In this third edition, our largest yet, several themes become apparent. We have profiled 38 regions in 35 countries around the world. Some of these regions are in close proximity to other regions with similar capacities and challenges, while others have peers in close proximity. This means that while some regions have multiple local opportunities to form synergistic partnerships, others are challenged to differentiate themselves from better-positioned neighbors or may have to compensate for a complete lack of local synergies. As one looks closer, the differences in the distribution of resources between regions also become apparent. Some regions have an abundance of wealth but lack a scientific base. Other regions may have a strong infrastructure and financing but are impeded by a lack of coordination or policy impediments. The most successful regions have used coordinated efforts and strong policy leadership to overcome their natural hurdles and identify and fully benefit from their intrinsic strengths.

Some of the themes that are apparent in this Global Analysis are:

Size: Biotechnology research is expensive and generally requires large infrastructure investments and a highly skilled workforce. Smaller countries often lack these attributes due to their inability to achieve economies of the scale. Countries such as Iceland, Singapore, Israel, and Cuba are often challenged by a relatively small research base, few sources of venture funding, and a shortage of technicians and managers. Rather than trying to model the actions of nations with larger resource-bases, the most successful efforts have focused on identifying appropriately sized targets of opportunity, reaching out to well-positioned foreign assets, and aggressively supporting implementation of plans to address these targets.

Distance: Countries such as New Zealand and Australia are very distant from peers with similar economic capacities or scientific bases. Emerging European nations are also challenged to compete with well-established neighbors. The solutions that many of these regions have implemented are to aggregate local resources to develop economies of scale and to aggressively pursue logical synergies with foreign assets.

Density: Similar to the challenges associated with size and distance are those associated with low density. Russia and Canada are the two largest countries in the world, yet they have broadly distributed populations. These nations are addressing this challenge by forming networks of research institutions spread across vast distances: hub and node networks within a nation.

Genealogy: Many countries feature long documented genealogical histories or sub-populations with little genetic mixing over time. Correlating genetic characteristics with disease prevalence presents significant opportunities to ultimately develop valuable biotechnology products.

Political change: Political and economic change can profoundly impact development agendas. At one extreme, Russia is challenged to utilize its well developed infrastructure and to ensure that its former biological weapons capacities are safely contained. By contrast, Cuba has seen great fruits from its biotechnology efforts, largely due to decades of unwavering political support.

Subsistence: A sharp distinction in biotechnology agendas can be seen between regions based on their subsistence. China, India, and many African nations have a pressing need to find effective ways to produce greater amounts of food from decreasing amounts of arable land, or to increase yields on marginal soils. For these nations biotechnology is more than a tool to improve health care or reduce the cost of food production; the effective implementation of biotechnology in agriculture is a necessity to prevent mass starvation.

Ecology: Many Pacific nations have access to deep-marine resources. By contrast, Israel and African nations have large deserts. These countries are utilizing their natural ecological resources and knowledge of these habitats to develop unique biotechnology products such as novel medicinal products and drought-resistant crops.

Policies: There is a great diversity of national policies across the spectrum of predominantly planned through increasingly market-driven economies. Cuba, for example, has no biotechnology companies, relegating all commercialization to government-run entities. India and China define their biotechnology policies in a series of cascading multi-year plans. Nations such as Singapore, France, and Germany are aggressively deploying economic incentives to help encourage private industry to lead biotechnology development.

Appropriate expectations: Many regions around the world look to the success of the United States in developing a vibrant biotechnology industry, and attempt to mimic the present-day characteristics of the leading regions in the United States. This ultimately leads to frustration due to a lack of similar resources or supportive policies. In reality, these regions are only seeing part of the picture . the bulk of U.S. biotechnology dominance is centered in a few locations in California and the northeast. These locations have come to dominate the global biotechnology industry through a combination of significant external factors, strong internal leadership, decades of hard work, and a measure of luck. Attempting to rush the growth process or apply excessive market distortions is sure to lead to failure.

Old regional development models no longer apply: The model of all-inclusive clusters is outdated. Those regions that have been able to succeed under this model are being challenged as clusters are disaggregating as discrete research and development activities are linked through a global network of increasingly specialized regions. Regional development needs to face this reality, as attempts to build local economies based on outdated models will only lead to wasted efforts and failure.

The challenges are shared: Many of the common challenges in developing biotechnology regions stem from a lack of capital, small research base, or lack of seasoned managers and skilled workers. While the unique combination of these elements and the causes of these elements may be different from one region to another, there are themes in the solutions to these problems. Furthermore, these same problems are shared by regions within the United States struggling to develop biotechnology infrastructures and those regions outside of the United States.

The challenges faced by diverse regions are shared, yet solutions need to be crafted based on individual needs. Focusing on best principles, rather than best-practices, is the key to creating a robust implementation plan and ultimately realizing the profound economic, social, and political benefits that stem from technology-based economic development.