PINCUS: State needs better life sciences startup ecosystem

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s life sciences sector is mostly composed of legacy companies. To help grow the sector and ensure its continued viability, the state has undertaken initiatives to create a life sciences entrepreneurial ecosystem. There have been some notable life sciences startup successes, but an ecosystem is not really developing.

An underlying assumption in Indiana and other states that want to create life sciences ecosystems is, venture capital and one or more incubators helps unleash university startups.

AnnaLee Saxenican, dean of the School of Information at the University of California-Berkeley and an expert in the Silicon Valley ecosystem, calls this approach a high-tech recipe and believes it is flawed. In “Boulevard of Broken Dreams,” Josh Lerner, professor of investment banking at Harvard Business School, asserts that public efforts to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital have failed.

Successful life sciences and technology ecosystems were not planned or catalyzed by economic development programs. Most grew slowly and took at least two decades to reach their full potential. Multiple factors were responsible for their success.

A common characteristic of regions that grew successful technology ecosystems is research-intensive universities and/or research institutes that selectively hire opportunistic faculty who run large labs (some with as many as 40 members) that work on multiple projects. These faculty take the initiative to forge close ties with their corporate counterparts and entrepreneurs. Research-intensive universities supply a critical mass of technologies to seed and grow an ecosystem.

Dense networks of researchers, entrepreneurs, service providers and investors form over time to help foster connections and diffuse information. Service providers in entrepreneurial ecosystems facilitate startup formation by sharing risks with entrepreneurs. Service providers also help make important business connections.

Entrepreneurial service providers in startup ecosystems facilitate startup formation. They help lower the barriers to company formation by providing discounted services and/or waiving fees until the client raises capital. We have not seen similar behavior in Indiana.

Angel and venture capital flows into regions with sufficient opportunities. It does not precede them.

As a startup community grows, entrepreneurs and executives that have had successful exits form venture firms or become angel investors. They provide added value to their portfolio companies because of their experience, lessons learned and connections.

Indiana’s universities have some faculty that run large research programs. Some have produced commercially significant technologies and notable startups. But we do not have the critical mass of researchers needed to grow and sustain an entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Verge, a 1,700-member Indianapolis network, has formed in the software space. Attempts to organize a similar life sciences network have been less successful.

We have had several successful exits in Indiana. Marcadia Biotech was acquired by Roche, Endocyte had a successful initial public offering, and Suros Surgical was sold to Hologic. However, we have not seen much reinvestment of the returns in startups founded by other entrepreneurs or mentoring of fledgling companies.

Two other points are worth mentioning. Government and not-for-profit organizations often try to catalyze entrepreneurial communities.

In “Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City,” Brad Feld, managing director of the Foundry Group, notes that startup communities must be led by entrepreneurs—service providers, investors and government are participants, not leaders. Startup communities co-opted by government might be short-term activity, but the community will fail over the long term.

Leaders in entrepreneurial ecosystems recognize that startups are not small versions of larger companies. They are temporary organizations to find a path to product development or a product/market fit. Then they transition to an operating company. Adding management before that point accelerates their burn rate without an effective return.

Rather than following a flawed high-tech recipe, Indiana should build research capacity at the universities with faculty who think big and push the envelope. The state’s leadership then should step away.

Building research capacity will not be an easy task, and will require significant effort and resources. Indianapolis has committed major resources and effort to build Circle Centre and win a Super Bowl. Why not commit the same for life sciences?•


Pincus is president of BioStrat Consulting LLC, which provides strategic advice to life sciences companies. Views expressed here are the writer’s.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing