the advantage enjoyed by emergent firms and research institutes located in Maryland
near the head offices of both NIH and FDA (see table 4).
Institution Rank (1994) Amount ($million)
|
Program Resources Inc., Reston VA |
1 |
$98.0 |
|
Westat Inc., Rockville, MD |
2 |
$50.0 |
|
Adv. Biosc. Lab Inc, Kensington, MD |
3 |
$30.6 |
|
U. of Alabama, Birmingham, AL |
4 |
$16.2 |
|
Research Triangle Institute, RTC Park, NC |
5 |
$15.1 |
|
Johns Hopkins U., Baltimore, MD |
6 |
$14.6 |
|
ROW Sciences Inc, Rockville, MD |
7 |
$14.5 |
|
Harvard U., Cambridge, MA |
8 |
$13.2 |
|
Southern Research institute, Birmingham, AL |
9 |
$12.9 |
|
U. of Texas Health Science Centre, Houston, TX |
10 |
$11.3 |
Table 4: Top Ten Institutions for NIH R&D Contracts, 1994
Source NIH
The figures in Table 4 are somewhat out of date but their significance lies in the
evidence of a few years ago that geographical proximity explained the largest share in
the variance of grant allocations by NIH, something that has been changed somewhat
by the more piecemeal evidence that Johns Hopkins and Harvard Universities now vie
for top position in consequence of their recognition of various biases in the system
revealed by the statistics for 1994’s allocations.
Let us look more closely at the manner in which the assets of biosciences megacentres
like those in Northern and Southern California are now packaged in documentation
that promotes the image that is intended to appeal to investors of all kinds into the
regional innovation system. The two following examples, from Northern and
Southern California are produced by a non-profit association (The California
Healthcare Institute) and a consultancy (Michael Porter’s Monitor) respectively. The
California Healthcare Institute is a public policy institute for California’s 200 leading
biotechnology firms and research institutes. It is thus comparable to the Massachusetts
Biotechnology Council. Its political brief is expressed clearly by CEO Gollaher who
despite noting ‘.. .funding for basic science is strong..’ bemoans the fact that ‘.many
federal and state lawmakers advocate policies that would impede medical innovation.
Our greatest threats include a total ban on human cloning ad severe restrictions on
stem cell research; a Medicare administration that.. effectively excludes new
21