|
The Biotech industry in the UK is considered to be one of the most prominent in Europe. The businesses are more mature than elsewhere, many more companies dare the move onto the stock exchange, and the risk capital market has more favorable conditions. On the part of the government, research funding in recent years has seen a a significant increase, with large sums of money have been put into medical research above all. Owing to liberal legislation, stem cell research is particularly well established in the UK, and industrial biotechnology is gaining ever more in significance. On the other hand, Biotech entrepreneurs on the island are gradually coming up against some head wind: In 2005, for the first time, more risk capital was invested in German biotech firms than in their British cousins.
|
|
Finland holds the European Union presidency till the end of 2006 and wants to use this position particularly to promote itself as an engine for innovation. This small North-European country sees itself as a promoter of new technologies and now wants to repeat in biotechnology what it has already achieved in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector: To initiate an entirely new industry, made up of united national and economic forces. However, a Biotech-Nokia has not yet emerged - the Finnish biotech scene is medium-sized and has only completed a small number of IPOs. Above all, the most successful companies are those which have a close relationship with the highly traditional and well-established chemical industry.
|
|
Israel is certainly not lacking in good ideas or excellent research in the area of biotechnology. Quite the contrary: In recent years, in large part thanks to the liberal legal framework, Israeli scientists have built up an international profile, particularly in the field of stem cell research. In contrast to the medtech area, the transferring of biotechnological research into commercial success has only succeeded in a couple of individual cases, and is largely down to just a few active pioneers. Nevertheless, in the last five years, the dynamic of the start-up scene has begun to expand, although there is still little venture capital flowing into the field. A key supporter of the local industrial sector is the Israeli pharmaceutical company Teva Pharmaceuticals, one of the world’s largest generics manufacturers.
|
|
In the biotechnology arena, Canada can hold its head high. The biomedical research that is taking place in the country has an excellent reputation, which has brought many new foundings and has attracted a large number of big pharma concerns. On top of this, Canada is ranked top in biotechnological applications in agriculture, and in 1996, alongside the USA, the first large-surface cultivation of genetically modified (GM) plants for commercial purposes took place in Canada. Today, with more than six million hectares, Canada is in global fourth place, and is the top cultivating country for GM rapeseed.
|
|
The biotech scene in Sweden can consider itself lucky: Great Britain aside, no other country has such a liberal attitude towards scientists. A swirling debate about stem cell research, as experienced in Germany, is simply not conceivable in Sweden. Largely owing to these basic conditions, the majority of Swedish biotech companies concentrate on medical applications, which are developed for the market with the assistance of outstanding research facilities. Nevertheless, fresh capital is increasingly hard to find in this small northern country. This is particularly true for companies in early development phases, for whom almost no investors are forthcoming. Tax breaks for research-intensive companies have therefore been demanded for some time. Many have been alarmed by the example set by Cellartis: The stem cell lines manufacturer recently shifted its production location from Sweden to Scotland. And why? For tax purposes.
|
|
The three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are seen by most as economic tigers: Their growth rates are large and their bureaucracies small, all of which aimed at attracting foreign investors. In the sphere of biotechnology, the picture is decidedly less rosy. Lithuania has the advantage of being a scientifically orientated capital city with historical and established research institutes, but the city is home to only three, albeit successful, private biotech companies. Latvia, on the other hand, is home to a much larger scene, which is now seeing the creation of a number of pharmaceutical production facilities as well as moving towards some form of consolidation as a national association. Estonia, with a handful of different companies, is looking much the same - tightly coupled with state research institutes and concentrating above all on molecular-biological services. The overall picture shows that the Baltic States are at the earlier stages of development. The future path depends above all on money - hardly a trivial matter for any country, whether in public or private initiatives. All three of the Baltic States see their best hopes in trans-national networks, both in the Baltic see region and in Europe.
|
|
The biotech sector in France faces something of a paradox. On the one hand, the French research landscape has been in a state of upheaval for some years. New advancement programs and funding structures have been established and new clusters have formed. On the other hand, there is still a striking shortage of money and the medium-sized sector is barely finding the money to advance the development of their active substances. On a legal level, only research on human embryonic stem cells has so far come under authoritative direction. A genetic engineering law is still pending and is likely to be passed in 2006 whereas the ‘Pacte pour la Recherche’ (research pact) came into effect in april this year.
|
