Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

“Adding Value through Partnerships: the MedCity Experience”, SIMON HOWELL


Published on

Presentation of Simon Howell (Founding Non-Executive Director of MedCity and Guy’s Campus Dean at King’s College London King’s College London) at the Forum of the BioRegion of Catalonia, organized by Biocat.

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

“Adding Value through Partnerships: the MedCity Experience”, SIMON HOWELL

  1. 1. Adding Value through Partnerships: the MedCity Experience Professor Simon Howell Founding Non-Executive Director, MedCity Director of Academic Estates Strategy for Health Campuses, King’s College London
  2. 2. Within London and the Golden Triangle (London, Oxford, Cambridge) there is the greatest concentration of biomedical research capacity in Europe. Largest health charity in Europe (Wellcome Trust). Largest Biomedical Research centre in Europe (Francis Crick Institute); Sanger Institute. Independently ranked as the most research intensive and fastest growing research cluster in Europe by far. Major I.T centre of Europe (Google, Cisco, Microsoft etc – Tech City) – growing convergence. But only 10% of inward investment of Boston.
  3. 3. The founding members are London’s three Academic Health Science Centres  Kings Health Partners  Imperial College AHSC  UCLPartners In conjunction with the office of the Mayor of London and now in partnership with Oxford and science centres and institutions across Cambridge and the broader south-east. Led by an independent board comprised of leaders of the major health research institutions and NHS. Who set MedCity up?
  4. 4. What does MedCity do? Catalyse an entrepreneurial culture by championing new areas of collaboration, and fostering a commercial mind-set in the research community –both domestically and internationally.  Bring scientists and businesses of all backgrounds together around potential areas of collaboration and development  Assist overseas companies in navigating the major scientific resources that exist in the south-east – we help make the connections.  Promote and grow innovation, seed funding, Angel Funding, VC funding.  Provide guidance on the UK market, accessing the NHS, regulatory compliance and lessons learned from others.  Facilitate greater international linkages in the BioSciences and MedTech fields.  Link companies to some of the worlds best medical researchers in fields that matter to both.
  5. 5. Brexit and that stuff A world leading life-sciences powerhouse built on a longstanding and solid foundations of international scientific excellence.  Cambridge University Founded 1209  Oxford University Founded 1167  Imperial College – Founded in 1907  University College London – Founded in 1826  Kings College London – Founded in 1829 These institutions are not decamping to mainline Europe. They need clear commitment to free movement of scientists, ideas exchange and colloboration. Needs continuing access to Horizon 2020, IMI etc. Global collaborations in all domains of life-sciences including regenerative medicine and high end medical technologies will continue: ‘Follow the Science’.
  6. 6. What will success look like? More clinical trials and better recruitment Corporates and small companies heading to London for early stage development, manufacture; for trials and SMEs collaborating with academia and the NHS More spinouts and more of them staying in London: inward investment Global companies moving research facilities to the Golden Training Community of life science investors New, skilled and high-value jobs in London New therapies and technologies available for patients, faster
  7. 7. CASE STUDY ONE: COLLABORATE TO INNOVATE Overview  “Collaborate to Innovate” promotes collaboration between SMEs and universities, for knowledge transfer and commercialisation of innovations in life & health sciences  Focuses on the relative lack of investment in research and innovation by SMEs, due to funding constraints and lack of awareness of the relevant expertise available  Addresses a well documented market failure; SMEs want to work with top London HEIs; but find the process complicated and inefficient.
  8. 8. Overview  We will support up to 15 collaborative research projects between SMEs and Academics, up to £100K each.  Projects are SME-driven and can be in various domains such as devices, diagnostics, digital health, and drug discovery.  SMEs will be matched with academics with complementary expertise  The project costs will be borne by the fund, and no contribution is required from the SME
  9. 9. Rationale  Our scheme is driven by the needs of the SME being met rather than them having to try to fit their plans to a particular call  It removes the requirement for matched funding by the SME  Ensures every SME innovation/applied research need has been evaluated and decided to be worth collaborating on by academic expertise  Does not duplicate any existing schemes and is complimentary to the national schemes.
  10. 10. Inputs  £1.5M for staff time and eligible expenditure to support 15 collaborative research project  £0.6M for management, support, marketing, communication, dissemination 50% ERDF 50% Higher Education Funding Council for England
  11. 11. Impacts  Improving competitiveness of London SMEs in the global healthcare space  Promotion of business investment in life sciences research and innovation as well as technology transfer.
  12. 12. Comparator Study Maps – London Location Name Planned Additional Space (sq. ft.) (2016-17) Potential Additional Space (sq. ft.) (2018-20) 1 British Library Site 700,000 2 White City Campus 181,000 355,000+ 3 Royal London Hospital Whitechapel 50,000+ 4 Royal Street, St Thomas’ Hospital 10,000+ 5 Olympicopolis/Pudding Mill 50,000+ 6 Royal Marsden/ICR Sutton 900,000+ 7 Clare Hall 129,791 Total 181,000 2,144,791 CASE STUDY TWO: INCUBATOR SPACE DEMAND STUDY
  13. 13. Comparator Study Maps – New York Location Name Current Space (sq. ft.) Potential Space (sq. ft.) 1 Harlem Biospace 2,500 15,000 2 Alexandria Centre for Life Sciences 718,000 350,000 3 Audubon Biomedical and Technology Centre 60,000 4 BioBAT 38,000 85,000 5 SUNY Downstate Advanced Biotech Incubator 50,000 Total 868,500 450,000 (London 181,000 2,144,791)n
  14. 14. Comparator Study Maps – Paris Location Name Current Space (sq. ft.) Potential Space (sq. ft.) 1 Paris Biotech Sante 13,000 2 Agoranov 25,000 3 iPEPS Bioincubator 11,000 4 Villejuif BioPark 57,000 5 Biocitech 215,000 6 Genopole campus 1,100,000 Total 1,421,000 No current known plans (London 181,000 2,144,791)n
  15. 15. Comparator Study Maps – Berlin Location Name Current Space (sq. ft.) Potential Space (sq. ft.) 1 Berlin BioTech Park Circa 700,000 300,000 2 CoLaborator (Bayer) 9,000 3 Campus Berlin Buch 301,000 Circa 70,000 4 Wulheuide Innovation Park 570,000 5 Berlin Adlershof and IGZ Innovations- Zentrum 736,000 Circa 50,000 6 Potsdam Biotech Campus 123,000 7 GO:IN Innovation Centre 43,000 8 Dahlem site Circa 50,000 Total 1,922,000 470,000 (London 181,000 2,144,791)n
  16. 16. Comparator Study Maps – Boston Location Name Current Space (sq. ft.) Potential Space (sq. ft.) 1 University Park 1,700,000 250,000 2 Lab Central 28,000 60,000 3 Cambridge BioLabs 10,000 4 Technology Square 1,158,000 5 Cambridge Innovation Centre 500,000 6 BioSquare 700,000 7 Umass Venture Development Centre 18,000 8 Mass Innovation Labs 124,000 Total 4,238,000 310,000 (London 181,000 2,144,791)n
  17. 17. Comparator Study Maps – Boston Bay Area Location Name Current Space (sq. ft.) Potential Space (sq. ft.) 1 Cambridge 11,700,000 2,200,000 2 Boston 721,000 3 Inner North 172,000 4 Inner South 1,600,000 5 North I28 2,800,000 6 West I28 1,100,000 7 South I28 668,000 Total 18,760,000 2,200,000 (London 181,000 2,144,791)n
  18. 18. Demand Study Conclusions  London starts from a low base for Incubation space.  Substantial growth is planned, which if delivered will rival Europe’s best : Paris, Berlin, also New York.  Boston is streets ahead. MedCity is using ‘Golden Triangle’ as a geographical template for incubator space going forward
  19. 19. Summary  MedCity is just over two years old  It is a thriving infant, with significant early wins: e.g. Collaborate to Innovate; Demand Study; Oxford and Cambridge joining.  A major change has been the realisation that ‘the competition’ is not in North or West London, but in Boston, California, Singapore, Shanghai.  Behaviours and priorities have changed in response to this.
  20. 20. or
  21. 21. or