Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Review of Key Criteria for the Successful Development of the Biomedical Sector

2,229
views

Published on

If you're interested in this presentation and would like to know more, please email nicklaus.au@frost.com

If you're interested in this presentation and would like to know more, please email nicklaus.au@frost.com

Published in: Health & Medicine

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,229
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
98
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Review of Key Criteria for the Successful Development of the Biomedical Sector
    Presented by Frost & Sullivan’s Biotechnology Team
    15th November 2010
  • 2. Table of Contents
    Key success factors for biotech clusters
    1
    A look at International + Singapore Biotech Clusters
    2
    Benchmarking with International Clusters
    3
  • 3. Research Objectives
    Analysis of Best Practices Activity in Developing Bioclusters
    Identify world-wide some of the developmental efforts related to developing and growing the Biomedical sector. This includes overall strategy, financial and non-financial incentives, and other assistance that public sector/ non-profit organizations offer to biomedical companies, especially SMEs. Key successful bioclusters in comparable and competitive economies will serve as benchmark for this study.
    Identify Strengths and Weaknesses in the Singapore Biocluster
    Understand key challenges faced by biomedical companies, review infrastructure and assistance available in Singapore for biomedical companies, comparing them to the bioclusters identified above. To also identify key gaps, outlining recommended approaches that SPRING can embark on to build capabilities of local biomedical players.
    • Identify actionable recommendations and policies to foster the Singapore SME growth in the biomedical sector
    • 4. Identify the key success factor and learning from the International clusters
  • Examples of key biotech clusters
    Medicon Valley
    • Zealand in Denmark and Scania in South Sweden
    Boston/ Massachusetts
    • Greater Boston Area including Providence and Worcester
    Israel
    • Jerusalem, Tel Avi and Haifa triangle
    South Korea
    • Across the country
    California
    • San Francisco Bay Area in North California
    • 5. Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside and San Diego in South California
    Taiwan
    • Medical Technology
    Singapore
    Boston and California clusters are leading, mature and old clusters, Medicon Valley is among the successful clusters in Europe. Israel and Korea are two growing clusters with strong government support and strength in research
  • 6. Setting the stage…
    1
    Industry Maturity, Medical Centre and University Maturity, Funding Availability and Regulatory and Business Environment are four key attributes of a bio medical cluster
    2
    Singapore performance in the last 10 years has been appreciated by the industry and foreign participants. It compares well on the Business environment. However, it needs to progress on other 3 parameters
    3
    To improve Industry Maturity– we need to focus on medical devices, faster commercializable research, proven technologies, clinical trials to leverage healthcare infrastructure
    4
    To improve University and Medical Centre maturity More collaboration activities, TTOs and incubators, More commercial exposure to scientists and international tieupsare needed
    5
    Promotion of SMEs, Improving skill base and promoting entrepreneurship are desirable to improve the business environment in the overall cluster
    6
    Pre seed funding and steps to develop VC need to be taken to improve funding availability for companies
    7
    Ways to Promote Entrepreneurship, run TTOs, increase International affiliations, attracting VC can be learned from other international clusters
  • 7. The Magic of Boston and California ClustersStrong science base. Established institutions, Funds from government and VC, strong industry associations and a spirit of entrepreneurship make them sustainable clusters
    Strong Science Base
    Funding Availability
    Business Environment for Biotech
    • 30+ years of history in Biotech
    • 8. 100+ years of successful research at MIT, Harvard, Stanford, UCSF
    • 9. Efficient TLO and networks to drive commercialization
    • 10. Spin offs from successful companies
    • 11. Clarity in IP transfer
    • 12. Leading Medical Institutions in the area
    • 13. NIH funds of $ 2bn + annually
    • 14. VC funds of $ 1bn + annually
    • 15. IPO markets, Angel community and a culture to promote entrepreneurship and risk taking
    • 16. $80mn+ funding for small businesses
    • 17. Intellectual environment attract staff and companies
    • 18. Continuous supply of educated workers
    • 19. Industry Associations to continuously monitor and provide feedback
    • 20. State’s drive to attract companies
    • 21. Presence of three generation of entrepreneurs
    Key Capabilities
    • Boston and California face competition from Texas, Los Angeles, Philadelphia for funds. Companies locating manufacturing facilities elsewhere for low real estate costs, higher tax benefits etc.
    • 22. Continuous need to Provide space, talent, funds for the expanding cluster
    • 23. Needs to continue focus on scientific collaboration and innovation
    • 24. Emerging clusters pose competition due to low cost, high growth potential for companies
    Key Issues
  • 25. The Secret Sauce of Israel Strong in Research,TTOsandincubators to promote startups, developed VC industry and an entrepreneurship spirit characterize Israel
    Strong in Technology/Research
    Govt Support
    Business Environment for Biotech
    • Developed IT industry ; Defense;
    • 26. Notable pharma products from Hebrew, Technion universities
    • 27. Israel economy is classified as Innovation based economy by WEF
    • 28. Physicians are early adopter as well as develop technology
    • 29. 2nd in per capita patents granted by USPTO in biotechnology
    • 30. 16 Technology Transfer Offices
    • 31. 26 incubators for early stage companies
    • 32. Bi National Funds with US, UK, Canada, Korea ,Australia and Singapore
    • 33. Associated with EU’s framework program for R&D1
    • 34. Professionally managed funds in partnership with govt.
    • 35. Eighty VC funds; 20-30% funds to life sciences.
    • 36. Strong in medical devices and early stage biotech
    • 37. Strong networks across the industry from defense training, being a small country
    Key Capabilities
    MATIMOP, the international coordinator for R&D was interested in talks with Singapore
    • 90% of Israeli biotechnology companies have less than 50 employees.
    • 38. A substantial number of researchers leave the country because of a lack of sufficient attractive employment opportunities in Israel.
    • 39. There is too much regulation and bureaucracy as well ; Decades of War conflicts
    • 40. Late stage funding for life sciences is still scarce. Limited big life sciences companies
    Key Issues
    1 http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/index_en.cfm
  • 41. The Medicon Valley StoryBenefitted from integrated presence of leading companies and good healthcare infrastructure. The cluster is becoming complacent now
    Niche Development
    Business Environment for Biotech
    • Novo Nordisk in Diabetes
    • 42. Lundbeck in Anti Depressives
    • 43. Leo Pharma in Dermatalogy
    • 44. Astrazeneca in respiration.
    • 45. Integrated Presence for centuries
    • 46. Spin off from these companies
    • 47. Infrastructure available for clinical trials
    • 48. Good Branding , Patient Databases, Developed Healthcare Infrastructure
    • 49. International affiliation of companies and institutions; Life Science ambassador program
    • 50. Development of Denmark- Sweden bridge, Management Teams,
    • 51. Govt. support to universities, incubators for proof of concepts & commercializable research by various grants
    • 52. Presence of local VCs; 40+ in life sciences
    Key Capabilities
    Singapore can look forward to become a partner in the Life Science Ambassador Program
    • Collaboration between universities, hospitals and institutions need to be improved
    • 53. Lack of capital at later stages recently; Improvement needed to tap US capital markets
    • 54. The cluster is said to be a little complacent .Not many cluster development efforts specifically
    • 55. Taxes and an unfavorable weather; high cost of services are growing concerns
    Key Issues
  • 56. The Growth of Korea Educated and experienced manpower, success in research and clinical trials and the biomedical infrastructure created by the government are the key reasons for growth
    Strong Science Base
    Business Environment for Biotech
    • Biotechnology-related Departments in 40 Universities
    • 57. Strong in clinical trials
    • 58. High quality of workforce
    • 59. Around 40 technologies or drug candidates were licensed out to Big Pharma during 1986-2008 and over 100 new drugs or lead candidates are under development.
    • 60. Govt. creating research institutes, 25 biotechnology centers acting as incubators, specialized biotech parks, providing funds
    • 61. The first initiative started in late 1980’s, continued effort in 1994 and 2006
    • 62. government investments have grown from $311mn in 2001 to $721mn in 2007. This represents a CAGR of 15%.
    • 63. Korea is ranked as 19 by WF Global Competitiveness Report 2009-10
    • 64. The Bio-Vision initiative started in 2006 out with a budget of $720 million for R&D and $230 million for infrastructure in 2007, with a projected rise to $1.67 billion for R&D and $690 million for infrastructure by 2016. The total budget for nine years is projected at $15.56 billion
    Key Capabilities
    • Pharmaceutical companies do not have strong experience to enter global markets
    • 65. Difficulty to source foreign talent
    • 66. Collaboration needs to improve among universities and industries. Between companies in the clusters
    • 67. Pharmaceutical industry is mostly generics
    Key Issues
  • 68. The Rise of Singapore Strong govt. support, a good business climate , healthcare infrastructure has lead to significant growth in last 10 years.
    Govt. Support
    Healthcare Infrastructure
    • A*Star, EDB, NRF,SPRING key agencies established
    • 69. Biopolis, Tuas Biomedical park infrastructure lauded by the industry and foreign participants
    • 70. 2.6 beds per 1,000 patients , 253 clinical trial certificates approved in 2007
    • 71. 4-6 weeks for clinical trial certificate review/approval; applications are made in parallel to regulatory body and institutional review board.
    • 72. No.2 in the world for IP protection
    • 73. 3rd in WEF Global Competitiveness Report 2009-10
    • 74. Indications of developing medical devices and clinical trials segment
    Key Capabilities
    • Limited Pre Seed Funding Available, Not sufficient for startup needs
    • 75. VC investment in the sector less than $200mn annually. Preference given to other sectors, projects with certain product development plans and clear revenue generation strategy
    • 76. Low levels of Entrepreneurship even though the business climate is quite suitable. Preference of Singaporeans towards professional careers and limited need to pursue risky opportunities
    • 77. Need for improvement in commercialization and collaboration activities of research institutes
    • 78. Less than 25 startups being created in the sector annually
    • 79. Potential improvements in availability of experienced top management and in skill base of local workers
    • 80. Improvements needed in international affiliations and collaboration of SMEs
    Key Issues
    Higher Focus on Areas of Improvement
  • 81. Key Success Factors for Biotech ClustersCompany Base, Science Base and Funding Availability are key capabilities for biomedical clusters
    Description
    Example clusters
    Company Base
    Boston,
    California
    • Thriving spin-out and start up companies.
    • 82. Presence of companies to support research, clinical trials and manufacturing
    • 83. More mature ‘role model’ companies.
    • 84. Presence of suppliers for raw materials
    1
    US,
    Medicon Valley,
    Israel
    Science Base
    • Leading research organizations: University departments, hospitals/medical schools and charities
    • 85. Critical mass of researchers, World leading scientists, Both industry driven and independent research
    2
    California
    Availability of
    Finance
    • Venture capitalists, Business angels, Developed public markets
    • 86. Availability of cash at all stages of business like venture formation, pre-seed, seed, second round, mezzanine and opportunities for IPO
    3
    Source: Frost & Sullivan analysis
  • 87. Key Success Factors for Biotech ClustersInfrastructure, supportive policy and business support services are strongly needed during the cluster start and growth phase
    Description
    Example clusters
    Premises &
    Infrastructure
    All
    • Incubators available close to research organizations
    • 88. Premises with wet labs and flexible leasing arrangements
    • 89. Space to expand, Motorways, Rail, International airport
    4
    US,
    Singapore
    Supportive Policy
    Environment
    • National and sector promotion policies, Long term planning
    • 90. Proportionate fiscal and regulatory framework
    • 91. Transparency, Efficient procedures, Skilled Administration
    5
    US,
    Medicon Valley
    Business Support
    Services
    • Specialist business, legal, patent, recruitment, property advisors, Large companies in related sectors (healthcare, chemical, agrifood)
    6
    Source: Frost & Sullivan analysis
  • 92. Key Success Factors for Biotech ClustersSkilled workforce, entrepreneurial culture and effective networking develop as clusters mature and are important for sustainability
    Description
    Example clusters
    Skilled
    Workforce
    Boston,
    Israel
    • Skilled workforce, Training courses at all levels
    7
    Entrepreneurial
    Culture
    Boston,
    Israel
    • Commercial awareness and entrepreneurship in Universities and research institutes, presence of anchor companies
    • 93. Role models and recognition of entrepreneurs, Presence of Second generation entrepreneurs
    8
    Ability to attract
    key staff
    Singapore.
    California
    • Critical mass of employment opportunities, Other living amenities
    • 94. Image/Reputation as biotechnology cluster, Climate conditions
    • 95. Attractive place to live. Good remuneration. Presence of similar intellectual class
    9
    Effective
    collaboration
    Boston.
    California
    10
    • Shared aspiration to be a cluster. Regional trade associations.
    • 96. Efficient TTOs
    Source: Frost & Sullivan analysis
  • 97. Key Attributes of Biotech Clusters Ten factors have been combined into four attributes for simplicity, measurement and to do comparison across clusters. These include all stakeholders and all activities in the value chain
    Industry Maturity
    University/Medical Centre Maturity
    • Presence and nature of biotech companies (e.g. Startup, early stage, late development, mature commercial, enabling service)
    • 98. Quantity and diversity of lifesciences stakeholders (e.g. R&D, medical devices, clinical trials and manufacturing, supporting industries)
    • 99. Growth in Output – stagnated growth, slow growth or faster than industry
    • 100. Strong research universities and academic medical centers, supported by effective technology transfer offices, as a key source of innovation and talent
    • 101. Collaborative relationships between research universities and academic medical centers to sustain invention and innovation
    • 102. Areas of Research and Commercialization Success
    Funding Availability
    Regulatory and Business Environment
    • Availability of funding to support early stage company research
    • 103. Funding for established biotech companies to invest in additional infrastructure and clinical research to move products into the market place
    • 104. Public and Private funding channels
    • 105. Stable and supportive public policy structure
    • 106. Supportive business environment to retain existing companies and / or attract new enterprises (e.g., taxes, permitting, costs, IP protection)
    • 107. Stakeholder Synergy
    • 108. Industry Maturity and University/Medical Centre maturity comprises Company and Science Base
    • 109. Funding Availability Remains Same
    • 110. Regulatory and Business Environment comprises other seven factors
    Source: Frost & Sullivan analysis
  • 111. Cluster Current Positioning and Outlook
    LARGE
    California
    Boston
    • California life sciences $ 75bn in 2008 with a growth of 2% over 2007
    • 112. Israel life sciences export were $6.5bn in 2008 and they tripled from 2004 levels
    • 113. Singapore $15bn in 2009 growing at a CAGR of 14% during 2000-2009
    • 114. Korea pharmaceutical was around $14bn in 2008 growing at a rate of 8-10%
    Medicon Valley
    Size
    Korea
    Singapore
    Israel
    SMALL
    Cluster Capability
    World Class
    Emerging
    • Revenues for Boston and Medicon valley clusters not available. Their positioning is approximate in terms of size
  • Comparative Analysis
    • Industry maturity – Focus on medical devices, faster commercializable research, proven technologies, clinical trials to leverage healthcare infrastructure
    • 115. Funding availability – Higher efficiency of grants being disbursed, development of VC funds
    • 116. University/Medical Center maturity – More collaboration activities, TTOs and incubators, More commercial exposure to scientists
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
    Note : Two similar circles may not denote complete equality on the parameter.
  • 117. Table of Contents
    Key success factors for biotech clusters
    1
    A look at International + Singapore Biotech Clusters
    2
    Benchmarking with International Clusters
    3
  • 118. Boston ClusterStrong Research base, effective networks and entrepreneurship culture leads to startup companies which leverage the available funding and other stakeholders’ support to develop successful products
    Diverse Companies
    Entrepreneurship Culture
    .
    Experienced Talent and Effective Networks
    Strong Research Base
    30 +Years of history
    Funding Avalability
    Strong Research base, effective networks and entrepreneurship culture leads to startup companies which leverage the available funding and other stakeholders’ support to develop successful products
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 119. Evolution of Boston ClusterGovernment funding promoted research leads to formation of biotech startups that tie up with big pharmaceutical companies.
    World-class universities and research hospitals (M.I.T., Whitehead, Harvard, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Beth Israel Hospital, Boston University, etc., etc.)- Harvard university since 1640 and MIT since 1865
    Longwood Medical Center in Boston/Brookline started with 26acres in 1906 and grew up around Harvard Medical School . Kendell Square in Cambridge began in 1915 when MIT moved its campus there.
    In 1962, Massachusetts Medical Center was found in Worcester.
    In 1978, Biogen, first biopharma of the region was founded
    In 1980 Bayh-Dole Act Gave universities title to their patents from federally funded research Allowed universities to grant licenses, including exclusive licenses Allowed universities to take royalties (and legislated sharing of royalties with inventors.)
    In 1985, Genzyme had its first drug Ceradase to treat Gaucher disease
    In 1996, Wyeth acquires Genetic Institute and became the first large pharma company to establish manufacturing in the region
    In 2005, NIH research grants to the region reach $2.2bn
    Source: Press Articles
  • 120. Boston ClusterMature Industry–big and small, across sectors and across the value chain; presence of leading medical institutions, venture capital firms and industry associations make it an integrated and mature cluster
    72000 employees
  • 121. Boston ClusterStrong Academic Science; Entrepreneurship culture and TLO efforts move products from mind to market
    MIT Statistics
    • 20+ companies formed using MIT IP every year
    • 122. Genzyme, Repligen, Biogen and Amgen founded by MIT faculty or alumni
    • 123. 40+ biotechnology patents every year
    • 124. 100 + technology licenses every year
    • 125. 9% of undergraduates from Massachusetts only; but 42% of technology companies founded by graduates are in the state
    Activities Encouraging Entrepreneurship
    • Technology Licensing Office
    • 126. Entrepreneurship Center for internships
    • 127. Deshpande center for competitive late stage research grants
    • 128. Enterprise forum is over 25 years old with 20 chapters and in 3 foreign countries
    • 129. $100 K plan contest has led to founding of multiple businesses
    • 130. Role models, Venture mentoring and networking seminars
    Activities of TLO
    • Assess breadth and strength of IP; Negotiate license agreement
    • 131. Introduce startups to investors and sector experts
    • 132. Set financial terms; milestones and clarify IP position
    • 133. Monitor progress and let market forces take over
    • 134. MIT does not provide management, board seats, money, business plan writing, laboratories etc
    • 135. Strict conflict of interest rules-e.g. Formal incubation outside university, no MIT investment in company etc.
    Source: Lita Nelsen, Role of Research Institutions in formation of Biotech clusters in Massachusetts 2005
  • 136. Boston ClusterFunding Availability- Developed Public and Private Channels
    • 10% of US NIH funding equaling $2.25 bn in 2005
    • 137. 2nd largest in absolute terms; highest in per capita R&D funding of $353
    • 138. VC investments of more than $1bn in 2006
    • 139. $83 mn available to facilitate the commercialization of novel technology and intellectual property licensed from universities to small high technology firms employing less than 500 people
  • Boston ClusterRecent Initiatives in the Cluster
    • $500 million is earmarked for the Massachusetts Life Sciences Investment Fund
    • 140. $250 million for the award of grants and $250 million in tax credits.
    • 141. Tax incentives for companies to embark on expansions or new initiatives ;
    • 142. Provide seed money to develop new ideas and provide financial aid for graduate students.
    • 143. Money for the state's vocational and technical high schools and colleges to purchase new equipment to train life sciences workers.
    • 144. Retain Researchers, Develop Stem Cell bank, fund equipment purchase, commercialization
    $1 billion
    Life Sciences
    Initiative by State
    over 10 years
    2015
    Strategic Plan
    Development by
    MassBio
    Six Focus Areas for MassBiotech Association
    Company Recruitment and Retention
    Provision of Business Services
    Promote Scientific Collaboration and Innovation
    Improve Industry Representation
    Develop talent at all levels
    Improve access to capital
    Other Initiatives
    • Bio Ready Community –Communities ready for labs or manufacturing plants.
    • 145. Life Science Talent Initiative -Promote biotechnology methods and inspire scientific curiosity and understanding at the high school level
    Source: Press Articles
    http://www.mass.gov/Agov3/docs/mass_life_sciences_strategy.rtf
    Source :http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/04/30/bio_ready_communities_in_state_named/
  • 146. Israel ClusterStrong govt. support, developed private VC industry, good Business environment and effective networks characterize the Israel cluster
    • 16 TTOs Fusion among the universities, hospital systems, businesses, and the military
    • 147. Blockbuster drugs from Israel Universities.
    • 148. 23 govt. sponsored incubators for advancing early stage technologies
    • 149. 50% of incubator companies in life science; Received 25% of $360 million from OCS
    • 150. 38% of 1175 incubator companies graduate to mature companies
    • 151. Bi National Funds; Framework to work with EU and other grants available
    Govt. Support
    • Life science exports nearly tripled from $2.4 billion in 2004 to $6.5 billion in 2008
    • 152. 8% of GDP on Healthcare;$2088 per capita; 3.5 MD/Physicians per 1000 population
    • 153. Physicians are early adopter as well as develop technology
    • 154. Israel classified as Innovation driven economy by WEF 2009
    • 155. 70-80 companies formed every year; Entrepreneurial culture
    • 156. 2nd in per capita patents granted by USPTO in biotechnology
    Business Environment
    Private VC
    • Eighty Funds in 2008; 483 companies raised $2bn; 20-30% funds to Life sciences
    • 157. Strong Networks across the industry
    • 158. Two very well known innovations emerged from Rafael, Israel Armament Development Authority: PillCamTM, a video capsule endoscope (developed by Given Imaging) and cryotherapy for the treatment of cancer (developed by Galil Medical).
    Defense Community
    Source: Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute
  • 159. Israel ClusterStrong in Medical devices ; Biotech Research; Small companies in early research phases
    Source: Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute, Israel Biotechnology Sector Paper by Alastair Bell
  • 160. Israel ClusterBrief Snapshot of Various Sectors
    Medical Devices
    Therapeutics and Stem Cells
    • Ranked 2nd for Medical Devices solution
    • 161. Therapeutic devices–both implantable and disposable–comprise the largest subsector
    • 162. Insightec works on MRI guided non invasive surgical procedures
    • 163. DeepBreeze provides physicians with a dynamic functional image of the lungs.
    • 164. Sialo Technology presents an advanced endoscope system and tools for root canal “direct vision”
    • 165. 17% annual growth of biotechnology sector in last decade
    • 166. 20 active stem cell companies
    • 167. Breakthrough therapeutics in the treatment of cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, diabetes, and more
    • 168. Weizmann Institute of Science and Technion are leading institutes
    Healthcare IT
    Drug Delivery and Diagnostics
    • 100% of primary care physicians in Israel use computerized patient records.
    • 169. More than 70 companies are developing products for healthcare IT.
    • 170. Developed communication technologies provides strong base for developing healthcare IT and telemedicine solutions
    • 171. Roshtov is a leader in enterprise wide medical information systems,
    • 172. 70 companies developing new drug delivery platforms
    • 173. Intecpharma’s Accordion Pill improves drug absorption
    • 174. BioSight develops targeted chemotherapy drugs
    • 175. 120 companies developing diagnostic kits for testing diseases, birth defects, microorganisms etc
    • 176. Smart Biotech stimulates antibody production (in vitro) for early and more complete detection of HIV
    • 177. Exalenz Bioscience assess a range of liver and gastrointestinal disorders via molecular analysis of the patient’s breath.
    Source: Israel Export and International Cooperation Institute
  • 178. Singapore StrengthsGovt. Support, Healthcare Infrastructure and Friendly Business Environment are key strengths. However, entrepreneurial culture needs to be encouraged.
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Primary Research
  • 179. SPRING Policies & InitiativesFinancing Schemes and Capability Building Schemes for SMEs
    Source: http://www.spring.gov.sg/entrepreneurship/fs/pages/programmes-start-ups.aspx
  • 180. SPRING Policies & InitiativesTechnology Innovation Schemes and Business Leadership Development Schemes
    Source: http://www.spring.gov.sg/entrepreneurship/fs/pages/programmes-start-ups.aspx
  • 181. Singapore–Opportunities and ThreatsOpportunities in individual sectors; threats from neighboring clusters
    Opportunities
    Threats
    • Biogenerics and vaccines are the key growth areas in pharmaceuticals. Other opportunities are Volume manufacturing of commodities, translational medical research and the generic drugs market.
    • 182. For biotech, stem cell research, genetic screening and gene therapy are promising areas for the future.
    • 183. Healthcare services industry can see growth in medical tourism and chronic diseases.
    • 184. Government focus on clinical trials to drive CRO growth
    • 185. In the medical devices section do it at home products and development of measurement devices for the affluent section of the people holds significant potential.
    • 186. China’s health biotech segment had maintained an annual growth rate of 30% since 2005
    • 187. Biopharmaceutical production rose from US$860 million in 2000 to US$4.2 billion in 2005, and is forecast to exceed US$12.5 billion in 2015
    • 188. Venture capitalists committed US$337 million to Chinese life sciences projects during 2008.
    • 189. Indian biotech sector could reachUS$5 billion by 2010
    • 190. Biopharmaceutical segment has more than 40% of the 325 biotech companies in India
    • 191. Few larger Indian companies have begun acquiring foreign entities in the US and Europe to better retail their products
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Primary Research, Expert Interviews
  • 192. Table of Contents
    Key success factors for biotech clusters
    1
    A look at International + Singapore Biotech Clusters
    2
    Benchmarking with International Clusters
    3
  • 193. Comparative Analysis
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 194. Comparative Analysis
    • California and Boston are leading clusters
    • 195. Singapore is rated high in Business Environment. It needs to improve on Industry Maturity, Funding Availability, and University & Medical Centre maturity.
    • 196. Singapore is a young cluster compared to other clusters. So, this comparison is indicative when compared with other clusters. The industry has lauded Singapore’s’ biomedical progress over the last ten years
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 197. Comparative Analysis- Industry Maturity (1/2)Successful clusters have critical mass; strong in research; successful in commercialization and have companies across the value chain
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 198. Comparative Analysis- Industry Maturity (2/2)Singapore needs critical mass of companies; focus on medical devices, clinical trials increase research commercialization; continue on its growth path
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 199. Comparative Analysis- Funding Availability (1/2)Successful clusters have developed private funding channels with strong government support for research and starting up; funding across value chain
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 200. Comparative Analysis- Funding Availability (2/2)Singapore needs to improve its private funding, pre-seed funding for enterprises
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 201. Comparative Analysis- University/Medical Centre Maturity (1/2)Successful clusters have startups and products emerging from universities; besides noble laureates, efficiently running TTOs and incubators
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 202. Comparative Analysis- University/Medical Centre Maturity (2/2)Singapore needs to focus on research commercialization; have efficient TTOs and incubators; continue its focus on research excellence
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 203. Comparative Analysis- Business Environment(1/2)Successful clusters have associations, steady stream of workers; high diffusion of knowledge; infrastructure in place and supporting business policies
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 204. Comparative Analysis- Business Environment(2/2)Singapore can improve on knowledge diffusion; availability of more skilled workers
    Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis
  • 205. Develop private VC industry in long term – Learning from Israel professional funds with government participation
    Yozma program in Israel started in 1992 with a govt. funding of $100 mn ($80 mn in 10 startup focused VC funds and $20mn as direct investments in startups.
    Target Level of Capital Aimed was 200-250M$ (Government Support- 100M$)- this was the ‘Critical Mass’ of effort required for VC industry ‘emergence’
    Israel Yozma Program to develop local VC industry
    Each fund managed by a local management company& involving at least one Reputable Foreign Financial Institution (and one important Domestic Financial Institution)
    Government Participation in each Fund-8 million dollars (in most Funds this represented 40% of the 20 M$ raised)
    Strong Incentive to the “Upside”- the possibility, within a 5 year period, of purchasing Government’s share at approx. at cost with 5-7% interest rate(all Funds except 3 made use of this option). There was no downside 'guarantee‘.
    • Rapid entry of non Yozma VC funds was seen in Israel in1996
    • 206. Significant increase in number of startups seen in Israel
    • 207. Growth of (gross) accumulated numbers of new VC-backed SU companies from 110 in 1993 to 730 in 1998
    Source: Ministry of Finance, Israel Presentation on Life Science Funds Dec 2009, Venture Capital Policy in Israel , A paper by Gil AvniMelech, Hebrew University 2002
  • 208. Two round of reviews; Scoring Criteria established for determining scientific and technical merit; Applications receive a written critique, Interviews of key people – Learning from US Small Business Grants Criteria
    Significance.  Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field?  If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? Does the proposed project have commercial potential to lead to a marketable product, process or service?
    Investigator(s).  Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project?  If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training?  If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)?  If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
    Innovation.  Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions?  Are the concepts, approaches or instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense?  Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
    Approach.  Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?  Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented?   If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for (1) Protections for Human Subjects, and (2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
    Environment.  Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?  Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed?  Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
    Source: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/sbirsttr_ReviewCriteria.htm
  • 209. Proactive commercialization in Research and Academic Centers – Learning from Yale University
    Technology Transfer at Yale University
    Impact
    • High support–high selectivity policies needed for entrepreneurially underdeveloped environments
    • 210. Provided facilities like creation of business plan, providing mentoring support, promotion of success stories, having entrepreneurial courses in curriculum, incentives for starting up, getting entrepreneurs to set up in the region and chasing VCs
    • 211. Gregory Gardiner, a former Pfizer executive took charge of Office of Cooperative Research in 1982
    • 212. An important goal for the Yale OCR was to identify new ideas, cultivate venture funding for them, and facilitate their development into companies that become part of the New Haven economy.
    • 213. Increased exposure of researchers to commercial ideas
    • 214. The renewed OCR established direct contacts with venture capital firms. The goal was not only to persuade venture capital firms of the relevance of university technology but also to convince them to create ventures in New Haven
    • 215. Only six biotech companies in 1993
    • 216. The hard work of seeking appropriate investors eventually paid off, and in 1998, after two years of effort, the first round of financing was concluded with $20 million for five companies.
    • 217. Today the Connecticut cluster employs 17,985 people directly and 35,857 through indirect and induced employment. It consists of 49 biotechnology companies. Five of the biotech companies are publicly traded: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Neurogen, Curagen, Gennesiance, and Vion Pharmaceuticals. Of the biotech companies, 24 companies, or 49%, of the biotechnology cluster in New Haven were created after 1996 with technology, ideas, or founders from Yale and with the help of the OCR.
    Source: University Commercialization Strategies in the Development of Regional Bioclusters , Shiri M. Breznitz, Rory P. O’Shea, and Thomas J. Allen published in Journal of Product Innovation Management 2008
  • 218. THANK YOU
    Rhenu Bhuller
    Vice President
    Frost & Sullivan Biotechnology Group
    rbhuller@ frost.com
    Contact: +65 6890 0986