Cooke 06 European Asymmetries

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Cooke 06 European Asymmetries European Asymmetries: a Comparative Analysis of German and UK Biotechnology Clusters Philip Cooke, Centre for Advanced Studies & Centre for Economic & Social Analysis of Genomics (CESAGen), Cardiff University. Abstract This paper discusses the relative performance of two of the larger European healthcare biotechnology economies, Germany and the UK. It updates to 2006 material first gathered in the late 1990s showing longitudinally the evolutionary trajectories in the main biotechnology clusters of the two countries. Though Germany has about the same number of firms a sthe UK its biotechnology economy is far weaker, with many small firms employing few people, relatively low venture capital investment and, little interest in general being shown by pharmaceuticals companies (big pharma) in licensing intellectual property. The reverse is the case in the UK even though the investor euphoria at the time of the first comparative study has not returned, a factor that has affected investment practices considerably. So much so that a new policu of ‘entrepreneurship outsourcing’ has become visible in the UK as venture capital perceives a better business climate for biotechnology entrepreneurship in the US. The paper concludes somewhat pessimistically that recent developments of this kind may add to such debilitating European problems as witdrawal from healthcare pharmaceuticals altogether and relocation of R&D decision-making to the US on the part of European big pharma, loosening more proximate links within national and regional innovation systems widely perceived as highly important elements in biotechnology cluster performance. 1. Introduction In this paper an effort is made to compare the nature, characteristics and performance of the German and UK biotechnology sectors, particularly with reference to their leading biotechnology clusters. At key points global country and cluster comparisons are made, utilising the US as a key benchmark. A variety of economic indicators regarding the medical biotechnology sector and bioscientific knowledge metrics are utilised. Public policies of various kinds play a key role: they range from public research funding, through public regulation of, and in some cases conduct of clinical trialling, to special support initiatives for ‘ technology platforms’ or clusters, to public risk capital and incubation of new firms. We contrast Germany’s more co-ordinated and the UK’s more liberal policy approaches, finding the latter superior. It will be recalled from earlier work (e.g. Cooke, 2002) that a cluster involves innovative interaction of vertical and horizontal kinds among knowledge generation, testing and commercialisation firms and agents located in geographical proximity. Biotechnology clusters also have important linkages of these kinds with equivalents in distant clusters. Finally some such interactions are unclustered, but overwheming research findings show biotechnology to be highly global and local in its key network interactions. This is clearly the case in Germany and the UK as will be shown. This report concentrates on the medical or healthcare biotechnology sector in the two countries. The medical biotechnology sector is one of the bioscientific ‘family’ that together account for a significant share of GDP in the advanced countries, and a growing share in countries like India and China. Agro-food biotechnology has another significant share of many national GDP accounts, while environmental and energy biotechnology are of rising importance. Within such sectors, subsectors like bioprocessing1, bioengineering, bioinformatics, bioimaging and so on are also growing in significance in certain regional economies. It is a science-driven, knowledge-intensive and widely applicable group of interacting platforms that are already evolving certain pervasive characteristics for different functions, including health and safety testing and standardisation (bioanalysis), civil and military security (DNA fingerprinting; biometrics) and applications in mechanical, electronic and civil engineering (nanobiotechnology) rather as ICT became pervasive during the 1990s2. To that extent they have the character of platform technologies and even General Purpose Technologies (GPTs) as discussed by inter alia Helpman (1998). Traditional natural resource-based theories in economic geography explained the microeconomics of agglomerative economic activity relatively well. However, knowledge-based economic growth is less easy to explain and predict, although there are some aspects of knowledge economy clusters that are less uncertain than others. Thus, by way of introduction, this paper is able to point with reasonable confidence at the leading global bioregions and offer a rationale for their current prominence. However, such regions may be said to arise through a process not of direct comparative or even competitive advantage, not least because markets do not explain much of the rationale for their existence. Rather, bioregions are exemplars of a modern tendency for regional accomplishment to be a product of ‘constructed advantage’ (Smith, 1776; Foray & Freeman, 1993). Constructed regional advantage occurs in substantial measure because of the influence of public goods and policies upon a region3. Thus, in 1 A broad term that describes the use of microbial, plant, or animal cells for the production of chemical compounds. 2 In a government-commissioned report CRIC (2005) the contribution of biotechnology to UK GDP was estimated at 11.4% of which healthcare’s share was 6.9%. Germany’s 12% GDP expenditure on healthcare suggests the equivalent statistic is at least 16.4%. 3 A number of key terms have been introduced. In definitional terms, their usage here is as follows. ‘Region’ is a governance unit between national and local levels. A ‘regional economy’ is ‘...the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in a particular geographic region.’ The ‘knowledge economy’ is measured , currently inadequately, as high technology manufacturing added to knowledge intensive services. A ‘bioregion’ has no standard definition, although regarding biotechnology ‘clusters’a location quotient of 1.25 is considered sufficient. ‘Knowledge’ bioscience, a university and medical school is a key factor, not only for its role in the production of talent, but the innovative research and entrepreneurial businesses it sustains. Similarly, large research hospitals, for patient trials of new treatments, add to regional constructed advantage. Notably, most of these facilities are the product of initial public provision and are sustained by public teaching and research subventions. Thereafter, nearby pharmaceuticals and agro-chemicals facilities may provide intermediate markets as they adjust to meet the new exigencies of ‘open innovation’ (Chesbrough, 2003). In this paper, there follows a detailed analysis of leading biotechnology clusters in Germany and the UK, subsequently US data on cluster comparisons are included as benchmarks. Finally implications of current developments are drawn, and a global benchmarking is conducted of German and UK biotechnology clusters against North American, European and Asian exemplars. 2. Biotechnology Clusters in Germany An important point in the recent history of biotechnology policy in support of clustering was represented by BioRegio, the German Federal initiative started in 1995 with funding from 1997-2002 to support new firm formation in biotechnology clusters. As a policy contest, it favoured well- networked regions (actually cities or groups of cities) yet BioRegio had by 2003 considerably assisted the formation of new biotechnology businesses in Germany. BioRegio fits into a lengthy history of German federal and land policies to support biotechnology but differed from its predecessors by its success in giving a stimulus to the commercialisation aim which had often been the ambition of previous programmes, but never satisfactorily fulfilled. Other policies e.g. and BioChance, BioChancePlus, BioProfile, BioFuture and the new HighTechFoundation Fund complemented the firm formation emphasis of BioRegio later on. There was some debate indicating BioRegio was unfair to innovative firms outside BioRegio areas, but it was clearly recognised that the geographical focus and development of firms in proximity to research institutes and local venture capital meant that whatever policy measure was adopted to boost start-ups, clusters would remain the distinctive mode of business organization in biotechnology as indeed they have worldwide (Dohse, 2000). This is because they offer vital external economies that promote productivity, innovation and new business formation, differs from ‘information’ in that it is creative and informed by meaning and understanding, whereas information is passive and, without the application of knowledge, meaningless. To ‘develop’ , as in ‘regional development,’ means to evolve and augment, or enrich. Hence ‘regional development’ involves the cultural, economic and social enrichment of a region and its people. Here it mainly, but not exclusively, entails economic growth arising from increased efficiency and effectiveness in use and exchange of the productive factors of an openly trading regional economy. hence the competitiveness of biotechnology firms compared to slower-moving big pharma, which, in Germany, had been heavily dependent on foreign biotechnology firms to enter the market. Despite a growth in private venture capital associated with BioRegio, public funding remains
Recommended publications
  • Biotechnology Worldwide
    Biotechnology Worldwide There are several countries that are making special efforts to both develop and capitalise on Biotechnology. Chief amongst them is America, though cutting edge work is also going on in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Korea, Singapore, China and Japan. • America is the world leader in biotechnology, it has 1,379 biotechnology companies and employs 174,000 people. It spends £9 billion on research into biotechnology. • The European market for goods and services dependent on biotechnology is currently estimated at £30 billion and is forecast to exceed £100 billion by the year 2005 • The UK leads Europe in biotechnology and employs 19,000 people • The UK has 300 dedicated biotechnology companies and a further 250-300 involved in broader bioscience related activities • The industrial sectors which stand to benefit from biotechnology are pharmaceutical, agriculture, food and drink, chemicals and environmental technologies • Germany is the second strongest country in Europe, with 332 companies but fewer products in development than the UK. UK The UK biotechnology industry is regarded as second only to the huge effort taking place in the States. UK biotechnology companies generate over a billion pounds in revenue; half of this is pumped back into research and development. The industry has particular strengths, for example: • Britain was a key player in the world wide project of sequencing the 30,000 genes of the human genome. The announcement of the first working draft of the human genome marks a significant step forward in our understanding of the way in which we understand and develop treatments for incurable genetic conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Biotechnology and the Economics of Discovery in the Pharmaceutical Industry
    BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE ECONOMICS OF DISCOVERY IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY HELEN SIMPSON Office of Health Economics 12 Whitehall London SWlA 2DY ©October 1998. Office of Health Economics. Price £7.50 ISBN 1 899040 60 9 Printed by BSC Print Ltd, London. About the Author Helen Simpson is currently a researc~ economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and was formerly an economist at the Department of Trade and Industry. However, the opinions expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IFS or of DTI officials or ministers. Acknowledgements This paper has been developed from my MPhil Economics thesis Scientist Entrepreneurs and the Finance of Biotech Companies. I would like to thank Margaret Meyer, Paul David and Gervas Huxley for their valuable suggestions. I am particularly grateful to Hannah Kettler and Jon Sussex for their advice and editorial inputs to the paper. My thanks also go to Adrian Towse and members of the OHE Editorial Board for their comments, and to the following individuals who gave me their insights into the pharmaceutical industry: Dr Trevor Jones, Director General, ABPI; Dr Janet Dewdney, Chairman, Adprotech; Dr Clive Halliday, Head of Global External Scientific Affairs, Glaxo Wellcome; Mr Alan Galloway, Head of Research Administration, Dr Nick Scott-Ram, Director of Corporate Affairs, and Dr Philip Huxley, all of British Biotech; Christine Soden, Finance Director, Chiroscience; Ian Smith, Lehman Brothers Pharmaceutical Research; and Paul Murray, 31. The Office of Health Economics Terms of Reference The Office of Health Economics (OHE) was founded in 1962. Its terms of reference are to: • commission and undertake research on the economics of health and health care; • collect and analyse health and health care data from the UK and other countries; • disseminate the results of this work and stimulate discussion of them and their policy implications.
    [Show full text]
  • Programme 10.00 Registration 10.20 Welcome from the Host
    Leadership Seminar: Respiratory and Inflammatory Diseases 22 September 2016 Penningtons Manches, 125 Wood Street, London EC2V 7AW Sponsored by Hosted by Programme 10.00 Registration 10.20 Welcome from the Host 10.30 Introduction Adrian Dawkes, PharmaVentures 10.45 Keynote presentations and discussion on unmet clinical needs including: 10.45 Symptoms vs Disease Modification Approach Lars Larson, TranScrip 11.05 Prospects for the prevention and treatment of respiratory virus-induced exacerbations in asthma and COPD Garth Rapeport, Pulmocide 11.25 Eosinophil depletion with benralizumab (anti-IL-5R) for the management of Severe Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Suzanne Cohen, MedImmune 11.45 Breath Biopsy - Breath Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) as Markers for Respiratory Disease Billy Boyle, Owlstone Medical 12.05 Panel discussion and Q&A 12.30 Lunch and networking 14.00 Data Protection and Liability in Respiratory Connected Devices Oliver Bett, Penningtons Manches 14.20 Adaptive Design in Respiratory Clinical Trials – A Sponsor’s Business Case Alethea Wieland, Scope International 14.40 Development of Immunoassays and Point-of-Care Tests for the Measurement of Active Protease Biomarkers of Chronic Respiratory Disease David Ribeiro, ProAxsis 15.00 Aiming for the Lungs - Formulation Strategies for Delivery of Inhaled Biologics Charlotte Yates, Vectura 15.30 Tea, coffee and networking 16.00 Innovative therapeutic options 16.00 The Development of an IL-17BR therapeutic antibody for the treatment of Asthma and IPF David Matthews, MRC Technology 16.20 Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Derived Peptide as a Disease Modifying Therapy for Asthma Nicky Cooper, Peptinnovate 16.40 Closing Remarks and Drinks Reception 18.00 Event closes Speaker Profiles Oliver Bett Associate, Penningtons Manches Oliver is an associate in our IP, IT and commercial team of Penningtons Manches, based in the London office.
    [Show full text]
  • Etf-Sparpläne
    ETF-SPARPLÄNE ISIN NAME IE00B8KGV557 ISHARES EDGE MSCI EM MIN VOL USD (ACC) IE00B86MWN23 ISHARES EDGE MSCI EUROPE MIN VOLATILITY EUR (ACC) IE00B8FHGS14 ISHARES EDGE MSCI WORLD MIN VOLATILITY USD (ACC) IE00B6SPMN59 ISHARES EDGE S&P 500 MIN VOL USD (ACC) IE00B87G8S03 ISHARES GLOBAL AAA-AA GOV BOND USD (DIST) DE0005933931 ISHARES CORE DAX EUR (ACC) IE0032523478 ISHARES CORP BOND LARGE CAP EUR (DIST) IE00B14X4T88 ISHARES ASIA PACIFIC DIVIDEND USD (DIST) IE00B1W57M07 ISHARES BRIC 50 USD (DIST) DE000A0F5UG3 ISHARES DOW JONES EU SUSTAINABLE EUR (DIST) IE00B6R52143 ISHARES AGRIBUSINESS USD (ACC) IE00B0M62Y33 ISHARES AEX EUR (DIST) DE000A0D8Q23 ISHARES ATX EUR (DIST) IE00B1FZSC47 ISHARES USD TIPS USD (ACC) IE00B14X4S71 ISHARES USD TREASURY BOND 1-3Y USD (DIST) IE00B1FZS798 ISHARES USD TREASURY BOND 7-10Y USD (DIST) IE00B1FZSD53 ISHARES GBP INDEX-LINKED GILTS GBP (DIST) IE00B6QGFW01 ISHARES EMERGING ASIA LOCAL GOV BOND USD (DIST) IE00B5M4WH52 ISHARES JPM EM LOCAL GOV BOND USD (DIST) IE00B3DKXQ41 ISHARES EURO AGGREGATE BOND EUR (DIST) IE00B3F81R35 ISHARES CORE EURO CORP BOND EUR (DIST) IE00B4L60045 ISHARES EURO CORP BOND 1-5Y EUR (DIST) IE00B4L5ZG21 ISHARES EURO CORP BOND EX-FIN EUR (DIST) IE00B4L5ZY03 ISHARES EURO CORP BOND EX-FIN 1-5Y EUR (DIST) IE00B6X2VY59 ISHARES EURO CORP BOND INT. RATE HEDGED (DIST) IE00B14X4Q57 ISHARES EURO GOV BOND 1-3Y EUR (DIST) IE00B4WXJH41 ISHARES EURO GOV BOND 10-15Y EUR (DIST) IE00B1FZS913 ISHARES EURO GOV BOND 15-30Y EUR (DIST) IE00B1FZS681 ISHARES EURO GOV BOND 3-5Y EUR (DIST) IE00B4WXJG34 ISHARES EURO GOV BOND
    [Show full text]
  • United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K Shire Pharmaceuticals Group
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) ፤ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999 អ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Commission file number 0-29630 SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS GROUP PLC (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) England and Wales (State or other jurisdiction (I.R.S. Employer of incorporation or organization) Identification No.) N.A. East Anton, Andover, Hampshire SP10 5RG England (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) 44 1264 333455 (Registrant's telephone number, including area code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of exchange on which registered American Depository Shares, each representing Nasdaq National Market 3 Ordinary Shares, 5 pence nominal value per share Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None (Title of class) Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ፤ No អ Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference to Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines with Regard to the Composition, Calculation and Management of the Index
    INDEX METHODOLOGY Solactive Pharma Breakthrough Value Index Version 2.1 dated September 03, 2020 Contents Important Information 1. Index specifications 1.1 Short Name and ISIN 1.2 Initial Value 1.3 Distribution 1.4 Prices and Calculation Frequency 1.5 Weighting 1.6 Index Committee 1.7 Publication 1.8 Historical Data 1.9 Licensing 2. Composition of the Index 2.1 Selection of the Index Components 2.2 Ordinary Adjustment 2.3 Extraordinary Adjustment 3. Calculation of the Index 3.1 Index Formula 3.2 Accuracy 3.3 Adjustments 3.4 Dividends and other Distributions 3.5 Corporate Actions 3.6 Correction Policy 3.7 Market Disruption 3.8 Consequences of an Extraordinary Event 4. Definitions 5. Appendix 5.1 Contact Details 5.2 Calculation of the Index – Change in Calculation Method 2 Important Information This document (“Index Methodology Document”) contains the underlying principles and regulations regarding the structure and the operating of the Solactive Pharma Breakthrough Value Index. Solactive AG shall make every effort to implement regulations. Solactive AG does not offer any explicit or tacit guarantee or assurance, neither pertaining to the results from the use of the Index nor the Index value at any certain point in time nor in any other respect. The Index is merely calculated and published by Solactive AG and it strives to the best of its ability to ensure the correctness of the calculation. There is no obligation for Solactive AG – irrespective of possible obligations to issuers – to advise third parties, including investors and/or financial intermediaries, of any errors in the Index.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Section 13F Securities, First Quarter, 2014
    List of Section 13F Securities First Quarter FY 2014 Copyright (c) 2014 American Bankers Association. CUSIP Numbers and descriptions are used with permission by Standard & Poors CUSIP Service Bureau, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. No redistribution without permission from Standard & Poors CUSIP Service Bureau. Standard & Poors CUSIP Service Bureau does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the CUSIP Numbers and standard descriptions included herein and neither the American Bankers Association nor Standard & Poor's CUSIP Service Bureau shall be responsible for any errors, omissions or damages arising out of the use of such information. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission OFFICIAL LIST OF SECTION 13(f) SECURITIES USER INFORMATION SHEET General This list of “Section 13(f) securities” as defined by Rule 13f-1(c) [17 CFR 240.13f-1(c)] is made available to the public pursuant to Section13 (f) (3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 USC 78m(f) (3)]. It is made available for use in the preparation of reports filed with the Securities and Exhange Commission pursuant to Rule 13f-1 [17 CFR 240.13f-1] under Section 13(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. An updated list is published on a quarterly basis. This list is current as of March 15, 2014, and may be relied on by institutional investment managers filing Form 13F reports for the calendar quarter ending March 31, 2014. Institutional investment managers should report holdings--number of shares and fair market value--as of the last day of the calendar quarter as required by [ Section 13(f)(1) and Rule 13f-1] thereunder.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix One the CELLTECH CASE STUDY
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Mc Namara, P. (2000). Managing the tension between knowledge exploration and exploitation: the case of UK biotechnology. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City University London) This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/7870/ Link to published version: Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] Managing the Tension Between Knowledge Exploration and Exploitation: The Case of UK Biotechnology By Peter Mc Namara Presented in fulfilment of the requirements of the: Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Strategy and International Business City University Business School Department of Strategy and Marketing March 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SHIRE PLC (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K [X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Commission file number 0-29630 SHIRE PLC (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Jersey (Channel Islands) 98-0601486 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) organization) 5 Riverwalk, Citywest Business Campus, Dublin +353 1 429 7700 24, Republic of Ireland (Address of principal executive offices and zip code) (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of exchange on which registered American Depositary Shares, each representing three NASDAQ Global Select Market Ordinary Shares 5 pence par value per share Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None (Title of class) 1 Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act Yes [X] No [ ] Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act Yes [ ] No [X] Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Mount Allison University Endowment Fund Holdings As of December 31, 2017
    Mount Allison University Endowment Fund Holdings As of December 31, 2017 Security Name Market Value ($Can) EQUITY HOLDINGS Canadian Holdings 5N PLUS INC $ 155 ABSOLUTE SOFTWARE CORP $ 851 ACADIAN TIMBER CORP $ 302 ADVANTAGE OIL & GAS LTD $ 283,788 AECON GROUP INC $ 1,728 AFRICA OIL CORP $ 684 AG GROWTH INTERNATIONAL INC $ 1,163 AGELLAN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE $ 349 AGF MANAGEMENT LTD $ 990 AGNICO-EAGLE MINES LTD $ 427,207 AGT FOOD AND INGREDIENTS INC $ 653 AIMIA INC $ 832 AIR CANADA INC $ 325,411 AIRBOSS OF AMERICA CORP $ 315 ALACER GOLD CORP $ 1,289 ALAMOS GOLD INC $ 2,216 ALAMOS GOLD INC NEW COM CLASS A $ 4,877 ALARIS ROYALTY CORP $ 1,107 ALGOMA CENTRAL CORP $ 330 ALIMENTATION COUCHE-TARD INC $ 98,854 ALIO GOLD INC $ 472 ALLIED PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST $ 2,575 ALTIUS MINERALS CORP $ 1,233 ALTUS GROUP LTD/CANADA $ 1,916 ANDREW PELLER LTD $ 1,448 ARGONAUT GOLD INC $ 656 ARTIS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST $ 1,539 ASANKO GOLD INC $ 209 ATCO LTD $ 119,947 ATHABASCA OIL COP $ 703 ATS AUTOMATION TOOLING SYSTEMS INC $ 1,769 AURICO METALS INC $ 311 AUTOCANADA INC $ 1,128 AVIGILON CORP $ 1,258 B2GOLD CORP $ 29,898 BADGER DAYLIGHTING LTD $ 1,525 BANK OF MONTREAL $ 725,449 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA $ 2,019,757 BARRICK GOLD CORP $ 459,749 BAYTEX ENERGY CORP $ 1,213 BCE INC $ 791,441 BELLATRIX EXPLORATION LTD $ 94 BIRCHCLIFF ENERGY LTD $ 1,479 BIRD CONSTRUCTION INC $ 731 1 Mount Allison University Endowment Fund Holdings As of December 31, 2017 Security Name Market Value ($Can) BLACK DIAMOND GROUP LTD $ 95 BLACKBERRY LIMITED $ 151,777 BLACKPEARL RESOURCES INC $ 672 BOARDWALK REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST $ 1,610 BONAVISTA ENERGY CORP $ 686 BONTERRA ENERGY CORP $ 806 BORALEX INC $ 2,276 BROOKFIELD ASSET MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED $ 672,870 BROOKFIELD INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS L.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Biopartnering Executive Summary
    BIOWORLD® BIOPARTNERING REPORT 2009: STRATEGIES AND PARADIGMS OF THE DEAL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY By Michael Harris, BioWorld Executive Editor and Amanda Lyle, BioWorld Managing Editor LIST OF CONTENTS Introduction and Analysis Trends Depressing First Half of 2008 in Worldwide Public Markets Drug/Device Combos Could Salvage Dropped Compounds A Match Made in Heaven; R&D Productivity Via Partnering Drug and Medical Device Deals: A Different Type of Partnership As Big Pharma Model Falters, Biotech Rides to the Rescue Deals to M&As: The Culture of False-Flagging, Shape-Shifting Notable Deals Autoimmune and Inflammation Deals Immunomedics Inks Potential $620M Deal with Nycomed ARYx Seeking New Partner for GI Program after P&G Bails Out UCB Licenses Keppra, Cimzia Rights in Japan Alizyme, Norgine Team Up in $67M Marketing Deal Bionomics Signs Merck Serono in MS, Autoimmune Partnership TransPharma Gets $35M in Osteo Deal with Lilly QLT Sells Acne Gel Product Aczone for $150M to Allergan Start-up TFT Adds NF-Kappa B Decoy Program from Anesiva Early Stage Antibody Nets EUSA $44M from GSK Scil, Pfizer Enter $250M Deal for Preclinical Osteo Drug Catalyst Partners with Centocor for Engineered Protease Drugs Galapagos Inks $395M Deal with Lilly for Osteo Drugs Alba Inks Ex-U.S./Japan Deal with Shire for Celiac Drug Excaliard Snags $15.5M and Isis Fibrosis Drugs Galapagos and Janssen in RA Partnership Axcan, Cellerix Deal for Adult Stem Cell Therapy Radius Grants Novartis Option to BA058 in Potential $500M Deal Microbia, Forest Collaborate: Up to $330M for
    [Show full text]
  • ESSAYS on the DRUG DISCOVERY INNOVATION SYSTEM By
    ESSAYS ON THE DRUG DISCOVERY INNOVATION SYSTEM by Alfred Sarkissian A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of George Mason University in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Policy Committee: _______________________________________ David M. Hart, Chair _______________________________________ Siona Listokin _______________________________________ Naoru Koizumi Ruben Jacobo-Rubio, External Reader _______________________________________ Sita N. Slavov, Program Director _______________________________________ Mark J. Rozell, Dean Date: __________________________________ Fall Semester 2017 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Essays on the Drug Discovery Innovation System A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at George Mason University by Alfred Sarkissian Master of Arts Allameh Tabatabai University, 2002 Bachelor of Arts Azad University, 1997 Director: David M. Hart, Professor Department of Public Policy; Schar School of Policy and Government Fall Semester 2017 George Mason University Fairfax, VA Copyright 2017 Alfred Sarkissian All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I need to express my deepest gratitude to my committee chair Prof. David M. Hart for his advice, mentorship, and patience in the course of this dissertation and the program. I also owe a sincere appreciation to other committee members Prof. Naoru Koizumi and Prof. Siona Listokin. Prof. Mark Addleson was forthcoming with his time during the field stage
    [Show full text]