SPOTLIGHT: Can Florida woo biotechs?

From 2002 until 2005, the number of US- pharma emerging pharmaceutical companies increased from @ 1400 to @ 2000- an increase of 42%. Some of these, of course not all, were based on sound science attacking unsolved diseases and illnesses. I perosnally review at least 10 newsletters daily and it is my job, just the start, to identify these companies and what they do. The increase I just mentioned was just in the areas of "small molecules" alone, which constitute the majority of drugs in the market today. Entry into biologicals was just recently reported to be @ $1.2 bi per product vs. @$800,000 (a very difficult no. to determine)for small molecules.

There is plenty of room left for small moleucle innovation in my opinion. Should a state not flourishing in the biopharm growth pursue growth? Given the states that present geographic obstacles -climate, nearness or lack- of to first class research- based universities, and quality living vs.affordability; there is plenty of incentive for other states with fewer obstacles to attract the still growing biopharm industry. South San Francisco -based firms , once they have exercised their IPO's and paid the pioneers handsomely can barely afford to hire quality chemists as well as other technical disciplines to maintain their growth. I perosnally believe there will be an exodus -or reallignment- of even the existing Amgen's or Genentech's to find more affordable locations. New companies shouldn't even bother with the top 3- S. San Fran, San Diego, and RTP. They can save immediately by locating early in a state or in another area providing incentives. Education is the ultimate key; so local universities must contribute significantly by funding graduate programs - to the PhD level- in the fields demanded by biopharma. Please note that I am distinguishing between biopharma and biotech- the main difference being the difference bewteen small molecules and large molecules, like proteins and enzymes,etc. As growth takes place, all other costs, except for those areas already beyond reason,become relative to the area.

If I had the backing of the taxpayers, I would support my state as a taxpayer, not currently a leader, in the incentives necessary to bring the biopharm companies to the stateline. BMW is building better cars than in Germany here now. A local university has a professor, that with a laboratory and very little else, has invented 2 lead candidates in the biopharm future, already licensed by a major. Improving your tax base is what it's all about and firecrackers don't get 'er done.