Swedish biotechnology - scientific publications, patenting

Transcription

Swedish Biotechnology
– scientific publications, patenting and
industrial development
Anna Sandström, IVA
&
Lennart Norgren, VINNOVA
VINNOVA Analysis VA 2003:2
TITLE/TITEL:
AUTHOR/FÖRFATTARE:
SERIES/SERIE:
ISBN:
ISSN:
PUBLISHED/PUBLICERAD:
PUBLISHER/UTGIVARE:
RECORD NO/DIARIENR:
Swedish Biotechnology – scientific publications,
patenting and industrial development
Anna Sandström, IVA &
Lennart Norgren, VINNOVA
VINNOVA Analysis VA 2003:2
91-89588-92-4
1651-355X
April 2003
VINNOVA – Swedish Agency for Innovation Systems/
Verket för innovationssystem
2002-02362
Swedish Biotechnology
scientific publications, patenting and
industrial development
av
Anna Sandström, IVA & Lennart Norgren, VINNOVA
Preface
Innovation plays a pivotal role in creating economic growth and a competitive economy. Public measures that are intended to stimulate innovativeness
and growth should take into account the specific conditions that apply to
different innovation systems. Analysis of different innovation systems
makes it possible to understand what conditions underlie, enhance, or
impede innovation and growth and how these conditions differ from system
to system. This leads to a stronger foundation for policy measures by which
the present innovation systems may be stimulated to bring about better
competitiveness and increased growth.
The present study updates parts of a previous report on the Swedish biotechnology innovation system1. The aim of the previous report was to
identify forces that enhance or impede innovation and growth in order to
facilitate the identification of public measures that would promote growth in
the Swedish biotechnology innovation system. The present report presents
an update on the development of Swedish scientific publication patterns,
Swedish patenting in the US patent system, number of employees, turnover,
equity/assets ratio and net profits/losses of Swedish biotech companies as
well as an analysis of the geographic distribution of the biotech industry.
This report has been jointly produced by VINNOVA (The Swedish Agency
for Innovation Systems) and IVA (The Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences). Anna Sandström IVA and Lennart Norgren VINNOVA
authored the report. Jonny Ullström VINNOVA compiled the statistical data
for the biotech industry.
Per Eriksson
Director General
VINNOVA
1
Lena Torell
President
IVA
Sandström et al, The Swedish biotechnology innovation system, VINNOVA, VF 2001:2
Content
Summary .................................................................................................. 5
1
Introduction....................................................................................... 9
2
Methodology ................................................................................... 10
2.1 Swedish papers in Science Citation Index ............................................ 10
2.2 Swedish patents in the US patent system.............................................. 14
2.3 Interviews, conferences and seminars................................................... 16
2.4 Biotechnology companies ..................................................................... 16
3
Swedish research in life science fields ........................................ 18
3.1 Sweden as a producer of life science articles........................................ 19
3.2 The impact of the articles...................................................................... 20
3.3 The Swedish science system ................................................................. 25
3.3.1
Public research organisations ..................................................... 25
3.3.2
Firms and industrial research institutes ...................................... 27
3.3.3
Collaboration between research organisations ........................... 29
3.4 Summary and concluding remarks........................................................ 31
4
Patenting in biotechnology, medical and pharmaceutical
fields ................................................................................................ 35
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 35
4.2 Swedish patenting in the US patent system in international
comparison ........................................................................................ 37
4.3 Patent ownership ................................................................................... 39
4.4 Export of Swedish patents..................................................................... 42
5
The Swedish biotech industry ....................................................... 46
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 46
5.2 International comparison....................................................................... 48
5.3 Description of the industry and its sectors ............................................ 50
5.3.1
Agrobiotechnology ..................................................................... 50
5.3.2
Bioproduction ............................................................................. 51
5.3.3
Biotech tools & supplies............................................................. 52
5.3.4
Environmental biotechnology..................................................... 53
5.3.5
Functional food & feed............................................................... 54
5.3.6
Pharmaceuticals & medicine ...................................................... 55
5.4 Development of the Industry................................................................. 60
5.4.1
Industrial structure ...................................................................... 61
5.4.2
Turnover and equity/assets ratio................................................. 65
5.4.3
Industrial dynamic ...................................................................... 68
5.5 Regional dynamic ................................................................................. 73
5.6 Seed financing and venture capital ....................................................... 75
5.6.1
Early stage financing .................................................................. 76
5.6.2
Venture capital............................................................................ 78
Appendix ................................................................................................ 85
A
Small and medium-sized biotech companies (<500
employees) in 2001......................................................................... 85
B
Scientific publications.................................................................. 109
C
Patenting ....................................................................................... 119
D
Interviews, conferences and seminars ....................................... 145
Summary
The aim of the present study is to analyse the development of the Swedish
science base in fields relevant to the biotech industry, the innovation
pipeline in the form of patents as well as the development of the biotech
industry.
A strong science base is a prerequisite for innovation and growth in
research-intensive technology-based enterprises such as biotechnology
companies. The present study suggests that Sweden has a strong, but weakening, position with regard to the science base in fields relevant to the biotech industry. The result for the total science base is an increasing share of
the world’s total publication volume but decreasing citation levels. The most
important measure of performance is perhaps not the publication volume in
relation to population, but rather the relative citation levels, which can be
regarded as a measure of quality. It seems clear that Sweden is losing
ground to other countries if the quality of science is measured in terms of
citation levels. It is worrying that many countries, both within Europe and
elsewhere, have overtaken Sweden in the statistics for the two largest fields
Neuroscience & Behaviour and Biochemistry & Biophysics.
A few facts concerning scientific publications:
•
Sweden has a first, second or third position in the world concerning
publication volumes in relation to population in the seven life science
fields studied.
•
Five out of seven fields show increasing volume shares of the world’s
total publication volume 1987-2001.
•
Three fields showed increasing citation levels and three fields showed
decreasing citation levels 1981-1997.
•
In four fields, the analysis indicates that Sweden, in terms of scientific
quality, is being passed by a number of countries.
In the fields of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, Sweden has increased
its share of the world’s patenting volume in recent years. It is also evident
from the patenting data that international collaboration is very important for
innovation processes in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.
A few facts concerning the Swedish shares of patents granted in the US
patent system:
5
•
The Swedish share in Pharmaceuticals is 1.3 per cent, corresponding to a
40 per cent increase comparing 1999-2001 with 1987-1989.
•
The Swedish share in Biotechnology is 0.8 per cent, corresponding to a
17 per cent increase comparing 1999-2001 with 1987-1989.
For many years now, scientists, industrialists, investors and policy makers in
the Western world have emphasised the considerable industrial potential of
biotechnology. In the Swedish context, these expectations have, to some
extent been fulfilled. In the present study of small and medium-sized biotech companies (<500 employees) the number of companies as well as the
number of employees has shown an impressive increase over the five-year
period 1997-2001. However, the biotech industry is still a small contributor
to the Swedish economy and most of the companies are small, with less than
10 employees.
Some facts concerning the industry:
•
The number of companies increased by 35 per cent between 1997 and
2001 to 183.
•
The number of employees increased by 48 per cent between 1997 and
2001 to about 4000.
•
The turnover (fixed prices) increased by more than 30 per cent between
1997 and 2000 and amounted to about 4400 MSEK in 2000.
•
The equity/assets ratio increased but so did aggregated net losses for
95 companies present during the entire study period.
The increasing equity/assets ratio and net losses in companies present
during the entire five-year period indicate that their growth to a large extent
has been financed by venture capital. Hence, a substantial number of these
companies are still dependent on infusion of venture capital. Also, many of
the new companies that were established during the period probably still
require infusion of venture capital. In addition new companies that will be
formed will require venture capital for their project and product development. This indicates that the demand for venture capital will continue to be
high. Considerable sums of venture capital are available in various VC
funds and both new and follow-up investments are being made. However,
biotech entrepreneurs are reporting that it is more difficult today to find
financiers and the process takes longer than in the past. The question is
whether enough venture capital will be available to support the development
of all of the most promising projects and companies.
In the short-term perspective, taking into account a high demand for venture
capital, a lack of public seed financing and the current situation on the stock
6
market, the growth of the biotech industry may slow down. However, in the
long-term perspective, the growth potential is promising. The existing
global market for products and services provided by the biotech industry is
expected to show a significant growth. The European Commission estimates
that by 2005 the European biotechnology market could be worth over € 100
billion. By 2010, global markets including sectors where life sciences and
biotechnology constitute a major portion could amount to over € 2,000 billion (excluding agriculture).
Also, the biotech industry is potentially of great strategic importance to
Sweden. The knowledge that is produced in life science internationally and
the fast technical development in electronics, IT, etc., are generating
possibilities for growth in the area of industrial life science applications.
Despite this, most of the growth may perhaps not be found in the biotech
industry itself but in the industries of its clients, collaborative partners,
subcontractors and owners of production facilities.
In this study the biotech industry has been divided into six industrial sectors.
In a regional perspective a large part of the Swedish biotech industry is
located in the four cities of Stockholm, Uppsala, Gothenburg and
Malmö/Lund, which all have large universities. Also, concentration of the
industry to these cities increased between 1997 and 2001. Activities in pharmaceuticals & medicine and bioproduction are mainly found in Stockholm
and Malmö/Lund, biotech tools & supplies in Uppsala, environmental biotechnology in Malmö/Lund and functional food & feed in Stockholm. Agrobiotechnology activities are located outside the four cities mainly in the
Skåne region surrounding Malmö/Lund.
The development of the biotech industry differs between industrial sectors.
The sectors of pharmaceuticals & medicine (where more than fifty percent
of the companies and employees in the biotech industry are found), biotech
tools & supplies and bioproduction have grown faster than the sectors of
agrobiotechnology, environmental biotechnology and functional food &
feed. However, surviving companies, i.e. companies existing during the
entire period studied, in the first three sectors show increasing net losses and
equity/assets ratios especially over the last years. This indicates that in many
cases the growth in terms of employees and turnover have been financed by
infusion of capital. The sectors of agrobiotechnology, environmental biotechnology and functional food & feed show less impressive development.
The number of companies and employees have not changed that much and
turnover has not increased. However, surviving companies in these sectors
reported net profits each year.
In the long-term perspective the economic growth potential is promising.
For instance, the sector of pharmaceutical & medicine has growth potential
7
since big pharmaceutical companies are increasingly using intermediary
biotech companies to provide them with product ideas and to play an
important role in their innovation processes. A growth of this sector will
also generate growth in the bioproduction sector, where companies produce
the drugs or research materials needed. Also, the market for companies in
the sector of biotech tools & supplies is growing significantly, since investment in life science research, both in industry and in academia, is increasing
worldwide. There will probably also be an increase in demand for products
in the functional food area, partly because of an ageing population and
partly because there is an increasing awareness in society regarding the
relationship between food and health.
8
1
Introduction
Innovation plays a pivotal role in creating economic growth and a competitive economy. Analysis of different innovation systems makes it possible to
understand what conditions underlie, enhance, or impede innovation and
growth and how these conditions differ from system to system. The aim of
the present study is to analyse the development of the Swedish science base
in fields relevant to the biotech industry, the innovation pipeline in the form
of patents as well as the development of the biotech industry.
The present study is focusing on the core of the Swedish biotechnology
innovation system. The most important players are research groups at the
universities and the biotech industry. The data used for the analyses is statistics concerning Swedish scientific publication patterns, patenting in the
US patent system and information concerning the development of the
Swedish biotech industry. The statistical findings have been combined with
interviews with experts representing different parts of the innovation
system. A large number of seminars and conferences dealing with issues
relevant to the biotechnology innovation system have also been attended
and results from these meetings have been incorporated in the present study.
The information that experts provide improves the ability to draw conclusions regarding reasons for the identified development.
The study can be seen as updating the previous report “The Swedish biotechnology innovation system” 2. By the biotechnology innovation system
we mean:
The players that directly or indirectly develop, produce, analyse, or use
biological systems on a micro-, cellular, or molecular level and the public
and private institutions that affect their behaviour.
This is in line with the definition of biotechnology used by OECD: "The
application of science and technology to living organisms as well as parts,
products and models thereof, to alter living or non-living materials for the
production of knowledge, goods and services".
2
9
2
Methodology
In this section we describe the reasoning behind our choice of data and also
the benefits and drawbacks of using these data. We have chosen to concentrate on three basic features of the innovation system:
•
The Swedish science base in relevant scientific fields and its performance in international comparison.
•
The innovation pipeline as measured in the number of new patents
granted in the US-patent system.
•
The development of the biotech industry.
2.1
Swedish papers in Science Citation Index
In order to determine knowledge flows and knowledge production in biotechnology-related fields studies have been performed of scientific publication patterns. Since biotechnology is a research-intensive field, it has been
considered relevant to use scientific publications in biotechnology-related
subject fields for the analysis. It has, however, been necessary to take into
account that much knowledge production results from research and development within business enterprises, which is for obvious reasons never published. The aim of these enterprises is to develop new products, processes or
services, and therefore the innovation process is not made public until a
product is placed on the market or a patent application has been filed.
However, when it comes to collaboration between public research organisations and industry, bibliometry is very useful since there are strong incentives in academia for publishing scientific results. If companies collaborate
with academic groups, it is accordingly more likely that the results get
published. Both academic positions and, to some extent, research grants are
assigned on the basis of the volume and content of the scientists’ production. Comparisons of publication volumes between different subject fields
also needs to be analysed with some caution, since the amount of work
needed for a publication and the difficulty of getting published varies
between different scientific subject fields. These differences also apply
when comparing citation levels between different scientific subject fields.
Concerning comparisons of publication volumes between countries it is also
important to note that for some countries there might be an underestimation
of their publication volumes since they also publish in national non-english
language journals that are not covered by the Science Citation Index. In the
fields studied here this is however not deemed important as it is most
common in the scientific community to publish the important new scientific
results in journals covered by the Science Citation Index.
10
A description of the publication pattern of different organisations gives
important information about what organisations are most prominent in
different scientific subject fields and also information about relations
between those involved. The publication pattern of business enterprises is
interesting since it indicates if they develop innovations in collaboration
with public research organisations, and many public efforts are directed
towards increasing the knowledge exchange between the two types of
organisation. The data gives insight into the dynamics of the collaboration,
and this might indicate the success of the efforts made.
In the present study bibliometry is used to describe the Swedish biotechnology innovation system at three levels:
•
The publication volume of the science base, including the public
research organisations and their internal collaboration;
•
Business enterprises and their collaboration with public research
organisations;
•
National performance in international comparison;
The first level is the largest category in terms of publication volume and
includes public research organisations and the inter-relationships between
such organisations. At the second level firms and industrial research institutes are identified and their collaboration pattern with public research
organisations analysed. The third level includes an analysis of the development of the Swedish science system in international comparison focusing on
the quantity, measured as share of the world’s total publication volume, and
quality, as measured in relative citation levels.
Data collection
For the international comparison of Swedish publication volumes and
relative citation levels in life science fields relevant to biotechnology, the
National Science Indicators on Diskette (NSIOD) from the Institute for
Scientific Information (ISI) was used (1981-2001). The relative citation
level is the number of citations received per paper divided by the number of
citations received per paper for the whole world. We have chosen to use a
citation window of five years meaning that the number of citations up to
five years after the publication year is measured. The journal categories
selected were: Biochemistry & Biophysics; Biotechnol & Appl Microbiol,
Cell & Developmental Biology; Immunology; Microbiology; Molecular
Biology & Genetics and Neurosciences & Behavior. The distribution of the
Swedish articles in these journal categories is found in Appendix Table B1b.
11
For the national analysis of the Swedish science system, a bibliometric
dataset was constructed by downloading all papers with the word ”Sweden”
in the address field from the CD-ROM-editions of Science Citation Index
(SCI). SCI includes the most important ten to fifteen per cent of all scientific journals in medicine, natural sciences and engineering, but is sometimes claimed to cover life science somewhat better than engineering. All
the Swedish addresses were standardised according to the main organisation. The dataset covers the period 1986-2001. The CD-ROM for a certain
year does not contain the complete publication volume of that year, since
articles published towards the end of the year appear in the next year’s CDROM edition. Therefore, the analysis of the publication volume in 2001 is
underestimated by about 10% and corresponding lower figures for 2001
may be found in the tables and diagrams. Articles published in 1985 but
found on the 1986 CD-ROM were excluded from the analysis.
For identification of articles relevant to biotechnology, the journal subject
categories as defined by ISI were used3. The life science journal subject
categories listed in the table below were considered to be biotechnologyrelated on the basis of the previously mentioned definition of the biotechnology innovation system that we are using.
ISI’s journal categories in SCI selected as biotechnology-related
Biochemistry & Molecular biology
Biophysics
Biotechnology & Applied microbiology
Cell biology
Medicinal chemistry
Biomedical engineering
Genetics & Heredity
Immunology
Microbiology
Neurosciences
Virology
All in all, we identified 35 700 Swedish papers published in journals
covered by SCI and classified with the selected codes in 1987-2001. In
some tables also the 1649 articles from 1986 were included in the following
analyses. Only journals listed in Journal Performance Indicators on
Diskette (JPIOD,) produced by ISI, were included, which means that the
journals must have received at least 100 citations during 1981-1996. The
journal coverage of SCI can be said to encircle basic research quite well.
3
See Journal performance indicators on diskette (JPIOD).
12
The distribution of the 35 700 articles in the selected journal categories,
from JPIOD, for the journals are shown in Table B1 in Appendix B. The
subject field with the largest publication volume is Biochemistry &
Molecular biology with more than 43% of the publications, and then follow
Immunology and Neurosciences with 16% and 15%, respectively. Many of
the journal categories show a distinct increase in number of publications,
especially Biochemistry & Molecular biology during the studied period.
None of the selected journal categories show a clear decrease in publication
volume. Of the identified journals in which Swedish authors publish, the
ten journals with more than 500 Sweden-related articles, 1987-2001,
represent 20% of the total Swedish publication volume in biotechnologyrelated science (Table B2). What journals are included in the categories
varies since new journals appear, other disappears and some changes their
names. This means that it is more relevant to make comparisons of the
development of the publication patterns for different organisations/countries/regions etc. in different fields since these variables experiences the
same changes in the selections of journals to be included in the different
journal categories. To study the development for only one of the variables at
a time risks misinterpretation since a change in the development may be due
only to change in the selection of journals.
All Swedish addresses to the authors of the articles were standardised according to the main organisation in order to produce data on the organisational
level. The results for university hospitals and universities are displayed
together, since they are in practice inseparable when it comes to research
activities. In Table B3, the organisations identified are merged into groups
in order to show production distributed by sector. The term “public research
organisation”, which often appears in the pages that follow, includes universities, university colleges, university hospitals and public research institutes
(e.g. the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control, SMI). As expected, the major part of the articles are authored by university researchers, and
as many as 96% of all articles include at least one author from a university
or a university hospital. Authors in firms have on average contributed six
percent of the articles in biotechnology-related life science fields.
The proportions of the total publication volumes that the Swedish organisations with more than 500 articles published in 1987-2001 within the selected
biotechnology-related sciences are presented in Table B4. As is seen, the
first eight organisations are public research organisations, and the two large
pharmaceutical companies Pharmacia4 and Astra5 hold the 9th and 12th
positions.
4
Presently Pharmacia Corporation
13
2.2
Swedish patents in the US patent system
Patents are often used in studies of national innovativeness in different
fields. Since a patent is necessary for an invention to be protected, it is a
good indicator of innovativeness. We have chosen to study the amount of
patenting in the US patent system since the biotechnology, medical technology and pharmaceutical market is global and most of these inventions need
to be protected on the large US market.
The international comparison of Swedish patenting volumes is based on
inventor fractions (i.e. if one inventor of four is Swedish, this counts as 0.25
Swedish patents) of issued patents in the US-patent system6.
The national patent analysis included, all in all, 18 750 patents issued during
1986-2001 and having a Swedish assignee and/or inventor. The patents in
the USPTO server7 were downloaded as screen dumps, i.e. text versions of
the front pages of issued patents were retrieved. These front pages were then
converted into field-delimited records. A selection of IPC classification
codes comprising patents in the following fields was selected: Biotechnology8, Medical Equipment9, Medical Electronics10, and Pharmaceutical
5
Presently AstraZeneca
Data from Computer Horizon Research Inc, TP-2, International Technology Indicators
using their Tech-Line technology areas categorisation.
7
The www-server of the US Patent and Trademark Office
(http://patents.uspto.gov/access/search-adv.html) was used to retrieve Swedish patents.
8
Included in the biotechnology category are six IPC classes. The following areas are
included: Instruments and methods for analysis in enzymology and microbiology,
microorganisms and enzymes and also parts of these and production of such substances,
production processes and separation techniques using fermentation or enzymes, use of gene
technology when producing medical products and gene therapy.
9
Included in the medical equipment category are 14 IPC classes. The category for example
includes: Endoscopes, apparatus for testing and examining the eyes and for examination by
percussion; Pleximeters; dentistry and oral or dental hygiene devices; veterinary instrument, tools or methods; prosthesis; nursing or contraceptive devices, dressings and
bandages; First-aid kits; transportation devices; operating tables; chairs for dentistry;
funeral devices; physical therapy devices; artificial respiration; dialysis systems; containers,
devices or methods for bringing pharmaceutical products into a particular physical or
administering form; devices for administering food; or medicine orally; baby comforters;
disinfection and sterilisation; surgical articles etc.
10
Included in the medical electronics category are six IPC classes. The following areas are
for example included: measuring for diagnostic purposes; apparatus for radiation diagnosis,
Instruments for auscultation; diagnosis using ultrasonic, sonic or infrasonic waves; electro-,
radiation-, ultrasound and magnetotherapy as well as x-ray techniques.
6
14
fields11. In the table below the number of patents obtained in the different
categories are shown. Most patents have more than one IPC classification
code associated with it and therefore one patent may be found in more than
one of these categories leading to a total of 2621 patents in these categories.
Data from the web-site was retrieved in 1998 for data concerning 19861997, in1999 for 1998 and in 2002 for the years 1999-2001 which means
that patents for relevant years that were not active at the corresponding
extraction year will not be found in the analyses. Only issued patents are
analysed.
Number of patents issued in the US-patent system with Swedish
inventor and/or assignee per patent category during 1987-2001
No. patents
Per cent of total Swedish
patenting volume
MEDICAL ELECTRONICS
470
2,5
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
952
5,1
BIOTECHNOLOGY
390
2,1
PHARMACEUTICALS
915
4,9
2621
14,0
12
TOTAL
The two parties that can be identified in the patenting statistics are the
assignee and the inventor. The assignee is usually one or more firms (can
also be a private person) and the inventor is one or more private persons.
There is always at least one inventor for each patent, whereas an assignee is
not always entered in the patent application. When a patent is assigned, the
assignee becomes the owner of the patent and has the same rights as the
original patentee had. Patents may be owned jointly by two or more persons,
as in the case of a patent granted to joint inventors or in the case of assignment of a partial interest in a patent. Joint owners of a patent may make,
use, sell, and import the invention for their own profit, provided they do not
infringe on someone else’s patent rights. They may do all this without regard to the other owners. Owners may sell their interest or any part of it, or
grant licenses to others, without regard to the other joint owners, unless all
the joint owners have made a contract governing their relation to each other.
The patenting statistics are analysed further concerning inventors, assignees,
11
Included in the pharmaceutical category are 43 IPC classes. The following areas are
included: All pharmaceutical preparations except when using gene technology. Gene
therapy is also excluded. Dental preparations and medicinal preparations characterised by
special physical form, containing organic or inorganic active ingredients, obtained by
treating materials with wave energy or particle radiation, peptides, antigens and antibodies,
radioactive substances, inert additives, and carriers.
12
Most patents have more than one IPC classification code associated with it and therefore
one patent may be found in more than one of these categories leading to a total of 2621
patents in these categories.
15
regional and national distribution, collaboration pattern etc in Chapter 4 and
tables displaying the patenting statistics from the USPTO database are also
found in Appendix C. For the analysis a free software programme was
used13.
2.3
Interviews, conferences and seminars
To facilitate a more in depth analysis of the development of the innovation
system the results from the statistics have been combined with interviews
with experts representing different parts of the innovation system. A large
number of seminars and conferences dealing with issues relevant to the
biotechnology innovation system have also been attended and results from
these meetings have been incorporated in the present study. The information
that experts provide improves the ability to draw conclusions regarding
reasons for the identified development.
2.4
Biotechnology companies
Identification and categorisation
Biotechnology is a field undergoing continuous and rapid development. The
technology is very close to the science base and many of the new small,
dedicated biotechnology companies are university spin-offs. Many other
Swedish biotechnology companies share the origin of being spin-offs from
either of the two large pharmaceutical companies Astra and Pharmacia. The
speed at which new enterprises appear, are bought, merge, change names,
etc. makes it difficult to identify new enterprises and complicated to follow
the development of ”old” ones.
The database constructed in the previous study on the Swedish biotechnology innovation system14 was updated. Very different sources were used to
identify companies 15. The categorisation was made on the basis of descriptions of their fields of activity found on the Internet, literature (newspapers
etc.), and personal contacts with experts or the companies themselves. The
companies were divided into the following categories: pharmaceuticals &
medicine (drug development, diagnostics etc); agrobiotechnology (genetically modified plants, biological plant protection); environmental biotechnology (soil, waste, and water treatment); biotech tools & supplies
(processes, equipment and instruments for biotechnological use); functional
food and feed (mainly probiotics) and bioproduction (biomolecular or
micro-organism production).
13
Bibexcel, developed by Professor Olle Persson, www/umu.se/inforsk
15
SIK, The Swedish institute for Food and Biotechnology; Swedepark (the umbrella
organisation for Swedish science and technology parks) and also personal contacts and the
Internet.
14
16
The list includes a number of companies that have not had employees any of
the years studied. We have excluded these companies from the analysis
since the analysis is focused on the impact the industry has on the employment and national economy. However some companies had employees one
or more but not all of the years studied. These are included in the studied
population of companies.
Economic data (turnover, number of employees, etc.)
To obtain economic and employment data on the companies a database from
the Swedish company Swedish Market Management Partner AB (MMP)
was used. The data is based on the annual records that companies every year
are obliged to submit to the Swedish Patent and Registration Office. Using
the MMP data VINNOVA has created a database of its own that cover the
period 1986-2001. The information of each company in the database includes profit and loss account, balance sheet, key ratios, number of employees, industrial sector and location. These data has in this study been used to
analyse the economic and regional growth and the industrial dynamic of the
Swedish biotech industry. However the period studied is limited to 19972001. The reason for the limitation is that the quality of data in the database
before 1997 can be questioned.
Around 30 per cent of the studied companies have a split financial year.16 At
the time of extracting information from the MMP-database around 40 companies with split financial year had not submitted their 2001 annual accounts
to the PRV. Thus, they were not included in the database. Information on
their number of employees was gathered by telephone. However economic
data is lacking for these companies in 2001. Hence, the analysis of economic growth is limited to the period 1997 – 2000. In the analysis of companies that existed the entire period 1997-2001 and that had submitted
annual accounts the analysis of economic growth concerns 1997-2001.
In the MMP-database information is lacking on new companies and companies closed down. In the analysis of industrial dynamic we have tried to
identify new and disappearing companies. The method used for identifying
these companies meant following each company year by year. If a company
existed in the database in the year t but not the year t-1 it was classified as a
new company. On the other hand, if a company that existed the year t but
not the year t+1 it was classified as disappeared.
16
Most of the companies studied had the calendar year as accounting year, i.e. the
accounting year started 1/1 and ended in 31/12. Companies with split financial year on the
other hand starts its accounting year later in the calendar year and thus ends it twelve moths
later in the next calendar year. A few companies changed their accounting year during the
period studied. This meant that their accounting year when changing was longer or shorter
than 12 months.
17
3
Swedish research in life science
fields
A strong science base is a prerequisite for innovations in the research and
knowledge intensive biotech industry. It can both attract prominent scientists to public research organisations and lead to collaboration with, and
establishment of, research-intensive high-tech companies. Collaboration
with, for instance, the pharmaceutical industry means external financing of
research, access to advanced equipment and increased academic awareness
of industrial problems. A broad exchange of knowledge between scientists
in different countries is also an important ingredient of the innovation
system. The transfer of knowledge between countries in the long run
promotes Swedish science as well as Swedish industry.
In a previous analysis of the Swedish national innovation system aggregated
bibliometric data was used17. Sweden was found to be one of the largest
producers of scientific knowledge in the world measured in terms of scientific publications per capita. Only Switzerland produced more scientific
knowledge per capita than Sweden both in 1986-1990 and in 1991-1995.
The Swedish relative share of the world’s total publication volume increased from 1,54 percent in 1981 to 2,01 per cent in 199818. Universities
and colleges completely dominate the Swedish scientific output, expressed
in terms of scientific publications. The rest of the publications are evenly
distributed on firms, non-academic hospitals, and other sectors.
If citations of scientific publications are used as an indicator of the quality
of scientific production, the quality of Swedish science used to be very high
by international comparison. Only Switzerland, the USA, and the Netherlands showed more citations per paper than Sweden. The citation levels for
Swedish articles seems to be declining whereas e.g. articles from Denmark,
the Netherlands and especially articles from Finland show an impressing
increase in citation levels according to the article by Olle Persson from year
2002. Also, it was shown that despite the increase in volume shares of the
world’s total publication volume the Swedish share of the most cited articles
is not increasing to the same extent.
17
Source: The Swedish National Innovation System, B 1998:9, NUTEK.
Source: Olle Persson, Det nya forskningslandskapet, Ulf Sandström Red. Bokförlaget
nya Doxa 2002.
18
18
3.1
Sweden as a producer of life science articles
In the diagram below the Swedish percentage of the world’s total
publication volume within a selection of life science fields during five
periods 1987 – 2001 is shown. There is a global trend of increasing world
publication volumes in all the studied journal categories and the Swedish
publication volumes follow this trend. There is a clear trend towards an
increasing Swedish share of the world’s total publication volume in Biochemistry & Biophysics and Biotechnology & Applied microbiology
whereas the share was decreasing in Immunology although from a high
level. The data show that the Swedish shares of the world’s total publication
volume in this selection of subject fields are increasing in five out of seven
fields.
The Swedish percentage of the world’s total publication volume within
a selection of life science fields during five periods
Per cent
In the table below the ranking of Swedish publication volumes in relation to
population are shown. The Swedish publication volumes had a top ranking
in Neuroscience & Behavior in relation to population. In the other categories except Microbiology Swedish publication volumes were second in the
world in relation to population. In Microbiology it was in third place.
19
Ranking of Swedish publication volumes
in relation to population, 1986-2001
Biochemistry & Biophysics
Biotechnol & Appl Microbiology
Cell & Developmental Biology
Immunology
Microbiology
Molecular Biology & Genetics
Neurosciences & Behavior
3.2
19861989
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
19901993
2
4
3
2
2
2
1
19941997
2
3
2
2
4
3
1
19982001
2
1
2
2
3
2
1
Total
86-01
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
The impact of the articles
An indication of the quality of published articles is to what extent later
articles are citing them. If other scientists often refer to an article, it is a sign
of large impact and the paper is in this particular sense of high quality. In
the diagram below the relative citation levels of Swedish publications 19871997 are shown. A citation level of one means that the Swedish papers were
cited as often as the world average in that field and a higher number indicates a larger impact. The citation levels can only be presented up to the
year 1997 since a five-year citation window was used.
Biotechnology & Applied microbiology was the life science field studied
that had the highest citation level for Swedish articles during all time
periods, even though this citation level has varied quite a bit. The publication volume in this field is however in total quite small (see Appendix
Table B1b). The lowest citation levels were found for Cell & Developmental biology and Immunology, where the Swedish articles were cited less
than the world average.
20
Relative citation levels for Swedish articles within a selection of life
science fields 1987-1997 (Index world=1)
87-91
2
88-92
Relative
citation level
89-93
90-94
91-95
1
92-96
93-97
94-98
95-99
96-00
io
av
&
&
nc
es
og
y
ie
ol
N
eu
ro
sc
Bi
ar
ul
ec
M
ol
97-01
Be
h
G
en
e
bi
ro
ic
M
D
ev
r
s
tic
ol
og
y
y
ol
og
l
m
un
el
op
Im
ta
lB
io
m
en
lM
Ap
p
C
el
l&
no
ch
Bi
ot
e
Bi
oc
he
m
is
l&
try
&
Bi
op
h
ys
ic
ro
b
ic
io
l
s
0
Other studies have shown that the citation levels for Swedish publications in
general are declining when compared with other countries19. Comparing the
citation levels in 1987 with the levels in 1997 for the subject fields studied
gives the result that four out of seven subject fields show a positive development.
Change in relative citation levels for Swedish articles within a
selection of life science fields comparing 1987-1991 with 1997-2001
Subject field
Biotechnol & Appl Microbiol
Cell & Developmental Biol
Immunology
Microbiology
Change
-0,04
0,10
-0,07
0,10
0,21
0,27
-0,14
A recapitulation of the previous section on publication volumes shows that
the publication volume shares in Biochemistry & Biophysics showed a
continuous increase during the studied time period at the same time as the
citation levels were larger 1987-1989 than 1990-1997. The citation level of
Neuroscience & Behavior declined, although the volume share remained at
a relatively constant high level with a first ranking in relation to population.
19
Source: Olle Persson, Det nya forskningslandskapet, Ulf Sandström Red. Bokförlaget
nya Doxa 2002.
21
The largest share of the world’s publication volume was found in Immunology, whereas Cell & Developmental Biology was the only subject field
with both a relatively small volume share and a low citation level. Both the
fields Microbiology and Molecular Biology & Genetics show a slight increase in volume shares at the same time as the citation levels are increasing
in the nineties compared to the eighties. The changes varied from subject
field to subject field and there was no clear general trend regarding the
quality or quantity of Swedish articles in the studied life science subject
fields during 1987-2001.
Now looking at the development over a longer time period 1981-1997 the
result is somewhat different.
Relative citation levels for Swedish articles within a selection
of life science fields 1981-1997 (Index world=1)
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
Immunology
0.8
Microbiology
0.6
9701
95
-99
9397
91
-95
8993
87
-91
8589
83
-87
8185
0.4
Since the beginning of the eighties the trend in citation levels of Biochemistry & Biophysics, Neurosciences & Behavior, and Cell & Developmental
Biology have clearly been decreasing. For Biotechnol & Appl Microbiol,
Molecular Biology & Genetics and Microbiology the trend however is a
clear increase. In Immunology the there is no clear trend.
A comparison of Swedish citation levels with those of the European Union
and USA is shown in the diagram below. It must be kept in mind that the
publication volumes for EU and USA are enormous compared to the Swedish volumes leading to big changes in citation level from year to year for
Sweden. Since Sweden has a comparably small publication volumes, a few
well cited papers may lead to a large shift in citation level from one year to
the other.
22
Relative citation levels for articles from EU, Sweden and USA within a
selection of life science fields during 1987-1997 (Index world=1)
2
Relative
citation
level
1
Immunology
Microbiology
87-91
88-92
89-93
90-94
91-95
92-96
93-97
94-98
95-99
96-00
97-01
87-91
88-92
89-93
90-94
91-95
92-96
93-97
94-98
95-99
96-00
97-01
87-91
88-92
89-93
90-94
91-95
92-96
93-97
94-98
95-99
96-00
97-01
0
EUROPEAN UNION
SWEDEN
USA
What is seen is that the average European paper in all of these subject fields
is clearly cited less than corresponding publications authored by US scientists. The Swedish citation levels are lower than the European average in
Cell & Developmental Biology and Immunology and above in Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology. It is only in Biotechnology & Applied
Microbiology that the Swedish citation levels are comparable to the USlevels.
In terms of the number of articles by Swedish authors the clearly largest of
the above-mentioned fields are Neurosciences & Behavior and Biochemistry & Biophysics (Appendix, Table B1b). What is really worrying is that
Sweden in these two fields is loosing ground to other countries as is shown
in the two figures below. In Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology and
Molecular Biology & Genetics the Swedish position compared to the
countries in the figures below is about the same. In Immunology, Sweden
has been passed by Finland and Israel and in Cell & Developmental Biology
Sweden has been passed by seven of the countries since 1981 and had the
lowest relative citation level of the included countries for articles published
in 1997. The only exception is Microbiology were Sweden is gaining
ground in terms of relative citation levels compared to the other countries.
23
Relative citation levels for articles from a number of countries within
the field Neurosciences & Behavior during 1981-1997 (Index world=1)
1.4
CANADA
DENMARK
1.2
EUROPEAN UNION
FINLAND
1.0
FRANCE
GERMANY
0.8
ISRAEL
NETHERLANDS
0.6
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND
1
USA
97
-0
-9
9
95
-9
7
93
-9
5
91
-9
3
89
-9
1
87
-8
9
85
-8
7
UK
83
81
-8
5
0.4
Sweden came first in Neurosciences & Behavior in the beginning of the
period. From the figure it is clear that countries like Germany, Canada,
United Kingdom, Switzerland and USA have passed Sweden when citation
levels are concerned. A similar result is found for Biochemistry & Biophysics (see below).
Relative citation levels for articles from a number of countries within
the field Biochemistry & Biophysics during 1981-1997 (Index world=1)
1.6
CANADA
DENMARK
1.4
EUROPEAN UNION
FINLAND
1.2
FRANCE
GERMANY
1.0
ISRAEL
NETHERLANDS
0.8
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND
81
-8
5
83
-8
7
85
-8
9
87
-9
1
89
-9
3
91
-9
5
93
-9
7
95
-9
9
97
-0
1
0.6
UK
USA
The situation in Biochemistry & Biophysics is that Germany, Netherlands,
Israel, Canada, and United Kingdom all have passed Sweden and that
Switzerland and USA had higher relative citation levels to start with.
24
3.3
The Swedish science system
The use of bibliometry provides us with a dynamic picture of how the
publishing of articles by Swedish researchers in biotechnology-related fields
has developed. As mentioned in Chapter 2, we found a total number of
35 700 articles in the selected journal categories 1987-2001 and in some
tables also the 1649 articles published in 1986 are included. In the following
sections, more thorough studies on the sources of the articles and links
between organisations through co-authorship are presented.
The dataset covering biotechnology-related subject fields (see Chapter 2)
analysed in the present study shows the expected result that university
researchers authored the major part of the articles, 96% included at least one
author from a university or a university hospital. Firm authors contributed to
6% of the Swedish publications (Table B3).
3.3.1
Public research organisations
A description of the publication pattern of public research organisations
gives important information about their science base and what organisations
have the highest prominence in different scientific subject fields. A strong
science base is often pointed out as being a prerequisite for innovation
processes in research-intensive technologies. The publication pattern also
elucidates the extent of collaboration and interdependence between the
organisations identified. This forms a basis for the study of which firms and
industrial research institutes the organisations collaborate with.
The articles published in 1987-2001 by the companies studied were to a
large extent co-authored with researchers at Swedish universities, as will be
shown further on in this chapter. A few prolific organisations in Sweden
accounted for the major part of all articles published in biotechnologyrelated science (Table B4, Appendix B). Karolinska Institutet alone participated in 35 per cent of all articles in biotechnology-related science (12 396
out of 35 700 articles). The universities of Lund, Uppsala and Gothenburg
each contributed to 11-19 per cent of the articles. Karolinska Institutet is the
only organisation focusing entirely on medicine, whereas the other universities are active in other sciences as well. The 9th and 12th most productive
organisations were the two large pharmaceutical companies Astra and
Pharmacia20.
In the figure below, the development of the volume shares of the Swedish
total publication volumes for the nine most productive public research
organisation in biotechnology-related science is shown. As is seen,
20
At present known as AstraZeneca and Pharmacia Corporation.
25
Karolinska Institutet, which was already dominating many of the subject
fields studied, is increasing its share of the total Swedish publication
volume. With the exception of a slight negative development for Stockholm
University, the others do not show such clear trends.
Shares of articles in biotechnology-related sciences distributed by
period of publishing and the organisational affiliation of the Swedish
authors from the nine most productive Swedish public research
organisations, 1987-2001 *
40
KAROLINSKA
INST
LUND UNIV
35
Per cent
30
UPPSALA
UNIV
GOTHENBURG
UNIV
UMEA UNIV
25
20
STOCKHOLM
UNIV
SLU
15
10
LINKOPING
UNIV
SMI
5
0
19871989
19901992
19931995
19961998
19992001
Year
* SMI - The Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control; SLU - The Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences
Analysis of how the articles of an organisation were distributed on the
selected journal categories illustrates its scientific profile in biotechnologyrelated science during a particular period. In Table B5, Appendix B, the
research profiles are given of the public research organisations with the
largest publication volumes in the eleven fields included in the national
analysis 1987-2001. Karolinska Institutet contributed to the largest number
of publications in all but the following five journal categories, Biophysics,
Biotechnology & Applied microbiology, Medicinal chemistry, Biomedical
engineering, and Microbiology. Gothenburg University had a strong position in Medicinal chemistry, and Lund University dominated Biotechnology
& Applied Microbiology, Biophysics, Biomedical engineering and Microbiology.
It is also interesting to note the quality of the articles from different universities. In the table below the citation levels for a selection of universities in a
selection of fields are shown.
26
Average number of citations per publication for a selection
of research organisations in different fields 1991-2001* 21
Field /
Organisation
Harvard Karolinska Umeå
Univ
Institutet
Univ
Uppsal Gothenburg
a Univ
Univ
Lund
Univ
Clinical Medicine
21.2
12.4
10.1
11.0
11.2
11.2
Biology &
Biochemistry
32.3
17.2
14.9
15.3
12.8
12.3
Chemistry
22.5
8.6
7.9
10.1
7.8
10.9
Molecular Biology
& Genetics
52.5
23.6
20.6
18.8
0.0
14.2
Plant & Animal
Science
15.0
0.0
11.7
8.4
7.6
8.0
Neuroscience &
Behavior
29.8
18.2
12.4
12.6
12.6
18.9
Immunology
33.1
13.4
17.3
11.7
13.0
11.6
Microbiology
28.7
14.8
13.3
13.9
10.8
20.7
* In bold the highest number of citations for a Swedish organisation is found
Harvard University is outstanding in all of the included fields. Among the
Swedish players the result differ between fields. The relatively small University of Umeå is ranking highest of the Swedish research organisations in
Immunology, Microbiology and Plant & Animal Science. Karolinska Institutet holds the top position in Clinical Medicine, Biology & Biochemistry as
well as Molecular Biology & Genetics whereas Lund University shows the
highest numbers in Chemistry and Neuroscience & Behavior.
3.3.2
Firms and industrial research institutes
Most of the ideas leading to new innovations in biotechnology are sprung
from academic research22,23,24. These ideas, however, are developed and
refined in firms, often in collaboration with university groups, and the end
product may in many cases be very different from the original idea. It is
therefore interesting to analyse the collaboration pattern between firms and
academic groups and also to identify what firms seem to be involved in inhouse basic research without collaborating with university groups. In order
to obtain information about the scientific profile of Swedish firms, it is also
important to see in what scientific subject fields they have published the
21
ISI:s Essential Indicators, Institutional Indicators 1992-2000. Demo version available
during June 2002 Average number of citations 1991-2001 to publications published 19912001 is measured.
22
L. Orsenigo, The Emergence of Biotechnology. Institutions and Markets in Industrial
Innovation., Pinter Publishers, London 1989.
23
A. Backlund, S. Modig, C. Sjöberg, Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals - a literature
study, NUTEK, Working paper 1998.
24
Workshop on Innovation processes in biotechnology, NUTEK, 1999.
27
largest number of articles. This information can be used in analysing the
strengths of Swedish industry in different scientific subject fields.
The 188 firms identified in this statistics on average contributed to six per
cent of the articles in biotechnology-related life science fields during 19872001. The 9th and 12th most productive organisations were the two large
pharmaceutical companies Astra and Pharmacia25 (Table B4, Appendix B).
These two companies authored 64 percent of all articles produced by firms,
38 and 26 per cent respectively. Of all the firms, 75 percent collaborate with
public research organisations and of the firm articles 63 per cent were coauthored with a public research organisation. The volume of the collaboration between firms resulting in scientific publications was small and therefore difficult to draw any conclusions from (110 articles in total, i.e. 5% of
the articles authored by firms).
The industrial research institutes that published articles in biotechnologyrelated science only contributed to 84 articles. Only two of these articles
were co-authored with a firm and 48% was co-authored with a public
research organisation. The reason for the small number of articles published
by industrial research institutes is a reflection of the fact that Sweden in
general has few industrial research institutes and none specialised in biotechnology26. SIK (the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology) is
mainly active in the area of food and the application of biotechnology in the
food sector. It performs very little commissioned research, mainly analytical
testing, but can function as a co-ordinator of external research programmes.
Table B6, Appendix B, illustrates the different research interests of the firms
identified. For instance, Astra dominated Neuroscience, and Pharmacia had
a strong position in Immunology. In Table B7 the firms and industrial research institutes that have authored five or more articles are listed. These
45 firms or industrial research institutes have together contributed to 96 percent of the firm articles.
A study of the organisational affiliation of the authors of an article can identify the collaborations between organisations. These collaborations give us
information about knowledge exchange between different organisations,
how central the organisations are, how the pattern of collaboration has
changed over the years and how dependent organisations may be on one
another.
25
At present known as AstraZeneca and Pharmacia Corporation
The industrial research institutes publishing in biotechnology-related science are YKI =
Swedish Institute for Surface Chemistry, STFI = Swedish Institute for Pulp and Paper
Research (Svenska Träforsknings Institutet), IVL= Swedish Environmental Research
Institute, KI= Swedish Corrosion Institute, Trätek= Swedish Institute for Wood Technology
Research.
26
28
3.3.3
Collaboration between research organisations
All the eleven major public research organisations in the field of biotechnology-related science collaborated with one another in 1987-2001. The collaboration pattern between the organisations with the largest publication
volumes in biotechnology-related science, including Astra and Pharmacia, is
presented in the figure below. The thickness of the lines is proportional to
the number of co-authorships found between two organisations and the sizes
of the circles are proportional to the total publication volume of each
organisation.
Co-authorship pattern between organisations with the largest
publication volumes in biotechnology related science 1997-2001 *
* SMI - The Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control; SLU - The Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences
The collaboration pattern between the public research organisations has not
changed much during 1987-2001. Karolinska Institutet has had the largest
collaboration with the universities of Uppsala and Stockholm and SMI
during the entire period. Lund University on the other hand has the most
intense collaboration with Gothenburg University and Karolinska Institutet.
29
The collaboration between firms, industrial research institutes, and
public research organisations
The question of to what extent public research organisations collaborate
with industrial companies and the dynamics of this collaboration is very
interesting, since many public efforts are directed towards increasing the
knowledge exchange between these two types of organisation. In particular,
the collaboration pattern of AstraZeneca and Pharmacia Corporation
(formerly Astra and Pharmacia) is important since these large companies
dominate the private sector of the biotechnology innovation system in
Sweden.
The number of articles that the public organisations with the largest publication volumes co-authored with firms and industrial research institutes in
1987-2001 is displayed in Table B8, Appendix B. Karolinska Institutet had
the highest number of co-authorships with firms and industrial research
institutes in absolute terms. Relatively speaking, however, all but two of the
other public organisations had more collaboration with firms and industrial
research institutes than Karolinska Institutet. A striking result is that a very
large part of the collaboration with firms for the universities of Uppsala,
Gothenburg, Linköping, and especially Umeå, as manifested in co-authorships, was with Pharmacia or Astra. The Royal Institute of Technology had,
compared to the other public research organisations, the largest share of coauthorships with firms and industrial research institutes in relation to total
publication volume (almost 10 %). For all organisations but the University
of Linköping the number of co-authorships with firms and industrial research institutes are decreasing or without large changes. This result is very
interesting since in 1996 the so-called third task of public universities was
more strongly emphasised by law. This task is an obligation for institutions
of higher education to co-operate with the surrounding society and to
provide information about their activities. Universities, regional and local
governments, and also other government agencies have now initiated a
multitude of technology transfer initiatives.
An important reason for the decrease is the decrease in the total number of
co-authorships between Swedish public research organisations and Astra
and Pharmacia in 1997-2001 (Table B9, Appendix B). The two organisations are together authors or co-authors of 64 % of the total number of firm
articles, Astra 38 % and Pharmacia 26%. In Table B9 their collaboration
pattern is summarised with the exception of a few co-authorships with FOI
as well as a few co-authorships with some hospitals. Their large share of the
total firm publication volume means that whatever changes there are in the
collaboration patterns of these two companies, it will affect the statistics for
firm collaboration patterns in general a lot. It is clear that both the total
publication volume and the amount of collaboration have decreased
30
drastically for Pharmacia. Astra has slightly decreased its collaboration with
public research organisations. At the same time Astras’ total publication
volume has remained fairly constant during the three time periods.
It is difficult to determine the possible reasons for the small reduction in the
collaboration between Astra and public research organisations. It is possible
that Astras’ collaboration with small biotech companies has increased at the
expense of the university collaboration. This type of collaboration would not
be found in the publication statistics to the same extent. For Pharmacia it is
clear that the mergers with Upjohn and Monsanto have resulted in decreased
R&D activities in Sweden. Much of the R&D previously found within
Pharmacia has been spun-off to the new company, Biovitrum AB, which
was founded in 2001. Biovitrum has now began to show up in the publication statistics with four publications in 2001.
There has been an increase in the number of firms collaborating with the
large public research organisations. An explanation for the increase in firms
involved in scientific collaboration leading to publications may be the emergence of many new firms in the area of biotechnology. Many of these are
university spin-offs and it is natural for them to collaborate with public
research organisations. It is also to be expected that newly started business
enterprises do not have a large enough publication volume to compensate
for the reduction caused by the decrease in the number of co-authorships
with Astra and Pharmacia. That could explain why the number of co-authored articles did not grow in proportion to the number of firms involved.
Also existing firms increasing their publication volumes do not seem to
increase their collaboration with public research organisations during the
studied period (se Table B7). For example two of the firms with the largest
increase in publication volumes, Gambro AB and Svalöf Weibull AB, have
not increased their collaboration with public research organisations in
scientific publications. Also the total number of papers with firm authors is
not increasing
3.4
Summary and concluding remarks
There are advantages and disadvantages with using scientific publication
data to evaluate the performance of the Swedish science base. The fact that
most journals covered by the science citation index (SCI) and the selections
made by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) are in English is an
advantage for English-speaking countries. It is also beneficial for small
countries like Sweden with a limited domestic publication market resulting
in stronger incentives to publish in international English speaking journals.
This means that the volume of publications measured for Sweden may seem
very high. This is particularly pronounced in comparisons with large non-
31
English speaking countries like Germany, France and Japan that have a
domestic publication market or can publish international journals in their
own language; journals which may not be covered by SCI. However, in the
fields that this study focuses on, we believe that coverage by ISI makes the
comparison relevant, since in these fields, acknowledgement by the global
scientific community is largely dependent on getting published in well-renowned journals like the ones included in this study. International collaboration and exchange through such things as post doc exchanges are also very
common in these fields and result in co-authorship in international English
speaking journals. Another reason for the large publication volumes in
relation to the population in Sweden in international comparisons is the fact
that receiving grants and securing positions are very much dependent on
publication in reputable scientific journals in these fields. Furthermore, the
fact that PhD students are expected to publish a certain number of articles
before receiving their doctor’s degree has a significant impact on the
Swedish statistics, since this is less pronounced in other countries27.
A significant result of our analysis is that it establishes the continued
dominance of Karolinska Institutet in the area of scientific publications in
the subject fields studied. Karolinska Institutet contributed to more than a
third of all articles and to the largest number of publications in six of the
eleven selected journal categories. Also, Karolinska Institutet shows a clear
trend of increasing its share of the publication volume in Sweden in these
fields.
As regards collaboration between companies and industrial research institutes and public research organisations, it was found that, in relation to the
total publication volume of an organisation, Karolinska Institutet had not
been as active as most of the other universities. An explanation for the relatively limited collaboration with industry may be that Karolinska Institutet
has been focusing mainly on basic research and does not have such a long
tradition of working with industry as the technical universities have. In
recent years changes have occurred at Karolinska Institutet with respect to
attitudes to and acceptance of collaboration with industry as well as attracting external funding from industry. In 1996 two per cent of Karolinska
Institutet’s research resources came from industry and in 2001 this had
increased to seven per cent. The prognosis for 2004 is as high as 20 per cent.
This has not, however, as yet had an impact on collaboration as indicated by
the number of co-authored articles with industry. On the contrary, for some
reason the number of co-authorships with industry is decreasing. In relation
27
Jacobsson, S., Universities and industrial transformation-An interpretive and selective
literature study with special emphasis on Sweden, Electronic working paper no. 81,
SPRU 2002.
32
to publication volume, the Royal Institute of Technology had the highest
proportion of company collaboration in its articles, and the universities of
Lund and Uppsala also had a high percentage of company collaboration.
Of the six per cent of all articles authored by companies, Astra and
Pharmacia clearly dominate. Together they contributed to 64 per cent of
these articles and they also dominated the company/university collaboration
pattern. However, the number of companies that co-authored articles with
public research organisations was increasing at the same time as the total
number of co-authorships between these two types of organisations was
decreasing. This decline was found to be largely due to a decrease in coauthorships between Pharmacia and public research organisations.
The strong link between industry and academia in innovation processes in
biotechnology was indicated by the bibliometric data since as much as
65 per cent of the company articles were co-authored with a public research
organisation.
The publication volume in relation to population of papers published by
Swedish authors in life science fields relevant to biotechnology innovation
processes is high. In Neuroscience and Immunology in particular the publication volume is high in relation to the world’s total publication volume. In
all the subject fields studied in this paper, with the exception of cell &
developmental biology, the publication volume in relation to the world total
was larger during the period 1999-2001 than the Swedish average. As far as
citation levels are concerned, it is also interesting to note that scientists at
the relatively small University of Umeå have the highest citations levels in a
number of the fields studied. It is often claimed that sufficient critical mass
is needed in order to maintain the high quality of the research that is
performed.
In Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology, articles written by Swedish
authors have an exceptionally high relative citation level. This field however
covers only a very small part of the total publication volume in the fields
studied. There has been a decrease from a high level in Neuroscience, and
an increase to a high level in Microbiology. In the Biochemistry & Biophysics journal category, the relative impact factor is decreasing, albeit from
a rather high level. The publication volume in this journal category has,
however, increased drastically. Both Immunology and Cell & Developmental Biology have citation levels that are clearly below the world average.
The reasons for the disparity between the fields are difficult to explain.
In the analysis from the early 1980s, the same number of fields showed
increasing relative citation levels as decreasing values. Despite this, it is a
matter of great concern that so many countries, both in Europe and
33
elsewhere, have passed Sweden in the statistics for the two largest fields.
Furthermore, in a total of four of the seven studied fields, the analysis
indicates that Sweden is being passed by a number of the countries included.
It seems clear that Sweden is losing ground when the quality of science is
measured in terms of citation levels. Other studies have also shown that
Sweden’s share of the top cited articles is not increasing to the same extent
as the Swedish share of the world’s total publication volume in general.
There is an increasing demand to shorten the education period for a doctor’s
degree. At the same time, the number of publications required for a PhD
thesis has not decreased. The fact that more students are taking doctor’s
degrees and that education periods are shorter while the requirements for a
thesis remain the same, may be an explanation for increased publication
volumes and, in some cases, decreased citation levels. PhD students largely
carry out the hands-on research performed at Swedish universities.
The international comparison of citation levels clearly indicates that the
average US publication is cited more often than the average European paper
in all of the scientific fields studied. Of course this may in part be explained
by the advantage that English speaking countries have over other countries
in English speaking journals and by a probability that US scientists may be
more likely to cite other US scientists than European scientists may be to
cite each other. It may also be that there is a larger spread in quality in the
EU compared to in the US. This is also indicated by the study of the performance of the different countries in different fields.
34
4
Patenting in biotechnology,
medical and pharmaceutical fields
4.1
Introduction
An important part of the innovation system approach is the role of institutions. These institutions, which function as the rules of the game, could be
of a formal kind, i.e. laws and regulations, or of an informal kind, e.g. the
public opinion of new areas, for instance GMOs. Examples of formal institutions are the regulatory process, the role of patents, and the protection of
intellectual property. Intellectual property law is important to the biotechnology industry, but the national systems are seldom adapted to biotechnology, as shown by, for example, the difficulty of patenting biotechnological
inventions. The fact that European patent law has not been particularly harmonised has also hampered the development of the European biotechnology
industry. The creation of “Europe-wide rules for intellectual property rights
is identified by the European Commission as one strategic measure to improve the conditions for the development of the European biotech industry28. Other regulations regarding, for example, food and pharmaceuticals,
are also important for innovations. Here national authorities, including the
FDA (the Food and Drug Administration) in the USA and EMEA (the
European Medicines Evaluation Agency) are of importance.
In a study by Greis et al. (1995)29 on innovation barriers for US companies,
it was found that the highest rated barrier to commercialisation was the
FDA, followed by US patent decisions and management expertise. A study
by Senker & Sharp (1997)30 on how European companies have used cooperative alliances in their learning process shows that a clear account of
intellectual property rights is important, as in most cases a collaboration of
this kind functions as a transfer of technology and not of proprietary
knowledge.
A number of policy measures have been taken on different levels to tackle
dysfunction in the subjects identified above. Key targets are strengthening
of the science base, facilitating technology transfer, making it easier for
28
Life sciences and biotechnology – A Strategy for Europe, European Commission,
COM(2002) 27 final, Brussels, 23.1.2002
29
Greis, N. P., Dibner, M. D., Bean, A. S. (1995) External partnering as a response to
innovation barriers and global competition in biotechnology. Research Policy 24 (4).
30
Senker, J. and Sharp, M. (1997) Organisational Learning in Cooperative Alliances: Some
studies in Biotechnology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 9(1), pp. 35-51.
35
biotech firms to find venture capital, and developing the patent system. For
example, the EU Parliament has passed a biotechnology directive, through
which the member countries will have a set of common rules for what can
be protected by biotechnological patents. In October 2002 the European
Commission called upon the member states to implement this Directive
98/44 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions31.
“All Member States must fully and swiftly implement the 1998 Directive on
the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (Directive 98/44,see
MEMO/00/39) or Europe will fall behind its competitors in this crucial
sector, damaging its overall efforts to become the most competitive economy
in the world… the Directive explicitly excludes from patentability discoveries which extend knowledge without applying it for a new purpose. It is
therefore not possible under the Directive to patent, for example, DNA
sequences themselves, because they are not inventions but discoveries i.e.
they existed already, discovering them extends knowledge but that
knowledge has thereafter to be applied to be technically useful. The
Directive follows the principle that in the biotechnology field as in others,
patents can be obtained only for inventions: hence processes or products
using DNA sequences can be patented if they satisfy the criteria of novelty,
inventiveness and industrial applicability. The Directive also excludes from
patenting on ethical grounds certain applications such as processes for
cloning human beings or modifying their genetic identity, the use of human
embryos for industrial purposes and processes for modifying the genetic
identity of animals which may cause them suffering without substantial
medical benefits.”
In the following sections the Swedish patenting in the US patenting system
in the biotechnology, medical and pharmaceutical fields will be analysed.
The analysis covers facts about who owns the patents, international collaboration, the dynamics of the patenting and an international comparison of
Swedish patenting.
31
Press release European Commission, Brussels, 10th October 2002
36
4.2
Swedish patenting in the US patent system in
international comparison
A commonly used measure of innovativeness is patenting statistics in
different areas for different nations. It is important to keep in mind that far
from all inventions are patented and not all patents results in innovations.
Some innovations are registered as trademarks or covered by copyright and
for other innovations a strategy of secrecy surrounding the innovation is
involved and combined with an effort to be first on the market. In biotechnology the R&D investments are often so high that it is necessary to
protect the innovation for a long time in order to retrieve the investment.
Since the USA is such a large market in biotechnology and other areas, the
US patent system was chosen for the analysis of Swedish innovativeness in
biotechnology-related fields. The sections that follow describe the dynamics
of Swedish patenting including a comparison between Swedish and international patenting and some information on who patents and who owns
Swedish inventions.
In 1984-1998 the Swedish share of the world’s total patenting volume
(number of issued patents per year) in the US patent system was on average
1 per cent, which corresponds to a fourth position in the world in relation to
population32. In 1987-2001 the share is almost the same and no obvious
trend can be identified. In Biotechnology33 Swedish inventors contributed to
0.5-1.0 per cent of the patents (see Chapter 2 for information on the patent
categorisation). This may seem to be a modest share, considering the
publishing volumes in biotechnology-related science fields and compared to
the Swedish average share. The patenting shares were larger in Pharmaceuticals, Medical electronics and Medical equipment (see the diagram below).
32
Internationella jämförelser för näringslivets tillväxt – tillväxtindikatorn, NUTEK, R
2000:17
33
The data is based on inventor fractions (i.e. if one inventor of four is Swedish, this counts
as 0.25 Swedish patents).
37
Swedish inventor shares of the world’s total patenting volume for five
periods in different areas compared to the Swedish average share in
all fields
3
Per cent
inventor
2
shares
1987-1989
1990-1992
1993-1995
1996-1998
1
1999-2001
S
AL
L
M
EA
N
BI
O
TE
C
H
N
O
LO
AR
EA
G
Y
TI
C
AL
S
M
EN
PH
AR
M
AC
EU
U
IP
EQ
AL
M
ED
IC
M
ED
IC
AL
EL
EC
TR
O
N
IC
S
T
0
2
3
48 Ranking in relation to population
The Swedish patenting volumes in all four patent categories have been increasing steadily which is part of a global trend. However, there also seem
to be a positive development of the Swedish shares of the world’s total
patenting volume comparing 1999-2001 to the previous time-periods in
Medical equipment and Biotechnology. Also, Pharmaceuticals in 1996-2001
show significantly larger volume shares than in 1987-1995 according to the
diagram above.
The diagram below illustrates the dominance of the USA in Biotechnology
patenting. In Appendix C, Figures C1-C3 the distributions of patents on
different nations in the other three categories are found.
38
Inventor origin for biotechnology patents in the US patent system in
1987-2001*
Canada
2,6%
Other
11,0%
France
2,9%
Great Britain
3,6%
Germany
4,6%
Japan
11,4%
USA
63,9%
* Sweden<1 %, Total No of patents 27 000
The US share of the world’s patenting volume in Biotechnology was found
to be slightly increasing whereas the Japanese share was slightly decreasing
1987-2001. For the other top countries the changes showed no clear trends.
In Medical electronics the US share has been fairly constant (near 70 %) but
also here the Japanese share has been declining. Medical equipment is completely dominated by the US with 73 per cent of the total volume. No significant changes have occurred during the studied time-period. In Pharmaceuticals there was a clear positive trend for the US whereas again the trend
was negative for Japan. The trend was also negative in Pharmaceuticals especially for Germany but also for France, Italy and Switzerland. For Canada
and Sweden the trend was positive. One must keep in mind that it is likely
that the data reflects the situation more than two years before the issue date
since it for instance in biotechnology and biotechnology-related fields took
on average 2.4 years for a patent application to be approved and the patent
to be granted in 1987-1997 34.
4.3
Patent ownership
In patenting statistics a distinction is made between two players: the assignee and the inventor. The patenting statistics analysed in this section are
based on a database with 18 750 patents with a Swedish inventor and/or
assignee issued in the USA in 1987-2001 and still active in 1998, 2000 or
2002 when the data was retrieved from the USPTO database. It must, be
taken into consideration that if a patent is not commercialised within a few
34
39
years, it is possible that the owner of the patent does not continue to pay the
annual fees. Then the patent is inactivated and excluded from the USPTO
database35. Therefore it is necessary to be cautious as regards the interpretation of the dynamics of the number of issued patents.
The name of at least one inventor is always entered in a patent application
and also often the name of an assignee. The inventor may choose to sign
over the patent to an assignee, which will then own all rights to the patent.
The assignee is often a company, whereas the inventor is always a private
person, whose organisational affiliation is not entered. For that reason only
the identity of the assignees will be discussed below. After a patent has been
granted, the USPTO database is not updated regarding any changes in the
ownership of the patents. Therefore all discussions regarding who owns the
patents are based on the ownership at the time the patent was granted. In
Tables C1-C4 the Swedish assignees of the 2621 patents in biotechnology,
medical electronics, medical equipment and pharmaceuticals are listed and
also the development during 1987-2001. In the figure below the development of patenting by Astra and Pharmacia is shown. The address of at least
one inventor and/or assignee must be Swedish in order to be found in the
figure.
Number of issued Swedish patents per year with Astra* and
Pharmacia* as owner, 1987-2001 **
80
NUMBER OF PATENTS
70
60
50
AstraZeneca AB
Pharmacia Corporation
40
30
20
10
20
01
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
0
YEAR
35
Our database is based on the patents found in the USPTO database in 1998, 2000 or
2002, which might lead to an overestimation of the number of commerciable patents in
recent years.
40
The number of Swedish inventor shares in Medical equipment and Medical
electronics was also included in the statistics as a comparison since Sweden
has a strong position in these fields. Also these fields have similarities with
Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals.
Biotechnology
The Big Pharma companies AstraZeneca AB (including old Astra, Hässle
and Draco patents as well as patents held by early acquisitions such as Leo
and Symbicom) and Pharmacia Corporation (including subsidiaries such as
Pharmacia Biotech and Pharmacia Diagnostics) and the biotech tools and
supply company Amersham Biosciences AB are together assignees of more
than 20 per cent of the patents in biotechnology. However, they are not
completely dominating the patenting in biotechnology since there are many
more players owning the biotechnology patents. It is clearly seen that the
increase in number of biotechnology companies since the mid nineties is
also reflected in the patenting statistics showing an increase in the number
of assignees in recent years. Also a rather large share of the biotechnology
patents does not have an assignee (15%) indicating that a private person
owns the patent. It is likely that university scientists own a large number of
these patents.
Pharmaceuticals
As expected this patent category is completely dominated by AstraZeneca
and Pharmacia Corporation with 32 per cent and 16 per cent of the patents
respectively. Since 1998 there has been a clear decrease in the patenting by
Pharmacia Corporation. It is likely that the patents within Pharmacia Corporation to a much lesser extent than previously are registered as Swedish
patents (i.e. with a Swedish address). AstraZeneca on the other hand shows
a clearly positive trend in the patenting statistics, especially since 1997 with
72 percent of the patents in 1987-2001 being issued between 1997-2001.
There were 68 patents owned by assignees with only one patent. There
seems to be a slightly positive trend regarding the number of “small”
players active in pharmaceutical patenting.
Medical Electronics
The players dominating the category medical electronics are Pacesetter AB,
Siemens Elema AB and Radi Medical System AB with together 19 per cent
of the patents and Pacesetter owning as many as 105 patents. There are quite
a few small players as well but the number of these does not seem to
increase.
41
Medical equipment
SCA Hygiene Products AB/SCA Mölnlycke AB dominates this category
with 139 patents in 1987-2001 (15 % of all patents in the category). In this
category as many as 121 patents are owned by a Swedish assignee who
owns only one patent. However, there does not seem to be an increase in the
number of assignees owning few patents whereas the six largest owners of
medical equipment patents all show an increasing trend in their patenting in
recent years. Also in this patent category a large share of the patents did not
have an assignee mentioned when the patent was issued (19 %).
4.4
Export of Swedish patents
In this section the role of international collaboration in innovation processes
is discussed in the light of patent statistics. Studying who the inventor and
the assignee of a patent are gives an indication of whether a country is good
at keeping inventions and also of its ability to acquire inventions of foreign
origin. The extent to which co-inventors come from different countries
indicates the importance of international networks in invention processes. It
is also clear that it is quite often the case that an invention is not owned by
an assignee from the same country as the inventor. However, it must be kept
in mind that the analysis is based on the assignees registered when the
patents were issued and the situation may of course have changed after that
date. Tables C5 and C6 show constellations of collaboration found between
inventor and assignee countries. These tables are summarised in the table
below, where the numbers and percentages of Swedish and non-Swedish
inventors and assignees are given.
The statistical result reveals the international character of biotechnology and
pharmaceuticals with as much as 41 and 27 per cent, respectively, of the
patents having co-inventors from more than one country. The shares of
international collaboration in the innovation processes are much less pronounced in the categories medical equipment and medical electronics. Since
the global Big Pharma companies AstraZeneca and Pharmacia Corporation
are assignees on many of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents this
is perhaps not that unexpected. The fact that these corporations have R&D
units in more than one country is likely to contribute to the result.
The analysis shows that 12 per cent of the pharmaceutical patents only had
foreign inventors but Swedish assignees, which can be a sign of a Swedish
capability to “bring home” inventions. The data also indicate that Sweden is
good at keeping Swedish pharmaceutical inventions since a larger share of
the patents were owned by Swedes (69%) than were invented by Swedes
(61%). The corresponding data for the other patent categories indicate that
the capability of “bringing home” inventions is slightly less in these fields.
42
At the same time Sweden seems to be quite good at keeping biotechnology
patents since the same share is being invented by Swedes as is owned by
Swedes (52 %). In medical equipment and medical electronics on the other
hand, the data indicate that Sweden is giving inventions away since the
shares owned by Swedes are less than the shares invented by Swedes. The
differences are 16 % and 24 % respectively. Looking at the number of all
Swedish inventions that are owned by foreign assignees, which is also a sign
of giving away inventions, the lowest number however, is found for medical
equipment (10%) and the highest is found for biotechnology (32%). These
patents must have at least one Swedish inventor but of course we know
nothing about to what extent the Swedes contributed to the innovation
process. The term ”Mixed” means that the inventors/assignees come from
different countries.
The distribution of patents on Swedish and foreign inventors/assignees
or on co-inventors/co-assignees from both Sweden and other countries
BIOTECHNOLOGY
PHARMACEUTICALS
Inventor
Assignee
Inventor
Assignee
(No. of
(No. of
(per cent)
(per cent)
patents)
patents)
Swedish
Foreign
Mixed
Not found
Total
202
29
159
0
390
52
7
41
0
100
201
124
8
57
390
52
32
2
15
100
Inventor
Assignee
Inventor
Assignee
(No. of
(No. of
(per cent)
(per cent)
patents)
patents)
Swedish
Foreign
Mixed
Not found
Total
MEDICAL ELECTRONICS
394
24
52
0
470
84
5
11
0
100
280
146
0
44
470
61
12
27
0
100
629
203
15
68
915
69
22
1
7
100
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
Inventor
Assignee
Inventor
Assignee
(No. of
(No. of
(per cent)
(per cent)
patents)
patents)
Swedish
Foreign
Mixed
Not found
Total
556
109
250
0
915
60
31
0
9
100
Inventor
Assignee
Inventor
Assignee
(No. of
(No. of
(per cent)
(per cent)
patents)
patents)
Swedish
Foreign
Mixed
Not found
Total
824
45
83
0
952
87
5
9
0
100
674
97
4
177
952
71
10
0
19
100
In the four categories, the average share that Swedes or Swedish companies
owned was 63 per cent of the 2621 patents and they were partial owners of
another 2 per cent. After being issued the patents may of course have
changed owners or been licensed to another company. Therefore it is not
clear which firm or country will benefit from the invention in the end.
In all patent categories but medical electronics the foreign country that was
mostly represented as assignee was USA. For medical electronics it was
Germany. Especially in biotechnology, US-assignees owned many of the
patents (20 %) and were partial owners of another 3 per cent. For pharmaceuticals the corresponding numbers were 10 per cent and 2 per cent
respectively. The numbers were smaller in medical electronics and medical
equipment, 6 and 4 per cent respectively. The share that German assignees
own in medical electronics was 19 per cent.
43
The foreign assignees that owned the largest number of biotechnology
patents with Swedish inventors were organisations such as Danish Novo
Nordisk and the US Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Pharmacia
Corporation, ZymoGenetics Inc., Biopool International Inc. and Genentech
Inc with three or more patents each. For pharmaceuticals the most frequent
foreign assignees with more than four patents each were British Nycomed,
Danish NeuroSearch and Novo Nordisk, Ferring B.V. from the Netherlands
as well as US companies such as ZymoGenetics Inc., the Upjohn Company
(now part of Pharmacia Corporation), Maxim Pharmaceuticals Inc., and
again Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. In medical electronics German
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, British Nycomed, US Medtronic Inc.,
Synectics Medical Inc. and AFP Imaging Corporation all were assignees on
three or more patents. The foreign companies with more than three patents
in medical equipment were German Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Swiss
Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance SA, Danish Coloplast A/S, Finnish
Instrumentarium Corp, and US C. R. Bard Inc. An analysis concerning the
extent of the Swedish contribution to the patents owned by foreign players
has not been made.
4.5
The patenting volumes related to Swedish inventions in biotechnology,
pharmaceuticals, medical electronics and medical equipment are all increasing. This is, however, part of a global trend and it is more interesting to
note that the Swedish share of the world’s total patenting volumes also
seems to have been increasing in recent times in all fields but medical
electronics. USA is defending its leading position in all of these fields and
also increasing its share of inventions in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, whereas the Japanese share is decreasing in these fields.
One reason for the relatively limited number of inventions by Swedish and
European inventors in biotechnology is that a very substantial number of
gene patents for various applications have been granted to US players in
particular. In Europe most genes would not meet the criteria of having an
inventive step because a skilled individual should be able to "easily"
(without difficulty) find/isolate/produce them. However, after the emergence of the non-obviousness determination in the US, gene patents can
meet this requirement and thus be patentable. As a result, US players are
more likely to patent genes. Also in the US, contrary to Europe, the Examiner will refuse to simultaneously examine different categories of claims
based on one patent application. Consequently, it is more common for a
European inventor to include several applications, e.g. how the product is
derived etc., in one patent, whereas a US inventor may be used to splitting
this between several patents. That the laws concerning biotechnological
44
patents in the different countries in the European union are not harmonised
also makes it more difficult to patent in Europe. The lack of harmonisation
concerning patenting in general in Europe is also a problem since it is still
not possible to write one patent application for the whole of Europe.
An analysis of the Swedish assignees reveals the fact that all categories are
dominated by a small number of assignees responsible for a large portion of
the patents. However, in all categories, small players who own very few
patents each, often only one, own many of the patents. Also, in biotechnology the number of Swedish assignees is clearly increasing. The mergers
that resulted in the Big Pharma company Pharmacia Corporation and the
resulting relocation of major R&D units and headquarters, is also indicated
in the patenting statistics in the decrease in the number of patents with a
Swedish address. The efforts by AstraZeneca to keep and expand important
R&D units in Sweden are also apparent from the patenting statistics in the
increasing patenting volumes with a Swedish address for this corporation.
The question of whether or not Sweden is losing inventions is impossible to
answer, mainly because we only have access to information about who
owned the patents when they were issued and not who owns or licenses
them today. For patents owned by companies it is however relevant to
perform the assignee analysis, since the patent will either be commercialised
by that company or future owners of the company, or it will be licensed/sold
by that organisation and therefore result in potential profits for the owner on
the issue date. Something else that is revealed by the facts on the issue date
is the level of international collaboration in innovation processes.
An indisputable conclusion from the statistical analysis is that international
collaboration is important in innovation processes, since about one fifth of
the patents had co-inventors from different countries. This is much more
pronounced in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals than in the medical electronics and medical equipment patent categories. The statistics also indicate
that Sweden is good at keeping and bringing home inventions in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals at least until the date the patent is granted.
There are some indications that Sweden is less successful in keeping and
bringing home inventions in medical electronics and medical equipment.
However, the proportion of Swedish assignees in these categories is
relatively large, especially compared to the biotechnology category.
45
5
The Swedish biotech industry
5.1
Introduction
Our knowledge of life’s basic building blocks, the genes and gene products,
is currently increasing dramatically. The complete human genome has been
mapped, as have the genomes of other organisms, and more are to follow.
This forms the basis of a long and elaborate effort to find the genetic and
molecular mechanisms behind biological life processes, which in turn may
give us an opportunity to understand, influence and take advantage of
nature’s great variety. This knowledge will be an important driving force
behind societal and industrial development in the foreseeable future. Biotechnology is a future growth area. The European Commission estimates
that by 2005 the European biotechnology market could be worth over
€ 100 billion. By 2010, global markets, including sectors where life sciences
and biotechnology constitute a major portion of new technology applied,
could amount to over € 2,000 billion, excluding agriculture 36.
It is difficult today to grasp all the future possibilities offered by the industrial applications of life science. Below is a list of some applications already
foreseen today. Much of the driving force comes from multidisciplinary
efforts where various fields of research and technology come together to
resolve life science issues.
•
The healthcare sector can benefit from new drugs, faster and better
diagnostic tools, individually based treatment with better efficiency and
fewer side effects, often to prevent sickness instead of treating symptoms, gene therapy and the use of new bio and biocompatible materials.
•
Sustainable development. By using nature’s own solutions it is possible to achieve more effective processes, new biodegradable materials
with tailor-made characteristics, and to increase and improve the use of
biological processes in waste treatment.
•
Food with increased nutritional value, better quality and the potential to
positively affect our health and quality of life can be developed, as can
new refinement processes and better tools for quality control in the food
sector.
36
Development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic
engineering, European Commission Brussels, 07.10.2002 COM(2002) 545 final
46
•
The wood, pulp, paper, and chemical industries can increase their use
of enzymes and bacteria in order to develop new products and processes.
They can also increase their use of new biological raw materials.
•
Agriculture and forestry can become more efficient and more environmentally sound through biological plant protection instead of the use
of chemicals, and through better quality control and plant improvement.
•
New materials from biological raw materials can be developed. This
category of products can find applications in many manufacturing
businesses, such as the car industry.
The definition of biotechnology that we are using (see Chapter 2) means
that biotechnology companies are found in very different sectors. The figure
below illustrates how diversified the applications of biotechnology can be.
The equal size of the circles is somewhat misleading since more than fifty
per cent of both the number of companies and the number of employees is
found in the pharmaceutical and medical field.
Industrial sectors in which biotechnology activities can be expected
Agriculture
Food
Instruments
& equipment
Pharmaceuticals
Medical Technology
Biotechnology
Forestry
Pulp & Paper
Chemistry
Environment
In the following sections, the Swedish knowledge and research-intensive
biotech industry of today will be described. The large pulp and paper, and
food companies are not included. An estimation of the occurrence, extent
and importance of biotechnology in those companies is difficult and will not
be attempted. The companies that will be described in the following sections
are mainly the small and medium-sized companies. These companies
produce goods, services, and knowledge in different niche areas, often as
subcontractors or in collaboration with large Swedish and international
companies and corporations. The growth that the biotech industry is
generating in other industry segments where the customers, partners and
suppliers of goods and services to the biotech industry are found are also not
included in this study.
47
Sweden has a comparatively large number of new research-based start-ups
within life science. The companies that mainly use modern biotechnology in
Sweden are in the pharmaceutical or medical fields such as those engaged in
drug discovery, drug development, diagnostics, medical technology and
drug delivery. However, companies involved in plant improvement, developing new biotech tools and supplies and bioproduction also use modern
biotechnology. In the field of biological plant protection, environmental
technology and functional food, the use of naturally occurring microorganisms with desired characteristics concerning function and toxicity is prevalent. The food industry mainly uses classical biotechnology. The pulp &
paper industry conducts R&D within modern biotechnology, mostly in
collaboration with university teams. The applications of biotechnology in
this area mainly involve the treatment of water used in processes and wood
protection against fungi. An important part of the modern Swedish biotech
industry consists of the companies developing new services, tools and
supplies for biotechnological applications for use both in industry and
academic research.
The level of education of the employees in these companies is high. The
average proportion of employees with a doctor’s degree lies between ten
and twenty per cent for all the different categories of companies. The
greatest percentage is found in companies working with the discovery and
development of new drugs 37.
5.2
International comparison
According to a study by the University of Siena published by the European
Commission38 as well as a number of reports from Ernst & Young, the
Swedish biotech industry places fourth in Europe in terms of the number of
companies that exist. According to the diagram below from a 2002 report
published by the Swedish Trade Council39, the Swedish biotech industry is
number nine in the world in terms of the number of companies.
37
Innovation and competitiveness in European biotechnology, Enterprise Papers - No 7
2002 Enterprise Directorate-General European Commission, 2002.
39
Global perspectives on Bioscience 2002, Swedish Trade Council 2002.
38
48
Number of biotechnology companies in different countries 2000
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
USA
Japan
Korea
Canada
Germany
UK
China
France
Sweden
Spain
Italy
Australia
Israel
Taiwan
Netherlands
Finland
Switzerland
Denmark
Belgium
Norway
Russia
South Africa
India
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia
No. of Companies
1400
Country
Source: Swedish Trade Council
The number of companies in different countries differ somewhat between
reports (in the EU study the number is 235 for Sweden whereas in the present study 179 companies were found 2000). This is probably not due to a
difference in how a biotech company is defined, although this may account
for the disparity to a certain extent. Instead, we believe that the differences
mainly stem from a discrepancy with respect to the various criteria used for
the inclusion of companies based on the registered data for the identified
biotech companies. For instance, this study does not include biotech companies without employees, even if they may have a turnover and be registering
data with the Swedish Patent and Registration Office. In other studies such
companies may be included. Since the two other sources of statistics mentioned above do not state which companies they are including, it is not
possible to compare the result.
There are important differences in the composition of the industry in
European countries 40. UK and, to a lesser extent, France, have a greater
proportion of large companies than Germany. In Germany there was a
dramatic increase in the number of new biotechnology companies in the
period 1996-2000. Germany accounts for a third of the total number of new
European companies, i.e. companies that entered the industry after 1995,
followed by the UK and France. Nordic countries like Sweden have experienced a relatively stable pace of entry of new firms. Most European biotechnology companies are small, research-intensive operations. Only
approximately 10 per cent have more than 50 employees, while a majority
(about 57 per cent) have fewer than 20 employees.
40
Innovation and competitiveness in European biotechnology, Enterprise Papers - No 7.
2002 Enterprise Directorate-General European Commission, 2002.
49
5.3
Description of the industry and its sectors
In this study, the biotech industry has been divided into six industrial
sectors: agrobiotechnology, bioproduction, biotech tools & supplies,
environmental biotechnology, functional food & feed, pharmaceuticals &
medicine. In this section the different sectors will be described.
5.3.1
Agrobiotechnology
In the sector of agrobiotechnology the identified companies are working
with plant improvement or biological plant protection. Two medium-sized
companies dominate the group, Svalöf Weibull AB (Swedish-German) and
Syngenta Seed AB (Swiss). Both work with plant improvement and have
permission from the Swedish Board of Agriculture to perform field trials
with genetically modified plants. Another company, also with permission to
perform field trials, is Plant Science Sweden AB, which is part of BASF
Plant Science. This company was formed in January 1999 as a joint venture
between German BASF and Svalöf Weibull. Among other things, it develops genetically modified potatoes with an increased level of amylopectine
and resistance to antibiotics. Swedish Sweetree Genomics, which is closely
linked to research at the University of Umeå and the Royal Institute of
Technology, is involved in developing enabling technologies for construction and improvement of transgenic trees and forest-related enzymology.
Permission from the Swedish Board of Agriculture is required for cultivation of genetically modified agricultural and horticultural plants in
Swedish field trials according to the Board’s directions regarding the
intentional development of genetically modified plants41. Since 1989,
92 applications for field trials of genetically modified agricultural and
horticultural plants have been approved. Two applications have not been
approved. The approved applications were for the following42:
•
31 field trials for potatoes
•
38 field trials for rape
•
18 field trials for sugar-beets
•
3 field trials for mouse-ear cress (Arabidopsis thaliana)
•
2 field trial for apples
41
SJVFS 1999:124
Source: The Swedish Board of Agriculture,
http://www.sjv.se/genteknik/faltforsok/faltforsok.htm
42
50
Until now, the Swedish Board of Agriculture has approved eight field trials
in the year 2002: two for rape, two for mouse-ear cress, three for potatoes
and one for sugar beets. One obstacle to the growth of companies developing genetically modified crops is scepticism among the general public about
the products, especially in Sweden and the rest of Europe. At the same time,
agricultural innovations, such as new varieties of strawberries, are among
the most lucrative licensing agreements for the technology licensing office
at the University of California 43. Among the 25 top earning commercialised
inventions coming out of the University of California in 2000, three were in
the agricultural field. Consequently, while the European market at present is
non-existent, Swedish innovations in this field may have a market in other
parts of the world.
In 2001 there were three companies in the biological plant protection field.
The benefit of the products of these companies is a reduced use of chemical
biocides and pesticides. Two of the companies’ products are based on
naturally occurring and biologically degradable microorganisms and are
often used by farmers who are engaged in organic farming. One company is
involved in identifying and structurally analysing substances from new
types of microorganisms that can either be used for pharmaceutical or
agricultural anti-fungal use. All identified companies are small with less
than 20 employees combined. The competition from large multinational
companies producing chemical pesticides is very tough, and some of these
are now developing similar products. However, Swedish research is in the
front line. For companies engaged in exploratory research in collaboration
with academic groups, flexible public financing to support scientific
verification, testing, and documentation of results would promote
opportunities for growth.
5.3.2
Bioproduction
Companies in the bioproduction sector produce biological molecules, microorganisms or cells. Their customers include many of the biotechnology
companies in other sectors, the food and pharmaceutical industries and university teams. These companies often have in-house R&D and also collaborate with other companies for the use of their products as pharmaceuticals or
functional food products. The three largest companies, in terms of the
number of employees, in this field are DSM Anti-Infectives Sweden AB
(headquarters in the Netherlands) producing raw materials for penicillin
production, Polypeptide Laboratories with facilities in five countries producing industrial quantities of generic and custom peptides and BioInvent
International AB producing monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins and
other recombinant proteins for industry for therapeutic use.
43
Annual Report, University of California, Technology Transfer Program 2000.
51
5.3.3
Biotech tools & supplies
Companies in the biotech tools & supplies sector cover areas such as bioseparation and biomolecular analysis, biosensors, genomics, bioinformatics,
and fermentation equipment. Their customers mainly consist of other biotechnology companies, the pharmaceutical industry and university research
teams. Sweden is very successful in this area, with, for instance, one of the
world’s leading suppliers of technology for biotechnological research,
Amersham Biosciences, which had 1,273 employees in 2001 (not included
in the statistics because it has more than 500 employees). Amersham
Biosciences AB provides biotechnology systems, products and services for
research into genes and proteins for the discovery and development of drugs
and for the manufacture of biopharmaceuticals. The largest of the small and
medium-sized companies are Biacore, developing tools for analysing biomolecular interaction, Pyrosequencing, producing DNA-sequencing instruments and Gyros, producing microlaboratories in the shape of compact
discs. All of these companies have products on the market, and Biacore is a
world leader in the detection and monitoring of biomolecular binding.
Biacore, which today is often presented as a success story, was in operation
several years before showing a net profit. Both Gyros and Pyrosequencing
experienced rapid growth and developed their products quickly. They have
both attracted large amounts of venture capital, and in 2000, Pyrosequencing AB was introduced on the Stockholm Exchange (Stockholmsbörsen).
Pyrosequencing went from 2 employees in 1997 to 95 employees in 2001.
Biacore AB and Pyrosequencing AB are together responsible for a major
part of the growth at the end of the period. Gyros was spun off from
Amersham Biosciences AB in the 2000, and in 2001 it had 58 employees.
In addition to in-house R&D, customers and university researchers are
important sources of new ideas for products and services for biotech tools &
supplies companies. The explorative research phase of the innovation process is often characterised by close collaboration between companies and
university teams. Refinement and development of the products are done in
collaboration with subcontractors but also to some extent with university
teams. The subcontractors may, for example, provide expertise within areas
such as software development, optics, mechanics, and electronics. Outsourcing includes an interactive knowledge exchange between a company and its
subcontractor and increases the subcontractor’s specialised expertise. This
generates more efficient collaboration, and at the same time, the biotech
company becomes somewhat dependent on the subcontractor. Close collaboration is facilitated by geographic proximity and sometimes the
consultants even spend time within the client company when working on the
projects. The anticipated growth in the biotech supply sector will thus also
generate growth for subcontractors in a number of different areas.
52
It is important for these companies to maintain networks with academic
research and to acquire knowledge of the most recent scientific developments. In addition to innovative ideas and testing of new products, applications or services, collaboration with university teams may generate scientific
publications that can later be used in marketing and for certification.
In biotech tools & supplies, as in other sectors of the biotech industry, there
is a potential to spin off new companies, which develop exploratory research ideas for products that are not being further developed by an established company. Some of the projects may not be in line with the current
strategy of the company or its present clientele. The possibility of obtaining
public funding for collaborative research between a company and a university team in order to verify, document, and test results from exploratory
research, would facilitate the commercialisation of promising projects and
promote spin-offs. It would raise the incentive for the established company
to take part in such a development process.
Investment in life science research, both in industry and in academia, is
increasing worldwide. Hence, the market for companies in the field of
biotech tools & supplies is also growing significantly. Completely new
products have successfully been launched onto the market by a number of
Swedish biotech tools & supply companies in recent years. Pyrosequencing,
for instance, has been successful in selling its instruments. The next few
years will show whether the performance of these companies’ products
beats the competition and whether there will be a large demand for their
follow-up products. The successful sale of products does not necessarily
mean that a company is self-supporting. This may take several more years,
as it did for the now profitable biotech tools & supplies company Biacore.
There are also many other companies in the group that are in the early
stages of their costly product development and that will need additional
infusion of venture capital.
5.3.4
Environmental biotechnology
Companies in the environmental biotechnology sector work with soil
treatment, waste disposal, water treatment, and laboratory analysis. Their
customers include municipalities, construction companies, and industries
requiring purification of water used in manufacturing processes. The first
three groups mentioned use effective and non-pathogenic, naturally
occurring microorganisms and develop improved techniques for the
utilisation of such microorganisms. The laboratory analysis companies
develop testing methods and analysis, for example to test levels of toxic
substances and microorganisms in sewage. All companies in this field are
small and only ANOX AB had more than ten employees in 2001.
53
An area in environmental biotechnology with great potential is the production of biogas from waste products, whereby these products undergo
bacterial degradation, which produces methane gas. The bacterial strains
used occur naturally in, for example, dunghills and swamps. This technique,
however, needs further development and the stench problem needs to be
solved.
5.3.5
Functional food & feed
Companies in the functional food & feed sector are using modern biotechnology or biotechnology in innovative ways. Traditional use of classical
biotechnology is not included here. In the food industry, these types of technologies are mainly found in the production of functional food. The term
functional food denotes a product with a documented, well-defined,
productspecific diet/health relationship, beyond the addition of ordinary
nutritive substances such as vitamins and minerals. Examples include
soured milk with a wholesome bacterial flora or margarine with components
that lower cholesterol levels. The aim of these products is to reduce the risk
of developing diseases, not to cure them. Swedish companies in this category include ones which use additives consisting of naturally occurring
bacterial stems with beneficial health effects in the gastrointestinal tract, i.e.
probiotics (foods containing living microorganisms) or prebiotics (foods and
nutrients that positively influence the composition or activity of the intestinal flora). Examples of other possible areas include the increased use of
enzymes in food processes or as additives, or the development of quality
control by means of new techniques. Genetically modified plants are not
grown commercially in Sweden and public opinion is very sceptical about
the genetic modification of plants. By far the largest company in this field is
Biogaia, which uses the microorganism Lactobacillus Reuteri as a probiotic
for humans and animals. It takes time to change the habits of potential
consumers of this type of product. Also, in many cases, consumers need to
increase their awareness of the relationship between food and health and
about the functions of these types of products.
Companies in this segment of the food industry previously claimed that one
obstacle hampering growth in this area was the fact that they could not use
product-specific health claims in their marketing of new products44. These
products were usually developed in academia with scientific data to support
the claims made. Since September 2001, the possibility of using healthrelated claims in the labelling of food products has been extended to
“product-specific physiological claims” (abbreviated PFP in Swedish). The
Swedish Nutrition Foundation, SNF, sets up expert panels for the required
44
The Swedish biotechnology innovation system, VINNOVA 2001:2
54
pre-marketing evaluation of the scientific documentation. The Assessment
Board for Diet-Health Information (abbreviated BKH in Swedish) was
established on 23 November 2001 and is now available for post-marketing
assessment of specific marketing and labelling activity that is called into
question in relation to the Code. In December 2002, only one product had
gone through the evaluation and approval was given to use product-specific
physiological claims in its marketing. Another product will soon have completed the procedure and a few more are in the pipeline. It may be that some
producers are reluctant to allow their product to go through the evaluation
process before it has been tested for a longer period. New rules are in the
pipeline at the European level. The procedure is likely to be similar to the
evaluation process introduced in Sweden, but the authority in charge of the
evaluation process will be the European Food Safety Authority. In other
European countries such as Finland, Denmark and Holland, this has been
identified as a potential economic growth area. In Finland, Tekes has
launched a large research programme devoted to the functional food
segment. This four-year programme started at the beginning of 2001, and
has a total planned budget of some 50 million euros. Industry and government agencies in Denmark are together investing large sums in general
nutritional and food research.
It has for a long time been stated that there will be an increase in demand for
products in the functional food area, partly because of an aging population
and partly because there is an increasing awareness in society regarding the
relationship between food and health. Many elderly persons experience
gastrointestinal problems, which can be relieved by this category of healthpromoting products. The area has to overcome certain obstacles in the form
of unclear rules and regulations and apprehensive attitudes to biotechnology
among the general public as well as politicians and the media. For this
reason, large companies are sometimes reluctant to use their brands to
promote new innovative products. Some of the products today show
increasing sales figures indicating a growth in demand for these products.
5.3.6
Pharmaceuticals & medicine
The pharmaceuticals & medicine sector can be divided into four sub-sectors,
i.e. drug discovery & development, drug delivery, diagnostics and medical
technology. Pharmaceuticals & medicine is the largest sector within the
biotech industry, both in terms of the number of companies and employees.
Active Biotech AB with its subsidiary SBL Vaccin AB, Q-Med AB and
Bioglan AB are the largest companies in terms of employee numbers.
55
Drug discovery & drug development
The drug discovery & drug development companies form an essential part
of the Swedish biotechnological innovation system. Very few pharmaceutical companies develop new drugs without using biotechnological tools. For
this reason we have included all companies that discover and develop new
drugs and that conduct R&D in Sweden. Some non-Swedish companies
with R&D facilities in Sweden are thus also included. Considerably fewer
companies, however, have the development of biopharmaceuticals, i.e.
drugs based on large biological molecules such as proteins, as their goal.
Instead the large biological molecules are targets for the drugs that are
developed. These drugs are often small molecules produced by organic
chemical synthesis. The largest of the small and medium-sized companies
are Active Biotech AB including its wholly-owned subsidiary SBL Vaccin
AB, KaroBio AB and Medivir AB. In 2001 British PowderJect Pharmaceuticals Plc acquired SBL Vaccin AB.
The large Swedish pharmaceutical companies (not included in the statistical
analysis) Astra and Pharmacia and their present-day successors AstraZeneca
and Pharmacia Corporation have played a very important role for the existence of this group of companies.45 They have collaborated with Swedish
university teams and in doing so, have provided financing and given academia an increased awareness of industrial problems, they have been collaborative partners and purchasers of the products and services that the intermediary companies have developed, and they have also been a source of
recruitment of skilled personnel. Many of the drug discovery & development companies are spin-offs from one of the two large pharmaceutical
companies. Previous employees of Astra and Pharmacia are found in
leading positions in many of the newly formed companies. They contribute
experience and expertise from the pharmaceutical industry in areas such as
project management, business development and R&D. The presence of the
two companies has led to a tradition of, and experience with, this type of
business development in Sweden. Whereas the Pharmacia Corporation has
reduced its presence in Sweden drastically, AstraZeneca is investing large
resources in R&D, for example, in Södertälje. In 2003 as many as 11,000
people are employed by AstraZeneca AB in Sweden and about 4,400 of
these are working in R&D.
In 2001 the company Biovitrum AB, a spin off from Pharmacia Corporation, was founded. The company is not included in the statistics in the
following sections since it has more than 500 employees. In 2002 the
plasma product part was divested to Swiss-based Octapharma. The remain45
56
ing Biovitrum AB in 2002 employed 550 people, of which 430 work in
R&D, and it is one of the largest biotech companies in Europe in this field.
The company focuses on metabolic diseases, obesity and type 2 diabetes,
and oncology. The Pharmacia Corporation still owns about 19 per cent of
the company but is planning to reduce its share. The lead investors are
MPM Capital and Nordic Capital, who together own 38 per cent of the
company. Biovitrum has a long-term agreement with Wyeth relating to the
protein drug ReFacto for the treatment of haemophilia A. The synthetically
formulated recombinant factor VIII, ReFacto, is manufactured by Biovitrum
and marketed by Wyeth. It generates revenues for Biovitrum in the form of
royalties and consideration for production. Revenues from ReFacto currently cover the major part of Biovitrum’s annual research costs. Contract
research is also performed on behalf of the Pharmacia Corporation.
Biovitrum AB also has an agreement with GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK) to
develop and commercialise Biovitrum’s 5-HT2C receptor agonists for the
treatment of obesity and other medical disorders. Biovitrum focuses on all
stages of drug discovery and drug development up to Phase III of the
clinical trials procedure. The later stages, including manufacturing and
sales, are likely to be performed by a partner. Biovitrum has extensive
collaboration with academia and also with smaller biotech companies and
clinical research organisations. It may be that Biovitrum in the future will
intensify its collaboration with smaller biotech companies and thus become
a Super Biotech. A Super Biotech is an intermediary between smaller
biotech businesses and Big Pharma (global pharmaceutical companies) and
may in some instances compete with Big Pharma companies over the best
projects from smaller biotech companies. The advantages that a Super
Biotech has over a Big Pharma company are that, due to its size and focus
on innovative R&D, it is more flexible. It may also have a better understanding of how the smaller biotech companies function, which may
facilitate collaboration or licensing.
The trend of mergers in the pharmaceutical industry has generated huge Big
Pharma companies requiring large incomes for their costly operations.
Despite enormous investments in drug discovery and drug development,
fewer completely new drugs are entering the market. Most “new” products
are instead variations of “old” drugs already on the market. In the midnineties, there was a peak in the number of new drug applications being
approved by the FDA, but since then the numbers have decreased. The FDA
claims that pharmaceutical companies are not submitting as many applications as previously and also the time that the FDA takes to handle applications has not been reduced despite efforts to speed up the procedure. This
may in part depend on the FDA’s increased caution after, for safety reasons,
having to pull some drugs from the market in recent years. It may also be
due to the FDA’s lack of experience in evaluating biopharmaceuticals and
57
biotechnological R&D. The need for the pharmaceutical industry to find
new blockbuster drugs with annual sales of more than 1 billion dollars may
– if the trend of few new blockbusters being registered does not change –
lead to a need to downsize within this sector. The need to identify blockbusters and also the inability to pursue projects within areas that have a
smaller potential market, open up opportunities for biotech companies.
Besides trying to identify new blockbuster drugs and taking them through
the early phases of clinical trials, the biotech companies may focus on
smaller indication areas. Diseases with smaller patient groups may generate
profits, albeit smaller ones, and may have fewer subscribing doctors, which
simplifies marketing. Agreements between biotech companies and Big
Pharma usually include an up-front payment, milestone payments and then
royalties on sales, but payment may also be in the form of ownership shares
of the company or co-financing of product development whereby the partners share costs, risk and future earnings. In recent years, an increasing
number of agreements are being reported where Swedish companies are
attracting contract research, licensing and collaboration agreements with
large global pharmaceutical companies. This has been the case for Medivir
AB, KaroBio AB, and Biovitrum AB, where, for instance, KaroBio has
formed strategic partnerships with as many as four of the ten largest Big
Pharma companies46.
The most important source of ideas for innovations in drug discovery and
drug development is often considered to be university and clinical research.
The companies develop drug candidates or knowledge of certain diseases or
certain biological areas in close collaboration with research teams at universities and university hospitals. They often have an established network of
academic groups, and collaborate with university teams or clinical scientists
throughout the entire innovation process. The companies have to rely on a
functioning knowledge and technology market, where their income is
derived from collaboration agreements with the pharmaceutical industry,
from licensing out their patents or from selling drug candidates. The market
is global. Only a few of these companies today take their drug candidates
through all the phases of clinical trials required and on to the market. This is
often due to a lack of resources for the expensive clinical trials procedure
and to build a marketing and sales organisation.
In the future, a major driving force behind growth in this area will be
research into molecular medicine. Improved techniques for producing
biological molecules and for finding new drug targets by genome mapping
and research into functional genomics and proteomics, increases the growth
potential and the potential for starting new ventures in the pharmaceutical
46
Swedish Biopharma Industry – The Next Wave, BioSeeker Group AB 2002.
58
area. Thus, development and growth of research-intensive drug discovery &
development companies will lead to growth in a number of other areas, such
as the biotech tools & supplies sector.
Besides an obvious need for investment in pre-clinical life science research,
it is also important to point out the need to invest in clinical research for the
development of this field. Clinical research and traditional development of
drugs and therapies are essential complements to research into molecular
medicine. If biomedical research is to be applied, it also has to be tested and
documented in clinical trial procedures. Therefore, high-capacity clinical
research will also have a positive influence on the development of drug
discovery and drug developing companies in Sweden.
Drug delivery
Companies in the drug delivery sub-sector are conducting research on how
the active substances in medicines can be made to reach their target molecules in the body and how a satisfactory uptake of these substances, which
are often difficult to dissolve, can be ensured. Their clients are mainly
biotechnology companies involved in drug discovery and drug development
and the large pharmaceutical companies. The expected future growth of
drug discovery & development companies will generate growth in this subsector.
By far the largest company in this sub-sector in 2001 was Bioglan with
141 employees. Bioglan Pharma Plc in 1996 acquired the Swedish company
Biogram AB and renamed it to Bioglan Therapeutics AB and in December
2000 merged it into Bioglan AB. In 2002 however Bioglan was divided into
two companies and sold. R&D in drug delivery of macromolecules, such as
peptides and proteins, is now being conducted by SkyePharma AB
(40 employees), which is a subsidiary of British SkyePharma Plc. The
production is being carried out by Bioglan, which has been sold to Wilh.
Sonesson. The manufacturing unit produces creams and topical gels, and in
2003 it employed 50 people. The second largest company is Amarin
Development, which has 43 employees and is involved in developing oral
and site-specific drug delivery solutions.
Diagnostics
The companies included in the diagnostics sub-sector develop tools and
techniques for diagnostics and blood analysis and most of their customers
are in the health-care sector or are companies performing clinical laboratory
analysis in Sweden and abroad. These companies work closely with teams
at universities and university hospitals in their innovation processes. A
major difference compared to the companies developing new drugs is that
the process from idea to commercialisation of diagnostic products, proc-
59
esses and services is much shorter. Therefore these companies have the
potential to show a profit much faster if their product provides positive
results. The largest companies in this field were Sangtec Medical, owned
by the German pharmaceutical company Altana Pharma, Boule Diagnostics
International, Cellavision AB, and Sequenom AB in 2001, all with
40-50 employees that year. Since then, US Sequenom Inc. has closed
down its Swedish subsidiary Sequenom AB, previously Eurona AB.
Medical technology
Companies included in the biotechnological medical technology sub-sector
are involved in blood therapy, biomaterials for implants for aesthetic and
medical use, products used in fertility treatment, nutrition solutions and
plasma replacement. Companies producing equipment for dialysis is not
included. By far the largest company in this category is Q-Med, which
develops hyluronic acid-based implants for aesthetic and medical use and
has 153 employees. The second largest company is Vitrolife with 98 employees, which develops nutrient-solutions and devices for the preparation,
cultivation and preservation of human cells, tissues and organs.
5.4
Development of the Industry
In this section we will explore the industrial structure and the development
of the biotech industry. The economic development of the Swedish biotech
industry and its different industrial sectors between 1997 and 2001 is described in terms of number of companies, number of employees, turnover,
equity/assets ratio and profits/losses.
The large pulp & paper and food companies as well as the two big pharmaceutical companies Pharmacia Corporation and AstraZeneca, and the big
supplier of biotech tools, supplies and instruments Amersham Biosciences
are not included in the studied population of companies since they would
completely dominate the statistics and the focus of the study is the small and
medium-sized companies. Also Biovitrum with more than 500 employees is
not included. As a comparison, the total pharmaceutical & medical sector in
Sweden, i.e. including all medical technology, the Pharmacia Corporation
and AstraZeneca, as well as various production facilities and sales and
marketing offices in this field etc. employs a total of about 30,000 people in
Sweden and has a turnover of 60 billion SEK47. The total biotech industry
according to our definition and only including companies with less than
500 employees and with R&D activities in Sweden employs about
4,000 people and has a turnover of 4 billion SEK.
47
Source: Statistics Sweden
60
The companies that will be described in the following sections are small
and medium-sized companies with up to 500 employees. These companies
produce goods, services, and knowledge in various niche areas, often as
subcontractors or in collaboration with large Swedish and international
companies and corporations. In the tables of Appendix A, the names of the
companies and their fields of activity are listed. A description of the
methodology used in the analyses is found in Chapter 2.
5.4.1
Industrial structure
The number of Swedish biotech companies increased from 135 in 1997 to
183 in 2001 (see figure below) and also, the number of employees increased
throughout the period. In 1997 the biotech companies included in the study
had 2,677 employees and at the end of 2001 the figure was 3,975, which
corresponds to an increase by 48 per cent.
Number of companies and employees in the Swedish biotech
industry 1997-2001
4500
200
3975
180
4000
3760
160
3500
3391
Number of
3233
140
3000
companies
2677
120
2500
100
2000
80
1500
60
1000
40
20
Number of
employees
500
0
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
Source : MMP-database
The size, in terms of employees, of the biotech companies studied is presented in the table below. As can be seen, there are a few companies each
year with no employees. This may seem strange since we only have included companies with employees. This is explained by the fact that a few
companies had employees one or more years during the period, but not all
of the years.
61
Biotech companies distributed by size (number of employees)
Cize class
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2
86
36
5
3
3
0
5
96
41
8
2
3
1
2
106
47
10
3
3
0
2
113
45
11
5
3
0
3
109
53
9
6
3
0
135
156
171
179
183
(no. Of employees)
0
1-9
10-49
50-99
100-199
200-499
>= 500
Total
Source: MMP-database
The vast majority of companies are and have been small during the entire
period. In 2001 almost 90 per cent of the companies had less than 50 employees and a good half had less than 10 employees. However, in absolute
numbers, there is an increase in companies with more than 49 employees
from 11 in 1997 to 18 in 2001. Only one company, Active Biotech AB, had
more than 500 employees in one year (1998) during the period. In the
following year, its headcount decreased to 341.
The number of companies has mainly increased in this sector and in the
biotech tools & supplies sector. The number of companies in pharmaceuticals & medicine increased by 30 per cent over the five-year period. In the
biotech tools & supplies sector the corresponding increase was 44 per cent.
In the four remaining sectors there was only a small increase in the number
of companies (see figure below).
Number of companies in six biotech sectors 1997-2001
Number of
companies
120
Agrobiotechnology
100
Bioproduction
80
60
40
20
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
62
2001
In terms of number of employees the pattern that emerges is quite similar to
that of number of companies (see figure below). The difference is that the
sector of agrobiotechnology is the second in terms of employees but only
the sixth in terms of the number of companies.
Number of employees in six biotech sectors 1997-2001
2500
Number of
employees
Agrobiotechnology
2000
Bioproduction
1500
1000
500
0
1997
1998
1999
Year
2000
2001
Pharmaceuticals & medicine is the sector with most employees and their
numbers increased with almost 50 per cent over the period. Around 43 per
cent of the smaller companies with less than 10 employees in the first years,
had increased their number of employees at the end of the period. Compared
to companies of the same size in industries outside the biotech industry, a
large proportion of the companies grew in terms of the number of employees48. Q-Med AB, SBL Vaccin AB and Bioglan AB are companies that are
rather big and they have also increased the number of employees the most.
Biotech tools & supplies is the sector that, besides pharmaceuticals &
medicine, grew the most in relative terms, by almost 200 per cent. Biacore
AB together with Pyrosequencing AB are responsible for a large portion of
the increase at the end of the period.
Bioproduction and functional food & feed are the other two sectors that
grew in terms of employee numbers. Companies in the former sector
increased their headcount by 60 per cent and in the latter sector by 45 per
cent over the five-year period. In environmental biotechnology the growth is
very insignificant. This is also the smallest sector in terms of employee
numbers over the entire period.
48
For a description and analysis of the Swedish company structure and employment
structure see Magnus Henreksson and Dan Johansson “På spaning efter de mellanstora
företagen” Ekonomisk Debatt 1997, Årgång 25 nr. 4 and “Det svenska nyföretagandet
1986-1997, Förändringar i företagsstrukturer och sysselsättningseffekter, VINNOVA
Analys, VA 2002:2
63
Compared to other sectors, the number of employees in agrobiotechnology
is relatively large, and Svalöf Weibull AB was the biggest company with
around 300 employees in 2001. However, the number of employees in the
sector decreased by 5 per cent over the period. This decrease is mainly
explained by the reduction of employees in the company Syngenta
Seeds AB from 306 in 2000 to 241 in 2001.
The figure below shows the number of companies in the four pharmaceuticals & medicine sub-sectors.
Number of companies in the four pharmaceuticals & medicine subsectors 1997-2001
Number of
companies
60
50
Diagnostics
40
Drug delivery
30
Drug discovery & development
20
Medical technology
10
0
1997
1998
1999
Year
2000
2001
Source: MMP database
In the pharmaceuticals & medicine sector, the number of companies grew
from 72 in 1997 to 99 in 2001. This increase mainly took place in the drug
discovery & development sub-sector, which increased by more than 50 per
cent in terms of the number of companies. Also in medical technology the
number of companies increased by over 50 per cent. In the other two subsectors the growth was marginal.
The pattern in terms of number of employees is similar to that of number of
companies (see figure below). Drug discovery & development is the largest
sub-sector in terms of employees and the number of employees increased
during the period with 38 per cent. There is also a growth in the other three
sub-sectors. Medical technology shows the biggest relative growth with
almost 200 per cent.
64
Number of employees in four pharmaceuticals & medicine subsectors 1997-2001
1200
Number of
employees 1000
Diagnostics
800
Drug delivery
600
400
Medical technology
200
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
5.4.2
Turnover and equity/assets ratio
The development of annual turnovers is a measure of growth. Among the
biotech companies there are several that do not report any sales in some of
the years studied, but the same companies report employees and in some
cases considerable numbers of employees. A probable explanation is that
they are newly established companies that do not yet have a product on the
market. These companies are in the early phase of their life cycle and are
heavily dependent on venture capital. It is important to note that the size of
annual turnover between companies varies significantly. This variation is
concealed when aggregating the turnover of individual companies.
A methodological problem is that a company, when changing its financial
year, will have a financial year that is longer or shorter than 12 months. In
the 10 cases of extended financial years, i.e. more than 12 months, companies did not present any turnover for a specific calendar year. This means
that the aggregated turnovers presented in the figure is somewhat underestimated.
Among companies existing in the year 2000, around 30 per cent had a split
financial year and these companies, at the time the information was gathered, had not submitted accounting records for 2001. Thus, the turnover
figures for 2001 are excluded in the figure below where the aggregated
turnovers in the six industrial sectors are presented.
65
Turnover in fixed prices (producer price index, 2000=100)
1997-2000 in six biotech sectors
Turnover
(MSEK)
2500
Agrobiotechnology
2000
Bioproduction
1500
1000
500
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Source: MMP data base
Comment: The producer price index for pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical
chemicals has been used for all sectors but functional food & feed, where the
producer price index for food, beverages and tobacco has been used.
Not surprisingly the pharmaceuticals & medicine sector had the largest
turnover as well as number of companies and employees. Compared to
employee statistics, the pattern among sectors is very similar, pharmaceuticals & medicine is the largest industrial sector and environmental biotechnology is the smallest.
The growth in turnover over the period also corresponds closely to the
growth in the number of employees. All sectors grew, as did their ratio
turnover/employees, except agrobiotechnology. The turnover in agrobiotechnology decreased by 13 per cent. In pharmaceuticals & medicine, the
growth in absolute numbers was very significant between 1999 and 2000.
The main explanation is that the turnover of some companies (Q-Med AB,
Karo Bio AB, Bioglan AB, SBL Vaccin AB and a few more) increased
considerably. In relative numbers the growth of 31 percent is less impressive compared to other biotech sectors. The strongest growth is found in
environmental biotechnology, with a growth of over 100 per cent. In the
remaining three sectors, the growth was between 60 and 80 per cent. The
growth in turnover in bioproduction, functional food & feed and environmental biotechnology is interesting since the number of companies has not
increased in these sectors. This indicates that the growth is not explained by
new entrances but by an increase in sales in “old” companies.
66
At the sub-sector level in pharmaceuticals & medicine, the growth is
primarily in medical technology, which grew by 240 per cent. The drug
delivery sub-sector also shows a substantial growth of 140 per cent. Drug
discovery & development is the biggest sub-sector.
So far the information presented has shown that the Swedish biotech industry grew during the period 1997 to 2001. The number of companies, of
employees and the size of turnover, all increased. Economic growth through
the development and launch of new products, new services and by introducing new production processes is costly. Companies require large financial
resources. It is important to finance these activities to a large extent through
profits generated or by infusion of capital and not by loans, in order to maintain the company’s financial strength and stability. The equity/assets ratio is
a measure of financial strength. A ratio of between 30 and 50 per cent
indicates that the owners of the company have financed a large portion of
the assets and taken a large part the risk.49
The figure below shows the median equity/assets ratio in the sectors of the
biotech industry. The reason for using median values is that the values vary
considerably among companies and median values are less sensitive to large
fluctuations in values compared to mean values. The reason for leaving out
the year 2001 is the same as in the case of turnover, i.e. of the companies
that had a split financial year some had at the time of information gathering
not submitted accounting records for 2001.
Median equity/assets ratio in the industrial sectors of biotechnology
1997-2000
Equity/assets 80
ratio, median (%)
70
Agrobiotechnology
Bioproduction
60
50
40
30
20
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
49
Jan-Olof Andersson, Olle Edsbäcker, Anders Nyby. Lönsam tillväxt – praktisk
affärsekonomi. Kristianstads boktryckeri AB, 2002.
67
The median equity debt ratios were high or very high and increased over the
period in four of six sectors. Generally speaking, the financial strength was
sufficient to make future expansion possible in all sectors in 2000 with the
possible exception of agrobiotechnology, where the median value was just
below 30 per cent.
5.4.3
Industrial dynamic
The presentation so far has described the growth and development of the
biotech industry at a sector level for a year at a time. This way of describing
industrial evolution does not take into account changes in the population of
companies over time. New companies are established and others disappear,
i.e. go into liquidation or merge with another company. In this section, the
evolution of the Swedish biotech industry and its sectors is described in
terms of appearance of new companies, disappearance of existing companies and the evolution of companies that have existed the entire five-year
period 1997-2001.
New and disappearing companies
The table below shows the number of new and disappearing companies each
year as well as their employees and turnovers. A disappearing company is
one that has either gone into liquidation or merged with another company.
Number of new and disappearing companies,
their employees and turnover (fixed prices), 1998-2001
New companies
No.
Disappeared companies
Employees Turnover (MSEK)
No.
Employees Turnover (MSEK)
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
21
17
15
13
109
123
27
33
157,4
44,3
18,8
5,4
0
2
8
9
0
35
15
20
0
90,1
15,8
10,1
chemicals has been used for all sectors but functional food & feed where the
The dynamic of the Swedish biotech industry is characterised by a high, but
slightly decreasing number of new companies and a low, but rising number
of disappearing companies. In Appendix Table A10 companies that have
been identified and that may have started their business after the time when
we retrieved our data are found, i.e. 2001-2003.
68
In terms of employees the pattern is similar to that of the number of
companies. The number of employees in new companies exceeds the
number of employees in disappearing companies each year.
Most of the dynamic is found in two sectors, i.e. pharmaceuticals &
medicine and biotech tools & supplies. The former saw 34 new companies
being established and 9 companies disappearing during the period. In the
latter, 22 new companies were established and 6 disappeared. In the
remaining sectors, only a few new companies emerged and disappeared.
Within pharmaceuticals & medicine, most of the dynamic is found in the
sub-sector drug discovery & development, where 22 new companies were
established and 5 disappeared. In drug delivery, 3 new companies were
established and 1 disappeared, in diagnostics 4 new companies were established and 3 disappeared, in medical technology 5 new appeared and none
disappeared.
In the MMP database, information is provided if a company is involved in a
merger. However, the company with which it merged is not indicated. According to the database, a total of 14 companies were involved in a merger
during the five-year period. All of the 14 mergers occurred in 2000 and
2001, twelve of them in the second of these two years. Most of the mergers
occurred in the pharmaceuticals & medicine sector (8). The others occurred
in biotech tools & supplies (3), bioproduction (2) and environmental biotechnology (1).
To provide a better understanding of what actually happened, a comparison
of the total population in 1997 was made with the situation in 2001. In the
Appendix new and disappearing companies comparing 1997 with 2001 are
listed (see Appendix A11).
Surviving companies
The table below shows the number of employees, turnover and equity/assets
ratio of companies that existed in 1997 as well as in 2001 and for which
accounting records for 2001 are available (submitted to the Swedish Patent
and Registration Office, PRV). The requirement of available accounts
means that not all “survivors” are included in the table. Altogether 22 companies that existed in 1997 as well as in 2001 had not, at the time the information was gathered, submitted their accounting records to PRV and are
thus not included in the MMP database.
69
Number of surviving companies, their employees, turnover (fixed
prices) and equity/assets ratio (median value) in 1997 and 2001
distributed by industrial sector.
Category
Number of
companies
1997/2001
Number of
empoyees
1997
2001
Change
(%)
Turnover
Change Equity/assets ratio
(MSEK)
(%)
(%)
1997
2001
1997
2001
Agrobiotechnology
Bioproduction
Biotech tools and supplies
Functional food and feed
Pharmaceuticals and medicine
4
15
15
4
5
52
650
327
186
23
62
1006
589
523
432
24
56
1293
-61
196
246
1
-6
287
689
375
288
30
49
1155
559
604
647
54
55
1208
-19%
61%
125%
80%
13%
5%
32
55
53
14
41
54
34
62
55
30
31
70
All sectorsl
95
2254
2917
663
2587
3126
20%
50
62
Source: MMP database
All in all, 95 out of 183 companies active in 2001 existed the entire fiveyear period and had submitted accounting records for 2001 at the time the
information was gathered. More than half of them are found in the pharmaceuticals & medicine sector. In 1997 the 95 survivors accounted for 84 per
cent of all employees and the corresponding percentage in 2001 was 76. The
survivors increased their number of employees by 663, i.e. 29 per cent, over
the five-year period. The increased headcount in all companies in the biotech industry was 1,238. Thus, these survivors accounted for 53 per cent of
the total increase in employees.
At the sector level different patterns emerge. The growth records in terms of
employees and turnover of survivors in pharmaceuticals & medicine, biotech tools & supplies and bioproduction indicate that the expansion was
combined with maintained or increasing financial strength.
The overall growth for the survivors in the remaining three sectors agrobiotechnology, environmental biotechnology and functional food & feed is
not that impressive. In these sectors the number of employees decreased or
stayed the same. The turnover increased in environmental biotechnology
and functional food & feed but decreased in agrobiotechnology. Their
financial strengths were weak throughout the period.
The development of annual net profits/losses (after financial items and
taxes) is an important factor when studying the dynamics of an industry and
assessing changing equity/assets ratios. The net profit that a company
reports for a specific year may be influenced by fiscal considerations. A
company can by allowances to untaxed reserves change the level of its net
profit. However, net profits/losses over a period of time are indicators of
earnings trends. Earnings trends combined with equity/assets ratio trends
70
indicate how a company have financed its activities. The aggregated net
profits/losses of surviving companies in the biotech industry and its
industrial sectors are presented in the figure below
Net profits/losses (MSEK) of surviving companies in biotech sectors
1998 – 2001 (fixed prices, year 2000=100)
Agrobiotechnology
200
MSEK
0
Bioproduction
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
Total
-1200
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
The trend of growing net losses revealed in the figure does not present an
image of a prosperous industry. At sector level, a negative earnings trend
can be seen in four out of six sectors. The trend of growing net losses in
pharmaceuticals & medicine is especially striking. Only the agrobiotechnology and environmental biotechnology sectors show net profits each year.
Two companies in pharmaceuticals & medicine in the sub-sector Drug discovery & development are however responsible for more than 35 per cent of
the net losses for the whole biotech industry in 2001. In 2001 eight companies had net losses amounting to more than 50 MSEK each and more than
65 per cent of the total net loss that year can be attributed to these companies. Six of these were found in pharmaceuticals & medicine, one each in
medical technology and drug delivery and four in the sub-sector drug
discovery & development. The other two were found in the sector biotech
tools & supplies.
Net losses over time combined with high and/or increasing equity/assets
ratio indicate that the activities have been financed by capital infusion and
not by net profits. The findings indicate that companies in general in the
pharmaceuticals & medicine, biotech tools & supplies and bioproduction
sectors received substantial capital infusion during the period. They report
growing net losses and increasing equity/assets ratio. The functional food &
71
feed sector reports growing net losses and decreasing equity/assets ratio. In
agrobiotechnology and environmental biotechnology, the companies reported growing net profits and increasing equity/assets ratio. This indicates
that activities were financed by net profits.
However, not all companies in a sector with an aggregated net loss reported
net losses. Even in pharmaceuticals & medicine, which has the biggest
reported net loss, more than 40 per cent of the companies in 2001 show net
profits. The figure below shows the percentage of companies with net
profits, 1998-2001.
Percentage of surviving companies with net profit 1998-2001 in total
and in each sector
100
Per cent
Agrobiotechnology
Bioproduction
80
60
40
20
Total
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
The percentage of companies with net losses has increased over time among
the 25 survivors in pharmaceuticals & medicine, as have the aggregated net
losses. The companies with net losses in 1998 increased their losses over
time. Also, a few companies have gone from net profit to net loss. Companies with net profits each year in general report a small increase in net
profits.
Also in biotech tools & supplies a large part of the 15 survivors report net
losses over time. Many of them have also increased their losses between
1998 and 2001, which explains the increase in aggregate losses. A large
share of the 15 surviving bioproduction companies reports small, but
increasing net profits. However a few companies, report significant net
losses during the later years, which explains the change from net profits to
net losses for the sector.
72
In functional food & feed most of the five survivors reported growing net
losses over the period. Three of the four survivors in agrobiotechnology
reported net profits during the first part of the period. However in 2001, two
out of four companies reported losses. The four environmental biotechnology companies all reported net profits each year. They have all, to a
limited extent, also increased their net profits over the period.
5.5
Regional dynamic50
The issue of why biotech companies select various locations has many
possible explanations. Using a model with the explanatory variables:
“industrial strength,” “science base” and “fixed effects,” a study has been
conducted to discover whether new biotechnology enterprises in the USA
are attracted by the local industrial strength of a sector or by the strength of
its science base.51 Industrial strength was measured as the number of employees in different industrial sectors and science base as the number of
people employed in research in relevant scientific areas. The last variable,
fixed effects, covered all state-specific effects, such as venture capital or
infrastructure. In biotechnology, the main attractive force was found to be
the presence of a strong research base, and to some extent, industrial employment in key sectors, i.e. clusters of small companies developed close to
research centres rather than close to established industries.
Being in a cluster involves both benefits and costs. On the supply side,
specialised labour, specialised inputs (e.g. equipment, reagents and testing
devices), and spill-over of knowledge attract companies. On the demand
side, the possibility of joining important users in other industries or domestic users strengthens some clusters. It is also less expensive for customers to
compare alternatives. The costs of clustering are congestion costs (e.g.
higher real-estate prices and higher wages for qualified personnel) and
reduced profitability due to competition. Congestion effects, however, are
not very important in biotechnology, according to Swann and Prevezer.
Most Swedish biotech companies with less than 500 employees were, both
in 1997 and in 2001, located in metropolitan areas with large universities. In
1997 the biotech companies were, as shown in figure A 12 in appendix A,
primarily located in four city/regions, i.e. Stockholm, Uppsala, Gothenburg
50
Eleven companies, new in year 2001 and with in total 34 employees that year, were not
included in the analysis of the regional dynamic since they had a late split financial year
and had not submitted their data to the Patent and registration office at the time the data for
this analysis was retrieved.
51
Swann, P. and Prevezer M. (1996) A comparison of the dynamics of industrial clustring
in computing and biotechnology. Research Policy 25, pp. 1139-1157.
73
and Malmö/Lund. Five years later, the location pattern was the same (see
figure A 13 in appendix A). However, the concentration of the industry to
these four cities had increased. The location pattern and changes in this
pattern were quite similar in terms of employees (see figure A 14 and
A 15 in appendix A).
The general growth, in terms of the number of companies, between 1997
and 2001 in the biotech industry occurred in these four city/regions. They
grew by between 33 and 41 per cent. Outside these four cities, the number
of companies did not increase. In Umeå, a city with a large university, the
number of biotech companies was 7 both in 1997 and 2001 and in other
regions of Sweden combined the number of companies decreased from 20
to 18. This indicates that most of the new companies that emerged during
the five-year period did so in Stockholm, Uppsala, Gothenburg and
Malmö/Lund.
The variation in growth in terms of employees was big between the four
cities. In Uppsala the number of employees in the biotech industry grew by
174 per cent. In Gothenburg the rate of growth between 1997 and 2001 was
107 per cent, in Stockholm the rate was 51 per cent and in Malmö/Lund it
was 36 per cent. In Umeå the number of employees in the biotech industry
increased by 22 per cent and in all other regions the number decreased by
2 per cent.
Table A 16 and A 17 in appendix A shows the distribution of biotech
companies and employees by cities and sectors in 1997 and 2001. These
tables show that the pharmaceuticals & medicine sector accounted for most
of the biotech industry in Stockholm. Almost two thirds of the companies
are found in this sector both years. The biotech tools & supplies sector grew
the most during the period, both in terms of companies and employees.
The biotech industry in Malmö/Lund, both in 1997 and 2001, was largely
involved in pharmaceuticals & medicine, especially in terms of numbers of
employees. The sector that grew the most in terms of employees was bioproduction, although there was no change in the number of companies.
The biotech industry in Gothenburg was focused on pharmaceuticals &
medicine throughout the period.
In terms of number of companies, the biotech industry in Uppsala was
involved in pharmaceuticals & medicine and this focus increased during the
period. However, in terms of employees, the biotech tools & supplies sector
was also important.
74
In terms of the number of employees, most of the biotech industry in Umeå
was involved with bioproduction in 1997. In 2001 there were as many employees working for companies in the pharmaceuticals & medicine sector as
in the bioproduction sector.
From the perspective of industrial sectors, the following employee patterns
have emerged: Pharmaceuticals & medicine employees were mainly
working in Stockholm and Malmö/Lund in 1997. This also holds true in
2001, although Uppsala increased its share of employees (from 9 to 16 per
cent). The bioproduction sector was primarily located in Stockholm and
Malmö/Lund both years. However, the Malmö/Lund region increased its
share from 27 to 47 per cent. Companies in the biotech tools & supplies
sector were located mainly in Uppsala both in 1997 and 2001. In 2001
Stockholm had increased its share of these companies to 18 per cent. The
environmental biotechnology sector was located primarily in Malmö/Lund
both years. The functional food & feed sector was primarily located in
Stockholm. Around 75 per cent of the employees were found here, both in
1997 and 2001.
Companies in the agrobiotechnology sector are not located in the four
dominating cities, but instead they are found in the Skåne region and in the
Svalöf and Landskrona counties.
5.6
Seed financing and venture capital
It is clear that the availability of early stage financing is an important prerequisite for the development of new technology-based enterprises. Very
little private capital is currently available for the earliest stages of project
and business development in Sweden. Sweden has very few business angels
and the venture capital industry today rarely invests in the very early stages
of a new business enterprise. For the later stages of business development
the biotech companies often rely on attracting venture capital for their R&D
investments. Below a summary of different sources of financing for all
types of business development is found, i.e. not only for biotechnology. It is
mainly the first two organisations that are involved in financing of very
early stages of biotechnology business development. What is not included
are the investments made by the Foundations for Technology Transfer, the
holding companies linked to the universities, the venture capital industry
and other private investors.
75
Sources of financing of all types of business development in
Sweden 2001
No. of
loans/investments
Size of
loan/investment
Total amount
SIC1
481
Loans up to
400000 SEK
80 MSEK
NUTEK
95
More than
250000 SEK per loan
76 MSEK
2023
On average
400000 SEK per loan
825 MSEK
n/a
470 MSEK
ALMI Business
Partner
Industrifonden
97
(2000/2001)
1
SIC will only be in operation until mid 2004
Source: www. innovationscentrum.se
5.6.1
Early stage financing
Public seed financing has been available from government agencies like
NUTEK (previously the Swedish National Board for Technical and Industrial Development now called the Swedish Business Development Agency)
and the foundation SIC (very early stage financing). ALMI Business Partner
mainly gives loans to later stages of business development. The most
relevant sources of early stage financing for biotech start-ups have been
NUTEK, SIC and to some extent varying between geographic regions, the
Foundations for Technology Transfer and holding companies linked to
universities. The seven regional Foundations for Technology Transfer
choose different ways to promote commercialisation of academic research.
Often they support initiatives by other organisations closely linked to the
universities, for example, the universities’ holding companies, or initiatives
by companies partly owned by the Foundation for Technology Transfer. In
Umeå and Linköping the focus is on commercialising research and support
in Luleå mainly goes to collaboration with industry 53. In Uppsala, Lund and
Linköping the Foundations for Technology Transfer usually own part of the
university spin-off companies in which they have been involved. We were
unable to find any statistics relating to these initiatives indicating the
amount of money that goes to seed financing activities. However, the Foundation for Technology Transfer in Stockholm claims to give 30 MSEK
yearly to universities and other organisations in stipends and financing for
development projects, and in Luleå 8 MSEK is invested yearly. The seven
Foundations for Technology Transfer received 1,000 MSEK in 1994 and
they may only use the return on the capital since the sum is to be returned in
2007. The capital at the end of 2000 had grown to almost 2,000 MSEK, but
since then the foundations have watched their capital being reduced due to
developments on the stock exchange.
53
RRV 2001:11
76
The eleven holding companies closely linked to the universities received a
total of 64 MSEK in 1994 and 1995. They too chose different ways to
commercialise academic research. They are acting, in varying degrees, as
mediators between industry and academia, providing seed financing to startups, and sometimes they own shares in these start-ups. They are creating
subsidiaries that either develop projects or provide services to help the
university with the third task, or subsidiaries that perform contract
research.54
Starting in 2002, Industrifonden was supposed to take over much of the seed
funding operations of NUTEK. The idea was for NUTEK and Industrifonden to work closely together in the evaluation of applications from new
technology-based enterprises. Thus far few investments have come out of
this collaboration. In December 2002, a total of 3 applications had been
approved and these will receive 2 MSEK each in loans, of which one grant
concerns a life science venture. This is to be compared with a total of
76 MSEK granted in 2001 by NUTEK. However, some seed financing is
still being granted by NUTEK. In 2002 a total of 23 MSEK in investments
in new technology based enterprises was decided on. About 6.3 MSEK of
these where invested in 13 biotechnology ventures, while 1.8 were invested
in 4 other life science-related ventures. As an government agency, NUTEK
can only contribute to half of the investment and half must be financed by
non-governmental investors. The NUTEK investments in 2002 ranged from
250 000 SEK to 2.1 MSEK each.
Of the thirteen biotech projects that received public seed financing from
NUTEK in 1997-1999 55 eight companies had employees in 2000/2001, one
had gone out of business, four seem not to have employed anybody in 19972001 (unless they have changed names) and at least three companies have
received private venture capital. According to Statistics Sweden, more than
half of the 110 companies that received seed financing from NUTEK in
1994 in all fields had experienced a clear, positive growth six years later and
their turnover had more than doubled. For the 43 companies that received
the same support in 1996, nine out of ten companies had survived and seven
out of ten had expanded.
NUTEK/ALMI and VINNOVA in 2002 initiated a contest where the most
interesting new technology-based business enterprises could win grants. Of
the 429 contenders, 20 received 300,000 SEK each, i.e. 6 MSEK in total,
and about 3 of the 20 were biotechnology projects. An initiative by NUTEK
that does not involve seed financing is supporting entrepreneurship at uni54
55
RRV 2001:11
77
versities. This initiative mainly includes networking, providing advice and
small amounts of financing as well as education on the subject of entrepreneurship. Uminova Center AB in Umeå, Teknopol AB Lund, Chalmers
Innovation in Gothenburg and Mälardalens Högskola will share 4.5 MSEK.
Currently new seed funds are being launched at universities, such as the
KTH Seed Capital Fund at the Royal Institute of Technology. This fund was
created by Industrifonden, W Capital Management, SEB Företagsinvest and
KTH Holding. The fund’s initial capital will be 127 MSEK of which
27 MSEK comes from Industrifonden. Industrifonden is also one of the
players initiating six other new funds at universities and institutes that will
share a total initial amount of SEK 250 million (about USD 29 million),
which has been earmarked for early commercialisation of research projects.
This sum, besides the KTH fund, will go to, among others, Lund University,
which has created Lumitec, a venture capital company funded in the amount
of 30 MSEK by Industrifonden, Malmöhus Invest and the Lund University
developing company LUAB. The venture capital company Iteksa Venture
has been established at Linköping Technical University. The investors
include Industrifonden, Saab and the Foundation for Technology Transfer in
Linköping. Industrifonden’s investment is 44 MSEK. It has been established
that the typical size of investment per company for one of these funds will
be 5-10 MSEK.
5.6.2
Venture capital
As was seen from the analysis of the biotech industry, many of the biotech
companies in the study are relying on venture capital (VC) for their development into self-supporting companies. Sweden like most OECD countries
experienced a drastic increase in the amount of venture capital available in
the late nineties, although there has been a clear reduction since then. This
study does not include an inventory of venture capital available to the
biotech industry or VC investments in the industry. However, most experts
in the Swedish biotech industry at the moment seem to agree that, with
respect to the availability of venture capital, there is a lot of capital in funds
at the moment. Furthermore, a study by Bioseeker Group AB states that
580 MSEK in venture capital was invested in the Swedish biopharma
industry during the first six months of 2002, compared 830 MSEK going
to IT and telecom during the same period56. It is often stated today that an
increasing share of financing goes to follow-up investments in old portfolio
companies or to new investments mainly in the later stages of a company’s
development than was common a few years ago. However, the abovementioned study indicates that eight out of eighteen identified companies
56
Swedish Biopharma Industry-The Next Wave, Bioseeker Group AB, 2002
78
receiving venture capital from 2000 to mid-2002 received seed or start-up
financing, four received financing for expansion, and six companies did not
specify. The second and third infusion of capital involves a larger investment, often by more than one financier, which often takes a long time to
organise. Since a large portion of the many newly started biotech companies
that have received venture capital or public seed financing are not yet selfsupporting, the competition over venture capital is tough. One reason for the
VC industry to exercise greater caution is, of course, the development on the
stock exchange, rendering it difficult for VC companies to be able to exit
their investment there in the near future. Since many companies founded in
recent years still need venture capital and there also are completely new
projects looking for funding, the market seems to be favourable for the VC
industry, i.e. they can impose stringent requirements before investing in
companies.
According to a study by NUTEK and the Swedish Venture Capital Association (Svenska Riskkapitalföreningen)57, in 2002, 77 per cent of venture
capital companies in Sweden answering a questionnaire distributed by the
Association, believe that they will invest more (36 per cent) or the same
amount (41 per cent) of capital in the coming twelve-month period compared to the period before. Of the VC industry investments, 33 per cent of
the total number of investments related to initial investments, while 64 per
cent related to follow-up investments in existing portfolio companies. The
number of investments in what the VC industry calls seed stage58, has decreased for the sixth consecutive quarter. In addition, according to the study,
interest in such investments is decreasing. During the third quarter of 2002,
20 MSEK was invested in this stage. At the same time, interest in the two
later stages, the start-up59 and expansion phases60, is increasing. The majority of the Swedish VC companies answering the questionnaire, 67 per cent,
had not exited an investment in the third quarter of 2002. Of the industry
sectors in which VC’s have the most confidence for future investment, Bio57
Rikskapitalbolagens aktiviteter, Tredje kvartalet 2002, NUTEK R2002:10
Financing provided to research, assess and develop an initial concept before a business
has reached the start-up phase.
59
Financing provided to companies for product development and initial marketing.
Companies may be in the process of being set up or may have been in business for a short
time, but have not sold their product commercially. Financing for companies that have
completed the product development stage and require further funds to initiate commercial
manufacturing and sales. They will not yet be generating a profit.
60
Financing provided for the growth and expansion of an operating company, which may
or may not be breaking even or trading profitably. Capital may be used to finance increased
production capacity, market or product development, and/or to provide additional working
capital. Financing made available to a company in the transition period from being
privately owned to being publicly quoted. Financing made available to existing businesses
that have experienced trading difficulties, with a view to re-establishing prosperity.
58
79
technology came fourth after Medical Technology, Computers/ IT, Software, and Communications/other. 6-7 per cent of investments have gone to
biotechnology over the past six quarters up to the third quarter of 2002.
According to the study, only one biotechnology investment was made in the
third quarter of 2002, corresponding to five per cent of the total sum
invested.
VC companies, like HealthCap and the new VC company Creandum,
created by the Sixth Swedish National Pension Fund and Skandia Liv, have
created new funds (3,000 MSEK and 300 MSEK respectively). Creadum
will invest in new technology-based enterprises in the Nordic countries and
the new HealthCap fund will invest globally in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology companies. It remains to be seen how these and
other new funds will distribute their investments in the various stages of
company development, and how much will be invested in Sweden. It is
becoming increasingly common today for different VC funds to co-invest in
new ventures61 and there is also a trend towards mergers within the VC
industry itself.
According to press releases both regarding direct investments in companies
and the establishment of new funds in established VC companies, Swedish
biotechnology seems to be quite attractive to foreign investors. For instance,
the new HealthCap fund includes foreign investors like the UK Retirement
Fund, Swiss Re, Tapiola, TIFF, Toronto University, Vanderbilt University
and Washington University and as much as more than 90 percent of the
capital in the fund is foreign.
In conclusion, it seems there was very little public and private early stage
financing available in 2002, largely due to the reduction in the amount
allocated to this by NUTEK and also because of the development on the
stock exchange affecting the propensity and ability of other investors to
invest. Recently a number of new regional funds have been formed that
are said to be earmarked for early stage financing. It remains to be seen
how these funds will invest their resources. The VC industry currently
seems to invest less in the early stages. Bearing in mind current developments on the stock exchange, these investors may consider it to be difficult
to effectively exit high-risk projects in the near future. Instead many of them
are focusing on nursing their old investments and finding more developed
later stage projects with better exit prognoses. The VC industry is also involved in a consolidation phase. However, quite large sums of venture
capital are available in various VC funds and a number of investments were
made in Swedish biotechnology in 2002. The fact that so many biotech
61
Rikskapitalbolagens aktiviteter, Andra kvartalet 2002, NUTEK R2002:8
80
companies that need venture capital for their project and product development, have been, and continue to be, formed, means that the demand for
venture capital is high. Entrepreneurs are reporting that it is more difficult
today to find financiers and the process takes longer than in the past. Some
companies are also slowing down their R&D activities so that their funding
will last longer. The question is whether enough capital is available to support the development of all of the most promising projects and companies.
5.7
For many years now, scientists, industrialists, investors and policy makers in
the Western world have emphasised the considerable potential of biotechnology. In the Swedish context, these expectations have, to some extent
been fulfilled. The number of small and medium-sized biotech companies
(<500 employees) as well as their employees has shown an impressive increase during the five-year period 1997-2001. However, most of the companies are still small with less than 10 employees and the industry is still a
small contributor to the national economy. The existing global market for
products and services provided by the biotech industry is expected to show a
significant growth. The European Commission estimates that by 2005 the
European biotechnology market could be worth over € 100 billion. By 2010,
global markets, including sectors where life sciences and biotechnology
constitute a major portion of new technology applied, could amount to over
€ 2,000 billion, excluding agriculture
An important overall conclusion is that the findings indicate that the growth
in the number of employees in many of the surviving biotech companies, i.e.
companies that have existed throughout the five-year period, was in many
cases financed not by generated profits but by an infusion of venture capital.
Hence, a substantial number of them are still dependent on infusion of venture capital. Also, many of the new companies that were established during
the period probably still require infusion of venture capital. In addition new
companies that will be formed will require venture capital for their project
and product development. This indicates that the demand for venture capital
will continue to be high. Considerable sums of venture capital are available
in various VC funds and both new and follow-up investments are being
made. However, biotech entrepreneurs are reporting that it is more difficult
today to find financiers and the process takes longer than in the past. The
question is whether enough capital will be available to support the development of all of the most promising projects and companies.
In the short-term perspective, taking into account a high demand for venture
capital, a lack of public seed financing and the current situation on the stock
market, the growth of the biotech industry may slow down. However, in the
81
long-term perspective the growth potential is promising, since the global
demand for biotech products is expected to continue to grow.
From a regional perspective, a large portion of the Swedish biotech industry
is located in the four cities of Stockholm, Uppsala, Gothenburg and
Malmö/Lund, all of which have large universities. Furthermore, the concentration of this industry to these cities increased between 1997 and 2001.
Most of the activities in the pharmaceuticals & medicine and bioproduction
sectors are found in Stockholm and Malmö/Lund, biotech tools & supplies
in Uppsala, environmental biotechnology in Malmö/Lund and functional
food & feed in Stockholm. Agrobiotechnology activities are carried out
outside the four cities, mainly in the Skåne region.
The biotech industry consists of six industrial sectors and the study has
shown that economic development and industrial dynamics varies a lot
between the sectors. At sector level the analysis shows that the sectors of
pharmaceuticals & medicine, biotech tools & supplies and bioproduction
have grown in terms of number of companies, employees and turnover.
However, surviving companies, i.e. companies that existed the entire period,
show increasing aggregate net losses, especially during the later part of the
period, and high and increasing equity/assets ratio, which indicates that the
growth has in general not been financed by net profits generated but by the
infusion of capital.
The three sectors of agrobiotechnology, environmental biotechnology and
functional food & feed show less impressive growth between 1997 and
2001. There was no significant change in the number of companies and
employees, and turnover did not increase. The sectors also demonstrate low
equity/assets ratio. However, surviving companies in agrobiotechnology,
functional food & feed and environmental biotechnology reported net
profits each year.
The industrial sector of pharmaceuticals & medicine dominated the Swedish
biotech industry during the five-year period studied in terms of the number
of companies, employees and turnover. The equity/assets ratio of the sector
is impressive and it has increased over the years. Much of the dynamic in
the biotech industry, in terms of new and disappearing companies, occurred
in this sector. The survivors show growth in their headcount, turnover and
equity/assets ratio. However, they also report growing net losses, which
indicates that their growth has not always been financed by net profits
generated but by an infusion of capital.
The companies in this sector have been divided into the four sub-sectors
drug discovery & development, drug delivery, diagnostics and medical
82
technology. In terms of the number of companies and employees, drug
discovery & development is the largest sub-sector. The increase in the
number of companies in the sector is also primarily related to this subsector. The medical technology sub-sector also grew in terms of the number
of companies, while there was no increase in the number of companies in
the other two sub-sectors. All sub-sectors increased their number of employees between 1997 and 2001. The increase took place in the first part of
the period in drug discovery & development and diagnostics. In drug delivery and medical technology, the increase took place in the later years of the
period. The industrial dynamic, in terms of new and disappearing companies, primarily occurred in the drug discovery & development sub-sector.
With respect to future growth potential the prospects are good. For instance,
companies involved in discovery & development may profit from the fact
that Big Pharma companies increasingly rely on intermediary biotech companies to provide ideas and to play an important role in their innovation
processes.
Throughout the five-year period, the industrial biotech tools & supplies
sector has been the second in size in terms of the number of companies.
However, in terms of employees and turnover, this sector was only the
fourth biggest in 1997. In 2001 this had changed and this sector had climbed
to second place. The increase in the number of companies, employees and
turnover has been impressive over the period. The sector’s equity/assets
ratio has also been high and had increased by 2000 compared to 1997. Much
of the dynamic in the biotech industry, in terms of new and disappearing
companies, occurred in this sector. The survivors, i.e. companies that existed throughout the five-year period, report growth in employees, turnover
and equity/assets ratio. However, they also report growing net losses, which
indicates that the growth has not always been financed by net profits generated but by an infusion of capital. The market for companies in this sector is
expected to continue to show an increased growth, since investment in life
science research, both in industry and in academia, is increasing worldwide.
Completely new products have successfully been launched onto the market
by Swedish biotech tools & supply companies in recent years.
Bioproduction
Throughout the five-year period, the bioproduction industrial sector was the
third largest in terms of the number of companies and employees. However,
the turnover in this sector has been the second largest since 1998. The
number of employees and turnover increased over time, but the number of
companies did not. The sector’s equity/assets ratio was high and increased
the most between 1999 and 2000. The dynamic in terms of new and disappearing companies was weak. Only a few new companies were established
83
but even fewer disappeared. The survivors, i.e. companies that existed
throughout the five-year period, reported growth in headcount, turnover and
equity/assets ratio. However, they also report growing net losses, which
indicates that the growth has not always been financed by net profits generated but by an infusion of capital.
Agrobiotechnology
The number of companies in this sector was small throughout the five-year
period with very minimal change. In 2001 only 8 agrobiotechnology companies were active. However, in terms of headcount and turnover, this sector
was among the largest up to 2001. However, the number of employees did
not change during the period and the turnover has decreased. Companies in
the sector have had low equity/assets ratio and this has even been weakening. Four new companies were established and two disappeared between
1997 and 2001. The record among surviving companies is unimpressive.
The headcount and turnover have decreased and the equity/assets ratio did
not improve much during the period. However, unlike most other sectors,
this sector showed net profits instead of net losses each year.
This is one of the smallest sectors in terms of the number of companies,
employees and turnover. There was no increase in any of these areas.
However, the sector’s equity/assets ratio improved over the period, albeit
from a low percentage in 1997. Only two new companies were established
and two disappeared. Among the surviving companies, the number of
employees did not increase but turnover did. There was improvement in
financial strength in this sector and net profits were reported each year.
In 2001 the number of companies in this sector was 10, an increase from
eight in 1997. This makes it one of the smallest biotech sectors. The number
of employees also increased to a certain extent, as did turnover. The sector’s
equity/assets ratio was relatively weak throughout the period and has not
improved. The dynamic was also weak, with only three new companies
emerging and one disappearing. The trend over the period for surviving
companies in terms of employees, turnover and equity/assets ratio is weak.
There was a decline in equity/assets ratio and the number of employees, and
a slight increase in turnover. Growing net losses were also reported. The
companies in this sector often supply the food industry with new innovative
ideas for products and the anticipated growth potential of this field has
resulted in investments in research programmes in these fields in other
European countries. There will probably be an increase in demand for
products in the functional food area, partly because of an ageing population
and partly because there is an increasing awareness in society regarding the
relationship between food and health.
84
Appendix
A
Small and medium-sized biotech companies (<500
employees) in 2001
Companies in the area of pharmaceuticals & medicine
Table A1. Drug discovery & development
Size
1
class
Company
Business area, R&D
activities, and/or
products
Field of application
B
A Carlsson Research CNS research
AB
Psychiatric and neurological
disorders Parkinson's
disease, schizophrenia etc.
B
ABIGO Medical AB
Development,
manufacturing and
marketing of drugs
n/a
B
Accuro Immunology
AB
Immunology
Immunotherapies for the
treatment of cancer, infectious diseases and autoimmunity
E
Active Biotech AB2
Immunology, vaccines,
drugs
Vaccines (Cholera, ETEC),
multiple sclerosis and cancer.
Infectious diseases and autoimmunity/Inflammation.
G
AdVet AB
Veterinary medicine
n/a
A
Alzpharm AB
Podophyllum plant extract
Alzheimer therapy
A
AnaMar Medical AB
Connective tissue research Rheumatology
A
Angio Genetics AB
Research on development
of bloodvessels
Cancer, diabetes and cardiac
diseases
A
Appetite Control AB
Research on mice with an
appetite disorder
Metabolic diseases such as
obesity and diabetes
A
Arcana Research AB Dental products
Paradontosis
B
Arexis AB
Genomics
Metabolic and infectious
diseases
B
AstaCarotene AB
Biological effects of the
algae extract astaxanthin
Dyspepsia, fertility and
muscle physiology
A
Betagenon AB
Stemcellbased therapy
A
Biofactor
3
Therapeutics AB
n/a
Gastrointestinal inflammation
and diarrhea conditions
A
Biolipox AB
Arachidonic acid
metabolism
Inflammatory disorders,
particularly asthma and pain
A
BioPhausia AB
Microcirculation, biopolymers and macromolecules
n/a
B
Biora AB
Dental products
Proteinproduct preventing
loosening of the teeth
85
Company
Business area, R&D
activities, and/or
products
A
BioStratum AB
Connective tissue research n/a
A
Biosurface
Pharma AB
Antimicrobial product that
Preventing diseases in the
prevent naturally occurring mouth cavity such as
bacteria from adhering and gingivitis and periodontitis
colonizing tooth surfaces
A
Cartela AB
R&D concerning integrins
and cartelidge repair and
regeneration
Arthritis
A
Conpharm AB
Podophyllum plant extract
Condylom, rheumatoid
arthritis
A
Cortendo AB
Cortisol hormone research
Metabolic syndrome, obesity,
diabetes
A
Creative Peptides
AB
Peptide research
Diabetes
Diamyd Medical AB
Glutamic acid
decarboxylase-based
vaccine
Diabetes
A
Duotol AB
Immunology
n/a
A
E Holme Utveckling
AB
Orphan drugs, rare
diseases
n/a
A
Esperion AB
Arteriosclerosis research
Metabolic diseases that may
stem from low levels of
plasma high density lipoprotein
A
Gen-TAG Neuromics Genomics
AB
n/a
B
Got A Gene AB
Genetherapy
Cancer and HIV
A
HemeBiotech A/S
Rare genetic diseases
E.g. Porphyria
A
Independent
Pharmaceutica AB
Active immunisation
against nicotine
Nicotine addiction
A
Isconova AB
Vaccines
Mainly veterinary medicine
A
Isis Pharma AB
Treatment of Endometriosis to improve fertility
Infertility treatment
C
Karo Bio AB
Nuclear receptors, structure-based drug design
and high throughput
screening
n/a
B
Medicarb AB
Research on biologically
active carbohydrates
(mainly heparin and kitosane) for drug development and medical device
applications
n/a
B
MediTeam
Dental AB
Dental products, a chemomechanical method for
removing caries using an
aminoacid based gel.
Caries
Size
1
class
86
Business area, R&D
activities, and/or
products
Size
1
class
Company
C
Medivir AB
Regulation of the function
of proteases and polymerases
B
Melacure
Therapeutics AB
Melanocortin receptor
Metabolic disorders, inflambiology; drugdesign based matory disease, cardioon chemometrics, combivascular disease
natorial chemistry, receptor
screening assays
A
Metina AB
Consultancy primarily
concerning natural products, biomedicine and
medical chemistry
n/a
A
Nectin AB
Development of therapies
against intestinal dysfunctions such as intestinal
hypersecretion and
intestinal inflamation
n/a
B
NeoPharma
Production AB
n/a
n/a
B
NeuroNova AB
Neurology, stemcellbased
therapy
Disorders of the central
nervous system
A
New Pharma Research Sweden AB
Design, synthesis and
analysis of pharmaceutical
compounds
n/a
A
Nord Vacc
Läkemedel AB
Veterinary medicine
Vaccines, streptococcus
infection
A
Oasmia
Pharmaceutical AB
Bioorganic chemistry
Cancer therapy
A
Oxigene Inc
n/a
Cancer therapy
A
Pharma Swede AB
4
Virological and bacterial
infections
Veterinary medicine
A
Vicore AB
n/a
Gastrointestinal and
cardiovascular diseases
B
Pharmalink AB
Nephrology, fluid therapy
and hospital devices
Products for initial replacement of plasma volume,
blood flow improvement and
the prevention of thrombosis
A
Resistentia
Pharmaceuticals AB
Vaccines
Allergy
D
SBL Vaccin AB
Vaccines
Polio, cholera and ETEC
B
Swedish Orphan AB
Rare diseases, database
n/a
A
Svenska Miljöbolaget Medical applications of an n/a
SVV AB
antimicrobial protein from a
type of mussel
A
T.M.S Chem AB
Preclinical research
A
Tremedic AB
Womens' health-care
Sore cleansing products and
medicines and wound-care treatment of vaginal
medical devices
infections
87
Cancer and immunotherapy
Size
1
class
Company
Business area, R&D
activities, and/or
products
B
Tripep AB
Peptide research
HIV
B
UmanGenomics AB
Genomics, identifying
disease-related genes and
polymorfisms
n/a
A
Vicore Pharma AB
n/a
Gastrointestinal and
cardiovascular diseases
A
Visionar
Biomedical AB
Consultancy in preclinical
research
n/a
1
Classes according to the number of employees in each company: A: 1-9 (1-5); B:
10-49; C: 50-99; D: 100-199; E: 200-499; F:>500; and n/a means that we had no
information available or that there are many fields of application.
2
The subsidiary Active Biotech Research AB is included in Active Biotech AB.
3
Biofactor Therapeutics AB has since 2001 merged with Melacure Therapeutics
4
Vicore AB was previously named Pharmacore AB
88
Table A2. Drug delivery
Size
Company
class1
Business area, R&D activities, and/or products
B
Amarin Development AB2
n/a
D
Bioglan AB
Parenteral programmed release technology
especially well suited for proteins and peptides
B
Camurus AB
Lipid based drug formulations for substances
difficult to dissolve
A
Epiport Pain Relief AB
Pain releif drug delivery through skin
A
Eurocine AB
Nasal vaccines for human and veterinary
applications
A
Galenica AB
n/a
B
Lipocore AB
Lipid based drug formulations
A
Medinvent AB
n/a
B
Microdrug Development
Inhaler especially for biopharmaceuticals
A
Pharmatrix AB
Nasal vaccines for human and veterinary
applications
B
Ponsus Pharma AB
Dermatology
1
information available.
2
Former name: Ethical Pharmaceuticals.
89
Table A3. Diagnostics
Size
Company
class1
Business area / Field of application
A
Alimenta Diagnostica AB
Allergy
B
Biodisk AB
Microbiology (choice of antibiotic)
B
Biopool AB
Hemostasis, cardiovascular disease.
B
Boule Diagnostics International2
Microbiology
B
CanAg AB
Immunoassays, cancer
B
Cavidi Tech AB
Virology
B
CellaVision AB
Analysis of cells and cell mutations using
automated microscopy
B
EuroDiagnostica AB
Immunology
A
Glycorex AB
Reagents, carbohydrate binding cells
and proteins and biological synthesis of
complex carbohydrates
B
Idexx Scandinavia AB
Veterinary medicine, infectious and viral
diseases
B
IDL Biotech AB
Diagnosis of cancer, tumor markers and
DNA-diagnostics
A
LightUp Technology AB
DNA-diagnostics
B
Mercodia AB
Immunoassays for cardiovascular
disease and diabetes
A
Noster System AB
Ulser infection, diagnosis of Helicobacter
Pylori infection
B
PGL Professional Genetics
Laboratory AB
DNA-diagnostics/Pharmacogenomics
A
Prolight Diagnostics AB
Apparatus for measurement of certain
protein concentrations in blood for early
diagnostics of heartattacks
B
Sangtec Medical AB
Cancer, tumor markers and DNAdiagnostics
B
Sequenom AB
Pharmacogenomics, genomics,
bioinformatics
A
Sinovus Biotech AB
Virology
A
Wieslab AB
Immunoassays, autoimmune diseases
1
2
The subsidiaries included in Boule Diagnostics International AB are Boule
Diagnostics AB and Boule Nordic AB.
90
Table A4. Medical technology
Size
Company
class1
Business area / Product
A
Antarctic Pharma AB2
Krill enzymes in wound care and odontology
B
Artimplant AB
Biocompatible materials, biodegradable
ligament implants
A
Biopolymer products AB
Biocompatible glue, e.g. for eyesurgery, based
on Mussel Adhesive Protein (MAP).
A
Biovator AB
In-vitro tests of allergic reactions of substances
C
CMA/Microdialysis AB
Microdialyses
A
Excorim AB
Medical device for immunadsorption, e.g. for
treatment of autoimmune diseases
A
Glycorex Transplantation AB
Blood treatment, removal of antibodies from
blood when transplanting organs
A
LifeAssays AB
Diagnostics, detection of tumormarkers,
proteins and hormones in blood
B
Nidacon International AB
Media and systems for fertility treatment
D
Q-Med AB
Hyluronic acid based implants for estetic and
medical use
A
Scandinavian QC
Laboratories AB
Media and systems for fertility treatment
C
Vitrolife AB3
Media and systems for fertility treatment, cell
therapy, tissue engineering
1
10-49; C: 50-99; D: 100-199; E: 200-499; F:>500.
2
Antarctic Pharma AB has since 2001 filed for bankruptcy/liquidation
3
The subsidiaries included in Vitrolife AB are Vitrolife Research and
Development AB and Vitrolife Sales AB.
91
Companies in the area of biotech supplies
Table A5. Biotech supplies
Size
Company
class1
Business area, field of application or product
Micro-, cell-, and molecular-biological tools, genomics, bioinformatics
A
AbSorber
Glyco-protein research
B
Affibody AB
Protein engineering for applications in bioseparation,
diagnostics, therapy and proteomics
A
Alligator Bioscience AB
B
Alphahelix AB
A
Belach Bioteknik AB
D
Biacore AB
Proteinengineering
2
Equipment for adding PCR-reagent to samples
Fermentors
3
Detection of biomolecular interaction
4
A
BioBridge Computing AB
Bioinformatics and artificial neural networks
A
BioDev AB
Bioseparation media, development of column material
A
BioThema AB
Luminiscense instruments and reagents for bacterial
analysis and food quality measurement
A
Charles River Sverige AB
Biomolecular analysis and bioseparation
A
CyberGene AB
DNA-analysis, oligonucleotide synthesis and
bioinformatics
A
Decipher Genetics AB
Genetic identification using new technology platforms
A
Genovis AB
Technique to insert a foreign gene into a new host cell
A
Global Genomics AB
Genomics
B
Gnothis AB
Single molecule detection and analysis, microstructures and microfluidics
C
Gyros AB
Miniatyre laboratories, lab on a CD focused on
proteomics
A
Inovata AB
Columns and column material
A
Interactiva Bioteknik AB
Bioinformatics, biomolecules production (e.g. peptides
and nucleic acids) and biochiptechnology
A
IsoSep AB
Consultancy within biologically active carbohydrates,
analysis and synthesis
A
John Curling Consulting
Consultancy within e.g. Bioseparation
A
Magnetic Biosolutions AB
Robotics, automation and software in the field of
nucleic acid based biomagnetic separation
A
Novaferm AB
Fermentors and bioreactors
A
Perbio Science AB (Publ)
Cell growth and cell biology equipment
A
PerCell Biolytica AB
Cell growth media
A
Peviva AB
Immunoassays for preclinical research on new anticancer drugs and for the treatment follow-up of cancer
patients
A
Ph Plate Microplate
Techniques AB
Microbial population analysis, e.g. for medical,
environmental, and probiotic purposes
C
Pyrosequencing AB
DNA-sequencing instruments
92
Size
Company
class1
Business area, field of application or product
A
Quiatech AB
Bioorganic chemistry technologies to enhance DNA
microarray techniques, DNA based diagnostics or
ultra high speed DNA sequencing.
A
Sequant
Columns and column material
A
Sidec Technologies
Structural biology to a resolution down to 2 nm
B
Virtual genetics
laboratory AB
Bioinformatic software
A
Visual Bioinformatics
Software for analysis of gene expression
Sensors and biosensors
A
Beta Sensor AB
Electrochemical and potentiometrical sensors for
clinical, environmental and industrial applications
D
Biacore AB3
Detection of biomolecular interaction
G
BioEtt AB
Enzymatic biosensor for temperature measurement
e.g. of foodstuff during transportation
B
Biosensor Applications AB
Electronic nose that detects narcotics and explosives
using antibodybased technology
A
Chemel AB
Detection of small molecules in fluids based on
enzymatic reaction
C
Diffchamb AB
Microorganism detection for quality control of food
A
Q-sense AB
Measurement of structural and mass changes on
surfaces
1
10-49; C: 50-99; D: 100-199; E: 200-499; F:>500.
2
The subsidiaries included in Alphahelix AB are Alphahelix production AB and
Alphahelix development AB.
3
The subsidiary Biacore AB is included in Biacore international AB.
4
BioBridge Computing AB has since 2001 filed for bankruptcy/liquidation
93
Companies in the area of bioproduction (biological molecules, microorganisms or cells)
Table A6 Bioproduction (biological molecules, micro-organisms or cells)
Size
Company
class1
Technique or Business area
Product
B
AgriSera AB
Production of antibodies from hen
eggs, immunisation technology,
synthesis of peptides
Antisera, viruses and
polyclonal and monoclonal
antibodies
A
Arcticon BioPharm
Production AB
Mammalian cell cultivation and
cGMP operating aseptic filling lines
for oral and injectable biopharmaceuticals
Biopharmaceuticals
C
Bioinvent
International AB3
Fermentation
Mammalian cell production of
protein, monoclonal antibodies
B
Bohus BioTech AB Hyaluronan products for ophthalmic
use. Extracted and purified from
rooster combs.
D
DSM Anti2
Infectives AB
n/a
Produces raw materials for
penicillin production
A
Immun System
I.M.S. AB
Immunisations, production
Antibodies from hens and kits
for detection of bacterial
proteins
A
Innovagen AB
Synthesis
Sequencing of DNA and
synthesis of peptides and
oligonucleotides
A
Inro Biomedtek AB
Hybridomtechnology
Antibodies
B
Kemikalia AB
Fermentation
Microorganisms
B
Mabtech AB
n/a
Monoclonal antibodies
A
Medicago AB
Recombinant proteins from both
prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells as
well as from human, animal and
plant tissues
Recombinant proteins
B
Medipharm AB
Fermentation
Microorganisms for food and
feed
A
Medisera AB
n/a
Mono- and polyclonal
antibodies
A
OVA Production AB Production of antibodies from hen
eggs, production of cock´s crests,
immunisation technology
Antibodies from hens
D
Polypeptide
laboratories
(Sweden) AB
Synthesis
Peptides
B
Scandinavian
Gene Synthesis
DNA/RNA synthesis mainly for
diagnostics, DNA-diagnostics
DNA/RNA
A
Swedish Biotech
Center AB
Aseptic production of biopharmaceuticals
Biopharmaceuticals
94
n/a
Size
Company
class1
B
4
ViraNative AB
Technique or Business area
Product
Protein purification and large-scale
fermentation
Interferon, Sendai virus and
bacterial cultures (for use in
functional food or in hygiene
products)
1
10-49; C: 50-99; D: 100-199; E: 200-499; F:>500 and n/a means that we had no
2
Former name: Gist-Brocades AB.
3
The subsidiary Bioinvent Production AB is included in Bioinvent International AB.
4
Former name: BioNative AB
95
Companies in the area of functional food and feed
Table A7 Functional food and feed1
Size
Company
class2
1
A
Ancient Protein Protection AB
Antimicrobial treatment of dairy products
C
BioGaia AB
Probiotics, e.g. Lactobacillus reuteri for
functional food and clinical purposes
A
Clas Lönner AB
Microbial startercultures
A
Essum AB
Probiotics
A
Gramineer International AB3
Probiotics
B
Lantmännens Foderutveckling AB
Functional animal feed e.g. to reduce use
of antibiotics
A
Olligon AB
Develops and markets new food concepts
based on microbal technology
B
Probi AB
Probiotics for functional food, functional
feed and clinical purposes
A
Triple Crown AB
A cholesterol-managing agent
A
Wasa Medicals AB
Probiotics
Some of the companies in this category also develop new drugs.
2
10-49; C: 50-99; D: 100-199; E: 200-499; F:>500.
3
A subsidiary included in Gramineer International AB is Gramineer Technology
AB.
96
Companies in the area of agrobiotechnology
Table A8. Agrobiotechnology
Size
Company
class*
Field of application / Product
Genetically modified products
B
Plant science Sverige AB
E
Svalöf Weibull AB
A
Swetreegenomics AB
E
Syngenta Seeds AB
Biological plant protection
A
Agrivir AB
Bacterial metabolites for protection of plants
and seeds from fungi
A
BINAB Bio-innovation Eftr. AB
Trichoderma
B
BioAgri AB
Natural soil bacteria
BioBact AB
Plant nourishment and soil improvement
through fermentation of organic materials
Other
A
* Classes according to the number of employees in each company: A: 1-9 (1-5); B:
10-49; C: 50-99; D: 100-199; E: 200-499; F:>500.
97
Companies in the area of environmental biotechnology
Table A9. Environmental biotechnology
Size
Company
class1
Water, waste, or soil treatment
A
Abitec AB
Soil treatment
A
Alron Chemical
Soil treatment
B
ANOX AB
Development of industrial wastewater
analysis and microbiological treatment
processes
A
EkoTec AB (Ekologisk Teknologi i
Skellefteå AB)
Soil treatment
A
HMBM Hanson McGill Biologisk
Miljöåterställning AB
Soil treatment
A
Marksanering i Sverige AB
Biological treatment of soil contaminated
by oil
A
Sysav Utveckling
Waste treatment
Cewatech AB
Growth of mould using forestry waste
liquids. Mould cell walls for infection
prevention e.g. for wound care purposes.
Other
G
1
Classes according to the number of employees in each company: A: 1-9 (1-5);
B: 10-49; C: 50-99; D: 100-199; E: 200-499; F:>500.
98
Table A10. Companies that have been established or are likely to be in the
process of starting up their business since 2001.
Company and sector
Company and sector
Agrobiotechnology
Robigus AB
Actar AB
Athera Biotechnologies AB
Avaris AB
Advanced Biosensor Technology in
BioCrine AB1
Bio Swede AB
Biostapro AB
Bioresonator AB
Bone Support
Cellectricon
Cell Therapeutics
CrystalResearch AB
CePeP AB
Dynamic Code AB
CytoMedic
Ingeneous Technologies AB
Helico AB
IntelliClone
Imed AB
Ludesi AB
Indevex
Lundonia Biotech
Innate Pharmaceuticals AB
Modpro
Kalbiotech AB
Picology
Landegren Gene Technology AB
Proliff
Mexxo AB
Protista International AB
MIP Technologies
Quick-Load
Neoventa Medical AB
Quintessence Research AB
Oncopeptides AB
TATAA
Ovacell AB
Oxy Pharma
Quantovir AB
RadicPharma AB
Smart Cells
SSP Primers
Svanova Biotech AB
Umecrine AB
1
Xylogen AB
BioCrine AB has been acquired by US Biostratum Inc.
99
A11. Summary of new and disappearing companies comparing the
population in 1997 with the one in 2001
In agrobiotechnology the companies Agrivir, a subsidiary of Bioagri and
Medivir identifying and analysing anti-fungal agents; SweTree Genomics
AB, a spin-off mainly from the University of Umeå; Plant Science Sweden
AB, subsidiary of German BASF and Svalöf Weibull, all emerged. Bionema
AB, which was involved in using nematodes for biological plant protection,
disappeared.
In bioproduction there were as many companies in 2001 as in 1997 and they
are more or less the same companies. Swedish Bioscience Laboratory AB
has disappeared and Swedish Biotech Centre AB, subsidiary of Vitrolife
attracting venture capital from the Swedish Industrial Development Fund is
a new company as is Arcticon BioPharm Production AB. BioNative AB
changed its name to ViraNative AB during the study period. Also, within
the group of bioproduction companies, Danish Novozymes A/S acquired
BioGaia Fermentation in 2001.
The new biotech tools & supplies companies in 2001 compared to 1997 are
Affibody AB, Alligator Biosciences AB, Genovis AB, Gnothis AB, Gyros
AB, Interactiva Bioteknik AB, Magnetic Biosolutions Sweden AB, Perbio
Science AB, Peviva AB, Quiatech AB, Sidec Technologies AB, Visual Bioinformatics AB, BioEtt AB and Biosensor Applications Sweden AB. In
2001 Visual Bioinformatics was acquired by Affibody AB, a spin-off company from KTH and Karolinska Institutet working in the field of protein
engineering for applications in bioseparation, diagnostics, therapy, and
proteomics. The technique of Affibody AB is based on combinatorial
protein chemistry, and the aim is to produce specific proteins for binding to
different target molecules (artificial antibodies). Quiatech develops new
techniques in the area of bioorganic chemistry technologies to enhance
DNA microarray techniques, DNA based diagnostics or ultra high speed
DNA sequencing and the techniques are based on research performed at
Uppsala University. Sidec Technologies is a spin-off from the Karolinska
Institute involved in technologies for three-dimensional imaging in life
sciences. Magnetic Biosolutions is the result of a venture between the
Department of Biotechnology of the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
and Dynal Biotech ASA in Norway. The company is specialized in the
development of robotics, automation and software in the field of nucleic
acid based biomagnetic separation. Gnothis are in the field of single
molecule detection and Genovis develops a novel gene transfer technique.
The two biotech tools & supplies companies that have disappeared are
Biomun AB for which the activities have moved to the US and Chemodesign AB, which was acquired by Belach Bioteknik AB in 2000. In 2002
Chemodesign AB and Belach Bioteknik AB merged. During the period
2000-2001 Nordic Genomics AB, InBio Institutet för bioaktiva AB and NNI
Biotech AB have all filed for bankruptcy/liquidation.
100
In environmental biotechnology the number of companies were the same
in 1997 as in 2001, although they were not exactly the same companies.
Cewatech AB is new and was formerly called Lizyx AB and Terramek AB
has disappeared. In 2003 a company in this field was liquidated, HMBM
Hanson McGill Biologisk Miljöåterställning AB.
There were two new companies in 2001 compared to 1997 in functional
food & feed, namely Ancient Protein Protection AB and Olligon AB, and no
companies disappeared. Olligon AB is based on research conducted at the
department of microbiology at the Swedish University for Agricultural
Sciences (SLU) focuses on using microorganisms to develop new vegetable
foodstuffs.
The result for pharmaceuticals & medicine is summarised in the table
below.
101
New and disappearing companies in the pharmaceuticals & medicine
sub-sectors, comparing 1997 with 2001
New
Disappeared
New
Diagnostics
Disappeared
Alimenta Diagnostics AB
Chromogenix AB
A Carlsson Research AB
Bacterum AB
Boule Diagnostics International
Neoprobe Europe AB
AnaMar Medical AB
Carlab Läkemedelsforskning AB
Prolight Diagnostics AB
AngioGenetics Sweden AB
LightUp Technologies AB
Appetite Control AB
Drug Delivery
Arexis AB
Galenica AB
Biolipox AB
Microdrug Development AB
BS Bioteknik AB
Medical technology
Cartela AB
Artimplant AB
Cortendo AB
BioPolymer Products of
Sweden AB
Esperion AB
LifeAssays AB
Gen-TAG Neuromics AB
Scandinavian QC
Laboratories AB
Metina AB
NeoPharma Production AB
NeuroNova AB
New Pharma Research
Sweden AB
Resistentia Pharmaceuticals AB
UmanGenomics AB
Vicore Pharma AB
Visionar Biomedical AB
Chromogenix, a diagnostic company, has moved its entire operation to Italy
and Neoprobe Europe AB, previously Monocarb AB, has its headquarters in
the US and its Swedish operation has been liquidated. It has previously been
mentioned that US Sequenom has closed down its Swedish operation, previously the Swedish company Eurona. Also, the diagnostic company Biopool
AB, with 25 employees, owned by Irish Trinity Biotech plc is being downsized in 2003. Bacterum AB was sold to an Australian company and some
of the employees are today working for the functional food company Essum
AB. During the period 1998-2001, the drug discovery & development companies AstaCarotene, Apodemus AB, the new company BS Bioteknik AB
and ProCell Bioteknik i Hörnefors AB all filed for bankruptcy/liquidation as
did the drug delivery company Betacore AB.The Drug delivery company
102
Scotia Sweden AB changed its name to Lipocore Holding AB. In 2003 Gentag Neuromics AB and Xenerate AB, a company in the field of developing
gene and cell therapies to improve the biocompatibility of cardiovascular
implants, both filed for bankruptcy/liquidation. There have been a few
mergers in drug discovery & development, Melacure Therapeutics has
merged with Biofactor, Alzpharm with Conpharm and Isconova with
Biostapro.
103
Figur A. 12 Number of biotech companies
in municipalities 1997
Number
1
2-5
6 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 35
"Copyright Lantm teriverket 2002.
Ur GSD- versiktskartan rende nr L2002/352"
104
Figur A. 13 Number of biotech companies
Number
1
2-5
6 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 35
105
Figur A. 14 Number of employees in biotech companies
Number
0 - 50
51 - 150
151 - 250
251 - 350
351 - 1000
106
Figur A. 15 Number of employees in biotech companies
Number
1 - 50
51 - 150
151 - 250
251 - 350
351 - 1000
107
A 16. Number of companies in 1997 and 2001 distributed by cities and industrial sectors
Malmö/Lund
97
01
Stockholm
97
01
Gothenburg
97
01
Uppsala
97
01
Umeå
97
01
Other
97
01
97
All
01
Pharmaceuticals & Medicine
15
20
25
32
12
17
12
19
2
2
6
4
72
94
Bioproduction
4
4
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
6
5
17
17
Biotech Tools & Supplies
4
7
8
15
2
2
8
8
1
1
2
3
15
36
Environmental Biotechnology
2
3
3
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
8
8
Functional Food & Feed
2
2
3
4
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
8
10
Agrobiotechnology
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
4
5
7
All sectors
27
36
41
56
17
24
23
31
7
7
20
18
135
172
108
A 17. Number of employees in 1997 and 2001 distributed by cities and industrial sectors
Malmö/Lund
97
01
Stockholm
97
01
Gothenburg
97
01
Uppsala
97
01
Umeå
97
01
Other
97
01
97
01
Pharmaceuticals & Medicine
549
612
502
742
128
271
119
318
18
39
24
15
1340
1997
Bioproduction
93
260
147
154
1
2
2
8
42
37
63
97
348
558
Biotech Tools & Supplies
7
23
16
108
32
61
144
385
1
3
3
8
203
588
Environmental Biotechnology
17
16
5
5
1
2
0
0
0
0
6
8
29
31
Functional Food & Feed
22
25
74
112
1
2
0
3
2
3
2
2
101
147
Agrobiotechnology
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
12
6
2
650
601
656
620
688
936
744
1126
163
338
265
726
69
84
748
731
2677
3941
All sectors
All
B
Scientific publications
Table B1a Development of publication volume in the journal categories
selected for the national analysis 1987-2001
1400
No. articles per year
1200
1987-1989
1000
1990-1992
800
1993-1995
600
1996-1998
400
1999-2001
200
BI
O
BI
O
TE
C
H
N
O
LO
C
H
EM
IS
T
G
Y
&
R
Y
&
M
AP
PL
IE
D
O
LE
C
U
LA
R
BI
O
LO
G
Y
BI
O
PH
YS
M
IC
IC
S
R
O
BI
O
LO
G
C
Y
EL
C
L
H
BI
EM
O
LO
IS
TR
EN
G
Y
Y,
G
IN
M
ED
EE
IC
R
IN
IN
G
AL
,B
IO
G
EN
M
ED
ET
IC
IC
AL
S
&
H
ER
ED
IT
IM
Y
M
U
N
O
LO
M
G
IC
Y
R
O
BI
O
L
N
O
EU
G
Y
R
O
SC
IE
N
C
ES
VI
R
O
LO
G
Y
0
Field
Table B1b Development of publication volume in the journal categories
selected for the international analysis 1987-2001
900
No. Articles / year
800
700
600
1987-1989
500
1990-1992
400
1993-1995
300
1996-1998
200
1999-2001
100
Bi
oc
he
m
ist
ry
&
Bi
Bi
ot
op
ec
hn
hy
si
ol
cs
&
Ap
pl
Ce
M
ll
icr
&
ob
De
io
ve
l
lo
pm
en
ta
lB
io
l
Im
m
un
ol
og
y
M
M
ol
ec
icr
ob
ula
io
rB
lo
io
gy
lo
gy
Ne
&
G
ur
en
os
et
cie
ics
nc
es
&
Be
ha
vio
r
0
109
Table B2. Journals in biotechnology-related sciences, in which Swedish authors published more than 500 articles in 1987-2001
110
JOURNAL
J. OF BIOL. CHEM.
SCAND. J. OF IMMUNOLOGY
FEBS LETTERS
EUROP. J. OF BIOCHEM.
BRAIN RESEARCH
BIOCHEM. AND BIOPHYS. RES.
COMM.
TRANSPLANTATION PROC.
ACTA CHEMICA SCANDINAVICA
BIOCHEMISTRY
NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
Other
Total
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
59
47
60
70
80
77
91 114 87 102 114 101 110 117 120
140 75
66 167 36
63
22
27
36
40
42
39
40
26
31
39
43
33
53
53
52
87
48
56
44
55
66
61
38
32
36
40
37
34
53
51
67
47
58
48
59
38
56
32
30
42
47
39
50
42
45
81
60
37
36
36
40
55
32
25
34
22
57
43
26
30
41
34
56
44
43
48
49
47
49
54
59
37
68
21
64
6
57
57
19
43
13
13
17
27
75
68
61
59
65
46
44
37
41
47
28
21
27
26
26
31
29
74
32
31
41
60
26
42
40
29
45
35
34
32
43
31
31
33
46
33
37
25
34
28
20
1345 1493 1389 1598 1705 1799 2061 2051 2221 2191 2223 2212 2215 2111 1983
1818 1872 1822 2196 2166 2304 2641 2559 2716 2639 2759 2654 2703 2495 2356
Total
1349
850
760
686
667
636
542
571
535
507
28597
35700
Table B3. Shares of articles in biotechnology-related sciences distributed by the year of publishing and the organisational affiliation of
the Swedish authors*
Organisations/Year
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mean
Universities and University Hospitals
94.7 94.7 95.6 94.9 95.2 95.5 96.7 96.3 96.4 96.0 95.9 95.8 95.8 95.4 95.7
95.6
Firms
6.2
7.4
6.8
7.6
7.4
5.6
5.7
5.4
5.8
5.5
5.9
5.0
5.0
5.8
5.2
6.0
Other Public Organisations
4.2
4.4
4.8
3.9
4.3
4.8
3.4
3.8
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.7
3.2
3.2
3.8
Hospitals and Animal Hospitals
1.3
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.2
1.8
1.5
1.1
1.6
1.5
2.1
1.8
2.0
1.9
Defense Units
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Industrial Research Institutes
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
Other
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.3
111
Total number of Swedish publications
1818 1872 1822 2196 2166 2304 2641 2559 2716 2639 2759 2654 2703 2495 2356 35700
* Since authors from different organisations often co-operated on one article, the sums of the shares exceeds 100 per cent
Table B4. Average number of publications per year for Swedish organisations with more than 500 published articles in biotechnologyrelated science, 1987-2001*
Organisation / Period
1987-1989 1990-1992 1993-1995 1996-1998 1999-2001
Average
Share [%]
Average No.
publ. /Year
Total No.
publ.
112
KAROLINSKA INST
32.6
34.3
34.8
35.1
36.2
34.7
826
12396
LUND UNIV
18.7
19.1
19.8
18.5
18.5
18.9
450
6751
UPPSALA UNIV
16.9
15.7
15.0
15.2
15.2
15.5
369
5537
GOTHENBURG UNIV
13.0
12.6
12.4
12.3
11.1
12.2
291
4369
UMEA UNIV
8.4
7.9
7.9
8.3
7.5
8.0
190
2850
STOCKHOLM UNIV
9.6
8.5
7.7
7.3
6.5
7.8
186
2787
SLU
4.7
5.1
5.6
5.0
5.0
5.1
121
1812
LINKOPING UNIV
2.8
2.9
3.9
3.6
3.7
3.4
82
1223
ASTRA AB**
2.8
2.6
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.3
54
813
SMI
3.2
2.8
2.0
1.7
2.0
2.3
54
808
ROYAL INST TECHNOL
1.6
2.0
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.8
43
652
PHARMACIA AB***
1.9
2.2
1.6
1.4
0.7
1.5
37
552
1.9
1.1
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.4
34
CHALMERS UNIV TECHNOL
* Since authors from different organisations often co-operated on one article, the sums of the shares exceeds 100 per cent
503
** Now AstraZeneca** (including all subsidiaries and acquisitions such as Hässle, Symbicom etc.)
*** Now Pharmacia Corporation (including all subsidiaries and acquisitions such as Pharmacia diagnostics, LEO, Kabi etc. but excluding Pharmacia
Biotech which in other tables will be included in the figures for Amersham Biosciences)
Table B5. Number of articles by Swedish public research organisations with the largest publication volume in biotechnology-related
science, distributed on different journal categories 1987-2001
Biochemistry
Biotechnology
& molecular Biophysics
& applied
biology
microbiology
4450
KAROLINSKA INST.
94
289
131
516
LUND UNIV.
2941
UPPSALA UNIV.
2532
48
118
GOTHENBURG
1640
50
120
UNIV.
UMEA UNIV.
1322
57
65
STOCKHOLM UNIV.
1760
48
41
SLU
950
12
148
LINKOPING UNIV.
483
44
36
SMI
69
53
ROYAL INST.
341
19
124
TECHNOL.
CHALMERS UNIV.
392
35
21
TECHNOL.
TOTAL
16880
538
1531
Organisation/
Subject field
113
Cell
biology
Medicinal
chemistry
Biomedical
engineering
Genetics &
heredity
Immunology
Microbiology
701
373
343
67
47
162
153
155
66
553
357
397
2603
861
918
289
340
190
2844
967
665
356
64
98
12399
6752
5537
233
75
134
197
924
249
694
55
4371
146
86
64
104
4
25
38
6
16
37
46
1
111
254
142
258
34
3
398
416
194
161
377
174
55
139
31
150
321
146
17
200
8
51
9
23
3
146
2850
2787
1812
1223
810
11
9
22
16
36
46
22
6
652
8
3
28
5
2
6
2
2
504
2073
448
753
2216
6890
1669
5886
813
39697
SLU - Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SMI - Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control
NeuroVirology
sciences
Total
Table B6. Number of articles by Swedish firms and industrial research institutes with the largest publication volume in biotechnologyrelated science, distributed on different journal categories 1987-2001*
Organisation/
Subject field
Biochemistry
Biotechnology
& molecular Biophysics
& applied
biology
microbiology
Cell
biology
Medicinal
chemistry
Biomedical
engineering
Genetics &
heredity
Immunology
Microbiology
NeuroVirology
sciences
Total
114
ASTRA
5
15
0
20
45
814
395
5
123
24
173
9
PHARMACIA
220
4
34
6
15
6
43
5
560
30
32
165
BIOCARB AB
33
0
13
0
0
0
3
4
2
0
1
56
AMERSHAM
69
1
1
3
5
1
80
BIOSCIENCES AB
MEDIVIR AB
23
11
3
5
2
44
KARO BIO AB
30
3
4
1
38
STFI
19
11
1
1
32
SVENSKA
24
4
1
29
TOBAKS AB
BIOINVENT INT
3
2
3
1
18
27
AB
FERRING AB
4
6
6
4
20
SVALOF
4
1
1
27
21
WEIBULL AB
ACTIVE BIOTECH
12
0
2
1
7
22
AB
PERSTORP AB
18
2
1
21
IVL
12
8
1
21
GAMBRO AB
1
1
1
2
21
16
TOTAL
867
10
77
56
180
22
65
253
41
224
17
1812
* ASTRA AB includes Astra, Hässle, Draco, Symbicom, AstraZeneca; PHARMACIA AB includes Pharmacia & Upjohn, Pharmacia Corp, Leo, Kabi
but not Pharmacia Biotech; AMERSHAM BIOSCIENCES AB includes Pharmacia Biotech AB and Amersham Pharmacia Biotech AB. IVL - The
Swedish Environmental Research Institute; STFI – The Swedish Pulp and Paper Research Institute
Table B7. Number of publications per period for firms and industrial
research institutes with a Swedish adress and with more than 5 published
articles in biotechnology-related science, 1987-2001*
19871989
19901992
19931995
19961998
19992001
Total
ASTRA AB
154
173
159
172
155
813
PHARMACIA AB
103
149
128
116
56
552
BIOCARB AB
40
31
9
0
0
80
AMERSHAM BIOSCIENCES AB
0
7
9
17
11
44
MEDIVIR AB
0
11
15
9
3
38
KARO BIO AB
8
5
10
18
14
55
STFI
8
5
4
8
7
32
SVENSKA TOBAKS AB
4
7
6
5
5
27
BIOINVENT INT. AB
8
6
3
2
1
20
FERRING AB
10
5
5
2
5
27
SVALOF WEIBULL AB
0
0
0
0
22
22
ACTIVE BIOTECH AB
4
8
4
4
1
21
IVL
4
4
2
10
1
21
PERSTORP AB
1
4
10
3
3
21
GAMBRO AB
0
0
0
0
19
19
MELACURE THERAPEUTICS AB
10
11
8
0
0
29
NOVARTIS SEEDS AB
3
6
2
1
2
14
SWED. INST. FOR FOOD &
BIOTECH.
0
1
3
2
7
13
BIODISK AB
1
4
3
4
3
15
SANGTEC MEDCAL AB
0
4
1
3
3
11
SOCKERBOLAGET AB
6
1
0
0
0
7
EXCORIM AB
4
2
3
1
0
10
SWED. MEAT RES. INST.
5
1
1
0
1
8
CARMEDA AB
1
1
3
1
3
9
KARLSHAMN AB
0
2
5
2
0
9
SYNTHELEC AB
0
0
0
8
1
9
ACO AB
4
3
0
0
0
7
NYCOMED INNOVAT AB
0
0
0
4
4
8
UMETRICS AB
0
1
1
3
3
8
ANOX AB
0
1
3
3
0
7
BEROL NOBEL AB
3
2
2
0
0
7
CAVIDI TECH AB
0
0
0
5
2
7
GLYCOREX AB
0
0
2
3
2
7
HELAX AB
0
1
1
2
3
7
SWEDISH DAIRIES ASSOC.
1
0
2
4
0
7
115
19871989
19901992
19931995
19961998
19992001
Total
ALFA LAVAL AB
3
0
1
0
0
4
BIACORE AB
0
0
0
1
5
6
MEDICARB AB
1
0
4
1
0
6
MEDSCAND AB
0
4
2
0
0
6
WIESLAB AB
0
0
0
4
2
6
CALAB MED. LAB. AB
0
1
2
2
0
5
OBLA AB
0
0
0
5
0
5
PYROSEQUENCING AB
0
0
0
0
5
5
SBL VACCIN AB
0
0
2
1
2
5
SWEDISH CORROS INST.
0
0
1
4
0
5
* ASTRA AB includes Astra, Hässle, Draco, Symbicom, AstraZeneca;
PHARMACIA AB includes Pharmacia & Upjohn, Pharmacia Corp, Leo, Kabi but
not Pharmacia Biotech; AMERSHAM BIOSCIENCES AB includes Pharmacia
Biotech AB and Amersham Pharmacia Biotech AB.
IVL - The Swedish Environmental Research Institute; STFI – The Swedish Pulp
and Paper Research Institute
116
Table B8. Number of articles that the largest public research organisations
co-published with companies or industrial research institutes in
biotechnology-related science in 1986-1997 1
Share of the
Total No. of organisation’s
articles
total publication
volume (%)
Year
87-91
Year
92-96
Year
97-01
KAROLINSKA INST
128
148
119
395
(68%)
3,1
LUND UNIV
133
128
110
371
(44%)
5,2
UPPSALA UNIV
105
115
102
322
(71%)
5,5
GOTHENBURG UNIV
54
54
45
153
(77%)
3,3
UMEA UNIV
28
40
15
83
(83%)
2,7
STOCKHOLM UNIV
59
46
33
138
(56%)
4,7
SLU
11
15
14
40
(32%)
2,1
LINKOPING UNIV
9
11
21
41
(73%)
3,3
SMI
9
11
9
29
(52%)
3,4
ROYAL INST TECHNOL
18
29
18
65
(58%)
9,5
CHALMERS UNIV TECHNOL
12
8
6
26
(65%)
4,9
Number of co-authorships
566
605
492
1663
(62%)
Number of collaborating
companies
44
58
77
1402
1
A particular co-authorship pair is only counted once per article, even if more than
one author from a certain organisation is found.
2
This is the total number of firms with publications in collaboration with public
research organisations the selected fields 1987-2001
117
Table B9. Number of papers in biotechnology-related science co-published
by Astra and Pharmacia with other Swedish organisations during three
periods
ORGANISATION
PERIOD
KAROLINSKA INST
AB ASTRA*
1987- 1992- 19971991 1996
2001
TOTAL
156
PHARMACIA AB**
1987- 1992- 19971991
1996
2001
44
36
32
TOTAL
112
52
57
47
LUND UNIV
22
20
28
70
33
32
29
94
UPPSALA UNIV
36
41
37
114
55
44
15
114
GOTHENBURG UNIV
25
33
24
82
22
8
6
36
UMEA UNIV
14
31
8
53
8
6
2
16
STOCKHOLM UNIV
12
13
11
36
24
11
6
41
4
1
7
4
4
SLU
1
3
2
6
2
LINKOPING UNIV
7
9
10
26
0
SMI
ROYAL INST
TECHNOL
CHALMERS UNIV
TECHNOL
Public research org.
6
2
2
10
1
2
2
5
1
5
0
6
11
16
5
32
7
3
1
11
3
3
0
6
183
217
170
570
203
162
102
467
0
1
2
4
7
1
8
2
7
4
7
7
22
2
4
6
0
12
192
226
181
599
206
168
112
486
272
267
274
813
211
201
140
552
ASTRA AB
PHARMACIA AB
Other firms
TOTAL no. of
co-authorships
TOTAL no. of articles
by Astra and
Pharmacia
* ASTRA AB includes Astra, Hässle, Draco, Symbicom, AstraZeneca. A very small
number of articles co-authored with hospitals are not accounted for in the table.
** PHARMACIA AB includes Pharmacia & Upjohn, Pharmacia Corp, Leo, Kabi but
not Pharmacia Biotech. Two articles co-authored with FOA are not accounted for in
the table as well as a very small number of articles co-authored with hospitals.
118
C
Patenting
Figure C1. Inventor origin for pharmaceutical patents in the US patent
system in 1987-2001
Sweden
Switzerland 1,1%
1,8%
Other
7,8%
Canada
2,3%
Italy
2,6%
France
5,0%
USA
55,0%
Great Britain
6,2%
Germany
7,1%
Japan
11,2%
Figure C2. Inventor origin for medical electronics patents in the US patent
system in 1987-2001
Netherlands
Great Britain 1,6%
1,8%
Sweden
2,0%
Other
8,2%
France
2,0%
Germany
6,2%
Japan
9,5%
USA
68,7%
119
Figure C3. Inventor origin for medical equipment patents in the US patent
system in 1987-2001
Sweden
1,4%
Canada
1,6%
France
2,2%
Switzerland
Other
1,3%
6,5%
Great Britain
2,3%
Germany
5,2%
Japan
6,6%
USA
72,8%
120
Table C1. Number of issued biotechnology patents per Swedish assignee and year62
BIOTECHNOLOGY
121
Assignee
AstraZeneca AB
Amersham Biosciences AB63
Biogaia AB
Alfa-Laval AB
Ibanez Carlos F.
Probi AB
Biacore AB
Cemu Bioteknik AB
Bioflexin AB
Bioinvent International AB
Karo Bio AB
Biodisk AB
Bioption AB
Perstorp AB
Procur AB
Pyrosequencing AB
Chromogenix AB
62
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
2
1
1
2
5
3
1
2
1
2
5
4
5
1
35
2
2
2
1
2
9
3
8
5
34
2
3
2
2
3
12
1
3
1
3
8
1
1
1
1
2
6
4
2
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
2
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
4
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
2
AstraZeneca and Pharmacia Corporation includes their acquisitions as well as previous and current subsidiaries such as Hässle and Draco, and Pharmacia
Biotech, etc, with Swedish address.
63
Includes only patents with Amersham Pharmacia Biotech AB or Amersham Biosciences AB with Swedish address as assignee.
BIOTECHNOLOGY
122
Assignee
Ferring AB
Forsvarets Forskningsanstalt
IDL Immunodevelop Lab AB
Korsnas AB
Purac AB
Tripep AB
Vitec AB
Eberthson
A C Biotechnics AB
A+ Science Invest AB
Actinova Ltd.
Affibody Technology Sweden AB
Amylogene HB
Atlas Copco Aktiebolag
Baxter Biotech Technology Sarl
Berol Kemi AB
BioAgri AB
Biocarb AB
Bio-Instructa Labkonsult
Bionative AB
Biora AB
Biowheat AB
BTG Kalle Inventing AB
Camurus AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
BIOTECHNOLOGY
123
Assignee
Cavidi Tech AB
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Diamyd Therapeutics AB
Diffchamb AB
Ellco Food AB
Olsson Eskil
Euro-Diagnostica AB
Eurona Medical AB
Ewos Aktiebolag
Forskarpatent I Syd AB
Forskarpatent i Vastsverige AB
Global Hemostasis Institute MGR AB
Got-A-Gene AB
HighTech Receptor AB
Karolinska Innovations AB
Karyogene AB
Medivir AB
Micro Active Protein AB
Microcloning CCCD AB
Nobel Chematur AB
Novartis AG
Owman Invest Ltd.
Replico Medical AB
Sangtec Medical AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
BIOTECHNOLOGY
124
Assignee
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
SBL Vaccin AB
1
1
Skandigen AB
1
1
Svenska Mejeriernas Riksforenings
1
1
Ekonomi-Aktiebolag
Svenska Sockerfabriks AB
1
1
Svenska Traforskningsinstitutet
1
1
Sveriges Starkelseproducenter
1
1
Forening U.P.A.
T&M Biopolymer Aktiebolag
1
1
The European Institute of Science AB
1
1
Trion Forskning-Och Utvecklings AB
1
1
BIOTECHNOLOGY Total
7
3
6
4
6
9
10
8
13
7
16
35
24
33
32
213
Table C2. Number of issued medical electronic patents per assignee and year64
MEDICAL ELECTRONICS
125
Assignee
Pacesetter AB
Siemens Elema AB
Radi Medical System AB
Elekta AB
Humanteknik AB
Aerocrine AB
Nycomed Innovation AB
Synectics Medical AB
Biolight Patent Holding AB
Ortivus Medical AB
Radisensor AB
Ascendia AB
Gambro AB
Hok Instrument AB
AO Medical Products AB
Astra Tech AB
AstraZeneca AB
Biosys AB
Dorsograf AB
64
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
17
11
23
20
8
12
14
105
1
2
6
23
10
3
4
2
6
4
61
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
13
1
1
3
1
1
7
1
5
1
7
4
1
5
1
3
1
5
1
4
5
2
2
4
1
1
2
4
1
2
1
4
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
AstraZeneca and Pharmacia Corporation include their acquisitions, previous and current subsidiaries such as Pharmacia Biotech, Hässle, Draco, etc.
MEDICAL ELECTRONICS
126
Assignee
Herbst Ewa
ICOR AB
Minco AB
Schuller Hans
Abigo Medical AB
Bilsom AB
Bioapatite AB
Biolin AB
Biora AB
Calluna Ide AB
Camp Scandinavia AB
Cardia Innovation AB
Centrum for Dentalteknik och
Biomaterial
Cinventa Aktiebolag
Dalloz Safety AB
Diabact AB
European Institute of Science
Formo Medical AB
Forskarpatent I Linkoping AB
Hafslund Nycomed Innovation AB
Instrumentarium Corp.
Karolinska Institutet
Medevelop AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MEDICAL ELECTRONICS
127
Assignee
Micronic Laser Systems AB
Nobel Biocare AB
Nobel Pharma AB
Optovent AB
Pascal Medical AB
ProstaLund Operations AB
Refina Instrument AB
Regam Medical Systems
International AB
Scandimed International AB
Scanditronix Medical AB
SCS Medicinproject Aktiebolag
SE-Produkter
Sinus Medical Equipment AB
Swemac Orthopaedics AB
Ultra Tan International AB
Unfors Instruments AB
MEDICAL ELECTRONICS Total
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
2
4
2
6
17
46
27
31
1
44
17
36
36
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
283
Table C3. Number of issued medical equipment patents per assignee and year65
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
128
Assignee
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
SCA Hygiene Products AB / SCA
6
2
4
4
3
2
2
5
11
5
9
20
20
25
21
139
Molnlycke AB
AstraZeneca AB
3
1
1
1
2
8
7
11
11
11
16
72
Siemens Elema AB
1
1
1
3
12
4
13
10
9
11
65
1
1
3
1
2
4
2
6
4
3
9
6
6
6
54
Nobel Biocare AB
4
12
6
1
13
36
Gambro AB
5
3
3
2
1
5
2
3
3
27
Nobel Pharma AB
2
2
5
5
4
2
3
1
1
25
Medevelop AB
1
2
1
3
3
2
3
1
2
18
Astra Meditec AB
1
2
2
5
2
12
Atos Medical AB
1
1
2
1
1
1
7
Radi Medical System AB
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Landstingens Inkopscentral LIC
3
2
1
6
Sandvik AB
2
1
1
1
1
6
Astra Tech AB
2
1
1
1
5
Elekta AB
1
1
1
1
1
5
Gramtec Innovation AB
2
2
1
5
The Institute for Applied Biotechnology 1
1
3
5
Gibeck Respiration AB
1
1
1
1
4
Berol Kemi AB
1
1
1
3
65
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
129
Assignee
CMA/Microdialysis AB
Idea AB
Nyberg Lars Olof Emil
Roby Teknik AB
Swedemed AB
AGA Aktiebolag
Andersson
Baby Bjorn AB
Becton, Dickinson and Company
Bilsom AB
Biro Jan Charles
Blomdahl Medical AB
BOC Ohmeda AB
Collux AB
Dentatus International AB
Dille Safe AB
Electrolux AB
Engstrom Medical Aktiebolag
Hallgren Roger
Hornberg
Krog Michael
Leijonhufvud Carl B.
Lindstrom Kjell Olof Torgny
Louis Gibeck AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
130
Assignee
LuCoCer Aktiebolag
Mansson Karl Gunnar Wiking
Marlene Sandberg AB
Medicarb AB
Medinvent AB
Mediplast AB
Nilsson Sven-Erik
Pacesetter AB
Peltor Aktiebolag
Peridoc AB
Principal AB
Pro-Pel AB
ProstaLund Operations AB
Raab Yngve
Sandegard Jan
Stafilum AB
Svedman Pal
Unilink AB
Werner Olof
Akerlund & Rausing AB
Alfastar AB
Amdent AB
Anderzon Invest AB
Arta Plast AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
131
Assignee
Artimplant Development Artdev AB
Bengt Ingvar
Benrad Aktiebolag
Bergasa Industrier AB
Bioapatite AB
Biogaia AB
Biogram AB
Bioimplant AB
Biora AB
Bohuslandstinget
Boliden Contech AB
Borga
Brava Patient Och Invent AB
Breas Medical AB
Bror
Carl Dahlborn AB
Cemvac System AB
Centri AB
Centri Gummifabrik AB
Corline Systems AB
Credentus AB
Dalloz Safety AB
Datex Engstrom AB
Dentatus AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
132
Assignee
Dentatus AB
Dicamed AB
Dry Invent Bengt Mattsson AB
Duni Bila AB
Echodent AB
Ellem Bioteknik AB
Errarp Innovation AB
Etac AB
Excorim AB
Fagersta EL & Diesel AB
Fisheries Management and
Supply Co A.B.
Fixster Instruments AB
Funova AB
Futuraprodukter HB
Gibeck AB
Gillis
Gislaved Plastindustri AB
Guidor AB
Hemapure AB
Hepar AB
Hudson RCI AB
Ingrid Margareta Axelsson et al.
Inoris Medical AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
133
Assignee
Institutet for Tillampad Bioteknologi
Interspiro AB
Investment AB Falneria
Jacobsson
JATAB
JCL Technic AB
John Sjoding AB
Kanor Plast AB
Koping Industri-Plast AB
Lars Blomdahl AB
Light Weight Support AB
Liko Research & Development AB
Ljungberg & Kogel
Margareta
Medical Innovation AB
Medical Projects HB
Medifront AB
MediTeam Dentalutveckling I
Goteborg AB
Medscand Medical AB
Meduse Scandinavia AB
Mercado Medic AB
MiniDoc i Uppsala AB
MIT AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
134
Assignee
Mo och Domsjo Aktiebolag
Nestec S.A.
Nikomed ApSl
Nikval International AB
Nolato AB
Nordiska Dental AB
Novel Plast AB
Omega Medicinteknik AB
Ortolab AB
P & B Research AB
Palmcrantz
Pascal Medical AB
Peltor AB
Per
Perfecta Pump Aktiebolag
Presidentia Medical AB
Radiplast AB
Rehband Anatomiska AB
Respaid AB
Saab-Scania AB
SanPoint AB
Scandfast AB
Scandinavian Bioortodontic AB
SKF AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
135
Assignee
Stiftelsen for Medicinsk-Teknisk
Utveckling
Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags
Aktiebolaf
Stormby Nils
Stretchex AB
Surg Develop AB
Surgical Invent AB
Swedish Graft Technique AB
Svensk Eldental AB
Teknikhuset Swetron AB
Teltec Electronic Equipment AB
Tetra Pak AB
Tilly Medical Products AB
Titanbron I ahus AB
Tobin Scandinavia AB
Triple L. Laboratories AB
TSP Medical AB
Varde Per
Vastsvensk Medicinteknik AB
Vaxjo-Protes AB
Viggo AB
Volcano International Medical AB
Zenova Aktiebolag
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT Total
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
1
1
93
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
713
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
32
21
20
26
1
37
37
30
30
34
48
49
93
73
90
Table C4. Number of issued pharmaceutical patents per assignee and year66
PHARMACEUTICALS
136
Assignee
AstraZeneca AB
Medivir AB
Perstorp AB
Lejus Medical AB
Fockerman Jasmine
Lundblad Leif J. I.
Alfa-Laval AB
GS Development AB
Item Development AB
Syntello Vaccine Development AB
Akerlof Eva
Ferring AB
Karo Bio AB
Medicarb AB
Pousette Ake
Scotia Lipid Teknik AB
Active Biotech AB
Cortendo AB
Duotol AB
66
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
8
6
9
11
9
6
6
8
10
10
32
42
43
48
47
295
7
6
9
1
6
3
7
2
13
18
25
23
12
6
13
151
1
2
1
2
2
4
3
1
1
17
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
2
13
1
2
2
2
2
9
2
1
3
2
8
2
2
3
7
1
1
2
1
1
6
2
2
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
1
5
2
2
4
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
4
1
1
2
4
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
PHARMACEUTICALS
137
Assignee
Gambro AB
Glycorex AB
Michel
A+ Science Invest AB
Astacarotene AB
Berol Kemi AB
Biocarb AB
Biogaia AB
Bioglan AB
Boman Hans G.
Camurus AB
Chemical Dynamics Sweden AB
Conpharm AB
Erik Vinnars AB
Erlanson-Albertsson Charlotte
Johansson Gunnar
Landstingens Inkopscentral LIC
Lindahl Gunnar
Olle Ljungqvist Medical AB
Pharmalink AB
Ricard Jacques J. L.
SBL Vaccin AB
Sjogren Goran
Skandigen AB
Sundh Anders
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
PHARMACEUTICALS
138
Assignee
Abigo Medical AB
Affibody Technology Sweden AB
Agerup Bengt
Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB
Batra Satish
Bergman
Biogram AB
Bionative AB
Biophausia AB
Bioption AB
Bio-Tox Diagnostics Kommanditbolag
Bracco Research S.A.
Cederqvist
Chromogenix AB
Collagen Casing Einar Sjolander AB
Corline Systems AB
Diabact AB
Diamyd Therapeutics AB
Drilletten AB
Eka Nobel AB
Ellco Food AB
EntreTech Medical AB
Euro-Diagnostica AB
Ferrosan AB
Fluid-Carbon International AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PHARMACEUTICALS
139
Assignee
Fresenius Kabi AB
Gacell Laboratories AB
Glenpharma
Global Hemostasis Institute MGR AB
Gramineer AB
GS Biochem AB
Guidor AB
Halsoprodukter Lars Karnerud AB
HighTech Receptor AB
Hydro Pharma AB
IDL Immunodevelop Lab AB
International Nutritional Research
Institute AB
Karlshamns LipidTeknik AB
Karolinska Innovations AB
Malvac Foundation
Maud
Medinvent AB
Medipharm AB
Medivent
Micro Active Protein AB
Mitra Medical Technology AB
Neopharma Production AB
Nycomed Innovation AB
Oncholab AB
Peviva AB
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PHARMACEUTICALS
140
Assignee
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Total
Pharmac IA AB
1
1
Ponsus AB
1
1
Pripps Bryggerier AB
1
1
Probi AB
1
1
ProCell Bioteknik i Hornefors AB
1
1
Pyrosequencing AB
1
1
Q Med AB
1
1
Semper AB
1
1
Siemens Elema AB
1
1
Solimedco Aktiebolag
1
1
Suoma
1
1
Svenska Sockerfabriks AB
1
1
Sveriges Starkelseproducenter
1
1
Forening U.P.A.
Synphra AB
1
1
Syn-Tek AB
1
1
The Institute for Applied Biotechnology
1
1
Thomas
1
1
Trion Forskning-Och Utvecklings AB
1
1
PHARMACEUTICALS Total
26
19
24
18
20
18
21
32
41
49
81
85
78
77
86
675
Table C5. Country/countries of assignee ownership in studied patent
categories67
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Assignee
countries
No. of
patents
MEDICAL
ELECTRONICS
Assignee
countries
No. of
patents
MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT
Assignee
countries
No. of
patents
PHARMACEUTICALS
Assignee
countries
No. of
patents
SE
201
SE
280
SE
674
SE
629
US
77
DE
89
US
40
US
95
DK
9
US
29
DE
20
NO
34
DK; US
7
NO
21
CH
11
DK
13
GB
7
CA
3
FR
5
NL
10
DE
5
CH
2
FI
5
SE; US
9
FR
4
AT
1
AU
4
DE
7
FI
3
JP
1
DK
3
DK; US
7
JP
3
Not found
44
LU
2
GB
7
AU
2
Total
470
NO
2
FR
5
CH
2
AU; SE
1
AU
5
IL; SE
2
DE; SE
1
IT
4
SE; US
2
DK; SE
1
FI
3
AU; DE
1
ES
1
FI; US
3
CA; US
1
ES; SE
1
BE
2
DE; FR
1
GB
1
CA
2
ES; SE
1
IS
1
DK; JP
2
FI; SE
1
JP
1
AN; SE
1
FI; US
1
NL
1
CA; US
1
HU; SE
1
Not found
177
CH
1
JP; SE
1
Total
952
CH; SE
1
NO
1
DE; FR
1
Not found
57
DE; SE
1
Total
390
DK; SE
1
JP
1
JP; SE
1
67
NL; SE
1
Not found
68
Total
915
Not found means the number of patents per patent class without an assignee. SE; SE means that
two assignees from Sweden co-own the patent. The countries are: SE-Sweden, US-USA, NONorway, DK-Denmark, CH-Switzerland, CA-Canada, FI-Finland, GB-Great Britain, JP-Japan, NLNetherlands, DE-Germany IL-Israel, IT-Italy, BE-Belgium, FR-France, TW-Taiwan, IN-India, NZNew Zeeland, AU-Australia, MX-Mexico, ES-Spain, IS-Iceland, HU-Hungary, AT-Austria, LULuxembourg.
141
Table C6. Nationality of inventors in Biotechnology, Medical and Pharmaceutical patents 68
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Inventor
countries
No. of
patents
MEDICAL
ELECTRONICS
Inventor
countries
SE
202
SE
SE; US
62
DE; SE
DK; SE
12
US
FI; SE
MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT
No. of
patents
394
Inventor
countries
No. of
patents
PHARMACEUTICALS
Inventor
countries
No. of
patents
SE
824
SE
556
8
SE; US
25
SE; US
96
GB; SE
7
US
14
US
35
12
NO; SE
7
CH; SE
10
DK; SE
25
10
SE; US
7
DE; SE
8
NO; SE
22
JP; SE
8
DK
6
GB; SE
8
GB
19
DE; SE
7
HR
6
FI; SE
6
DE
10
DK; SE;
US
7
DE
5
DK
5
CA
8
FR; SE
6
DK; NO;
SE
4
FR; SE
5
CA; SE
9
AU; SE
5
NL; SE
3
NL
5
GB; SE
9
GB; SE
5
CA; SE
2
FR
4
DK; SE;
US
8
IN
5
2
NO
4
FR; SE
8
CH
4
2
NO; SE
4
FI; SE
7
CH; SE
3
FI; SE
2
CA; DK;
NO; SE
2
DE; SE
6
MX; SE
3
GB
2
DE; NL
2
FI
6
NO; SE
3
US
2
DK; SE
2
CH; SE
5
CA; SE
2
AT; SE
1
ES; SE
2
DK
5
2
CA; SE;
US
1
FI
2
IT
5
2
DE; US
1
GB
2
NL; SE
5
2
DK; NL;
NO; SE
1
AU; SE
1
NZ
5
DK; NO
1
BE; FR
1
IT; SE; US
4
1
CH
1
JP; SE
4
1
CH; SE;
US
1
1
DE
1
DE; SE;
US
GB; SE;
TH
GB; SE;
US
IL
2
AT
1
AT; DE
1
BE; US;
GB; SE
1
DE; NO;
SE
DK; IS;
SE; US
DK; NO;
SE; US
DK; SE;
US
ES; SE
68
NO; SE;
US
DK; NL;
NO; SE
4
3
SE; SE means that two inventors from Sweden collaborated. The countries are: SE-Sweden, USUSA, NO-Norway, DK-Denmark, CH-Switzerland, CA-Canada, FI-Finland, GB-Great Britain, JPJapan, NL-Netherlands, DE-Germany IL-Israel, IT-Italy, BE-Belgium, FR-France, TW-Taiwan, INIndia, NZ-New Zeeland, AU-Australia, MX-Mexico, ES-Spain, IS-Iceland, HU-Hungary, ATAustria, LU- Luxembourg, TH-Thailand, EE-Estonia, CS-Czech Republic, CU-Cuba, HR-Croatia,
NG-Benin, RU-Russia.
142
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Inventor
countries
CA; DE;
SE; US
CA; DK;
SE; US
No. of
patents
MEDICAL
ELECTRONICS
Inventor
countries
MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT
No. of
patents
Inventor
countries
No. of
patents
1
FR; SE
1
DE; GB;
SE
1
1
FR; US
1
DK; FI; SE
1
1
JP; SE
1
DK; SE;
US
1
1
Total
470
GA; SE
1
CS; SE
PHARMACEUTICALS
Inventor
countries
No. of
patents
DK; NO;
SE
DK; NO;
SE; US
GB; SE;
US
3
1
IT; SE
3
GB; NL;
SE
1
AT
2
1
IE; SE
1
BE
1
CU; SE
1
IL
1
BE; SE
2
DE; FR;
SE; US
1
IS; SE
1
ES; SE;
US
2
DE; GB;
SE
1
IT; US
1
GB; SE;
TH
2
EE; US
1
JP; SE
1
GB; US
2
ES; SE
1
NL; SE
1
IL
2
1
IN; SE;
US
2
CA; GB
CH; EE;
SE
CH; SE;
US
3
FI; SE; US
1
FI; US; SE
1
PL; SE
0
IT; US
2
GB
1
RU
1
JP
2
HU; SE
1
Total
NZ; SE
2
IN; SE
1
FR
1
IT; SE
1
AT; CA
1
IT; SE; US
1
AU; SE
1
JP
1
MX; NL;
SE; US
MX; SE;
US
NG; PL;
SE
PL; SE
Total
NL; US
3
1
1
1
952
BE; SE;
US
CA; GB;
SE
CA; SE;
US
1
CH; FR
1
DE; FR;
SE; US
DE; GB;
SE
1
390
1
1
1
DK; FI; SE
1
DK; NO
1
FR; SE;
US
GB; NO;
SE
JP; SE;
US
IL; SE; US
143
1
1
1
1
1
BIOTECHNOLOGY
Inventor
countries
No. of
patents
MEDICAL
ELECTRONICS
Inventor
countries
MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT
No. of
patents
Inventor
countries
No. of
patents
PHARMACEUTICALS
Inventor
countries
NL; SE;
US
No. of
patents
Not found
1
NZ; SE;
US
1
Total
144
1
915
D
Interviews, conferences and seminars
Interviews
Mark Hickery
Örjan Isacson
Björn O. Nilsson
Gunnar Pohl
Paul de Potocki
Nils-Georg Asp
Nathan Rosenberg
Eugen Steiner
Stefan Ståhl
Mathias Uhlén
Li Westerlund
Catharina Brooling
Cartela AB
CONNECT
KaroBio AB
Biopool AB
Biovitrum AB
The Swedish Nutrition Foundation
Stanford University, USA
HealthCap
Royal Institute of Technology & Affibody AB
Royal Institute of Technology
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP,
Washington DC, USA
NUTEK
Conferences and seminars 2002-2003
”Bioteknikbolag med inriktning mot nya läkemedel” IVA, Stockholm Jan.
24 2002.
”Det nya forskningslandskapet - perspektiv på vetenskap och politik”
SISTER, Stockholm April 4 2002.
”Global Perspectives on Bioscience, 2002” Exportrådet, Stockholm April 18
2002.
“IT’s BIOtech seminar” IT & B- Network, Stockholm April 24 2002.
“BioteknikForums seminarium om EU-kommissionens bioteknikstrategi”,
SIK, Stockholm May 21 2002.
”Sveriges bioteknikindustri i ett internationellt perspektiv” SNS, Stockholm
Aug. 20 2002.
”CONNECT Biomedical partnership forum”, Malmö Oct. 8-9 2002.
“Hur kan forskning om innovationssystem bidra till bättre beslut?”
VINNOVA, Stockholm Oct. 28 2002.
”Från start-up till etablerat bioteknikbolag” IVA, Stockholm Sept. 19, 2002.
”Biomedicin och tillväxt” ESBRI, Stockholm, Dec. 9, 2002.
”Hur myndigheter och andra organisationer kan främja svensk bioteknik”
IVA Stockholm Jan 23, 2003.
145
VINNOVAs publications
April 2003
VINNOVA Report
1
4
1
2
19 Trämekanisk framsyn. Ett projekt för
utveckling av den trämekaniska industrin.
VR 2003:
Slutrapport. Only as PDF
11
Fysisk planering i det digitala samhället
21 En sammanfattning av boken:
12
(Telematik 2004)
Organisationsövergångar och unika kulEfter 11 september 2001: - Kan storebror
turer. Förändringsdynamik och utveck13
hejdas? (Telematik 2006)
lingsstöd via Växtkraft Mål 4. Short
version of VR 2002:5
VR 2002:
Explorative System-Integrated
Technologies – EXSITE
Rationalitet och etik i samhällsekonomisk analys och Nollvision.
Expertseminarium november 2001. Only
as PDF
22 Nya material och produkter från
förnyelsebara råvaror. Short version of VR
2002:16
23 Transporteffektivisering med integrerad
informationsteknologi, TRANSMIT.
Only as PDF
3
Regionala innovationssystem. En fördjupad kunskapsöversikt. Only as PDF
24 Trä-, Bygg- och Möbelprogrammet - en
analys av insatser och resultat
4
Funktionshindrades resmöjligheter.
Sammanfattning av senaste årens forskning. CD with all related reports
25 Face synthesis as a communication aid
for hard-of-hearing people. Teleface l
and ll. Final project report. Only as PDF
Organisationsövergångar och unika kulturer. Förändringsdynamik och utvecklingsstöd via Växtkraft Mål 4. For short
version see VR 2002:21
26 Communication and Services in Open
Networks. Kommunikation och Tjänster
i Öppna Nätverk. 1999-2002. Only as
PDF
5
www.VINNOVA.se
6
Metanoldrivna bilar i Trollhättan
– Göteborg. Förstudie. Only as PDF
7
Hållbart arbete i informationssamhället.
Slutrapport från projektet “Callcenter i
utveckling – långsiktigt hållbart arbete
med kunder på distans”
8
Knowledge exchange, communication and context in electronic networks
(KnowHow). Only as PDF
9
Systemiskt lärande som ansats i logistikutvecklingen – en studie av internethandeln. Only as PDF
10 Framväxten av en ny vetenskapsbaserad
basteknologi (nanoteknik) och dess
relevans för det transport-teknologiska
området. Förstudie. Only as PDF
11 Den nya ekonomin – ett internetperspektiv (Telematik 2004). For short version see VR 2002:12
12 Den nya ekonomin – ett internetperspektiv (Telematik 2004). Short version of
VR 2002:11
13 Projekt Camelot. Rundabordssamtal
och seminarier kring framtidens boende
(Telematik 2004). Only as PDF
14 Tyskland och användningen av Internet
- en jämförelse med Sverige (Telematik
2004)
15 DIGITALA NYHETER.
Nyhetsförmedling via Internet (Telematik
2004). Only as PDF
16 Nya material och produkter från
förnyelsebara råvaror. En framtidsbild
och vägen dit. For short version see VR
2002:22
17 Transportinformatik och personlig integritet. Only as PDF
18 Utvecklade leverantör – kundrelationer:
Supply Link Management. Only as PDF
växt – mot en ny ekonomi och en ny
arbetsvärld
Strategi för bränslen i framtida fordon
Den kollektive trafik i Danmark. Only as
PDF
En föränderlig medievärld – teknik,
ekonomi och journalistik (Telematik
2004). Only as PDF
14 Samordnad godstransport inom lantbrukssektorn för att främja ett uthålligt
transportsystem. Only as PDF
15 Framtida flygtrafikledning i Sverige.
Pilotstudie, slutrapport. Only as PDF
16 Projekt PÅLBUS. Teknisk slutrapport.
Only as PDF
17 The Impact of CO2 Emissions Trading
on the European Transport Sector
18 Användarperspektivet. Strategier för att
förstärka samspelet mellan användare och
utvecklare
19 Utrustning för rationell säkring av last på
fordon. Only as PDF
27 Utvärdering av teknik som reducerar kvä- 20 Förstudie om teknik för gasdrivna fordon. Only as PDF
veoxider på äldre arbetsmaskiner genom
Selective Catalytic Reduction - SCR.
21 Trafiken på avvägar – finns det utvägar?
Only as PDF
Sammanfattning av VINNOVAs och
UTVÄGARs workshop jan 2001
28 The North European Maritime
Container Feeder Market. Only as PDF
22 Hur åker du? Om hur folk väljer
färdmedel. Short version of VR 2001:8
29 VinnEr – En samverkanspilot mellan
VINNOVA och Ericsson.
23 Resenärer om sin färdtjänst
30 Dialogprojektet - Framtida handel.
Rapporter framtagna av Arbetsgruppen
för samordning av dagligvarutransporter.
Only as PDF
1
2
VR 2001:
Paving the way for the electric vehicle.
Only as PDF
PIRATE – EU-projekt om attraktivare
bytespunkter med fokus på de svenska
studieobjekten Lund C och Vellinge
Ängar. Svenska delen. Only as PDF
24 Resenärer om sin färdtjänst. Teknisk rapport
25 Vägen, resan och mobilen. Scenario med
frågor för vägtrafik. Only as PDF
26 IT, demokrati och medborgarnas deltagande (Telematik 2004)
27 Erfarenhet av samordning av färdtjänst
och sjukresor i Dalsland. Only as PDF
28 Dags för trängselavgifter i
Stockholmstrafiken! Referat från en
konferens. Only as PDF
3
Innovative Transit Systems. Only as PDF
4
Arbetssituation och stresshantering hos
kabinpersonal. Only as PDF
5
Japan inför nya fordonsbränslen och
drivsystem. En översikt hösten 2000.
Only as PDF
33 Granskning av livbåtssystem TENGIS.
Only as PDF
6
Bilden som roar och klargör. En jämförande studie mellan tidiga illustrerade
läroböcker och dagens pedagogiska CDROM (Telematik 2004)
35 Flervånings trähus i Tyskland och Japan
31 Ostkustbanan - Modell och verklighet.
Slutrapport. Only as PDF
32 Rädslans rum – trygghetens rum
34 Air Safety at Sea. Only as PDF
36 Global Drivers and Megatrends in the
Wood Products Industry
7
Hållbarhetsanpassade transporter. En
rättsvetenskaplig studie av transporternas
miljöeffekter. Only as PDF
37 Ökad träanvändning i bostadsbyggandet
8
Komfortens betydelse för spår- och
busstrafik. Trafikantvärderingar, modeller
och prognoser för lokala arbetsresor. For
short version see VR 2001:22. Only as PDF
39 3D-baserat IT-stöd för lättbyggnadsteknik i trä
9
See VI 2001:11
10 Perspektiv på nätverkssamhällets fram-
38 Industriellt byggande i trä och 3D
baserat IT-system för flervånings trähus
40 WIS – Wood Interface System
41 Storskalighet och småföretagande. En
studie av strategiska grupper inom svensk
möbelindustri
1
2
1
2
VINNOVA Information
VINNOVA Analysis
VI 2003:
(former Innovation in Focus VF)
VA 2003:
Verksamhet inom Transporter
Årsredovisning 2002
VI 2002:
Research and innovation for sustainable
growth. Replaces VI 2001:2
VINNOVAs verksamhet – pågående och
planerade aktiviteter. Juli 2002. Replaces
VI 2001:10
1
2
2
Swedish Biotecknology - scientific
publications, patenting and industrial
development
VA 2002:
Det Svenska Nyföretagandet 1986-1997
förändringar i företagsstrukturer och sysselsättningseffekter.
Tillväxt i regioner genom dynamiska innovationssystem
4
VINNOVAs årsredovisning 2001
5
IT i verkstadsindustrin. Program för
mångvetenskaplig forskning i samverkan
industri, högskola och institut
6
Regionala företagskonsortier 1994-2001
7
Effekter 1975–2000. Stöd till behovsmotiverad forskning. Short version of VF
2002:1
2
Impact of R&D during the period
1975-2000. The impact of VINNOVAs
predecessors support for needs. English
version of VI 2002:7
Stimulating International Technological
Collaboration in Small and MediumSized Enterprises. A Study of
VINNOVA’s SMINT Programme.
3
Regional ekonomisk tillväxt i Sverige
1986–2001. En studie av tillväxtens
utveckling i Sveriges lokala arbetsmarknader.
8
9
1
Verksamhet inom BioTeknik. Speciellt
framtagen för BioTech Forum och
Medicintekniska konferensen oktober
2002.
VI 2001:
See VI 2001:12
2
See VI 2002:1
3
Verksamhet som VINNOVA övetagit
från NUTEK år 2000
4
Framtida kommunikationsnät
5
The Competence Centres Programme.
Second, Mid-Term, International
Evaluation, Group 4 (5 Centres) and
Overall Impressions
1
Effekter av VINNOVAs föregångares
stöd till behovsmotiverad forskning
– Fyra effektanalyster av insatser under
perioden 1975 – 2000 (for short version in
swedish and english, see VI 2002:7 and VI
2002:8). Only as PDF
VF 2001:
Drivers of Environmental Innovation
2
The Swedish biotechnology innovation
system
3
Elektronisk handel inom musik- och
stålindustrin. Only as PDF
4
Electronic Commerce in the Music
Industry and Steel Industry in Sweden.
Only as PDF
VINNOVA Forum
(former VINNOVA Debate VD)
VFI 2002:
Bioprocesser i industrin. Program för
forskning, utveckling och demonstration.
VINNOVA 2001–2005
1
7
Innovativa livsmedel. Program för
forskning, utveckling och demonstration.
VINNOVA 2001–2005. Only as PDF
2
8
Biomedicinsk teknologi . Program för
forskning, utveckling och demonstration
VINNOVA 2001–2005. Only as PDF
Innovationspolitik för Sverige: mål, skäl,
problem och åtgärder (Innovation policy
in Focus)
3
9
VINNOVA´s views on the European
Commsission´s proposal for the Sixth
Framework Programme 2002-2006. Only
as PDF
Teknikparkens roll i det svenska innovationssystemet - historien om
kommersialisering av forskningsresultat
(Innovation policy in Focus)
11 Projektredovisning för möbelprogrammet
1998-2001. Replaces VR 2001:9
12 Forskning och innovation för hållbar
tillväxt. Replaces VI 2001:1
1
2
13 Projektkatalog Trä- och byggprogrammet
– Beviljade projekt
3
Betydelsen av innovationssystem: utmaningar för samhället och för politiken
(Innovation policy in Focus)
VD 2001:
Gender equality and sustainable development: The need for debate in transportation policy in Sweden (Transport policy in
Focus)
Bortom Dennispaketet (Transport policy
in Focus)
Transportsektorns koldioxidutsläpp och
den svenska miljöpolitiken. En kritisk
granskning (Transport policy in Focus).
Only as PDF
VP 2002:
Behovsmotiverad forskning och effektiva
innovationssystem för hållbar tillväxt.
VINNOVAs verksamhetsplanering
2003-2007. For english version see VP
2002:4, for full swedish version see VP
2002:3
2
Nationellt inkubatorprogram
3
Behovsmotiverad forskning och effektiva
innovationssystem för hållbar tillväxt.
En fördjupad version av VINNOVAs
verksamhetsplanering 2003-2007. For
short swedish version see VP 2002:1, for
short english version see VP 2002:4
4
Effective innovation systems and problem-oriented research for sustainable
growth. VINNOVA’s strategic plan 2003
- 2007. For swedish veersion see VP 2002:1
and 3
5
Nationell strategi för FoU inom området
tillämpning av informationsteknik.
VF 2002:
6
10 See VI 2002:2
1
Innovationssystemanalys inom flygindustri och luftfart. Förstudie
3
1
VINNOVA Policy
PRODUCTION/PRODUKTION: VINNOVA Communication Division/Kommunikationspolicy
PRINT/TRYCK: Bromma tryck AB
April 2003
SOLD BY/FÖRSÄLJNING Fritzes Offentliga Publikationer, www.fritzes.se
VINNOVA´s role is to promote sustainable growth
by developing effective innovation systems
and funding problem-oriented research.
Postal address
Visiting address:
Ph, switchboard
Fax
VINNOVA@VINNOVA.se
SE-101 58 Stockholm, Sweden
Mäster Samuelsgatan 56
+46 (0)8 473 30 00
+46 (0)8 473 30 05
www.VINNOVA.se

Swedish biotechnology - scientific publications, patenting

Transcription

Similar documents

Barnablick (Martin Broby).

Svensk-Tysk Ordbok (Swedish Edition) - My

Swedish Examinations

Real-time monitoring of Multiple Sclerosis care guidelines with

Jeff K.`s `1896 Swedish Mauser`

Commercialising early stage agbiotechnology from

Making entrepreneurship easy

VITTA - Infonet 21.2

scandi candy shops