Life Sciences and Regional Innovation: One Path or Many?

Abstract

Despite the widespread interest of national, regional and local governments in promoting their own biotechnology industry, it is now well known that this sector exhibits characteristically high levels of geographical clustering in a relatively small number of locations. However, what is less well understood is how these regions have emerged and evolved through time. While there is a tendency to conceive of the necessary and sufficient conditions in fairly universal and formulaic terms—strong research universities with leading medical schools, a well-developed local venture capital industry, and a deep labour market in highly skilled scientific occupations are factors that are most commonly emphasized—we contend that the evolutionary pathways followed by individual regions with successful life science sectors are far from identical. Differences in local historical, geographical and institutional conditions are likely to shape and constrain the subsequent actual evolution of life science industries in particular places in distinctive ways. In this paper, we examine this issue through the lens of a national, 5 years, collaborative research initiative analyzing cluster development and evolution in Canada. We present findings from the study of life science industries in Canada's three largest city regions (Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver), as well as in three smaller city regions (Ottawa, Saskatoon and Halifax). Despite the conventional wisdom that public and private research institutions determine the trajectory of life sciences cluster development, our research suggests that a multiplicity of institutional and non-institutional actors, alongside background regional conditions and chance events, provide the impetus for cluster emergence and growth. We find that regional-scale policy interventions within an overarching national institutional framework have both intended and unintended consequences in helping determine the shape and nature of each region's life science clusters. Finally, we find that both local and non-local sources of knowledge are important to sustaining growth, innovation and dynamism within life science clusters.

Acknowledgement

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the Innovation Systems Research Network, Toronto, Canada, 5–6 May 2005. The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada through its Major Collaborative Research Initiatives Program. The authors also wish to acknowledge the contributions of fellow investigators studying life science clusters within the Innovation Systems Research Network, whose work we have summarized here: Adam Holbrook, Jorge Niosi, Peter Phillips and Philip Rosson. Finally, the authors thank Uyen Quach, Nichola Lowe, David Wolfe and Tijs Creutzberg for their critical comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

There are several examples of Ottawa's high-profile ICT entrepreneurs moving into life science ventures. For example, Rod Bryden, co-founder and former CEO of SHL Systemhouse, became the Chairman and CEO of WorldHeart Corporation and Jan Kaminski, former President and CEO of FastLane Technologies, became the President and CEO of Ionalytics Corporation.

Motivated in the 1980s to “work for himself” and exploit world class research in Canada (and especially Montreal), Dr. Francesco Bellini co-founded the company with a group of other researchers from McGill University (Nicholson, 2004). Bellini continues to play an important role in Montreal and has helped several other firms in the region following the acquisition of BioChem Pharma by UK-based Shire Pharmaceutical. More recently, he donated $10 million to McGill University to establish the Francesco Bellini Life Sciences Building.

For example, the Ontario Cancer Institute at Princess Margaret Hospital recently recruited Dr. Ben Neel, a star scientist from Boston. His decision to relocate was based on the type of research taking place at the institution in areas such as stem cell research, as well as the willingness of funding agencies to support independent research in contrast to the “picking winners” strategy being pursued in the USA (see Reinhart, 2006).