Centre of attention

27 April 2007

London has world-class research institutions - but unlike New York or Singapore, there's no dedicated science and technology centre. Should the regenerated Kings Cross/Euston area play host to one?

When FierceBiotech, the daily web monitor for the biotech industry, recommended the top five regions for biotech development last year, Singapore was one exception in the otherwise US-centric list. 'Any biopharma company looking for a lot of help for drug development would do well to look closely at Singapore,' advised FierceBiotech's editor, John Carroll. Favourable tax breaks and public/private financial assistance were among the 'good reasons why Singapore's Biopolis has been booming,' explained Carroll.

Biopolis is Singapore's towering biomedical science and R&D hub, covering 18.5 hectares and seven buildings and taking less than two years from concept to phase 1 completion at the end of 2003. Comprising specialist research facilities and services, Biopolis is part of a 200 hectare development, which will also include Fusionopolis, a media and IT tower, and affordable housing for scientists

At the launch of Biopolis, Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam, Singapore's deputy prime minister, said it 'represents a vision to establish the entire value chain of biomedical science activities in Singapore - from research and development to manufacture and healthcare delivery'.

Crucial to this, he said, was the fostering of a collaborative culture among the private and public sector research communities. By locating researchers from both sectors in the same environment, Biopolis would support multi- and cross-disciplinary collaboration, said Dr Yam, and 'accelerate the translation of new discoveries to marketable products'. He pointed to biotech activities located in major hubs around the world, including science parks in the two Cambridges - in Massachusetts, US, and the east of England.

Yet it's to these countries' foremost cities, New York and London, that many international students and scientists are drawn. In several respects, these cities provide the perfect environments for science and technology entrepreneurs - world-class medical and research institutions, and access to leading global centres of finance and business. However, many business and academic leaders believe they lack the collaborative research facilities and supportive business development space that a science and technology centre such as Singapore's Biopolis can provide.

'London is missing a trick,' says Sarika Patel, national head of technology at Grant Thornton, a g2i consortium member. 'We need a debate on the best way to develop a lasting science and technology legacy for the capital.'

Grant Thornton recently brought together a group of leading business, academic and public sector leaders to discuss the creation of a science and technology centre in central London. King's Cross/Euston was suggested as a location because the area is already undergoing substantial regeneration, has excellent transport links, and is close to many of the capital's universities, hospitals and financial institutions. A University of London feasibility study into the development of a London science park had already identified the need for entrepreneurs to remain close to their centres of research.

But a major issue in London, of course, is the availability of affordable space. That problem is shared with New York, where high rents have tended to drive the city's bioscience companies to out-of-town locations such as Connecticut and New Jersey. 'There are about 30 bioscience companies a year coming out of New York institutions and, essentially, they're all going elsewhere,' Kathryn Wylde, president and chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, told the New York Times earlier this year.

The city's solution to space constraints has been, in true New York style, to build upwards. The East River Science Park will be a $400m complex occupying a million square feet in Manhattan and is due to accept its first tenants in 2009. Key to the science park's development has been $10 million funding from New York City's business community, through Partnership for New York City and the New York City Investment Fund.

In London, too, the Grant Thornton discussion group agreed that private sector investment - combined with public sector support - was the most appropriate business model. Grant Thornton's Patel pointed out that the Greater London Authority has expressed interest and will be invited to get involved in future discussions. 'Public subsidies won't create companies that are robust and sustainable', she added, 'but science and technology clients are likely to attract private sector investment.'

Discussions are still at an early stage and there are a number of major decisions to be taken before the idea of a science and technology centre takes root. Chief among them is to decide what the centre's core focus would be, with suggestions ranging from stem cell technology to the benefits of easy access to patients. The next milestone in the debate will come this summer when the University of London releases the latest stage of its feasibility study.

By Alison Hjul, Webster Buchanan Research