Beantown/Genetown and Beyond: Biotechnology in Massachusetts
9/13/2007 2:56:15 PM
By Cheryl Scott
Download full article here (PDF)
If the commonwealth of
Massachusetts isn’t quite the
birthplace of biotechnology, it can
certainly claim status as the
industry’s cradle. Many people do
consider it the birthplace of the
American Revolution, of course,
because it’s where the first shots were
fired against the British colonial
occupiers. As BIO president and CEO
Jim Greenwood put it in a keynote
address at the 2006 annual meeting of
the Massachusetts Biotechnology
Council:
I’ve spent much of the past 13 or 14
years in Washington, DC, the
epicenter of power and politics. . . .
Now here I stand in Boston, the
epicenter of academia and science.
America’s most recent revolution —
the biotechnology revolution . . .
not only began in Massachusetts,
but it continues here every day in its
universities and its commercial
enterprises. . . . Massachusetts
companies continue to lead. (1)
One example among many is GTC
Biotherapeutics, located in the Boston
suburb of Framingham. It is the first
(and so far only) biotechnology
company marketing an approved drug
product made by transgenic animals.
In fact, only one other company
(Pharming Group in The Netherlands)
has even submitted such a product for
approval. GTC’s transgenic
antithrombin product has been
approved in Europe and is currently in
further clinical trials with the aim of a
US regulatory submission (2).
| 2007 Genetown
Beantown Is Genetown
Originally launched in 1993, the Genetown
hotbed campaign’s eighth edition map is
designed as a branding and awareness
tool for life-science companies and service
providers. The map displays logos and
buildings of participating companies and can be downloaded at the Genetown section of
Biospace, an online career site for life-science–related industries. In Genetown, you’ll also find continually updated news, events, and company profiles for
the region. For more information, contact Kevin Glacken 1-732-746-2309. |
Eastern Massachusetts has been
the site of many of the research
breakthroughs driving the
advancement of biotechnology,
including five discoveries that have
earned Nobel prizes (3). The density
of ivy-league and other research and
teaching institutions has inevitably led
to a density of both start-up and
veteran companies, including two of
the country’s first and most successful
biotech corporations: Biogen Idec,
Inc. and Genzyme General, both
headquartered in Cambridge, MA,
which is widely recognized as the
center of a major biotech hub. More
than 100 Massachusetts companies
are Biotechnology Industry
Organization members, with a third
of them employing more than 100
people. Among 13 local colleges
granting life-science doctorate
degrees, three are ranked in the
national top 20 for that area of study
— and nearly $1.5 billion of US
National Institutes of Health funding
finds its way to the area every year (3).
Since 1995, the region has attracted
some $2 billion in biotechnology
venture capital investment (3). Lifescience
vendor companies Charles
River Laboratories and Millipore
Corporation are counted among the
top public employers in the region (4).
In addition to its place in biotech
history (see the “Historical Timeline”
box), Massachusetts is regularly listed
in top-10s ranking locations for
biotechnology growth potential. One
article ranked the state first in the
United States for the number of
research parks, fifth in number of
bioscience facilities, 10th in the number
of biotech incubators, eighth in life
sciences R&D expenditures, and
seventh for the number of biological
scientists in its workforce (5). In 2005,
the state invested $90 million in a
Biomedical Research Institute, a joint
project of the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst and Bay
State Medical Center. In 2007,
governor Deval Patrick announced a
10-year, billion-dollar plan to
encourage further growth of the state’s
biotech sector (6, 7). The money —
$100 million a year — will be aimed at
several programs, some most notably targeting stem cell and RNAi research.
On that news, some Massachusetts life
scientists are questioning whether
research grants will be the best way for
the state to spend life-science dollars
(6). Other priorities might include
facility issues, transportation and
commutes, and educating high school
students about the industry.
A BUSY ORGANIZATION
Founded in 1985, the nonprofit
Massachusetts Biotechnology Council
(MBC) represents >500 companies and
institutions. It organizes events and
provides information and services to
the region’s biotech industry. Its
successful annual investor conference,
“Mass Opportunities,” has been held
every autumn since 1999. Several
ongoing committees meet regularly at
seminars and networking sessions to
discuss issues of import to the industry:
biostatistics and data management;
business development; clinical trials;
drug discovery; finance; formulation
and drug delivery; human resources;
law and policy; life-science informatics;
marketing and communications;
process development; project
management; quality/regulatory affairs;
safety, environmental, and facility
operations; and technologies. More
information on these committees —
including downloadable presentations
and event notifications — can be found
online at http://massbio.org/committees.
Of particular importance to the
MBC have been several state legislative
initiatives. Working to promote and
protect the interests of its members, the
organization pursues a new
comprehensive public policy agenda
during each state legislative session. For
the 2005–2006 session, the MBC was
able to meet most of its policy goals.
The general focus was on economic
development and support for life
sciences — specifically, expedited landuse
permitting, science education, and
protection of access to new innovative
medicines. More information can be
found online at http://massbio.org/
lawpol/Legislation/index.php.
In August 2007, the MBC
announced that it had hired Bob
Coughlin, Massachusetts
undersecretary for business
development and a veteran state
legislator, as its new president (8). He
was chosen not only for his business
and political skills, but also for his
knowledge of the biotech industry.
EDUCATION IS KEY
The MBC is concerned not only with
touting the accomplishments of its
local industry, encouraging
investment, and advancing public
policy — but also working with public
leaders to promote science education.
Many in the industry today are
concerned about where its future
employees will come from.
Massachusetts’ biotech companies
don’t just hire scientists. The state’s
biotechnology workforce includes
people with high school, two-year,
four-year, and advanced graduate
degrees and backgrounds in science,
business, law, manufacturing, and
engineering (9). According to the
MBC, the greatest job growth areas
are research, manufacturing, quality, and clinical/regulatory affairs. But
biotech companies also need facilities
technicians, glass washers, shipping
and receiving clerks, and security
guards. Nonscience opportunities can
also be found in business development,
corporate administration and finance,
human resources, information
technology, sales, and marketing and
communications. The MBC website
includes sections on education and
careers, as well as a directory of local
biotechnology companies, career
paths, and schools.
Another form of education for
which interest is growing is the focus
on biotechnology in business schools.
Programs such as MIT’s Biomedical
Enterprise Program (a joint
collaboration between its Sloan School
of Management and the Harvard–
MIT division of health sciences and
technology) serve postdoctoral students
and help industry scientists switch gear
to management relatively early in their
careers (10). That particular program
accepts only people with substantial
work experience, but it’s gaining
interest from undergraduates as well.
LOOKING AHEAD TO 2010
According to a 2002 report by the
MBC, life science industries have the
potential to become a true cornerstone
of the Massachusetts economy. The
report encouraged the state’s political,
commercial, and academic leaders to
capitalize on the advantages that are
already in place. “If they can find a way
to do so,” it declared, “the rewards for
the Commonwealth could be
substantial. They could well make the
difference between a state that is
enjoying a sustained period of strong
economic growth and one that is merely
limping along. The difference in tax
revenues would be sizable. Perhaps most
valuable, the Commonwealth could
continue its honorable tradition of being
on the leading edge of technology,
science, and health care, and of
producing enterprises of which its
citizens are justifiably proud” (11).
The MBC created committees to
focus on those goals regarding nine
general topics: business climate and
infrastructure, financing, workforce
development and education, healthcare
integration, biodefense, framework for
innovation, tax, legal, and regulatory
affairs. Each team was made up of
several experts representing biotech
companies, academic medical centers,
institutions of higher education,
health-care providers, service
organizations, and public agencies.
They developed some 100 policy
recommendations such as
• investing in research and
improving technology transfer
• increasing the physical
infrastructure and easing the process
of starting up new companies
• encouraging private investment
and improving existing state tax
incentives
• increasing science exposure for all Massachusetts students
• rewarding innovation and enabling
patient access to new technologies
• developing biodefense regulations
and funding, encouraging
diversification and strengthening
public support, and
• reforming tort law.
Many of these recommendations
have since been put into practice. The
governor’s recently proposed lifesciences
legislation package includes
capital and investment funds, tax
incentives, and expansion of the
Massachusetts Life Sciences Center.
“We want Massachusetts to
provide the global platform for
bringing innovation from the drawing
board to the market, from inspiration
to commercialization, and from ideas
to cure,” Governor Patrick said. “We
look forward to working with the
legislature on speedy passage and to
bringing to life our vision for
expanding the commonwealth’s global
leadership in the life sciences.”
The commonwealth of
Massachusetts is clearly committed to
a life-sciences future. As any leaderof-
the-pack well knows, everyone else
is jockeying for your position. And as
any successful revolutionary knows,
there’s no use in merely congratulating
yourself. The people of Massachusetts
— especially those involved in
biotechnology — have their eyes
focused on the future. And if the past
is any indication, this is one biotech
hub that will be in the news for a long
time to come.
REFERENCES
1 Greenwood J. Keynote Address to Annual
Meeting of the Massachusetts Biotechnology
Council. Biotechnology Industry Organization:
Washington, DC, 15 June 2006; http://bio.
org/speeches/speeches/20060615.asp?p=yes.
2 Pollack A. Initial Benefit from Genetic
Engineering Likely to Be Medicine. The New
York Times 30 July 2007; www.nytimes.
com/2007/07/30/business/30animalside.
html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=
1185805836-jDThp7Ybcru3SjzgAP+81g.
3 The Brookings Institution. Profile of
Biomedical Research and Biotechnology
Commercialization: Boston–Worcester–Lawrence
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area, 10
June 2002: www.brookings.edu/es/urban/
publications/biotechboston.pdf.
4 Industry Profile: Biotechnology; www.
massecon.com/mass.ind_biotech.asp.
5 2005 Rankings Report: Top States for
Biotech Growth. Business Facilities Magazine;
www.businessfacilities.com/bf_05_07_
ranking2.asp.
6 Robinson K. Deval’s Big Biotech Play.
Omics! Omics! 9 May 2007; http://omicsomics.
blogspot.com/2007/05/devals-big-biotech-play.
html.
7 Heuser S. State’s Billion-Dollar Biotech
Question: Who Gets How Much? The Boston
Globe 20 June 2007; www.boston.com/
business/technology/biotechnology/
articles/2007/06/20/states_billion_dollar_
biotech_question_who_gets_how_much.
8 Hollmer M. Coughlin To Become Next
Mass. Biotech Council Chief. Boston Business J.
13 August 2007; http://boston.bizjournals.
com/boston/stories/2007/08/13/daily6.html
9 Massachusetts Biotechnology Council.
Biotechnology: A Guide to the Most
Innovative Industry in Massachusetts. The
Boston Globe Spring 2002; massbio.org/pubs/
globe_spring_02.pdf.
10 Gewin V. Special Report: Making It in
the Biotech Business. Nature 435, May 2005:
124–125; www.nature.com/nature/journal/
v435/n7038/full/nj7038-124a.html#top.
11 The Boston Consulting Group.
MassBiotech 2010: Achieving Global Leadership
in the Life-Sciences Economy. Massachusetts
Biotechnology Council: 2002;
www.massbiotech2010.org/
MassBioTech2010Report.pdf.
12 Heinz School. Bio Rising: Venture Firms
Rediscover Biotech. Carnegie Mellon University:
Pittsburgh, PA, September 2002; www.
smartpolicy.org/pdf/biorising.pdf.
FOR FURTHER READING
Annual Report 2002. Massachusetts
Biotechnology Council: 2002; massbio.org/
pubs/2002AR.pdf.
Johnson C. The History of Biotechnology.
The Boston Globe, 2007: www.boston.com/
business/specials/bio2007/articles/biotech_
timeline.
Massachusetts Biotechnology Council.
Biotechnology: A Guide to Understanding
Investments That Make a Difference. The
Boston Globe Fall 2002; massbio.org/pubs/
globe_fall_02.pdf.
Massachusetts Biotechnology Industry
Directory; http://massbio.org/directory.
Massachusetts Biotechnology Council
Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Facilities
Committee. Biotechnology Regulatory Guide for
Communities. July 1995, rev. September 1998;
massbio.org/pubs/bioreg98.pdf.
Cheryl Scott is senior technical editor of
BioProcess International, 1574 Coburg
Road, #242, Eugene, OR 97401-4802; 1-646-
957-8879; cscott@bioprocessintl.com. www.bioprocessintl.com
Download full article here (PDF)
|