Biotechnology and life science-based industries more generally, are now viewed as quintessential elements of the contemporary knowledge economy, and as important drivers of economic growth and dynamism in developed and developing countries alike (Feldman, 2000b; Rosiello, 2008; Thorsteinsdo´ ttir et al., 2004). In recent times, these industries have become the focus of economic development strategies in many national and subnational jurisdictions, with the emphasis on biotechnology in particular (see Christensen, 2003; Feldman, 2003; Feldman & Frances, 2003).
However, this somewhat narrow focus tends to overlook a number of related activities within the broader sphere of life sciences that are themselves very significant sources of innovation and employment (Cooke, 2007, 2008). This approach suggests that it is more useful to consider the life sciences more broadly, to include a wider range of activities related to but not limited to—biotechnology and that draw upon a variety of different technologies and knowledge bases.
Life science-related activity is anticipated to generate employment and income for regions and nations, contributing to their economic competitiveness and prosperity and generating highly skilled, well-paying jobs. Moreover, given potential convergence with information technologies, nanotechnologies and other areas of applied science, life science activities are expected to provide a strong foundation for future innovation andgrowth. For these reasons, academics and policymakers have paid increasing attention to understanding the enabling conditions, institutional forces and policy mechanisms that have nurtured and developed the innovative capacity and economic success of life science activities in particular regions and nations. Despite the widespread interest among national, regional and local governments in promoting their own biotechnology industries, it is now well documented that this sector exhibits characteristically high levels of geographical concentration or clustering in a relatively small number of locations (Cooke, 2005; Cortright & Mayer, 2002).
However, what is less well understood within the literature is how these regions have emerged and evolved through time. While there is a tendency to conceive of the necessary and sufficient conditions in fairly universal and formulaic terms—strong research universities with leading medical schools, a well-developed local venture capital industry, and a deep labour market in highly skilled scientific occupations are factors that are most commonly emphasized—we contend that the evolutionary pathways followed by individual regions with successful life science sectors are far from identical. In our view, the prevailing wisdom gives short shrift to the differences in local historical, geographical and institutional conditions that shape and constrain the subsequent actual evolution of life science industries in particular places.
In this paper, we examine this issue through the lens of a national, 5 years, collaborative research initiative conducted by the Innovation Systems Research Network (ISRN) analyzing cluster development and evolution in Canada (see Wolfe & Gertler, 2004). We present findings from the study of life science industries in Canada’s three largest city regions (Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver), as well as in three smaller city regions (Ottawa, Saskatoon and Halifax). In taking a comparative perspective, we emphasize both the similarities and differences in the development of life sciences in these six urban centres, highlighting the importance of each region’s distinctive economic and institutional context.
Download
PDF Ebook Life Sciences and Regional Innovation: One Path or Many?
