Global Bioregions: Knowledge Domains, Capabilities and Innovation System Networks

Abstract

In this paper, regional capabilities and knowledge domain theses are proposed and global biotechnology dynamics are analysed. Detailed research on Europe's leading bioeconomy, the UK, is presented. Global network analysis is performed based on research into collaborations between ‘star’ scientists and their institutes in bioregions at a global scale. This is with regard to joint publication of bioscientific articles in US and EU Science Citation Index representative and leading cited journals. New evidence lies in identifying the hierarchical structure and main network axes in the global bioscientific research system. The results show that the strongest bioregions are in North America, particularly around Boston, San Diego and San Francisco. For collaboration, using this measure, the UK is revealed as a strong European research base, as is Sweden. New bioregions are found rising in Asia, but many ‘global cities’ fail to appear in the bioregional ranking.

Keywords:

• Bioscience
• biotechnology
• bioregions
• co‐publication
• networks
• research institutes

Acknowledgements

Ann Yaolu provided invaluable assistance with the scientometrics. David Knight is acknowledged for data on the UK genomics firms. Lennart Stenberg, VINNOVA, discussed various concepts and hypotheses. Thanks also to colleagues in the CIND, CIRCLE and ISRN networks in Sweden and Canada who heard these observations in preliminary form and encouraged their development into a hopefully coherent analysis. The usual disclaimer applies.

Notes

1. Presented at ‘Bringing Science to Life,’ University of Toronto, Canada, 29 April–1 May 2005.

2. A broad term that describes the use of microbial, plant, or animal cells for the production of chemical compounds.

3. A number of key terms have been introduced. In definitional terms, their usage here is as follows. ‘Region’ is a governance unit between national and local levels. A ‘regional economy’ is ‘the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in a particular geographic region.’ The ‘knowledge economy’ is measured, currently inadequately, as high‐technology manufacturing added to knowledge‐intensive services. A ‘bioregion’ has no standard definition, although regarding biotechnology ‘clusters’a location quotient of 1.25 is considered sufficient. ‘Knowledge’ differs from ‘information’ in that it is creative and informed by meaning and understanding, whereas information is passive and, without the application of knowledge, meaningless. To ‘develop’, as in ‘regional development,’ means to evolve and augment, or enrich. Hence ‘regional development’ involves the cultural, economic and social enrichment of a region and its people. Here it mainly, but not exclusively, entails economic growth arising from increased efficiency and effectiveness in use and exchange of the productive factors of an openly trading regional economy.

4. A drug from Immunex, a US biotechnology firm, was delayed in reaching the healthcare market because of a global shortage of bioprocessing capacity. Immunex's inability to produce sufficient quantities of its ‘star’ rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis treatment Enbrel cost over $200 million in lost revenue in 2001 alone, see Malik et al. (2002).

5. The study of genes and their function. Recent advances in genomics are bringing about a revolution in our understanding of the molecular mechanisms of disease, including the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Genomics is also stimulating the discovery of breakthrough healthcare products by revealing thousands of new biological targets for the development of drugs, and by giving scientists innovative ways to design new drugs, vaccines and DNA diagnostics.

6. For clarity, these data refer to genomics biopharmaceuticals firms, those principally involved in seeking to develop drugs utilising genomics approaches. The larger statistic in Table 2 refers to all biotechnology firms, many of which are not involved genomics in conducting businesss in diagnostics, supplies, etc.

7. Unusually, the role of ‘big pharma’ is rather under‐emphasised in this analysis of its relation to health biotechnology. This is not because large pharmaceuticals firms are unimportant in this context, for they clearly are. However, for exploration and even, increasingly, examination and some exploitation knowledge production they practise ‘open innovation’ as Chesbrough (2003) demonstrates for the case of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, a leading bioinformatics supplier that re‐designed itself as a biotechnological drugs manufacturer through investment of ‘open innovation’ contract earnings from the likes of Monsanto and Eli Lilly. These practices are now emulated by specialist suppliers in industries like ICT, automotives and household care according to the same author. This chimes with a more general hypothesis we call ‘Globalisation 2’ in which in a ‘knowledge economy’ the drivers of globalisation become ‘knowledgeable clusters’ of various kinds. These exert irresistible attractions for large corporates who become ‘knowledge supplicants’ as their in‐house R&D becomes ineffective and inefficient. They pay for, but no longer generate, leading‐edge analytical knowledge for innovation.

8. As Owen‐Smith and Powell (2004) show ‘open science’ conventions in such clusters as Cambridge–Boston ‘irrigate’ the milieu with knowledge spillovers, giving to some clusters an element of ‘increasing returns’ from ‘spatial knowledge monopoly’ to a significant degree.

9. NIH funding for medical and bioscientific research in Cambridge–Boston was in excess of $1.1 billion by 2000, $1.5 billion by 2002 and $2.1 billion in 2003. Cooke (2004) shows it exceeded all of California by 2002 and by 2003 the gap widened to $476 billion ($2021 cf. $1545 billion). Interestingly, this is a recent turnaround since the 1999 total of $770 million was marginally less than the amount of National Institutes of Health funding passing through the Northern California cluster in 1999, a statistic that only increased to $893 million in 2000. Thus Greater Boston's supremacy is recent but definitive. San Diego's NIH income includes that earned by Science Applications International Corporation. This firm is based in San Diego but performs most of its NIH research outside its home base as a research agent for US‐wide clients. Thus it warrants mention but is excluded from totals calculated by this author. This is not done in the Milken International report ‘America's Biotech & Life Science Cluster’ June 2004, which ranks San Diego top US cluster. This oversight seriously weakens its claims for San Diego's top US cluster position. Further reasons for rejecting the Milken Institute's ranking of San Diego first as well as inclusion of questionable research funds are that the Institute deploys a spurious methodology based on research dollars per metropolitan inhabitant to promote San Diego's ranking. Finally, the research was commissioned by local San Diego interests (Deloitte's San Diego) and excludes ‘big pharma’ funding, on which San Diego performs less than half as well as Boston (Table 10).