The Licensing Decision The California Biomedical Industry Report, 2006 The California 2006 CIRM Manual Analyzing the Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory The Biosciences Knowledge Value Chain and Comparative Incubation Models A Basic Guide to Program-Related Investments Stem Cell Technology - The Israeli Edge   Financing Innovations for Accelerating Medical Solutions Alternative Financing For Entrepreneurs  Money Tree's Report on Venture Capital Investments in Israel - 2007  Money Tree's Report on Venture Capital Investments in the US - 2007

 

---

 

• The Licensing Decision

 

See the full report here:

 

TheLicensingDecision.pdf

 

 

 

---

 

• The California Biomedical Industry Report, 2006

 

"California’s biomedical industry is its own unique ecosystem. Anchored by more than 2,700 biomedical companies and 100 public and private research institutions, the industry has spawned a network of highly specialized suppliers and service providers. And it has commercialized countless products that contribute to the health and well-being of people around the world. It is little wonder that California, which values creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship, is global headquarters for advanced biomedical technology. San Francisco-based Genentech was the world’s first biotechnology company, quickly joined by Chiron and Amgen. Using the new technology of genetic engineering, these companies set out to manufacture human proteins, which could be used to cure certain diseases. A generation later, the emerging genomics and proteomics fields also are being led by California companies. These firms are identifying genetic mutations and the underlying cause of life-threatening diseases. Biopharmaceutical companies that specialize in small-molecule products are discovering precise targets for potential medications, and the industry’s diagnostics and device sectors are developing the tests and delivery mechanisms to accurately identify and treat patients with life-threatening conditions. The scientific research behind biomedical breakthroughs comes both from California’s academic research institutions and from company laboratories. Genentech’s first biotech product – recombinant human insulin – was based on discoveries at UCSF. Of the respondents to the CHI/PwC survey, 24% credited a California academic research institution with the idea central to the creation or growth of their company. Breakthrough discoveries also are being made in company labs, where, on average, 42% of revenues are churned back into R&D. In 2005, companies invested $26 billion into developing new drugs, devices and diagnostics to meet an increasing worldwide demand for innovative medical products. In the industry’s early years, seed funding came mainly from venture capital investments. Private investment continues to be a significant source of revenue, and California life sciences companies attracted $2.9 billion in venture capital investment in 2005. Companies also have turned to the equity markets for funds. Currently California biomedical companies account for 68.5% of the market capital of all of the NASDAQ-listed life sciences sector. As the industry has expanded, so have the funding opportunities. Genentech, Amgen, Gilead Sciences and others have grown exponentially since the 1980s and have the resources to sponsor research agreements, in-license new compounds and acquire other companies. For early-phase companies, promising compounds or research services can command high prices today as fierce competition and close investor scrutiny has placed product development pipelines under greater pressure. Another significant source of research funding is product sales. Combined, California life sciences companies generated $62 billion in revenues in 2005."

 

See the full report here:

 

2006_CA_Biomedical_Industry_Report.pdf

 

 

---

 

• The California 2006 CIRM Manual

 

See the full report here:

 

CIRMannual_rpt06.pdf

 

 

---

 

• Analyzing the Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education

 

"We review and synthesize the burgeoning literature on institutions and agents engaged in the commercialization of university-based intellectual property. These studies indicate that institutional incentives and organizational practices both play an important role in enhancing the effectiveness of technology transfer. We conclude that university technology transfer should be considered from a strategic perspective. Institutions that choose to stress the entrepreneurial dimension of technology transfer need to address skill deficiencies in technology transfer offices (TTOs), reward systems that are inconsistent with enhanced entrepreneurial activity, and education/training for faculty members, post-docs, and graduate students relating to interactions with entrepreneurs. Business schools at these universities can play a major role in addressing these skill and educational deficiencies, through the delivery of targeted programs to technology licensing officers and members of the campus community wishing to launch startup firms."

Donald S. Siegel and Phillip H. Phan, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2004

 

See the full report here:

 

TechTransferStudy2004 .pdf

 

 

---

 

• Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory

 

"My purpose is to review, synthesize and criticize the voluminous, multidisciplinary literature on technology transfer. To reduce the literature to manageable proportions, I focus chiefly not exclusively on recent literature on domestic technology transfer from universities and government laboratories. I begin by examining a set of fundamental conceptual issues, especially the ways in which the analytical ambiguities surrounding technology transfer concepts affect research and theory. My literature review follows and I emphasize technology transfer’s impact and effectiveness. I employ a ‘‘Contingent Effectiveness Model of Technology Transfer’’ to organize the literature. As the model’s name implies, it assumes that technology effectiveness can take a variety of forms. In addition to examining the more traditional effectiveness criteriathose rooted in market impacts - the model considers a number of alternative effectiveness criteria, including political effectiveness, capacity-building."

Barry Bozeman, School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA

 

See the full report here:

 

TechTransferStudy.pdf

 

 

---

 

• The Biosciences Knowledge Value Chain and Comparative Incubation Models

 

"This research derives from an EU DG Enterprise(IPS Programme) project on bio-incubation, called Bio-Link. The Bio-Link project is innovative in three ways. First, itinvolves an international comparative analysis of biotechnologyincubators of the kind that is rarely if ever done. Second, the incubator representatives are monitored and investigated by an academic partnership team. Third, there is a stated aspiration by the incubator companies to engage in co-incubation across borders. Co-incubation is, as far as we are aware, a new kind of boundary crossing innovation in which advanced start-up businesses are assisted to enter other national markets and/or benefit from specialised services or scientific, technological, or commercial knowledge absent in the home country but present in a partner country. Evidence from research on European, Israeli and North American bioincubators is included to compare, contrast and enable future judgements of incubator appropriateness to biotechnology."

Philip Cooke, Dan Kaufmann, Chen Levin, Rob Wilson: Journal of Technology Transfer, 31: 115–129, 2006

 

See the full report here:

 

CoIncubation[1].pdf 

 

 

---

 

• A Basic Guide to Program-Related Investments

 

"To increase the impact of their limited resources, many foundations have added financial instruments collectively known as program-related investments (PRIs) to their traditional repertoire of grants. PRIs include loans, loan guarantees, real estate mortgages, and stock purchases, among other instruments. They finance affordable housing, education, books prepared by arts organizations, video productions, theater performances, health centers, neighborhood shopping centers, small businesses, microenterprise loan funds, nonprofit financial intermediaries, and land conservation. Like grants, PRIs have as their primary purpose the achievement of the foundation's programmatic mission. However, as financial instruments, PRIs also produce financial returns and thus share characteristics with a foundation's traditional investments. PRIs sit between traditional grants and investments, offering both financial and programmatic returns. PRIs include a wide range of financial instruments designed to meet the different challenges that individual projects present to both funders and project managers."

Christie I. Baxter, The Grantsmanship Center Magazine, Fall 1997

 

See the full report here: 

 

CommunityFinancialInstitutions[1].pdf 

 

 

---

 

• Stem Cell Technology - The Israeli Edge

 

"Set against a background of academic research excellence and world-class healthcare, Israeli investigators and physicians have been at the forefront of stem cell research, and were among the first to create human embryonic stem cells (hESC). In addition, Israel's researchers benefit from a highly conducive regulatory environment, established in line with strict Jewish medical ethics.   These conditions, together with innovative local biotech and pharmaceutical industries and a pervasive atmosphere of entrepreneurship, enable Israel's Stem Cell Cluster to compete confidently in establishing the country as a Stem Cell Center of Excellence."

Daniel Orkin, Health & Life Sciences Cluster Manager

 

See the full report here: 

 

StemCellTechnology-TheIsraeliEdge.doc 

 

 

---

•   Financing Innovations for Accelerating Medical Solutions

 

 

 This report kindly provided by The Milken Institute Financial Innovations Labs, discusses issues surrounding new financing opportunities for the medical entrepreneur. Just a sample of the problems discussed:

 

• Large drug companies have seen their stock values drop and business models crumble, and have withdrawn from risky early-stage drug discovery and development.
• R&D "output" — as measured by pharmaceutical applications to the FDA, both to initiate clinical trials and market new drugs — has plummeted.
• The shortage of investment capital remains most acute at the very early stage in drug discovery R&D through Phase II clinical trials — where it is needed most and when scientific risk begins to escalate.
• Less than 10 percent of global investment in pharmaceutical R&D targets the diseases that may affect up to 90 percent of the world’s population.
• In the current financial environment, good ideas with the potential to cure disease are nearly impossible to fund.

 

 

See the full report here: 

 

FI.Lab_Report.Oct_FINAL_VERSION.pdf 

 

 

---

 

• Alternative Financing For Entrepreneurs

 

 

"How Israeli companies can access alternative US capital sources from strategic buyers."

An interesting analysis of capital markets kindly provided by The Merage Foundation.

 

 

 See the full report here: 

 

Alternative_Financing_for_Entrepreneurs102707.ppt 

 

 

---

 

•  Money Tree's Report on Venture Capital Investments in Israel - 2007

 

Venture capital-backed high-tech companies raised approximately $350 million in Israel during the third quarter of 2007.

 

 

 See the full report here: 

 

MT_Israel_Q307_Brochure.pdf 

 

 

---

 

 

MT_US_Q207_Brochure.pdf 

 

---