Clustering for Growth

CLUSTERING FORGROWTH

How to build dynamic innovationclusters in Europe

T H E S C I E N C E | B U S I N E S S I N N O V A T I O NB O A R D C H A R T E R F O R C L U S T E R S

A series of meetings across Europe involving leading

industrialists, policy-makers, academics and cluster leaders

has been discussing how to push forward high-growth,

high-tech clusters in Europe. Here are their suggestions.

Words (except as bylined)Nuala Moran and Richard L. Hudson

DesignChris Jones, Design4Science Ltd

Editorial productionPeter Wrobel

Innovation Board organisationJacqueline Ackers, Eurointro

PrintersHolbrooks Printers Ltd, Norway Road,Portsmouth, Hampshire PO3 HX, UK

© Science Business Publishing Ltd 2008

Science|Business Innovation BoardTo encourage public dialogue about innovation policy in Europe, theScience|Business news service and Microsoft Corp. in 2007 created ablue-ribbon panel of leaders in industry, academia and policy. TheScience|Business Innovation Board meets twice a year to debateimportant aspects of European innovation policy, and to formulaterecommendations for policy action. The aim: to use the collectiveexperience of the board members to improve the climate for innovationin Europe. Organisation and reporting of the Science|BusinessInnovation Board’s work is by the Science|Business news service.

Board membersEsko Aho, President, Finnish innovation fund SITRA, and former primeminister of FinlandJean-Philippe Courtois, President, Microsoft InternationalPat Cox, President, European Movement, and former President of theEuropean ParliamentRoch Doliveux, CEO and Chairman, UCBDenis Payre, Co-founder, Business Objects, and CEO, KialaPhilippe Pouletty, General Partner, Truffle Ventures, and Chairman,France BiotechAlfons Sauquet, Dean, ESADE Business SchoolHelmut Schühsler, Managing Partner, TVM CapitalHarriet Wallberg-Henriksson, President, Karolinska Institutet

Clustering for growth is the result of meetings of theScience|Business Innovation Board and workshops held withacademics, policy-makers, industry and cluster leaders. TheScience|Business Innovation Board and this report are both supportedby Microsoft Corp. For further copies (subject to availability), pleasecontact the Science|Business Brussels Office, Rue du Trone 98, 6thFloor, 1050 Brussels, Belgium, or email [email protected].

The meeting on "Successful innovation clusters: How to make themhappen?" in Brussels, 15-16 April 2008, was co-hosted by the PermanentRepresentative of Finland to the European Union, the Czech LiaisonOffice for R&D and the City of Prague. The Science|Business InnovationBoard meeting in Fontainebleau on 10 June 2008 was kindly hosted byINSEAD. Both meetings were supported by Microsoft Corp.

1CLUSTERING FOR GROWTH

How to build dynamic innovation clusters in Europe

FOREWORD

Europe has pinned its future on building a Knowledge Economy.There are of course, many pillars to this construct, from a world-class education system, to investment in R&D, solid intellectualproperty law and pervasive information and communicationnetworks.

Supplying these preconditions is certainly important. But for Europe tosucceed in its ambition, it needs also to work out how to bring these factors,and many others, together in the primary physical manifestation of aknowledge economy: the High-Tech Cluster.

Along with the focus on meeting the Lisbon objectives on R&D spending andsupplying the ingredients of a Knowledge Economy, in October 2008 theEuropean Commission issued a communication detailing its views on a pan-European cluster policy.

At Science|Business, we too have been looking at how Europe can rise to thechallenge of creating successful innovation clusters. Over the course of thisyear we have held a number of meetings and published reports on the issue. On16 April 2008 we brought together leading academic experts, policy makersand practitioners from across Europe to consider the proposition, “SuccessfulInnovation Clusters: How to make them happen.”

The conclusions of this event were published in an interim report and fed intoa meeting of the Science|Business Innovation Board held at one of Europe’spremier business schools, INSEAD, in Fontainebleau, Paris on 10 June thisyear.

Following this, the Innovation Board co-authored a manifesto for action,calling for Europe to focus its resources, and in particular its Structural andCohesion Funds, on the creation of world-class clusters. The manifesto waspublished in a number of Europe’s leading newspapers and can be read onpage 5.

Science|Business has also published a series of profiles of leading clusters andused these examples to tease out what makes for a successful cluster. Theprofiles are collected here.

This report synthesises the views of the participants of the Brussels and

Clusters are the motive forceof the Knowledge Economy.The question is: How tomake them happen?

2CLUSTERING FOR GROWTHHow to build dynamic innovation clusters in Europe

Fontainebleau meetings, and sets out the Science|Business Charter of policymeasures.

One particular proposal – the setting up of two or three privileged areas thatwhile of necessity are situated in one place – are in effect supranational, isdiscussed in more detail.

Special Innovation Zones for Europe (SIZE) would be deregulated areas thatprovide the best that Europe has to offer in terms of environment,infrastructure and lifestyle, to attract the best people and the best companiesfrom all over the continent and beyond.

Alongside the European Commission’s Cluster Policy, this report aims to setout coherent areas for action by governments to make clusters more effective.

We would like to thank all those who have contributed to this debate andacknowledge the support Science|Business has received in staging theInnovation Clusters meetings.

Richard L. HudsonCEO and EditorScience|Business

Participants at the Science|Business Innovation Board press conference at France 24, 10 June2008. Left to right: Jean-Philippe Courtois, Microsoft International; Philippe Pouletty, TruffleCapital; Frank Brown, INSEAD; Roch Doliveaux, UCB; Jean-Noël Durvy, European Commission;Soumitra Dutta, INSEAD



CONTENTS

1 Foreword 1

2 Letter: How to make a Silicon Valley in Europe 5

3 The search for an effective policy 8

4 The Science|Business Charter for Clusters: Policy Actions 14

5 The Science|Business Charter for Clusters: Policy Principles 19

6 SIZE – Special Innovation Zones for Europe 21

7 Recipes for the cluster stew 24

Appendix 1: Delegates to the Brussels Meeting, April 2008 28

Appendix 2: Delegates to the INSEAD roundtable, June 2008 30

“I know, because I havewitnessed it in action, thatclusters and innovation go

hand-in-hand. It is now moreimportant than ever to try

and understand what makesclusters work.”Andrew Herbert




How to make a Silicon Valleyin Europe

Science|Business Innovation BoardAn open letter from the Science|Business Innovation Board. Versions of this articleappeared in, among others, De Standard (Belgium), El Pais (Spain), the FinancialTimes (UK) and Kauppalehti (Finland).

Its authors form an impressive list: Esko Aho, President, Finnish innovation fund SITRA, andformer Prime Minister of Finland; J. Frank Brown, Dean, INSEAD; Jean-Philippe Courtois,President, Microsoft International; Pat Cox, President, European Movement, and formerPresident, European Parliament; Roch Doliveux, CEO and Chairman, UCB; Denis Payre, CEO,Kiala and Co-Founder, Business Objects; Philippe Pouletty, General Partner, Truffle Capital;Alfons Sauquet, Dean, ESADE Business School; Helmut M. Schühsler, Managing Partner, TVMCapital; and Harriet Wallberg-Henriksson, President, Karolinska Institutet.

Europe needs to focus.

Too many initiatives in the European Unionare blunted by lack of clarity – trying toplease too many constituencies at once, andin the end pleasing none. Now the EU isabout to embark on another policy initiativewhere clarity and focus are needed. Thisletter, based on our collective experience inacademia, industry and policy, is a plea forsingle-minded efficiency.

The issue is “cluster” policy – in short: How doyou make a Silicon Valley in Europe? Afterseveral months of study, the EuropeanCommission is due to issue its first formalanswer to that question, with a policystatement recommending action to the EUmembers.

There’s no dispute that clusters of dynamiccompanies around top-rated universities arevital to economic success. Cambridge, Oxford,Munich, Grenoble, Leuven and Stockholm areall vibrant zones for scientific discovery,technological innovation, and jobs. But large,

they are not. Just one US research institution,the University of California–San Francisco inthe Silicon Valley cluster, has spawned publiclytraded companies with a combined marketvalue of $90 billion – three times the value ofEurope’s entire bio sector. China hasconcentrated resources and tax breaks on threemega-hubs for technology development.Whether by market rule or government fiat,these are clusters big, bold, and concentrated.

By contrast, Europe’s approach is small, timidand diffuse. The EU counts some 2,000 clusters,70 different national cluster policies, andhundreds of regional programmes. Now it hasthe opportunity for change. Between 2007 and2013 the European Union has budgeted €308billion for structural funds, a type of regional-development “catch-up” funding that can beapplied to knowledge networks as easily as toroad networks. The EU’s upcoming clusterpolicy statement, led by Vice President GünterVerheugen, could direct that spending wisely.

We urge that it incorporate the followingprinciples:

SECT ION TWO

During theSummer of 2008,

newspapersacross Europepublished the

Science|BusinessInnovation

Board’s views oncluster policy.


A CHARTER FOR CLUSTERS

� BUILD ON EXISTING STRENGTHS.Clusters cannot be planted on bare soil,wherever a politician feels like it. Theycan only be nurtured in places thathave already demonstrated knowledge,skills and growth.

� FOCUS RESOURCES. Don’t scatter themoney far and wide. Pick just a few ofthe most promising regions and sectorsfor support, and provide anenvironment – family-friendly,multidisciplinary, well-paid – that willattract the brightest minds.

� BE OPEN. Encourage the best people,wherever in the world they may be, towork in Europe’s clusters. Promoteopen competition, among universities,companies and regions, for funding.Promote border-crossing – amongpeople, ideas, scientific disciplines,and industries.

� BENCHMARK, MONITOR AND BETRANSPARENT. Base funding andregulatory policy, not on the clash ofpolitical interests, but on empiricalanalysis of what’s working and on opencompetition.

� ENCOURAGE risk-taking, cross-disciplinary work, bold innovation andexperimentation

These are broad principles. One practical ideafor implementation is to create SpecialInnovation Zones in Europe (SIZE).

We urge the EU to designate a few – and wemean just a few – existing clusters to benefitfrom a new legal status as special innovationzones. It would give them extra cash from that€308 billion structural-funding budget to investin schools, infrastructure and culturalamenities that attract the world’s topknowledge workers (reversing the “braindrain”) and to stimulate university research,teaching and spin-out company formation. Theywould get special, temporary dispensation fromrules that hamper free movement of people andideas, such as immigration and labour policiesthat make it hard for small companies to hire orfire. They could tap seed funding, supported bythe EU and managed by investmentprofessionals. They could earn a new, low-taxstatus reserved for young, innovativecompanies, and access low-cost, high-quality

office space and support services

How would the EU pick these centres ofexcellence? Through transparent, international,data-based competition, rather than throughclosed-door, regional politics. Create a council,dominated by non-EU experts on technology,development and education, that weighscompeting applications from the regions basedon their performance – in hard numbers, pereuro spent, of significant inventions,publications, spin-outs, licenses, stock-marketflotations, post-doctoral fellows and jobs, andsoft analysis of governance, infrastructure,quality of life, and visionary planning. Thereare already models for this. The newly createdEuropean Research Council last year achieved afirst: handing out €300 million in researchgrants based solely on the judgment ofinternational experts. The “cull rate” wasferocious: 97% of applicants were rejected. Butthe winning 3% were, beyond any doubt,scientifically worthy of funding. If this no-nonsense, expert approach can work in theuniversity sector – interbred and politicized asit is in many EU nations – it can surely work inregional policy.

Time is running out for Europe. The Americancapital markets, treacherous as they may be, arepouring vast sums into the nation’s technologycentres. In South Korea, governmentinvestment of $11 billion in the Incheon FreeEconomic Zone has drawn $49 billion in foreigninvestment. At the same time, we are allconfronted by the urgent problems of globalwarming and rising energy costs; solutionsmust be found through research, innovationand entrepreneurship. Unless Europe improvesits capacity to innovate, it will miss theseopportunities to lead and prosper.

Europe’s politicians cannot afford any longerthe luxury of playing big spender to all regionsgreat and small. They need to be bold, brave andselective. They can start with the Commission’supcoming cluster policy statement.

10 June 2008, Fontainebleau, France



The area between Nice and Cannes insouthern France seems an unlikely spotfor a high-tech cluster. With its forestof pines trees, and the adjoiningFrench Rivera’s beaches and luxuriousyachts and seaports, Sophia Antipolislooks more like an exhaustedexecutive’s dream retirement homethan a fertile place for would-beentrepreneurs.

Yet despite the absence of big scienceuniversities and in an area without an industrialtradition, the 2,300-hectare technology parkoverlooking the Mediterranean is home to 1,414companies. Of these, 40 per cent carry out R&D,mostly in information technology. And eventhough the bursting of the Internet and telecombubble slowed the development of SophiaAntipolis in the early years of this decade, itscompanies now employ 30,000 people – asagainst 23,000 in 2000.

The main credit for these achievements has to goto the local politicians who cajoled the Frenchgovernment into founding the park in 1969 –even though at the time nearby Nice Universitywas but four years old and there were no bigcompanies in the area.

In other words Sophia Antipolis is like the high-speed TGV or the nuclear industry: a pureproduct of French public policy will, also calledColbertism after Louis XIV’s long-serving chiefminister.

And even if it has never been able to reach thesize of its role model, Silicon Valley in the US,Sophia Anipolis, Europe’s oldest European high-tech park, has created a sustainable dynamicthat no longer needs to be propped up by thepublic purse.

Early industrial support was key to thedevelopment of Sophia Antipolis. It came in theshape of two US-based IT corporations, IBM andTexas Instruments. When Pierre Laffitte, then aSenator and later Director of the prestigiousÉcole des Mines in Paris, and the French stateterritory planning agency, Datar, started todevelop Sophia Antipolis, they recruited the twocorporations to their vision – both companieshad already established R&D bases in the area.

Iconic magnetsThey were iconic names. IBM and TexasInstruments were involved in the founding of theCote d’Azure’s Telecom Valley in the early 1990s,helping to pull in 70 other IT companies. Theassociation was able to attract researchinstitutions such as Eurecom, a spin off of theengineering school Telecom Paris, and theEuropean Telecommunications StandardsInstitute, the body that produced the GSMstandard for mobile phones.

In turn, IBM made the presence of a university inthe vicinity a condition of its expansion, so theprominent Ecole des Mines in 1976 and INRIA in1983 set up affiliated labs in Sophia Antipolis fortheir PhD students. In 1978, CERAM, a businessschool with a strong focus on entrepreneurshipwas founded. Altogether, Sophia Antipolis is nowhome to5 ,000 students and 4,000 publiclyfunded researchers.

Initially dependent on inward investment,Sophia Antipolis has seen companies come andgo. In the 1980s the US minicomputer companyDEC (later Digital Equipment) was a prominentresident. When the minicomputer was overtakenby the personal computer and Digital becamepart of Compaq, Sophia Antipolis lost asignificant tenant.

But in the mid-1990s the soil of the park startedto become fertile enough to grow its owncompanies. Sophia Antipolis is now not onlydriven by the expansion of established

companies, rather than by newcomers, but it isstarting to see its first successful start-ups. Anexample is the e-commerce search engineCertimate. Another is content streamingspecialist Castify. Both managed to weather thestorm after the Internet bubble burst.

A further key factor since 2000 has been thedevelopment of Nice Airport as a low-cost hub.Annual traffic now exceeds Geneva or Lyon, asignificant advantage for high-tech start-upsthat can reach 60 destinations within Europerelatively cheaply.

And even though Sophia Antipolis is located in ahighly desirable tourist region, real estate priceshave been contained within the park to levelsbelow cities such Marseille and Lyon. The park isexpecting a 10 per cent increase in its officespace by 2012.

Indeed, at one million square metres it is alreadyone of the biggest technology parks in Europe,rubbing shoulders with Kista near Stockholm.More than 150 large international companies,including Toyota, Nortel, Wipro and Amadeus,have subsidiaries there, alongside numerousstart-ups. With the average number ofemployees standing at 21, SMEs are dominant inSophia.

Despite this impressive growth, two-thirds of thepark is maintained as green areas, creating abeautiful site where office rental prices arerelatively low. Sophia Antipolis was recentlychristened as a Pole de Competivité under theFrench government’s initiative to drive thedevelopment of clusters. And it still has room toexpand still further.

Sophia Antipolis has certainly developed a high-tech culture that can rival with other Europeancentres. But it still needs to grow anentrepreneurial culture. Venture capitaliststravel to Sophia Antipolis – but unlike SiliconValley almost none have decided to move there.

CASE STUDY 1: SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS

High-tech cultureout of a high-tech desert

Fabrice Delaye, ParisRiviera research: Sophia

Antipolis lies next toNice and Cannes.


Cluster building: the search for aneffective policy

Clusters built around knowledge hubs arebecoming increasingly important in drivinginnovation. World-class clusters like SiliconValley, Cambridge Massachusetts, CambridgeUK, Grenoble, Leuven, and Dresden, feed offthe excellence of the local knowledge base, andit is this that enables them to attract privateinvestment from around the world.

There are three features of a successful cluster.First, while they are usually created aroundlocal and regional strengths, exploitingsynergies and responding to real marketopportunities, they are not artificially createdby the public sector.

Second, successful clusters are ones thatcooperate with fellow clusters to drive openinnovation, as is evident in themicroelectronics sector, for example.

And third, successful clusters are able to attractprivate investment in R&D to support high techstart-ups.

SECT ION THREE

The search for an effective policy

To date, public policy to promote clusters inEurope operates on a regional or national level,and despite the European Commission’sambitions in setting out a pan European clusterpolicy, that is likely to be the case in theimmediate future.

Each region will look to develop high techclusters regardless of their suitability, and withno reference to what is happening beyond itsown borders. This will drive an ongoingproliferation of weak clusters, and theirsubsequent, inevitable, failure.

Instead, the experts convened byScience|Business propose, Europe shouldconcentrate on sectors where there is thepotential for innovation and innovation policyshould be designed to drive focus and helpclusters attain critical mass.

This suggests three principles that shouldunderline cluster policy:

1. Clusters should be based on local strengths

2. The European Union and the Member Statesshould aim to provide the enablingframework, by, for example, reforming highereducation and removing regulatory barriers

3. Policies should centre on allowingcompanies, and especially small and mediumenterprises (SMEs) to grow and innovate, andbecome world-leading in open competition

This underlying, enabling policy, needs to proveitself by showing that it prompts the formationof new companies in which venture capitalistsand others want to invest.

“The inspiration behind anEU-level policy is topromote excellence,

enabling clusters to lookbeyond regional or national

boundaries, and becomesignificant globally.”

Reinhard Buescher, EuropeanCommission

“The Commissionshould focus onhighlighting bestpractice. Clustersthemselves needto be based onnaturaladvantages,conditions andresources. It’s nothard to see whyDenmark has gotbig in biotech;another less well-known example ofa successfulbiotech cluster isNorthern Italy,where the level ofcooperationbetweenentrepreneursand academics isamazing.”Hans Martens,European PolicyCentre



A pan-European cluster policy wouldmake better use of resources

Although the EU has no central policy onclusters, it has, over several years, studied thefactors that prompt their formation and therole they play in economic development.Building on this research the Commissionrecently established the European ClusterObservatory, a database to inform policymakers, practitioners and researchers on thebroad range of national and regional clusterpolicies in place across the EU and the relativestrengths of clusters in Europe.

According to the European Cluster Observatorythere are at least 70 national cluster policiesacross the EU. Layered on top are hundreds ofregional policies that often pit neighbouragainst neighbour, or put regional ambitionsbefore national objectives.

While there is an argument that competitionamongst regions can encourage thedevelopment of stronger clusters, publicsubsidies and other forms of support mean thisdoes not happen currently.

This is because of the underlying principle –and the principle on which the huge Structuraland Cohesion Fund is disbursed – is thatMember States all have to be the same. Andwhile politicians are keen to try and pickwinners, they are really bad at cutting losers.

Of course, one positive conclusion of theproliferation of national and regional policies isthat governments believe in the need for

cluster policy and there is money available tosupport cluster initiatives. The pre-occupationnow should be to make good use of this tosupport of innovation.

The vision of an EU-level policy should be topromote quality rather than quantity, and toequip clusters to look beyond regional ornational boundaries enabling them to becomeglobal players.

Cluster policy also needs to consider the specialrole of entrepreneurs and to provide them withappropriate incentives.

Cluster policy needs to capitalise onEurope’s Long Tail of diversity

The current regional policy approach to clusterspits city against city, with each vying forfunding for the same “must have” ingredientsof a cluster, be it a ring road, a science park or aclean room. This is leading to homogenisationamong clusters, when what Europe should bedoing is taking advantage of its Long Tail ofdiversity.

In short, an EU cluster policy should supportwhat has been termed the “Europe ofDifferences”. Across 27 Member States there arebig variations and the EU should formulate acluster policy that enables countries to build onnational advantages.

There should be more specialisation inEuropean clusters, with each having the statureto address the entire European market andbeyond.

“The key differencebetween successful

clusters such asCambridge, Mass.,Cambridge, UK and

Silicon Valley is accessto capital.”

Frank Brown, INSEAD

“Europe needs to focus.There are 2,000 innovationclusters in Europe, but notmany qualify as a globalbrand. We need to be moreselective about singling outand supporting clusters thatcan be global.”Jean-Philippe Courtois,Microsoft International


Furthermore, the EU clusters policy needs torecognise that innovation can happen in allsectors, not just ones that are traditionallyregarded as high tech. Food processing,agriculture, footwear could all be the subject ofclusters.

And at the same time, innovation is about morethan new products. It also concerns innovationin management, in services, and in culturalindustries, for example.

But note, no matter the location or thespeciality, clusters need to be market driven,and to have the capacity to change as marketschange.

It follows that if one aim of the EU cluster policyis to enable Europe to capitalise on its diversitythat it must be framed to support local actionthat is attuned to the specific needs andavailable resources of particular regions.

What is the recipe for the perfectcluster?

It may be relatively straightforward to list theenabling factors for a cluster, but how shouldthese be brought to bear in creating a cluster?

One of the contributors to the Science|Businessdebate – Pontus Braunerhjelm, PrincipalSecretary, Swedish Government GlobalisationCouncil; Chair in International Business andEnterprise at the Royal Institute of Technology,Sweden – recently published a book ClusterGenesis. Technology-based industrialdevelopment (2006, Oxford University Press, co-

“China is still an emerging market,but the importance of clusters isappreciated. Recently home-growninnovation has become an importantcatch phrase. This was exemplifiedin the recent launch by [theJapanese car company] Honda of avehicle designed at its facility inGuandong, China, for the Chinesemarket.”Qian Yingaji, Dean of TsinghuaUniversity School of Economics andManagement

“One factor that is oftenignored is the ‘CafeteriaSyndrome’. Successful

clusters are places wherepeople from differentdisciplines can meet.

There are 1,000 clustersin Europe and you can’t

generate serendipityacross such a big

number.”Pontus Braunerhjelm,

Royal Institute ofTechnology, Sweden

editor Maryann Feldman), based on a study ofclusters around the world.

In particular, Braunerhjlem was looking for the“igniting spark” that prompted a cluster to startgrowing. In his assessment it is the knowledgebase that prompts initial development, andthen other requirements, such as legal servicesand venture capital move in subsequently.

Braunerhjelm’s research indicates that whilecluster formation can be influenced by policy atseveral levels, the processes themselves arecomplex and hard to copy. Once established,the ongoing performance depends on theformation of spin-out companies and the arrivalof new ones.



Even when a cluster is established, futuregrowth is not inevitable. There are alwayschoices on every step of the way, so there is aplace for policy – from schools to tax regimesand the environment, believes Braunerhjelm.

Whatever the exact policy recipe, the perfectcluster needs four ingredients – Knowledge,Capabilities, Incentives and Opportunities. Oneis no good without the other, which meansthere must be a flexible approach to clusterpolicy, depending on circumstances and thestage of development.

Braunerhjelm’s investigations led him toconclude that the emphasis on putting in placeinfrastructure and systems as the foundation ofa cluster may be misplaced. These elements areoften supported by public funding inpreference to individual incentives orincentives for companies. But it is companiesthat are the agents of change, and they need togrow to make the cluster sustainable.

For Braunerhjelm Europe’s defining malaise isthe lack of an entrepreneurial culture: “The onecommon element we identified is that allclusters are entrepreneurially driven – even inChina.”

University reform could help Europeto grow innovation clusters

It is acknowledged that while the mostsuccessful clusters have universities at theirheart, many of Europe’s universities do nothave the standing, the structure, or theinclination to pull their weight.

This is beginning to change. France has put inplace legislation to reform its universities andGermany is in the process of creating eliteresearch universities.

Another country, Finland is undertaking a rootand branch reform of higher education as acentral plank of a National Innovation Strategy.

The aim is to give all Finnish Universities newlegal status and more autonomy, putting themin a better position to create their own strategyon the basis of their own strengths,” accordingsaid Jari Jokinen, Project Director, FinnishMinistry of Education, Division for HigherEducation and Science.

In future the universities will not be statefunded, but will be run as public or privatefoundations. With a population of 5.3 millionFinland has 20 universities and 29 polytechnics

The aim is to give allFinnish Universities new

legal status and moreautonomy, putting them

in a better position tocreate their own strategyon the basis of their own

strengths,”Jari Jokinen, Ministry ofEducation, Finland

“There is toomuch nationalfocus. Promptingclusters tooperate acrossborders is thebiggestchallenge. Acluster policyneeds to move usfrom beingnational to beingEuropean.”Xavier Medonza,ESADE

currently. The intention is that by 2012 therewill be 13 universities and 18 polytechnics,allowing these institutions to concentrate andbuild economies of scale.

One project involves the formation of the newInnovation University, which will bringtogether the University of Art and DesignHelsinki, the University of Technology and theHelsinki School of Economics. The merger isinspired by the insight that mere technical pre-eminence is not enough to generateinnovation. Top-class design and business skillsare needed also.

The goal for the new university is to be one ofthe leading institutions in the world in terms ofresearch and education in the field oftechnology, business studies, and art anddesign. The foundation is due to startoperations in August 2009.

“All this is revolutionary indeed, but it is nottop down – the universities have been askingfor more autonomy,” noted Jokinen.Furthermore, the government won’t tell theuniversities what specialisms to pursue, it willbe up to each institution to decide.

Universities also need to promote thedevelopment of professor-entrepreneurs, whoget involved in the formation of companiesbased on their research, but retain theiruniversity posts. This calls for generation ofmore productive interfaces betweenuniversities and industry.


When the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT) spin-out Draper Laboratory wanted to setup two new R&D centres, it considered its homestate of Massachusetts, but instead choseFlorida.

In late July, Governor Charlie Crist announcedthat Florida’s Innovation Incentive Fund wouldprovide Draper with $15 million to set up itsBioMEMS R&D Center at the University of SouthFlorida in Tampa and the Multi Chip ModuleCenter in St Petersburg, creating 165 new jobsbetween them with an average wage of $75,000per year.

Draper will be a research partner with theUniversity of South Florida and the technologycompany, SRI International, forming thenucleus of a micro-technology cluster, and inthe process boosting the state’s growth ofinnovation workers and economic development.

Another recent transplant to the state,Germany’s Max Planck Society, is the result of atrade mission by Florida’s governor to Munich.The state in late July approved $86.9 million forthe building of the Max Planck Florida Institute,a biomedical research facility, on the campus ofFlorida Atlantic University in Jupiter, FL, nearScripps.

Max Planck’s President Peter Gruss said thesociety located its first overseas institute in theUS because “…in the coming years we willurgently need excellent junior scientists fromabroad if we are to remain competitive at aninternational level.”

Florida representatives estimate the institutecould create more than 1,800 direct and indirectjobs over the next decade and generate morethan $2 billion in economic activity.

Money not the only lure“Our first criterion wasn’t financial incentives,”said Len Polizzotto, senior executive directorresponsible for strategic business developmentat Draper, a nonprofit R&D lab based inCambridge, MA. “The most important thing waswhether there was a strategic fit.”

On the short list of requirements was a researchuniversity close by that had a clinical hospitaland a medical school, and a partner facility thatwas focused more on the clinical than the pureresearch side of things. Draper also wanted ajob pool with the right people and a locationnear its potential partners.

It helped, Polizzotto said, that Florida alreadyhad drawn in investments by Scripps Research

Institute and The Burnham Institute of MedicalResearch, as well as pharmaceutical companies.Under former Governor Jeb Bush, Florida in2004 provided $310 million in incentives toattract Scripps, which aims to employ 500researchers by 2010.

Scripps Florida already has gone to the nextstep of successful innovation and technologytransfer with the spin out last week one ofcuRNA, a company set up to commercialise non-coding RNA technology developed at theinstitute.

In addition, The Burnham Institute of MedicalResearch plans a facility in Orlando, near theUniversity of Central Florida’s new medicalschool; Torrey Pines Institute for MolecularStudies plans one in Port St. Lucie, and thetechnology firm SRI International is to locate abranch in St Petersburg, all contributing toFlorida’s competitiveness as a top life scienceshub.

Synergies are key“Part of our strategy is to attract businessesthat will establish here and be catalysts forother businesses to follow and partner with,”said Bob Rohrlack, senior vice president forbusiness recruitment and retention at

CASE STUDY 2: FLORIDA AND MARYLAND

Can cash create clusters?

Lori Valigra

Financial incentives have attracted the MaxPlanck Society and an MIT lab to Florida. Butcan clusters be built on money alone?Our series on clusters continues.

Snapping up labs:Florida reaches outSilicon Valley and Boston are the US and worldstandards for attracting high-tech investment,but now other US states are making their ownruns with incentive programmes, skilledworkforces and synergistic institutions. Whatcould Europe learn from this?

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Maryland now beatsCalifornia as a technology investment destination.



Enterprise Florida Inc, the state’s economicdevelopment organisation based in Orlando, acity that has about 150 biotech and life sciencecompanies.

Rohrlack said his organisation first worked withSRI in St Petersburg, which in turn wanted towork with Draper. “We succeeded in showingthem the potential of how they could succeedhere,” he added.

Florida looked to Europe and other US states asmodels when setting out to create a high techcluster, and then went after high value-addedinvestments, said Rohrlack. “What works for usis that we never sought to be the state with thelargest list of incentives or the largest amountof money,” he said. “We focused on strategicbusiness for companies to succeed.”

Specialties attractHuman capital and local expertise also figure inthe recent rise of another state – Maryland – asa technology investment destination. In thelatest ranking from the independent think tank,the Milken Institute, Maryland bumpedCalifornia out of its number two spot.

Milken’s “State Technology and Science Index”takes into account the impact that intangiblessuch as a trained workforce and high quality oflife have in attracting high tech investment.

San Diego, Milken’s third ranked investmentlocation is looking over its shoulder, worriedabout losing jobs, researchers and investors toless expensive states with attractive resources.Similar stories are spreading throughout the USas other states take a run at Massachusetts andCalifornia to offer investors cost-competitivealternatives.

For Maryland, concentrations of specialistresources, such as having the most federallaboratories of any US state, make a hugedifference. But the state also as otherattractions for inward investors: it was rankedfirst by the Milken Institute for human capitalinvestment, and is closing in on first-placeMassachusetts in a broad range of otherintangible investment factors.

“Our state doesn’t necessarily have the edge interms of financial incentives, but we havestrength in our infrastructure combination,”said Rick Zakour, executive director of MdBio,the bioscience arm of the Technology Council ofMaryland. “We have some of the best researchinstitutions in the country, including JohnsHopkins University, as well as state and federallaboratories such as the National Institutes ofHealth and Fort Dietrick, which has spun off lotsof companies.”

Zakour said the state’s governor has madebiotechnology a priority, having announced aninitiative similar in size to the $1 billion in statefunds Massachusetts recently directed tobiotech. Maryland aims to invest $1.1 billion inbiosciences between now and 2020.

“We’re trying to be proactive with private-publicpartnerships,” Zakour said. The state alreadyhas a $6 million biotechnology investmentincentive tax credit act. In its first year it tooknine months for the monies to be fullysubscribed. This year – the second year of theprogramme – the funds were fully subscribed inthe first day, Zakour said.

The state has attracted biotech andpharmaceutical companies from elsewhere withthe UK/Swedish pharmaceutical companyAstraZeneca recently acquiring Medimmune Inc.of Maryland, Wisconsin’s OpGen is relocating tothe state, and vaccines developer Intercell AG ofAustria recently acquired Iomai Corp. ofMaryland to expand in the US market. Federallab contracts play a role in locations of othertypes of technologies to the state.

“We’ve seen companies move into the area to beproximal to the federal agencies handing outcontracts,” said Larry Mahan, senior bioscienceexecutive at the Maryland Department ofBusiness and Economic Development.

That includes startup companies. “We have a lotof home-grown entrepreneurs, but companiesalso have moved to the area to be closer to FortDietrick [a military research lab] or theAberdeen Proving Ground,” said Renee Winsky,president of the Maryland Technology

Development Corp. (TEDCO), which was startedby the state.

TEDCO puts the first money into a companydoing business with a federal laboratory oruniversity. It also funds technology transfer andstartups, which can get up to $75,000 if theyhave 16 or fewer employees. Winsky said one ofthe state’s strengths is the multitude ofpotential civilian uses for military technology.“For example, researchers at Aberdeen ProvingGround are working on how to track soldiers inthe field of battle without GPS, with RFID andother technologies,” she said. “Oneentrepreneur is looking at applying that tofirefighters going into a burning building.”

TEDCO actively attracts researchers and newcompanies, holding showcases for investors andentrepreneurs four to five times a year incollaboration with federal laboratories. It alsoholds “Power of 10” events at which it handpicks 10 companies out of the University ofMaryland, Johns Hopkins and other labs tomake a pitch to early-stage investors, angelinvestors and venture capitalists.

Economic constraintsWinsky and others point out that withincreasingly tight fiscal constraints withinstates with many states moving from a surplusto a very tight cash situation in the past year,attracting companies and creating an ongoingentrepreneurial climate goes well beyondincentives. “It also involves quality of life,where employees choose to work and live,”Winsky said.

Mahan of Maryland said states that make a bigsplash with large monetary gestures areunlikely to sustain that level of investment forthe next batch of companies coming in. “Mostincentives are a fraction of the capitalexpenditures a company will need ultimately,”he said. “Biotech start-ups could require 10 to15 years to get momentum. Seeding [clusters]has a long growth curve.”

Science|Business has divided these into fiveareas of Universities, Knowledge Transfer,Creating Global Pipelines; Small and MediumEnterprises, and Regions, highlighting whatshould be done in each to promote innovationclusters.

A. THE UNIVERSITY SECTOR: Universities areacknowledged as the engines of some ofthe world’s leading clusters. How can allEurope’s universities develop the samemotive force? Here are some suggestionsto help.

1. Create multidisciplinary universities. Whilethere is a growing acknowledgement thatdifferent disciplines need to mix andcommunicate, inertia or unsuitable buildingsprevent this happening.

2. Enlist undergraduate and postgraduatestudents to contribute through providinginternships and grants to help them spend timewith companies, enabling both the studentsand academic staff who supervise them to buildlinks with industry.

3. Make universities compete for funding. Mostare allocated public money under old-fashionedschemes that do not consider the standard ofresearch. A possible model is the UK’s system ofassessing research excellence in differentdisciplines and funding accordingly. TheEuropean Research Council is trying to set asimilar example in its system for awardinggrants.

4. Consider the use of tuition fees as a route tomaking universities benchmark themselves andensure the courses they offer are what peoplewant to study.

5. Promote philanthropy as a route for Europeanuniversities to raise funding. Most do not have

strong alumni organisations, as is the case inthe US. Universities need to get over theembarrassment of asking wealthy formerstudents for funding.

6. Universities need to be set bold goals – bothin terms of technology, but also in relation tothe contribution they can make to solvingsocial problems.

7. Universities must be places where serendipitycan happen. This goes beyond aninterdisciplinary approach to the sciences,mixing chemists and virologists, say; it is aboutdesigning campuses so that scientists, artists,economists and business students can interact.This action would also involve setting problemsfor such heterogeneous groups to discusstogether, to try and spark serendipity.

8. Incentive structures should be changed sothat academics get recognition andadvancement for working with industry and notjust for publishing papers.

B. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER: Withoutknowledge transfer there are no clusters.Universities are the source of much ofEurope’s knowledge. This must be tappedto feed cluster development, andcompanies need to be encouraged toshare the knowledge and expertise theygenerate

1. The process of knowledge transfer is differentin different industrial sectors. The clusterspolicy needs to articulate and exemplify specificapproaches to transferring knowledge sector bysector.

2. Knowledge transfer needs to beprofessionalised, not left as an ad hoc process.

3. Cluster policy should aim specifically to

The overall recipe for a successful cluster may be obscure but it ispossible to pull out key ingredients or policy actions.

SECT ION FOUR


The Science|Business Charter forClusters – a list of policy actions

“What does US biotech havethat Europe doesn’t? It hasNIH [National Institutes ofHealth] investment of almost$30 billion per annum, coupledwith half of the world’s privateinvestment inbiopharmaceuticals. In Europewe spend a total of $3 billionof public money – we couldnever compete through aEuropean NIH.”Roch Doliveaux, UCB

encourage entrepreneurship as a channel forknowledge transfer.4. Knowledge transfer also takes place fromcompany to company. Policy must recogniseand support this, by encouraging companies todiscuss their respective technologies in neutralfora so they can understand how onetechnology complements another.

5. At one level knowledge transfer impliesknowledge creation: the joint endeavour addsto what was there before. This requires policy tosupport a collective approach, and not just aone-way channel.

6. The imperative on universities to patentresearch for technology commercialisation mustnot be a barrier to sharing knowledge.

7. Create metrics for measuring knowledgetransfer.

C. GLOBAL PIPELINES: currently clusterpolicy operates on a national or regionallevel. The EU cluster policy must shiftperspectives and encourage clusters tofocus on the global horizon

1. Cluster policy should recognize and supportthe need for global sourcing of talent.

2. Set up “Cluster Clubs” to provide a singlesource of expertise and access to globalmarkets. For example, the Cambridge clusterhas Chinese Business Services to help withaccess to the Chinese market.

3. Address the cultural issue of getting peopleto think globally.

4. Entice global companies to embed themselvesin the local milieu.

5. Carry out foresight exercises to pull ininformation on upcoming developments fromaround the world.

6. Address the contribution that inwardinvestment policy can make to building globalpipelines.

7. Create policies that help people to go abroad,that make it easy to bring people in fromelsewhere and support collaboration withexternal partners.

D. SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES:Europe’s high tech start-ups are thefountainhead of innovation clusters. TheEU cluster policy should promote theirformation and support theirdevelopment, without undermining theircompetitiveness.

1. Make it easier for SMEs to get access togovernment procurement contracts for bothhigh tech products and R&D.

2. Provide SMEs with access to education,training and consultancy through clusters.

3. Outlaw non-competition contracts, whichexist in some parts of Europe (whether legallyenforceable or not) because these inhibit theflow of expertise.

4. Reduce the costs and time taken to form acompany.

5. Encourage venture capital culture to changeso VCs become more interested in start-ups andseed funding.

Bring forward the European Small Business Act.

E. REGIONS: Much of the money potentiallyavailable for cluster formation ischannelled through Structural andCohesion Funds and goes to regionaldevelopment agency. A unified Europeanpolicy should set out to inspire regions toaim for global excellence.

1. Recognise that regions, and clusters, can cutacross national and regional boundaries andensure they can be funded and supported assingle entities.

2. Reduce bureaucracy for regionaldevelopment agencies applying for Europeansupport, and for companies and institutionsapplying for European R&D funds.



“One key factor of innovationthat is often ignored is the‘Cafeteria Syndrome’. Successfulclusters are places where peoplefrom different disciplines canmeet and exchange randomly.There are 1,000 clusters inEurope and you can’t generateserendipity across such a bignumber.”Bruno Lanvin, INSEAD

“Silicon Valley has 350,000 jobs,Bangalore 170,000 jobs, Cambridge,one of Europe’s top clusters has50,000. There are 2,000 clusters inEurope and it is perhaps too many:we have to avoid the proliferation ofclusters.”Jean-Noél Durvy

CASE STUDY 3: CAMBRIDGE–BOSTON

New England life sciences assurance practiceleader, said when the report was released.

In addition, high housing costs and earlierlegislation that let California take a lead in stemcell research caused an outflow in talent fromMassachusetts. Companies are being courted tolocate factories and other businesses in lessexpensive, more tax friendly states. Some threedozen US states plus Asian countries likeSingapore and China and the European Unionare pushing clusters.

Gerry McDougall of PricewaterhouseCoopers’Boston office says it is difficult to quantify the“human capital” that has left the area, butnoted researchers also did stay.

In June the state Governor Deval Patrick signedoff on the $1 billion Life Sciences Initiativeaimed at securing the state’s position as aglobal leader in life sciences. “The $1 billioninflow from Massachusetts Governor DevalPatrick will help stem the bleeding,” McDougallsaid. “The stimulus package is incrediblyimportant to the academic non profitcommunity, which is the pump [for the industry]long term.”

The survey respondents see Massachusettsresearchers excelling in several of the mostpromising areas in the life sciences during thecoming decade. More than a quarter (27 percent) cited convergent technologies, such asdrug-device combinations, as being the area inwhich Massachusetts is most likely to excel,followed by biologic products (21 per cent) andpersonalised medicine (19 per cent).

Other highlights of the Super Cluster surveyshowed:

• While nearly three in five respondents (58 percent) are based in the Boston/Cambridgearea, notable concentrations of life sciencesresearchers and companies are emerging inthe Lowell, Lexington-Waltham andFramingham-Marlborough areas to the northand west of the city.

• Seven in 10 respondents (71 per cent) said itwas important for them to be in theMassachusetts Super Cluster, in closeproximity to other life sciences firms.

• More than half (51 per cent) said that theability to just “run into” people has resulted ina business opportunity or researchcollaboration.

“Talent attracts talent, and success breedssuccess,” said Wendy Everett, president of theNew England Health Care Institute, when thestudy was released. “This clustering bringsenormous benefits to the organisations andcommunities involved, such as ease ofcollaboration. That is why it is so important tomaintain the momentum that the MassachusettsSuper Cluster has made possible.”

When asked what would cause them to considerleaving Massachusetts, fewer than eight percentcited the commute to work. One-quarter ofrespondents cited “pay” and four in 10 said“lifestyle”. Each of these factors has been raisedas a concern by employers attempting to recruitand retain workers in Massachusetts.


Taking on the world

Lori Valigra

The cluster either side of the Charles River,Massachusetts.Cambridge, Mass., is acknowledgedas one of the leading biotech clusters. The questionnow: how to maintain that edge in the face ofglobal competition.

In the face of growing global competition,the Cambridge/Boston biotech clusterscannot afford to stand still, as evidencedby a new report, “2008 MassachusettsSuper Cluster 2” by the consultantsPricewaterhouseCoopers.

The report includes the results of a survey of147 individuals that are involved in the clustershowing:

• With federal research funding falling behindthe rate of inflation in recent years, 44 percent of respondents said a lack of funding forcollaborative efforts was the factor that hadthe biggest negative impact on cooperationbetween institutions.

• Only 27 per cent of respondents ratedMassachusetts’ venture capital firms asstrong in their “willingness to fund radicallynew ideas”.

• Just 28 per cent of respondents from lifesciences companies said their ownorganisation is “effective” at spinning off orcommercialising new ideas that do not fit itscore mission or business lines.

So, “while Massachusetts has world-renownedscientists and researchers and is positioned tothrive in an environment that places a premiumon innovation, making the jump from pureresearch to marketable products will requirestrengthening the partnerships amonguniversities, teaching hospitals, life sciencescompanies and venture capitalists,” JamesConnolly, PricewaterhouseCoopers partner and

Despite their concerns about the life sciencesindustry, the survey respondents looked to thefuture optimistically:

• More than half (55.1 per cent) said that jobopportunities in the Massachusetts SuperCluster would strengthen during the nextdecade, 35.9 per cent said they would stay thesame and 9 per cent thought that the lifesciences job market would weaken.

• Seven in 10 (69.6 per cent) were confidentthat, if they lost their job today, they couldfind an opportunity in Massachusetts at anequivalent or higher level.

• Two-thirds of respondents (66.2 per cent)consider themselves to be entrepreneurs, and68.8 per cent expect their next position to bein a start-up company.

Widening partnershipsA report released in February 2008 by MassInsight Corp. and McKinsey & Co., which wasprepared in concert with more than a dozenindustry and academic groups including the

Massachusetts Biotechnology Council (MBC),wasn’t quite as cheery.

It indicated that Massachusetts no longer has amonopoly as a life science cluster and is facingincreased global competition, a shortage oftrained workers and a lack of coordinationamong key state agencies and groups involvedin the field.

Trained workers are a concern because only 5.4per cent of bachelor’s degrees awarded by thestate-funded University of Massachusettssystem were related to life sciences in 2005,compared with 17 per cent for the University ofCalifornia system.

In addition, the report said Massachusettsfaces growing competition from other globalclusters with lower costs, better collaborationand a more active talent pipeline. The reportnoted that China, while currently far behindMassachusetts in the quality and quantityof research and commercial applications,will generate 11,000 life sciences PhDsin 2015 compared to 400 produced

by Massachusetts annually.

One of the recommendations the report made isfor Massachusetts to create connections withglobal clusters.

McDougall of PricewaterhouseCoopers couldn’tagree more. “We have the human capital andentrepreneurial spirit in the US and Boston,which gives us an advantage,” he said. “But it isan international scientific community, andBoston will need to grapple with that in thefuture, with how to compete and partner in thefuture.”

One example in that direction he pointed to is apartnership between Luxembourg and three USinstitutions in which PricewaterhouseCooperswas involved. It’s a model he sees as importantgoing forward. In early June, three prominentUS biomedical science organisations enteredinto an international collaboration with thegovernment of Luxembourg (see Luxembourglooks to US to build up its biomedical research,12 June, Science Business) to establish abioscience centre of excellence. The aim is to



The Charles River, Massachusetts,looking across to Boston.

quicken innovation by focusing on cutting-edgeresearch in molecular biology, systems biologyand personalised medicine.

The initiative will include formation of acentralised biobank/tissue repository, twomajor projects to further research in molecularbiology, the cornerstone of personalisedmedicine, and a project to demonstrate theeffectiveness of new diagnostics tests forearlier detection and treatment of lung cancer.The US organisations involved in thecollaboration are The Partnership forPersonalized Medicine (PPM) led by Leland H.Hartwell, also president of the Fred HutchinsonCancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington;The Institute for Systems Biology (ISB), also inSeattle, led by Leroy Hood; and Arizona’sTranslational Genomics Research Institute(TGen), led by Jeffrey Trent, president andscientific director of TGen and former scientificdirector at the National Human GenomeResearch Institute of the National Institutes ofHealth.

The announcement was made jointly by threebranches of Luxembourg’s government, the

Ministry of the Economy and Foreign Trade, theMinistry for Culture, Higher Education andResearch and the Ministry of Health. TheLuxembourg government is investing $200million in the initiative, with the hope thatultimately it will improve the health of its ownpeople using personalised medicine, whichinvolves administering the correct drug to thecorrect patient at the right time and in the rightdose.

Public–private modelThe public–private initiative is expected toserve as a model for other internationalcollaborations among partners looking to shareresearch and development costs and gain accessto each other’s information, networks andmarkets.

In late June another group of Massachusetts lifesciences entities focused on clinical researchsaid they would forge ties with similar groupsaround the world, starting with the healthministry of the Lombardia region of Italy. Thefour Massachusetts entities comprising the newClinical Research Consortium of Massachusettsare Tufts Medical Center’s Institute for Clinical

Research & Health Policy Studies, clinical trialsand drug safety software company PhaseForward Inc., clinical trials enrollmentmanagement company BBK Worldwide andconsulting company Court Square Group. Thegrouping is forming overseas alliances at thesame time similar groups in California andNorth Carolina are doing so.

McDougall of PricewaterhouseCoopers sees suchalliances as the wave of the future forMassachusetts and other clusters. “It will needto continue in a more scaled way than whatwe’ve seen in the past,” he said ofMassachusetts reaching out globally to seekpartners.


Taking themessage to themedia: anInnovation Boardpress conferenceat France 24, Paris,on 10 June 2008.



1. BUILD ON EXISTING STRENGTHS. Clusters cannot be planted on bare soil, wherever apolitician feels like it. They can only be nurtured in places that have already demonstratedknowledge, skills and growth.

2. FOCUS RESOURCES. Don’t scatter the money far and wide. Pick just a few of the mostpromising regions and sectors for support, and provide an environment – family-friendly,multidisciplinary, good salaries – that will attract the brightest minds.

3. BE OPEN. Encourage the best people, wherever in the world they may be, to work in Europe’sclusters. Promote open competition, among universities, companies and regions, forfunding . Promote border-crossing – among people, ideas, scientific disciplines, andindustries.

4. BENCHMARK, monitor and be transparent. Base funding and regulatory policy, not on theclash of political interests, but on empirical analysis of what’s working and on opencompetition.

5. ENCOURAGE risk-taking, cross-disciplinary work, bold innovation and experimentation

Media interest:Science|BusinessInnovation Boardmember Jean-Philippe Courtoisof MicrosoftInternationalbeing interviewedon clusters byFrance 24.

SECT ION FIVE

The Science|Business Charter for Clusters– Policy Principles


Back in the mid-1990s, when development agencies in Copenhagen, Denmarkand the Skåne region at the southern tip of Sweden decided to pool theirstrengths in life sciences and present a common face to the world, theyadopted the neologism Medicon Valley to market the area. California’s SiliconValley was the obvious inspiration. But the roots of life sciences research inthe region predate by several decades the birth in 1939 of Silicon Valley, in thenow iconic garage in Palo Alto where Hewlett-Packard was established.

Those deep roots remain very much relevant to this day, as some of earlypioneers, such as Novo Nordisk, its sister company Novozymes, Carlsberg, Danisco(now the parent company of US industrial biotechnology firm Genencor), Astra(now part of AstraZeneca) and Lundbeck are global leaders in their particularmarkets and a source of finance, expertise and, in some cases, new spinouts andnew technologies that help to continue the tradition of innovation in the region.

CASE STUDY 4: MEDICON VALLEY

Carlsberg, for example, has spun out twocompanies in the present decade, Combio (nowpart of Swiss firm Arpida) and VersaMatrix, toapply bead-based purification technologiesdeveloped in-house to drug discovery. Novo A/S,the venture capital arm of Novo Group (theholding company for Novo Nordisk andNovozymes), is an active local and globalbiotechnology investor.

These companies and the region’s universities,notably Copenhagen University and LundUniversity, have acted as the wellspring for thegrowth of the cluster, which took off in earnestduring the mid-to-late 1990s.

Towards the top“Ranking and benchmarking clusters is a difficult– and, some would argue, an impossible –exercise,” cautions Stig Jørgensen, CEO of theMedicon Valley Alliance (MVA), which promotesthe development of the Medicon Valley cluster.Nevertheless, he argues that Medicon Valley isnow at the top of the European pile. “It is one ofthe top three or maybe top two clusters inEurope.” This view is borne out by a steadilymaturing drug development pipeline, supported

by a recent spate of partnering deals and fundingtransactions.

Recent partnering deals involving Medicon Valleycompanies include Bavarian Nordic and the USDepartment of Health and Human Services for asmallpox vaccine stockpile (€1,200 million), aBioInvent and Genentech link-up overcardiovascular disease (€147 million),BioInvent/ Thrombogenics and Roche overcancer (€500 million), GenMab andGlaxoSmithKline over cancer and immunology(€1,610 million), a deal between SantarisPharma and GlaxoSmithKline over virology (€485million), and Symphogen’s link up withGenentech on infectious disease (€212 million).

The physical linkCrucial to Medicon Valley’s emergence was adecision by the Danish and Swedish governmentsto build a physical connection between the twocountries. The Oresund Link, a 16-kilometrebridge and underwater tunnel system linkingCopenhagen with Malmö, opened for traffic on 1July 2000. Jørgensen jokingly observes thatMedicon Valley now has the highest “intelligenceper square metre” of any biotechnology cluster.

But a serious point underlies the claim. All of theplayers in the region share a close physicalproximity, which is further enhanced by itsexcellent public transport links.

The development of a unified biotechnologycluster spanning the two jurisdictions remains anongoing project, however. The sub-clusters oneither side of the Oresund strait retain theirparticular characteristics. “I can’t really identifyit, but there are still some barriers betweenDenmark and Sweden. They are not fullyintegrated,” says Svein Mathisen, CEO of Lund-based antibody developer BioInventInternational.

NASA

Across borders: Scandinavia

Medicon Valley: connectingDenmark with Sweden

Cormac Sheridan

Clusters can be trans-national, too, as Denmark and Swedenhave shown with a cluster focused on life sciences

Population: 3 millionLife sciences workforce: 40,000ca. 100 biotech companies70 pharmaceutical companies130 medical technology companies32 hospitals (11 university hospitals)15 contract research organisations13 contract manufacturing organisations(Source Medicon Valley Alliance)

The Oresund Bridge linking Denmark with the Skåneregion at the southern tip of Sweden, seen from space.

Medicon Valley – at a glance



Under its clusters policy the EU should set up a competition to designate two or three existingclusters and give them the new legal status of Special Innovation Zones for Europe.

This would entitle them to extra cash from the Structural Funds budget to invest in schools,infrastructure and cultural amenities that will attract the world’s top knowledge workers, inparticular aiming to reverse the brain drain from Europe to the US.

This would in turn stimulate university research, teaching and spin-out company formation. SIZEswould get dispensation from rules that hamper free movement of people and ideas, such asimmigration and labour policies that make it hard for small companies to hire or fire, and fromacademic promotion rules that impede working with industry.

SIZEs would attract seed and venture funding, supported by the EU and managed by investmentprofessionals. They would provide low cost, high quality office space and support services.Companies start-up and moving into SIZEs would benefit from a new low-tax status reserved foryoung, innovative companies.

The ‘For Europe’ part of the title is important. Although they will, inevitably, have a physicallocation, these zones will operate at a supranational level, and in Europe’s commercial interests as awhole. An analogy would be the way that Brussels is physically part of Belgium, but in effect isEurope’s leading location for transnational political activity.

How should such centres of excellence be selected? The answer is through transparent,international, data-based competition, and not through closed-door, regional politics. TheEuropean Commission should create an independent council, dominated by non-EU experts ontechnology, development and education, that weighs competing applications from the regionsbased on their performance – in hard numbers, per euro spent, of significant inventions,publications, spin-outs, licenses, stock-market flotations, post-doctoral fellows, Nobel laureatesand jobs, and soft analysis of governance, infrastructure, quality of life, and visionary planning.

There are already models for this. A good example is the newly created European Research Council(ERC). Last year achieved a first in the history of the disbursement of European academic researchgrants when it handed out €300 million based solely on the judgment of international experts.

In the competition for this funding 97 percent of applicants were rejected. But the winning 3percent were, beyond any doubt, scientifically worthy of funding and therefore more likely toproduce value for tax money.

Getting this no-nonsense, expert approach to work in Europe’s sclerotic university sector, interbredand politicised as it is, demonstrates it could work in regional policy also.

SECT ION SIX

Special measures – SIZE –Special Innovation Zones for Europe


Michael Kenward

It perhaps says something about theCambridge Cluster that the first result thephrase turns up in a Google search is all aboutexotic chemistry. Apt no doubt, but what isthe formula behind this chemistry?

The cluster, also at times labelled theCambridge Phenomenon, Silicon Fen or theCambridge Technopole, is famous globally asone of the UK’s first and most successfulinnovation hubs. It is the home base of asurprising number of high-tech start-ups, morethan a few of which have nothing to do with theregion’s famous university.

Politicians extol the Cambridge Cluster; policywonks pick over its entrails and write reports bythe shelf load as they try to fathom its success;local real estate developers rub their hands inglee at the premium that comes with a CB2postcode. Regions throughout the UK, not tomention the rest of the world, try to clone thecluster, to replicate the phenomenon.

One regular assessment of what makesCambridge tick comes in ‘Cambridge TechnopoleReport – an overview of the UK’s leadinghigh–technology business cluster’.

Written by Walter Herriot of the St John’sInnovation Centre and Tim Minshall ofCambridge’s Institute for Manufacturing, thisannual review of the state of play in Cambridgedescribes the technopole as, “A geographic areaof intense high-technology innovation activityencompassing the City of Cambridge at its heartand the sub-regional Greater Cambridgehinterland of approximately 25 miles radius. Itsits in the wider region of the East of England,one of the fastest growing regions in the UK.Much of this growth has been fuelled by thedynamism of the Cambridge Technopole area.”

Sowing the first seedsThe first visible seeds of Cambridge cluster weresown in the 1970s, with setting up of one of theUK’s first science parks. It has since grown toinclude an array of incubators and businessparks of various flavours.

In their report, Herriot and Minshall put somenumbers on the phenomenon. In 1978, theysay, “there were around 20 high-tech companiesin the area”. By 1985 this had reached “around360”. Now there are “over 1,400 hightechnology ventures employing around 43,000people”.

Never famous for humility, when comparingitself with other clusters, Cambridge turns tocountries such as Israel, or regions such asBangalore or Beijing.

One recent analysis describes Cambridge as,“the 6th most significant cluster in Europe”,lagging behind London, Paris, Tel Aviv,Stockholm and Copenhagen. Even so, sayHerriot and Minshall, Cambridge “punchesabove its weight”, especially when it comes tobeing a money magnet.

Growth despite shortcomingsUnlike smaller and younger clusters, Cambridgehas successfully nurtured businesses thatbecame large enough to go public. In 1990,there was just one publicly quoted company inthe cluster, by 2006 this had reached 70.

Some of that growth has come despite localshortcomings. Herriot and Minshall point outthat the region has problems, warning that “it isunlikely that [it] will attract or create individualbusinesses employing tens of thousands ofpeople locally, if only because the physicalinfrastructure is not in place, nor could be madeavailable in time frames acceptable to rapidlygrowing businesses”.

Transport and telecoms have all come up as“challenges” for anyone doing business in andaround Cambridge, with Herriot and Minshallpointing to the need for road improvements –they could have added convenient parking – and

warning that, “Affordable housing is a realissue”. History suggests that their solution tothe latter problem – a new town in the region –is guaranteed to provoke severe localopposition.

Another regular observer of the region, theanalyst firm Library House, has reported on theCambridge Cluster Report since 2003. In ‘Flightto Quality: The Cambridge Cluster Report 2004’they found that, “In the first half of 2004, theCambridge Cluster secured more than 25percent of the UK’s venture capital investmentsand more than 8 percent of the European totalby value.”

When Library House looked at the technologytransfer activities of 20 universities in the UK, in‘An Analysis of UK University Technology andKnowledge Transfer Activities,’ CambridgeUniversity came out streets ahead of the rest ofthe pack, including having the highest incomefrom technology transfer

In its most recent, and fourth, dissection ofCambridge, ‘Looking Inwards, ReachingOutwards: The Cambridge Cluster Report –2007,’ Library House reported that spin-outsfrom the University of Cambridge attracted GBP140 million in investment between 2001 and2006. This is “more than any other UK and USuniversity studied, except for StanfordUniversity.”

Clouds gather as others catch upThere are, though, clouds on the horizon. Otherclusters are catching up. There are also gaps inCambridge’s knowledge portfolio.

The report says that, “looking at the relativeperformance over time, Cambridge’s share ofdeals made by the top 20 European clusters hasshown a marked reduction, from 9.3 percent in2005 to just 5.6 percent in the first half of 2007,suggesting it has been losing out to Europeancounterparts in recent years.”

Another indicator of change is the fact that dealactivity in Berlin the first half of 2007 matchedthat in Cambridge for the first time.

CASE STUDY 5: CAMBRIDGE, UK

What’s in the chemistry of Europe’s leadinghigh tech cluster?



As much as anything, Library House puts thisrelative decline down to shortcomings in what itterms soft innovation, in particular in theService and Retail sector, which are closelyrelated to the emergence of Web-enabledproducts and Mediatech. “The CambridgeCluster has shown very limited activity in thesesectors, whilst other major European Clustershave shown a significant increase.”

New Centre for EntrepreneurshipLibrary House notes that it takes time to createa cluster. “Of all European innovation centres,the Cambridge Cluster has the most matureecosystem,” it said back in 2004. Since then,Cambridge has piled on the pressure.

One of the leading lights of the CambridgeCluster is Hermann Hauser. At the beginning of2008 he announced that the Hauser-RaspeFoundation, set up by Hauser and his wifePamela Raspe, is to provide GBP 8 million toestablish The Centre for Entrepreneurship as amajor new focal point for the promotion ofentrepreneurship.

Cambridge Enterprise, the university’s scienceand technology commercialisation office, willbe among the beneficiaries of the centre, whichwill also provide offices, incubation spaces anda seminar centre. In the 1970s, when Hauserfirst started to turn Cambridge’s research intoprofits, the university’s support forcommercialisation was little more than anenthusiastic retired academic working from adesk in one of the many old buildings given overto the university’s peripheral support activities.

So what makes Cambridge tick?Over the years there have been various attemptsto divine just what makes Cambridge tick. Onerecent analysis suggests that a lot is down tothe individuals.

Yin Mon Myint and Shailendra Vyakarnam, ofthe Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning in theUniversity of Cambridge, who have looked atstart-up companies and the people behind thembelieve that, “to understand entrepreneurshipand to stimulate the birth rate of newcompanies, policy makers must consider the

individual as the unit of analysis.”

The individuals who have stoked innovationaround Cambridge include not just technicalpeople but angel investors who, “expect to beinvolved actively in the ventures in which theyinvest, as informal consultants or boardmembers.” The analysis also shows that“Cambridge entrepreneurs tend to worktogether in different organisations repeatedlyover time.”

Professor William Webb, Head of R&D at Ofcom,the UK’s telecommunications regulator, alsohighlights the role of individuals in the successof the Cambridge Cluster “It was not due tocentral planning by, for example, a regionaladministration, but through the uncoordinatedactions of a number of key individuals.” His viewis that success is due to, “the presence of a fewkey individuals who establish successfulcompanies; help in the forming of localnetworks; the provision of angel funding; andthe presence of the right environment in termsof academic and consulting opportunities”.

The bad news for would be ‘clusterers’ is that,“There is little evidence that it is possible toproactively start a successful cluster, especiallygiven that it gets increasingly hard to succeedafter the first successful cluster is established.”

Webb also provides a reality check on the impactof the cluster on the region. “Although theCambridge Cluster is widely admired,” he says,“it generates relatively little wealth andemployment for the region.” Put another way,“The successes in Cambridge have generatedsubstantial wealth for their founders but havehad little overall effect on, say, employment orthe average salary in a region.”

The Cam at Cambridge: the Cambridgecluster is extolled by politicians, but thereare clouds on the horizon.


SECT ION SEVEN

Simcha Jong, University College London

Cutting-edge science: a necessary but not asufficient prerequisite for clustersThe Bay area of San Francisco isthe birthplace of biotechnologyand it remains the largest andmost successful biotech cluster.

The cluster is formed around threemajor universities, UCSF, Stanfordand Berkeley, which are allacknowledged to be world-leadingcentres for molecular biology. Sowhy is it that one of these, UCSFplayed a much more important rolethan its peers in the foundation ofthe industry? Many major firms areUCSF spin-offs, with six of the tencompanies in the sector with thehighest market capitalisationhaving their roots in UCSF.

To put this is a Europeanperspective: UCSF spin-offs havecreated companies with valuationsof $90 billion, or three times thevalue of all Europe’s publicly tradedbiotechs.

Yet when the industry was gettingoff the ground in the 1970s and1980s UCSF didn’t even have atechnology transfer office. So whatwas different about theenvironment that allowed academics

here to become so entrepreneurial?The key was the appointment in thelate 1960s of William Rutter, whocreated a multidisciplinarybiochemistry department that led inthe application of recombinant DNAand genetic engineering. Crucially,this was part of the university’sMedical School. “This madescientists with different skills worktogether and meant start-upcompanies could rely on thisinterdisciplinary research networkand could recruit scientists withappropriate expertise,” said Jong.

In contrast, at that time Stanfordand Berkeley operated on moretraditional lines and the structuremeant scientists from differentdisciplines did not have the sameopportunity to interact.

For Jong, the policy lesson is thatcutting edge science is a pre-requisite, but it is also necessary toconsider the dynamics shaping theresearch community. “There is aneed for a multidisciplinaryapproach; it matters howuniversities are organisedinternally.”

Recipes for the cluster stew

Five thoughts on what makes a successful cluster, from attendees at the meeting on"Successful Innovation Clusters: How to make them happen” organised byScience|Business in Brussels on 15-16 April 2008.



Universities, spin-outs, legalservices, venture capital, and so on,are key building blocks of clusters.But how do these all work together?“It is important to get a handle onthis because while all policies try tostimulate the building blocks, asyet there are few policies toencourage them to networktogether,” said Tom Elfring,Professor of Strategy andEntrepreneurship, VU Amsterdam.

And it should be noted, not allnetworks are relevant for promotinggrowth. This is the case in localnetworks where the same people

meet up all the time, and there is nonew knowledge coming in. Elfringsays this inertia often happens inenforced clusters. “There may be alocal burst at the start, but there isno global perspective and noopportunity to build.” This againhighlights the shortcomings ofexisting regional cluster policies,which fail to drive global pipelines.Elfring believes it is essential to makeconnections between clusters tobring in new knowledge. Forexample, the new media cluster inAmsterdam was helped by twinningwith its counterparts.

Any successful cluster needs amixture of local and global. When theelectronics company Phillips was afully integrated operation, there waslittle dynamism in the cluster aroundit in Eindhoven, because no newknowledge was coming in. But thenPhillips restructured and lots of stafflost their jobs. Engineers armed withredundancy payments set up newfirms and because they now lookedoutwards from Phillips, theyimported knowledge from elsewhere.

“You see examples like this over andover,” said Elfring. “Failure can bevery good.”

Tom Elfring, Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, VU Amsterdam

What is the role of networks,and can policy help?

Fostering successful clusters issomething everyone would like toachieve. Politicians would get re-elected, academics would win Nobelprizes, people would getemployment. But unfortunately noone has every deliberately created asuccessful cluster, argues RajneeshNarula, Professor of InternationalBusiness Regulation, University ofReading.

“Looking at European R&D data, thespecialisation of regions has notchanged very much in 40 years;despite repeated and forcefulattempts to create new clusters. Theareas that produced intellectualproperty then do so now.”

In general companies don’t careabout the source of knowledge that

underpins their products, but they docare about keeping it to themselvesand preventing it from “spilling over”into rival companies. “This isparticularly true for oligopolisticindustries, where companies maywant to be close to a university to getstaff, but don’t want to be close totheir competitors,” said Narula.

Technology followers on the otherhand do want to be close to theleader. “In effect one group isrunning away and the other is tryingto follow.” In general, notes Narula,big successful companies tend toavoid co-location.

Despite the common perception,Narula says there is little evidencethat new communications technologyis encouraging collaboration and

networking. “People talk about thedeath of distance, but we don’t wantto do anything unless we are all inone room.”

These factors mean Europe continuesto be held back by the lack ofmovement of people, with ninetypercent of academics remainingwithin a 100 kilometres of where theystudied. “In the US people move fromone part of the country to another atthe drop of a hat; we agonise aboutmoving to the suburbs.”

Narula added ruefully, that pensionsundoubtedly restrict mobility. “I’vebeen in four European countries inthe past ten years, and I have fourpensions.”

Rajneesh Narula, Professor of InternationalBusiness Regulation, University of Reading

The sceptic’s view


After 40 years of Communism andthe Command Economy, the Praguecluster started with a very differentbackdrop from its counterparts inwestern Europe. “There was no freecompetition, no entrepreneurialculture, everything was state run,”said David Kolman, Director, CzechLiaison Office for R&D.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, therewas initially a fight for survival, butindustry and academe have sincecome to understand that they mustcooperate. With its population of 10.5million, Czech’s capacity is to buildabout three knowledge-basedclusters, in Prague, Brno and Ostrava.

The Prague cluster is focused on thecity’s four higher educationinstitutions that have the capabilityto carry out private sector research,Czech Technical University, theInstitute of Chemical Technology, theUniversity of Life Sciences andCharles University.

In terms of policy, the creation of theclusters is supported by the Ministryof Industry and Trade. This hasencouraged the development of

particular specialisms, for example inTechnical Plastics, Construction, andEnvironment and Cleantech, butKolman said it is not possible to judgeif this top down policy is effective, asyet.

There is also a high level of informalcooperation with industry, and anumber of companies includingEricsson, Porsche, Siemens andHoneywell have joint laboratorieswith the public research institutions.The industrial partners offer trainingand mentoring, which Kolmanbelieves is important in growing thecluster. In addition, individualacademic departments carry outcontract research for industry.

In terms of spin outs, Kolman saidthere has been little activity to date,and companies that have been set upare predominantly in ICT, “Where youdon’t need so much money to start acompany.”

While Czech in general has received avery big boost from the injection ofStructural Funds since becoming amember of the European Union inMay 2006, Prague itself is not eligible

for this support. As a result a lot ofinfrastructure is going up justoutside the city in areas that doqualify.

For now, said Kolman, thecooperation between industry andacademe tends to be short term andrepetitive, though there are somelonger terms commitments beingagreed. “And in general, foreign-owned companies investing Praguedon’t do research in Czech, they do itat home,” he concluded.

David Kolman, Director, Czech LiaisonOffice for R&D

The Prague cluster experience

Brussels symposium on Success innovation clusters: How to make them happen, 15-16 April 2008



As it approaches its 40th birthday,Sophia Antipolis may be one of theoldest clusters in Europe, but withits Mediterranean location and thepull of Nice and Antibes, it remainsone of the most glamorous.

There are 1,400 companies currentlyemploying 40,000 people, in whatAndré describes as the mostinternational part of France, with 68nationalities represented. There arefor example, 6,000 Swedes working inSophia Antipolis.

With its long history, SophiaAntipolis has learnt a few lessonsabout what works and what does notin fostering growth of a cluster. Onekey thing is not to be toobureaucratic. Another is thatincentives do not always have thedesired effect. Although largecompanies have been attracted bythem, it is not easy for SMEs to moveinto a cluster. “The people in chargeof the cluster need to support SMEs,”said André. “You can’t for example,insist everyone is ISO 900compliant.”

In the past the knowledge base atSophia Antipolis was too technology-oriented. “There were not enoughbusiness skills,” said André. “If youasked someone: Can you sell yourproduct? the answer was no.”

It is necessary to have access tofinance, not only locally, but fromelsewhere. And it is important tohave success stories.

One of the key strengths of SophiaAntipolis is the social environmentthat has been created – helped nodoubt by the climate. There is a broadrange of sports and arts facilities andsocial clubs, including a club forbusiness angels. “In other words youget people to interact,” said André.

“My advice is that if you want tocreate a cluster you need a criticalmass,” concluded André. “We have 50telecoms companies.”

Alain André, General Director, CICOM,Sophia Antipolis

Sophia Antipolis: the old lady of European clusters

“The people in charge of thecluster need to support SMEs”Alain André


Alain André, Director, CICOM

Peter Baur, Deputy Head of Unit, DG EAC, EuropeanCommission

Harry Bouwman, Associate Professor, Interim Chair ICTSection, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management,Delft University of Technology ; IAMSR, Abo Akademi,Turku, Finland.

Andries Brandsma, Action Leader - Industrial Researchand Innovation, Knowledge for Growth Unit

Joint Research Centre – IPTS, European Commission

Pontus Braunerhjelm, Leif Lundblad’s Chair inInternational Business and Entrepreneurship, The RoyalInstitute of Technology Stockholm

Frans de Bruine, advisor to the management,Interdisciplinary Institute for Broadband Technology(IBBT)

Philippe Brunerie, Administrator, Unit B.3, DG Taxationand Customs Union (TAXUD), European Commission

Jean-Claude Burgelman, Advisor, Bureau of EuropeanPolicy Advisors (BEPA), European Commission

Reinhard Büscher, Head of Unit D2 Support forInnovation, DG Enterprise and Industry, EuropeanCommission

Peter Chase, Economic Advisor, US Mission to the EU

Luis Delgado, C4 Universities and Researchers, DGResearch, European Commission

Martin Dub, Delegation of Prague to the EU, Prague House

Tom Elfring, Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship,Head of Department, Faculty of Economics and BusinessAdministration, VU University Amsterdam

Martin Fransman, Professor of Economics and FounderDirector of the Institute for Japanese-EuropeanTechnology Studies (JETS), University of Edinburgh

Maria Getsiou, Policy Officer - European Institute ofTechnology (EIT), Directorate General for Education andCulture, European Commission

Timo Haapalehto, Counsellor, Finnish PermanentRepresentation to the EU

André Hagehülsmann, Innovation Coordinator Europe,Microsof

Timo Hämäläinen, Foresight Director, Ph.D., SITRA

Abdelillah Hamdouch, Associate Professor of Economics,Senior Researcher, University of Sciences andTechnologies of Lille

Andrew Herbert, Managing Director, Microsoft ResearchCambridge

Martin Hinoul, Ph.D., Business Development Manager, KULeuven Research & Development

Martin Hlinka, Senior Advisor, Department for Industryand Innovation, Ministry of Economy, Slovak Republic

Wim Hulsink, Senior Lecturer Entrepreneurship and NewBusiness Venturing at the Rotterdam School ofManagement and director of its Centre forEntrepreneurship, Erasmus University

Arun Kumar Jain, Visiting Research Chair Professor,International Management and Corporate Governance,Heilbronn Business School

Jari Jokinen, Project Director, Division for HigherEducation and Science, Ministry of Education, Finland

Simcha Jong, Lecturer, University College London

David Kolman, Director, Czech Liaison Office for R&D(CZELO)

Bruno Lanvin, Executive Director, eLab – INSEAD

David Lippeatt, Economic and Financial Advisor, USMission to the EU

Jerker Moodysson, Researcher, Centre of Excellence ininnovation system research and Competence in theLearning Economy (CIRCLE), Lund University

APPENDIX 1: SUCCESS INNOVAT ION CLUSTERS: HOW TO MAKE THEM HAPPEN?,BRUSSELS, 15 -16 APRIL . L IST OF DELEGATES



Krzysztof Maruszewski, Director Joint Research Centre ,European Commission

Rajneesh Narula, Professor of International BusinessRegulation, Department of Economics, University ofReading

Joaquim Nassar, Deputy Research Coordinator, ParisTech

Nikos Pantalos, Policy Officer, DG 2: Support forInnovation, DG Enterprise and Industry, EuropeanCommission

Antti Peltomäki, Deputy Director-General, DG InformationSociety & Media, European Commission

Ray Pinto, Government Affairs Manager, Legal andCorporate Affairs, Microsoft Europe, Middle East andAfrica

Jiri Plecity, Member of Cabinet of Vice President GünterVerheugen, European Commission

Peter Reid, CEO, London Technology Network, LondonInnovation Relay Centre

André Richier, Principal Administrator, ICT forCompetitiveness and Innovation, DG Enterprise andIndustry, European Commission

Hans Rijckenberg, Secretary-General, ProTon Europe

Khalil Rouhana, Head of Unit - Strategy for ICT Research &Development, DG INFSO, European Commission

Thaima Samman, Associate General Counsel for Europe,Microsoft EMEA

Luc Soete, Director, United Nations University –Maastricht Economic and Social Research and TrainingCentre on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT)

Thomas Stahlecker, Manager of Business Area “Regionsand Clusters”, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems-undInnovation Research

Nicholas Széchényi, Director, Europa InterCluster

Claire Tombeux, Head of Sector, Project ManagementEvaluation and Monitoring, Executive Agency forCompetitiveness and Innovation (EACI), EuropeanCommission

Luc van Langenhove, Director, United Nations UniversityResearch and Training Programme on ComparativeRegional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS)

Nina Vaskunlahti, Ambassador , Finnish PermanentRepresentation to the EU

Joachim Vetter, Division 213, EU Research Policy, FederalMinistry of Education and Research, Germany

From Science|Business :

Richard Hudson, CEO and Editor

Nuala Moran, Senior Editor

Peter Wrobel, Editorial Director


Pontus Braunerhjelm, Professor, KTH – The Royal Institute of Technology

J. Frank Brown, Dean, INSEAD

Jean-Philippe Courtois, President, Microsoft International

Pat Cox, Managing Partner, European Integration Solutions

Roch Doliveux, CEO and Chairman, UCB

Jean-Noël Durvy, Director, Innovation Policy, European Commission

Bruno Lanvin, Executive Director, INSEAD e-Lab

Hans Martens, CEO, The European Policy Centre

Xavier Mendoza, Deputy Director-General, ESADE Business School

Denis Payre, CEO, Kiala and co-founder, Business Objects

Philippe Pouletty, Co-founder and General Partner, Truffle Capital

Science|Business Secretariat:

Richard L. Hudson, CEO & Editor

Nuala Moran, Senior Editor

Peter Wrobel, Editorial Director

APPENDIX 2: SUCCESS INNOVAT ION CLUSTERS:THE CHALLENGE FOREUROPE, ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION, 10 JUNE 2008, INSEAD,FONTAINEBLEAU. LIST OF DELEGATES

For further information about the Science|Business Innovation Board, including a full list of prior publications, please go tohttp://www.sciencebusiness.net/info/innovationboard.php or contact Richard L. Hudson, Science|Business CEO and Editor,at [email protected], +32 496 520305.



INSEAD, Fontainebleau.


Science|Business is an independent news and events service, focused on R&D investment and policyin Europe. It publishes online daily at www.sciencebusiness.net, and produces numerous special printreports, studies and conferences. It was founded in London and Brussels by Richard L. Hudson,former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe, and Peter Wrobel, former managing editorof Nature, and works with a professional team of communicators and journalists to facilitatecommunication between the disparate worlds of academia, industry and policy. It works with anetwork of five professional organisations, and 12 universities: Aristotle University of Technology,Chalmers University of Technology, ETH-Zürich, Imperial College London, Karolinska Institutet, theNorwegian University of Science and Technology, ParisTech, Politecnico di Milano, TU Delft, theUniversity of Cambridge, University College London, and the University of Warwick.

Its mission: To promote enterprise in science.

General CorrespondenceScience|Business Brussels [email protected] du Trone 98, 6th Floor, 1050 Brussels, BelgiumTel: +32 2 5146 680Fax: +32 2 5000 980

[email protected]: +32 2 5146 680

[email protected]: +32 2 5146 680

CEO and EditorRichard [email protected]

Editorial DirectorPeter [email protected]

Sales DirectorDuane [email protected]

General ManagerLuca [email protected]

Marketing ManagerTerri [email protected]

©2008 Science Business Publishing Ltd.

www.sciencebusiness.net



A special Science|Business report on what

Europe needs to do to kick-start the

creation of high-tech clusters.

How can Europe rise to the challenge ofcreating high-tech clusters to rival those ofthe United States? Over the past year theScience|Business Innovation Board hasbeen meeting with the full range ofstakeholders to thrash out the answers.

Documents

Clustering for Growth