Training Requirements
75% of companies were identified as having training needs (Figure 3.73) but a
relevant regional diversity exists (Figure 3.74).
Figure 3.73: 25% of companies interviewed did not have training needs while 75%
expressed a need for training
Figure 3.74 The need for training in companies interviewed was higher in all regions
than not
75.0
25.0
Yes No
80.0
84.6
79.3
80.0
96.0
66.7
66.7
53.6
62.5
20.0
15.4
20.7
20.0
4.0
33.3
33.3
46.4
37.5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ES - Comunidad Foral de Navarra
FR - Pays de la Loire
FR - Bretagne
IE - Border, Midland and Western
IE - Southern and Eastern
PT - Norte
PT - Algarve
PT - Centro
PT - Lisboa
Yes No
153
Other needs were not so easily detected by companies (Figure 3.75) where a
disparity of regional answerers was evident (Figure 3.76).
Figure 3.75: Other Needs for the Advancement of R&D Activities in Interviewed
Companies
Figure 3.76: Other Needs for the Advancement of R&D Activities in Interviewed
Companies
Using the quotient between internal and external uses and total used techniques it
was possible to calculate an Access Capacity Ratio (ACP) (Table 3.4) for each one
of defined categories and by region. Even if sometimes limited by the short number
of answers, this indicator reflected the percentage of used techniques that were
covered by internal or external access.
Table 3.5: Access Capacity Ratio (Total Internal and External Access)
OECD
Category Regions Internal Access External Access
DNA/RNA
ES - Comunidad Foral de
Navarra
77.6% 28,6% FR - Pays de la Loire 25.0% 75,0% FR - Bretagne 68.3% 46,7% IE - Border, Midland and
Western
72.9% 21,0% IE - Southern and Eastern 88.2% 6,2% PT - Norte 81.4% 52,5% PT - Algarve 87.5% 32,8% PT - Centro 72,9% 50,6%
Proteins and other molecules ES - Comunidad Foral de
Navarra
51,3% 48,7% FR - Pays de la Loire 45,5% 72,7%
154
FR - Bretagne 48,8% 58,5% IE - Border, Midland and
Western
66,1% 17,0% IE - Southern and Eastern 100,0% 3,9% PT - Norte 65,4% 73,1% PT - Algarve 55,8% 58,1% PT - Centro 74,7% 41,8%
Cell tissue culture and
engineering
ES - Comunidad Foral de
Navarra
100,0% 0,0% FR - Pays de la Loire 50,0% 50,0% FR - Bretagne 96,4% 7,1% IE - Border, Midland and
Western
100,0% 29,4% IE - Southern and Eastern 100,0% 17,4% PT - Norte 100,0% 22,2% PT - Algarve 86,7% 20,0% PT - Centro 88,2% 17,6%
Gene and RNA vectors
ES - Comunidad Foral de
Navarra
100,0% 7,7% FR - Pays de la Loire 50,0% 50,0% FR - Bretagne 94,4% 22,2% IE - Border, Midland and
Western
98,6% 29,2% IE - Southern and Eastern 100,0% 9,1% PT - Norte 100,0% 25,0% PT - Algarve 100,0% 8,3% PT - Centro 66,7% 28,6%
Biological resources and
associated facilities
ES - Comunidad Foral de
Navarra
92,3% 12,8% FR - Pays de la Loire 33,3% 75,0% FR - Bretagne 51,7% 70,7% IE - Border, Midland and
Western
69,3% 30,7% IE - Southern and Eastern 100,0% 27,8% PT - Norte 93,8% 9,4% PT - Algarve 83,3% 24,1% PT - Centro 80,6% 19,4%
Imaging and related
instrumentation DNA/RNA
ES - Comunidad Foral de
Navarra
53,1% 50,0% FR - Pays de la Loire 62,5% 37,5% FR - Bretagne 62,7% 47,0% IE - Border, Midland and
Western
75,3% 16,1% IE - Southern and Eastern 100,0% 15,0% PT - Norte 60,9% 30,4% PT - Algarve 48,9% 51,1% PT - Centro 51,5% 43,9%
Process biotechnology
techniques
ES - Comunidad Foral de
Navarra
100,0% 14,3% FR - Pays de la Loire 100,0% 0,0% FR - Bretagne 90,0% 30,0% IE - Border, Midland and
Western
81,8% 0,0% IE - Southern and Eastern 100,0% 15,4% PT - Norte 100,0% 50,0% PT - Algarve 84,6% 38,5% PT - Centro 80,0% 20,0%
Nanobiotechnology
ES - Comunidad Foral de
Navarra
88,5% 11,5% FR - Pays de la Loire 50,0% 50,0% FR - Bretagne 100,0% 0,0% IE - Border, Midland and
Western
47,5% 0,0% IE - Southern and Eastern 60,9% 18,4% PT - Norte 25,0% 50,0% PT - Algarve 66,7% 33,3% PT - Centro 75,8% 19,7%
Bioinformatics
ES - Comunidad Foral de
Navarra
73,1% 38,5% FR - Pays de la Loire 93,8% 6,3% FR - Bretagne 83,1% 31,7% IE - Border, Midland and
Western
57,3% 18,9% IE - Southern and Eastern 50,0% 8,0% PT - Norte 100,0% 17,0% PT - Algarve 88,7% 19,4% PT - Centro 91.8% 23.5%
Table 3.4 displays the total access capacity, both internal and external within the
ShareBiotech regions to OECD nominated biotechnology needs.
155
3.6 ShareBiotech T.C.F.s Survey Results
The ShareBiotech Technology Core Facilities Survey was developed by the
European project ShareBiotech with the objective to reinforce the important
contribution that Life Sciences and Biotechnology could offer towards the
development of the Knowledge-based Economy, in the Atlantic Area
(www.sharebiotech.net). The questionnaire aimed to gather information about the
existing offer in advanced techniques in life sciences and biotechnology for R&D, in
order to facilitate access for researchers and companies. It was based on the TCF
concept: “a TCF is a set of equipment and associated expertise, which operating
capacity is available to public or private organisations, with a view to offering access
to high-level technologies for R&D”. The questionnaire enabled identification of
TCFs within the ShareBiotech regions. Earlier studies gave a partial view of
technology offers and needs but failed to provide a precise and homogeneous view.
A great quantity of inventories and/or directorates already existed within the
participating regions and these were used as a starting point in implementing the
survey. The TCF Survey aimed to provide the appropriate information for the
purpose of the ShareBiotech initiative: common inventory criteria, mapping of
TCF’s, typology of TCF’s (ownership, access, openness, current types of uses and
users, service provision etc.), and summary of skills (human resources and
Intellectual Property linked to TCF’s). A short description of each TCF was
presented on the ShareBiotech website. A TCF Source Book was produced in a hard
copy and was available on-line. The Technology Core Facilities were identified and
located by several means i.e., Biotechnology Ireland
(www.biotechnologyireland.com); Molecular Medicine Ireland
(www.molecularmedicineireland.ie); Enterprise Ireland (www.enterprise-
Ireland.com); internet, phone interviews, HEI websites, and research.
The ShareBiotech Technology Core Facilities Survey consisted of seven sections,
each part having several subsections. The ShareBiotech Technology Core Facilities
Survey can be referenced in (Appendix 3).
3.7 Instruments to foster Technology Transfer in Life Sciences
The objective of this action was to identify instruments and incentives that have been
developed for the implementation of technology transfer at regional, national or
156
European level. To this end the ShareBiotech partners interviewed the local,
national and European organisations in their region that supported technology
transfer, in order to identify the instruments/incentives used (e.g. call for projects,
grants, contests, web tools, networking activities etc.) The interview questionnaire
went through 12 questions referring to the transfer channels or pathways. The
identification of technology transfer instruments via the questions allowed for the
comparison of technology transfer strategy between ShareBiotech regions.
Technology Transfer pathways:
Student placements / Graduate employment
Joint supervision
Joint conferences
Training & continued personal development
Secondment (simultaneously working for private and public organisations)
Collaborative research
Contract research & Consultancy
Spin-outs
Shared facilities
Patents
Licences
Table 3.6: Irish organizations interviewed Re. Technology Transfer Survey
Interviewed Organisations Website
Athlone Institute of Technology www.ait.ie
Cork Institute of Technology – Industry
Liaison Officer www.cit.ie/industry_innovation
Institute of Technology Blanchardstown www.itb.ie
Institute of Technology Carlow www.itcarlow.ie
Institute of Technology Tallaght www.it-tallaght.ie
Invent DCU www.dcu.ie/invent Irelands National Marine Biotechnology
Programme (INMRP) www.marine.ie/biotech
Molecular Medicine Ireland www.molecularmedicineireland.ie
Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) www.sfi.ie
Shannon ABC www.shannonabc.ie
University of Limerick Technology Transfer
Office http://www2.ul.ie/web/WWW/services/research/t
echnologytransferoffice
Waterford Institute of Technology www.wit.ie
157
3.8 ShareBiotech Technology Transfer Survey Results
Figure 3.77: Geographic location country
The number of organisations having responded to the survey was comparable for
Ireland (12), France (18) and Portugal (15). However, only four organisations from
Spain responded (Figure 3.77).
Figure 3.78: Regional response to survey
Figure 3.78 shows the regions to which the organisations who responded to the
survey belong. For France and Portugal, some of these are bi-regional. (Source:
ShareBiotech “Instruments to Foster Technology Transfer, 2012)
12
18
15
4
0 5 10 15 20
Ireland
France
Portugal
Spain
Technology Transfer Survey Response by country
158
Figure 3.79: The number of people working in innovation services and technology
transfer in interviewed organisations in the Atlantic Area; France had the highest
number in the region of o to 10 with Ireland having the least. France was also highest
in the 10 to 24 and the 25 to 50 category. Ireland had the greatest number working in
the innovation services and technology transfer in the > 50 category (Source:
ShareBiotech “Instruments to Foster Technology Transfer, 2012)
Figure 3.80: The pie chart shows the type of instruments used to facilitate
Technology Transfer by interviewed organisations. The bar chart details the
instruments cited in each country (Source: ShareBiotech “Instruments to Foster
Technology Transfer, 2012)
159
Figure 3.81: The structure of results analysis
These two charts present the answer to the following type of question “Does your
organisation use instruments or incentives to implement technology transfer through
(e.g. student placement, collaborative project support etc.)” The greyscale pie chart
represents the results for the overall consortium, i.e. the number of organisations
interviewed by ShareBiotech partners answering “yes” or “no” to the question asked.
The coloured bar chart details the results by country, i.e. the number of organisations
interviewed that answered “yes” or “no” in France, Spain, Portugal or Ireland.
(Source: ShareBiotech “Instruments to Foster Technology Transfer, 2012)
3.9 Answers to Technology Transfer survey questions
Question 1: Does your organisation use specific instruments (e.g. communication
tools) or incentives (e.g. grants, fiscal incentives) to encourage student placement
and new graduate employment in companies?
160
Figure: 4.82 Technology Transfer through student placement / graduate
employment; there was little difference between Ireland, France, and Portugal at 15,
20, and 16 respectively with Spain registering the lowest score (5) for this method of
Technology Transfer
Only 45% of the structures supporting innovation set up resources to reinforce this
transfer pathway. Even organisations having direct links to research groups did not
systematically use this transfer channel, since only 70% of them responded
positively to this question. At a national level, Irish organisations were twice as
active in these fields as their Portuguese counterparts. Most of the tools allowing
students and young graduates to be placed in companies corresponded to various
forms of assistance (grants, tax incentives etc.). All the regions targeted by the
survey organised events that allowed companies to be introduced to students except
Spanish regions. A few examples taken from Irish survey response answers to
question 1 were:
The Employment-based Graduate Programme was identified as a new
and exciting initiative offering an employment-focussed postgraduate
experience that offered researchers the opportunity to complete a Master’s or
PhD degree while employed by a private company or public organisation
based in the Republic of Ireland. (http://www.research.ie/scheme/employment-
based-postgraduate-programme)
Enterprise Ireland is the state agency responsible for supporting the
development of manufacturing and internationally-traded services
companies. It provides funding and supports for companies and college-
based researchers to assist in the development, protection and transfer of
technologies into industry via licensing or spin-out companies.
http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/, http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/
en/Researchers/The-business-or-research.pdf
Athlone Institute of Technology’s annual careers fair on campus
organised by the Careers and appointments Service, which combines
careers advisory work with students and helps employers come into direct
56
20
16
15
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
ShareBiotech Consortium…
France
Portugal
Ireland
Spain
Technology Transfer through student placement/graduate
employment
ShareBiotech Consortiumtotal responseFrance
Portugal
Ireland
Spain
161
contact with students, for recruitment purposes
(http://www.ait.ie/informationforcurrentstudents/careersoffice/).
Question 2: Does your organisation use specific instruments (e.g. communication
tools) or incentives e.g. specific grants) to encourage or allow the joint
supervision of people in charge of a research project (e.g. Masters, PhD) by both
academic and industrial partners?
Figure 3.83: Technology Transfer through joint supervision; Portugal, France, and
Ireland registered 7, 13, and 11 respectively for TT through joint supervision with
Spain lowest at 2
A moderate number of responses were collected for this transfer channel (33). Half
of the organisations surveyed used this transfer channel, regardless of country of
origin. This transfer channel used a few specific instruments, but mobilised tools
which were used both for student placements and for setting up collaborative
projects between academics and companies. These were mainly funding tools, but
surprisingly, very few events were organised to encourage this transfer channel. In
Ireland, a number of programmes specifically designed for joint project supervision
were identified e.g.
The Employment-based postgraduate programme was identified as a new
and exciting initiative offering an employment-focused postgraduate
experience. The programme offered researchers the opportunity to complete
a Masters or PhD while employed by a private or public organisation based
in the Republic of Ireland. (http://www.irchss.ie/eapp/index_set.php).
The Inter Trade Ireland – fusion “business, academic, graduate
partnership” allowed joint supervision of research projects and provided
part-funding for projects with companies. This technology transfer
programme, FuSion, helped companies bolster the bottom line of their
business, and enabled them to get ahead of the competition. The partnership
33
11
13
7
2
0 10 20 30 40
ShareBiotech Consortiumtotal Response
Ireland
France
Portugal
Spain
Technology Transfer through jount supervision
ShareBiotech Consortiumtotal Response
Ireland
France
Portugal
Spain
162
included a third-level institution with a specialist expertise, and a high-calibre
science, engineering or technology graduate. The graduate was employed by
the company and based at the company throughout the project, with
mentoring from the academic partner and an Inter Trade Ireland FuSion
consultant (http://www.intertradeireland.com/fusion).
IrcSET’s Embark Initiative awarded scholarships at postgraduate level on
an annual basis through a competitive process
(http;//www.ircset.ie/Default.aspx?tabid=63)
Question 3: Does your organisation participate in or organise joint conferences
between companies and academic partners, or use specific instruments (e.g.
communication tools) or incentives? (e.g. Mobility grants, networking activities) to
promote attendance at such meetings
Figure 3.84: Technology Transfer through joint conferences; joint conferences were
most popular in France (34) with Portugal and Ireland even at (16) each, while Spain
used this method least at (7)
There were 73 responses to question 3. The results indicated that technology transfer
through joint conferences was a popular transfer channel. These events allowed
academic and private researchers to meet and discuss ideas to come up with joint
projects. Expert interviews revealed that this channel was extensively used by Tony
Jones as a method of technology transfer to grow the Babraham cluster in the UK. It
was thought that more intimate working groups on specific themes with, which
gathered fewer participants were more likely to allow the development of
collaborative joint projects than congress organised events with broad themes. The
following technology transfer channels were identified in the Irish survey:
Athlone Institute of Technology’s and the University of Perlis Malaysia (UNIMAP) Annual Business, Science and Engineering International
Symposium –a two day international symposium on science, engineering and
73
34
16
16
7
0 20 40 60 80
ShareBiotech Consortium…
France
Portugal
Ireland
Spain
Technology Transfer through joint conferences
ShareBiotechConsortium ResponseTotalFrance
Portugal
163
business
(http://www.ait.ie/aboutaitathlone/newsevents/pressreleases/2011pressrelease
s/title-9498-en.html)
Applied Research Enhancement (ARE) Centre – Industry Days. Client
companies presented their projects and case studies at annual events hosted at
ARE Centres. (http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/Research-
Innovation/Companies/Collaborate-with-companies-research-
institutes/Applied-Research-Enhancement-Centres-.html)
Irish Society of Toxicology (IST) Conferences – The IST is a professional
organisation of scientists from academia, government and industry,
representing a broad cross-section of those involved in toxicology in Ireland.
The IST has committed to creating a safer and healthier environment by
advancing the science of toxicology.
(http://www.toxicologyireland.com/home.php)
Question 4: Is your organisation involved in the setting up of training session
/programmes that allow companies to keep their professional knowledge up to date
with new developments developed by academics or use specific instruments (e.g.
communications tools) or incentives (e.g., grants) to promote attendance at such
training events?
Figure 3.85: Respondents to Q4 in the Atlantic Area; France and Ireland favored TT
through training and continued professional development (13 to 11) respectively
with Portugal and Spain using this method least at (5 to 3) respectively.
A moderate number of responses were collected for this transfer channel; 32 in total.
Fewer than half the organisations surveyed used this method to technology transfer.
It was noted that in Ireland, the on-going training offer for companies was more
often on offer. The most used instruments were events and communication efforts
32
13
11
5
3
0 10 20 30 40
ShareBiotech ConsortiumTotal Response
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
Technology Transfer through training &continueing
professional devedlopment
ShareBiotech ConsortiumTotal Response
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
164
by organisations for their promotion. The following technology transfer instruments
in this category were identified in Ireland:
Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer training events were
organised for client companies of the Cork Institute of Technology business
incubator.
(http://www.cit.ie/industry_innovation/entrepreneurswhipandbusiness/).
Shannon ABC Open Days included tours of laboratories, workshops on
current equipment and techniques. (http:/www.shannonabc.ie/)
Institute of Technology Blanchardstown custom training sessions for
companies (http://www.itb.ie/industryinnovation/industrytraining.html).
Question 5: Does your organisation use specific instruments (e.g. legislation,
communication tools) or incentives (e.g. specific grants) to encourage or allow the
members of a company or research group to work for another organisation at the
same time? (For example, in France, legislation allows academic researchers to work
up to 6 years in a start-up company, exploiting their research).
Figure 3.86: Technology Transfer through secondment results in ShareBiotech
partner areas; Spain did not use secondment as a driver of TT and use was low in
Portugal and Ireland at (2 to 5) respectively with France at (12) was the biggest user
of this method.
Only 25% of the organisations respondent to the survey used this technology transfer
channel which allowed researchers to work in an academic laboratory and a
company at the same time. Organisations interviewed in Navarra (Spain) made no
mention of this technology transfer channel. In Ireland, academic researchers were
allowed to work in any organisation providing they had the funding in place to do so.
They could engage in research with a company to develop a product or service as
long as they delivered the agreed workload to the company and this did not conflict
19
12
5
2
0
0 5 10 15 20
ShareBiotech Consortium…
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
Technology Transfer through secondment
ShareBiotech ConsortiumTotal Response
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
165
with their academic employment contract. In France, this transfer channel was
highly regulated and a law was passed in 1999 which governed the conditions
allowing an academic researcher to work within a private company. Some examples
in Ireland were as follows:
University Leave of Absence Scheme: Leave of absence was recognised as
unpaid leave that was granted for a minimum period of 2 weeks and a
maximum period of 12 months. If leave of absence was granted, the
employee’s position was held open, or filled on a temporary basis. This
policy was operated in the University of Limerick. (http://www.ul.ie/).
Researchers at the Cork Institute of Technology could “buy out” time to
become involved in start-up companies.
(http://www.cit.ie/industry_innovation).
Question 6: Does your organisation use specific instruments (e.g. communication
tools) or incentives (e.g. call for projects, specific grants) to encourage collaborative
research between academic partners and industry?
Figure 3.87: The graph indicated that (19) organizations in Ireland used training and
continuing professional development as a tech transfer channel which was the same
as Portugal, while France at (51) used TT through collaborative research more than
all the ShareBiotech regions with Spain the lowest at(8).
Almost all the organisations surveyed used this transfer channel. A total of 97
responses were given by the organisations surveyed which indicated widespread use
of this channel. From the data, it was concluded that the European Union was well
aware of the significance of this transfer channel in bring innovative projects to
fruition. More than 50% of the instruments used corresponded to project funding.
This funding was available in the form or innovation vouchers used extensively in
AIT who provided services to ~900 companies, and minor funding to support major
97
51
19
19
8
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
ShareBiotech ConsortiumTotal Response
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
Technology Transfer through collaborative research
ShareBiotech ConsortiumTotal Response
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
166
innovative strategic projects. Some examples of this transfer channel identified in
Ireland were as follows:
Enterprise Ireland Innovation Voucher Scheme: The Innovative Voucher
Scheme was developed to build links between Irelands public knowledge
providers (i.e. Higher Education Institutes (HEI’s); public research bodies)
and small businesses. Innovation vouchers worth €5,000 were available to
assist companies to explore a business opportunity or problem with a
registered knowledge provider. The Innovative vouchers initiative was
available to SME’s in Ireland with less than 50 employees.
(http:www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/Research-Innovation/Companies/
Collaborate-with-companies-research-institutes/Innovation-
Voucher.shortcut.html). The programme originated in Holland.
Science Foundation Ireland Research Centres Programme: SFI invested
in academic researchers and research teams who were most likely to generate
new knowledge, leading-edge technologies and competitive enterprises in the
fields of science and engineering underpinning three broad areas: 1)
biotechnology, 2)Information and communication technology, 3) Sustainable
and energy-efficient technologies. (http:www.sfi.ie/funding/finding-calls/
open-calls/).
SFI Infrastructure Call: This programme was established to facilitate
established multi-PI groups to engage in exploratory collaboration with
another party – such as another research centre or an industry partner
company with a view to developing a long-term collaboration
(http:www.sfi.ie/funding/finding-calls/open-calls/).
Question 7: Does your organisation use specific instruments (e.g. communication
tools) or incentives (e.g. specific grants, networking activities) to encourage service
supply & consultancy between academic partners and industry?
There were 63 respondents to this question across the ShareBiotech consortium.
Communication was the instrument most used for the development of service
provision between academics and companies. A large volume of websites were
created to present the various offers and technological platforms available to
companies. Nevertheless, the majority of these existing databases tended to render
the information difficult for companies to read. The ShareBiotech consortium used
the platform “The Biotech Knows” to post technology demands from SME’s in the
Atlantic Area with a view to bridging the technology gap.
167
Figure 3.88: Technology Transfer through contract research (service supply) &
consultancy was highest in France at (28) with Ireland and Portugal even at (15), and
Spain lowest at (5).
Examples of this technology transfer pathway identified in the Irish ShareBiotech
Technology Transfer survey were as follows:
Strategic Consultancy Grants: The SME Consultancy Grant supported the
cost of hiring Strategic Consultants to assist in the development and/or
implementation of strategic initiatives in the SME. It was designed to
facilitate business growth: consultants acted as coaches, mentors, facilitators,
analysts, negotiator and/or operator for the company. (http:www.enterprise-
ireland.com/en/Funding-Supports/Company/Establish-SME-
Funding/Strategic-Consultancy-Grant.html)
Research Institutes Websites: The websites presented the competencies of
their own laboratories and platforms e.g. Shannon ABC
(http://www.shannonabc.ie); Athlone Institute of Technology
(http://www.ait.ie); Institute of Technology Blanchardstown
(http://www.itb.ie).
Question 8: Does your organisation use specific instruments (e.g. legislation,
communication tools) or incentives (e.g. call for projects, specific grants) to support
the creation of spin-outs?
Figure 3.89: Technology Transfer through legislation, communication tools or
incentives to support spin-outs was highest in France at (19), and even in Portugal
and Ireland at (14) each, while lowest in Spain at (7).
63
28
15
15
5
0 20 40 60 80
ShareBiotech Consortium…
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
Technology Transfer through contract research (service supply)
& consultancy
ShareBiotech Consortium TotalResponse
France
Ireland
Portugal
54
19
14
14
7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
ShareBiotech Consortium…
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
Technology Transfer through spin-outs
ShareBiotech ConsortiumTotal Response
France
Ireland
Portugal
168
Almost 60% of the organisations surveyed used the creation of spin-outs as a transfer
channel. Spin-outs occur when a corporation breaks off parts or divisions of it to
form a new corporation. In all surveyed countries, systems were identified to assist
the creation of innovative companies arising out of academic research e.g. incubators
offered support in the form of training, consultancy and seeking finance. Incubators
also made office and wet-lab space available to young companies. Some technology
transfer through spin-outs instruments identified in Ireland was as follows:
Enterprise Ireland Start-up Incubation Space: Enterprise Ireland funded
both business and bio-incubation centres on college campuses across Ireland,
which provided an ideal environment for start-up companies. More than 200
companies employed more than 1,000 people were based in Irish incubation
centres funded by EI (httpp://www.enterprise-
ireland.com.en/Researchers/Spin-Outs/Start-Up-Incubation-Space.html).
New Frontiers Entrepreneur Development Programme (NFWDP): New
Frontiers Ireland was developed as Ireland’s national entrepreneur
development programme. It was delivered at local level by the Irish
Institutes of Technology. The New Frontiers Ireland Programme
entrepreneurs who were planning to develop a concept by starting a new
company with support to accelerate the business development and equip it
with the skills and contacts needed to successfully start and grow the
company (http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/Start-a-Business-in-
Ireland/Supports-for-High-Potential-Start-Ups/New-Frontiers-Entrepreneur-
Development-Programme.html).
Question 9: Does your organisation use specific instruments (e.g. legislation
communication tools) incentives (e.g. specific grants) to support the creation of
shared facilities between academic partners and companies?
Figure 3.90: Technology Transfer through shared facilities; this method was similar
in Spain, Portugal, and Ireland at (4, 5, & 6) respectively while France was the
biggest user of this method at (28).
28
13
6
5
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ShareBiotech ConsortiumTotal Response
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
Technology Transfer through Shared facilities
ShareBiotech ConsortiumTotal Response
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
169
Half of the organisations researched cited the existence of research structures that
were shared between academic and industrial partners. The objective of this was to
systematically create technology transfer by setting up mixed structures to allow
regular exchanges between these actors, and ultimately move from fundamental
research to applied research. It was also envisaged that this would enable a given
sector the ability to respond faster to a market need. Identified examples of
technology transfer through shared facilities in Ireland were:
Science Foundation Ireland’s Infrastructure Call; This initiative
encouraged the efficient use, renewal, and development of existing national
research infrastructures whilst also recognising the need for continued
investment in cutting-edge research equipment. The emphasis in this
research infrastructure call was placed on collaborative efforts and liaison
with industry, with the goal of sustaining and strengthening Ireland’s
research base for all stakeholders (http://www.sfi.ie/funding/funding-calls).
Question 10: Does your organisation use specific instruments (e.g. communication
tools) or incentives (e.g. specific grants, call for projects) to support industrial
protection of research results (e.g. with patent)?
Figure 3.91: Technology Transfer through patents was most popular in France at
(19) with Portugal and Ireland scoring (17 & 13) respectively while least popular in
Spain at (5).
Two thirds of the organisations surveyed used patents to facilitate technology
transfer. The study revealed that patents were the preferred instrument used by
academics to protect their innovations. The following technology transfer through
patents initiatives were identified in Ireland through the ShareBiotech technology
transfer survey:
54
19
13
17
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
ShareBiotech Consortium…
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
Technology Transfer through patents
ShareBiotech ConsortiumTotal Response
France
Ireland
Portugal
170
Enterprise Ireland Technology Transfer Supports (EITTS): The
National Technology Transfer System was created to enable the transfer of
commercially valuable research outputs to industry. Funding sources
included Enterprise Ireland, The Higher Education Authority (HEA), Science
Foundation Ireland (SFI) and others. This support enabled researchers in
higher education institutes to invent new technologies, and develop solutions
in challenging areas such as healthcare, transport, energy, engineering, food,
software, and telecommunications. It was hoped that solutions and inventions
would form the basis for new companies, or could be used by existing
companies to develop new products and services to open up new markets.
The technology transfer system played a significant role in bringing new
initiatives to a commercial reality. (http://www.enterprise-
ireland.com/en/Researchers/Technology-Transfer-Support-System/)
Invention Disclosure Reports (IDR): These were available in all
universities, research centres, and institutes of technology. They facilitated
decisions to be made as to whether patent protection should be sought in
relation to a particular invention.
Technology Institutes / Centre Grants and Support for IP: The Institute
of Technology Tallaght provided patent filing services, expertise and
financial supports in relation to IP; Shannon ABC provided grants for
funding IP costs and organised meetings relating to IP. They provided
assistance to companies through all stages of IP protection. (http://www.it-
tallaght.ie/technologytransferoffice);
(http://www.shannonabc.ie/intellectualproperty.php).
Question 11: Does your organisation use specific instruments (e.g. communication
tools, websites) or incentives (e.g. grants to help proof of concept) to support
licencing activities or project maturation?
4.92: Technology Transfer through licensing and project maturation was highest in
France and Ireland scoring (21 & 16) respectively with Portugal scoring (7) while
Spain did not register using this method.
44
21
16
7
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
ShareBiotech Consortium…
France
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
Technology Transfer through licencing & project maturation
ShareBiotech ConsortiumTotal Response
France
Ireland
Portugal
171
There were a total of 44 respondents to survey question 11. It was noted that 53% of
organisations were fostering licencing and maturation stages and 65% were fostering
patent applications. More than 60% of identified transfer channels related to project
financing and engineering. The maturation phase for patented technologies in the
field of life sciences demanded input from innovation support structures as well as
significant levels of investment. The presentation of patented technologies to
industry likely to obtain licences required the use of communication tools (e.g. B2B
meetings, internet portals, newsletters, etc.). Transfer pathways relating to question
11identified in Ireland were as follows:
Enterprise Ireland Commercialisation Fund Programme (EICFP): The
aim of the Commercialisation Fund was to improve the competiveness of the
Irish economy through the creation of technology-based start-up companies
and the transfer of innovative technologies developed in higher education
institutes and research centres to Irish industry. Funding was available to
support the development of technologies throughout all phases of the
commercial pipeline. (http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/funding-
suports/Researcher/Funding-to-Commercialise-Research/Commercialisation-
Fund-Programme-Commercial-Case-Feasibility-Grant.html).
Table 3.7: Conclusion: Results Synthesis Table records each countries average
percentage, lowest yes count, and highest yes count for each method of TT used and
records each country’s most common type of instrument to foster TT. The total
numbers of instruments cited are also shown. Q
No.
Transfer channels % of organisations answering Yes Total No. of
instruments
cited (may
be identical)
Most common
types of
instruments
Average
for the
consortium
%
Country
lowest
yes
count %
Country
highest
yes
count %
Q1 Student
placement/Graduate
employment
45% Portugal
33%
Ireland
58%
56 Funding
Q2 Joint supervision 49% France
39%
Ireland
58%
33 Funding
Engineering
Q3 Joint conferences 76% Portugal
67%
83% 73 Meetings
communication
Q4 Training and
professional
45% Portugal
27%
Ireland
67%
32 Meetings
172
development
Q5 Secondment 27% Spain
0%
Ireland
42%
19 Engineering
Q6 Collaborative
research
90% Spain
75%
Ireland
100%
97 Funding
Engineering
Communication
Q7 Contract research &
consultancy
67% Spain
50%
Ireland
73%
63 communication
Q8 Spin-outs 59% Spain
25%
France
Ireland
67%
54 Funding
engineering
Q9 Shared facilities 51% Portugal
40%
Spain
75%
28 All
Q10 Patents 65% Portugal
60%
Ireland
75%
54 all
Q11 Licencing 53% Spain
0%
Ireland
83%
44 Funding
Engineering
communication
3.10 Natural Products Companies surveyed in Ireland
Thirty one Natural Products Companies whose activities included biotechnology
were surveyed. The companies were selected using search engines e.g. the
Biotechnology Ireland website, internet searches and Molecular Medicine Ireland
(MMI). The companies were contacted via email and telephone to raise awareness
about the ShareBiotech Project among the N.P. companies and to establish the
willingness of the companies to partake in a telephone survey aimed at identifying
problems perceived in the normal day-to-day running of their businesses, e.g. access
to cutting edge technologies, funding, access to government agencies, technology
transfer among other topics. Ten questions covering ten areas relative to
ShareBiotech project aims were drafted (Methodology). The companies identified
who confirmed their willingness to be interviewed are shown in (Table 3.7). The
companies were also asked if they were willing to attend Local Technology
Meetings (LTM’s), the agendas which would be decided following analysis of the
surveys and the classification of all biotechnology companies interviewed into
common categories. The companies were grouped into 10 categories decided by their
173
area of business (Ref Table 3.8). In total 132 SME’s were surveyed which
comprised biotechnology companies, NP companies, research centers and TCF’s. It
was observed that some companies belonged to two or more themes which caused
overlaps in certain areas.
Table 3.8 Natural Products Companies comprising mainly of SME’s in the marine
sector; generally involved in harvesting of seaweed and sea vegetables, for
processing into bio-products, i.e. health foods, Bio-pharma, cosmetics, etc.
Interviewed in Ireland
NATURAL PRODUCTS LOCAL TECHNOLOGY MEETING
(SHAREBIOTECH) COMPANY ATTENDEE
NAME
EMAIL PHONE SERVICES
PROVIDED
Microbide
Ltd.
Mary Skelly [email protected]
01 480
0563
Aldehyde biocide
formulations
DTL Biotech
Ltd
Denis Looby Pharmaceuticals
Life Scientific Nicola
Mitchell
[email protected] 01 283
2024
Developing &
registering plant
protection products &
provision of
bio/pharmaceutical
analytical development
services
Trustwater
Ltd
Edmond
O’Reilly
6170818
Water & general
disinfection
technologies
AlgAran Ltd Rosaria
Piseri
[email protected] 074 973
8961
Researches Irish
seaweed extracts
Arramara
Teoranta
Noreen
Breannach
[email protected] 095 33404
095 33417
State owned company
harvesting seaweed for
production of alginates,
seaweed meal for
agriculture,
horticulture, and
aquaculture industries
Bio-Atlantis
Ltd
John T
O’Sullivan
[email protected] 066 711
8477
Development &
production of
neutraceutical
ingredients for plant,
human and animal
markets from seaweed
Blath Na
Mara
Mairtin
Concannon
[email protected] 087 618
3841
Harvesting macro-
algae (seaweed)
Brandon
Products Ltd
Henry Lyons [email protected] 087 2608
482
Biotechnology
company that develops
and commercialises
products derived from
Marine Raw Materials
Cybercolours
Ltd
[email protected] 021 437
5755
Food ingredient
company specialising
in sourcing, research,
development,
manufacture,
promotion and
marketing of natural
174
food colours
Irish
Seaweeds Ltd
Gus Heath [email protected]
+44 (0)
289061
7512
Hand harvesting
seaweed and sea
vegetables for the
seaweed market in
Ireland
Irish seaweed
processors
Ltd
Tony Barrett [email protected] 0909 749
071
Glasrai Mara
Port Lairge
Nicholas
Paul
058 46168 Harvests sea vegetables
for culinary use
LoTide Fine
Foods
Seamus
Moran
[email protected] 098 42616 Harvests Atlantic sea
vegetables for supply
into speciality food
shops
Matigot Ltd Michael
Ryan
4378377
Seaweed harvesting
On The Wild
Side
Oliver
Beaujouan
[email protected] 066 713
9028
Collects seaweed to
make a selection of
speciality foods
available in markets
Quality Sea
Vegetables
Manus
Mc’Gonagle
[email protected] 074 954
2159
Seaweed harvesting to
produce dried seaweed
and grinds and blends
seaweed to produce
seaweed condiments
Roaringwater
Bay Seaweed
Co-op
Diana Pitcher [email protected] 028 38483 The Co-op harvests
seaweed, and supplies
to the food,
pharmaceutical, beauty
and live-stock
industries
Spanish Point
Sea
Vegetables
Gerald Talty [email protected] 085 1648
648
065 708
7395
Harvesting sea
vegetables
Carabay
Seaweed
Health
Products
Graham
Casburn
773370
Seaweed harvesting
Carraig
Fhada
Betty Melvin
Frank Melvin
[email protected] 096 49042 Hand harvesting
seaweed and drying for
supply to health food
shops
Cleggan
Seaweed
Company
John King [email protected] 095 44649 Harvesting seaweed for
supply to health food
shops, also, producing
“Sea Pickle”
Erin Seaweed
and Shellfish
Gerald
Heneghan
097 84976 Sustainable harvesting
of seaweed
Ri Na Mara Deirdre Ui
Chathmhaoil
[email protected] 091 55307 On-going R&D
program into organic
products (seaweed) ,
development of
products for
distribution
Nationally&
Internationally, with
FDA approval
Seavite
Bodycare Ltd
Patrick
Mulrooney
521351
investigating the
healing properties of
sea produce
VOYA
Products Ltd
Neill Walton [email protected] 071 916
8956
Hand harvested
seaweed, to produce
speciality skin care
175
products
Seaweed
Ireland Ltd
Ria Peters [email protected] 083
4087040
027 74808
Marine product
research
Gaia Biotech
Ltd
Stephen
Kavanagh
229316
Research, development
and marketing of
marine bioactive
substances for food and
cosmetic industries.
Research
commercialisation of
natural health products
Westgate
Biological
Mark
Clifford
[email protected] 023 54944 Natural Antimicrobial
Biocide Production
Xenith
Biomed
- - - -
Table 3.9 Shows the grouping of surveyed SME’s, & N.P. companies into categories
according to their area of expertise for the purpose of organizing Local Technology
Meetings
(1) BIOTECHNOLOGY SME’s ANTIMICROBIAL/BIOCIDES SME LOCATION CONTACT PHONE EMAIL
Westgate
Biological
Dublin2 Ireland Mr. Mark
Clifford
+353 23
54944
Email:[email protected]
Xenith Biomed Galway, Ireland Mr Kulwant
Singh
+091-
593900
CeBec Group
Ltd.
Galway, Ireland. Sean Daly
+353 91 443
913/4
Microbide Ltd Dublin Dr. Deirdre
McDonnell-Lee,
+353 (0)1
480 0563
moc.ediborcim@ofni
Life Scientific
Ltd
Dublin. Ireland. Nichola Mitchell
+353 1
2832024
Trustwater Ltd Clonmel, Ireland Edmond
O’Reilly
+353 52
6170818
(2) BIOTECHNOLOGY SME’s CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS SME Location Contact Phone Email
Ardmac Dublin, Ireland Gwen O'Brien + 353 (0)1
894 8800 [email protected]
Airmid
Healthgroup Ltd
Dublin. Ireland Angela
Southey
+ 353
(0)1633 6820
Clearsphere Cork, Ireland. David Tipping 353(0)21
4371175
Ardmac Dublin, Ireland. Ronan Quinn 353 (0)1
8948800
(3) BIOTECHNOLOGY SME’s VETINARY SME Location Contact Phone Email
IdentiGEN Dublin Ireland Ciaran
Meghen
+ 353 1
6770221
Enfer Naas, Ireland Martin
Crowley
+353 45
983800
Tridelta
Maynooth
Ireland.
Brian Hett
+353 1
6290635
176
Bimeda Dublin Ireland Brendan
Smith
+353 1
4515011
Ovagen
Group Ltd
Ballina,
Ireland.
Catherine
Caulfield
+353 96
75579
Protectas
Health LTD
Dublin David
Crimmins
+353 1
2541841
Chanelle
Veterinary
Galway,
Ireland
Breda
Mc'Cormack
+353
(0)91
841788
The Irish
Equine
Centre
Naas, Ireland Mark Sherry
+353 45
866266
(4) BIOTECHNOLOGY SME’s/DRUG DEVELOPMENT SME Location Contact Phone Email
New Vistas
Healthcare
Limerick.
Ireland
Martin
Murray
+ 353(0) 61 334455 [email protected]
EirGen Pharma
Ltd.
Waterford
Ireland
Patsy Carney +353 (0)51 591944 [email protected]
Azur Pharma
Limited
Dublin
Ireland
Mr. Seamus
Mulligan
+353 (1) 634 4183
AGI
Therapeutics
Ltd.
Dublin
Ireland
Dr. John
Devane
+353(0)1449 3250 [email protected]
HiberGen Bray
Ireland.
Greg
McGuinness
+353 (0)1 276 9898 [email protected]
Crescent
Diagnostics
Limerick,
Ireland
Ernest Poku +353 (0)1 433 3096 [email protected]
Genable
Technologies
Ltd
Dublin
Ireland
Professor
Jane Farrar
+353(0)1 896 3390 [email protected]
Janseen Ireland
Ltd
Dublin,
Ireland
+ 353 (0)1 620 2300
The Centre for
Human
Proteomics
Dublin Derek
Murphy
Ph.D.
+353 (0)1 402 8518 [email protected]
Amarin
Corporation
Dublin
Ireland
Joseph S.
Zakrzewski
+353 (0) 1 6699 02
Thrombogenics Dublin
Ireland
Professor
Désiré Collen
+353 (0) 1 63911 78 [email protected]
Reliance Gene
Medix plc.
Tullamore,
Ireland.
Conor O'Dea +353 5793 235 72 c.odea@genemedix
Genzyme
Ireland Ltd.
Waterford,
Ireland
Mr Michael
Walsh
+353(0)51 594147/Mob
087 9056643
Elan/Arkimas Athlone,
Ireland.
Yvonne
Kennedy
+353(0) 90649 5000 [email protected]
Xeolas
Pharmaceuticals
Dublin
Ireland
Damien
Flynn
+353(0) 1
7007468/Mob 353 86
8097219
Vysera
Biomedical Ltd.
Galway,
Ireland
Tony
keavney
+353(0)91 8622 02 [email protected]
Sigmoid
Pharmaceuticals
Dublin Ivan S.
Coulter,
+353 (0)1
7007511/Mob 087
4186087
Pharmatrin Ltd. Dublin
Ireland
Neil Frankish +353(0)167098 65 [email protected]
177
Opsona
Therapeutics
Dublin
Ireland
Jeremy
Skillington
+35(0)1 89684 99 [email protected]
Merrion
Pharmaceuticals,
Ltd.
Dublin
Ireland
Jonathan
O'Connel
+353(0)16423300 [email protected]
Alimentary
Healthcare Ltd
Cork,
Ireland
Brian Barrett 353 (0)21 42991 04 [email protected]
(5) BIOTECHNOLOGY SME’s/ HEALTH CARE/TESTS SME Location Contact Phone Email
Allergy
Standards Ltd
Dublin
Ireland
Andrea Richardson
+353 (0)1 675
5678
andrea(at)allergystandards.com
Biotrin Dublin,
Ireland.
DesmondO'Leary +353 (0)1
2831166
Trinity Biotech
Ltd
Bray Ireland Rachael O'Shea
+ 353 1
2769800
Argutus
Medical
Dublin,
Ireland
Joe Keenan
353 1
6708576 Ext:
201
Audit
Diagnostics
Cork, Ireland Michael
O’Donovan
+353 21
4533652
Megazyme
International
Ireland Ltd.
Bray, Ireland.
Barry McCleary
+353 1
2861220
Biomonitor A/S Galway,
Ireland
Arsalan Kharazmi
+353
091862664
Anecto Ltd Galway.
Ireland.
Yvonne Kearney +353 91
757404
(6) BIOTECHNOLOGY SME’s/ HEALTHCARE/BIOPRODUCTS SME Location Contact Phone Email
Mednova Galway
Ireland
+353
91758026
Embricon Ltd Galway,
Ireland
Marto Hoary +353 91
585599
Innocoll Ltd Athlone,
Ireland
Denise Carter
+353 9064
86834
Beeline
Healthcare Ltd
Dublin
Ireland
Jerry Finn
+353 (1) 457
50 11
Proxy
Biomedical.
Galway,
Ireland
Peter Mulrooney
+353
(0)91896900
(7) BIOTECHNOLOGY SME’s/ MEDICAL DEVICES SME Location Contact Phone Email
EnBIO Dublin Ireland Joe O’Keeffe +353 (0)1
525 3305
Audit Diagnostics Cork, Ireland Michael
O’Donovan
+353 (0)21
4533652
Biosensia Dublin Ireland Diarmuid
Flavin
+353 (0)1
7163650
Enzolve
Technologies Ltd
Dublin 4,
Rep. Ireland
Stuart
Cramer
+353 (0)1
7163633
Smurfit Institute of Dublin Ireland Gearóid +353 (0)1 [email protected]
178
Genetics, Tuohy 608 3390
Innicoll Ltd. Athlone,
Ireland
Denise
Carter
353 (0)9064
86834
Genzyme Ireland
Ltd.
Waterford,
Ireland
Mr Michael
Walsh
+353 (0)51
594147
Proxy Biomedical. Galway.
Ireland
Peter
Mulrooney
+ 353 (0) 91
896900
Stokes Bio Limited Limerick,
Ireland
Professor
Mark Davies
+ 353 (0)
61506200
Mavaro Medical
Devices
Galway,
Ireland
Chris Davey +353 (0)91
759 301
Clada Medical
Devices
Galway
Ireland
Ray Blowick + 353 (0)91
572040
Serosep Ltd. Limerick.
Ireland
Dermot
Scanlon
+ 353 (0)61
440207
Creganna Ltd Galway
Ireland
Graeme
Reese
+ 353 (0)91
757801
Sigma-
Aldrich Ireland Ltd
Wicklow,
Ireland
Nicola
McCarthy
1800 200
888
(8) BIOTECHNOLOGY SME’s/ DRUG DELIVERY SME LOCATION CONTACT PHONE EMAIL
EnBIO Ltd Dublin Ireland. Joe O’Keeffe + 353 (0)1 525
3305
Sigmoid
Pharmaceuticals
Dublin. Ireland Ivan S.
Coulter,
+353 (0)1
7007511/ [email protected]
Vysera Biomedical
Ltd.
Galway, Ireland Annette
Mullally
+ 353 (0)91
862202 [email protected]
Innocoll Ltd Athlone, Ireland Denise
Carter
+ 353 (0)9064
86834 [email protected]
Cytrea Dublin Ireland Raphael
Darcy
+ 353 (0) 716
2317 [email protected]
(9) BIOTECHNOLOGY SME’s/ IT SME Location Contact Phone Email
Automsoft Dublin
Ireland
Paraic
O’Toole
+353(0) 1
4491100 [email protected]
Campbell
Informatics
Ltd
Cork,
Ireland
Maura
Connolly
+353
(0)214291336
Clinical
Trial
Endpoint
Ltd
Dublin
Ireland
Stephen
Dorman
+353(0)1
4637346
Compucal
Software
Solutions
Cork
Ireland.
Matthew
Dornan
+353 (0)21
4524682
(10) BIOTECHNOLOGY SME’s , MISCELLANEOUS SME Location Contact Phone Email
Celtic Catalysts Dublin
Ireland.
Brian Kelly +353 (0)1
7163610
Enzolve
Technologies
Ltd
Dublin,
Ireland
Stuart
Cramer
+353 (0)1
7163633
Luxcel
Biosciences Ltd
Biotransfer
Cork,
Ireland.
Fred Klok +353 (0)21
4901447 [email protected]
(Enzyme Technologies)
Sensl Cork, Carl +353 (0)21 [email protected]
179
Technologies
Ltd
Ireland Jackson 4350442
BCD
Engineering
Cork,
Ireland
Richard
Keays
353(0) 86
8370523
Biotector
Analytical
systems Limited
Cork,
Ireland
Miriam
Fitzgibbon
353 (0)21
4374237
BSM Ireland Ltd Galway
Ireland.
Maurice
Hannon
+353 (0)91
746900
Chemstore Ltd. Limerick,
Ireland
Noel
Conolin
+353 (0)61
327792 [email protected]
(Chemical storage)
Stokes Bio
Limited
Limerick,
Ireland
Professor
Mark
Davies
+ 353 (0)
61506200 [email protected] (genetic analysis
enhanced plant breeding)
The Centre for
Human
Proteomics
Dublin
Ireland
Derek
Murphy
Ph.D.
+353 (0)1 402
2261 [email protected]
(Genetics)
Genable
Technologies
Ltd
Dublin
Ireland
Professor
Jane Farrar
+353 (0)1 896
3390 [email protected]
(gene medicines)
Biostór Wexford,
Ireland.
Peadar
Mac
Gabhann
+353 (0)53
9161398 [email protected]
(high purity liquid processing)
OVAGEN
GROUP Ltd
Ballina,
Ireland.
Catherine
Caulfield
+353 (0)96 75
579
Technopath Ballina,
Ireland
Dave
Sullivan
+ 353 (0)61 33
5844
LUXCEL
BIOSCIENCES
Ltd
Cork
Ireland.
Fred Klok +353 (0)21 490
1447
(Food sensors/
Instrumentation food safety)
Carl Stuart Ltd Dublin
Ireland
Stuart
Smith
+353 (0)1452
3432
[email protected] (Chromatography
consumables)
Biosensia Dublin
Ireland
Diarmuid
Flavin
+353 (1)716 3650 [email protected] (In-vitro
diagnostics/point-of-care)
Audit
Diagnostics
Cork,
Ireland
Michael
O’Donovan
353 (0)214533
652
[email protected] (Liquid
ready to use reagents)
Opsona
Therapeutics
Dublin
Ireland
Jeremy
Skillington
353 (0)18968499 [email protected] (Modulating
human innate immune system)
IdentiGEN Dublin
Ireland
Ciaran
Meghen
+ 353 (0)1 677
0221
(DNA traceability solutions food)
EnBIO Dublin
Ireland
Joe
O’Keeffe
+ 353 (0)1 525
3305
[email protected] (technology for
medical implant surface modification)
Embricon Ltd Galway,
Ireland
Marto
Hoary
+ 353(0) 91
585599 [email protected]
(clinically identified opportunities into
commercially available products)
Berand Ltd. Dublin
Ireland.
Andrew
Foley
+353(0)17163540
+353(0)17163542
(autism & obesity/algae)
Biotrin Dublin,
Ireland.
Mr.
Desmond
O'Leary
+ 353 (0)1
2831166 [email protected]
(diagnostic tests for novel viruses)
180
Table 3.10 Results of N.P. Company Telephone Interviews: This table contains
brief summaries and main points of the interviews conducted with the CEO’s of
selected Natural Products SME’s.
COMPANY COMMENTS / NEEDS IDENTIFIED CyberColloids Ltd
Areas that need to be addressed included development of entrepreneurship,
business angels, and finance. It was challenging to access research groups and large
companies and partnership with IT’s were needed. Networking was important but
there was a fear of collaboration among Irish food SME’s. Shannon ABC was not
helpful and difficult to engage. Need to look at Biomass and Biorefineries and
anaerobic digestion. Brainstorming and forward thinking were needed.
Spanish Point Sea-
Vegetables
Funding was an issue as was the need to move to online sales and expertise in E-
Marketing. Technology was needed for testing nutritional value in seaweed and
extraction of nutrients from seaweed.
Lo-Tide-Foods Having invested €200,000 and built an ISO standard facility the company could not
another €50,000 to continue their business plan. The company has an operating
facility in Denmark where dealing with government is more favourable unlike
dealing with Irish government officials. The company exports seaweed to
Denmark, Sweden, and Japan. The company was unable to access technology to
extract fibre from seaweed at NUIG. Seamus would like to extract MSG from
seaweed because Irish seaweed contains a much healthier form of MSG. Japan uses
vast amounts of MSG in cooking especially soups. Due to the tsunami, Japans
coastline is contaminated and will remain so for the next 100 years. Seamus says if
he could attract more capital, he could employ up to 100 people locally, or have
access to necessary technology. He has not found E.I. helpful and the banks only
play lip-service, and he does not want to see another consultant anywhere. Seamus
has used €5,000 innovation vouchers from NUIG.
Glasrai Mara Port
Lairge
The company has difficulty accessing technology to extract nutrients present in
seaweed. E.I. has not been helpful because the company is located in the Gaeltacht
he is forced to deal with the regional authority Udaras Na Gaeltachta who has not
been very helpful. The company has tried to deal with pharmaceutical companies
but found privacy and protection of I.P. a huge issue.
AlgAran Ltd
Analysis is expensive and difficult to access and results are not standard from one
facility to another. AlgAran have huge demand for seaweed from foreign
companies but cannot meet the demand due to lack of investment in technology and
expense of acquiring such services. AraMara are selling out to Canada or France.
This will ruin the Irish Seaweed industry as the seaweed will not belong to Ireland.
Ireland’s seaweed is the best in the world, not polluted, and the industry should be
developed. Government don’t listen to SME’s and E.I. can’t help because we are
forced to deal with Udaras Na Gaeltacha. Japan’s seaweed industry is
contaminated; Japan is buying seaweed from France because Irish seaweed is too
expensive. AlgAran has packaging technology, and offers service to other
companies, making it a potential CRO/TCF but the industry needs reliable
inexpensive analysis.
Ri Na Mara The main issue identified was lack of funding. The company is forced to rely on
Udaras Na Gaeltacha because B.I.M. has pulled funding to the seaweed industry
and Board Bhia doesn’t help with funding. There is no support for R&D.
Blath Na Mara
Funding is a big issue and the company doesn’t bother with Udaras Na Gaeltachta,
not worth the effort. We can’t meet demand due to lack of facilities and our
business could improve if we could access new technology. Efficient effective
seaweed drying machined are difficult to access. We need to develop on-line-sales
and E-marketing. The Japanese market wide open but can’t take advantage//France
has best technology.
New Vista Healthcare
Legislation dictates that his company do “Regulated Chemical Testing” but there
are no guidelines as to exactly what is needed. There is a need to access validation
technology because products are not validated, BIM will not approve products.
Technology transfer is a big problem; we are 20 years behind other countries. We
need access to high quality testing facilities.
181
Arramara Teoranta
There is a need for networking to get people together to break down barriers.
Company needs added value; company used to export dried seaweed to Scotland
for worldwide distribution. The Scottish link is gone and now the company is 100%
owned by Údarás na Gaeltachta. The company needs a lift, i.e. produce new
products and find a niche in the market. Company has collaborations with I.T.
Tralee and NIUG, for research. Reports produced but knowledge transfer between
HEI and company needs interpretation or tweaking towards end-product. Need
focused technology to develop new products for company to move forward. The
company needs to work closely with researchers and need technology offer and
better knowledge transfer. Next step is production of liquid seaweed as opposed to
dried seaweed, but other companies are years ahead in development, technology
and experience.
3.11 Local Technology Meetings Organized
Towards 21st Century Toxicology
The collaborative conference organised between the ShareBiotech consortium and
the Irish Society of Toxicology (IST) was hosted in Athlone Institute of Technology
(AIT) on the 3rd
and 4th
of November 2012. The conference represented a new
collaborative model between the IST and the AIT associated EU project.
ShareBiotech was devoted to collecting information and proposing new strategies for
developing and managing core technologies within biotechnology – this includes
organising advanced research technology meetings. Toxicology is a multi-domain
discipline, but a major component embracing cell and molecular biology falls within
biotechnology. As a discipline focused on chemical and material evaluation to ensure
safety, toxicology has traditionally been quite conservative regarding the
development, validation, and adoption of new methods and technologies. Towards
the end of the 20th C, there was a wide appreciation that toxicology would inevitably
have to advance considerably in the 21st C to ensure human and environmental
safety and minimise failures on the part of the pharma and medical device sectors –
the label of 21st C toxicology has therefore been widely deployed in Europe, the US
and Japan.
To ensure this conference seriously addressed, presented and provided a forum to
discuss critical elements of current toxicology failures and emerging solutions, it was
necessary to attract a number of key researchers and providers from across the world.
These included:
Prof Thomas Hartung of John Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public
Health and former head of ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of
Alternative Methods) who is currently involved in the implementation of the US
182
National Research Council vision document “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century –
a vision and a strategy”. Dr Eckhard von Keutz, the Senior VP, Head of Global Early
Development, in Bayer Healthcare, responsible for their toxicology and committed
to effectiveness and efficiencies. Dr David Dix, Deputy Director of the National
Centre for Computational Toxicology in the US, which is a member of the US 21st
C Toxicology programme. Dr Richard Brennan of DABT of Thomson Reuters in
San Diego in the US is involved in development and application of software under
systems biology for applications in toxicology. Prof Richard Walmsley of Gentronix
Ltd., and the University of Manchester has developed new approaches for
Genotoxicology screening and Dr Annette Bitsch from the ITEM Fraunhofer in
Hannover in Germany, is an expert in regulatory toxicology. Dr Sophie Rocks of the
University of Cranfield in the UK has a history of evaluating approaches to address
crucial nanotoxicology problems, and Dr Olivier Kah, a Research Director in the
University of Rennes, France has developed remarkable transgenic animal models.
Paul Tomkins, covered AIT research that has been devoted to the development of 3D
cell culture models, which are accepted as a next generation approach for in vitro
partial, tissue simulation. The conference also hosted presentations by AIT and UCD
researchers and posters from researchers in AIT, NUIG, and UCD. Vincent Walsh a
member of the AIT ShareBiotech team, along with Dr Paul Tomkins, gave a
presentation entitled “Core Facilities Impact on Toxicology” covering the overlap
between toxicology testing methods and modern biotechnology in-vitro analysis
methods, and the possible impact of the ShareBiotech transnational network of
Technical Core Facilities on the toxicology sector.
The conference was attended by ~ 80 people from H.E., government agencies and
industry. Charles River, a major international toxicology CRO contributed to
sponsorship of the meeting. There was a vocal attendee view that the meeting had
permitted the dissemination of new, important, and exciting data and information.
Intrinsic deficits in some core toxicology were clearly defined and the need and basis
for mechanistic focused solutions presented. The application of substantive robotic
technology and generation of complex multivariate data demanding sophisticated
systems biology type analysis presented real evidence of accurate predictive
toxicology over a very short time frame with world-wide multi user access. At the
beginning of the conference, the notion of 21st C toxicology may have been
183
considered rather aspirational, while at the end it was effectively considered
achievable.
Developing a Natural Products Business
The LTM was held on September 3rd
2012 at the Midlands Innovation Center, AIT.
The objective was to develop, facilitate and engage with SME’s in the Agri-bio/
Agri-food sectors. The LTM was organised by the Office of Research at AIT and
held in the Midland Innovation and Research Centre. In addition to the academic
meetings, attendees toured the research facilities at AIT. It is hoped that such
networking will be followed up, and exploited, to enable greater cross fertilisation of
research themes.
It was identified during telephone interviews that the small N.P companies had
difficulty attending meetings due to low staffs numbers and company commitments;
therefore; the meetings were videoed and posted on YouTube under “ShareBiotech”.
Although 68 invites were sent to the sectors of interest, a total of 12 people attended
the meeting; however; a total of 355 hits were recorded on YouTube. The attendees
came from Ireland, UK, and Spain.
Five speakers presented on their technologies, these being:
Ross Campbell, (Cybercolloids Ltd.) spoke on applications of hydrocolloids
in Food.
Ines Del Campo (U. Navarra) outlined her facility’s biofuel production
capabilities.
Simon Faulkner (Ocean Harvest Ltd.) spoke of how his company exploits the
rich resource that is the Atlantic Ocean.
Margaret Patterson (A.F.B.I., N.I.) showed how her institute is developing
high pressure technology to produce novel food stuffs.
Paul Murphy (NUIG) explained how nature provides a rich pallet of natural
products and the hurdles to their commercialisation.
While the opportunities for networking were many, the critical issue remained the
means by which live commercial projects could be cycled through so that a rapid
viable response to the SME was elicited. The assembly of a Knowledge Toolbox
comprising the technologies outlined in the talks could be quickly brought to bear to
meet these SME’s needs. For this to happen require a recognised forum that allows
dissemination and discussion of such technology needs. It was suggested that
184
laboratories could combine their offerings for the advancement of solutions
benefiting SME’s.
The actions suggested during the meeting that might be beneficial to SME’s were as
follows
1. Continue to probe the biotech and agri-bio sectors for means by which
TCF’s can better satisfy R&D needs.
2. Highlight and facilitate access by SME’s to TCF’s.
3. Identify R&D funding streams accessible to SME’s
4. Ensure project roadmaps, timelines and budgets are explained upfront.
5. Put in place a process for managing expectations
Decontamination Technology Needs
An LTM was held on 4th
of September 2012 focusing on the theme of
“Decontamination Technologies”. The objective was to facilitate and engage with
SME’s in the agri-bio/agri-food sectors. A total of 68 invitation letters were
disseminated to organisations in this domain and related domains. On the day of the
conference, 13 invitees attended from a variety of sectors i.e. HEI’s, Industry, and
research institutions from France and Ireland. The meeting was videoed and posted
on YouTube for maximum dissemination.
Considering technology gaps and needs identified in telephone interviews and in the
Activity 3 interviews (companies, research institutions, TCF’s), five speakers who
are experts in their areas gave presentations outlining their technologies and access
policies. The speakers were:
Jim Lyng (UCD) spoke of the application of pulsed electric field in the
disinfection of perishable foods.
Colin Hill (UCC) equally outlined how bacteriocins were being exploited for
food preservation purposes.
Thierry Benezech (INRA) highlighted the means by which a sterile
production plant could be achieved. INRA is the leading European
agricultural research institute and the second largest public research institute
in France.
Dr. Mary Garvey (AIT) showed how Pulse UV was being employed to
ensure safe potable water.
Dr. Kieran Murray (AIT) gave a talk on opportunities with Gamma-
irradiation.
Euro Science Open Forum (ESOF)
In 2012, Dublin was the European City of Science and hosted ESOF2012 from the
11th
to the 15th
July. The event brought together over 5,000 scientists, business
185
leaders, government officials, policy-makers, and international scientific media
representatives to discuss the best of European science and to address all of the
current major global scientific challenges, including Energy, Climate Change, Food,
and Health.
ESOF is an interdisciplinary, Pan-European meeting held under the auspices of
Euroscience which aims to showcase the latest technologies in science, promote a
dialogue on the role of science and technology in society and public policy and
stimulate public interest in science.
The event is unique in the diversity of delegates who attend; top researchers from the
natural sciences, social sciences, business leaders, senior EU and government
officials, as well as the international scientific media.
ShareBiotech and AIT rented a science booth for a period of 3 days to disseminate
the ShareBiotech project and showcase technologies and services available to
industry in the Bioscience Research Institute (BRI) where the aim was to engage
industry and partners in collaborative projects. A presentation entitled “Analysis of
Biotechnology Cluster Drivers Incorporating the ShareBiotech Project” was
delivered by Vincent Walsh. Over the 3 days there was much interest shown in the
ShareBiotech model and over 400 visits to the science booth were recorded. Each
visitor was given an information pack detailing the project and TCF’S open for
business in AIT.
3.12 The ShareBiotech Audit of Private Company and the
Bioscience Research Institute AIT
As part of Activity 4 in ShareBiotech, the collective bioscience and polymer research
facilities were defined in detail and subject to an analytical audit to identify potential
operative issues Prof Dominique Philippe Martin, Dr. Arnaud Devillez, and Dr.
Audrey Tremeau of IGR-IAE Rennes conducted the TCF audits of assigned facilities
of all partners and issued a long term diagnosis at the University of Nantes meeting
in April 2012. The analysis took cognisance of fundamental variables that influenced
viable and sustainable operation – status of core facilities, projects, funding, human
resourcing, access and utilisation rates, and cost models. The final form of analysis
186
presents data in two forms, action and status flow chart and a table of linked
strengths and weaknesses.
ShareBiotech Audit Results Private Company
Figure 3.93: Spider web graph representing the results of the ShareBiotech audit.
Source:TechToolNov™ Audit
Interpretation of the Spider graphs
Opening of potential market segments
Score of 100: market segment is clearly identified for at least one offer of the TCF.
This offer helps to differentiate clearly the core competence of TCF from other
competitors in the same market segment. The criterion also takes into account the
opportunity in the field, the IP portfolio of the TCF and the position of the TCF on
the market segment.
Score of 0: no market segment identified for the offer of TCF.
Intensity of competition
Score of 100: a lot of competitors are present in the identified market segment. It is
very easy for customers to find other public or private actors offering the same
products or services.
Score of 0: monopolistic situation of the TCF in the identified market segments. It is
difficult for customers to find other providers.
Legitimacy of TCF
Score of 100: TCF benefits from a wide recognition in the academic environment.
This is a support for research programs. Human resources are associated to
publications signature. Furthermore TCF has a current practice of supplier/customer
relation with quality procedure.
Score of 0: It is very difficult for the TCF to benefit from a recognition mark in the
academic field and there is no practice of supplier/customer relation
187
Availability of human resources
Score of 100: human resources have time for setting up new projects more or less
close to the core competences of TCF.
Score of 0: human resources have no time for developing new projects and to take
time for the supplier/customer relationship.
Availability of material resources
Score of 100: equipment is available for new services and/or new partnerships. The
equipment is maintained and upgraded in order to propose the best technological
offers in comparison with the latest technological development proposed by the
builder of equipment in the field. Association with equipment builder can be a
positive appreciation for this criterion.
Score of 0: there is no availability for using the equipment. There is a risk of
obsolescence of equipment despite maintenance and upgrading. We also look at the
risk of future rival technology proposed by the equipment builders.
Knowledge of functioning costs
Score of 100: all the resources mobilized for performing the service, technological
developments, supporting research programs are systematically evaluated and well
known.
Score of 0: there is no knowledge about the cost of resources mobilized for the use
of TCF resources.
Ability for recovering costs
Score of 100: the business model allows recovery of all the functioning costs. There
is no partial price computed. Complete cost is the basis of negotiation with
commercial partners.
Score of 0: standard practices of TCF are free access and free service. It is
impossible to integrate the cost of mobilized resources in the price of TCF offers.
Communication strategy
Score of 100: all communication tools are implemented: catalogue of packaged
offers, website, and professional brochure
Score of 0: no communication tool for prospects.
Table 3.11: SWOT Analysis of private company resulting from the TCF audit
Strengths: Certification and quality proceeding; Marketing and communication;
Financial ROI with benefits in short term; Best state of the art technologies and
equipment; Links with Intertek
Weaknesses: Relationship with academic research teams even for financing of
applied research projects; Ability to regenerate portfolio of research activities High
utilization rate of resources; Protection strategy
Opportunities: New norm as REACH
Threats: Future rival technologies identified (long-term)
188
Table 3.12: Audit Short-term Recommendations for Private Company recommended
by TechToolNov
Short Term Recommendations Knowledge and cost mastering Nothing
Internal Process - HR To develop and reinforce links with research
teams
Develop partnership contracts with equipment
builders
Communication and legitimacy of TCF To participate in the standardization process in
the field of core competencies of TCF
Market To develop specific offers for SME’s
Audit Bioscience Research Institute (BRI) AIT Results
Figure 3.94 This spider graph represents the BRI AIT audit results
Source:TechToolNov™ Audit
Table 3.13: SWOT Analysis BRI resulting from the TCF audit
Strengths: Diversity in the portfolio of activities; Links with research teams; IP
portfolio with private assignees; Leadership in research programs Weaknesses: Age of some equipment; no user on the management committee
Opportunities: Low rate utilization of equipment; To develop some activities with
SME’s; To use IP portfolio to generate royalties
Threats: Turnover of human resources; Ability to have some grants for PhD
students
The subsequent risks and strengths analysis was largely in keeping with internal self-
analysis of the research infrastructure, human resourcing, business model, and
189
research and service projection. Bioscience at AIT had grown significantly over the
past 20 years, but the institute is relatively small and had not embraced a comparable
understanding of research and education H.E., needs, standards, academic autonomy
and a non-market driven future.
Table 3.14: The recommendations of the ShareBiotech audit of the BRI
Short Term Recommendations Knowledge and cost mastering Nothing
Internal Process - HR Integrate customers into the committee
Develop partnership contracts with technology
suppliers to offset technology obsolescence
Consider hiring PhD students from SME’s/Firms
Communication and legitimacy of TCF Organize workshops with leading SME’s/Firms
Market To develop specific offers for SME’s
Figure 3.95: Bioscience Research Institute AIT analysis in terms of flows. Source: Tech
ToolNov™ audit
190
The predicted status is that of a Centre with a viable scale of capable researchers with valid
academic and selected business outputs, but suffering from poor governance model,
inadequate equipment sustainability and an insufficient number of core projects (Figure
3.94).
Audit results and recommendations for the AIT Microscopy TCF
In a typical imaging facility, much of the equipment is I.T. connected for image
capture and processing. This was recognized as a deficit in many of the current AIT
facilities. In an institution where microscopy is a priority and ample funding is
available, additional equipment will include duplicate systems. A collection of such
equipment requires maintenance, and thus the operational costs of an imaging
facility are considerable. A major expense is the maintenance contract on the larger
systems. The risk is too high to operate without such support, since the repair cost of
a single major breakdown can exceed the cost of a yearly service contract.
Figure 3.96: Projected optimal staff domains for the AIT Microscopy TCF
ACTIVITY TASKS
Researchers in management roles will be permanent with relevant profile & history; Technician support; Annual maintenance budget; Formal training provided; System part of technology management structure; Dedicated IT support
191
3.13 Software for TCF management
The audit looked at Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) as an
aspect of professional organisation or the BRI. Historically, LIMS were developed
to manage experimental results that related primarily to quality testing, sample
characterisation, and tracking. The audit suggested possible LIMS that could benefit
the TCF. A list of LIMS is shown in Table 3.14.
Table 3.15: List of selected laboratory core facility management systems i.e. LIMS
Software Type URL
OpenCoral Open source http://opencoral.org/
Idea Elan Commercial http://www.ideaelan.com/public/index.aspx
Cirklo Open source http://www.cirklo.org/agendo.php
iLab Commercial http://www.ilabsolutions.com/
BookIt Commercial http://bookit-lab.com/
Stratocore Commercial http://stratacore.com/
3.14 Implementation of the CIRCA Report recommendations
AIT/BRI as part of the ShareBiotech consortium engaged the professional services
of The CIRCA Group to develop a report on the Technology Core Facilities in the
Athlone Institute of Technology. A draft report was delivered on the 25th
of
September 2012. AIT offered a combination of expertise in the defined areas, and
access to relevant equipment. The report found that the accumulated value of the
equipment offer in the BRI AIT would be very difficult and expensive for any Irish
enterprise or organisation to develop a similar resource internally. AIT therefore
offered a centre of competence which was unique in the midlands region and
available in only a limited number of facilities nationally.
The AIT offer was for customized access to the equipment and expertise base.
Depending on need, clients could use the equipment and expertise within the TCF to
whatever extent was required for their needs. At its simplest, this included short-
term basic consulting by TCF staff without use of equipment; or direct use of TCF
equipment by client staff without use of TCF expertise. However, the major
objective was to conduct long-term collaborative R&D projects which would use a
range of AIT expertise and equipment.
192
The TCF plan was seen in the context of AIT as an educational establishment whose
primary purpose was the training and education of primary and post-graduate
students in technology fields. The long-term aim of the TCF was to create a
resource of activity which enhanced the reputation of AIT as a centre for research
and training in the midlands region, and which also developed collaborative linkages
between AIT and regional and national industry. Such linkages supported the
mission of AIT, which was “to contribute to the technological, scientific,
commercial, economic, industrial, social, and cultural development of the state, with
particular reference to the midland region, through the provision of a balanced
education to the highest international standard founded in accessibility, mobility,
collaborative links, and research excellence.”
The report suggested that the provision of the services must therefore either directly
or indirectly support this mission. Direct benefits could include participation of
students in research or service projects; while indirect benefits might include the
enhancement of AIT staff knowledge through their participation in such projects; or
provision of funding which could be used for educational purposes. A further
potential benefit was exposure of students to real industrial issues, and exposure of
potential employers to AIT students. The report noted that AIT was not a
commercial operator and was not solely interested in the provision of commercial
services. This qualification could impact some of the terms and conditions under
which the services might be made available.
Target Market
The report stated that the target markets for the service were (a) companies which
required technical services for their product development, for product accreditation
or for other technical purposes; and (b) research organisations and academic
research groups which required TCF inputs to their research projects. The BRI-TCF
had relevance in many other sectors including diagnostics, cosmetics, veterinary
products, animal feed etc. It also had significant relevance to the industries which
supplied reagents, raw materials and some of the types of equipment which were
used by the pharmaceutical, food, agriculture, and medical device sectors.
The competition for AIT in this market was primarily from other Academic institutions.
However, it was almost certainly the case that no single Irish competitor had precisely the
193
same combination of skills and equipment as the TCF. Several, however, offered some of
the individual services listed above. For instance:
Microscopy Services were offered by several Irish groups coordinated by the
National Bio-Photonics and Imaging Platform Ireland (www.nbipireland.ie).
Cell culture and Bioreactor-related services were offered by the National Institute
for Bioprocessing Research and Training (NIBRT), by Shannon ABC and others.
Scanning Electron Microscopes were available, and available for collaborative
research and for services, within many institutions including:
Institute of Technology Tallaght Dublin (ITTD)
University College Dublin (UCD)
University of Limerick (UL) M
Waterford Institute of Technology (WIT)
Athlone Institute of Technology (AIT)
Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT)
Trinity College Dublin (TCD)
Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology (GMIT)
In short, AIT was not a unique provider of any of the services offered, and the report
recommended that it must differentiate itself from the competition by other factors,
such as the quality of service, the convenience of its location, or the terms and
conditions offered.
Future Development
The report stated that while the TCF services were currently fully in line with current
technology needs, they would not remain so indefinitely. It also noted that
continuing investment must be made in the equipment base, and in the skills of the
associated researchers. Some of this investment would come from basic and applied
research grants obtained by BRI and AIT from non-TCF activities. However, it will
also be necessary to develop a plan for equipment replacement and enhancement,
and for skill development and acquisition. This process must be done in liaison with
wider AIT skill and equipment needs.
Management & Staffing
The CIRCA report found that the TCF management had several internal challenges
which needed addressing within the structure devised for its operation. These
included:
194
1. The ShareBiotech unit shared space and equipment with other services
operated by AIT (Chemistry Platform, and Contract Analytical Services) and
must therefore had close liaison with these services so as to ensure optimal
access to equipment for all parties.
2. Training of staff and students on all technologies needed to be sustainable
and on-going
3. The TCF would not have its own marketing staff. Promotion would be
conducted both by TCF-associated staff and also by AIT Research Office.
Clear information on the current TCF offer must be available at all times as
availability of staff and equipment will change.
4. TCF Equipment and expertise will also be required by AIT staff and students,
whose needs are a priority.
The report suggested that the management must therefore reflect the need for
extensive liaison with other groups within AIT, and also the need for external
consultation on sectoral, regulatory and technology trends which will affect the
relevance and value of the TCF offer. This was obviously not a revelation.
Accordingly, a management structure was proposed which had the following
elements:
Management Committee:
This is the central management group for the TCF, to which the Director reports. It
would meet on a monthly basis. The suggested membership was:
Head of BRI (Chair)
TCF Director
Representative of AIT Management
Member of Research Office and/or Midlands Innovation and Research Centre
Steering/Advisory Committee
This group would be designed to provide guidance to the Management Committee
on external issues affecting its activities. It would meet on an occasional basis and
discuss issues, including (a) Industry developments or trends which may become
threats or opportunities (b) Changes in equipment, regulatory environment,
competitors, funding regimes etc. It would also monitor and advice on the terms and
conditions for TCF services, collaborations etc. The membership should include:
195
Chair of TCF
TCF Director
Representative of each relevant sector (Food, Pharmachem, Device) ideally
from within a regional company
Equipment expert
Hub Management Committee
It was suggested that the overall management of some issues could not be effectively
conducted at TCF level. These included issues which affected all of the equipment
and staff in the building (e.g. Health & Safety; Training; Equipment maintenance,
replacement and use scheduling etc.). This group could also usefully consider
issues related to the marketing of AIT services. Much of this was already in place,
such as joint promotions, websites, company visit monitoring etc. These issues
should be discussed centrally within the Hub with inputs from all of the operators
and interests involved. The TCF should have a formal input to this committee or
group.
Figure 3.97: BRI Management Organization Chart suggested in the CIRCA Report
The specific roles within this are:
TCF Director: General Management of TCF
196
Unit Head: Manager of a specific technology unit e.g. Toxicology, BioReactors
and for coordination of activities related to provision of related services. The Unit
head will be the main contact person for ongoing projects.
Laboratory Staff: Scientists designated to specific projects within each unit. These
may be part-time or full-time commitments depending on the nature of the project.
Equipment Manager. It was understood that a person was recently appointed to
coordinate all of the equipment within the Hub, and to ensure its maintenance and
use scheduling. This person would be a fundamental part of TCF activities and
would report to the TCF director in relation to those items of equipment which were
solely used by the TCF. Reporting structure in relation to equipment shared with
other internal users should be addressed by the Hub Management Committee.
Development of organisational model
The diagram below indicates the main organisational relationships of the TCF, and
the partners and associates whose needs must be considered:
AIT: the staff of the TCF were academic members of AIT primarily engaged in the
education and training of students. Interaction with AIT was fundamental to its
operation and was required in coordination of equipment and facility needs (ideally
through a ‘Hub management committee as proposed above); in coordination of
training of AIT students (through active involvement of AIT staff and students in
TCF activities); in promotion of TCF services (through active involvement of AIT
research office staff); and in administration and staffing of TCF (through active
interaction with AIT budget and HR departments).
ShareBiotech: ShareBiotech as a project to bring multiple Atlantic Region partners
together to develop methods to address some major biotech deficits, it may have a
positive impact over the coming years – this will obviously be raised in Discussion.
Midlands Gateway Research Campus: The creation of a Midlands Gateway
Research Campus was a significant component of the strategic plan for AIT (2009-
2013). It was being developed in partnership with regional and national research
and industry stakeholders, it will house high-tech industry R&D space, phase two of
the Midlands Innovation and Research Centre (MIRC), as well as an auditorium. It
was also anticipated that the Research Campus will host the Institute’s existing three
research institutes – the Software Research Institute (SRI), the Materials Research
Institute (MRI) and the Bioscience Research Institute (BRI). The Research Campus
197
will be the focus of AIT’s submission to PRTLI V. Interaction of the TCF with this
initiative was another consideration for TCF management
Figure 3.98: Main organizational relationships of the TCF, and the partners and
associates whose needs must be considered
Clients: If a TCF was to be successful as an outreach activity, it must be aware of
client needs and sensitive to changes in these needs. This could be achieved through
active involvement with existing clients; and through appropriate interaction with the
proposed Steering Committee.
Public Research Funders: It was very unlikely that the TCF was capable of
sustaining itself from income generated from client activities. The future
development of the TCF, including skills development, equipment renewal etc. must
be subsidised by research funding from the usual range of public research funders
(EI, SFI, EU etc.). The TCF must therefore be continually aware of the opportunities
available for public funding and of the changing demands of public funding agencies
both in terms of thematic areas, and also new funding mechanisms (e.g. Innovation
Vouchers and Technology Gateways being recent examples of changes in funding
mechanisms).
3.15 The Darcy Report
Darcy Consultancy Services were contracted to analyse the potential of the BRI to
engage industry in collaborative projects. The consultancy was acting on the
198
TooltechNov diagnosis and short term recommendations for Technological Core
Facilities selected in the frame of European project ShareBiotech. The report
highlighted two areas for corrective action.
1. The age of some of the equipment
2. The lack of users in the management committee
Following on from these audit findings and having discussed the scope of the
equipment and the potential for utilization of the existing equipment the following
structure was developed as an indication of the type of applications which could be
performed with the existing instrumentation. (Figure 3.95)
Figure 3.99: Scope of service provision in relation to the BRI - TCF Source “Adapted from the ShareBiotech Darcy Report” 2013
The Darcy Report proposed a TCF model based on existing AIT personnel,
expertise, and equipment and was based on commercial potential given the
requirements of medical device companies. The model was also applicable for
Pharma companies as well as those companies operating in the diagnostic space.
Additional specific analytical services may be requested from companies as the
service provision develops and this may require the purchase of instrumentation to
meet this need, but the report found that there was sufficient resources present in
AIT to launch an initial service offering that was attractive to a reasonable number of
customers.
The report also concluded that the success of the proposed TCF would be
reasonably dependent on the regulatory certification process and investment in this
199
from AIT as while initially some service offering may be provided outside this
scope, in order to capture a customer for the longer term the expectation will be for
the service to be certified. Most medical device companies operate a quality
management system compliant to the requirements of ISO 13485 which is a fully
operational quality system covering all elements from design control, product
realisation, sterilisation, and delivery. However, AIT would not be operating as a
manufacturer of finished products, the performance of contract R&D work could
benefit from the implementation of a design control system (Figure 3.96) that would
be compliant to ISO 13485 while not necessarily certified. This level of compliance
would provide customers with a level of assurance that they would feel comfortable
with given the compatibility of AIT’s system with their own internal processes. An
outline of the typical design control module is shown in (Figure 3.96). The complete
report can be viewed in Appendix 21.
The report suggested that the initiation of an R&D project with an internal or
external partner could be constructed in such a way as to comply with a design
control system which would be tailored to meet ISO 13485 (EU Specific) and also
FDA requirements. As a consequence the availability of SOP’s to regulate the design
and development process would allow AIT’s service provision to stand out as unique
as this level of compliance while not difficult to achieve, is not routinely employed
and would create a niche for AIT.
Figure 3.100: Accreditation Model suggested by CIRCA for the BRI compatible to
ISO 13485 while not necessarily certified. (Source: Adapted from “The ShareBiotech Darcy
Report” 2013)
200
3.16 Expert Interviews
A range of highly regarded experts in the Biotechnology sector and related areas
such as networking, cluster management and development, services, a start-up CEO,
were identified in Canada, the UK, Germany, Brussels, and Ireland, and
subsequently asked if they would partake in interviews directed towards their area of
expertise. Face-to face interviews were carried out with Mary Skelly; CEO of
Microbide in Ireland, Derek Jones, director of the Babraham Institute in Cambridge,
UK; Dr. Martino Picardo, MD of Stevenage Biocatalyst, Hertforshire, UK; Tony
Jones, CEO One Nucleus, a cluster networking organization located in London, UK;
And Professor Horst Domdey, director of the BioM Cluster in Munich Germany. A
telephone interview was conducted with Dr. Claire Skentelbery, CEO of the Council
of European Bio Regions (CEBR) in Brussels and written interview was conducted
with Dr. Mario Thomas, director of the Ontario Centre of Excellence (OCE) in
Canada. The questions were designed to target the expert’s area of knowledge while
also encompassing a generic element. The questionnaires were emailed to all
respondents approximately one month prior to the interviews taking place. This
broad range of experts from different jurisdiction’s identified successful models of
biotechnology clustering and endeavored to map their route to success. It was hoped
that valuable lessons could be learned and adopted into the Atlantic Area
biotechnology sector to progress the development of biotechnology and address the
imbalance that existed between the Atlantic Area and the rest of Europe.
A short profile of each expert is given in this section followed by a summarized
version of the Questions and Answers. All interviews were digitally recorded and
transcribed verbatim. The full transcripts are available on request from the author.28
The first interview was conducted with Tony Jones of One Nucleus. One Nucleus is
a membership organisation for international life science and healthcare companies. It
is based in Cambridge and London UK, the heart of Europe’s largest life science and
healthcare cluster. It has been established that networking is vital in any industry and
even more-so in the biotech sector as investors and stakeholders are in constant
demand due to the expense and length of time it takes to get a drug or innovation to
market. One Nucleus organises conferences and other events designed to bring
28
201
people in the biotech sector together. Tony believes that it is vital to get people
talking to each other, and said the most important part of a conference is the coffee
break, where people can interface in an informal manner. Derek Jones of BBT had
the same view as Tony and stressed that creativity was probably one of the best
assets in an employee. Derek believed in collaboration among companies and part of
the tenancy agreement in the Babraham Institute was that companies would work
together where possible.
A two and a half hour face-to-face interview was conducted with Professor Horst
Domdey in Munich at the BioM Cluster. Professor Domdey explained how a change
in federal funding policy a declining pharma sector resulted in HEI’s forming
collaborative links with industry which helped the birth of Germany’s biotech
industry. Horst did not agree with HEI’s providing TCF’s unless it was a niche area
and could not be accessed elsewhere because this constituted interference with the
market. The German Biotech industry evolved mainly as a result of sustainable
government funding and private investment. Martino Piccardo who successfully
developed the Manchester bio-cluster creating 1600 jobs over 10 years applied a
policy of “Open Access” to Stevenage Biocatalyst in Cambridge London. Open
Innovation, also known as external or networked innovation, is focused on
uncovering new ideas, reducing risk, increasing speed and leveraging scarce
resources. With a better understanding of “what is out there”, a company is able to
lower risk by combining external capabilities with internal innovation resources. The
old question of “Why reinvent the wheel?” clearly applies, as Open Innovation
enables a company to connect with someone who has already developed the
technology in need or who is further along the development path. During the
interview Martino stressed the theme of “not re-inventing the wheel” and focusing
on what you were good at. Martino suggested that in his opinion, Ireland’s expertise
lay in the food sector. Mary Skelly believed that Irelands model or the Enterprise
Ireland model of support for SME’s was not fit for purpose. That was why Mary did
most of her R&D in the US as the US model was geared towards developing and
growing SME’s with no stigma attached to failure. Mary did not believe that NIBRT
should be attached to UCD or that a national incubator should be managed by an
academic institution because they did not have the relevant experience to interface
with industry. Claire Skentelbery held the same view regarding SME’s trying to
202
access academic TCF’s. Claire shared the view expressed by all the experts, that
academic organisations were driven by the need to publish papers and that a one-
size-fits-all technology transfer model did not work. DR. Mario Thomas of the OCE
believed that SME access to core facilities was vital to the development of the
biotech sector in Ontario Canada. There was consensus among all experts
interviewed on many points as shown in the results section.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132
% A
gree
men
t
Common Expert Question (1 - 32)
Figure: 3.101: Representation of the level of agreement between the 7 core experts
regarding 32 common theme questions as a proportion of the total of 158 questions
actually presented (inclusion of sub-questions exceeds 158)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Qu 1 Qu 2 Qu 3 Qu 4 Qu 5 Qu 6 Qu 7 Qu 8 Qu 9 Qu 10
Agr
eem
ent
Common Questions
DJ
TJ
MS
MT
MP
CS
HD
Figure 3.102: Representation of the level of agreement between the 7 core experts
regarding Q1 to Q10 common theme questions as a proportion of the total of 158
questions actually presented (inclusion of sub-questions exceeds 158)
203
Figure 3.103: Representation of the level of agreement between the 7 core experts
regarding Q11 to Q21 common theme questions as a proportion of the total of 158
questions actually presented (inclusion of sub-questions exceeds 158)
Figure: 3.104 Representation of the level of agreement between the 7 core experts
regarding Q22 to Q32 common theme questions as a proportion of the total of 158
questions actually presented (inclusion of sub-questions exceeds 158)
Figure: 3.105: Represents the number of yes answers agreed by all 7experts
interviewed
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Qu 11 Qu 12 Qu 13 Qu 14 Qu 15 Qu 16 Qu 17 Qu 18 Qu 19 Qu 20 Qu 21
DJ
TJ
MS
MT
MP
CS
HD
0
1
2
3
4
5
Qu 22 Qu 23 Qu 24 Qu 25 Qu 26 Qu 27 Qu 28 Qu 29 Qu 30 Qu 31 Qu 32
DJ
TJ
MS
MT
MP
CS
0
5
10
15
20
25
HD CS MP MT MS TJ DJ
Nu
mb
er
Ye
s
Experts
Number Yes (Selected Questions, Total 32)
204
3.17 Profiles of Experts Interviewed
Professor Horst Domdey, BioM Munich Germany
Horst Domdey, a trained biochemist, received his PhD from the University of
Munich in 1979. He held research positions at the Max Planck Institute for
Biochemistry in Martins Reid (Germany), the Swiss Institute
for Experimental Cancer Research in Epalinges (Switzerland),
the University of California, San Diego, La Jolla (USA), the
California Institute of Technology in Pasadena (USA), and the
Gene Centre of the University of Munich (Germany), before
he became there Associate Professor for Biochemistry in
1994. In 1994 he co-founded MediGene, one of the first
biotech companies in Germany. In 1996 he successfully led
the Munich Biotech Initiative into the German BioRegions
Competition. Since 1997 he has been the Managing Director of BioM, the cluster
development and management organization of the Munich Biotech Cluster. Since
2006 he also manages the Bavarian Biotechnology Cluster.
Since 2003, he is the scientific director of the Bavarian Genome Network Bay Gene,
since 2011 the coordinator of the Bavarian Centre for Molecular Biosystems
BioSysNet. Horst Domdey is cofounder of BIO Deutschland, of the Association of
the German BioRegions and of the Council of the European BioRegions (CEBR). He
is also member of the Committee for Industry and Research in the German Chamber
of Commerce and Industry (DIHK).
In 2010 the Munich Biotech Cluster became - under his leadership - one of the
winners in the German Leading Edge Cluster Competition
Dr. Martino Picardo
Chief Executive Officer, Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst
Dr Martino Picardo is the first CEO of the Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst. With a
PhD in Biochemistry, he has more than 20 years’ experience in the pharmaceutical
and biotechnology sector and is a board member of
UKBI. Dr Picardo joined Amersham International in
1991 and subsequently went on to manage the R&D
Technology Transfer Group, based in Cardiff,
developing high throughput screening technologies for
the pharmaceutical sector. Following the merger of
Amersham with Pharmacia Biotech, he became the
Science Director for the Cardiff site, looking to acquire
and develop next generation technologies for the company.
More recently, he was Managing Director of the University of Manchester
Innovation Company (UMIC), a company set up by the university to manage all
incubation facilities. In this role, Dr Picardo oversaw its development into a venture
that housed in excess of 80 small and medium enterprises and start-up companies,
generating more than 500 jobs in the process. In addition to his role as CEO for
Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst, he is also acting Chairman for a start-up company,
SRi Forensics Ltd and has previously been on the Board of Cartesian Technologies.
He is also a non-executive Director for Queen Mary Bioenterprise Ltd.
205
Mary Skelly CEO Microbide Ltd
Mary Skelly is the Senior Company Executive of start-
up company Microbide. Mary has substantial
multinational and start-up business development
experience. She has specific interest in the start-up /
formative life science company area with a focus on
intellectual property, research & development,
commercial development, contract drafting and
negotiation Chief Executive Officer Microbide Limited August 2008 – Present (5
years 7 months) Microbide Ltd is developing novel anti-microbial technologies for
use in a number of product sectors. Founder of Angel Bioventures Ltd
February 2006 – Present (8 years 1 month) Virtual consulting company for the Life
Science industry: Formed the "Bio-Angel" network of consultants to address the
specific needs of start-up and growth phase companies in the life sciences.
Founder of Irish BioVentures International Ltd
1998 – September 2005 (7 years)
Strategic Consulting, including business plan, company strategy and product
development/registrations advising new business on business plan, company strategy
and product development. Advising new businesses on business structures, alliances,
negotiation, drafting and structuring of commercial transactions. Generated new
development deals for start-up companies and universities focussed on commercial
licensing and research alliances.
T4 - Regulatory & Clinical Development
The Procter & Gamble Company
Public Company; 10,001+ employees; PG; Consumer Goods industry
1988 – 1996 (8 years)
Regulatory Manager for the analgesics and respiratory product lines within the
HealthCare Division. Managed the US interface with FDA and within the P&G
organization within these product areas.
Dr. Mario Thomas
Senior Vice-President - Ontario Centres of Excellence
Managing Director - Centre of Excellence for
Commercialization of Research
Dr. Mario Thomas is an accomplished senior executive with
impressive international credentials in the management of
innovation. He brings extensive experience filled with
achievements driving successful development collaborations
and financial ventures. With over 30 years in leadership roles
directing corporate development and commercialization, he
creates remarkable value for all stakeholders.
Dr. Thomas is the founding chairman of the recently created
International Commercialization Alliance (ICA). He holds the
dual role of Senior Vice-President, Ontario Centres of
Excellence, and Managing Director, Centre of Excellence for
Commercialization of Research.
206
His previous experiences include partner in the venture firm T2C2 CEO and co-
founders of two start-up companies; and senior level positions in business
development, marketing and scientist. He holds a PhD in chemistry and a BSc from
Université Laval in Quebec City, as well as a diploma in business administration
from École des Hautes Études Commerciales of Université de Montréal. He is also a
Chartered Director with the ASC designation in board governance.
The Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE) not-for-profit program was formally
established in 1987 with seven independent centres that evolved and amalgamated
into the Ontario Centres of Excellence Inc. in 2004. Twenty-five years ago, the
traditional economic foundation for the province, and for Canada, was shifting from
a North American-focused and commodities-based economy to one that is globally
oriented and knowledge-based. Prior to the creation of OCE, there was limited
connection between universities, colleges, research hospitals, and industry.
Consensus was that these academic and research institutions were producing quality
research that was not being utilized to its full potential by industry. OCE was
designed to bridge that gap and create productive working partnerships between
university and college research departments, research hospitals, and Ontario
industry.
Today, OCE drives the commercialization of cutting-edge research across strategic
market sectors to build the economy of tomorrow and secure Ontario’s and Canada’s
global competitiveness. OCE focuses on areas and projects that will deliver not only
the greatest economic benefits but those that will have a positive social impact in
communities across the province. OCE fosters the training and development of the
next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs and is a key partner with Ontario’s
industry, universities, colleges, research hospitals, investors, and governments. OCE
is funded by the Government of Ontario, is a member of the Ontario Network of
Excellence (ONE), and is a key partner in delivering Ontario’s Innovation Agenda.
OCE, through its Centre for Commercialization of Research (CCR) – an initiative
financially supported by the federal government – also acts as a catalyst that allows
innovative businesses to grow and achieve sustainable, commercial success and
global competitiveness.
Dr. Tony Jones, One Nucleus
After completing a PhD in Biochemistry (1992) from the University of Southampton
UK, Tony Jones undertook several years of post-doctoral research in the oncology
field, primarily with the Imperial Cancer Research
Fund taking novel neuropeptide antagonists into Phase
1. In 1977 he moved into Technology Transfer with
the Medical Research Council and moved to
University College London, where he was business
development manager at the Wolfson Institute for
Biomedical Research until November 2003.
He then took up the post of director of Biotechnology
& Healthcare at London First, managing the London
207
Biotechnology Network and promotion of London’s excellence in healthcare
research and delivery, moving the LBN from a primarily inward looking London
group to an outward facing business network. In May 2010 Tony took London
Biotechnology Network into the merger with ERBI (now One Nucleus) seeing this
as the best manner in which to continue assisting their respective member companies
in developing their business.
One Nucleus is a membership organisation for international life science and
healthcare companies. It is based in Cambridge and London UK, the heart of
Europe’s largest life science and healthcare cluster.
DEREK JONES
Babraham Bioscience Technologies (BBT) has appointed Derek Jones, as its new
CEO. Formerly Chief Business Officer of BBT, Derek has brought a wealth of
experience to the Babraham Research Campus - over
20 years' in the pharmaceutical industry as both a
scientist and in business development, with first-hand
experience of establishing biomedical ventures.
Initially a medicinal chemist with Merck, Derek
moved into business and corporate development at
Chiroscience, successfully negotiating several multi
million pound licensing agreements. In 2000, he co-
founded his first company, BioWisdom, an IT/Drug
discovery company.
Derek was appointed COO at DanioLabs in 2002, a therapeutics company using
zebrafish as a model organism for drug discovery, where he grew the company from
4 to 34 employees and raised around £10 million for VC backed companies, before
selling DanioLabs to Vastox, now Summit Plc, for £15 million in 2007.
Acknowledged as a leader of research and innovation for the UK, home to both
world-class academic research and commercial biomedical companies, the
Babraham Research Campus has established itself as a hub of bioscience innovation
at the heart of the Cambridge cluster. With world-class facilities and a vibrant
research community, the Babraham Research Campus continues to
expand. Following the award of £44M to support bioscience innovation, as part of
the capital/infrastructure investment for science announced by Government in the
2011 budget, developments have been moving at a pace on the campus. The opening
of Babraham’s fifth Bioincubator Building earlier this year underscores Babraham’s
continuing commitment to nurturing early-stage enterprises and supporting
biomedical innovation in the region.
At the cornerstone of the campus is the internationally regarded Babraham Institute,
which receives strategic funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council (BBSRC) and underpins government’s national responsibilities for
life sciences research and training. Research is focussed on generating new
knowledge of the biological mechanisms underlying ageing, development and the
maintenance of health. The Institute also aims to promote knowledge exchange and
208
to facilitate partnerships to translate innovative science into viable ventures.
Discoveries are commercialised through the Institute’s commercial arm - Babraham
Bioscience Technologies (BBT) Ltd - an example being the creation of the spin- out
company Crescendo Biologics Ltd.
Dr. Claire Skentelbery Council of European Bioregions (CEBR)
Claire Skentelbery started her career with a PhD in plant biochemistry, before
moving into scientific communication and marketing which in turn led to a role as
National Contact Point in FP5 for biotechnology SMEs
in the UK.
She then combined a freelance role as technical writer,
including Framework applications, with a growing role
in cluster development. She worked extensively within
the Cambridge biotechnology cluster, growing the
ERBI biotechnology network and creating links across
Europe with other clusters. Her increasing international work, led to the formation of
the Council of European BioRegions (CEBR), as a joint initiative between clusters
across Europe who wanted to work more closely together in the support of SME and
cluster development and in the defragmentation of biotechnology in Europe. She has
been CEBR Network Manager since its launch, with over 50
clusters/biocommunities in Europe working together. She combines this with her
role as Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network, which networks
all actors in biotech, from universities, SMEs, Pharma and service providers across
all biotech applications.
CEBR was launched in 2006 through an FP6- funded project intended to network
biotechnology clusters across Europe. The project objective was to create a long
term sustainable network through which biotechnology in Europe and its support
infrastructure became more harmonised. The network was launched in June 2006
and has gathered strength and members since then, with over 100 Full and
Associated Members joining at launch.
January 2008 saw the launch of a financially independent network, supported by low
cost membership and participation in EC-funded projects. CEBR operated as a ring-
fenced activity of ERBI Ltd (now One Nucleus) in Cambridge and worked towards
sufficient strength to create a stand-alone legal entity.
The CEBR mission is to build a competitive European biotechnology sector on the
world stage through networking, collaboration, recommendations for policy and
sharing best practice between regional biocommunities.
209
CEBR aims to:
Reduce fragmentation of companies and regions in Europe
Create a level playing field for company operation
Transform competitiveness to cooperation between regions
Create a platform for EU biotechnology initiatives, including EC-funded
projects
In 2013, CEBR ASBL was created in Belgium as a non-profit association and
operates in Brussels, supported by a Board of Directors from across Europe.
3.18 Main Points in Expert Interviews
The full recording of all interview answers was translated to a 100% identical written
document amounting to 92 pages and XXX words, which is accessible for a full
review at, (Ref Appendix 19). The following section in results, while including key
statements indicated by inverted commas, is a formal summary and initial analysis of
core answers and associated information.
1. Do you find that getting access to third level institution Technology
Core Facilities is difficult and challenging; and if so can you give
reasons for your answer?
Tony Jones stated that cutbacks in University funding should make it easier to
leverage their core facilities on a service level but not on an R&D level. The
universities look for a trade off in IP for the company to get derivative results and the
company needs a value proposition to collaborate with the university core facility.
Often, technology lies idle in university labs because it was bought with a specific
funding stream, e.g. cancer UK, and cannot be used for other research projects. Tony
stated that you need technicians to run services well and that university TCF’s
cannot interface with industry if they are not managed as a proper facility. This
would encourage SME’s to access University TCF’s rather than outsourcing to
external entities. University TCF’s are not run as a business and that mind-set needed
to change. This point was also highlighted by Derek Jones from the Babraham
Institute in Cambridge U.K. This made it problematic for companies to access
university cores and to change this situation was challenging especially as the
number of companies increased.
Derek stated that the challenge he had with collaborating with universities
was that they were driven by publications because that was how they were measured
and not by helping companies. Derek stated that there was a need to build a culture
that embraced supporting companies to develop innovative novel products and not
210
solely the publication of the next paper; “we need to build a culture that says; it’s
the job of the universities to help companies”. He stated that universities had a
culture of not wanting to share their facilities in the UK and that universities could
run their core facilities as services, but a stumbling block to this was that they might
have to pay VAT and that was a challenge. A similar view was expressed by Martino
Picardo of Stevenage Biocatalyst in the U.K. in relation to accessing University core
facilities. He stated that the model of accessing a university core facility was a
nightmare and virtually impossible to run; “you are limited to use when it suits the
university”. Martino stated that reliance on university core facilities will never
facilitate alignment between what they can offer and what the company wants. The
model has been tried for years and it does not work; “you need to put a quasi-
commercial entity between the university and the company who speaks the business
language, is able to charge and provide quality accreditation”. “You are always just
held to ransom by Prof wonderful and his team and he will always have priorities
over others and there will never be an alignment between what they can offer and
what the company wants”. Martino stresses that work carried out in universities in
the UK is not GMP/GLP accredited and that if big pharma purchase IP from the
universities, they have to do all the work again in a quality controlled environment;
“universities could set up a service business but to grow its business globally it
needs accreditation in place”. Martino stated that there were a lot of cutting-edge
technologies in academic institutions not being utilised to its full potential that could
be shared and used to benefit SME’s but that’s not happening because the process is
too difficult. Martino was setting up a model in collaboration with GSK whereby
GSK were locating some core facilities in the Stevenage incubator and providing
technical services around the equipment in an accredited quality controlled way.
Another collaborative model was with technology vendors who were going to locate
next generation technologies in the Stevenage incubator for use by start-up
companies. Martino also cited a collaborative model in New House in Scotland
where by millions of pounds worth of cutting-edge technologies were being made
available to the growing community of SME’s at reasonable prices. “The provision
of TCF’s and access to them is necessary to attract companies into a cluster. Part of
the tenancy in Stevenage includes free access to TCF’s e.g. Flow Cytometry, NMR,
LC MS, and Microscopy etc.” Martino also stated that academic groups should not
211
provide commercial services unless there is an interface with real commercial people
with real commercial experience.
Mary Skelly indicated that US International companies would use academic
core facilities if there was a business friendly model in place and that academic core
facilities should be designated as tax-free zones. However, Professor Domdey stated
that BioM, the network agency that manages the Munich BioCluster would only
support an academic core facility if it was novel and specialised, otherwise he
viewed it as unfair competition and interfering with the market. He stated that unless
the innovation or idea generated from the university; they were not interested in
developing it; it had to be invented there. Claire Skentelbery (CEBR) stated that the
Cambridge cluster developed independently from Cambridge University because the
university simply was not open for access. “The university has so much money; it
still does not have to dirty its hands with too much commercial interaction.”
“Access to research infrastructure i.e. core facilities would unlock a lot of things but
the challenges involved in that include the professionalization of access to university
cores and getting companies to engage with the universities”. The individual
academic approach is that it does not have to change if it does not want to and while
you might get academic researchers who do a great job, others will see it as
secondary to their academic work. “There are individuals who prevent access to
university core facilities to specific organisations and block the route forward to
collaboration and that comes down to the character of the person”. This is where
the key problems are and it is the attitude of a single individual that can prevent you
speaking to an entire university and that is not an acceptable business model. “There
should be much more flexibility in how universities interact externally”. Claire
related to me that while giving a lecture in Kent at a network of the sectors that
several business people indicated to her that while dealing with universities; they
were tired of running into closed doors where the formal person they were supposed
to go to or contact was non-contactable with no substitute, and this was not
acceptable from a business perspective.
Tony Jones stated university core facilities could not interface with industry without
professional management. Universities need to capitalise on their core facilities by
interfacing with industry which could reduce outsourcing by SME’s to commercial
entities, and by sharing underutilised resources you make the biotech sector more
212
cash efficient. “SMEs should be able to access University core facilities rather than
outsourcing to commercial entities if the University core facilities were properly
run”. Professor Domdey would disagree with this model stating that it interferes
with the market. “We have an activity here organised by Bio Deutschland to limit
the availability and marketing of TCFs by universities, because German use of
University TCFs does not take into account technology funded by the state, so prices
are not calculated on a full cost basis. This is affecting CRO’s and in my opinion is
unfair competition by undercutting the market because a company has to write off
their technology each year”. On the other hand Horst supports TCFs in universities
for their own use, but not when they are entering the public market”. Many of
Horst’s answers were governed by this opinion.
“The objectives of the ShareBiotech project are very interesting and I support this
kind of effort because it highlights the possibilities and limitations”. As a cluster
manager, Horst said he represented the entire biotech activities of BIO-M, especially
SMEs. “But if we had a start-up company in the incubator that offers a service and a
core facility in the Max Planck Institute offering the same service at half the price we
will object to this on the grounds of unfair competition”. Also BIO-M has provided
seed funding for the SMEs.” So Horst Domdey disagrees with the Share Biotech
model of universities offering core facilities to industry on the grounds of unfair
competition and interfering with the market unless the university is offering a core
facility that is unique and not available elsewhere. “Connection to the University can
be counter-productive and we have found that if the idea did not generate in the
University, then they don’t want to collaborate. This is typical of universities”. The
mind-set that academia is solely where research, knowledge and publications are
produced needs to change. Tony jones agreed with this stating; “University look
towards academic collaborations; the intellectually stimulating side but it does not
fund itself that way”
Claire Skentelbery says for a long time she been very frustrated with the lack of
ability to go in and tell a University that it is not professional enough and there needs
to be a will to go in and critically assess their services. “By ruthlessly formalising
everything and bringing in very unrealistic expectations in terms of contracts,
publication rights, and things like that you stifle any spontaneity of research that
could be done between private and public entities”. Claire believed there should be
213
much more flexibility in how universities interact externally. “Literally this comes
down to the individuals within the different parts of the University”. “Claire stated
that Cambridge University did not provide research infrastructure locally because
they were simply not open for access. Rarely have I seen members of a university
actively involved in cluster development; it’s that old Ivory Tower thing again.”
“You can’t walk into Cambridge and borrow a piece of technology”. Claire
highlighted a case of a young cluster in Israel that approached the university to act as
a specialist service provider. Acknowledging that the university had very specialised
skills they decided rather than trying to persuade the university to provide services,
they built a new stem-cell institute to provide services and allowed the university to
provide academic research in the institute. This model reverts the university into a
professionally run facility rather than trying to revert professional services into the
university. Apparently; the Israeli Institute of Nanotechnology also embraces this
model and runs professional contracts with industry all over Israel. Claire believes
that it is extremely difficult to create a professional platform in a university. In the
OCE the Centre for Commercialisation and Research (CCR) organised access to core
facilities in the areas of industry, university interactions, and single entity facilities.
2. Do collaborative models facilitate better access to TCF’s for SME’s?
Dr. Mario Thomas of the Ontario Centre of Excellence said access to TCF’s was
central to their success and that collaboration was one mechanism for facilitating
status and organisation and access to core facilities. The Centre for
Commercialisation of Research organised and facilitated collaborations and access to
core facilities in the areas of industry, university interaction and single entity
facilities. The model embraced in the state of Ontario was that the province was
managed as one network with 14 regional innovation offices and staffed by serial
entrepreneurs and stakeholders with tangible business skills and possessed the
expertise to interface with industry at the highest level for the benefit of the state.
“Support is directed towards public/private sector collaborations as well as
regional, national and transnational collaborations through our Centre for
Commercialisation and Research”. Prior to the creation of OCE, collaboration
between industry and the province’s academic institutions (universities, colleges,
research hospitals) was limited. There was a noticeable disconnect between the
214
quality and quantity of research being produced and the level of commercialization
resulting from it. The role of the OCE was to bridge that gap and create productive
working partnerships between Ontario’s industry and academia. Today, OCE drives
the commercialization of cutting-edge research across strategic market sectors to
build the economy of tomorrow and secure Ontario’s and Canada’s global
competitiveness. “The OCE focuses on areas that will deliver the greatest social and
economic benefits through more and better jobs across the province”. Mario stated
that the provision and access to TCF’s is considered important drivers of technology
clusters particularly regarding start-up companies a view also shared by Derek Jones,
Claire Skentelbery and Martino Picardo.
Claire Skentelbery stated business models are evolving constantly. Access to TCFs
and selective research and development activities has a huge effect because an
investor is not interested in a company unless the company displays competency to
deliver a product.
Horst Domdey stated that a major part of the research at Bio-M was Personalised
Medicine. “We support collaborations between universities and industry. We bring
people from industry, research centres, and clinicians together for companies; a kind
of speed dating where each person does a seven or eight minute’s presentation”.
Horst stated that the most valuable work is done during the coffee breaks.
“Sometimes the important thing is not the result but its how you get there”.
3. What are your views on the US model of cluster development in
comparison to the European model? Should Europe adopt the US
model?
Claire Skentelbery stated that in terms of differing cluster structures between the US
and Europe, it depended on where you were looking. The smaller clusters are more
similar in structure to the EU in that public money is being invested enabling the
start-up of clusters around big organisations. “The US is more market-driven in its
attempts at cluster development.” Clusters have developed spontaneously because
they got more money earlier than Europe did. The level of funding you can get in the
US is much higher than in Europe enabling an SME to get further down the pipeline
before it runs out of money. US companies can get bigger faster because investors
are likely to put in large sums of money, “it’s a basic difference; it’s very
215
fundamental; this is hard-core basic finance”. In the UK the government is starving
the SME’s of public finding an expecting the private sector to pick up the slack.
Claire believes that SMEs are a very large section of the biotech industry. “Europe
seems to have resigned itself to having more early stage exit companies rather than
maturing along the pipeline”. Claire also stated that the US notion of a cluster was
more about connectivity as opposed to a formal cluster structure.
Tony Jones stated that the US system was such that they supported a lot of
business plans and if 20% of them were successful and created jobs. This meant tax
revenue to recoup money. However, he believed this method could attract the wrong
businesses which would use up government incentives and when the money dried
up, the companies would close down or re-locate. Derek Jones stated “we need to
stop comparing ourselves to the US because we are not the US, we would be better
off comparing ourselves to France or Germany or Spain; we are not as big as the US.
It’s like comparing Ireland to the UK”.
Horst Domdey stated that despite all the success of the German biotechnology
industry, it is still in its infancy compared to the US and Switzerland. “Germany has
some very big biotech companies such as Octavian and Qiagen”. “Some promising
German biotech companies relocated HQ to the Netherlands, Switzerland, and
Austria because of lower tax levels. Germany’s government needs to revise its tax
laws because being located in Central Europe it is very easy to move to another
country with lower tax levels”.
4. What is needed to develop a university/industry (public/private)
collaborative model that embraces commercialisation?
OCE is a key partner in delivering Ontario’s Innovation Agenda and are funded by
the Government of Ontario and a member of the Ontario Network of Entrepreneurs
(ONE). Claire Skentelbery stated that there was a continuing struggle to
professionalise assesses to RI as well as getting companies to use those RI’s, and it’s
very unlikely to be done without some kind of financial incentive or cost reduction.
“Europe needs the political will to do it and will require implementing, rather than
trying to come to a general consensus”. “Once you’ve sought consensus from the
universities, SMEs, legal companies, you have a terrible mishmash where you are
trying to please everybody and actually end up in a very unprofessional result.”
216
Professor Domdey explained how a 50% cut in funding to HEI’s in Germany
increased commercialisation. State funding was cut by 50%, to encourage academia
to develop collaborations with industry. This led to innovation and
commercialization of research which in essence was the start of the biotechnology
industry in Germany and many spin-off companies were born. “All biotechnology in
Europe is academic based”. “It is very important to support the companies offering
the core facilities, but we do not support them as competitors”. We invite core
facilities from universities because they have some technologies that cannot be
accessed anywhere else. But we differentiate what can be done by a company and
what can be done by the University and a core facility. “Less sophisticated work can
be done by companies but we recommend that more specialised work is done by core
facilities”. We rely on the context that the scientists, the clinicians here are on the
international level with the many contacts of their own.
Martino Picardo said that Academia should interact more with people in industry and
there should be an industry presence on university campuses. There are not enough
people in the university technology transfer offices or incubators with industrial
experience. Not having academic engagement with industry is a recipe for disaster -
the incubator is the best place for industry/academic interface when the incubator is
run properly. Just because it’s great science does not always transfer to a commercial
opportunity. Universities could set up a service business to provide services. But to
grow its business globally it needs accreditation in place.
5. Should large companies engage SME’s in collaborative projects enabling access to cutting-edge-technologies?
Martino Picardo stated that a lack of collaboration was just the nature of business
and people forget that these businesses are driven by people and people have their
own ways and are reluctant to engage with others that they might see as competition.
When I was managing the Manchester Bio Incubator, we had three stem cell
companies located close to each other and we hoped they would collaborate, but it
never happened. He stated that Stevenage was not an academic environment where
sharing for publications are common, but that Stevenage was a business creation
environment. “Companies who locate in Stevenage come here knowing that there is
an expectation of them to engage in open innovation and collaboration; this is one of
our unique selling points”. “Unless there is a value proposition to their business,
217
then they are actually taught as they go through the journey of business school,
growth, and business creation; there is as much competition as collaboration and
whether or not they are able to sustain a value proposition that allows them to grow
without collaborating with others”. As part of a collaborative model, GSK were
providing some TCF’s and technicians skilled in new technologies to SME’s located
in Stevenage. Derek Jones noted that it was important to get clinicians and the big
pharmaceutical companies on board stating that Babraham had collaborations with
Cambridge University, the Sanger Centre, Granta Science Park, and other centres of
excellence. They also had collaborations with Pfizer and GSK who wanted to help
small companies and were willing to share their experience e.g. running an
experiment. The multinationals needed the SME’s for innovations an open
innovation model was encouraged. Before companies locate in Cambridge they are
told “If you don’t want to be part of the community here and be willing to
collaborate you should not come here”. However, having access to technologies
where people had to travel was not going to work. Mary Skelly said “companies
should collaborate on projects in line with their skill sets” companies needed to
eradicate competition and collaborate with some profit-sharing agreement in place.
This would lessen the duplication of products and services and reduce costs. She said
that pharmaceutical companies should put their needs into academic research, but
that academic research did not meet the need of the day. Also, academia should
collaborate with the pharmaceutical companies to define research via virtual
networks. Tony jones held the view that companies needed a value proposition to
collaborate with university TCF’s and that university looked towards academic
collaborations; the intellectually stimulating side but did not fund itself that way.
Tony did not differentiate between industry and academia believing that there was
good and bad science in both camps. “We need to develop a collaborative model
whether it is open innovation or whatever and we need to find a way of working
together with multiple parties to get into the value chain”. Mario Thomas the OCE
supported public/private sector collaborations, regional collaborations as well as
national/transnational collaborations through the Centre for Commercialisation and
Research. Other provinces in Canada were not as successful as Ontario because of
duplication and rivalry. “The Centre for commercialisation of research organises
and facilitates collaborations and access to core facilities in the areas of industry,
218
University interactions, and single entity facilities. The MaRS District is an example
of this”.
Horst Domdey said that Germany recognised the need for collaboration to
build a successful biotechnology industry so they formed the Association of German
Bio Regions where they exchanged and created novel ideas. In the late 1990s the
German government reduced funding to academic institutions for research which
forced the academics to look to companies for collaborative projects that drove
innovation and ultimately develop tangible commercial products and create
employment. This also created an environment that supported entrepreneurship; the
pharmaceutical pipelines were weak and they began looking towards biotechnology
SME’s for new innovations thus creating collaborative models. BioM suggested
setting up a portal for industry/industry and industry/academia collaborations where
people could come together to share ideas but the university would not share their
server. BioM collaborates with different Technology Transfer Organisations and
provides financial support to technology translators involved in personalised
medicine projects to keep everyone in the same boat. BioM brings the different
sectors of the Munich Bio Cluster together keeping the multiple stakeholders abreast
of technologies available within the campus with a view towards collaborative
engagement.
Claire Skentelbery stated that Biotechnology gets by on collaboration. “A single
technology that starts a company is not going to be that successful because
technology is only 5% of the story; it’s how you enable the technology to be
delivered”.
6. What contribution does cluster membership and access to
infrastructures make to SME’s and ultimately economic development?
Claire Skentelbery expressed the view that cluster networks and structures had a
massive impact on economic development; biotechnology companies found it
difficult to excel in isolation; “the clustering effect has a massive impact on the
speed at which technologies and companies are delivered”. Claire believed that for
Europe to generate economic returns from its biotechnology it needed to happen
from within a cluster environment because the cluster environment provided a higher
concentration of core skills and rapid access to the correct additional external skills
and services. “You have an environment of innovation and professional management
219
of science, which seems to be the biggest bottleneck for every stage of cluster
development. If you don’t have that environment it’s very hard to then make it if you
haven’t got seeds to grow it from”. Research equipment obviously constitutes a key
element of research infrastructure. “This permits specialised focused research to
occur at multiple levels from postgraduate education to confidential business. Major
core facilities exist in the public sector and private sector and access varies from
both as do quality standards. Cluster networks and structures have a huge impact on
the way companies are facilitated in Europe”.
Mario Thomas said that cluster based companies generate results that
members would not achieve in single non-cluster structures.
Claire believes that clusters create a gravitational effect; “if you reach a
critical mass people will move towards you”. Claire stated that business models were
evolving constantly and access to TCFs and selective research and development
activities had a huge effect because investors were not interested in a company
unless the company displays competency to deliver a product.
According to Claire the critical point in the development of the Cambridge
cluster was when the service providers started to move in, such as law firms, patent
offices; “these are indicators that the cluster is growing strong and the cluster
grows bigger because it becomes a place where companies know they can get
services on their doorstep”. “50% of the Cambridge cluster is service providers.
Dedicated Biotech Companies (DBF’s) are not the measure of a cluster”.
Derek Jones stated that small companies that run into financial difficulty and
cannot afford to pay rent; he can come to alternative agreements like equity in lieu of
rent because loosing companies is not how the cluster gets measured. “Our business
is creating companies and jobs and that happens within a cluster environment”. We
have two multi-billion companies in Cambridge; Arm Technologies and Hewlett
Packard (HP), and Microsoft is building their R&D headquarters here because they
have access to the skills they need here. “We have relationships with the Pfizer’s and
GSK’s who say they want to help SME’s”. Tony stated that the Technology
Development Laboratory (TDL) was accessible by companies both on and off site.
“Established to support innovation in biotechnology and biomedical fields, the TDL
is a fully-equipped biology and chemistry laboratory. Companies, entrepreneurs and
academics can hire bench space and equipment in the TDL on a flexible basis”. The
220
TDL also offers scientific research services on a fee-for-service basis. Areas of
expertise include molecular biology, protein biochemistry, cell biology, and
synthetic chemistry. “We have a unique TCF here which is the animal house which
houses nearly 50,000 mice, but you have to be in the cluster to use it due to ethical
regulations in the UK”. Derek believes that bioscience can play a huge role in
European economic recovery, but Europe has to de-leverage the manufacturing of
science, be more innovative and make money from it, and prevent it disappearing to
China where it is ten times cheaper to manufacture. “We need to keep it in Europe”.
Professor Domdey stated that in many German clusters you find that everybody
knows the clusters are supporting industries, but people also realise that science is
being supported at the universities because their spin-off activities are supported and
clusters are an important partner for them and the clusters are unique in that they are
connecting science, business, and clinics. Tony Jones believed that companies want
to be part of a cluster like Cambridge because they have access to the right talent
they need and London is a good example of that. “Clusters are like a nursery ground
where you get lots of spin-off companies growing”.
7. What role do big companies play within clusters?
Claire Skentelbery stated that large companies had different relationships within
clusters. She gave Cambridge as an example noting that large companies existed
within the cluster but their level of participation was minimal. “Large companies are
more likely to view the cluster as a positive source of staff recruitment because
successful clusters attract a skilled talent pool; however, they could attract talented
people from all over the world”.
8. What attracts companies to locate in a cluster?
Professor Domdey believes that the excellent science available in BioM and
government investment was the basis for everything. Access to TCF’s and expertise,
favourable tax and employment laws, Technology Transfer Organisations, logistical
infrastructure, incubator space, cluster networks, start-up companies, innovation,
entrepreneurs, hospital clinicians, universities, research institutes, venture capitalists
and investors, banks, political decision makers, service providers and a well-
educated work force, cluster location and amenities i.e. leisure and shopping, schools
221
and health providers were important. “You need a multi-disciplinary approach”.
“We have attracted four companies from abroad to settle here. They settled here
because they have access to all the services they need”. Derek Jones mentioned all
the above points as well as having niche TCF’s like their animal facility. “If you are
going to start a company with four or five people you don’t need big buildings, so an
incubator offering 500 ft2/600 ft
2 is ideal and as the company grows, access to
bigger buildings allows companies to stay in the cluster”. BioM built an industrial
village in Martins Reid in Munich with bigger buildings so that companies that
outgrow BioM can re-locate close to the cluster. Companies locating in Babraham
automatically become members of “One Nucleus” a cluster network organisation as
do companies locating in the Munich bio-cluster become part of the BioM network.
Also, members of the Babraham Cluster can avail of group purchasing schemes and
other incentives. Derek stated that companies did not like to travel to access services
and that communication breaks down over a very short distance. Claire Skentelbery
echoed the points stated by Derek and added that companies benefit from being in a
cluster because they can attract staff. Horst and Derek pointed out that cluster
membership gave companies a “critical mass” which enhanced their visibility and
attractiveness on the national and international playing field.
9. What are the main drivers of cluster success?
Claire Skentelbery says clusters need a strong support strategy. Strong cluster
management and networks are important drivers. While Claire believes that
proximity to universities is an important driver of cluster development, she does not
believe that Cambridge University was crucial to development ‘of the Cambridge
cluster. “Rarely have I seen active members of a university very actively engaged in
cluster development. The cluster is there despite the university and not because of
it”. “People have left the university and created a cluster, but they have to leave the
university to do that”. However, according to Horst Domdey; BioM encourages
university staffs who want to spin out companies to stay at the university and take
shares or equity because there are enough qualified people within BioM to develop
the company. He believes that academics do not have the industrial experience and
that clusters should be driven by business people. Government stability is important;
too often when government changes, investment strategy changes. “In Germany if
222
you invest in something you want you are still investing in it 10 to 15 years later
which is the minimum amount of time it takes to bring a biotechnology drug to
market”. However, Horst stated “the German education system had no specific
effect on cluster development. There are no Fraunhofers that are working directly in
the biotechnology field. In the past they didn’t do any science. They do provide
human resources but have no direct effect on cluster development”. Horst stated that
location and proximity to service is really important in cluster development. “We
have similar science parks in Northern Bavaria. They built an incubator in another
German University in Bavaria, just 15 minutes from the campus and it does not work
and people go there but reluctantly”. Derek Jones also stated that companies did not
want to travel long distances to access TCF’s.
Claire stated that there needed to be a 20 year roadmap in place to capture the best of
the previous UK manufacturing capability, or design capability or engineering
capability. Claire said “cluster success is driven by sustained government policy,
investment and the right people on the ground and understanding the strengths of the
region”. “There is no point in George Osborne giving somebody €40M to spend in
12 months; that’s not a sustainable investment strategy. You might be able to build a
€40M building, but what’s the point if you can’t afford to turn the lights on”. Claire
believed that there need to be an entrepreneurial culture and the presence of serial
entrepreneurs. “Cambridge is a great example of a cluster because the people who
set it up, the original entrepreneurs are still active in it 25 years later”. Claire stated
that clusters and companies that were reliant on public funding to stay alive would
fail as soon as the funding dries up.
Claire stated “cluster development is almost entirely based on market forces.
Cambridge and Oxford were lucky to reach critical mass before the money ran out”.
“The UK government underestimates the impact of not having public support for
biotechnology companies”. Claire also stated that Public support is vital to cluster
development.
“Having high-profile champions, companies, researchers, and a skilled cluster
manager who communicates with the people through the cluster network is vital to
creating the clustering effect. A cluster is people talking to each other all the time
because through that deals are exchanged, new jobs are created, and new ideas are
born”. Claire says that a cluster is not going to develop where it is not nice to live;
223
this point was agreed by Derek Jones and Marianna Bradanno of the Biocant cluster
in Portugal, the first policy-driven biotechnology cluster in Portugal. The Biocant
cluster in Cantanhede was a partner in the ShareBiotech project consortium. Claire
stated that the most important thing was “human capital” and this was agreed by
Tony Jones of One Nucleus and Derek Jones of the Babraham Cluster. Claire
believed that clusters are defined by small companies who tend not to move around a
lot. “Once a cluster becomes established and it becomes enabled to be commercially
competitive then it keeps on rolling because it will be good enough for the
companies to survive. That’s why Cambridge survived; in hard times it has enough
internal energy itself”. Claire stated that key clusters were defined by the presence of
serial entrepreneurs. “They are people who are active in the local community; they
start up company after company, not one-trick ponies who have one molecule that
they have taken out of the lab. This does not make a cluster; it makes one company”.
“It’s the flow of people skills and companies; it’s the life-cycle of all those things
inside that cluster that actually makes it a cluster”.
Claire believes that another driver of cluster success is sustained government policy,
investment and the right people on the ground and understanding what the strengths
of the regions are. “You can’t make a cluster out of an area you have never worked
with before. It’s important to have clusters validated by someone working in the
territory”. Claire stated that it was exceptionally difficult to predict how
biotechnology clusters will evolve because new financial, clinical, regulatory,
societal, and scientific factors come into play all the time.
Claire also stated that the establishment of a cross country legal entity that could
harness different skills in the same area would benefit cluster development. Another
point raised by Claire was futures-research in terms of what’s coming down the line;
in terms of influential information would have an effect on cluster development “all
information stimulates the imagination and forearmed is forewarned and with this
information you could choose to do things differently”.
Mary skelly believes that people in charge of biotech should essentially be
biotechnology entrepreneurs. “Clusters should be built using their own staff as
opposed to outsourcing to prevent loss of skills”. Mary also stated that the cluster
model should be built from a bottom up approach i.e. consumer, patient etc. clusters
should be managed by a totally independent team and not branded by an academic
224
organisation. When Mary was asked about cluster development in Ireland she stated
“Ireland’s cluster models are polluted by government”.
Tony Jones believes that TCF’s are the drivers for any cluster and also underlying
academic strength, skill-sets and talent. “Available money’s are the pillars that need
to be there in one shape or another for a cluster to develop”. Tony believes that you
can orchestrate a cluster if the public sector bodies in academia or policymakers, and
the funding bodies are in place. Tony believes that TCF’s should be run by business
people and not academics because academics do not factor in overheads and do not
have the necessary skills. “The core facilities that shape a lot of companies based
themselves in biotech clusters or technology clusters”.
“The academic base helped to create Babraham but the presence of TCF’s is what
brought the companies in and they are crucial to SME’s”. Tony stated that
proximity to a large city with investors, venture capitalists, e.g. Babraham’s
proximity to London is a success factor, and that physical infrastructure’s limit the
development of a cluster. “It’s very difficult to create a cluster in a remote area”.
Clusters should be developed according to their environment because what works in
one place will not necessarily work in another “it’s not a one-size-fits-all model”.
“You can’t be good at everything so work out what you are good at and that has to
be the cluster driver”. This point was reinforced by Martino Picardo, Derek Jones,
and Claire Skentelbery.
Mario Thomas of the OCE stated “the right people with the right skills are critical to
cluster development and it is also dependent on broad and deep networks”. Martino
agreed that a cluster should reflect its environment, “you can learn from leading
clusters but you need to find what you can do better than anyone else and know your
strengths and your weaknesses”. This point was agreed by all the experts
interviewed. Martino believes the components of cluster development are “people-
people-people, investment, IP, and ideas. This view was expressed by all
interviewees. “Having joined-up thinking facilitates creating a hub around which a
cluster can generate. You need a pragmatic view of what is and is not achievable
and an in-depth knowledge of the local environment”. He stated that long-term
planning will determine success or failure of a cluster, a point emphasised by Claire
Skentelbery stating that a 20 year road map was needed in the UK if it was going to
realise its full potential in the European biotechnology sector. Horst Domdey stated
225
that consistency of policy was crucial in the development of Germany’s
biotechnology industry. According to Martino “If you want to develop a cluster;
don’t build something that is of no use to your community, do extensive mapping,
survey SME’s to see what they want and you have to sell the SME’s a vision that
says, “if we build this will you use it and what services would you be interested in?”
“If a cluster is based entirely around real biotechnology i.e., IP based, drug
discovery, drug development and biologics, it’s a 15 year program and you need
long-term sustainable funding”.
Derek Jones stated that geographical location, access to funding, access to academic
institutions, a vibrant V.C. community, social capital a pool of talent and social
infrastructure are all drivers of Babraham’s success. “You can’t build a cluster just
by throwing money at it, it’s not a case of; if I build it they will come, you need to
organically grow what you have to get to critical mass”. As an example he quoted
the Singapore Bioscience Cluster where millions of dollars were pumped in but now
that cluster is in decline and never achieved critical mass. This point was also
mentioned by Claire Skentelbery. Derek stated that one of the biggest drivers was
that Babraham was close to world-class science and a talent pool. “Biotechnology
companies will take 5 to 10 years to start showing results; therefore, long term
planning is needed”. Derek said that successful cluster development is not a one-
size-fits-all and you need to find your niche area and know what companies you are
trying to support.
Horst Domdey indicated that the idea of government funding support for cluster
formation resulted in a strong German biotechnology industry. The formation of the
Association of German Bio Regions (AGBR), which fostered co-operation between
regions, was a driver for cluster formation. Germany applied a top-down approach to
cluster development but the clusters developed using a bottom-up approach. “In
many German clusters everybody knows that we are supporting industry, but we are
also supporting science at the institute because we support their spin-off activities, so
we are connecting science and business, and also lately clinics. This
multidisciplinary approach and network is an important cluster driver”.
The German government has a system in place to keep people in work when times
become difficult financially. The employee is kept on for 40 hours per week at 70%
of their normal wage and when the financial situation improves they are restored to
226
full income. This prevents loss of skilled personnel and this helps to drive cluster
success. Horst says that you need to be creative at all times and creativity must be
rewarded to keep people incentivised.
10. Technology Transfer refers to the provision of a service that addresses
technology needs by linking them to a solution e.g. SME with an R&D
facility. How important is Technology Transfer and having access to
experienced Technology Translators in cluster development?
According to Horst Domdey all biotechnology comes from an academic base in
Germany; from the universities, the Max Planck Institute, from the Helmholtz, so
Technology Transfer is very important. “We are in close collaborations with
different technology transfer organisations and we support some of them financially
in our personal medicine projects”. Martino believes that there are not enough
people in the university technology transfer offices or incubators with industrial
experience. Mario Thomas stated that technology transfer in Ontario is implemented
through a network of partners who themselves have TCF’s. Mario stated that the
OCE annually funds four major networks for technology transfer in 20 universities,
for people, infrastructures, and proof of principle projects.
Tony Jones stated “anything that enables one side of a collaboration or
contract to translate to the other side, to articulate it in a different way than the
originator has to be a good thing”. Tony stated that technology transfer needs to be
implemented by a team of experts; the regulatory advisors, the technology translators
are not enough individually.
Mary Skelly stated that “a Technology Transfer Officer with a one-size-fits-all
little black book does not work”; “you need more than a hired hand from the state”.
Mary believes that technology translators should be connected to the right people
and the right networks. “In Ireland the wrong people are appointed to the
Technology Translator role and most do not have the relevant experience. This is an
Irish culture issue”.
Claire Skentelbery stated that the universities were not professional enough
regarding technology transfer and it did not seem to be changing. “A Technology
Transfer Office or a facility could promise you the earth but in reality they don’t do
anything”. There needs to be a will to go in and critically assess those services”.
Claire quoted a model operating in Heidelberg Germany that links up traditional
227
industry problems with biotechnology solutions. The program is run by Ralph
Kindervarter; its government subsidised, and basically Ralph goes into big industries
in Germany e.g. Damer, Bosch , and works out where they have technology
challenges in their production process and then he approaches biotechnology
companies to solve those problems. It’s a very expensive program to run because he
has a team of highly talented technology finders. “You would not run it with an idiot
on a string, so it’s a massive investment but the economic impact on the company
has been significant”. The program works astonishingly well and it pays back a
thousand times over but it requires significant public effect upfront. “You need a
significant team of highly skilled people to run it”. Claire says that a Technology
Transfer Officer is a key person. “Ralph is the Technology Translator; he has
significant access to networks, and he has a dedicated team to work those
networks”. The investment in that program paid off for the companies, “but if you
are going to do something to address a European problem you need to plan it, fund
it, and wait for it to deliver”. Derek Jones also stressed this point of long-term
planning.
Mario Thomas of the OCE said Technology Transfer is implemented through a
network of partners who themselves have core facilities. “The OCE annually funds
four major provincial networks for Technology Transfer in 20 universities, for
people, infrastructure, or proof of principle projects”. Mario believes that focus on
the business issue faced by the nascent companies has shown tremendous economic
outcomes.
11. What impact do cluster networks like One Nucleus and BioM have on
cluster development? Does being a member of a cluster network pay
dividends?
Claire believes that it is difficult to measure the impact of cluster networking
organisations like One Nucleus. It did not create the Cambridge Cluster; it’s
basically a network that operates in clusters so it has an important part to play. One
Nucleus was created in response to demand from companies; it’s simply a
commercial response to a need within a cluster. Claire states that what Tony Jones
and Derek Jones are doing is similar to what the CEBR Cluster Network does; “they
talk to companies within a cluster nationally and the CEBR talks to Clusters on an
International level”.
228
Mary Skelly said that a Technology Transfer Officer with a one-size-fits-all
black book does not work “you need more than a hired hand from the state. “You
need a large group of Technology Transfer Officers in different specialisations”.
Claire agreed with this saying that one person cannot hold all the information in their
head regarding technology transfer. Mary said that Enterprise Ireland (E.I.) was a
large hold-back organisation and that everything has to have the E.I. brand to get
approved and developed. E.g. DCU Hothouse is controlled by E.I. Technology
Translators need to be connected to the right people and the right networks and in
Ireland the wrong people are appointed to the Technology Translator role and most
do not have the relevant experience. Mary says “this is an Irish culture issue”.
Tony Jones who runs the One Nucleus cluster network says talking to people is very
important but you have to invest some effort. “Nobody wants to pay for networks
and this is a world-wide view that needs to change”. Tony believes that cluster
networking organisations should be government funded because it’s just something
that should be provided to enable engineers, entrepreneurs, scientist’s and inventors
to meet to create value and they can pay back in spades creating companies together.
One Nucleus is funded by membership income because the government do not
provide that sort of funding. The CEBR is wholly funded by membership fees. Tony
stated “if we could add up the cost of all the companies who paid us from
membership, we could go to the government and say; give us this amount of money
and we will provide free networking for everybody; it would pay back because
everybody is engaged just by being in the right catchment area”. Tony believes that
people align themselves with something they feel comfortable with i.e. the One
Nucleus Network in London. When Tony was asked how One Nucleus has benefited
the biotechnology sector he said that it provided a focal point for like-minded people
to come together and talk to each other. We also operate a group purchasing scheme
that helps companies to save money. The network gives companies access to
employees, quality knowledge sharing, and with a greater critical mass companies
were enabled to talk to other, international clusters, and multinational organisations
to discuss collaborative projects. Tony claimed that One Nucleus gave added value
to companies, “you need to meet the right people who know the right things and One
Nucleus facilitates that”.
229
Mario Thomas spoke about Ontario Bioscience Innovation Organisation (OBIO),
Ontario’s bio-cluster network organisation, which is a private sector membership-
based organisation, and is Ontario’s leading advocate for the life sciences sector.
OBIO engages in policy and government relations activities and enabled the
successful development and commercialisation of Ontario’s life science technologies
through investment, strategic alliances, stakeholder engagement, and industry
promotions.
Derek Jones believed that being part of a cluster network was beneficial to
clusters and companies. “Companies that locate here automatically become
members of One Nucleus and have access to all networking events”. Derek said that
One Nucleus also acts as a portal for job opportunities and companies could source
employees through this and they provide a directory of companies giving exposure to
potential clients.
Horst Domdey supported cluster networks. “Through membership of the
Council of European Bio Regions (CEBR) an international cluster networking
organisation of which Claire Skentelbery is the CEO; we have made strong
connections with clusters throughout Europe e.g. Barcelona and Belgium”.
12. Networking and community have been identified as being a critical
factor in cluster success. How important is networking and
community?
Horst Domdey believes seminars, shows, trade fairs are very important. “The most
important thing is the coffee break and get together after the meal where people can
talk. You always have to invent something new”. We have used roundtables in pubs
where people get together and drink beer, e.g. CEOs, clinical directors, HR people
and people like that. We have asked companies to sponsor dinners and when they
know or think the other CEOs are going; they come too because they don’t want to
miss something. We invite guest speakers and once we hired a comedian who made
fun of the guest speakers. You need to build up the pressure before planning an event
and be inventive.
When Horst was asked about the importance of community and networking
in cluster development he said, "Once I was asked by a Minister of Economic
Affairs; “what is the best way we can support you”? I said; “the best thing would be
to fund one big party per week where people come together”. “In a conference
230
environment the most important thing is the coffee break you get after the meal.”
Horst says creativity is important when bringing people together “you must always
invent something new”. “You have to find different ways to bring people together”.
“You can have the best computers in the world but at the end of the day you need to
meet with people because the computer does not make contact or have a couple of
beers in the evening; its people who do that”. Tony Jones runs an event whereby
company CEO’s go to the pub to network three times a year. Horst would organise
all kinds of conferences and meetings where contracts between industry and
academia were supported. One model he used was bringing people from industry,
research units, research institutes, and clinicians together for a type of speed-dating.
Horst says that people have to meet people to talk, people have to exchange ideas,
and through this completely new things are born.
Horst stated that knowledge of the local activities is very important in order
to support them. An example of this is Bio-Technica a networking event which takes
place in Hanover every two years. Horst decided to run a smaller, more locally
focused event called Bio M Technica. This was a platform to promote our brochure
and our bank of resources and how to access them and also the University core
facilities. BioM made a list of 50 SME’s, 50 research companies, and university core
facilities and advertised their access policy. “Our brochure highlights 1500 life
science research groups in Bavaria”. BioM organise “Pharma Days” where
pharmaceutical companies are invited and informed about the region’s products and
technology services. “This told us that the Pharmaceutical sector was not interested
in the SMEs or the University but it gave us the opportunity to ask what they
needed”.
Horst believes that it is important to engage in transnational networking
events. As an example, BioM showcase their companies to pharmaceutical
companies such as, GSK, Novartis and other major players at an event in Boston,
US, called “Bio Pharma America”. “Last year we signed an agreement with the
Osaka Biotechnology Fortecture in Consa West Japan with 200 pharmaceutical
companies. The agreement gave us immediate access to the pharmaceutical
companies. These Pharma companies need innovation because there is not a strong
biotechnology industry in the region.”
231
Horst also organised a delegation of 18 Munich/Bavarian-based
biotechnology companies to travel to Bio-Japan which took place in Yokohama
Tokyo. “This allows us to study their business model. In one case a contact was
made and a licence agreement to take over one company. The delegation visit was
80% funded by the German Ministry of Research”. BioM are also connected to the
Boston Biotech Area; “we exchanged some ideas with them, and this opens doors”.
Derek Jones says clusters are all about community “it’s all community driven”.
Babraham run conferences like the Bio Investment Forum to showcase the local
community nationally and internationally which keeps us on the radar. We have had
companies locate here because they liked what they saw at the conference. Derek
stressed that people need to understand that success does not happen over-night and
just because an event did not work you don’t give up, a point agreed by Tony jones
and Horst Domdey. “You need to give it sufficient time to get going”. We also run
networking events like dinners, breakfasts, and coffee and doughnut mornings. “The
idea of getting people to talk to each other is crucial. We also encourage people
from other local science-parks and multinationals like GSK and Pfizer to attend”.
Discovery 12 is a networking event run by the OCE in Canada, whereby
industry interfacing meetings give access to investors and a large amount of access
to researchers. Mario Thomas says “interface meetings with industry gives access to
potential collaborations, innovative staffs and innovative ideas”, All stakeholders
are in attendance, investors, industry, inventors, students and government and the
meeting takes place in one large room which encourages interaction. “Covering all
sectors of innovation creates a convergence of technologies and impact is gauged by
the attendance, new and repeat, and a satisfaction survey”.
Tony Jones believes that community is the important bit; to know that you
are only one or two phone calls away from getting advice whether it’s a business
plan or projects etc. “Lots of things happen best locally; information that you can get
over a cup of tea or coffee or a glass of wine perhaps because people are physically
close to each other”. Tony believes that the cluster and the community impact is
really people interaction, a type of symbiotic relationship. Tony noted the
importance of integrating new companies into the local community and the local
cluster. “Then they become in-bedded in that community and the community
232
benefits”. One Nucleus organises pub night-outs three of four times a year because
as Tony said “so there’s a lot of people going for a beer and there is nothing wrong
with that, it’s really important that you get them away from their desks sometimes”.
Claire Skentelbery believes that if a company identifies itself as part of a cluster, it
should contribute to that cluster because this is critical in creating the clustering
effect. “The clustering effect is just community; it’s pretty much what a cluster is,
just people talking to each other all the time and because of that, deals are
exchanged, new jobs are found and new ideas are had. A collection of organisations
in a region is not a cluster really until they communicate and work together”
13. The EU now views Cluster Managers as formal roles of a very
important nature to the success of a business cluster, including
biotech. Is it difficult to find efficient cluster managers, and how does
the role they play benefit cluster development?
Claire Skentelbery believes the job of the cluster manager is enabling access to skills
but it is difficult for a cluster manager to enable access to finance. Claire said that
early-stage clusters have to have access to experienced management whether it is
technological, maturation, clinical innovation and believed that any aspect of cluster
development came down to skilled individuals. “The cluster manager has the
advantage of being able to reach into other clusters and find other models that are
working and if the information is valuable he can relay the information to his
tenants; that is really their role”. Claire believes that the cluster manager should
create an environment of openness and collaboration and facilitate access; “that is
the manager’s job done”. “They are not business advisors in their own right”.
Claire stated that cluster managers are highly diverse people and some of them have
been biotechnology business managers. “It’s not a job where you stay for a few
years and then leave; in the CEBR we have only seen three face changes in five
years”. “If you have an endless succession of civil-servants in the job that don’t
know the sector they you have weak cluster management”. Cluster iterated that
cluster managers need to be passionate and know a huge amount about the sector. “I
think a lot of what Europe has struggled with when it gets a policy driven approach
to cluster development; you don’t get the right people to implement that policy”.
Claire says the best people she has seen do not have a scientific background; rather,
233
they are great people-people. The remit of the cluster manager should be defined by
local government rather than a European thing.
Claire has found that there exists a very strong relationship between the
cluster managers and their cluster, and in the CEBR it is rare to see face changes.
“If a cluster is to maintain productivity and growth you need a strong, proactive
cluster management team who are interested in the team of the cluster. It comes
down to the skills and enthusiasm of the individual and it needs to be policy driven”.
Mario Thomas believes that the right cluster managers with the right skills are
crucial to cluster development. The model adopted by the OCE is such that the
province is managed as one network with 14 regional innovation offices staffed by
entrepreneurs.
Martino Picardo believes that you need to have the right incubator and cluster
manager who can create the right environment that leads to open innovation. The
companies that locate in Stevenage do so knowing that there is an expectation of
them to engage in open innovation and collaboration. Horst Domdey believes that
creativity is one of the most important qualities a cluster manager can have and the
ability to think outside the box.
14. The pharmaceutical sector model of collaboration with SME’s has
been described as being out-dated. With several pharmaceutical drugs
coming off patent and a slowing R&D pipeline; does this model need to
change?
Claire Skentelbery sees the pharmaceutical sector a very slow and old-fashioned in
their approach to collaboration, “they seem to view things more like a sub-contract
rather than collaboration”. Claire stated that the pharmaceutical sector needs to
change their research methods. “Big Pharma do work with small companies but their
pipelines are not growing because they are too conservative”. Claire believes that
the desire of pharmaceutical companies to be in control makes it difficult for them to
engage within a cluster. Claire stated that pharmaceutical companies need a cultural
change and that ultimately healthcare is suffering because governments don’t have
the money for new drugs and companies are finding it more expensive to make drugs
and the industry is overregulated making it more expensive to get a new drug to
market. According to Claire, SMEs have to move further down the pipeline to attract
234
a partner so they have to have the basis of a clinical trial before a pharmaceutical
company will engage them
15. The world is becoming increasingly virtual and with the onset of the
financial crisis, companies have less money to spend mobility. Do you
see the development of virtual communications technology as a viable,
sustainable option?
Horst stated that BioM were not so good at communications and they need to
improve. “I would like to see the development of a web portal where everybody
could get in and exchange ideas and also have intimate forums where people could
get new ideas. We need to improve our server so I asked the University if we could
use their server but they refused. We discussed using Facebook but all these Internet
things like LinkedIn take too much time”.
Claire Skentelbery said that most of the CEBR’s communication is on-line. Claire
stated that in her experience; during the early stages of a project there is a need for
face-to-face meetings but as projects proceed, there is not as much cash available.
She also said that people would much rather have a meeting from their own office
via video conferencing or Skype rather than having to travel.
16. The rate of technology development is changing all the time. What was
cutting-edge technology one day is being replaced the next year by
faster, smaller, and newer technology. This is a problem for SME’s to
stay up to date. How can we offset technology obsolescence?
Derek stated that technology independence was very important. “Government funds
us every five years, but we have autonomy over when the money is spent and what it
is spent on”. “We are not focused on a particular technology; we do blue skies
research”. “If you buy a mass spectrometer one year and this is replaced by a faster,
smaller, and cheaper model the next year”. Derek said that Babraham was
dependent on the science that they do and the advantage was that its academic
research and there is not the competitive commercial threat.
Horst Domdey stated that Germany had a lot of funding, and they have the
best people and they get the latest technology. “It is not a problem because if one
technology is obsolete it is because they already have the next one”. Horst believes
having staff turnover and staff coming from abroad is important. “It is important to
have young postgrads going to Europe and to the USA where they learn new
technologies, but is even more important that they come back”. Germany sends
235
delegations e.g. the president of the Max Planck’s Institute, the president of the
German Academy Of Sciences who go to the USA to attract American science
students to study in Germany. “We don’t want a brain drain but we promote a brain
gain. All this contributes to never having a gap in technology”. Horst stated that this
was not the case with companies and that due to lack of funding companies found it
difficult for to keep up with technology.
Martino Picardo believed to offset technology obsolescence companies
needed to develop relationships with the vendor’s who are building the next
technologies. “Build relationships with vendor so that you have the capability for
today, but it’s not fixed for the next three years. They need to have flexibility so you
can bring in the next generation of technologies or platform, the next instrument or
detection platform so you don’t become a mausoleum”. Martino said that companies
need to create a virtual network around them. Martino also believes in running
seminars and workshops, “don’t make them exclusive, show the vendor is that you
have a captive audience”. Martino relayed that when he put the bid in for the Core
Technology Centre in Manchester, Lord Sainsbury, the then minister for science told
him that he loved the concept and told him that he would approve the £25M for
funding but he would hold back the £5M funding for equipment and said; “by the
time I have signed off on the cheque and you have bought the equipment; it will
already be obsolete”.
Mario Thomas stated that the accelerating rate, cost, and scale of research
infrastructure development and associated new technologies had the potential to
create R&D deficit issues in countries and regions. To offset this the OCE have
created the International Commercialisation Alliance with intermediary
organisations from 22 countries involved. The Canadian intermediary organisations
connect through the Canadian Commercialisation Consortium Claire Skentelbery
stated that the open-innovation model could help to offset technology obsolescence.
17. How important is knowledge exchange for start-up companies?
Horst said that knowledge exchange was an important aspect of BIO-M especially
with new companies who need to get to know the system. “We introduce companies
to contacts in the universities who can help them to write proposals”. As an example
Horst spoke of an American bio-marker company who located in BioM; “we
236
introduced them to the people doing diagnostics and to clinicians. We helped them to
write a grant application and they received €1M from the German government. We
cannot do this for all companies but we do it for new companies. We get them into
the system by a hands-on approach at the very beginning so they get a good start”.
This approach is also used by Derek Jones to help start-up companies get off to a
good start in Babraham.
18. Open innovation in other sectors has shown benefits for all parties.
While the concept of inter-company collaboration in R&D has been
around for some time, the term ‘open innovation’ and related research
into its practice has been developed extensively by Professor Henry
Chesbrough, Executive Director of the Program in Open Innovation (POI) at the University of California, Berkeley. What is your view on
the benefits of open innovation?
I would say that open-innovation is one of the most important aspects of BIO-M. I
have learned from the past that all the technology is there but you have to know how
to access it. In 1997 when we started BIO-M one of the major components of our
concept were shared technologies. It proved difficult due to too much competition.
So now the TCFs are part of our network, e.g. University cores and companies. It is
very important to support the companies offering the core facilities, but we do not
support them as competitors. There are so many technologies available and so much
know-how, but we don’t know who has it, and we have to develop a good system
that can deliver the information about what is available. Bio-M run high and low-risk
projects and this is possible through technology transfer and open-innovation. Horst
stated “open-innovation is one of the major tools we use here”. We have a lot of
people here at BIO-M and the longer that they are here I can give them more and
more help. The longer they are here the more connections they make. This this is
why events that bring people together are invaluable because when people talk,
knowledge is exchanged and people learn from each other and the network of
knowledge grows. You can have the best computers in the world but at the end of the
day you need people because computers do not connect our contact or have a couple
of beers in the evening; it’s the person who has to do that”.
Claire Skentelbery did not think that open innovation is a model for success
in biotechnology because when pharmaceutical companies open up something like
the 9 Sigma platform, it’s more subcontracting than a collaborative development.
237
Tony Jones believed in the concept of open innovation but said that people were
resistant to changes. They say; “show me how it works, and I have not yet seen an
example of it. This is the Stevenage model and it comes from the USA”. Tony
believes that open innovation forces the discussion that says; “where does this fit,
which was probably the case 20 years ago when someone said you can do high
throughput chemistry. There is always room for an unreasonable man”. Tony
believes that open innovation will work if there are TCFs and funding for those types
of hubs and believes that something has got to become a hub of what brings people
together.
Derek Jones described open-innovation as “it’s just a naff word for something that
has been around for quite some time”. Derek stated that open-innovation was a
valuable model for biotechnology SME’s and could speed-up the time it takes to get
a product from bench to consumer.
19. How important is sustainable government funding in developing
successful biotechnology clusters?
I would say that our success is down to the excellent science we have here and
sustainable Government funding has played a big role. “That level of support may
not exist everywhere in Germany, but here in Munich the Federal Government was
very supportive and happy that we were using science to create innovation and
commercialisation. So the companies became an integral part of the community
here”. We have built up relationships with many clinical institutes. Horst stated that
Bio-M fill a gap that industry needed to fill and they do things to promote industry
and the Bavarian Government recognises that. “This makes things easier for our
scientists because they want to come here because they know they will get the
support to do their work”.
20. Government funding policies can change when power changes hands.
What effect does change in funding policies have on cluster
development and the biotechnology sector in general?
Horst agreed that government funding for biotechnology was declining and that
funding was likely to go to projects pertaining to renewable energy and the study of
climate change. “That is true but in other parts of Germany support for biotech
clusters has fallen down the cause biotech is no longer the focus of the German
government. New topics like climate change and alternative energy have replaced
238
biotechnology. I believe the focus of the 21st century should be general biology
because healthcare is declining and this is being taken for granted. Now the German
government supports of biotechnology to a much lower level approximately €20
million per year which is nothing when you consider all the biotech companies”.
Horst stated that many of the ministers who supported biotechnology have left the
Ministry so new people with new visions drive research in different directions.
Claire Skentelbery stated that this was one of the major problems in the UK and that
there needed to be consistency in government funding policy. Horst said “the new
people want to support more academic activities because they come from academia.
We need another new idea that makes biotechnology interesting to policymakers
again”. This change could be very negative for biotech unless it has effectively
become sustainable, but as he says this is dependent on innovation.
Horst was asked if he thought research into rare diseases would drive
innovation but he stated; “this is an old story; we need something new. Maybe the
next step would be to merge our activities with Med Tech, Pharma and biotech, and
in this way the German government would see us doing something new and this
could secure funding for another 10 years. You have to be creative and you always
have to invent new things. You cannot rest on your laurels. This has been the
problem in the pharmaceutical industry that they did not adopt a new mind-set. We
rely on personalised medicine and companion diagnostics; this is reducing the
market but it does not matter if you are the front-runner”.
21. Some experts believe that incubators should not compete with each
other, should not be manages by academic organisations, and need
long-term planning to develop. Would you agree with this point of
view?
Martino Picardo believed that incubators should not compete with each other. “When
I was in Manchester we did not compete with Bio City and they did not compete with
London”. Martino highlighted the UK Bio-Incubator Forum as a model that
analyses what technical services are available in incubators across the UK to
encourage industry to interface with the incubators.
Derek Jones said that when “Bio Incubator Forum” (BIF) was set-up they
implemented an agreement whereby incubators do not compete with each other.
Horst Domdey also echoed this sentiment and started while he supported the core
239
facilities in the incubator, he did not support incubators competing with each other.
The Bio-M incubator began with 800M2
and it was a modular building so sustainable
government funding was available when the incubator needed to be expanded. Now
the incubator is 10% funded by government and the rest of the finance comes from
bank loans which was made possible by long-term planning.
Martino stated that incubators should not be run by academic organisations.
On public funding, Martino said that if public funds were being used to fund the
incubator that there needed to be a clear view on the goals and objectives. Martino
stated that incubators did not get built in the UK without some kind of contribution
from private funds. “Usually incubators are about job creation and they are a long-
term project. To successfully develop an incubator you need to have a long-term
plan and have some metrics in place to project where you will be in one year, three
years, five years and so on because what little I know about the UK landscape
people are less than honest about what is achievable in the first 2 to 3 years of
business incubation”. Martino believes it will take the best part of 12 to 18 months
to get to 70% or 80% occupancy and stated he knew of incubators around the UK
were it took them three years to get to 50% or 60% occupancy. When Martino was in
charge of the Manchester Bio Incubator, 1600 jobs were created over 10 years and
£200M was accessed in VC funding. “It’s not just enough to get the £20 million or
£30 million to build the building, you have got to put some revenue funding in to
make sure that it is able to run before it gets to sustainability and you need a
pragmatic view of what is and what is not achievable and an in-depth knowledge of
the local environment”. “It won’t be Cambridge; you won’t have the level of
entrepreneurship and investment, and the level of big companies coming into the
environment like Pfizer”. Martino stated that the incubator is the best place for
industry/academic interface when the incubator is run properly and that an incubator
that competes with another should not get public funding. “Having joined-up
thinking and non-competition leads to public finding being pumped in, in the right
way and this creates a holistic view of incubation business and supports, and
prevents local-parochial thinking”..
When asked about an incubator model for Ireland, Martino suggested not
filling the building with equipment but rather bring in service providers to provide
the services. Another model suggested was to engage a CRO or build a network of
240
CRO’s. “I am just so against academic groups providing commercial services; you
either put an interface in there with real commercial people, with real commercial
experience or you bring in a CRO or a service provider”.
In his closing statement on the topic of incubation, Martino stated “It’s not in my
interest as a champion of incubation in the UK to have a failure on my doorstep
because failure just breeds government resistance to incubation in general and
therefore a lack of appetite for funding”.
Mario Thomas stated that the MaRS Discovery District is unique as the
largest innovation incubator in the world. “This is where science, technology, and
serial entrepreneurs get the help they need. All kinds of people meet to spark new
ideas and a global relationship for innovation is being earned one success story at a
time”
Derek Jones stated that Babraham provided self-contained units offering office
and lab-space to companies ranging from one person to 30 or 40 people and were in
the process of building follow-on space for companies that needed their “hands held
a little longer”. The objective of the incubator is to facilitate access to expensive
technology for SME’s that they would otherwise be unable to access.
22. One objective of the ShareBiotech project is to analyse the viability of
a Transnational Biotechnology Cluster Model. Do you think that such
a model would be viable?
Martino stated that you need to know the demand for this first before funding is
approved; so what is the demand for a Transnational TCF model? “You need to see
the supply chain, unique selling point, clear differentiation, potential for long-term
success, and not some knee-jerk reaction because you have some funding to use up”.
Derek jones stated the idea of distributed technology is a challenging idea because
people want close access to what they need; they don’t want to travel. He quoted a
survey that was done during the 70s to determine how far people need to be apart
before communication levels dropped or were lost and the result was hundreds of
meters. Derek stated that some of what the ShareBiotech Project was trying to
promote regarding a Transnational Model had been tried at the regional level in
England and was not successful. He quoted a model developed by the Regional
Development Agency (RDA), whereby funding was pumped into Babraham,
Norwich, and Stevenage to develop science parks to provide cutting-edge-
241
technology for companies. “The idea was that if a company comes along and needs
some technology they can go to Norwich for it because we fund that technology.
Norwich is 50 miles away; nobody is going to Norwich, nobody is going to do that;
it’s too much of a barrier”. Tony stated that he struggled to get people into the
university which was only 3 miles away and visa-versa. “I think it’s really
challenging because people will find an easy way of doing it” “Having access to
technology where people have to travel is not going to work”. Again this is further
evidence that transnational models will not be easy, and one must assume that easy
advanced real time video communication is critical
Claire said it would be great if you could create something as massive as a
Transnational Cluster but she was not sure how to go about something as big as that.
Claire believed that if you could create a centre of excellence in three specific areas
across three countries that each group would want recognition inside their own
country. Claire said that you would need to create a legal entity across all three areas
and a single point of access; build a community around this entity so that you have
dedicated PhD’s across all three things and business development meetings across all
three regions. She stated “a label means nothing unless you can do something
around it. So I would use practical terms in producing a wider, deeper pool of
scientific excellence using those three organisations. If I was going to try and do
that across three research centres, even three different countries and create a formal
legal entity that spanned all three companies I would have is Professorship of the
legal entity. I would have studentship of the legal entity. You create, you have to
invest in it and create reality from something like that”. Claire also stated that a
long-term planning and funding policy was needed; “you would need a secretary at
first, you would need to invest in it properly. It’s like a business entity; just putting a
sign on the door does not make you open to business”.
23. Communication technologies and the development of the internet
make it possible for companies to engage with each other without the
expense of travelling. How important are virtual models of
communication?
Mary Skelly Microbide is a virtual model giving access to all parts of the US. “It is
vital to have access to key people with credibility e.g. Microbide has a US expert
from the FDA, a credible surgical expert etc. on their board of directors”. Mary
242
believes that future would embrace virtual technologies because’ intergalactic
‘marketing is now possible. Mary thought that academia should collaborate with the
pharmaceutical sector to define research via virtual networks.
Tony jones stated that “Networking is vital; talking to the right people and virtual
networking, virtual discussions is possible with the technology available today”.
Claire Skentelbery thought that a network needed an active facilitator and it
should not be a passive search engine for core facilities. “It needs to produce real
linkages of people talking to each other, virtual matchmaking teams, online
networking between facilities and not just as a directory of services. Any other model
is not a commercially viable activity”.
CEBR have moved heavily towards online communication platforms because
their members simply don’t have the money to travel. “When people are in projects
they are contractually obliged to have face-to-face meetings, and when people are
out of projects they would much rather have a 90 minute webinar a than travel a day
to sit around a table”. Claire stated huge amounts of money could be spent on a web
platform for communication like “Tools of Science”, but unless you had somebody
oiling the wheels inside it does not get used. Claire said that the intranet quality is
not good enough for an entire online theme so there was no point in having very
expensive communications technology if the bandwidth did not allow it to be used
properly; “you can have the video conferencing technology in every University in
Europe but unless you have a formal infrastructure, a legal entity, there is little point
in having it”.
Claire believed that small companies needed very expensive communication
technology and the CEBR used an array of free online technology like Google
Documents or Skype. “The webinar series we are running now, we are just using
free webinar software and low-cost conference calls”. Claire agreed that there is a
drastic need for a new reliable web based technology but there is a lot of stuff out
there that people can use now.
24. Do you engage in a mixture of high and low risk projects?
Horst Domdey thinks it’s important to have a mix of high risk projects and low risk
projects. “With higher risk projects the failure rate is higher but the success might
be higher also”.
243
Mario Thomas stated that the OCE allocate funding based on the potential for
economic outcomes which means a blend of low risk and high risk projects.
Claire believes that there is no such thing as a low-risk biotechnology project.
25. What is your definition of a TCF?
Horst would define a TCF as “In general a core facility is technologies providing a
service. It is not just to provide equipment but you need to provide the personnel to
use this equipment”. Mario Thomas defines a TCF or a research core facility as an
incubator of enterprise.
26. How difficult is it to secure private funding for cluster development
and R&D?
Mario Thomas said that funding of research and development by the private sector in
Canada is a huge challenge because 90% of all companies are SMEs resulting in
80% funding by the public sector.
27. Porter argues that the role of locations has been long overlooked in the
age open global markets, pointing out that “the enduring competitive
advantage in a global economy lie increasingly in local things-
knowledge, relationships, motivation-that distant rivals cannot
match”. Do you agree with his view?
Derek Jones stated that the local environment, quality of accommodation, schools,
hospitals and shopping centres and leisure and amenities are drivers for attracting the
people we need so cluster of location is important. Derek said that being located so
close to high-profile universities, science parks and hospitals and London played a
significant role in the clusters success. “There was some work done by the New York
Development Corporation (NYDC) that asked companies “why do you go to where
you go?” Tax benefits, all that sort of stuff is really low on their list. “The biggest
driver is you’ve got to be close to world class science and you’ve got to be able to
get a talent pool, that’s what is going to drive you to do it”.
Claire Skentelbery believed the geographical location of the cluster plays a
big role in its ability to attract companies. Investors will travel to a well branded
cluster where they can see 10 companies in one day and not to an isolated or remote
area where they will see one early stage company in a day. “In terms of facilities it’s
much tougher when you have to travel to access them. “You need to factor in the
244
human factor like low-cost accommodation nearby, access to other facilities as well
to make it attractive for people to travel”.
Tony Jones expressed the view for all the things that the community cluster
bit works for “I don’t think that it’s necessarily to do with the innovation. I think
people fire off each other and you get that buzz and it attracts talent because you’ve
got lots of funding there and I think it fuels people to come there, but again it comes
down to this lifestyle thing, some people want to live in the South East of the UK
where the roads are crammed up and its expensive and other people will quite
happily choose to live in the valleys or in Ireland or where it’s a different quality of
life altogether”.
Tony believes that if the individual is innovative with one area of science, one
disease area, or one technology; it’s much easier to be networked to everyone else on
your network at that point, virtual discussions as much as you have physical ones,
28. How important is it to have a culture of government support for the
biotechnology industry? How supportive is the government of the
biotechnology industry in your country?
Derek the UK government are trying to build a good bioscience infrastructure. “If
you generate taxable revenue from IP you pay a lower rate of tax”. As an example
Derek said GSK were building a big manufacturing site in the UK and they will pay
a lower rate of corporation tax because they will use IP created in the UK, and this
helps to keep the IP in the UK. Derek states that the policies being put in place will
take 5 to 10 years to start showing results therefore long term planning is needed.
“The government can’t be seen to be giving soft money. They did this in Germany
but it was all a bit of a disaster”. Claire Skentelbery also commented on Germany’s
method of creating their biotechnology industry, but at the end of the day their policy
worked as agreed by Claire. When Germany decided on a model to develop its
biotech sector, there was ~ 60% company failure but 40% generated the biotech
sector and these results were considered good
Derek stated that the BBSRC; the government agency funding science have a
budget of £350M per year of which a lot goes to universities and research institutes;
the Babraham Institute receives £12M per-annum from the BBSRC. In the 2011 UK
budget the Babraham Institute was awarded £44M. Derek said that it is all about jobs
245
and growth and the UK government are happy for Babraham to continue what it is
doing.
In April 2013 the UK Government introduced the Patent Box; Derek explained the
principle of the Patent Box is “that if you have generated taxable revenue from
intellectual property you pay a lower rate of tax on it so the idea is because
historically we have been very good at coming up with bright ideas but not actually
making any money out of it; if you can keep it in the country it’s cost-effective. So
GSK have announced are going to build a big manufacturing site because they will
pay lower rates of corporation tax because they use intellectual property that has
been created in the UK. There are loads of hoops that you have to go through; the
Dutch have been doing it for years and the UK Government has just introduced that
now”.
The UK Government also introduced Tax Credits where companies doing
R&D can claim back tax and national insurance paid. The government has
introduced a scheme called “Bridging the Value Debt” to assist start-ups who have
difficulty getting funding. “The Technology Strategy Board (TSB) has put quite a lot
of money into this. They have set up a cell therapy Centre in London; at King’s
Cross North London they are just building the Crick centre; the Crick centre is £1
billion I think; so that’s between the medical research Council, the Welcome Trust
and Cancer Research UK”. The unit being built there and that’s headed up by Paul
Nurse who was president of the Royal Society and he was a Nobel Prize winner also.
Derek also said; “the government are apparently; I’ve been told this comes right
from the very top; this comes right from David Cameron; he is very supportive of
bioscience and science in general. They think that this is the way we are going to get
out of the mess that we are in”. Derek stated that the general consensus was that the
government were putting their money where their mouth was; while guarding against
giving soft money away because when the soft money was gone, it is difficult to get
proper money.
Another issue raised by Derek was that the UK Government were looking at
licencing products prior to Phase 3 completion. “I think the idea is that you
approach the EMEA when you have decent Phase 2 results and seek permission to
launch before prior to getting Phase 3 data and the idea is to accelerate the process
of getting drugs to market and changing the clinical trials structure”.
246
Claire stated that the UK government underestimates the impact of not having public
support for biotechnology companies. “Public support is vital to cluster
development. Cluster development lacks government strategy to support them”.
Claire believes that the closing of the Regional Development Authorities in the UK
eroded any strategic support for start-ups to now companies that are less likely to
start-up and survive.
29. Cluster development has been inextricably linked to the quality of the
personnel working in and managing the cluster. How difficult is it to
attract the right people?
Derek Jones stated that since the UK tightened its regulations on immigration rules it
is very difficult to get scientists into the country. “We need to be open to people
coming here from other countries. You make sure that you are getting the right
people and you don’t care where they have come from as long as they are creating
wealth for where they are living”.
Horst stated that it was not easy to get the right people; “it takes time and you
need to build up trust”. We have built up very good connections with the State of
Bavaria, the Ministry Of Economic Affairs and they have supported us through the
bad times. Creativity is vital to attracting the right people and one of the most
important characteristics of people you hire is creativity. It is very important that
they see the results of their creativity. “This keeps enthusiasm high and everybody is
trying to do the next best thing”. You need to have flexibility, and exchange of
people is a good thing. I have the freedom to hire somebody I know is right for the
position even though I may not have the budget to pay him, but I know some women
will go on maternity leave and some will not come back and this approach works.
30. How effective is the EU funding model in terms of supporting and
developing biotechnology and the development of the Smart Economy?
Claire Skentelbery believes that there needs to be better use of the current EU
funding models. “Europe tends to ignore the reality of its biotechnology sector and
prefers the sales pitch. Europe should fund fewer companies, provide seed funding
for 10 companies with a payment by milestone achievement rather than funding 50
companies most of which will not survive because they never reach sustainability”.
Claire stated that EU funding is all minimal risk and this sends out a message that
says; “something innovative and a bit far out will not be funded” and she also
247
believes there is no such thing as a lower risk biotech product. Tony Jones and
Professor Domdey also stated that there is a need to fund novel ideas. Professor
Domdey quoted the example of Eckard Wolfe who was looking for government
funding to develop a large animal model veterinary facility, namely pigs because of
their close physiology to humans, to study rare diseases. However, he did not secure
government funding even though BioM wrote the proposal. “We supported this TCF
and wrote the proposal because at the time it was probably the only one of its kind in
Germany and it would be good to have such a facility in the cluster”. Eckard secured
private funding and built a €5M stable. He is now in collaboration with the European
pharmaceutical industry and he does not even need to advertise. He has developed a
model for Cystic Fibrosis and Muscular Dystrophy and also a model for studying
Diabetes. Tony Jones poignantly stated that “there is always room for an
unreasonable man”. Claire said governments are not reaching forward enough for
companies. “The funding models are broken where private funding is moving down
the fat end of the pipeline and it is not moving backward down the pipeline”. This is
a very important point.
Claire believes that Europe’s funding strategy is to fund five biotech
companies to sustained growth. “During the boom years Germany and Japan would
fund e.g. 100 companies and if only five were successful they would create jobs and
create tax payments on wages. Either way they both ended up with successful
biotechnology clusters”. Claire stated that the reason this model worked was during
the boom-years they had enough money to throw at it and government did not
change every four years. “The problem with government change is that a new
government drives their own ideas, and if existing ventures do not fit in there, they
are in danger of disappearing due to the electoral cycle”. Claire believed that
another reason Germany and Japan were successful is that they always look long
term and are not looking at share price values and thinking beyond the corporate
public sector. Indeed, all the experts agreed that developing a sustainable biotech
sector needed long-term planning independent of government electoral cycle
changes.
Claire was in favour of the Euro Tran’s Bio or Eurostar Projects and believed
they had huge potential in that it’s the logical way to fund international
collaborations by using existing research budgets. However; the main disadvantage
248
of Eurostar is that if you have a brilliant proposal between e.g. Germany, Spain, and
France; if one of the countries has only a tiny amount of money available for that
call, then the project will not be funded even if the other countries meet the required
financial quota.
Claire stated that “a few years ago CEBR tried to set up a Joint International
Seed Fund but the critical stall point was that people did not want to spend money
outside of their own region or country. “Countries are afraid that the benefit will be
felt elsewhere which is ridiculous. The mission of CEBR is defragmenting
biotechnology, its healthy competition and cooperation”.
Claire was critical of government funding strategy because it changes with
the electoral cycle which impacts greatly on deliverables making it very difficult to
achieve consistency. This was the general consensus across all the expert interviews.
“Regions like Catalonia have done better because they have had consistency of
policy despite government change. Government needs to be more cross-border and
cross party on developing science. The delivery time is too long to be felt in one
political term”. According to Claire when people can’t get what they want from their
government they have to go somewhere else. She believed here should be a much
more formal EU planning process linking together facilities. “For example, we could
link the development stages of Ireland on some new antibody to the facilities in
Europe that sit next to each other in the different stages of implementing and
developing antibodies by creating a logical pipeline. Waiting for countries to do
those them is not viable because it will never happen”. Mary Skelly stated this point
also and highlighted it as a model for progression of drug development and reduction
in delivery time stating that “companies with compatible specialities should
collaborate” i.e. dividing phases 1, 2, and 3 and coming to a profit sharing
agreement.
Claire stated if EU money was granted for state facility development,
legislation should be in place that the facility is open at European level and that it
formally goes into a structure of open access. As an example Claire quoted the EU
Water Quality Directive which improved the water quality across Europe. “This
would never have been implemented by National Government. The EU Commission
makes unpleasant decisions forcing better quality at national level. It’s ironic that
the current financial crisis is going to bring us more uniformity across Europe
249
because it has to if we are going to achieve economic stability. The commercial
payback for Europe implementing a European strategy for biotechnology and cluster
development is so huge it’s massive”.
31. During the course of interviews, many experts have expressed
dissatisfaction with the current model of accessing HEI TCF’s. How
would you address this issue and what model would encourage
industry to use academic TCF’s?
Claire Skentelbery stated that academic institutes like Cambridge do not provide
research infrastructure locally. This of course disagrees with Derek Jones of the
Babraham Institute and Tony Jones of One Nucleus. Claire believes that access to
research infrastructure would unlock a lot of things but there are two challenges
involved. “Number one is the continuing struggle to professionalise access to
research infrastructure. Number two is getting companies to use those research
infrastructures”. Claire believed that the voucher scheme could be used to develop
this and felt it was unlikely to be done without some kind of financial initiative or
cost reduction.
Clair indicated that the problem with giving vouchers to SMEs to have some
work done is that they would prefer if a company did it because they are more
aligned to timelines, whereas HEI’s were not. Claire expressed the view that
companies expect a €5000 voucher to buy them €50,000 worth of work within an
academic institution, and the feeling was that an academic researcher might see the
work as secondary to his own work. This view was also expressed by Derek Jones
of the Babraham Institute and Martino Picardo of the Stevenage Biocatalyst
Claire reverted to a meeting she had with the manager of a new cluster in Israel
who stated that rather than using the University facilities he was building a new
Stem Cell Institute that will be run for professional service provision and academic
research will then take place in the Institute. “He is reverting the University into a
professionally run facility”. Claire stated that the Institute of Nano biotechnology
has also adopted this model and runs professional contracts with companies all over
Israel. Claire was in favour of the Caltech Georgia model and the Fraunhofers model
as an effective way of directly interfacing with industry and indicated that in general
universities were not professional enough to interface with industry; also Tech
Transfer offices need to be critically assessed.
250
32. The pharmaceutical industry model has been described as old
fashioned and outdated. Do we need to develop a model where
pharmaceutical companies work with SME’s?
Claire was supportive of pharmaceutical companies setting up innovation centres to
work with SMEs and felt it was a very attractive model. “The centres are purely
private sector funded and they know the right language to talk and what to do and
what is needed, more so than government organisations or universities. Stevenage is
probably the closest model we have to that in the UK because of their links with
GSK. GSK offer consultancy to companies in partnership with them and the GSK
supply a specialist to work with the company”.
Individual questions for Professor Horst Domdey
1. How important is it for the cluster management to have autonomy over
the running of the cluster?
Horst believes that you need the freedom to run your organisation;” your hands
cannot be tied by bureaucracy. If we want to do something entirely new we have the
autonomy to do it and that is one of the key elements of Bio M. We are not a Cluster
Management Organisation; we are a Cluster Development Organisation because we
want to develop. We decided to enter a competition called the Leading Edge Cluster
Competition in accordance with the Ministry of Research. We won and the federal
government gave us another €40 million which was matched by local companies.
The Bavarian government are very happy with us and gave us another €20 million so
we had €100 million because we decided to enter this competition. We didn’t need
permission; we just did it and use the money to work on personalised medicine. The
decision to research personalised medicine brought the clinicians and the
pharmaceutical companies into BIO-M, something we had tried to do for years. Big
Pharma was only interested if we had phase 2 or phase 3 drugs and the clinicians
said,” You are biotechnology, we treat patients”. “This gave BioM an official
platform where we could cooperate with the clinicians and the Pharma industry. And
most importantly we were supported by the Federal Ministry of Research and the
Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs. It is very important to build a strong
network with big Pharma, clinicians and the government”.
251
2. What benefits have you derived from engagement in transnational
collaborations?
“We strongly support transnational activities. There is an event in Boston called bio
Pharma America where we present our companies to big pharmaceutical companies
such as GSK, Novartis and other major players. Last year we signed an agreement
with the Osaka Biotechnology Fortecture in Consa West Japan with 200
pharmaceutical companies. The agreement gave us immediate access to the
pharmaceutical companies. These Pharma companies need innovation because there
is not a strong biotechnology industry in the region. We are planning a delegation
visit by 18 Munich/Bavarian-based biotech companies to Bio Japan which takes
place in Yokohama Tokyo. This allows us to study their business model. In one case
a contact was made and a licence agreement to take over one company. The
delegation visit was 80% funded by the German Ministry of Research. We are also
connected to the Boston Biotech Area; we exchanged some ideas with them, and this
opens doors. Through membership of the CEBR we have made strong connections
with clusters throughout Europe e.g. Barcelona, Star column, and Belgium.
Connection to the University can be counter-productive and we have found that if
the idea did not generate in the University, then they don’t want to collaborate. This
is typical of universities”.
3. Under what circumstances would you approve industry use of academic
TCF’s?
“In 1997 when we started BIO-M one of the major components of our concept were
shared technologies. It proved difficult due to too much competition. So now the
TCFs are part of our network, e.g. University cores and companies. It is very
important to support the companies offering the core facilities, but we do not support
them as competitors. We are part of the incubator and there we have 30 to 40
companies who offer their services. We invite core facilities from universities
because they have some technologies that cannot be accessed anywhere else. We
recommend cores in the Max Planck’s Institute. But we differentiate what can be
done by a company and what can be done by the University and a core facility. Less
sophisticated work can be done by companies but we recommend that more
specialised work is done by core facilities”.
252
“We sent in a proposal here for funding to set up a core facility for veterinary
medicine using large animal models, namely pigs, whose physiology is very similar
to that of humans. The federal government did not give funding but the professor
whose idea it was got finance to build a €5 million pig stable. He started
collaborating with pharmaceutical companies internationally. We supported this
TCF because it was novel and probably the only one of its kind in Europe. We put 2
man months into writing this proposal. This man’s name is Eckhard Wolf and he
already has developed a model for diabetes. He doesn’t need to advertise because he
is heavily involved with the big Pharma”.
4. How would you define a TCF in BioM
“In general a core facility is technologies providing a service. It is not just to
provide equipment but you need to provide the personnel to use this equipment.
Again I come back to the point; we support core facilities as soon as they are
specialised as long as they do not interfere with the market”.
5. How important is it to have full time technicians? (discussion)
“I don’t see the turnover of staff as a bad thing; about one third of our staff here are
technicians. In the USA you don’t find as many technicians and this makes running a
TCF more difficult. Here the technicians play a big role in keeping the technology
in-house. In the University technicians have permanent positions and are involved in
training students”.
6. Do you think that proximity of TCF’s is a factor in cluster success?
“This is the kind of science Park we have here. We located the Department of
Pharmacy and the Department of Chemistry on the campus. We decided then to
build an incubator starting with 800 m² and now it is grown to 25,000 m². We fully
support this incubator but we do not run the incubator ourselves because that is
another business and we did not want to be diverted from our main goal which was
to build the type of science Park we planned. We have attracted four companies from
abroad to settle here. They settled here because they have access to all the services
they need. Location and proximity to service is really important in cluster
development. We have similar science parks in Northern Bavaria. They built an
253
incubator in another German University in Bavaria, just 15 minutes from the
campus and it does not work and people go there but reluctantly. Other universities
say they would like to locate a group here because they could learn from others. We
have a waiting list of 5000 m²”. This would suggest that transnational clusters only
work if the basics are local and they offer something unique on top.
7. How important is thinking outside the box to address novel research
questions?
“It is very important that you have the possibility of electronic communication but
the campus, the cluster effect plays a very important role. People need to interact for
new ideas to emerge. What I saw in Harvard Medical School; I remember a guy who
was doing some work on frog’s legs in conjunction with a hospital orthopaedic
Department; so the more novel the idea the better the chances of getting funding. It
is also important to support some strange ideas because they may result in some new
innovations. If some scientist is researching exceptionally rare disease, you need to
look outside the box. Sometimes people only see what was done before and they see
no new possibilities. A modern scientific approach is essential to answer the
exceptional problems”.
8. In BIO-M what is the breakdown between public/private sector
infrastructures?
“Public sector is 90%; the companies do not have enough money to finance good
research so they have to rely on the research institutes. In the 90s companies had a
lot of money to do this type of research which resulted in a lack of success because
this was just academic research for University professors. This resulted in new
innovations coming from the University”. This implies again that academics that
understand industry and are not just self-focused is crucial in making TCF access
useful. Also to some extent it is in conflict with Horst’s view that HE TCFs
represent unfair competition.
9. Is it difficult for TCF’s in Germany to access sustainable funding?
“The problem with these core facilities is that they have to support themselves at the
end of the day and that is difficult. This is also a problem within university core
facilities. You need some infra-mural financing structures otherwise it does not
254
work. The reason why we do not have so many core facilities in Munich is because
we have so many service companies who can do equally the same work or even
better. In specialised areas like microscopy which is very specialised and not offered
by many companies, people do it on a more research collaboration basis but not so
much a TCF. The University of Regensburg has some very specific technology but
they are not organised as a core facility and they are run by the Department Of
Research. They collaborate with other HEI’s and can charge other institutes for the
service. The Max Planck’s Institute here has a much specialised sequencing facility
but if they need fast results they contract out to a company”.
10. Employment laws and culture differs across Europe and the US. Do
these cultural differences cause problems for foreign companies thinking
of locating in Germany?
“The employment policy in most of Europe and the USA is such that if you have a
problem you hire somebody to fix it and when it’s fixed you can let them go. That is
not the situation in Germany. If you hire a person in Germany they are hired for
good so it’s not a hire and fire situation and this can be a real problem for a new
company is starting. They would hire staff for the research stage and five years later
you could be in the development stage, but you cannot fire the research staff. This is
not a problem if the company is growing you can hire new people. But usually the
company does not have enough money and the people you are hired for research do
not know how to do the development. I remember the case of a biotech company; I
was sitting on the board of directors. The company had a lack of money and the
American investors suggested making 80% of the staff redundant. But this was not
possible because if you lay off the workers you have to pay them so much in
redundancy that your money is gone any way which resulted in the American
investors saying that they would never invest in Germany again. This is one of the
major reasons why companies do not invest in Germany because restructuring
companies is so difficult here. This is why consultancies and universities offer one-
year contracts only. This is perhaps a general problem for Europe. One instrument
in Germany to combat this is that the company keeps the staff on a 40 hour week and
the government pays 70% of their salary and then when the company goes into profit
everything revert back to the original contract. This means you keep all the good
people you have”.
255
11. To what do you attribute the success of BIO-M? How big a role has
sustainable government funding played?
“I would say in our success is down to the excellent science we have here and
sustainable Government funding has played a big role. That level of support may not
exist everywhere in Germany, but here in Munich the Federal Government was very
supportive and happy that we were using science to create innovation and
commercialisation. So the companies became an integral part of the community
here. We have built up relationships with many clinical institutes. We fill a gap that
industry needed to fill and we do things to promote industry and the Bavarian
Government recognises that. This makes things easier for our scientists because they
want to come here because they know they will get the support to do their work”.
12. What effect do company mergers or take-overs have on cluster
development and how are take-overs and mergers viewed by the German
Government?
“It’s not a bad thing when a company is taken over if the company can stay in the
home country. If a company is taken over and its assets and IP are acquired and the
company is closed down then this is bad for cluster development. If the buyer is only
interested in one product then the company can be sold back to the shareholders and
continue under a different name. Another example where a takeover is good for a
cluster development is if the buyer uses the company to expand its presence in
Europe. So the company continues under the same name and its products are sold by
the buyer. The German government would prefer if new companies were developed
and become profitable by themselves. I support service companies being taken over
but where you have two CRO’s doing the same thing I support mergers or
collaborative joint ventures that produce better products for clients such as
pharmaceutical companies”.
Individual Questions Martino Picardo
1. Could you define a successful incubation model for Ireland?
“Each incubator should deal with its own environment and its own deal flow and its
own people. There needs to be an awareness of what’s going on in NIBRT, the
Conway Institute and Trinity College because Ireland is not big enough for
duplication of facilities unless somebody can convince me that the investor appetite
and the people and the IP and the deal flow are there”. This in theory has been the
256
policy in Ireland for some time, although numerous examples of politics intervention
etc.
2. What is needed to create a successful biotechnology cluster in Ireland?
Martino believes that before you build an incubator, Science Park or centre, you
need to map what’s already in place “what have we got? Where are we strong?
Where are we weak? What do we need next? To get venture capital support in
Ireland, you need to convince the global market that there is something in Ireland
that you cannot get anywhere else. If you have joined-up thinking, it leads to public
money being pumped in and joined-up thinking facilitates creating a hub around
which a cluster can develop. Ireland does not have much in the way of drug
development or drug discovery which is real biotechnology. No country can be the
best at everything e.g. inflammatory diseases, respiratory, cardiovascular, oncology
etc. so a country needs to focus on what it does best. There is no pharmaceutical
research and development in Ireland. You need to join up what you have to see what
is already there. The bulk of what is in Ireland is medical technologies and services.
Ireland strengths lay in medical technology, CRO’s, analytical services. Whatever
clusters you develop, needs to be based on demand and cannot be seen as local
parochial. What can you provide to the outside world that starts in Ireland, then
goes to Europe and the UK and then globally?
As regards incubators; if public funds are being used to fund an incubator, you need
to be clear on your objectives and your goals. Usually incubators are about job
creation and they are a long-term project. To successfully develop an incubator you
need to have a long-term plan and have some metrics in place to project where you
will be in one year, three years, five years and so on. The Manchester bio incubator
created 1600 jobs over 10 years and received £200 million in VC funding. It’s not
enough to just have the money to build an incubator, you need the money to fund it
and it becomes sustainable and you need a pragmatic view of what is and is not
achievable and an in depth knowledge of the local environment”.
Individual Questions Mary Skelly
1. Your company is located in Ireland but you do most of your research
and development in the US. How have you found doing business in
Ireland v the US?
257
Mary Skelly believes cultural differences are a major stumbling block when
comparing doing business in Ireland v America. When engaging in new business
ventures in the US the culture is such that entrepreneurs are encouraged to be
adventurous and there is no shame attached to failure. “In Ireland you are
questioned as to why you are so brilliant”. Mary believes that the Irish culture is
geared towards people with wealth or belonging to a certain social background.
“Public/private structures are more accessible in the US”. As an example, Mary
named Kentucky as one of the Poorest states in the US, but it provides $30,000 for
legitimate companies to present a credible business plan and the prospect of creating
employment that does not have to be repaid. “Once the premises are located and a
one year contract is signed a repayable grant of $75,000 is given”. Mary also said
that “the Federal Agencies in the US have a willingness to support SME’s and that
50% of technology is from non-academic facilities. This means that unlike the EU, a
lot of the TCF’s are in the private sector. US university facilities are shared and
access is available to external users. NIBRT should be managed by a totally
independent team and not be branded by UCD/DCU”
“The Research Triangle Park (RTP) is one of America’s most successful clusters
that was started almost 40 years ago and has continued to grow even during the
recession due to strong support from state leaders and continued state investment in
high tech worker training”. Mary stated that the RTP had maintained the ability to
change and work with SME’s; several of which had grown into large companies.
Mary stated that the US support program for SME’s “bends over backwards to
prevent failure”. Mary finds that US companies and the people who run them are
accessible no matter what position they hold, whereas is Ireland it’s difficult to get
business leaders to converse with you. Europe also fails in not providing adequate
funding for start-up companies, “€15,000 - €30,000 is not enough for biotech start-
ups and does not support export capacity”. Mary stated that people in charge of
biotechnology in the US are essentially biotechnology entrepreneurs and that
Enterprise Ireland needed to adopt this model and be more accessible. “Ireland
needs to offer more than tax credits to companies. All academic core facilities
should be tax-free zones. This allows job creation in providing wages and each wage
has a tax attached”.
258
Individual Questions for Tony Jones
1. There is virtually no R&D in Ireland and we are reliant on
manufacturing. How do you develop a model that embraces R&D and
the growth of indigenous industries?
“It’s easy to have a negative view on research and development and say; we can’t
compete with Asia or China or the US. Look at the bits of research and development
you can do by creating your own IP. This would produce far more high-value
research. Ireland has some excellent academic institutions and if you look at their
publication record there is a lot of innovation there. There needs to be a mind-set of
investment in innovation, and a willingness to go down the innovation pipeline.
Derek Jones believes Ireland’s strength lies in high-tech food processing”.
2. What model would you like to see developing for biotechnology going
forward?
“We have to develop a collaborative model whether its open innovation or whatever
and we need to find a way of working together with the multiple parties to get into
the value chain. A lot of time companies are academics they don’t have the money
but they have the capacity, so it’s about trying to match capacity gaps. A sense of
ownership has to happen and that can only happen at the community level. By
sharing underutilised technology you make the sector more cash efficient!
Individual Questions for Claire Skentelbery
1. What is your view of the EU Commission introducing quality standards
for clusters?
“There is a huge shift from the enthusiastic start-up of a cluster to serious
assessments of what they are doing and how they are managed. There should be a
quality standard for clusters but the plan being implemented by the EU Commission
is not feasible because many clusters already have very strict policies in place. The
plan being proposed is just a ticket for consultants who are not experts on cluster
development and management to make a lot of money. I think cluster managers will
be very cynical because their job is not cluster development”. This is of course
different to Horst Domdey’s opinion. “Clusters can benefit from training but it has
to be from a trusted person. This quality standard will not impact on what a lot of
259
clusters do and they want to spend money on it if there is no added value. That is
why the EU Commission is making it mandatory to access cluster funding”.
2. Innovations seldom end up in the cluster where they were born – is this
true?
“The development pipeline for a technology never stays in the same cluster. It must
go somewhere else. This makes it difficult to measure growth even if it’s in shifting
markets”.
3. What is the benefit of CEBR membership and how are you funded?
“I would say CEBR has a positive effect on cluster development; we have a network
of 50 clusters across Europe. We are totally self-funded by membership fees and
sponsorship. Being part of this CEBR network gives access to technology transfer
offices, consultancies, hospitals and anybody else who is interested in work to
support a cluster and make it grow. CEBR is the primary point of contact for
companies in their community. CEBR is drawing a map of our network to identify
and fill identified gaps. In 2013 we will be a legally independent entity and we will
try to cement our position as the network for Europe. The mission of CEBR is
defragmenting biotechnology, its healthy competition and cooperation”.
4. What are your views on cluster development in Ireland?
“Companies need to look at their niche areas and developed the environment that
they have. Country should look at what made them strong in the first place and
remember the legacy that created economic power. It’s redefining your capabilities
and we don’t have to be like Germany, only Germany is like Germany. Clusters are
almost impossible to replicate and that is why you should do what works for you.
When plans lose momentum, when the government cycle changes, it halts progress.
NIBRT should have become a high profile centre of excellence located in Athlone
and interfacing with industry, but because of bureaucracy and government change
the budget was lost and it ended up being a facility half of its original size and linked
to an academic organisation. This stifles industry interface and promotion on a
global scale leading to less investment and had a definite of the development of the
260
Irish biotechnology sector. . You have got to control things very carefully and
implement a long-term sustainable budget”.
Table 3.16 Consensus between Experts answers to questions 1 to 33 - Short
answers to individual questions
Questions Experts Initials
Q HD CS MP MT MS TJ DJ 0/0 %
1 × × × × × × × 7/7 100
2 × × × 3/7 42.85
3 × × × 3/7 42.85
4 × × × × 4/7 57.15
5 × × × × × × 6/7 85.7
6 × × × × 4/7 57.15
7 × × 2/7 28.6
8 × 1/7 14.3
9 × × × × × × × 7/7 100
10 × × × × × × 6/7 85.7
11 × × × × × 5/7 71.43
12 × × × × × 5/7 71.43
13 × × × 3/7 42.85
14 × 1/7 14.3
15 × × 2/7 28.6
16 × × × × 4/7 57.15
17 × × 2/7 28.6
18 × × × × 4/7 57.15
19 × 1/7 14.3
20 × 1/7 14.3
21 × × × 3/7 42.85
22 × × × 3/7 42.85
23 × × × 3/7 42.85
24 × × × 3/7 42.85
25 × × 2/7 28.6
26 × × × × 4/7 57.15
27 × × 2/7 28.6
28 × × 2/7 28.6
29 × × 2/7 28.6
30 × × 2/7 28.6
31 × 1/7 14.3
32 × 1/7 14.3
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS HORST DOMDEY
1 Cluster managers need autonomy over decision making in their cluster
2 Transnational collaborations are important for cluster development
3 Academic TCF’s can offer technologies to Industry only when they are novel
4 A TCF provides technologies and expertise in a service capacity
5 Full time technicians are vital for provision of services and maintaining skills
6 Proximity of TCF’s is vital to cluster development
7 It is important to be creative because novelty enhances acquisition of funding
8 90% of companies in Germany are in the public sector
9 Public and private TCF’s have difficulty achieving sustainability
10 The employment laws in Germany are not conducive to attracting foreign investment
11 Our success is down to excellent science and sustainable government funding
12 Company mergers and take-overs can have a negative or positive on cluster
261
development, depending on whether the I.P. stays in Germany. The German
Government would prefer to see companies growing in Germany and staying in
Germany.
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS CLAIRE SKENTELBERRY
1 The plan being proposed is just a ticket for consultants who are not experts in cluster
development or management to make money, and cluster managers will be very cynical
2 The development pipeline for a technology never stays in the same cluster
3 The CEBR has a positive effect on cluster development; our aim is to defragment
biotechnology
4 Companies need to look at their niche areas and develop the environment they have
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS TONY JONES
1 Ireland’s strength lies in high-tech food processing, but there needs to be a mind-set of
investment in innovation and a willingness to go down the innovation pipeline
2 Develop a collaborative model; whether it’s open-innovation, and find a way of
working together with multiple parties to get back into the value-chain
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS MARY SKELLY
1 The cultural differences, lack of government investment, and attitude of appointed
officials make developing a sustainable business in Ireland difficult in comparison to
the US
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS MARTINO PICCARDO
1 An incubator should deal with its own environment, deal-flow, and its own people
2 To build a cluster in Ireland you need to map what you have, do SWOT analysis, have a
unique offering globally, have joined-up thinking, and have sustainable funding and
long-term planning
HD = Horst Domdey BioM - CS = Claire Skentelbery CEBR - MP = Martino Picardo Stevenage -
MT = Mario Thomas OCE - MS = Mary Skelly Microbide - TJ = Tony Jones One Nucleus - DJ =
Derek Jones Babraham
3.19 Recommendations to Strengthen the Biotechnology Sector in
the Atlantic Area The report “Recommendations to Support the Growth of a Bio-Based Economy” was
published in November 2012 by Bruno Sommer Ferreira, general coordinator, data
collection, and revision for the ShareBiotech consortium of partners. Table 3.9 is a
summary of the recommendations, and the “Issues column” is the views of the thesis
author. The full 61 page document can be accessed on www.sharebiotech.net under
the press/publications tab. The full text of recommendations can be accessed in
(Appendix 6).
The study analyzed the technology landscape in the ShareBiotech Regions and gave
recommendations to technological networks and Policy makers in the Atlantic Area
to support the growth of a bio-based economy.
The resulting report presented a short profile of the ShareBiotech regions, which
focused on the economy of each region, the existence of policies to foster the
262
development of biotechnology as a sector (central and regional policies, biotech-
specific or not), the financial resources available for research, innovation, and for the
creation of businesses (public and private, financial and corporate investment), the
clustering initiative, and finally gave a short overview of the biotech landscape for
each region.
The analysis showed a patchwork landscape which reflected the fact that the regions
belonged to different countries, with different economic and social environments,
administrative organizations, policies and strategies, different investment practices,
international outreach and priorities. However, common aspects were found such as
a specialization in health and well-being applications of biotechnology, well in line
with the European average reality, but limiting the differentiation potential. Also,
common barriers to R&D, lack of specialized competencies in-house (mainly for
small companies or for companies working in areas which interface different areas of
knowledge) and the lack of human resources experienced in for senior positions of
management, science and engineering. In addition to those barriers, the difficulty to
find partners, such as specialized service providers, scientific research groups,
investors or other companies, and the cost and lack of know-how require effective IP
protection were mentioned across various regions.
Recommendations were proposed in order to enhance the cooperation between the
regions participating in ShareBiotech, building on the existing capacities and
potential synergies, and in order to address some of the innovation barriers that were
identified. The main recommendations were:
1. Deploy one large-scale transnational collaborative project on Marine
Biotechnology, a strategic topic in which the Atlantic Area can compete at
global scale and actively participate in initiatives being launched on that
topic, such as ERA-NET on Marine Biotechnology (ERA-MB).
2. Establish a permanent collaborative network for technology share and
transfer to more effectively source information, better match demand and
offer of technology, and share best practice.
3. Improve the visibility of academic competences and promote stronger
linkages within the innovation system by repositioning the strategy and
increase pro-activity of technology transfer and liaison officers at publically
funded institutions, including the creation of a position for business
development, and intensify the interaction between the relevant actors
(regional authorities, university and research institutes or national
laboratories,, business associations and financing institutions).
263
4. Correct some infrastructural deficiencies, such as providing adequate
facilities in incubators with wet-labs, or set up a specialized bio-incubator
when the dynamic of the local region justifies it.
5. Set up a limited number of open access integrated multi-purpose pilot scale
facilities for industrial bio-processes (e.g. to support the development of bio-
refinery activities)
6. Set up a network of Biological Resource Centers (BRC’s) within the
ShareBiotech regions.
7. Map and access the capacity and integrate the best possible “Omic”
platforms available within the ShareBiotech regions to create a network of
diversified (Omic)” platforms with the capacity to serve the needs of the
ShareBiotech regions, and offer those capabilities outside the network. All of
the recommendations are presented in (Table 3.9).
Table 3.15: Summary of Recommendations to Support the Growth
of a Bio-Based Economy (Appendix 6)
Recommendation Issues
Cover the operating expenses of the infrastructures and up-
grade existing ones
A more extensive and frequent funding
programme for handling updating of
capital infrastructure and contributing
to operating costs would be very
useful, but this of course won’t be
applicable to all TCFs
Current curricula should be revamped in order to include a
diversified set of transferable skills
The creation of new real world applied
courses is important, but such
curricular content is unlikely to be
incorporated into all programmes.
Masters in Research (MRes) etc. could
address this
One University from each region should get involved in the
Life Science, Marine and Agricultural Universities Forum
Marine research should be a significant
domain for the Atlantic Region.
Presume this engagement would be
useful
Synergies should be sought for establishing life-long
training structures, for example the (above)-mentioned
biopharmaceuticals and biomedical production training
Facilities offering e.g. bioprocessing
training are being selectively
developed, e.g. NIBRT. There are
options for ShareBiotech partners to
develop such programmes with
industry engagement
Marine biotechnology should be elected as a strategic topic
for ShareBiotech regions; deploy one large-scale
collaborative project
Marine biotech is a necessary core
domain for the region. Debatable
regarding the desired number and
nature of projects
All ShareBiotech regions are recommended to take part in
the future ERA-NET marine Biotechnology
Yes, should happen in partnership
Take part in the JPI Oceans
264
Set up of Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KIC’s)
devoted to Atlantic Marine Biotechnology stimulated by
the partners of the ShareBiotech regions, or consider the
integration in the Marine KIC initiative
Private company or public facility? As
a driver of innovation, yes important &
should be connected with other planned
marine bio research
Establish collaboration network/partnership in the fields of
biomaterials, cell therapies and regenerative medicine
All substantial & growing fields but
tend to have large establishment in
non-Atlantic regions. Networks exist,
but options for new models exists
Establish collaboration network/partnership in the fields of
biorefineries
Low scale of biorefinery work
currently on-going – need to increase.
Will become very important with
further decline of oil industry. Costs
need to be addressed. Target should be
key chemicals, not biofuels to reduce
impact on food production. Biofuel
requires alternative plant sources, e.g.
reactor growth
Promote stronger linkages within the innovation system Important need, but requires serious
customisation to deliver new benefits
and outcomes
Visibility and advertisement of the academic competences
need to be dramatically improved
There is substantive dissemination of
academic competence and history, but
perhaps greater need for applied
focused institutions such as
Fraunhofers etc.
Establish a permanent collaborative network in order to
share best practice and to more effectively source
information and perform the matching between demand
and offer of technology
Formal progression of TCF network
with enhanced collaboration, access
models, interfacing, communication,
task delivery, training etc. is important
Each node of the above mentioned network should create a
position for business development (without duplication of
work...)
Design and operation of such networks
needs to be finalised, but assumes
strong capacity for supporting SMEs
and facilitating tech transfer
It is recommended that some existing infrastructure
deficiencies are corrected (e.g. Bioincubator...)
Biotech parks usually include company
accessible core facilities such as bio-
incubators – structure do need be
planned and extended
Set up a limited number of open accesses pilot scale
facilities (biorefineries, fermentation…)
It represents a risk, but creation of
competent specialist TCFs with cheap
access, would be very useful and a
practical contributor to innovative
company & R&D development. Some
smaller more basic facilities may
extend to community access – Living
Lab/Science Shop
Set up an on-line bioinformatics collaborative platform to
gather and share bioinformatics capabilities of the network
Significant bioinformatics data
platforms already exist for those in a
position handle such data.
Bioinformatics competence and
necessary resources are an important
element of any biotech network
engaged in genomics / proteomics etc.
Map and asses the capacity of the available "omic"
platforms
Yes, necessary to extend TCF map to
include more info regarding company
links and commercialisation research
265
and particular domains such as “omics”
Set up a network of biological resource centres within the
ShareBiotech region
Instruments to Mobilise Life Science Infrastructures
Mobilize INTERREG/European Territorial Cooperation Important to continue and evolve
Interreg programmes
Structural funds Emphasis on EU research
infrastructure
Mobilize FP7/Horizon 2020 An inevitable major source of
transnational funding
ERA-Net Of value
Eureka Eurostar Employ as selected model for Atlantic
Region TCF access models
3.20 Biotechnology Education “Training Offer & Needs in the Atlantic Area” (Appendix 6)
The Lisbon European Council set up an ambitious strategic goal in 2000 “to become
the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable
of sustainable economic growth and more and better jobs and greater social
cohesion” (Lisbon European Council, 2000). ShareBiotech – Sharing life science
infrastructures and skills to benefit the Atlantic Area biotechnology sector and aimed
to promote transnational networks of innovation and entrepreneurship which focused
on knowledge transfer between research centres and firms. Technological, scientific,
and organisational breakthroughs were generally generated at the interface of a
variety of disciplines and approaches. One of the objectives of ShareBiotech was to
stimulate links between academia and industry using several instruments, one of
which was to connect people from different life science fields (human, health, food,
marine, biology, bioinformatics, etc.) and cultures (research/business) through
training and mobility and development of workshops, i.e. Local Technology
Meetings, (LTM’s). ShareBiotech activities funded 170 mobility grants and 41
LTMs that were attended by more than 1600 people. The overall impact of
ShareBiotech on providing training was fairly modest, although this was
unsurprising as this was not a key axis of the project. The actions of ShareBiotech
served to reinforce the notion that more actions are needed to develop an appropriate
offer for training needs but that short term mobility’s for training were an effective
means of specialised training and networking. However, alternative training models
are required to attract SMEs and to offer what they require. Overall, significant gaps
266
in the Biotechnology training offer exists in the Atlantic Area and it will be
important in the future to focus on the development of Biotechnology training in
order to reinforce the sustainability of this sector.
In the context of the European strategies and recommendations to improve Education
and training in Life Sciences as a base for a sustainable Bio economy, a report
(Biotechnology Education; Training Offer and Needs in the Atlantic Area) was
commissioned to identify the skills and training needs in the area of Biotechnology
in the Atlantic Area) within the ShareBiotech partner regions) and to provide
recommendations to improve the training offer and Education in this area. This
report was published in 2013 (wwwsharebiotech.net).
Formal Higher Education Degrees
A wide range of University degrees in Life Sciences, which can serve as the basis for
specific training for the Biotechnology sector were identified in higher education
(HE) institutions in all partner regions. However, only degrees strictly related to
Biotechnology were collected during the investigation summarized in (Figure 3.).
Figure 3.106: Number & Type of Forman Higher Education Biotechnology
Degrees identified per ShareBiotech region (Source: Biotechnology Education Training
and Needs in the Atlantic Area)
Higher Education Degrees in Biotechnology were identified in all ShareBiotech
regions and there was substantial variation in the offer of specific Biotechnology
degrees in H.E. Systems of the regions. The North of Portugal had a high level of
BSc and MSc in biotechnology followed by the BMW region (Ireland), Bretagne
(France), and the centre of Portugal. Three of the partner regions, Navarra, Spain,
267
Algarve and North Portugal also offered training in biotechnology at PhD level.
Some courses in the S&E region of Ireland were available as a distance learning
option.
Figure 3.107: The number and type of vocational courses related to Biotechnology
identified per region (Source: Biotechnology Education Training and Needs in the
Atlantic Area)
Some regions (e.g. Portuguese regions Algarve and Centro) offered almost
exclusively only short and occasional/infrequent types of training mainly short
courses/workshops. The S&E region of Ireland had a very high offer of short
courses/workshops. The vocational training offer in Ireland tended to be either short
courses/workshops or tertiary vocational degrees with nothing in between. In
addition, the two Irish regions offered several BSc/BSc honours degrees that
conferred professional certification. Navarra had a broad distribution of vocational
training courses that were offered with a well-established frequency at both
secondary and tertiary levels. French ShareBiotech regions had no secondary
education level vocational studies in biotechnology but had a rich offer in both short
term and longer duration tertiary vocational studies.
268
Figure 3.108: Types of vocational training offer per region (Source: Biotechnology
Education Training and Needs in the Atlantic Area)
Figure 3.00 shows the percentage of courses per region offered only occasionally, in
contrast to frequent courses, and those available as “Distance-Learning” options or
supplied “on demand” to companies. The regions with the best offer of courses on
supplied “on demand” to companies or available as “distance-learning” options were
Navarra and the two Irish regions (BMW/S&E).
Figure 3.109: Classification of the Current offer in Biotechnology Courses (Source:
Biotechnology Education Training and Needs in the Atlantic Area)
Most of the people responding to the questionnaire (Appendix 18) considered the
offer of Biotechnology education in their region as insufficient, but overall good or
very good in their country or Europe in general (Figure 7). Overall the results
indicated that there was a weak, ad-hoc vocational training offer in Biotechnology in
the ShareBiotech partner regions. S&E Ireland had the broadest training offer in the
269
training category and together with Navarra they were the only regions offering
distance training modules.
The “Biotechnology Competencies and Technology Needs Final Report, 2011”
(www.sharebiotech.net) collected the answers from 143 research groups and 183
companies, which allowed the identification of the main training needs in this sector.
It was established that training needs were identified by 78.1% of the interviewed
research groups and by 75% of interviewed companies.
Figure 3.110: Shows the training needs identified by research groups. It was clear
the training needs in Bioinformatics (18.4) was the domain most frequently
mentioned followed by Proteomics training needs (5%). (Source: Biotechnology
Competencies and Technology Regional Needs Final Report; ShareBiotech, April
2011)
270
Figure 3.111: Training needs identified by companies (Source: Biotechnology
Education Training and Needs in the Atlantic Area)
The training needs identified by interviewed companies (Figure 3.00) were mainly
connected to the Bioinformatics domain; namely, biostatistics and data analysis
(16.1%). However, a greater dispersion of needs was shown with Next-generation
sequencing (6.5%) and PCR/qPCR/RT-PCR (6.5%) also identified as important
needs.
Training Needs and Limitations Identified
The report found that a key aspect for the success of any sector was the availability
of well trained and motivated personnel and although H.E. in the ShareBiotech
partner regions offered formal University Education in Biotechnology, it was unclear
if graduates fulfilled the requirements of the SME sector. The education
questionnaire aimed to identify the lacunae that existed in the preparation of
biotechnology graduates and also other limitations.
Most Important Training Needs for Biotechnology Graduates
Identified in the report
1. Solid science background (e.g. Maths, chemistry, I.T.)
2. Laboratory experience (practical/project work components in cell culture,
molecular biology etc.)
3. Research skills (experimental design, critical interpretation of results,
scientific writing and communication
271
4. Expertise in cutting-edge technologies (e.g. sequencing data generation,
bioinformatics, systems biology)
5. Marketing, entrepreneurial and technology transfer skills (IP, Licencing,
know-how, confidentiality, market survey, etc.)
6. Communication, team work, problem solving and innovative thinking
Limitations in existing education training programs in
Biotechnology, at national and regional levels 1. Lack of dissemination towards the interested targets and awareness of needs
2. High cost and uninteresting themes for SME’s
3. Lack of enough practical training (experimental projects)
4. Weak links between H.E. and the biotech industry (potential solutions invited
lecturers from industry professionals, training of students in industry,, events
to bring H.E. and SME’s together)
5. Weak bioinformatics, information technologies content and skills
6. Need to extend H.E. in future important biotechnology domains (e.g. bio-
energy, bioreactor cell culture, etc.)
7. Lack of formation of science graduates in “complementary” skills (e.g.
entrepreneurship, project management, public speaking)
Types of training offer in Biotechnology that should be provided or
improved as recommended by the report 1. Invest in “e-learning” and “blended learning” (that would allow to increase
the level of the lecturers, optimise the “virtual learning infrastructure” reach
the interested targets)
2. Increase formation in practical issues (e.g. scientific paper writing, result and
data analysis)
3. Increase cross-talk/integration between universities and companies
4. Offer short courses directed to companies, e.g. on specific needs or
techniques (e.g. cloning, sequencing, clinical diagnosis)
5. Integrate “company vision/reality” into the courses (project tutorial, lectures
from biotech companies, training industry).
Main conclusions and recommendations to improve training and
needs offer in the Atlantic Area 1. There was a strong and well organised HE training offer in Life Sciences
including Biotechnology that included BSc, MSc, PhD, in the ShareBiotech
regions
2. Information on higher degrees was in general easily accessible and common
nomenclature for HE qualifications in Europe was found for the identified
biotechnology degrees
3. In contrast, information on the vocational training offer was not readily
accessible and common nomenclature of course types and qualification
systems were heterogeneous and based on the recovered data it appeared that
the number and type of vocational courses offered in the biotechnology area
varied between partner regions.
4. Key limitations identified were the failure of the current Biotechnology
training offer to meet needs of SME’s; the lack of enough practical training
272
components in HE courses; practical training opportunities inside companies
and the need for better interactions between HE and SME’s.
Figure 3.112: Soft skills in the field of biotechnology requiring short-term training
(Source: Biotechnology Education Training and Needs in the Atlantic Area)
3.21 Recommendations to Improve the Offer of Biotechnology
Training in the Atlantic Area
Capitalisation of ShareBiotech initiatives; identification of new solutions and
recommendations to optimise the biotechnology education and training offer in the
Atlantic Area were obtained by analysing the results from section 2 to 4, the answers
from the questionnaire (Appendix 12).
Main recommendations arising from the study:
1. Improve the offer of vocational training to meet the needs of SME’s in the
Biotechnology sector at an affordable cost and with an appropriate duration
and training model
2. Improve offer dissemination by publicising detailed information (type,
duration, targets, qualification and certification levels) and diversify the types
of offer (e.g. distance learning, courses on demand) to reach the interested
targets
273
3. Continue the process to adapt national qualification levels to the European
qualification framework, in order to standardise the vocational education
offer in EU member states and also its mutual recognition by different
European countries.
4. Increase the practical training components, collaboration, and integration in
the biotech industry (e.g. lecturers from biotech companies, hands-on training
projects in company environments. And develop on-the-job training offer.
5. Increase the offer in the following fields, inside biotech courses or as full
specialist programmes; Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, Integrative Biology
and other cross-disciplinary education programmes, Future important biotech
domains such as Bioenergy – Biosynthesis - Bioreactor cell cultures, Non-
Academic skills such as Marketing - Entrepreneurship - Technology Transfer
- Intellectual Property - Project Management - Bio-economy, etc.
6. Organise transnational business and science training network programmes,
taking advantage of the established network of higher education, research and
industry partners from the different regions developed under the
ShareBiotech project.
The constraining factors relating to HE/SME interaction identified were similar to
those identified in the Expert Interviews Section of this thesis.
Constraining Factors to HE/SME Interaction
1. Lack of funding, human resources and time in universities and research
institutes to organise short courses that must meet SME needs and be offered
at below real cost.
2. High cost of the technology, materials, and specialised human resources for
efficient biotech training.
3. Difficult interaction between industry and academia and low exploitation of
synergies.
4. Lack of interest and time by SME’s that are normally small companies in the
sector and in the participating regions.
5. Lack of business culture in universities and Research Institutions and
difficulty in communicating to SME’s the benefits of interaction with such
organisations.
6. Administrative and policy-breaks in inter-regional projects due to high
numbers of institutions e.g. universities and research institutions.
274
3.22 Characterisation of ShareBiotech funded Mobility Grants
Figure
3.113: Analysis of the uptake of ShareBiotech Mobility Grants (Source:
Biotechnology Education Training and Needs in the Atlantic Area)
The report found that the project failed to engage strongly with SME’s and
consequently failed to take full advantage of the mobility grants as indicated by the
awarding of only 15% to this group. A further issue was that only 37% of the
mobility grants involved training. This analysis suggested that the contribution of
mobility grants for training was modest and highlighted the need to identify
additional models and instruments for the implementation of training in
biotechnology.
ShareBiotech funded 41 LTM’s that were organised in the Atlantic Area regions by
ShareBiotech partners. The objective of the LTM’s were to connect people and
institutions from different types of organisation and partner regions, in the field of
275
3.23 Characterisation of ShareBiotech Local Technology Meetings
(LTM’s)
Figure 3.114: Analysis of ShareBiotech Funded LTM’s (Source: Biotechnology
Education Training and Needs in the Atlantic Area)
biotechnology, to stimulate exchange of scientific, technological and business
between participants.
More than 1600 people participated in ShareBiotech funded LTM’s with an
average of 41 participants per event with a maximum of 189. The majority of
attendees were from Universities or Research Centres (67%), industry (13%), or
from education and training centres (6%), (Figure 3.105), with the remaining 14%
belonging to Public agencies, National, Regional and local authorities or others.
Most of the organised LTM’s consisted of workshops related to the different areas of
biotechnology (44%), but only six of these involved training. A total of 41% of
LTM’s were seminars, conferences, and forums in which different types of
knowledge were presented, mainly related to advances in the biotechnology fields
and to showcase the biotechnology platforms in the Atlantic Area. The remaining
LTM’s (15%) were meetings between people from different types of organisations,
including SME’s, research centres, and local producers.
The overall impact of ShareBiotech in responding to the training needs
identified in Activity 3 was modest; however, this was not the key axis of the
project. Overall, significant gaps in the training offer exist in the Atlantic Area and it
is important to focus of the development of biotechnology to reinforce the
sustainability of the sector
277
4 Discussion
The scale of this project is no doubt visible at this stage, embracing 10 partners over
3.5 years and a budget of €2.4M. However, the Methods, Results, and now
Discussion chapter only describe and relate to the work that I as a member of the
AIT partner, actually engaged in and delivered. The substantial expert interviews,
which will be discussed in this section, were of course unique to my engagement.
The biotechnology sector tends to require a large amount of public investment in any
country, (Niosi & Reid 2007). But public investment is obviously not the only
requirement. Countries with insufficient R&D facilities will not necessarily expand
their biotech despite large investment – in reality, the presence of large investment
usually reflects access to resources to deliver.
Despite the impact of the post-2008 financial crisis and the US business
culture to be driven solely by profit, there still remains a significant difference in
scale of the biotech sector in the EU versus the US. The US probably still
employees about twice the number in the biotech sector compared to Europe
(195,000 against 82,000) (Niosi, 2010).
The Atlantic Region within the EU, in embracing coastal regions inevitably
possesses important natural resources for the biotech sector, while inclusion of whole
countries, UK, and Ireland represent significant full-time resources. The
commonality among the Atlantic Area regions is undoubtedly marine biotech, and
this area should be significantly developed. Ireland has over 400 different types of
seaweed and sea vegetables, some of which are now present anywhere else in the
world. When conduction the survey of the Natural Products companies in Ireland,
the consensus was that they were mainly SME’s, employing two to ten people, and
these SME’s had the potential to develop, but they lacked resources such as funding,
access to TCF’s, marketing, packaging, and up-to-date technologies, mainly dryers.
These SME’s felt marginalised and insignificant at the lack of support for this
natural resource that could generate employment and revenue to an area of Ireland
that was badly hit by the 2008 recession.
Within the biopharma sector, it takes on average >10 years to develop a biotech
medicine or a plant improved through agricultural biotechnology from its inception
to regulatory approval and finally to market launch. The average, fully capitalised
cost of developing a new medicine has been estimated at $1.2B and a new
278
biotechnology derived plant product at approximately $136M (Pharmaceutical
Research & Manufacturers of America, 2013).
While this project has been analysing and employing methods to facilitate enhanced
connectivity in biotech across the Atlantic Area, the right people and resources are
rarely uniformly distributed, but always limited to specific locations. A classic
indicator of this is that currently in the US, 63% of their patents are developed by
people living in just 20 metro areas, representing 34% of the country’s population.
Furthermore, 92% of US patents are concentrated in only 100 large metropolitan
areas, employing just 59% of the population. Examples are these large areas are San
Jose, Burlington, Rochester, Corvallis, and Boulder. This of course doesn’t
contradict that scientific and technical research is increasingly collaborative in the
US and globally, and this contributes to more valuable patents and publications.29
4.1 INTERREG IVC
Intereg IVC provides funding for interregional cooperation across Europe. It is
implemented under the European Community’s territorial co-operation objective and
financed through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The
Operational Programme was approved in September 2007 and the period for Intereg
IVC and lasted from 2007-2013. This programme followed on from the Intereg IIIC
programme which ran from 2002-2006. The overall objective of the Intereg IVC
Programme was to improve the effectiveness of regional policies and instruments. A
project builds on the exchange of experiences among partners who are ideally
responsible for the development of their local and regional policies.
The areas of support are innovation and the knowledge economy,
environment and risk prevention. Thus, the programme aimed to contribute to the
economic modernisation and competitiveness of Europe. Intereg IVC was linked to
the objectives of Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas. Typical tools for exchange of
experience are networking activities such as thematic workshops, seminars,
conferences, surveys, and study visits. Project partners cooperate to identify and
transfer good practices. Possible project outcomes include for example case study
collections, policy recommendations, strategic guidelines or action plans. Intereg
29 htpp://www.brookings.edu/”/media/research/files/reports/2013/02/patenting%20prosperity%20rothwe
ll/patenting%20prosperity%20rothwell.pdf
279
IVC also allows light implementation or piloting, but only if these complement the
exchange of experience activities.
Intereg Europe brings an indirect contribution to the achievement of the
Europe 2020 targets. It does so by offering regions the opportunity to participate in
policy learning and knowledge transfer and thereby bring an important contribution
by improving the effectiveness of the Europe 2020 related policies and projects. The
main contribution of the specific programme objectives focuses on smart and
sustainable growth, while only a small contribution to inclusive growth is seen.
Likewise the contributions to social, economic and territorial cohesion are of an
indirect nature.
The core of Intereg Europe’s purpose is to increase the capacities of all
regions in delivering better results of policies and programmes, which is why the
programme targets both socio-economic and territorial cohesion. However, the main
focus lies within economic cohesion. Furthermore the programme supports territorial
cohesion, although at a more variable scope. The programme does not bring any
significant contribution to social cohesion.
Key lessons are that Intereg Europe must step up its effort to ensure that
supported activities do in fact lead to tangible policy changes in the partner regions.
Projects should be geared to preparing the actual implementation of actions based on
the exchange. This implies that relevant local stakeholders in each partner region
need to be more systematically involved from the start of all supported activities.
Opportunities for “implementation-related activities”, e.g. pilot actions should also
be provided, as part of this stronger orientation to prepare implementation of actual
policy changes.
To strengthen the multidimensional learning and capitalisation processes, the
programme should also develop new forms to reach the wider target group of
regional policy actors in Europe, and allow them to have easy access to and learn
from the thematic knowledge and experience gathered in other regional policies and
programmes.
ShareBiotech was an Intereg IVB Atlantic Area Project which contributed to the 1st
priority of the program aiming to promote transnational, entrepreneurial, and
innovation networks. It aimed to develop knowledge transfer between companies
280
and research centres. ShareBiotech’s main objective was to strengthen the
biotechnology sector within the Atlantic Area. The project was led by French
organisations, and was implemented by a consortium of 10 partners from 4 member
states (France, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland) and 7 regions. It is difficult to gauge the
impact of ShareBiotech on the biotechnology sector in Europe. It was unusual that
the project did not incorporate the leading biotechnology centres in Europe like
Germany and the UK. Having transnational collaborations in Europe is difficult in
comparison to the US because ~ 200 languages are spoken in Europe and many
different cultural differences exist. The US is one country with many cultures but the
common language is English. One would think that since Europe has a common
currency that there would be more emphasis on developing English as a common
language. The establishment of a United States of Europe would enhance the
development of collaborative projects and possibly put Europe on a par with the US.
4.2 Fragmentation of Biotechnology in Europe
Performance in R&D and innovation varies markedly across the EU Member States
(MS) and regions. The Regional Innovation Scoreboard (2012) shows that most
European countries have regions at different levels of innovation performance.
Regions that qualify as ‘Innovation leader’, mainly in the centre and north of Europe,
can be found directly next to weaker innovation regions, even within one MS. EU
regions have different strengths and weaknesses in their innovation systems,
reflected by differences in the performance for their so-called innovation ‘enablers’
e.g. education levels of the labour population and public R&D investments. R&D
resources are concentrated in a few leading regions mainly in the ‘European science-
based area’, where R&D spending can be as high as 7% of GDP, while they can be
very low (under 1%) in others.14
. A region’s investment in human capital also supports its ability to be
innovative. There is evidence that in weaker regions, mainly in parts of eastern and
southern Europe, the share of population holding a tertiary degree has a higher
impact on regional production than R&D expenditure has15
. This regional diversity
calls for regional innovation support programmes tailored specifically to the needs of
individual regions. One of the instruments available to MS and regions is to develop
smart specialisation strategies to concentrate resources for innovation support on key
281
areas of intervention, clusters or sectors which represent a competitive advantage and
support the delivery of innovation in those key areas throughout the innovation
chain. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) contribute importantly
to smart growth, as enablers of innovation, knowledge creation and e-commerce and
employment. Today the differences in quality of ICT infrastructures and e-commerce
use are mainly between countries rather than regions, with a clear north-west –
south-east divide with the north-west of Europe being most advanced. The regional
distribution of ICT employment shows an urban-rural divide with concentrations of
people working in ICT in metropolitan regions16. Interregional cooperation can
contribute to smart growth by enabling European regions to improve their regional
policies and programmes for innovation and R&D support. Experience exchange and
policy learning in key areas like, for instance, cluster support, research-to-business
technology transfer, skills development, innovation in SMEs and innovation
infrastructures will enable regions to accelerate and improve the implementation of
their regional growth policies.
ERA-Instruments is a European project bringing together funding agencies,
ministries, charities and research performing organisations to aid in establishing
centres for mid-size research instrumentation that meet the needs of the scientific
community. ERA-Instruments has surveyed and analysed the current situation of
research instrumentation in the life sciences in the context of the ongoing and
intensifying European discussion on research infrastructures. Mid-size facilities and
networks of regional centres as they are typical for the life sciences are very different
from the single-sited large scale facilities that are mostly known from the field of
physics including astronomy.
The OpenLabTools initiative aims to provide a forum and knowledge centre
for the development of low cost and open access scientific tools, with an emphasis
on undergraduate and graduate teaching and research.
Biotechnology is geared at enhancing our quality of life and responding to society’s
grand challenges such as an ageing and ever increasing population, healthcare choice
and affordability, resource efficiency, food security, climate change, energy
shortages and economic growth. Biotechnology can be found in the clothes we wear,
the products we use to wash them sustainably, the food we eat and the sources it
282
comes from, the medicines we use to keep us healthy and even the fuel we use to
take us where we need to go.
Until now, biotechnology has also been a cornerstone of Europe's
competitiveness in terms of research and innovation as well as in terms of industrial
growth, number of jobs and new companies created in Member States. Today
however, we risk turning Europe into the world's biotech research hub and not
reaping the benefits of the products and services provided by this key enabling
technology (EuropaBio Biotechnology Industry Manifesto, 2014 – 2019).
Expert interviews were carried out for the purpose of this research in Canada,
UK, Germany, US, and Brussels. All the experts chosen had extensive knowledge of
the biotech sector and had significant input into the development of biotech clusters
in their respective countries and regions. The objective of these interviews was to
study the models used by these experts, and determine if these models could be
applied to the Atlantic Area. There was a clear consensus on the drivers of successful
biotech cluster development.
4.3 Sustainable Growth for Europe
Creating sustainable growth in the EU requires the creation of a strong climate for
business and enterprise. SMEs account for over 99% of businesses in Europe,
providing two thirds of all private employment and 80% of new jobs created across
the EU. However during the years of economic crisis since 2008 many SMEs
suffered and over 3 million jobs in SMEs have been lost17
. SME value added and
employment growth are slowly recovering since, and have returned to their 2008
levels in several MS in the central and northern parts of Europe. Interestingly, SME
growth rates (number of enterprises, employment, value added) in the EU12 (‘new’
Member States) outperformed those of the EU15 (‘old’ Member States) before the
crisis. However, their fall was also much bigger in 2009 than that of the EU15. Both
groups of Member States follow a similar growth pattern from 2010 onwards18
.
To support SMEs as drivers for growth and employment in Europe, several
challenges and obstacles need to be addressed in priority. These include the need to
encourage entrepreneurship, to give SMEs better access to finance, to improve SME
internationalisation, both in the EU internal and global markets19
. All this calls for
better rules, support and facilities for SMEs and this is where regions all over Europe
283
have a role to play. Sustainable growth also requires policymakers to engage with the
challenges of climate change.
4.4 ShareBiotech Activity 3 Surveys (Appendix 1, 2, & 3)
As part of Activity 3 of the ShareBiotech project, a broad survey of technology uses
and requirements by research groups and companies within the ShareBiotech partner
regions was implemented (Pinto et al., 2011). The survey proved difficult to
implement due to its size and scope, and it was difficult to collect information from
every biotechnology player in each region, especially as biotechnology was not the
core discipline of all organisations, but may had formed a unit thereof (Pinto & Cruz,
2011); however, the survey provided a wealth of up-to-date data. A spreadsheet was
created in the analysis of the responses to the company and research groups surveys.
In a follow-up meeting to discuss the survey results, all consortium partners implied
that the survey was too long and complicated and did not make it attractive for
stakeholders to complete. In Ireland, a total of 300 questionnaires were circulated
between research groups, companies, and TCF’s. When it became apparent that the
response matrices were very low, the websites of each group were thoroughly
researched and relevant answers were input to the questionnaires. The partially
completed surveys were then sent to the corresponding groups, acknowledging the
time consuming nature of the survey, and they were asked to look over the partially
filled survey, and asked to fill in information not available through public sources.
This seemed to be the only viable method to glean the necessary information within
the time parameters of Activity 3. The company response excel spreadsheet
consisted of 31 rows and 446 (QD) columns and the research group’s excel
spreadsheet had 47 rows and 427 columns (PK). However, it must be taken into
account that the sample may not be statistically meaningful in representing the
diversity of the companies and research groups in each region as the percentage of
coverage between regions may differ considerably (Pinto & Cruz, 2011).
It is not unusual in hindsight to realise that elements of the project could have been
addressed differently. Preliminary studies of the Atlantic Areas biotechnology
industry, namely SME’s, Research groups, and TCF’s, would have provided
valuable information on the gaps and needs of biotechnology stakeholders, and this
284
would have led to a more tailored surveys instead of relying on OECD
biotechnology categories and a one-size-fits-all approach.
The data was analysed to establish singularities and complementarities between
regions and assess if a fit existed between the technology offer in each region and the
needs of the local economy. Of the 143 companies and 183 research centres (Table
3.1) responsive to the survey each were individually asked to state one or a number
of domains to describe their activities from the following list.
Human Health
Animal Health, Veterinary
Agriculture (including animal breeding) aquaculture and silviculture
Agri-food (including beverages)
Nutrition, neutraceuticals
Cosmetics
Environment
Marine science
Industrial processing
Bioenergy
Bioinformatics
These domains were clustered in order to reduce fragmentation of the analysis and to
facilitate the comparison to available statistical data from other sources. All of the
respondents active in nutrition were also active in cosmetics (Figure 3.7 & 3.8).
83% of the respondents who were active in cosmetics and 76% of the respondents
who were active in nutrition were also active in human health, which was expected
given the unifying action of growing fields of research e.g. nutrigenomics. A further
73% of respondents active in animal health were also active in human health. The
domains of Human Health, Animal Health, Veterinary, Nutrition, Neutraceuticals,
and Cosmetics were clustered into a new domain referred to as “Health and
Wellbeing”. Bioinformatics was considered as a technology rather than a domain.
For this discussion, the domains considered were:
Health & Wellbeing
Agriculture (including animal breeding) aquaculture and silviculture
Agri-food (including beverages)
Environment
Marine science
Industrial processing
Bioenergy
285
Research Groups
It was worth noting that in excess of 70% of the research groups in the ShareBiotech
region were in some way involved in the health and wellbeing domain (Figure 3.7 &
3.8), with some regions showing high specialisation in this domain, namely Pays de
la Loire, the BMW/S&E regions Ireland and Centro significant number of research
groups were active in the nutrition and cosmetics sub-domains in Pays de la Loire.
The research groups of Navarra were more focused in the agriculture, agri-food and
environment domains, as well as the bioenergy and industrial processing domains
(Figure 3.8). This was supported by the presence of an agri-food cluster. Only 22%
of the research groups were active in marine science, mainly in the Portuguese
regions Algarve and Norte and also Bretragne (Figure 3.8). It would seem logical
that legislators would see the Atlantic Area as a niche biotechnology sector for
development. It is a vast natural resource that could play a major role in economic
recovery; yet it is vastly underexploited. However, SME’s along the western
seaboard are set to benefit from a one million euro EU initiative aimed at helping
small firms in the marine biotech sector to grow and develop internationally. The
Ryan Institute – Marine Biotechnology Coordination Unit, at NUI Galway, in
partnership with WESTBIC are partners in ‘AtlanticBlueTech’, a transnational
Interreg project aimed at helping small firms along Atlantic regions of Europe
develop innovative research and development collaborations to take advantage of
opportunities from the Blue Economy.
In July 2012, the Irish Government launched ‘Harnessing our Ocean Wealth’,
an Integrated Marine Plan for Ireland, which sets out a framework that will help the
country to exploit the vast potential of its Ocean Economy. The Plan has identified
Marine Biotech as an emerging sector within the industry and has set a turnover
target of €61m for the Marine Biotechnology and Marine ICT sector by 2020. This
new field requires further R&D investment to help realise commercial return for
firms in areas such as Food, Health and Well Being, Cosmetics and Bio-Energy
fields. AtlanticBlueTech will contribute to this goal. Twenty eight percent of
respondent research groups were active in the environment domain, mainly in the
French regions and Norte. Considering the European emphasis on industrial
286
processing and bioenergy, very few research groups were active in these domains
and the Navarra region was the only area with significant activity (Figure 3.8).
Companies
The health and wellbeing domain was the main focus of 73% of responsive
companies with as few as 4% active in the bioenergy domain (Figure 3.38 & 3.39).
In general the domains of research of the companies were in line with those of
research groups of the same region with some noteworthy deviations. In Bretagne,
the companies were more focused on the health and wellbeing domain than the
research groups. In the two French regions a significant number of companies were
active in the industrial processing domains, which were virtually absent from the
mentioned activities of respondent research groups. Conversely, the research groups
of these regions were actively involved in the environment domain. The
environment domain was less populated by companies in these regions. In the
BMW/S&E regions the company focus was more on the health and wellbeing
domain than their neighbouring research groups and agriculture was the only other
domain in which some company activity was detected. The respondent companies
of the Portuguese Centro region were more focused on health, but there was
significant activity in the agri-food sector. There were few companies active in
biotechnology sectors but those who were, were active in the health, environment,
and industrial sector domains. Animal health and nutrition contributed significantly
to the health and wellbeing domain in Pays de la Loire, while in Bretagne, nutrition,
and cosmetics were as important as human health. (Ref. Figure 3.39).
Current use and expressed wish to access OECD category technologies
Another surveyed area, was the current use, and expressed wish to access different
technologies that were distributed under the following OECD categories (Pinto et al.,
, 2011) (Ref. Figure 3.15).
DNA/RNA (PCR, qPCR, RT-PCR, sequencing. genotyping, transcriptomics,
microarrays, northern and western blots, antisense technology, gene probes).
Proteins (sequencing of proteins and peptides, synthesis and engineering of
proteins and peptides, protein isolation and purification, proteomics,
structural analysis, high-throughput screening and synthesis, improved
delivery methods for large molecule drugs, monoclonal and polyclonal
antibodies, metabolomics).
287
Cells/Tissues (cell culture, tissue engineering, vaccine/immune stimulant,
recombinant vaccine, cellular therapy, stem cells, and embryo manipulation).
Gene/RNA vectors (gene therapy, animal transgenesis, vegetal transgenises,
microorganism transgenesis, viral vectors, synthetic vectors).
Biological resources (animal models, plant models, microorganism models,
housing and facilities for animal experimentation, housing and facilities for
plant experimentation, animal breeding, plant breeding, biological resource
centres (BRC’s), banks, collections, experimental farms).
Imaging (Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), tomography, optical imaging,
electronic microscopy, ultrasound, radiography, infrared imaging).
Process biotech (fermentation, for production of food or beverages, enzymes,
active compounds, bio-based building blocks, bio-materials, bio-catalysis, 1st,
2nd
& 3rd
generation biofuels)
Nanobiotech (nanoencapsulation of bioactive products, nanopartical
formulation, high-throughput experimentation, microlabs, micro-robotics,
active compounds delivery methods, nanostructures, characterisation of
nanoparticles, incorporation of chemical ligands to the nanoparticle surface,
in-vitro cytotoxicity evaluation of nanoparticles).
Bioinformatics (data storage, construction and management of databases,
data analysis and biostatistics, sequence analysis, structural analysis,
molecular modelling, in-silico tests, systems modelling, integrative biology,
software development, computing power).
Research groups
With the exception of nanotechnology, most of the Irish research groups used
technologies from all the considered categories, either internally or through external
access. (Ref. Figure 3.30 & 3.31). In other regions the range of technologies was
either less diversified or each research group specialised in a more limited number of
technologies than in the Irish regions. This may have been due to the fact that Irish
groups were mostly focussed in the health and wellbeing domain, specifically human
health, which was extremely research-intensive and required an ever-growing arsenal
of cutting-edge technology. In the Irish regions, more than 50% of research groups
had more than 50 members, in contrast to Navarra where most groups had between
25 and 50 members and the remaining regions the membership of research groups
was between 1and 10 members (Ref. Figure 3.8). The Irish research groups had an
increased critical mass and this explained their need for an increased diversity of
technologies.
In most Atlantic Area regions, process biotechnology was identified as a needed
technology more than a used one, which indicated a possible unmet need in the
ShareBiotech regions (Ref. Figure 3.28 & 3.29). Bioinformatics was a technology
288
that was in demand and in Bretagne, all surveyed research groups used
bioinformatics (Ref Figure 3.32 & 3.34). This was likely due to the cross-
fertilisation of biotechnology and ICT, which was fostered by the local clusters.
Research groups in Bretagne, Ireland, and the Algarve were showing an increased
interest in nanotechnology (Ref. Figure 3.20 & 3.31).
Companies
On observation of the survey data, the range of technologies used by the companies
was that the companies had a less intensive use of technologies than research groups
except for those in the Irish regions (Ref. Figure 3.44 & 3.45). In contrast to the
research groups, the use of need to use process biotechnology was limited with the
exception of Pays de la Loire. In Bretagne and the BMW region, the number of
companies that wished to use process technology was higher than those who were
already using it (Ref. Figure 3.55 & 3.56). The findings of Activity 3 showed that,
1) over 50% of companies had less than 25 staffs and were created between 2000
and 2010 (Ref. Fig 3.39), and had not reached the scale of maturity that was required
for them to increase their scale of operations, 2) the step to process R&D and process
implementation was often externalised (Ref. Figures 3.58, 3.60, 3.62, 3.64, 3.66,
3.68, 3.70, 3.72), (Pint et al., 2011), such as the development and scale-up of the
process or the production of samples or commercial batches of product. Many of the
surveyed companies were academic spin-offs, and the transition from the research
laboratory to process development or production may have been a significant hurdle,
since it required significant investment and infrastructure, and/or a different mind-set
in the management of the company and structure of company operations. In
Bretagne, the activity was not related with human health only but was diversified e.g.
cosmetics and food, and in the BMW a significant part of the health and wellbeing
domain related to the development of technologies for the medical devices market,
which had lower development times than pharmaceutical applications, therefore, it
was likely that in those regions some companies presented a more mature technology
development which was closer to commercial-scale applications. In the BMW
region, nanobiotechnology was gaining significant interest and this was most likely
due to the presence of the medical devices regional cluster in Galway (Ref. 3.69 &
3.70). The companies in Navarra, Centro, and Algarve showed a significantly lower
289
average of technological maturity and readiness than the remaining ShareBiotech
regions.
Main challenges to performing R&D
The Activity 3 surveys identified some of the major challenges companies
encountered in the performance of R&D activities within the ShareBiotech regions
(Ref. 3.75 & 3.76). Many companies mentioned the cost of R&D and the lack of
available funding, especially the respondent companies in Navarra and Portugal.
This was most likely due to the current scarcity of financial resources due to the
macroeconomic environment. The financial environment was identified as a key
pillar for the growth of biotechnology SME’s (Porter, 1998). Most companies were
very small and required specialised competencies which were not available in-house.
Most companies lacked all the required expertise in-house and did not have the
financial resources to outsource. The majority of companies expressed the need to
find partners in the form of business angels, or venture capitalists to take a stake in
the company and finance projects, specialised service providers such as, technology
centres or contract research organisations (CRO’s); partner companies or research
groups to engage in collaborative R&D work (Ref. Figure 3.54, 3.12, 3.11, 3.13,
3.51, 3.52), mainly through publically co-financed initiatives or established clusters.
Many companies complained that it was difficult for them to find the right partners
and to get public funding, both national and European, for their R&D projects. A
significant number of companies cited the need to find experienced human capital,
such as senior level managers, scientists and engineers who had experience in
biotechnology and this may have been due to the fact that biotechnology was a
relatively young business sector in the ShareBiotech regions. Other problems such
as, the cost and know-how required for effective IP protection (Ref. Figure 3.15 &
3.16) and difficulty in fulfilling training needs for their staffs, both in technical areas
as well as business support areas such as, regulatory issues, project management and
legal aspects of technology transfer (Ref. Figure 3.73, 3.74, 3.75).
When companies were asked to identify barriers to access specialised core facilities,
financial constraints topped the list in almost al ShareBiotech regions (Ref. Table
3.3). Collaborative projects with research centres and academic labs were
problematic for companies in the areas of IP and confidentiality and difficulties in
290
matching timings and focus of research because companies had a higher sense of
urgency to obtain results than their academic partners. This point was also stated
during expert interviews with Derek Jones (Babraham), Martino Picardo (Stevenage)
and Claire Skentelbery (CEBR). For companies and research groups, access to
technology, services, and specific techniques were constrained by lack of funding as
well as lack of equipment and facilities.
Infrastructures and equipment
In most ShareBiotech regions a continued effort was undertaken in the last decade to
build State–of-the-art research infrastructures. In the Irish regions new
biopharmaceutical research centres were set up; in Pays de la Loire, in addition to
the new biomedical research facilities, the Bio-practice training centre was
inaugurated; in Bretagne the “Institut de Recherche Santé Environnement et Travail”
(IRSET) was created in 2009 and offered training facilities and expertise in
environment and health; in Navarra, CIMA, the infrastructure bridging fundamental
research with clinical application and product development for diagnostics and
therapies was founded in 2004; in Centro the first biotechnology park (Biocant)
opened its doors in 2005, expanded since then and plans to build a new biotech
research building were put in place.
However, some regions needed further investment. For example, the Algarve
region lacked wet-lab-space to host new Dedicated Biotechnology Firms (DBF’s).
The availability of wet-lab space was one of the key elements supplied by the
Babraham Institute for the development of young start-up biotech companies as well
as access to TCF’s and expertise and ultimately a driver of cluster development. In
some regions where lab space was available for start-ups within university
infrastructures, a true bio-incubator did not exist. The hosting of start-up companies
in bio-incubators was identified as being of extreme importance in changing the
mind-set from scientific academic research to business-orientated research and the
exposure of start-up companies to a community of companies that co-exist and
interact in the same infrastructure, sharing specialised equipment, while at the same
time having their own private office and lab space. This principle was identified as
paramount to the success of start-ups in expert interviews with Professor Horst
Domdey (BioM Munich) and Derek Jones (Babahram, Cambridge London). At the
291
time of this research, an important infrastructure such as a national incubator was
still missing in Ireland, despite an otherwise positive entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Activity 3, Technologies emerging as unmet needs across the Atlantic Area
For both research groups and companies; DNA/RNA microarrays and
fermentation capabilities, and integrative biology and systems modelling
were highly externalised.
For research groups; antisense technology, transcriptomics were highly
externalized while metabolomics, vegetal transgenesis, housing and facilities
for plant experimentation, and high-throughput experimentation were mainly
externalised.
For companies; nanostructures, active compound delivery methods and
nanoparticle characterisation and in-vivo cytotoxicity were all significantly
externalised.
BRC’s were highly used by both research groups and companies and mostly
externalised.
Many of the unmet needs related to bioinformatics. It was speculated that this
provided the opportunity for a network-wide collaboration that could be provided at
relatively low infrastructural cost through setting up an on-line collaborative
platform. An array of “omics” technology was identified as not being available by
research groups (Ref. Figure 3.17 & 3.18). These techniques lent themselves to
equipment sharing within collaborative networks. A thorough inventory, mapping
and capacity of the available “omic” platforms at the research infrastructures of the
ShareBiotech regions was suggested to identify specialised nodes within the
network, and if required, upgrade the available platforms at those nodes and foster
their interface with networks in each country at the European level.
Several nanotechnologies were identified as needs by companies, particularly in
relation to biomedical or biopharmaceutical applications (Ref. Figure 3.69 & 3.70).
The expressed need for these technologies was mainly from the biopharmaceutical
and medical devices companies in the Irish regions
In addition to purely technological infrastructures, significant needs were
identified, for both research groups and companies that should have been dealt with
by other supporting infrastructures, such as technology transfer offices and business
liaison offices that existed across the ShareBiotech regions. The following list was
used to identify the aspects that were most frequently mentioned during the
implementation of the Activity 3 surveys and expert interviews in the region:
292
Difficulties in the negotiation of IP rights with public research institutions,
particularly relevant to the creation of spin-offs.
Lack of specialised professional services, e.g. patent writing, negotiation of
licenced deals, technology watch, and competitive intelligence etc.
Normally, academics, technology transfer offices, and start-ups only had a
superficial knowledge of the market, in particular, disruptive technologies.
Claire Skentelbery also raised this point and quoted a successful model
initiated by Ralph Kindervarter in Germany (Ref. Expert Interviews, Claire
Skentelbery).
Confidentially management issues by academic partners.
Lack of human resources with entrepreneurial and business development
experience.
A different mind-set between academics and companies caused difficulties
for setting up and managing joint research activities, even if on a contract
research basis.
Involvement of bureaucracy in incentive programmes to collaborative
research between industry and academia was often a discouraging obstacle,
particularly for SME’s. This issue was stressed by Mary Skelly of Microbide,
one of the experts interviewed in Ireland when talking about difficulties
encountered during the start-up phase of an SME, and her reasons for moving
her company to the US.
Companies referred to the difficulty of finding information regarding funding
instruments, new technologies, and local scientific events. During expert
interviews with Tony Jones (One Nucleus), he stated that networking was
vital to the success of small companies and cluster initiatives such as One
Nucleus were important for the provision and dissemination of real time
information where it was needed. Derek Jones (Babraham) used coffee and
doughnut mornings weekly to encourage company CEO’s to meet and
network, while Professor Horst Domdey stated that held round tables in pubs
and that much business was dome over a friendly pint or two.
Imaging Technologies
Imaging techniques underwent a significant advance in the last decade; however, the
ShareBiotech survey assessed the use of traditional methods of optical microscopy as
well as modern, highly advanced, and specialised methods (Ref. Figure 3.26 &
3.27). In companies all techniques displayed a similar profile for uses and needs
with the exception of confocal and fluorescence microscopy that was more widely
used by research groups (Figure 3.26). It appeared that such imaging techniques,
despite the cost of instrumentation and maintenance, were becoming more routinely
utilized by research groups. In general the survey highlighted an approximately
similar need for methods that required access to expensive, high maintenance
equipment such as, radiography, ultrasound, electron microscopy, SPECT, (Single
Photon Emission Computed Tomography) and MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging),
293
which reflected the potential of such methods to address a series of research
questions.
For companies, the most used technologies corresponded to Electron
Microscopy and Optical Imaging Techniques (Figure 3.65 & 3.66). This was not
surprising since these techniques were used to characterise numerous matrices in
various fields of activity (e.g. observation of emulsions in cosmetics, of
microorganisms in the food industry, of human cells in medical companies, etc.).
Other imaging techniques (i.e. non-microscopic techniques) were less used but were
of great interest since numerous needs were registered by the surveys. The majority
of techniques in this category were initially devoted to medical applications,
(Radiography, Ultrasound, Tomography and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) but were
widely applied in other activities such as agriculture (e.g. N.M.R. can be used to
characterise the structure and presence of water in vegetables).
Training needs in biotechnology research groups and companies
The majority of research groups highlighted the need for training in relation to
specific Biotechnology skills (Figure 3.34 & 3.35). The need for training varied in
the ShareBiotech regions, for example, over 90% of the Irish research groups
involved in the survey indicated that they had specific training needs while only 58%
of research groups in Navarra identified training needs in the area of Biotechnology
(Figure 3.35). 75% of companies were identified as having training needs (Figure
3.73) but a relevant regional diversity existed (Figure 3.74). Sustainable training and
maintenance of skills was identified as a major driver for the development of a Bio-
based economy as set out in the Lisbon Treaty. Since the economic downturn in
2008 – 2009, Ireland has been haemorrhaging skills with the onset of mass
emigration of graduates in search of better working conditions and increased
remuneration. There needs to be a policy-driven effort to halt the brain-drain and
resources put in place to upskill the existing workforce and new graduates if we are
to remain a credible country for companies to locate their businesses.
Entrepreneurship needs to be fostered for the development of an Irish indigenous
biotechnology industry to reduce reliance on multi-national companies from the US.
The pharmaceutical industry is receding with many block-buster drugs e.g. Lipitor
coming off patent and as a result, job losses have already been seen. Investment is
294
needed to foster and encourage the development of R&D to reduce reliance on
manufacturing. While pharmaceutical manufacturing and export is worth €50B in
revenue to Ireland yearly the development of sustainable indigenous biotechnology
companies would progress the development of the Bio-based smart economy.
Bioinformatics
The surveys revealed that all bioinformatics techniques were equally needed by
interviewed research groups and companies (Ref. Figure 3.32, 3.33, 3.71, 3.72). The
most used and needed techniques corresponded to sequence analysis and data
analysis and biostatistics and also to construction and management of databases and
data storage. In common with research groups, companies had significant volumes of
data that could not be managed without bioinformatics tools. The research indicated
that a policy needed to be put in place to contribute to “fill the gap” by reinforcing
bioinformatics in participating TCFs and also through the organization of
training sessions to enable more companies (and researchers) to internalize a part of
their analyses.
Approximately 50 % of bioinformatics analyses were externalized and several
factors may have been responsible for this (Ref. Figure 3.33, 3.72). The research
showed that many biologists were not trained in the use of bioinformatics tools and
subsequently had to outsource the analysis of their results to specialized platforms.
The large datasets generated by next generation sequencing required significant
computational power and computing know-how to handle very large data sets and
convert raw sequence data to assembled genome/transcriptome, or conduct digital
counts of transcript abundance. The high cost of informatics infrastructures that
required informatics expertise and maintenance and the general policy of data release
into the public domain via established public databases, for example, in Ireland the
National Centre for Biotechnology Information was set up (NCBI) generally did not
favor the development of onsite computing resources. To progress the development
of modern biotechnology in Ireland and the Atlantic Area, there needs to be
substantial investment, both public and private, in the development of bioinformatics
platforms.
295
4.5 Natural Products Companies in Ireland
A unique activity of this research was the surveillance of the Irish natural products
industry, namely seaweed harvesting and aquaculture and its link to the biotech
sector. Seaweed has been harvested since the 8th
century in Ireland. The majority of
harvested seaweed is mainly used for food & agriculture. The industry started in
1947 with the establishment of Arramara Teoranta who began operations in 2
locations; Donegal & Galway. Seaweed industry production peaked in the 1970s
with over 100.000t of seaweed harvested annually.
Commercial seaweed harvesting takes place in 35 countries worldwide. The
global seaweed industry uses 8 million tonnes of wet weed annually. Over 90% of
the seaweed used is cultivated. Ireland has an estimated national harvest of 25,400
tonnes per annum. 100% of the seaweed used is wild. The Irish seaweed industry
employs circa 185 full time equivalents. Agricultural products account for nearly
100% of the raw material used and 70% of the value generated. Cosmetics and
therapies account for circa 1.0% of the raw material used and 30% of the value
The food sector consists mainly of micro enterprises employing five employees or
less, with very limited automation in harvesting, drying or processing. Most
enterprises operate on manual harvesting from spring to late autumn, with the
majority of harvesting done at low tide, particularly during spring tide periods.
In total 30 telephone interviews were held with seaweed harvesting companies. The
bigger companies e.g. did not report any major difficulties; however this was not the
case with the small micro-enterprises consisting of between one and five persons.
The micro-enterprise sector reported that they felt marginalised and that any
assistance available went to the bigger companies. When asked if they would attend
a LTM, the majority said they would not have time as they had in some cases, only
one of two staff and could not afford to take time off. They stated that they could
how companies like Arramara Teoranta could attend because it was a state-run
company and did not have to make a profit and staff wages were secure and they got
paid to attend conferences.
When asked about technology needs there was a consensus when it came to
seaweed dryers; they could not afford to purchase the dryers needed to take out the
required percentage of moisture from the seaweed, and the dryers they had were
inefficient, expensive to run and time consuming as it took two days to dry one batch
296
of seaweed. For every 100kg of wet seaweed the return was 20kg of dry product.
This lack of cutting-edge technology and packaging facilities prevented micro-
industries from growing their businesses and creating employment in their local
areas. The effects of the 2008 recession have been strongly felt on the West coast of
Ireland and mass immigration has resulted from this area due to lack of employment.
The main problem that persists is the requirement of processors to handle the
material extensively during the drying stage; this delays the process and adds
significantly to the labour cost. In order to increase the attractiveness of the seaweed
sector to new entrepreneurs, it is an absolute requirement that automated processes
be transferred or developed to reduce the labour and energy costs of processing
seaweeds. BIM recently stated in a report “A Market Analysis towards the Further
Development of Seaweed Aquaculture in Ireland” that “the Seafood Development
Centre (SDC) in Clonakilty, intends to work with the industry and with qualified
engineers and food processing technicians, to improve existing processing
techniques and to identify transferable processing technologies from other sectors,
particularly for drying and packaging of edible seaweeds”. This would be a
welcome initiative but there was no evidence of any new incentives for micro-
enterprises at the time of these interviews in August 2012.
When asked about funding the general consensus was that Enterprise Ireland,
Board Iasca Mhara (BIM), and Uduras na Gaeltachta were only interested in the
bigger companies and offered little in the way of financial assistance or any kind of
support for the small industries; there was evident anger in this area. A report by
BIM entitled “A Market Analysis towards the Further Development of Seaweed
Aquaculture in Ireland” stated (at present, BIM, MI, Udaras na Gaeltachta (UnaG),
QUB and NUIG provide a wide range of financial, technical and scientific support
to interested parties throughout the island of Ireland). This was not evident when
speaking to stakeholders in the seaweed industry. When asked if they had ever used
the services of NUIG or received any assistance from the Marine Institute, the
answer was no.
Interviewees stated that there was a gap in the provision of training courses in
the areas of, food hygiene and food processing, e-commerce, product packaging and
innovation workshops, marketing, IT/communications, and business management.
297
Stakeholders felt that to compete on a global market and grow their businesses; they
needed education in the areas stated. BIM recently stated in a report that “In order to
secure the future of the Irish seaweed industry, it will be necessary that new
opportunities in functional foods, health and well-being products and high value
added cosmetic products are pursued by Irish companies. The existing model used
by seaweed processors will not be suitable for such markets. Therefore there must be
a move away from rudimentary processing and anecdotal claims for the benefits of
seaweed”. This, no doubt, would help to grow and professionalise the Irish Seaweed
Industry. In today’s market, provenance and source of raw material must be backed
up with scientific data. Organic accreditation should be investigated with the relevant
agencies, to enhance consumer awareness and appeal.
In the last four to five years, commercially relevant seaweed research has
reflected global trends and commercial interests, for example, research into biofuels,
bioactive compounds for medicine and extracts for ‘functional’ food production.
Ireland has a vast natural resource and the potential to develop the marine
biotechnology sector. There appears to be a lack of support for the smaller seaweed
industries or a lack of communication between stakeholders and policy makers.
There needs to be an all-inclusive effort to develop the Irish marine biotech sector
for all stakeholders. There is a strong case for mechanisation of the industry with
due-diligence applied to preserve the natural marine ecosystem. It is also important
that the industry remains indigenous and those large areas of the coastline are not
licenced off to foreign investors.
Efforts should be made by relevant agencies to identify and transfer handling,
processing and other labour saving techniques and equipment from other countries.
France, Canada and Israel all have comparable labour and energy costs and all have
advanced macro-algal and micro-algal industries.
Ireland’s industry may be larger than many countries in terms of production
volumes; however, with the exception of a few operators, it is a relatively
technologically backward seaweed industry. Automation, particularly in the areas of
drying processing and packaging, must be improved in Ireland in order to reduce
labour costs and production times; many seaweed processors have expressed
dissatisfaction with existing processing techniques due to their inefficiency and high
298
labour costs. Technology such as rotary drum dryers, fluid bed dryers and freeze
dryers must be integrated into the Irish seaweed processing industry.
It is self-evident that the purchase cost, running cost and scale of a great deal of
modern processing equipment are outside of the reach of all but a few seaweed
processors, therefore it may be necessary to coordinate and facilitate the industry to
access contract manufacturers or to provide a suitable pilot plant that can be
employed by several enterprises. There is a need for technical development in the
manufacture of high quality extracts for food, pharmaceutical, cosmetic and
biotechnology applications. Universities and other institutes such as BIM and
Teagasc could take a lead in developing pilot plants or facilitating the use of under-
utilized existing plants in order to develop the means and technical know-how within
the sector.
4.6 Success Factors in European Biotechnology Today
The Atlantic Area is quite heterogonous and this was quite clear also when analysing
the technological landscape in the field of biotechnology and the life sciences in the
ShareBiotech regions. However, differences in focus of the research groups, in start-
up companies and in the regional economies provided some interesting opportunities
of collaboration, learning, and value creation. The commercialization of
biotechnology research results depends on the specific economic and institutional
structure of the specific ecosystem, e.g., how much absorptive capacity the industrial
sector has in order to adopt new technologies, the financing conditions, including the
investment community, their research institutions (including their international
network and commercial orientation), and policies in place for research and
innovation.
Biotechnology policy is complex because it involves the interplay between
many different agents such as universities, research and technology centres,
financing bodies and investors, government and regulatory agencies, corporations,
and consumers. Governments, both local and national or supranational bodies, create
biotechnology programs through the founding of public laboratories, new business
R&D funding programs, policies for academic research, venture capital, science
parks, and incubators. Too often when the face of government changes, so also do
their policies towards who should receive funding and where investment should go.
299
Claire Skentelberry stated that this was one of the major problems in the UK and
stressed the need for consistency in government funding. Horst Domdey was in
agreement with Claire and stated that many ministers that supported biotechnology
had left the Ministry and that new people with new visions drive research in different
directions.
Biotechnology is recognised as a driver of economic recovery, but this cannot
be achieved in one government term. There needs to be a 20 year roadmap in place
to develop a successful, sustainable biotechnology industry; an industry that has
positively impacted the economies of many countries. Both Claire Skentelberry and
Derek jones also stressed this point. It takes on average 15 years to develop a new
biotechnology drug with an investment of nearly $US1B. Investors don’t like
waiting this long to generate return on investment (ROI) so promising molecule are
bought up by bigger companies and the generating SME is sold or broken up; this
does little for the development of an indigenous biotech company. Derek Jones
stressed that something needed to be done to address the European problem and that
biotech development needed planning, funding, and it should be given the time to
deliver. In Ontario, 90% of biotech companies are SME’s, while expert interviews
revealed that the figures for the UK and Ireland were approximately 80% and that
SME’s accounted for the largest section of employment in Europe, Canada and the
US. In general, SME’s are a very large section of the biotech industry, but Europe
seems to have resigned itself to having more early-stage exit companies rather than
maturing along the pipeline. Having the cutting-edge infrastructure in place attracts
major investment both national and international and becomes a platform from
which economic recovery and development can be launched.
Universities became, perhaps too recently, aware of the new potential source of
income, and created offices of technology transfer, university-industry liaison offices
and intellectual property offices. However, often universities resist these changes, or
adopt them using their pre-existing hiring, research, and publication routines, which
may create obstacles to academic mobility, patenting, interaction with industry or to
the launching of academic spin-offs. Such inertia has been shown to slow down the
building of the complex biotechnology innovation system (Noisi, .2011). Recently,
three key factors were put forward which were deemed to be affecting the
competitiveness of European biotechnology: the limited availability of risk capital, a
300
fragmented patent system, and environments that do not foster a connection between
science and business (Nasto, 2008). For a sustainable European model of
biotechnology to evolve, legislators, investors, and biotechnology stakeholders need
to look to successful models that have brought economic stability and prosperity to
countries like the US, Germany, France, Canada to name but a few.
4.7 USA versus European Biotechnology
The US venture capital firms not only had more funds to invest, partially due to a
better policy incentive system, but they were also more experienced and benefited
from more exit avenues than their European competitors. Overall, the venture capital
market in the US was estimated as being about 5 times bigger than the European
venture capital market (E&Y, Beyond Borders, 2012). One would have to agree with
the view of Claire Skentelberry when she stated that the US is more market driven in
its attempts at cluster development. The fact that the US biotech sector was better
developed than their European counterparts was that they got more money earlier
and this allowed SME’s to get further down the pipeline before they ran out of
money. This is the basic difference between the US and Europe; it’s very
fundamental; this is hard-core basic finance.
The difference was even more dramatic when comparing the angel investor
funds, which complemented the private funding of the new biotechnology firms, and
US angel investor funds were 50 times greater than in Europe (Noisi, .2011). This
point was echoed by Mary Skelly, CEO of Microbide. A point raised by Mary was
that cultural differences were a major stumbling block when comparing doing
business in the US and Ireland. She felt that in the US, there was no shame attached
to failure whereas in Ireland the stigma of failure was alive and well. Entrepreneurs
need support, not just financially, but also morally. Is there an element of snobbery
attached to the Irish culture of doing business? Mary believed there was, and that
when looking for financial support, the Irish culture was based on wealth and to a
degree social background. It was difficult to get an appointment to see a high-
ranking official while in the US, this was not the case. In Kentucky, one of
America’s poorest states, when a legitimate business produced a viable business
plan, they received a $30,000 non-repayable loan and once a premised was located
and a one year contract signed the company received a $75,000 repayable loan.
301
Europe fails in providing adequate funding for start-up companies and €15K or €30K
is not enough for biotech start-ups and does not support export capacity. In the US,
there was a willingness on the part of the Federal Agencies to support SME’s and
50% of technology needed came from non-academic institutions, so, unlike the EU,
a lot of TCF’s are in the private sector. Also, US university facilities are shared and
access is available to private users. Mary believed that NIBRT should not be
managed by UCD, but should be managed by a totally independent team of
professionals from the private sector comprising of entrepreneurs and experts with
the ability to interface with industry. There was a consensus among all experts
interviewed on this point. It is essential to maintain the ability to change and work
with SME’s for them to grow into large companies and have a positive impact on a
countries reputation and economy.
The size of angel investment funds varies from country to country, but
normally are only suited to the seed phase of biotechnology companies. As a result,
although Europe had more dedicated biotechnology firms than the US, the American
biotechnology sector had twice the number of employees compared to Europe,
highlighting the over-fragmentation of the sector in Europe. This fragmentation was
also observed in the academia and research centres, which were normally of small
size and often not enough focused. Further, in Europe the university system was
somewhat endogamic, with academic inbreeding high in France and exacerbated in
Portugal and Spain (Horta et al., 2010), and the competition between universities for
faculty and students hardly existed (Noisi, 2011), and most academics had not
experienced any other environment but the academic environment since they
enrolled in their graduation studies, with few if any contacts with the industry.
To summarise, although EU had leading productivity indicators concerning scientific
publications; investment was also made in incubators, science and technology parks,
funding programs for new biotechnology firms; when it came to commercial
applications, the results were often disappointing.
4.8 Technology Core Facilities
There is currently a movement within the European Union towards an improved
organisation of life science research facilities and infrastructures (ESFRI Roadmap,
FP7, and Horizon 2020) which today tend to be fragmented and multi-sited. The
302
challenge was to ensure cohesion and to attain a critical mass. Given its dimensions,
if R&D in the Atlantic Area is to become competitive and a driver for economic
development, accessibility to and networking of existing mid-sized TCF’s, as well as
infrastructure sharing needs to be a priority. The ShareBiotech project aimed to meet
this challenge by the creation of a network of TCF’s accessible to researchers from
both the public and the private sectors. Resulting from the Activity 3 survey, a
booklet entitled “ShareBiotech Life Science Technology Core Facilities 2012” was
published. At its simplest, the booklet was a directory of TCF’s in the Atlantic Area
partner regions (Ireland, Spain, France, and Portugal), identifying their location,
access policy, specialities and applications, and contact details. In total, 143 TCF’s
were identified of which 49 were located in Ireland.
All experts interviewed stated the importance of access to TCF’s for
companies, especially enabling access to cutting-edge technologies for start-up
companies. There was a consensus among experts that it was difficult to access
TCF’s in Academic Institutions for many reasons which will be discussed in the
Expert Interviews analysis. TCF’s are generally provided by academic institutions,
research centres, incubators, or Commercial Research Organisations (CRO’s), e.g.
PPD, Intertek, etc.
Technology Core Facilities (TCFs) as a progression of the term core
facilities, refers to laboratory instrumentation required by many investigators to
conduct their research, but are generally too expensive, complex or specialized for
individual and small group researchers to provide and sustain themselves. The scale
of impact of such technologies grow further when SMEs and other industry domains
are included, and their R&D can benefit considerably from access to advanced
technologies, but this generally must occur via some collaboration model, frequently
with public sector research centres. The increase in costs, enhanced skills sets,
knowledge, research impact and data generation and reduced shelf- life of many core
facilities over the past decade has been recognised in many countries and has
reflected the generation of specialist research centres and enhanced collaboration
models and media. The necessary skill sets, service and funding model and
accelerated need for equipment updating or replacement due to accelerated
technology development all contribute to significant annual costs and readily
303
distinguish those research facilities that can professionally achieve these objectives
from those who cannot.
State-of-the-art technology was a crucial asset for actors in the biotechnology
domain, who needed to commit considerable financial resources to own, operate,
maintain, and renew their equipment. TCF’s “are a combination of laboratory
instrumentation and associated skills which are required in the performance of
research and other technical functions, but which are generally too expensive,
complex, or specialised for individual and small groups of researchers to provide and
sustain by themselves” (Tomkins 2013). TCF’s may be public or private and are
generally open to a wide range of users. TCF’s deliver an extensive range of services
according to the access policy agreed with the users. When access is through
membership, the user can utilise the full range of services available in the TCF, from
simple access to equipment, training, and routine analysis, up to highly customised
services such as tailor-made research, research projects, and consulting. When
access is through a licence agreement, the user utilised the TCF for a specific
research project that exploited or operated IP. In many cases, TCF’s operated in
some middle ground between both approaches and engaged with clients of the basis
of “fee for service”. The fees varied depending on the type of use and the nature of
the user i.e. companies, researchers, internal or external users. This point was
elucidated on analysis of the TCF surveys. Due to the economic downturn and the
drying up of financial subsidies, most TCF’s became flexible in their business offer
in order to increase their business volume.
The main recommendations for TCF have to meet their clients expectations include:
1. Service-oriented activity
2. Simplification of service offer
3. State of the art facilities
4. Stringent confidentiality
5. Standards of practices certified
6. Sound management
7. Competitive pricing policy
8. Clear access policy
9. Clear visibility
10. Compatibility with local environment
Instrumentation in the life sciences has been growing since the 90’s as a
consequence of the fast scientific evolutions. Getting access to state-of-the-art
technology has become crucial for biotechnology SME’s but not so easy considering
304
the considerable financial resources required to buy or lease cutting-edge
technologies, hire qualified personnel to operate the technology, and interpret results,
and invest continuously to offset technology obsolescence. Some experts interviewed
said that they established relationships with technology vendors and this enabled
them to have access the latest technologies. Derek Jones said that BBT did not have
to worry about having the latest technologies because Cambridge University had so
much money that it was not an issue. Academic institutions, although they would
like to have novel technologies, did not need the latest technologies as most of their
research was “Blue-Skies-Research. However in current times with funding not as
freely available, it would make sense for HEI’s to develop collaborative R&D
capability with industry to bring in much needed revenue. As a result, sharing
research facilities in the biotechnology sector was identified as one option enabling
the performance of effective R&D. Consequently, the highly capital intensive
biotechnology sector has seen the expansion of the pooling of expensive
technologies through TCF’s.
Academic institution TCF’s with the purpose of providing a wide access to
cutting-edge technologies to the international research world at a low cost, and to
develop a centre of expertise for research were generally open to all types of users
(academics, SME’s, private firms) with activities taking mostly the form of R&D
collaborative projects. Offering a service was often secondary and was generally
implemented to generate revenues paying for equipment maintenance or wages. The
funding source for this type of TCF was normally based on public or private grants.
The consensus among the experts interviewed regarding SME’s engaging academic
TCF’s was that academic TCF’s were not professional enough to interface with
industry and that they were more interested in their next publication because that was
how they were measured. It was suggested that the management board of academic
TCF’s should include members with industrial experience to create added-value.
Academic TCF’s did not generally employ full-time technicians, and while post-
graduate researcher developed skills in relation to their research; when they finished
their studies and graduated, the skill sets were lost.
Most start-up biotechnology companies preferred to engage the services of a
company or CRO to progress the route to commercialisation of an innovative drug or
technology because these commercial entities were generally accredited and the
305
research was carried out in a GMP/GLP facility, whereas most academic TCF’s were
not accredited and did not provide a GMP/GLP environment, meaning that research
had to be repeated in a commercial facility. Access to technologies in a CRO was
generally expensive and outside the reach of early-stage SME’s. However, expert
interviews revealed that accessing academic TCF’s was difficult and academic
TCF’s were not set up to efficiently interface with industry when it came to the
commercialisation of new innovations.
4.9 Instruments to Foster Technology Transfer in Life Sciences
(Appendix 6) “Technology Transfer is the process of transferring skills, knowledge, know-how,
technologies, manufacturing methods, manufacturing samples, among Governments
or universities, and other organizations to ensure that scientific and technological
developments are accessible to a wider range of users, who are then able to further
develop and exploit the technology into new products, processes, applications,
materials, or services”.
Collaborative projects were the means most used to stimulate technology
transfer. They allow a response to needs, as well as joint objectives for academic and
private partners. In the same way, the spin-offs from these collaborative projects
benefit both parties. This explains why we found many instruments allowing the
construction and financing of these projects, whether at regional, national, or
European level. The organisations of joint conferences had the advantage of allowing
the creation of meeting spaces propitious to the emergence of collaborative projects,
services, or licence contracts. In the “Expert Interviews”, there was a consensus that
the organisation of joint conferences was a driver of cluster development and
innovation because they brought people together and this personal interface was
necessary. Because corporate culture is different from that of academic research, it is
vital that these two worlds get to know one another better, to exchange ideas on their
shared themes and concerns.
Where research bodies provided services to companies, companies gained
access to leading-edge expertise. Indeed, innovative SMEs leading R&D projects did
not always have access to the material, financial and human resources they needed to
internalise all of their analysis, and therefore resorted to subcontracting. Major
306
groups, however, did have the means to internalise most of the equipment they
needed and solicited external competences for niche problematic areas (specific
expertise, equipment that was too costly, one-off needs that failed to justify the
purchase of tools, time efficiency). For mature technologies, companies turned first
to private subcontractors, whose manner of operation was best adapted to their
constraints. Recourse to a public-sector structure was envisaged because of the
researcher’s competences, mainly for technologies that were still fairly immature.
The European ShareBiotech project was thus constructed by Biogenouest, the
network of life sciences platforms in Western France, in order to develop the
opening of technological platforms. The main purpose of this project was to increase
the visibility of these platforms, and help them adapt their offer to the needs of
businesses. Often, these last test platforms’ aptitude to their needs via low-strategic-
level service provision. Once their confidence had been earned, they sometimes
entrusted riskier projects within a collaborative project framework.
Two-thirds of the organisations surveyed used patents to grow technology transfer.
Patents were the method most commonly used by academics to protect their
inventions. Since a few years ago, researchers have, thanks to awareness-raising
efforts by technology transfer structures, become aware of the importance of
protecting their discoveries, because they have a value that is not just scientific but
also economic, to industrial players. Yet the number of patent applications was not
an indicator of the appeal of these discoveries in the eyes of the industrial world.
However, the number of patents in use (i.e. patents that lead to the signature of
licences), was a strong indicator. Today, it is essential to develop new instruments in
order to support this last stage. In the face of significant mobilization of instruments
concerning the set-up and upstream management of projects, and on the application
for patents, lesser importance is placed on networking strategies (placement of
students, secondment) and on transfer via publications or training – even though
these various practices could gradually lead to the building of trusting relationships
between partners. It should be noted that one question, concerning the publication of
articles in professional journals, was removed from the analysis, given that the level
of response to it was close to zero.
This document illustrated the wealth and diversity of instruments used in
Europe to stimulate the transfer of technology. It listed a certain number of practices
307
which could be picked up and adapted in the various different countries and at
European level.
4.10 ShareBiotech E&Y TCF Report (Appendix 6)
In reality there were no apparent novel findings in the E&Y analysis and report.
Was the selection of 17 TCF’s and interview of 15 TCFs fully representative of the
type of TCF/Centres that existed? One would have expected a range of business
orientated facilities in the UK, but they only engaged with one in UK; the new
emerging major facility in Strathclyde. An even more substantive facility was being
built in London; the Francis Crick Research Institute ( http://www.crick.ac.uk/),
which, while having state funding did have some new approaches to interfacing with
the public and research community and no doubt industry. E&Y analysis indicated
that there were only 3 fundamental TCF business models (based on their selected
interviews) but this was not substantiated. Are there more?
1. Profit Oriented TCF
2. Local Innovation Support TCF
3. Research Community Focused TCF
Very strangely, they only interviewed and analysed a Max Planck TCF in Germany.
For ShareBiotech, one would think that a Fraunhofers model was much more useful
and relevant to analyse – here, ideally funding is divided into 3 sources – 1/3
government (state/regional), 1/3 project research funding - and 1/3
industry/commercial funding. The simple Fraunhofers model that ~ 60 specialist
TCFs are set-up with autonomy and without being subject to HEI administration/
management, that with core funding can cover key staff, equipment and maintenance
and use the additional 2/3 budget to cover contract staff, postdocs, specific projects,
travel, marketing etc. – was potentially a very good model for progression in biotech
in ShareBiotech regions with procured government agency support. Fraunhofers
make a significant contribution to IP and company start-up and industry
development.
4.11 Expert Interviews Discussed
As part of the overall project and in particular, the Transnational TCF Model, a
series of extensive interviews was conducted with specialist experts that were
308
involved in biotech sector partnering, collaboration and networking. The
associated report and analysis was published as a stand-alone document, but with
specific relevance to transnational models, some key opinions and findings were
included in this section. Analysis of expert interviews was based on sub-section
questions into common themes, common questions and specialist questions as all
experts were specialists in unique areas.
Expert List and Specialisation
All selected experts in addition to their current role had a long history of
participating in innovative biotechnology development – full profiles were included
in the interview report.
Table 4.2: List of Experts Interviewed
Name Organisation Position
Prof Horst Domdey BioM Biotech Cluster Development
GmbH MD
Dr. Martino Picardo Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst Director
Mary Skelly Microbide Ltd MD
Dr. Mario Thomas Ontario Centre of Excellence (O.C.E.) Director
Dr. Terry Jones One Nucleus Director
Derek Jones Babraham Bioscience Technologies Ltd Director
Dr. Claire
Skentelbery
Council for European Bio-Regions
(CEBR)
Head of CEBR
A selected number of key points and an interpretation, analysis and connection with
ShareBiotech Atlantic Region are given below
Some key points
All parties obviously supported and recognised the crucial importance of access to
Technology Core Facilities (TCFs) as part of biotech development. However
the view in Germany was that HEIs offering lab services and access to TCFs based
on State funding represented unfair competition for Commercial Research
Organisations (CROs) and therefore was only permitted, when the HEI
possessed unique technology that was not accessible in the private sector. It was
true that despite the quality of TCFs and the knowledge of academics, given a
choice, many companies preferred to engage with a viable CRO or R&D department
of another large company, but for an SME, such costs were too high. In
recognition of innovative research deficits, large pharmaceutical companies in all
309
countries were now more willing to collaborate with HEIs, although inevitably
this only tended to relate to the small number of world leading HEIs. Science
Parks/Clusters provided the TCF support for SMEs and these again worked, where
the right groups came together.
An eventual reduction in State funding for biotech research in
universities encouraged Higher Education (H.E) scientists to collaborate with
industry generating start-ups. Due to the current economic environment this was
true in Germany and was happening in all Atlantic Regions.
Funding was obviously a major driver of biotech companies and was included
in a refined format within A6A5 criteria and as a good example, BioM set up its
own investment agency to fund start-ups. Mainstream investment in biotech
SMEs in Germany has since declined and VCs addressed other sectors, so the
BioM model contributed significantly to the growth and sustainability of the cluster.
The Association of German Bioregion’s ensured that clusters did not compete
with each other, but rather cooperated and exchanged ideas. Within a country
or region, it was an accepted model that clusters should not compete for company
attraction, but rather complement and collaborate. This again supported the notion
of interaction between complementary TCFs to provide resources and competence
not available individually. This view was strongly expressed in the expert interviews
with Professor Domdey, Martino Picardo, Tony Jones, Derek Jones, Claire
Skentelbery and Mary Skelly. This view has not changed among Biotechnology
leaders since it was proposed by porter in his “Triple Helix Model” (Porter, 1990).
Germany has had companies relocate HQ to other countries due to tax differences
and this factor should be appreciated in the context of enhanced biotech
collaborations across the Atlantic Region.
A successful cluster required a mixture of high risk and low risk projects
ranging from direct tech transfer to open innovation models. It was the case, which
for many HEI engagements with the biotech sector, this diversity of funding
interaction, did not occur. Open innovation implies very extensive dissemination of
information and easy communication, to which advanced conference communication
technologies can contribute. The area of extensive dissemination of information
using advanced conference communication technologies was researched to
determine how it would complement and enable the setting up of the pilot
“Transnational Model of TCF’s”.
310
All parties believed a sense of community was vital for cluster development and web
services were an important technology that supported and enhanced this working
environment.
German TCFs retained high technician numbers and this was a metric that
inevitably varied across the Atlantic Region partners. Where a TCF had good
human resourcing with advanced capability, it was more likely to cope with
company approaches seeking work and meeting preferred timelines. H.E. TCFs in
much of the Atlantic Region did not possess such effective staff numbers and
inevitably with current public sector funding cutbacks, this issue became worse.
A key driver of a transnational TCF facility was recognised to be the provision of
facilities and research competence that did not currently exist, but was predicted to
be needed based on survey analysis. For example in Munich Eckhart Wolf set up a
specialist TCF (porcine) for the pharmaceutical sector following discussion with
them. New TCFs could therefore impact on biotech and were not being effectively
addressed.
In Germany, logistics were important for cluster development with evidence that
SMEs did not access facilities far away, e.g. A Science Park was very effective.
This was negative for transnational TCFs, unless such a model could diminish the
logistics issue. The use of advanced conference communication technologies was
seen as a potential solution to logistical concerns. Claire Skentelbery stated that in
her experience, most stakeholders would prefer an alternative method of
communication to travelling and that although face to face meetings were necessary,
they were not necessary for every communication and that in today’s financial
downturn, many small companies could not afford expensive travel. However,
BioM was very positive about attracting the best researchers/experts from abroad
and this related to effective networking. This sentiment was echoed by all
interviewed experts. Derek Jones was unhappy about current UK decisions on
emigration and stated that the Babraham Institute was a melting-pot of cultures.
Derek stated that it was difficult to bring good scientists to the UK from the US,
Australia, etc. Derek said that it didn’t matter where they came from as long as they
were contributing to economic development and to the community.
Germany tended to adopt long term business models, compared to the more
traditional finance driven models in the UK and US. Benefits of stable government
311
policy and long term rather than short term financial status had a particularly
advantage for the biotech sector, which normally took a long time to generate a ROI.
This was a model that should be incorporated in the Atlantic Region. This view was
again expressed by Claire Skentelbery who stated that much valuable policy relating
to biotechnology development was lost in the UK due to a change of government and
that there should be a policy of continuing R&D funding to the biotechnology sector
regardless of a change of government leadership. “There needs to be a continuation
of successful policy to develop the biotechnology sector and this also applies to
Ireland”.
In the UK, the main components of cluster development were considered to be:
1. The right people
2. Investment
3. IP
4. Ideas – pre IP and exploitation of IP
5. Avoiding unnecessary competition between facilities
Potential complementary companies did not usually collaborate, but maintained
competition. Derek Jones acknowledged the “why should they collaborate” view but
insisted that unless companies were willing to collaborate, Babraham was not the
right cluster for them to locate. To get good knowledge transfer as open innovation,
it was recognised that a good cluster led by the right people who could ensure
effective communication and engagement with follow-up delivery was a desirable
requisite.
A cultural difference between H.E. and industry was an accepted problem:
Knowledge exchange was suited to the academic environment and blue skies
research for publication purposes
Academic research was far removed from the commercial and business world
It was suggested that academia should interact more with people in
industry and there should be an industry presence on university campuses
An industry perspective was that HE Tech Transfer offices usually had the wrong
staff and HE metrics such as number of spin-outs did not necessarily reflect long
term development. This was in keeping with much feedback in the ShareBiotech
project that suggested that for an HEI to effectively interact with industry, it needed
to set-up a different entity that was effectively a part- company itself to ensure that
traditional academic and university governance drivers and culture were not in place.
312
Again, the UK supported that a new TCF model needed to offer something not
currently available, i.e. novel and it ideally should integrate with other related
resources and research policy; ideally to find a niche area in the market.
Companies and Cluster/Science Parks can provide good and very
modern technologies, e.g. Bio City, Stevenage, GSK. Companies cannot rely on
university access to address problems because academic research was far removed
from the need to deliver the required accredited results within a commercial timeline
and that some academic researchers will put their own research before the
commercial research, or that access to the desired technology will take second place
and at a time that may not be suitable. Martino Picardo of Stevenage expressed the
view that he did not want to be dependent on the whim of “Professor Wonderful” for
access to cutting-edge technologies.
As a consequence, the ShareBiotech surveys of SMEs and TCFs should ideally
have been more focused on asking what they really wanted & needed to confirm this
differential and indicate what needs to be done to address it. It is not unusual to
recognise deficits at the end of a project, which are consequently addressed in a
follow-on study. Dr. Picardo raised the following points:
The US put a lot of sustainable state funding into start-ups – far more than
EU and the support services try and ensure success
Biotech entrepreneurs tended to run organisations in the US, i.e. have the
right history and experience
Lots of different Tech Transfer experience was required.
Control of Tech Transfer by a single organisation like EI (Ireland) did not
work
A TCF should be Tax free
Cluster/Science Park/TCF should be driven by the people directly
involved, not managers or politicians
These points extended beyond the UK and were relevant to how shared resources
could be best funded, managed, and accessed and rationale for collaborative TCFs
including transnational collaborations.
The implication was that transnational network of current TCFs organised as
a single entity model, should be focused on the development of new TCF facilities
required in specific regions that would complement each other and access shared
money in different countries. Communication technology became a crucial part of
the access process and effective but novel models needed to be reviewed.
313
Funding in addition to actual investment in biotech companies and update of TCFs
became an issue for SMEs regarding their capacity to cover operational costs,
including access to TCFs. The Netherlands introduced a low value Innovation
Voucher programme some years ago to facilitate SME start-up, development,
collaboration, and outcome delivery. The model has since progressed to Ireland,
parts of the UK and Germany. In practice, many of AIT pre- cited TCF access
projects (Tech Translation) were funded by such Innovation Vouchers. A version of
this practice was now being evaluated in the French Atlantic Region. While this did
facilitate SME access to TCFs, it must be accepted that it supported SME-HE
interaction, when many SMEs might have a preference for other company linkages,
where there was no competitive conflict.
The EU would support clusters becoming transnational and international
where benefits accrued, but while the favoured view was that viable clusters have to
embrace close logistics, there was evidence particularly in biotech, for acquisition of
network benefits that were across countries, and these benefits included fundamental
R&D (Hendry & Brown 2006). This latter understanding was largely in keeping
with ShareBiotech findings, although some key experts were more focused on
regional cluster issues and were not in conflict with a tendency for physical location
to be always regional – an extreme example being the relocation of Astra Zeneca
R&D to Cambridge. What these findings confirmed was the importance of the
nature, relevance for innovation and complementarity for a network to be functional
and beneficial. A critical element of this was again the effectiveness of
communication. In the ShareBiotech project, the concept of a transnational model
related to two distinct deliveries and outcomes, i. Transnational Technology
Translator Network, and ii, transnational collaboration of complementary core
facilities presenting as a single entity. The former arose as a product of regular Tech
Translator representative communication and engagement, a review of special web
sites set up to provide and transfer Tech Translator knowledge (Tools of Science1,
BiotechKnows2) and recognition of the benefits of tech translation delivered by a
complementary group rather than an individual. The latter was a consequence of
analysis of TCFs across the Atlantic Region and a need to facilitate greater access to
novel resources. The EU under Horizon 2020 will continue to fund the set-up of new
substantive TCF resources, but these are effectively of global status. It was
314
recognised that regions, particularly from an SME perspective needed greater access
to TCFs and associated research competence. The drivers for a potential
transnational TCF model were identified as a product of ShareBiotech research
in the initial phase of A6, and these were drivers of A6A5, though not of equal
delivery, (Tomkins 2011).
Location of the cluster was also seen as key to success of biotechnology
development. In an interview with Mariana Bradano, Technology Transfer Officer
with the Biocant Cluster, the first policy-driven biotechnology cluster in Portugal,
and recently appointed to the board of the CEBR; when asked why the cluster was
located in Biocant she stated that the location was chosen for the following reasons:
Proximity to the University of Canthanede
Access to an educated workforce
Proximity to schools and shopping amenities and hospital facilities and
recreation amenities
Available housing
A nice place to live with a pleasant climate
Reliable transport infrastructure
Access to venture capital organisations and other funding mechanisms
Availability of incubation and wet-lab space for start-up companies
Service provision
There is nothing new in in the reasons expressed by Marianna; indeed, the same
points were expressed by all the experts interviewed, and these very same reasons
have been expressed by cluster development experts since the cluster model was first
envisioned e.g. Porter, Maskell, Powell etc.
4.12 The CIRCA Report Discussed
In addressing an element of the TCF concept, the initial proposed A4 project, was to
develop a public-private partnership between the AIT CBBR laboratories and a
private biotech service company with collaborative focus on specific technology -
biosimilars. The company was originally an Irish spin-out from a large pharma
company, but had recently been absorbed by a UK multinational (ironically,
currently, this company has reverted back to an Irish SME). One lab in the CBBR
would be devoted to selected biosimilar analysis work (although this would require
engagement in cell culture etc), that the private company would manage, ie AIT
315
would provide TCFs and the company would manage and implement quality
structure and operation/maintenance budgets etc. Outcomes would transfer to the
company for necessary GLP repeats. A full detailed proposal of this division of the
project was generated (Tomkins, Burke & Walsh 2011). There was a lot of
ShareBiotech interest in this model, in part because public-private sector
collaboration could innately enhance operation of and access to TCFs, counter to the
general scale of public-private sector collaborations being poor.
Silicon Valley is often presented as an example of where collaboration between
industry and HEIs occurred with the generation of numerous innovative outcomes.
Conversely, it is accepted that HEI-industry collaboration across most of Europe,
including Ireland is generally very poor, in terms of numbers and scale, (Edmonson
et al., 2012). A university needs to develop a specific pragmatic culture and
structure to work effectively with industry. MIT and the University of Georgia are
examples of US Universities with substantial infrastructure and relevant skilled staff
in place to facilitate working with companies. In Germany, Fraunhofer’s obviously
represent a diverse series of very dedicated HEIs focused on delivering industry
research. The ShareBiotech group were aware of the deficiency in HEI-industry
collaboration in the Atlantic Region and the proposed AIT-company collaboration
project represented a positive means of developing and evaluating mutual partner
beneficial models. Unfortunately, the sale of the SME company to a UK based
global multinational inspection, product testing and certification company,
effectively resulted in a reversed decision and the corporate abandonment of the
proposed project. The company would continue to implement biosimilars analysis
resources and methods, but via the skills and experience of another division of the
multinational.
With a short time frame now available, the replacement project was restricted to
further enhancement of AIT TCF management and structure, by transfer of analysis
of TCF deficits to two external consultancy groups.
316
CIRCA were post-audit how to implement TCF’s into academia; because the
collaborative model AIT and Bioclin could not progress; it was really a review of the
audit; audit analysis highlighted AIT shortfalls. This report was valuable but in
essence, it did not highlight any areas that were not already evident. However, the
report did result in an evaluation of the BRI and its potential to develop a TCF model
that was more attractive to companies and other sectors in the research area. Several
changes in the management and running of the BRI were implemented, including:
1. A research officer was appointed
2. All SOP’s were reviewed
3. An audit of methods of purchasing consumables which resulted in setting up
a central fund that created added value
4. The AIT/BRI website was significantly upgraded; creating a portal making
access policy, pricing, turn-around-time, technology and expertise available
etc. clear to potential clients
5. A management committee which comprised internal staff, PhD. Students,
a postgraduate representative, Industry leaders, was set up
6. Professor Neil Rowan was appointed Head of the BRI Dr. Damien Brady was
appointed assistant director of the BRI
7. All safety procedures were reviewed and changes implemented where
necessary
The implementation of the findings of the CIRCA report added value to the offering
of BRI and made it an attractive Centre of Excellence for industry to engage with.
The appointment of Dr. Jim Ryan and Tony Forde was a good decision as both men
had extensive professional experience in the biotechnology industry as attested by
their relative C.V’s. (Appendix 14).
4.13 The Darcy Report Discussed
The Darcy report highlighted two areas for corrective attention in their review of the
BRI-TCF, namely; the age of some of the equipment and the lack of users on the
management committee. The age of the equipment is due to lack of funding for
HEI’s from official sources, however, this can be offset by proper maintenance of
existing by a “qualified person” and the presence of a technology maintenance
budget. However, if the technology was maintained, companies would be likely to
avail of services, which in turn could generate income for upkeep. Literature and
expert interviews highlighted the need for an industrial presence on academic
research committees. Research also highlighted those academic research facilities, in
317
Ireland, the UK, and in general across the Atlantic Area, did not have sufficient
input, and interface with industry. This made it difficult for industry to engage with
academic research centres, and is an area that needs to be addressed in the short-
term. The report suggested six areas where the BRI could engage industry (see
results section the Circa Report) in relation to research undertaken and the needs of
the local environment. The Enterprise Ireland Innovation Voucher Scheme was well
utilised by the BRI, and was a platform to showcase its technological ability to
industry, thus enhancing the good reputation of AIT.
The report raised the issue of accreditation and the absence of a quality
system e.g. ISO17025, Irish Medicines Board (IMB) approval, FDA registration, and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval. Again, this point was mentioned
during expert interviews, but research showed that it was difficult to find any HEI in
Ireland with core facility accreditation in place. 1SO accreditation is expensive and
HEI institutes cannot afford the expense without sustainable funding. However,
early-stage proof-of-concept does not necessarily need accreditation.
Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) facilitates the receipt,
logging, tracking, and security of any sample being processed in a research facility.
While having a LIMS capability would give added value to an academic research
facility; a basic package costs approximately €30,000 and is not a viable proposition
for cash-strapped HEI institutions.
The recommendations of the Darcy Report, along with the CIRCA Report
highlighted issues that were generally already known and these issues would have
been rectified if a sustainable budget was in place. However, as a result of the
report’s a qualified person, namely a Research Officer was recruited and the BRI
benefited considerably from the report’s recommendations, which in-turn created
added-value for companies using the facilities, and postgraduate students also
benefited significantly.
4.14 University – Industry Collaborations
University research and research-related activities contribute in many important
ways to the national economy, notably through increased productivity of applied
R&D in industry due to university-developed new knowledge and technical know-
how, provision of highly valued human capital embodied in faculty and students,
318
development of equipment and instrumentation used by industry in production and
research, and creation of concepts and prototypes for new products and processes.
These benefits are enabled primarily through publications, conferences, information
exchange via consulting and collaborative research, and hiring of trained students.
It is widely known that university-industry research interactions and collaborations
have grown substantially over the past several decades. Collaborations take many
forms, ranging from university licensing of inventions based in federally funded
research, to industry participation in major federally-funded university-based
research consortia, to direct industry support of university-based research projects.
New companies also are frequently formed around innovations based on university
research (spin-off companies). Private firms increasingly have recognized that
research partnerships with universities provide a wide range of benefits, only some
of which take specific economic forms such as new and improved products,
processes, and services; other benefits are access to students and graduates with
specialized knowledge who can be interns, employees, or consultants. While only a
fraction of industry-university research collaborations result in intellectual property
(IP) that is successfully commercialized by private firms, universities also own
intellectual property rights to inventions derived from billions of Euros of
Government funding. They seek to maximize the public benefits of this research by
licensing these discoveries to private firms to ensure maximum access to the
technology by the general public. There is a substantive history of HEI-HEI, HEI-
SME, HEI-MNE etc. collaborations across Europe, the US and beyond. Yet, this
research has shown that industry finds it difficult interface with academia in
collaborative projects and access to academic TCF’s is a model that has been tried
and tested, and it does not work. The view of industry is that academic TCF’s are not
professional enough to interface with industry, and that academia is driven by the
need to publish and collaborative research with industry takes second place.
The direct commercial value of knowledge generated from university research is
only one of a wide range of outputs that have economic significance. In a synthesis
of prior research, Goldstein, Maier, and Luger (1995) list eight outputs of research
universities that can lead to economic impacts:
1. Generation of new knowledge;
2. Creation of human capital;
3. Transfer of existing know-how (tacit knowledge);
319
4. Technological innovation;
5. Capital investment;
6. Regional leadership;
7. Production of knowledge infrastructure; and
8. Influence on the regional milieu.
Sampat (2003) provides a similar but shorter list that focuses more sharply on the
more readily recognized and assessed economic outputs of university research:
1. Creation of economically useful scientific and technological information,
which helps increase the efficiency of applied R&D in industry;
2. Provision of skills or human capital to students and faculty members and
helping to create networks of scientific and technological capabilities;
3. Development of equipment and instrumentation used by firms in
production or research;
4. Creation of prototypes for new products and processes
Sampat noted that the relative importance of the different channels through which
these outputs diffuse (or are “transferred”) to industry has varied by industry and
over time. Such channels include hiring of students and faculty, consulting
relationships between faculty and firms, publications, conference presentations,
informal interactions with industry researchers, university start-up companies, and
licensing of university patents. Recent studies show that both faculty and private
firms in most industries consider the primary channels through which learning
occurs to be publications, conferences, and informal information exchange (Cohen et
al., 2002; Agrawal and Henderson, 2002). Also, several studies of the benefits that
companies derive from membership in National Science Foundation-funded
university-industry research centres (e.g., Engineering Research Centres,
Industry/University Cooperative Research Centres) show that access to students and
faculty and to new ideas and research results, rather than technology per se, are
consistently the most frequently cited benefits of centre membership (Feller et al.,
2002; Roessner, 2000).
Despite the “ivory tower” label sometimes attached to universities, this is now a
gross misrepresentation of reality. In fact, our research universities have been among
the most important economic institutions of the twentieth century (Atkinson &
Blanpied, 2008).
“Most economic historians agree that the rise of American technological and
economic leadership in the post-war era was based in large part, on the strength of
320
the American university system (Sampat, 2003)”. Many other countries viewed the
university-industry collaborations found in the United States as a competitive
advantage and sought to duplicate the underlying conditions supporting these trends
(Neal et al., 2008).
If the Atlantic Area is to create added value in its H.E. Research Institutes, it needs
to learn from universities in the U.S. and adopt sustainable research models by
developing collaborative research projects with industry that have commercialisable
end-products. There needs to be a lot more interface with industry and a greater
presence of industrial leaders on university research management committees. This
research has shown that industry finds it difficult to engage with the current
university research model in the Atlantic Area, and that the “ivory-tower” mentality
is alive and well. However, as history has shown; over time things change and
evolve to match current needs, and this has to happen in a Europe with huge
economic problems that have seen funding cut to many research organisations.
While “blue-skies” research is vital for new developments and the advancement of
knowledge, there needs to be a paradigm shift whereby H.E. research institutes
derive income from services provided and thus, begin to sustainably fund
themselves, and through their discoveries contribute to the development of the
European Smart-Economy.
4.15 Biotechnology Education; Training Offer and Needs in the
Atlantic Area Discussed Technological, scientific, and organisational breakthroughs are usually generated at
the interface of a variety of different disciplines and approaches. One of the
objectives of ShareBiotech was to stimulate links between academia and industry
using several instruments, one of which was to connect people from the different life
science sectors through training, mobility, conferences, workshops, and LTM’s. The
study revealed that there was a strong and well organised training offer for a wide
range of University degrees in life sciences in the Atlantic Area. The main barrier
identified to HE student mobility was the offer of training in the language of the
country offering the training. This would suggest that there should be more
emphasis on learning a popular foreign language at primary and secondary and
321
tertiary levels of education across the Atlantic Area and more emphasis on learning
English in countries where English is not the mother tongue.
Another limitation identified was the failure of current Biotechnology
training to meet the needs of SME’s, particularly limitations including the lack of
practical training. Traditionally, IOT’s were geared towards delivering practical
hands-on skills in comparison to their University counterparts. However, this metric
has changed significantly with the reduction of laboratory training hours due to
reduced availability of funding caused by the economic downturn. If we are to
recover from this recession and meet the human capital skill-set demands of
biotechnology companies now and in future recovery, this deficit needs to be
addressed to avoid the scenario of “throwing the baby out with the bath-water”.
Even with the availability of mobility grants, the ShareBiotech project failed to
engage strongly with SME’s and only 37% of the mobility grants involved training.
It is true that the main objective of the mobility grants was to connect people in order
to generate new projects, this did not happen. the main organisations that benefited
from the mobility grants were HEI’s, Universities, and research centres, with only
15% of the grant recipients belonging to companies and 10% belonging to other
types of organisations such as national or regional education organisations,
Technology Transfer Offices, and Innovation Centres. The lack of SME presence
was obvious at meetings and it seemed as if the organisers were struggling to make
up the numbers. Many of the meetings could have been held using virtual
communication systems which would have allowed SME’s to participate. Many of
these SME’s have a small number of staff and cannot afford to spend two or three
days away to attend a meeting. Precious funding could have been saved using virtual
communications technologies and deployed to other, more productive activities to
benefit SME’s. The analysis suggested that the contribution of mobility grants to
training was modest and highlighted the need to identify additional models and
instruments for the implementation of training in biotechnology.
Possible Education Models to look at
Two possible education models could be looked at:
1. Application of advanced real time high quality, low cost video conferencing
technology to lecture delivery, student engagement, and assessments. Such a
322
system could also potentially deliver elements of remote training regarding
practical techniques etc. MOOCS (massive open on-line courses) have
already grown significantly in a short time period with high profile HEIs
such as Harvard and Stanford delivering them. Cambridge University
recently stated that MOOCS will change the HE system in countries, but it
won’t have much effect on them because of their specialised academic-
student interaction. The proposed A6A5 transnational model in terms of
communication would allow regular face-to-face interactions with students.
With course fees rising dramatically in the UK and other countries (Ireland,
heading to €3k), standard and quality of education declining and the number
of students registered on postgrad programmes rising (masters & PhD etc.)
and hence career impact declining, there is a strong environment for new
options and models (very large numbers of Indian, Chinese people etc. are
engaging in MOOCS with US delivery).
2. Industrial Doctorate Programme – the Atlantic Region needs to progress
development of the biotech sector and part of this will recognise the novel
benefits of the region regarding natural products, marine biology, bio E etc.
Generation of entrepreneurial researchers can facilitate the process and the
Industrial Doctorate model is one that the UK (EPSRC) and Denmark have
been running for a while. These usually involve centres set up in specific
universities that have a capacity to handle relevant applied research in a
specialist area, e.g. bioprocessing (obviously NIBRT would do that in
Ireland). In the Atlantic Region, there may be potential to again involve a
transnational model that brings together complementary knowledge, skills
and resources to more effectively manage such a degree. The degree contract
would be with a company – in the UK and Denmark, they do contribute
funding, but only a small amount. For a transnational model, 2 or 3 agencies
including infamous EI would have to come together to co-fund, but would
only do so for mutual benefits for their regions. The postgrad spends time in
the company and the HEI. Not an easy one to progress, but worth discussion.
323
4.16 The Future of Biotechnology
The first commercial ventures based on synthetic biology, such as Synthetic
Genomics Inc and Amyris Biotechnologies, are already operational.30,31
Over the
next few years, we are likely to see several new ventures applying the principles of
gene circuit engineering to enable a variety of solutions in agricultural,
pharmaceutical, environmental, industrial and energy related biotechnologies. It
certainly seems that in a few years biotechnology will have incorporated many ideas,
devices and systems built using the foundations of synthetic biology. Perhaps there
will be no distinction between biotechnology and “applied” synthetic biology. It
would be a stretch to say that synthetic biology is the future of biotechnology;
however, there is no denying that synthetic gene networks will have a significant
impact on the biotechnology of the future (Bhalerao, 2009).
For the future, the ultimate promise of biotechnology is for combinations of
biomarkers to provide so much guidance to doctors that drug care can become so
targeted it could even one day become personal, with each patient receiving a
medicine or combination of treatments that have been tailor-made for their condition
and their genetic make-up. Biotechnology offers new hope to medical research as
scientists seek to unravel the pathways through which a disease advances so its
progress can be slowed or halted. This greater understanding not only opens up the
possibilities of new drugs, it also enables physicians to know which sub-set of
patients each drug will be most effective for, as suggested by a biomarker or, even
one day, a combination of biomarkers. Any variable in the human body has the
potential to be a biomarker, be it pulse or blood pressure or a certain gene. So long as
it can be measured and clinically demonstrated to predict better outcomes for
patients, it can be used to ensure drugs are given to those who will benefit the most
and the cost and possible side effects of unnecessary treatments are avoided.
30
http://www.syntheticgenomics.com
31 http://www.amyrisbiotech.com
324
4.17 The Virtual Biotech Model
Biotechnology leaders and their financial backers have embraced the virtual model
as a way to save money on workers and lab facilities. Nearly every biotechnology
and pharmaceutical company conducts aspects of product development through
contractors. But a virtual company outsources almost every step of its research and
development chain. A virtual company can be agile, shifting from drug formulation
to toxicity testing without having to build facilities or hire staff. And a slimmed-
down business can entice pharmaceutical companies shopping for smaller firms to
restock drug pipelines. These attributes are all the more appealing in the wake of the
financial crisis, as the high risk involved in backing young biotechnology companies
over the long timelines of product development makes investors wary of the sector.
That pressure has already forced firms to become more efficient. “This movement is
really born of necessity,” says Hal Broderson, managing director of the consulting
firm Rock Hill Ventures in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. “It's like a nuclear winter out
there for early-stage medical-technology companies.”
The Virtual Organisation is a flexible network of independent entities linked
by telecommunication and computing technologies to share skills, knowledge and
access to expertise in non-traditional ways. It is a form of cooperation involving
companies, institutions and/or individuals delivering a product or service on the
basis of a common business understanding. Units participate in the collaboration and
present themselves as a unified organisation (Peng, 2001).
The distributed and pervasive nature of the Internet, and the ease with which
institutions can now communicate across great distances, have made new forms of
organizing possible for institutions. These various forms of organizing have
attractive benefits for institutions, including cost savings and increased flexibility.
As institutions have taken advantage of these new technologies to distribute their
work and workers, and to re-shape information flows in the pursuit of mission,
strategy, and business objectives, they have moved towards being virtual
organizations.
325
A virtual organization can bring together, often temporarily, independent
entities in partnering or outsourcing arrangements, enabling them to share expertise,
resources, and cost savings until objectives are met and the network is dissolved.
Virtual organizations are virtual, not only in the sense that they exist largely in
cyberspace, but also in that they are unconstrained by the traditional barriers of time
and place. The ultimate goal of the virtual organization is to provide innovative,
high-quality products or services instantaneously in response to customer demands.
Working at a virtual biotechnology company requires a special skill set, notes
David Cavalla, founder of Numedicus, a virtual pharmaceutical firm in Cambridge,
UK. “You need to have somebody who has a 30,000-foot view of the whole process
of drug development,” he says. “They need to be able to look at the next step and
say, 'This is what I'm going to need in 18 months'.” Virtual firms are often designed
to be bought by pharmaceutical companies, giving investors a chance to recoup their
funds without waiting for the decade or more that it can take to bring a drug to
market.32
Bruce Register, Ph.D., founder and CEO of Register Consulting & Executive
Search, said at a Nov. 14 forum sponsored by the Association for Corporate Growth
San Diego that the old biotechnology model was just as unstainable as the dot-com
boom. With less to show for risking $500 billion over 20 years than they had
expected, Register said most venture capitalists and large pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies are now holding back. “Companies need to generate a
return on investment and do what’s needed in order to move in that direction. The
biotech industry needs to be restarted,” he said.
Gail Naughton, Ph.D., chairman and CEO of Histogen, has first-hand
experience with the leaner virtualized model. Histogen, a San Diego-based company,
is developing health products based on replicating the regenerative capacity of new-
born cells grown under embryonic conditions. Its hair-growth formula called
ReGenica is scheduled to present preliminary mid-trial results of the first human
clinical evaluation. The trials are intended to evaluate ReGenica’s safety in its use to
32
http://lifescivc.com/2014/06/biotechsvirtual-reality/
326
elicit hair regrowth. The company has only 22 full-time employees. Histogen uses
use a clinical research organization (CRO) to do the majority of clinical monitoring.
Virtual biotech groups have embraced new software to tackle the complexity
of discovering useful compounds as well as the management of the moving parts of
R&D programs. By most definitions of virtual biotech, the lean operations lack wet
labs and large staffs. They can't be too reliant on manpower, and technology helps
them fill some of the gaps.
Outsourcing the early stages of R&D is a growing trend among young biotech
firms in the UK, a new report reveals. Researchers at Cass Business School in
London tracked 68 university and public service laboratory spin-outs as part of a
larger Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) project on
high-tech business organization. The study revealed that up to one-third of these
firms have embraced an innovative ‘virtual biotech’ business model to help reduce
the time taken to reach clinical trials and build up a pipeline of early stage products.
According to Dzidziso Samuel Kamuriwo, the report’s author, this business model
has flourished among fledgling bioteches thanks to a combination of local policies
that favour the industrialization of public science, multiple sources of funding and
high-quality science conducted in public labs. The advantages of going ‘virtual’
include flexibility and few or no capital costs, which helps reduce expenditure (Nat.
Biotechnol, 2009).
4.18 Technologies Supporting Virtual Organisations
Basic technologies supporting VOs include the Internet and the World Wide Web,
telecommunications, electronic mail, groupware such as Lotus Notes, and video
conferencing. There is also a substantial focus on knowledge management (KM)
technologies that support virtual organisations. KM has been defined by the
International Centre for Applied Studies in Information Technology as "a conscious
strategy of getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right time and
helping people share and put information into action in ways that strive to improve
organizational performance."
KM technologies supporting Virtual Organisations include:
327
Collaborative technologies
Extensible mark-up language (XML)
Intranets and extranets
Personal devices
Wireless technologies
Virtual reality (VR)
Portals
Collaborative technologies are divided into two groups--asynchronous and
synchronous. Asynchronous collaboration tools include document sharing software,
group calendaring and newsgroups. Synchronous tools include virtual meeting
rooms (group support systems), shared whiteboards, and application sharing and
video/audio conferencing.An interesting combination of both can be found in what is
called integrated collaboration. An example is MITRE's Collaborative Virtual
Workspace (CVW), which provides a persistent virtual space within which
applications, documents and people are directly accessible in rooms, floors and
buildings. To a user, a CVW is a building divided into floors and rooms, where each
room provides a context for communication and document sharing. The
ShareBiotech Project engaged a company named RealSim to provide highly realistic
interactive and 3D simulation of the BRI located at Athlone Institute of Technology
as part of Activity 6, similar to the CVW model. CVW allows people to gather in
rooms to talk through chat or audio/video conferencing and to share text and URLs
with one another. For privacy, users can lock rooms and communicate privately
within and between rooms. Rooms are also used for document sharing. Users can
place different documents into a room, allowing anyone else in that room to read the
document. Examples of documents include whiteboards, URLs, notes and other
documents edited through the user's local applications.
Extensible mark-up language (XML) is meta-mark-up language for describing
structured data in that environment, whereas hypertext mark-up language (HTML) is
for displaying data and graphics over the web. XML is evolving to be the common
structure for data interchange among disparate heterogeneous systems. It will have a
tremendous impact in the sharing of data and for supporting increased functionality
(e.g., searching for information).
328
Intranet is a network of networks contained within an enterprise and protected from
outside intrusion through firewalls. Intranets permit the sharing of company
information and computing resources among managers and employees. Examples of
intranet applications include manuals, procedures, internal job offerings, documents,
employee information, schedules and calendars, databases and project management.
Extranets permit further accessibility. In an extranet, the intranet is extended to
external stakeholders such as customers, suppliers and trading partners. Examples of
extranet applications include collaboration, data sharing, project management, news
and training.
Personal devices include personal digital assistants, cell phones, e-mail wireless
devices and Internet appliances. These devices enable employees to have an office
anywhere and an expanded reach to both management and clients. There is a
growing trend toward a convergence of functionalities onto one device.
Wireless technologies include Bluetooth, which is a computing and
telecommunications specification that describes how mobile phones, computers and
personal digital assistants can seamlessly connect with each other using a short-range
(10-meter) wireless connection via a radio frequency. The technology requires that a
low-cost transceiver chip be included in each device. Another wireless technology,
wireless local area network (LAN), allows a user to connect to a network through a
wireless radio connection. IEEE 802.11 specifies the technologies for wireless
LANs.
Virtual reality; there are various types of virtual reality:
Immersive experience--The user visits a world through a wearable device
(e.g., head tracker and helmet, glasses, goggles or a data glove) and interacts
with that world as though he/she were actually a part of it. This form of VR is
the most popular version and the one with the most exposure.
Desktop systems--They are at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of cost
and are worlds that are not immersive and that run on regular personal
computers without additional hardware. These worlds still allow the user to
be interactive within the world, but not immersive.
329
Mirror world or second person experiences--The user is represented by a
figure or avatar inside the computer. The user manipulates this avatar within
the world and interacts indirectly with the world. By controlling this
electronic image of his or herself, the user can interact extensively within the
world.
Telepresence technology--The user remotely controls a mechanical
manipulator to perform some action or explore some aspect of a world. For
example, the user might steer the Mars rover across the terrain, explore under
Antarctica or perform surgery remotely. Most of the time the user is wearing
some sort of headset to project him or herself into the mechanical
manipulator in an immersive manner.
CAVE (cave automatic virtual environment)--It consists of a multiple screen
environment, which surrounds the user. Many CAVE setups have multiple
users involved. The user steps into the CAVE and enters a virtual world on
all sides. Although probably the most expensive type of VR setup, the CAVE
is growing in popularity rapidly because of the ability to project a realistic
experience for multiple users at once.
The number of partnerships and interorganizational alliances among different firms
has grown steadily and is expected to increase as part of need to gain competitive
edge and new customers. These collaborative efforts can be facilitated via the VO
structure (Bhalerao, 2009). The ShareBiotech transnational model of TCF’s is a
viable future project, but it will only be sustainable and attractive to stakeholders
through the use and development of virtual technologies and a paradigm shift
towards virtual organisations.
4.19 A Sustainable Bio-economy for Europe
The European Commission published a communication on the Bio-economy
(European Commission, 2012) to pave the way for a more innovative, resource-
efficient and competitive society that reconciles food security, sustainable use of
renewable resources for industrial processes and environmental protection. The
development of the bio-economy throughout Europe will require actions at both EU
and national level, notably: Development of a policy framework and effective
330
governance and coordination to encourage private investment and better align EU
research and innovation funding to relevant sectoral policies (European Commission,
2012)
Research and innovation actions to implement the European Bio-economy, in
particular, support research into industrial applications and foster industrial
involvement in research and innovation projects.
Support bio-based markets, economic growth, and sustainable employment
by improving access to finance for research and innovation and propose
incentives for industries trying to take innovative bio-based products to the
market.
Develop engagement with society and foster social innovation in the Bio-
economy, e.g. by promoting communication and dissemination of
information on advantages and risks of the Bio-economy and by
dissemination information on bio-based products.
The communication on a sustainable Bio-economy for Europe (European
Commission, 2012), provided a blueprint to maximize policy coherence in the EU
and to bring research and innovation to the mainstream of socio-economic
development. Its successful development, including the extent to which it meets
societal expectations will depend on the European Commission and Member States,
but also on regional authorities, Industry, farmers, NGO’s, consumer associations,
and others (New Biotechnology, 2012). (European Territorial Cooperation
Operational Program, Atlantic Area - Transnational Cooperation 2007-2013)
4.20 SME’s in Ireland and Europe
The European Union faced challenging economic conditions in 2011/2012.
Throughout the downturn, however, SME’s have retrained their position as the
backbone of the European economy, with some 20.7 million firms accounting for
more than 98% of all enterprises, of which 92.2% are firms with fewer than 10
employees. For 2012, it was estimated that SME’s accounted for 67% of total
employment and 58% of gross value added (GVA) 1. These figures point to a stand-
still as compared to the previous year, 2011. With more than 87 million people
employed in EU SME’s, they continue to be the backbone of the EU economy.
2013 is likely to mark a turning point for the EU SMEs. After five years of an
uncertain economic environment, 2013 was expected to be the first year since 2008
with a combined increase in aggregated employment and value-added of EU’s
SMEs. The total employment in the EU SMEs was expected to increase by 0.3% and
331
value-added by 1% as compared to 2011. Preliminary forecasts expect the positive
developments further accelerating in 2014. These promising projections were backed
up by other positive signals. Over the last three years, an increasing number of
Member States have seen their small business sectors returning to an expansion of
employment and value-added, or at least a petering out of the decline. If the
macroeconomic conditions hold, this development would mark the end of the most
challenging crisis the European SMEs have experienced in the recent history.
European SMEs were significantly more resilient than large enterprises to the
2008 crisis, particularly in employment terms. However, after the crisis it has been
more difficult also for them to recover. After 2009, large enterprises were leading the
recovery in terms of output (gross value added), but as of 2012 they have surpassed
SMEs – albeit only slightly - also in terms of employment. Thus, by 2012, large
enterprises managed to regain almost 1.1 million of the 1.6 million jobs lost in 2009.
The SMEs, which lost comparatively fewer jobs in preceding years, went through a
rough patch in 2012.
Viewed against the unparalleled depth and complexity of the crisis, such a
turn-around is a remarkable testimony to the resilience of the EU SMEs. While in
2008-2011 the SMEs resisted the crisis better than large enterprises, in 2012 SMEs
suffered a loss of jobs in the order of 610,000 jobs or a 0.7% decrease compared to
2011. Moreover, SMEs’ contribution to GDP declined by 1.3% from €3.44 trillion in
2011 to €3.39 trillion.
Small businesses play a vital role in the Irish Economy. Across Europe nearly
99% of all European companies are SME's employing almost 81 million people,
providing 66% of Europe's total employment. In Ireland, almost 200,000 small and
medium sized enterprises employ over 655,000 people. Therefore it is recognised
that small businesses are a key contributor to the economy and are crucial for growth
and employment. Biotechnology SME’s does only excel in R&D if they have access
to finance and cutting edge technologies. There needs to be a defragmentation of
biotechnology across the EU, with a focus on development in underdeveloped areas
of the Atlantic Area. If Europe is to compete on a global scale it needs to do so as a
critical mass and not as a fragmented sector with areas of high development and
large areas of low development.
332
4.21 Conclusion
The focus of ShareBiotech was modern biotechnology and implicitly a
multidisciplinary approach. The starting point of the project was to identify the needs
for modern biotechnology resulting from the development of basic and applied
research in life sciences. The project aimed to promote a “bottom up” approach and
in partnership with stakeholders to find appropriate technological answers through
adaption of the technology offering. Transnational models must be implemented
across different jurisdictions with all the inherent differences and distinction between
the partners, impacting on organization and operation. However the view of experts
interviewed was that the ideas of a transnational network of core facilities would be
difficult to implement for several reasons. These included cultural differences
between countries and even regions within countries, differences in tax and
employment laws, and research has shown that people do not want to travel even
short distances to access technologies. The cluster model appears successful in
addressing logistical barriers. In parallel there is also a substantive history of
transnational corporations, running a business across a number of countries. The
latter has attracted growing business analytical research in recent years, but it would
still be true, that no full comparative understanding of these transnational entities
exists to a level that an automatic recommendation can be made, when any new
partner structure is initiated. All evidence to date supports the view, that despite
more than two decades of EU effort to drive transnational collaboration networks,
logistics, and language and culture all influence probability of success and therefore
any proposed ShareBiotech model must accommodate flexibility to handle partner
differences and issues. In terms of working with current research infrastructure as
opposed to initiating new facilities, the former has proved easier in the past for EU
models.
The operating environment for biotech companies in Europe is becoming less
attractive than in other geographical areas. In addition to high energy costs, Europe
has less predictable and science-based regulatory frameworks than those of other
geographies, lacks the funding and tailored market-pull offered by other parts of the
world, and needs to ensure faster and more equitable access to biotech products and
processes for patients, farmers, and consumers. Europe should fully embrace the
333
virtual organisation’s model in environments where it will give best added value.
Significant improvements in wireless technologies are on the horizon. For example,
third-generation (3G) wireless networks will offer high-speed, packet-switched
mobile voice/data networks. The 3G standards, which are being defined by working
groups within the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), will be deployed
to support significantly higher bandwidth over wireless communications. This
increased mobile bandwidth will open up a whole new generation of applications to
wireless subscribers such as collaborative and multimedia services. With the right
environment, Europe’s biotech industry can continue to play a leading role in
tackling major European problems in energy, environment, food security, health,
international competiveness, local job creation, and security. Europe can be at the
forefront and contribute to Europe’s industrial renaissance. The next five years will
be critical for Europe, and they will also determine the success of Europe’s biotech
industry.
Networking and a sense of community was recognised as very important to
sustainable cluster development. A social aspect as simple as having a cup of coffee
during conferences was an excellent method of networking. Government funding
needed to be sustainable and long-term irrelevant of government cycle changes.
When developing a cluster it was important to work within the niche areas of the
community. There needed to be a change of mind set by policy makers regarding
biotech ant it was important to provide information to the public to educate people
about the benefits of biotechnology.
Strong cluster management was a key driver of sustainable cluster development with
an entrepreneurial input. A policy of joined-up thinking should be development and
encouraged among all biotech stakeholders, policy makers, investors and the public.
4.22 Future Work – Horizon 2020
Horizon 2020 is the European Union’s new research programme, which will succeed
FP7 in 2014. Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument implementing the Innovation
Union, a Europe 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe's global
competitiveness.
Running from 2014 to 2020 with an €80 billion budget, the EU’s new programme
for research and innovation is part of the drive to create new growth and jobs in
334
Europe. Horizon 2020 will tackle societal challenges by helping to bridge the gap
between research and the market by, for example, helping innovative enterprise to
develop their technological breakthroughs into viable products with real commercial
potential.
This market-driven approach will include creating partnerships with the private
sector and Member States to bring together the resources needed. Horizon 2020 will
be complemented by further measures to complete and further develop the European
Research Area by 2014. These measures will aim at breaking down barriers to create
a genuine single market for knowledge, research, and innovation. The ShareBiotech
project addressed access to TCF’s for SME’s through sharing technologies and
accessing the feasibility of a Transnational Network of TCF’s. Horizon 2020 can
build on the work done by the ShareBiotech project.
Horizon 2020 promises to raise the level of excellence in Europe’s science base and
ensure a steady stream of world-class research to secure Europe’s long-term
competiveness. It will support the best ideas, develop talent within Europe, and
provide researchers with access to priority research infrastructure, and make Europe
an attractive location for the world’s best researchers.
Horizon 2020 will:
Support the most talented and creative individuals and their teams to carry
out frontier research of the highest quality by building on the success of the
European Research Council (ERC)
Fund collaborative research to open up new and promising fields of research
and innovation through support for Future and Emerging Technologies (FET)
Provide researchers with excellent training and career development
opportunities through the Marie Skiodwska-Curie Actions.
Ensure Europe has world-class research infrastructures (including e-
infrastructures) accessible to all researchers in Europe and beyond.
Biotechnology will be embedded throughout Horizon 2020. Biotechnology will be
at the core of “Food security”, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research
and the Bio-economy, notably in the development of “Sustainable and competitive
bio-based industries”. Biotechnology has been identified as one of the Key Enabling
Technologies (KET’s) and will focus on three major areas:
Boosting cutting-edge biotechnologies as future innovation drivers with the
aim of laying the foundations for the European biotechnology industry to stay
at the front line of innovation, both in the medium and long term.
335
Biotechnology-based industrial processes enabling European bio-industry to
develop new products and processes meeting industrial and societal demands,
including replacing established ones based on other technologies and
harnessing the potential of biotechnology for detecting, monitoring,
preventing, and removing pollution.
Developing innovative and competitive platform technologies that would
generate leadership and competitive advantage in a wide number of economic
sectors.
Biotechnology in Horizon 2020 brings together a top-down approach through the
societal challenges on bio-economy and supporting sustainable and competitive bio-
based industries, and a bottom-up approach with KET on biotechnology.
336
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbanat, R. (2004). Feasibility Study: A Pan-European Market for Technology
Growth Companies. Report.
Agrawal, A. and Henderson, R. (2011). “Putting Patents in Context: Exploring
Knowledge Transfer from MIT.” Management Science 48, 1:44-60.
Åstebroa, T., Bazzazian, N., Braguinsky, S. (2012) Startups by recent university
graduates and their faculty: Implications for university entrepreneurship policy.
Research Policy 41: 663– 677
Atkinson, Richard C., and William A. Blanpied. (2008). “Research Universities:
Core of the U.S. Science and Technology System”; Technology in Society, 30, pp.
30-48.
Baraldi, E., Strömsten, T. (2009) Controlling and combining resources in networks
— from Uppsala to Stanford, and back again: The case of a biotech innovation.
Industrial Marketing Management 38: 541–552
Bartholomew, S. (1997), ‘National systems of biotechnology innovation: complex
interdependence in the global system,’ Journal of International Business Studies, 28:
241–267.
Belda, I., Penas, G., Alonso, A., Marquina, D., Navascués, E., Santos, A. (2014)
Biotech patents and science policy: the Spanish experience. Nature Biotechnology
32: 59-61
Bhalerao,K.D. (2009). Synthetic gene networks: the next wave in biotechnology?
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, 1304 West Pennsylvania Ave, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Birch K.. (2009) The knowledge–space dynamic in the UK bioeconomy. Area 41.3,
273–284.a_86
4 2
Brannback, M., Carsrud, A., Renko, M., Ostermark, R., Aaltonen. J., Kiviluoto, N.
(2009) Growth and profitability in small privately held biotech firms: preliminary
findings. New Biotechnology 25: 369-376
Buchwald, J.Z., Gray, J.J. (2008). The Archive for History of Exact Sciences
expands its scope to include the history of modern biology. Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.
62:601–602
Buhler F, C. Mark Tang ,(2007). Pratik Shah, Mark Leuchtenberger, Ko-Chung Lin,
Pedro de Noronha Pissarra & Building a business. The pre-eminence of clusters,
Nature Biotechnology 25, 1207 - 1209 (2007) Published online: 24 September 2007
| doi:10.1038/bioe.2007.4
337
Casper, S. (2007). How do technology clusters emerge and become sustainable?
Social network formation and inter-firm mobility within the San Diego
biotechnology cluster. Research Policy 36: 438–455.
Champenois, C., Engel, D., Heneric, O. (2009). The Birth of German Biotechnology
Industry: Did Venture Capital run the Show? Discussion Paper No. 04-09, Centre for
European Economic Research.
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. (2006) .Forms of creation of industrial clusters in
biotechnology. Technovation 26: 1064–1076.
Cohen & Boyer (1973). Construction of Biologically Functional Bacterial Plasmids
in Vitro, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 70, No. 11, pp. 3240-3244,
Cohen, W., Florida, R., Randazzese, L., and Walsh, J. (1998), “Industry and the
Academy: Uneasy Partners in the Case of Technological Advance,” in R. Noll, ed.,
Challenges to Research Universities, Brookings.
Connolly, N., Wusteman, J. (2011). Future strategy for Irish Research, development
and use of virtual environments. SFI UCD Report
De Greef, W., Frei, P. (2009). Biotechnology in the new EU Member States – An
emerging sector. Report Europabio & venture Valuation.
Deeds, D.L., DeCarolis, D., Coombs, J. (1999). Dynamic Capabilities and New
Product Development in High Technology Ventures: An Empirical Analysis of New
Biotechnology Firms. Journal of Business Venturing 15: 211–229.
Desrochers. P., Leppälä, S. (2011). Creative Cities and Regions: The Case for Local
Economic Diversity. Creativity & Innovation Management 20: 59-69.
Dohse, D. (2000). Technology policy and the regions — the case of the BioRegio
contests. Research Policy 2000: 1111–1133.
Edmonson, G., Valigra, L., Kenward, M., Hudson, R.L., Belfield, H. (2012). Making
industry-university partnerships work. Lessons from successful collaborations.
Science Business Innovation Board Report, p1 – 52.
Elmsford, NY: Pergamon, (1995). Facilitating Computer Conferencing:
Recommendations From the Field. Educational Technology. 35(1) 22-30.
England, J. L. (2013) Statistical physics of self-replication. The J of Chem Phys
139: 121923-1 - 121923-2.
Etzkowitz, H. (2002). The Triple Helix of University – Industry – Government.
Implications for Policy and Evaluation, Working Paper 2002: 11, Science Policy
Institute.
Europeans & Biotechnology in 2010. Winds of Change. EC Survey & Report
338
Feller, Irwin, Catherine P. Ailes, and David Roessner, (2002). “Impacts of Research
Universities on Technological Innovation in Industry: Evidence from Engineering
Research Centers,” Research Policy, 31, 3 457-474.
Folkert, K. (2012). Less Can Be More: RNA-Adapters May Enhance Coding
Capacity of Replicators; DOI: 10. 1371/journal.pone 0029952.
Fox (2014). UMBC Biotechnology Graduate Programs Virtual Info Session, 21 2014
posted: Sep 15, 2014 5:22AM GDT.
Gaskell NJ (2010). European Commission EUR 24537 – Europeans and
Biotechnology in 2010 Winds of change? Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union — 172 pp. — B5, 17,6 x 25 cm ISBN 978-92-79-16878-9 doi
10.2777/23393
Gilbert, N. (2010). Feeding the world is going to require the scientific and financial
muscle of agricultural biotechnology companies. Natasha Gilbert asks whether
they're up to the task. Nature 466: 548-551
Goldstein, H.A., Maier, G., and Luger, M.I. (1995). “The University as an
Instrument for Economic and Business Development: U.S. and European
Comparisons.” In D.D. Dill and B. Sporn, eds. Emerging Patterns of Social Demand
and University Reform: Through a Glass Darkly.
Grande, E., Peschke, A. (1999). Transnational cooperation and policy networks in
European science policy-making. Research Policy 28: 43–61.
Guebitz, T. (2011). ERA Instruments project & Reports. Final Report,
http://www.era-instruments.eu/
Hagedoorn, J., Link, A.N., Vonortas, N.S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research
Policy 29: 567–586.
Haley J. (2009). Genetically encoded FRET-based biosensors for multi-parameter
Fluorescence imaging; “Current Opinion in Biotechnology” Volume 20, Issue 1,
February 2009, Pages 19–27.
He &. Fallah. (2011). The typology of technology clusters and its revolution –
Evidence from the hi-tech industries, Technol Forecast Soc. Change
Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2012). Research intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK
universities. Research Policy 41: 262– 275.
Horta, H., Veloso, F.M., Grediaga, R.(2010). Navel gazing: Academic inbreeding
and scientific productivity. Management Science, 56: 414-429.
Huggett (2014) in the global system,’ Journal of International Business Studies, 28:
241–267.
339
Innovation in Ireland (2014), – Policy Statement, Department of Enterprise, Trade &
Employment.
Carusi A. Reiner T. (2010). A JISC funded project (Virtual Research Environment)
Collaborative Landscape Study VRE Landscape Report.
Jungbauer, A. (2013). Editorial: Biotech methods and advances. Biotech J. 8: 2-3
Ketels, C. (2012). The impact of clusters and networks of firms on EU
competitiveness. Report, Firm Network, p 1 -27.
Kim, J. (2011). Alliance governance and technological performance: some evidence
from biotechnology alliances. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20: 969–990.
Lazonick, W.,Tulum, O. (2011). US biopharmaceutical finance and the sustainability
of the biotech business model. Research Policy LDCs?’ World Development, 35:
426–438.
Ledford, H. (2013). Biotech boom prompts fears of bust A spate of successful public
offerings has raised ample funding for biotechnology — and anxiety about when the
good times will end. Nature 500: 513.
Lex, M. (2008). Industrial biotechnology takes off in Europe. Science Prog. 91: 39-
64.
Magner, (2002). A History of the Life Sciences, Revised and Expanded, 3rd
edn.
New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial
districts, Economic Geography 72: 293-313.
Marx, V. (2013). The big challenges of big data, Nature 498: 255-260.
Marzolf & Troisch (2006). SLIMarray: Lightweight software for microarray facility
management doi:10.1186/1751-0473-1-5.
Mazarrasa, I., Olsen,Y.S., Mayol, E., Marbà, N., Duarte, C.M. (2013). Rapid growth
of seaweed biotechnology provides opportunities for developing nations. Nature
Biotechnology 31: 591-592.
Miller, C.R., Richard, B., Arora, S. (2010). Alternate signs of life: The growth of
biotechnology industries in Shanghai and Bangalore. Technological Forecasting &
Social Change
Myhill, M., Shoebridge, M., Snook, L. (2009) Virtual research environments – a
Web 2.0 cookbook? Library Hi Tech 27: 228-238
340
Nasto, B. (2008) Chasing biotech across Europe. Nature Biotechnology 26: 283-288
Neal, Homer A., Smith, Tobin L. and McCormick, Jennifer B. (2008) Beyond
Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century. The University of Michigan Press.
NetBioCluE (2008) Do’s and don’ts for biotech cluster development: The results of)
Europe Innova Report.
http://www.clusterobservatory.eu/eco/uploaded/pdf/1290523022855.pdf (accessed 28-07-2014)
Niosi, J. (2011) Complexity and path dependence in biotechnology innovation
systems Ind. Corp Change 20:1795-1826
Niosi, J., S. Reid (2007), ‘Biotechnology and nanotechnology: Windows of
opportunity for developing countries?” World Development, 36(3), 426-38
Owen-Smith, J. (2003) From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative
advantage across public and private science at Research One universities. Research
Policy 32: 1081–1104
Noisi, J. (2011) Complexity and path dependence in biotechnology innovation
systems. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20: 1795–1826.
Paul H. Gurn, Diana L. Hendrickson, Eileen M. Synnott (2004) Biology: a multimedia
approach. “A Study Guide to the Fundamental Knowledge in the Various Basic
Subdivisions of Biology” 3rd
edn. Boston, MA Pearson Custom Pub., OCLC No.
62586418, ISBN: 0536839646 9780536839640
Piston, D.W. (2012) Understand how it works Over-reliance on automated tools is
hurting science. Nature 484: 441-442
Porter (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Published; Simon & Schuster
Ltd. ISBN: 9780684841465
Powell (1998) Learning From Collaboration. Knowledge and Networks in the
Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries, Source: California Management
Review 14 pages. Publication Date: Apr 01, 1998. Prod. #: CMR117-PDF-ENG
PwC Report (2011) Regional Biotechnology. Establishing a methodology and
performance indicators for assessing bioclusters and bioregions relevant to the
Knowledge-based Bioeconomy in Europe.
Rasmussena, E., Mosey, S., Wright, M. (2014) The influence of university
departments on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures.
Research Policy 43: 92– 106
Rees, J. (2011) OBN BioCluster Report 2011: Transition. 57 pages
341
Richter, C., Park, E. (2012) Cluster decline and resilience -The case of the wireless
communication cluster in North Jutland, Denmark. DRUID, p1-24
Sampat, B.V. (2013) “Recent Changes in Patent Policy and the ‘Privatization’ of
Knowledge: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Developing Countries.” In
Knowledge Flows and Knowledge Collectives: Understanding the Role of Science
and Technology Policies in Development, Consortium for Science, Policy and
Outcomes, Arizona State University, 2003.
Sansom C. (2011) The power of many. Nature Biotechnology 29: 201–203
Santoro, M.D., Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002) Firm size and technology centrality in
industry–university interactions. Research Policy 31: 1163–1180
Agar, Jon, (2012), Science in the Twentieth Century and Beyond, (Cambridge:
Polity Press
Simon, B.M., Scott, C.T. (2011) Unsettled expectations: how recent patent decisions
affect biotech Nature Biotech 29: 229-230
Singh, A., Hallihosur, S., Rangan, L. (2009) Changing landscape in biotechnology
patenting. World Patent Information 31: 219–225
Soetan, K.O. (2011) The role of biotechnology towards attainment of a sustainable
and safe global agriculture and environment – A review. Biotechnology and
Molecular Biology Review 6: 109-117
Sohn, S.Y., Lee, W.S. & Ju, Y.H. (2013). Valuing Academic Patents and Intellectual
Properties: Different perspectives of willingness to pay and sell DOI:
10.1016/j.technovation.2012.10.003 Technovation 33, 13–24
Stajdohar-Paden, (2008). Education and training of laboratory staff as part of
laboratory competence, Volume 13, Issue 4-5, pp 267 - 270
Su, Y.S., Hung, L.C. (2009) Spontaneous vs. policy-driven: The origin and evolution
of the biotechnology cluster. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76: 608–
619
Taylor, P., Portman, S., S. Smith (2000) Commercial issues for the life sciences
company. Monitor Press, Suffolk, UK.
Tolopko (2010) Screensaver: an open source lab information management system
(LIMS) for high throughput screening facilities. 18;11:260. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-
11-260.
Van Egeraat, C., Curran, D. (2010). Social Network Analysis of Irish Biotech
Industry: Implications for Digital Ecosystems. NIRSA Working Paper Series, 55.
342
Van Till, F. (2010). What is a Virtual Research Environment? (2010) JISC, Briefing
Paper.
Wang M., Coulter W. (2012), Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia
institute of Technology - Reverse engineering biomolecular systems using omic data:
challenges, progress and opportunities, 13(4): 430-45.
Watson & Crick (1953) A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid Nature 171, 737-
738.
Wilson, T. (2012) A Review of Business–University Collaboration. HEFCE
Wright, B.D. (2014) Industry-funded academic inventions boost innovation. Nature
507: 297-299.
Zidorn, W., Wagner, M. (2012). The effect of alliances on innovation patterns: an
analysis of the biotechnology industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22: 1497–
1524