Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Outlook
  • Published:

Directed development: catalysing a global biotech industry

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 4, pages 719–725 (2005)Cite this article

Abstract

Governments are increasingly relying on directed development tools or proactive public-policy approaches to stimulate scientific and economic development for their biotechnology industries. This article will discuss the four main tools of directed development in biotechnology and the lessons learned from current global efforts utilizing these tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Traditional versus directed development company-creation models.
Figure 2
Figure 3: Average number of new US patents, filed per university.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clark, H. Prime Minister's Statement to Parliament [online], <www.executive.govt.nz/minister/clark/innovate/speech.htm> (2002).

  2. New Zealand Government. Ministry of Economic Development. Growth through Innovation: Progress to Date [online], <http://gif.med.govt.nz/aboutgif/indicators-2005/progress/> (2005).

  3. Falconer, B. et al. Growing the Biotechnology Sector in New Zealand: A Framework For Action (Biotechnology Taskforce, Wellington, New Zealand, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beckman, R. & Goldberg, A. Bold Steps-New Horizons: An External View of New Zealand Biotechnology and its Future in the Global Arena [online], <http://www.biospherenz.com/download/external-view-nz-biotech.pdf> (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  5. US Department of Commerce Technology Administration. A Survey of the Use of Biotechnology in US Industry [online], <http://www.technology.gov/reports/Biotechnology/CD120a_0310.pdf> (2003).

  6. DeVol, R. et al. Biopharmaceutical Industry Contributions to State and US Economics (Milken Institute, California, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fasol, G. Bio-Nanotechnology in Japan Venture Capital: Public Policy and Results (Presentation to Stanford University, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Triendl, R. Japan launches new life-science initiatives. Nature Biotechnol. 21, 218 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Savage-Morton, M. MITI: myths and miracles. Access: History 1, 35–48 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Biotech's Yin and Yang. The Economist (2002).

  11. Interview by Holger Breithaupt with Zhu Chen. China's Leap Forward in Biotechnology. EMBO Rep. 4, 111–113 (2003).

  12. What is Bayh–Dole act? [online], <http://www.csurf.org/enews/bayhdole_403.html> (1999).

  13. Association of University Technology Managers [online], <http://www.autm.net>

  14. Association of University Technology Managers. AUTM Licensing Survey: FY 2003 (Association of University Technology Managers, Illinois, 2003).

  15. Prevezer, M. Ingredients in the Early Development of the US Biotechnology Industry. Small Business Economics 17, 17–29 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McMillan, G. S. et al. An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology. Res. Policy 29, 1–8 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wess, L. Germany's shakeout. BioCentury (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung). Funding of Growth: Initiatives in Biotechnology 1–19 (2000).

  19. Muller, C & Fujiwara, T. The entrepreneurial environment for biotech start-ups in Germany and Japan. Int. J. Biotechnol. 5, 76–94 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Project Bioshield [online], <http://www.whitehouse.gov/bioshield/>

  21. Barbaro, M. The high cost of making an anthrax drug. Washington Post (8 Dec 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ault, A. Few attend Bioshield II hearing. The Scientist [online], <http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20041007/01> (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Preziosi, P. Science, pharmacogenomics, and ethics in drug R&D: a sustainable future scenario? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 521–526 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Naef, W. Industry Canada. 1–2 (2004).

  25. Industry Canada. Canada's biopharmaceutical industry: open for global business. [online], <http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inp-pp.nsf/en/ph00032e.html> (2000).

  26. BIOTECanada. Mighty Maples from Little Saplings Grow: A Working Paper for a Strategic Partnership with Canadian Biotechnology 1–11 (2004).

  27. Batelle Technology Partnership Practice & SSTI (for BIO). Laboratories of Innovation: State Bioscience Initiatives 2004 1–55 [online], <http://www.bio.org/local/battelle2004/> (2004).

  28. BioSpectrum. India Biotechnology Handbook (Special Rpeort) (Biospectrum, Philadelphia, 2004).

  29. Baum, A. et al. Implications from Emerging Indian Pharma 1–64 (Morgan Stanley Equity Research, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Usdin, S. Doing business in India. BioCentury 12, 1–10 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bagree, M & Singh, P. Indian Pharmaceuticals: Specialty Ambitions, Crucial Phase 1–48 (SalomonSmithBarney Equity Research, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Drews, J. Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science 287, 1960–1964 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Zucker, L & Darby, M. Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 12709–12716 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Schweitzer, S. et al. Clustering in the Biotechnology Industry 1–29 (UCLA School of Public Health, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lemarie, S. et al. Is the creation and development of biotech smes localised? Conclusions drawn from the French case. Small Business Economics 17, 61–76 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Agency for Science, Technology and Research Singapore. Biome. 1–22 (2004).

  37. Wess, L. Regional development: from pill to pillow. BioCentury (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dineen, J. K. Biotech bashers vs. boosters. San Francisco Independent (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Smaglik, P. Baywatch: San Francisco. Nature 427, 658–659 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Press release. Mayor newsom announces first biotechnology company to locate in San Francisco's Mission Bay [online], <http://www.sfgov.org/site/mayor_page.asp?id=29237> (2005).

  41. Kotkin, J. Tribes: How Race, Religion and Identity Determine Success in the New Global Economy (Random House, New York, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Saxenian, A. et al. The Silicon Valley–Hsinchu Connection: Technical Communities and Industrial Upgrading 1–34 (Department of City and Regional Planning, Univ. of California at Berkeley, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sturgeon, T. in Understanding Silicon Valley: Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region 1–44 (Stanford Univ. Press, California, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Statement of Senator Birch Bayh to the National Institutes of Health (2004).

  45. Stevens, A. The enactment of Bayh–Dole. J. Technol. Transfer 29, 93–99 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sampat, B. et al. Changes in university patent quality after the Bayh–Dole Act: a re-examination. Int. J. Industrial Organization 21, 1371–1390 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rao, S. & Spencer, V. Bayh–Dole revisited. Scrip Mag. 34–35 (2005).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank S. Jamindar and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise for their help in making this article a reality.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Principal at Perseus-Soros Biopharmaceutical Fund, 888 7th Avenue, Floor 30, New York, 10105, New York, USA

    Anthony Sun

  2. Senior Vice President at Global Corporate Development at Quintiles Transnational, 4709 Creekstone Drive, Durham, 27703, North Carolina, USA

    Tom Perkins

Authors
  1. Anthony Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Perkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Anthony Sun or Tom Perkins.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Related links

Related links

FURTHER INFORMATION

Association of University Technology Managers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sun, A., Perkins, T. Directed development: catalysing a global biotech industry. Nat Rev Drug Discov 4, 719–725 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1826

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1826

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing