Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry

pwc.com/healthindustries
pwc.com/pharma

Super
Cluster
Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping
the global impact of the Massachusetts
life sciences industry
Volume II
June 2008

About the New England Healthcare Institute
The New England Healthcare Institute (NEHI) is a nonprofit, health policy institute focused
on enabling innovation that will improve health care quality and lower health care costs.
Working in partnership with members from across the health care system, NEHI brings an
objective, collaborative and fresh voice to health policy. We combine the collective vision
of our diverse membership and our independent, evidence-based research to move ideas
into action. www.nehi.net
About the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative is the state’s development agency for
renewable energy and the innovation economy. It works to stimulate economic activity in
communities throughout the Commonwealth by bringing together leaders from industry,
academia, and government to advance technology-based solutions that lead to economic
growth and a cleaner environment in Massachusetts. www.masstech.org
About the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center
The Massachusetts Life Sciences Center is a quasi-public entity created by the legislature
in 2006 to promote the life sciences within Massachusetts. The Center is at the heart of the
state’s $1 billion life sciences initiative. The Center is fast becoming the hub for connecting
all sectors of the life sciences community—encouraging unprecedented public-private
collaboration among industry, research, academia, and government. The Center is
making strategic investments in our life sciences workforce and in translational research
at critical stages of the development cycle. These investments will foster and grow
the Massachusetts life sciences enterprise, cultivating innovation at institutions whose
research, development, and commercialization of therapies, products, and cures hold great
promise for improving and saving lives. www.masslifesciences.com
About PricewaterhouseCoopers Health Industries
PricewaterhouseCoopers Health Industries serves as a catalyst for change and the leading
advisor to organizations across the health continuum, including payers, providers, health
sciences, biotech, medical device, pharmaceutical, and instrumentation companies, and
employer practices in the public, private, and academic sectors. With a distinctive approach
that is collaborative, multidisciplinary, and multi-industry, PricewaterhouseCoopers draws
from its broad perspective and capabilities across and beyond the health industries to help
solve the array of emerging complex problems health organizations face, lead cultural and
clinical transformation, and create a new, sustainable model for care delivery that is quality
driven, patient centered, and technology enabled. www.pwc.com/healthindustries
Disclaimer: PricewaterhouseCoopers has exercised professional care and diligence in
the collection and processing of the information in this report. However, the data used
in the preparation of this report (and on which the report is based) was provided by
third-party sources. This report is intended to be of general interest only and does not
constitute professional advice. PricewaterhouseCoopers makes no representations or
warranties with respect to the accuracy of this report. PricewaterhouseCoopers shall
not be liable to any user of this report or to any other person or entity for any inaccu-
racy of information contained in this report or for any errors or omissions in its content,
regardless of the cause of such inaccuracy, error or omission. Furthermore, to the
extent permitted by law, PricewaterhouseCoopers, its members, employees and
agents accept no liability and disclaim all responsibility for the consequences of you or
anyone else acting, or refraining from acting, in relying upon the information contained
in this report or for any decision based on it, or for any consequential, special, incidental
or punitive damages to any person or entity for any matter relating to this report even if
advised of the possibility of such damages.
The member firms of the PricewaterhouseCoopers network (www.pwc.com) provide
industry-focused assurance, tax and advisory services to build public trust and
enhance value for its clients and their stakeholders. More than 130,000 people in 148
countries share their thinking, experience and solutions to develop fresh perspectives
and practical advice.
Photos of Raju Kucherlapati, Christoph Westphal, Phillip Sharp, Deborah Dunsire:
Peter Vanderwarker Photographs © 2008
This document was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the
purpose of avoiding U.S. federal, state or local tax penalties.
© 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. PricewaterhouseCoopers’
refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or, as the context requires,
PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other member firms of the network, each
of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
PricewaterhouseCoopers shall not be liable to any other user of this report or to
any other person or entity for any inaccuracy of this information or any errors or
omissions in its content, regardless of the cause of such inaccuracy, error, or omission.
Furthermore, in no event shall PricewaterhouseCoopers be liable for consequential,
incidental, or punitive damages to any person or entity for any matter relating to this
information. This report is provided for informational purposes only and does not
constitute the provision of tax, accounting, legal, or other professional advice.
BS-BS-08-0701-A.0608.DvL
Introduction by
Governor Patrick

June 2008

Dear fellow citizens of Massachusetts,

The past year has been an eventful and exciting one for the
Massachusetts life sciences super cluster. Since our life sciences
initiative announcement at the BIO International 2007 Convention in
Boston, the Legislature has made significant progress towards passing
a comprehensive $1 billion life sciences law. Important discoveries
have been made at our world-class medical and research institutions
in a range of areas from cancer to HIV, which will result in life-saving
treatments and cures and save millions of lives. Companies are
continuing to come and grow in our Commonwealth, creating new jobs.

This is just the beginning. I now look forward to advancing key

programs that will enable the life sciences industry sectors to continue
flourishing in the Commonwealth. From stem cell research, biomedical
device manufacturing, and pharmaceutical development, the
investments being made by the state and through the Massachusetts
Life Sciences Center are providing real support for Massachusetts’
emerging technologies and innovations.

And our perspective is a global one. Last December, I went to China to

develop and strengthen partnerships to connect our life sciences super
cluster to this important and growing region. We had the opportunity
to see first-hand how the life sciences industry is exploding overseas,
and to create our own global collaborations. Today, we remain actively
engaged in China and other key emerging international economies,
understanding that the impact and scope of our work necessarily
moves beyond the border of our state and of our country.

Together we will develop a lasting legacy for the economy and citizens
of the Commonwealth. The products of this legacy will include health
care advancements around the world for generations to come. With
focus and discipline, we will grow and protect our position as a
global leader in the life sciences. We will strengthen our role as the
international hub of healing.

Sincerely,

Governor Deval Patrick

Contents
01 Executive Summary
02 Introduction letter by PricewaterhouseCoopers
03 Introduction letter by the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center

04 Defining the Massachusetts biomedical industry

08 Perspective: Massachusetts life sciences—locally linked, globally connected
09 Perspective: Strategic economic development built upon international collaborations

10 Technology and entrepreneur development

11 Public funding
13 Perspective: Ushering in a new age of biomedical research
16 Perspective: Crossing the bridge from academia to industry—technology transfer in biotechnology
17 Perspective: The role of state government in promoting innovative research
in the life sciences that can lead to new medical treatments
18 Interview: Raju Kucherlapati
20 Perspective: The role of entrepreneurship in building a biotech cluster
21 Perspective: Projecting tactics and message—promoting startup companies as an economic,
scientific, and healthcare engine for continued growth in central Massachusetts

22 Early stage company development

23 Perspective: Accelerating academic research to solve real problems—a story
of academic innovation and the translation of ideas to impact
26 Interview: Phillip A. Sharp
28 Private financing
32 Perspective: Capital formation
33 Perspective: A model for utilizing Massachusetts’ resources to create the next generation of life sciences companies
34 Perspective: Fostering medical device entrepreneurship
35 Perspective: A statewide effort to accelerate the pace of creating life sciences companies in Massachusetts
36 Perspective: Gateway to growth and the global market
37 Perspective: Incubating innovation at Tufts Veterinary School

38 Employment
39 Introduction and industry overview
43 Perspective: Inspiring the next generation of life sciences innovators
44 Perspective: Life sciences talent leadership
46 Perspective: The importance of training minorities
47 Perspective: The Massachusetts Life Sciences Talent Initiative

48 Maturing companies
49 Perspective: Bay State’s super cluster provides optimal ecosystem for innovation
50 Interview: Christoph Westphal
52 Perspective: Covering all the bases: biopharmaceuticals and Boston
53 Perspective: Innovative medicines based on a breakthrough discovery

54 Clinical trials
55 Perspective: Global opportunities for clinical trials
57 Perspective: Initiatives in clinical research to provide quality care to patients
58 Perspective: Translating research results into clinical therapies
59 Perspective: Synergistic drug combinations for treating serious diseases

60 Biomedical manufacturing
62 Perspective: Global growth
63 Perspective: Massachusetts’ manufacturing strategy

64 Global companies
65 Perspective: BI3—a new model for transforming discovery into therapeutics
66 Perspective: Lessons learned—our transformation from R&D to a commercial enterprise
68 Perspective: From Chinatown to China, Genzyme’s commitment to patients motivates its global development
70 Interview: Deborah Dunsire

72 Looking forward
76 Conclusions by the New England Healthcare Institute and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative

77 Methodology and sources

Executive summary

In the cosmos, gravity holds together super clusters, the

massive structures of unimaginable size composed of
clusters of galaxies, themselves made up of billions of stars
and planets.

In Massachusetts, it is the leading institutions in academia

and business that comprise a super cluster focused on curing
disease and improving living conditions around the world. And
it is innovation, not gravity, which binds this group together.

The Massachusetts life sciences super cluster is one of largest,

best known and most established centers for biotechnology
and medical device research and development in the world.
The super cluster encompasses the universities, hospitals, and
companies directly involved in the life sciences, and a cadre of
well educated, well financed investors. It also involves a large
public and commercial effort to support those enterprises.

This life sciences super cluster represents a vital, growing

economic foundation for the Commonwealth, a heritage of
innovation, and an ability to converge ideas, imagination,
resources, and capital. Because of the groundbreaking work
that has emanated from the super cluster, Massachusetts is
recognized as around the world as a leader in discovering
treatments and cures for the infectious and chronic diseases
that afflict society.
Even though the federal government continues to invest
heavily in life sciences research in Massachusetts, National
Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has stagnated in recent years.
• The Commonwealth received $2.2 billion in NIH funding in
2006. This figure has remained virtually the same since 2003,
while inflation has risen and research costs have increased.
• This flatline funding trend may dishearten an entire
generation of Massachusetts scientists. It may also
discourage researchers from tackling society’s most
difficult medical problems, pushing them instead toward
conservative proposals that will be easier to fund.
• The Commonwealth received $313 per capita in NIH funds
in 2006, more than any other state or district. While this
highlights Massachusetts’ relative strength in winning
grants, it also underlies the importance of NIH funding to
the future state of its research capabilities.
Private investment in Massachusetts-based life sciences com-
panies has grown 66 percent, to $1.3 billion, in the past 5 years.
• Biotechnology companies received 72 percent of venture
capital funding in 2007, and medical device companies
received nearly all of the remainder.
• PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy survey participants
ranked Massachusetts venture capitalists highly on their
life science expertise and connections, but gave them poor
marks on their willingness to fund radically new ideas.
The Commonwealth’s life sciences industry boasts a growing,
innovative, entrepreneurial work force. As competition heats
up around the world, one of Massachusetts’ most daunting
challenges will be to produce the next generation of scientists,
researchers, entrepreneurs, and leaders.
• The life sciences work force, representing 77,247
employees, grew 8 percent between 2001 and 2006. In
comparison, the entire Massachusetts work force shrunk by
2.5 percent during this period.
• Confidence runs high in Massachusetts, as two-thirds of
survey respondents said they want to work for startup
companies in their next position, and 70 percent said they
believed they would find a position of equal or better stature
in the super cluster if they lost their job.
• Lifestyle issues are more likely to lure life sciences workers
away from the Massachusetts super cluster than pay or
commute times, according to survey results.
Executive summary
• Industry leaders say Massachusetts must create more
workers by inspiring local children to pursue careers
in life sciences. Business, education, and government
officials must expose students to the world of work in the
life sciences by expanding internship and cooperative
education programs.
Globalization represents Massachusetts’ life sciences
industry’s greatest challenge, and its biggest opportunity.
Industry and government leaders must work to ensure that
the super cluster becomes the preeminent hub for global life
sciences research and collaboration.
• Massachusetts-based companies are already discovering
ways to tap foreign markets for sales, clinical trials, and
biomedical manufacturing.
• Massachusetts hosts a large number of clinical trials
compared to states with a larger population. As life
sciences continues to evolve into a global enterprise,
pharmaceutical companies may shift more clinical trials
outside the United States, especially to counties and cities
with trained professionals, established healthcare systems,
and lower research costs.
• Executives considering to open or expand biomedical
manufacturing facilities in Massachusetts must weigh the
Commonwealth’s research and technical prowess against high
wages, burdensome permitting procedures, and high taxes.
• Researchers and companies around the world look to
Massachusetts for groundbreaking ideas and products. Two
of the Commonwealth’s biggest life sciences acquisitions in
the last 12 months involved foreign companies.
This report looks at how Massachusetts’ biomedical
practitioners are using the super cluster’s resources to
transform the life sciences industries and the practice of
healthcare. It begins in the lab, where federal funds often play a
critical role, and progresses to a worldwide perspective. Along
the way, some of the super cluster’s most notable leaders—
including a Nobel Prize winner, chief executive officers, venture
capitalists, and academic and government officials—share their
perspectives on the region’s growth and its impact in the global
marketplace. The report is designed to help the life sciences
industry assess its strengths and weaknesses at a time of
mounting challenges, rising needs, and bountiful opportunities.1
1
This report contains articles, titled “Perspective” and “Interview,” from
and about individuals in the Massachusetts’ life sciences industry. These
articles do not represent the views of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
•1
Introduction by
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Massachusetts remains a worldwide leader in healthcare. With the world’s largest
concentration of life sciences firms, researchers, and academic medical centers, this is
the place where scientists discover new therapies, improve diagnostic methods, and
create better analytical instruments. It’s where entrepreneurs grow new businesses and
policymakers work to find innovative new solutions to issues such as insurance.

However, competition for talent and funding is rising—not only from other states, but
from around the world.

Globalization is one of Massachusetts’ biggest threats, but also one of its greatest
opportunities. Our super cluster can evolve into the premier international hub for ideas
and cooperation.

Industry and government leaders must continue to collaborate if Massachusetts is to

remain a global leader. The past is not a guarantee of future success. Strengthening the
ties that unite our different communities and interests into a common super cluster will
help this state preserve its role as a national and global leader in the life sciences industry.

PricewaterhouseCoopers is committed to the economic vitality of Massachusetts, the

growth of the life sciences industry, the future of medicine, and the sustainability of our
nation’s healthcare system. As one of the largest advisors to Massachusetts-based
organizations in the health sector—biotech firms, pharmaceutical companies, medical
device and instrumentation firms, academic medical centers, providers, payers,
employers and policymakers—we have a distinctive, broad view of industry challenges
and opportunities.

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Industries Practice has been active in helping the

industry reach its potential. We presented the Massachusetts Life Science Caucus,
published Pharma 2020, and hosted the Healthcare 180° conference.

We have brought our experience to this updated report, Super Cluster II. We are
honored to again team with Massachusetts Technology Collaborative and the New
England Healthcare Institute, and we are very pleased to be joined by a new partner,
the Massachusetts Life Sciences.

Super Cluster II brings together economic analysis, robust survey results, and unique
perspectives from local industry leaders. We may discover that the world is indeed
getting smaller, flatter, and more competitive, but we believe Massachusetts has the
distinct and inimitable assets to remain the worldwide leader.

Sincerely,

James M. Connolly Gerald J. McDougall

Partner, Health Industries Partner, Health Industries
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Introduction by the Massachusetts
Life Sciences Center
There has not been a more thrilling moment in history for the Massachusetts life
sciences super cluster. Since Governor Deval Patrick announced the $1 billion Life
Sciences Initiative just over a year ago, the Legislature has led us to the threshold of a
new law that will commit an unprecedented level of state funding for these important
economic sectors. Significant investments in infrastructure will increase the supply
of necessary lab space and equipment. New tax incentives will enable established
companies to grow here and encourage new companies to come here. Obtainable
funding for research grants and workforce development programs will provide essential
resources at a time when NIH funding is flat and there is a critical need to grow the
pipeline of talent that supports the life sciences.

The Massachusetts Life Sciences Center was created by the Legislature in 2006 to
promote the life sciences throughout Massachusetts and already is making progress.
Now, the pending life sciences bill promises to further propel the Center towards
becoming the nucleus for public-private collaboration among our academic, research
and industry partners.

Having spent the last 35 years working in the life sciences and healthcare sectors, I am
proud to be the new President and CEO of the Center and look forward to contributing
to our next exciting chapter in life sciences.

Our Research Matching Grant program, one of our primary initiatives, was launched in
February 2008. With support from the John Adams Innovation Institute, this program
will fund up to $12 million for translational research in Massachusetts, providing vital
support for young investigators, new faculty, and cooperative research. Grants will be
awarded this summer through a competitive peer-review process based on scientific
merit and economic development impact and under the guidance of our expert
Scientific Advisory Board.

A second major initiative is our funding approval for a Stem Cell Registry and Stem Cell
Bank, both to be located at the UMass Medical School. The web-based Stem Cell Registry
will be a comprehensive and extensively documented international human embryonic
stem cell (hESC) registry, providing the public with access to important documentation
relative to hESC lines. The Stem Cell Bank will serve as a repository of hESC lines that
are derived in research institutions throughout the Commonwealth and beyond.

A third initiative underway is our Life Sciences Talent Initiative. In partnership with
the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, we have commissioned research through
UMass’s Donahue Institute to better understand the current and future trends of
our world-renowned life sciences work force. We will continue to work closely with
academia, industry, and government to develop synergies between the needs of our
employers and those of our talent pool.

Through continued collaboration with our partners, and empowered by the passage of
the life sciences bill, the Center will build on this momentum to expand life sciences
research, promote economic growth, and improve health outcomes for our patients. We
are well on our way to solidifying Massachusetts’ position as the global leader in the life
sciences. Let’s keep going.

Sincerely,

Susan Windham-Bannister
Incoming president and CEO of the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center
•3
Defining the Massachusetts
biomedical industry
From the Massachusetts laboratory to
the global marketplace
The life sciences industry propels Massachusetts’ economy
and sets the Commonwealth apart from many other states
in the country. The discoveries made in Massachusetts
laboratories and realized, commercialized, and manufactured
by Massachusetts businesses save countless lives around
the world.
State leaders recognize the industry’s massive contribution to
scientific research, economic growth, quality of life, and job
creation, and have responded with the Commonwealth’s life
sciences initiative, a billion-dollar investment in Massachusetts
biotechnology programs and enterprises over the next 10 years.
Around the globe, markets are opening up and patients
are becoming more exposed to the medical breakthroughs
and products that Massachusetts companies have to offer.
This growing demand has enticed a number of multinational
companies to acquire or merge with promising, innovative
Massachusetts life science companies to feed pipelines and
search for solutions to unmet medical needs.
As a leader in the life sciences by many measures, and with
its history as a center of both education and innovation,
the Commonwealth’s competitive advantages cannot be
replicated overnight. Being complacent with its past success
is not an option, however. Competition from other states and
countries compels the industry and government to work to
ensure Massachusetts’ future success in the life sciences.
This report begins by showing how Massachusetts became a
leader in the life sciences. It then highlights the efforts of local
researchers, entrepreneurs, financiers, and executives involved
in global life sciences efforts, and their thoughts about
the biomedical industry’s strengths and challenges in the
Commonwealth. The report also looks at industry’s inputs—a
steady stream of public and private funding, and an educated
work force—and its outputs—research, development, and the
manufacture of innovative biomedical products. The economic
analysis reveals trends related to employment, wages, and
public funding.
2
This report contains articles, titled “Perspective” and “Interview,” from
and about individuals in the Massachusetts’ life sciences industry. These
articles do not represent the views of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
This report draws on economic research and the 2008
PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Massachusetts Life
Sciences Super Cluster Survey. More than 140 people from all
sectors of the life sciences industry participated, addressing
the compelling features that make this region rewarding to life
science practitioners, articulating opportunities to enhance the
community and describing threats that need to be addressed.
Woven into the report are perspectives from key practitioners
in the life sciences industry in Massachusetts, focusing on
the global implications of the work being performed in the
Commonwealth.2 Massachusetts has developed a competitive
advantage in life sciences since the seventeenth century.
This advantage is the result of a tradition of innovation
combined with clustering, a practice in which inter-related
organizations collaborate, share infrastructure, and form
synergies in geographically concentrated areas. The concept
of clustering, which was first described in academic terms
by Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School, brings
benefits to the organizations and communities involved, such
as access to innovation and ease of collaboration. Clusters
attract the best and brightest workers, who are drawn to a
cluster’s vibrant, collaborative atmosphere and opportunities
for career advancement.
Figure 1. How important is it to you to be working inside
the Massachusetts super cluster, in close proximity to
other life sciences firms and supporting industries?
4% Important
Somewhat
important
Not important
25%
71%
Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Massachusetts Life Sciences
Super Cluster Survey

In astronomy, a super cluster is a large grouping of smaller
galaxy groups and clusters. Super clusters are among the
largest structures in the cosmos, an apt analogy for the
Commonwealth’s life sciences industry. The Massachusetts
life sciences super cluster includes:
• The activities of universities, teaching hospitals and
research institutions
• Biotechnology, medical device, pharmaceutical, and
diagnostic and instrumentation companies
• Software, venture capital, trade councils and associations
• Specialized business services companies that contribute to
the growth and vitality of the life sciences
The core of the cluster is in the Boston-Cambridge area, which
houses some of the country’s most prestigious institutions
of higher learning. As the cluster has grown over the years,
this core has spread across much of Massachusetts, with
burgeoning anchors emerging around Worcester and operations
in Framingham, Natick, Foxboro, Fall River, and Devens.
Defining the Massachusetts biomedical industry
Table 1. Life sciences-related organizations in the
Longwood Medical area
Hospitals and health centers
Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Dana-Farber Cancer Center
Children’s Hospital Boston
Joslin Diabetes Center
Massachusetts Mental Health Center
Schools
Harvard University Medical School
Harvard University School of Public Health
Harvard School of Dental Medicine
Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
Simmons School for Health Sciences
Commercial organizations
Merck Research Laboratories
CBR Institute for Biomedical Research, Inc.
The seeds of the Massachusetts life sciences cluster were
sown with the founding of Harvard University in 1640 and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1865. On each side
of the Charles River sit two of the key centers of the cluster:
Kendall Square in Cambridge and Longwood Medical Area
(LMA) in Boston. The two centers are less than three miles
apart, and they house institutions that lay claim to some of the
oldest, as well as some of the most recent scientific discoveries
in the fields of medicine. LMA represents the cutting edge of
medicine, while Kendall Square represents the laboratories and
discoveries of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.
LMA, a one-third square mile section of Boston, grew up
around Harvard Medical School, which purchased 26 acres
of nearby property in 1906 and built a quadrangle of five
buildings on Longwood Avenue. Harvard sold some of the
remaining property to other hospitals, to ensure that Harvard
students could benefit from collaboration, and this section
of the cluster was born. Today, LMA is home to more than a
dozen life sciences organizations, with several rated among
the top five in the US in their respective fields.
•5
Kendall Square’s birth as a life sciences hub began in 1915,
when MIT moved its campus to the area. After molecular Figure 3. Does your institution have significant
biology breakthroughs in the 1940s and 1950s, MIT collaborations with institutions outside of the
converted a factory into Technology Square in the 1960s. The Massachusetts super cluster?
following decades saw top research organizations and top
Yes
biotechnology firms such as Genzyme and Biogen Idec plant
roots in the area. Large pharmaceutical companies, such as No
Novartis, were also drawn to the area for research capabilities
and opportunities for collaborations. Today, there are over 150 19%
life sciences companies in this area.

As science and medicine has grown and evolved, so has the

life sciences cluster. While the original Boston–Cambridge
core remains strong, more recent mini-clusters have been
created north, west, and south of Boston. Dating back to the 81%
early twentieth century with stories of innovation, the timeline
in Figure 5 provides a summary of some of the important
discoveries and milestones of the cluster, and how it has
spread throughout Massachusetts.

The cluster’s impact and reach continues to expand beyond

Massachusetts. Collaboration, particularly international Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Massachusetts Life
Sciences Super Cluster Survey
collaboration, is crucial in a world where integration
of disciplines is important for the development of new
clinical practices and biomedical products. Respondents
from the survey reported that approximately 80 percent Figure 4. What factor most strongly motivates your
of their institutions have working relationships outside participation in the life sciences?
the Massachusetts super cluster, many with commercial
importance. Despite this, the survey showed a lack of funding Intellectual
stimulation
for these efforts remains a significant barrier. More focus and 10% A desire
funding are needed to foster international collaboration and to improve
expand the super cluster’s influence around the world. healthcare
14% Money
Other
Figure 2. Sum of net revenue of top 25 public life sciences 45%
companies in Massachusetts
($ Millions)

$35,000
31%
$30,000 2007

$25,000

$20,000 2006
2005 Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Massachusetts Life
$15,000 Sciences Super Cluster Survey
2004
$10,000 2003
2002
$5,000

Source: Boston Globe Top 25 Life Sciences as of April 7th, 2008

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
 Figure 5. Life sciences innovation timeline

1914—Theodore Williams of Harvard University was the first of more than

30 Massachusetts scientists to win a Nobel Prize.

1926—William T. Bovie, a Harvard physicist working at Brigham &

Women’s Hospital, conducted research that resulted in the creation
of an electrosurgical knife, used to treat tumors that previously were
considered inoperable.

1938—Cardiac surgery is elevated to a new level with the first successful

congenital cardiovascular defect surgically corrected by Dr. Robert
Gross at Children’s Hospital.

1952—Paul Zoll of Beth Israel Hospital was the first to succeed in using
electrical stimulation to restart a patient’s heart, and the pacemaker
was born. More than half a century later, Zoll Medical Corporation
is still a leader in resuscitation devices.

1962—James Watson of Harvard shared a Nobel Prize with Francis Crick

and Maurice Wilkins, for the discovery of the double helix, the
molecular structure of DNA.

1962—University of Massachusetts Medical Center in Worcester was found-

ed, helping to create a second anchor of the cluster in Massachusetts.

1978—Walter Gilbert of Harvard and Phillip Sharp of MIT helped found

Biogen, the first of Massachusetts’ biopharmaceutical companies,
to focus on human gene research to improve healthcare. Both men
went on to receive Nobel Prizes.

1979—Indicative of the life sciences cluster spreading from its original

base, Boston Scientific, is formed. With a market capitalization
of over $23 billion, the company is now the largest life sciences
company in the state.

1985—Genzyme Corporation had its first drug, Ceradase, approved to

treat Gaucher disease, an extremely rare condition afflicting less
than 10,000 people world-wide.

1986—Researchers at the Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary isolated the

first human cancer gene.

1988—Building on the early research in genomics, molecular geneti-

cists at Harvard received the first U.S. patent for a genetically
altered mouse.

1996—Wyeth Pharmaceuticals acquired Genetics Institute, becoming

the first large pharmaceutical company to establish significant
manufacturing operations in Massachusetts.

1999—The sequencing of the human genome is completed, due in large

part to the Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research.

2002—Novartis establishes operations in Massachusetts, illustrating

a trend of traditional pharmaceuticals setting up operations in
the state.

2003—The Broad Institute, a research collaboration among Whitehead

Institute, MIT and Harvard University, was founded, where genom-
ics research continues to flourish.

2006—Craig Mello, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center

shared the Nobel Prize with Andrew Fire for their discovery of RNA
interference, which paved the way for future medical advances.

2007—Governer Deval Patrick announces $1 billion Life Sciences Initiative.

2008—David H. Koch Institute of Integrative Cancer Research ground-breaking.

Defining the Massachusetts biomedical industry •7

Perspective
Massachusetts life sciences—locally
linked, globally connected
By Christian Ketels
Does it make sense to focus on strengthening local
linkages when competition in life sciences is so clearly
global? The experience of the Massachusetts life sciences
super cluster gives a resoundingly positive answer: local
linkages and global connections are complements, not
substitutes. But the Massachusetts experience also
indicates that more can be done to square the local with
the global to the benefit of the cluster.
Stronger local linkages make a cluster not only more
competitive, but more attractive. The Massachusetts life
sciences super cluster has attracted numerous researchers
and companies from other parts of the US and abroad.
They have benefited from what they found here. More
importantly, they have made a significant contribution to
the cluster’s success. Without them, the cluster would not
be what it is today.
The experience of many clusters suggests, however, not
all the necessary capabilities can be attracted. That’s why
strong local linkages need to be supplemented by well
developed global connections: clusters become stronger
if they have well established ties to clusters elsewhere that
provide complementary functions. Some of these other
clusters might be in the neighborhood—for example, in
other parts of New England where manufacturing can
be done more efficiently. Others might be far away—for
example, in clusters where later stage clinical tests can be
done more efficiently or where particular research strengths
add to Massachusetts’ capabilities. Identifying and building
bridges to the right partners is a new role that cluster
initiatives are starting to play.
8•
Christian Ketels
Harvard Business School
The impact of globalization does not stop there. Competing
internationally might look like a game where everybody is
running the same race. Collaborating internationally shows
that, in fact, success is about defining your own race. To
be an attractive partner and find the right collaborators
elsewhere, you need to know what specific value you
provide. Companies have learned this lesson; it is now
increasingly also heard in clusters.
The Massachusetts life sciences super cluster is in the
enviable position of having strong local linkages as well
as many global connections. The initiatives in the cluster
have so far focused on strengthening the local linkages
and marketing it to a national and international audience.
It might now be the time to complement these efforts by
building targeted partnerships with other clusters, based
on a clear understanding of where the Massachusetts
cluster aims to position itself. Far from being a sign of
weakness, this can help the cluster focus on what it does
best: combine the skills and capabilities of many partners
to deliver world-class results.
Christian Ketels is a member of the Harvard
Business School faculty at the Institute for Strategy
and Competitiveness.
Perspective
Strategic economic
development built upon
international collaborations
By Christa Bleyleben
Succeeding in today’s biotechnology industry requires
strategic global reach to access ideas, scientific
collaborators, manufacturing expertise, and markets. As
the official Commonwealth agency focused on international
relations, the Massachusetts Office of International Trade
and Investment (MOITI) helps those from outside the region
access our rich life sciences super cluster, and assists our
local organizations in reaching out to the world.
MOITI administers all of Massachusetts’ international
agreements, from cultural to economic, and places special
emphasis on fostering life sciences research and commercial
collaborations. As part of Massachusetts’ Business
Resource Team, we can also help provide access to the
Commonwealth’s many life science incentive programs.
Many of the world’s leading life sciences companies are
located in Massachusetts. More than 50 nations maintain
consulates here, and numerous foreign trade organizations
have a presence in the state. Massachusetts’ super cluster is
positioned to connect the world of life sciences in many ways:
• Cross border collaboration: Our industry, academia,
and institutions reach far beyond the state for partners.
For example:
—The University of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts
Technology Transfer Center and Tsinghua
Hebei-Langfang Institute have established the
Massachusetts Technology Transfer Base in Hebei.
—Massachusetts is the US gateway for the European
Union’s Transbio project, which actively facilitates
biotechnology transnational technology transfers
among six European Union regions and North America.
—Massachusetts and the Lombardy province in Italy
are collaborating on developing international clinical
trial capabilities and are bringing metabolic disease
researchers together from our regions.
Defining the Massachusetts biomedical industry
Christa Bleyleben
MOITI
• International physical presence: Massachusetts
organizations have facilities throughout the globe. MOITI
itself has locations in Europe, Latin America, and China.
• Participation in world life science forums: our
researchers participate in countless scientific
conferences and our companies are found in nearly
every trade show. The recent trade mission to China by
Governor Deval Patrick with leaders of our companies
and universities demonstrates our interest in engaging
everyone in life sciences. MOITI helps our local
companies participate in trade shows such as the major
medical device conventions of MEDICA in Germany,
Arab Health in Dubai, and CMEF in China.
• Access to investment capital: Massachusetts contains
a vibrant native financial and venture capital community.
In addition many European, Pacific Rim, West Coast,
and New York investment firms maintain offices
in Massachusetts.
Massachusetts’ super cluster has a history of welcoming
ideas and working with the best talent from around the
globe. This heritage inspires MOITI to practice a new
style of economic development: one that is driven by
collaboration rather than competition. This win-win
economic development philosophy is evidenced by
Massachusetts’ creative programs that help companies
work together across national boundaries to develop
products that benefit everyone—actions that go far beyond
traditional government incentives.
Massachusetts is a strategic gateway into the US
life sciences community of researchers, companies,
and investors.
Christa Bleyleben is executive director of the Massachu-
setts Office of International Trade and Investment.
•9
Technology
and entrepreneur
development

The federal government is not just an important partner

for Massachusetts’ life sciences industry. It is also an
instrumental investor.

Grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

provide the funding for studies and laboratory research
that lead to new medical breakthroughs—which, in turn,
spur new jobs and economic growth for the region.
Small Business Administration (SBA) programs help
small companies compete effectively and bring new
technologies to market.
Public funding

NIH Funding Figure 6. 2006 NIH funding per capita

How much NIH funding does Massachusetts receive?

Massachusetts $343
The NIH, the primary federal agency that funds health and
Washington, DC $316
biotech research, gave $2.2 billion in grants, fellowships, and
research contracts to Massachusetts-based organizations in Maryland $178
2006, a 29.4 percent increase from five years ago.
Rhode Island $123
There are two ways to compare Massachusetts against other Connecticut $129
states for NIH funding. In terms of absolute dollars, the Com-
Washington $128
monwealth was number two in 2006, ranking behind California
but ahead of New York , Pennsylvania, and Texas, as illustrated Pennsylvania $112
in Table 2. These five states each received over $1 billion in
Vermont $102
NIH funds.
North Carolina $105

Table 2. Top ten NIH grantee states—fiscal year 2006 New York $98

($ millions)
Rank & State Amount of funding received Source: National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research
1. California $3,143
2. Massachusetts $2,204
3. New York $1,898 Figure 7. NIH funding for Massachusetts
4. Pennsylvania $1,392
5. Texas $1,077
6. Maryland $999 2006 $2,204

7. North Carolina $933 2005 $2,273

8. Washington $813 2004 $2,264
9. Illinois $694
2003 $2,207
10. Ohio $627
Source: National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research 2002 $1,872

2001 $1,714

Compared on a per capita basis, Massachusetts was number 2000 $1,536

one in NIH funding in 2006. Figure 6 shows that the District 1999 $1,356
of Columbia received the second highest level of funding,
followed by Maryland, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. 1998 $1,177 ($ millions)

NIH funding has stagnated nationally in recent years; as

illustrated in Figure 7, Massachusetts has not been immune to Source: National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research
this issue.

Technology and entrepreneur development • 11

Where do the NIH funds come from? Table 4. Fifteen largest NIH grantee institutions in
Massachusetts, fiscal year 2006
Out of the 27 different agencies that make up the NIH, the
National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases was the ($ millions)
most active in Massachusetts in 2006, funding $388 million in Rank Award
research, as shown in Table 3. The National Cancer Institute 1. Massachusetts General Hospital $301
funded $335 million; the National Heart, Lung and Blood 2. Brigham and Women's Hospital $241
Institute funded $268 million; and the National Institute of 3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology $184
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disorders funded $181 4. Harvard University (Medical School) $166
million. These four institutes represented the largest sources
5. Boston University Medical Campus $129
of NIH funding in 2006, accounting for about half of the $2.2
6. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center $129
billion Massachusetts researchers competed successfully to
win that year. 7. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute $128
8. Harvard University (School of Public Health) $116
9. University of Massachusetts Medical school, Worcester $109
Table 3. Massachusetts’ share of NIH funding
10. Children's Hospital Boston $92
by funding institute, 2006
11. Tufts University Boston $66
($ millions) % MA
Institute MA amount share 12. Boston University $50
National Institute of Allergy and $388 18% 13. New England Medical Center Hospitals $47
Infectious Diseases 14. Harvard University $44
National Cancer Institute $335 15% 15. Boston Medical Center $41
National Heart, Lung, and Blood $268 12% Source: National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research
Institute
National Institute of Diabetes and $181 8%
Digestive and Kidney Disorders Research grants represented the lion’s share of NIH funding
National Institute of General $179 8% in Massachusetts in 2006: the agency awarded 4,467
Medical Sciences such grants. The remaining funds went to 342 fellowship
National Institute of Neurological $133 6% grants, 188 training grants, 3 construction grants and 12
Disorders and Stroke other awards.
National Human Genome $97 4%
Research Institute Recent trends suggest researchers, especially young
researchers, are having a difficult time securing NIH grants—
National Institute on Aging $90 4%
especially prestigious R01 grants3:
National Institute of Mental Health $89 4%
All Other Institutes $527 24% • The average age of a first-time recipient of an R01 grant,
Total—All Institutes $2,204 100% which is considered the premier NIH grant, and a way for
Source: National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research researchers to establish credibility, is 43 years old up from
39 in 1990.
• The success rate of an R01 grant application when
first submitted is only 12 percent today, down from 29
Where do the NIH funds go? percent in 1999.
Massachusetts General Hospital was the biggest beneficiary
• Rejected grant proposals may lead to downsized labs,
of NIH funds in 2006, receiving a total of $301 million.
layoffs of postdoctoral students, slipping morale, and more
Nine institutions, including the Massachusetts Institute of
conservative proposals geared toward winning future grants.
Technology and the medical and public health programs at
Harvard University, each received over $100 million. Table 4 • After multiple submissions and a protracted process, only
lists the state’s largest NIH grantees. about 20 percent of grants will ultimately be funded.
• The percent of R01 grants that will go to first time
investigators was 25 percent in 2007, down from 29
percent in 1990.4

3
The R01 grant is an award made to support a discrete, specified, circum-
scribed project to be performed by the named investigator(s) in an area
representing the investigator’s specific interest and competencies, based
on the mission of the NIH.
4
Drew Faust Testimony before Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, March 11, 2008.

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Perspective
Ushering in a new age of
biomedical research
By David A. Williams
As any parent can tell you, children are not just small
adults; their biological systems are different from adults,
and their bodies do not respond to therapies in the same
way. Despite the fact that children have dissimilar needs
than adults—and they may hold the key to unlocking the
cures to some of the deadliest diseases—biomedical
research continues to undervalue pediatric research.
Children represent 20 percent of the population, but only
an estimated five percent of National Institutes of Health
(NIH) research funding is directed to children’s diseases.
To make matters worse, years of flat funding from NIH are
deterring many young scientists from entering pediatric
research, robbing our country of future investigations in
this field.
It is vital to the long-term health of the entire population
that this trend be reversed. Too many children are dying
each year from diseases that are within our grasp to cure—
children whose untold potential is lost. The emergence of
new pediatric disease epidemics, such as Type II diabetes
and asthma, pose new threats to human life and longevity.
In addition, we now understand that many of the deadliest
adult diseases—including obesity, Type II diabetes, heart
and respiratory disease, mental illness and even addictive
behaviors—have their origins in childhood.
The completion of the sequencing of the human genome
has opened a treasure trove of information on the
biological and genetic bases of disease. Our ability to
identify genes that are responsible for disease creates an
extraordinary opportunity to predict at-risk people and
potentially intervene at an early age in preventing diseases
or their complications from emerging in adults. Stopping
disease in its infancy has tremendous potential for
extending productive human life and significantly reducing
health care expenditures.
Technology and entrepreneur development
David A. Williams
Children’s Hospital Boston
Advances in treating childhood forms of disease have
been instrumental in developing new adult therapies.
Children’s Hospital Boston is a case in point. As one of the
world’s leading pediatric research centers, with more than
1,500 scientists and a research budget of $177 million,
our researchers are at the forefront of applying stem cell
therapies to treat cancer and blood diseases in adults as
well as children. The late Dr. Judah Folkman pioneered
angiogenesis at Children’s, and today more than 1.2 million
patients, mostly adults, are receiving angiogenic therapies
for cancer and macular degeneration.
However, the capacity to use this newfound knowledge
is limited not only by inadequate and declining support
of pediatric research but by how that research is
organized. As there are only a relatively small number of
sick children, only a handful of pediatric hospitals like
Children’s have research enterprises of sufficient breadth
and depth to fully exploit the opportunities in genomic and
proteomic research.
The Pediatric Research Consortia Establishment Act being
considered by Congress would establish regional pediatric
research networks of scientists and institutions conducting
pediatric research, organized around major pediatric
research hospitals.
The economies of scale realized by establishing common
protocols, sharing insights and knowledge, and pooling
patients for clinical trials will accelerate basic research and
speed the translation of treatment from bench to bedside,
helping to usher in a new era of pediatric research with
limitless possibilities for extending and enhancing the
quality of human life.
David A. Williams, MD, is chief of hematology/oncology
and director of Translational Research at Children’s
Hospital Boston.
• 13
Small business administration funding Table 5. NIH SBIR and STTR grants to Massachusetts,
fiscal year 2006
SBIR ($ millions)
What are the SBIR and STTR programs? Phase I $19.1
Just as the NIH invests in groundbreaking research and Phase II $57.4
pioneering ideas that may pave the way for new cures, Total $76.5
medicines, and lifesaving techniques, the SBA competitively
distributes federal research grants to small enterprises with the STTR
potential to bring these innovations to market. Phase I $1.9
Phase II $4.3
SBA funds represent just a sliver of total NIH funding, but they Total $6.2
play a critical role in moving research from the laboratory to
the commercial sphere. Total SBIR and STTR $82.7
Source: NIH Office of Extramural Research
Companies in the Massachusetts life sciences cluster benefit
from the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small
Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, which are
both administered by the SBA’s Office of Technology. Table 6. Life sciences patents issued per 100,000 people
Life sciences patents
The SBIR program is designed to help high technology
State Life sciences patents per 100,000 people
companies, including life sciences firms, develop their
Massachusetts 999 15.53
research into commercial products and services. The STTR
program is similar, targeting small firms and nonprofit New Jersey 735 8.48
organizations working in partnership with research California 3,028 8.35
organizations to bring innovations to market. For both Maryland 417 7.44
programs, firms must be based in the United States and have Pennsylvania 621 5.01
500 or fewer employees. North Carolina 284 3.20
New York 597 3.10
The various federal agencies that have their own research and
development programs, such as the Department of Defense, US Total 6,681 2.24
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Source: Patent and Trademark Office, 2006
Science Foundation, are required by law to set aside funds for
SBIR and STTR grants.5
Figure 8. How effective is your organization at spinning
off or commercializing new ideas that do not fit its core
mission or business lines?

Effective
9% Somewhat
effective
Not effective
28%

63%

Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Massachusetts Life

Sciences Super Cluster Survey

5
This report examines the SBIR and STTR grants funded by the NIH.

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Table 7. Ease of establishing a working relationship with How much SBIR and STTR funding does
university technology transfer offices—Top 5 Massachusetts receive?
1. University of Massachusetts
2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Massachusetts companies received $82.7 million in NIH-
related SBIR and STTR grants in 2006, as shown in Table 5.
3. Dana Farber Cancer Institute
4. Tufts University A company typically receives a Phase 1 SBIR grant to explore
5. Worcester Polytechnic Institute the possibility of turning new research into a new product or
Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Massachusetts Life service. The Phase 1 test is expected to take six months, and
Sciences Super Cluster Survey if it is promising, the company is eligible for a $750,000
Phase 2 grant to continue testing commercialization over a
two-year period.
Table 8. Per capita NIH SBIR and STTR grants, select
states, 2006 Massachusetts companies received a total of $76.5 million in
NIH SBIR grants in 2006. This figure includes $19.1 million in
SBIR & STTR Per capita
Phase 1 funding, and $57.4 million for Phase 2 funding.
State funding funding
Massachusetts $82.7 $12.84 The SBA awarded a total of $1.9 million in Phase 1 NIH STTR
California $118.3 $3.26 grants and $4.3 million in Phase 2 grants to Massachusetts
North Carolina $24.1 $2.72 firms and nonprofit organizations in 2006. The Phase
New Jersey $16.9 $1.95 1 grants are typically for $100,000 and allow a year for
New York $28.5 $1.48 feasibility testing, while Phase 2 provides $750,000 for more
comprehensive marketability and commercialization testing.
Source: NIH Office of Extramural Research ($ Millions)

Innovation in Massachusetts
Figure 9. Do you consider yourself an entrepreneur?
Massachusetts continues to lead the nation, on a per capita
Yes basis, in producing inventions that prove worthy of patents, as
No shown in Table 6, but survey respondents said Commonwealth
institutions could further improve their ability to commercialize
new or radical ideas, as illustrated in Figure 8.
34%
A crucial aspect of commercialization is the ability to harness
new technologies developed at universities and academic
institutions. University technology transfer offices play an
important role in this step. Table 7 shows survey respondents’
66% rankings of the ease of establishing working relationships
with various technology transfer offices in Commonwealth
academic institutions.

How does Massachusetts compare to other states for

Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Massachusetts Life
Sciences Super Cluster Survey
SBIR and STTR grants?
Massachusetts compares favorably to other large states
known for life sciences and technology research, especially
when the funding is measured on a per capita basis.

In 2006, the Commonwealth received $82.7 million, or $12.84

per capita, in combined NIH SBIR and STTR funding. In
comparison, California received $118.3 million, or $3.26 per
capita, and New York received $28.5 million, or $1.48 per
capita, as shown in Table 8.

Technology and entrepreneur development • 15

Perspective
Crossing the bridge from academia
to industry—technology transfer
in biotechnology
By Lita Nelsen
Massachusetts is rich in universities and research
hospitals where basic research leads to a fundamental
understanding of cellular processes in health and disease
and to discovery of new compounds, materials, and
engineering principles to address disease and improve
food and clean energy production. But in order to bring
these findings into public benefit, they must first be
transferred to the commercial sector for investment in
development into products.
This is particularly challenging in the biotechnology
field, since it may take a decade or more to move from a
research finding to a product, with hundreds of millions of
dollars in investment needed—and no guarantee that the
investment will be successful.
Patents are one key to meeting this challenge. The Bayh-
Dole Act of 1980 allowed research institutions to own
the patents arising from research funded by the federal
government. The research institution could now provide
an incentive for early investment by licensing its patent to
a first mover company willing to take the risk; then, if the
company’s development was successful, the patent would
protect the final product from copycats.
This technology transfer from universities through patents
and licensing has been notably effective in biotechnology.
For example, of the 120 or so licenses MIT grants each
year to its patents, approximately 30 percent are in
biotechnology. This includes ten to 15 licenses each to
startup companies in the biotechnology field, formed
specifically to develop the technology. In fact, the great
majority of new companies in Massachusetts in the bio/
medical space were founded, at least in part, in technology
licensed from universities or research hospitals.
16 •
Lita Nelsen
MIT Technology Licensing Office
These startups are themselves a critical link in the
biotechnology chain: frequently, the research findings
from universities are at too early (and too risky) a stage
to attract the attention of large companies. Instead, the
long-range vision and risk-tolerance of scientific founders,
entrepreneurs and their angel and venture investors are
needed to bridge the gap—and take the first steps toward
development. Later, strategic partnerships between the
startup company and large pharmaceutical or energy
companies complete the chain.
Universities in Massachusetts have also been playing
a part in developing entrepreneurial eco-systems:
environments in which researchers and students learn
the skills of technology entrepreneurship and mix with the
business and investment communities. Business schools
are offering individual courses and entire degree programs
in entrepreneurship. Community-oriented organizations
such as the MIT Enterprise Forum educate working
entrepreneurs; mentoring services (e.g. the MIT Venture
Mentoring Service and First Founders at Boston University)
provide guidance to new entrepreneurs; and an untold
number of venture clubs and networking organizations
throughout the region provide numerous opportunities for
connections between people that lead to companies.
Finally, success breeds success: as more and more
scientists and faculty engage in bringing their research
findings into commercial reality, students are continuously
exposed to them as role models—and the students come
to believe that they can (and will) do it themselves some
day (if not now)! The universities are building not only the
biotechnology industry of the present, but that of the future.
Lita Nelsen is director of the Technology Licensing Office at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Perspective
The role of state government in promoting
innovative research in the life sciences that
can lead to new medical treatments
By Harvey Lodish
Significant advancements in biomedical research are
frequently made by very young investigators who have
new insights into old or intractable problems. Increasingly,
researchers trained in fields such as mathematics,
engineering, and computer science are collaborating
with biomedical scientists to make significant advances
in disease-related research. Encouraging creativity and
innovation by our top investigators in many fields is critically
important, but flat funding from the National Institutes of
Health since 2004 and restrictions on federal funding for
certain types of research is threatening the development
of life changing therapies and cures for many diseases.
Progress in areas like genomics, bioengineering, and cell
biology is threatened, and many projects that have received
early funding are being halted due to a lack of funding, or
funding levels that are not keeping up with inflation.
This critical gap in financial support has proven a
disincentive for innovative and groundbreaking discoveries.
Fewer dollars mean more competition for scarce
resources and stricter guidelines by which NIH reviewers
are examining applications. This tighter level of scrutiny
is forcing many of our brightest and most promising
junior and senior researchers to play it safe, resisting the
more risky research in order to increase their chances of
receiving federal grant support. Notably, it is often the risky
projects that yield the greatest developments for positive
medical outcomes.
Massachusetts, perhaps more than any other state—with
our world-class academic, research, and healthcare
institutions—has proportionally more to lose if we squander
the talent in our brightest young scientists and engineers.
The Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC), created
Technology and entrepreneur development
Harvey Lodish
Massachusetts Life
Sciences Center
in 2006 by the legislature and invigorated by a recent
$1 billion life sciences initiative, has launched its first
programs to spur innovative research by new investigators,
attract new, nationally prominent faculty to the state’s
higher education institutions, and incentivize cooperative
partnerships between industry and academia. The MLSC
created a Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) to ensure the
state’s money is spent on the most promising people and
projects, and to provide advice on future programs that
could increase life sciences research and education in the
Commonwealth. As chair of the SAB, I am proud of the
work that we are doing to promote economic growth and
improve health outcomes in Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts Life Sciences Center is not attempting
to replace or replicate the role of the National Institutes of
Health, nor does it have resources that would enable it to
come close to doing so. But the MLSC’s commitment to
funding innovative basic and translational research, with
promise for solid economic development and job creation,
will enable the Commonwealth to leverage its own limited
resources while furthering discoveries in new medical
applications, therapies, and diagnostics.
Other state governments would do well to share in this
commitment—increasing economic development while
simultaneously benefiting the quality of human life.
Harvey Lodish is chair of Scientific Advisory Board for the
Massachusetts Life Sciences Center. He is also a member
of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research,
and a professor of biology and bioengineering at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• 17
Interview
Raju Kucherlapati
On how I came to
Massachusetts
I was at Albert Einstein College of
Medicine in New York, and I was
fortunate to be a part of the human
genome mapping and sequencing
program. One of the things I realized
was what a great opportunity we had
to apply the lessons of the human
genome sequence directly to patients.
As it happened, Harvard Medical
School and hospitals affiliated with
Partners Healthcare have been thinking
independently about the same goal of
trying to bring genetics to the clinic.
They were interested in establishing a
collaborative effort to explore exactly
those opportunities in a strong clinical
setting. And I was asked to come to
Boston and to head this effort, which
was very exciting.
In addition, I had been one of the
scientific founders of Millennium
Pharmaceuticals in 1993, and served
on the board. I’d been commuting
from New York to come to scientific
meetings, board meetings, and so on.
The opportunity to work in Boston,
and be close to the company that I
was very heavily involved in, was also
tremendously attractive. It illustrates
how this super cluster concept can
build on itself.
18 •
On Massachusetts’
knowledgeable investors
Massachusetts has thrived as a
center of innovation not only because
there is a tremendous amount of
talent in its medical and academic
institutions but also because there is
a vibrant community of intellectually
powerful investors here. They are
highly sophisticated and deeply
knowledgeable, and they are not
intimidated by technical subjects. They
can understand the vision behind the
research; they are very interested in
medically related pursuits and very
receptive to supporting these activities.
On the importance of
personal contacts
Even with the Internet and other means
of transferring knowledge, there’s really
nothing that substitutes for the ability
to be able to see and talk to someone
in person. If you want to try to make a
deal with somebody or to collaborate
with somebody, then it’s important to
be able to talk to them, so the proximity
is very important.
On reaching out globally
Entrepreneurs should keep their minds
focused not just on local markets but
also on international markets. While
there is incredible talent here, they
also should think about how to be
able to fully leverage all of the talents
that are really available around the
world. For example, Mass Insight is
trying to build these kinds of bridges
between Massachusetts on the one
hand and India and China on the other.
Entrepreneurs should take advantage
of that.
On managing global
regulatory regimes
All of these markets are becoming so
global that we need to think about
how the discoveries that we make can
indeed be exported to other countries.
And that means that we need to know
more about the regulatory atmosphere
not only in this country, but also the
atmosphere in other parts of the world.
While we have a great amount of
experience with dealing with regulatory
agencies in Europe, we don’t have
an equally good understanding of the
regulatory systems elsewhere. We need
to build that capability.
Raju Kucherlapati is scientific director of Harvard-Partners Center for Genetics and
Genomics and Paul C. Cabot Professor of Genetics and a professor of medicine at Harvard
Medical School. Previously, Dr. Kucherlapati was chairman of molecular genetics and
a professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. Dr. Kucherlapati was a
member of the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine and is a leading
contributor to scientific literature.

On change in the winds

The Bay Area and Boston have long
been the places to be for biotechnology
in this country, but something has
happened over these last seven or
eight years. Things are shifting here.
Boston has really attracted all of these
big pharmaceutical companies and,
to the best of my knowledge, nothing
like that has happened in the Bay
Area. For example, the company that
I’ve been associated with, Millennium
Pharmaceuticals, just merged with
Takeda Pharmaceuticals in Japan.
While the transaction made sense on
many levels, one of the attractions
certainly was the fact that Millennium
is based here in Boston, in a center of
the life sciences.

Technology and entrepreneur development • 19

Perspective
The role of entrepreneurship in
building a biotech cluster
By Ken Morse
It takes a village to foster breakthrough technologies and
create great companies. The Massachusetts biotech cluster
is a community with a culture of creativity, competition, and
collaboration where entrepreneurs are encouraged to lean
over the fence and borrow a cup of sugar (or other carbon
source) from their neighbors.
Our world-class universities and global life science
companies are the magnets which attract the talent
needed to fuel invention. The spirit of Yankee ingenuity
has converted old mills and warehouses into high tech
hothouses to give them good places to innovate.
By definition: innovation = invention + commercialization.
Commercialization requires passionate, workaholic
entrepreneurs who believe that the job of invention is not
complete until breakthrough technologies are coaxed from
the comfort of the lab to the crucible of the marketplace.
20 •
Ken Morse
MIT Entrepreneurship Center
The critical role of our ambitious entrepreneurs is to build
powerful teams around the inventors and achieve the many
milestones from bench science to bedside.
The power of our super cluster, and the entrepreneurs
within it, preclude bureaucracy, complacency, and
mediocrity. New companies are benchmarked against
the best and most successful players. Over 150 biotech
companies, large and small, have taken root here because
our scientists and engineers believe in commercial success
through excellence, and entrepreneurship.
Our job here at the MIT Entrepreneurship Center is to
train entrepreneurs to be capable of moving from medical
research to sustainable success, measured by improving
healthcare and saving lives on a global scale. There can be
no higher calling.
Ken Morse is executive director of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Entrepreneurship Center.
Perspective
Projecting tactics and message—promoting
startup companies as an economic, scientific,
and healthcare engine for continued growth
in central Massachusetts
By Kevin O’Sullivan
We all agree that the Massachusetts life sciences industry
holds tremendous potential for our future. But other states
and nations are nipping at our heels. The Commonwealth’s
competitive advantage is diminishing as businesses and
talent are increasingly attracted to other locations. At the
BIO 2007 convention held in Boston last spring, dozens
of regions aggressively targeted our companies and our
talent. Other states have invested more money in funding
research and development. Other states have invested
more in stem cell facilities and research.
That is why the Massachusetts’s life science legislation
is so important to our economy as well as in bolstering
our continued leadership within the healthcare field. This
legislation helps to expand tax incentives for life science
companies doing business here in Massachusetts. It
provides badly needed infrastructure improvements to our
public university system. Benefits include new jobs and
the attraction and the retention of the best scientists in
the world. Most importantly, we continue to strive to fund
cures for lifesaving medical therapies—and ultimately an
enhanced standard of living throughout the entire world.
The University of Massachusetts Medical School in
Worcester proposes to establish the Massachusetts Human
Embryonic Stem Cell Registry, a comprehensive and
extensively documented international cell database, as the
first phase of a broader Massachusetts initiative. This web-
based registry would provide Massachusetts researchers,
commercial entities, and the international biomedical
research community with access to critical information on
cell lines to facilitate greater development of research and
the commercialization of science.
Innovation by way of the promotion of biomedical incubator
facilities for startup companies in Central Massachusetts
has also been an integral part of the Commonwealth’s
emphasis on the implementation of a statewide strategy to
compete within the life sciences global economy.
Technology and entrepreneur development
Kevin O’Sullivan
Massachusetts Biomedical
Initiatives
Several key goals have been embraced by this statewide
economic development effort on behalf of seed life
science companies:
• Create a higher profile for Worcester and Central
Massachusetts as a place to establish and grow the
medical industry business
• Establish a lifeline with venture capital funds to match
prospective companies with specific angel and VC
fund opportunities
• Promote the function of technology transfer and
licensing to create more opportunities for the
commercialization of science
• Work to create more affordable science-related
incubator lab, office, and light manufacturing space to
meet this growing real estate need
• Market attractive and diverse financial and real estate
packages to grow and attract biomedical companies
by assembling grant, loan guarantee, tax incentive, and
real estate resources
• Establish educational networking forums to highlight
Biotechnology, Medical Device and Informatics business,
academic, and science-related activity within the region.
The Central Massachusetts region has continued to grow
our life science cluster and is recognized as the anchor to
the burgeoning biomedical corridor between Worcester
and Boston.
The Governor and the entire Massachusetts Legislature
have been extremely forward thinking in their support
and pursuit of growth within the life science industry. The
future for life sciences within the Worcester region and the
entire state is bright and the potential is boundless. By
implementing this unified agenda, we remain the very best
in the world.
Kevin O’Sullivan is president and chief executive officer
of Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives.
• 21
Early stage company
development

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Perspective
Accelerating academic research
to solve real problems—a story
of academic innovation and the
translation of ideas to impact
By Charles L. Cooney and Leon Sandler
In 2002, the Deshpande Center for Technological
Innovation was established at MIT to accelerate the
translation of early stage ideas to realization of commercial
impact. The ideas bubble up from the caldron of basic
research on campus that is largely funded by government
and industrial sponsors. There is a problem, however, that
funding sources perceive the mission of academic research
to be more about knowledge creation rather than solution
of commercial problems. Funding for academic research
is not intended to take the ideas to commercialization.
A parallel problem is that the industrial community is
often hesitant to assume the risk of early stage academic
research in seeking marketable products and services.
Venture capital that might fill this void is constrained by the
concerns of uncertainty in early stage academic research.
This dilemma creates a gap in available funding, often called
the Valley of Death. Through a generous gift from Desh and
Jaishree Deshpande, we were able to create the Deshpande
Center at MIT to address this gap and to stimulate the
connection of ideas, invention, innovation, and impact.
The model that evolved from our work over the past six
years is called Select, Direct, and Connect. One needs a
peer review process to select early-stage research from
academic researchers that, if successful, will address an
important problem and can be commercialized within a
few years. In conjunction with funding of these proposals,
we also include mentoring with catalysts, experienced
volunteers from the business community who—just like
a chemical catalyst—serve to accelerate the process of
translating ideas to impact without themselves participating
in the process. This experience is an essential component
of the funding model and differentiates such funding
from normal project support. Connecting the academic
investigators with both the market and the venture finance
community is the third leg of success.
We award two types of grants: Ignition grants of up to
$50,000, and Innovation grants of up to $250,000. Ignition
grants are aimed at projects that are two to three years
from commercialization, while Innovation grants are
directed toward projects that are just one to two years
from commercialization.
Early stage company development
Charles L. Cooney Leon Sandler
Deshpande Center for Deshpande Center for
Technological Innovation, MIT Technological Innovation, MIT
While $50,000 is a modest amount, it allows one to
test the hypothesis and begin to explore potential for
the technology. Within one year, one can assess both
technical and market uncertainty and decide if a second
year of funding, up to $250,000, is likely to reduce the
technical and market uncertainty to the point that one can
attract venture financing or license the IP. At this point the
technology is spun out of the university.
Over the first five years of funding, we selected about 75
projects from over 400 proposals and have so far seen the
creation of 15 new companies that have attracted about
$140 million in venture financing and created over 200 jobs.
At MIT we developed a curriculum around linking
technological innovation to the market; we call these
innovation teams or I-Teams for short. The challenge is
to develop a go-to-market strategy for early stage ideas.
If you do not know where you are going, and you do not
have a means to measure where you are, then you will not
know when you arrive—thus developing the go-to-market
strategy is essential to success in achieving impact.
The Massachusetts Life Science super cluster has
exhibited phenomenal success. Sustaining this success
will depend on how well it can access innovation in the
life sciences—not only using local resources, but tapping
the power of the Massachusetts innovation ecosystem to
address global science and solve global problems.
Recognizing that innovation happens everywhere, the next
challenge is to learn how to create and manage multi-
disciplinary, multi-institutional and multi-country teams
to capture early stage ideas that can be translated to
solutions of local problems in different locations. We need to
understand the problems, draw upon not only our local but
also global innovation, and engage the community in this
quest to bring new science to both old and new problems.
Charles L. Cooney is faculty director, and Leon Sandler
is executive director, of the Deshpande Center for
Technological Innovation at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.
• 23
Translating research
dollars into results

Figure 10. Massachusetts Nobel laureates

1914 1961
Theodore W. Richards, Georg von Bekesy
Chemistry Physiology or Medicine
Harvard University Harvard University

1934
William P. Murphy 1962
Physiology or Medicine James Watson
Harvard University Physiology or Medicine
Harvard University
George R. Minot
Physiology or Medicine
Harvard University
1964
Konrad Bloch
Physiology or Medicine
Harvard University

1965
Robert B. Woodward
Chemistry
1953 Harvard University
Fritz Lipmann
Physiology or Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital
1967
George Wald
Physiology or Medicine
Harvard University

1969
1954
Salvador E. Luria
John F. Enders
Physiology or Medicine
Physiology or Medicine
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Research Division of Infectious Diseases
Children’s Medical Center

Thomas H. Weller 1975

Physiology or Medicine David Baltimore
Research Division of Infectious Diseases Physiology or Medicine
Children’s Medical Center Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
The public funding of life sciences research in Massachu-
setts has resulted in numerous biomedical breakthroughs
over the past three decades. Numerous Massachusetts
scientists have received Nobel Prizes for their seminal
discoveries, which have saved countless lives and opened
up new possibilities for understanding and treating disease.

This history of scientific excellence is a key reason why

Massachusetts receives more NIH funding per capita
than any other state. As the timeline below illustrates, the
biomedical researchers of the future will be standing on the
shoulders of these giants.

1995
Mario J. Molina
Chemistry
Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
1981
David H. Hubel 2006
Physiology or 1993 Craig C. Mello
Medicine Phillip A. Sharp Physiology or
Harvard Physiology or Medicine Medicine
Medical School Massachusetts Institute University of
of Technology Massachusetts
Torsten N. Wiesel Center for Cancer Research Medical School
Physiology or
Medicine Richard J. Roberts
Harvard Physiology or Medicine
Medical School New England Biolabs

1980 1990
Baruhj Benacerraf Elias James Corey
Physiology or Medicine Chemistry 2005
Harvard Medical School Harvard University Richard R. Schrock
Chemistry
Massachusetts
Walter Gilbert Joseph E. Murray Institute of Technology
Chemistry Physiology or Medicine
Lyman Laboratory Brigham and Women’s
Harvard University Hospital

1987
1979 Susumu Tonegawa
Allan M. Cormack Physiology or Medicine
Physiology or Medicine Massachusetts Institute of
Tufts University Technology

2002
1976 1986 H. Robert Horvitz
William Lipscomb Dudley R. Herschbach Physiology or Medicine
Chemistry Chemistry Massachusetts
Harvard University Harvard University Institute of Technology

Early stage company development • 25

Interview
Phillip A. Sharp
On the early days
of biotechnology in
Massachusetts
Back in 1978, biotech was just a
word; there was no one experienced
in biotech as an endeavor. I think that
only one freestanding pharmaceutical
company had been started in the
previous 50 years. So it was a whole
new concept to take promising
laboratory-based research, invest in it,
establish a freestanding organization
and fund it long enough to take a
technical development along to
pharmaceutical approval.
When we started back in ’78, everyone
looked at it and said, oh, this will last a
year, maybe two. And then after two or
three years they said, well, it will last two
or three years, but not much longer than
that. What made it have continuity was
that Wall Street became comfortable
with the concept that these technology
companies could be financed on IPOs
in a pre-profit situation. That gave
us the capital to develop and grow.
Ultimately, we became profitable, and
then very profitable.
Today, it still is a challenge to develop
these products, but it is a much more
established and knowable industry now
than it was 30 years ago.
26 •
On crosscutting among the
sciences and engineering
Engineering and biology at the cellular
and molecular levels have begun to
merge, and that is a phenomenal
change that has happened in the last
decade. It is really very exciting. It
grew partly out of genomics where
engineering and molecular biology
met in doing the human genome
sequence. Now we are beginning to
see engineering with nanotechnology
creating nanoparticles that are much
smaller than cells, so that we can
target these particles to cells. We
are optimistic that this merging of
engineering and biology will translate
into therapies that will make healthcare
better and cheaper.
On what motivates him
A most stimulating way to spend one’s
day is working with and learning from
young scientists and encouraging them
to do important work. If I get up in the
morning and say, “what am I going to do
today,” and I have the option of trying
to understand something new, or trying
to get a new venture off the ground or
working with a group of bright young
people to make something happen—
that is what I find most interesting and
an incredibly stimulating and satisfying
way of spending one’s life.
On advice for young
entrepreneurs in the life
sciences
This is not an unusual conversation
for me at MIT. What I tell them first
is that they have to get to know the
industry and the people in it. When
they get their first position, a learning
environment is a very important thing.
They need to find an opportunity that
will teach them the broader aspects of
what they are doing and the business
they are involved in.
The second thing is that they need
to network. This is a “people” business.
So, learning from others and getting
to know what they are doing and
what their aspirations are is a must,
not an option.
Third, they should set their knowledge
base in as broad a context as they can.
They not only need to know what their
specialty is and become world leaders
at it but they would also have to set
it in the context of what the whole
industry is doing, what healthcare is
doing, what the international market
is doing—I cannot imagine an area
that is more exciting to be part of.
Many people here in the biotech and
pharmaceutical world in New England
are the best scientists anywhere.
Phillip A. Sharp is Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a
faculty member in the Department of Biology and the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative
Cancer Research. He received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1993 for his
landmark work on the molecular biology of gene expression relevant to cancer and the
mechanisms of RNA splicing. Dr. Sharp is co-founder of two biotechnology companies,
Biogen (in 1978—now Biogen Idec) and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals (in 2002) and serves as
director in both companies. He is elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, the
Institute of Medicine, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Early stage company development • 27

Private financing

Private investors have always played an important role Figure 12 shows investment in Massachusetts-based health-
in moving innovations from the laboratory to the global related firms has risen 66 percent from 2002 to 2007.
marketplace. In a super cluster, a vibrant community of
investors brings not just capital, but experience, knowledge,
perspective, and connections to the table. Figure 12. Massachusetts health industries investment by
sector, 2002-2007
Where is private capital invested?
More than two-thirds of all private capital invested in life 2007 $1,278
sciences invested in Massachusetts’ life industries in 2007, 2006 $1,151
or $925 million, was invested in the biotechnology industry,
2005 $809
and nearly all of the remainder, or $347 million, was spent on
companies developing and manufacturing medical devices 2004 $1,139
and equipment. Only $6 million, representing a sliver of 2003 $1,042
investment dollars, was spent on healthcare services.
2002 $768
$ millions
Figure 11. Percent of $1.3 billion invested in
Massachusetts health industries, by sector 2007 Biotechnology Healthcare Medical devices
services and equipment
Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association,
Medical devices MoneyTreeTM report, Data: Thomson Financial, 2007
and equipment
Healthcare
services
27% Table 9. Rank of Massachusetts venture capitalists on the
Biotechnology following measures (strongest to weakest)

1. Life sciences expertise

1% 2. Connections
72%
3. Business expertise
4. Willingness to collaborate
5. Approachability
6. Willingness to fund radically new ideas
Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Massachusetts Life
Sciences Super Cluster Survey

Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association,

MoneyTreeTM report, Data: Thomson Financial, 2007

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
A closer analysis of biotechnology venture capital funding
Venture capital firms invested money in Massachusetts
biotechnology companies at all stages of development, from
tiny startups to expanding enterprises, as shown in Table 10.
Over the past two years, 24 venture firms have funded 17
biotechnology startup companies in Massachusetts.6 The
majority of venture capital firms contributed funding to a
single startup endeavor. HealthCare Ventures LLC and Polaris
Venture Partners were most active in startup biotechnology in
Massachusetts, funding six and three startups respectively.
At the early-stage level, 41 companies received funding from
56 venture capital firms over the two-year period. The vast
majority of venture capital firms committed to one company.
Exceptions to this were Atlas Venture, Polaris Venture
Partners and Flagship Ventures funding ten, nine, and eight
investments, respectively.
Eighty-seven venture capital firms invested in 47 expansion-
stage biotechnology companies during this period. Most
firms funded a single company. Firms that made multiple
investments included Flagship Ventures, Oxford Bioscience
Partners, HealthCare Ventures, and Polaris Venture Partners.
In the later-stage arena, 28 biotechnology companies at this
level received funding from 85 venture firms. Again, the vast
majority of venture capital firms invested in one private equity
deal. Exceptions to this were MPM Capital and Polaris Venture
Partners, each funding six projects. Also, Oxford Bioscience
Partners and Venrock Associates both participated in five
funding deals during the two-year period.

Table 10. Analysis of venture capital funding for biotechnology

companies at different stages of development, 2006-2007
Early stage Expansion stage Later stage
Industry Startups companies companies companies
Number of participating financing firms* 24 56 87 85
Companies funded 17 41 47 28
Number of firms funding one company 15 35 61 60
Number of firms funding two companies 7 9 14 14
Number of firms funding three or more companies 2 12 12 11
Most active venture capital firms at this level Healthcare Venture, Atlas Venture, Polaris Flagship Ventures, MPM Capital, Polaris
Polaris Venture Venture Partners, Oxford Bioscience Capital Partners, Oxford
Partners Flagship Ventures Partners, HealthCare Bioscience Partners,
Ventures, Polaris Venrock Associates
Venture Partners
* Does not include undisclosed venture capital firms.
Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association, MoneyTreeTM report, Data: Thomson Financial, 2007

6
Undisclosed venture firms are not counted in the total.

Early stage
Stage company
Companydevelopment
Development • 29
A closer analysis of medical device venture For early stage medical device companies, Venture Capital
capital funding Fund, Polaris Venture Partners and BioVentures Investors each
Two hundred venture capital financing offerings were issued to made three investments over the last two years.
companies at various stages of development over the last two At the expansion stage, Vertical Group was the biggest
years in Massachusetts: 96 in 2006 and 104 in 2007. benefactor in 2006 and 2007, with three investments. J.P.
Morgan Partners and Integra Ventures each invested in two
In 2006 and 2007, Polaris Venture Partners was the most companies at this level.
prolific venture capital firm with eight offerings. BioVentures
Investors, Oxford Bioscience Partners, Prism Venture Partners, For later-stage medical device manufacturers, Prism Venture
Sanderling Ventures, and Triathlon Medical Ventures LLC Partners and Triathlon Medical Ventures LLC issued a
each invested in five companies. Domain Associates LLC and combined total of five venture capital funding rounds. Domain
Morgenthaler Ventures both had four investments. Associates LLC, Morgenthaler Ventures, and Oxford Bioscience
Partners each had four venture capital investments, as
illustrated by Table 11.
Table 11. Analysis of venture capital funding for medical
device companies at different stages of development
Early stage Expansion stage Later stage
2006-2007 Startups companies companies companies
Number of participating financing firms* 9 23 31 69
Companies funded 9 35 37 119
Number of firms funding one company 9 14 25 39
Number of firms funding two companies 0 6 5 17
Number of firms funding three or more companies 0 3 1 13
Most active venture capital firms at this level n/a Venture Capital Fund of The Vertical Group, Prism Venture Partners,
New England, Polaris Integra Ventures, JP Triathlon Medical Ventures
Capital Partners, Morgan Partners, New LLC, Domain Associates
BioVentures Investors England Partners, LLC, Morgenthaler
Sanderling Ventures Ventures, Oxford
Bioscience Partners
* Does not include undisclosed venture capital firms.
Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association, MoneyTreeTM report, Data: Thomson Financial, 2007

What were the biggest deals?

The top 10 private equity deals in Massachusetts in 2007
accounted for more than a third of a billion dollars, and
overwhelmingly favored biotechnology firms. As shown in
Table 12, Targanta Therapeutics Inc., a Cambridge-based
company that develops antibiotics to treat serious infections
that can strike patients in hospitals and other medical
institutions, received $70 million. Ironwood Pharmaceuticals,
a Cambridge-based company working on treatments
for cardiovascular and gastrointestinal issues, received
$44 million.

Table 12. Top 10 private equity deals in Massachusetts

Rank & company Location Sector Description Investment
1. Targanta Therapeutics, Inc. Cambridge Biotechnology Manufactures biological products to treat infections in $69,999,800
(formerly PhageTech, Inc.) hospitals and medical facilities.
2. Ironwood Pharmaceuticals Cambridge Biotechnology Operates as an entrepreneurial pharmaceutical company. $44,000,000
(formerly Microbia, Inc.)
3. Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cambridge Biotechnology Develops molecule drugs. $35,935,000
4. Aciex, Inc. Boston Medical Devices Develops therapeutic products for the treatment of front $34,000,000
and Equipment eye diseases.
5. FoldRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cambridge Biotechnology Develops drug therapies for diseases of protein misfolding $32,251,200
and amyloidosis.
6. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cambridge Biotechnology Develops cancer therapeutics. $31,913,000
(formerly GenPath Pharmaceuticals)
7. Acceleron Pharma, Inc. Cambridge Biotechnology Develops drugs to treat musculoskeletal $30,999,800
and metabolic disorders.
8. Xcellerex, Inc. Marlborough Biotechnology Provides contract services for bioprocess development $30,839,100
and manufacturing.
9. Archemix Corporation Cambridge Biotechnology Develops nucleic acid-based products and services in $29,844,000
the United States.
10. Elixir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cambridge Biotechnology Develops and markets therapies to treat metabolic disease. $28,030,200
TM
Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association, MoneyTree report, Data: Thomson Financial, 2007

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Merger and acquisition environment
Through mergers and acquisitions, companies from around
the world claim a stake in Massachusetts’ life sciences
technologies and talents, while local companies continue to
expand their reach around the globe. Table 13 shows the 10
largest acquisitions and mergers involving Massachusetts-
based life sciences companies over the past 12 months.
Japan’s largest pharmaceutical company, Osaka-based
Takeda Pharmaceutical, recently acquired Millennium
Pharmaceuticals of Cambridge for $8.8 billion. A Swedish
firm, Getinge Group AB, purchased Boston Scientific’s cardiac
and vascular surgery medical equipment businesses for
$750 million. These deals represent two of the five largest
transactions involving Massachusetts-based life sciences
companies over the previous 12 months.
Looking solely at the medical device industry, Massachusetts-
based companies played a role in three of the 10 largest
mergers and acquisitions in the United States last year, as
seen in Table 14. The merger of Hologic and Cytyc, mentioned
above, was the second-largest such deal in the nation.
Philips Medical Systems purchased Murrysville, Penn.-
based Respironics, Inc., a company best known for making
devices to help patients suffering from sleep apnea and other
breathing disorders. Royal Philips Electronics NV, based in
Andover, is a US subsidiary of Netherlands-based Kininklijke
Philips Electronics NV.
Inverness Medical, a Waltham-based company that makes
medical and diagnostic products, purchased San Diego-based
medical products business Biosite.

Many of the top-10 deals didn’t require a passport. Hologic, Table 14. Largest medical device mergers and
a Bedford-based company that specializes in diagnostic acquisitions, 2007
imaging equipment, merged with Cytyc of Marlborough for
Value
$6.2 billion and also purchased BioLucent of Aliso Viejo,
Acquiring company Acquired company (US $B)
Calif., for $70 million. In the health care sector, pharmacy
Siemens AG Dade Behring Holdings $7.0
benefits giant Medco Health Solutions of Franklin Lakes,
N.J., expanded its market share by acquiring Wakefield’s Hologic Cytyc $6.2
PolyMedica Corp. for $1.5 billion. Philips NV* Respironics $5.1
Warburg Pincus Bausch & Lomb $4.5
Medtronic Kyphon $3.9
Table 13. Top 10 mergers and acquisitions involving
Massachusetts life sciences companies in the last 12 months Onex Healthcare Holdings Eastman Kodak Health $2.6
Teleflex Arrow International $2.0
Millennium Pharmaceuticals acquired by Takeda $8.8 billion ReAble (Blackstone) DJ Orthopedics $1.6
Pharmaceutical Medco Health Solutions PolyMedica $1.5
Hologic Inc. merged with Cytyc $6.2 billion Inverness Medical Innovations Biosite $1.5
PolyMedica Corp. acquired by Medco Health Solutions $1.5 billion Qiagen NV Digene $1.4
Biosite acquired by Inverness Medical Innovations $1.5 billion Cardinal Health Viasys $1.3
Boston Scientific sold its Cardiac Surgery and $750 million * While Philips is headquartered in The Netherlands, the Healthcare division
Vascular Surgery business to Getinge Group is located in Andover, Mass.

Sirtris Pharmaceuticals acquired by GlaxoSmithKline $720 million Massachusetts-based companies are in bold.

Boston Scientific sold its Fluid Management and $425 million Source: MassMedic
Venous Access businesses to Avista Capital Partners
Bioenvision, Inc. acquired by Genzyme Corp. $345 million
ViaCell acquired by PerkinElmer $300 million
BioLucent, Inc. acquired by Hologic $70 million
Haemoscope Corp.'s TEG Homeostasis Analyzer $44 million
business acquired by Haemonetics Corp.
Sources: BiopharmInsight, May 6, 2008; MassMedic

Early stage company development • 31

Perspective
Capital formation
By Chris Gabrieli
There is a tight correlation between access to venture
capital and ability to participate in life sciences
entrepreneurship. Given the enormous capital needs,
especially in biotechnology, and the long time spans before
product-based revenues, the companies in this sector
depend on institutional venture capital funds to provide the
means to pursue their ambitious plans. Massachusetts has
a good competitive position on this key supply-side asset
for life sciences but could be doing much more to build up
its position.
Massachusetts has long been the home of the second
largest concentration of overall venture capital dollars in
the United States—one-third the size of Silicon Valley’s
at the end of last year, but still ahead of other regional
clusters. Massachusetts’ position in biotechnology is
more competitive with our region running neck and neck
with Silicon Valley and San Diego—together, these three
clusters commanded two-thirds of all biotech venture
capital in the Fourth Quarter of 2007.
One can debate which comes first: the chicken or the egg,
the venture capital or the entrepreneurs? In reality, once a
cluster of critical mass has been achieved, as clearly we
have done in life sciences in Massachusetts, there can
be little doubt that more local venture capital would lead
to more startups, bigger financings and more growth for
life sciences. Some life sciences venture capitalists might
be wary of the competition, but the region would be the
better for it. And Silicon Valley’s high technology history
strongly suggests that no matter how much venture capital
accumulates, there seems to be a concomitant growth in
entrepreneurs and ideas to absorb it.
Expanding the number and scale of Massachusetts-
based, high-quality venture capital firms active in life
sciences would lead to more deals here, more jobs, and
more opportunities for success. Yet this has not been a
public or private policy goal. The largest local pools of
potential limited partner capital to support venture funds
are the state pension fund ($50 billion in assets) and the
endowments of Harvard ($35 billion) and MIT ($10 billion).
Each of these players actively participate in the venture
capital asset class in pursuit of strong, diversified investing
32 •
Chris Gabrieli
Bessemer Venture Partners
for the good of the funds and therefore each has some
money invested in Massachusetts life sciences focused
venture funds. But none act significantly as a conscious
catalyst for local venture fund formation and success.
Massachusetts needs to develop effective win-win ways
to align more of this $100 billion in assets (and billions
more when other public pension funds and university
endowments are included) to the long-term success of
the Commonwealth’s most promising innovation-based
industry, life sciences. Such strategies cannot be a tax on
or a drag on these funds’ returns—this would violate their
fiduciary duty. But venture capital returns are very attractive
and fiduciary regulations allow trustees to consider
second bottom-line goals as long as investment returns
are expected to be similar. Can there be any doubt that
successful Massachusetts life sciences companies and
their concomitant job growth and tax contributions would
benefit all Massachusetts-based institutions more than
similar success of California or Mumbai companies?
The need is most pressing in two areas: small funds
focusing on seed- and earlier-stage ventures, and new
funds with no track record. Major institutional investors
prefer the simplicity of writing fewer big checks and making
them out to funds with decades of experience. But larger
funds and everyone in the life sciences cluster live in an
ecosystem where someone has to be willing to invest small
amounts—sometimes as little as under $1 million—to help
launch raw startups than can mature to the promising
ventures that can later command rounds of venture
financing in the tens of millions of dollars. And we need
a steady flow of new venture funds to form a sort of farm
club for the great funds of the future. More young partners
of big firms would leave to hang out their own shingle if
they knew they could gain backing.
More life sciences venture capital means more life sciences
companies. It’s a simple formula that could help drive the
growth and competitive strength of our super cluster. And it
takes no taxes to do it—just a fuller appreciation of benign
self-interest and some strong leadership.
Chris Gabrieli is a partner at Bessemer Venture Partners.
Perspective
A model for utilizing Massachusetts’
resources to create the next generation
of life sciences companies
By Glenn Batchelder
The unique fabric of Massachusetts’ life sciences community
has the opportunity to serve as a model to address some
of the significant challenges facing the pharmaceutical
industry, such as rising costs and longer development
times for new drugs. I believe BIND Biosciences is an
example of the possibilities, emerging from the rich local
academic, industry, and venture communities to rapidly
establish a leadership position in developing targeted
nanoparticle therapeutics that will provide more effective
yet safer treatment for serious disease.
BIND’s foundational technology was developed at MIT
and Harvard through the pioneering research of Dr. Robert
Langer of MIT and Dr. Omid Farokhzad of Harvard Medical
School. Their research, supported through the Prostate
Cancer Foundation and the NCI funded MIT—Harvard
Center for Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, focuses
on engineering-targeted nanoparticle technologies to treat
cancers and other diseases.
After demonstrating proof of concept for the efficacy of
targeted nanoparticles in animal cancer models, Farokhzad
and Langer reached out to Dr. Steve Zale to assess the
potential for their academic work to be translated into
commercially successful products. During his twelve years
at Alkermes, Zale helped build an extremely successful
polymeric microparticle-based drug delivery platform and
the commercialization of products such as Risperdal Consta
and Vivitrol. With a positive nod from Zale, the scientific
founders reached out to Terry McGuire, a managing
partner of Polaris Ventures who had co-founded 13 other
companies with Langer. McGuire, Farokhzad, and Langer,
together with the Polaris partner and a former Langer lab
graduate, Amir Nashat, developed a business plan.
In need of an experienced CEO, McGuire introduced me
to Farokhzad and Langer. I immediately saw the power of
BIND’s technology and possibilities for its application. Zale
joined as vice president of development and, drawing on
Early stage company development
Glenn Batchelder
BIND Biosciences
our network in the local biotech community, we assembled
an experienced team with successful track records in
drug development from companies such as Alkermes,
Millennium, Infinity, and Momenta. Today we are 22
employees strong and will expand our team to 35 by the
end of 2008.
As we formed our scientific advisory board we drew upon
the expertise of leaders in the field such as Dr. Phil Kantoff
of Dana Farber, Dr. Dennis Ausiello of MGH, Dr. Peter Libby
of Brigham and Women’s, and Dr. Ulrich von Andrian of
Harvard Medical School, all of whom are in close proximity
to BIND’s facility.
In 2007 we in-licensed a large intellectual property estate
from MIT and Harvard and raised $18.5 million from Polaris,
Flagship Ventures, ARCH Ventures, and Nanodimension.
We were awarded a highly competitive $2 million NIST ATP
grant to further develop our technology platform.
Having secured the funding, the team, the advisors, and
the technology, BIND is now poised to enter the clinic with
it first product in 2009 targeting oncology indications and
is developing a rich pipeline including a product to treat
cardiovascular disease.
This proximity of world-class talent and institutions
and the associated network of relationships enabled
the rapid creation of BIND and a potential new class of
important therapeutics.
Massachusetts provides a synergistic and supportive
environment uniquely suited for efficiently translating
scientific innovation into important medical advances for
patients in the millennium ahead.
Glenn Batchelder is president and chief executive officer of
BIND Biosciences.
• 33
Perspective
Fostering medical device
entrepreneurship
By Stuart A. Randle
The Massachusetts medical device industry, benefiting
from being part of the super cluster, faces a challenge:
How to make the jump from the ideas generated by basic
research to concepts that are supportable by venture
capitalists. On the whole, making this leap has been harder
here in Massachusetts than it has been in Silicon Valley.
One significant difference between the medical device
industries on the two coasts is that California historically
has attracted more classic entrepreneurs: researchers,
physicians, scientists, and engineers who have been
intent on starting companies and translating concepts into
products. Stanford cardiologist Thomas Fogarty, who has
helped launch a score of businesses, exemplifies this type
of entrepreneur.
While Massachusetts has numerous researchers who are
the equal or superior of their West Coast counterparts,
many of them are focused more on pure academic work
and less on building companies. In the end, this can be
limiting: It is more difficult for companies to succeed if their
intellectual drivers are not actively involved in getting the
business started and organized.
With rapid advances in biotechnology, engineering, and
molecular and cellular biology, and an evolution in how
products are delivered, the medical devices sector has
enormous opportunities. Massachusetts can help its medical
devices companies make the most of these opportunities
by taking steps to accelerate entrepreneurialism and
34 •
Stuart A. Randle
GI Dynamics
building a virtual center of excellence. Several leading
players are showing how to do this.
MIT’s Center for Biomedical Engineering illustrates how
academic research can be combined with economic
development. In fact, this program is attracting brilliant
researchers with an entrepreneurial bent who otherwise
might be lured to the West Coast. Support for this program,
and its replication elsewhere, would be a strong statement.
The Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council has
been promoting entrepreneurialism, conducting workshops
for inventors, small businesses, and researchers on how to
take great research ideas and develop them to the point at
which they are viable. The council, supported strongly by
industry, can help nurture tomorrow’s leaders.
The state can do its part by building on the momentum of
Governor Patrick’s life sciences initiative. The Governor
understands the medical devices sector and knows its
importance, and his proposals have provided necessary
oxygen for entrepreneurial companies.
Massachusetts has always been on the cutting edge.
The life sciences industry represents the future of the
Commonwealth’s economy. We should act now to
support it, and help build the companies that will provide
tomorrow’s jobs and economic growth.
Stuart A. Randle is president and chief executive officer of
GI Dynamics.
Perspective
A statewide effort to accelerate
the pace of creating life sciences
companies in Massachusetts
By Anupendra Sharma and Abigail Barrow
If one stands on Massachusetts Avenue Bridge and
walks one mile in either direction, one has everything
one would need to start a billion-dollar company. Such a
concentration of ideas, entrepreneurs, advice, and money
is unparalleled in the world.
Innovation in the Massachusetts life sciences sector
goes back more than 150 years. On October 16, 1846,
anesthesia was first given to a patient at Massachusetts
General Hospital, revolutionizing surgery. Laboratories
in Massachusetts discovered the phenomenon of
angiogenesis and RNA silencing. Smart infusion pumps
invented here have saved thousands of lives. And
the Commonwealth has also been at the center of
commercializing these inventions with the steady creation
of revolutionary companies like Alnylam, Genzyme,
Biogen, Boston Scientific, Cubist, Confluent, Hologic,
Haemonetics, Momenta, and Sirtris.
The Massachusetts Life Sciences Startup Initiative (MALSI)
has a simple mission: ensure that Massachusetts remains
the No. 1 place in the world to start, nurture, and grow a life
sciences company.
MALSI was set up to proactively confront the growing
sentiment that the Commonwealth is surrendering its lead.
Although research in Massachusetts is backed by over
$2 billion in funding from the National Institutes of Health,
life sciences has created fewer jobs in Massachusetts
than we would have hoped. In the first quarter of 2008,
Massachusetts remains third in the United States in volume
of venture investments in life sciences.
As a state of six million people, our resources are limited,
yet the willingness and passion to help is widespread. At
MALSI’s seminal meeting of stakeholders, 40 leaders met
in Waltham to brainstorm about maintaining the state’s
leadership and to ensure that every entrepreneur could
easily identify the resources needed to start a venture. The
group came up with 31 ideas to promote life sciences in
the state, which were condensed into eight initiatives, as
listed in Table 15. MALSI’s partners are now in the process
of prioritizing and executing these initiatives.
Early stage company development
Anupendra Sharma Abigail Barrow
Massachusetts Life Sciences Massachusetts Life Sciences
Startup Initiative Startup Initiative
One of the eight initiatives is the Massachusetts Life
Sciences Innovation Day. This is a day to educate, inform,
and inspire entrepreneurs and innovators. It is a day
where research in the state is showcased, and where an
Innovators Marketplace allows anyone to walk into a room
and gain access to all the tools and connections needed to
launch a company: grant writers, reimbursement experts,
design and engineering companies, serial entrepreneurs,
legal advice, and sources of funding. A series of panels and
lectures discuss how some of our companies were started.
MALSI has received strong support from the Massachusetts
Life Sciences Center and the Massachusetts Housing and
Economic Development Secretary, Daniel O’Connell.
MALSI wants to ensure that the Commonwealth has the
resources and processes in place to make it significantly
easier for the very best ideas to move rapidly to funded
companies, licenses, or partnerships. If MALSI can help
turn a promising discovery into one Biogen, Inverness, or
Boston Scientific every year, we will fulfill our mission.
Anupendra Sharmais a founding chair of MALSI and an
investment partner at Siemens Venture Capital. Abigail
Barrow is a founding chair of MALSI and director of the
Massachusetts Technology Transfer Center.
Table 15. MALSI’s Eight Initiatives
Create the MA Life Sciences Innovation Day
Organize a state-funded seed program in life sciences
Create a state-funded entrepreneur-in-residence program
Create education programs to train 50 leaders and 1,000 entrepreneurs
Hold an annual statewide life sciences competition
Improve the funding environment through alternative sources
(foundations and angels)
Create the MA startup portal to manage the lifecycle of a start-up
Start a campaign to excite college-30 year olds about life sciences
Source: Massachusetts Life Sciences Startup Initiative
• 35
Perspective
Gateway to growth and
the global market
By D’Anne Hurd
The Massachusetts life sciences industry is growing from
within, as startups proliferate and existing companies
expand. It is also growing from without, as companies
move here to leverage the synergies of the super cluster
and the state’s strategic location for connecting the
European and North American markets.
In either case, many growing life sciences companies
choose to locate in the western rim of the super cluster. Here
they find ample available space, close to Cambridge yet
with lower operating costs and high quality-of-life elements
that are important for their work force, such as reasonable
housing costs and strong public and private schools. Those
factors, coupled with the growing academic and clinical
resources at University of Massachusetts Medical School,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), and Tufts University’s
Cummings School have made the greater Worcester area
an anchor of the Massachusetts super cluster.
At Gateway Park in Worcester, for example, we are now
building out a 12-acre mixed-use life sciences campus
development with a total of 550,000 square feet of
flexible lab, office, and support space. The first building
at Gateway Park, WPI’s $50 million life sciences and
Bioengineering Center, opened in the fall of 2007 and
is now fully occupied with a mix of academic labs and
emerging life sciences companies.
The activity at Gateway Park reflects the growth trajectory
for companies in this key industry. We have research
labs where discoveries drive innovation. We have the
Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives, a nonprofit incubator
that helps translate innovative technologies into start-up
companies. We host rapidly growing young companies, such
as Blue Sky Biotech and RXi Pharmaceuticals (the company
co-founded by Nobel laureate Craig Mello to develop drugs
36 •
D’Anne Hurd
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
based on his breakthrough RNAi research), which moved
into Gateway Park in December of 2007. The next phase of
development at the park will be two new science buildings
of approximately 120,000 square feet, giving early stage
companies room to grow and providing larger blocks of
space for mature companies ready to expand.
The life sciences companies in the greater Worcester area
are also well positioned to reach into the European market
because of easy air travel between the two regions and a
time difference that allows for overlapping hours during the
work day. Those same logistics make this area ideal for
European companies looking to establish US operations.
For example, in March 2008 the Irish company Creganna,
which develops components for minimally invasive medical
devices, officially opened its US manufacturing facility in
Marlborough. Other states competed for the Creganna
manufacturing operation, but central Massachusetts
won because of our strategic location and the existing
infrastructure of life sciences resources.
These growth patterns will continue during 2008 and
beyond because the Massachusetts life sciences super
cluster remains one of the most dynamic in the world.
With the build-out of WPI’s Gateway Park and with the
University of Massachusetts Medical School as the
flagship for the Commonwealth’s $1 billion Life Sciences
Initiative, the greater Worcester region will continue to offer
opportunities for companies across the continuum of the
life sciences.
D’Anne Hurd is Worcester Polytechnic Institute’s general
counsel and vice president of business development at
Gateway Park.
Perspective
Incubating innovation at
Tufts Veterinary School
By Deborah Kochevar

Deborah Kochevar
Tufts Veterinary School

The Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts Recognizing the need expressed by incubator tenants and
University is one example illustrating the catalytic role other life science companies for larger life science friendly
of universities in the regional super cluster. Recognizing real estate, embedded among the research resources of the
that over 70 percent of infectious diseases emerging university, the Cummings School has begun development
in the last 20 years came from animals, and that most of Grafton Science Park. This smart growth location is
human medical therapies require validation in one or more permitted for 702,000 square feet of science-oriented
animal models prior to FDA approval, New England’s only real estate development on nearly 100 acres of Tufts’
veterinary school pursued its unique niche in discovery and campus. The 41,000-square-foot New England Regional
preclinical research. The discovery research and preclinical Biosafety Laboratory is the anchor tenant and the balance
contributions of Cummings School’s faculty, have led to of this master-planned science park is available for build-
human and veterinary medical breakthroughs, including to-suit opportunities. State and municipal tax incentives,
blood substitutes, orthopedic fixation devices, a therapy development capability, and financing are available.
against E coli toxicity, and the first approved human
pharmaceutical produced in transgenic animals. Cummings These catalytic and supportive contributions of Cummings
faculty’s own work has spawned six life science companies School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University are one of
in Massachusetts, as shown in Table 16 and Table 17. many examples of Massachusetts colleges and universities
powering the life science super cluster in the Commonwealth.
The Cummings Veterinary School’s catalytic role is
demonstrated on a larger scale in the collaborative Deborah Kochevar is dean of Tufts Veterinary School.
research it conducts with other institutions and life science
companies in the Massachusetts cluster. Since 1985, Table 16. Companies Incubated on Tufts Cummings School
the school has made its faculty expertise and unique of Veterinary Medicine’s Campus
research infrastructure available to other investigators Company Field
and companies in the region through its collaborative and Antigenics Antisense
contract research program. This program is about to take a Biovalve Medical devices
huge leap forward with the completed construction of the Circe Biomedical Xenotransplantation
New England Regional Biosafety Laboratory in spring 2009. Diacrin Xenotransplantation
This regional resource will provide BSL-3 labs and ABSL3- GTC Biotherapeutics Transgenics
vivaria, aerobiology suite, and insectary for discovery
Pulmonary Metrics Imaging
and pre-clinical research in infectious diseases, including
Sequitur Biotechnology
select agents. Through these collaborative research efforts,
Cummings School, and other universities in Massachusetts, Stryker Biotech Orthopedic
use their expertise and research resources to help power Verigen Immunotherapy
the R&D success of the commercial life science sector. Vivo Rx Xenotransplantation
Source: Tufts Veterinary School
Sometimes companies need more from universities than
research collaboration and a technology license, and many Table 17. Companies founded with Cummings School Technology
Massachusetts universities provide more. Cummings Company Field
Veterinary School operates the Tufts Biotechnology COLLEGIUM Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Therapeutic Testing
Transfer Center on its Grafton/Westborough campus. This IDEXX Veterinary Services-N.E. Lab* Diagnostic Testing
business incubator hosts small startup companies and the
Midas Biologicals, Inc.* Transgenics
preclinical operations of larger companies that want to be
SECUROS Veterinary Orthopedics* Surgical Devices
closer to their Tufts collaborators and the shared scientific
and preclinical resources at the Cummings School. Thus Transgenic Sciences, Inc. Transgenics and Medical Testing
far 19 companies have been tenants in Tufts incubator, CF Technologies Food & Water Biosafety
some renovating or constructing other specialized facilities * Also incubated on the Veterinary School campus.
on the campus to meet their specific R&D needs. Source: Tufts Veterinary School

Early Stage Company Development • 37

Employment
Introduction and
industry overview
By Michael D. Goodman

Michael D. Goodman
University of Massachusetts

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is widely recognized • Expand the pipeline of future workers by doing a
as a science and technology powerhouse and as home to the better job of inspiring our children to pursue careers
world’s leading universities, teaching hospitals, and research in life sciences, and ensuring they possess the
institutions. While these extraordinary institutions have helped knowledge and scientific habits required to fully
make Massachusetts a global innovation powerhouse, the reap the benefits of these opportunities and meet
fuel that powers the Massachusetts innovation economy is the needs of our growing employers.
the Commonwealth’s world-class work force. Highly skilled
• Expose our students to the world of work in the life
Massachusetts workers have produced a steady stream of
sciences by expanding internship and cooperative
scientific breakthroughs and transformed these cutting edge
education programs. This will allow students to
ideas into life-saving commercial products which truly have
apply the lessons they learn in some of the best
made our state a global leader in life sciences.
classrooms on earth to the real world scientific and
technological problems being addressed by life
Public and private sector leaders recognize the critical
science employers in Massachusetts.
importance that a well educated work force plays in preserving
and enhancing the competitiveness of the numerous
• Recognize the industry’s need for talent in a
biopharmaceutical and medical device firms that call the
broad array of fields. In addition to world-class
Commonwealth home. That is why in 2007, the Massachusetts
medical and biological scientists, life sciences
Life Sciences Center and the Massachusetts Biotechnology
employers require professional staff with education
Council engaged the University of Massachusetts Donahue
and expertise in computer science, information
Institute to identify emerging work force needs in the state’s
technology, legal and regulatory affairs, sales,
life sciences super cluster, and support the development
marketing, management, accounting, engineering,
of a comprehensive strategy to ensure life sciences
and manufacturing.
employers have the talent they need to succeed and grow
in Massachusetts.
The Commonwealth’s highly innovative life science
companies are poised to take full advantage of all
To date, our work has documented the extraordinary
that the Bay State has to offer. Through efforts such
strength of the Commonwealth’s life sciences work force,
as the Life Sciences Talent Initiative, our public and
and has identified challenges that state officials and industry
private sector leaders are committed to ensuring that
stakeholders have already begun to address. This ongoing
Massachusetts will continue to provide life sciences
effort has yielded important lessons gleaned through intensive
employers with the brainpower they need to thrive for
research and extensive outreach to industry CEOs, human
years to come.
resource professionals, higher education leaders, and state
policymakers. To maintain our competitive advantage in the
Michael D. Goodman, PhD, is the director of Economic
life sciences, we must:
and Public Policy Research at the University of
Massachusetts Donahue Institute and managing
editor of MassBenchmarks, the quarterly journal of the
Massachusetts economy.

Employment • 39
The life sciences work force Table 18. Distribution of employment in the Massachusetts
life sciences industry
Sector 2006 Distribution
How many people work in the life sciences industry? Pharmaceuticals 6,976 9%
The life sciences industry in Massachusetts employed 77,247 Biotechnology 20,909 27%
people in 2006. The medical device and equipment field Medical Device and Equipment 23,467 30%
represents the largest employer in the industry with 23,467 Wholesale Trade 11,257 15%
workers, or 30 percent of the total. Biotechnology employers
Medical and Testing Laboratories 5,068 7%
account for 20,909 workers, or 27 percent of the industry total.
Teaching Hospitals 9,570 12%
Figure 18 illustrates the distribution of employment in 2006.
Total 77,247 100%
Massachusetts’ life sciences work force grew by 8 percent Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and
from 2001 to 2006, matching the growth rate for California, Wages, and PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis.
but falling slightly behind the industry as a whole, as shown
in Table 19. North Carolina’s life sciences industry grew 20.9
percent over this period, but its 61,086-employee work force is Table 19. Life sciences industry employment by select
four-fifths the size of Massachusetts.’ states 2001 and 2006
2001 2006 Change % change
The health care industry has added jobs in Massachusetts California 247,391 267,064 19,672 8.0%
at a faster clip than the life sciences industry over the past Massachusetts 71,522 77,247 5,725 8.0%
five years. Health care employers gained 40,199 jobs, a 10.8 New Jersey 113,408 109,523 – 3,886 – 3.4%
percent increase, between 2001 and 2006, compared to the
New York 120,496 121,813 1,317 1.1%
life sciences industry’s 8 percent gain. The state labor force
declined by 81,310 workers, or 2.4 percent, over the five-year North Carolina 50,536 61,086 10,549 20.9%
period, as the manufacturing sector lost nearly one-fourth of United States 1,739,200 1,883,092 143,892 8.3%
its work force, as Table 20 demonstrates. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages, and PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis.
Biotechnology is the fastest growing segment of the life
sciences industry, growing by 28 percent over five years,
as illustrated by Table 21. While medical device and Table 20. Massachusetts life sciences industry
employment compared to other select Massachusetts
manufacturing remains one of the largest employers in the
sectors, 2001 and 2006
industry, this sector lost 8 percent of its work force between
2001 and 2006. Medical and testing laboratories, teaching Industry 2001 2006 Change Change
hospitals, and wholesale trade added employees at a faster All Industries 2,861,824 2,789,469 – 72,355 – 2.53%
rate than the industry as a whole, while the pharmaceutical Manufacturing 389,232 299,389 – 89,843 – 23.08%
sector lost 3 percent of its work force during this period. Wholesale Trade 141,086 136,752 – 4,334 – 3.07%
Healthcare Industry 371,427 411,626 40,199 10.82%
Life Sciences Industry 71,522 77,247 5,725 8.01%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages, and PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis.
Note: NAICS 622000 is allocated to the Healthcare Industry and partially to
the Life Sciences Industry
Table 21. Life sciences industry employment in
Massachusetts by core sector, 2001-2006
Change
Sector 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 to 2006
Pharmaceuticals 7,169 7,673 8,149 6,208 6,922 6,976 – 3%
Biotechnology 16,346 17,288 17,070 18,794 19,708 20,909 28%
Medical Device and Equipment 25,455 25,353 23,409 22,532 22,159 23,467 – 8%
Wholesale Trade 10,059 10,274 11,506 11,364 11,010 11,257 12%
Medical and Testing Laboratories 4,264 4,539 4,820 4,863 4,971 5,068 19%
Teaching Hospitals 8,229 8,686 8,966 9,116 9,308 9,570 16%
Total 71,522 73,813 73,921 72,877 74,078 77,247 8%
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis.

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Figure 14. In your next position, are you more likely to Every sector in the life sciences industry boasts a higher
work for a large company, a startup, or in academia? annual average wage than the state average, as seen in Figure
15. The pharmaceutical sector average, $99,450, represents
Startup a 89.7 percent increase over the state average. Teaching
8% Large company hospitals’ average, $53,032, is a 1.1 percent increase over the
Academia state average.

23%
Figure 15. Average life sciences wages by sector, 2006

Estimated average
wages by sector
69%
Pharmaceuticals $99,450

Biotechnology $99,137
Medical Device
and Equipment $76,685

Wholesale Trade $74,267

Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Medical and Testing
$59,866
Massachusetts Life Sciences Super Cluster Survey Laboratories
Teaching Hospitals $53,032

Massachusetts state
What do life sciences workers in Massachusetts earn? average annual salary
$52,435
Although the health care industry employs more than
five times the people than the life sciences industry in Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of
Massachusetts, Table 22 shows that wages for life sciences Employment and Wages, and PricewaterhouseCoopers
workers outshine those in the health care field. The overall life analysis.
sciences industry wage, $80,432, represents a 65.4 percent
increase over the overall weighted health care industry
wage of $48,625. The average annual salary for workers in
Massachusetts is $52,435. Survey respondents said lifestyle issues, not pay, would
lead them to pursue employment outside Massachusetts,
as Figure 16 demonstrates. Respondents are confident that
Table 22. Healthcare industry wages Massachusetts offers sufficient opportunities for employment
Industry name Wage and job growth, as illustrated in Figure 17.
Health Insurance Carriers $53,116
Ambulatory healthcare services $54,821 Figure 16. What is the most important factor that would
Hospitals $53,362 cause you to pursue or accept a job outside of the
Nursing Homes and Residential Care Facilities $30,207 Massachusetts super cluster?
Overall weighted average healthcare industry wage $48,625
Lifestyle
Overall weighted average life sciences industry wage $80,432
Pay
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages, and PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis.
Commute time
27% Other

40%

8%

25%

Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy

Massachusetts Life Sciences Super Cluster Survey

Employment • 41
Figure 17. How confident are you that if you lost your job Figure 18. Massachusetts life sciences employees by region
today, you could find an opportunity in Massachusetts of
equivalent or higher level? Region

2% Confident Route 90 corridor 8%

Somewhat North Shore 5%
confident
Not confident Boston 16%

Greater Boston 16%

28%
Worcester 16%

Middlesex County 15%

70% Other 24%

Source: Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives, 2008

Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Education

Massachusetts Life Sciences Super Cluster Survey A highly educated work force contributes to the success of
the life sciences cluster in Massachusetts, and differentiates
the Commonwealth from other states pursuing life sciences
employers and economic opportunities, as depicted in
Work force distribution and impact
Table 23.
While the Boston area is home to the highest concentration of
life sciences workers, these employees are making an impact
across the Commonwealth. Table 23. Life sciences PhDs granted per 100,000
people, 2006
Approximately one-third of all life sciences workers are Biological, Health
based in the Boston metropolitan area. Neighboring State biomedical sciences sciences Chemistry
Middlesex County accounts for an additional 15 percent of Massachusetts 6.67 1.49 2.13
Massachusetts’ life sciences work force, and organizations in Maryland 3.86 2.46 0.64
the region along Interstate 495 employ another 8 percent of
New York 3.15 0.47 0.81
these workers.
North Carolina 3.04 1.05 0.86
Outside the greater Boston area, Worcester boasts the biggest Pennsylvania 2.55 0.85 0.94
life sciences work force, followed by Massachusetts’ North California 2.20 0.38 0.92
Shore, as shown in Figure 18. Source: NORC at the University of Chicago, Survey of Earned
Doctorates, 2006
The Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives organization
estimates that each employer in the Boston-Cambridge
area spends an average of $139,000 annually on wages
and benefits for each fulltime position, which calculates to a
total economic impact of $2.3 billion. Looking at the entire
region encompassing Boston and Worcester, this average is
$154,918 for each fulltime position, and the total economic
impact is $8.8 billion.

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Perspective
Inspiring the next generation
of life sciences innovators
By Ioannis Miaoulis
For decades, the Museum of Science in Boston has
inspired young people, sparking those moments of
discovery at the heart of science through hands-on
learning and lively encounters with museum educators.
Our visitors can engage in hundreds of life science
explorations, including investigating primate evolution by
observing live tamarin monkeys, learning about anatomy by
touching a sheep’s lungs, or using the tools of geneticists
to analyze DNA fragments.
Today, life science research is changing our lives. No topic
touches people as deeply as this one. In response to the
dramatic growth in the bioscience world, the museum
is expanding its historic focus in life science and the
technology behind it. We are creating new permanent
exhibits and programs as well as strengthening the
presence of life sciences in temporary exhibitions, teacher
professional development, community forums, and other
formats. As we create the science and technology center of
the 21st century, our goal is to motivate the next generation
of life science innovators—both scientists and engineers—
while introducing adults to the wonders of the living world
and fostering the decision-making skills needed to become
informed citizens.
With the profound implications of the biotechnology
revolution on our lives, inspirational and enlightening
life science-related experiences in our exhibit halls are
more important than ever. To bring this knowledge and
technology to our audience, we are creating the largest
permanent exhibit and program initiative ever developed
by the museum: the Hall of Human Life project. When
completed, this effort will offer a comprehensive picture of
what it means to be human, including the dramatic impact
of biological and medical technologies on our lives.
Located in a hub of life science research and medical
innovation, the museum is grateful to the Massachusetts-
based corporate partners that lend their educational and
financial support to our efforts. In 2006, the Genzyme
Corporation made a $2 million gift, the largest in its
25-year history, to create the Genzyme Biotechnology
Education Initiative. Also the largest single corporate gift
Employment
Ioannis Miaoulis
Museum of Science
in the museum’s history, it supports interactive exhibits,
programs for students and teachers, and K-12 science
and technology curricula. Recently, we collaborated with
Genzyme scientists in a first-of-its-kind professional
development seminar that introduced Massachusetts
middle school teachers to bioengineering through the
seemingly simple task of baking bread.
Another corporate partner, the Novartis Institutes for
BioMedical Research, is the lead sponsor for our annual
Biotechnology Symposium for Educators and has helped
create an international exchange program between
Massachusetts and European science teachers.
Our role in teacher support continues to grow as we
begin our fourth year as a Regional Training Center for the
MassBioEd BioTeach program. Museum staff assisted in
the development of this program’s innovative curriculum
and associated materials kits, supporting an initiative
that outfits high school biology labs with state-of-the-art
biotechnology equipment.
Our life science initiative also reflects the museum’s
championship of technological literacy across the country
as it incorporates cutting-edge technology and engineering
into interactive exhibits and programs at the museum and
in classrooms nationwide through our National Center for
Technological Literacy®. By expanding our engagement
with life science and technology, the museum honors its
past as a natural history museum, while connecting to
the future through the latest scientific discoveries and
technological innovation.
As the museum evolves from New England’s most visited
cultural attraction into a national leader in science and
technology education, we look forward to partnering with
the Commonwealth’s life science leaders. Our mission—to
stimulate interest in and further understanding of science
and technology and their importance for individuals and
society—has never been more important.
Ioannis Miaoulis is president and director of the Museum
of Science.
• 43
Perspective
Life sciences talent leadership
By Paul Harrington
The life sciences industry serves as a core source of
growth for the Commonwealth’s economy. Over the course
of the current economic recovery the biotech sector in
the state has added jobs at nearly three times the rate of
overall payroll employment gains produced statewide. The
biotech sector is a major source of export income for the
state, and that, combined with its very high levels of worker
pay and considerable purchases made from other goods
and services producers in the Commonwealth, means
that it has helped spark the overall resurgence in state
economic activity since the end of 2003.
These gains are largely built of the talent, skills, and drive
of the life science work force, an extraordinary group of
individual in many ways. Perhaps the most distinguishing
feature of this group is their high level of educational
attainment. Nearly three quarters of those who work in the
biotech sector have earned a college degree. Four in ten
life sciences workers hold advanced degrees.
A critical challenge for Massachusetts is to expand the
available supply of workers with advanced degrees in
the scientific, engineering, and information technology
(SEIT) fields. Job vacancy rates for workers in these fields
ranged in the 8 percent to 10 percent range at the end
of 2007. These vacancy rates signal considerable losses
in potential output, income, and employment for the
Commonwealth and are clear indicators of labor supply
constraints that limit the capacity of the biotech sector to
grow and prosper.
44 •
Massachusetts has been unable to keep pace with the
nation in increasing the flow of students into graduate
programs. Between 1996 and 2006 the nation increased
the number of bachelor’s degree awards in SEIT fields
by 20 percent, but Massachusetts colleges had only a 2
percent rise in degree awards over the 10-year period. The
nation also outpaced Massachusetts in the production of
master’s and doctor’s degrees in SEIT fields
At the graduate level we have become increasingly
dependent on admitting students from overseas who
enroll under the temporary F-1 student visa program to
fill our SEIT graduate classrooms. The result, of course,
is a growing share of advanced SEIT degree awards
by Massachusetts colleges to foreign students, who
are increasingly likely to return to their home country
as economic opportunities increase there. By 2006, 42
percent of all master’s and doctoral degrees granted in the
SEIT fields in Massachusetts were awarded to students
with these temporary visa degrees.
In a field where labor supply already serves as a
considerable constraint on economic growth, the rising
share of SEIT degrees granted to students with temporary
visa status places the domestic skill development pipeline
in long-term jeopardy. We need immigration reforms that
can place these extraordinarily educated foreign students
on a fast track to permanent residency and citizenship.
But we also need to develop a set of strategies that can
expand the number of native born students who choose
the SEIT fields of study at the undergraduate level and to
foster the enrollment of SEIT undergrads into graduate
programs in these fields.
 Paul Harrington
Northeastern University

Several alternatives should be considered:
• We must address the need to better reward life sciences
masters and PhDs to counter the flow of students
to MBA and JD programs. Too many talented SEIT
undergraduates are diverted out of their fields at the
graduate level by the lure of high paying jobs that utilize
their intellectual skills in nonscientific settings in finance
and law.
• A large proportion of high school seniors have strong
math skills, but many of these students—especially
young women—opt out of SEIT fields of study at the
undergraduate level. We need to start working with
middle- and high-school students around a whole set of
career and educational decision making activities—to
help them make more informed decisions about what to
study in college.
Through the work at the Massachusetts Life Sciences
Collaborative and other efforts, we are starting to scratch
the surface, but we must boldly continue taking a
strategic and collaborative approach. The talent pool in
Massachusetts is the primary reason research institutions
and companies locate here. If this talent disappears, so will
this super cluster. Thus, we must be proactive and not let
our leadership in life sciences slip away to other nations
who are aggressively developing their talent.
Paul Harrington is associate director of the Northeastern
University Center for Labor Studies and co-chair of the
Massachusetts Life Sciences Collaborative Human Capital
Task Force.

• The share of black and Hispanic high school graduates

who choose SEIT fields as their undergraduate majors is
very low. Part of this low participation rate is associated
with low math proficiencies at graduation. We need to
figure out how to raise the math and related literacy
scores of these youngsters to provide them with access
to among the best sets of jobs in the American economy.
Model training programs exist such as the programs at
Middlesex Community College and Worcester Technical
High School, but we must expand on these types of
programs and create better avenues to industry.

Employment • 45
Perspective
The importance of training minorities
By Joan Reede
As founder of the Biomedical Science Careers Program
(BSCP), my vision was to develop a program to address
the issue of the underrepresentation of minorities in the
biomedical sciences and other science-related fields.
The solution for me was to develop a pipeline creating
opportunities for young students to get exposed to and
excited by the world of science, and ultimately to desire
to pursue a science career. In 1991, in collaboration
with the Massachusetts Medical Society and the
New England Board of Higher Education, BSCP was
launched by the Harvard Medical School Minority Faculty
Development Program.
By 1994, BSCP was a 501(c) (3) organization designed
to identify, support, and provide mentoring for
underrepresented minority students, trainees, and
professionals pursuing biomedical and other science-
related careers and consequently contributing to increase
the pool of tomorrow’s scientists.
BSCP’s success is due to its collaborative community-
based philosophy involving academia, private industry,
medical centers, public education, and professional
societies. It is widely known throughout the country
as being the definitive model for bringing talented,
disadvantaged youth into a setting where serious
discussions about science and future career opportunities
can be held.
To date, more than 6,000 students—including those in
middle school, high school, college, medical, dental, and
graduate schools—and 1,000 postdoctoral fellows and
junior faculty have passed through BSCP. All programs are
offered at no cost to the students.
From a modest beginning in 1992, the Biomedical Science
Careers Student Conference has grown into an event that,
in 2008, saw over 850 students register and was attended
by 250 advisors and speakers. This conference is designed
for students from high school to the postdoctoral level
and addresses the need for student mentoring, guidance,
support, and career development.
46 •
Joan Reede
Biomedical Science Careers
Program
The New England Science Symposium, launched in
2002, grew to include 185 abstracts from postdoctoral
fellows; medical, dental, and graduate students; post-
baccalaureates; college and community college students
in 2008.
In collaboration with Harvard Medical School, our pipeline
reaches back to middle school students through the
Exploration Program that exposes them to research
laboratories, science career paths, and discussions about
the importance of academic preparation. Each session of
Skills Workshops for College and High School Students
provides approximately 250 students and 100 parents with
information and guidance in areas such as application
process for college and medical, graduate and professional
schools, as well as interviewing skills and financial
planning. The Career Development Series for physicians
in postdoctoral training, junior faculty and research fellows
provides skills enhancement, tools for career development,
and networking opportunities.
Through annual corporate and foundation sponsorships,
BSCP awards Hope Scholarships of $7,500 to students
active in BSCP programs and provides a Linkage Program
that connects BSCP students and fellows in need of advice
and assistance with BSCP Hope Scholarship recipients.
These programs offered by BSCP take me back to my
original vision of building this pipeline. With the dedicated
time and spirit of over 1,000 volunteers and generous
sponsorships by the medical community, educational
institutions, and the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical
industry we have built a pipeline for underrepresented
minorities in biomedical sciences and other science-related
fields. The BSCP students will be among tomorrow’s
researchers, scientists, physicians, and nurses—the
leaders of tomorrow.
Joan Y. Reede is the dean for Diversity and Community
Partnership at Harvard Medical School and the president
and chair of the Biomedical Science Careers Program.
Perspective
The Massachusetts Life
Sciences Talent Initiative
By Zoltan Csimma
Since the announcement last year of Governor Patrick’s
$1 billion Life Sciences Initiative, there has been an
unprecedented commitment by key stakeholders to ensure
there is a full and robust talent pool to meet the ambitious
and achievable goals of the program for years to come.
The Life Sciences Talent Initiative, which I have been
honored to chair, is a dedicated group focused on
recommending strategies to make Massachusetts the
global leader in talented, skilled, and trained work forces.
The Commonwealth needs the critical supply of workers
to fulfill the promise of future discoveries that will benefit
patients around the world who need our help. The group’s
members represent industry, academia, state government,
and the work force training system.
As one of the world’s largest and fastest growing
biopharmaceutical companies, with products that reach
patients in more than 90 countries, Genzyme experiences
daily the challenges of finding individuals who possess the
unique skill sets necessary in the life sciences field, as well
as skills necessary to build the infrastructure that allows
us to grow. Our situation is not unique and the increasing
needs of all companies in the biotechnology industry will
only serve to intensify this challenge.
Massachusetts is fortunate because of the unique
combination of environmental factors that have allowed the
biopharmaceutical industry to flourish in the greater Boston
area. However, we cannot take these assets for granted;
specific and coordinated actions will be needed to allow
for its continued growth. For example, we need to address
the pipeline issue with special emphasis on life sciences
curricula for K-16 students. We also need to create
programs that channel more minority students into the life
Employment
Zoltan Csimma
Genzyme
sciences, rather than discouraging these students out at an
early stage. In addition, we need better ties with our higher
education centers to allow better access to students with
the needed terminal degrees.
We also need to ensure there is a pipeline of future
employees who can help us grow here in Massachusetts
and around the world. Examples of our student recruitment
programs and initiatives include an active MBA program
rotation at some of the nation’s best universities, CO-
OP programs with local higher educational institutions
for specific positions, and an active summer internship
program that focuses on current college students in
relevant degree programs.
This year we were proud to announce the Genzyme-
University of Massachusetts Scholars Program. This is a
unique collaboration focused on helping top-performing
local students earn paid employment in the biotechnology
industry, through a paid summer internship at Genzyme.
At graduation, these students will have the important
advantage of previous biotech industry experience,
distinguishing them as competitive candidates for
employment.
Programs such as our partnership with the University
of Massachusetts, once established, have the potential
of bringing sustainable results to our industry and the
Commonwealth. Continuing to develop and nurture
these relationships across key stakeholders will ensure
Massachusetts maintains its place as the leader in the life
sciences industry.
Zoltan Csimma is senior vice president and chief human
resources officer for Genzyme.
• 47
Maturing companies

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Perspective
Bay State’s super cluster provides
optimal ecosystem for innovation
By Robert K. Coughlin
When it comes to competing for life science companies,
Massachusetts has a major advantage: everything an
entrepreneur needs is within a few miles, if not right
next door.
Our world-class universities foster groundbreaking
research while training some of the best and the brightest
minds in the world. They work closely with premier
hospitals, which also promote research and provide a place
to test new medicines.
These institutions are surrounded by hundreds of
companies of all sizes providing unlimited opportunities for
collaborations and partnerships. This is all supported by a
strong venture capital network always on the lookout for
new concepts.
This thriving super cluster has created momentum.
Because so many resources are readily available,
more companies are being drawn to the region. These
companies will make this area even more attractive.
Still, this tremendous ecosystem must be carefully
maintained and promoted if we are to live up to our
full potential to create a safer, healthier future for the
whole world.
Industry, nonprofits, institutions, and government forces must
work together to develop public policies that encourage
the development and commercialization of drugs for the
unmet medical needs of our families and friends. Uniting
these forces and serving as a voice for the industry are key
missions of The Massachusetts Biotechnology Council.
A significant example of the potential power of such
collaborations is the Life Science Initiative currently being
debated in the legislation. That plan will pump more
than $1 billion into the sector through direct grants, new
infrastructure, and tax incentives.
The initiative would directly foster research with a first-in-
the-nation centralized repository of new stem cell lines
Maturing companies
Robert K. Coughlin
Massachusetts
Biotechnology Council
available to public and private research enterprises. It
would make investments in the research infrastructure of
the public higher education system.
Just as importantly, the initiative would support life science
companies through an improved tax structure, along with
grants and loans that will leverage even more federal and
private sector investment.
We also need other policies that will foster growth such
as reasonable limits on interactions between industry
marketers and academia that won’t hinder communication
or collaboration. We need to work toward new rules that
will ease the way for biogeneric drugs while protecting
patients. We need to find ways to keep medicines
affordable without imposing price controls that could
hinder investment in drug discovery.
At the same time, we need to help companies establish
themselves and grow by making it easier for them
to find appropriate locations and move through the
permitting process. Toward that goal, the Massachusetts
Biotechnology Council has launched a BioReady
Communities Campaign that will help municipalities better
prepare for hosting biotech lab and manufacturing facilities.
Finally, we need to encourage science education at all
levels to ensure a strong pipeline of students who embrace
the life sciences as a career path. A blueprint on how to
better coordinate the state’s education assets to meet
the work force needs of the sector is contained in the Life
Science Talent Initiative Study sponsored by the MBC and
the Life Science Center.
These efforts will ensure that the super cluster continues
to grow, enabling even more groundbreaking research,
important discoveries, and ultimately new treatments and
cures to improve lives.
Robert K. Coughlin is chief executive and president of the
Massachusetts Biotechnology Council.
• 49
Interview
Christoph Westphal
On how I got here
I always wanted to try and turn
science into drugs. I did an MD and a
PhD at Harvard Medical School, and
heard that there are people who start
companies, and then there are people
who are consultants, and then there
are the venture capital guys.
I thought I should spend a couple of
years understanding how businessmen
think, and so I went to McKinsey, which
is a consulting firm.
And then I decided I should learn
how people put money into these
companies, so I joined Polaris Venture
Partners. I was always most interested
in starting companies, so from the
day I started in venture capital I really
was a serial entrepreneur, starting up
companies, serving as CEO and so
on. Basically, my entire time in venture
capital was starting companies, not just
funding them.
And then when I started Sirtris, I
decided that I might as well enter
management full time, so I left venture
capital. And that’s how I ended up here.
50 •
On the foundation of the
super cluster
We were fortunate enough to reach
critical mass in Massachusetts with
some biotechnology firms that went
cash-flow positive, such as Genzyme
and Biogen and, more recently,
Millennium. We were able to build this
foundation of tens of thousands of jobs,
of smart, motivated folks who really
care passionately about discovering and
developing drugs. Now you have these
hugely cash-flow-positive businesses
bringing in all of these fantastic people,
and that will be the foundation of growth
for all of these biotech companies that
are hoping to go cash-flow positive at
the end of this decade.
On building a successful
biotechnology company
The way you build every company is
with a hope to become a cash-flow-
positive, sustainable business like a
Genzyme or a Biogen. And the right
way to build such companies is to
focus on three things. Number one is to
bring a drug to market to help people.
That’s the moral imperative. Number
two is to ensure your employees have
the best possible futures. And number
three is to generate returns for your
investors or shareholders.
The differences between
Boston and Silicon Valley
San Francisco has great biotechnology
companies. They tend to be run by folks
who have developed a product before
and are spinning out of an existing
company rather than from a world-class
university. But if you’re interested in
fundamental, earth-shaking discoveries
and turning them into drugs, then the
Boston-Cambridge area is the best
place in the world. That’s because
Harvard and MIT and these other
institutions are here. We have every
single skill set you need to start and
nurture an important new biotechnology
company. We’ve got great research.
We’ve got great companies. I see a
lot of people from California moving
to Boston, because they want to start
important new companies and this is
the place to do that.
On Massachusetts’ future
For all of our advantages, our
continued leadership in biotechnology
and the life sciences is not guaranteed.
We face a lot of problems—not only
high business costs but also a lack
of affordable housing and clogged
transportation. Other states and
countries are taking advantage of this,
and trying to lure away our biotech
entrepreneurs. If we don’t face up to
Christoph Westphal is the CEO and vice chair of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, a NASDAQ-listed
company, which he co-founded in 2004. Dr. Westphal previously co-founded and served
as CEO of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals and Momenta Pharmaceuticals, both of which are
also NASDAQ-listed. Formerly a consultant and a general partner in a venture capital fund,
Dr. Westphal has been lead author on several patent applications and is a contributor to
professional journals.

these challenges, we could see people

leaving, or not locating here in the first
place. It’s happened before: the guys
who set up the information technology
industry were from Boston, and a lot of
them left for Silicon Valley.

I see some really positive signs. The

state’s leaders have focused people
on how innovative healthcare and
science can be an incredible driver
for economies, and they are rallying
resources to help keep the smartest
folks here. Governor Patrick’s
biotechnology initiative has generated
a lot of excitement, not only within the
industry but also among leaders such
as Senators Kennedy and Kerry, and
folks who are really influential in the
community, such as Chris Gabrieli.

These people are doing a fantastic job

of working really hard to stay ahead of
the curve. Hopefully, we’ll keep a lot of
the entrepreneurs and innovators here
in Boston and not have them move to
Silicon Valley, or Shanghai, or wherever
else people are seeking to build centers
of excellence in the life sciences.

Maturing companies • 51
Perspective
Covering all the bases:
biopharmaceuticals and Boston
By Steven H. Holtzman
The creation and growth of biotech companies based on
the development of innovative new medicines requires
a unique amalgam of diverse expertise and, notably
enough, attitudes. The foundation of a successful young
biopharmaceutical company rests on four pillars: First,
cutting-edge academic and industrial life-science research
and technology; second, world-class expertise in medical
research and clinical translation; third, sources of capital
and financing which are cognizant of the time-frame and
risks inherent in developing a drug; and lastly, a unique
breed of entrepreneurial business people.
These entrepreneurs are not your ordinary business people.
They must have the ability not to abjure risk, but, rather,
to recognize and embrace risk—to see in great detail all
of the potential pitfalls and hurdles involved in building a
company from scratch, discovering and developing drugs,
and bringing those medicines to market; and, yet, in the
face of the knowledge of all of the obstacles, to maintain a
positive attitude and an integrated perspective that enables
them to navigate their nascent enterprises through the
multifaceted obstacle course.
Capabilities and success on each of the four fronts
is absolutely necessary for the creation of a thriving
biotechnology company and for the development of
innovative new medicines. And, while each is necessary,
none standing alone is sufficient. Therein lies not the
challenge, but, rather, the significant opportunity and fertile
ground for the growth of the life sciences in the Boston area.
52 •
Steven H. Holtzman
Infinity Pharmaceuticals
Other places in the United States and in the world may
have present one or more of the four essential elements.
The Boston area, however, is arguably unto itself in
having them all and having them at a level of such quality,
breadth, and depth that it has reached a critical reactor
mass that is virtually self-feeding. As the life sciences
(and their fruits in the form of innovative medicines) gain
an increasing importance in our country and the world’s
economy, it is this distinctive and extraordinary fusion of
science, medicine, risk capital, and entrepreneurship within
our Commonwealth that sets Massachusetts apart as a
world leader.
Founded and based in Cambridge, Infinity Pharmaceuticals
exemplifies the combination of world-class resources
necessary to build a company with enormous
potential. Infinity began with a novel technology from
Harvard, financial backing from leading life science
venture capitalists, a management team of successful
biotechnology and R&D executives, and collaborations
with world-leading medical researchers—all from within
the greater Boston community. Infinity’s success in
discovering, developing, and delivering to patients
important new medicines is hard to imagine occurring in
any other locale.
Steven H. Holtzman is chair, president, and chief executive
officer of Infinity Pharmaceuticals.
Perspective
Innovative medicines based on
a breakthrough discovery
By John Maraganore
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, based in Cambridge, is
developing a novel class of innovative medicines based
on a breakthrough discovery in biology known as RNA
interference, or RNAi. RNAi, a natural process for gene
regulation, represents a completely new approach to drug
discovery and development, and its discovery has been
heralded as a major scientific breakthrough that happens
once every decade or so. With RNAi technology, we have
the opportunity to treat disease and impact the lives of
patients in a fundamentally new way: by silencing disease-
causing genes upstream of today’s medicines.
Alnylam was founded in 2002 by, among others,
Nobel-laureate Philip Sharp. It is based on technology
initially developed at MIT and the Whitehead Institute,
both in Cambridge. Today, we are recognized as the
leading biopharmaceutical company developing novel
RNAi therapeutics.
Over the last five years at Alnylam, we have been delivering
on our mission of becoming a top-tier biopharmaceutical
company. We have maintained the same commitment to
high quality science as our founders, with a strong record
of peer-reviewed scientific publications in the world’s
top journals including Nature, Nature Medicine, and Cell.
Alnylam has numerous collaborative relationships with
leading academic institutions, many of which are located
in the greater Boston area. The proximity to these centers
of excellence is a significant part of what has made
Alnylam so successful. The region is known as one of the
world’s most innovative and vibrant scientific and business
environments, which translates into a rich source of the
best and brightest scientists as well as a dynamic setting
for the development of novel ideas and approaches.
Maturing companies
John Maraganore
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals
In addition to maintaining a position of scientific leadership,
Alnylam has been very successful across business
initiatives as we leverage our intellectual property and
know-how to apply to the discovery and development
of novel therapeutics. We initially raised $40 million in
venture funding in 2002 and 2003, and subsequently
raised approximately $200 million in the public markets
and $500 million through our transformative alliances with
top-tier biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies
including Novartis and Roche. To date, we have invested
over $300 million in translating the science of RNAi towards
therapeutic products, and have become one of the top
biotechnology companies in the United States. We have
built a broad pipeline of RNAi therapeutics; our most
advanced program is in Phase II human clinical trials for
the treatment of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection.
In addition, we are developing RNAi therapeutics for the
treatment of hypercholesterolemia, liver cancers, and
Huntington’s disease, among other diseases.
Our strategy at Alnylam is to lead the translation of the
science of RNAi into a robust drug discovery capability
and to build a significant product pipeline of innovative
medicines that we commercialize alone or with
collaborators. Our efforts are well underway in a time
when the pace of biomedical discovery is faster than ever,
and the hunger for innovative medicines is greater than
ever. This environment, combined with our unparalleled
intellectual property position for RNAi therapeutics and our
industry-leading alliances, creates a unique opportunity for
Alnylam to build a leading biopharmaceutical company.
John Maraganore is chief executive officer of Alnylam
Pharmaceuticals.
• 53
Clinical trials

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Perspective
Global opportunities for clinical trials
By Josef H. von Rickenbach
Clinical studies have continued to expand in number
and complexity, requiring more patients. Additionally,
biopharmaceutical companies are increasingly seeking
to develop and commercialize products for regional and
international markets, further driving the growing need to
conduct studies throughout the world.
As clinical research experiences even greater globalization,
Massachusetts will continue to be a major center for
drug and device development. The region has one of the
highest levels of clinical activity among traditionally large
healthcare cultures, providing sufficient flows of patients
for important studies. As home to some of the world’s
leading biopharmaceutical companies and premier medical
institutes, breakthrough discoveries here will continue
to contribute to development of important treatments to
benefit the lives of current and future generations worldwide.
In order to keep this innovation thriving, it is imperative
that the Massachusetts-based biopharmaceutical industry
take strides to continue to generate incremental growth in
clinical research locally, while taking advantage of the wide
range of development opportunities globally.
Especially in emerging locations for clinical development,
such as the Asia-Pacific region, biopharmaceutical
companies can benefit from rapid patient recruitment and
lower costs of conducting studies. Key factors driving
interest in these emerging regions for clinical research
also include sophisticated healthcare systems in many
countries, the availability of highly trained professionals,
and attractive end markets for biopharmaceutical products.
In the past, barriers to conducting global clinical studies
may have included lack of data standards and differences
in local customs, cultures, and medical approaches.
Today, the smallest to the largest companies based in
Clinical trials
Josef H. von Rickenbach
PAREXEL International
Massachusetts can take advantage of this global research
opportunity by working with outsourced global partners
that have local operations in numerous countries. These
types of partnerships provide a gateway to global markets.
Small and emerging biopharmaceutical companies with
limited infrastructure and expertise can especially benefit
from the breadth and depth of expertise, capabilities, and
access that global clinical research organizations such as
PAREXEL can provide. A biopharmaceutical company can
obtain the same high quality clinical research and global
standards from any of their partner’s locations worldwide.
It is vital that clinical research organizations have well-
established local capabilities and expert resources,
experience working with the regional regulatory authorities,
and a history of conducting successful, ICH-GCP clinical
studies in a wide array of geographies. To ensure success,
it is essential to have access to a network of qualified
investigators and familiarity with the myriad regulatory and
operational differences for conducting clinical studies in
various countries.
Combined with this global challenge is growing study
complexity. The life sciences industry in Massachusetts
is a vibrant part of emerging solutions in many key areas,
such as personalized medicine, adaptive trials, and
eClinical platforms, which are influencing the direction
of clinical development. As we are able to detect safety
and efficacy signals and identify and select the most
promising compounds earlier we will be able to bring
novel treatments to patients sooner. The Commonwealth
will continue to be a major contributor to advancing of the
worldwide success of the biopharmaceutical industry in
preventing and curing disease.
Josef H. von Rickenbach is chairman and chief executive of
PAREXEL International.
• 55
States larger than Massachusetts are grabbing a greater share Table 25. Rank and number of clinical trials by state
of clinical trials. Clinical trials Population % National
national rank rank Phase Open trials total
The Commonwealth, the 14th most populous state, falls 1. California 1 2,632 12%
behind California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, and several I 444
others in hosting clinical trails for new medications, as seen II 1,106
in Table 25. Maryland, the 19th most populous state, is the III 826
only one that routinely receives a disproportionate number of IV 256
clinical trials, because it benefits from the National Institutes of 2. Texas 2 2,476 11%
Health headquarters in Bethesda, MD.
I 473
II 1,019
As life sciences continues to evolve into a global enterprise, III 793
pharmaceutical companies may shift more clinical trials IV 191
outside the United States, especially to markets with trained 3. New York 3 2,271 10%
professionals, established healthcare systems, and lower
I 398
research costs.
II 928
III 717
Looking solely at metropolitan areas, Boston hosted 1,143 IV 228
clinical trials in 2007, about three-fourths the number of 4. Pennsylvania 6 1,748 8%
trials that Houston had the same year, as shown in Table 23.
I 247
Boston’s metropolitan population is approximately three-
II 679
fourths the size of Houston’s: 4.4 million people, compared to III 650
5.6 million, according to July 2007 metropolitan statistical area IV 172
figures from the US Census Bureau.
5. Florida 4 1,693 8%
I 186
The Chicago metropolitan area, home to 3.5 million residents,
II 697
had 1,033 clinical trials in 2007—more trials per capita than
III 658
either Boston or Houston. Philadelphia, with 5.8 million IV 152
residents, had fewer trials per capita in 2007 than any of the
6. Maryland 19 1,563 7%
peer metropolitan areas.
I 297
II 692
Table 24. Rank and number of clinical trials by state III 464
IV 110
Clinical trials % National
national rank Phase Open trials total 7. Ohio 7 1,560 7%
1. Houston 1,524 7% I 171
II 620
I 318
III 648
II 655
IV 121
III 453
IV 98 8. Illinois 5 1,486 7%
2. Boston 1,143 5% I 173
II 632
I 207
III 567
II 477
IV 114
III 355
IV 104 9. Massachusetts 14 1,475 7%
3. Chicago 1,033 5% I 228
II 572
I 145
III 514
II 422
IV 161
III 384
IV 82 10. North Carolina 12 1,435 6%
4. Philadelphia 989 4% I 158
II 551
I 157
III 599
II 360
IV 127
III 364
IV 108 Source: Clinicaltrials.gov, of National Institutes of Health; US Census
Bureau 2007 population estimates
Source: Clinicaltrials.gov, of National Institutes of Health; US Census
Bureau 2007 population estimates Note: Data found by using Clinicaltrials.gov targeted search procedure

Note: Data found by using Clinicaltrials.gov targeted search procedure.

New York data was unable to be found specifically.

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Perspective
Initiatives in clinical research to
provide quality care to patients
By Gary Gottlieb
The process of bringing a drug or other treatment to market
includes basic and developmental research, clinical trials,
and, if successful, FDA approval. This effort routinely takes
ten to 15 years to complete and generally costs upwards
of $1 billion. Clinical trials reflect the critical phase of this
process that allows new or existing molecules or devices
to be tested for safety, tolerance, dose ranging, efficacy,
and toxicity. Ultimately, trials must be performed on
large enough diverse populations and under adequately
controlled conditions to determine whether they will
become useful therapies.
The business of performing clinical trials produces
approximately $10 billion to $20 billion in revenue for
hospitals, physicians and commercial centers around the
world. Typically, pharmaceutical and device companies
contract directly with health care providers or through
clinical research organizations (CROs) to enlist both healthy
and medically ill human volunteers to participate in these
studies. Most of this research is designed specifically by
the manufacturer to meet the requirements of the FDA to
support approval and marketing of new uses or claims
of superiority relative to existing treatments. However,
numerous investigator-initiated studies are funded to
support unique scientific inquiry. Clinical trials performed
by Massachusetts’ world-class academic health centers
and hospitals provide a valuable service to our life sciences
companies in expediting the prompt review of new drugs
and devices by the FDA. In addition, the conduct of clinical
trials provides additional revenue to the institutions, often
leveraging other related research activities and funding.
Finally, these trials may provide access to cutting-edge
innovations for the patients in our community.
At Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), clinical research
plays an integral role in our mission to provide quality
care for patients. Our Biomedical Research Institute, an
international leader in basic, clinical and translational
research, is supported by over 800 physician-investigators,
scientists and faculty, with annual funding in excess of
$425 million. The BWH’s Center for Clinical Investigation
assists investigators to conduct their clinical studies
more efficiently and effectively by providing a range of
Clinical trials
Gary Gottlieb
Brigham and Women’s Hospital
research and support services. In light of growing global
competition, it is imperative to build on our innovative
prowess to enhance and improve on the way we do clinical
trials and research.
One such initiative, Informatics for Integrated Biology
and the Bedside (i2b2), is working actively to increase
efficiency and access to clinical populations for research
participation in the Harvard/Partners HealthCare system.
i2b2 was created in 2004 as an NIH-funded National
Center for Biomedical Computing based at Partners
HealthCare System. The i2b2 Center is led by co-Directors
Dr. Zak Kohane and Dr. John Glaser. Among its goals, i2b2
is working to develop software and related technology
tools to exploit rich clinical, tissue, and other available
phenotypic and genotypic data repositories. i2b2 is
creating newly configured resources to allow investigators
to access a database of digitized data across the Partners
system to better identify clinical problems and deidentified
populations with specific diagnoses as well as populations
that may be approached for consent to be contacted
and offered participation in approved protocols. Early
experience suggests that the merging of clinical phenotypic
data with data derived from well characterized tissue will
reduce recruitment costs and time remarkably.
Translation of fundamental and basic discovery to useful,
safe and effective clinical diagnostic procedures and
novel treatments is a tenet of the mission of the great
academic medical community of Massachusetts. A long-
term successful partnership with industry will ensure
that our local population has access to innovation and
advanced care while our clinicians and scientists can
translate discovery to care and be the earliest adopters of
improved tools and therapies. Clinical trials reflect a very
competitive multibillion dollar opportunity. It is critical that
the Massachusetts life sciences community distinguish
itself through investments that will reduce costs, improve
approval and recruitment efficiencies, and create novel
approaches to clinical investigation if we are to compete
effectively in this arena.
Gary Gottlieb is president of Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
• 57
Perspective
Translating research results
into clinical therapies
By Elaine Ullian
From nanomedicine to epigenomics, advances in
biomedical science are changing the world we live in at the
speed of light. Every day the molecular underpinnings of
disease etiology and progression are being uncovered. As
a result, novel clinical therapies are reaching those patients
whose lives depend on them most. Boston Medical Center
(BMC) is proud to be positioned at the forefront of such
critical and exciting biomedical advancement at this
pivotal time.
BMC was formed from a merger of Boston City Hospital,
Boston Specialty and Rehabilitation Hospital, and Boston
University Medical Center Hospital. The medical center is in
partnership with 15 community health centers, offers a full
spectrum of primary and specialty care, and is the primary
teaching hospital Boston University School of Medicine.
The strength of this partnership, which coalescences a
wealth of highly enriched resources, coupled with strong
leadership and forward thinking, has allowed BMC to
become a clinical home for some of the world’s finest
clinicians and researchers.
Whether it’s a new clinical treatment or isolation of a gene,
or the creation of a new molecular entity, the journey from
lab bench to bedside relies upon innovative research
and strong executive strategy. Because the process of
58 •
Elaine Ullian
Boston Medical Center
translating research results into to clinical therapies can
often be long and inefficient, we have responded by
building a systematic infrastructure to support biomedical
research and have expanded our ability to meet the
demands of clinical investigation in the 21st century. We
encourage our researchers to collaborate and expand their
scope of knowledge by participating in unique research
rotations, or by completing a practicum that broadens their
area expertise while building new relationships. Indeed, we
support building partnerships among National Institutes
of Health CTSA awardees, reach out to local community
organizations, and seek to work with industries that
support clinical research.
Together, BMC and its partners support a new and
dynamic infrastructure that will prove to advance medical
science quickly, efficiently, and ethically. We will work
to continually promote the integration of our intellectual
and technological resources in a way that measurably
transforms the way patients receive their care. Ultimately,
this will allow us to deliver the latest and greatest in clinical
therapies to patients and underserved populations, both
locally and globally.
Elaine Ullian is president and chief executive officer of
Boston Medical Center.
Perspective
Synergistic drug combinations for
treating serious diseases
By Alexis Borisey
CombinatoRx was founded in 2000 with a vision of creating
synergistic combination pharmaceuticals, a revolutionary
new class of drugs. By using our proprietary technology,
we discover combinations with selective mechanisms of
action that are created by the special synergy between two
drugs. We believe that by targeting multiple physiologic
pathways and hitting multiple targets within the body, we
will find novel ways to better treat a wide variety of serious
diseases. CombinatoRx invented and built a drug discovery
technology to translate this promise of synergistic
combinations into a robust pipeline of product candidates.
Over the first five years of our history, this technology was
built, the synergistic combinations were shown to work
in model systems, and a broad pipeline of multiple drug
candidates in phase 2 trials was created. We continuously
reload the CombinatoRx product pipeline each year with
programs from our highly productive drug discovery engine.
We have demonstrated translation of our novel drug
discovery approach with concrete clinical proof-of-
concept data in a number of product candidates. As one
example, we presented positive clinical results in a trial
of CRx-102 in hand osteoarthritis (OA), where CRx-102
demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in pain,
as well as improvements in stiffness and in tender and
swollen joints. CRx-102 additionally met its primary and
secondary endpoints in a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trial,
with statistically significant ACR20 response, a standard
measure of disease improvement.
Based on these positive results, we have advanced CRx-
102 into later-stage clinical trials in both OA and RA. In
addition to CRx-102, we are awaiting phase 2 clinical data
on multiple other product candidates during 2008, these
trials are being conducted on a global basis with sites
throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia,
South Africa, Argentina, and Brazil.
We are not just identifying and validating synergistic
combinations, but equally importantly, we are developing
these novel combinations in proprietary formulations to
optimize their product profile by improving their therapeutic
index (tolerability and efficacy). For example, with CRx-102
we are co-formulating the agents to optimize their release
profile by creating a single, once-daily capsule. In other
Clinical trials
Alexis Borisey
CombinatoRx
cases, we are creating a new route of administration, for
example, developing a topical formulation where none had
existed before. Much of our product development work
including preclinical testing, formulation and manufacturing
is being conducted in China, India, Europe, and the
United States.
We see this as a global business and, therefore, we seek
out source materials, skills, innovation and clinical trials on a
global basis, doing each where it makes the most sense. This
global reach offers both strategic and tactical advantages.
For our clinical-stage product candidates, our partnering
strategy is to retain ownership past the major value
inflection points of phase 2 data and commercial product
formulation to capture the greatest potential value for our
assets and then to seek partners for further development
and commercialization.
With multiple Phase 2 data sets expected this year,
CombinatoRx is launching a proactive product partnering
campaign during 2008 and 2009. In addition to product-
specific partnerships, CombinatoRx is leverage the
strength of our drug discovery engine through valuable
research collaborations. For example, we have a subsidiary
in Singapore, developed in collaboration with the economic
development board of Singapore, specifically focused on
discovery and development of treatments for infectious
diseases such as hepatitis C. Through these collaborations
we acquire substantial financial resources for our
development programs and gain the ability to expand our
technology into new therapeutic areas while maintaining
valuable product rights for CombinatoRx.
CombinatoRx intends to accomplish its business goals
while maintaining its financial strength, continuing our
scientific innovation and realizing the vision to create
synergistic, selective medicines through our drug discovery
engine. We believe that executing on this strategy will drive
two truly important achievements: the creation of important
new medicines for patients and the establishment of a
sustainable company.
Alexis Borisey is president, chief executive officer, and
founder of CombinatoRx.
• 59
Biomedical manufacturing
An overview of biomedical manufacturing
in Massachusetts
Over the past five years, manufacturing operations have
decreased in almost all industries across the Commonwealth.
However, manufacturing in the life sciences cluster has
quietly expanded and grown stronger. Massachusetts is
currently home to one of the largest biomanufacturing
facilities in the United States, and more leading device and
biopharmaceutical companies have announced plans to
establish or expand operations in the Commonwealth.
Despite these strengthening fundamentals, Massachusetts
continues to struggle with various factors, including
the high costs of living and labor, inefficient permitting
procedures, and heavy taxation burdens. These factors play
a crucial role company’s decision of whether to establish
large-scale biomedical manufacturing operations in the
Commonwealth. Companies point to Massachusetts’ skilled
work force as a primary reason for manufacturing in the
state. While the majority of companies with manufacturing
activities in Massachusetts plan to maintain or increase
their manufacturing work force inside the state, some
plan to pursue cost-effective manufacturing alternatives
Biomedical manufacturing
elsewhere—a cause for concern for the Commonwealth. As
with research and development, these companies are moving
their manufacturing to Europe and Asia, as well as to other
US states, for the same primary reason: access to lower-cost
skilled labor.
Despite hurdles, Massachusetts currently boasts a number of
biopharmaceutical manufacturers, with additional life sciences
companies moving their manufacturing operations into
Massachusetts. For example, Bristol-Myers Squibb is on track
to move some of its operations to the state; its new campus
will eventually employ 550 people. Existing biomedical
manufacturing companies here include Abbott Laboratories,
AVANT Immunotherapeutics, Boston Scientific, Genzyme,
Haemonetics, Philips Medical Systems, Covidien, Shire PLC,
and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.
MIT’s Industrial Performance Center, the University of
Massachusetts’ BioManufacturing Center in Lowell, Millipore’s
new Bioprocess R&D Center and private companies like
Xcellerex, which is pioneering the development of single use
manufacturing technology, are all focused on developing
products to optimize biopharmaceutical manufacturing. These
and other resources will propel the industry in the future.
• 61
Perspective
Global growth
By Martin Madaus
Millipore has been part of the biotechnology industry’s
growth from its beginnings. With roots in Massachusetts
for more than 50 years, we have been part of the
development and manufacture of innovative biotech drugs
such as monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), recombinant
proteins, and vaccines, which have led the way for cutting-
edge therapies in the treatment and prevention of cancer,
autoimmune disorders, and infectious diseases.
In coming years, biotechnology drug sales are expected
to outpace those of conventional small molecule
pharmaceuticals. This trend creates a fast growing market
for products, tools, and services that aid biotechnology
companies in the development and manufacture of
new drugs.
With this rapid growth there are also industry challenges.
There is increasing competition for disease targets,
greater governmental restrictions on prescription drug
reimbursement, and the loss of sales from older biotech
drugs due to patent expirations. Companies are also under
increasing pressure to improve their development and
manufacturing processes while working within regulatory
constraints. Life science researchers continue to look for
faster ways to screen and identify new drug candidates.
After development, manufacturing sites are focused on
streamlining productivity while maintaining a high degree of
product safety and quality.
62 •
Martin Madaus
Millipore Corp.
Despite the challenges, there are also many new
opportunities in fast growing markets. As the industry
matures, today’s biotech companies are increasingly
forming global partnerships. Many of our large multinational
customers have developed research, development, and
manufacturing partnerships with local manufacturers, while
others have made significant direct capital investments
in Asia. Singapore, for example, is a rapidly growing
manufacturing area for Western companies, while India
and China are providing new avenues for research, drug
development clinical trials, and biogeneric manufacturing.
As many of our customers are developing overseas
operations in these countries with the same quality
standards found in North America and Europe, it is
important for us to provide both global and local support.
We recently announced plans to open a new state-of-
the-art applications and training facility in Singapore.
It will open in 2009 and is being designed to support
biopharmaceutical manufacturing. Our customers in that
part of the world will be able to investigate, explore, and
optimize their separations, purifications and monitoring
processes with the unique support Millipore provides.
In the years to come I have no doubt that we will continue
to expand our global operations as we invest in people,
training, and infrastructure.
Dr. Martin Madaus is chairman, chief executive officer, and
president of Milipore Corp.
Perspective
Massachusetts’ manufacturing strategy
By Richard Lester
Massachusetts is known around the world for its
outstanding contributions to fundamental research in the
life sciences. Less well known is that the Commonwealth
is also preeminent in biomanufacturing technology. Many
of the pioneers in biomanufacturing began their careers
in Massachusetts, and today some of these leaders are
training the next generation of bioprocessing experts here.
Current developments in biomanufacturing technology
are dramatically changing production processes and will
directly affect timelines and costs. These innovations, when
combined with emerging capabilities in places like Ireland
and Singapore, seem likely to change the biomanufacturing
landscape in the years to come.
Massachusetts’ strength in biomanufacturing depends
upon three competitive advantages that it must continue to
cultivate if this economically important activity is to grow
in our region.
First, the entrepreneurial biopharmaceutical culture creates
a base of firms involved in early state manufacturing
because of their engagement in the development of
new drugs. The complexity of biomanufacturing and
its importance to the drug development process create
powerful incentives to keep it nearby. This is particularly
important for emerging companies; their futures may
rest on a single product, and quality and reliability in the
manufacturing process often trumps cost.
Biomedical manufacturing
Richard Lester
MIT Industrial Performance Center
Second, these firms, along with our region’s strong
research institutions such as MIT, Harvard, Northeastern,
and the University of Massachusetts, are at the forefront of
innovative technologies that are fundamentally changing
the way biologics are made. These technological strengths
will attract companies that are serious about investing in
their own biomanufacturing capabilities.
Finally, the talent that has developed over three decades
in the region is a critical magnet that must be fostered and
nurtured. We must continue to train and encourage the
next generation of biomanufacturing talent, including such
specialists as research scientists, design engineers, and
plant operators.
As companies develop greater confidence in their
biomanufacturing processes, and talent pools as well as tax
incentives draw commercial-scale manufacturing to new
locations around the world such as Singapore and India,
regions like Massachusetts will have to work aggressively
to stay at the forefront of biomanufacturing. Public policy
has a role to play—in tax policy, work force development,
physical infrastructure—but equally important is our
entrepreneurial environment and the foundation of high
quality public spaces for innovation on which it rests.
These formidable assets are not easily replicated.
Dr. Richard Lester is director of the Industrial Performance
Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• 63
Global companies

Jambo. Ni hao. Hola. Konichiwa. Guten tag.

Life science leaders in Massachusetts are learning to say

hello in many different languages. They are trekking the globe,
building scientific relationships, and crafting business deals
with peers in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand. At the same time, researchers and
companies all over the world turn to the Massachusetts super
cluster for groundbreaking ideas, initiatives, and products.

How does Massachusetts transform local ideas into global

businesses, with the ability to enrich lives everywhere? How
does the Commonwealth transform itself into the premier
worldwide hub for life sciences research and development?

The answers are waiting to be discovered. The implications

will reverberate around the world.

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Perspective
BI3—a new model for transforming
discovery into therapeutics
By Rainer Fuchs
We are living in a time of unprecedented advancements
in basic science, which generate a plethora of novel
opportunities for targeting the molecular basis of many
important diseases, even as they unveil a picture of
daunting complexity. At the same time, the burgeoning
costs of health care, heightened regulatory hurdles,
and a stagnant number of approvals of new medical
entities create immense pressure on Big Pharma and big
biotechnology firms to rethink their operational model
in order to improve productivity. Large drug discovery
companies increasingly depend on partnering with
academia and small biotech firms to complement their
internal R&D efforts by accessing external innovation.
The Biogen Idec Innovation Incubator, or BI3 in short,
was launched in 2007. The mission of BI3 is to create an
environment that combines the entrepreneurial energy
and the incentive systems of a startup with the deep drug
discovery expertise and technology capabilities of one of
the world’s most successful biotechnology companies.
BI3 investments focus on what is sometimes dubbed “the
valley of death”: the transition of innovative research from
an academic setting to an early-stage company. Academic
researchers with novel potential drug candidates are faced
with an economic climate that makes access to capital a
challenging endeavor. Many venture firms have become
more risk averse and prefer investing in more mature
opportunities, especially those that feature a versatile
technology platform and a seasoned management team.
At the same time, the applied nature of the work required
to convert an early drug lead into a promising development
candidate typically puts such programs outside of what
agencies such as NIH are willing to fund, thus creating a
formidable funding gap. To address this gap, BI3 provides
entrepreneurially-minded founders with capital, laboratory
and office space, business support, and scientific
assistance to allow them to rapidly convert novel biological
insight into life-saving and life-changing therapeutics.
Global companies
Rainer Fuchs
Biogen Idec
The BI3 model takes pages from the playbooks of
traditional venture funding, economic development
incubators, and startup/big biotech partnering and blends
them into a new approach. BI3 makes investments in
preclinical ideas that are two to three years away from
entering formal studies necessary to get IND approval.
In addition to supplying the financial means required to
complete a milestone-driven, focused research plan, BI3
offers laboratory and office space within walking distance
of some of Cambridge’s premier research institutions. A
key objective of BI3 is to enable its portfolio companies to
devote all their attention to advancing their drug discovery
programs. To this end, BI3 provides or arranges for many
of the administrative aspects of running a business, such
as payroll, HR, and IT. Most importantly, BI3-funded
companies are free to pursue their activities completely
independent of, and without interference by, Biogen Idec,
yet they are offered the opportunity to tap into Biogen
Idec’s experience in bringing drugs to market by consulting
with Biogen Idec experts in drug discovery, development,
regulatory, or commercial issues. Furthermore, BI3 allows
portfolio companies to leverage Biogen Idec’s technology
platforms on an as-needed basis. At the end of the
research program, Biogen Idec has an option to acquire the
company and hence take on responsibility for, and the risk
of, clinical development.
BI3 has launched three companies and is an example
of an innovative business model that efficiently tackles
the challenge of transforming scientific discovery into
advances in human healthcare. The concentration of
scientific excellence, entrepreneurial spirit, startup
creativity, and drug discovery experience in Massachusetts
made it the natural location to implement this
organizational experiment.
Rainer Fuchs is vice president and executive director of the
Biogen Idec Innovation Incubator.
• 65
Perspective
Lessons learned—our transformation from
R&D to a commercial enterprise
By Michael W. Bonney
Cubist was founded in 1992, targeting an untapped field
for antibacterial drug discovery: tRna synthetases. Four
years later, after forging technology-validating partnerships
with three large pharmaceutical companies, the company
went public.
By 1997, our management team was eager to bring
a later stage antibacterial asset to help us accelerate
growth at Cubist. We began evaluating daptomycin, a
drug Eli Lilly had taken to Phase II trials several years ago
but abandoned, in part, because of toxicity issues that
developed during the tests.
Cubist saw an opportunity to formulate an acne-treatment
cream from a daptomycin. We believed that a daptomycin-
based cream would avoid the adverse effects that Eli Lilly
observed during its Phase II tests. We negotiated a back-
end, weighted deal to acquire the rights and intellectual
property to daptomycin.
The Cubist team studying daptomycin wanted to know
more about some of the effects reported during the Eli
Lilly trials—specifically, skeletal muscle toxicity. Our
experiments found that, despite conventional wisdom, a
full dose delivered once a day was just as effective—and
had significantly fewer adverse effects—than partial doses
taken several times a day. Because of these findings,
we shifted the focus of our daptomycin program toward
creating an intravenous antibiotic, which can be used to
treat serious infections caused by gram positive bacteria
such as MRSA.
66 •
I joined Cubist in 2002, just after the company had
completed two successful Phase III trials in complicated skin
trials. On my first day, I was told that the first of two Phase
III trials for hospitalized Community Acquired Pneumonia
(hCAP) had been completed and the drug had just missed
its prespecified endpoint. That year, we learned why the
drug had failed its hCAP tests, and agreed with the FDA to
submit a new drug application just based on skin studies.
Cubicin® was approved by the FDA on September 12,
2003, for the treatment of complicated skin and skin
structure infections (cSSSI). We launched the drug in the
United States in November.
When I arrived, this company was talking to large
pharmaceutical companies about licensing and
copromoting Cubicin in the United States. It became clear
that other firms wanted to position our drug as a niche
vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) therapeutic. Cubist
believed Cubicin would be better marketed as an antistaph
and anti-MRSA drug. We also thought that more clinical
trials would be needed to support the VRE labeling, which
would delay the NRA for a number of years.
Even though Cubist had $240 million in convertible debt
at the time and just $100 million in cash, our board of
directors believed our company was in the best position
to explain the benefit of our product to customers. We
proceeded with the cSSSI filing and prepared to market
Cubicin as an antistaph drug. In 2003, we started hiring
a sales force, making scientific liaisons, and began our
transition from a purely R&D-focused company to a
commercial enterprise.

I had been through a transition like this before, at Biogen,
and knew that communication would be key to our
success. We held a series of employee meetings to let
everyone know the rationale for our decisions, and to
prepare them for the changes to come.
Those changes included: reducing and simplifying discovery
efforts to make room for the commercial build on our income
statement; spending more time planning for and managing
the expenses of the company; developing processes to
make decisions regarding investing in pipeline building
activities versus investing in creating revenue and revenue
growth; creation of a supply chain that could accommodate
thousands of delivery points; and creating an accounts
receivable organization; and, becoming more systematic in
its approach to compliance and risk management.
It was a very busy and exciting time and it led to the most
successful launch of an IV antibiotic in US history.
Here are some lessons from our experience:
1. Feedback from our customers validated our decision to
position our drug as an antistaph agent. We used that
feedback to refine our message.
2. Data on what was happening in the marketplace, both
quantitative and qualitative, was critical for internal
decision making and to keep the capital markets up to
date on the launch.
Global companies
Michael W. Bonney
Cubist
3. Often the leaders who bring an organization to the
cusp of commercialization either aren’t interested in
the next stage or require the acquisition of new skills.
Change and turnover in the top ranks are inevitable. It
must be managed in such a way that members of the
organization feel reassured that the original culture isn’t
being abandoned, although it is evolving.
4. Don’t lose sight in the excitement of the first launch that
it is critical to have an Act Two, Act Three, and so on.
5. As a biopharmaceutical develops financial strength from
a successful launch, management thinking may shift
from opportunity-seeking to loss avoidance. This is a
big mistake, even in a company with a wildly successful
first launch. Companies should strive to keep the
fundamental entrepreneurial spirit that brought them
success. Opportunity seeking behavior is a hallmark of
entrepreneurial culture.
6. Set expectations appropriately, both internally and
externally. It is always easier to deal with a positive
surprise than a negative one. This is a challenge
because both internal and external constituencies are
wholly invested in the product. Even with a thorough,
well thought-out launch plan, the market will teach
you valuable lessons that can improve performance if
you are prepared to learn. Keep both constituencies
appropriately informed of results and the learning.
Michael W. Bonney is president and chief executive officer
of Cubist.
• 67
Perspective
From Chinatown to China, Genzyme’s
commitment to patients motivates its
global development
By Henri Termeer
From our founding in 1981 in a small office in Boston’s
Chinatown neighborhood, Genzyme has understood that
a global presence is the best way to provide the highest
standard of care to patients, families, and physicians
throughout the world. We made it a priority to establish
international roots because we felt a responsibility to bring
therapies to patients who need them, regardless of where
they live.
In our first year, we acquired manufacturing facilities
in the UK. Since then, we have invested in creating a
global infrastructure that includes manufacturing, clinical
development, regulatory affairs, and research. This network
enables us to bring products to patients in even the most
difficult-to-reach locations.
Recent anniversaries—20 years in Japan and 10 years
in Brazil—offer examples of Genzyme’s remarkable
international growth. In 1987, Genzyme established
commercial operations in Japan. We were the first non-
Japanese biotechnology company to introduce therapeutic
products without Japanese partners. We now employ 130
people there. In 1997, Genzyme established an office in
Brazil, becoming the country’s first major biotechnology
company. Brazil now serves as a hub for all of our activities
throughout Latin America, where we have 150 employees.
Today Genzyme has more than 10,000 employees
around the world, serving patients in nearly 90 countries.
International product sales now account for more than
half of our revenues. We are currently in the midst of major
expansion projects in the US, Belgium, France, Ireland,
the UK, and the Netherlands, and are rapidly expanding
commercial operations globally. We are investing in
emerging markets such as China and India, where there
68 •
Henri Termeer
Genzyme
are tremendous numbers of patients who could benefit
from the advances of biotechnology. Genzyme has a strong
presence in developing countries, where we provide free
medicine and help create sustainable health care systems.
Among the programs Genzyme sponsors is the Gaucher
Initiative, a humanitarian program that brings Cerezyme
to patients with Gaucher disease who live in countries
where reimbursement is not yet a reality. In 2007,
Genzyme donated $110 million worth of Cerezyme and
other products around the world. By contributing through
various humanitarian programs to improving global health,
Genzyme demonstrates its commitment to patients and
creates goodwill with policymakers in both the developing
and industrialized world.
Genzyme’s presence in China began in 1999 with treating
patients through the Gaucher Initiative. Approximately 125
Chinese patients are now being treated with Cerezyme,
free of charge. We also sell transplant and orthopedic
products in China.
In 2006, we expanded our commercial efforts with the
opening of offices in Shanghai and Beijing. We’ve formed
partnerships with local companies, and recently announced
plans to build a major research and development center in
Beijing. This new site represents an important element of
our long-term commitment and a major step forward in our
effort to improve the lives of patients in China.
As we expand our presence in China and throughout the
world, we will continue to cultivate our international roots to
contribute to the global growth of the life sciences industry.
Henri Termeer is chairman, chief executive officer, and
president of Genzyme.
Figure 19. Global reach of Massachusetts Life Sciences Super Cluster

Great Britain EU
Vancouver

Boston
Turkey
Japan
China

UAE India
Mexico City

Brazil

Australia

Global companies • 69
Interview
Deborah Dunsire
On coming to Massachusetts
Moving into the Massachusetts super
cluster was very striking, having
come from the big pharma corridor
in New Jersey. There is a high level
of entrepreneurialism here and a
crucible for innovation to move into
commercialization. Massachusetts has
got a real brain trust, both from the
scientific and research communities,
the clinical side, the industrial expertise,
and the financing that creates a unique
ecosystem here. And that allows for the
creation of companies to move ideas
and scientific advances forward into
potential products.
On innovating within a
public company
Millennium is a company that can
truly innovate. But, for shareholders to
buy into innovation, which has a long
cycle for delivering revenue dollars,
you have to show them discipline and
focus. You’ve got to be able to build
what you want to invest in into a model
in which shareholders feel they’re
getting an adequate return on their
investment. For Millennium, that meant
focusing the company and prioritizing,
cutting costs, limiting our therapeutic
areas, and redirecting resources to our
commercializing our marketed products
and driving the top-priority products
in the development pipeline. Once we
achieved balance between revenue and
spending, and could deliver a return to
the shareholders, we began to regain
their support for innovation.
70 •
On the impact of
Massachusetts’ high
cost of living
Every dollar that goes to incremental
payrolls because you have to bring
workers into an incredibly expensive
area or an area with higher taxes is
a dollar that doesn’t go to driving
innovation or to value creation. So,
Massachusetts’ huge advantage
is a constellation of factors; its
huge disadvantage is that it is
incredibly expensive.
On the need for
strengthening education
One of the things I feel very passionate
about is the state of American
education. When we look at, say,
MIT right now, I think more than 50
percent of their graduating classes are
international students. From a business
perspective, that may become an
issue, particularly if we’re going to
have restrictive visa issues that make
it hard for them to work here. If they’re
entrepreneurially inclined, they can go
back to their countries and generate
incredible wealth for themselves. So,
keeping those folks here is harder.
And then, we’re not going to have
the knowledge workers that we need.
So, I’m very, very passionate about
education. We need to prepare our
young people so they can compete for
entry into these elite institutions and
then be available to us as employees
down the line. And that preparation must
start early in life, with good schools.
On cooperation with the
state government
The biotech community and the state
have been doing an increasingly
good job of talking with a common
voice about why it is vital that we
work together on these issues and
how that might work. Massachusetts
is a state where we’ve seen the
governor truly reach out and be open
to understanding the industry here
better and understanding how valuable
biotechnology can be as an engine of
growth for the state. There is a very
open and communicative relationship,
and that’s a critical success factor for
this biotechnology super cluster to
thrive and grow.
On advice for entrepreneurs
It’s very easy to underestimate how
much experience and expertise are
required to enter new therapeutic
areas. Entrepreneurs sometimes
see so many applications for a new
technology—especially a platform
technology—that they start heading off
in lots of directions. As a result, they
either lose focus or they don’t devote
sufficient resources to those new
areas. You are always better off being
disciplined, running more focused and
leaner longer, rather than expanding in
every direction.
Deborah Dunsire has served as president and CEO of Millennium Pharmaceuticals since
2005. Previously, Dr. Dunsire led the North American Oncology Operations of Novartis,
and formerly held various positions with Sandoz, a pharmaceutical company. She is
widely recognized as an industry leader, and served on the boards of the Pharmaceutical
Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and is a current board member of the
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).

Global companies • 71
Looking forward

The Massachusetts life sciences super cluster is paving the

way toward global health care markets, which are likely to
generate a bright economic future for the Commonwealth.
Since the super cluster’s inception in the early 1980s,
Massachusetts has strengthened local connections between
companies and institutions, developing the basis for a
sustainable research and economic powerhouse. Looking
forward into the next 30 years, there are rich opportunities to
establish global relationships to complement Massachusetts’
skills, knowledge, and entrepreneurship.
This report highlights several threats to the super cluster’s
future vitality, including reductions in federal funding, gaps
in science and math education, an extremely high cost of
living, an insufficient transportation infrastructure, and a
less-than-hospitable regulatory and business environment.
Industry and academic leaders and government policymakers
must collaborate to address these challenges so the
Commonwealth preserves its preeminent position in life
sciences research, development, and innovation.
On the work force
A majority of survey respondents believe job opportunities in
the super cluster will strengthen throughout the next decade,
as illustrated in Figure 20. This confidence may stem from
the governor’s billion-dollar initiative to invest in life sciences
programs and projects over the coming decade. Historically, the
Commonwealth has focused on promoting growth at its research
centers, teaching hospitals, and companies. All stakeholders in
the Massachusetts life sciences industry must endeavor to build
the highly skilled work force that will allow these organizations
to continue to thrive. This is essential to guarantee that the
entire population benefits from the super cluster’s development
into a global hub for healthcare and life sciences.
Figure 20. In the next 10 years, do you think that job
opportunities in the Massachusetts life sciences cluster
will strengthen, weaken, or stay the same?
Strengthen
Stay the same
9%
Weaken
36% 55%
Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Massachu-
setts Life Sciences Super Cluster Survey
Looking forward
Consider, for example, the Boston Museum of Science’s
efforts to build a science and technology center to motivate
the next generation of life sciences innovators, while
introducing adults to the world of medical science. This
cross-generational initiative encourages young students to
pursue careers in the life sciences industry and helps shape
the opinion of adults who will influence their children’s career
decisions. The Commonwealth needs more students to fill
future positions. Currently, some life sciences positions suffer
from 8 percent to 10 percent vacancy rates.
When addressing the Commonwealth’s work force pipeline
issue, special emphasis must be placed on math and life
sciences curricula for students as they move from the
first day of kindergarten to the last day of college. Local
leaders also need to create programs that encourage more
minority students to embrace life sciences. Certainly efforts
such as the Biomedical Science Careers Program, which
provides opportunities for young minority students to learn
and become excited about the world of science, greatly
enhance minority participation. But exposure is only part
of the solution. Educators also must address the problem
of low math proficiency rates for minority students. By
introducing more minority students to opportunities in the life
sciences industries, and improving their proficiency in math,
Massachusetts will provide them access to some of the most
promising jobs in the American economy.
Another disturbing trend involves the relatively low number
of college-educated undergraduate and graduate students
Massachusetts colleges are producing. During the last
decade, the nation increased the number of bachelor’s
degrees awarded in scientific, engineering, and information
technology (SEIT) fields by approximately 20 percent, while
Massachusetts colleges showed a meager 2 percent rise.
The nation also outpaced Massachusetts in master’s and
doctoral degrees in SEIT fields. In an effort to fill SEIT graduate
classrooms, the Commonwealth has become increasingly
dependent on admitting students from overseas who enroll
under the temporary F-1 student visa program. This results in
a decreasing share of advanced SEIT degree awards granted
by Massachusetts colleges to local students who would likely
remain in the Commonwealth after graduation. As of 2006, 42
percent of all master’s and doctoral degrees granted in the
• 73
SEIT fields in Massachusetts were awarded to students with Figure 21. Do you consider yourself an entrepreneur?
temporary visas. In a field where 75 percent of workers hold
college degrees and 40 percent hold advanced degrees, the Yes
Commonwealth will have to place greater focus on our ability No
to train the future life sciences work force.

The Commonwealth is currently developing programs,

34%
such as:

• K-16 science and math exposure programs

• Minority mentoring 66%
• Internship and cooperative education programs
• MBA rotational programs

On entrepreneurs
Entrepreneurs are the key to the Commonwealth’s life sciences
Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy
innovation economy. Two-thirds of survey respondents
Massachusetts Life Sciences Super Cluster Survey
considered themselves entrepreneurs, as shown in Figure 21.

In the life sciences, entrepreneurs have different expectations

than business people in other industries. They know that, in Figure 22. In your next position, are you more likely to
many instances, a decade will pass before a product goes work for a large company, a startup, or in academia?
to market. To succeed, these entrepreneurs must convince
skeptical early-stage investors, endure years of complex Start-up
product-development risks, and transition the business to a 8% Large company
commercial enterprise, to ultimately produce a product that Academia
will fulfill an unmet medical need. This combination of moral
duty and economic return—known in the industry as the
double bottom line—continually motivates people even when 23%
the odds appear against them. As a company grows, it needs
talented entrepreneurs at each transition point.

A majority of life sciences startups license university 69%

technology, which means entrepreneurs should nurture strong
relationships with technology transfer offices around the
Commonwealth. Educational programs have been established
to help entrepreneurs become great team builders, as it takes
a diverse set of skills to take an invention from lab to market.
An overwhelming majority of survey participants said they
would prefer to work for a startup company, as shown in
Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy
Figure 22.
Massachusetts Life Sciences Super Cluster Survey

On financing
The Commonwealth’s billion-dollar life sciences initiative
represents a significant investment and victory for public
support of life science funding. Federal funds have started
to languish and NIH applications are receiving more scrutiny,
forcing many researchers to become more conservative
at a time when many survey participants believe major
project breakthroughs are near, as illustrated in Figure 23.
Massachusetts’ research institutions must make high-risk/
high-reward areas a primary mission, as the resulting
inventions represent the seeds that entrepreneurs will plant
to create the next Genzyme, Boston Scientific, Millennium,
or Haemonetics. The Commonwealth can point to the super
cluster as proof of return on investment when it lobbies for
increased federal funding.

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Figure 23. During the next 10 years, in what area of On NIH funding
product development do you see the Massachusetts super
cluster excelling? Life sciences industry leaders in Massachusetts are alarmed
by the lack of funding increases from NIH since 2003. Funding
Convergence of levels have remained flat despite rising inflation and higher
technologies (i.e. drug/ business and research costs.
device combinations) 26.5%
The NIH was asked for an 8 percent increase in funding in 2008,
Biologics 20.6%
and a 9 percent increase in 2009. Those requests were denied.
Personalized medicine 19.1%
This flat line funding pattern hurts Massachusetts’ promising
Nanomedicine 13.2% young investigators the hardest. It stifles their careers.
They wonder how they will obtain funding in a competitive
Pharmaceuticals 10.3%
environment. This struggle disheartens researchers, and
Medical devices 4.4% creates an aura of discouragement for both the current and
future generations of life sciences pioneers.
Other 5.9%
Even established scientists with attractive grant proposals
find themselves caught in protracted grant review processes
that may play out over years, not months. This slows down
Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy
progress and threatens research that could save lives and
Massachusetts Life Sciences Super Cluster Survey
prevent disease.

Because of these frustrations, life sciences investigators are

Life sciences venture capital financing in the Commonwealth
downsizing their laboratories, slowing research, setting more
was robust, only ranking second behind California.
conservative goals, and producing less ambitious proposals
Massachusetts can do better, however. Other regions have
as they try to secure funding.
proven that more capital attracts more entrepreneurs and
enhances the probability that innovations will reach the
commercial market. One of the perspectives in this report
outlined compelling reasons for expanding the number and scale On growing as a global hub
of high-quality venture capital firms in the Commonwealth. It is in
As the super cluster has evolved during the past three
Massachusetts’ best interest to align inventions, entrepreneurs,
decades, institutions and companies have improved their
and capital to build new transformational life science companies.
ability to collaborate, run clinical trials, manufacture, and
Yet no public or private policy exists to stimulate the growth of
market biomedical products on a global scale. International
new funds, or startup and early-stage venture capital funds.
companies have targeted Massachusetts-based companies
for mergers and acquisitions because they sought access to
The Commonwealth already has a community of intellectually
local talent and technology.
and financially powerful investors who understand and
appreciate the life sciences industry. However, a policy that
Both established and young companies in Massachusetts
promotes more early-stage funds would serve several purposes:
are discovering ways to take advantage of global resources.
Consider the overseas examples of PAREXEL in clinical trials
• Stimulates new financial entrepreneurs to form their
and Millipore in biomanufacturing.
own companies
• Increases the approachability of the VC community Massachusetts will continue to be a rich source of educational
opportunities for people around the world. As these young
• Provides a competitive environment where more radical
scientists, business people, and entrepreneurs return to their
ideas receive funding
home countries, they will further expand the super cluster’s
• Creates solutions for the Valley of Death dilemma network, forming new relationships and alliances. These
complementary life science linkages will strengthen the super
• Encourages deals, jobs, and opportunities for success
cluster’s commercial abilities and stimulate the delivery of high
quality services and products to patients around the globe.
Table 26. Rank of Massachusetts venture capitalists on the
following measures (Strongest to weakest) Clearly, Massachusetts’ future teems with opportunities.
1. Life sciences expertise Stewards of the super cluster have an economic and moral
2. Connections responsibility to promote and advance the industry. The time,
3. Business expertise
effort, and money invested into building a healthy, vibrant,
active super cluster pays worldwide dividends.
4. Willingness to collaborate
5. Approachability
6. Willingness to fund radically new ideas
Source: 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers/Xconomy Massachusetts Life
Sciences Super Cluster Survey

Looking forward • 75
Conclusions by
NEHI and MTC
We have reached a critical time in the growth of the life sciences industry in
Massachusetts. We have achieved great successes, yet at the same time we have
many challenges ahead.

We have much to be proud of: our economic super cluster employs over 400,000 people
across the Commonwealth in sectors ranging from biopharmaceuticals and medical
devices to health care delivery and health information technology. The life sciences
industry in Massachusetts generates over $25 billion in revenues and leads the nation
in per capita NIH funding, venture capital investment, and the number of life sciences
PhDs. However, other states and nations are investing heavily in their life sciences
capacities and have the potential to chip away at our current competitive advantage.

To strengthen the future of our super cluster, leaders from across the life sciences were
brought together to identify and address critical issues that are fundamental to securing
the robust growth of the state’s super cluster. This group of leaders, the Massachusetts
Life Sciences Collaborative, is led by a Leadership Council comprised of principals
from the top hospitals, universities, and companies in the region. This coalition is
charged with the mission to develop a cross-sector comprehensive life sciences
strategy for the Commonwealth.

This report highlights many of the strategic priority areas that the Massachusetts
Life Sciences Collaborative is addressing; issues that are critical to maintaining our
global leadership position in this crucial arena. These priorities include addressing
the impact of declining NIH funds; creating favorable conditions for business growth;
improving science and mathematics education; fostering entrepreneurship and the
growth of early-stage innovative companies; planning and developing a transportation
infrastructure to enable fast and reliable service; and encouraging a peer review and
strategic approach to life sciences public policy.

The potential threat to this jewel in the Commonwealth’s crown is that we will become
complacent in our success. As other states, regions, and countries are increasing
efforts to lure our best and brightest scientific minds (and even companies) away, we
must intensify our efforts to preserve our well-earned reputation as a place where
innovation and entrepreneurship thrive and where premier institutions of research
and learning continuously feed our life sciences industries with new discoveries and
creative, talented people. To confront these challenges within a global economy, our
two organizations—the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC) and the New
England Healthcare Institute (NEHI)—are committed to bringing together leaders from
across the super cluster to work collaboratively to ensure a robust future for the life
sciences in Massachusetts.

Governor Deval Patrick established a bold vision for the life sciences with the state’s $1
billion Life Sciences Initiative. Through these and other major collaborative initiatives,
we will continue to nurture and grow our great scientific and commercial assets and
maintain our prominent position as the global leader in life sciences.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Adams Wendy Everett, ScD

Executive Director President
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative New England Healthcare Institute

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Methodology and sources

Survey
PricewaterhouseCoopers and Xconomy, with support from the Respondents by position:
New England Healthcare Institute, Massachusetts Technology
Collaborative, Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, and • Professional/commercial: 83.3%
Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council, administered
• Professional academia: 9.4%
a survey for the 2008 Massachusetts Super Cluster II report.
PricewaterhouseCoopers and Xconomy provided a secure and • Student: 6.3%
confidential web-enabled questionnaire. Participants’ data was • Post-doctoral fellows: 1.0%
captured by the website and loaded into a database, which
was then downloaded for formatting and analysis by PwC
staff. The survey, conducted in spring of 2008, targeted 580
life sciences organizations with 147 individuals responding. Respondents by highest level of education:

Respondents by gender: • BA/BS: 33.3%

• MS and/or MBA: 31.3%
• Male: 78.1%
• PhD: 29.2%
• Female: 21.9%
• MD: 2.1%
• JD: 2.1%
Respondents by sector: • Joint doctorate (MD/PhD or PhD/JD): 1%
• Biotechnology: 30.2% • High school: 1%
• Research university: 14.6%
• Medical device: 14.6%
• Pharmaceutical: 11.5%
• Medical instrumentation: 3.1%
• Other (including trade associations): 26.0%

• 77
Additional information
Table 27. Life sciences NAICS codes
Attributable
to biomedical
Overall industry NAICS Specific industry name Sector industry
Life sciences 325411 Medicinals and botanicals Pharmaceuticals 100%
Life sciences 325412 Pharmaceutical preparations Pharmaceuticals 100%
Life sciences 325414 Biological products exc. diagnostic Pharmaceuticals 100%
Life sciences 541710 R&D in the Physical, Engineering and Life Sciences Biological Research and Development 56%
Life sciences 325413 In vitro and in vivo diagnostic substances Medical Devices and Equipment 100%
Life sciences 334510 Electromedical apparatus Medical Devices and Equipment 100%
Life sciences 334516 Analytical instruments Medical Devices and Equipment 100%
Life sciences 334517 X-ray apparatus and tubes Medical Devices and Equipment 100%
Life sciences 339111 Laboratory apparatus and furniture Medical Devices and Equipment 100%
Life sciences 339112 Surgical and medical instruments Medical Devices and Equipment 100%
Life sciences 339113 Surgical appliances and supplies Medical Devices and Equipment 100%
Life sciences 339114 Dental equipment and supplies manufacturing Medical Devices and Equipment 100%
Life sciences 339115 Ophthalmic goods manufacturing Medical Devices and Equipment 100%
Life sciences 339116 Dental laboratories Medical Devices and Equipment 100%
Life sciences 423450 Wholesale trade—Medical and hospital equipment Wholesale trade 100%
Life sciences 423460 Wholesale trade—Ophthalmic goods Wholesale trade 100%
Life sciences 424200 Wholesale trade—Druggists’ goods Wholesale trade 100%
Life sciences 541380 Testing Laboratories Medical and Testing Laboratories 10%
Life sciences 621511 Medical laboratories Medical and Testing Laboratories 100%
Life sciences 621512 Diagnostic imaging centers Medical and Testing Laboratories 100%
Life sciences 611310S Colleges and Universities—State Academic Research 10%
Life sciences 611310P Colleges and Universities—Private Academic Research 3%
Life sciences 622P Hospitals—Private Academic Research 6%
Healthcare 524114 Health Insurance Carriers Health Insurance Carriers 100%
Healthcare 621P Ambulatory healthcare services Ambulatory healthcare services 100%
Healthcare 622P Hospitals—Private Hospitals 100%
Healthcare 622L Hospitals—Local Hospitals 100%
Healthcare 622S Hospitals—State Hospitals 100%
Healthcare 622F Hospitals—Federal Hospitals 100%
Healthcare 623P Nursing Homes and Residential Care Facilities Nursing homes 100%

Table 28. Life sciences patent codes

532-570: Organic compounds
800: Multicellular living organisms and unmodified parts thereof
and related processes
128: Surgery (includes class 600)
378: X-Ray or Gamma Ray Systems or Devices
501: Compositions: Ceramic
601: Surgery: Kinesitherapy
602: Surgery: Splint, Brace, or Bandage
604: Surgery (Medicators and Receptors)
606: Surgery (instruments)
607: Surgery: Light, Thermal, and Electrical Application
623: Prosthesis (i.e., Artificial Body Members), Parts Thereof,
or Aids and Accessories Thereof
530: Chemistry: Natural Resins or Derivatives; Peptides or
Proteins; Lignins or Reaction Products Thereof
210: Liquid Purification or Separation

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
Massachusetts Technology
Collaborative board of directors

Executive committee Board members

Karl Weiss Martin Aikens
Board Chairperson, MTC; Professor Emeritus, Business Agent, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Northeastern University Workers, Local 103
Lawrence J. Reilly Patrick Carney
Board Vice-Chairperson, MTC; Senior Vice President, General Manager of Field Training, NSTAR
Counsel and Secretary, National Grid USA
Philip W. Cheney
Gregory P. Bialecki Visiting Professor, Northeastern University; Vice President of
Undersecretary for Business Development, Commonwealth of Engineering (retired), Raytheon
Massachusetts
Aram V. Chobanian
David D. Fleming President Emeritus, Boston University; Dean Emeritus, Boston
Group Senior Vice President, Genzyme Corporation University School of Medicine
Paul C. Martin Michael J. Cronin
John H. Van Vleck, Professor of Pure and Applied Physics, President and CEO, Cognition Corporation
Harvard University
Priscilla Douglas
Vice President of Learning and Development,
Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Chairpersons emeriti
Patricia M. Flynn
George S. Kariotis Trustee Professor of Economics and Management,
Chairman Emeritus (retired), Alpha Industries Bentley College
Jeffrey Kalb Debra Germaine
Technology Advisor, California Micro Devices Corp. Partner, Christian and Timbers
John T. Preston C. Jeffrey Grogan
President and CEO, Atomic Ordered Materials, LLC Partner, The Monitor Group, LP
Edward Simon Alain J. Hanover
Vice President of Technology (retired), Unitrode Corp. Managing Director and CEO, Navigator Technology Ventures
William R. Thurston Kerry Murphy Healey
CEO (retired), GenRad, Inc. Fellow, Institute of Politics, Harvard Kennedy School of
Government

Officers of the corporation The Honorable Leslie A. Kirwan

Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office for Administration
Mitchell L. Adams and Finance
Executive Director
Penni McLean-Conner
Philip F. Holahan Vice President, Customer Care, NSTAR
Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel; Secretary
Paul W. Nakazawa
Christopher B. Andrews President, Nakazawa Consultants; Lecturer in Architecture,
Chief Financial and Administrative Officer; Treasurer Harvard University, Graduate School of Design
Lindsay D. Norman
Former President, Massachusetts Bay Community College
Patricia Plummer
Chancellor, Massachusetts Board of Higher Education
Krishna Vedula
Professor of Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell
Jack Wilson
President, University of Massachusetts

• 79
Massachusetts Life Sciences Center
board of directors

Board of directors Members

Daniel O’Connell James Barry
Secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Economic PhD, Senior Vice President, Corporate Technology
Development Development, Boston Scientific Corporation
Jack Wilson, PhD James J. Collins
President, University of Massachusetts PhD, Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University
Marc D. Beer George Q. Daley, MD, PhD
former President and Chief Executive Officer, ViaCell, Inc. Associate Professor of Biological Chemistry and Molecular
Jay Gonzalez Pharmacology and of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital Boston,
Undersecretary of Administration and Finance Harvard Medical School, Harvard Stem Cell Institute
Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, MD Patricia K. Donahoe, MD
Harvard Medical School, Professor of Medicine Director of the Pediatric Surgical Research Laboratories and
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Associate Physician Chief Emerita of Pediatric Surgical Services, Massachusetts
General Hospital; Marshall K. Bartlett Professor of Surgery,
Harvard Medical School
Scientific advisory board
Lila Gierasch
Chair Professor of Biophysical Chemistry, Department of
Biochemistry, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Harvey F. Lodish, PhD
Member, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Richard A. Goldsby, PhD
Professor of Biology and Professor of Bioengineering, John Woodruff Simpson Lecturer and Professor of Biology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Amherst College
David M. Lederman, PhD
Founder and former Chairman of the Board, Abiomed, Inc.
Jeffrey Leiden, M.D., PhD
Managing Director, Clarus Ventures
David T. Scadden, MD
Professor of Medicine, Harvard University; Co-Chair,
Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology, Harvard
University; Co-Director, Harvard Stem Cell Institute; Director,
MGH Center for Regenerative Medicine
Alan E. Smith, PhD
Chief Scientific Officer, Genzyme Corp.
Lydia Villa-Komaroff, PhD
Chief Executive Officer, Cytonome, Inc.
Phillip Zamore, PhD
Professor, Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, UMass
Medical School

Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
New England Healthcare Institute
board of directors

Chair Chester Davis, Jr. John T. Mollen

Joseph B. Martin, MD, PhD
Lefler Professor of Neurobiology
Harvard Medical School
Chair emeritus
Henri Termeer
Chairman & CEO
Genzyme Corporation
Vice chairs
Burt Adelman, MD
Lecturer in Medicine
Harvard Medical School
Harris Berman, MD
Dean Public Health and
Professional Degree Programs
Tufts University School of Medicine
Nick Littlefield
Partner
Foley Hoag, LLP
Beverly Lorell, MD
Senior Medical and Policy Advisor
FDA/Healthcare Practice Group
King & Spalding, LLP
Joshua Boger, PhD (Clerk)
Chairman & CEO
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc
John Littlechild (Treasurer)
General Partner
Healthcare Ventures, LLC
Board members
Robert J. Beall, PhD
President & CEO
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Edward J. Benz, Jr., MD
President
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Michael F. Collins, MD
Interim Chancellor
University of Massachusetts
Medical School
Vice President of Federal & State Senior Vice President, Human Resources
Government Affairs EMC Corporation
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
James Mongan, MD
Peter Deckers, MD President & CEO
Executive Vice President for Health Affairs Partners HealthCare System
Dean, School of Medicine
Thomas J. Moore, MD
University of Connecticut Health Center
Associate Provost
Marijn Dekkers Boston University Medical Center
President & CEO
Joshua Ofman, MD
Thermo Fisher Scientific
VP of Reimbursement and Payment Policy,
Matthew D. Eyles
Global Health Economics and Outcomes
Vice President, Public Policy
Research Amgen
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
Sandra Oliver
John Fallon, MD
Vice President, Public Policy & State
Chief Physician Executive
Government Affairs
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Bayer HealthCare LLC
Jonathan Fleming
Richard Pops
Managing Partner
Chair
Oxford Bioscience Partners
Alkermes, Inc.
Joseph S. Gentile
Andrew Purcell
Vice President & General Manager
Vice President,
BD Discovery Labware
Strategic Business Development
BD (Becton, Dickinson and Company)
Novo Nordisk
Don Gudaitis
James Roosevelt, Jr.
CEO
President & CEO
American Cancer Society
Tufts Health Plan
New England Division
Steve H. Rusckowski
Razia Hashmi, MD
CEO
Medical Director
Philips Medical Systems
WellPoint, Inc.
Una S. Ryan, PhD
Charles Hewett, PhD
President & CEO
Vice President & COO
AVANT Immunotherapeutics, Inc
The Jackson Laboratory
Eve Slater, MD
Vaughn Kailian
Senior Vice President, Worldwide Policy
General Partner
Pfizer
MPM Capital
David F. Torchiana, MD
Kenneth Kaitin, PhD
Chairman and CEO
Director
Massachusetts General Physicians
Tufts Center for the Study of
Organization
Drug Development, Tufts University
Partners HealthCare System
Paul Lammers, MD
Josef H. von Rickenbach
Chief Medical Officer
Chairman of the Board and CEO
EMD Serono, Inc.
PAREXEL International, Inc.
Martin Madaus, PhD
Chairman, President & CEO
Millipore Corporation

• 81
Report authors Contact information
Timothy P. Coleman, PhD
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
James Connolly
Glen Comiso PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative 617-530-6213
Valerie Fleishman james.m.connolly@us.pwc.com
New England Healthcare Institute
Glen Comiso
Nicole Stephenson
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
617-973-8673
Greta Tinay comiso@masstech.org
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
Melissa Walsh Valerie Fleishman
Massachusetts Life Sciences Center New England Healthcare Institute
617-225-0857
vfleishman@nehi.net
Writer Melissa Walsh
David Simanoff Massachusetts Life Sciences Center
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 617-834-4945
mwalsh@masslifesciences.com

Research analysts
Christopher Kuschel
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Alyson Simonetta
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Acknowledgments
We would also like to thank the following groups and individuals for their support and
Economic analysis insight into the creation of this report.

Andrew Porter Xconomy

Health Policy Economics Xconomy is dedicated to providing business and technology leaders with timely,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP insightful, close-to-the-scene information about the local personalities, companies,
Jack Rodgers, PhD and technological trends that best exemplify today’s high-tech economy. Its goal is
Health Policy Economics to become the authoritative voice on the exponential economy, the realm of business
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and innovation characterized by exponential technological growth and responsible
for an increasing share of productivity and overall economic growth. It delivers
this valuable content through a unique global network of localized blogs, events,
conferences, and other initiatives designed to better connect people and ideas.
Report advisory team
Mitchell Adams Massachusetts Biotechnology Council
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative The Massachusetts Biotechnology Council provides services and support for
James Connolly the Massachusetts biotechnology industry. The MBC, representing over 500
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP companies, is committed to advancing the development of critical new science,
technology, and medicines that benefit people worldwide.
Bryan Costantino
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Massachusetts Medical Device Industry
Michael Costello The Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council is the voluntary grassroots
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP association of medical device manufacturers and associated companies in the
Wendy Everett, ScD Commonwealth. MassMEDIC provides services, programs, and collaborative
New England Healthcare Institute initiatives with the goal of making Massachusetts the medical device research,
development, and manufacturing capital of the world.
Attila Karacsony
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Ann K. Edwards, Jason Gagnon, Jennifer Horn, Sandy Lutz,
Gerald McDougall Peter Russell, Hindy Shaman, Dan von Lossnitzer
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Tamara Conant, Juliet Duffy, Lin Johnson

MIT Sloan School of Management students

Joseph D. Alviani
Alviani & Associates

Mike Masterson
Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry

About the New England Healthcare Institute
The New England Healthcare Institute (NEHI) is a nonprofit, health policy institute focused
on enabling innovation that will improve health care quality and lower health care costs.
Working in partnership with members from across the health care system, NEHI brings an
objective, collaborative and fresh voice to health policy. We combine the collective vision
of our diverse membership and our independent, evidence-based research to move ideas
into action. www.nehi.net
About the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative is the state’s development agency for
renewable energy and the innovation economy. It works to stimulate economic activity in
communities throughout the Commonwealth by bringing together leaders from industry,
academia, and government to advance technology-based solutions that lead to economic
growth and a cleaner environment in Massachusetts. www.masstech.org
About the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center
The Massachusetts Life Sciences Center is a quasi-public entity created by the legislature
in 2006 to promote the life sciences within Massachusetts. The Center is at the heart of the
state’s $1 billion life sciences initiative. The Center is fast becoming the hub for connecting
all sectors of the life sciences community—encouraging unprecedented public-private
collaboration among industry, research, academia, and government. The Center is
making strategic investments in our life sciences workforce and in translational research
at critical stages of the development cycle. These investments will foster and grow
the Massachusetts life sciences enterprise, cultivating innovation at institutions whose
research, development, and commercialization of therapies, products, and cures hold great
promise for improving and saving lives. www.masslifesciences.com
About PricewaterhouseCoopers Health Industries
PricewaterhouseCoopers Health Industries serves as a catalyst for change and the leading
advisor to organizations across the health continuum, including payers, providers, health
sciences, biotech, medical device, pharmaceutical, and instrumentation companies, and
employer practices in the public, private, and academic sectors. With a distinctive approach
that is collaborative, multidisciplinary, and multi-industry, PricewaterhouseCoopers draws
from its broad perspective and capabilities across and beyond the health industries to help
solve the array of emerging complex problems health organizations face, lead cultural and
clinical transformation, and create a new, sustainable model for care delivery that is quality
driven, patient centered, and technology enabled. www.pwc.com/healthindustries
Disclaimer: PricewaterhouseCoopers has exercised professional care and diligence in
the collection and processing of the information in this report. However, the data used
in the preparation of this report (and on which the report is based) was provided by
third-party sources. This report is intended to be of general interest only and does not
constitute professional advice. PricewaterhouseCoopers makes no representations or
warranties with respect to the accuracy of this report. PricewaterhouseCoopers shall
not be liable to any user of this report or to any other person or entity for any inaccu-
racy of information contained in this report or for any errors or omissions in its content,
regardless of the cause of such inaccuracy, error or omission. Furthermore, to the
extent permitted by law, PricewaterhouseCoopers, its members, employees and
agents accept no liability and disclaim all responsibility for the consequences of you or
anyone else acting, or refraining from acting, in relying upon the information contained
in this report or for any decision based on it, or for any consequential, special, incidental
or punitive damages to any person or entity for any matter relating to this report even if
advised of the possibility of such damages.
The member firms of the PricewaterhouseCoopers network (www.pwc.com) provide
industry-focused assurance, tax and advisory services to build public trust and
enhance value for its clients and their stakeholders. More than 130,000 people in 148
countries share their thinking, experience and solutions to develop fresh perspectives
and practical advice.
Photos of Raju Kucherlapati, Christoph Westphal, Phillip Sharp, Deborah Dunsire:
Peter Vanderwarker Photographs © 2008
This document was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, for the
purpose of avoiding U.S. federal, state or local tax penalties.
© 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. All rights reserved. PricewaterhouseCoopers’
refers to the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or, as the context requires,
PricewaterhouseCoopers global network or other member firms of the network, each
of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
PricewaterhouseCoopers shall not be liable to any other user of this report or to
any other person or entity for any inaccuracy of this information or any errors or
omissions in its content, regardless of the cause of such inaccuracy, error, or omission.
Furthermore, in no event shall PricewaterhouseCoopers be liable for consequential,
incidental, or punitive damages to any person or entity for any matter relating to this
information. This report is provided for informational purposes only and does not
constitute the provision of tax, accounting, legal, or other professional advice.
BS-BS-08-0701-A.0608.DvL
 Super Cluster II Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping the global impact of the Massachusetts life sciences industry
pwc.com/healthindustries
pwc.com/pharma

Super
Cluster
Ideas, perspectives, and trends shaping
the global impact of the Massachusetts
life sciences industry
Volume II
June 2008