Skip to main content
Log in

Biotechnology Clusters in the U.K.: Lessons from Localisation in the Commercialisation of Science

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today, U.S. biotechnology firms dominate the growing therapeutics and diagnostics sectors despite most of the key discoveries being made by European, and especially U.K. scientists. Lessons have been learned about the economic importance of commercialisation of bioscience. Within Europe, the U.K. is the leading challenger of U.S. hegemony in biotechnology exploitation. Knowledge-driven clusters of start-ups and established smaller and medium-sized businesses have developed in Cambridge and Oxford along with nascent agglomerations in Surrey and Scotland. They are responsible for the turnaround. As in the U.S., intimate links with large pharmaceutical firms and publicly-funded research centres are key to spin-out businesses, suggesting a generic "new economy" model. The specific problem at present is scale and the need to make up ten years lost ground. But the evidence is there that the U.K. is taking up the competitive challenge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Audretsch, D., 1998, 'Agglomeration and the Location of Innovative Activity', Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14, 18-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. and M. Feldman, 1996, 'Knowledge Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production', American Economic Review 86, 630-640.

    Google Scholar 

  • BioCentury, 1999, Biopharmaceutical Database, Oxford: BioCentury International.

    Google Scholar 

  • BioGenTec, 1998, BioGenTec Atlas, Cologne: BioGenTec.

    Google Scholar 

  • BioIndustry Association, 1999, BioScience U.K.: Fundamental, Influential, Exponential, London: BioIndustry Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, S., M. Lehrer and D. Soskice, 1999, 'Can High Technology Industries Prosper in Germany? Institutional Frameworks and the Evolution of the German Software and Biotechnology Industries', Industry and Innovation 6, 5-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. and D. Levinthal, 1990, 'Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation', Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128-152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., 1999, The German Biotechnology Sector, the Public Policy Impact and Regional Clustering: An Assessment, Report to the U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, Cardiff: Centre for Advanced Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Trade and Industry, 1998a, Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy, London: DTI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Trade and Industry, 1998b, Biotechnology in Germany: Report of an ITS Mission, London: DTI and Foreign & Commonwealth Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Trade and Industry, 1999a, Biotechnology Clusters, London: DTI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Trade and Industry, 1999b, Genome Valley: the Economic Potential and Strategic Performance of Biotechnology in the U.K., London: DTI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohse, D., 1999, The BioRegio Contest: Results of an Empirical Investigation, Kiel: Institute of World Economics (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohse, D., 2000, 'Technology Policy and the Regions: The Case of the BioRegio Contest', Research Policy 29, 1111-1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastern Region Biotechnology Initiative, 1998, Sourcebook'98, Cambridge: ERBI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastern Region Biotechnology Initiative, 1999, Background Information for Cambridge and E. Region Biotechnology Cluster (mimeo), Cambridge: ERBI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ernst & Young, 1999, European Life Sciences 99: Sixth Annual Report, Ernst & Young.

  • Etkowitz, H. and L. Leydesdorff, 1997, Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy, London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giesecke, S., 1999; Determinants of Successful S+T Policy in a National System of Innovation, Vienna: Economics University (mimeo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., M. Trajtenberg and R. Henderson, 1993, 'Geographic Localisation of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations', Quarterly Journal of Economics 108, 577-598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, 1998, Massachusetts Biotechnology Directory, Cambridge: MBC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihell, D., D. Kingham and M. Stott, 1997, The Development of the Biotechnology Sector in Oxfordshire: Implications for Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford Innovation Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M., 1998, On Competition, Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W., K. Koput and L. Smith-Doerr, 1996, 'Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology', Administrative Sciences Quarterly 41, 116-145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prevezer, M., 1995, 'The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering in Biotechnology', Small Business Economics 9, 255-271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prevezer, M., 1998, 'Clustering in Biotechnology in the U.S.A.', in P. Swann, H. Prevezer and D. Stout (eds.), The Dynamics of Industrial Clustering: International Companies in Computing and Biotechnology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schitag, Ernst & Young, 1998, Germany's Biotechnology Takes Off in 1998, Stuttgart: Schitag, Ernst & Young.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann, P. and M. Prevezer, 1996, 'A Comparison of the Dynamics of Industrial Clustering in Computing and Biotechnology', Research Policy 25, 1139-1157.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cooke, P. Biotechnology Clusters in the U.K.: Lessons from Localisation in the Commercialisation of Science. Small Business Economics 17, 43–59 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011193531172

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011193531172

Keywords

Navigation