BOSTON CLUSTER
“THE LIFE SCIENCE COMPANIES IN
Looking ahead, how can Boston stay on top of the pile? “It all depends on money—to innovate and effectively secure funding for research,” Camacho says. Cole agrees, saying
it will
ultimately come down to businesses and, more specifically, their management. Teir decision- making, whom they hire and their access to capital, will be crucial factors affecting Boston’s ability to stay ahead of New Jersey-New York and the Bay Area, placed second and third, respectively, in the report. Choosing from the best intellectual pool, he adds, not just in the Boston area but all over the world too, will be equally important.
On this latter point, the future is positive: the ability to pick talent from a highly skilled labour force is certain. “North Carolina has generated
BOSTON ARE SMALL, INDEPENDENT OPERATIONS THAT ARE FLEXIBLE AND HAVE GREAT ACCESS TO THE RESEARCH BEING UNDERTAKEN AT THE REGION’S UNIVERSITIES.”
a number of programmes designed to attract life science start-ups to the Research Triangle Park area,” Uhl says, “but North Carolina cannot compete with Boston in terms of the quality or number of universities there. North Carolina and Duke are excellent institutions, but once you get past them, there isn’t much else there.”
While Harvard and MIT remain world leaders, continuing to attract the brightest science and engineering students, Boston’s life sciences industry should prosper further. Perhaps the only blip on an otherwise positive record is the level of venture capital funding. Despite Boston receiving funding of more than $1.1 million, according to Jones Lang Lasalle, it is pipped to the post by the Bay Area, which has received around $700,000 more. Tese figures are partly caused by Boston’s high prices—it is an expensive place to work and live. But with the government providing tax breaks for start-ups in Boston, it will be interesting to see what data the second Jones Lang Lasalle report shows when it is published in October 2012..
www.worldipreview.com
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review 2012
17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64