Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report 2012 (PDF, 3.5MB)

Queensland Life 

Sciences Industry 

Report 2012 

Dr Patrick Silvey and 

Dr Lavinia Proctor

Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report 2012 

02 

Disclaimer 

This report was prepared by VenturePro Pty. 

Ltd. (‘VenturePro’) on behalf of the Queensland 

Department of Science, Information Technology, 

Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA). The information, 

statements, examples, statistics and opinions 

(defined as ‘Information’ in this document) 

contained in this report have been prepared 

by VenturePro from material provided by, and 

discussions with, third parties, including the 

Queensland Government. 

Reference is made to original sources of 

Information where appropriate. However, no 

verification of the Information has been carried 

out by VenturePro or any of its respective agents, 

directors, officers or employees. VenturePro has 

based its report on the Information received or 

obtained, on the basis that such Information is 

accurate. The Information in this report is provided 

in good faith and without prejudice. 

DSITIA and VenturePro and its respective agents, 

directors, officers or employees make no express 

or implied representation or warranty as to 

the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the 

Information. No party should rely on any material 

contained in this document as a statement or 

representation of fact. Each party should satisfy 

itself as to the accuracy of the material by such 

independent review, investigation or analysis as 

it, or its advisers, may think fit. To the maximum 

extent permitted by law, VenturePro and DSITIA 

expressly disclaim any and all liability for 

representations or warranties, express or implied, 

contained in, or for omissions from, this document 

or any other written or oral communication 

transmitted or made available pursuant to this 

document. 

Acknowledgements 

Thank you to Ms Catrina Codd and Mr Quinton Dell 

for reviewing the report, and to several industry 

participants who reviewed survey questions or 

provided commentary which is included in the 

report. The assistance of DSITIA in conducting the 

study is gratefully acknowledged. We particularly 

appreciate the advice from, and the diligence and 

professionalism shown by Mr Stewart MacIntyre, 

Mr Brad Cuthbert, Mr Adam Pittard, Ms Sarah 

Bloxsom, Ms Sue Coke, Dr Debra Venables and 

Dr Mark Jacobs. 

Such a comprehensive analysis of the Queensland 

Life Sciences Industry would not be possible 

without the participation of so many industry 

members — 139 in all. We were again overwhelmed 

with the willingness of organisations to respond to 

the survey and to subject themselves to numerous 

highly ‘intrusive’ questions on various aspects of 

their business, including their revenue, expenditure 

and employment profile. We are grateful for the 

significant time commitment that they made and 

for the spirit within which they participated. Whilst 

54% of the organisations in the database were 

not able to participate on this occasion we were 

graciously received by them when following up by 

telephone. Thank you to all of those in the industry. 

Authorship 

The Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report 2012 

was prepared by VenturePro. VenturePro provides 

an advisory service catering to organisations 

seeking funding for research initiatives or research 

and healthcare infrastructure. We also contribute 

to the development of science and innovation policy. 

We work closely with clients in academia, industry 

and government to plan for new initiatives and 

to prepare funding submissions, business cases, 

economic impact assessments and/or budgets.

Since VenturePro was established in 2005, about 75% of our 

clients who engaged us to play a major role in their submissions 

were successful, with over $400 million being awarded to over 

60 projects. 

The primary authors of this report were Dr Patrick Silvey and 

Dr Lavinia Proctor. We would like to acknowledge the expert 

contribution of Dr Lahn Straney in developing and applying the 

statistical methodology that enabled us to put forward estimates 

of key measures at a state-wide level. The principal contact at 

VenturePro is Dr Patrick Silvey — patrick.silvey@venturepro.com. 

au; Ph: +61 (7) 3010 5728; 0402 308 922. 

Dr Patrick Silvey (MBA, PhD, BSc (Hons)) 

Managing Director, VenturePro Pty. Ltd 

Patrick has many years’ experience in delivering 

professional services and in the management 

of major consultancies with public and private 

sector clients, and he has worked in the venture 

finance industries in Queensland and California. He was previously 

a Director in Corporate Finance at PricewaterhouseCoopers 

(PwC) and a post-doctoral research fellow at The University 

of Queensland. He was a member of the QUT Research and 

Innovation Committee and the i.lab technology incubator Advisory 

Panel for nine years. While at PwC, Patrick was the key member of 

a division that focused on Companies with Extraordinary Potential 

and he was appointed to the PwC Global Thought Leadership 

Team in Life Sciences in 2004. Patrick’s MBA degree focussed on 

entrepreneurship and new venture finance and he was awarded a 

university medal from QUT in 2001 as the MBA graduate with the 

highest overall GPA. 

Dr Lavinia Proctor 

(PhD, Grad Cert Applied Law, BSc (Hons I)) 

Associate Director, VenturePro Pty. Ltd. 

Dr Lavinia Proctor has served as an Associate 

Director at VenturePro for the past three 

years. During this time she has contributed to 

the development of large collaborative funding bids, business 

cases for infrastructure and other funding, business plans and 

reports for government and research sector clients. Previously, 

Lavinia held executive and senior management roles in two 

unlisted Australian biotechnology companies. In these roles, 

Lavinia was responsible for intellectual property management, 

in-licensing activities, pre-clinical product development 

campaigns and co-ordinating relationships with contract research 

organisations, granting bodies and regulatory authorities. She 

also was responsible for securing and managing several state 

and federal government grants. She holds a PhD from The 

University of Queensland, has co-authored fourteen peer-reviewed 

international publications and is currently undertaking a law 

degree (LLB). 

Dr Lahn Straney (PhD, BBiotech(Hons)) 

Postdoctoral Fellow, Monash University 

and VenturePro Consultant 

Lahn has worked in an analytical role in various 

fields including environmental sciences, 

biotechnology, economics and health. He 

has provided technical and writing support for several grant 

applications in varied programs and scientific disciplines. Lahn 

has gained professional experience in market research, analytical 

research and statistical analysis through his previous roles and 

consultancies with Progen Pharmaceuticals, the Australian 

Institute for Commercialisation and VenturePro Pty Ltd. He 

has also developed and executed a number of primary surveys 

to industry and stakeholders on behalf of private and 

government clients. 

Suggested Citation 

Silvey, P. and Proctor, L. (2012). The Queensland Life Sciences 

Industry Report 2012. Brisbane: Queensland Department of 

Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts. 

This work is copyright. 

Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), 

no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written 

permission from the Queensland Government. Enquiries concerning 

reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Queensland 

Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and 

the Arts. 

03


04 

IMPORTANT NOTICE 

Statistical Limitations on Estimates Presented in this Report 

Figures contained in this report are either for 

the 2010/2011 financial year or 2011 calendar 

year, given that Australian universities typically 

report on a calendar year and companies 

typically report on a financial year. 

Survey Data and Secondary Sources 

The information presented was collected from 

a primary survey of the Queensland Life Sciences 

(QLS) Industry (see Appendices at 14.1.2 for the 

industry definition) undertaken in March and April 

2012, and various secondary data sources as 

referenced throughout this report. The survey was 

conducted using an online survey platform (for 

details see Appendices at 14.1.4). 

For the purpose of this survey, it was assumed 

that the QLS Industry comprised 301 organisations 

in 2011 as listed in the database held by DSITIA. 

This database includes 252 public and private 

companies (referred to as ’companies’) and 49 

university institutes, faculties, schools, research 

centres or independent research organisations 

with a Life Sciences focus (referred to as 

‘research organisations’). The database comprised 

133 organisations deemed to fall into the 

‘Biotechnology’ sector, and 168 in the ‘Therapeutic 

Medicines and Devices’ (TMD) sector. This 

classification was necessary in order to draw some 

comparisons with separate surveys undertaken 

in 2007 for each of these sectors. 

The current survey was completed by 139 

organisations (46% of those within the DSITIA 

database), including 111 companies and 28 

research organisations. 49% of respondents were 

Biotechnology organisations and 51% were 

TMD organisations. 

All financial figures in this report are presented 

in Australian dollars (AU$). Where figures derived 

from secondary data were converted to AU$ from 

another currency, the conversion rates presented 

in the Appendices were applied. Throughout the 

report, figures presented in the text, tables and 

graphics may appear inconsistent due to rounding. 

Statistical Limitations on Estimates 

presented in this Report 

This survey presents data from a ‘sample 

population’ of 139 (46%) of the 301 organisations 

in the DSITIA database. The industry includes 

a range of organisations: from major research 

institutions to smaller research centres, and 

publicly-listed companies to start-up companies. 

Participation in the survey was voluntary, and as 

a result the sample is subject to self-selection 

bias and may not be representative of the total 

population. 

The data gathered from this population can 

vary significantly and as such we considered 

measures in strata that pooled more homogenous 

populations. The distribution of values within the 

total dataset did not, in many cases, represent 

a normal distribution. This is particularly true 

for measures including income, expenditure and 

employment, where reported figures ranged from 

hundreds of employees and tens of millions of 

dollars in income or expenditure for large research 

institutions, down to a single employee and minimal 

income for a start-up company. In cases such 

as these, the median was deemed to be more 

representative of the sample population than 

the average.

Strata were defined by industry (TMD or Biotechnology) and 

organisational size, which was based on employee numbers 

(small, medium, and large). Strata were defined for both 

responders and non-responders, where possible. Within each 

stratum the arithmetic mean in most cases provided a reasonable 

measure of the central tendency. 

Data from the 2011 survey was compared to the 2009 survey. 

Where respondents had participated in both surveys, the median 

secular trend (measured as the ratio of the 2011 value to 2009 

value) was assessed for each measures of interest. Several 

organisations had responded to the 2009 survey but not the 2011 

survey. In estimating the total population, it was reasoned that the 

2009 data was likely to better inform our estimates of 2011 than 

using the mean from other respondents. The secular trend value 

was applied to those organisations’ values in 2009 to derive 

2011 estimates. 

The total population estimates were derived from bootstrapped 

estimates of the mean with each stratum. The variance of the final 

estimate was derived from the variance of the bootstrapped mean 

in each stratum. Where relevant, the data are presented with 95% 

confidence intervals. 

Given the population estimates are not necessarily derived from 

a representative sample they should be considered speculative 

and taken only as a guide to the state of the industry, relative to 

the reported figures from previous comparable surveys. In the 

QLS Industry survey 2009 and the 2007 Queensland Biotechnology 

Industry and Queensland TMD Industry surveys, a similar 

estimation method was employed. Where possible the approach 

used to calculate population totals are consistent with those used 

in previous surveys. In some cases, 2007 survey results were 

reanalysed using the methodology applied to the 2009 and 2011 

survey results. 

There are variations between the 2011, 2009 and 2007 surveys in 

terms of the specific organisations that responded to the survey 

in each year. Thus, the sample population is different for each 

survey. In addition, income data for the TMD analysis in 2007 was 

collected as an income range and not a specific figure as was the 

case in subsequent surveys. Direct comparisons between figures 

from different surveys may indicate change but any such changes 

cannot be taken as definitive. 

Link to Current Report 

An electronic version of the Queensland Life Sciences Industry 

Report 2012 can be download through the Queensland 

Government ‘Science in Queensland’ website located at 

www.science.qld.gov.au 

Links to Previous Reports 

The Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report 2010 

www.science.qld.gov.au/dsdweb/v4/apps/web/content.cfm?id=16862; 

accessed 01/07/12 

The Queensland Biotechnology Industry Report 2008 

http://203.210.126.185/dsdweb/v4/apps/web/secure/docs/1593.pdf; 


The Queensland Therapeutic Medicines and Devices 

Industry Report 2008 

http://203.210.126.185/dsdweb/v4/apps/web/secure/docs/1986.pdf; 


05


06 

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS 

$b Billions of dollars 

$m Millions of dollars 

ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics 

ARC Australian Research Council 

ANZCTR Australian and New Zealand 

Clinical Trials Registry 

ASX Australian Stock Exchange 

BERD Business Expenditure on 

Research and Development 

Biotech Biotechnology 

CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate 

cGMP Current Good Manufacturing 

Practice 

CMO Contract Manufacturing 

Organisation 

CRO Contract Research Organisation 

DIISRTE Department of Innovation, 

Industry, Science, Research and 

Tertiary Education (Australian 

Government) 

DEEDI Former Department of 

Employment, Economic 

Development and Innovation 

(Queensland Government) 

DEEWR Department of Education, 

Employment and Workplace 

Relations (Australian 

Government) 

DSITIA Department of Science, 

Information Technology, 

Innovation and the Arts 

(Queensland Government) 

EMDG Export Market Development 

Grant 

FTE Full Time Equivalent 

FY Financial Year 

GDP Gross Domestic Product 

GERD Gross Domestic Expenditure on 


GFC Global Financial Crisis 

GOVERD Government Expenditure on 


GSP Gross State Product 

IP Intellectual Property 

IPO Initial Public Offering 

Market Cap Market Capitalisation 

MTAA Medical Technology Association 

of Australia 

NHMRC National Health and Medical 

Research Council 

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation 

and Development 

QLS Queensland Life Sciences 

R&D Research and Development 

RO Research Organisation 

SME Small to Medium Enterprise 

TGA Therapeutic Goods 

Administration 

TMD Therapeutic Medicines and 

Devices 

UK United Kingdom 

USA United States of America 

VC Venture Capital

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

IMPORTANT NOTICE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................04 

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................06 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................08 

2a SUMMARY OF KEY SURVEY FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................................................12 

2b INDUSTRY-WIDE ESTIMATES OF KEY MEASURES ...........................................................................................................................................................16 

3 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 

4 PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS ....................................................................................................................................................................................24 

5 EMPLOYMENT ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................32 

6 EDUCATION AND SKILLING .........................................................................................................................................................................................................38 

7 INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................42 

8 THE LISTED LIFE SCIENCES SECTOR ....................................................................................................................................................................................52 

Industry Comment: David Blake .......................................................................................................................................................................................................55 

9 SENTIMENT AND OUTLOOK ........................................................................................................................................................................................................56 

Industry Comment: Garry Redlich ....................................................................................................................................................................................................62 

10 COMMERCIAL INDICATORS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................64 

Industry Comment: Anne-Marie Birkill ...........................................................................................................................................................................................69 

11 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................................................................................................................70 

12 EXPORTS AND INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................76 

13 SUMMARY OF KEY STATISTICS .................................................................................................................................................................................................80 

14 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................82 

07


08 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

VenturePro is pleased to present the Queensland Life Sciences Industry 

Report 2012 conducted on behalf of the Queensland Government. 

The report, based on a survey conducted in early 

2012, presents a profile of the Life Sciences 

Industry in Queensland in the 2011 year. The report 

builds on findings from our previous analyses of 

the industry in 2007 and 2009 and it is intended to 

inform industry, public sector organisations and 

government in their efforts to support industry 

growth and increase international competitiveness. 

The traditional life sciences business model is 

reliant on the availability of investment capital to 

support a costly and often lengthy research and 

development (R&D) timeline. Given this, the global 

financial crisis (GFC) severely affected Life Sciences 

industries. Access to capital was significantly 

reduced worldwide from 2009/2010, and for Life 

Sciences Industry, the option to undertake an initial 

public offering (IPO) remains effectively unavailable 

in Australia. 

Our survey of 139 Life Sciences organisations 

in Queensland suggests that the GFC and the 

resulting economic environment negatively affected 

the performance of the industry, and in particular 

the private sector, in 2011. In the 2009 survey, 

industry expectations for the subsequent year were 

for lower R&D and capital expenditure, and limited 

access to capital. These negative expectations 

appear to have been well founded. 

Employment, income and expenditure estimates for 

the whole industry in Queensland 1 were all lower 

than those determined in our previous survey in 

2009. The change in total expenditure by companies 

was driven largely by a significant fall in estimated 

R&D expenditure (down by 43%). Business owners 

and managers will have made difficult decisions in 

an attempt to see out adverse economic conditions 

in the short-term, and position their businesses for 

growth as the market recovers. However, the survey 

also revealed a maturing private sector and one in 

which executives expressed a positive sentiment for 

the future. 

For research organisations in Queensland, the 

story, in some respects, was ‘business-as-usual’ 

with estimates for employment and income down 

only marginally or at the same level compared to 

2009, whilst expenditure estimates were actually 

higher. Research organisations may have been 

insulated from the worst effects of the GFC in the 

two years to 2011, as 75% of the reported income 

was sourced from grants and there were increases 

in funding allocations to both the National Health 

and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the 

Australian Research Council (ARC) over the past 

two years. It remains to be seen whether there will 

be a lag period for research organisations with 

lower industry investment in R&D and the potential 

for reduced grant funding translating into reduced 

income in 2012-2013. 

Access to capital as a barrier to growth 

The survey confirmed that access to capital 

remained limited in 2011, and thus a challenging 

operating environment will likely persist for Life 

Sciences companies in the near future. In 2009, 

venture capital and debt instruments accounted 

for 82% of capital reported by survey participants. 

In the current survey they accounted for only 3.3% 

of funds raised. Secondary data showed that new 

funding commitments to Australian venture capital 

(VC) funds continued to decline in 2011 with three 

VC funds raising $120 million, down 42% from 2010 

and 60% from 2009. Moreover, in both 2010 and 

2011, the majority of VC commitments drew upon 

Government-backed innovation funding programs 

such as the Innovation Investment Fund. Exit 

options for VC investors in Australian Life Sciences 

companies are limited with an IPO effectively no 

longer a realistic prospect. 

Over 70% of survey respondents agreed that 

limited access to capital was having a material 

impact on their operations. A lack of accessibility 

to government grant funding was identified by 

companies as the second most significant barrier 

to future income growth (companies reported only 

1.5% of their income arising from grants). Other 

barriers, risks or challenges cited by companies 

included the high Australian dollar, regulatory risk/ 

compliance issues and increasing international 

competition. 

1 The raw survey data was statistically analysed in order to generate estimates for the whole Queensland industry across the 

key measures of income, expenditure and employment. Such estimates are subject to error and they are based on a number of 

assumptions outlined in this report, which may or may not hold true.

Queensland’s listed Life Sciences sector 

Secondary data suggests that the listed biotechnology sectors 

in Australia and countries such as the USA, Europe and Canada 

are showing some signs of a recovery from the effects of the 

GFC. Capital flows are returning to the ASX-listed Australian Life 

Sciences sector, several members of which have recently begun 

to generate revenue, conclude significant deals and progress 

products to market. Positive trends are apparent for listed Life 

Sciences firms based in Queensland with the average market 

capitalisation increasing from $26.2 million to $60.2 million 

between 2009 and 2011. Only three out of eight listed Life Sciences 

companies in Queensland were considered microcap (market 

capitalisation ‹$50 million) in 2011, compared to seven out of 

ten in 2009. 

Industry profile and maturity 

The total number of commercial enterprises that comprise the 

Queensland industry grew from 235 in 2009 to 252 in 2011. This 

occurred despite several companies exiting the industry over 

the past two years due to closure, relocation or a change in 

operational focus away from life sciences. The emergence of new 

ventures, particularly in industrial biotechnology (e.g. biofuels), 

suggests a positive sentiment in some subsectors. Survey 

responses in relation to the product pipeline suggest that the 

industry is continuing to mature. In 2009, 34% of organisations 

developing therapeutics and 42% of organisations developing non 

therapeutics had lead products at market. For the 2011 year, the 

proportion of companies reporting therapeutic products at market 

was 69% and for those with non-therapeutic products it was 56%. 

Assuming the commercial success of these products, the industry 

should see new revenues and additional employment arising from 

this pipeline over the next few years. 

The commitment of companies to scientific research and 

innovation was evident despite reduced overall expenditure 

on R&D. The industry has a highly qualified workforce with an 

average of 19% of employees in the private sector holding a 

PhD, and the majority of companies (64%) confirming that the 

Queensland public sector research base was important to their 

future operations. Moreover, almost 40% of companies had some 

form of interaction with a Queensland research organisation 

in 2011. 

Business sentiment 

While the industry has been hit hard over the past two years by 

the prevailing economic environment, there was positive business 

sentiment and signs that some sub-sectors are holding up. 

Approximately 65% and 82% of respondents expected their income 

to increase over the coming one and three years, respectively. The 

number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees was expected to 

increase by 5.2% over the coming year and 34.3% over the next 

three years with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.3%. 

Approximately 43% of companies expected R&D expenditure to 

stay the same and 45% expected the level of R&D expenditure to 

increase over the next year. Only about 12% of companies expected 

R&D expenditure to decrease. This suggests that those companies 

who have weathered the effects of the GFC feel they are positioned 

for growth should conditions improve in the next year or two. 

Sentiment was even higher within research organisations with 

none predicting a drop in income or R&D expenditure over the 

coming one or three years. 

Outsourcing R&D and manufacturing 

A trend toward R&D outsourcing, which has the potential to 

reduce the overall cost of R&D and the time to market, was more 

prevalent in 2011. This suggests that investment in R&D was 

continuing but that less would be undertaken in-house. Australia 

was the most common location from which contract research 

organisations and contract manufacturing organisations were 

engaged. The other top locations included the USA, the UK 

and China. 

Comparative performance: Biotechnology versus Therapeutic 

Medicines and Devices 

A comparison of 2009 and 2011 estimates for the Biotechnology 

sector suggested decreases in income (-23.8%), employment 

(-19.3%) and R&D expenditure (-2.3%). However, total expenditure 

was estimated to have increased by 3.8% with higher figures for 

wages and salary expenditure (121%) and capital expenditure 

(27.2%). The Biotechnology sector, as defined in previous 

surveys, includes the majority of research organisations, and 

their generally positive figures masked the more negative 

performance of Biotechnology companies. When research 

organisations were excluded from the analysis, estimates for 

Biotechnology companies suggested substantial declines, with 

income estimates down by 45%, expenditure estimates down by 

65%, and employment estimates down by over 40% compared to 

2009. Companies in the Biotechnology sector appear to have fewer 

advanced products than the therapeutic medicine and devices 

sector (TMD). 

Estimates for the TMD sector in 2011 suggest a relatively modest 

fall in income and total expenditure (both down by under 3%). 

Estimates for employment and specifically R&D expenditure, 

were down sharply though (38% and 42% respectively) possibly 

reflecting cuts necessary to support the balance between total 

income and expenditure. The TMD sector includes several large 

or later-stage companies in complementary medicines, functional 

food/nutraceuticals and animal health, many with multiple 

products at market. 

09


10 

Looking at estimates over a longer period, from 2007 to 

2011, the trend is less dramatic for both sectors. For this 

period, the TMD sector showed a CAGR for employment of 

-6.4% and for income of +4.8%. The Biotechnology sector 

showed CAGRs of 1.3% for employment and 16.8% for 

income over the same period. 

Where to from here? 

In summary, it is evident that from 2010, companies in Life 

Sciences sector were hit hard by the GFC and that publiclyfunded 

research organisations were at best, even. In 

response to the GFC, companies appear to have dramatically 

cut back on R&D expenditure and also reduced the number 

of direct employees. The estimate for wages expenditure 

across the private sector was actually higher. Employees 

shifting to higher paid casual or shorter-term contract 

positions, and a larger proportion of job losses occurring 

toward the end of 2011 may account for this observation. 

Whilst the average income reported per company was 

higher by 15%, when the data was extrapolated to the 

whole industry in Queensland, the total income estimate 

was actually down by just under 15%. The most dramatic 

change for businesses was a significant fall in the estimated 

number of FTE employees. Whilst the average number of 

employees per company was 21% lower, the estimated total 

number of employees estimated across the state was down 

by over 40%. 

Limited access to capital has typically been a constant 

challenge for the Queensland Life Sciences Industry, but the 

GFC exacerbated the shortage of capital. Unsurprisingly, 

industry members who responded to the survey highlighted 

limited access to finance and government grant funding 

as the key barriers to future industry growth. With access 

to capital likely to remain limited in an uncertain global 

economic environment, the industry may remain flat with 

only pockets of growth occurring in individual companies 

with new products coming on to the market, or in subsectors 

where demand is strong. 

For the longer term, companies and research organisations 

are showing a commitment to research collaboration and 

innovation and this should see some sections of the industry 

competing well in international markets, and growth in 

the overall value of the industry and its contribution to 

the Queensland economy. Support from governments for 

innovation and industry-led R&D collaborations with the 

university sector, will likely encourage more business 

expenditure on R&D (BERD), which fell by 6% in Australia 

as a proportion of GDP in 2010. 

Global economic uncertainty aside, the positive business 

sentiment in terms of employment and income growth 

suggest that the Life Sciences Industry in Queensland is 

increasing in maturity and therefore more able to withstand 

a downturn in the economy than it had been a decade or so 

ago. Caution is evident though, with respect to BERD, which 

was a visible casualty of the GFC across various listed Life 

Sciences sectors (USA, Canada, Europe and Australia) in 

2009 and 2010. A continuation of low BERD in Queensland 

and Australia may have negative implications for growth 

and international competitiveness across the sector in the 

longer term.


12 

2a.SUMMARY OF KEY SURVEY FINDINGS 

“A total of 139 respondents from both the commercial and research sectors 

employed 8085 FTE staff and reported income of $1.99 billion.” 

2.1 Profile of a Typical Queensland 

Life Sciences Organisation 

Based on the median figures, a typical Life 

Sciences company would have had the following 

profile in 2011: 

Total income of $1.8 million 

Eight full time equivalent employees 

Total expenditure of $1.6 million 

Based on the median figures the typical Life 

Sciences research organisation had the following 

profile in 2011: 

Total income of $12.4 million 

121 full time equivalent employees 

Total expenditure of $17.3 million 

2.2 Summary of Survey Data for Key 

Measures 

The key figures from the survey are presented in 

Table 1 (below). This is the raw data from the survey 

representing the aggregated figures from the 

organisations who responded to the survey. There 

are no statistical extrapolations in this table and the 

figures can be compared to raw survey data for the 

TABLE 1: Summary of key statistics from the raw survey data 2011 i.e. no extrapolations 

Sample 

Size 

Total Reported 

(change from 2009) 

Mean 

(change from 2009) 

Median 

Figure 

Employment (FTEs) 

All Respondents (96% of total) 135 8085 (+21%) 60 (7%) 11 

Companies 111 3433 (-3%) 31 (-21%) 8 

Research Organisations 

Total Income ($m) 

24 4652 (+48%) 194 (+73%) 121 

All Respondents (71% of total) 100 $1995 (+60%) $19.9 (+45%) $3.3 

Companies 78 $1220 (+22%) $15.6 (+15%) $1.8 


Expenditure ($m) 

Total Expenditure ($m) 

22 $774 (+219%) $35.2 (+146%) $12.4 


Companies 75 $606 (-16%) $8.1 (-30%) $1.6 


Wages and Salary Expenditure ($m) 

17 $485 (+211%) $25.5 (+128%) $17.3 


Companies 69 $292 (+68%) $4.2 (+50%) $0.6 


R&D Expenditure ($m) 

16 $272 (+258%) $17.0 (+215%) $14.4 

All Respondents (60% of total) 83 $189 (-13%) $2.3 (-23%) $0.2 

Companies 67 $57 (-39%) $0.9 (-44%) $0.05 


Capital Expenditure ($m) 

16 $132 (+10%) $8.2 (-13%) $5.4 


Companies 70 $36 (+63%) $0.5 (-9%) $0.04 

Research Organisations 16 $98 (+273%) $6.1 (+110%) $0.5 

Numbers may appear inconsistent due to rounding.

TABLE 2: Commercial performance of survey respondents 

Measure 

2009 survey, which is tabulated in the Appendices (see 14.2). For 

the mean and the total reported amount, the percentage change 

from 2009 to 2011 is included in brackets. 

With reference to the raw aggregated data the following 

observations can be made: 

For companies, the mean figures were down for employment 

(-21%) and expenditure (-30%), but the mean figure for income 

was up (15%) on the 2009 survey. 

For research organisations. The mean figures for employment 

(73%), income (146%) and expenditure (128%) were all up. 

2.3 Commercial Performance 

Key measures of commercial performance (Table 2 – above) are 

presented alongside data for the same measures from previous 

surveys. These parameters were not assessed in the 2007 TMD 

Survey. The number of patents filed and out-licence agreements 

made were both up significantly, whilst the number of in-licences 

fell by about two-thirds between 2009 and 2011. Organisations 

reported increased use of CMOs (up 45%) and CROs (up 72%). 

Additional data on Patents and Licensing 

2007 Survey 

(Biotech only) 

Of the 272 complete patent applications filed by, or granted 

to survey respondents in 2011, 17% were from research 

organisations and 83% from companies. 

Twelve organisations reported 83 out-license agreements2 , while 

nine organisations reported 18 in-license agreements in 2011. 

For 17% of respondents and, to a lesser extent, for a further 

22% of respondents, the global economic environment 

2009 

Survey 

continues to be a significant consideration in determining 

their IP management strategy. 

The World Intellectual Property Organisation reported that 

resident patent filings by Australian inventors totalled 4.13 

patents per $billion GDP in 2006 and 3.33 in 2009 (latest 

available data). 

The resident patent filings by Australian inventors per 

US$million of R&D expenditure has declined by 47% over 

the past nine years, from 0.51 in 2001 to 0.24 in 2009. 

2.4 Industry Structure 

2011 

Survey 

There were 139 respondents to the QLS Survey 2011:111 

companies (80%) and 28 research organisations (20%). 

Respondents were evenly split between the Biotechnology 

(49%) and TMD sectors (51%). 

Profile of Company Respondents 

Change 

2009-2011 

Australian Patents Filed or Granted 50 143 272 90% 

Out-License Agreements 20 39 83 113% 

In-License Agreements 35 49 18 -63% 

Utilisation of Contract Manufacturing 

Organisations 

23% 33% 48% 45% 

Utilisation of Contract Research 

Organisations 

23% 29% 50% 72% 

85 (77%) were private companies, 11 (10%) were unlisted 

public companies and nine (8%) were publicly listed. There 

was one sole trader, one incorporated association and four 

who selected the ‘Other’ category (including two venture 

funds, one unincorporated joint venture and one statutory 

authority). 

13% of companies were spun-out from a Queensland 

university or research institution. 

About one-third of the companies have been in existence for 

more than 15 years and about 18% were established within 

the last 5 years. 

A majority of companies (56%) operated within one of the five 

‘Human Health’ sub-sectors 3 . 

2 “Patent license agreements can be divided into in-licenses and out-licenses. In-licensing refers to agreements by which a party acquires the rights to use a patent, 

whereas out-licensing refers to agreements in which a patent holder grants a third party the right to use a patent.” Australian Law Reform Commission, Genes and 

Ingenuity: Gene patenting and human health (ALRC Report 99). 

3 The five human health sub-sectors are Pharmaceuticals, vaccines or drug discovery; Diagnostics; Complementary medicines; Functional food and nutraceuticals; 

Medical devices and equipment. 

13


14 

Profile of Research Organisation Respondents 

Research organisations who responded to the survey 

included research institutes (50%), research centres 

(29%), faculties (11%), university research offices 

responding for the university as a whole (7%) and 

schools (4%). 

The greatest concentration of research activities 

undertaken by research organisations (62%) was 

across the five segments of the Human Health 

sub-sector. 4 

2.5 Employment, Education and Skilling 

Survey participants employed 8085 full time equivalent 

(FTE) persons in Queensland, with 3433 (42%) of those 

employed by companies5 . Among surveyed companies, 

the complementary medicines sector was the largest 

employer with 37.6% of FTEs reported. 

35% of staff were employed as R&D professionals or in 

other technical and R&D support roles. 

The average salary of QLS Industry employees was 

estimated at $66,965 compared to an average across Life 

Sciences roles in Australia of $74,750 and an average 

national wage of $71,568 (derived from various ABS data 

sources — see 14.4.3). 

Research organisations reported that, on average, 47.3% 

(median 42.5%) of their workforce held a PhD. An average 

of 19% (median 4%) of staff in companies held a PhD. 

Over the next five years, the most commonly anticipated 

skills gaps were in (1) business development; (2) 

commercialisation; and (3) chemistry. 

2.6 Income and Expenditure 

Respondents generated a combined income of $1995 

million in 2011. 

Companies reported that 95.2% of their income was 

sourced from the sale of goods and services with only 

1.5% from grants. By contrast, research organisations 

reported 8.2% of their income was sourced from the sale 

of goods and services and 79.5% from grants. 

The majority of companies (56.3%) and research 

organisations (63.0%) reported income growth in 2011. 

On average, company income grew by 14.9% (median 3%) 

and research organisations income by 19% (median 4%). 

One fifth of company respondents did not answer this 

question. 

A total of $594 million in grant income was received by 

survey participants in 2011, with research organisations 

accounting for $580 million (97.6% by value) and 

companies $14 million (2.4%). 

Companies were awarded $27.2 million in new grant 

funding during 2011, with $13.6 million of this funding 

being actually received in the same year6 . 

Respondents reported total expenditure of $1091 million 

with $564 million spent on wages and salaries (52%), 

$189 million on R&D (17%) and $134 million on capital 

items (12%). 

Respondents from the Human Health – Pharmaceuticals, 

vaccines or drug discovery sub-sector reported the 

highest average spend on R&D of all industry 

sub-sectors. 

Research Organisations accounted for 74% of the capital 

expenditure reported for 2011. 

2.7 Sentiment and Outlook 

Business sentiment was positive overall with 65% of 

respondents expecting their income to increase over the 

coming 12 months and 82% of respondents expecting 

their income to increase over the next three years. 

While the majority of companies and the majority of 

research organisations expected income growth over 

12 months and three years, about 13% of companies 

anticipated a decrease in total income over the next 

12 months and 6% anticipated a decrease in total income 

over the next three years. By contrast, no research 

organisations anticipated a fall in income in either period. 

The average expected quantum change in income for 

companies over the coming 12 months was 47% and for 

research organisations, 8%. Over the next three years the 

forecast quantum change in income for companies was 

136% and for research organisations, 18%. 

An almost equal proportion of companies anticipated 

that their R&D expenditure would either increase or 

remain the same over the coming 12 months (42% 

remain the same, 45% increase) and three years (44% 

remain the same, 45% increase). The majority of research 

organisations anticipated that their R&D expenditure 

would increase over the coming 12 months (56%) and 

three years (83%). 

Respondents believed that improved industry 

representation and an increased commitment by 

government organisations to become early adopters of 

Queensland innovations were two factors important for 

future expansion of the industry. 

For 71% of companies, limited access to finance was 

having an impact on their organisation. While 43% of 

companies (96) were optimistic or very optimistic that 

this barrier could be overcome, 19% were pessimistic or 

very pessimistic. Other barriers to future income growth 

that were highly ranked included (1) limited access to 

government grant funding (grants accounted for only 1.5% 

of company income, and companies attracted only 2.4% of 

the value of all grants reported in the survey); 

(2) increased domestic and/or international competition; 

and (3) the small size of the domestic market. 

The three greatest risks or challenges facing respondents 

were (1) access to sufficient capital for growth or market 

entry; (2) the high Australian dollar; and (3) regulatory 

issues. 

4 Ibid. 

5 Excluding persons paid by commission only, consultants or contractors, non-salaried directors and volunteers. 

6 Note that many grants are awarded for periods covering 2-3 years and, as such, the amount awarded may not be counted as income in the year that it 

was awarded.

2.8 Stage of Development of QLS Companies 

These sub-sectors are believed to be relatively mature: 

(a) complementary medicines; (b) functional foods and 

nutraceuticals; and (c) animal health (see Chapter 14 Appendix 

for sub-sector definitions). Respondents in these sub-sectors 

dedicated the majority of their effort at an advanced stage 

(market readiness/registration and at market) and the majority 

of their advanced products were near or at market. 

Effort within the Medical Devices and Equipment sub-sector 

was spread across the development cycle, indicating a pipeline 

of products under development across the industry. 

Diagnostic companies seemed to be evenly divided into those 

who dedicated most of their effort at advanced development 

stages (market release/market) and those who were focused 

largely on early stage development activities. 

The majority of effort in the pharmaceuticals, vaccines or 

biologics sub-sector was directed at the very early discovery/ 

preclinical phase. 

2.9 Debt and Equity Finance 

Nine respondents reported a total of $70.5 million 

in financing in 2011. 

Existing shareholders were said to account for the majority 

($48.5 million, or 68.8%) of total funds raised by companies in 

2011 and the highest average amount invested per company. 

Approximately 37% of companies intended to raise debt or 

equity finance in the coming two years. 

Secondary data indicated that, in Australia, Life Sciences 

(including healthcare) companies received 58% of all VC 

invested and accounted for 51% of all investee companies. 

The majority of VC investments in Australia (68%) were 

devoted to later stage investments rather than pre-seed/seed/ 

start-up investments. 

2.10 Exports and International Collaborations 

55% of companies were involved in exporting with an average 

of 43% of their income derived from exports. The figures for 

2009 were 52% of companies exporting with export income 

representing an average of 33% of total income. The three 

largest export markets were the USA, New Zealand and UK. The 

three largest target markets for future exports were the USA, 

UK and China. 

42% of companies earned an average of 32% (median 20%) 

of their revenue from international business deals or research 

collaborations. The top three markets for international 

business deals and collaborations were the USA, UK and 

Japan/New Zealand. 

2.11 Research and Development 

43% of respondents outsourced R&D activity in 2011. The 

average amount of R&D activity outsourced was 41%. 

Of those who did outsource some R&D, 48% had utilised 

contract manufacturing services in the last year, with the top 

three locations for providers being Australia, USA and China. 

Of those who did outsource some R&D, 50% had utilised 

contract research services in the last year, with the top three 

locations for providers being Australia, USA and UK. 

39% of companies indicated that they had an interaction with at 

least one Queensland research organisation in 2011, primarily 

a collaborative or contract research arrangement. In the 

majority of instances the company had prior interaction with the 

research organisation in question. 

64% of companies indicated that the public sector research 

base in Queensland was important to their future operations. 

15


16 

2b. INDUSTRY-WIDE ESTIMATES OF KEY 

MEASURES 

“Total population estimates for the 301 QLS organisations were generated 

through a statistical extrapolation of aggregated data from 139 survey 

respondents.” 

2.12 Methodology and Rationale 

The relatively high response rate to the survey 

allowed us to attempt a statistical extrapolation 

of the data obtained. For key measures including 

employment, income and expenditure we employed 

statistical methods to estimate totals for the entire 

state of Queensland, based on the survey responses 

received and assuming that non-responders could 

be appropriately profiled based on the sector they 

are part of and their size. Respondent organisations 

were classified into a number of stratums based 

on their size with respect to the number of FTE 

employees. 

Total population estimates were derived by applying 

bootstrapped estimates of the mean within each 

stratum to the 162 organisations that were not 

able to participate in the survey this year (the size 

of each of these non-responding organisations 

was estimated with reference to other primary and 

secondary data). These estimates are presented 

in Table 3. 

These estimates should be taken at face value 

given that the variability in the population of nonresponders 

is not known. Whilst the reliability 

of the estimates cannot be assured, as within 

any statistical extrapolation, this exercise was 

undertaken in an attempt to enhance the utility of 

the raw survey data. The estimates for 2011 were 

derived in the same manner and using similar 

methodology to our estimates for the 2009 survey, 

and thus we offer a comparison of the estimates 

for those two periods. 

The figures are based on a statistical extrapolation 

of aggregated data (referred to as ‘actual’ data) 

from 139 organisations. These numbers were not 

derived through economic modelling and this is not 

an economic analysis of the industry. The estimates 

are highly variable and dependent on the statistical 

methodology employed (please see Important 

Notice for further details). 

Profile of the Full Industry as Represented in the 

Queensland Government Database 

In 2011, the QLS Industry included 301 

organisations. Of those, 133 were deemed to be 

operating in the Biotechnology division of the 

industry, and 168 in the TMD division. 

There were 252 public and private companies and 

49 research organisations. 

At 30 June 2011, 7.8% of ASX-listed Life Sciences 

companies (n = 102) 7 were located in Queensland 

and their average market capitalisation was $60.2 

million. The total market capitalisation for all 

ASX-listed Australian Life Sciences firms (102) 

at 30 June 2011 was $35.0 billion (or $9.1 billion 

excluding CSL Ltd, Cochlear Ltd and ResMed Ltd; 

99 companies – average market capitalisation 

$91.7 million). 

7 As listed in the PricewaterhouseCoopers Life Sciences Index. 

8 National Health and Medical Research Council, Successful NHMRC Grant applications for 2004 – 2009, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ 

funding/funded/outcomes/projects.htm; accessed 29 May 2012. 

9 Australian Research Council, ARC Funded Research Projects - Trends Data Set 2002 – 2009,http://www.arc.gov.au/general/ 

searchable_data.htm

2.13 Industry Wide Estimates for 2011 

TABLE 3: Queensland Life Sciences Industry — whole of industry estimates 2011 

Actual Response rate Estimate for 

whole industry 

95% confidence 

interval 

2009 data for 

reference 


All Respondents/Industry 8085 45% 14,106 13,663 - 14,550 19,731 

Companies 3433 44% 8008 7566 - 8451 13,442 


Income ($m) 

4652 49% 6098 5874 - 6323 6289 

All Respondents/Industry $1995 33% $4361 $4010 - $4713 $4943 

Companies $1220 31% $3275 $2924 - $3627 $3844 


Total Expenditure 

$774 45% $1086 $1013 - $1158 $1099 

All Respondents/Industry $1091 31% $4626 $4233 - $5019 $4682 

Companies $606 30% $3271 $2878 - $3664 $4177 


Wage and Salary Expenditure ($m) 

$485 35% $1355 $1034 - $1676 $504 

All $564 28% $2141 $2016 - $2267 $1078 

Companies $292 27% $1323 $1197 - $1449 $929 

ROs 


$272 33% $818 $632 - $1005 $149 

All $189 28% $657 $628 - $686 $803 

Companies $57 27% $245 $215 - $274 $417 

ROs 


$132 33% $412 $282 - $541 $386 

All $134 29% $692 $670 - $714 $253 

Companies $36 28% $514 $491 - $535 $181 

ROs 

Numbers may appear inconsistent due to rounding. 

$98 33% $178 $113 - $244 $72 

Companies employed an estimated 57% of people in the 

industry and accounted for an estimated 62% of expenditure 

on wages and 37% of expenditure on R&D. 

Some relevant secondary data 

The number of bioscience degree completions from 

Queensland universities increased from 10,261 in 2009 to 

11,007 in 2010, and remained at 18% of all Australian 

bioscience completions. 

The value of NHMRC grant funding received by Queensland 

applicants in 2011 ($116 million) was almost double that 

received in 2006 ($60 million). Queensland’s share of the total 

national NHMRC grant funding rose from 13.3% in 2006 

to 15.4% in 2011. 8 

The value of ARC grants awarded to Queensland researchers 

increased by 39% between 2005 and 2009, from $78.9 

million (2005) to $109.7 million (2009). 9 

17


18 

2.14 Comparison of Industry Wide Estimates 

from 2007 to 2011 

The figures presented in the following three Tables include 

estimates only for the Queensland Industry in 2007, 2009 

and 2011, based on a statistical extrapolation of data from a 

sample of the industry population (i.e. data from those who 

responded to the survey conducted in each respective year). 

The sample of organisations that respond will be different 

each year and so direct comparisons must be made in 

knowledge of the potential for extreme variability in the data. 

In 2007, the analysis of the QLS Industry involved two 

separate surveys: for Biotechnology and for Therapeutic 

Medicines and Devices (TMD). However, these two sectors 

overlap in terms of their definition, and a number of 

organisations could have fallen into either sector. For 

the 2009 and 2011 surveys, the Biotechnology and TMD 

groups were merged into a more broadly defined QLS 

Industry. To allow a trend analysis of key parameters for 

TABLE 4: Queensland Life Sciences Industry: whole of industry estimates — Trends a 

10 Australian Bureau of Statistics 6202.0 - Labour Force Australia 

the Biotechnology and TMD sectors since 2007, the data 

from the 2009 and the current survey were also analysed 

according to this division. Of the 301 organisations in 

the industry, 133 (44%) were deemed to be operating in 

Biotechnology, and 168 (56%) in TMD. 

A similar statistical methodology was employed for 

estimates from the 2011 and 2009 survey data. In some 

cases, the 2007 Queensland Biotechnology and TMD survey 

results were reanalysed using the methodology applied to 

the 2009 and 2011 survey data. Please note that income 

data for the TMD analysis in 2007 was collected as an 

income range and not a specific figure, as was the case in 

subsequent surveys. 

Queensland-wide employment estimates decreased by 

28.5% from the 2009 estimates (Table 4). The majority of 

employees were lost from companies (down by 40%), with 

estimates for research organisations being similar in 2009 

and 2011 (down by 3%). 

2007 Survey b 2009 Survey 2011 Survey Difference 2009-2011 CAGR 2007-2011 


All Industry 15,569 19,731 14,106 -28.5% -2.4% 

Companies N/A 13,442 8008 -40.4% 

Research Organisations N/A 6289 6098 -3.1% c 

Qld Labour Force Growth10 Total Income ($m) 

1.9% 

All Industry $3130 $4943 $4361 -11.8% 8.7% 

Companies N/A $3844 $3275 -14.8% 

Research Organisations N/A $1099 $1086 -1.2% c 



All Industry N/A $4682 $4626 -1.2% c 

Companies N/A $4177 $3271 -21.7% 



N/A $504 $1355 169.0% 

All Industry $789 $1078 $2141 98.6% 28.4% 

Companies N/A $929 $1323 42.4% 



N/A $149 $818 449.0% 

All Industry N/A $803 $657 -18.2% 

Companies N/A $417 $245 -43.1% 

Research Organisations N/A $386 $412 6.7% c 


All Industry $704 $253 $692 174% -0.4% 

Companies N/A $181 $514 184% 

Research Organisations N/A $72 $178 147% 

a Numbers may appear inconsistent due to rounding N/A = not applicable 

b Combined estimates from previous Biotechnology and TMD Surveys 

c These changes fall within the confidence interval

It was estimated that $2141 million was spent on salaries by the 

Queensland industry in 2011 including $818 million by research 

organisations and $1323 million by companies (Table 4). This 

was almost double the amount estimated for 2009 due to a 

greater than four-fold increase for ROs and a 40% increase 

for companies. 

The estimated income across the entire Industry was $4.36 

billion in 2011 (Table 4). This is 11.8% lower than the $4.94 billion 

estimate in 2009 but 39.3% higher than the estimate in 2007 

(combined total from the Queensland Biotechnology and TMD 

Surveys). The income decline in 2011 was largely attributed to 

companies, with estimates down by 14.8% compared to a 1.2% 

decline for research organisations. Based on these estimates, 

the CAGR for income was 8.7% between 2007 and 2011. 

The estimated expenditure across the entire QLS Industry 

was $4.63 billion in 2011 (Table 4), with just over 70% of that 

attributed to the private sector. 

2.15 Estimates for the Biotechnology Sector — 2007 to 2011 

TABLE 5: Queensland Biotechnology sector: whole of industry estimates 2007 — 2011 

For companies, employment estimates were down significantly 

in 2011 (by 40.4%) compared to 2009. Total expenditure was 

down by 21.7% most likely due to a significant (43.1%) fall in 

R&D expenditure. Expenditure on wages was estimated to have 

increased by 42%, suggesting that work previously undertaken 

in-house may have been outsourced, and/or that some staff had 

were re-engaged as sub-contractors rather than employees. 

Total income was down by a comparably small 14.8% (just 

outside the margin of error), in the face of a much greater fall 

in estimated expenditure. Companies may be adopting a more 

conservative approach, seeking to retain more of the earnings 

on the expectation of a continued negative economic climate. 

For research organisations, employment and income were down 

marginally and R&D expenditure was up slightly — all of these 

figures were within the statistical margin of error. Expenditure 

estimates were substantially higher possibly reflecting the draw 

down on funds awarded 2-3 years previous. 

2007 Survey* 2009 Survey 2011 Survey a Difference 2009-2011 CAGR 2007-2011 

Biotechnology Employment (FTEs) 

All Biotechnology Sector 7630 9929 8021 -19.3% 1.3% 

Companies 1840 3760 2150 -42.9% 4.0% 


Biotechnology Income ($m) 

5790 6169 5871 -4.9% 0.4% 

All Biotechnology Sector $896 $2185 $1665 -23.8% 16.8% 

Companies $395 $1093 $597 -45.4% 10.9% 


Biotechnology Expenditure ($m) 


$501 $1092 $1068 -2.2% 20.9% 

All Biotechnology Sector ND $1710 $1775 3.8% 

Companies ND $1254 $437 -65.2% 



ND $456 $1338 193.0% 

All Biotechnology Sector $502 $384 $1085 183% 21.3% 

Companies $348 $244 $279 14.3% -5.4% 



$154 $140 $806 475% 51.3% 

All Biotechnology Sector $641 $550 $510 -7.3% -5.6% 

Companies $230 $170 $98 -42.4% -19.2% 



$411 $380 $412 8.4% 0.1% 

All Biotechnology Sector $469 $172 $217 26.2% -17.5% 

Companies $41 $103 $43 -58.3% -1.2% 


* Queensland Biotechnology Survey 2007; 

$428 $69 $174 152% -20.2% 

ND = not determined a for bias corrected 95% confidence intervals for each estimate please see Chapter 13 


An estimated 8021 FTEs were employed in the Biotechnology sector. 

Estimates for the private biotechnology sector suggest major falls in employment, income and expenditure. Public sector research 

organisations in biotechnology showed marginal falls in estimates for employment and income with marked increases in expenditure, 

particularly that on wages. 

19


20 

2.16 Estimates for the Therapeutic Medicines and Devices Sector — 2007 to 2011 

TABLE 6: Queensland TMD sector: whole of industry estimates 2007 — 2011 

2007 Survey* 2009 Survey 2011Survey Difference 2009-2011 CAGR 2007-2011 

TMD Employment (FTEs) 

All TMD Sector 7939 9802 6086 -37.9% -6.4% 

Companies ND 9682 5859 -39.5% 


TMD Income ($m) 

ND 120 227 89.0% 

All TMD Sector $2234 $2758 $2696 -2.3% 4.8% 

Companies ND $2750 $2679 -2.6% 


TMD Expenditure ($m) 


ND $7 $17 143.0% 

All TMD Sector ND $2930 $2851 -2.7% 

Companies ND $2923 $2834 -3.0% 



ND $7 $17 143% 

All TMD Sector $287 $691 $1057 53.0% 38.5% 

Companies ND $685 $1044 52.4% 



ND $6 $13 117.0% 

All TMD Sector ND $253 $147 -41.9% 

Companies ND $247 $147 -40.5% 



ND $6 - - 

All TMD Sector $235 $80 $475 493% 19.2% 

Companies ND $78 $470 502% 


* Queensland TMD Survey 2007; 

ND = not determined 

ND $2 $5 150% 


An estimated 6086 FTEs were employed in the TMD sector. 

Companies in the TMD sector showed a major decline in estimates for employment (down almost 40%) but only marginal 

decreases in total income and total expenditure. R&D expenditure was down substantially (by 40.5%) but a 52.4% increase 

in estimates for wages and a marked increase in capital expenditure balanced this out. 

Given that there were only two research organisations deemed to be in the TMD sector there are no comments made on 

the difference between estimates from 2009 and 2011.


22 

3.INTRODUCTION 

“The Queensland Life Sciences Industry analysis covers more than 

12 industry sub-sectors.” 

3.1 Queensland Life Sciences 

Industry Analysis 

The Queensland Government commissions the 

Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report every 

two years to inform policy and the development of 

industry assistance and support programs, and to 

aid in benchmarking the State’s industry nationally 

and internationally. 

The report was developed from data obtained 

through a survey conducted in April and May 2012. 

A total of 139 (46%) of the 301 organisations in the 

industry responded to a detailed questionnaire that 

sought data on measures of industry performance 

in 2011, and sentiment for the coming years. 

The data collected was used to statistically 

derive estimates of key measures for the entire 

Queensland industry in 2011. A comparison was 

made between these statistical estimates and 

those from similar surveys in 2007 and 2009. 

3.2 Queensland Life Sciences 

Industry Survey 

The basis for the report is a combination of (a) the 

results of the voluntary on-line survey conducted 

by VenturePro Pty Ltd; and (b) publicly available 

secondary data. The QLS Industry Survey was 

sent to 301 Life Sciences companies and research 

organisations across Queensland. This included: 

252 public and private companies, incorporated 

associations and sole traders (referred to as 

’companies’) (84%); and 

49 university faculties, schools, institutes, 


TABLE 7: Industry sectors 

with a Life Sciences focus (referred to as 

‘research organisations’) (16%). 

With regard to research organisations, the relevant 

university institutes, faculties, schools or research 

centres were approached to complete the survey, 

rather than universities as a whole. The exception 

to this was the less-research-intensive universities 

who were approached via their Office for Research 

or equivalent. Chapter 13 of this report contains 

a summary of key data, while a description 

of the methodology applied can be found in 

the Appendices. 

For the purpose of the survey, a Life Sciences 

organisation was defined as any company, 

university unit or other research organisation 

undertaking Life Sciences-related activities 

encompassed by the broad categories listed in 

Table 7. These categories were adapted from a 

previous AusBiotech definition of Biotechnology 

and Medical Technology in 2009, in combination 

with typical definitions employed for the 

pharmaceutical industry (see Appendices for 

a description of activities in each category). 

To enable comparisons with previous surveys, 

the categories listed below were also grouped 

into two major industry divisions: Biotechnology 

(organisations with core activities in agricultural, 

food, environmental, medical and industrial 

biotechnology and bioinformatics) and Therapeutic 

Medicines and Devices (TMD; pharmaceuticals, 

vaccines or drug discovery, diagnostics, medical 

devices and equipment, complementary medicines/ 

functional foods and animal health). 

Human health – pharmaceuticals, vaccines 

or drug discovery 

Agricultural biotechnology 

Human health – complementary medicines Food biotechnology 

Human health – functional foods and 

nutraceuticals 

Environmental biotechnology 

Human health – diagnostics Marine 

Human health – medical devices and equipment Industrial biotechnology 

Animal health Bioinformatics 

Industry service provider


24 

4.PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS 

“The 2011 QLS Industry survey was undertaken by 139 organisations (46%) 

out of 301 identified in the Queensland Government database.” 

4.1 Classification of Queensland Life 

Sciences Organisations 

4.1.1 Type of Organisation Responding 

to the Survey 

Survey participants included 111 public and private 

companies, incorporated associations and sole 

traders (~80%; referred to as ’companies’) and 

28 university research faculties, schools, institutes, 


with a Life Sciences focus (~20%; referred to as 

‘research organisations’). 

Of the 111 companies who responded to the 

survey, 85 were private companies (77%), 11 

were unlisted public companies (10%) and nine 

were listed companies (8%). One sole trader and 

one incorporated association responded. Those 

selecting the ‘Other’ category (4%) were identified 

as two venture funds, one unincorporated joint 

venture and one statutory authority (Figure 1). 

13% of respondents (18 of 111 companies) 

indicated that they were a spin-out from a 

Queensland university or research institution. 

Research organisations/units who responded to the 

survey included research institutes (50%), research 

centres (29%), faculties (11%), university research 

offices responding for the university as a whole (7%) 

and schools (4%) 

Figure 1: Breakdown of survey respondents by 

organisation type (139 respondents) 

4.1.2 Profile of Respondents by Industry Division 

51% of the 139 survey participants were operating 

in the ‘Biotechnology’ sector and 42% in the 

Therapeutic Medicines and Devices (TMD) sector 

(Table 8). 

TABLE 8: Respondent profile according to industry 

division 

Bio- 

technology 

Companies Research 

Organisations 

42 

responded 

of 86 

(49%) 

TMD 69 

responded 

of 166 

(41%) 

Total 111 

responded 

of 252 

(44%) 

26 

responded 

of 47 

(55%) 

2 

responded 

of 2 

(100%) 

28 

responded 

of 49 

(57%) 

Total 

68 

responded 

of 133 

(51%) 

71 

responded 

of 168 

(42%) 

139 

responded 

of 301 

(46%) 

4.1.3 Profile of Respondents by Organisation Size 

The profile of respondents to the survey was also 

defined by their size, based on the number of FTE 

employees (Table 9). 

TABLE 9: Respondent profile according to organisation 

size (number of FTEs) 

Small 

(0-30) 

Medium 

(31-100) 

Large 

(>101) 

TOTAL 

Companies 84 21 6 111 

Research 

Organisations 

4 7 13 24 

Total 88 28 19 135 

4.1.4 Profile of Respondents by Year of Formation 

Forty-six companies (~45%) were less than 10 years 

old. Thirty-two (31%) were between 11 and 20 years 

old; 24 companies (23%) were between 21 and 40 

years old and one company was formed over 

40 years ago (Table 10).

TABLE 10: Year of inception for Life Sciences organisations 

(103 respondents) 

Years in 

Operation 

Number of 

companies 

Proportion of 

companies 

Over 40 years (pre-1972) 1 1.0% 

31-40 years (1972-1981) 8 7.8% 

21-30 years (1982-1991) 16 15.5% 

16-20 years (1992-1996) 9 8.7% 

11-15 years (1997-2001) 23 22.3% 

6-10 years (2002-2006) 28 27.2% 

2-5 years (2007-2010) 13 12.6% 

Under two years (2011) 5 4.9% 

4.1.5 Industry Sub-sector Breakdown 

COMPANIES 

Companies within the QLS Industry operate across various 

industry sub-sectors including: 

Human health (pharmaceuticals, vaccines or drug discovery; 

diagnostics, complementary medicines; functional foods/ 

nutraceuticals; medical devices and equipment); 

TABLE 11: Breakdown of Queensland Life Sciences companies by sub-sector 

Animal health; 

Biotechnology (agricultural, food, environmental, 

marine, bioinformatics); and 

Industry service provision. 

Although organisations may operate across more than one 

sub-sector, companies were required to select one to which they 

were most closely aligned based on their core activities. A majority 

of the 111 companies (55.9%) selected one of the ‘Human Health’ 

sub-sectors (Table 11). 

RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS 

Research organisations were asked to apportion their activity 

across the various sub-sectors rather than select only one subsector 

as companies did. The greatest concentration of research 

activity undertaken by research organisations (62%) was across 

the five segments of the Human Health sub-sector; including 

pharmaceuticals, vaccines, drug discovery (36.9%), diagnostics 

(12.8%), medical devices and equipment (7.0%), complementary 

medicines (3.1%) and functional food/nutraceuticals (2.0%). 

The remaining 38% was spread across Environmental (10.5%), 

Bioinformatics (7.4%), Marine (4.3%), Agricultural Biotechnology 

(4.1%), Industrial (3.6%), Animal Health (2.7%), Other (4.6%) and 

Food Biotechnology (1.1%) (Figure 2). 

Sub-sector Proportion Number 

Human health Medical devices and equipment 55.9% 20.7% 62 23 

Pharmaceuticals, vaccines, drug discovery 12.6% 14 

Complementary medicines 9.9% 11 

Functional food/nutraceuticals 8.1% 9 

Diagnostics 4.5% 5 

Industry service providers 22.5% 25 

Animal health 5.4% 6 

Other 5.4% 6 

Biotechnology organisations across agricultural, food, environmental, industrial and bioinformatics 10.8% 12 

Totals 100% 111 

25


26 

Figure 2: Breakdown of research organisations by Life Sciences industry sub-sector (28 respondents) 

4.1.6 Comparative Profile of the full Queensland 

Government Life Sciences Industry Database 

As a cross-check on the profile for respondents to the 

survey, the full database of 252 companies was profiled 

according to sub-sector. 

Those companies that did not respond to the survey were 

assigned to a division and size category based on either 

information from the 2009 survey or following a review of 

any publicly available secondary data on the organisation. 

The profile of the full company database was similar to that 

for the survey population. 

The sub-sector breakdown of the Queensland industry 

in 2011 was compared to that determined in 2009 

(Table 12). The profile in each year was similar, with the 

TABLE 12: Sub-sector Breakdown of Queensland Life Sciences Companies — 2009 and 2011 

greatest concentration of activity across the five Human 

Health sub-sectors. 

4.2 Reasons for Location in Queensland 

Companies were asked to select from six possible 

reasons for the location of their business in Queensland, 

or to provide another reason. The most commonly selected 

reason (63%) was ‘Originally founded in Queensland or 

founder based in Queensland’ (Table 13). ‘Other’ reasons 

given included business specific issues (e.g. acquisition 

of existing business, joint venture with local business, 

specific climate for crop growth), and lifestyle issues 

(e.g. climate, family). 

Sector 2009 2011 2011 

Number of companies 104 

(survey data) 

Human health – pharmaceuticals, vaccines or drug discovery 

111 

(survey data) 

252 

(full database) 

12.6% 9.8% 

Human health – diagnostics 4.5% 2.3% 

Human health – complementary medicines 52.9% 9.9% 10.9% 

Human health – functional foods/nutraceuticals 8.1% 9.8% 

Human health – medical devices and equipment 20.7% 25.8% 

Animal health 4.8% 5.4% 4.3% 

Biotechnology (environmental, agricultural, food, industrial, bioinformatics) 10.6% 10.8% 12.5% 

Industry service provider 23.1% 22.5% 21.1% 

Other 


8.7% 5.4% 3.5%

TABLE 13: Reasons for QLS Companies Locating in Queensland 

Reasons Proportion of Responses 

Originally founded in QLD or founder based in QLD 63% 

Spun-out of a QLD research organisation 13% 

Attracted by proximity to specific research infrastructure and/or skills 6% 

Attracted by QLD Government grant funding, incentives or other support 5% 

To establish a QLD division of a national or international company 3% 

Favourable Regulatory environment 1% 

Don’t know 1% 

Other (please specify) 9% 

4.3 Activity Across the Value Chain 

4.3.1 Products at Market 

Data on the number of lead products at market support the idea 

that the Queensland industry is maturing (Table 14). 

TABLE 14: The proportion of lead products at market 

Year Therapeutic Non-therapeutic 

2009 34% 42% 

2011 69% 56% 

4.3.2 Sub-sector analysis of the value-chain 

The extent of ‘effort’ (e.g. funding, resourcing) dedicated to each 

stage of product development can be viewed as an indicator of 

both the maturity of the industry and the pipeline of products 

in development. Different types of products and services (e.g. 

biotechnology, therapeutic and medical devices) have distinct 

development pathways. In order to collect meaningful data, 

companies were offered questions relevant to the type of product 

or service they were developing. In the following section, rounding 

may cause numbers to appear to be inconsistent. 

Pharmaceuticals, Vaccines, Biologics Industry Sub-sector 

Companies involved in developing pharmaceuticals, vaccines or 

biologics dedicated the greatest effort in the very early ‘discovery/ 

Average for the proportion of effort dedicated to each stage of development (10 respondents) 

Stage of Lead Product (Total of 10 stages nominated by 10 companies) 

Stage of Top Seven Products (Total of 32 stages nominated by 10 companies) 

preclinical’ phase of therapeutic development (average of 45%). 

An average of 34% of effort was focussed on clinical development, 

with the majority at Phase II. The late phase of the value chain, 

registration/market was the focus of an average of 21% of effort. 

Each pharma company nominated the development stage of their 

‘lead’ or single most advanced product. Responses were spread 

across development stages with 40% of lead products already at 

registration or at market. An equal proportion of lead products 

were in early clinical development (Phase I 10%, Phase II 30%). 

20% of lead products were still in a discovery/preclinical phase. 

Survey participants were asked to nominate the stage of 

development for up to seven of their most advanced products. 

Most products were either in discovery/preclinical phase (31%) 

or registration/market phase (47%). (See graph on p.24) 

Diagnostics Industry Sub-sector 

Effort was fairly evenly spread across the value chain for 

diagnostic companies. Lead products were either pre-market 

(66%) or near/at market (33%). Of the most advanced products 

(up to seven could be nominated), the majority (56%) were ready 

for market release or already at market. The remaining 44% 

were at various stages of product development. 

27


28 

Average for the proportion of effort dedicated to each stage of development (5 respondents). 

Stage of Lead Product (Total of nine stages nominated by five companies) 

Stage of Top Seven Products (Total of 25 products nominated by five companies) 

Animal Health Industry Sub-sector 

The Animal Health sub-sector appears to be a mature segment of the QLS Industry with the majority of total effort (78%) 

focussed at the registration/market stage. An average of 22% of total effort in this sub-sector was spent in the development 

or testing of new products (discovery/preclinical 12%, clinical testing 10%). 

All lead products (100%) and the majority (84%) of the most advanced products reported by companies in this sub-sector 

had already reached registration/market stage. This may, in part, reflect the lower regulatory hurdles for the development of 

animal health products compared to human therapeutics and medical devices, reducing both the time and cost required to 

reach the market. 

Average for the proportion of effort dedicated to each stage of development (5 respondents). 

Stage of Lead Product (Total of six stages nominated by five respondents) 

Stage of Top Seven Products (Total of 25 stages nominated by five respondents) 

Complementary Medicines and Functional Foods/Nutraceuticals Industry Sub-sectors 

The majority of effort by companies from the combined complementary medicines, functional foods and nutraceuticals 

sub-sectors was focussed on market readiness/market (64%). However, 31% of effort was focussed on early stage activities 

(discovery and proof of concept) and a further 5% in clinical development. 

This sub-sector appears to be relatively mature, with 80% of lead products near or at market, these companies are active 

in R&D and have a pipeline of products under development with about 21% of lead products and 19% of the most advanced 

products still at discovery, proof of concept or clinical development stages. 



Stage of Top Seven Products (Total of 96 stages nominated by 17 companies)

Medical Devices and Equipment Industry Sub-sector 

Overall, effort was spread across the value chain for medical devices and equipment companies. However, about 45% of effort 

was focussed either at the market or regulatory approval stages. 87% of lead products from this sub-sector were in late stage 

development (7% commercialisation/regulatory approval and 80% at market). Despite the advanced stage of lead products, 

effort was expended across the development cycle with a pipeline of products likely to be under development. 




Other Products/Services 

Other products and services included biofuels, agricultural products, electronics and environmental ‘solutions’. For these companies, 

an average of 43% of effort was dedicated to later stages of development. 

For their lead product or service, the majority were at market or near market, possibly indicating mature companies. About one-third 

of lead products were also in the very early stages of development (research/proof of concept). 

Average for the proportion of effort dedicated to each stage of development 



29


30 

4.3.3 Queensland Companies with Products 

in Clinical Development 

Development of new therapeutic products and devices is 

a heavily regulated process that involves a clinical phase 

of development during which product safety and efficacy 

are assessed. The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials 

Registry (ANZCTR; www.anzctr.org.au) is one source of 

information on clinical trials conducted in Australia. 

The registry includes trials involving pharmaceuticals, 

alternative and complementary medicines, medical devices, 

treatments and rehabilitation therapies. Across all the 

relevant sectors (Table 15) at least 32 clinical stage 

products were identified as being under development 

by QLS companies. 

For pharmaceuticals, vaccines and biologics the 

development process is lengthy (10 – 15 years), expensive 

and heavily regulated. The expense is related to the 

capitalised cost of new drug approval, including the cost 

of all failures, which is estimated to be $1.3 billion. 11 

Regulation can occur through regulatory bodies, such as 

the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), United States 

Food and Drug Administration, and the European Medicines 

Agency. Discovery and preclinical stages are followed by 

three distinct pre-market clinical trial phases (Phase I, 

II and III). Based on data from the survey, at least seven 

therapeutics under development by Queensland companies 

are currently in clinical development. Six of these had 

reached clinical proof of concept stage (Phase II, III). An 

analysis of ANZCTR identified a further two clinical trials of 

pharmaceuticals/vaccines or biologics being undertaken by 

Queensland companies in 2011/2012. 

TABLE 15: Number of products in clinical development by Queensland companies 

Complementary medicines undergo clinical development 

to demonstrate efficacy. ‘Registered’ complementary 

medicines have been evaluated by the TGA Office of 

Complementary Medicines for quality, safety and efficacy. 

‘Listed’ complementary medicines require only that the 

sponsor hold evidence to support efficacy. While survey 

respondents nominated six products in clinical development, 

an analysis of ANZCTR identified a further seven clinical 

trials of alternative or complementary medicines being 

funded/sponsored by Queensland companies in 2011/2012. 

Medical devices are regulated by the TGA Office of Devices, 

Blood and Tissues. Medical devices require appropriate 

clinical evidence to demonstrate the device conforms to the 

applicable provisions of the essential principles of the TGA. 

Survey respondents developing medical devices identified 

five medical device products at the clinical trial/testing stage 

of development. A further three products from Queensland 

companies are in clinical development in 2011/2012, 

according to ANZCTR. 

Animal health products, including veterinary health 

products and veterinary chemical products, are regulated 

in Australia by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary 

Medicines Authority. Regulatory requirements differ 

depending on the type of product, target species (companion 

animal vs. food producing animal) and whether the active 

ingredient is new or already registered. The regulations 

regarding the manufacture of animal health products 

and their preclinical development (preclinical safety and 

toxicity) have considerable overlap with those for human 

pharmaceuticals. Although much less extensive than human 

clinical trials, veterinary clinical trials also examine safety 

and efficacy in target species. Two veterinary products were 

reported by survey respondents to be in clinical development 

in 2011/2012. 

Sub-sector Survey data Registry data Total 

Pharmaceuticals, vaccines and biologics 7 2 9 

Complementary medicines/ Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals 6 7 13 

Medical devices 5 3 8 

Animal Health products 2 0 2 

Total 32 

11 Tufts Centre for the Study of Drug Development. http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/pr_outlook_2011; accessed 10.12.12


32 

5.EMPLOYMENT 

“Surveyed organisations (135) reported a total of 8085 FTE staff, whilst 

the estimate for all 301 Life Sciences organisations in Queensland was 

just over 14,000.” 

5.1 Life Sciences Sector Employment 

Reported by Respondents 

135 organisations reported a total of 8085 FTE staff. 

The number of FTEs per organisation ranged from 

less than one in ‘virtual’ companies to over 500 

employees in several institutes and university units. 

The average number of FTEs employed by research 

organisations (194) was over six times that of 

companies (31) (Table 16). 

TABLE 16: FTE Employees in the Queensland 

Life Sciences Industry, companies vs. research 

organisations 2011 (135 respondents) 

All respondents 

(135) 

Total 

FTEs 

Average 

FTEs 

Median 

FTEs 

8085 Total 

FTEs 

60 

11 

Companies 

(111) 

Average 

FTEs 

Median 

FTEs 

3433 

31 

8 

Research 

Organisations 

(24) 

Total 

FTEs 

Average 

FTEs 

Median 

FTEs 

4652 

194 

122 

5.1.1 Employees in Research Organisations 

Research organisations included centres, institutes, 

schools, faculties and universities, which vary 

significantly in unit size. The breakdown of FTEs for 

the research organisations that responded to the 

employment question is shown in Table 17. 

TABLE 17: Breakdown of FTEs from research 

organisations by unit size (24 respondents) 

Type of Unit Number of 

Responses 

Number 

of FTEs 

Average 

Number 

of FTEs 

Centre 7 450 64 

Institute 14 2544 182 

School 1 120 120 

Faculty 2 1538 769 

University 0 N/A N/A 

Total 24 4652 194 

5.1.2 Employees in Companies 

The total number of company FTEs reported within 

each industry sub-sector is shown in Table 18. For 

this analysis, organisations were assigned to only 

one industry sub-sector. Among companies, the 

complementary medicines sub-sector was the 

largest employer with 37.6% of all FTEs reported. 

TABLE 18: Number of FTE employees in companies by 

industry sub-sector in 2011 (111 respondents) 

Number of 

Companies 

Number 

of FTEs 

Proportion 

of Total 

FTEs 

Complementary 

Medicines 

Pharmaceuticals, 

11 1290 37.6% 

Vaccines or 

Drug Discovery 

14 612 17.8% 

Biotechnology 12 405 11.8% 

Medical Devices 

and Equipment 

23 344 10.0% 

Industry Service 

Provider 

25 305 8.9% 

Diagnostics 5 186 5.4% 

Functional Food/ 

Nutraceuticals 

9 147 4.3% 

Animal Health 6 95 2.8% 

Other 6 49 1.4% 

Total 111 3433 100% 

5.1.3 Employees by Industry Division — 

Biotechnology and TMD 

The total number of FTE employees reported by 

71 respondents from the TMD division of the Life 

Sciences sector was 2833, or an average of 40 

employees per organisation. The 64 Biotechnology 

organisations reported 5252 FTE employees, or an 

average of 82 employees per organisation (Table 19). 

TABLE 19: FTEs by Division — Biotechnology and TMD 


Biotechnology TMD 

Total Average Total Average 

Companies 849 20 2584 38 

Research 

Organisations 

4403 200 249 124 

All 

Respondents 

5252 82 2833 40 

The number of personnel employed by QLS 

companies, but located interstate and overseas, 

is one measure of the reach of Queensland 

companies outside the state. An average of 12 

FTEs per company were employed interstate and 

overseas (median 0.5 FTEs). The distribution of 

these interstate and overseas employees by subsector 

broadly mirrored the sub-sector distribution 

of employees based in Queensland.

5.2 Total Estimated Life Sciences Industry Employment 

Based on the average employment per organisation across all 

respondents, it was estimated that 14,106 FTEs were employed 

by the 301 Life Sciences companies, universities and research 

organisations across the State in 2011. Of those, 8021 were 

assumed to be in the Biotechnology sector and 6086 in TMD. The 

majority of Biotechnology employees (73%) were assumed to be 

employed by research organisations, and almost all employees in 

the TMD sector (96%) were assumed to be employed by companies 

(Table 20). 

TABLE 20: Estimated Queensland-wide Life Sciences Industry 

employment 2011 


Organisations 

Total 

Total Life Sciences Industry 8008 6098 14,106 

Biotechnology sector only 2150 5871 8021 

TMD sector only 5859 227 6086 


Queensland-wide employment estimates were 28.5% lower in 

2011 than those in 2009 (Table 21). The majority of employees 

were estimated to have been lost from companies. Research 

organisations were estimated to have a similar number of FTEs 

in 2009 and 2011. 

TABLE 21: Estimated Queensland-wide Life Sciences Industry 

employment 2005-2011 12 

2005* 2007 2009 2011 Change 2009- 

2011 

All QLS Organisations 

Biotechnology 

ND 15,569 19,731 14,106 -28.5% 

All respondents 5215 7630 9929 8021 -19.3% 

Companies 1933 1840 3760 2150 -42.9% 

Research 

Organisations 

TMD 

3282 5790 6189 5871 -4.9% 

All respondents N/A 7939 9802 6086 -37.9% 

Companies N/A ND 9682 5859 -39.5% 

Research 

Organisations 

N/A ND 120 227 89.0% 

ND = not determined N/A = not applicable 

*Estimates from Queensland Biotechnology Industry – Benchmarking Study 

(2003–2005) Innovation Dynamics, Additional Data Report, April 2006. The 

basis for these estimates is unknown with only a limited description of the 

statistical methodology provided in the report, response rate for this question 

was not known but the overall response rate for the survey was 38%, with 32 

companies and 26 research institutes participating out of a database of 152. 

An analysis of the real employment levels reported by the 

52 companies who responded to both QLS surveys (2009 and 

2011) supported the conclusion that employment levels fell 

overall. 63% of these companies reported the same or lower 

employment levels in 2011 vs. 2009 (Figure 3). Those that 

reported significant employment growth (e.g. over 100%) were 

in the medical devices and equipment, and functional food and 

nutraceuticals sub-sectors. 

The 30 companies that reported lower levels of employment in 

2011 than in 2009 reduced their workforce by an average of 31% 

during this period, or a total of 473 FTEs. The 19 companies that 

reported employment growth between 2009 and 2011 reported an 

average workforce increase of 82%, or a total of 337 FTEs. 

Figure 3: Change in employment reported by companies that 

responded to both QLS industry surveys (2009 and 2011) 

An analysis of the real employment levels reported by the 14 

research organisations who responded to both QLS surveys (2009 

and 2011) revealed that 58% reported lower employment levels in 

2011 vs. 2009, with this group also reducing their workforce by an 

average of 31%. The 42% of research organisations that reported 

employment growth over this period grew their workforce by an 

average of 110%. Overall, among these 14 research organisations, 

the change in employment levels between 2009 and 2011 averaged 

+28% (median -16%) – data not shown. 

In order to provide some context for this study compared to the 

Biotechnology survey undertaken in 2007, Figure 4 (overleaf) 

shows the projections for employment outlined in a 2005 strategy 

document produced by the Government of the day (Queensland 

Biotechnology Strategic Plan: 2005–2015). Overlaid onto this is the 

estimated employment attributed to Queensland Biotechnology 

companies (i.e. excluding research organisations) in 2005, 2007, 

2009 and 2011. The estimates for 2011 suggest that companies 

in the Biotechnology sector suffered a setback in employment 

between 2009 and 2011. An analysis of the Biotechnology company 

12 Total population estimates were derived using multiple imputation methods. See section in Appendices entitled ‘Analysis of Primary Survey Data’ 

for a description of the methodology. 

33


34 

2005 

1,933 

2007 

1,840 

2009 

3,760 

2010 

Projection 

3,500 

employment estimates available for 2005, 2007, 2009 and 

2011 reveal a CAGR of 1.8% for this measure over this six 

year period. 

5.3 Queensland’s Estimated Contribution to 

Employment in the Australian Life Sciences 

Industry 

2011 

2,150 

SURVEY ESTIMATES STRATEGIC PLAN PROJECTIONS 

Figure 4: Progress against employment projections set in the Queensland Biotechnology Strategic Plan 2005 — 2025 

(figure is not to scale) 

The reported number of employees across the Australian 

Life Sciences Industry varies depending on the information 

source and the definition of the industry being applied. For 

example, figures for the Australian industry do not routinely 

include those employed within research organisations. 

The Commonwealth Department of Innovation, Industry, 

Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) 

reported that the pharmaceuticals sector employed 

41,000 in 2009/2010, with 13,375 (33%) in manufacturing. 13 

Approximately 600 medical device companies (11% of 

which reside in Queensland) employ an additional 17,500 

people (MTAA Factbook 2011). 14 The Biotechnology sector 

was said by DIISRTE to include about 470 companies, 

but no estimates by DIISRTE of the number of employees 

were found. 15 Ernst & Young reported that the Australian 

Biotechnology Industry employed 12,620 people 

in 2010. 16 

These three figures combine to a total industry employment 

across Australia of 71,120 people. This rough figure 

would place Queensland’s contribution to employment 

in the Australian Life Sciences sector in 2009/2010 at 

2015 Projection 

7,500 


16,000 

approximately 19.8%. By comparison, the population of 

Queensland (at Q2 2011/2012) was 20% of the Australian 

population. 17 

According to IBISWorld (Table 22), the Australian Life 

Sciences Industry supported approximately 37,977 jobs. 

These were in the Biotechnology (7513), 18 Pharmaceutical 

— including manufacturing and wholesaling; (18,790) 19 

and Medical and Surgical Equipment manufacturing 

(11,674) 20 sectors in 2010/2011. 21 This compares to 38,901 

reported by IBISWorld in 2009. 22 Although IBISWorld does 

not specifically report on the Medical Device industry, the 

addition of the estimated 17,500 Medical Devices jobs (MTAA 

Factbook) would bring the total Australian Life Sciences 

Industry employment to 55,477 employees. However, 

the current Queensland employment estimates are not 

directly comparable to IBISWorld estimates. In particular, 

employment within industrial or ‘white’ biotechnology 

for example, may not be fully captured in the IBISWorld 

classifications. Moreover, it is unlikely that IBISWorld would 

include, for example, employment estimates from all of the 

university units involved in Life Sciences. A more suitable 

comparison may involve comparing the QLS company 

employment (estimated at 8008 FTEs) with IBISWorld 

estimates Australia wide (55,477). This would place the 

QLS Industry (excluding research organisations) at 14.4% 

of the total Australian Life Sciences Industry. 

Table 23 (opposite) shows the location of the various sectors 

of the Australian Life Sciences Industry by employment 

or establishments (as available), according to IBISWorld 

Reports (2010/2011). 23 

13 Pharmaceutical Industry Data card, DIISRTE, http://www.innovation.gov.au/industry/pharmaceuticalsandhealthtechnologies/pharmaceuticals/pages/ 

pharmaceuticalsIndustryDataCard.aspx; accessed 11 June 2012. 

14 Medical Technology Association of Australia (MTAA) Factbook 2011. 

15 http://www.innovation.gov.au/Industry/Biotechnology/Pages/default.aspx; accessed 11 June 2012 

16 Ernst & Young, Beyond Borders 2011. 

17 Australian Bureau of Statistics 3101.0 — Australian Demographic Statistics, Dec 2011; Queensland 4,513,000 and Australia 22,485,300. 

18 IBISWorld, X0001 Biotechnology in Australia, March 2012. 

19 IBISWorld, C2543 Pharmaceutical Product Manufacturing in Australia, January 2012; IBISWorld, F4797 Pharmaceutical Wholesaling in Australia, 

February 2012. 

20 IBISWorld, C2832 Medical and Surgical Equipment Manufacturing in Australia, November 2011 

21 IBISWorld, X0001 Biotechnology in Australia, March 2012; IBISWorld, C2543 Pharmaceutical Product Manufacturing in Australia, January 2012; 

IBISWorld, C2832 Medical and Surgical Equipment Manufacturing in Australia, November 2011; IBISWorld, F4797 Pharmaceutical Wholesaling in 

Australia, February 2012. 

22 See Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report 2010. 

23 IBISWorld, X0001 Biotechnology in Australia, March 2012; IBISWorld, C2543 Pharmaceutical Product Manufacturing in Australia, January 2012; 

IBISWorld, C2832 Medical and Surgical Equipment Manufacturing in Australia, November 2011; IBISWorld, F4797 Pharmaceutical Wholesaling 

in Australia, February 2012.

TABLE 22: IBISWorld industry statistics 2010/2011 

Sector Number of Enterprises Employment Revenue ($m) 

Biotechnology 498 7513 $7073 

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 151 13,375 $9350 

Pharmaceutical Wholesaling 197 5415 $10,715 

Medical and Surgical Equipment 1893 11,674 $3015 

TABLE 23: Australian Life Sciences Industry location of establishments (IBISWorld) 

State Biotechnology (by 

employment) 

5.4 Anticipated Employment Growth 

Across all companies, the forecast average growth in employees 

over the coming 12 months was 5.2%. The number of employees 

was forecast to rise from 3433 to 3612 FTEs, or an average of 33 

FTE employees per company (up from 31 in 2011). 

The average increase in company employees in the sector over the 

next three years was forecast to be 34.3% (CAGR of 10.3%). This 

would bring total employees within companies who responded to 

the survey to 4612 FTEs in 2014 (an average of 44 employees per 

company) (Table 24). 

TABLE 24: Predicted employment growth from Queensland Life 

Sciences companies 

Actual - 

2011 

Forecast - 

12 months 

Forecast - 

3 years 

Number of respondents 111 109 106 

Total FTEs Across 

Companies 

3433 3612 4612 

Average per Respondent 31 33 44 

CAGR* Across Companies - 5.2% 10.3% 

Employment forecasts provided by companies in the 2009 survey 

indicated a positive business sentiment at that time. However, 

based on the 2011 employment data, these forecasts appear not 

to have been met. In 2009, the average number of employees per 

company was forecast to rise from 39 in 2009 to 41 in 2010 and to 

55 in 2012. The average number of FTEs across companies in 2011 

was only 31, indicating a decline on the average reported in 2009. 

Pharmaceutical 

Manufacturing 

(by establishments) 

Medical and Surgical 

Equipment Manufacturing 


5.5 Employment of Contractors 

Company respondents were asked to nominate the total number 

of FTE contractors retained over the past 12 months. 57% 

of companies (62 of 110 respondents) reported a total of 271 

FTE contractors, representing approximately 7.3% of the QLS 

workforce (given that 111 respondent companies reported 3433 

FTE employees). In 2010, the ABS reported that contractors 

comprised 9.8% of the Australian workforce. 24 

On average, there were 4.4 FTE contractors per company (median 

of 2.0 FTEs). The majority (94%; 58 respondents) reported 

contractor numbers of less than 10 and this group averaged 

2.3 contractors per company. Four companies (6%) reported 

10 or more contractors (average of 35.0 FTEs). A breakdown of 

contractor numbers by industry sub-sector is shown in Table 25. 

TABLE 25: Proportion of employees and contractors in companies 

by industry sub-sector in 2011 (111 respondents) 

Proportion of 

Total FTEs 

Pharmaceutical 

Wholesaling 


Victoria 48% 29% 25.2% 27.5% 

New South Wales 20% 34% 32.2% 40.5% 

Queensland 15% 17% 17.0% 18.0% 

South Australia 9% 7% 9.0% 5.0% 

Western Australia 6% 11% 11.3% 6.5% 

Tasmania 1% 2% 3.3% 1.0% 

ACT 1% 0% 1.7% 1.0% 

NT - - 0.3% 0.5% 

24 Australian Bureau of Statistics 6359.0 — Forms of Employment, Australia, November 2010. 

Proportion of 

Contracted FTEs 

Pharmaceuticals, Vaccines 

or Drug Discovery 

17.8% 29.0% 

Diagnostics 5.4% 3.0% 

Medical Devices and Equipment 10.0% 10.6% 

Complementary Medicines 37.6% 23.0% 

Functional Food/Nutraceuticals 4.3% 5.1% 

Animal Health 2.8% 2.6% 

Biotechnology 11.8% 17.5% 

Industry Service Provider 8.9% 4.5% 

Other 1.4% 4.7% 

Total 100% 100% 

35


36 

5.6 Employment Categories 

Across all respondents (133), the greatest proportion of 

employees held roles in R&D (35.1%; R&D professionals 

and technical staff plus support staff delivering R&D 

related services) and administration/management (22.7%). 

Marketing and sales accounted for 12.8% of employees, 

with manufacturing and bioprocessing accounting for 

12.1%. Remaining staff were employed in clinical trials 

(4.8%), quality assurance (4.1%), regulatory (2.0%) and other 

categories (6.4%) (Figure 5; Table 26). 

Figure 5: Distribution of employees across employment 

categories (133 respondents) 

Consistent with our previous analyses of the QLS Industry, 

the majority of staff within research organisations (72.5%) 

were involved in performing R&D or providing technical 

support. There was an increase in employment in the 

R&D related categories of 12.5% in 2011 compared to the 

2009 survey. 26.5% of employees in companies were 

engaged in R&D activities in 2011, compared to 22.4% in 

2009. A number of work categories were found almost 

exclusively in companies, including manufacturing and 

bioprocessing, quality assurance, regulatory professionals 

and sales and marketing. This reflects the commercial 

activity of companies in manufacturing and marketing 

regulated products. 

TABLE 26: Breakdown of work categories by organisation 

classification (131 respondents) 

All 

Respondents 

Company RO 

R&D professionals and 

technical staff 

26.4% 20.1% 53.8% 

Marketing and sales 12.8% 15.6% 0.6% 

Management/Executive 12.7% 14.7% 3.9% 

Manufacturing and bio 

processing 

12.1% 14.8% 0.2% 

Administration/Human 

resources 

10.0% 10.6% 7.3% 

Support staff delivering 

R&D related services 

8.7% 6.4% 18.7% 

Other 6.4% 5.3% 11.3% 

Clinical trials 4.8% 5.1% 3.4% 

Quality assurance 4.1% 5.0% 0.3% 

Regulatory 

professionals 

2.0% 2.4% 0.4% 

The breakdown of work categories revealed in the 2007, 

2009 and 2011 surveys is provided in Table 27. The greatest 

change in employee roles in the past two years was a 

reduction in the proportion of management/administrative 

roles from 31.7% in 2009 to 22.7% in 2011. This may be a 

result of organisations rationalising staffing levels in 

non-research related roles in response to the GFC. 

TABLE 27: Breakdown of work categories across multiple 

surveys 

Work Category Biotechnology 

Survey 

2007 

R&D Professionals 

and Technical Staff 

Support Staff 

Delivering R&D 

Related Services 

TMD 

Survey 

2007 

QLS 

Survey 

2009 

QLS 

Survey 

2011 

43.3% 17.1% 25.8% 26.4% 

3.1% 4.5% 6.2% 8.7% 

Manufacturing and 

Bioprocessing 

5.3% 14.9% 9.2% 12.1% 

Quality Assurance 

and Clinical Trials 

6.6% 7.1% 7.2% 8.9% 

Regulatory 

Professionals 

3.7% ND 2.7% 2.0% 

Marketing and 

Sales 

7.6% 26.6% 10.6% 12.8% 

Management/ 

Executive 

Administration and 

Human Resources 

19.0% 

19.1% 

10.7% 

16.8% 

14.9% 

12.7% 

10.0% 

Other 11.4% ND 6.6% 6.4% 

5.7 Wage and Salary Expenditure 

All respondents (85, one outlier removed) reported $563.8 

million in expenditure on wages/salaries, an average of $6.6 

million per organisation and a median of $800,000. Wage 

and salary costs averaged 52% of total expenditure per 

organisation. 

Research organisations (16) reported an average annual 

wage and salary expenditure approximately four times that 

of companies (69). The median value was approximately 

25 times that of companies (Table 28). This is a significant 

change compared to the total and average/median wage and 

salary expenditure data provided by survey respondents in 

2009. In 2011, almost $200 million more in expenditure on 

wages and salaries was reported by research organisations 

(for a similar number of organisations) than in 2009. 

Moreover, in 2009, the average annual wage and salary 

expenditure of research organisations was only twice that 

of companies and the median annual wage expenditure was 

only eight times that of companies.

TABLE 28: Wage and Salary Expenditure of QLS organisations 2011 


Companies RO All 

Number of organisations 69 16 85 

Total Wage and Salary 

expenditure ($m) 

$291.6 $272.1 $563.8 

Average salary expenditure 

per organisation ($m) 

$4.2 $17.0 $6.6 

Median salary expenditure per 

organisation ($m) 

$0.56 $14.38 $0.80 

It was estimated that QLS organisations spent approximately $2.14 

billion on wages/salaries in 2011 (Table 29). This amount is 98.6% 

higher than the combined estimates reported for 2009. 

The median figures from the survey data suggested an implied 

average wage of $54,600 for the private sector compared to 

research organisations, where the implied average wage was 

$67,600. The reliability of this estimate cannot be assured as 

university units will typically have to approximate the number 

of staff deemed to be working in Life Sciences and then estimate 

salary expenditure, whereas companies will typically have a 

more defined workforce in that regard and, therefore, more 

accurate data. 

5.8 Comparative Life Sciences Wages 

According to the ABS, across all industries, the average annual 

salary for Australian and Queensland employees in 2011 was 

$71,568 and $69,945, respectively. 25 Employment and expenditure 

medians from the current survey suggest an average annual 

salary of $66,965 for QLS employees in 2011. As a cross-check, 

a measure of the typical Australian Life Sciences wage in 2011 

was determined by taking a simple average of three ABS salary 

data reporting categories (Scientific, Education, Health-related) 

to arrive at $74,750. 26 

TABLE 29: Total Wage and Salary Expenditure by QLS organisations 

A comparison of the average QLS wage estimated in 2009 and 

2011 (Table 30) suggests that the average QLS wage, in both 

research organisations and the private sector, has fallen over this 

period. This may reflect the lower proportion of staff employed 

in executive, management, human resources and administrative 

roles (see section 5.6) and an increase in the outsourcing of 

activities requiring highly skilled personnel. 

TABLE 30: Average Wages of Life Science Industry Employees 

in Queensland 2009 and 2011 

2011 2009 

All Respondents $66,965 $77,732 

Companies $54,600 $78,107 

Research 

Organisations 

$67,600 $75,819 

A comparison of the average QLS Industry wage to selected 

countries is presented in Table 31. This simple analysis suggests 

that the average Queensland Life Sciences salary is comparable 

to those in several other member countries of the OECD. 

TABLE 31: Estimated average Life Sciences wages, an international 

comparison 27 

Region Source Year Average Annual 

Wage (AU$) 

Queensland Current Survey 2011 $66,965 

Australia ABS 2011 $74,750 

New Zealand Statistics 

New Zealand 

2011 $46,536 

USA United States 

Dept. of Labor 

2010 $69,447 

Canada Statistics Canada 2011 $60,638 

Sweden Statistics Sweden 2010 $67,114 

2007 2009 2011 

BIO TMD BIO TMD BIO TMD 

Total Reported Wage and Salary Expenditure ($m) $104 $63 $104 $146 $308 $256 

$167 $250 $564 

Average Wage and Salary Expenditure per Organisation ($m) $2.4 $1.4 $2.5 $4.1 $6.9 $7.2 

$1.9 $3.2 $7.0 

Total QLS Industry Wage and Salary Expenditure ($m) $502 $287 $387 $691 $1085 $1057 


$789 $1078 $2141 

25 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6302.0 — Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, Aug 2011, Persons; Full Time; Adult; Total earnings ; Professional, Scientific and 

Technical Services, Education and Training; and Health Care and Social Assistance. 

26 Ibid. 

27 Note that the estimated wages presented are based on proxies for the Life Sciences Industry. Detail on the approach used to calculate these estimates is provided in 

the methodology section in the appendix to this report. 

37


38 

6.EDUCATION AND SKILLING 

“The QLS Industry is highly skilled and receptive to providing new graduates 

with career opportunities.” 

6.1 Tertiary Education 

It was estimated that 82,698 students graduated 

from science degrees in Australia in 2009 and 

89,675 in 2010 (latest available year). This analysis 

was based on DEEWR data and an assumption 

that higher education ‘science’ courses were those 

which fell within the DEEWR categories of Natural 

and Physical Sciences, Information Technology, 

Engineering and Related technologies, Agriculture, 

Environmental and Related Studies and Health. 

Queensland universities accounted for 14,903 (18%) 

of science graduates in 2009 and 15,732 (18%) 

in 2010. 28 The OECD reported that in Australia in 

2010, the percentage of science and engineering 

graduates among total university graduates at 

20.4% was close to the OECD average. 29 

The number of bioscience completions in Australia 

increased by 7.9% from 56,182 graduates in 2009 

to 60,617 in 2010. The number of bioscience 

completions from Queensland universities 

increased from 10,261 in 2009 to 11,007 in 2010, 

but remained at 18% of Australian bioscience 

completions (Figure 6). 30 

Figure 6: Bioscience degree completions 2005 – 2010 

6.2 Graduate Opportunities in the QLS 


Survey participants were asked to what extent they 

agreed with the statement — “Our organisation 

provides career opportunities to new science 

graduates or early career scientists”. Over 90% of 

research organisations (22) and 43% of companies 

(106) agreed or strongly agreed with this statement 

(Figure 7). 

Figure 7: QLS industry support of science 

graduates and early career scientists 


6.3 Higher Degree Qualification in the 

QLS Workforce 

The number of individuals in the workforce with 

a PhD provides at least some indication of the 

extent to which an industry engages in, or relies 

upon, research and innovation. The number of 

PhD qualified personnel in the general Australian 

workforce has been reported at 7.8 per 1000 

workers compared to the USA at 11 and Germany 

at 20. 31 In 2007, graduates in a scientific discipline 

accounted for 25.2% of all Australian doctoral 

graduates. 32 

In the current survey, across all respondents, an 

average of 24.1% (median 11.0%) of the workforce 

was PhD qualified. By comparison, a New Zealand 

study in 2011 reported that 14% of employees 

in core biotechnology organisations were PhD 

qualified. 33 

28 Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), Award Course Completions for All 

Students by State, Higher Education Provider and Broad Field of Education. 

29 OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010: country profiles. 

30 Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), Award Course Completions for 

All Students by State, Higher Education Provider and Broad Field of Education. http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/ 

Publications/HEStatistics/Publications/Pages/2010FullYear.aspx. ‘Bioscience’ courses were defined as those falling within the 

categories of Natural and Physical Sciences, Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies and Health. 

31 ANU submission to the parliamentary inquiry into research training and research workforce issues in universities, 2008; www. 

aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/isi/research/subs.htm; accessed 1st 

July 2012.

Research organisations reported that, on average, 47.3% of their 

workforce held a PhD (median figure was 42.5%). A 2008 survey 

by the Australian Society for Medical Research generally supports 

these findings. In this survey, 39% of all staff, and 65% of research 

staff in medical research institutes and university departments 

were said to have held a PhD. 34 

The percentage of PhD qualified personnel reported by companies 

in the current survey varied considerably, but the overall average 

was 19% (median 4%). This is comparable with data from a 

pharmaceutical industry survey undertaken by Medicines Australia 

in 2009, which revealed that 5% of company staff held a PhD and 

14% held a Masters degree. 35 41% of companies reported no PhD 

qualified personnel, 19% reported that over half of their workforce 

was PhD qualified and 3.6% of companies reported that all of their 

staff had a PhD. Those with a high proportion of PhD qualified staff 

(›70%) were typically either small, start-up biopharmaceutical 

companies spun-out of Queensland research organisations or 

service providers/industry consultants. 

The Australian Council for Educational Research reported in 2008 

that private sector employers did not particularly value nor seek 

personnel qualified with research PhD or Masters degrees in 

the mathematics and science fields, and instead sought degree 

and honours graduates. 36 53.6% of persons employed in the ABS 

industry category of Professional, Technical and Scientific Services 

in 2010 were tertiary qualified, compared to 23.0% of the general 

population. 37 However, the typical level and type of qualification 

held by an employee will vary depending on the stage of company 

development. 38,39 Overall, tertiary qualifications in the Australian 

workforce are becoming more prevalent with 24% of workers (aged 

15-64) holding a degree in 2011 compared to 17% in 2001. 40 

6.4 Predicted Skill Gaps 

6.4.1 Skills Gaps — All Respondents 

Survey participants were asked to nominate anticipated skills 

gap(s) over the next five years from a list of 15 options (including 

an ‘Other’ category). A total of 132 responses were received and 

the proportion of responses for each category was expressed 

as a percentage of this total (Figure 8). The most common 

expected skills gaps were in commercialisation (11%), business 

development (11%), and chemistry (10%). 6% of respondents did 

not anticipate any skill shortages over the period. 

Figure 8: Predicted skill gaps to emerge over the next five years 

(2012-2016) (132 respondents) 

‘Manufacturing or other trade skills’ (9%) ranked fourth and 

further interrogation of those responses revealed a range of skills 

expected to be in high demand, including: 

1. all general trades e.g. electricians, plumbers, construction, 

electrical fitter, boiler makers, steel fabricators, welders, 

machinists (5 respondents); 

2. production and production engineering (3 respondents); 

3. electronics (2 respondents); 

4. upholstery skills (2 respondents in the medical devices and 

equipment subsector); 

5. pharmaceutical dose form operators — e.g. tableting, injectable 

dose room experience (2 respondents); and 

6. a range of other skills each nominated by a single respondent: 

GMP cell culture production 

rapid prototyping 

32 OECD (2012) Measuring Innovation: a New Perspective; accessed 11th July 2012; www.oecd.org/document/10/0,3746,en_2649_34273_45155146_1_1_1_1,00.html 

33 Statistics New Zealand, NZ Bioscience Survey 2011. 

34 Schofield, D., (2009) ‘Planning the Health and Medical Research Workforce 2010-2019’, Australian Society for Medical Research. 

35 The Australian Pharmaceutical Industry: Winds of Change, Report of the 2009 Medicines Australia Member Economic Survey 

36 Edwards, D., and Smith, T.F. (2008) ‘Supply, demand and approaches to employment by people with postgraduate research qualifications 

in science and mathematics’, Australian Council for Educational Research. 

37 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 6227.0.30.001 — Survey of Education and Work, Australia 2010 

38 The Allen Consulting Group, (2010) ‘Victorian biotechnology industry skills review’, Report to the Victorian Department of Innovation, 

Industry and Regional Development. 

39 OECD (2009), “Tertiary level educational attainment for age group 25-64”, Education: Key Tables from OECD, No. 3. 

40 Australian Bureau of Statistics 6227.0 — Education and Work, Australia, May 2011. 

39


40 

pharmaceutical compounding 

formulation of various galenic forms of complementary 

medicines 

biofuel and systems design and manufacture 

maintenance engineering 

micro assembly 

process manufacturing of mixtures of chemicals 

food production and quality assurance 

engineering, process operators & chemical 

related operations 

general manufacturing — hand tools, workplace 

health and safety. 

6.4.2 Skills Gaps — 2009 versus 2011 

A future skills gap in chemistry was anticipated by 

respondents in both 2009 and 2011 (Table 32). Although 

marketing and preclinical/clinical trial management were 

in the top three anticipated skills gaps in 2009, neither 

were highly ranked in 2011. Business development, 

commercialisation and manufacturing and trade skills were 

new entries to the top three future skills gaps in 2011. 

TABLE 32: Future Skill Gaps Anticipated in 2009 and 2011 

2009 2011 

Skill Gap Proportion 

of 

Responses 

Marketing 15% Business 

Development 

Skill Gap Proportion 

of 

Responses 

11% 

Chemistry 13% Commercialisation 11% 

Preclinical/ 

Clinical Trial 

Management 

12% Chemistry 10% 

6.4.3 Skills Gaps — Research Organisations versus 

Companies 

Companies and research organisations differed in their 

expectations for skill gaps within the coming five year period 

(Table 33). ‘Business Development’ was the most commonly 

cited skill gap for companies. Research organisations 

identified ‘Bioinformatics’ (including statistical genetics) 

as the skill area of greatest need over the next five years. 

‘Chemistry’ the highest rating anticipated skill shortage 

for research organisations in 2009, was equal fifth in the 

current survey suggesting the predicted shortage had 

been partially met or did not materialise for research 

organisations as expected. 

TABLE 33: Most common anticipated skill gaps by organisation 

classification 2011 

Companies Research Organisations 

Business 

development 

Manufacturing and 

other trade skills 

Commercialisation 

skills 

No anticipated 

skills gaps 

11.2% Bioinformatics/ 

statistical genetics 

10.5% Commercialisation 

skills 

10.1% Preclinical or clinical 

trials research 

management 

6.4% No anticipated 

skills gaps 

13.5% 

11.5% 

11.5% 

3.8% 

A small survey of 37 Victorian biotechnology companies in 

2010 cited unmet demand for skills in regulatory affairs, 

clinical strategy, and project management. 41 Clinical 

research management skills were also identified as an area 

of need for research organisations and to a lesser extent 

companies, in the current survey. The current survey did 

not include ‘regulatory affairs’ as a specific answer option, 

but this skill was nominated in the ‘Other’ category by two 

companies. An AusBiotech survey in 2011 42 revealed that 

biotechnology companies anticipated growth in the number 

of ‘scientists and clinical trial staff’ as well as those in ‘sales 

and marketing’. 

41 The Allen Consulting Group, ‘Victorian Biotechnology Industry Skills Review’ (2010) Report to the Victorian Department of Innovation, Industry and 

Regional Development. 

42 AusBiotech Biotechnology Industry Position Survey http://www.ausbiotech.org/data/downloads/Biotechnology%20survey%202012_Final.pdf; accessed 

26.05.2012


42 

7.INCOME AND EXPENDITURE 

“Surveyed organisations (135) reported a combined income of $1995 million 

in 2011, whilst the estimate for all 301 Life Sciences organisations in 

Queensland was just over $4360 million.” 

7.1 Income 

7.1.1 Total Reported Income 

Survey respondents (100) reported a total income of $1995 million in 2011 (Table 34). The average income 

across respondents was $19.9 million and the median was $3.3 million. 53% of this income ($1060 million) 

was reported by biotechnology organisations and 47% ($936 million) by TMD organisations. The average 

income reported for companies was $15.6 million, or less than half that for research organisations at 

$35.2 million. 

TABLE 34: Queensland Life Sciences Industry Income, Companies vs. Research Organisations 2011 


All respondents (100) Companies (78) Research Organisations (22) 

Total Income ($m) $1994.6 $1220.0 $774.4 

Average Income ($m) $19.9 $15.6 $35.2 

Median Income ($m) $3.3 $1.75 $12.4 

Table 35 shows the total and average income reported by companies according to the sub-sector. 

TABLE 35: Income by industry sub-sector 2009 (78 respondents) 

Number of 

Organisations 

Organisations 

reporting income 

Income 

($m) 

Average 

($m) 

Complementary Medicines 11 9 $269 $29.9 

Medical Devices and 

Equipment 

23 15 $434 $28.9 

Pharmaceuticals, Vaccines 

or Drug Discovery 

14 7 $144 $20.5 

Biotechnology 12 9 $167 $18.5 

Diagnostics 5 5 $57 $11.3 

Industry Service Provider 25 18 $114 $6.3 

Other 6 4 $12 $3.1 

Animal Health 6 6 $15 $2.5 

Functional Food/ 

Nutraceuticals 

9 5 $9 $1.8 

Across all organisations 111 78 $1,220 $20.1 

7.1.2 Sources of Income 

The majority of income across all respondents (94) was generated from the sale of goods or services (57%) 

and grant funding (36%). A small proportion of total income was derived from philanthropic funding sources 

(2%) and licenses or royalties (0.3%) (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Total income generated by respondents, by income category 


Income sources for companies and research organisations differed 

markedly. Companies reported 95.2% of their income from the 

sale of goods and services with only 1.5% from grants. Research 

organisations reported 8.2% of income from the sale of goods and 

services and 79.5% from grants (Figure 10). 

Figure 10: Income sources for companies and research organisations 


7.1.3 Queensland Wide Income Estimates 

Based on an extrapolation of the data presented above, it was 

estimated that the QLS Industry generated $4.36 billion in income 

in 2011; comprising of $3.28 billion from companies and $1.09 

billion from research organisations (Table 36). 

43 IBISWorld, X0001 Biotechnology in Australia, March 2012 

TABLE 36: Estimated Queensland-wide Life Sciences Industry income 

($m) 2011 


Organisations 

Total 

Biotechnology $597 $1068 $1665 

TMD $2678 $17 $2695 

Queensland Life Sciences 

$3275 $1086 $4361 

Industry (Estimated) 

Numbers may appear inconsistent due to rounding 

The 2011 income estimates are 11.8% lower than those for 2009. 

The decline is largely accounted for by Biotechnology companies, 

with estimates for this group 45.4% lower than in 2009. The 

declines for research organisations and TMD companies all fall 

within the margin of error and so are therefore not statistically 

significant. 

TABLE 37: Estimated Queensland-wide Life Sciences Industry income 

($m) 2005 to 2011 

2005* 2007 2009 2011 Change 

2009-2011 

All Respondents N/A $3130 $4943 $4361 -11.8% 

Biotechnology 

sector only 

$696 $896 $2185 $1665 -23.8% 

Companies $292 $395 $1093 $597 -45.4% 

Research 

Organisations 

$404 $501 $1092 $1069 -2.2% 

TMD sector only N/A $2234 $2758 $2695 -2.3% 

Companies N/A ND $2751 $2678 -2.7% 

Research 

Organisations 

N/A ND $7 $17 143% 

ND – Not determined N/A – not available 

** Estimates from Queensland Biotechnology Industry – Benchmarking 

Study (2003–2005) Innovation Dynamics, Additional Data Report, April 

2006. The basis for these estimates is unknown with no description of 

the statistical methodology provided in the report, response rate for this 

question was not known but the overall response rate for the survey was 

38%, with 32 companies and 26 research institutes participating out of a 

database of 152. 


According to IBISWorld the Australian Biotechnology Industry (498 

enterprises) received revenue of $7.07 billion in 2010/2011. 43 The 

estimate for Queensland Biotechnology companies in the current 

survey ($597 million) represents 8.4% of the IBISWorld national 

estimate (IBISWorld estimates do not include activity within 

research organisations). 

43


44 

Figure 11 shows the projections for revenue set in a 2005 

strategic plan for the industry (Queensland Biotechnology 

Strategic Plan: 2005–2015). Overlaid onto this is the estimated 

income attributed to Queensland Biotechnology companies 

(i.e. excluding research organisations) from surveys in 

2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011. This data reveals a CAGR of 

12.7% over six years. The estimated income for Queensland 

Biotechnology companies in 2011, at $597 million, aligns 

with the 2010 projection of $600 million. 

7.1.4 Income Growth in 2011 

The average income reported in 2011 ($19.9 million; Table 

34) was up by 45% compared with 2009 ($13.7 million) 

and the majority of companies (56.3%) and research 

organisations (63.0%) reported income growth in 2011 

(Figure 12). 24.1% of companies and 29.6% of research 

organisations reported no change in income. A higher 

proportion of companies (19%) relative to research 

organisations (7.4%), reported a decline in income. For 

those that did report a fall in income, the average decline 

was about 23% (Table 38 and Figure 12). It should be noted 

that one fifth of companies that provided income data, did 

not respond to this question on income growth. 

Across all respondents (114), an average increase in income 

of 15.8% (median 4%) was reported for 2011. The average 

increase for companies was 14.9% (median 3%) and for 

research organisations it was 19% (median 4%). In 2009, 

an average increase in income of 22% was reported for all 

respondents. The average increase for companies was 21% 

and for research organisations, 26%. 

Table 38 shows the average change in income amongst 

those that reported an increase or fall over the 2011 year. 

44 Ernst & Young, Beyond Borders, 2011 

45 Ibid 

2005 

$292m 

2007 

$395m 

2009 

$1.1b 2010 

Projection 

$600m 

2011 

$597m 


$1.5b 

SURVEY ESTIMATES STRATEGIC PLAN PROJECTIONS 

Figure 11: Progress against revenue projections set in the Queensland Biotechnology Strategic Plan 2005 — 2025 

(figure is not to scale) 

2025 

Projection 

$4.0b 

Figure 12: Estimated income growth for respondents, 2011 


TABLE 38: Income change in the 2011 year (112 respondents) 

Number of 

respondents 

nominating 

Average 

Those reporting no growth 29 N/A 

Companies 21 N/A 

Research Organisations 8 N/A 

Those reporting a fall in income 19 -22.8% 

Companies 17 -23.5% 

Research Organisations 2 -33.0% 

Those reporting income growth 65 34.4% 

Companies 49 34.7% 


N/A - not available 

16 33.6% 

Ernst & Young reported that across the listed sectors in the 

US, Europe, Canada and Australia, revenue grew by 8% in 

both 2009 and 2010 (Table 39). Listed US companies reported 

10% income growth in 2009 and 2010, while listed Canadian 

Biotechnology companies reported 1% growth in 2010 and 

9% in 2010. 44 The Australian listed Biotechnology sector 

reported growth in revenue of 17% in 2010. 45

TABLE 39: Growth in income in the listed biotechnology sectors 

in different regions 46 

Region Year 

2009 2010 

US, Europe, Canada and Australia 8% 8% 

European companies 8% 12% 

US companies* 10% 10% 

Canadian companies + 9% 1% 

Australian companies 

N/A - not available 

* USA figures excluding Genentech acquired by Roche 

N/A 17% 

+ Canadian figures excluding Biovail acquired by Valeant Pharmaceuticals 

According to the BioSpectrum Asia-Pacific Industry Survey, 

the Life Sciences Industry in Asia-Pacific grew 3.4% in 2009 

with revenues of $110.9 billion. The highest growth Asia-Pacific 

countries in 2009 were China, India, South Korea, Australia and 

Singapore. The same survey in 2010 indicated industry growth 

of 16.6% and revenue of $128.3 billion. The scope of this survey 

was limited to core Life Sciences companies (pharmaceuticals, 

biotechnology and medical devices) across Australia, New 

Zealand, China, India, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea 

and Taiwan. 47 

7.2 Grant Income 

Federal and State government and non-government grant 

programs are an important source of funding in high-technology 

and high-risk industries. For research organisations, grants 

represent the most significant source of income for basic and 

applied research. For companies, grants and other funding 

programs can provide valuable funding to support business 

expansion, R&D, innovation and exporting. 

The 2012/2013 Federal Budget provided some ongoing support 

for business innovation. 48 The Innovation Investment Fund 

received $100 million to develop fund managers with experience 

in the early stage venture capital industry and encourage the 

development of new companies which are commercialising 

R&D. Commercialisation Australia was allocated $294 million 

over the five years to 2014, with ongoing funding of $82 million 

per year after 2014, to support innovative Australian companies 

and entrepreneurs through four main grant programs. The R&D 

Tax Incentive, which applied from 1 July 2011, includes a 45% 

refundable tax offset for SMEs (aggregated turnover of less 

than $20 million) and a 40% non-refundable tax offset for all 

other companies. The R&D Tax Incentive is expected to provide 

support for small and medium-sized enterprises to the value of 

approximately $1.8 billion. 

7.2.1 Total Grant Income 

Total reported grant income in 2011 across 93 respondents was 

$594 million (companies $14 million; research organisations 

$580 million). 

Companies (38) reported $27.2 million in new grant funding during 

2011 with an average grant size of $716,000. Of the funds awarded, 

$13.6 million was drawn down in 2011. 

Research organisations reported a total of $168.8 million in 

new grant funding during 2011. Reporting the average grant 

size is not possible as the majority of research organisations 

reported funding from granting bodies, such as NHMRC and 

ARC, in aggregate. 

7.2.2 Grant Programs 

COMPANIES 

Twenty-seven companies nominated 27 grant programs (see 

full list in the Appendices) from which funds were awarded in 

2011. Commonwealth Government grant programs provided the 

greatest number of grants for companies (60.5%). The Queensland 

Government, across several programs, accounted for 27.9% of 

grants awarded to companies. 

The top three individual grant schemes accessed by companies 

(by number of grants reported) were: 

1. Commonwealth R&D Tax Concession/Offset (18.6%) 

2. Queensland Government Smart Futures Fund (14.0%) 

3. AusTrade Export Market Development Grant (7.0%) 

RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS 

14 research organisations nominated 49 grant programs (see full 

list in the Appendices) from which funds were awarded in 2011. 

The top three grant programs accessed by research organisations 

(by amount of funding awarded) were: 

1. NHMRC (48.5%) 

2. ARC (20.0%) 

3. Queensland Health (8.2%) 

7.3 Federal Funding for Institutional Medical 

and Biotechnology Research 

In 2010, Commonwealth Government expenditure on health and 

medical research was approximately 0.09% of gross domestic 

product (GDP), down from 0.11% in 2006. In 2006, Australia was 

ranked fourth amongst OECD countries for health R&D as a 

percentage of GDP. However, by 2010, Australia had fallen to tenth 

position, behind the USA, Norway, UK, Canada, Portugal, Estonia, 

Korea, Luxembourg and Spain, and now invests 18% less than the 

OECD average (Figure 13 — overleaf). 49 

Federal Government grants administered by the NHMRC and 

the ARC are a significant source of funding for medical and 

biotechnology research conducted at research institutions. Other 

significant Federal funding programs for health and medical 

research include the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) 

program (supporting end user driven research collaborations) and 

the Health and Hospitals Fund (for building and upgrading health 

and medical research and training facilities across Australia). 

46 Ernst & Young, Beyond Borders, 2011. 

47 BioSpectrum Asia-Pacific Life Sciences Industry Survey 2009 and 2010, www.biospectrumasia.com; accessed 29 May 2012 

48 The Hon Greg Combet AM MP, Media Releases Innovation the key to driving productive industries 08 May 2012 http://minister.innovation.gov.au/gregcombet/ 

MediaReleases/Pages/InnovationTheKeyToDrivingProductiveIndustries.aspx; accessed 29 May 2012. 

49 OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011, Targeting New Growth Areas , Health innovation. 

45


46 

Figure 13: Government spending on health and medical R&D in OECD countries (%GDP) 

NHMRC funding levels increased five-fold between 

2005/2006 and 2010/2011 and represent an increasing 

proportion of Commonwealth expenditure on R&D. 50 The 

research workforce directly supported by NHMRC research 

funding was more than 8000 in 2010. 51 

In 2011, concerns that the Commonwealth Government 

intended to cut NHMRC funding prompted a relatively strong 

response from the research community. 52 The funding cuts 

did not materialise in 2011 or 2012 and, under the Federal 

budget for 2012/2013, the ARC will receive $879 million in 

2012/2013, an increase of 4.8%, and the NHMRC will receive 

$853 million in 2012/2013, an increase of 8.5%. 

A Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research in 

Australia was commissioned by the Australian Government 

in late 2011. The Review is to report by early 2013 and 

recommend a 10-year strategic health and medical research 

plan for the nation. 53 It was noted in the terms of reference 

for the review that: 

“Whereas Australia has been highly successful in research and 

development up to the proof of concept stage, there is broad 

agreement that significant opportunities exist to improve our 

success in turning these discoveries into outcomes, including 

commercial ventures….The review will take into account 

broader Government policy, including the Government’s fiscal 

strategy, and will focus on optimising Australia’s capacity to 

produce world class health and medical research to 2020.” 

7.3.1 NHMRC and ARC Funding for Queensland Research 

Organisations 

Queensland’s share of NHMRC funding rose fairly steadily 

from 13.3% in 2006 to 15.4% in 2011 (Figure 14). The amount 

of funding received by Queensland applicants in 2011 ($116 

million) was almost double that in 2006 ($60 million). The 

NHMRC’s total allocation nationally over the same period 

grew by 67%, from $451 million to $755 million. 

In 2011, two Queensland research organisations placed in 

the top 10 recipients of NHMRC funding — The University 

of Queensland (4th) and the Queensland Institute of Medical 

Research (9th). 54 Overall, Queensland applicants had a 

success rate of 19%, lower than the national 2011 average 

of 23%. 55 

Figure 14: Value of NHMRC grants awarded, Queensland vs. 

Australia 2006 – 2011 56 

50 ‘Shaping Up: Trends and Statistics in Funding Health and Medical Research’, Research Australia, July 2011. 

51 Ibid. 

52 Budget cut rumours alarm health researchers, Tim Dean, Australian Life Scientist, 06 April, 2011. http://www.lifescientist.com.au/article/382327/ 

budget_cut_rumours_alarm_health_researchers/ 

53 http://www.mckeonreview.org.au/; accessed 26 May 2012 

54 NHMRC Research Funding Facts Book 2011; http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/nh154_research_funding_facts_ 

book_111214.pdf; accessed 29 May 2012.

ARC funding has grown from $298.3 million in 2002/2003 to $708.7 

million in 2011/2012, or a 63% increase in funding over nine years 

(or 10.1% CAGR). 57 Figures 15 and 16 illustrate the share of ARC 

grants, in terms of number and value, which have been awarded 

to Queensland institutions between 2005 and 2009. Data beyond 

2009 is not currently available. 267 ARC grants were awarded to 

Queensland researchers in 2009 representing 16.4% of the total 

number awarded nationally. 

Figure 15: Number of ARC grants awarded, Queensland vs. 

Australia 2005 – 2009 58 

7.4 Expenditure 

7.4.1 Reported Expenditure 

TABLE 40: Reported expenditure in the Queensland Life Sciences Industry 

Respondents 

(% response) 

Figure 16: Value of ARC grants awarded, Queensland vs. Australia 

2005 – 2008 58 

The value of ARC grants awarded to Queensland researchers 

increased by 39% between 2005 and 2009, from $78.9 million to 

$109.7 million (Figure 16). Over the same period, the amount of 

funding awarded nationally rose by 9.3%. As a percentage of the 

national total, Queensland’s share of ARC funding dropped from 

18.0% in 2008 to 16.7% in 2009. 

92 respondents reported total expenditure of $1091 million with $564 million (52%) spent on wages and salaries, $189 million (17%) 

on R&D and $134 million (12%) on capital items (Table 40). 

55 Ibid. 

56 National Health and Medical Research Council, Successful NHMRC Grant applications for 2004 – 2009, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/funding/funded/outcomes/projects. 

htm; accessed 29 May 2012. 

57 ‘Shaping Up: Trends and Statistics in Funding Health and Medical Research’, Research Australia, July 2011. 

58 Australian Research Council, ARC Funded Research Projects — Trends Data Set 2002 – 2009, http://www.arc.gov.au/general/searchable_data.htm; accessed15 June 

2012. 

59 Australian Research Council, ARC Funded Research Projects — Trends Data Set 2002 – 2009, http://www.arc.gov.au/general/searchable_data.htm; accessed 15 June 

2012. 

Total 

($m) 

Average 

($m) 

Proportion of total expenditure 

(all, companies, or all ROs) 

Total Expenditure ($m) 92 (66%) $1091 $11.9 - 

Companies (excl. outlier) 75 (68%) $606 $8.1 - 

Research Organisations 17 (61%) $485 $28.5 - 

Wage and Salary Expenditure ($m) 85 (61%) $564 $6.6 52% 

Companies 69 (63%) $292 $4.2 48% 

Research Organisations 16 (57%) $272 $17.0 57% 

R&D Expenditure ($m) 83 (60%) $189 $2.3 17% 

Companies 67 (61%) $57 $0.9 9% 


Capital Expenditure ($m) 86 (62%) $134 $1.6 12% 

Companies 70 (64%) $36 $0.5 6% 


47


48 

While the proportion of total expenditure on salary and 

wages was comparable for companies and research 

organisations, the proportion of expenditure on R&D and 

capital items differed markedly. Average R&D expenditure 

accounted for less than 10% of total expenditure among 

companies but 27% among research organisations. Only 6% 

of company expenditure was for capital items, compared to 

20% for research organisations. 

Expenditure data was also analysed according to the division 

into which the respondent was classified (Biotechnology or 

TMD) — this breakdown is shown in Table 41. 

TABLE 41: Reported expenditure in biotechnology and 

TMD sectors 

Respondents Total ($m) Average ($m) 


($m) 

92 $1091 $11.9 

Biotechnology 50 $646 $12.9 

TMD 42 $445 $10.6 

Wage and Salary 


85 $564 $6.6 


TMD 40 $255 $6.4 

R&D Expenditure 

($m) 

83 $189 $2.3 


TMD 39 $16 $0.4 

Capital 


86 $134 $1.6 


TMD 40 $28 $0.7 

The total and average expenditure on wages, R&D and 

capital items for companies by industry sub-sector is 

tabulated below (Table 42). 

TABLE 42: Reported expenditure by companies by industry subsector (75 respondents) 


($606m) 

N Average 

($m, rounded) 

7.4.2 Estimated Queensland-Wide Expenditure in the Life 


Queensland-wide industry expenditure estimates were 

developed from a statistical extrapolation of the data 

collected from survey respondents. Estimates for 2009 and 

2011 were developed with a similar statistical methodology. 

Estimates for the 2007 survey cannot be compared at the 

same level, as some of these figures are not available for the 

TMD sector and, in some cases, the questions asked in 2007 

required different inputs, necessitating some alterations in 

the statistical methodology. 

Estimates of total expenditure were largely similar in 2009 

and 2011. Wages expenditure and capital expenditure rose 

whilst R&D expenditure dropped. 

Wage and salary expenditure estimates across the 

Queensland industry grew by 98.6% since 2009, which 

seems incongruous with a drop in employment estimates of 

28.5% over the same period. An analysis of raw survey data 

revealed that wage and salary expenditure accounted for 

52% of total expenditure reported in 2011 compared to 29% 

in 2009. 

There were at least two factors which may have influenced 

the reporting on wages. Participants had the option to 

provide an actual figure for wage and salary expenditure or 

express it as a percentage of total expenditure. In addition, 

survey participants were asked to estimate the number of 

employees as at June 30, 2011. Elevated wage and salary 

expenditure relative to the number of employees reported 

could indicate that a significant number of employees were 

lost toward the end of the financial year. 

Wage and Salary 

Expenditure ($292m) 

N Average 

($m, rounded) 

R&D Expenditure 

($57m) 

N Average 

($m, rounded) 

All respondents 75 $8.1 69 $4.2 67 $0.9 

Pharmaceuticals, Vaccines or Drug 

Discovery 

10 $13.1 9 $8.7 9 $3.4 

Diagnostics 4 $8.5 3 $1.7 4 $0.1 

Medical Devices and Equipment 13 $1.2 12 $0.8 11 $0.1 

Complementary Medicines 7 $19.9 5 $5.4 5 $0.2 

Functional Food/Nutraceuticals 5 $1.2 5 $0.6 5 $0.4 

Animal Health 5 $2.4 5 $0.8 5 $0.2 

Biotechnology 9 $11.0 8 $2.8 8 $1.9 

Industry Service Provider 17 $9.6 17 $8.4 16 $0.3 

Other 5 $1.4 5 $0.6 4 $0.0

Estimates for capital expenditure dropped by 64% between 2007 and 2009. Similar results were reported across the Australian economy 

at this time 60 possibly reflecting the initial impact of the GFC. For 2011, capital expenditure estimates were similar to 2007 estimates 

(Table 43). 

TABLE 43: Estimated expenditure by the Queensland Life Sciences Industry 2007 – 2011 

2007 2009 2011 Change: 

2009-2011 

Total Expenditure ($m) ND $4682 $4626 -1.2% 

Companies ND $4177 $3271 -21.7% 

Research Organisations ND $504 $1355 168.9% 

Wage and Salary Expenditure ($m) $789 $1078 $2141 98.6% 

Companies ND $929 $1323 42.4% 


R&D Expenditure ($m) ND $803 $657 -18.2% 

Companies ND $417 $245 -43.1% 

Research Organisations ND $386 $412 -6.7% 

Capital Expenditure ($m) $704 $253 $692 173.5% 

Companies ND $181 $514 184.0% 


Numbers may appear inconsistent due to rounding ND – not determined ; 

TABLE 44: Estimated expenditure by the Biotech and TMD sectors 

2007 2009 2011 

Biotech TMD Biotech TMD Biotech TMD 

Total Expenditure ($m) ND ND $1751 $2930 $1775 $2851 

Wage and Salary Expenditure ($m) $502 $287 $389 $691 $1085 $1057 

R&D Expenditure ($m) $469 $235 $80 $172 $510 $147 

Capital Expenditure ($m) $641 ND $253 $550 $217 $475 

ND – not determined 

7.5 Expenditure on R&D in Australia — Secondary Data 

According to the OECD, “expenditure on R&D is one of the most 

widely used measures of innovation inputs. R&D intensity (R&D 

expenditure as a percentage of GDP) is used as an indicator of 

an economy’s relative degree of investment in generating new 

knowledge.” 61 

In 2008, Australia accounted for 1.94% of R&D expenditure by 

OECD countries (most recent data available) and reported gross 

expenditure on R&D (GERD; including expenditure on R&D by 

business enterprises, higher education institutions, government 

and private non-profit organisations) of 2.21% of GDP, close to 

the OECD average of 2.33%. In Australia, the majority of GERD 

is by business (60.8%), followed by higher education (12.2%), 

government (12.3%) and private non-profit (2.7%). 

R&D expenditure in the Life Sciences sector is also a barometer 

of the economic climate and business confidence. According 

to an Ernst & Young report, R&D expenditure by biotechnology 

60 Australian Bureau of Statistics data indicted capital expenditure on equipment, plant and machinery fell a seasonally adjusted 7.1% in the 12 months to June 2009. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics 5625.0 — Private New Capital Expenditure and Expected Expenditure, Australia June 2009. 

61 OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011, Building Knowledge, R&D expenditure 


63 Ernst & Young, Beyond Borders, 2011. 

companies across the listed sectors in the USA, Europe, Canada 

and Australia fell by 21% in 2009 and then rose by 2% in 2010 

(Table 45). 62 

TABLE 45: Change in R&D expenditure of listed biotechnology sectors 

from 2009 to 2010 63 

Region 2009 2010 

Listed companies in USA, Europe, 

Canada, Australia 

-21% 2% 

US companies* -13% 3% 

European companies -2% 5% 

Canadian companies + -44% -7% 

Australian companies 

N/A – not available; 

N/A 16% 

* USA figures excluding Genentech which was acquired by Roche; 

+ Canadian figures excluding Biovail which was acquired by Valeant 

Pharmaceuticals 

49


50 

According to the BioSpectrum Asia-Pacific Industry Survey, 

the Asia-Pacific region did not experience the same 

contraction in R&D expenditure as the listed Biotechnology 

sectors in the USA, Europe, Canada and Australia. The 

survey, which included Australia-New Zealand, China, India, 

Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, reported that 

the average R&D expenditure in the Asia Pacific region in 

2010 was 12.34% of total expenditure, compared to 9.44% 

in 2009. 64 By comparison, in 2011, R&D expenditure reported 

by QLS companies was 9% of total expenditure. In 2009, this 

figure was 13%. 

7.5.1 Business Expenditure on R&D (BERD) 

The average BERD across OECD countries in 2008/2009 was 

1.62% of GDP. Australia was ranked 14th (out of 34) in the 

OECD rankings in 2008/2009 ahead of the UK, Canada and 

New Zealand. Figures for 2009/2010 were not available. An 

analysis of those countries that reported 2009/2010 BERD 

data revealed that Israel led the OECD countries (3.42% of 

GDP), followed by Finland (2.83% of GDP), Sweden (2.55% 

of GDP), and Japan (2.53% of GDP). 65 

Between 2005/2006 and 2008/2009 the OECD average BERD 

as a percentage of GDP grew, with a CAGR of 1.46% (Figure 

17). Over the same period Australian BERD as a percentage 

of GDP grew with a CAGR of 8.45%. However, for the first 

time in a decade, Australian BERD dropped in 2009/2010. 

Australian BERD totalled $16.7 billion or 1.30% of GDP in 

FY2010, $579 million less than FY2009 (1.38% GDP) — a 

3.35% decline in actual figures and a 6% decline in BERD 

as a proportion of GDP. 66 

Figure 17: Business expenditure on R&D as a percentage 

of GDP 2004 – 2010 67 

The reduction in BERD did not occur uniformly across 

businesses of all sizes. 68 Businesses with over 200 

employees accounted for the majority of total BERD (69%) 

in 2009/2010 and experienced the greatest reduction 

in R&D expenditure between 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 

(5%). Businesses employing between 20–199 employees 

accounted for 19% of BERD and experienced a 0.5% 

increase. Those businesses employing between 5-19 staff 

accounted for 9% of BERD and reported a decrease of 

4%. The smallest businesses, 0–4 staff, registered an 8% 

increase in BERD but accounted for only 4% of total BERD 

in 2009/2010. 

ABS figures suggest that from 2007 to 2010, Queensland 

businesses accounted for an average of 14.2% of total 

national BERD (Figure 18). Queensland BERD as a 

percentage of the national total was 13.6% in 2007 

and 14.1% in 2010. 

Figure 18: Business expenditure on R&D, Queensland vs. 

Australia 2007 – 2010 69 

In comparison with other Australian states, Queensland 

ranked fourth in terms of total BERD in FY2010 (Figure 19). 

Figure 19: Business expenditure on R&D Queensland vs. 

other states, 2009/201070 Figure 20 compares Queensland and other Australian 

States in terms of their BERD in professional, scientific 

and technical industries in FY2010. 

64 BioSpectrum Asia-Pacific Life Sciences Industry Survey 2009 and 2010, www.biospectrumasia.com 

65 OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2011 

66 Australian Bureau of Statistics 8104.0 - Research and Experimental Development, Businesses, Australia, 2009-10 

67 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8104.0 Research and Experimental Development, Business Australia, 2009-20010 

68 Ibid. 

69 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8104.0 Research and Experimental Development, Business Australia, 2009/2010 

70 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8104.0 Research and Experimental Development, Business Australia, 2009/2010. 

71 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8104.0 Research and Experimental Development, Business Australia, 2009/2010.

Figure 20: Business expenditure on professional, scientific and 

technical R&D in Queensland vs. other states, FY201071 7.5.2 Government Expenditure on R&D (GOVERD) 

Government expenditure on R&D (GOVERD) may be used as 

a proxy for assessing government investment in innovation. 72 

Based on ABS data, between 2006/2007 and 2008/2009 Australian 

GOVERD increased by 10% in real terms but as a proportion 

of GDP it dropped slightly from 0.28% to 0.27%. Despite this, 

Australia’s GOVERD/GDP ratio remained close to the OECD 

average of 0.26% in FY2008 (data for subsequent years is not 

available). In FY2008, Australia ranked tenth in the OECD for 

GOVERD as a proportion of GDP. Iceland, Korea and Germany 

were the top three countries. In 2008/2009, 13% of GOVERD was 

directed to health and medical research. 

ABS data indicated that in FY2009 the Australian and State 

Governments spent a total of $3.42 billion on R&D including $0.48 

billion in Queensland. 73 The dollar value of GOVERD increased in 

Queensland between FY2005 and FY2009 (Figure 21). 

Figure 21: Government expenditure on R&D, by state, 

2005 – 2009 

72 Commonwealth Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, (2011) ‘Australian Innovation System Report 2011’. http://www.innovation.gov.au/ 

Innovation/Policy/Pages/AustralianInnovationSystemReport.aspx 

73 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8109.0 - Research and Experimental Development, Government and Private Non-Profit Organisations, Australia, 

2008–2009. 

51


52 

8.THE LISTED LIFE SCIENCES SECTOR 

“Eight of the 102 Life Sciences companies listed on the Australian Stock 

Exchange at 30 June 2011 were located in Queensland.” 

8.1 The ASX-Listed Australian Life Sciences 

Sector 

The BioForum Quarterly Review published by 

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), charts the 

Australian Life Sciences Index, which included 

102 companies (64 pharmaceutical/biotechnology 

and 38 medical devices companies) listed on 

the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) as at 30 

June 2011. 74 While the number of ASX-listed Life 

Sciences companies fell from 120 at 30 June 2009 

to 102 as at 30 June 2011, their combined total 

market capitalisation (market cap) grew over this 

period (Table 46). The PwC Life Sciences index grew 

by 4% in 2011, compared to 3% in 2009. 

In 2010, Australian Life Sciences companies 

dominated the top 50 fastest growing ‘bio’ 

companies in the Asia Pacific region, with 25 

entries, including all of the top five fastest growing 

companies. 75 Queensland companies, BioProspect 

and Anteo Diagnostics were at positions 19 and 

37, respectively. 

8.2 The ASX-Listed Queensland Life 

Sciences Sector 

Eight of the 102 (7.8%) Life Sciences companies 

listed on the ASX at 30 June 2011 were located in 

Queensland (Table 47). 77 Of those, four (50%) were 

operating in ‘pharmaceuticals, vaccines or drug 

discovery’, two (25%) were in the medical devices 

and equipment sector and two (25%) were in 

biotechnology. 

Since the previous QLS survey (to 30 June 2009), 

CBio Limited was added to the ASX (Feb 2010) and 

three other companies were removed: Occupational 

& Medical Innovations Limited was delisted, after 

being placed into voluntary administration; Peplin 

Limited was acquired by Leo Pharma in Denmark 

(Nov 2009) for AU$348.4 million; and Incitive 

Limited was purchased by Hawley Oil and Gas in 

February 2010, who subsequently demerged their 

biotechnology assets. They are, therefore, no longer 

part of the Life Sciences sector. 

In 2009, the majority of ASX-listed companies 

in Queensland (seven of ten companies) were 

TABLE 46: Size and market capitalisation of ASX-listed Life Sciences companies 2009 and 2011 76 

Sector 2009 2011 

No. Companies Market Cap 

($b) 

No. Companies Market Cap 

($b) 

Australian Life Sciences 120 $31.0 102 $35.0 

Pharmaceutical/Biotechnology 73 $22.8 64 $24.0 

Medical Devices 47 $8.2 38 $11.0 

Australian Life Sciences 

(excluding CSL, COH, RMD)* 

117 $4.5 99 $9.1 

Pharmaceutical/Biotechnology 

(excluding CSL)* 

72 $3.4 63 $6.6 

Medical Devices (excluding COH, RMD)* 45 $1.1 36 $3.0 

*CSL = CSL Ltd, COH = Cochlear Ltd RMD = ResMed Ltd. 

74 PwC BioForum, Edition 29, Quarter 4 FY09, August 2009. http://www.pwc.com.au/industry/technology/publications/bioforum.htm 

75 ‘Asia’s Fastest 50 Companies’, BioSpectrum Asia (October 2011) vol 6, issue 10, page 42. ‘Bio companies’ include Pharma, 

Medtech, Biotech and Bioservices companies. 

76 PwC BioForum, Edition 29, Quarter 4 FY09, August 2009 and PwC BioForum, Edition 36, Quarter 4 FY11, August 2011. 

77 ASX-Listed companies by sector at http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/listedCompanies.do; Deloitte Queensland Index, a review 

of Queensland listed companies on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), 85th Edition.

considered ‘microcap’ — with a market cap of less than $50 

million. As at 30 June 2011, only three of eight companies were 

‘microcap’. All but one of the companies that were listed in both 

2009 and 2011 increased their market cap during this period 

(Table 47). 

TABLE 47: Market capitalisation of ASX-Listed Queensland Life 

Sciences companies 78 

Company Code Life Sciences 

Sub-sector 

Alchemia 

Limited 

ACL Pharma, 

vaccines or 

drug discovery 

Analytica Limited ALT Medical devices 

and equipment 

Anteo 

Diagnostics 

(previously 

Bio-Layer) 

BioProspect 

Limited 

ADO Pharma, 

vaccines or 


CBio Limited CBZ Pharma, 

vaccines 

or drug 

discovery 

Impedimed 

Limited 

Progen 

Pharmaceuticals 

Ltd 

Market Cap ($m) 

2009* 2011 + Change 

$57.0 $117.0 105% 

$7.5 $12.3 64% 

$1.8 $53.4 2867% 

BPO Biotechnology $8.3 $8.9 8% 

IPD Medical devices 

and equipment 

PGL Pharma 

vaccines or 


N/A $98.2 N/A 

$62.3 $89.2 43% 

$21.0 $5.7 -73% 

Tissue Therapies TIS Biotechnology $12.5 $97.0 676% 

* As at 30 June 2009 + As at 30 June, 2011 

8.3 Market Capitalisation — Queensland, Australia, 

New Zealand and Canada 

Figure 22 shows the average market cap of Queensland and 

Australian listed Life Sciences firms, as at 30 June 2011. The 

average market cap of the non-major Australian Life Sciences 

firms on the ASX (i.e. excluding CSL, RMD and COH) was $91.7 

million. For the Queensland based firms, the average market 

cap was approximately one third lower at $60.2 million. 

Figure 22: Average market capitalisation of ASX-listed Life 

Sciences firms, Queensland vs. Australia, 30 June 2011 

The average market cap of the non-majors and the listed 

Queensland firms dropped below 2007 levels during 2008 

and 2009, a period which coincides with the GFC (2008-2009) 

(Figure 23). The average market cap for Australian and Queensland 

listed firms grew in both 2010 and 2011. 79 

Figure 23: Average market capitalisation of ASX-listed Life 

Sciences firms, Queensland vs. Australia, at Q4 2007-2011 

To put the listed market cap figures into some perspective, the 

Queensland and Australian averages were compared to those for 

New Zealand and Canada. 

In some respects, the New Zealand Life Sciences sector provides 

a useful comparator for Queensland. Both regions have a similar 

population base (Queensland 4,580,282 80 ; New Zealand 

4,407,500 81 ) and a similar number of resident Life Sciences 

78 Market capitalisation data sourced from PwC BioForum Edition 36, Quarter 4 FY11, August 2011. 

79 Market capitalisation data sourced from PwC Quarterly BioForum Publications Q4, 2007, PwC BioForum, Edition 25, Quarter 4 FY08, August 2008, PwC BioForum, 

Edition 29, Quarter 4 FY09, August 2009, PwC BioForum, Edition 33, Quarter 4 FY10/Quarter 1 FY11, November 2010, Edition 36, Quarter 4 FY11, August 2011. 

80 Queensland Government Office of Economic and Statistical Research, http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/tables/erp-lga-reformed-qld/index.php. (30 June 2011). 

81 New Zealand Government, Statistics New Zealand, Population Indicators, http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/popindicators.aspx 

53


54 

organisations (Queensland 301; New Zealand 276 (defined as 

Bioscience) 82 . Queensland reported a similar average market 

cap ($60.2 million) as New Zealand ($68.8 million), both of 

which were lower than the average market cap of the nonmajor 

Australian firms. 

Canada and Australia share a high standard of living, health 

and education, spend similar amounts on health R&D as a 

percentage of GDP 83 and, in recent years, both have sought 

to develop their bioscience capability. 84 There is, however, 

a considerable difference in population between the two 

nations (Canada: 34,869,747 85 and Australia: 22,682,566 86 ). 

A comparison of the Canadian and Australian listed Life 

Science sectors reveals that the average size of publicly 

listed Life Sciences companies in Canada was lower than 

listed Australian Life Sciences companies (Table 48). This 

most likely reflects a higher maturity in the Canadian sector 

and greater access to capital and customers in the US 

market. 

TABLE 48: International comparison of average listed market 

capitalisation (AU$m) 87 

Region Date Total 

Market Cap 

Queensland Jun 

2011 

New Zealand 

(ex major; FPH) 

Australia (ex majors; 

RMD, COH, CSL) 

Oct 

2010 

Jun 

2011 

Average 

Market Cap 

$482 $60.2 

$619 $68.8 

$9,074 $91.7 

Australia Jun 

2011 

$35,003 $343.0 

Canada - Life Sciences* Dec 

2011 

$21,400 $180.0 

Canada - Biotechnology 2010 $5,176 $82.1 

* Please note the TSX/TSXV listed Life Sciences sector includes 

healthcare facilities and health services, which are both sub-sectors 

not included in the definition of Life Sciences for the QLS survey 

and report. 

82 NZBio 2010 Bioscience Industry Report. http://www.nzbio.org.nz/portals/3/files/Final%202010%20Bioscience%20Industry%20Report.pdf 

83 OECD Science and Technology Scorecard 2011, Health R&D in government budget appropriations or outlays for R&D, 2010. Canada (2008) 0.1% GDP; 

Australia (2010) 0.09% GDP. 

84 Bruce Rasmussen, (2005) ‘Developing the Biomedical Industries in Canada and Australia: An Innovation Systems Approach’, (Working Paper No. 24), 

Victoria: Victorian University of Technology. 

85 Statistics Canada, www.statcan.gc.ca/ig-gi/pop-ca-eng.htm; accessed 1 July 2012 

86 ABS Population Clock, www.abs.gov.au; accessed 1 July 2012 

87 PwC BioForum Publication Edition 36, Quarter 4 FY11, August 2011; Canadian TSX/TSXV listed Life Sciences sector data December 2011 accessed at 

http://www.tmx.com/en/pdf/LifeSciences_Sector_Profile.pdf; NZBio 2010 Bioscience Industry Report; Ernst & Young, Beyond Borders 2011.

By David Blake, Editor of BioShares 

INDUSTRY COMMENTARY 

THE LISTED LIFE SCIENCES SECTOR IN AUSTRALIA 

— NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL 

A neat one size fits all description of the 

state of Australia’s listed life sciences 

sector has become an impossibility 

since the GFC in 2008 began a process of 

constant damage to some companies but 

left others merely bruised and even some 

others unscathed. A high Australian dollar 

has not helped sales focused life science 

firms and healthcare system budgets 

and some export markets have weakened 

company earnings of late. 

What is known is that the number of listed 

life science companies has declined from 

a peak of 134 in 2008 to 100 in 2012, with 

a contraction more likely to continue for 

as long as global economic conditions 

remain poor. 

The hundred or so life science companies 

listed on the ASX are a diverse group of 

companies in terms of market value, 

scale of operations, scope of business and 

market focus. There are 29 companies 

capitalised at less than $10 million, 49 are 

capitalised at less than $20 million and 18 

capitalised at less than $100 million. There 

are five companies capitalised at greater 

than $1 billion. 

The activities of ASX listed life science 

firms range from medical device 

manufacture and sales, vaccines and 

immune therapy product manufacture, cell 

therapy and wound healing development, 

assessment and diagnostic technologies 

including molecular, bio-sensor and 

algorithmic approaches, biological storage 

technologies, sleep apnoea management 

products and many more. 

Roughly 7-8% of ASX-listed life science 

companies are foreign firms lacking direct 

links to Australia. Biotech identity is a 

tricky classification issue given that quite 

a number of listed companies are US 

entities, which own operating subsidiaries 

in Australia. 

Investment in biotech stocks has been a 

stock picking activity for quite some time, 

a strategy which is a function of the time it 

takes for medical technology businesses to 

arrive at valuation inflection points, 

leaving many companies without vital 

news flow to attract investor interest. 

The Bioshares Index for example was down 

23.5% between June 2012 and June 2011. 

However, 22 stocks posted share price 

gains of greater than 20% for the same 

period. That’s not such bad going in 

dismal times. 

Ongoing key issues for investors in 

life science stocks include execution 

risk, otherwise known as financing 

risk, reflecting a company’s capacity to 

support the business objectives it has 

set itself. Investment flows have been 

biased towards later stage companies in 

the past few years, with companies such 

as Mesoblast, Alchemia, QRxPharma, 

Starpharma, Prima Biomed and 

Phosphagenics raising sizable tranches of 

capital to support pivotal clinical studies. 

New listings (the IPO market) have all but 

dried up with only one, Osprey Medical 

completed in 2012, following three in 2011, 

and two in 2010. 

One risk that has recently been elevated 

in importance is regulatory risk. Several 

submissions to drug regulators from 

Australian firms, e.g. Pharmaxis, Mayne 

Pharma and QRxPharma, have been 

knocked back at the first round leaving 

both investors and the companies 

concerned in a state of shock. These 

first-cycle requests for more data can be 

expected to have a negative impact on 

investment in the sector 

The highlight for Australian life science 

investors in the last two years was the 

payment of a $100 million dividend by 

Acrux in April 2011, following the receipt 

of license-based payments from Eli Lilly 

for the testosterone drug Axiron. Rather 

than retaining the cash for another stage 

of business development, by paying 

shareholders a dividend, the board of 

Acrux elected to send a clear signal that 

investment decisions are ultimately the 

prerogative of shareholders. 

55


56 

9.SENTIMENT AND OUTLOOK 

“Overall business sentiment was positive with the majority of companies 

and the majority of research organisations expecting income growth over 

the coming 12 months and three years.” 

The survey findings on business sentiment and 

industry outlook are fairly reliable indictors for 

the future of the sector given that the majority of 

respondents held senior executive roles in their 

organisation. About 70% of respondents held the 

position of CEO, Director, Managing Director or 

General Manager. 16% of respondents held other 

management roles such as Technical Manager, 

Operations Manager, Quality Assurance Manager, 

Sales and Marketing Manager. The remaining 

15% of respondents held a range of 15 different 

administration roles. 

Approximately 52% of those responding on behalf 

of research organisations held executive roles 

including Director, Deputy Director, Executive Dean, 

Deputy Executive Dean, or Director of Research; 

and 22% held senior roles such as Research 

Manager, Grants Manager, Business Manager, 

and Operations Manager. The remaining (26%) 

held seven different administrative roles. 

9.1 Business Sentiment 

9.1.1 Income Expectations 

The majority of all respondents to the 2011 survey 

expected their total income to increase over the 

next 12 months (65%) and over the next three 

years (82%). 

The majority of companies expected income growth 

over 12 months (65%) and three years (82%). About 

13% anticipated a decrease in total income over the 

next 12 months and 6% anticipated a decrease in 

total income over the next three years (Figure 24). 

By contrast, research organisations anticipated that 

income would either increase (12 months (65%); 

three years (90%)) or remain the same (12 months 

(35%); three years (10%)) over both periods (Figure 

24), with none expecting income to fall. 

Table 49 presents the average forecast change 

in income for all respondents, companies and 

research organisations over the coming 12 months 

and three years (the number of respondents to 

each question are shown in brackets). 

TABLE 49: Average forecast change in income over 

12 months and three years 

Average Expected Change in Income 

12 months 3 years 

All respondents +40.4% (n=120) +116.1% (n=121) 

Companies +46.9% (n=100) +135.5% (n=101) 

Research 

Organisations 

+8.1% (n=20) +17.9% (n=20) 

Table 50 breaks down the average income change 

for those specifically expecting either (a) an 

increase or (b) a decrease in income. 

TABLE 50: Quantum of Change Amongst those 

Forecasting an Increase or Decrease in Income 



N Average N Average 

Those anticipating no growth 

Companies 24 - 14 - 

Research 

Organisations 

7 - 2 - 

Those anticipating a fall in income 

Companies 12 -39% 6 -86% 

Research 

Organisations 

0 - 0 - 

Those anticipating income growth 

Companies 64 +81% 81 +175% 

Research 

Organisations 

13 +13% 18 +20% 

Figure 24: Income forecasts for companies (left) and research organisations (right), 2012, 2014 

(number of respondents: companies, 100 research organisations, 21)

9.1.2 R&D Expenditure Forecasts 

An almost equal proportion of companies anticipated that their 

R&D expenditure would either increase or remain the same over 

the coming 12 months (42% remain the same, 45% increase) and 

three years (44% remain the same, 45% increase). The remaining 

companies anticipated a fall in R&D expenditure in 12 months 

(12%) and three years (11%) (Table 51; Figure 25). 

Figure 25: R&D expenditure expectations for companies (left) 

and research organisations (right), 2012, 2014 (number of 

respondents: 73 companies and 18 research organisations) 

Of those companies who provided estimates for their increased 

R&D expenditure (33), the average predicted growth was 97% for 

the coming 12 months and 138% for the coming three years. For 

those who expected a fall in R&D expenditure, the average for 

those who qualified the estimate was a decline of 62% in the next 

12 months (9 companies) and 64% in three years (8 companies). 

There were no research organisations anticipating a decline 

in R&D expenditure over the next one–three years. About 44% 

of research organisations anticipated R&D expenditure would 

remain the same whilst 56% expected an increase over the coming 

12 months. For the coming three-year period 83% of research 

organisations anticipated an increase in R&D expenditure 

and 17% anticipated no change. 

TABLE 51: R&D Expenditure Forecasts — 12 months and three years 

Expecting 

change 


Average 

change 

forecast 

Expecting 

change 

88 Biotechnology Industry Position Survey April 2012; 50 respondents drawn from listed Life Sciences companies and AusBiotech member companies. http://www. 

ausbiotech.org/data/downloads/Biotechnology%20survey%202012_Final.pdf; accessed 26.05.2012 

Average 

change 

forecast 

Companies 

Increase 45% 97% 45% 138% 

Remain the same 42% - 44% - 

Decrease 


12% -62% 11% -64% 

Increase 56% 10% 83% 17% 

Remain the same 44% - 17% - 

Decrease 0% 0% 0% 0% 

9.1.3 Business Sentiment in the Australian Life Sciences Industry 

In the current survey, the majority of companies forecast 

increases in income over the next one (64%) and three years 

(81%). The figures in 2009 were 71% and 88% for one and three 

years respectively. However, in 2011, 42% of companies predicted 

income would remain the same in the coming 12 months, 

compared to 15% in 2009. 

45% of companies expected R&D expenditure to increase in 2011 

compared to 64% in 2009. Lower expectations for R&D expenditure 

among companies in 2011 could suggest a level of uncertainty in 

income forecasts. 

The AusBiotech Biotechnology Industry Position Survey of 50 Life 

Sciences companies in January 2012 88 also indicated positive 

business sentiment across the Australian Life Sciences Industry. 

They reported that 68% of respondents characterised 2011 as a 

good or excellent year, and that, in the coming year, 82% expected 

their business to grow, and 58% expected to increase the number 

of staff. 

By contrast, the 2009 AusBiotech Biotechnology Industry Position 

Survey revealed a sentiment of caution. 

“[In] the 2009 survey by AusBiotech of members...48% of those 

surveyed expected to reduce staff numbers and no company indicated 

they expected to hire.” 

57


58 

In an early 2011 article, David Blake, Co-editor of BioShares 

wrote: 

“The ASX-listed biotech sector has gone through a period of 

tremendous transformation in the last two years as a dozen 

or more companies have matured into successful companies, 

generating revenues or verging on having products registered. 

At the same time upwards of 30 have had to close their 

doors or significantly change their business….However, with 

the Nasdaq Biotech Index, …showing a very strong uptrend, 

perhaps biotech, not just in the US, but in Australia and 

elsewhere is about to be very popular with investors again.” 89 

Some of the deals that will have contributed to positive 

industry sentiment include the following: 

Cephalon offered to pay Mesoblast $130 million upfront 

and another $220 million to acquire a nearly 20 per 

cent stake in the company in December 2010. The total 

deal value, should Mesoblast achieve development and 

commercial milestones, could reach US$1.7 billion. 

Acrux licenced its testosterone treatment to Eli Lilly in 

March 2010 in a deal worth up to US$335 million plus 

potential royalties of about US$220 million. 

Qiagen acquired all the ordinary shares in Australian 

diagnostics company Cellestis Ltd in August 2011 in 

a deal worth $341 million. 

9.2 Outlook — Barriers, Risks and Challenges 

9.2.1 Opportunities for Industry Expansion 

Survey participants (82) commented on strategies to assist 

expansion of the industry. Respondents selected from ten 

options including an ‘Other’ option (Table 52). 

TABLE 52: Areas that will assist expansion of the 

Life Sciences Industry 

Rank Area Proportion 

of total 

responses 

1 Improved industry representation 17% 

2 Government organisations becoming early 

adopters of Queensland innovations 

15% 

3 

research or manufacturing facilities 

 

and educational institutions 

12% 

5 Increased foreign investment into Australia 10% 

6 

 

9% 

8 Skills enhancement through university 

courses 

8% 

9 Improved engagement between clinicians 

and researchers 

3% 

- Other (see below) 5% 

Responses (direct quotes shown) in the ‘Other’ category 

included: 

Leveraging the skills and professional networks that exist 

Trade base and support just to keep R&D and 

manufacture alive at all 

Scholarships to enhance skills development in industry 

Grants for collaboration with SMEs 

Reduced regulatory framework 

Changes to investment rules to allow investment capital 

to flow to commercial R&D organisations 

Reinstate Commercial Ready Program; abolish payroll 

tax for R&D/manufacturing firms 

Maintaining staff capability as a large cohort move 

towards retirement over the next 10 years 

Several respondents offered comments (direct quotes) 

on roles for government in encouraging expansion of 

the Life Sciences Industry: 

“Bet on the innovators — with real money, not just moral 

support or programs which require innovators to spend 

money on other researchers” 

“Very important that Government do not encroach on 

successful commercial entities already established in 

Queensland such as contract manufacturing, or building 

such facilities [where they] already exist. Very important 

to train researchers [on] how to commercialise research 

outcomes or have systems in place that allow publicly 

funded research to be commercialised for [the] 

public good.” 

9.2.2 Barriers to Future Income Growth — Access to Capital 

In the 2009 survey, a lack of access to capital was identified 

as the most significant barrier to future growth and the 

greatest risk/challenge facing organisations. This is not a 

new concern, with limited access to finance or capital also 

identified as the major barrier to growth by respondents 

to the Queensland TMD Survey in 2007. Access to capital 

is an issue that affects companies right across the 

Australian Biotechnology Industry 90 as well as those active 

in innovation in any Australian industry. For innovative 

Australian companies, limited access to funds and skilled 

personnel were the two most commonly identified barriers 

to innovation in an ABS study published in 2010. 91 

A similar situation is evident in many international Life 

Sciences industries, including the USA, Canada and New 

Zealand. Jones Lang LaSalle in a Life Sciences Cluster 

Report 92 noted that: 

“investment capital will be the biggest hurdle for Canada’s 

emerging Life Sciences sector. The recession reduced spending 

in the sector and although venture capital returned in 2011, 

it remains in short supply.” 

89 D Blake, ‘Will The IPO Market Open For Australian Biotechs in 2011?’, AFG Venture Group Dispatches. 

90 AusBiotech, ‘Biotechnology Industry Position Survey’, January 2012 

91 Australian Bureau of Statistics 8158 — Innovation in Australian businesses, 2008-09, quoted in Australian Government, ‘Australian Innovation System 

Report 2011’acessed at http://www.innovation.gov.au/AISReport. 

92 Jones Lang LaSalle, ‘Life Sciences Cluster Report, Global 2011’; accessed 4th July 2012. www.joneslanglasalle.com/ResearchLevel1/Global_Life%20 

Sciences%20Cluster%20Report_2011_gb.pdf.

Similarly, the major constraint to both the R&D and 

commercialisation activities of New Zealand bioscience companies 

in 2005, 2007 and 2009, was access to capital. 93 

In January 2011, US President Obama announced a new 

initiative, Startup America designed to ‘accelerate high-growth 

entrepreneurship’. Recognizing that access to capital was a 

critical barrier to the creation and growth of innovative start-up 

companies, the initiative included strategies designed to unlock 

access to capital and reduce barriers to entrepreneurship. 94 

In the current survey, companies were asked to comment on the 

extent to which limited access to finance was impacting their 

business. For 72% of respondents (97), limited access to finance 

was having an impact (very significantly, 32%; significantly, 21%; 

moderately, 19%). 28% of respondents indicated that this barrier 

was having little or no impact (Figure 26). 

Figure 26: Impact of limited access to finance of QLS companies 


43% of companies (96) were optimistic or very optimistic that this 

barrier could be overcome e.g. through successful capital raising, 

deploying other strategies to raise funds, or alternative strategic 

directions. 19% were pessimistic or very pessimistic about 

overcoming the barriers to accessing capital (Figure 27). 

Figure 27: Outlook of companies affected by limited access 

to finance (96 respondents) 

9.2.3 Barriers to Future Income Growth 

(other than access to finance) 

Looking beyond the issue of access to capital, survey participants 

(104) nominated other major barriers to future income growth 

from eleven options including an ‘Other’ category (Table 53). 

TABLE 53: Barriers to future revenue growth 

Rank Area Proportion of total 

responses 

1 Limited access to government grant 

funding 

15.6% 

2 Small size of domestic market 13.0% 

Increased domestic and/or international 

competition 

12.8% 

4 Increased regulatory compliance costs 11.9% 

5 Inability to secure skilled technical and 

managerial staff 

11.0% 

6 Access to overseas markets 9.8% 

7 Increased patent protection costs 6.9% 

8 Lack of access to analytical testing, 

research or clinical trial services 

5.9% 

Lack of commercialisation experience or 

expertise (e.g. to reach proof of concept) 

10 Inability to outsource sufficient 

manufacturing capacity 

5.7% 

3.8% 

11 Other 3.6% 

9.2.4 Risks and Challenges 

Survey respondents (111) nominated the issues that they 

considered to be the major risks or challenges facing their 

organisation (Table 54). Respondents were able to select more 

than one risk. 

TABLE 54: Major risks or challenges facing QLS organisations 

Rank Risk/challenge Proportion of total 

responses 

1 Access to sufficient capital for growth 

or market entry 

14.0% 

2 High Australian Dollar 12.8% 

Regulatory Issues 12.8% 

4 Global financial turmoil 11.7% 

Access to R&D funding 11.7% 

6 Workforce challenges 

(e.g. skills shortages) 

11.5% 

7 Competition 8.9% 

8 Consumer behaviour 7.3% 

9 Climate change and associated 

regulatory change 

3.1% 

10 Technology and systems 2.5% 

11 Transport and distribution 2.0% 

12 Other 1.7% 

93 NZBIO 2010 Bioscience Industry Report 2010; commissioned by the Ministry for Science and Innovation. www.nzbio.org.nz/portals/3/files/Final%202010%20 

Bioscience%20Industry%20Report.pdf; accessed 4th July 2012. 

94 See The White House accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/business/startup-america. 

59


60 

Figure 28: Major risk or challenge facing QLS organisations (111 respondents) 

Access to sufficient capital for growth or market entry 

was the highest risk or challenge for companies (94 

respondents). Research organisations (17 respondents) 

nominated access to R&D funding as their highest risk or 

challenge (Figure 28). 

9.3 Feedback on Government Engagement with 

the Industry 

Participants in the survey provided feedback on initiatives 

of the Queensland Government and made suggestions 

on areas for Government intervention to support industry 

growth into the future. 

Approximately 42% of companies (69) and 70% of 

research organisations (10) were positive about the 

level of engagement between the Queensland Government, 

typically DSITIA (referred to by its previous name ‘DEEDI’, 

by respondents) and the industry. 35% of companies 

and 20% of research organisations offered some critical 

comment. The remainder were neutral. 

A selection of comments that captured the essence of 

participant responses are provided below. 

Comments (Direct quotes — some quotes may have been 

truncated/edited for clarity): 

Very much so — they do a great job with limited resources/ 

guidelines/capacities. 

It is my impression that over the past three years the 

department is less interested in supporting biotechnology 

developments. 

Yes, but DEEDI could do more to engage with industry. A lot 

of resources have been directed to universities and research 

institutes. SMEs have struggled and many have closed. 

Generally very pleased that DEEDI is interested and 

providing some tangible support to this industry sector. 

In the future [we would] suggest less money spent on 

research and more money spent on genuine development. 

The DEEDI and DERM [Queensland Department of 

Environment and Resource Management] direct support 

is critical to our future to continue to deliver the community 

and industry benefits of R&D. 

More can be done to provide skilled staff and programs 

to encourage engagement of industry with higher education 

in healthcare sector. The healthcare industry base in 

Queensland is mainly complementary medicines and devices 

not drugs or biotech. These industries employ many more 

staff. Programs to encourage the development of SMEs in 

the space have generally failed, but programs to support 

larger players to employ more people seem 

to be lacking. 

Funding for research is limited, commercialisation 

mentoring is limited. 

Yes, we would always be happy for the Department and 

government to provide more direct support however I think 

both should be proud of their support and encouragement 

of the industry. 

Yes, with the level of industry involvement; No, with the level 

of involvement with individual companies. 

No. DEEDI could be more proactive in building links with 

new businesses rather than simply posting programs onto 

websites and expecting that new business owners will have 

the time, inclination and technical ability to access the 

information. 

Yes, the Department’s Smart Futures Funding and other 

schemes such as NIRAP have been vital in providing 

Fellowships for early and mid-career researchers, 

developing industry alliances and funding NCRIS facilities 

and their support staff.

Our organisation’s experience in working with personnel employed 

by DEEDI has been highly positive. Personnel have on all occasions 

been thoroughly professional and always helpful. 

DEEDI interact very well with research organisations and provide 

a reasonably good level of service. DEEDI events are great. 2012 

scheduled events including the ‘Development Pathway’ workshop 

series are beneficial for early and late career researchers and 

postgraduate students. The Smart Futures scheme is fantastic and 

should be run annually. One criticism: where philanthropic money 

has been raised independently by [our organisation] for large 

research programs this money has not been matched by the State 

Government on application. This is disappointing. There are very 

limited opportunities to attract matching dollars through Federal 

funding schemes. 

The Department’s economic development domain appears to 

be skewed in favour of large organisations and projects, not 

the sort of smaller value-adding projects that are key to SMEs 

building equity value and making themselves investor-ready. 

The one program that appears to be relevant to SMEs (the Proof 

of Concept grant) is not well constructed, as it precludes either 

IP protection (patents) or full-time wages to key researchers 

within a company. The key problems for researchers within an 

SME are (a) to have enough income to enable them to work 

full-time on their companies to build enough value/construct a 

prototype to be attractive to Australian or overseas investors, and 

(b) to have a source of financial support to assist in patenting/ 

patent preservation, required before engaging with multinational 

companies (to provide precisely the kind of market signal that 

investors require). The Commonwealth R&D tax concessions are 

of limited use in this respect, due to the way they are structured, 

limiting their utility for cash-poor SMEs. This issue is particularly 

bitter in the current economic climate, where debt and equity 

resources are both very limited, preventing the initial cash flows 

that the R&D tax concession scheme assumes the marketplace 

would provide. Obviously regulation and oversight is required to 

prevent wage claims and patent expenditure from being ‘gamed’, 

but the appropriate solution is scrutiny by project officers within the 

Department, not fixed regulatory exclusions that kill off the utility 

and relevance of the grant scheme. What is needed is initial grant 

funding to ‘prime the pump’ such as the Queensland Government’s 

former (excellent) Innovation Start-Up Scheme. There is an 

opportunity and a need for the Queensland Government to show 

leadership where the Commonwealth Government has failed, 

and in so doing render Queensland a more attractive place for 

innovation to prosper and provide economic benefits. 

61


62 

By Garry Redlich, Managing Director 

and Chief Executive Officer, Implicit 

Bioscience Ltd 


THE LIFE SCIENCES COMPANY PERSPECTIVE 

The gap between discovery and commercialisation has never been greater for the 

Queensland life sciences sector. Since the last report in 2009, the so-called “valley 

of death” has grown to look more like the Grand Canyon. However, Queensland is 

now on the cusp of enjoying the fruits of a decade of government and philanthropic 

investment in the new institutes that gleam in the winter sun on our university 

campuses. Molecular targets, drugs, vaccines and devices are about to start piling 

up inside these fabulous places. 

But who will carry these discoveries from the bench to the bedside and then to 

the pharmacy? 

Whatever source you look at (Venturesource, NVCA, EY, PWC, Burrill) venture money for 

life sciences is way down. Eagle Street lawyers and accountants who paper such deals 

tell us (as if we didn’t know) that the Australian capital market is shut for our sector. The 

market pricing for listed ASX life science stocks metes out cruel and unusual punishment 

to investors. 

Queensland companies with real commercial experience in bringing life science 

discoveries to market are fewer and smaller than they were three years ago. Those that 

have survived are tougher and more determined than ever. The local ecosystem is still 

alive, but it is massively weighted to the early stage end. 

Do we really want to terminate the value chain for Queensland just five or ten percent 

down the path towards the prize? Just as we have decided to refine our bauxite and 

smelt our own aluminium, we must recognise the challenge of commercialising our 

life sciences — at least through early stage clinicals. After all, more Australians are 

employed in the pharma industry than the motor vehicle manufacturers, yet our voice 

is rarely heard. 

Indigestion may not kill the patient, but a decade of disillusionment awaits the faculties 

of our landmark research institutes unless we find a way to solve this problem. We cannot 

fund world-class laboratories only to ‘Fedex’ our discoveries overseas from the lab door. 

Time will tell whether the sector will be supported to prevent this happening.


64 

10.COMMERCIAL INDICATORS 

“Existing shareholders contributed the majority of total funds raised 

by companies in 2011 (68.8%). While ‘Other private equity’ was also 

a significant source of finance (19.9%), Venture capital accounted for 

only 2.9% of the total raised in 2011.” 

10.1 Commercialisation 

10.1.1 Commercialisation — All Respondents 

Respondents ranked the strategies they would 

likely employ to commercialise their main 

technology, product or service. The top three 

strategies in 2009 and 2011 are shown in Table 55. 

Figure 29 shows the spread of responses for each of 

the options. The most likely strategy was in-house 

development (Table 55; Figure 29). The strategies 

most often referred to as ‘least likely’ in both 2009 

and 2011, were an initial public offering (IPO) or the 

spinning out of a company. 

TABLE 55: Most likely commercialisation strategy to 

be employed (90 respondents) 

Rank 2011 2009 

1 In-house development In-house development 

2 Collaborative venture Out-Licensing 

3 Out-Licensing Collaborative venture 

10.1.2 Commercialisation – 

Companies vs. Research Organisations 

The highest ranking commercialisation strategies 

for companies (74 respondents) and research 

organisations (16 respondents) are shown in 

Table 56. 

TABLE 56: Most likely commercialisation 

strategy employed 

Rank Companies Research 

Organisations 

1 In-house development Out-licensing 

2 Collaborative venture Collaborative venture 

3 Out-Licensing Spin-out company 

The majority of companies (40 of 69 companies; 

58%) intended to fully commercialise their 

technology/product or complete early stage 

commercialisation activities (e.g. later stage clinical 

development, pilot plant; 12 of 69 companies; 17%), 

before realising their primary commercial outcome. 

A minority of companies indicated that they planned 

to only complete proof-of-concept activities (9%) or 

the R&D phase (3%) before realising their primary 

commercial outcome. 

In contrast, the majority of research organisations 

indicated their intention to realise their primary 

commercial outcome following completion of 

the R&D phase (9 out of 16; 56%) or proof of 

concept (5 out of 16; 31%). None intended to take 

their technology/product through to early or full 

commercialisation. 

Figure 29: Strategies respondents will likely employ to commercialise their main technology (90 respondents)

10.2 Finance 

10.2.1 Debt and Equity Finance Raised in 2011 

In the current survey, 14% of companies (11 respondents out of 78) 

raised debt or equity capital during 2011. Nine companies (11%) 

were willing to report on the amount raised, which totalled $70.5 

million (Figure 30). In the 2009 survey, 23 respondents out of 72 

raised $85.6 million. 

Figure 30: Debt and equity finance raised in 2011 (9 respondents) 

Existing shareholders contributed the majority of total funds 

raised by companies in 2011 ($48.5 million, or 68.8%) at an 

average of $5.39 million per company. ‘Other private equity’ was 

also a significant source of finance (19.9%). Venture capital (VC) 

accounted for only $2 million of reported financing (2.9% of the 

total) in 2011 compared to $42.9 million (50% of the total) in 2009 

(Table 57). There was also a much higher amount of debt reported 

in 2009 ($27.5 million from seven companies) compared to 

$300,000 from three companies in 2011. 

10.2.2 Strategies for Raising Finance 

Approximately 37% of company respondents (29 of 78 respondents) 

intended to raise finance in the coming two years. Private equity, 

debt and VC funding were the top three financing mechanisms 

reported in both the 2009 and 2011 surveys. 

27 respondents nominated a range of government assistance 

programs that they would seek to access as part of their financing 

strategy. The R&D Tax Concession/Incentive, Commercialisation 

Australia and Innovation Investment Funds were the three most 

cited programs (Figure 31). 

95 Australian Financial Review, ‘Float review: no survivors’, 28 December 2011 

96 PwC BioForum Publication Edition 36, Quarter 4 FY11, August 2011 

TABLE 57: Funds raised through debt and equity finance 


Source of 

Funds 

Amount raised 

(proportion 

of total) 

2011 (‘000) 2009 (‘000) 

Average 

per 

company 

Amount raised 

(proportion 

of total) 

Average 

per 

company 

Debt $300 (0.4%) $30 $27,500 (32%) $3900 

Venture 

Capital 

Angel 

investment 

Existing 

shareholders 

$2000 (2.9%) $220 $42,900 (50%) $7100 

$700 (1.0%) $70 $2400 (3%) $600 

$48,500 (68.8%) $5390 

Other Private 

Equity 

$14,000 (19.9%) $1560 

$12,900 (15%) $2200 

Other $5000 (7.1%) $560 

TOTAL $70,500 $85,600 

Figure 31: Government assistance programs that respondents 

may access (27 respondents) 

10.2.3 Innovation Funding in Australia 

At the time the QLS Industry Report for 2009 was prepared, the 

GFC had begun to negatively affect the availability of capital, 

probably due to the perception that the likelihood of achieving 

a successful IPO or trade sale was greatly reduced. This sentiment 

seems to be continuing to affect the Life Sciences Industry, with 

capital raised through IPOs in Australia in 2011 being the lowest 

in more than a decade. 95 There were only two Life Sciences IPOs 

in FY2010, C-Bio Ltd and the US company, Reva Medical 

(Figure 32). 96 The two Life Sciences IPOs on the ASX in FY2011, 

65


66 

were international companies, Bioniche from Canada, 

which is cross-listed on the ASX and TSX, and US company, 

GI Dynamics. 

Across the biotechnology industry globally, the number of 

IPOs dropped in FY2011. The median ‘age’ of companies 

at IPO has increased from five years (1999–2001) to 

nine years (2008–2010), making exits more difficult and 

putting pressure on VCs, whose funds often have 10 year 

timeframes. 97 

Figure 32: Life Sciences company IPOs on the ASX, 2007-2011 98 

According to the Australian Private Equity & Venture Capital 

Association, total private equity and VC funds raised during 

FY2011 grew by 72% compared to FY2010. 99 However, new 

funding commitments to Australian VCs continued a decline 

that commenced in FY2008. Three VC funds raised a total 

of $120 million in FY2011, down 35% from FY2010 (13 funds 

raised $158 million) and 40% from FY2009 (7 funds raised 

$299 million). In both 2010 and 2011, the majority of VC 

commitments were from Government-backed innovation 

funding programmes e.g. Innovation Investment Fund. In 

Australia, Life Sciences (including healthcare) 100 companies 

received 58% of all VC amounts invested and accounted for 

51% of all investee companies. 101 

These investment trends have significant implications 

for Life Sciences companies, particularly because VC 

funding is often critical for early stage development of new 

technologies. Investments tended to favour later stage 

companies, later stage funding rounds and existing investee 

companies, with follow-on rounds accounting for 70% of 

total VC amounts invested in FY2010. 102 Data from the OECD 

also showed that the majority of VC investments in Australia 

(68%) were devoted to later stage investments rather than 

pre-seed/seed/start-up investments. 103 This trend across 

the Australian Life Sciences Industry is mirrored in the 

results from the current survey: 88.7% of reported capital 

was sourced from existing shareholders and ‘other private 

equity’, whilst venture capital and business angel funding 

provided less than 4% of finance raised. 

According to the Ernst & Young Beyond Borders report, 

large debt financings by mature, profitable biotechnology 

companies in the US grew by 150% in 2010. However, once 

debt financings by mature companies were removed from 

the dataset, a 20% decline in the amount of the remaining 

‘innovation capital’ was evident. The majority of this funding 

(82.6%) was received by 20% of companies, while the bottom 

20% of companies raised 0.4% of total funds. As in previous 

years, Ernst & Young described an industry divided by the 

‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, with funds concentrated into a 

smaller group of companies. 104 

In Australia, BioShares reported that the publicly-listed 

biotechnology industry raised $630 million in 2011, up 14% 

on the $554 million in 2010. 105 However, Ernst & Young 

noted that medical devices companies rather than core 

biotechnology companies were increasingly benefiting from 

capital raised. 106 

10.3 Intellectual Property 

Patent application filings are one parameter used to indicate 

innovation activity and the importance placed on patents 

is evidenced by the estimated 7.3 million that were in force 

worldwide in 2010. 107 

The number of patent filings globally declined by 3.6% in 

2009 but increased by 7.2% in 2010 to 1.98 million, driven 

by applications from China and the US. The number 

of PCT patent filings globally fell by 4.8% in 2009 and 

this decline is likely a consequence of the GFC and its 

impact on the availability of capital to fund innovation and 

commercialisation, leading to reduced R&D expenditure and 

more selective expenditure on IP protection. The number 

of PCT filings grew by 5.7% in 2010, with applications 

from China, Japan and Korea accounting for 94% of this 

increase. 108 

The number of patent applications where Australia is listed 

as the country of origin, declined in 2009 for the first time 

since 1999 (Figure 33 – opposite). 

An analysis was done of the number of published patents 

originating in Australia across four main technology areas 

relevant to the Life Sciences sector (i.e. biotechnology, 

pharmaceuticals, environmental technology and food 

chemistry). This analysis revealed that, with the exception 

of pharmaceutical patents, the steady increase in patent 

applications across all sectors between 2002 and 2005 


98 PwC BioForum Publication Edition 36, Quarter 4 FY11, August 2011, PwC BioForum, Edition 25, Quarter 4 FY08, August 2008. 

99 Australian Private Equity & Venture Capital Association 

100 Note: AVCAL’s Life Sciences definition includes healthcare 

101 Australian Private Equity & Venture Capital Association, Yearbook, 2011 

102 Australian Private Equity & Venture Capital Association, Yearbook, 2011 

103 OECD (2011), Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2011, based on OECD Entrepreneurship Financing Database, June 2011. 

104 Ernst & Young, Beyond Borders 2011 

105 Australian Life Scientist, ‘A new year, a new look and good news is rolling in already’, 12 January, 2012 


107 World Intellectual Property Organisation, World Intellectual Property Indicators, 2011, http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/freepublications/en/ 

intproperty/941/wipo_pub_941_2011.pdf 

108 World Intellectual Property Organisation, World Intellectual Property Indicators, 2011.

Figure 33: Number of patent applications originating in 

Australia, 1995–2010 

has not been evident in subsequent years (Figure 34). 109 Across 

OECD countries, Australia accounted for 1.5% of pharmaceutical 

patents filed under the PCT, 2007-09. 

The World Intellectual Property Organisation reported that 

resident patent filings by Australian inventors were 4.13 patents 

per $b GDP in 2006 and 3.33 in 2009 (last available year). 110 The 

resident patent filings by Australian inventors per US$m of R&D 

expenditure has declined 47% over the past nine years, from 0.51 

in 2001 to 0.24 in 2009 (Figure 35). 111 This is considered a measure 

of patent productivity and the decline may be the consequence 

of a number of factors; including the increased cost of R&D 

activities and patent protection leading to more focused patenting 

strategies. A similar decline occurred in the UK. Filings in Canada 

were 26% higher in 2009 than they were in 2001, and the figure for 

the US was 3.6% over the same period (Figure 35). 112 

Figure 34: Number of patent applications by specific 

technology area originating in Australia, 2002–2009 

Figure 35: Number of patents filed per US$m R&D expenditure, 

2001–2009 

Granted patents provide a period of protection from others 

infringing the claimed invention. This enables time to 

commercialise the invention and a period of market exclusivity. 

Granted patents, particularly those in US, EU or Japan, are often 

seen as indicators of success in the Life Sciences Industry and 

are often critical in demonstrating value to potential partners 

or investors. 

The US is the largest and most lucrative pharmaceutical and 

healthcare market in the world and Australian organisations 

typically seek to file patents in the US since it is a key market for 

potential products and partnerships. Figure 36 shows the total 

number of US Life Sciences patents and patent applications 

granted and applied for by Australian individuals and organisations 

(as determined by the residence of the first-named inventor), 

each year between 2007 and 2011. The data is for three relevant 

technology classes, (1) drug, bio-affecting and body treating 

compositions, (2) molecular biology and microbiology chemistry 

and (3) analytical and immunological testing. 113 

Figure 36: US Life Sciences patents and patent applications; 

Australian organisations/individuals, 2007–2011 114 

10.3.1 Patents and License Agreements 

In the current survey, a total of 272 patent applications were 

reported as filed or granted by 28 respondents (213 for 21 

companies and 59 for seven research organisations). In 

comparison, 143 patents and patent applications were granted and 

filed by 38 companies in 2009. The average number of patents filed 

or granted in 2011 was 9.7 and the median was 2.0. Biotechnology 

organisations reported 88% of filed or granted patents and those 

in TMD accounted for the remaining 12%. 

83 out-license agreements were negotiated by 12 organisations 

in 2011, with one company accounting for 60 of those agreements. 

97.6% of out-license agreements were achieved by Biotechnology 

organisations and 2.4% by TMD companies (data not shown). 

Ten organisations nominated a combined value of $9.2 million 

(average $0.9 million) for their out-license agreements (data 

not shown). 

A comparison of the number of out-license agreements reported 

by Biotechnology organisations through the past four surveys is 

shown in Table 58. The number of agreements per respondent has 

been increasing. 

109 Source: WIPO Statistics Database, December 2011 

110 World Intellectual Property Organisation, World Intellectual Property Indicators, 2011, 

111 Ibid. 

112 Ibid. 

113 US Patent and Trademark Office, ‘Patenting in Technology Classes — Breakout By Geographic Origin, 2011, http://www.uspto.gov 

114 US Patent and Trademark Office, ‘Patenting in Technology Classes — Breakout By Geographic Origin, 2011, http://www.uspto.gov 

67


68 

TABLE 58: Out-license agreements reported by biotechnology 

organisations 

No. of 

Respondents 

Out-License 

Agreements 

No. 

Agreements 

per 

Respondent 

Biotechnology 

2005 

58 17 0.29 

Biotechnology 

2007 

65 20 0.31 

Biotechnology 

2009 

81 39 0.48 

Biotechnology 

2011 

116 83 0.70 

NB: Comparable longitudinal data is not available for the TMD sector 

Nine organisations reported a total of 18 in-license 

agreements in 2011. A comparison of in-license agreements 

reported by Biotechnology organisations through the 

past three surveys is shown in Table 59. The number 

of in-licensing agreements per respondent has fallen 

significantly. 

TABLE 59: In-license agreements reported by biotechnology 

organisations in 2009 and 2011 

Biotechnology 

2007 

Biotechnology 

2009 

Biotechnology 

2011 

No. of 

Respondents 

In-License 

Agreements 

No. 

Agreements 

per 

Respondent 

65 35 0.54 

83 49 0.59 

116 18 0.16 

NB: Comparable longitudinal data is not available for the TMD sector 

10.3.2 IP Management Strategy 

In the current survey, participants specified to what 

extent their IP management strategy is influenced by the 

changing global economic situation and the challenges and 

opportunities created by changes to patent law in China, 

India and the US. 

The global economic situation continues to be a significant 

influence on the development of the IP strategy for 17% 

of respondents and some influence for a further 22% of 

respondents. Changes to patent laws in China, the US and 

India are significantly influencing the development of IP 

strategy for 16% of respondents and having some influence 

on a further 24% (Figure 37). 

Figure 37: The effect of the global economic situation and 

patent law change on IP management (116 respondents)

By Anne-Marie Birkill, Partner at 

OneVentures Innovation Fund 


VC INVESTMENT IN THE LIFE SCIENCES SECTOR 

IN AUSTRALIA — PLEASE, SIR, I WANT SOME MORE 

Many commentators have noted that post-GFC the availability of VC funding for the Life 

Sciences sector in Australia has diminished considerably, which is a shame, given the 

Australian Governments large investment in life sciences R&D, the quality of the people 

backed by this investment, the standard of the facilities available in which to perform that 

R&D and the potential of many of the outcomes of this investment and effort. In the two 

years since OneVentures launched in early 2010, we have seen more than 100 life sciences 

sector investment opportunities (roughly 15% of total deal flow) and invested in just two of 

these (out of a total of six investments to date, so 33% of investments by number) despite 

seeing a number of other companies in which we would have liked to invest. As one of 

a handful of investors placing capital in the life sciences sector, we simply don’t have 

sufficient funds under management (FUM) to be able to service the quality deal flow 

we see. 

What we are seeing is effectively a “broken pipeline” – we push loads of funding into the 

early stages of developing our life sciences opportunity via the ARC and NHMRC, then for 

the lucky few commercialisation grants and angel funding develop those opportunities 

a little further, then there is a great gaping hole through which only the best of the best 

(or the luckiest or the most tenacious) pass — with only a handful of life sciences deals 

receiving venture capital every year. Like water escaping a leaking pipe it is just such an 

awful waste. We need a concerted effort to increase the total FUM otherwise we risk not 

only continuing this wastage, but disrupting the very fabric of our life sciences industry. 

On the bright side, we are seeing some potential superstars emerging. Recently, 

OneVentures led a $15M syndicated investment in Vaxxas Pty Ltd, a company developing a 

new medical device for vaccine delivery using a game-changing micro needle technology 

(NanopatchTM) developed at The University of Queensland. The NanopatchTM, which 

is pain-free, more effective and may reduce the requirement to refrigerate vaccines 

is targeting a multi-billion market and is already receiving strong interest from big 

pharmaceutical companies for use with their vaccines. Alongside other VCs OneVentures 

has also invested in Hatchtech Pty Ltd (Melbourne), the developer of a proprietary next 

generation head lice treatment, DeOvo, which has successfully completed a Phase IIb 

clinical trial and is poised to enter Phase III. Subject to regulatory approval, market launch 

is anticipated in late 2014. DeOvo is a head lice product that kills both lice and eggs 

treating all life cycle stages of the organism in a single application. 

These examples are indicative of the very high quality and of the commercial potential 

of R&D coming out of our research institutions. More VC funding, managed by fund 

managers with the expertise and experience to efficiently take them out of the laboratory 

and toward commercial success, is essential if we are to seed the next crop of Peplins, 

Acruxs and Cochlears. Like Oliver Twist the sector may survive but can’t thrive on 

thin gruel. 

69


70 

11.RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

“Contracted R&D is expected to account for 37.1% of global 

expenditure on R&D by 2018.” 

11.1 R&D Outsourcing 

According to GBI Research, the contract research 

industry worldwide grew by 12% between 2009 

and 2010 and represented an estimated 25.3% of 

total pharmaceutical R&D expenditure in 2010. As 

a result of anticipated growth, contracted R&D is 

expected to account for 37.1% of global expenditure 

on R&D by 2018. 115 

According to Kalorama Information, 

“Driven by pressures to reduce costs, companies are 

increasingly implementing outsourcing strategies to 

increase revenues through faster drug development. 

By decreasing their in-house facilities and staff, 

and outsourcing more of their R&D functions, 

pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are 

reshaping the drug development services industry.” 116 

11.1.1 Outsourcing by QLS Organisations 

43% (92) of survey participants outsourced R&D 

in 2011. Of these, the average proportion of R&D 

outsourced was 41%. 

47% of companies (36 out of 76 respondents) 

outsourced R&D in 2011. The average amount of 

R&D outsourced by companies was 44% (median 

of 32.5%). By comparison, in the 2009 survey, 

companies outsourced an average of 30% of total 

Figure 38: Key areas of R&D outsourced (76 respondents) 

R&D. For the 36 companies that did outsource 

R&D, the types of R&D most likely to be outsourced 

are shown in Table 60. As might be expected, these 

were the least likely activities to be outsourced by 

research organisations. 

TABLE 60: R&D activities most commonly outsourced 

by companies. 

R&D Activity Proportion of 

responses 

Analytical lab work 22% 

Clinical trials 17% 

Manufacturing of products for 

clinical trials 

13% 

Preclinical research 13% 

With respect to research organisations, four out of 

16 that responded to this question in the current 

survey outsourced an average of 6.3% of their total 

R&D in 2011 (median of 6.5%). By comparison, in 

2009, research organisations outsourced 9% of 

their total R&D. 

Figure 38 lists the full set of responses. Examples 

from the ‘Other’ category included clinical and 

regulatory consulting and large animal toxicity 

testing. 

115 Contract Research Organizations Market to 2018: Public-Private Partnerships to Strengthen Research Capacities and Advance 

Clinical Development Programs, (2012) GBI Research. 

116 Outsourcing in Drug Development: The Contract Research (Clinical Trial) Market,(2012), Kalorama Information

11.1.2 Contract Manufacturing 

Half (48%) of the companies that outsource R&D engaged a 

contract manufacturing organisation (CMO) during 2011. In 2009 

only 33% of respondents reported that they had engaged a CMO. 

Companies (15) spent a combined total of $46.2 million on CMO 

services in 2011. The average expenditure on CMO services per 

company was $3.1 million and the median was $129,000. 

The top five countries in which CMO suppliers were located were 

Australia, USA, China, India and Malaysia (Figure 39). In 2009, the 

top five CMO supplier locations were Australia (46%), USA (21%), 

China (6%), United Kingdom (6%) and New Zealand (6%). 

Figure 39: Location of CMO suppliers utilised by QLS organisations 


Figure 40 illustrates the location of CMOs by the proportion of 

expenditure incurred in each location. Where multiple countries 

were specified, the company’s expenditure was assumed to be 

split evenly. 

While Australia comprised 34.4% of CMO engagements, it made 

up only 11.3% of expenditure. By contrast, China and India 

accounted for 15.6% and 12.6% of engagements, respectively, 

but were responsible for 29.8% and 27.6% of expenditure. This 

could imply that larger projects or more costly R&D activities 

are being outsourced to companies in China and India rather 

than in Australia. 

Figure 40: Location of CMO suppliers according to the proportion 

of expenditure by QLD companies (15 respondents) 

11.1.3 Contract Research 

18 companies (out of 36 respondents; 50%) indicated that they had 

used a contract research organisation (CRO) during 2011. Of these, 

15 spent a total of $11.8 million, with an average of $790,000 and 

median of $458,000. By comparison, 29% reported that they had 

engaged a CRO in 2009 and spent an average of $657,600 each. 

The 18 companies nominated 27 countries in which CRO service 

suppliers were located. The top three locations for CROs utilised 

by companies were Australia (40%), USA (22%) and the UK (18.5%). 

India, Russia, the European Union and the United Arab Emirates 

were also represented. 

Figure 41: Location of CRO suppliers utilised by QLS organisations 


71


72 

Of the four research organisations that outsourced some 

R&D, two utilised a CRO in 2011 spending $140,000, in 

Switzerland and the USA. Figure 41 shows the use of CROs 

across all respondents by their location. 

The location of CROs by the proportion of expenditure 

incurred in each location is illustrated below (Figure 42). 

Where multiple countries were specified, the organisation’s 

expenditure was assumed to be split evenly. Note that the 

expenditure for the CRO service sourced from the European 

Union was not provided. 

Figure 42: Location of CRO suppliers according the the 

proportion of expenditure by QLS companies 


11.2 Interaction with Research Organisations 

In the current survey, companies commented on their 

interactions with Queensland research organisations over 

the past year. 39% of 99 respondents reported at least one 

interaction with a Queensland research organisation. A total 

of 78 different interactions were noted. 

Table 61 shows the percentage of reported interactions 

attributed to the various research organisations. Where 

respondents nominated specific units, centres or institutes 

of a research organisation they have been aggregated to 

produce a total for the whole organisation. 

TABLE 61: Interactions between companies and research 

organisations in Queensland 

Research Organisations Interactions 

Reported 

The University of Queensland 39% 

Queensland University of Technology 14% 

Griffith University 9% 

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial 

Research Organisation 

8% 

DEEDI (now known as DSITIA) 7% 

James Cook University 5% 

University of Southern Queensland 4% 

Co-operative Research Centres 

(three CRCs) 

4% 

Queensland Institute of Medical Research 3% 

Other (5 individual research organisations) 7% 

For the majority of interactions that occurred in the past 

year, respondents indicated that they had previously had 

a similar interaction with that research organisation. 

This suggests that companies were building on existing 

relationships with Queensland research organisations. 

The majority of the interactions between companies 

and research organisations involved either research 

collaboration (36%) or contract research (15%) (Table 62). 

TABLE 62: Types of Interactions between QLS companies and 

research organisations 

Rank Type of Interaction Proportion 

1 Research collaboration 36% 

2 Contract research 15% 

3 Provision of other services 9% 

4 Business development/ 

Commercialisation services 

8% 

5 

 

6 

 

 

7 

 

 

6% 

4% 

3% 

8 Joint venture 1% 

Survey participants also characterised the benefits 

of these interactions and recurring themes in their 

responses included: 

Transactional benefits of providing a service to research 

organisations 

Access to unique expertise, skills, facilities, equipment 

and compliance infrastructure 

Provision of a base for all R&D activities with 

a wide range of benefits 

Networking, industry leads 

New product leads discovered and/or proven 

Commercial outcomes and relationships 

Access to intellectual property/technology 

Access to deal flow/investment opportunities. 

The majority of companies (64%) valued to some extent 

or another, the Queensland public sector research base. 

27% believed it was of little importance for their future 

operations (Figure 43). 

Company participants in the survey were asked to what 

extent they agreed with the statement — 

“Our organisation is well informed about the public sector 

R&D capacity and capability that is available in Queensland”. 

51% (49 of 97 respondents) agreed or strongly agreed 

with this statement (Figure 44). 26% neither agreed nor 

disagreed.

Figure 43: Importance of Queensland public sector research 

base to QLS companies (98 respondents) 

Figure 44: Knowledge of the capacity and capability of Queensland 

public sector research base amongst QLS companies 


11.3 Improving Collaboration between Industry and 


44% of companies indicated that they were interested in DSITIA 

providing a service that would link businesses with public sector 

research organisations that may have the capacity to meet their 

R&D needs. 

Companies commented on ways in which the capacity of public 

sector research organisations to collaborate with industry could 

be enhanced or improved. Responses from 46 companies fell 

into four major themes. Selected comments from each 

theme, which capture the overall sentiments expressed, are 

included below: 

1. Develop mechanisms to better connect companies with 

information on public sector research activity, expertise, 

equipment and facilities. 

Comments related to this theme are directly transcribed below 

(some are truncated/edited). 

Increased opportunities to network, ‘roadshows’ by public 

sector organisations about key areas of research 

Work closely with industry and ensure high level 

understanding of issues and opportunities to support 

new and emerging industries 

The information is there; it is just hard to look for it and 

to spend enough time on it under current circumstances 

Having a one-stop shop where organisations can go 

to locate needed services/skills would be useful for 

all in this sector rather than having to try to locate 

people directly 

A database of chemical analytical instruments that are 

available for use at a fee would be great 

2. Support business R&D and collaborative relationships with 

public sector research organisations through grant funding 

and incentives. 



If there were grants to encourage SME collaboration, 

it would make a big difference 

Proof of concept funding 

One of our companies received a Research Partnerships 

Program grant in 2012 — very, very beneficial 

Cash flow subsidies/loans would allow us to overcome 

R&D issues and be more competitive with companies 

in China 

[Assistance in understanding the various] grants available 

and how to secure them 

3. Address structural issues that inhibit collaboration between 

the public and private sector. 



One of the main problems is the administrative fees 

charged by universities or medical institutes for research. 

As a small company we like to see our money directly 

support the research project of interest rather than 

one third or more going on the nebulous item called 

‘administration fee’ 

Reduce the contract research charges by Queensland 

universities to external commercial organisations as they 

are not price competitive with research institutes in other 

countries 

At the moment, IP sharing protocols in Queensland public 

sector research organisations are too old-fashioned, 

dating from a time when most available R&D resources 

and expertise belonged to such organisations, entitling 

them to the lion’s share of equity/benefit. This limits 

the modern attractiveness of partnering with such 

organisations…..Consequently, the terms for collaborative 

IP generation and commercialisation have to be revised 

if Queensland public-sector research organisations are 

to be kept in the loop; otherwise, Queensland technology 

companies will actively prefer to partner overseas 

In the health and medical research area I think there 

needs to be a much greater alignment/engagement of 

Queensland Health by DEEDI and vice versa 

A willingness to take on small projects — value $10,000 

approximately 

73


74 

4. Improve the understanding that research organisations 

have of the R&D needs of companies. 

Comments related to this theme are directly transcribed 

below (some are truncated/edited) 

It is very difficult to get research institutions excited 

(about industry collaboration) partly because it is 

not their core business and I believe they also lack 

the appropriate resources to make it happen 

Understand the customer. Gain an appreciation of 

what they need in terms of regulations, cost and 

deliverables. Provide a tangible and professional 

service set; research may be good but packaging 

and delivery is close to impossible 

Public sector research organisations [need to] 

understand the wants and needs of industry, 

including market conditions, reimbursement 

and regulatory barriers


76 

12. EXPORTS AND INTERNATIONAL 

COLLABORATIONS 

“Over half of respondents exported goods and services, deriving an average 

of 39% of their income from exports in 2011 (compared to 33% in 2009).” 

Figure 45: Largest export markets by country (58 respondents) 

12.1 Exporting and Export Markets 

12.1.1 Export Revenue 

Sixty-three organisations (54% of 116 respondents) 

exported goods and services. The average amount 

of their income derived from exports in 2011 was 

39%. In the 2009 survey, this average was 33%. 

For companies only (52) the average was 43% 

of their income (median 15%) and for research 

organisations the average was 12.5% (median 10%). 

12.1.2 Current Export Markets 

Figure 46: Largest export market regions for the QLS Industry (58 respondents) 

Respondents (58) nominated the following 

countries as their three largest export markets 

(Figure 45): 

1. United States of America 

2. New Zealand 

3. United Kingdom 

The ‘Other’ category included 11 countries 

(see the Appendices for a list of these countries). 

Asia was the largest export market region for QLS 

organisations (Figure 46). North America, Oceania 

and Europe also represented significant markets.

The US, New Zealand and the UK continue to be the top countries 

for exports since they were first noted in 2007. In 2011, countries 

in the Asian region had a greater presence in the top 5 countries 

for export (Table 63). 

TABLE 63: Highest ranked export markets 2007, 2009 and 2011 

Rank Biotech 

2007 # 

TMD 

2007 

Life Sciences 

2009 

1 USA USA USA USA 

2 New 

Zealand 

3 France New 

Zealand 

4 UK Singapore 

Hong Kong 

Japan 

UK New 

Zealand 

UK UK 

Japan 

Singapore 

Life Sciences 

2011 

New 

Zealand 

Malaysia 

5 Japan Europe Europe Japan 

Canada 

Korea 

China 

Singapore 

# Defined in the Queensland Biotechnology Report 2008 as International 

Business Deals or Exports 

Figure 47: Largest export target markets by country (48 respondents) 

12.1.3 Future Export Markets 

Respondents (48) nominated those markets they planned to target 

(Figure 47), with the top five being: 

1. USA 3. China 5. Germany 

2. UK 4. New Zealand 

The ‘Other’ category included 15 individual countries (see the 

Appendices for a list of these countries). 

Examining data from previous surveys, the USA, UK and New 

Zealand continue to be key target markets for export (Table 64). 

TABLE 64: Future target export markets 2007, 2009, 2011 

Rank Biotech 

2007# 

TMD 2007 Life 

Sciences 

2009 

Life 

Sciences 

2011 

1 USA USA USA USA 

2 UK Europe Japan UK 

3 China New New China 

Zealand Zealand 

4 Japan UK UK New 

Zealand 

5 New 

Zealand 

Asia Europe Germany 

# Defined in the Queensland Biotechnology Report 2008 as International 

Business Deals or Exports 

77


78 

12.1.4 Market Entry 

All respondents who export goods or services were asked to select from five possible market entry options. Companies (55) 

nominated a total of 80 market entry options with the most commonly selected option being the export of finished product 

(53%). Research organisations (7) nominated ten market entry options with the most commonly selected option being the 

export of services (70%) (Figure 48). 

Apart from the five reasons offered in the survey, there were six ‘Other’ reasons given including export of raw ingredients; 

export of data, specimens, and samples; via networks collaborations and alliances; and through installing an offshore 

business development appointee. 

Figure 48: Export market entry options (62 respondents) 

12.2 International Business Deals, Research Collaborations & Alliances 

12.2.1 Revenue from International Business Deals 

42 of 100 (42%) companies reported earning revenue from international business deals or research collaborations. 

An average of 32% (median 20%) of revenue was derived from international business deals and collaborations. 

12.2.2 Current Markets for International Business Deals and Collaborations 

Of all the international business deals and collaborations reported by respondents, 69% were international business deals 

and 31% were research collaborations. In 2009 and 2011 both were most commonly located in the USA. 

Figure 49: International business deals and research collaborations by region

TABLE 65: Markets for international business deals and collaborations 

2009, 2011 

Rank 2011 2009 

1 USA USA 

2 UK China 

3 Japan, New Zealand UK 

Asia, North America and Europe were the top three regions for 

deals and collaborations in 2011 (Figure 49). 

12.2.3 Future Markets for International Business Deals 

and Collaborations 

Companies (38) nominated the countries they planned to target for 

international business deals or research collaborations within the 

next three years (Table 66). The US (23%) and UK (16%) remained 

as the top two target countries in 2009 and 2011. Third position 

was held by Japan and New Zealand (7%). In 2011, China dropped 

to fourth place with Germany (5%). 

TABLE 66: Target markets for international business deals and 

collaborations 2009, 2011 

Rank 2011 2009 

1 USA USA 

2 UK UK 

3 Japan, New Zealand China 

79


80 

13.SUMMARY OF KEY STATISTICS 

TABLE 67: Key 2011 Queensland-wide Estimates — QLS Industry, Biotechnology and TMD Divisions 

Measure 


Estimate 95% Confidence Interval (Bias 

Corrected and Accelerated) 

All Respondents 14,106 13,663 – 14,550 

Companies 8008 7566 – 8451 


Biotechnology sector 

6098 5874 – 6323 

Companies 2150 1825 – 2475 


TMD sector 

5871 5647 – 6096 

Companies 5859 5558 – 6159 


Income ($m) 

277 N/A 

All Respondents $4361 $4010 – $4713 

Companies $3275 $2924 – $3627 



$1086 $1013 – $1158 

Companies $597 $522 – $673 


TMD sector 

$1067 $996 – $1141 

Companies $2678 $2335 – $3022 



$17 N/A 

All Respondents $2141 $2016 – $2267 

Companies $1323 $1197 – $1449 



$818 $632 – $1005 

Companies $279 $226 – $332 


TMD sector 

$806 $619 – $992 

Companies $1044 $930 – $1157 



$13 N/A 

All Respondents $657 $628 - $686 

Companies $245 $215 - $274 



$412 $282 - $541 

Companies $98 $86 - $110 

Research Organisations $412 $282 - $541

TMD sector 

Companies $147 $120 - $174 



$- N/A 

All Respondents $692 $670 - $714 

Companies $514 $491 - $535 



$178 $113 - $244 

Companies $43 $40 - $47 


TMD sector 

$174 $109 - $239 

Companies $470 $448 - $492 

Research Organisations $5 N/A 

TABLE 68: Overview of Raw Survey Data and Queensland-wide Estimates for Key Measures 

Sample Size (N) Mean Median Total Reported Total Estimated 


All Respondents 100 $19.9 $3.3 $1995 $4361 

Companies 78 $15.6 $1.8 $1220 $3275 



22 $35.2 $12.4 $774 $1086 

All Respondents 135 60 11 8085 14,106 

Companies 111 31 8 3433 8008 



24 194 121 4652 6098 


Companies 75 $8.1 $1.6 $606 $3271 



17 $25.5 $17.3 $485 $1355 


Companies 69 $4.2 $0.6 $292 $1323 



16 $17.0 $14.4 $272 $818 


Companies 67 $0.9 $0.05 $57 $245 



16 $8.2 $5.4 $132 $412 


Companies 70 $0.5 $0.04 $36 $514 

Research Organisations 16 $6.1 $0.5 $98 $178 

81


82 

14.APPENDICES 

14.1 Methodology 

The following section defines the data sources used 

in the study; limitations of the data collected; and 

data that was unavailable. 

14.1.1 Primary Data 

All primary data included in this report was 

collected from QLS companies and research 

organisations through an industry survey conducted 

in March and April 2012. The methodology 

employed to conduct the survey is described below. 

14.1.2 Defining the Queensland Life Sciences 


For the purpose of the QLS Survey 2011, the QLS 

Industry was defined as any company, university 

institute, faculty, school or centre or research 

institution that is undertaking Life Sciences related 

activities in one or more of the industry sub-sectors 

described below. These sub-sectors were adapted 

from the AusBiotech definition of Biotechnology 

in combination with Pharmaceutical industry 

definitions.

Industry Sector Examples 

Human health: 

Pharmaceuticals, vaccines or drug discovery 

Human health: 

Complementary medicines, nutraceuticals 

Human health: 

Functional foods 

Human health: 

Diagnostics 

Human health: 

Medical devices and equipment 

(e.g. vaccines, immune stimulants, biopharmaceuticals, rational drug design or 

combinatorial chemistry) 

(e.g. gene identification, gene constructs, gene delivery or xenotransplants) 

 

(e.g.DNA/RNA/protein sequencing and databases for humans, plants, animals and microorganisms 

or structure function studies) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(e.g. probiotics, unsaturated fatty acids) 

(e.g. immunodiagnostics, gene probes or biosensors) 

 

(e.g. MRI) 

 

Animal health 

genetic engineering, animal breeding or anti-microbials) 

Agricultural biotechnology (e.g. tissue culture, embryogenesis, genetic markers, genetic engineering, plant 

breeding, floriculture, forestry) 

(e.g. biofertilisers, biopesticide, bioherbicides, biological additives, microbial pest 

control, hormones, pheromones, and other agrichemicals) 

Food biotechnology (e.g. Food products, food components, enzymes, yeasts, bacteria culture) 

Environmental (e.g. treatment of organic emissions to air/water) 

 

(land, air, water) or toxic waste sites 

(e.g. detection of toxic substances using bioindicators, biosensors or immunodiagnostics) 

 

bioprocessing (e.g. biopulping, biobleaching) 

Marine 

Industrial (white biotechnology) 

(e.g. peptides, proteins, nucleotides, hormones, growth factors) 

(e.g. monomers, fuels, lubricants, fine chemical feed 

stocks, cosmetics) 

 

alternative energy; development of novel biomaterials; use of plants and enzymes to generate 

industrial products 

 

as pollution and waste generation, for the same level of industrial production 

Bioinformatics 

management, mining and use of life-science information 

Industry service provider 

regulatory consultants, business consultants and other industry service providers 

83


84 

14.1.3 Development of Survey Questionnaire 

The survey questionnaire was based largely on the question 

set used in the previous QLS Industry Survey 2009. This 

approach was adopted so that as much as possible of the 

data collected would be comparable with that from the 

previous surveys. Additional questions were added to gather 

data in new areas of interest for the State. 

The questionnaire was submitted to DSITIA for review 

and approval prior to launching the survey online. The 

questionnaire was designed to gather data on key measures 

of economic, research, commercialisation and education 

performance. These measures included: 

Core Data 

Industry Performance 

Number of establishments 

Years established 

Industry sector distribution 

Economic Performance 

Number of employees 

Change in employee numbers over previous 12 months 

Total expenditure on salaries and wages/average wage 

Revenues 

Number of ASX listed companies 

Market capitalisation of listed companies 

Exports (value and key markets)/Imports 

Commercialisation Performance 

Number of products/services in development and 

associated stage of development 

Education/Skilling Performance 

Distribution of skills (work categories) 

R&D Performance 

R&D expenditure 

Additionality Data 

Reasons for location in Queensland 

Interactions with the public research base 

Which institutes and faculties? 

Nature of interaction 

Benefits gained from interaction 

What would have happened otherwise? 

Level of satisfaction with the public research base, with 

reasons 

Importance of public research base to future 

operations 

Distinguish between university spinouts and others 

Interactions with Queensland Government programs 

Which programs? 

Benefits gained 

117 www.surveygizmo.com 

What would have happened in the absence of the 

program? 

Level of satisfaction with the program, with reasons 

Sector Specific Data 

Economic Performance 

Life scientists in workforce 

Revenues to include income from grants 

Income generated by international business deals 

Key international collaborations / alliances 

Commercialisation Performance 

Patents lodged 

Angel/VC investment secured 

Spin off companies formed 

Clinical trials 

Licences issued 

Education/Skilling Performance 

Science Higher Education degrees awarded 

by QLD institutions 

Bioscience Higher Education degrees awarded 


R&D Performance 

Citations/Publications 

Capital Raising Strategy for next 12 months 

Venture capital 

Angel investors 

Mergers and acquisitions 

In-licensing and out-licensing 

IPOs 

Private options 

Commercialisation strategy by QLD institutions 

Bioscience Higher Education degrees awarded 


14.1.4 Distribution of Survey and Collection of Responses 

The online survey platform, Survey Gizmo, 117 was used to 

deliver the survey to organisations on the industry contact 

database provided by the DSITIA. The most senior or most 

relevant, contact within each organisation was selected to 

receive the survey invitation via an e-mail with a hyperlink 

to the survey. Contacts were excluded in cases where a 

sub-division of that organisation, which has a greater focus 

on Life Sciences, was already represented in the survey. 

For example, the central administration of Queensland 

universities was generally excluded as a number of Life 

Sciences focused schools, centres and institutes within each 

institution were included in the database. 

The survey initially closed on Friday 13 April 2012, with 

additional responses received until 30 April 2012. Prior to 

the close of the survey and in the fortnight following the first

close, brief follow-up telephone calls were made to contacts that 

had not declined to participate in the survey (through the opt-out 

facility) but had not yet completed the questionnaire. 

The database of organisations that comprise the QLS Industry 

has undergone some change since the 2009 survey. Fourteen 

Life Sciences companies, primarily small start-up technology 

companies, are no longer operating. Other companies are now 

located outside Queensland or are no longer operating in a 

sub-sector of the QLS Industry. However, the overall number of 

companies in the sector has grown through additions across all 

sub-sectors, particularly in the area of Industrial Biotechnology, 

which includes several new biofuel companies. A total of 139 

organisations out of the 301 organisations in the DSITIA Life 

Sciences database (46%) undertook the survey. 

14.1.5 Analysis of Primary Survey Data 

At the conclusion of the survey period, the full data set collected 

through the online industry survey was downloaded from the 

server of the survey tool provider. All electronic copies of the 

survey were removed from the server on completion of the project. 

Raw survey data was incorporated into a data spreadsheet from 

which all data outputs and analyses presented in the report 

were derived. The total, mean and median was calculated for all 

quantitative data collected. 

Total population estimates were derived using multiple imputation 

methods. A complete list of Life Sciences companies was 

compiled through consultation with DSITIA. The organisation 

classification (company/RO) and estimated organisation size 

(classified as small, medium or large) were used in a regression 

equation to estimate missing data points. 

Given the non-parametric distribution of the data, the total 

population estimates and confidence intervals were estimated 

using bootstrap methods. The organisation classification and size 

served as strata for the re-sampling. The confidence intervals 

presented are 95% bias corrected and accelerated to account for 

the typical right skew of count and, in particular, financial data. 

These methods are superior to mean imputation methods in that 

known information can be used to inform the missing value, and 

as such are likely to provide a more accurate representation 

of the industry. 

14.1.6 Industry Size versus Response Rate Survey conducted 

in 2009 and 2011 

Number of respondents to surveys in 2009 and 2011 

2009 2011 

Total Number of organisations 

in the Government database 

296 301 

Number of companies in the database 235 252 

Number of research organisations 

in the database 

60 49 

Total Number of organisations 

responding to survey 

134 139 

Number of companies responding 

to survey 

104 111 

Number of research organisations 

responding to survey 

30 28 

85


86 

14.2 Comparative Raw Data from the Queensland Life Sciences Survey 2009 

Summary of key statistics from the raw survey data 2009 (i.e. no extrapolations) 

Sample Size Mean Median Total Reported 


All Respondents 119 56 12 6,673 

Companies 91 39 10 3,538 



28 112 65 3,135 

All Respondents 91 $13.70 $1.50 $1,246 

Companies 74 $13.60 $1.20 $1,003 



17 $14.30 $6.20 $243 

All Respondents 76 $11.50 $1.50 $877 

Companies 62 $11.63 $1.20 $720 



14 $11.17 $5.30 $156 


Companies 63 $2.80 $0.43 $174 



14 $5.40 $3.40 $76 

All Respondents 49 $0.99 $0.10 $48.40 

Companies 40 $0.55 $0.09 $22.10 



9 $2.90 $1.57 $26.30 


Companies 60 $1.60 $0.23 $94 

Research Organisations 13 $9.40 $3.90 $122

14.3 Location of the Queensland Life 


The map (below) provides a representation of the location 

of the 301 organisations that comprise the QLS Industry 

as listed in the database held by DSITIA. 

Each unnumbered circle represents one QLS organisation. 

Where more than one organisation is located in the same 

postcode, the number of organisations appears inside the 

circle. Due to the large number of organisations located 

in the Brisbane and Gold Coast areas these locations 

appear as insets. 

87


88 

14.4 Secondary Research 

Secondary research was conducted to supplement primary 

data collected in the survey. Wherever possible, the same 

data source that was referred to in the 2009 survey was used 

in the preparation of this report. In cases where these data 

sources were not available or where the data source had not 

yet been updated by the publisher, an alternate data source 

was, where possible, identified and used in the preparation 

of the report. 

The following section describes the secondary data 

presented in this report. 

14.4.1 Industry Sub-Sector Breakdown 

Secondary data was collected on the Australian Life 

Sciences Industry as a whole. This data was extracted 

from various sources. Due to differences between the 

industry sub-sector classifications used by IBISWorld and 

AusBiotech, 118 the secondary data presented in this report 

was not directly comparable with primary data collected 

through the survey in all cases. 

14.4.2 Market Capitalisation 

Data on the market capitalisation of listed biotechnology 

companies was collected for Queensland, Australia, New 

Zealand, and Canada. Market capitalisation data was 

collected from the following sources: 

(a) Market capitalisation data was sourced from PwC 

Quarterly BioForum Publications. Specifically, PwC 

BioForum Q4, 2007; PwC BioForum, Edition 25, Quarter 

4 FY2008, August 2008; PwC BioForum, Edition 29, 

Quarter 4 FY2009, August 2009; PwC BioForum, Edition 

33, Quarter 4 FY2010/Quarter 1 FY2011, November 2010; 

Edition 36, Quarter 4 FY2011, August 2011. 

(b) Market Capitalisation in countries other than Australia: 

Canada: Canadian listed Life Sciences sector is 

resident on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX/TSXV). 

The TSX/TSXV listed Life Sciences sector at 31st of 

December 2011 was accessed online http://www.tmx. 

com/en/pdf/LifeSciences_Sector_Profile.pdf. Please 

note the TSX/TSXV listed Life Sciences sector includes 

healthcare facilities and health services, which are 

both sub-sectors not included in the definition of Life 

Sciences for the QLS survey and report. Information 

regarding the Canadian listed biotechnology sector was 

sourced from Ernst & Young’s, Beyond Borders 2011 

Report. 

New Zealand: The market capitalisation of New 

Zealand Life Sciences companies listed on both the 

New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX) and Australian 

Stock Exchange (ASX) at November 2008 were defined 

in the NZBio 2010 Bioscience Industry Report. 

14.4.3 Average Wages 

Data on the average wages earned by employees of Life 

Sciences companies was collected for Queensland; 

Australia; USA; Canada and Sweden. Wages data for UK and 

New Zealand was not available in sufficient detail to identify 

Life Sciences wages over other industries. Average wages 

data was collected from the following sources: 

Average Wages, Queensland Life Sciences Industry 

vs. Queensland All Industries: 

118 The industry sub-sector definitions published by AusBiotech were adopted for the preparation of this report 

The average wage calculated from data collected in the 

primary survey was compared to the average wage paid 

to Queensland workers across all industries. Queensland 

average wage data was sourced from the Australian Bureau 

of Statistics, 6302.0 – Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, 

Aug 2011, Persons; Full Time; Adult; Total earnings. 

Average Life Sciences Wages, International Comparison: 

Queensland: Average wages for Queensland Life 

Sciences employees were calculated based on the salary 

expenditure and employment data collected through the 

current industry survey. Data was for the 2011 year. 

Australia: Average wages for Australian Life Sciences 

employees were estimated based on data sourced from 

the ABS publication ‘Australian Bureau of Statistics, 

6302.0 – Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, Aug 2011, 

Persons; Full Time; Adult; Total earnings’. Life Sciences 

employees in Australia were defined as those within the 

occupation categories of Professional, Scientific and 

Technical Services. Data was current as at August 2011. 

New Zealand: Average wages data for New Zealand 

Life Sciences employees were estimated based on data 

sources from the Statistics New Zealand publication 

‘Quarterly Employment Survey, June 2011. Life Sciences 

employees in New Zealand were defined as those within 

the occupation category of Professional, scientific, 

technical admin and support services. Data was current 

as at June 2011. 

USA: Average wages data for Biotechnology sector 

employees in the USA was sourced from the United States 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 

2011 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment 

and Wage Estimates. Life Sciences employees in the 

US were defined as those within the categories of life 

scientists, agricultural and food scientists, animal 

scientists, food scientists and technologists, soil and 

plant scientists, biological scientists, biochemists 

and biophysicists, microbiologists, medical scientists, 

chemists, agricultural and food science technicians, 

biological technicians and chemical technicians. Data was 

for the calendar year 2010. 

Sweden: Average wages data for Life Sciences employees 

in Sweden was sourced from the Statistics Sweden 

publication, private sector, non-manual workers. Average 

total monthly salary and salary dispersion by occupational 

group 2010. Life Sciences employees in Sweden were 

defined as those within the categories of Life Sciences 

professionals, Life Sciences technicians, mathematicians 

and statisticians, architects, engineers and related 

professionals, physical and engineering science 

technicians, production and operations managers. Data 

was for the calendar year 2010.

Canada: Average wages data for Life Sciences employees in 

Canada was sourced from the Statistics Canada publication, 

‘Earnings, average weekly, by industry’. Life Sciences 

professionals in Canada were defined as those within the 

category – Professional, scientific and technical services. No 

additional sub-sectors were available. Data was for 2011. 

14.4.4 Venture Capital Investment 

Data on VC investment in Life Sciences companies was collected 

for Australia and the OECD from the following sources: 

VC Investment in Life Sciences, Australia: sourced from the 

ABS publication, Venture Capital and Later Stage Private Equity, 

Australia. 

Australian Private Equity & Venture Capital Association, 

Yearbook, 2011 

OECD (2011), Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2011, based on 

OECD Entrepreneurship Financing Database, June 2011 

14.4.5 National Competitive Grants 

Grants provided by the NHMRC and the ARC were identified as 

a measure of success in attracting funding for basic and applied 

Life Sciences research. The NHMRC funds institutional medical 

research of all types while the ARC funds research across all 

disciplines including Life Sciences. Data on NHMRC and ARC 

grants awarded to each State by number and value was sourced 

from the NHMRC Grant Funding 2000 – 2011 (www.nhmrc.gov. 

au/funding/funded/outcomes/projects.htm) and the ARC Funded 

Research Projects — Trends Data Set 2002 – 2009. 

14.4.6 Business Expenditure on Research and Development 

(BERD) 

Data on BERD and scientific and technical related BERD for 

Queensland and Australia was sourced from the ABS publication, 

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8104.0 Research and Experimental 

Development, Business Australia, 2009/2010. Comparative OECD 

data was sourced from the OECD, Sciences, Technology and 

Industry Scoreboard, 2011. 

14.4.7 Government Expenditure on Research and Development 

(GOVERD) 

Data on GOVERD for Queensland and Australia was sourced from 

the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication, 8109.0 – Research 

and Experimental Development, Government and Private Non- 

Profit Organisations, Australia, 2008-2009 (later years were not 

available). Disaggregated data showing expenditure by field of 

research by state was not available for inclusion in this report. 

Comparative OECD data was also sourced from within ABS 8109.0 

– Research and Experimental Development, Government and 

Private Non-Profit Organisations, Australia, 2008-2009. 

14.4.8 Science Graduates 

Data on science degree completions from Queensland and 

Australian institutions was sourced from the Commonwealth 

Government, DEEWR publication, Award Course Completions 

for All Students by State, Higher Education Provider and Broad 

Field of Education, 2010. Science degrees were defined as the 

combination of the following fields of education; Natural and 

physical sciences, Information technology, Engineering and 

related technologies, Agriculture, environmental and related 

studies. Data was for the calendar years 2005 – 2010. 

Data on bioscience degree completions from Queensland and 

Australian institutions was sourced from the DEEWR publication, 

Award Course Completions for All Students by State, Higher 

Education Provider and Broad Field of Education. Bioscience 

degrees were defined as the combination of the following 

fields of education – Health; Natural and Physical Science; and 

‘Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies’. Data was for the 

calendar years 2005 – 2010. 

14.4.9 Currency Conversion Rates* 

Currency Exchange 

rate (AU$) 

Currency Exchange 

rate (AU$) 

Canada dollar $0.961 New Zealand dollar $0.761 

Sweden kronor $0.145 US dollar $0.978 

* Exchange rates were sourced from www.xe.com on 1st December 2011 

14.4.10 Grant Schemes Accessed by Respondents and defined 

as ‘Other’ in the summary 

Grant schemes accessed by companies 

Smart Futures (RIPP, NIRAP, RPP, POC) 

Biopharmaceuticals Australia 

Australian Apprentice Incentives 

Export Market Development Grant 

What’s your big idea Queensland? 

Best Practice Support Projects 

Australian Biological Resources Study 

AusIndustry (IIF, R&D Tax Concession/ Incentive, COMET) 

DERM 

Wage Subsidy 

DEEDI 

ARC Linkage 

Queensland Health 

Co-operative Research Centres Program 

National eResearch Architecture Taskforce Projects 

Enterprise Connect RiB 

ABR 

ABRI 

Sugar R&D Corporation 

Australian Aid International 

Commercialisation Australia (POC) 

Grant schemes accessed by research organisations 

ARC (Linkage, Discovery, Infrastructure) 

Australian Stem Cell Centre 

Motor Neurone Disease Australia 

Smart Futures (RIPP, NIRAP, RPP, POC) 

Queensland Health (OHMR) 

RDC 

NCRIS 

EIF 

NHMRC 

89


90 

RBWHF 

Therapeutic Innovation Australia 

UQ 

PCFA 

CRC Program 

14.4.11 Export Markets defined as ‘Other’ in the summary 

Switzerland Philippines 

Russian Federation Nepal 

Vietnam Pakistan 

Mexico Fiji 

Egypt Mali 

Malta 

14.4.12 Export Target Markets defined as ‘Other’ 

in the summary 

Switzerland Russian Federation 

Indonesia Samoa 

Spain Solomon Islands 

Italy Vanuatu 

Bangladesh Kiribati 

Sweden Vietnam 

Pakistan Norway 

Denmark

Queensland Life Sciences Industry Report 2012 (PDF, 3.5MB)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?