Should Site Selectors Look for the Regions Attracting the Rock Star Scientists? by AMY ZUCKERMAN editor bounce@conway.com W orcester, Mass., has RNA expert Craig Mello, this year's Nobel laureate in medicine. Phoenix, Ariz., has Jeffrey Trent, a noted genomics researcher. San Jose, Calif., has Guy Miller, an expert in treating "orphan" diseases and entrepreneur. Houston recently wooed Stephen Wong, a noted inventor and expert in molecular imaging, from Boston, Mass.    For many regions of the country, the race is on to attract "name" or "rock star" scientists like these who can bring with them lab partners, financing, the ability to attract other scientists of note and contacts with biotech firms and pharmaceuticals. Economic developers in these regions argue that their hot scientists set them apart from the rest of the biotech herd. The Boston Globe recently reported that "the competition for scientists has never been greater. Every university or hospital president spends significant time trying to hang onto stars and recruit new ones."    But just how key a name scientist is to maintaining a cluster and growing it over time is a matter of debate. After all, there's always a threat that your big name will be lured away to another region, points out Michael J. Donovan, who is in charge of real estate management for Boston University (BU). And experts like Matthew Hudes, managing principal of biotechnology for Deloitte & Touche USA, with an office in San Francisco, say the science is only part of the "value chain" of the biotech industry. A region that is rich in scientific research may not be geared to manufacturing when the time comes.    Even so, officials at the Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore argue that biotech growth will be in areas that are building or attracting biotech companies. And biotech firms, by necessity, follow the science. This is especially true as pharmaceutical companies evolve into marketing organizations "that are more likely to acquire biotech firms to increase their pipelines rather than set up new facilities or expand research efforts," the Alliance reported in a June presentation.    Given this key trend, site selectors should take note of what a region or community has to offer in terms of scientific research, which includes the quality of its research institutes and universities and the depth of its scientific talent pool. How a region supports its bioscience cluster financially to assist transferring the science into products backed by biotech companies will be key to their desirability as a location for biotech startups or mature companies, these experts say.    "Scientists know other players in the scientific community whether at other universities or at private companies. We call them bell cows because they can attract a herd of scientists who then have contacts and pharmaceuticals and biotech companies. It's the job of the research park to connect the scientist to industry," explained Eileen Walker, executive director of the Association of University Business Parks with an office in Tucson, Ariz.    Just as important, she says, "is how the region is connected to a research institution and ability of a research institution to work with the region. A biotech company will be seeking places where it can work with universities and establish relationships."    MaryAnn Guerra says biotech companies "are going to find the leader (in a given science) and where they're located. Having a name and reputation for clinical trials is a critical element." Guerra is both chief business officer for the Translational Genomic Institute, otherwise known as TGen, in Phoenix, and president of TGen Accelerators.    "Site selectors need to see if there is a critical mass or breadth in one area and note whether this is an area of research that's on its way in or out. Genomics is on its way in and represents big areas of growth," she said, adding this is why Phoenix lured Jeffrey Trent, Ph.D., to Phoenix from Bethesda, Md. in 2002 to help them build a genomics cluster. He was named TGen's president and scientific director.    "Once he arrived, he was able to recruit staff and key scientists who wouldn't have come without him. There was a cascading effort that provided the leadership to set up TGen," said Guerra of Trent, who was also integral to "determining the areas of science to cover, staffing, and building the grants and contracts needed to sustain the cluster."    Five years later, she said TGen – which enjoyed $100 million in initial backing from the state, the city of Phoenix and the university – was "on target with what we wanted to accomplish, which was set up a very effective research institute." The new goal is to translate Trent's and others' science into "diagnostics and therapeutic drugs" and, to date, two new biotech companies have been spun off to do that.    If Trent left tomorrow, Guerra said it would be "a huge loss. But everything wouldn't stop. He's worked to build a legacy that should be sustained," she said.    There are those who argue that the institutions and facilities are as important as a name scientist. "What's in a name?" asks Jacqueline Northcut, president and CEO of BioHouston, a non-profit organization focused on building the life science industry in the Houston region. "Everybody in the medical profession knows Michael DeBakey and Denton Cooley (pioneers in developing the artificial heart), who were affiliated with the Texas Medical Center in Houston. However, Northcut argues that it's the Texas Medical Center itself that has been as important to Houston's biotech growth. With "40-odd institutions performing academic research along with patient care," Northcut says the center is a huge grants magnet.    Even so, Houston institutions aren't above luring name scientists. Wong, who helped develop the first inkjet printer production and the online trading system at Charles Schwab, moved from industry to medicine three years ago "to do something meaningful." He is now chief of medical physics and vice chairman of radiology at Methodist Hospital and director of the bioinformatics program at the Methodist Hospital Research Institute, both in Houston. And he took most of his 20-person lab with him.    "Houston is very hot, but it has its advantages," Wong told the Globe. "It is newer with more collaboration and fewer institutional barriers. It seems they need me much more than Harvard did," he said.    Northcut says of the Wong case that the "Methodist Hospital Research Institute is new and is trying to build their cadre of scientists and researchers, and the best way to do that is to get the best in the whole globe." And the fact that Wong is a "prolific inventor" makes him even more important. "He's not necessarily going to start up new companies, but will invent things that will be the basis for new companies and new technologies and move into existing companies," she said, adding that it's crucial in the life sciences to attract a researcher with an entrepreneurial mindset.    Then there are those like Timothy McGourthy, director of economic development for the city of Worcester, Mass., who argue that building strong institutions and deep talent pools matter just as much as having a Nobel Laureate on board. Of course, Worcester now has such an individual in Dr. Craig Mello, but the city is also soon going to be the home to a new state-funded stem cell library to be located at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.    "We feel a cluster should work on building from within, growing a talent pool, rather than attracting name people. In general, it's more about the strength of the institutions than the strength of the individual. Institutions poach from each other constantly," said McGourthy.    Although Mello was recruited to UMass long before winning the top prize, Kevin O'Sullivan, president of the tax-exempt corporate Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives based in Worcester, says that Mello "is one piece of what our medical school has been striving to achieve for a long time as evidenced in the growth of local research parks. Our strategy is to build one company at a time." To date, Worcester has incubated 26 biotech companies and is seeing "a lot more contract research and boutique bio companies growing up. And more and more companies are being established coming out of pharmaceuticals that can complement and service the large pharmas coming into the state," Sullivan added.    Susan Houston in nearby Wellesley, Mass. is also an advocate of building a deep talent pool. Executive director of the Massachusetts Alliance for Economic Development – a non-profit partnership of business, industry and government dedicated to promoting business statewide – she cites many examples of leading pharmaceuticals locating near Boston-area research institutions, including DSM/Crucell, Avant Immunotherapeutics and Merck & Co. "Novartis is an interesting example because it moved its research facilities several years ago to Cambridge from Basil, Switzerland. They said they had to be here because of proximity to scientists at Harvard Medical School and MIT," according to Houston.    And Melinda Richter, executive director of the San Jose, Calif.-based BioCenter agrees with those who say "it's not so much the celebrity scientists that matter, but attracting quality scientists who develop companies" and then providing them top-flight facilities. The BioCenter is a research technology park/incubator for emerging life science companies.    "In San Jose, we went from a real medical device to a full life science community because we did attract a few well-known scientists who attracted companies here. Success breeds success," said Richter.    In particular, San Jose was able to attract Miller, an M.D. and Ph.D. who was well known at Stanford for his interest in treating so-called "orphan" diseases, or those for which there are no therapies and which rarely earn the attention of big pharmas. After forming Gallileo Pharmaceutical, he was able to raise $100 million and develop Edison Pharmaceutcials Inc., which he located in San Jose a couple of years ago.    Miller's move has certainly given the BioCenter a boost, says Richter. The center boasts 25 companies since opening in August 2004. But she feels it's the top-notch, modern facility that is the draw as much as people like Miller. "We have a pretty comprehensive solution for companies in the way universities help their scientists. This is a very familiar, high-quality environment."    Of course, the funding has to be there, as Florida is discovering. Despite the influx of some of the world's top research institutes, the state is scrambling to raise $250 million to boost growth of its biotech sector, according to the Website "FierceBiotech."    "You have to get them adequate funding upfront so they know they can establish laboratories with state-of-the-art equipment, they can afford to bring in post-docs, and they can also have funding for their research projects. It's all about creating a good, supportive atmosphere," agreed Barry Teater, head of P.R. for the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, a private, non-profit charged with developing the state's biotech industry.    If North Carolina is ranked third in the country for biotech by Ernst & Young – with 400 biosciences companies mainly in the Research Triangle area – Teater says it's because the region has provided the wherewithal to attract best-in-field scientists. His center provides a grants program to universities "to help them recruit the best life scientists." At least 50 have been recruited so far, he said.    Although superstar scientists can and do play a role in elevating particular regions to biotech prominence, BU's Donovan says "the reality is often less glamorous." There's always the need for capital, support, excellent facilities and a deep talent pool."    Hudes advises site selectors, when aiding clients with a biotech location, to "pay attention to what's most important in the value chain of the company and their long-term success. It isn't only about launching a company, but being able to sustain it."