Which Metro is the Leading US Biotech Center? (ranking, Boston)

[mhays25]

You can define biotech in more than one way. Sometimes it narrows to human healthcare (vs. agriculture for example).

Generally I hear San Francisco and Boston, followed by San Diego.

[sfcitypatrol]

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/specia...otech-vc-firms

Top 15 Biotech VC firms by money:

1.New Enterprise Associates Inc: 189.78 million,Menlo Park,CA (San Francisco Bay Area)
2.Versant Ventures Inc: 186.87 million,Menlo Park,CA (San Francisco Bay Area)
3.OrbiMed Advisors LLC: 136.06 million, (New York City)
4.New Leaf Venture Partners: 128 million,Menlo Park,CA (San Francisco Bay Area)
5.Third Rock Ventures LLC: 112.76 million, (Boston)
6.Domain Associates LLC: 109.39 million,Princeton NJ (New York City)
7.Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers: 88 million,Menlo Park,CA (San Francisco Bay Area)
8.Clarus Ventures: 85.74 million,Cambridge,MA (Boston)
9.Flagship Ventures: 67.9 million,Cambridge,MA (Boston)
10.InterWest Partners LLC: 62.5 million,Menlo Park,CA (San Francisco Bay Area)
11.Third Security LLC: 62.5 million, (Radford,VA)
12.Canaan Partners: 59.86 million,Westport,CT (New York City)
13.Novo A/S: 55.75 million, (Hellerup,Denmark)
14.Essex Woodlands Health Ventures: 54.69 million,Palo Alto,CA (San Francisco Bay Area)
15.Alta Partners: 53.02 million, (San Francisco)

Total Money of the Firms that were on the list

1.San Francisco Bay Area: 762.86 million, 7 firms
2.New York City:305.31 million, 3 firms
3.Boston:266.4 million, 3 firms

I know that VCs aren't the only thing to help decide which area is the leading biotech center,but it is one of the many factors.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by urbancritic

Why are so many speaking so confidently about the DC area's weakness in biotech VC funding and not just looking it up; and someone posted a link to easily look at:

"third in patents (4943, just 32 ahead of San Diego), and fourth in lab space (with 22.5 million square feet according to Rockville, MD-based Scheer Partners, which measures the entire region [vs. JLL’s 9.5 million for “suburban Maryland”]). VC has improved from sixth in 2016: PwC/CB Insights ranks the region fourth with $944.07 million in 44 deals, but JLL tallies $1.1 billion, good enough for third. This year’s VC includes the $250 million Series A financing completed in February by Viela Bio in Gaithersburg, MD, formed when AstraZeneca spun off six pipeline candidates of its Gaithersburg-based MedImmune subsidiary."

Like I said it's absolutely worthy of the thread, a top 6 ish market in the country overall for biotech period. The OP has chosen to cherry pick those with highest VC, but as you posted places like San Diego are after MD/DC in certain areas.

[cpomp]

A more competitive thread would be let Boston take the #1 spot, then create a poll for the #2 and #3 regions.

[po-boy]

1. Boston
2. San Francisco Bay Area
Gap
3. San Diego
After that I think all the areas listed are competitive. The sector really stands out as a strength in the Research Triangle bc it is such a small metro metro compared to other heavyweights in biotechnology like NYC, Philly, and Seattle. I also think the broader DC area is in the mix for top 7 or 8.

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by CinderFella7

Edit:
Another article listing the big BioPharma Hubs as they're called:
https://www.genengnews.com/a-lists/t...ma-clusters-6/

Another article:
https://www.biospace.com/article/-to...rma-stem-jobs/

There's a difference between grant-funded research that's not intended to pass FDA trials and turn into making making drugs, and VC funded companies that need to get through clinical trials and end up with a product. A lot of regions have the former, I'd say only SF, Boston, and San Diego really have the commercial infrastructure, which is why they account for 80%+ of biotech VC funding.

So the larger question is can the second tier - NY, Seattle, DC, Philly, LA, Raleigh/Durham - which tend to be stronger at basic research, expand deeper into commercialized biopharma. It didn't happen in software, where the Bay Area's advantages got reinforced, and its share of VC actually grew as the industry expanded.

[sprez33]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

There's a difference between grant-funded research that's not intended to pass FDA trials and turn into making making drugs, and VC funded companies that need to get through clinical trials and end up with a product. A lot of regions have the former, I'd say only SF, Boston, and San Diego really have the commercial infrastructure, which is why they account for 80%+ of biotech VC funding.

So the larger question is can the second tier - NY, Seattle, DC, Philly, LA, Raleigh/Durham - which tend to be stronger at basic research, expand deeper into commercialized biopharma. It didn't happen in software, where the Bay Area's advantages got reinforced, and its share of VC actually grew as the industry expanded.

Very good points. There's a virtuous cycle that began in SF, SD and Boston with VCs funding a biotech company. The company is successful and creates the next generation of entrepreneurs. VCs like to invest in successful entrepreneurs, and they don't like to travel far to their portfolio companies so they invest locally. It's also helpful for top notch medical research to be close by generating new product concepts. And so goes the virtuous cycle.

Pretty much every region in the nation has tried to create a biotech cluster but really none has been successful. SF, SD and Boston all grew up organically.

[Run To The Hills]

I argue that at least Houston should be on the list.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by Run To The Hills

I argue that at least Houston should be on the list.

Not at this time I would bet.

[Lucky Clover]

Originally Posted by Run To The Hills

I argue that at least Houston should be on the list.

No chance. It's not even close.