Eighty-Seventh Arizona Town Hall October 30 – November 2, 2005

Maximizing Arizona’s Opportunities in the Biosciences and Biotechnology

Sponsors

A R I Z O N A

Background Report Prepared By

Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona

EIGHTY-SEVENTH ARIZONA TOWN HALL

OCTOBER 30 – NOVEMBER 2, 2005

Maximizing Arizona’s Opportunities in the Biosciences and Biotechnology

BACKGROUND REPORT PREPARED BY ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

Michael Crow, President

PROJECT DIRECTOR Kathleen Matt

The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University

CONTRIBUTORS

William Dabars James W. McPherson III Bradley W. Halvorsen Walter H. Plosila Saundra E. Johnson George Poste Kathleen Matt

ARIZONA TOWN HALL RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Warren L. Prostrollo, Jr., Chair Anna Jolivet, Vice Chair

Catherine Connolly Jay S. Kittle Dietrich Stephan Benton Davis Elizabeth McNamee Mary Vanis Darryl Dobras Elliott Pollack Devan Wastchak Susan N. Goldsmith Fred H. Rosenfeld Shirley Agnos, ex officio Natascha Hebell-Fernando Joan Shapiro Janet Jennings, ex officio Saundra Johnson David Snider Chip U’Ren, ex officio

SPONSORS

FLINN FOUNDATION THE VIRGINIA G. PIPER CHARITABLE TRUST

ARIZONA TOWN HALL Building consensus — Charting progress

In the rapid pace of today’s living, men and women of stature and ability too often are tied solely to the particular sphere of their own everyday activities. Yet the very qualities that have made these people leaders in their fields of endeavor are those essential to the understanding and solution of many of the broad concerns that face all Arizonans.

With this in mind, the Arizona Town Halls began in October 1962 to periodically bring together different groups of leading citizens for a thorough consideration of various issues and concerns facing our state. These groups are selected carefully to constitute a valid cross section of state leadership—geographically and occupationally—representative of a wide diversity of political, social and economic philosophies.

There have been eighty-six Town Halls to date. The eighty-seventh will be held at Grand Canyon, October 30 – November 2, 2005 and will address “Maximizing Arizona’s Opportunities in the Biosciences and Biotechnology.” The biosciences and biotechnology touch every Arizonan whether from one of our largest urban areas, a mid-sized city or town, or a small rural corner of the state. These fields affect everything from health care to products and programs for national security and industrial productivity, from space exploration to agricultural processing. This Town Hall will explore how Arizona can propel its efforts to become a major player in the biosciences and biotechnology. Adding an emphasis on science and technology to our state’s strategies for economic development for the future will do a great deal to develop and strengthen Arizona’s overall economy.

To provide all participants in the Town Hall with fundamental background information from which to launch their detailed discussions, Arizona State University developed the following background report. Our sincere thanks are extended to ASU President Michael Crow, Kathleen Matt, Assistant Vice President for Research and Director of the Office of Clinical Partnerships at the Biodesign Institute and the entire research team who worked so diligently to bring together this document.

The specifics to be addressed at this Town Hall depend upon identification by you, the participants, of the most significant subject areas you consider necessary to cover. With this report you also are receiving a questionnaire. We ask that you use this questionnaire to send us your questions and ideas on what needs to be discussed regarding Arizona’s future in the biosciences and biotechnology. The concerns that you identify need not be limited to those discussed in this document. Your replies are key to the success of the Town Hall. Please take time right now to complete and return the enclosed questionnaire. Don’t wait until you’ve read this entire report to reply. At this point, we want your personal ideas on the most important issues to be discussed.

The recommendations that you develop at the Town Hall will be combined with the following background information into a final document and circulated widely throughout the state. That full report will make a lasting contribution toward identifying what Arizona needs to do to become a major player scientifically and economically in the fields of bioscience and biotechnology.

Sincerely,

L. J. Chip U’Ren Chairman of the Board September 2005

Contents

Prologue ....................................................................................................................................... i

• Bioscience Timeline........................................................................................................ iv

• Arizona Bioscience Timeline......................................................................................... xii

Chapter 1: Dream ~ What are the Biosciences and Biotechnology? .........................................1

Chapter 2: Discover and Design ~ Why Bioscience and Biotechnology in Arizona? ............16

Chapter 3: Develop ~ The Future of Medicine: A Case Study.................................................40

Chapter 4: Deliver ~ Talent, Technology, and Economics.......................................................77

• Lessons Learned from Organizations ...........................................................................103

Chapter 5: Decide ~ Pathways to Progress .............................................................................105

Supplemental Information

• Bioscience Terms..........................................................................................................116

• Arizona Organizations Interested/Involved in the Biosciences ....................................128

• Front-Running Bioscience Ventures.............................................................................137

• Major Bioscience Grants Received in Arizona in 2005................................................141

About the Contributors ..........................................................................................................146

F

or the past 44 years, the Arizona Town Hall has played a leading role in

facilitating dialogue among the citizens of Arizona -- identifying critical

issues, providing a forum for their public consideration, building

consensus, and encouraging implementation of the resulting recommendations. In

the past, each Arizona Town Hall has sought to address the vital concerns of the

day -- governance, the environment, education, healthcare, youth at risk -- with a

consequent focus on existing circumstances and their origin. To the extent that the

present Arizona Town Hall focuses on leveraging science-based technologies as a

way to foster economic growth, it seeks to maximize opportunities now under

development.

This report challenges the citizens of Arizona to consider whether Arizona will

lead or follow in the new century. Maximizing Arizona’s opportunities in the

biosciences and biotechnology sets the stage for Arizona not just to catch up, but to

sprint ahead of other states and nations that seek the mantle of leadership in

innovation and knowledge-driven commerce.

And that is why the report encourages readers to dream and to imagine a better

world, and to discover what new designs and developments the

biosciences and biotechnology can deliver. It is up to each of us to decide

whether Arizona will maximize its opportunities in the biosciences and

biotechnology and, if so, how.

Prologue

The 21st Century has been dubbed the “century of biology” and in the decades ahead,

breakthroughs in our understanding of nature promise both advances in human health and

economic growth for regions, states, and nations prepared to foster innovation. With the

discovery of the structure of DNA -- the

human genome -- bioscience is poised to

be the great engine of our time. Arizona’s

investments in the biosciences and

biotechnology offer the potential for the

state to play a leading role in the

worldwide effort to advance healthcare, and to improve the quality of life for all Arizonans

through economic development focused on human health.

Arizona’s economy is in transition. As demonstrated by both the Morrison Institute’s “Five

Shoes” October 2001 report and the “Meds and Eds” report issued by a coalition of Arizona

education and health leaders in March 2005, the traditional staples for wealth and job generation

in the state are changing. Arizona can no longer rely on its traditional “five C’s -- copper,

climate, cotton, cattle, and citrus -- for its economic prosperity. Nor can it rely solely on travel

and tourism and the associated real estate demands such businesses generate to create the good,

well-paying jobs for the future.

A knowledge-based economy, driven by a knowledgeable workforce, goes hand-in-hand with an

economy more and more dependent on Arizona’s emerging “research enterprises.” Already,

i

Arizona is strong in the areas of advanced communications and information technology (IT). In

addition, the state’s healthcare and bioscience research enterprises create and attract businesses

with good paying jobs in medical devices, drugs and pharmaceuticals, and diagnostic firms as

well as provide access to quality healthcare to the state’s residents. As the state’s population

continues to grow at a rapid pace, these enterprises will be further in demand.

In 2002, the Flinn Foundation engaged Battelle Memorial Institute’s Technology Partnership

Practice (www.tpp-online.org) to assist the Foundation and its partners, which include the

business community, elected officials, local development organizations, medical institutions,

state agencies, and state universities, in developing a Bioscience Roadmap to advance the

biosciences in Arizona. Battelle is the world’s largest non-profit research and development

organization. It assists public and private sector organizations seeking to grow their economies

through technology-based economic development.

To answer the question of what will it take to grow the biosciences in Arizona, the Battelle team:

• Conducted an economic analysis of Arizona’s existing bioscience industry, identifying

trends, current strengths, emerging industries, and emerging clusters within the bioscience

complex.

• Prepared a benchmarking analysis that compares Arizona with other states and regions that

either are or are striving to become leading bioscience centers.

• Assessed Arizona’s position in bioscience research and identified technology areas for future

development through a core competency review.

ii

• Identified barriers to and gaps in private and public investments, policies, programs, and

activities that might hinder Arizona’s ability to become a leading state in the biosciences.

• Developed a Bioscience Roadmap that lays out a vision for the biosciences in Arizona and

identifies the strategies and actions necessary to achieve this vision.

Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap charts a course and direction to position the state nationally and

internationally in the biosciences. The Bioscience Roadmap’s ten-year vision is to become “a

leading Southwestern state in selective bioscience sectors, built around world-class research,

clinical excellence, and a growing base of cutting-edge enterprises and supporting firms and

organizations.” The challenge is to now propel Arizona on a path to achieve this world-class

recognition.

This Arizona Town Hall report analyzes Arizona’s current situation in the biosciences, the

challenges that the Bioscience Roadmap uncovered related to Arizona’s ability to achieve its

vision, and “best practices” where coalitions or alliances have been formed to make technology

and research an economic engine in regions, states, or nations.

iii

Bioscience Timeline

Date Milestone 8000 B.C. • Humans domesticate crops and livestock.

• Potatoes first cultivated for food. 4000–2000 B.C.

• Biotechnology first used to leaven bread and ferment beer, using yeast (Egypt). • Production of cheese and fermentation of wine (Sumeria, China, and Egypt). • Babylonians control date palm breeding by selectively pollinating female trees

with pollen from certain male trees. 500 B.C. • First antibiotic: moldy soybean curds used to treat boils (China). 100 A.D. • First insecticide: powdered chrysanthemums (China). 1322 • An Arab chieftain first uses artificial insemination to produce superior horses. 1590 • Janssen invents the microscope. 1663 • Hooke discovers existence of the cell. 1675 • Leeuwenhoek discovers bacteria. 1761 • Koelreuter reports successful crossbreeding of crop plants in different species. 1797 • Jenner inoculates a child with a viral vaccine to protect him from smallpox. 1830 • Proteins discovered. 1833 • First enzyme discovered and isolated. 1835–1855 • Schleiden and Schwann propose that all organisms are composed of cells, and

Virchow declares, “Every cell arises from a cell.” 1857 • Pasteur proposes microbes cause fermentation. 1859 • Charles Darwin publishes the theory of evolution by natural selection. The

concept of carefully selecting parents and culling the variable progeny greatly influences plant and animal breeders in the late 1800s despite their ignorance of genetics.

1865

• Science of genetics begins: Austrian monk Gregor Mendel studies garden peas and discovers that genetic traits are passed from parents to offspring in a predictable way—the laws of heredity.

1870–1890 • Using Darwin’s theory, plant breeders crossbreed cotton, developing hundreds of varieties with superior qualities.

• Farmers first inoculate fields with nitrogen-fixing bacteria to improve yields. • William James Beal produces first experimental corn hybrid in the laboratory.

1877 • A technique for staining and identifying bacteria is developed by Koch. 1878 • The first centrifuge is developed by Laval. 1879 • Fleming discovers chromatin, the rod-like structures inside the cell nucleus that

later came to be called chromosomes. 1900 • Drosophila (fruit flies) used in early studies of genes. 1902 • The term immunology first appears. 1906 • The term genetics is introduced. 1911 • The first cancer-causing virus is discovered by Rous. 1914 • Bacteria are used to treat sewage for the first time in Manchester, England. 1915 • Phages, or bacterial viruses, are discovered.

iv

Date Milestone 1919 • First use of the word biotechnology in print. 1920 • The human growth hormone is discovered by Evans and Long. 1928 • Penicillin discovered as an antibiotic: Alexander Fleming.

• A small-scale test of formulated Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) for corn borer control begins in Europe. Commercial production of this biopesticide begins in France in 1938.

• Karpechenko crosses radishes and cabbages, creating fertile offspring between plants in different genera.

• Laibach first uses embryo rescue to obtain hybrids from wide crosses in crop plants—known today as hybridization.

1930 • U.S. Congress passes the Plant Patent Act, enabling the products of plant breeding to be patented.

1933 • Hybrid corn, developed by Henry Wallace in the 1920s, is commercialized. Growing hybrid corn eliminates the option of saving seeds. The remarkable yields outweigh the increased costs of annual seed purchases, and by 1945, hybrid corn accounts for 78 percent of U.S.-grown corn.

1938 • The term molecular biology is coined. 1941 • The term genetic engineering is first used, by Danish microbiologist A. Jost in

a lecture on reproduction in yeast at the technical institute in Lwow, Poland. 1942 • The electron microscope is used to identify and characterize a bacteriophage—

a virus that infects bacteria. • Penicillin mass-produced in microbes.

1944

• DNA is proven to carry genetic information—Avery et al. • Waksman isolates streptomycin, an effective antibiotic for tuberculosis.

1946

• Discovery that genetic material from different viruses can be combined to form a new type of virus, an example of genetic recombination.

• Recognizing the threat posed by loss of genetic diversity, the U.S. Congress provides funds for systematic and extensive plant collection, preservation and introduction.

1947 • McClintock discovers transposable elements, or “jumping genes,” in corn. 1949 • Pauling shows that sickle cell anemia is a “molecular disease” resulting from a

mutation in the protein molecule hemoglobin. 1951 • Artificial insemination of livestock using frozen semen is accomplished. 1953 • The scientific journal Nature publishes James Watson and Francis Crick’s

manuscript describing the double helical structure of DNA, which marks the beginning of the modern era of genetics.

1955 • Enzyme involved in the synthesis of a nucleic acid is isolated for the first time. 1956 • Kornberg discovers the enzyme DNA polymerase I, leading to an

understanding of how DNA is replicated. 1958

• Sickle cell anemia is shown to occur due to a change of a single amino acid. • DNA is made in a test tube for the first time.

1959

• Systemic fungicides are developed. The steps in protein biosynthesis are delineated.

v

Date Milestone Also in the 1950s

• Discovery of interferons. • First synthetic antibiotic.

1960

• Exploiting base pairing, hybrid DNA-RNA molecules are created. • Messenger RNA is discovered.

1961 • USDA registers first biopesticide: Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. 1963 • New wheat varieties developed by Norman Borlaug increase yields by 70%. 1964 • International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines starts the Green

Revolution with new strains of rice that double the yield of previous strains if given sufficient fertilizer.

1965 • Harris and Watkins successfully fuse mouse and human cells. 1966 • The genetic code is cracked, demonstrating that a sequence of three nucleotide

bases (a codon) determines each of 20 amino acids. (Two more amino acids have since been discovered.)

1967 • The first automatic protein sequencer is perfected. 1969 • An enzyme is synthesized in vitro for the first time. 1970 • Norman Borlaug receives the Nobel Peace Prize (see 1963).

• Discovery of restriction enzymes that cut and splice genetic material, opening the way for gene cloning.

1971 • First complete synthesis of a gene. 1972 • The DNA composition of humans is discovered to be 99 percent similar to that

of chimpanzees and gorillas. • Initial work with embryo transfer.

1973

• Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer perfect techniques to cut and paste DNA (using restriction enzymes and ligases); reproducing the new DNA in bacteria.

1974 • National Institutes of Health forms a Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to oversee recombinant genetic research.

1975 • Government first urged to develop guidelines for regulating experiments in recombinant DNA: Asilomar Conference, California.

• The first monoclonal antibodies are produced. 1976

• The tools of recombinant DNA are first applied to a human inherited disorder. • Molecular hybridization is used for the prenatal diagnosis of alpha thalassemia. • Yeast genes are expressed in E. coli bacteria. • The sequence of DNA base pairs for a specific gene is determined. • First guidelines for recombinant DNA experiments released: National

Institutes of Health-Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. 1977 • First expression of human gene in bacteria.

• Procedures developed for rapidly sequencing long sections of DNA using electrophoresis.

1978 • High-level structure of virus first identified. • Recombinant human insulin first produced. • North Carolina scientists show it is possible to introduce specific mutations at

specific sites in a DNA molecule. 1979 • Human growth hormone first synthesized.

vi

Date Milestone Also in the 1970s

• First commercial company founded to develop genetically engineered products.

• Discovery of polymerases. • Techniques for rapid sequencing of nucleotides perfected. • Gene targeting. • RNA splicing.

1980 • U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case Diamond v. Chakrabarty, approves the principle of patenting organisms, which allows the Exxon oil company to patent an oil-eating microorganism.

• The U.S. patent for gene cloning is awarded to Cohen and Boyer. • The first gene-synthesizing machines are developed. • Researchers successfully introduce a human gene—one that codes for the

protein interferon—into a bacterium. • Nobel Prize in Chemistry awarded for creation of the first recombinant

molecule: Berg, Gilbert, Sanger. 1981

• Scientists at Ohio University produce the first transgenic animals by transferring genes from other animals into mice.

• Chinese scientist becomes the first to clone a fish—a golden carp. 1982 • Applied Biosystems, Inc., introduces the first commercial gas phase protein

sequencer, dramatically reducing the amount of protein sample needed for sequencing.

• First recombinant DNA vaccine for livestock developed. • First biotech drug approved by FDA: human insulin produced in genetically

modified bacteria. • First genetic transformation of a plant cell: petunia.

1983

• The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique is conceived. PCR, which uses heat and enzymes to make unlimited copies of genes and gene fragments, later becomes a major tool in biotech research and product development worldwide.

• The first genetic transformation of plant cells by TI plasmids is performed. • The first artificial chromosome is synthesized. • The first genetic markers for specific inherited diseases are found. • First whole plant grown from biotechnology: petunia. • First proof that modified plants pass their new traits to offspring: petunia.

1984 • The DNA fingerprinting technique is developed. • The entire genome of the human immunodeficiency virus is cloned and

sequenced. 1985 • Genetic markers found for kidney disease and cystic fibrosis.

• Genetic fingerprinting entered as evidence in a courtroom. • Transgenic plants resistant to insects, viruses and bacteria are field-tested for

the first time. • NIH approves guidelines for performing gene-therapy experiments in humans.

vii

Date Milestone 1986 • First recombinant vaccine for humans: hepatitis B.

• First anticancer drug produced through biotech: interferon. • U.S. government publishes the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of

Biotechnology, establishing more stringent regulations for rDNA organisms than for those produced with traditional genetic modification techniques.

• A University of California-Berkeley chemist describes how to combine antibodies and enzymes (abzymes) to create pharmaceuticals.

• The first field tests of transgenic plants (tobacco) are conducted. • Environmental Protection Agency approves the release of the first transgenic

crop—gene-altered tobacco plants. • Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Group of

National Experts on Safety in Biotechnology states: “Genetic changes from rDNA techniques will often have inherently greater predictability compared to traditional techniques” and “risks associated with rDNA organisms may be assessed in generally the same way as those associated with non-rDNA organisms.”

1987

• First approval for field test of modified food plants: virus-resistant tomatoes. • Frostban, a genetically altered bacterium that inhibits frost formation on crop

plants, is field-tested on strawberry and potato plants in California, the first authorized outdoor tests of a recombinant bacterium.

1988 • Harvard molecular geneticists are awarded the first U.S. patent for a genetically altered animal—a transgenic mouse.

• A patent for a process to make bleach-resistant protease enzymes to use in detergents is awarded.

• U.S. Congress funds the Human Genome Project, a massive effort to map and sequence the human genetic code as well as the genomes of other species.

1989 • First approval for field test of modified cotton: insect-protected (Bt) cotton. • Plant Genome Project begins.

Also in the 1980s

• Studies of DNA used to determine evolutionary history. • Recombinant DNA animal vaccine approved for use in Europe. • Use of microbes in oil spill cleanup: bioremediation technology. • Ribozymes and retinoblastomas identified.

1990

• Chy-Max™, an artificially produced form of the chymosin enzyme for cheese-making, is introduced. It is the first product of recombinant DNA technology in the U.S. food supply.

• The Human Genome Project—an international effort to map all the genes in the human body—is launched.

• The first experimental gene therapy treatment is performed successfully on a 4-year-old girl suffering from an immune disorder.

• The first transgenic dairy cow—used to produce human milk proteins for infant formula—is created.

• First insect-protected corn: Bt corn. • First food product of biotechnology approved in U.K.: modified yeast. • First field test of a genetically modified vertebrate: trout.

viii

Date Milestone 1992 • American and British scientists unveil a technique for testing embryos in vitro

for genetic abnormalities such as cystic fibrosis and hemophilia. • FDA declares that transgenic foods are “not inherently dangerous” and do not

require special regulation. 1993 • Merging two smaller trade associations creates the Biotechnology Industry

Organization (BIO). • FDA approves bovine somatotropin (BST) for increased milk production in

dairy cows. 1994

• First FDA approval for a whole food produced through biotechnology: FLAVRSAVR™ tomato.

• The first breast cancer gene is discovered. • Approval of recombinant version of human DNase, which breaks down protein

accumulation in the lungs of CF patients. • BST commercialized as POSILAC bovine somatotropin.

1995 • The first baboon-to-human bone marrow transplant is performed on an AIDS patient.

• The first full gene sequence of a living organism other than a virus is completed, for the bacterium Hemophilus influenzae.

• Gene therapy, immune system modulation and recombinantly produced antibodies enter the clinic in the war against cancer.

1996 • The discovery of a gene associated with Parkinson’s disease provides an important new avenue of research into the cause and potential treatment of the debilitating neurological ailment.

1997 • First animal cloned from an adult cell: a sheep named Dolly in Scotland. • First weed- and insect-resistant biotech crops commercialized: Roundup

Ready® soybeans and Bollgard® insect-protected cotton. • Biotech crops grown commercially on nearly five million acres worldwide:

Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Mexico and the U.S. • A group of Oregon researchers claims to have cloned two Rhesus monkeys.

1998

• University of Hawaii scientists clone three generations of mice from nuclei of adult ovarian cumulus cells.

• Human embryonic stem cell lines are established. • Scientists at Japan’s Kinki University clone eight identical calves using cells

taken from a single adult cow. • The first complete animal genome, for the C. elegans worm, is sequenced. • A rough draft of the human genome map is produced, showing the locations of

more than 30,000 genes. • Five Southeast Asian countries form a consortium to develop disease-resistant

papayas.

ix

Date Milestone Also in the 1990s

• First conviction using genetic fingerprinting in the U.K. • Hereditary colon cancer discovered to be caused by a defective DNA repair

gene. • Recombinant rabies vaccine tested in raccoons. • Biotechnology-based biopesticide approved for sale in the U.S. • Patents issued for mice with specific transplanted genes. • First European patent on a transgenic animal issued for transgenic mouse

sensitive to carcinogens. 2000

• First complete map of a plant genome developed: Arabidopsis thaliana. • Biotech crops grown on 108.9 million acres in 13 countries. • “Golden rice” announcement allows the technology to be available to

developing countries in hopes of improving the health of undernourished people and preventing some forms of blindness.

• First biotech crop field-tested in Kenya: virus-resistant sweet potato. • Rough draft of the human genome sequence is announced.

2001

• First complete map of the genome of a food plant completed: rice. • Chinese National Hybrid researchers report developing “super rice” that could

produce double the yield of normal rice. • Complete DNA sequencing of the agriculturally important bacteria,

Sinorhizobium meliloti, a nitrogen-fixing species, and Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a plant pest.

• A single gene from Arabidopsis inserted into tomato plants to create the first crop able to grow in salty water and soil.

2002

• The first draft of a functional map of the yeast proteome, an entire network of protein complexes and their interactions, is completed. A map of the yeast genome was published in 1996.

• International consortia sequence the genomes of the parasite that causes malaria and the species of mosquito that transmits the parasite.

• The draft version of the complete map of the human genome is published, and the first part of the Human Genome Project comes to an end ahead of schedule and under budget.

• Scientists make great progress in elucidating the factors that control the differentiation of stem cells, identifying over 200 genes that are involved in the process.

• Biotech crops grown on 145 million acres in 16 countries, a 12 percent increase in acreage grown in 2001. More than one-quarter (27 percent) of the global acreage was grown in nine developing countries.

x

Date Milestone 2002

• Researchers announce successful results for a vaccine against cervical cancer, the first demonstration of a preventative vaccine for a type of cancer.

• Scientists complete the draft sequence of the most important pathogen of rice, a fungus that destroys enough rice to feed 60 million people annually. By combining an understanding of the genomes of the fungus and rice, scientists will elucidate the molecular basis of the interactions between the plant and pathogen.

• Scientists are forced to rethink their view of RNA when they discover how important small pieces of RNA are in controlling many cell functions.

2003 • Researchers find a vulnerability gene for depression and make strides in detecting genetic links to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

• GloFish, the first biotech pet, hits the North American market. Specially bred to detect water pollutants, the fish glows red under black light thanks to the addition of a natural fluorescence gene.

• Worldwide biotech crop acreage rises 15 percent to hit 167.2 million acres in 18 countries. Brazil and the Philippines grow biotech crops for the first time in 2003. Also, Indonesia allows consumption of imported biotech foods and China and Uganda accept biotech crop imports.

• The U.K. approves its first commercial biotech crop in eight years. The crop is a biotech herbicide-resistant corn used for cattle feed.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approves the first transgenic rootworm-resistant corn, which may save farmers $1 billion annually in crop losses and pesticide use.

• An endangered species (the banteng) is cloned for the first time. 2003 also brought several other cloning firsts, including mules, horses and deer.

• Dolly, the cloned sheep that made headlines in 1997, is euthanized after developing progressive lung disease. Dolly was the first successful clone of a mammal.

• Japanese researchers develop a biotech coffee bean that is naturally decaffeinated.

2004

• A group of Korean researchers report the first human embryonic stem cell line produced with somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning).

• FDA approves first anti-angiogenic drug for cancer, Avastin (bevacizumab). 1

1 Timeline courtesy of the national trade association, BIO (Bio Industry Organization). Sources: Access Excellence; Biotech 90: Into the Next Decade, G. Steven Burrill with the Ernst & Young High Technology Group; Biotechnology Industry Organization; Genentech, Inc.; Genetic Engineering News; International Food Information Council; ISB News Report; International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications; Texas Society for Biomedical Research; Science; Science News; The Scientist.

xi

Arizona Bioscience Timeline

Date Milestone 300 B.C. to 500 A.D.

• The Hohokam pioneer the use of irrigation canals, a technological development that allows for farming in Arizona’s desert environment.

1874 • First mention of Arizona climate as beneficial to tuberculars in East Coast medical journals.

1877 • Establishment of pest-house for confinement of smallpox. 1879-89 • Parke, Davis & Company botanical scouts scour Arizona looking for

medicinal plants. 1881 • Tombstone Clinic, under the direction of Dr. George Goodfellow, institutes

the Lister sterilization method. 1883 • Campaign to vaccinate Indians against smallpox. 1892 • The Arizona Medical Association and Maricopa County Medical Association

are organized. 1896 • Dr. George Goodfellow appointed by Governor Louis Hughes as the first

Territorial Quarantine and Health Officer. (Hughes moved to Arizona in 1871 due to health reasons.)

1897 • Territorial Board of Medical Examiners established. 1903

• Tuberculosis Sanitarium opens in Prescott by Dr. John Flinn. • New Territorial health law is enacted. • At the age of 33, Dr. Rosa Goodrich Boirdo becomes the first woman to be

licensed as a physician in Arizona. 1904 • Pima County Medical Society is organized. 1912 • Reacting to Progressive Era reforms, the Arizona Pure Food Law is adopted. 1917 • Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company purchases 16,000 acres of land west of

Phoenix to grow cotton, used to make rubber tires for airplanes in World War I. Foreign sources of cotton were in war-torn countries or disease ridden.

1931 • Grunow Clinic opens in Phoenix, the first to feature specialists. 1939 • Arizona Hospital Association is formed. September 1947

• The UA School of Pharmacy, the first health sciences college at UA, welcomes its first class of 84 students.

1947

• Dr. John Green, eventual founder of Barrow Neurological Institute, moves to Phoenix and becomes Arizona’s first neurosurgeon.

January 1950 • UA College of Pharmacy receives top accreditation ranking from American Council on Pharmaceutical Education.

1954 • Tuberculosis wing of 100 beds is added to Maricopa County Hospital. 1957 • Arizona becomes last state to get a nursing school, which was housed in UA

College of Liberal Arts and at the private Tucson Medical Center. 1957

• CDC opens its Phoenix Laboratories, one of five major field labs in the nation at the time; it later becomes the national center for hepatitis A and B research on testing and transmission, as well as hospital ‘universal precautions,’ before its closure in 1983.

xii

Date Milestone 1962

• With donations from Charles Barrow and the Sisters of Mercy, Dr. John Green opens Barrow Neurological Institute, where he trained 18 neurosurgeons until his retirement.

1963 • After the proposal to build a medical school at UA squeaked by the Arizona Legislature with a one-vote majority in each house, the Arizona Board of Regents appropriates $160,000 in planning funds and names Dr. Merlin DuVal as dean of the new medical school, which is erected on the site of the old UA polo field.

September 11, 1967

• Under founding Dean Merlin DuVal, the UA College of Medicine admits its first class of 32 students.

1968 • The Central Arizona Project is approved by President Lyndon B. Johnson, assuring future water supplies for Phoenix, Tucson, and the agricultural corridor in between.

1971 • Dr. Edward Diethrich opens the Arizona Heart Institute (AHI), the nation’s first freestanding outpatient clinic devoted solely to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of heart and blood vessel disease.

September 1971

• The UA Teaching Hospital (now University Medical Center) opens it doors, and reduces infant mortality rate in the state by 50 percent in two years.

1972 • The Arizona Cancer Center gets a planning grant from the National Cancer Institute to build a joint clinical and research facility in Tucson.

1973 • With the state legislature, Governor John R. “Jack” Williams creates the Arizona Department of Health Services.

1976 • Arizona Board of Regents approves Arizona Cancer Center as a division of the UA College of Medicine.

1979 • Arizona’s first heart transplant is performed at the UA Medical Center. 1982 • After a vigorous voter referendum movement, Arizona becomes the last state

to establish a Medicaid program. 1984

• Governor Bruce Babbitt creates the Arizona Disease Control Research Commission, whose nine appointed members are given charge of allocating state health-related scientific research dollars.

1986

• Sun Health Research Institute, today one of the pre-eminent research centers for age-related illnesses, opens its doors in the retirement community of Sun City in northwest Phoenix.

1986 • Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson moves from trailer to newly-dedicated Levy Building.

1987

• Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale opens, alongside the main clinic in Rochester, Minnesota and its sister clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.

1990

• Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson is granted ‘comprehensive’ status by the National Cancer Institute.

1992 • First liver transplant at University Medical Center in Tucson.

xiii

Date Milestone July 1, 1992

• UA College of Medicine Phoenix Campus opens, allowing about 40 percent of third- and fourth-year UA medical students to complete their clinical studies in Maricopa County.

1995

• UA College of Nursing is ranked sixth among 491 accredited nursing schools in the U.S., the highest national ranking ever achieved by the College.

1996 • Arizona legislature budgets $1.2 million to fund the first year of operations of a new Arizona Rural Telemedicine Network. The hub of the Network, which has sites throughout the state, is at the Arizona Health Sciences Center (AHSC). The AHSC created the Arizona Telemedicine Program, ranked #1 in the world, to oversee and coordinate telemedicine clinical, educational, and research programs.

1997 • Arizona Bioindustry Cluster is formed. November 2000

• Voters approve Proposition 301, a .6 percent sales tax increase to fund education in Arizona. About 20 percent of those revenues are designated to go to the three public state universities as part of Technology Research and Initiative Fund; in the first years, Prop 301 money is used to build the Biodesign Institute at ASU, BIO5 at UA, and SABRE at NAU.

2001 • UA Science and Technology Park is named #1 research park in the nation by the Association of University Research Parks (AURP).

2001 • Flinn Foundation concentrates its healthcare funding over the next decade (a minimum of $50 million) to advance Arizona’s biosciences sector.

May 1, 2002 • BioIndustry Organization of Southern Arizona (BIO-SA), a 501(c)6 organization, is formed.

June 26, 2002

• Dr. Jeffrey Trent announces that he will move the International Genomics Consortium to Phoenix and lead the new Translational Genomics Research Institute, spurred by a $90 million package rapidly compiled from collaborating public and private sources.

December 2002

• Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap, commissioned by the Flinn Foundation and drafted by Battelle, is presented to the public, examining Arizona’s bioscience sector and outlining recommendations for the state to become a national biosciences leader.

2002 • NAU convenes the Institute of Integrative Biotechnology Research and Education to discuss ways of implementing the Bioscience Roadmap in northern Arizona. [The IIBRE later becomes SABRE.]

2003 • Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community unveils Generation 7, a plan to create a biomedical and high technology corridor equipped with wet lab space along the Pima 101 freeway.

xiv

Date Milestone January 31, 2003

• Governor Janet Napolitano signs an executive order to create the Governor’s Council on Innovation and Technology, a 40-member board of community leaders called on to coordinate and advocate for Arizona’s efforts to advance technology-related growth and economic development.

March 2003

• ASU President Michael Crow announces the creation of Arizona Technology Enterprises, the commercialization arm of ASU in charge of helping ASU researchers obtain patents and start spin-off companies.

April 2003 • Arizona Board of Regents approves a charter for the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative, a joint effort of the three state universities to be headquartered in downtown Phoenix.

April 29, 2003

• Arizona Biodesign Institute (today called the Biodesign Institute at ASU) breaks ground on ASU’s Tempe campus; Dr. George Poste is named its founding director.

June 3, 2003

• Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community formalizes a donation of $5 million to the Translational Genomics Research Institute for research, and forges partnership to cooperate to study diabetes and other diseases of prevalence in the Native American community.

June 13, 2003

• TGen breaks ground on its headquarters in downtown Phoenix.

June 19, 2003

• The state legislature approves $440 million for research facility construction, paving the way for several major projects at the three state universities and downtown Phoenix.

June 20, 2003

• Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap Steering Committee, piloted by former Phoenix Mayor Skip Rimsza, holds its inaugural meeting.

July 1, 2003 • ASU School of Life Sciences, combining the departments of Biology, Microbiology, and Plant Biology, opens its doors.

October 2003 • ASU Technopolis is formed, providing business mentorship, education, and resources to ASU-affiliated life-science entrepreneurs.

November 2003

• Arizona Bioindustry Cluster is reorganized as the Arizona BioIndustry Association, a 501(c)6 trade organization.

November 7, 2003

• Institute for Biomedical Science and Biotechnology (known today as BIO5) breaks ground at UA.

January 2004 • Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, headed by Dan Sarewitz, follows ASU President Michael Crow from Columbia University to ASU.

August 4, 2004

• Governor Janet Napolitano, UA President Peter Likins, ASU President Michael Crow, and Regent Gary Stuart sign memorandum of understanding for the creation of the UA Phoenix Biomedical Campus, to include an extension of the UA College of Medicine in partnership with ASU; the declaration ends decades of debate on whether Phoenix should have an allopathic medical school.

xv

Date Milestone August 2004

• ASU Foundation gains approval to buy Los Arcos Mall property from the City of Scottsdale to build the future Scottsdale Center for New Technology and Innovation.

October 2004

• The CardioWest total artificial heart, developed by University of Arizona researchers, is the first implantable artificial heart to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. A so-called “bridge to transplant,” the device keeps heart failure patients alive until they receive a heart transplant. In the January 2005, the American Heart Association deems the CardioWest total artificial heart the top advance of 2004.

October 19, 2004

• Governor Janet Napolitano appoints the 10-member Arizona Commission on Medical Education and Research (ACMER) to expand the capacity of the biomedical education and research programs of the Arizona university system. This is to be accomplished by expanding the UA College of Medicine and College of Pharmacy programs to the Phoenix Biomedical Campus, and relocating the ASU College of Nursing nearby. It also includes building more programs and facilities on the Phoenix Biomedical Campus in conjunction with ASU and one or more Phoenix area hospitals currently participating in the current College of Medicine teaching programs there.

November 2, 2004

• Proposition 102, the “tech transfer amendment” that would generate revenue by enabling university researchers to take equity in ventures stemming from their technologies is narrowly defeated by Arizona voters, surprising the biotech community. On the same date, Maricopa County voters approve a bond issue that includes $100 million to expand bioscience and healthcare training for Maricopa County Colleges.

December 14, 2004

• The $73 million, 170,000 square-foot Biodesign Institute at ASU building is dedicated.

February 2005

• Arizona Board of Regents approves the creation of the Critical Path to Accelerate Therapies Institute (C-Path) a Tucson-based coalition of the FDA, UA, and SRI International of California; the Institute’s mission is to find innovate ways to cut down on the cost and time of bringing a drug to market.

March 2005

• The “Meds and Eds” report is published, outlining a strategy for Arizona to ramp up its bioscience and educational efforts, in part by building the UA Phoenix medical school.

March 22, 2005

• A full slate of political and scientific dignitaries christens the opening of TGen’s headquarters, marking the completion of the first building at the Phoenix Bioscience Center in downtown Phoenix.

May 15, 2005

• Governor Janet Napolitano signs a bill to stimulate investment in early-stage technology firms. The legislation enables “angel” investors to secure tax credits of 30 percent for investment in tech firms and 35 percent for biotech and rural companies.

xvi

Date Milestone June 2005 • BIO5 and Phoenix-based World Wide Wheat L.L.C. announce a partnership

to develop new wheat, barley, and oat varieties that will help reduce obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cholesterol levels, and cancer.

Spring 2005 • Arizona Board of Regents approves the creation of the Strategic Alliance for Bioscience Research and Education at NAU, a research consortium of faculty and community members in northern Arizona.

August 12, 2005

• Arizona Disease Control Research Commission becomes the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission.

August 2005 • The new Biotech and Genomics Law masters program at ASU School of Law, the first of its kind in the nation, welcomes its inaugural class of 13.

August 2005 • Together with other partners of an international consortium, researchers at the UA’s plant sciences department and BIO5 Institute publish the finished genetic sequence of the rice plant.

2

2 Sources: “Healthseekers in Arizona,” Flinn Foundation, Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona Health Sciences Center, C-Path, Arizona State University, CDC, Arizona Medical Board, Arizona Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic.

xvii

Chapter 1: Dream

What are the Biosciences and Biotechnology?

1

Chapter 1: Dream What are the Biosciences and Biotechnology?

Arizona’s position in the biosciences

In 2002, a coalition of business, government, and civic leaders from throughout Arizona adopted

the comprehensive “Bioscience Roadmap,” a long-term strategy to advance the biosciences

sector and ensure that the state has a seat at the emerging “century of biology” table. The study

concluded that Arizona has many of the essential elements needed to become a national leader in

niche areas of the biosciences, but must strengthen its medical research and build a critical mass

of bioscience firms and jobs.

The study outlined a ten-year roadmap that could “fast-track” Arizona on a path to achieve

national bioscience stature and a diversified economy. The findings described the need for

increased public and private sector investments, plus collaboration among Arizona’s higher

education, industry, and nonprofit sectors.

The Battelle study recommended that Arizona concentrate its efforts on three scientific

disciplines in which it is positioned to achieve near-term (3–5 years) national prominence if well-

organized and funded: bioengineering, cancer research, and neurological sciences, as well as

emerging areas such as asthma, diabetes, infectious diseases, and agricultural biotechnology.

Work throughout 2003 focused on developing comprehensive action plans for the three near-

term areas as well as three economic development areas identified as critical: capital formation,

entrepreneurial assistance, and facilities.

2

One of the fastest-growing sectors of the economy, the biosciences offer an opportunity to

establish a high-wage, technology-driven employment base of highly skilled workers.

According to the Battelle study, the biosciences build upon Arizona’s strengths in electronics,

optics, and advanced engineering, and would bring stability to the state’s economy by balancing

more cyclical industries.

The biosciences encompass a number of subsectors and various economic opportunities,

including: organic and agricultural chemicals; drugs and pharmaceuticals; medical devices and

instruments; hospitals and laboratories; and bioscience research and testing. Figure 1-1

illustrates the industry segments that make up the biosciences cluster, as defined by Battelle, and

recognized by BIO, the national biotechnology industry association.

Figure 1-1: What comprises the biosciences?

3

Agricultural, Feedstock, and Chemicals

The agricultural feedstock and chemicals subsector focuses on practical implementation of

biotechnologies using bioresources. Based in human, animal, and plant sciences, the subsector

seeks industrial applications geared toward production agriculture, energy, industrial

commodities, and specialty health products.

Principal Components Examples of Products Examples of Companies • Organic and agricultural

chemicals • Agricultural processing

• Nutritionally enhanced, genetically engineered, insect-resistant crops

• Ethanol and biodiesel fuels • Biodegradable materials

synthesized from plant-based feedstock

• AG D-Tox, LLC, Scottsdale

• Borden Chemical, Inc., Phoenix

• Innovion Corp., Chandler • Martin Biochem, Inc.,

Snowflake • ViTech Industries, Inc.,

Phoenix

Drugs and Pharmaceuticals

The drugs and pharmaceuticals subsector is mature and developed and includes the majority of

commercially available medicinal and diagnostic substances. It is generally characterized by

large multinational firms, actively seeking R&D opportunities that improve the speed and

efficiency of drug discovery to bring products to market for multiple disease areas.

Principal Components Examples of Products Examples of Companies • Therapeutics • Diagnostic substances

• Vaccines • Cancer treatments • Herbal supplements and

vitamins • Tissue and cell culture

media • Delivery platforms

• Arizona Research Center, Phoenix

• Dade Behring, Inc., Tempe• Genetech, Inc., Mesa • GeoSensor Corp., Tempe • Imarx Therapeutics, Inc.,

Tucson • Norchem Drug Testing

Lab, Flagstaff

4

Medical Devices and Equipment

Medical devices and equipment companies represent a highly diverse set of activities that

involve physical products for diagnostics, therapeutics, surgical applications, and equipment and

supplies for healthcare delivery.

Principal Components Examples of Products Examples of Companies • Equipment and supplies • Devices

• Minimally invasive surgical equipment

• Systems manufactured from biomaterials

• Therapeutic implantable devices

• Biomarker Technologies, Phoenix

• D Metrix, Inc., Tucson • Medtronic, Scottsdale • Regenesis Biomedical,

Scottsdale • Three Rivers, Mesa • W.L. Gore, Flagstaff

Hospitals and Laboratories

Hospitals provide medical, surgical, or psychiatric care and treatment for the sick or the injured.

Laboratories are those workplaces where scientific and medical research is conducted.

Principal Components Examples of Products Examples of Companies • Hospitals • Laboratories

• Surgical services • Healthcare services • Lab test results • Imaging tests

• AmeriScan, Scottsdale • Banner Good Samaritan

Medical Center, Phoenix • St. Joseph’s Hospital and

Medical Center, Phoenix • Ponderosa Dental Lab,

Prescott • Sonora Quest

Laboratories, Phoenix • TMC Healthcare, Tucson • Yuma Regional Medical

Center

5

Research and Testing

The research and testing subsector covers a broad base of activities that range from highly

research-oriented, cutting-edge companies seeking to commercially advance the latest

breakthrough technologies in drug discovery and delivery systems, to more service-oriented

firms engaged in research and testing services, such as food safety, preclinical animal modeling,

and high-throughput analysis.

Principal Components Examples of Products Examples of Companies • Research laboratories • Testing laboratories

• Preclinical drug therapeutics

• Human growth hormones • Monoclonal antibodies • Protein receptors • Drug discovery techniques • Drug delivery technology

• Aventis Pharmaceuticals Combinatorial Tech Center, Tucson

• CellzDirect, Inc., Tucson • DNA Diagnostics

Laboratories, Phoenix • High Throughput

Genomics, Inc., Tucson • Niadyne, Inc., Tucson

No region or state can lay claim to expertise and the potential for economic competitiveness in

all five subsectors. Arizona’s current industry strengths are in medical devices and in its

growing healthcare facilities. The Bioscience Roadmap suggests that Arizona will achieve

future success by investing in and building world-class research, clinical, and product excellence

around these selective bioscience research platforms beginning with cancer therapeutics,

bioengineering, and neurosciences within five years. Success of a research platform is

determined by the ability to pursue a “translational model” in which basic research and enabling

technologies (e.g., bioimaging and bioinformatics) lead to applied research that both improves

clinical treatment and enhances market opportunities.

6

Arizona’s Bioscience Technology Platforms

Near-Term Technology Platforms

Identifying how Arizona’s bioscience building blocks are linked together reveals that the

technology platforms are limited, in large part, because of the current need for a stronger basic

biological research capacity in Arizona.

• Bioscience Instruments and Devices (Bioengineering) -- A revolution is taking place in

advanced medical treatments involving the convergence of non-bioscience technologies to

advance biomedical applications. At its core, bioengineering bridges the engineering,

physical, life, and medical sciences. It is concerned with applying principles and methods

from engineering to understand, define, and solve problems in medicine, physiology, and

biology. Arizona’s strength in physical sciences, documented by National Science

Foundation data on research expenditures and by publications activities, provides a

significant base upon which to pursue bioengineering applications. Peer-reviewed grant

activity and interviews with researches point to a critical mass of research in medical imaging

and growing interest in this area, both for its contribution to clinical studies and genera

medical diagnostics. In addition, opportunities for local company interactions seem strong.

Overall, biomedical devices is one more sizable and fast-growing bioscience sectors in

Arizona. Interviews with researches identified a growing number of company interactions

and common development interests.

• Cancer Drug Discovery and Development (Cancer Therapeutics) -- Cancer diseases are

the second leading cause of death in the U.S. and presently have no known cure. There is no

7

one underlying cause of cancer, but many; and so no single treatment can be expected.

Nevertheless, what is common across cancer diseases is the runaway growth of mutated cells

as a result of either inherited genetic mutations or genetic interaction with environmental

factors. The key fundamental mechanisms of cancer diseases are either rapid development of

mutated cells or a defect in a tumor-suppressor gene that no longer halts excessive cell

division. Advances in new therapies can be of great significance, given that the traditional

treatment of cancer using chemotherapy and radiation has not changed radically over the past

two decades. A distinguishing feature of Arizona’s cancer research is its depth in advancing

innovative new cancer therapies.

• Neurological Diseases and Rehabilitation (Neurological Sciences) -- Neurological

disorders represent one of the largest and fastest-growing segments for therapeutics,

involving a broad range of treatments that include anxiety, depression, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s

disease, Parkinson’s disease, and multiple sclerosis, among others. Most of these therapeutic

approaches are palliatives; there are no definitive cures yet for nearly all of these types of

neurological and psychiatric disorders. In addition, major central nervous system injuries

pose key challenges for rehabilitation.

Given the complexity of the brain, the most promising therapeutic strategies likely are to

combine understanding of brain function from several systems, involving behavioral

neurosciences, as well as traditional drug development strategies that use molecular biology,

organic chemistry, and pharmacology.

8

Arizona has a strong core of neurological expertise within universities and medical centers as

demonstrated by the award of peer-reviewed grants for neurological studies of various kinds.

In addition, Arizona demonstrates strong publications/citations activity in related research

fields of neurosciences, psychology, and neurology. This neurological-focused core

competency appears to be a very robust technology platform. While the Battelle team

interviews suggest that most research is in basic science, there is also substantial translation

and clinical work in Alzheimer’s disease and some in Parkinson’s disease and epilepsy. In

addition, there is a core of well-funded work in motor control. What makes Arizona distinct

is that research drivers in the state not only address therapies to treat neurological-related

disorders themselves, but they also have a strong focus on rehabilitation to deal with the

conditions related to these disorders.

Long-Term or Niche Technology Platforms

• Ag-Biotechnology -- Applying the tools of biotechnology to plants and animals offers

substantial opportunities. In plant science, increased resistance to insects and improved traits

are advanced using genetic engineering. Moreover, genetic engineering and other

biotechnology applications are improving the diagnosis and treatment of animal diseases.

Innovative cross-over applications are also possible with advances in biotechnology, such as

nutraceuticals in which biologically modified food sources are used to deliver specific

therapeutic effects.

In Arizona, plant genetics is an area of concentration in grant activity as well as a leading

area of publications activity. This research provides fundamental understanding of genetic

9

mechanisms in plant structure, functions and diseases. It offers a basic research foundation

for addressing agriculture-related efforts. In addition, a base of potential industry partners

appears to be growing in the state. The organic and agricultural chemical industry in Arizona

is showing signs of underlying strength. Employment tripled from 1995 to 2001, adding

1,263 jobs across Arizona; whereas, the subsector added only 12.9 percent in terms of

employment nationwide. About half of this increase is due to the success and expansion of

one company, Apache Nitrogen Products, Inc., of Benson. The rest of the employment

increase is attributable to new or relocated industrial chemical and fertilizer firms, and the

growth of existing chemical firms. These include Tessenderlo Kerley, an arm of the Belgian

company, Tessenderlo, producing chemicals for agriculture and mining; Fertizona, a

fertilizer manufacturer founded and headquartered in Casa Grande; and Gowan Milling, a

chemical analysis and packaging company in Yuma. A growing cluster of firms are

interested in nutraceuticals, including Marlyn Nutraceuticals and Zila.

Food and agricultural biotechnology is a key focus for the agribusiness sector. The U.S.

market for genetically engineered crops was more than $15 billion in 1999. From 1996 to

1998, acreage for genetically engineered crops grew from 8 million to 50 million. The retail

market for functional foods is estimated to be growing at 16 percent per year, reaching $17

billion in 2000. Finally, food safety diagnostics is another growing area. The detection and

diagnostic market is expected to grow from $250 million to $1 billion over the next five

years with advanced immunoassay and other probe technologies.

10

• Asthma -- Asthma is a chronic, inflammatory lung disease characterized by recurrent

breathing problems. People with asthma have airways that narrow more easily than non-

asthmatics and are usually allergic to inhaled allergens. The causes of the airway

abnormality and its relationship to being allergic are not known. Multiple factors seem

associated with asthma, and each person with asthma reacts to a different set of factors.

Identification of these factors in an individual is a major step toward learning how to control

an asthma attack. Much study is underway on the role of genetic factors in asthma.

• Diabetes -- Endocrine diseases focus on hormones such as insulin that are vital to the

management of bodily systems. Diabetes is a disease resulting from deregulated metabolism

of carbohydrates. It’s a disease of special concern to Arizona’s Native American and

Hispanic populations.

• Infectious Diseases -- Infectious diseases are in the headlines because of new threats of

bioterrorism. Infectious diseases comprise a large family of diseases characterized by an

attack on the body by an external organism. Four major categories of infectious diseases

exist: bacterial infections; viral infections running the gamut from the common cold to

HIV/AIDS; fungal infections responsible for a variety of conditions that usually occur in

moist tissue, including thrush in the throat or mouth and athlete’s foot, as well as eye and ear

infections; and parasitic infections such as malaria and tapeworms.

11

Summary of Arizona’s Bioscience Technology Platform Opportunities

The following chart summarizes the three near-term and four long-term technology platforms –

the foundational strength upon which to build Arizona’s bioscience and biotechnology base.

Technology Platform Basic Research Enabling Technology Applications Areas judged by Battelle to have near-term growth potential over the next five years Bioengineering Physical

Sciences • Bioengineering • Optics • Materials • Analytical

Chemistry • Electronics • Imaging • Computer Science

• Imaging & Diagnostics

• Implants • Prosthetics • Robotic Systems

Cancer Therapeutics Genomics • Drug Discovery • Clinical Research

• Anticancer Drugs • Pancreatic Cancer • Colon Cancer • Environmental Links

to Cancer Neurological Sciences Neurobiology • Neural Engineering

• Motor Control • Imaging • Clinical Research • Insect Science

• Alzheimer’s Disease • Parkinson’s Disease • Epilepsy • Rehabilitation

Areas judged by Battelle to be opportunities for future development Ag-Biotechnology Plant Genomics • Crop Development

• Nutraceuticals Asthma Genetics • Clinical Research • Asthma Diabetes • Clinical Research

• Stress Research • Diabetes

Infectious Diseases Microbiology • Plant Vaccine • Development • Ecology &

Evolutionary • Biology

• Anthrax, Plague, and Other Pathogens

• Plant Vaccine Development

• Valley Fever

12

Building a bioscience-driven economy

Continued investments in research, facilities, faculty, and technology commercialization will

enable Arizona to become

stronger in the

medical devices and

healthcare sectors, but

also to emerge as a

center of excellence

in other segments of

the biosciences.

Evidence collected by

Battelle suggests that the key success factors to position Arizona as a major center in the

biosciences require a number of actions outlined in Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-2: Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap

Key factors for success are:

• Engaged universities with active leadership in linking the classroom, the research bench, and

the patient bed.

• World-class, multi-disciplinary research in key niches with access to specialized facilities

and equipment across institutions and industries.

• Nurturing entrepreneurial cultures with intensive networking across sectors and industry in

the spirit of collaboration.

• Discretionary research dollars to pursue ideas and knowledge leading to technologies and

applications.

13

• Means to turn research into technology through translational and transformational

mechanisms of technology commercialization.

• A robust translational research capacity that helps improves healthcare access and quality.

• An extensive talent pool in all parts of the state, from technicians to graduates and post-

doctorates, who are knowledgeable about the emerging trends, fields, and applications.

The bioethics of the biosciences

Although the biosciences and biotechnology hold tremendous promise to improve the quality of

life, a full appreciation of their impact demands that ethical, legal, and societal implications be

considered. It is also necessary to understand innovations in the context of their historical

development and assess their impacts on the people who will be affected. According to ASU

Regents’ Professor Jane Maienschein, Director of ASU’s Center for Biology and Society at ASU

and a historian-philosopher of science involved with bioethics and policy:

The biosciences, biotechnology, and clinical medicine are currently in the process

of rapid innovation leading to marvelous possibilities for changes in healthcare,

the course of human life, and the environment. Along with the exciting

possibilities come ethical challenges for scientists, healthcare workers, and

citizens generally. The ethical, legal, and social implications of such research

areas as the Human Genome Project and nanotechnology, to take but two obvious

examples, remain yet to be fully articulated.

14

Advances in these fields offer great promise, but historical, philosophical, ethical,

and political perspectives should inform our decisions about which sciences to

pursue and which developments to embrace. We should strive to understand the

interactions between advances in science and technology and the myriad of

related complex human issues surrounding healthcare and our expectations as

citizens of a free society. For example, do we choose to pursue the dream of

regenerative medicine if it requires harvesting stem cells from embryos, or do we

make it a priority to invest in discovering alternative stem cell technologies? Do

we accept the sorts of nano-neuro enhancements that some researchers envision if

social groups reject such manipulating of “human nature?” Are these sorts of

enhancements, genetic manipulations through cloning, or recombining DNA

progress, or are they violations of “human dignity?” We should look to develop

ways of negotiating social decisions, looking at the impacts and outcomes as well

as the scientific knowledge generation and the technological applications.

Through the curricula in our schools and universities we have the opportunity to

cultivate better-informed and more effective policymakers, teachers, writers, and

researchers in areas related to biology, medicine, and society. We have the

exciting prospects of helping to chart the interface between biology and society,

with its medical and legal implications, and to become a more scientifically

literate society, able to make informed choices about our own well-being.

15

Chapter 2: Discover and Design

Why Bioscience and Biotechnology in Arizona?

16

Chapter 2: Discover and Design Why Bioscience and Biotechnology in Arizona?

Research universities have been a primary driver of economic prosperity for decades. Every $1

in higher education generates $5 additional investment in the economy, and every $1 million in

research performed within higher education generates 36 jobs.3 It has been estimated that 60 to

75 percent of economic growth in the past decade has been driven by technological advances,

and that since 1990 all major technological advances have been made possible by fundamental

academic research. The diversity of the bioscience sector places it at the center of the

technology economy, serving as a focal point for the continuing convergence of technologies

from information and computing to advanced manufacturing. Developing the biosciences in

Arizona can build from existing economic strengths of the state -- such as electronics, optics, and

plastics -- and offer opportunities for bringing together competencies to establish depth as well as

breadth of expertise. Applications and spin-offs from the biosciences may help boost other

technology-based industries, including advanced manufacturing and information technologies.

Arizona’s Bioscience SWOT

One strategic planning tool many organizations use to assess their standing in the environment is

a SWOT analysis. SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. In

2002 leaders in Arizona’s business, government, and non-profit world, involved in some aspect

3 “Shaping the Future – the Economic Impact of Public Universities,” National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, August 2001. “Employment Impacts of Academic R&D – FY 2000,” Association of American Universities.

17

of the biosciences and biotechnology, convened to undertake a thorough review of Arizona’s

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in the biosciences.

Strengths

Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap, using sophisticated quantitative and qualitative analysis,

identified both near- and long-term research competencies and technology platform niches where

Arizona excels and has the potential to be internationally competitive. For the near-term

platforms (bioengineering, cancer therapeutics, and neurosciences), committees were formed

including participants from the universities, hospitals, TGen, and other organizations. During

the past eighteen months participants worked to develop specific recommendations designed to

lead Arizona to national and international excellence. These platform reports have been

completed, and the investments needed for national excellence identified.

Research collaboration appears to be stronger in Arizona than in many other parts of the country

and world. A spirit of collaboration in research has emerged in recent years, best epitomized by

TGen’s successes in building collaborative teams among the state’s research universities and

teaching hospitals, including submission of joint proposals to federal and state funding agencies.

A recent visit by an Eli Lilly & Co. assessment team commented on the unprecedented degree of

collaboration that was evident among Arizona cancer researchers.

Arizona’s advanced communications and information technology industry is a significant part of

the Arizona economy, accounting for 9.4 percent of all private sector employment and a majority

of the state’s foreign exports. It represents a large and concentrated sector employing over

18

180,000 people with a concentration 8 percent greater than the nation. Arizona’s future in the

biosciences and healthcare sectors depends on the strength of the IT industry. IT integration is

required to perform laboratory analysis and precision manufacturing. Computer systems

applications that are capable of handling large data sets are critical to TGen and the state’s

universities. Medical instruments and devices embed IT technologies into their manufacturing

and product content. Telemedicine capabilities are essential to rural and satellite sites as are

advances in telecommunications infrastructure and wireless technologies. Success in advancing

a bioscience industry can not be realized without strong IT/communications industries. Arizona

has a mature communications/IT base on which to further build its bioscience future.

The Arizona Legislature, Governor, and citizenry through ballot initiatives have demonstrated an

interest in further strengthening the state’s bioscience research enterprise: (1) passage of

Proposition 301 providing research dollars to the universities; (2) passage of state tobacco tax

increase with a portion of that increase dedicated to bioscience research through the Arizona

Biomedical Research Commission (formerly known as the Arizona Disease Control Research

Commission); (3) enactment of an historic $440 million in state funds for additional research

facilities at the state’s research universities; and (4) enactment of local bond initiatives for

community colleges, such as the recently passed Maricopa Community Colleges $951 million

issue (approximately $100 million of which addresses additional facilities for producing the

knowledge workers needed in the future).

Business groups and organizations in all parts of the state have focused attention on the

importance of technology-driven economic development in their business recruitment,

19

expansion, and start-up efforts. In so doing, they have increasingly recognized the importance of

strong research. This has also been demonstrated by alumni and business contributions to

Arizona’s public universities and TGen. These contributions represent concrete examples where

the mobilization of business and philanthropic support for the biosciences is occurring.

Weaknesses

Historically, major factors holding Arizona back in securing additional federal research funding

have been a lack of adequate facilities, faculty, equipment, laboratories, and recruitment

packages to attract and retain talented researchers. In the past several years, progress has been

made, exemplified by the $440 million investment in research facilities approved by the State

Legislature. But there continues to be a need to find resources for additional faculty, equipment,

and laboratories if the facilities now being constructed are to be fully optimized to leverage

federal, private, and other research dollars into Arizona.

Arizona also lacks the research depth and critical mass of researchers necessary to remain

competitive without obtaining additional resources to explore new fields and areas; attract

additional faculty to compete for federal, industrial, and philanthropic funds; retain senior-level

scientists; and attract the emerging stars of tomorrow. This is true even in the most advanced

areas of research competency.

For Arizona to fully participate in the bioscience revolution, it should not only invest in research,

but also see the results of that research translated into firms and products as well as improved

healthcare. In 2004, Arizona had 188 establishments employing 5,300 persons in the non-

20

hospital segments of the biosciences cluster: agriculture biotech, drugs and pharmaceuticals,

medical devices and equipment, and research and testing industry. As Figure 2-1 illustrates, the

largest segment is medical devices and instruments with 80 establishments employing 3,300

individuals in 2004. Hospitals and laboratories represent the largest segment of the biosciences

industry, accounting for 93 percent of the state’s bioscience employment, with 435

establishments employing 68,100 employees in 2004. Arizona in 2004 was 39 percent as

concentrated as the U.S. in biosciences excluding hospitals, and hospitals were 84 percent as

concentrated as the country,

suggesting the lack of a

critical mass in either non-

hospital or hospital

employment in the

biosciences today.

Generally, hospitals,

bioscience firms, and

universities are not as well

connected as they could be,

although in recent years

efforts have been made to

build stronger relationships.

AZ Non-Hospital

AgrDruMedRes

Hospitals & Laboratories

Research & Testing

Medical Devices & Instruments

Non-Hospital Biosciences

Organic & Agricultural Chemicals

Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

93%

7%

10%

18%

61%

11%

2004Share of Bioscience Employment

AZ Non-Hospital

AgrDruMedRes

Hospitals & Laboratories

Research & Testing

Medical Devices & Instruments

Non-Hospital Biosciences

Organic & Agricultural Chemicals

Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

93%

7%

10%

18%

61%

11%

2004

AZ Non-Hospital

AgrDruMedRes

Hospitals & Laboratories

Research & Testing

Medical Devices & Instruments

Non-Hospital Biosciences

Organic & Agricultural Chemicals

Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

93%

7%

10%

18%

61%

11%

2004Share of Bioscience Employment

Figure 2-1: Arizona’s bioscience composition

Arizona ranks very low in access to formal venture capital and in the presence of angel networks

and private investors willing to make early-stage, pre-seed investments in start-up bioscience

21

firms (see Figure 2-2). Arizona’s limited venture firms are primarily focused on IT and related

areas, rather than the biosciences. Until Arizona has sufficient private investment dollars

available for early-stage investments in start-up bioscience firms, it will be severely limited in

building the critical mass of companies resulting from investments in the research infrastructure.

Figure 2-2: Arizona’s bioscience venture capital investments

$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Q1, 2005Year

Invested VC Funds

Biotechnology & PharmaceuticalsHealthcare/Managed Care ServicesMedical Devices & Equipment

Due to the historic lack of sufficient facilities and research faculty, the state’s public research

universities have been constrained in their ability to secure important federal dollars. The

inability to hire faculty compounds the problem of either being able to compete for funds, or, if

successful, to secure the resources to complete the work. While the state’s institutions have

research strengths, they cannot scale them up to sufficient global stature without funds to retain

22

existing faculty, recruit new faculty, equip laboratories, and offer the enhancement or

endowment packages to compete with leading private and public research universities.

Arizona lacks the linkages

between and among its

research institutions,

teaching hospitals, and

related groups and

organizations to fill the

“missing link” between

fundamental research and

patient/consumer

treatment, prevention,

products, or processes. If it is to be a national and international leader in translational and

transformation research in its targeted niches or platforms, Arizona should develop the

mechanisms, programs, and related infrastructure as outlined in Figure 2-3. Bioscience-focused

research universities and medical institutions are the “melting pot” that combines biological

scientists, medical engineers, research funding, and new ideas into biological inventions and

products.

Figure 2-3: Moving from research to market

Today, Arizona is simply not producing nor attracting enough workers to handle existing

healthcare service patient loads. The “Meds and Eds” report cites the shortage of nurses:

Arizona has only 0.2 percent of the nation’s nurses with 2 percent of the nation’s population.

23

There is a 15 percent vacancy rate in the industry; and the state graduates 1,200 RNs per year

whereas there is capacity to graduate 1,700 students.

A recent study funded by the Flinn Foundation, Legacy Foundation, and St. Luke’s Health

Initiatives determined that the Arizona physician workforce increased by 50 percent from 8,026

physicians in active practice in 1994 to 12,024 in December 2004. The increase in the physician

workforce outpaced the increase in the Arizona population during the same decade resulting in

an increase in the physician to population ratio from 190/100,000 to 207/100,000. However, the

physician to population ratio in Arizona is still far below the national average of 283/100,000.

Arizona lags in cutting-edge research, the translation of that research to the bedside in patient

care, and the incorporation of technologies into clinical care because of its insufficient number of

medical school graduates, the need to recruit its healthcare workforce primarily from outside the

state, and the underinvestment over many decades in medical college education and research.

Private sector leaders in information technology and medical devices and the state’s research and

clinical communities have rarely capitalized on these industry strengths to drive medical

innovation treatment and delivery within Arizona.

Opportunities

Arizona need not become a research performer in all bioscience fields, such as Silicon Valley or

Boston. Instead, by focusing and encouraging collaboration around its near- and long-term

niches and technology platforms, and differentiating itself because of its unprecedented

collaboration among institutions along the continuum of research to clinical care, Arizona can be

24

selectively strong and deep, using these areas to further build its stature. The establishment of

TGen, expansion of a medical school presence in Phoenix, and formation of C-Path in Tucson,

are concrete examples of new asset creation to further the state’s bioscience efforts.

Research contributes to breakthroughs in the diseases that have historically ravaged civilizations,

enabling us to conquer the frontiers of such diseases as smallpox, polio, and malaria. Genomics,

proteomics, and bioinformatics represent the potential for predictive customized medicine

individualized to the patient. Combining IT tools, nanotechnology, and the biosciences will

enable further breakthroughs. Arizona is positioning itself to become a leader in genomics

medicine and its applications to diseases such as asthma, diabetes, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s,

and to such fields as agriculture biotechnology, bioengineering, infectious diseases, and

neurosciences. Building Arizona’s capacities in translational research can position Arizona to be

a leading center for catalyzing the research discovery to medical application and treatment

process and pipeline that is a cause of national concern today by both NIH and FDA.

Arizona’s special populations, including Native Americans, Hispanics, and senior citizens, offer

opportunities to address specific diseases and undertake research and clinical studies that only a

few other parts of the world could conduct (e.g., tissue banks, gene traits, or other data and

information essential to the applications of genomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics).

Arizona’s leadership can come together more easily, reach consensus, develop a plan of action,

and steward this plan over a period of years because it is a state without a long history of

entrenched institutions and the associated impediments, barriers, and structures they tend to

25

create that thwart initiative and action. A “can do” practical approach to seizing opportunities

gives Arizona a “leg-up” to “catch-up” and overtake others states and regions in the biosciences.

Other states and regions have recognized, sooner than Arizona, the importance of the

biosciences, giving them a head start to advocate, catalyze, and build support for this area. By

bringing together the academic, private sector, government, and philanthropy, other states and

regions have focused attention on long-term investments whose payoffs may be realized in a

decade or more. By building industry, government, and higher education partnerships, increased

technology commercialization, whether it is directed at patient care, treatment, and prevention, or

at new products introduced for the consumer or supplier is being realized.

Arizona has an opportunity to form a coalition, based on the strengths earlier identified,

including the strong base of collaboration already underway. The alliance called for in Arizona’s

Bioscience Roadmap has been given renewed impetus from the “Meds and Eds” report calling

for the creation of a permanent organization of CEOs and others leaders in the “meds and eds”

field (i.e., biotechnology business leaders, government agencies, healthcare providers, hospitals,

and universities) so that Arizona will stay on course over the time it takes to emerge as a first-tier

bioscience leader.

However, rather than forming another organization, a “virtual” statewide advocacy coalition is

now being recommended as a next step. By partnering with existing advocacy and economic

development organizations from every corner of the state and the Flinn Foundation-sponsored

Bioscience Roadmap Steering Committee, this “virtual” coalition would sustain and increase the

26

bioscience momentum and help to ensure support for world-class research. An active and

energized coalition of bioscience and health organizations represents a strong value-added

proposition for the state and its citizenry.

Threats

In recent months, California voters successfully passed a stem-cell initiative dedicating $3 billion

over the next ten years to this important area of bioscience research. California’s success led

states such as Wisconsin to consider similar investments ($750 million). And the State of

Washington in the past few months has earmarked nearly $350 million from its future tobacco

settlement dollars for biomedical research. Pennsylvania already invests $2 billion over 25 years

in the biosciences. In short, a number of states recognize that their economic future is dependent

on diversifying their economies around a strong research area such as the biosciences.

Already, the University of Arizona has seen a loss of key water experts to California and optics

scientists and engineers to Georgia. California’s recent passage of $3 billion to be invested in

stem cell research is causing concerns in the Northeast and Midwest that a brain drain of

biosciences talent from their states to California will occur. Many other examples abound.

Generally, public universities do not have access to “recruitment funds” to retain such national

expertise, although the Arizona Legislature and Governor have in the past two years provided

limited funds for this effort. Addressing the needs for further investment in facilities, faculty,

research, equipment, and labs is critical to protect Arizona’s intellectual capital.

27

Arizona has traditionally under-invested in its universities’ research enterprise. Arizona has no

private research universities, as compared to states such as California, Illinois, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. If the state’s current bioscience research niches

are not invested in now, other states and regions are likely to overcome Arizona’s current

advantages, surpassing Arizona. A coalition of engaged leaders is one way to build awareness

and make the case for such further investments in the state’s biosciences.

If the graduates of Arizona’s science and technology programs cannot find jobs in the state, they

will be forced to look elsewhere. However, the solution to this problem is not to decrease

enrollments. Arizona has already seen a decline, as has the nation, in graduate degrees in key

science and technology fields. Rather, Arizona should focus on changing the economic base of

the state so there are firms that demand and hire such graduates. That is what has happened at

Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, where for many years graduates left the state. Today,

not only are most of its research graduates employed within North Carolina, but the state has also

attracted workers from outside the region. A similar story is unfolding in Georgia. Creating the

right investment and infrastructure for talented researchers to take advantage of opportunities to

combine world-class research and world-class medical practice will help retain our talent and our

graduates – leveraging our investment in the biosciences.

Bioscience Roadmap progress

As a result of a thorough analysis and discussion of Arizona’s strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, and threats in the biosciences, Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap recommends four

strategies and 19 actions (through 2012) to position Arizona to become a major national player in

28

select fields of the biosciences by focusing on collaborations among its research universities,

health centers, federal facilities, and non-profits such as TGen. The Bioscience Roadmap calls

for $1.4 billion in investments from private and public sources over a ten-year period, which, in

turn, leverages an additional $2.8 billion in federal and other funds.

Since 2002 significant progress has been made to implement the Bioscience Roadmap:

• State legislative and executive branch investment of $440 million in research facilities,

primarily in the biosciences, and additional state investments through Proposition 301 and

the tobacco-tax initiative for bioscience research.

• Attraction and location of TGen in Phoenix, including investments of nearly $100 million

for, among other things, start-up costs, construction of a new downtown facility to house

researchers, and facilitate the spin-off of the for-profit Molecular Profiling Institute in

Phoenix and nonprofit TD2 (TGen’s drug-development services unit) in Scottsdale.

• Unprecedented collaboration among research universities and increasingly with health

centers in bioscience research.

• Plans underway to create a Phoenix Biomedical Campus, expand the state’s medical school

capacity, develop an additional research park near Arizona State University, and create a new

biosciences park in Tucson anchored by an innovative drug institute, the Critical Path

Institute (C-Path).

• Universities have begun to align faculty and facility investments with Bioscience Roadmap

actions, and each of the near-term bioscience initiative program plans was completed

identifying needed investments in faculty, equipment, support, and services.

29

While much progress has been made toward Bioscience Roadmap targets, additional steps and

actions need to be addressed by the philanthropic, private, and public sectors. Specifically:

• For the three near-term research niches that provide Arizona with opportunities to excel

nationally, the Bioscience Roadmap calls for additional funding for labs, equipment, faculty,

technicians, and other items estimated to cost between $520 and $685 million. In addition,

funding for long-term research niches will need to be identified and supported. The initial

estimate of these costs in the Bioscience Roadmap was $356 million. Additional revenue

sources will also be required to address cross-cutting areas serving all platforms such as bio-

imaging, tissue banks, and others.

• For various science, education, and technology commercialization activities outlined in the

Bioscience Roadmap, resources not yet identified total at least $35 million annually and $220

million in one-time funding.

• Total additional investments in the biosciences, primarily program support, will require $1.1

billion in investments by 2012 or $110 million annually.

Besides resource issues, other unfinished agenda items in the Bioscience Roadmap remain:

• Completing program plans for long-term research niches.

• Addressing capital formation needs, especially pre-seed funding.

• Developing an industry matching program.

• Providing Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) support.

• Addressing technology commercialization initiatives.

• Branding and marketing Arizona as a bioscience, technology, and innovation center of

excellence.

30

Arizona functions in a competitive environment – nationally and internationally. Unless it

continues to make the necessary investments in the biosciences, it may lose opportunities to

exploit these research niches, take full advantage of its assets, turn discovery into patient care

and treatment, and develop new firms and industries. What may be called for is more significant

investment in research, healthcare facilities, and tools that move research into treatment

processes and development of bioscience products.

Challenges to optimal healthcare in Arizona

The fundamental challenge facing healthcare systems in the early 21st Century is the growing

imbalance between the infinite demand for care and finite resources. Will we opt for rationed

care or rational care? But unique challenges to optimal healthcare confront Arizona. Nowhere is

the imbalance greater, and the looming crisis more evident, than in Arizona, with its explosive

population growth and rapidly changing demographic profile. And because establishing a world-

class research base in key technology platforms is an “absolute prerequisite” both to future

economic growth and improved quality healthcare, as specified in Arizona’s Bioscience

Roadmap,4 the challenges to optimal healthcare in Arizona stem in part from inadequacies in the

educational system of the state. The other factor in the equation is a fundamental lack of

physicians and nurses.

The recently released “Meds and Eds” report demonstrates that Arizona is making significant

progress in its efforts to establish a biosciences industry in Arizona, but warns of two major

challenges that confront the state:

4 “Bioscience Roadmap,” page ix.

31

• Deficiencies in the medical and educational institutions of Arizona; and

• Belatedness in entering the competition (“Arizona is behind the curve”), trailing behind

established super-clusters like Boston and younger cities like Austin and San Diego.5

According to the “Meds and Eds” report, the “kinks” in the medical and educational institutions

include:

• Talent shortages. Arizona has among the lowest number of working nurses and physicians

per capita of all 50 states.

• Research weaknesses. Arizona’s universities are not top ten in capturing science and

technology research dollars or producing patents, startups, and commercial ventures.

• Medical schools. Unlike most bioscience leaders, Arizona lacks a top 25 medical school --

more precisely, a research-focused medical school.

• Healthcare transformation. Along with talent troubles, the industry faces pressure to find

new cures, lower costs, and end the fragmentation that impedes better healthcare.

Arizona faces a critical shortage of physicians and nurses

At the same time that Arizona’s new bioscience economy is showing promise, the state faces

serious challenges to basic healthcare, including a “talent shortage” noted by the Morrison

Institute. Despite an increase in the number of physicians in active practice from 1994 to 2004,

the physician to population ratio in Arizona still lags behind the national average. “The Arizona

Physician Workforce Study,” released in June by the School of Health Management and Policy

of the W. P. Carey School of Business at ASU in partnership with researchers at the University 5 “Meds and Eds: The Key to Arizona Leapfrogging Ahead in the 21st Century,” March 2005, page 3.

32

of Arizona College of Medicine, ranks Arizona near the bottom based on their supply of

physicians -- along with Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Alaska. There are 208 physicians for every

100,000 Arizona residents -- roughly half as many as practice in Massachusetts, New York, or

Maryland, according to the American Medical Association—and significantly fewer than the

national average of 283 per 100,000 residents.6

According to the “Arizona Physician Workforce Study:”

The Arizona physician workforce increased by 51 percent from 8,026 physicians

in active practice in 1994 to 12,121 in December 2004. The increase in the

physician workforce outpaced the increase in the Arizona population during the

same decade resulting in an increase in the physician to population ratio from

190/100,000 to 208/100,000. However, the physician to population ratio in

Arizona is still far below the national average of 283/100,000. 7

The lack of opportunities for medical education in Arizona must be considered a factor in the

shortage of physicians and nurses in the state. Approximately 90 percent of Arizona’s 12,000-

plus physicians graduated from medical schools outside of the state. The workforce report

identifies Arizona as an “importer of physicians,” the majority of whom attended medical

schools in other states or countries. As noted in the “Meds and Eds” report:

6 According to the American Medical Association, Massachusetts leads the nation with 453 physicians per 100,000 residents, followed by New York, with 413, and Maryland, with 409. Comparative perspective by Knowledge@W.P.Carey, http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/. 7 “Arizona Physician Workforce Study,” by William G. Johnson, Mary E. Rimsza, Tony Garcia, and Michael Grossman (June 2005), page 3.

33

There is little question that academic medical centers will play a central role in the

biology century. They serve as the bridge between the world of biosciences

research, where new treatments and therapies are developed, and the world of

clinical treatment, where these innovations are applied. And there is ample

evidence that academic medical schools—those producing research-oriented

physicians -- show a strong relationship with successful NIH funding.8

Arizona has only two medical schools: the University of Arizona College of Medicine, a public

allopathic school; and Midwestern University Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine, a

private osteopathic school in Glendale. And Phoenix -- the 14th largest metropolitan area in the

nation -- is by far the largest metropolitan area in the nation without a four-year allopathic

medical school and major academic medical center.9

The report notes, of course, that with planning underway for the Phoenix Biomedical Campus, an

innovative solution has been envisioned. The campus will be home to an expanded UA College

of Medicine, UA College of Pharmacy, and a relocated ASU College of Nursing.

8 “Meds and Eds,” page 38. 9 “Arizona Physician Workforce Study,” pages 46–48.

34

In 2000 the two existing schools graduated 196 new physicians, or 3.9 per 100,000 residents,

contrasted with a national average of 6.4 per 100,000. According to 2005 figures provided by

the Health Resources and Services Administration, Arizona ranks 38th among the 48 states with

medical schools.10

Figure 2-4: Site of medical school training for Arizona M.D.s, 2004

Although the number of physicians per 100,000 Arizonans increased nominally between 1992

and 2004 (as shown on Figures 2-5 and 2-6), the rate of increase in the number of physicians

exceeded the rate of increase in the population in both rural and urban areas, but did not

eliminate the existing rural to urban disparities in physician to population ratio.11

10 “Arizona Physician Workforce Study,” pages 46–48. Pie chart reproduced from the report (Figure 12), page 47. 11 “Arizona Physician Workforce Study,” 32–33. Table reproduced from the report (Table 5), page 33.

35

Figure 2-5: Physician to population ratio for Arizona and U.S., 1990–2004 12

Figure 2-6: Arizona physician to population ratios by county, 1992 and 2004

12 Reproduced from “Arizona Physician Workforce Study (Figure 6), page 29.

36

Another factor limiting the number of physicians choosing to practice in Arizona is the number

and type of residency programs available. Although the number of physicians in residency

training has increased since 1992, the number has declined since 1996. In 1996 there were 1,166

residents in training in Arizona in 96 programs. In 2004 there were 1,076 residents in 84

programs. According to the “Arizona Physician Workforce Study,” only the large increase in the

number of residents and training programs at the Mayo Clinic has helped to offset the closure of

other programs. The report offers clarification regarding the relationship between residency

opportunities and subsequent practice:

The number of residency training program positions available for graduating

medical students limits the number of physicians who can train in each specialty

… and affects the supply of practicing physicians. In addition, residents are more

likely to practice in the state in which they completed their residency. In a 1992

survey of graduating Arizona residents, 52 of the 88 respondents (59 percent)

chose to practice in Arizona after completing their training… While training in

Arizona is not synonymous with a decision to practice in Arizona upon

completion of training, there is an important link between the two.13

And the shortage of nurses in Arizona has already attained crisis level:

The nursing shortage in Arizona has been characterized as having attained crisis

level. Arizona has among the lowest number of working nurses as well as

physicians per capita: “With 628 nurses per 100,000 population, Arizona

13 “Arizona Physician Workforce Study,” pages 37–38.

37

currently ranks 51st in the nation in the number of working registered nurses

(RNs) per capita, and falls well below the national average nurse/patient ratio of

782/100,000.”14

According to the “Meds and Eds” report:15

The shortage of nurses has been well-documented—90 percent of all trained

nurses are in the workforce and there’s still a 15 percent vacancy rate in the

industry…. These shortages are partly the result of a lack of educational

capacity—not enough space and professors to teach future nurses—but also a lack

of financial resources to support prospective students. Last year, nearly 1,000

qualified applicants for nursing programs at Arizona universities and community

colleges were denied enrollment in the semester in which they applied, according

to a consultant for the Arizona State Board of Nursing.16

The “Meds and Eds” report also notes a shortage of health technologists and technicians.

Challenges to adequate healthcare confront special populations

The tremendous diversity and high degree of differentiation -- culturally, socially, economically,

and in educational attainment -- in the population of Arizona discussed in the opening chapter of

this report present special challenges to the state in terms of healthcare. Explosive population

14 National sample survey of registered nurses, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Service Administration, Bureau of Health Professions, cited in “Arizona’s Nursing Shortage,” Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association (2005), page 1. 15 “Meds and Eds,” page 47. 16 “Meds and Eds,” page 36.

38

growth, the rapidly changing demographic profile of metropolitan Phoenix and the state of

Arizona, the economic gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” are factors in healthcare that

should be considered by policymakers, the healthcare system, and the state universities alike.

Aging adults, children, and rural residents face mounting challenges in their healthcare needs.

Although Arizona currently boasts a younger demographic profile than in the past, perhaps

owing to the number of new residents flocking to the state, the U.S. Census Bureau anticipates

that trend to reverse itself in coming years, with Arizona attaining the thirteenth-highest

proportion of seniors in the nation. With a projected population of 6.4 million in 2025, and an

estimated 21 percent of that population age 65 or older, Arizona will face an even greater

shortage of healthcare workers than today. Older Americans, more than any other group, are

adversely affected by poor medical care, yet according to a RAND Corporation study, “…elders

receive about half of the recommended care, and the quality of care varies widely from one

condition and type of care to another…with preventive care suffering the most.”17

The “Meds and Eds” report cautions that Arizona cannot hope to become a national leader in

medical research and development unless universities and research centers are able to attract top

talent and research dollars, and hospitals and clinics are adequately staffed.18

17 “The Quality of Healthcare Received by Older Adults,” Research Brief #9051 (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2004), www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB9051/. 18 “Meds and Eds,” page 3.

39

Chapter 3: Develop

Bioscience, Biotechnology, and the Future of Healthcare:

A Case Study

40

Chapter 3: Develop Bioscience, Biotechnology, and the Future of Healthcare: A Case Study

During the past several years the people of Arizona have made an unprecedented commitment to

university science and technology research that will contribute to a knowledge-based state

economy. Investments to date represent a critical first phase in building momentum in the

biosciences in Arizona. The approval of Proposition 301 in November 2000 represented public

recognition of the need to invest in the future prosperity of our region by providing a long-term

funding stream for science and technology investments. Revenue from Proposition 301 for the

state’s three public universities flows through TRIF, the state’s Technology and Research

Initiative Fund, which is administered by the Arizona Board of Regents as part of an economic

development strategy for the state. And the passage of the research infrastructure bill (House

Bill 2529) by the state legislature in June 2003 secured an investment of $440 million in state

funds for the construction of world-class research facilities at Arizona’s three universities.

Strategic investments capitalize on existing and emerging strengths. In order for Arizona to

become competitive in selective fields of the biosciences, as recommended in the Battelle

“Bioscience Roadmap,” the state should capitalize on existing and emerging strengths in key

research areas that are “absolute prerequisites to improved quality healthcare delivery and

creation of well-paying jobs.” As considered earlier in the report, these “near-term technology

platforms” are the neurological sciences, cancer therapeutics, and bioengineering.19

19 Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, “Platform for Progress: Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap” (December 2002), page ix. Subsequently cited as “Bioscience Roadmap.”

41

Because the prerequisite to success as a biosciences region is the application of research to

healthcare and the commercialization of healthcare technologies, it is essential to assess the

current state of our healthcare and its prospects for the future. “Translational research linking

bench to bed and classroom can ‘fast-track’ Arizona on the path to bioscience stature,” according

to the authors of the Bioscience Roadmap. “Technology commercialization must be

concurrently addressed if the state is to build a critical mass of bioscience firms and to apply

research to patient care and quality healthcare delivery.”20

But healthcare is undergoing fundamental transformation, and policymakers and educators will

be required to address the uneven quality of care, inequitable access to care, spiraling cost, and

the inefficiency, waste, and error in healthcare delivery that are not uncommon and have created

an unsustainable situation. These deficiencies may reflect that the healthcare economy and the

performance of healthcare professionals have been largely shielded from the competitive market

pressures that have forced the relentless change needed for survival and sustained success in

other high technology, knowledge-intensive sectors of our society.

Biotechnology and computing are the principal technological engines reshaping medical research

and clinical care. They are transforming biology and medicine from descriptive, empirical

disciplines into rigorous information-based sciences. This transition is imposing radical change

on the research and development (R&D) process for drugs, diagnostics, and vaccines. It is also

launching a new era of molecular medicine founded on a sophisticated comprehension of the

molecular pathology of disease and its application to the creation of increasingly rational

20 “Bioscience Roadmap,” page ix.

42

strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of disease and, longer term, disease prediction and

prevention. These trends are only in their infancy. Full realization of these opportunities will

demand construction of large-scale databases and data mining technologies for human

population genetics and individual risk profiling for disease. The evolution of large scale

medical informatics and Internet-based health services will produce profound changes in clinical

practice and medical education, increase the importance of the consumer in healthcare decisions,

and cause major dislocations in the healthcare value chain.

The complexity and rapid pace of technical advances in molecular medicine, health information

technology, and diverse engineering disciplines are likely to transform the practice of medicine

beyond recognition in the coming two decades. At the same time, an equally complex montage

of financial, socio-cultural, and political forces will impose new institutional, organizational, and

policy demands on clinical practice.

The future healthcare environment will become increasingly information-intensive, cost-

sensitive, consumer-driven, and patient centric. Detailed insights into the molecular causation of

major diseases, supported by progressive adoption of automated computational tools to assist

diagnosis and validation of clinical decisions, will come to dominate future approaches to the

prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of major diseases. The imperative to reduce the current

degree of waste, inefficiency, and error in healthcare will intensify. These changes will drive

parallel initiatives to transform the empiricism of much of today’s clinical practice into an

increasingly rational science- and information-driven discipline. This will be accompanied by

rigorous, systematic analysis of the effectiveness of clinical interventions to optimize quality of

43

care, reduce unacceptable variation in standards of care, and enhance cost-effective use of finite

healthcare services resources.

The principal drivers of change in healthcare include:

• New competencies in molecular medicine;

• Facile skills in biomedical informatics and other knowledge management tools to promote

timely adoption of new IT technologies in every aspect of patient care;

• Bioengineering and medical device technologies to provide conceptual preparedness for the

anticipated rapid expansion of micro devices, sensors, and new body imaging methods in

clinical practice;

• Systems-based approaches that will affect the organization and delivery of healthcare, with

particular emphasis on improving continuity in the management of patients across the full

spectrum of healthcare services, from routine primary care to specialized tertiary care;

• Emerging tenets in healthcare policy development, with emphasis on the issues that will

shape new legal and ethical frameworks for standards of care and the assessment of

professional competency in the face of significant technological change;

• “Social recalibration” of the role of the physician in healthcare delivery, with the current

‘‘M.D.-centric” model modified by pragmatic acceptance of the increasing importance of

other technical specialties and management skills in healthcare delivery; and

• Use of computerized tools to validate medical decisions, fundamentally altering the

interaction of physicians with other professionals, and consumer access to detailed

information on healthcare services and treatment options increasing their direct involvement

in care decisions in ways that will reshape doctor-patient relationships.

44

The evolution of molecular, personalized, and prospective medicine

We stand on the threshold of a new era in which our increasingly sophisticated understanding of

biological and chemical processes at the genetic and molecular levels promises to transform the

practice of medicine, leading from the current standardized application of procedures and

practices that treat symptoms of disease to the development of individually targeted diagnosis

and treatments focused on the underlying causes of disease.21 The new molecular medicine

represents a shift from the current reliance on largely empirical interventions after disease is

evident to increasingly rational proactive and predictive procedures designed to address specific

21 The focus of modern medicine on therapeutics directed at symptoms and not causes is the “great embarrassment” of medicine in the twentieth century, according to Eric. S. Lander, a leader of the Human Genome Project and director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research. Cited in “Healthcare Conference Looks at Ailing Industry,” Working Knowledge (December 3, 2001), and Harvard Business School (June 16, 2005), at http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=2663&t=leadership.

45

molecular pathologies.22 Genomics and other new molecular profiling methods promise to

revolutionize clinical practice, and, indeed, the impact of genetics on medicine has been said to

be greater than that of any previous scientific advance.23

Diseases with seemingly similar symptoms are being revealed as comprising distinct subtypes of

disease, each caused by distinct, yet consistent, molecular pathologies. This new taxonomy for

the molecular classification of disease will lead to progressively more rational selection of

treatment and more effective treatments tailored to the precise subtype of disease involved. In

addition, molecular profiling is also revealing how subtle differences in the genetic makeup of

different individuals affect the risk of suffering adverse reactions to drugs and other

interventions. Application of this knowledge will reduce the current incidence of death and

injury caused by empirical prescribing practices, which ignore these genetic risk factors.

Three principles will dominate in making personalized medicine a reality:

The right diagnosis from the outset based on sophisticated molecular analysis;

The right treatment for the right disease based on knowledge of the precise molecular

pathology involved; and

22 For further elaboration regarding the convergence of genomics and informatics heralding a new era of biomedical research, see George Poste, “Molecular medicine & information-based targeted healthcare,” Nature Biotechnology 16 (1998): pages 19–21, at www.biotech.nature.com. 23 For a discussion of both genomics and bioinformatics considered in context of policymaking and governance, see Information and Biological Revolutions: Global Governance Challenges—Summary of a Study Group, Francis Fukuyama and Caroline S. Wagner, MR-1139 (Santa Monica, RAND, 2000), pages 8–11. The scientific promise of genomics is considered in J. Bell, “The human genome,” in M. Marinker and M. Peckham, eds., Clinical Futures (London: BMJ Publishing, 1998): pages 20–42, cited in R. Fears, D. Roberts, and G. Poste, “Rational or rationed medicine? The promise of genetics for improved clinical practice” BMJ 320 (2000): page 933.

46

The right treatment for the right patient based on molecular profiling to assure that the patient

does not have a genetic predisposition to react adversely to the contemplated treatment.

In the longer term, an individual’s unique genetic profile will provide vital information about

their predisposition to serious diseases later in life, allowing a much-needed focus on prevention

and proactive action to preempt the onset of disease -- so-called “prospective medicine.”

Because of our increased understanding of the genetic basis of pathologies, coupled with

advances in diagnostic techniques, it will be possible to monitor the health of individuals

prospectively, with a focus on the genetic propensities of a given individual to develop certain

diseases. Within a decade, for example, it is possible that anyone willing to undergo an annual

physical could be far less likely to die from a metastatic malignancy.24

24 “Information and Biological Revolutions,” page 8.

47

A comparison between the current approach to treating certain cancer tumors, for example, and

the efficiency and potential for success of the targeted treatments offered by molecular medicine,

underscores the scope of the transformation. As reported by a study group in RAND’s Science

and Technology Policy Institute:

Currently, for example, certain cancer tumors may have as little as a 20 percent

response rate to a specific treatment. Low-probability treatments are combined in

hopes that one will work: standards of care dictate that the treatment is tried as

part of a “buckshot” approach to a cure. Molecular medicine will allow diagnosis

of the genetic makeup of the tumor, enabling a targeted treatment with a much

higher chance of succeeding. Combined with advances in imaging technology

and sensors at the molecular level, medical practitioners will be able to diagnose

precancerous tissue changes in a way that will enable early treatment and

prevention.25

Current medicine fails to acknowledge two very important facts: diseases are not uniform, and

each individual has a unique genetic composition. Personalized medicine allows subclasses of

patients to be identified, allowing treatment to be targeted specifically to an individual and not

just to a broad class of individuals with a general category of disease. In other words, not all

cancer patients are the same, and each must be sub-typed more precisely, according to

assessment of genomic and proteomic profiles and biomarkers. Personalized medicine allows

for treatments that are more precise, more effective, and minimize the potential for adverse

25 Ibid., pages 8–9.

48

reactions. Current research is also leading to a greater understanding of genetic predisposition to

illness across the lifespan and across generations.

49

Pharmacogenomics: the right drug for the right patient

Current procedures for prescribing medications require modification. Every year in the U.S.,

about 3.1 billion prescriptions are written and 2.4 million individuals are hospitalized for adverse

drug reactions. While the number of hospitalizations is less than one percent out of the total

number of prescriptions written, the cost to America’s healthcare system is $50 to $70 billion.

Of the people hospitalized, between 60,000 and 150,000 die. Even when not lethal, medication

is not necessarily optimal. Compliance to medication regimens is notoriously low, and

approximately 50 percent of prescriptions are never filled. Pharmacogenomics offers the

likelihood that in the future the right drug will be prescribed for the right patient.

In addition to the principal objective of more optimal outcomes of treatment, molecular,

personalized, and prospective medicine promise to control escalating medical costs. The

costs of both diagnosis and treatment are projected to decline as diagnosis becomes more

precise and treatment for disease more immediate, efficient, and preemptive.

50

51

Ubiquitous role of computing and information technologies in healthcare26

In recent years, the scope and range of biomedical knowledge has grown beyond the capacity of

individual researchers and healthcare professionals to assimilate. Today and in the future,

scientific advances will require an integration of the digital library of biological knowledge with

computational expertise. Many questions in biology, medicine, social, behavioral, and other

sciences today can best or only be answered by utilizing computing and informatics to analyze

and translate the massive amounts of information being produced. Signaling a new era in

biomedical informatics, the National Institutes of Health recently stated, “The impact of

26 The section on biomedical informatics and all sources cited from unpublished draft white paper “Report of the Taskforce on Biomedical Informatics,” by G. Poste, S. Panchanathan, S. Kumar, E. Guilbeau, R. Renaut, K. Sousa, J. Wilson, K. Matt, S. Partovi, K. Frey, P. Zachariah, R. Rowe, E. Kittrie (November 17, 2004).

52

computer technology is so extensive it is no longer possible to think about our mission without

computers.”27 Accordingly, bioinformatics is one key focus of the current NIH roadmap.28

The sequencing of the human genome

and the subsequent explosion of data

pertaining to the genetic code of life have

provided the biomedical community with

unprecedented opportunities for

discoveries in basic biological research

and improvements in the prevention,

diagnosis, treatment, and cure of disease.

Yet, as the scientists leading the effort to decode the human genome eloquently stated, “In

principle, the string of genetic bits holds long-sought secrets of human development, physiology,

and medicine. In practice, our ability to transform such information into understanding remains

woefully inadequate.”29

In the patient-care and public health arenas, the federal government has made the development

and adoption of health information technology a priority, acknowledging that “health

information technology has the potential to transform healthcare delivery, bringing information

27 Working Group on Biomedical Computing, Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, “The Biomedical Information Science and Technology Initiative” (June 3, 1999). 28 NIH Roadmap, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, November 17, 2004, available at http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/bioinformatics/index.asp. 29 International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, “Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome.” Nature 409 (Feb 15, 2001): pages 860-921.

53

where it is needed and refocusing healthcare around the consumer.”30 In April 2004, President

George W. Bush called for widespread adoption of interoperable electronic healthcare records

within the next ten years, and has directed the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans

Affairs, and the Office of Personnel Management to accelerate the adoption of health

information technology. The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, a position

established by President Bush, has issued a plan to introduce information tools into clinical

practice, electronically connect clinicians, use information tools to personalize healthcare

delivery, and advance surveillance and reporting for population health management. The science

and practice of Biomedical Informatics provides the intellectual underpinnings for the

development of a robust health information technology infrastructure.

Biomedical informatics is an emergent field, fast becoming a discipline in its own right. It is a

scientific field grounded in the principles of computer science, telecommunication and

information science, mathematics and statistics, cognitive and social science, clinical and basic

biological/medical science, decision science, epidemiology, biostatistics, and public health. In

accordance with the definition set forth by the American College of Medical Informatics, and

supported by the National Institutes of Health, the taskforce uses the term “biomedical

informatics” as the overarching term to describe the union of computing and informatics with

basic biological and medical research, clinical practice, imaging, and public health.31

30 Report of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on behalf of Tommy G. Thompson (Secretary of Health and Human Services), The Decade of Health Information Technology: Delivering Consumer-centric and Information-rich Healthcare (July 21, 2004). 31 According the American College of Medical Informatics, “Biomedical informatics is the union of the basic informational and computing sciences […], with biomedicine as an application domain. Biomedicine is a broad application domain spanning all health professional practice (including public health and bioimaging); basic biological research; clinical research; education

54

Some examples of biomedical informatics include:

Diagnostics tools that allow physicians to match the right drug to the right patient based on

an assessment of the patient’s genetic make-up and the genetic sequence of the disease.

Personalized medicine will make drug treatment safer by reducing unnecessary side effects

and insuring that patients are not taking inappropriate drugs.

Bio-surveillance techniques that allow public health researchers to detect suspicious trends

and potential threats. Using bioinformatics’ capabilities, public health officials monitor

hospital admissions, over-the-counter drug sales, Internet health site hits, and data from

environmental sensors specifically designed to monitor air and water quality. Detection

happens in real-time, allowing for the immediate analysis of local, regional, and national

trends. This type of technology is vital for ensuring local and national security.

Data mining techniques for the advanced analysis of patient databases to assess health

outcomes, treatment protocols, facility usage, and costs. Using bioinformatics’ capabilities,

researchers and administrators conduct data-driven analyses that inform health policy. These

analyses are important for developing best practices guidelines to enhance physician care of

patients, and can potentially play an important role in reducing costs associated with publicly

funded healthcare programs such as Medicaid.

Comparison of gene expression patterns among healthy versus diseased patients, thus

allowing researchers to better understand the origin of disease and select gene targets for

drug development and disease diagnosis. Bioinformatics research is critical to developing

of future and current health professionals; and the administration of practice, research, and education. See Charles P. Friedman, et al., “Training the Next Generation of Informaticians: The Impact of “BITSI” and Bioinformatics—A Report from the American College of Medical Informatics.” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 11 (3) (May/June 2004), 167-172.

55

therapeutics for diseases that have a genetic component, such as Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and

cancer.

Three primary sub-disciplines within biomedical informatics:

• Bioinformatics can be defined as the creation and development of advanced information and

computational technologies for problems in biology, most commonly molecular biology (but

increasingly in other areas of biology). It encompasses methods for storing, retrieving, and

analyzing biological data, such as nucleic acid (DNA/RNA) and protein sequences,

structures, functions, pathways, and genetic interactions. Interest in bioinformatics is high

because of the information being produced by the genome sequencing projects, and the need

to harness this for medical diagnostic and therapeutic uses, as well as the need to use this

information for other industrial applications. Some people construe bioinformatics more

narrowly, and include only those issues dealing with the management of genome project

sequencing data. Others construe bioinformatics more broadly and include all areas of

computational biology, including population modeling and numerical simulations.

• Clinical informatics (sometimes called medical informatics or nursing informatics) is a

multi-disciplinary field whose goal is to understand and solve information problems in

healthcare. It is the study of how health data is collected, stored, and communicated; how

that data is processed into health information suitable for clinical decision making; and how

information technology can be applied to support those processes. The goal of clinical

informatics is to design and implement advanced information and computational

technologies to address problems in the delivery of healthcare. As such, it deals with

56

patients, hospitals, laboratory tests, physicians, and other health-care professionals. Interest

in clinical informatics is high because of the pressures to increase quality and decrease costs

by using information technologies in healthcare.

• Public health informatics brings together public health, health information systems, and

informatics to combine best practices in informatics with knowledge and experience in public

health. The focus is on integrating clinical information systems with public health

information systems to improve the monitoring of health and care for populations and

communities. This involves the linkage of clinical systems to automate disease case

reporting for communicable disease surveillance, statistical tools for pattern recognition and

aberration detection to screen data for patterns warranting further public health investigation,

automated analysis and visualization tools to eliminate the need for frequent and intensive

manual analysis of surveillance data, and two-way communication between public health

agencies and the clinical community.

Two recent reports by the Arizona Department of Commerce and Battelle cite the need for

increased capacity in the area of biomedical informatics in Arizona.32 According to the Battelle

report, “Particularly in the cancer and neuroscience platforms, researchers are actively exploiting

the use of these new [bioinformatic] tools, such as micro-array analyses to genotyping.

32 Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, report prepared for the Flinn Foundation, “Overview of Technology Platform Strategies” (June, 2004); and Collaborative Economics, Report Prepared for the Arizona Department of Commerce, “The Bioindustry in Arizona” (June, 2001).

57

However, properly designing the use of these tools, handling the large data being generated and

interpreting that data, are difficult tasks and further capacity is needed in Arizona.”33

There are no doctoral-level or academic masters’ programs in Arizona specifically dedicated to

training future scientists, physicians, and practitioners in biomedical informatics. Nearly all our

Western counterpart states have at least one strong academic department of biomedical

informatics.34 These academic departments serve as important partners in areas such as

molecular profiling and image analysis. They play a vital role supporting scientists in realizing

the promise of the genomic revolution, and establishing new frontiers in the diagnosis, treatment,

prevention, and cure of patients.35

Biomedical informatics will exert an ever more powerful effect on medical education, patient

care, health system management, and consumer choice about healthcare options. These trends

will require tomorrow’s physicians, and other healthcare professionals, to acquire new

33 “Overview of Technology Platform Strategies” (June, 2004). 34 California (Stanford, Stanford Medical Informatics; University of California Davis, Medical Informatics; University of California San Francisco, Biological and Medical Informatics; University of California Irvine, Informatics in Biology and Medicine); Colorado (University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Healthcare Informatics); New Mexico (University of New Mexico, Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center) Oregon (Oregon Health and Science University); Texas (University of Texas Houston Health Science Center Health Informatics); Utah (University of Utah, Department of Medical Informatics); and Washington (University of Washington, Department of Medical Education and Biomedical Informatics), among others. 35 The proposed Department of Biomedical Informatics at ASU is expected to leverage the unique opportunities for clinical partnerships provided by the medical school at the Phoenix Biomedical Campus of the Arizona University System, the Mayo Clinic, and Barrow Neurological Institute. In addition, the department expects to develop strong synergistic relationships with regional clinical and research partners including Banner Health, Maricopa County Medical Center, and the Translational Genomics Research Institute, among others.

58

competencies in the facile navigation of large-scale healthcare information services to optimize

patient care and to ensure productive, economical use of high cost resources.

Biomedical informatics will permeate every aspect of clinical decision-making. Computerized

profiling of patients will emerge as an increasingly powerful tool in improving diagnostic

accuracy and treatment selection. Computerized decision-support tools will define treatment

guidelines, monitor and enforce physician- and patient-compliance with treatment protocols to

reduce medical error, and curtail the economic inefficiencies in healthcare caused by failure to

access information in a timely manner. Biomedical informatics will also be central to the

progressive adoption of integrated “systems-based” approaches to healthcare to achieve real-time

assessment of the cost, performance, and value of all components of the delivery network.

The increasing impact of engineering and electronic technologies in healthcare

The productive union between biology, medicine, and computing, described in the preceding two

sections, will be matched by an equally influential convergence of medicine and the life sciences

with bioengineering, materials science, and electronic technologies. Several trends created by

this convergence are already evident and merit incorporation into clinical practice.

59

Miniaturization engineering is creating an entire

new realm of on-body/in-body micro devices and

sensors, including “smart” sensors that adapt to

changes in a patient’s condition and issue

automatic medical alerts or dispense treatment

without intervention by healthcare personnel.

These technologies will accelerate the adoption of new approaches to remote diagnosis and long-

distance monitoring of patient health status and treatment compliance.36

The next generation of body imaging technologies will move beyond mere description of entire

organs to allow physicians to monitor molecular processes occurring inside the body at the level

60

36 Subcutaneous sensor for continuous glucose monitoring. Device by Sensors for Medicine and Science, Inc. (SMSI), Germantown, MA.

of individual cells within organs. These tools will be invaluable in improving diagnostic

accuracy and in evaluating the effectiveness of medical and surgical interventions.

The convergence of biotechnology, bioengineering, and computing will also require tomorrow’s

physician to comprehend entirely new categories of treatment options. These include, among

others: cellular therapies; “smart” drug delivery systems; tissue engineering on implanted

scaffolds; expanded use of robotic systems in surgery and in drug delivery; and advanced bionic

systems for “intelligent prostheses” and other medical devices that can be controlled by

interfacing with the patient’s nervous system.

The increasing role of medical devices, the evolution of new body imaging methods, and the

proliferation of highly sophisticated instruments for patient monitoring demand that healthcare

professionals understand the intellectual underpinnings and applications of these technologies.

61

Biologically inspired design

“Biodesign” is biologically inspired design, or bio-

inspired engineering, and seeks to mimic and harness

natural processes to confront specific challenges, with a

primary focus in healthcare. Biodesign represents the

integration of fundamental science and technology-

based solutions in a quest for understanding nature

inspired by consideration of potential utility. Advances in biodesign spring from the confluence

of four major domains of science and technology, collectively referred to as “bio-nano-info-

cogno.” These are biotechnology and biomedicine; nanoscience and nanotechnology;

information technology; and cognitive science.

62

The synergistic combination of biotechnology, nanotechnology, information technology, and

cognitive science has been a necessary prerequisite to the conception and development of

biodesign. Biodesign integrates advances in these fields to design the new biodevices,

biomaterials, biointerfaces, biomechanical systems, and bioinformatics networks needed to meet

emerging needs in healthcare, and other areas such as the enhancement of human performance,

industrial productivity, and national security. The duplication of natural processes could

eventually lead to the development of bio-based industries capable of generating renewable

resources and stabilizing environmental systems.

63

The integration of these previously separate fields is possible because of our growing

understanding of material unity at the nanoscale, a scale very nearly unimaginable to the

uninitiated—a nanometer is a unit of spatial measurement that is one billionth of a meter. The

diameter of an atom is approximately one-third of a nanometer.

Nanotechnology controls individual atoms, and the manufacture of new devices, materials, and

systems from the bottom up becomes possible through directed molecular assembly, or

positional assembly. Molecular assembly uses the self-assembly capacity of natural biological

molecules to exploit properties in materials.

Although biotechnology and nanotechnology appear to occupy center stage in biodesign,

advanced information technology, with its computational capacities and ability to store and

64

transmit large amounts of data, and cognitive science with its understanding of the human brain,

are also intrinsic to researchers. And with increasing disciplinary specialization, both of these

fields play a leading role in allowing researchers to speak and understand the languages of the

other disciplines, and at the same time enable an increasingly sophisticated understanding of

human cognition and communication.

65

Ascendancy of consumer-driven healthcare

The ascendancy of consumer-driven healthcare will be shaped by the dual forces of increased

consumer empowerment in decisions about their own treatment and intensifying cost

containment pressures that will demand increased personal responsibility for maintaining health

and wellness. Consumer expectations for high quality care and awareness of technological

innovation will continue to escalate. These needs will be fulfilled by the widespread availability

of reliable information on the credentials, performance, and pricing of healthcare services,

including physicians. At the same time, third party payers will demand that individuals take

increasing responsibility to prevent illness and injury, and comply with prescribed treatments.

66

Longer term, as genetic profiling reveals disease predisposition risks, individuals will also be

required to act proactively to mitigate risk. These responsibilities will be enforced by higher co-

payments and cost-shifting to consumers who ignore wellness guidelines or who elect treatment

options outside of recommended care guidelines. Physicians will be in the front line in working

with consumers (well) and patients (ill) to navigate these treacherous waters.

As individual disease risk profiling gains in importance, and medicine moves toward the

proactive provision of clinical care to promote disease prediction and prevention, the distinction

between patient as one who is ill and the consumer as one who is well will become blurred.

Healthy “at risk” individuals will be asked to assume greater responsibility for maintaining their

67

health by mitigating their predisposition risks, whether via lifestyle modification, increased

monitoring, prophylactic therapy, or other actions.37

Healthcare policy and priorities for care

Technical advances alone will not resolve issues associated with the cost, quality, and access to

healthcare. New policy initiatives, many fraught with political danger and ethical and legal

dilemmas, will be needed if society wishes to manage the fundamental problem of the ever

growing imbalance between infinite demand for healthcare and the constraint of finite resources.

Although policy formation resides in the legislative domain, the future curriculum for physicians,

and other healthcare professionals, must accord greater emphasis to understanding the technical,

legal, and ethical frameworks that will define how future priorities for care will be set and,

equally important, the criteria to be used in rationing care or denial of care.

The challenges that confront policymakers are legion. As formulated by the Institute of

Medicine Committee on Assuring the Health of the Public in the 21st Century:

The systems and entities that protect and promote the public’s health, already

challenged by problems like obesity, toxic environments, a large uninsured

population, and health disparities, must also confront emerging threats, such as

antimicrobial resistance and bioterrorism. The social, cultural, and global

contexts of the nation’s health are also undergoing rapid and dramatic change.

37 Formulation previously appeared in George Poste, “Molecular medicine and information-based targeted healthcare,” Nature Biotechnology 16 (1998): page 21, accessed at www.biotech.nature.com.

68

Scientific and technological advances, such as genomics and informatics, extend

the limits of knowledge and human potential more rapidly than their implications

can be absorbed and acted upon. At the same time, people, products, and germs

migrate and the nation’s demographics are shifting in ways that challenge public

and private resources.38

Redefining the role of physicians in the healthcare system

Trends described in the preceding sections will inevitably alter the way medicine is conducted.

They will change the status of the physician in the healthcare hierarchy and accord greater

importance to team-based approaches with other professionals. It is possible that the increasing

adoption of metrics to monitor physician performance and the need for physicians to adopt new

behavioral patterns for productive interactions with patients and healthcare professionals will

represent difficult cultural readjustments from today’s “M.D.-centric” paradigm of decision

making. Information technologies will be crucial in shaping these cultural and organizational

transitions.

The impact of biomedical informatics in enabling physicians to work proficiently in information-

intensive environments will emerge as the most important element underpinning patient care and

the cost-effective use of healthcare resources. Computational methods will be an integral

component of the next generation of molecular diagnostics using genomic and other

biomolecular markers. The dependence on computational tools reflects, in part, the intrinsic 38 “The Future of the Public’s Health in the 21st Century,” a report of the Institute of Medicine Committee on Assuring the Health of the Public in the 21st Century and Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention” (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2005), page 1.

69

technical complexity of interpreting these new classes of molecular profiling tests that will

measure multiple parameters rather than just a single element. However, the more profound

implication is that automated computer-assisted diagnosis will become progressively more

influential in the approval and validation of clinical judgments.

It is likely that physician decision support software will become commonplace as a “gating tool”

to increase the accuracy and robustness of the initial diagnosis and essential in validating

treatment selection and reducing medical error caused by flawed diagnostic and treatment

decisions. Apart from complex surgery, emergency care, and disaster medicine situations in

which unexpected surprise will remain omnipresent, autonomous decision-making by physicians

in most other settings will shift increasingly to decision validation by computational tools.

New technologies and techniques offer the promise of more effective healthcare at lower costs.

Within parameters established to ensure the safety of the patient, innovations will allow medical

personnel other than specialists—sometimes other than physicians—to perform increasingly

sophisticated procedures. For example, before the 1980s, open-heart bypass surgery—

enormously costly and available only at a few leading academic medical centers—was the only

option available to treat coronary heart disease. With the development of catheterization and

balloon angioplasty techniques, cardiologists are now able to perform procedures that previously

required the intervention of cardiac surgeons.39

39 Clayton M. Christensen cited in “Healthcare Conference Looks at Ailing Industry,” Working Knowledge (December 3, 2001), Harvard Business School, June 16, 2005, available at http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=2663&t=leadership.

70

Medical education curriculum reform in the early 21st Century

The education and training of future physicians will require substantial curriculum changes to

adapt to the myriad technical, economic, political, and socio-cultural forces that will shape the

future of healthcare. Only one outcome is certain: these forces will inevitably alter the future

practice of medicine. Because much of the current medical curriculum is ill-suited to adapt to

these trends, curriculum reform is an urgent imperative.

Mere incremental reform of the current curriculum in medical education will not suffice.

Medical education and training appear to be failing to adapt to powerful scientific and market

forces which now threaten radical dislocations in healthcare delivery and will likely find many

healthcare professionals lacking the credentials demanded by these changing circumstances.

A curriculum that fails to prepare future physicians for the simultaneous impact of the

transforming events outlined in preceding sections will do a disservice to its graduates. Worse

still, the persistence of anachronistic curricula threatens to pose a danger to both patients and the

healthcare system, and society will not achieve the optimum return from the expensive

investments needed to train physicians.

The strategic intent of the new teaching track will be to educate physicians skilled in molecular

medicine, bioengineering, and biomedical informatics to improve diagnostic accuracy, adopt

increasingly rational treatments, and drive a new era in healthcare centered on personalized

medicine and healthcare delivery directed to the unique needs of individual patients.

71

In addition to revision of the M.D. curriculum, the need to build new competencies in molecular

medicine, body imaging, bioengineering, device technology, and advanced biomedical

informatics will provide a fertile environment for innovative M.D./Ph.D. programs. Similarly,

the increasing business sophistication of contemporary healthcare systems management,

reinforced by rapid change in the fiscal, legal, ethical, and policy frameworks for healthcare

delivery, will generate new opportunities for M.D./M.B.A. and M.D./J.D. degrees. In addition,

the continued expansion of other professional specialties for proficient healthcare delivery will

create opportunities for university leadership in bringing new dimensions to the J.D., Ph.D.,

D.Pharm, and M.B.A. programs, and in nursing education.

The academic and medical institutions of metropolitan Phoenix and the state of Arizona have the

opportunity to be in the vanguard of forging a new approach to the education and training of

physicians to impart the new conceptual and clinical skills required for success in a transformed

environment. Anticipated trends portend an era of dramatic change in medical education,

offering an exciting opportunity for teaching institutions with the adaptive agility to implement

the changes required to prepare a new generation of physicians and healthcare professionals for

success in a radically transformed environment.

The rationale for rational care

Collectively, the scientific, clinical, economic, and socio-cultural trends outlined above converge

to a common endpoint: “personalized medicine.” The progressive evolution of personalized

medicine (also often referred to as “individualized medicine” or “customized medicine”) will

mirror the trajectory with which modern science and computing will transform medicine from its

72

current domination by empirical approaches into an increasingly rational, information-driven

discipline. This transition will also lead inexorably to the evolution of personalized medicine in

which consideration of the unique characteristics of the individual patient, and the underlying

molecular pathology of their disease, will progressively become the new standard for care.

Longer term, identification of robust correlations between a patient’s genotype and

predisposition to specific diseases will shift the emphasis in healthcare delivery towards

proactive prediction and prevention of disease (so-called “prospective medicine”) rather than

today’s reactive response to disease already in progress.

Currently, clinical medicine views illness as an “incident” that elicits intervention to limit the

duration and consequences of the illness until the next time the patient suffers another episode of

the same, or a different, disease. Although timely “incident management” is essential, this

traditional approach views each disease episode in isolation and fails to examine the complex

interplay of events that have shaped an individual’s susceptibility to disease, both before and

after illness.

Even more worrisome is the increasing tendency for growing numbers of individuals to seek

primary healthcare in emergency rooms. Such treatment is less efficient and cost-effective than

typical incident management. Patients seeking treatment in emergency rooms generally arrive

late in the disease process, and outcomes are not likely to be satisfying to either patient or doctor.

The cost of such intervention is high, and the hectic pace and lack of information about the

patient discourages consideration of options for preventive medicine and lifestyle management.

73

For many major diseases, a small fraction of patients account for the overwhelming majority of

total treatment cost devoted to the disease by the healthcare system. Proactive identification and

more sophisticated clinical management of these “high-risk high-cost” patients would yield

enormous clinical and economic benefits to both patients and the healthcare system.

The progression of healthcare from a reactive to proactive posture will be driven by a

combination of technical and economic forces. Genomics and related molecular profiling

technologies are providing new insights into how specific genes (or more likely combinations of

genes) predispose individuals to serious disease later in life. Awareness of such predispositions

will result in new risk mitigation strategies. Similarly, the increasing precision of data mining

from healthcare databanks will enable high-risk high-cost patient cohorts to be better identified

and monitored for compliance with risk reduction programs. Targeting of “at risk” patients will

result in a more cost-effective use of healthcare resources than the current “all comers” approach

in which minimal distinction is made between patients with apparently similar disease symptoms

but who will exhibit very different patterns of disease progression due to varied combinations of

personal genetics and environmental factors with resulting wide variation in the cost of care.

The dangers of oversimplification and generalizations about subjects as complex as the multi-

dimensional domain of healthcare are acknowledged. However, the forces summarized here

cannot be ignored. The cultural readjustment of physicians to a very different role in the future

delivery of healthcare may be the biggest single obstacle to reform. The risk is heightened in any

context in which reform is entrusted to policymakers, the medical establishment, and a public

resistant to anything other than incremental reform.

74

Towards optimal healthcare in Arizona

Evidence indicates that in order for Arizona to succeed both in providing optimal healthcare to

its citizens and attaining economic prosperity in the new knowledge-based economy, Arizonans

will have to rethink their expectations in both contexts. The “Meds and Eds” report enjoins us to

“think about health—and economic development—differently” because this “century of biology”

is “the beginning of a new era of economic growth that will revolve around human health.”

In the decades ahead, advances in human health will be part of the worldwide competition for

prosperity and quality of life. On the demand side, people will want better healthcare and seek

out locations where it is readily available. On the supply side, those companies and institutions

that are on the leading edge of biomedical advances and health services will shape quality of life,

spawn new industries, and drive regional prosperity in the 21st Century.40

40 “Meds and Eds,” page 4.

75

To become the team to beat in the biology century, Arizona has to think differently about

healthcare and economic development. The state has long had a habit of casting health as a

social issue -- focusing on access for low-income families. That view will remain important --

but it is not enough. Arizona also needs to focus on health as a major economic driver of the

state economy.

Despite the progress that has been made, the view of health as a major economic driver -- and the

“meds and eds” combo in particular -- needs to be more deeply embedded in Arizona economic

development, workforce, and legislative strategies.41

41 “Med and Eds,” page 23.

76

Chapter 4: Deliver

Talent, Technology, and Economics

77

Chapter 4: Deliver Talent, Technology, and Economics

A knowledge-based economy, driven by a skilled workforce, goes hand-in-hand with an

economy more and more dependent on Arizona’s emerging “research enterprises.” Key

emerging strengths of Arizona, which will only be further propelled by the state’s rapid

population growth, are its health enterprises and its emerging nationally competitive bioscience

research strengths. These both contribute to increasing access and quality healthcare, and help

form and attract good paying jobs in medical devices, drugs and pharmaceuticals, and diagnostic

firms in Arizona.

This chapter analyzes the challenges that Arizona faces to become a strong, knowledge-based

economy, what it will cost, what the economic benefits could be, and what the trade-offs of

making investments are for the state’s future economy.

Why focus on the biosciences?

The bioscience segment of the economy is large, fast growing, diverse, and crosscutting,

involving a wide range of manufacturing, service, and research activities. Industries involved in

the biosciences range from pharmaceutical development to agricultural production, from medical

device assembly to biological research and testing, from understanding and protecting biological

and environmental systems to providing healthcare services. Moreover, the experience of

leading bioscience states coupled with the recent surge of interest in the field suggests great

potential for rapid and extensive growth of new bioscience firms. As previously discussed,

Arizona has the capacity to engage in several industry segments and develop strong

78

specializations in niche markets, employing many residents in well-paying jobs and generating

significant income for the state and its citizens.

As an economic driver, the biosciences are diverse enough to ensure relative stability.

Because the field extends into a variety of activities spread across the economy, developing the

biosciences provides insulation against the ups and downs of business cycles. Arizona’s

traditional economic strengths in hospitality and tourism, construction, and real estate provide

limited protection. Arizona’s economy currently is less structurally diverse than most of its

competitors and the leading bioscience states, for instance, as measured by the Development

Report Card of the Corporation for Enterprise Development, and thus is less likely to weather

economic downturns successfully.

The biosciences offer abundant employment opportunities over the entire range of education

and experience levels, from research scientists and medical doctors to technicians, laboratory

researchers, and manufacturing workers. Contrary to public perceptions, the largest share of

employment in the biosciences nationally consists of production and technician positions -- more

than 50 percent of employment in medical device industries, more than 40 percent of

pharmaceutical employment, and more than 30 percent of workers within the organic and

agricultural chemicals industries.42

42 Calculated by Battelle from Occupational Employment Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000.

79

Significant employment growth is

projected in the biosciences and healthcare

sectors over the next ten years, offering good,

well-paying jobs. Based on the latest U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) industry

employment projections covering the ten-year

period ending 2012, the annual growth rate of

the biosciences – including drugs, research and

testing, agricultural chemicals, and medical

devices – will be 13 percent greater than the

average annual growth rate for overall employment. The aging of our population and growing

life spans are key market forces driving growth across many bioscience industries. Arizona’s

growing population base of elderly and other special populations are likely to result in even

greater increases, including health services. As Figure 4-1 illustrates, bioscience jobs in research

and testing, drugs and pharmaceuticals, and medical devices and instruments on average pay

much better than the typical private sector job in Arizona. Overall, bioscience jobs in 2002

averaged over $43,000 in Arizona, compared to all private sector jobs in the state, which paid

just over $34,000. And if part-time employment in hospitals and labs were taken out of the data,

the average bioscience salary would be even higher.

Figure 4-1: Arizona bioscience wages

SectorArizona Average Annual Wage**

Bioscience Research & Testing $58,112Drugs & Pharmaceuticals $56,147Manufacturing $50,548Finance and Insurance $50,376Professional and Technical Services $50,042Medical Devices & Instruments $48,142Total Biosciences $43,359Information $43,080Hospital & Laboratories $42,865Organic & Agricultural Chemicals $39,842Construction $35,058Total, All Industries $34,043Real Estate $33,392Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation $27,956** Note: Bioscience-related wages are based on 2004 data, all other sectors are based on 2003 data.Source: Arizona DES and U.S. BLS

The jobs created and sustained by the biosciences tend to be high paying and relatively

secure, helping to build and retain local wealth and prosperity. Drug and chemical jobs pay

salaries and wages well above the average even for other technology fields, while medical

80

devices are on a par with other manufacturing industries. Even hospitals and laboratories,

though engaging many part-time workers, support jobs spanning the range of the pay scale.

The biosciences, while not the only possible growth industry, present advantages provided that

the investments that will be needed to make the biosciences an essential component of Arizona’s

economy are made by both the private and public sectors.

Arizona’s existing bioscience economic base

Arizona’s non-hospital bioscience employment base and establishment base both have declined

in the 2000-2004 time period by around 3 percent each. In the same time period hospitals and

labs have seen rapid growth of over 11 percent in number of establishments and over 13 percent

in employment. Overall, the total biosciences cluster by 2004 had increased its employment base

from 65,700 to 73,400. Non-hospital and lab biosciences employment represented 5,300

employees and hospitals and labs represented 68,100 employees in 2004. For Arizona to become

equal with the rest of the nation, continued specialization must occur in private biosciences

establishments and employment, as well as in hospital and lab establishments and employment.

The trend toward convergence of technologies in electronics, information, optics, materials, and

the biosciences creates a potential competitive advantage for Arizona. The existence of a strong

information technology cluster in the state could provide a nucleus for achieving the needed

critical mass in the biosciences. Experts widely agree that these areas will converge, thereby

producing a new generation of technological products that embody elements of all the fields.

The application of electronics, optics, and materials to biotechnology products has been evolving

81

rapidly; and the convergence of the biosciences and information technology has led to the

emergence of companies bridging the healthcare and Internet economies. Arizona is well

positioned to benefit from these trends.

From electronics to optics, Arizona has proven it can transform itself into national research

prominence in non-bioscience research areas and, with it, enjoy the benefits of sharing in new

economic drivers. In recent decades, Arizona has established itself as a national leader in key

areas of natural science research, particularly astronomy, other physical sciences, and earth

sciences/ecology. If Arizona’s research universities can replicate the tremendous success they

have had in the natural sciences, then the state’s research universities can reverse the recent

period of slower growth in their overall research growth relative to the nation that occurred in the

late 1990s. Focusing on the biosciences can have a substantial impact on Arizona’s research

base workforce and talent pool on which to build and sustain efforts. Like any knowledge-based

industry, bioscience companies need a supply of qualified, trained workers.

To meet the demands of newly emerging fields, new curricula and programs need to be

developed by educational institutions working in close partnership with the bioscience industry.

In addition to having world-class researchers, successful bioscience regions have an adequate

supply of management, sales, marketing, and regulatory personnel experienced in the

biosciences. While Arizona’s universities and community colleges are producing graduates with

degrees in the biosciences and bioscience-related fields, it is difficult to find managers and other

workers experienced in the biosciences.

82

What will it cost to invest in a biosciences future for Arizona?

As previously discussed, Arizona has adopted a Bioscience Roadmap to position the state in the

emerging “century of biology.” The Bioscience Roadmap shows Arizona has current and

emerging strengths in bioscience research in such fields as bioengineering, cancer therapeutics,

and neurosciences, and emerging areas such as agricultural biotechnology, asthma, diabetes, and

infectious diseases. But the Bioscience Roadmap suggests that Arizona must invest more in

these areas to remain a player and to become more internationally competitive.

The combination of increased competition from other states, Arizona’s current rankings on and

success in securing federal biosciences research dollars, and its current status as a third-tier state

in the biosciences means that it must find ways to rapidly build its research capacity and, as it

does, capture more federal and other leveraged dollars. Sufficient public sector funds for “bricks

and mortar” investments, e.g., capital investments, are part of the gap that is being addressed;

but, the gap is broader than capital investment. It also means sufficient public sector operating

funds to recruit and attract Eminent Scholars; to offer competitive recruitment packages for

emerging, talented biosciences faculty; and to build additional core labs and facilities that are

competitive with other academic health and university research centers across the country.

Figure 4-3 projects Arizona’s total NIH funding by the year 2007 if current trends continued

from 2001. Whereas Arizona might see an increase in NIH funding from the current $118

million to $174 million, an increase of $56 million, Arizona would still place further behind

other leading states. Alternatively, if Arizona is able to equal the growth rate in NIH funds of the

top 10 states over the next five years, its NIH funding can increase by approximately $100

83

million to within the range of $214–$222 million. Arizona’s performance goal should be to

achieve a rate of funding growth from the NIH equal to that of the top 10 states in NIH funding

historically—increasing Arizona’s NIH funding totals from $118 million in FY 2001 to $218

million in FY 2007.

Figure 4-3: Projection of Arizona total NIH funding, FY 2001 to 2007

50

100

150

200

250

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Years

Historic Trend

Projection at the Top 10 Growth Rate

Projection at the Current Rate

Reaching this NIH performance objective will require corresponding investments by Arizona’s

research organizations in facilities, core laboratories, research faculty and support staff, and start-

up packages to recruit such researchers and scholars. The appropriation of $440 million by the

Arizona Legislature for university research facilities has had a significant impact in positioning

Arizona to have in place the facilities to attract the faculty whom can secure the federal and other

funds to reverse this trend. And through FY 2003, Arizona has reached $170 million in NIH

84

funding, with university funding tracking that of the rate of the top ten states several years ahead

of the schedule proposed in the Bioscience Roadmap.

Inadequate research and talent base with insufficient depth and breadth means that Arizona is not

among the top-tier states in bioscience research. Arizona ranked 21st in the country in university

R&D expenditures, but 27th in research grants from NIH in FY 2004. In NIH funding, Arizona

ranked 28th. Arizona’s universities had a total of $531 million in R&D expenditures in FY

2002, of which $253 million was in life sciences R&D spending. This lag in life sciences R&D

in Arizona is an area of significant concern. Figure 4-4 depicts and tracks Arizona’s share of

national university research R&D funding since 1973, showing the increasing lag in the state

moving upward in securing a greater share of federal bioscience research dollars:

Figure 4-4: Arizona’s share of total national academic R&D43

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

2.0%

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

AZ % of US Total Academic R&D

AZ % of US Bioscience Academic R&D

43 National Science Foundation, State Science and Engineering Profiles and R&D Patterns: 2001-03.

85

Major factors holding Arizona back in securing additional federal research funding have been a

lack of facilities, faculty, equipment, laboratories, and recruitment packages to attract and retain

talented researchers. In the past several years, the state has begun to change direction. The $440

million investment in facilities provides a significant effort to address the facilities gap.

But there continues to be a need to find resources for additional faculty, equipment, and

laboratories if the facilities now being constructed are to be fully optimized to leverage federal,

private, and other research dollars into Arizona. It is these research dollars leveraged – in the

case of biosciences six times the state investment – that offer an immediate return on investment

(ROI) in tax revenues from the researchers hired and an even longer term ROI economic impact

measured in terms of wealth, jobs, and other economic multipliers. Furthermore, this research

translates into better healthcare in the state and putting into practice technologies to assist

Arizonans first in healthcare treatment.

Even in its research core competencies and technology platforms, Arizona does not have the

research depth and critical mass of researchers to remain competitive without obtaining

additional resources to explore new fields and areas, to attract additional faculty to compete for

federal, industrial, and philanthropic funds, and to retain senior-level scientists and to attract the

emerging stars of tomorrow.

What economic benefits will bioscience bring to Arizona?

Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap lays out a list of strategic investments across the entire

continuum of bioscience development, from basic research to firm formation and attraction.

86

This multiyear investment program, stretching over at least a decade or more, provides a

framework for the types of investments at a sufficient scale to achieve a critical mass of research

around key technology platforms and, ultimately, result in a critical mass of bioscience firms

populating Arizona by 2012. The Bioscience Roadmap calls for $1.4 billion in investments from

private and public sources over a ten-year period, which, in turn, leverages an additional $2.8

billion in federal and other funds. As of June 2005 at least $550 million in private and public

resources in Arizona had been raised toward the $1.4 billion target.

Figure 4-5: Arizona total NIH funding, historic trends and projections, FY 1997 to FY 2012

01997

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

$ Millions

HistoricCurrent RateTop 10Arizona Bioscience Roadmap Initiative Forecast

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Battelle’s economic impact analysis indicates that this level of projected investment could result

in the following potential economic impacts:

• Critical Mass of Research Support. By reaching a level of NIH funding equal to the

historic growth rates of the top 10 states in NIH funding, Arizona would receive $214 million

of annual federal NIH funding by 2007 (see Figure 4-6). In addition, the investments made

87

in research facilities, faculty, and instrumentation will attract additional funding equal to

three times their costs within the next 10 years.

Figure 4-6: Annual NIH funding level forecast 450

New Additional NIH Research Funds $385 M 400 Baseline NIH Research Funds

350

$274 M 300

250$Millions

200$118 M

150

100

50

-2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

• Critical Mass of Businesses and Jobs. Arizona’s non-hospital bioscience industry would

grow by an additional 120 firms and create an additional 12,900 jobs by 2012 (Figure 4.7).

This critical mass of bioscience firms would have a multiplier effect on other business

service and supplier sectors of the economy, accounting for an estimated 17,000 additional

jobs in all sectors of Arizona’s economy (Figure 4.8).

88

Figure 4-7: Private sector bioscience firm growth forecast 800

New Additional Bioscience Relocations 749New Additional Bioscience Start-ups700

Total Baseline Growth in Number of Bioscience Firms600

552 500

Number of Firms

286400

300

200

100

02001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Figure 4-8: Private sector bioscience employment growth 45,000

“Multiplier Effects” on New Institutional/Researcher Employment 40,141“Multiplier Effects” on New Bioscience Firm Employment40,000

Total New Bioscience Firm Employment35,000 “Multiplier Effects” on Baseline Bioscience Employment

Total Baseline Growth Private Sector Bioscience Employment30,000

Employment 26,06025,000

20,000

9,10115,000

10,000

5,000

02001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

• Leveraged Investments. For specific investments in the Bioscience Roadmap designed to

leverage other financial support, every $1 that Arizona’s private and public sectors provide is

estimated to leverage $6.26 in other investments.

89

Business case for a biosciences future in Arizona includes:

• Leveraged federal and industry dollars of a minimum of six and up to 13 times the state’s

private and public investments, increasing federal NIH funds from $117 million to $214

million per year by 2007 directly, and in a multiplier fashion of 2.5 times this amount relative

to the overall Arizona economy.

• 32,000 high paying jobs created directly and indirectly within a decade through Bioscience

Roadmap investments and successful implementation.

• Creation of well-paying jobs -- up to twice the statewide salary average. The biosciences

industry is projected by the U.S. Bureau of Statistics to experience a 13 percent greater

growth in employment per year than the overall private sector.

• A number of technology commercialization actions in the Bioscience Roadmap represent

opportunities for additional returns. Venture capital investments have had a mean annual

return of 57 percent between 1987 and 2000. Research parks/incubators/multi-R tenant wet-

lab spaces are real-estate investments that generally have returns of 8-12 percent annually.

• Reduced loss of time and productivity due to ill health or inability to perform functions

through healthcare prevention and treatment.

It appears that Arizona must play “catch up” to other states to become a major Southwestern

state and a recognized national and international leader in the biosciences. Focusing on a few

platforms, rather than trying to spread limited resources across multiple areas, is the key to

Arizona “leapfrogging” ahead in the 21st Century. Technology commercialization must be con-

currently addressed if the state is to build a critical mass of bioscience firms and to apply

research to patient care and quality healthcare delivery. Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap

90

proposed a bioscience agenda based on private sector, market-driven needs, and recommended

actions and their implementation through industry-led private-public partnerships.

Arizona’s current situation is not unique. Other states and regions once behind in the

development of their bioscience sectors have either successfully positioned themselves as a

leading bioscience region or are focusing their strategic investments to carve out a particular

market niche for the future.

Biosciences provides an important focus for diversifying Arizona’s economy, retaining and

attracting talent, creating good, well-paying jobs from technician to post-doctorate, and leverages

the state’s significant ongoing investments in higher education, healthcare, and workforce

development. More importantly, the biosciences provide a way to connect these resources to

achieve higher level access to “cutting edge” research developments leading to improved and

personalized healthcare and economic development.

Examples of approaches to strengthen the research enterprise

• Georgia Research Alliance

• Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse

• St. Louis Coalition for Plant and Life Sciences

• Washington (State) Technology Alliance

• The Celtic Tiger (Ireland)

91

Georgia Research Alliance

The Georgia Research Alliance (GRA) was formed in the early 1990s as an outgrowth of the

recognition by Georgia’s business leaders that there needed to be better interface and linkages

between the world of business and the world of academe, and that higher education – particularly

research – would be a discriminating factor in how Georgia grew economically. GRA is a non-

governmental 501(c) 3 corporation, with a four-person staff whose role is primarily to coordinate

efforts, rather than run programs. While its board has considerable influence over the nearly

$400 million it has invested in the state’s technology infrastructure over the past decade, state

funds remain with the Board of Regents in terms of their management and processing. Its Board

includes an elite group of industry CEOs, university presidents, and the Governor of Georgia. It

closely partners with the state’s major research institutions, including the University of Georgia,

Medical College of Georgia, Emory University, Clark Atlanta University, Georgia Institute of

Technology, and Georgia State University. GRA plays an important role in encouraging the

state’s research universities and medical colleges to work together; helps build a critical mass in

key research focus areas; and enables researchers to better think in economic development terms.

GRA feels that the key roles it has played over time include collaborating, influencing, and

brokering deals between multiple agencies, organizations, and industry sectors so they work

together for the economic growth of the state.

GRA has adopted a business model for steering the state’s investments, requiring significant

leveraging of funds, and setting immediate, intermediate, and long-term goals for these

investments. In the immediate term, GRA is investing in world-class researchers, facilities, and

equipment, matched by and leveraging non-state funds (industry, federal, philanthropic). These

92

investments, in turn, are to result in world-class ideas, graduates, and talents, which in the long

term create world-class firms, jobs, and improved corporate profitability in Georgia. GRA has

focused these research investments on three critical technologies: communications, computing

and content; biosciences; and nanoscale science. Investments can be at the discovery,

translation, or commercialization stage.

A key component of the GRA effort has been its Eminent Scholars program. GRA has attracted

entrepreneurial-driven Eminent Scholars to Georgia through its investments. These “stars” have

attracted a disproportionate share of research dollars, attracted the best graduate students, and

worked closely with firms, including spinning-off a number of firms in Georgia or bringing start-

up firms with them to Georgia. Another key program has been to build “core facilities” to serve

multiple universities and industry. Generally associated with at least one eminent scholar, these

core facilities have helped form 45 firms, employing 750 individuals to date, and representing an

investment of more than $300 million. A third area of major activity by GRA is in technology

transfer. Several mechanisms have been established including VentureLab, the GRA Innovation

Fund, Eminent Scholar Challenge Grants, and Technology Development Centers (e.g.,

incubators with specialized equipment and labs).

GRA demonstrates that investing in research, talent, and technology infrastructure can create

short-term economic gains and, over the long term, substantial and broad economic impacts on

industry formation and expansion. Overall, GRA has helped better involve industry with

academe, improved the talent pool from which industry can obtain talented individuals, built

Georgia’s research stature, and contributed to the state’s economic diversification through its

93

research investments. GRA works closely with the Woodruff and other foundations, which co-

invest in many GRA activities. The Alliance has, within a decade, emerged as the connecting

vehicle between business, scientific, and government leaders to generate start-ups, attract

industry, enhance jobs, and create wealth in Georgia.

Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse

The Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse was formed in 2000, underwritten with $105 million in

investment, $75 million came from the region’s major foundations and $30 million as a one-time

state grant as seed funds for the Greenhouse. The state also formed similar Greenhouses and

funding in Philadelphia and Central Pennsylvania, although neither of these regions obtained the

amount of foundation funds the Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse received.

The Greenhouse serves as an intermediary organization that is a combination of a trade

association, venture fund, technology commercialization vehicle, and economic development

marketing group. Its focus is only on the biosciences industry whose strength is currently

primarily in medical devices, similar to Arizona. The Greenhouse operates a set of programs,

including an incubator, has invested some of its funds in a privately managed venture fund, and

operates an Executive Corps and related programs.

The Greenhouse’s dual objectives are to build further excellence of the region’s research

universities in its pillars built around the expertise at both the University of Pittsburgh (among

the top ten medical colleges in the U.S. in NIH funds) and Carnegie Mellon University’s

information technology and computer strengths. The respective heads of the two institutions co-

94

chair the Greenhouse’s board. Other members of the board include industry CEOs, foundation

heads, and leaders of other groups.

St. Louis Coalition for Plant and Life Sciences

The St. Louis Coalition for Plant and Life Sciences Coalition was formed shortly after the region

had completed a plant and life sciences strategy for the region. It was felt that this was an

opportunity too important for St. Louis to lose; that it would take several years of focused work

to turn the strategy into reality; and that there needed to be a specific, focused, and full-time staff

to undertake this work. Fortunately for the region Dr. William Danforth, Chancellor Emeritus at

Washington University, became the region’s champion and the first chair of the Coalition. He

was able to convene the region’s leadership and use the Coalition as a vehicle to carefully focus

on the most important near term issues that would affect the strategy’s success – capital, space,

the ability to commercialize biosciences research, and educating and obtaining state support for

the biosciences.

The Coalition has had much success in raising capital, securing over $400 million in private

funds for privately managed venture pools serving all stages of the capital continuum from

startup to later stage. The original goal set up in the plant and life sciences strategy was for St.

Louis to raise $100 million to be focused on these segments. These efforts included the

formation of a Fund of Funds (called Vectus).

The Coalition has also been very active in addressing the need for multi-tenant post incubator

wet lab space. Prior to the Coalition being formed, Dr. Danforth, the Danforth Foundation, and

95

Monsanto successfully built a new plant and life sciences-focused incubator called NIDUS. In

the years since the incubator was completed not only has it been completely filled but a

companion incubator/accelerator near Washington University, called the Center for Emerging

Technologies (CET), has also filled its facility to capacity. Two multi-tenant buildings are being

planned at two of the four locations in the region that represent clusters of biosciences firms in

plant sciences, life sciences, and agriculture biotech. One of these nodes between Washington

University and St. Louis University involving over 1,000 acres is being turned into a medical

research district and is called CORTEX.

The Coalition has also been active in addressing issues of technology commercialization. An

independent corporation, called the St. Louis BioGenerator, has been formed to identify

opportunities to create firms from research being undertaken in the region’s universities and

medical centers; to provide business-mentoring support; and to provide limited startup funds.

Funded by foundations, individuals, and use of state tax credits, the BioGenerator represents a

good example of the leadership of individuals such as Dr. Danforth, John McDonnell (chairman

of the Washington University board), foundations with which each was affiliated, and

universities to form a unique vehicle to address the need to find ways to create a critical mass of

firms in St. Louis.

The final area of Coalition focus has been on securing state support to use its state tobacco tax

settlement for biosciences research and technology commercialization. The Coalition succeeded

in getting legislation in place to trigger this in 2007. In the meantime the Coalition, in concert

with counterparts in Kansas City, has spent considerable time fending off efforts to derail the

96

biosciences with extraneous efforts to attach anti-stem cell, right to life, and related matters to all

legislation and appropriations related to biosciences.

In the future the Coalition plans to give additional focus to the issues of workforce and talent

while ramping up CORTEX, and continuing to address capital issues. The Coalition itself

representing over 30 CEOs of primarily non-bioscience firms has helped build a strong

consensus among leaders in the region on the importance of plant and life sciences to its future

economy. Working in concert with the region’s trade group – the Technology Gateway Alliance,

part of the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association – a range of networking and

other activities are underway to build relationships, operate programs, and build momentum.

Washington Technology Alliance

The Washington Technology Alliance was conceived in 1996 by Bill Gates, Sr., to involve

technology CEOs, the region’s traditional business groups and leadership, universities, and

medical centers in an alliance to work on common needs and problems. The Alliance has

annually held a retreat for legislators from throughout the state educating them on technology

development and its importance to the state’s future. It has undertaken special studies and

reports, organized an angel network, and for the past two years helped conceive and develop a

BIO21 Trust Fund which was recently enacted by the Washington Legislature, utilizing future

tobacco settlement dollars (beginning in 2008) to build a more competitive research base and

increase connections between researchers and the state’s industry.

97

While Washington State has been among the nation’s research leaders there is concern that this

position will be undercut if the state does not keep pace with other states investing in the

biosciences and other technology efforts. Nevertheless, the success of the state’s IT and

bioscience industries along with its research strengths illustrate how Washington State started

from a more mature position than St. Louis, Pittsburgh, or Georgia.

The Celtic Tiger (Ireland)

How has Ireland achieved such impossible economic gains? What strategies has it employed?

What investments has it made? What areas of research has it focused on? How has this country

invested in the development of intellectual capital and turned this investment into an economic

engine for the country and a mechanism of change for a nation.

First, Ireland is uniquely positioned. It has a strong manufacturing base. Its government is

committed to change and improvement. It has a strong tradition of education using English, the

language of science. Small and agile, Ireland maintains strong relationships with the U.S. and

Britain and is the “gateway” to Europe. To maintain its momentum of growth, Ireland has built

upon its tradition of entrepreneurship by putting together top quality research and development

teams, attracting and building industrial research, and creating partnerships (1) between industry

and the universities and (2) between universities. By coupling its economic development policy

with a national approach to science and technology development Ireland has succeeded in

transforming its economy.

98

The creation of Forfas (the oversight agency) and three “sister” agencies -- Science Foundation

of Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, and IDA Ireland (as shown below) -- and the considerable funding

made available to the Irish research agenda through the recent National Development Plan

strongly exemplify the nation’s commitment to a sustainable knowledge-based economy.

Science Foundation of Ireland has invested

in three primary areas of research:

biotechnology, engineering, and

information and communication

technology. Within biotechnology it has

broadly supported biological as well as

other areas of the sciences including

bioengineering. A key feature has been an

emphasis on entrepreneurial research that

promotes bridges between academia and

the industrial community. Also critical to the development of the biotechnology area is the

dissemination of information originating from these scientific investments, not just to the

scientific community but to the broad public community. This continued connection to the

public leads to greater engagement by the community in these initiatives, and the use of recent

knowledge developments to inform societal and policy decisions. More specifically the areas of

biotechnology that Science Foundation of Ireland has funded include: 35 percent cell biology, 16

percent sensors/devices, 16 percent neurosciences, 12 percent agri-food, 9 percent

bioinformatics, 8 percent immunology, and 4 percent microbiology.

99

Information and communications technology investments have been made to bridge disciplines.

These investments have been made in: software and applications in simulation and modeling;

components and devices; networks including high speed and wireless; and systems.

Most recently, Science Foundation of Ireland has invested in the Research Frontiers Program.

This program is focused on making investments in a very broad based area that includes science,

mathematics, and engineering. These investments recognize that post-doctoral fellows and post-

graduate students are a key element of success in the research and represent strong investments

in the future. These broad-based investments reflect an understanding that many findings in

science are serendipitous, and one can rarely predict which scientific areas will be most

important in terms of the long-term benefits they bring to the economy and the quality of life.

Science Foundation of Ireland has taken several steps to build and brand research and develop

(R&D) in the country:

• Invest in the best people and ideas (e.g., SFI Investigator Award).

• Import leading scientists (e.g., SFI Fellow Awards and Research Professorships).

• Create centers of critical mass (e.g., Centres for Science, Engineering, and Technology,

CSET).

• Forge international partnerships (e.g., Walton Visitor Award and world-class conferences

and workshops).

• Foster university-industry partnerships through CSETs, industry research partnership

supplements, and all SFI programs.

100

a new foundation for science

SFI Expenditure 2001SFI Expenditure 2001--2004 2004 Admin/Grants split in €’000Admin/Grants split in €’000

A focus on performance!A focus on performance!

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Act Act Est Est

2001 2002 2003 2004

Years

€'00

0 GrantsAdmin

Ireland has demonstrated the ability to adopt and adapt change in a unique way. The strategy is

based not on tax benefits and cost considerations alone, but on knowledge, innovation, flexibility

and connectedness—how everything works together.

According to Dr. William Harris, Director General, Science Foundation Ireland, “Ireland has

recognized one aspect of the future that is almost always a guarantee: research creates

knowledge, knowledge spurs innovation, and innovation inspires growth.”

101

Benchmarking lessons

While a number of items might be discussed regarding these benchmarks, key observations

relevant to Arizona’s efforts to position it in the biosciences include:

• Membership in the organization includes a broad private-public partnership of industry,

higher education, healthcare organizations, and government.

• Each organization has one or more key champions -- in some cases it is a well-recognized

name associated with technology, in other cases it is a chancellor emeritus, or rotating chairs

with primary leadership coming from the local utilities. In the case of Ireland it is a sustained

governmental commitment at the highest levels.

• With the exception of St. Louis the organizations also operate programs.

• “Steering,” serving as “catalyst,” and sustaining a comprehensive strategy are critical.

• In the U.S. examples the philanthropic community provides the primary initial funding, and

the public and private sectors follow thereafter. In Ireland funding starts with the national

government.

• Business/return on investment (ROI) metrics is generally used to assess success.

102

Lessons Learned from Organizations

Best Practice Why Established Who’s Involved Accomplishments Georgia Research Alliance: 1990

• Lost competition for MCC to Texas

• Higher education not previously involved in economic development

• Presidents of universities

• Governor • Leading Firm

CEOs • Foundations

• $400 million in state funds allocated to endowed chairs, core facilities, and partnerships with health and industry partners

• Enable Georgia to become nationally competitive in research

• Helped attract several large firms to locate in Georgia

• Helped attract star faculty and entrepreneurs

Pittsburgh Life sciences Greenhouse: 2000

• Region not taking full advantage of research and health strengths at Pitt/UPMC and IT at CMU

• Region not remaining competitive in star faculty, research facilities

• Region’s biosciences industry base not achieved critical mass

• Co-chaired by President of CMU and Chancellor of Pittsburgh

• Includes Allegheny Conference, CEOs, and UPMC Head

• Brought industry, education, medical into first ever alliance

• Substantial foundation involvement in formation

• Secured $75 m. over five years from Pittsburgh’s foundation to invest in research and technology commercialization

• Secured $30 million in state funds • Focusing research on strong pillars

found at CMU, Pitt, and UPMC health center

• Continues to be among top 10 medical centers in NIH awards

• Increased emphasis on linking industry with research

St. Louis Coalition for Plant & Life Sciences: 2001

• Need for a more diversified technology-driven economy

• No critical mass of industry but critical mass of research

• Chaired by Bill Danforth, Chancellor Emeritus at Washington U

• CEOs of leading firms and service providers

• Leaders of universities and medical centers

• Raised $400 million in venture capital for plant and life sciences

• Initiated research and medical district adjacent to Wash U and St. Louis U called CORTEX

• Filled to capacity 2 bio incubators • Become recognized center in plant

sciences with BioBelt brand name • Attracted and retained major drug

and pharmaceutical, plant sciences and research firms

103

Best Practice Why Established Who’s Involved Accomplishments Technology Alliance (Washington): 1996

• Build on base of Microsoft and emerging bioscience firms to build a stronger Washington State economy for the future

• Conceived and initiated by Bill Gates, Sr., its first chair for several years

• Includes CEOs of firms, university and medical community, legislators, and others

• Conceived the Bio 21 Trust Fund to maintain competitiveness in research and increase firm formation and healthcare from this research in the state

• Formed Alliance of Angels (AoA) to help finance tech start-ups

• Creation of Science & Technology Roundtable (STRT)

• Annual State Legislature Retreats focusing on technology and economic development

The Celtic Tiger (Ireland)

• High unemploy-ment rate

• Low living standards

• Significant migration

• National despondency

• National government establishes Forfas (as the oversight agency) and three “sister” agencies: Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland, and Science Foundation Ireland

• All supported by multiple public private Advisory, Councils

• “..the Irish Economic Miracle” is recognized as one of the most remarkable transformations of recent times”

• Ireland’s real total GDP (2000-03) 6.09% vs. EU 1.57%

• Ireland’s GDP/population is 42.16 greater than EU average

• Ireland’s real household income grew 6.6% on average in the 1990s vs. 3.0% in UK and 1.9% in 20 OECD high income countries

• Ireland’s gross capital formation as a % of GDP (1992-02) was 24.1% vs. EU at 20.92%

Arizona’s bioscience and health strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, coupled with

“lessons learned” from these examples suggest this information can fuel the existing momentum

to advance the biosciences in Arizona and to advocate for a strategic biosciences agenda.

104

Chapter 5: Decide

Pathways to Progress

105

Chapter 5: Decide ~ Pathways to Progress

What strategies will serve us best?

Arizona has made a commitment to the biosciences and biotechnology that is critical to both

economic development and adequate healthcare, but maximizing Arizona’s success in these

areas will require the participation of many players including academic institutions, industry, the

business sector, and state and local governments to successfully implement short- and long-term

commitments. A number of strategies could be implemented to achieve these goals:

1) Free market approach. Assume the free marketplace will prevail and will drive the

research engine. Therefore, decide as a state policy not to invest in research, economic

development, or talent.

This strategy assumes that the federal government, the foundation community, and industry will

fund the research that is of importance to their interests. This may or may not be consistent with

what states or scientists would view as the most promising areas of research. There is also a risk

that the private marketplace undervalues research, and would focus only marginal investments

on discoveries nearer commercialization and technological maturity. If Arizona does not invest

in specific research areas of interest, it is likely that investments will not occur here. Overall, the

nation might not be negatively impacted by this decision; however, Arizona would likely lose the

researcher leaders that can turn their work into medical prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and new

firms and products. As stated in the “Meds and Eds” report, “Top-notch, well-funded ‘meds and

eds’ in close proximity to one another that creates the synergy required to create medical

breakthroughs and new companies will help keep talent geographically rooted.”

106

Research universities have been primary drivers of economic prosperity for decades -- it has

been estimated that 60-75 percent of economic growth in the past decade has been driven by

technological advances, and that since 1990 nearly all major technological advances have been

made possible by fundamental academic research.

2) Economic recruitment of industry and no research investments. Build the state’s

bioscience base not from within but from without by attracting drug, pharmaceutical, device,

and other firms to Arizona.

As is sometimes true of economic development in general, most wealth and job generation is

created through self-reliance and indigenous resources. Depending on recruitment alone to build

a biosciences base is not likely to be effective at creating a critical mass of firms. A more

effective strategy might be one that encourages “growing your own” from established research

engines with selective recruitment of firms that need to be in Arizona to fill gaps in the supplier

chain. Moreover, once fledgling enterprises begin to expand, bioscience entrepreneurs rarely

leave an area because of the well-known “clustering” tendency of high-tech firms.

3) Investment in unfettered research. Don’t focus the research but simply invest in the broad

research enterprise driven by individual researchers, assuming the free market of academic

excellence will lead to enhancement of both research stature and the capacity to

commercialize technology.

107

This strategy presents challenges due to Arizona’s laggard position and unless considerable

dollars are available to pursue many avenues of research exploration, a critical mass of research

excellence may not be built. Furthermore, because the nature of bioscience research is changing,

individual research scholarship may fail to create the multi-disciplinary teams needed in modern

bioscience research. Finally, without an explicit way to mine research for its commercial

potential, this approach is not likely to achieve the translational stage to clinical care and

significant commercialization breakthroughs.

4) Investment in research and partnerships. Another strategy is taking a comprehensive

statewide approach to achieve connectivity by focusing on a few research competencies,

technology platforms, and building excellence through collaborations. This strategy requires

partnerships, alliances, and tremendous teamwork to achieve shared vision, shared goals, and

joint outcomes. It is consistent with an economic development focus on building your own

– entrepreneurship – and selective recruitment of firms wanting to work closely with the

emerging research engines (i.e., TGen, the universities, or existing firms). And it focuses on

building talent for these firms and the research institutions including medical and healthcare

institutions.

Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap is an example of a comprehensive approach to achieve

connectivity by focusing on a few research competencies and technology platforms and building

excellence through collaborations.

108

Power of partnerships and importance of critical mass

Partnerships between business, industry, state and federal government, and research universities

are a proven formula for success – critical to the advancement of science and technology and an

important source of our nation’s prosperity. The federal government recognizes and funds that

investment in research, and there is a role for state and local governments and research

universities to make the initial commitments to build research infrastructure.

We have discussed the importance of Arizona’s place in the “bioscience sun” as dependent on

building both a critical mass of firms and a critical mass of researchers. By focusing the

research, and encouraging collaboration among researchers, clinicians and industry, the state can

leapfrog its way into the 21st Century through the power of partnering. This is a cost effective

approach; however it requires trust, goodwill, and mechanisms that encourage networking,

relationship building, joint venturing, and joint ownership. The work of the Flinn Foundation-

sponsored scientific platforms in neurosciences, bioengineering, cancer, imaging, and

translational research are indicative of what collaboration and networking can do. Powerful

examples of progress made by Arizona partnerships are reflected by the statewide Arizona

Alzheimer’s Research Center, Arizona Parkinson’s Disease Center, and recruitment of TGen.

Furthermore, the partnerships that have continued to develop through linkages in the state

between the hospitals, businesses, universities, and TGen to create new research projects, spin

off companies, and new economic growth for the state have created a change in culture. The

spirit of collaboration is strong in Arizona and its one of the state’s differentiators, relative to

other locations and regions. Arizona has placed a strong emphasis and focus on interdisciplinary

109

and translational approaches that can lead to faster returns on investments in bioscience and

biotechnology to improve the lives of individuals throughout the state.

Research capacity has been pinpointed as the single most critical factor in shaping regional

economic success, and, as U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has argued,

investment in university infrastructure is essential to building economic resiliency. Success for

Arizona’s research universities and hospitals -- and for the region -- requires investments in

state-of-the-art facilities, and the ability to attract top-notch researchers who can compete for

research dollars.

Bioscience offers an unparalleled economic engine in that it addresses the health of every citizen

of the state -- whether it’s prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and education – as well as wealth and

job generation through research turned into technology products and processes that lead to either

spin-offs or licensing and consequent manufacturing. In terms of bioscience as an economic

engine, it’s primarily a wealth rather than job generator but the jobs it creates are good, well-

paying, and sustainable.

As has been mentioned in previous chapters, the biosciences and biotechnology can stimulate the

economy and tax base in several ways:

• The research jobs including faculty and technicians hired to do the research;

• The firms and their employment potential resulting from licensing of the technology; and

• The economic multiplier effects of service providers that support research and its commercial

partners, including accounting, insurance, legal, real estate development, supplies, etc.

110

The economy of Arizona has yet to evolve to an appreciable degree from one that is resource-

based and service-oriented to one that is knowledge-driven and competitive in the biosciences.

The emergence of bioscience and biotechnology research and development in Arizona can

change that – with the research, healthcare and other investments generating talent and

technology that can remain in the state and draw knowledge workers, investors, and attention on

Arizona, from across the country and around the world.

What models can we look at?

There are many different models that we could examine more closely to understand how various

regions of the country have maximized their investments in the biosciences and biotechnology to

build their economy and to improve the quality of life for their citizens. Some of these models

were discussed or referred to as comparison data in Chapter 4. In Chapter 4 there are data and

references to the success stories of Georgia, Ireland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Washington State.

Can we meet the grand challenge?

Arizona has already made a significant commitment to the biosciences and biotechnology.

These investments have been made to capitalize on existing strengths in the state and to

complement these strengths by the recruitment of new “star” talent. Arizona now needs to assess

its investments and strategically plan for future growth and development both to maximize the

impact of its past investments and to guide its future progress. Arizona can serve as a leader in

determining how this is done in a time of rapid expansion, growth, and urbanization and serve as

a model for the nation and for the world.

111

The investments in the biosciences and biotechnology will touch many aspects of the lives of

those in Arizona. One area in particular that bioscience and biotechnology will dramatically

impact is healthcare, as discussed in Chapter 3. Medicine will be revolutionized in the next 15 to

20 years and Arizona’s citizens can expect more rapid access to new technologies,

developmental drugs, and devices, providing the promise of high quality healthcare in a cost

effective manner. Changes in medicine and nursing education to incorporate new discoveries

and use technology more effectively will help to alleviate the significant shortage of healthcare

professionals. Linkages to investments in telemedicine will help to expand the impact of these

improvements in healthcare to urban as well as rural areas. Other areas of impact of bioscience

biotechnology are in agriculture, industry, and workforce development. These are all critical

pieces tied to healthy and sustained development of our state as a place of high quality and

enriched lifestyle.

What will we decide?

“Economic development, now and in the future, will be anything but business as usual,” states

the Morrison Institute report, “Seeds of Prosperity: Public Investment in Science and Technology

Research” (April 2003):

Return on investment in science and technology research will depend on Arizona

becoming more competitive in developing and commercializing research, more

recognized for innovation, and more attractive to knowledge workers.

112

To become more competitive, the report suggests that Arizona learn a new set of rules:

Advances in science and technology research will create enormous wealth, as they have done

for the last half-century, but changes will happen faster and faster.

Innovation has joined natural resources, money, and people as the fourth critical ingredient

for economic growth.

Knowledge businesses will rely on universities to prepare, attract, and retain innovators and

to develop new scientific products for commercialization; hence, a region’s economic

competitiveness increasingly will depend on the research strength and quality of its

universities.

Forging strong ties with industry and the business community are critical for the translation

of discoveries, development of the product, and the delivery of that product to the public.

Our success will be measured, in part, by our ability to achieve goals that reflect the growth and

development of our education and research base, and ultimately the effectiveness of these

advancements to improve and enhance our economic base, workforce development, and quality

of life for Arizona’s citizens. Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap outlines measures of success for

both building a critical mass of research and a critical mass of industry.

The list below delineates performance metrics monitored on an ongoing basis by Battelle, under

the guidance of Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap Steering Committee. This analysis will be used

to determine to what degree performance objectives are being accomplished, if adjustments need

to be made, and what new information might be needed to monitor Arizona’s success in reaching

113

the Bioscience Roadmap goals. Key measures that are being used as benchmarks to compare our

progress include the following:

• Increase bioscience R&D funding to Arizona research institutions at a rate equal to or greater

than the historical growth rate of the top 10 states over the next five years.

• Increase NIH funding from $118 million to $214 million by 2007.

• Start-up and survival rates of Arizona bioscience firms exceeding the average rates for

benchmark states as identified in the Bioscience Roadmap.

• Increase the concentration rate and thus degree of specialization relative to the nation in at

least two industry segments by 2007.

• Leverage federal and other dollars at least three times for every $1 in Arizona support.

• Dollars of bioscience venture investments to Arizona-based firms to total at least

$100 million in 2007.

• Arizona university-related start-ups/revenue dollars to exceed the top quartile ratio of all U.S.

universities by 2007.

• Implementation progress on the actions laid out in the Bioscience Roadmap -- at least 70

percent with substantial action after three years, and 90 percent within five years.

Can we move forward to make Arizona a global leader in science and innovation? Can we

create the building blocks that will give us a strong foundation in a knowledge-based economy

that leads to new technology and innovation in areas that are most important to the citizens of

Arizona? What are the next steps that will give Arizona the competitive edge it needs in the

country and in the world?

114

Supplemental Information

115

Bioscience-Related Terms

This section was designed to enhance your understanding of some basic terms that are commonly

used in the biosciences and biotechnology industry, whether they appear in this report or not.

Additional readings are suggested below:

• “Basic Biotechnology” by Colin Ratledge and Bjorn Kristiansen.

• “Biotechnology Unzipped: Promises and Realities” by Eric S. Grace.

• “Biotechnology: Demystifying the Concepts” by David Bourgaize, Thomas R. Jewell, and

Rodolfo G. Buiser.

• “Building Biotechnology: Starting, Managing, And Understanding Biotechnology

Companies” by Yali Friedman.

• “Mapping the Code: The Human Genome Project and the Choices of Modern Science” by

Joel L. Davis.

• “McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Bioscience,” McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

• Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) guide:

www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/BiotechGuide.pdf

• NIH/National Library of Medicine’s National Center for Biotechnology Information:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Books

116

Accelerator: An institution similar to an incubator, though typically involving companies that

are further along, that assists young startups. The creators of the technology usually play a

smaller role than during the incubation stage, giving way to business professionals and venture

capitalists who handle the company’s day-to-day operations.

Alleles: Different forms of a gene that represent the same genetic locus on homologous

chromosomes. For example, the gene for blond hair is located in the same location on a

chromosome as the gene for brown hair.

Amino Acid: Any of the class of molecules that form proteins in living things. A protein’s

amino acid sequence and function are determined by the genetic code.

Base, nitrogenous (nucleotide): Any of the four nitrogenous bases (adenine, cytosine,

thymine, and guanine, or A, C, T, and G) that make up the “rungs” of the twisted-ladder shaped

DNA molecule (in RNA, thymine is replaced with uracil). Bases occur in matched pairs—A

with T and C with G—and thousands of bases are required to constitute a gene.

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, PL 96-517: A law enacted to bolster the rate of technology transfer

of federally funded research to the marketplace. Before its passage (and the passage of related

tech-transfer laws), federal research was available to everyone, and companies did not want to

invest in such technology since they would be unable to protect their investment. The Bayh-

Dole Act addressed this by providing for three key changes to existing laws:

117

1. Nonprofit organizations such as universities, along with small businesses, have gained the

first right to elect title to inventions they develop with federal support.

2. Government laboratories now have the authority to grant exclusive licenses to patents.

3. Descriptions of inventions are now legislatively protected from public dissemination and

Freedom of Information Act requests for a reasonable period (to allow for patent applications

to be filed).

Benchmark: A standard by which something can be measured or judged.

Bioinformatics: Information technology and computer science as applied to biological

problems, such as the DNA sequencing of the human genome or building databases of

biological information.

Biosciences: Industry cluster comprised of five segments: agricultural feedstock and chemicals;

drugs and pharmaceuticals; medical devices and instruments; hospitals and laboratories; and

research and testing.

Biotechnology: Technology based on biology, especially when used in agriculture, food science,

and medicine. Biotechnology is a subset of the biosciences.

cDNA: A DNA molecule that is complementary to an mRNA molecule. The strand of cDNA is

synthesized by an enzyme call reverse transcriptase.

118

Cell: A small unit of protoplasm. In humans, the nucleus of each such unit usually contains 23

chromosomes. Nearly every one of the 100 trillion cells in the human body contains a copy of

the entire human genome.

Chromosome: Any of the thread-like microscopic bodies carrying the genes of heredity.

Chromosomal Aberration: An abnormal chromosome resulting from the loss, duplication, or

rearrangement of genetic material.

Chromosome Painting: A laboratory procedure that uses a fluorescence in situ hybridization

(FISH) probe to detect a specific region or segment of a chromosome.

Clinical Trials: Evaluation of defined diagnostic or therapeutic technologies for safety or

efficacy, esp. for human use. Phase I trials determine dosing levels. Phase II trials determine

biological effect. Phase III trials determine if the patient receives a benefit from the treatment.

Copyright: Exclusive right granted by the U.S. government to the authors, composers, artists, or

their assignees to copy, exhibit, distribute, or perform their works.

Deletion: Removal of one or many nucleotides from a segment of DNA.

119

Denaturation: The loss of correct 3-D structure in proteins or other biological polymers. In

DNA, the two strands of DNA are held together by weak electrostatic bonds that can be broken

by heating, causing the two strands to separate.

DNA: A long, thread-like molecule resembling a twisted ladder. The rungs of the ladder are

composed of four nitrogenous bases (adenine, cytosine, thymine, and guanine). A sequence

(linear arrangement of these letters, e.g., TAG GAT TTT) forms a gene that encodes a specific

protein.

DNA Array: A matrix of a large number of known DNA molecules (or parts of molecules)

attached to an inert substrate. Through a process called hybridization, one can determine which

of the RNA’s and DNA’s genes are being expressed (RNA) or are the subject of genomic

imbalance (DNA).

DNA Sequencing: The process of determining the sequence of bases (adenine, thymine,

cytosine, guanine) in a molecule of DNA.

Dry Lab: Generally, a laboratory consisting primarily of computers and electronic devices, used

for modeling and other kinds of research. Contrast with wet lab.

120

Gene: A unit of heredity in chromosomes. Each gene is a long sequence of four nitrogenous

bases (adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine, or A, T, C, G). The smallest gene is about 2,000

bases long, while the average gene is 20-30,000 bases long. Some genes—such as the one that

codes for cystic fibrosis—are very long, containing more than 700,000 bases.

Gene Amplification: Any process by which specific DNA sequences or genes are replicated to a

disproportionately greater degree than their representation in the parent cells. Normal cells have

two copies of each gene at a specific locus in DNA (diploid).

Gene Therapy: Experimental treatment that involves replacing a dysfunctional gene with a

functional one.

Genetics: The science concerned with heredity and trait variation in organisms, as conveyed by

genes. See also Genetics vs. Genomics.

Genetics vs. Genomics: The former is primarily concerned with patterns of inheritance among

offspring, whereas the latter focuses on structure and specific functions of genes.

Genome: The entire DNA; the complete genetic inheritance of an organism.

Genomics: The field of study concerned with understanding the human genome. See also

Genetics vs. Genomics.

121

Homologous chromosomes: A pair of chromosomes that contain the same linear sequence of

genes. Therefore two genes are present for each trait. The maternal parent and the paternal

parent each donate one member of a pair of homologous chromosomes during fertilization.

Hybridization: In molecular biology, the pairing of complementary sequences, RNA to DNA or

DNA to DNA. Pairing is specific: Adenine will pair only with thymine in DNA-DNA

interactions and with uracil in RNA-DNA interactions; cytosine will pair only with guanine.

Incubator: An entity designed to nurture business concepts or new technologies to the point that

they become attractive to venture capitalists. An incubator typically provides physical space,

management expertise, legal, managerial, and technical services, and sometimes financing.

Intellectual Property: Primary rights to basic writings and discoveries explicitly protected by

the Arizona Constitution (Article 1, Section 8).

Licensing: The transfer of less-than-ownership rights in intellectual property to a third party, to

permit the third party to use the intellectual property.

Messenger RNA (mRNA): The molecule that carries genetic information from the genes to the

rest of the cell. The sequence of the mRNA is translated at the ribosome into the making a

specific protein that will be used in a cell.

122

Metabolomics: The study of the metabolic profile of a given, cell, tissue, fluid, organ, or

organism at a given point in time.

Nanotechnology: The science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from

single atoms and molecules. Sometimes referred to as “nano.”

Nucleotide: A molecule consisting of a nitrogenous base (adenine, guanine, thymine, or

cytosine in DNA; adenine, guanine, uracil, or cytosine in RNA), a phosphate group, and a

sugar (deoxyribose in DNA; ribose in RNA). See also base.

Nutraceutical: A foodstuff (as a fortified food or a dietary supplement) that is held to provide

health or medical benefits in addition to its basic nutritional value.

Patent: An arrangement whereby, in exchange for an inventor’s complete disclosure of an

invention, the government gives the inventor the right to exclude others from making, using, or

selling the invention, within a specified time limit.

Personalized Medicine: Application of advances in medical science, particularly genomics and

pharmacogenomics, to the development of individually targeted patient treatments. Examples

include developing risk-prevention strategies based on a patient’s diagnosed genetic

predisposition for an illness; prescribing pharmacogenomics-based drugs that take into account

individual drug metabolism rates in a given individual; and gene-based therapies for cancer.

123

Pharmacogenomics: The field concerned with tailoring drugs for patients whose individual

response can be predicted by genetic fingerprinting.

Pre-seed funding: Funds, typically from angel or private investors, provided to help bridge the

gap between a discovery or invention and the creation of a company to develop and market the

idea. Contrast with seed funding.

Proteins: The essential construction materials that constitute tissues and guide chemical

reactions in living things. They are made of 20 different building blocks called amino acids.

The DNA sequence of a gene determines the amino acid sequence of the protein that gene

encodes. The amino acid sequence of the protein is, in turn, responsible for the protein’s shape

and function.

Proteomics: The connection between genomics and pharmaceuticals. It involves the analysis of

the collection of proteins in a cell (which is encoded by the genome), and is the key connection

between genomics and pharmacogenomics.

Program-related Investment (PRI): Investment with the primary goal of accomplishing a

charitable function that significantly advances a foundation’s charitable purpose. There are three

types of PRIs:

1. Direct Loans: The loan may be secured (collateral) or unsecured (no claim to specific assets);

may carry a long- or short-term note; may be repaid periodically or in a lump sum.

124

2. Equity Investments: Investment in the ownership of a corporation. Usually entails no fixed

repayment schedule or interest rate. A useful mechanism for economic development.

3. Guarantees: Direct cash investment (equity or debt) pledge of credit for a charitable purpose.

Ribosome: Small, specialized component of a cell made up of specialized RNA and protein,

where proteins are translated from mRNA via tRNA.

RNA: Chemically similar to DNA but single-stranded, RNA contains the base uracil instead of

thymine and can migrate out of the nucleus of a cell and into the cytoplasm.

Seed funding: Funding provided by investors for a business to develop a concept, create an

initial product, and carry out the first marketing efforts for it. Typically, seed funding is given to

very young companies (around one year old) -- companies that have not produced a product or

service for commercial sale and usually in the range of $200,000 to $2,000,000. Venture capital

funding generally comes later nearer to the point that a product is ready to be produced or

markets expanded. Seed (or pre-seed) capital is usually provided by angel or private investors,

and is sometimes (incorrectly) referred to as “startup” funding.

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR): A federal government set-aside program,

established in 1982, for domestic small business concerns to engage in research/research and

development (R/R&D) that has the potential for commercialization.

125

SNP: A strand of one-letter variations in the DNA sequence that contributes to differences

among individuals.

Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF): In November 2000, Arizona voters passed

Education 2000 (Proposition 301) approving a 0.6 cent increase in the state sales tax to be

dedicated to K-12, the universities, and the community colleges. Proposition 301 funds are

administered by the Arizona Board of Regents in the Technology and Research Initiative Fund.

TRIF monies focus on university research, development, and technology transfer related to the

New Economy, along with development of programs to prepare students to contribute in

Arizona’s high technology industries.

Technology Transfer: Transfer of new knowledge (intellectual property) from the university

setting to the commercial sector. The purpose is to enhance economic development, create

employment opportunities, maximize commercial application of emerging technology, and

ultimately generate capital to apply to new product/service development.

Trade Secret: A designation that provides the right to withhold any commercial formula,

device, pattern, process, or information that affords a businessperson an advantage over others

who do not know it.

Trademark: A legal distinction establishing a unique expression to identify goods or services

for commercial use.

126

Transcription: Process by which information from DNA is converted into its RNA equivalent

(mRNA). The mRNA can then travel to the ribosome for translation into a protein.

Transfer RNA (tRNA): RNA molecule that helps the ribosome to “read” mRNA instructions

and assemble proteins, one amino acid at a time.

Translation: The process in which a protein is made by using the information provided by

messenger RNA (mRNA). Protein construction takes place at specialized cell sites called

ribosomes.

Translational Medicine: Process of moving medical research closer to a commercially viable

medical technology that can then benefit patients and the public at large.

Translational Clinical Research: The application to humans of findings from basic biological

research on the mechanisms of disease and potential treatments.

Wet Lab: A laboratory in which researchers study chemical substances, genetic material, and

the like, requiring special plumbing, air handling systems, waste disposal facilities, water

purification capacity, etc. Contrast with dry lab.44

44 The definitions and descriptions herein contained have been synthesized from a wide assemblage of sources, including (but not limited to): the Library of Congress Thomas service; the National Business Incubation Association; Joan Shapiro, Ph.D.; The Personalized Medicine Coalition; William Read, Ph.D.; Molecular Cell Biology, by H. Lodish et al; The Biotech Investors Bible, by G. Wolff; and a number of professional medical and biological Web sources. They are provided for your information, and are not intended to be taken as authoritative.

127

Arizona Organizations Interested/Involved in the Biosciences

• Arizona Association for Economic Development (AAED): An association of 400+ firms

that utilizes volunteers from its membership to advocate responsible economic development

in Arizona.

• Arizona Alzheimer’s Research Center (AARC): A statewide research “laboratory without

walls” that unites Arizona’s resources in brain imaging, computer science, basic and

behavioral neurosciences, and clinical and neuropathological research to better understand,

detect, treat, and prevent Alzheimer’s disease. Members include Arizona State University,

the Barrow Neurological Institute, Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center, the Harrington

Arthritis Research Center, the Mayo Clinic, the Sun Health Research Institute, and

University of Arizona.

• Arizona BioIndustry Association (ABA): A nonprofit organization that promotes the

growth of bioindustry through member services, education, business networking, public

policy, and entrepreneurial endeavors.

• Arizona Biomedical Collaborative (ABC): A cooperative effort, endorsed by the Arizona

Board of Regents, to develop complementary bioscience programs among the universities,

including Arizona State University, University of Arizona and its medical school, and

Northern Arizona University.

• Arizona Biomedical Research Commission (ABRC): A governor-appointed commission

that awards and oversees contracts for disease-related research projects. The commission

derives its funding from tobacco tax revenues, and has an annual budget of about $13

million. Formerly known as the Arizona Disease Control Research Commission.

128

• Arizona Business Accelerator (AzBA): A privately-funded organization that encourages

knowledge-based product development in Arizona by providing consulting services and

raising seed capital.

• Arizona Cancer Center at University of Arizona: Part of University Medical Center in

Tucson, the center is dedicated to preventing and curing cancer through excellence in patient

care, research, and education, and is one of a small, prestigious network of comprehensive

cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute, the highest ranking that

organization offers.

• Arizona Center for Innovation (ACI): An incubator promoting the development of high-

tech companies in southern Arizona through a program of business development, housed at

the UA Science and Technology Park.

• Arizona Commission on Medical Education and Research (ACMER): Twelve-member

commission appointed by the Governor to commit the Arizona Board of Regents to expand

the capacity of the biomedical education and research programs of the Arizona university

system. This would be accomplished by expanding the UA College of Medicine and College

of Pharmacy programs to the Phoenix Biomedical Campus, and relocating the ASU College

of Nursing nearby. It also includes building additional programs and facilities on the Phoenix

Biomedical Campus in conjunction with ASU and one or more Phoenix area hospitals

currently participating in the current College of Medicine teaching programs there.

• Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC): A department of the Arizona executive

branch that works to create jobs, expand the tax base, increase per capita income, and

promote a globally competitive business environment in the state by providing information

129

and community assistance, targeted business attraction and development, and strategic

workforce development.

• American Electronics Association, Arizona Chapter (AeAAZ): The Arizona chapter of

the nation’s largest high-tech trade association.

• Arizona Parkinson’s Disease Center (APDC): A collaboration of Sun Health Research

Institute, Mayo Clinic, Barrow Neurological Institute, and Arizona State University created

in 2002 to intensify efforts to find new treatment modalities that will increase the survival

and quality of life for victims of Parkinson’s disease.

• Arizona Small Business Association (ASBA): A business association providing

networking, seminars, healthcare, and other benefits to small businesses.

• Arizona Technology Council (ATC): A regional technical organization working to advance

Arizona’s technology business climate by facilitating business connections and unifying

advocate groups around common goals, including accelerating technology-related public

policy in Arizona and cultivating a technology based national image for Arizona.

• Arizona Technology Enterprises (AzTE): The technology commercialization arm of

Arizona State University, responsible for moving life-science and biotechnology inventions

from the laboratory to the marketplace.

• BIO5 Institute (BIO5): A University of Arizona institute designed to fuel economic

development by engaging in biological research, training a bioindustry workforce, and

enhancing science literacy in the state. Its name refers to its five constituent collaborative

disciplines—science, agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, and engineering.

• Biodesign Institute at ASU: Institute that seeks to improve human health and quality of life

through biosystems research, especially via understanding molecular assembly and how its

130

design rules can inspire new applications in medicine, agriculture, environmental

management, and national security.

• Bioindustry Organization of Southern Arizona (BIO-SA): Organization that promotes

bioindustry scientific and business relationships in southern Arizona.

• Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI): One of the largest full-service neuroscience centers

in the U.S.; conducts neurooncology, neurology, and neurosurgery research. A department

of St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center.

• Commerce and Economic Development Commission (CEDC): The state’s economic

policy and planning board, responsible for developing the state’s 10-year economic strategy.

Under the direction of the Arizona Department of Commerce.

• Critical Path Institute (C-Path): A nonprofit partnership between University of Arizona,

SRI International (formerly Stanford Research Institute), and the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration, established to accelerate the development of safe new therapies through UA

research and educational programs.

• Expression Project for Oncology (expO): A program at IGC designed to build on the

technologies and outcomes of the Human Genome Project to improve clinical management

of cancer patients, feeding ultimately into IGC’s unrestricted, publicly available databases of

cancer information.

• FastTrac: An entrepreneur education program teaching business insights, leadership skills,

and professional networking connections to help in the creation or expansion of businesses.

• Generation 7: The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community master plan proposal for

development along the Pima Road corridor, including construction of bioscience facilities

and wet and dry labs.

131

• Governor’s Council on Innovation and Technology (GCIT): A governor-appointed

council that promotes programs and policies that foster the creation and expansion of

technology-based companies in Arizona.

• Governor’s Strategic Partnership for Economic Development (GSPED): A partnership

that administers Arizona’s economic development activities, targeting and supporting

industries that create high-quality, high-paying jobs.

• Greater Flagstaff Economic Council (GFEC): A private, nonprofit group dedicated to

retaining and expanding local firms, as well as relocating new companies to the Flagstaff

area, with efforts focusing in part on biosciences, specifically the medical devices sector.

• Greater Phoenix Economic Council (GPEC): A public-private partnership that works to

attract businesses, including those in the life sciences, and foster regional economic growth.

GPEC represents 14 communities and more than 130 private-sector investors.

• Greater Tucson Economic Council (GTEC): A public-private organization working to

attract companies to southern Arizona, including firms involved in the biosciences (now part

of Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities, Inc., TREO).

• Greater Tucson Strategic Partnership for Economic Development (GTSPED): A

volunteer organization of economic professionals providing a framework for the overall

direction of economic development activities within the greater Tucson community.

• Information Technology Association of Southern Arizona (ITASA): A regional

organization that works to aid the business and professional development of those involved

with the information technology industry in Tucson and southern Arizona.

• Institute for Mental Health Research (IMHR): A nonprofit research institute focusing on

the identification, treatment, and prevention of mental illness by expanding basic scientific

132

and clinical research, serving patients, and implementing findings within the health system

and broader community.

• International Genomics Consortium (IGC): A nonprofit genomic research institute that

seeks to revolutionize the treatment and prevention of cancer and complex diseases by

applying the lessons of the Human Genome Project and its successors to advances in human

health, with the ultimate goal of establishing public molecular databases characterizing

human disease.

• Maricopa Community Colleges Bioindustry Workforce Commission: A commission

working to fulfill the job-training needs of employer communities throughout Maricopa

County, including the development of the skilled labor pool needed to meet bioscience

industry needs.

• Mayo Clinic: A charitable, nonprofit organization providing clinical care and working

toward the accelerated delivery of collaborative bioscience discoveries to patients.

• Northern Arizona Biopartners: A localized version of ABA that serves Flagstaff and

northern Arizona; Flagstaff’s answer to BIOSA.

• Northern Arizona Technology and Business Incubator (NATBI): A nonprofit small-

business assistance program designed to help facilitate the growth of new and existing

businesses in northern Arizona via managerial and consultation services.

• Northern Arizona University Technology Transfer Program (implemented by AzTE): A

program to foster research interactions and facilitate transfers of technology between NAU

and the private sector.

• Phoenix Biomedical Campus of the Arizona University System: The former working title

for the proposed medical school campus in downtown Phoenix.

133

• Phoenix Bioscience Center at Copper Square (PBC): A city-owned, 15-acre area that

serves as home to TGen and IGC. Future site of the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative

(ABC) and the medical school campus.

• Small Business Development Center of Maricopa Community Colleges (SBDC): A

business-development service that provides free, confidential, one-on-one counseling;

referrals to industry-specific business information and educational resources; and low-cost

seminars and workshops.

• Small Business Development and Training Center of Pima Community Colleges

(SBDTC): A business-development service that works closely with the Inventors Association

of Arizona to assist inventors in obtaining patents and trademarks, and with licensing issues

and business plans.

• Southern Arizona Institute for Advanced Technology (SAIAT): A technical training

institute established by the City of Tucson and Pima County to meet the workforce training

needs of businesses, industry, and corporations by providing workforce development and

related corporate training programs.

• Southern Arizona Technology Council (SATC): A nonprofit umbrella organization for

high-tech clusters in Tucson that promotes high-tech industry development in southern

Arizona, including life sciences, environmental technology, aerospace, information

technology, optics, and advanced materials.

• Southwest Autism Research and Resource Center (SAARC): A nonprofit, community-

based organization dedicated to autism research, education, and resources for children and

families.

134

• Strategic Alliance for Bioscience Research and Education (SABRE): A Northern Arizona

University institute designed to fuel economic development by engaging in research that

builds upon the strength of the northern Arizona region -- bioengineering, cancer research,

infectious diseases, diabetes, and neurosciences.

• Sun Health Research Institute (SHRI): A nonprofit institute focusing on debilitating age-

related diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and arthritis—one of only 29 NIH-

designated Alzheimer’s Disease Centers in the nation. Affiliated with the Mayo Clinic,

Arizona State University, University of Arizona, the Barrow Neurological Institute, and

Good Samaritan Hospital.

• Technology Collaborations & Licensing, Office of (TC&L): Former name of AzTE at

Arizona State University.

• Technopolis: An Arizona State University program for educating, coaching, and connecting

technology and life science entrepreneurs, including programs and events on accessing

federal technology commercialization funds (SBIR).

• Translational Drug Development (TD2): A contract research organization established by

TGen that is dedicated to translating genomics discoveries into advances in human health by

developing new drugs for the prevention and treatment of cancer.

• Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen): A private, nonprofit medical research

institution focused on accelerated translation of genomics-based discoveries into advances in

human life and therapeutics against human disease.

• Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities, Inc. (TREO): An economic development

organization in southern Arizona that emerged from the reorganization of previously existing

groups in Tucson under one umbrella organization.

135

• University of Arizona College of Medicine: The university’s medical college, which

focuses on basic and clinical biomedical research and includes eight Centers of Excellence,

designated by the Arizona Board of Regents and dedicated to specific areas of research,

clinical care, and teaching.

• University of Arizona College of Pharmacy: One of the top ten colleges of pharmacy in the

nation, ranked second in the nation in research funding, receiving more than $14.7 million in

such funding annually.

• University of Arizona Office of Technology Transfer (UAOTT): University office that

assists faculty in matters related to intellectual property and helps bring the inventions and

discoveries developed within the university to market.

• University of Arizona Science and Technology Park (UASTP): A facility that provides an

economically and technologically friendly environment for the early-stage growth of

innovative companies.

• University Medical Center at University of Arizona (UMC): A private, nonprofit hospital

located at University of Arizona and nationally renowned for heart and cancer care. UMC is

also the only adult and pediatric comprehensive transplantation center in the Southwest.

136

Front-Running Bioscience Organizations

Biodesign Institute at ASU, Tempe, AZ (www.biodesign.org) -- Understanding and emulating

nature is the key to solving urgent problems posed by disease, depletion of natural resources, and

threats to our national security. Every living system on Earth represents an astounding feat of

engineering continuously refined by nature. The Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University

explores these biological wonders to improve human health and quality of life.

The ability to study and construct systems at nanoscale -- a size 1,000 times smaller than a

human hair -- has unlocked a door to discovery. To accelerate these discoveries and translate

them into useful applications, the Biodesign Institute is taking a bold, integrated approach.

Within the walls of the Institute, the lines between biotechnology, biomedicine, nanotechnology,

information technology, and cognitive science will become increasingly blurred. Biologists,

engineers, and computer scientists will work side by side, bringing highly-specialized expertise

into an environment where glass walls and flexible lab designs stimulate collaboration.

BIO5, Tucson, AZ (www.bio5.org) -- BIO5 provides an intellectual framework and

administrative structure that positions the University of Arizona to be at the leading edge of 21st

Century biological research. The Institute empowers scientists to tackle complex problems: how

to diagnose, treat, or prevent disease, how to better feed a hungry world, and maintain livable

environments. Launched with funds from a voter-approved tax in 2001, BIO5 is designed to fuel

economic development by pursuing state-of-the-art biological research, by creating new products

and processes, by encouraging productive research interactions between faculty and industrial

scientists, by training a bioindustry workforce, and enhancing science literacy.

137

Its name, BIO5, recognizes the strength to be found in collaboration. Five disciplines -– science,

agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, and engineering –- provide the diverse research strength to

accomplish its mission. Researchers participating in BIO5 initiatives have appointments in many

colleges and research institutes and centers. By bringing together some of the world’s best

scientists, equipping them with state of the art instrumentation in a setting that allows interaction

on research issues of mutual interest, BIO5 provides the environment to encourage significant

scientific achievement that translates to increased economic development and a better society.

Critical Path Institute (C-Path), Tucson, AZ (www.c-path.org) – Preliminarily known as the

Institute for Global Pharmaceutical Development (IGPD), C-Path is an independent, free-

standing, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to conduct research and offer

programs that will enable the pharmaceutical industry to safely accelerate the development of

and access to new medications. C-Path is affiliated with three founding partners: the University

of Arizona (UA), SRI International (formerly known as the Stanford Research Institute), and the

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Each partner contributes unique strengths to the C-

Path. UA provides the academic home and infrastructure for the C-Path’s educational and

research programs and an environment of innovation and inquiry. Participating FDA scientists

provide the first hand knowledge of the regulatory process and a wealth of experience in the

evaluation of new pharmaceutical agents. SRI brings practical experience in pharmaceutical

development, scientific expertise, and a track record of commercializing new drugs.

138

Strategic Alliance for Bioscience Research and Education (SABRE), Flagstaff, AZ – In the

spring of 2005, the Arizona Board of Regents approved the creation of a new bioresearch

institute at Northern Arizona University, the Strategic Alliance for Bioscience Research and

Education (SABRE). NAU faculty has worked to build SABRE for several years in order to

promote Arizona’s push for a biosciences sector. SABRE first came about two and a half years

ago as an ad hoc group of faculty from a range of scientific disciplines and members of the

Greater Flagstaff Economic Council. Eager to balance the flurry of bioscience-related activity in

the central and southern regions of the state, the alliance (formerly called the Institute of

Integrative Biotechnology Research and Education) will focus on the research and economic

strengths unique to the region, which Arizona’s Bioscience Roadmap identified as

bioengineering, cancer research, infectious diseases, diabetes, and neuroscience, areas that

intentionally overlap to foster inter-university cooperation and partnering. SABRE is funded

under the auspices of the state’s Technology and Research Initiative, which was approved by

Arizona voters in Proposition 301 in 2000. Its affiliated faculty members carry nearly $2 million

in outside grants.

Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), Phoenix, AZ (www.tgen.org) -- On

February 7, 2002 an assembly of more than fifty leaders and visionaries gathered at the Arizona

state capitol to discuss genomics. More importantly the agenda included discussion of the

possibility of establishing Arizona as a player in the new economy of the biotechnology industry.

In attendance were experts in science and medicine, government officials, and business

champions. They had convened to decide whether Arizona could pull off what seemed like an

impossible challenge, attracting the talent and raising the capital -- during a national recession no

139

less -- to set up a one-of-a-kind genomics research institute, the Translational Genomics

Research Institute (TGen), to make and translate genomic discoveries into advances in human

health. TGen’s goal is to take the wealth of new data emerging from the human genome project

and translate it into direct benefits for patients.

With a positive group consensus, it was decided the idea was not only feasible, but represented a

unique opportunity for Arizonans to rally together for a shared vision into the future. The group

had their work cut out for them: the state was facing its largest budget shortfall and dire

economic predictions. With an unprecedented cooperative spirit, they rallied to the task of

securing support for TGen on the order of $90 million; this fundraising was achieved in a five

month window. Less than a year after the initial gathering in the Governor’s office, the

Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen) was operational, and Arizona’s place in

genomics history became a reality.

140

Major Bioscience Grants Received in Arizona in 2005

January 2005 -- Mayo Clinic receives a $10.8 million grant from the Specialized Programs

of Research Excellence division of the National Cancer Institute. The grant will be used to

seek new research therapies and to reduce deaths caused by a specific type of brain cancer. The

clinical and translational research, divided into four distinct components, will be led by twelve

Mayo investigators at Mayo’s campuses in Rochester, Minn., Jacksonville, Fla., and Scottsdale.

February 2005 -- Biomedical device manufacturer Ventana Medical Systems receives

nearly $500,000 from the Arizona Job Training Program to train 400 of its Oro Valley

employees. The program, run by the Arizona Department of Commerce, dispenses funds to help

bioscience companies like Ventana train existing and incoming employees. This is the second

job-training grant Ventana has received from the state; in 2002, it was awarded as similar grant

of $585,000. Other bioscience companies awarded job-training grants in the past year include

Acenta Discovery Inc., a drug chemistry company that won a $10,862 grant to train one new

worker and two existing employees; Engineering and Research Associates Inc., a medical device

firm that got a $4,230 grant last May; and Laboratory Sciences of Arizona, a Phoenix-based

hospital laboratory management firm that got a grant $700,000 to train 552 workers.

February 2005 -- Arizona Cancer Center receives $1 million from UA basketball coach

Lute Olson. The gift will be used to aid the research of treatment for women’s cancer. Olson’s

family has also helped spearhead fund-raising for the Arizona Cancer Center. It established the

Bobbi Olson half-marathon, an event that has raised more than $1 million.

141

February 2005 -- The Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen) announces a new

charitable fund, the Leslie Ann Ballard Melanoma Research Fund, named for a longtime

Phoenix resident who lost her battle with malignant melanoma. TGen’s Melanoma Research

Program is the beneficiary of “Leslie’s Fund.” The program includes a multidisciplinary team

that focuses on several areas of melanoma research, including: identifying individuals who are

most at-risk for developing melanoma, increasing the understanding of the early stages of

melanoma, and studying the genetic events underlying melanoma progression .

March 2005 -- Mayo Clinic receives $5 million from retired oil executive, Mark Mazzarino.

The gift was made to promote Mayo’s cancer research efforts.

May 2005 -- TGen receives a $3 million gift from Phoenix businessman Ray Thurston. The

money was pledged to support breast cancer research projects. Thurston is not only providing

funding; he is bringing his years of supply chain management and logistics experience to help

accelerate TGen’s research programs. He is interested in streamlining processes that expedite

research and ultimately reduce the time required for the development of new diagnostic tests and

drug treatments.

June 2005 -- University of Arizona receives $822,000 grant from the National Institutes of

Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The funding is part of a larger

grant of $40 million awarded to the new Pacific-Southwest Center for Biodefense and Emerging

Infectious Diseases Research. The center supports projects at a consortium of 16 universities

and research institutes in Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada. Vicki Wysocki, a UA

142

professor of chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biophysics, and a member of the UA’s

BIO5 Institute for Collaborative Bioresearch is leading a consortium of analytical facilities for

the center.

June 2005 -- Intrinsic Bioprobes, Inc. begins work to find a way to screen for Type II

diabetes before symptoms occur. The project is a joint effort with Yale University School of

Medicine. Fast-track grants from the National Institutes of Health‘s National Institute of

Diabetes and Diseases of the Kidney will provide $2.1 million over the next four years. The

company has also received a $300,000 Phase I biodefense grant from the National Institute of

Allergies and Infectious Diseases to screen for protein-based toxins in water and milk, a $1.1

million fast-track grant from the National Center for Research Resources for technology

development, and a $100,000 Phase I bioinformatics grant from the National Science Foundation

to work with Beavis Informatics of Manatova, Canada, to write the software to identify diversity

in human proteins.

June 2005 -- Pima Community College and JobPath, Inc. receive a $276,393 grant from the

U.S. Employment and Training Administration. The grant will be used to help bolster

southern Arizona’s bioscience workforce. The funding will be pooled with $185,710 matching

dollars to build up the local bioscience industry through a summer education institute and job

training programs. Other Arizona partners of Job Path, Inc. include the Pima County One-Stop

Career Center, Office of the Pima County Superintendent of Schools, BIO5, TGen, the Arizona

BioIndustry Association, the Bioindustry Organization of Southern Arizona, La Paloma Family

Services, and Flinn Foundation.

143

June 2005 -- TGen awarded $7.1 million grant by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to

accelerate brain disease research. The funding will continue a project designed to uncover the

genetic causes of neurological and mental health disorders using sophisticated genetic scanning

technologies. The award is part of a greater $25 million grant that TGen will share with three

other centers that are part of the NIH Neuroscience Microarray Consortium. The consortium

combines technology resources from TGen, Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, the

University of California in Los Angeles, and Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.

June 2005 -- ASU Researcher, Roy Curtiss, receives $14.8 million from the Bill and

Melinda Gates Foundation. Curtiss was awarded the grant for his work on a pediatric

pneumonia vaccine. Curtiss, co-director of the Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology

at the Biodesign Institute, left Washington University, St. Louis last year to join ASU. Curtiss’

research team will work on the pneumonia vaccine with researchers at the University of

Alabama, Duke University, and Tufts, as well as institutions in Australia and Korea.

August 2005 -- Northern Arizona University and TGen receive $8.5 million in federal

grants and corporate support. The grants, which include $3.9 million from the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services and $4.6 million in support from Applied Biosystems

Group of Foster City, California will fund will fund research into the causes and treatment of

sepsis and community-acquired pneumonia. The Laboratory Services of Arizona (LSA) and the

Banner Health System will also collaborate on the project.

144

August 2005 -- University of Arizona Biomedical Research Abroad: Vistas Open program

receives $915,000 from NIH. The money will be put towards travel grants for students who

want to do scientific research abroad. BRAVO also receives funding from the Howard Hughes

Medical Institute as well as the NIH National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities.

August 2005 -- C-Path receives $1.25 million from Flinn Foundation. C-Path, a nonprofit

with the mission of improving the drug development process, will use the funds to support

startup operations and scientific and educational programs over the next five years. C-Path,

which has established ties with the Food and Drug Administration, University of Arizona, and

SRI International, has also received more than $10 million in community support, including

$400,000 from the state of Arizona, $1.87 million pledged by the City of Tucson, and an equal

amount from Pima County government. Private contributors, including the Thomas R. Brown

Family Foundation and Tucson business leaders Jim Click and Don Diamond, have donated a

total of $3.5 million. Finally, UA, SRI International, and the Food and Drug Administration plan

to collaborate with C-Path and have contributed substantial funding.

145

About the Contributors

146

William Dabars is Director of Special Communications Projects at Arizona State University. He has served as chief speechwriter and in other communications capacities for such institutions as the University of Southern California, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the J. Paul Getty Trust. A communications consultant, writer, and editor, he received an M.A. in European history from UCLA. Bradley W. Halvorsen is Assistant Vice President for Communications and Public Affairs at the Flinn Foundation. He received a B.A. in journalism from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Telecommunications at Arizona State University. Saundra E. Johnson is Vice President for Strategic Development and Communications at the Flinn Foundation. She has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Arizona Healthcare Federation and President of the Arizona Affordable Health Care Foundation. She is a graduate of Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Public Administration and a Fellow in the American College of Healthcare Executives. Kathleen Matt is Assistant Vice President for Research, and Director of the Office of Clinical Partnerships at the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. She received her Ph.D. in endocrine physiology from the University of Washington, Seattle, and completed an NIH post-doctoral fellowship at University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. James W. McPherson III is Director of Communications at the Flinn Foundation. He has held executive public affairs and marketing positions at Triad America Corporation, FHP Health Care, and AT&T Wireless. He received an M.A. in Public Administration from The Ohio State University. Walter H. Plosila is Vice President of the Technology Partnership Practice at Battelle. He has served as Executive Director of the North Carolina Alliance for Competitive Technologies and President of the Suburban Maryland Technology Council. He received a Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh. George Poste is Del Webb Distinguished Professor of Biology and Director of the Biodesign Institute at Arizona State University. He is also Chief Executive Officer of Health Technology Networks and Chairman of Orchid Biosciences. He served as Chief Science and Technology Officer and President of Research and Development at SmithKline Beecham. He received his D.V.M., Ph.D., and D.Sc. from the University of Bristol, England.

147