For
the second year in a row the Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) life science
industry can pat itself on the back. According to the “2012 Global Life Science Cluster Report” issued by Jones Lang LaSalle
(JLL), a real estate and investment firm, the Twin Cities is the home
to one of the most influential and productive life science clusters in
the Unites States. The JLL rankings, which grades clusters based on the
productivity of the existing life science industry and the
infrastructure’s ability to support further growth, placed MSP in the #9
slot. Although, this ranking is a sharp improvement over the "emerging
cluster" honorable mention in 2011, MSP life science industry earnings
and growth potential pales in comparison those located within the
Greater Boston area (#1) and San Diego (#2).
The JLL ranking system has it’s shortcomings, many of which are pointed out in this recent Xconomy article. However, valuable insights about the steps the MSP life science community needs to summit the U.S. biotech industry can be gleaned just by looking at the statistical data provided in the report.
Consolidating Suburban Sprawl
One key characteristic held by most of the top 10 clusters is the existence of a centralized “corridor” or “hub” for life science companies. MSP lacks such a central hub for life science development; most biotech companies are littered across the metro area (mainly focused around the 694/494 interstate halo). Although not negatively spun in the report, the fact that “No singular life sciences corridor exists within the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area)” clearly distinguishes the local industry from the leading competition.
Both Boston and Raleigh, NC (home of the research Triangle) have or are developing distinct biotech corridors. Such a corridor encourages cross-company interaction and promotes idea exchange and innovation. The Boston and Raleigh biotech hubs are strategically placed in close proximity to the local academic institutions. The University of Minnesota (UMN), which serves as the major source for R&D in the Twin Cities as well as the local supply for biomedical and life science talent, is the ideal locale for a centralized research/industry corridor in MSP. With a few exceptions, very few companies have set-up shop within close proximity to the UMN.
Fortunately, a life science corridor close to the University seems eminent. In the spring of 2013 the University of Minnesota will cap off construction of the Biomedical Discovery District (BDD) with the completion of the Cancer and Cardiovascular Research Building. The fruition of this innovative research district has renewed interest in the development of an industrial park adjacent to the University. Realization of a university-Industry research corridor could be a game changer for the Twin Cities life science community.
Sponsored research gap
According to the cluster report, in 2012 the UMN received $290 million in government-funding for scientific research, ranking it #18 amongst the top 20 U.S. life science clusters. The ability of a single university to secure nearly $300 million in funding is applaudable. However, this number is less than 1/3 the amount of the next highest top 10 cluster (Philadelphia; $824 million). This could be due to a difference in sheer density of research-based academic instructions within the region: the Twin Cities having just the University of Minnesota while #1 Boston has eight, including heavy hitters like Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The single univeristy model is not completely restrictive. Seattle (#10) sports just one major research institution (UW-Seattle), which receives more public funding dollars than any public institution in the US, nearly $600 million more than the UMN.
The JLL ranking system has it’s shortcomings, many of which are pointed out in this recent Xconomy article. However, valuable insights about the steps the MSP life science community needs to summit the U.S. biotech industry can be gleaned just by looking at the statistical data provided in the report.
Consolidating Suburban Sprawl
One key characteristic held by most of the top 10 clusters is the existence of a centralized “corridor” or “hub” for life science companies. MSP lacks such a central hub for life science development; most biotech companies are littered across the metro area (mainly focused around the 694/494 interstate halo). Although not negatively spun in the report, the fact that “No singular life sciences corridor exists within the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area)” clearly distinguishes the local industry from the leading competition.
Both Boston and Raleigh, NC (home of the research Triangle) have or are developing distinct biotech corridors. Such a corridor encourages cross-company interaction and promotes idea exchange and innovation. The Boston and Raleigh biotech hubs are strategically placed in close proximity to the local academic institutions. The University of Minnesota (UMN), which serves as the major source for R&D in the Twin Cities as well as the local supply for biomedical and life science talent, is the ideal locale for a centralized research/industry corridor in MSP. With a few exceptions, very few companies have set-up shop within close proximity to the UMN.
Fortunately, a life science corridor close to the University seems eminent. In the spring of 2013 the University of Minnesota will cap off construction of the Biomedical Discovery District (BDD) with the completion of the Cancer and Cardiovascular Research Building. The fruition of this innovative research district has renewed interest in the development of an industrial park adjacent to the University. Realization of a university-Industry research corridor could be a game changer for the Twin Cities life science community.
Sponsored research gap
According to the cluster report, in 2012 the UMN received $290 million in government-funding for scientific research, ranking it #18 amongst the top 20 U.S. life science clusters. The ability of a single university to secure nearly $300 million in funding is applaudable. However, this number is less than 1/3 the amount of the next highest top 10 cluster (Philadelphia; $824 million). This could be due to a difference in sheer density of research-based academic instructions within the region: the Twin Cities having just the University of Minnesota while #1 Boston has eight, including heavy hitters like Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The single univeristy model is not completely restrictive. Seattle (#10) sports just one major research institution (UW-Seattle), which receives more public funding dollars than any public institution in the US, nearly $600 million more than the UMN.
| http://www.health.umn.edu/research/bdd/ |
The
UMN acknowledges the necessity to supplement its research funding
through non-government fundraising and has put forth a noble effort to
secure more private revenue. The face of this movement is the
University’s Office for Technology Commercialization,
which “facilitate(s) the transfer of UMN research to licensees for
development of new products and services that benefit the public good,
foster economic growth and generate revenue to support the University’s
research and education goals.” With the help of the OTC and programs
such as the Minnesota Innovation Partnership and the forthcoming Entrepreneurial Leave Program, the UMN saw 12 start-up companies arise from university-sponsored research in 2012.
Increase Pharma
Companies that focus on pharmaceutical generation and production are a cornerstone of leading life science clusters like San Diego. Although Minneapolis-St.Paul is widely acclaimed for its medical device industry, the local biopharma industry is clamoring for recognition and support. In 2010, Minnesota invested nearly 4-times as much on medical technology ($332 million) than on biotech/pharma ($86 million). Diversifying the local life science portfolio to include more biopharma may be a huge revenue and employment generator for the state.
Increase Pharma
Companies that focus on pharmaceutical generation and production are a cornerstone of leading life science clusters like San Diego. Although Minneapolis-St.Paul is widely acclaimed for its medical device industry, the local biopharma industry is clamoring for recognition and support. In 2010, Minnesota invested nearly 4-times as much on medical technology ($332 million) than on biotech/pharma ($86 million). Diversifying the local life science portfolio to include more biopharma may be a huge revenue and employment generator for the state.
