Life Sciences Outlook 2012 Dutch biotech companies ... - NautaDutilh

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Academic institutes as the Petri dish for biotech companies The level of academic and clinical research ranks as the fourth most important precondition for starting successful biotech companies, according to our respondents (see Figure 1). 5 a par with Harvard, Stanford or Beijing,” says one. “The same is true for stem cells and vaccines. Those areas should be the focus of the Netherlands life sciences sector; we are world-class players there.” The academic medical centres, all in close proximity, with existing collaborations as well as shared Figure 1. What are the most important preconditions for starting a successful biotech company? Availability of early stage / seed investment capital 84 22 20 "Entrepreneurial spirit" of scientists, management talent and serial entrepreneurs Quality and availability of experienced executive, business development and commercial management 66 34 16 15 52 12 Level of academic / clinical research 54 12 9 Availability of venture investment capital 27 30 16 Availability of highly educated researchers and staff 9 14 7 Favourable regulatory and intellectual property climate 4 4 Availability of tax stimuli for both companies and investors 4 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Weighted scores ■ Most important ■ Important ■ Also Important Perhaps this is so because the academic quality in the Netherlands is somewhat taken for granted. The level of research in medicine and life sciences in the Netherlands is generally considered as very good among our interviewees, and in some areas as even better. “Fundamental cancer research in the Netherlands is of absolute world-class level, on ‘biobanks’ and patient databases, are considered to be another strength. They are part of an infrastructure that makes the Netherlands potentially very well suited for the clinical adoption of therapeutic and technological innovations. 10 5) Where respondents were asked to give multiple answers, their scores have been weighted by a factor of 3 for their highest ranking, 2 for their second ranking and 1 for their third ranking.
The opinions of our respondents on how well this high-quality research translates into spin-offs from academia – in terms of both number and commercial potential – are more mixed. While a combined 48% rate the result as “adequate” (39%) or “very good/sufficient” (9%), an equally large number consider it to be “insufficient” (47%). Interestingly, respondents from government or academia often have a favourable opinion (75% and 60% of them, respectively), whereas investors are generally more critical (70% answer “insufficient”). This suggests that it is necessary to take a closer look into the process by which scientific discoveries are turned into business plans. A common point of criticism is that the technology transfer function in the Netherlands is very fragmented – indeed, this is how the entire academic landscape is often viewed – with each institute running its own shop. This makes it harder and more time-consuming for investors to scout for investment candidates. Another commonly expressed view is that many spin-offs from universities are too small and are launched too early to survive, and could benefit from maturing longer within a university. “The number of spin-offs from Belgian universities is much lower, but in terms of quality they are clearly better,” says one venture capital investor. “For that reason we are more likely to invest in Belgium than in the Netherlands.” Too small, too early? More structure needed for spin-offs? The mixed assessment of the ‘spin-off potential’ from universities and other research institutes matches the wide range of opinions on the technology transfer offices (TTOs) that have been established in most institutes specifically to manage this process. Some interviewees are harshly critical of the TTOs and consider them “amateurish” and, in negotiations about the terms and conditions for the transfer of IP, as “showing a lack of realism and a total disregard for the enormous amount of risks others need to bear to bring such IP to commercial fruition.” Others have a more positive perspective and prefer to emphasize that “most TTOs have improved a lot in the past few years” or that “some TTOs are doing quite well.” In this regard, the ones that are specifically mentioned are the TTOs in Leiden and Rotterdam, as well that of the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI). A key precondition for the fostering of ideas into successful spin-offs is perhaps quite a practical one: there must be clarity and structure for a scientist in terms of his/her position as a university scholar, on the one hand, and as an entrepreneur with a potential business, on the other hand. For example, clarity is needed with regard to what is permitted under employment contracts (e.g. the number of hours to be spent on the entrepreneurial activities), with regard to attracting outside investment and with regard to the entitlement to IP rights. Another point which is sometimes raised is that while existing university facilities are usually sufficient for the purpose of carrying out initial research, the facilities for the follow-on phase are often suboptimal and are not a priority for academia or, at any rate, for the university’s management. Life Sciences Outlook 2012 Dutch biotech companies: from start-up to exit 11
Page 1: Life Sciences Outlook 2012 Dutch bi
Page 5 and 6: Table of contents. Preface 3 Introd
Page 7: will flow through the Netherlands O
Page 12 and 13: “You don’t start a biotech comp
Page 14 and 15: Best practice in life sciences tech
Page 16 and 17: The role of government “One thing
Page 19 and 20: 2. Investing. At the point that a s
Page 21 and 22: “We also have ourselves to blame,
Page 23 and 24: “Life sciences are far more diffi
Page 25: The evolving relationship between m
Page 28 and 29: A lack of ambition or healthy reali
Page 30 and 31: The term ‘strategic alliance’ i
Page 33 and 34: 4. Exit strategy. The last stage in
Page 35 and 36: In each case, a decision will have
Page 37 and 38: “IPOs are currently financing eve
Page 39 and 40: The technical IPO or even a hybrid
Page 41 and 42: However, the government could becom
Page 43 and 44: Galapagos NV: Onno van de Stolpe (C
Page 45 and 46: About Niaba. The Netherlands Biotec
Page 47 and 48: The Netherlands The Netherlands Joh
Page 49 and 50: The Netherlands Belgium Bart van Ke
Page 51 and 52: Disclaimer. This publication contai
Page 53: Life Sciences Outlook 2012 Dutch bi

Life Sciences Outlook 2012 Dutch biotech companies ... - NautaDutilh

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?