EXOME

all the information, none of the junk | biotech • healthcare • life sciences

What Seattle Needs (Part 1): “Semi-Successful” Biotech Companies

Opinion

(Page 2 of 2)

630 jobs, San Francisco 597 jobs, and San Diego 256 jobs. Whether there are good matches between the skill sets of those laid off and those seeking to hire new employees remains to be determined in all locations.

When Eli Lilly acquired ICOS in 2006, Bruce Carter, then the CEO of ZymoGenetics, remarked, “For the biotech industry in Seattle, it’s a very bad thing – it’s an industry where the bigger it gets, the bigger it gets.” Unfortunately, I think the converse is also true: the smaller it gets, the smaller it gets. And to me it feels like we are slowly diminishing year by year. It’s death by a thousand cuts, with a few deep gashes mixed in.

Recent Job Losses Are Only a “Blip”?

I’ve seen predictions that most of the laid off workers will find jobs here, as well as comments from others who characterize these layoffs as just a “blip” on the local biotech scene. I agree that most of these people will find jobs, but it won’t happen quickly, many won’t be in Washington state, and some may not even be in a traditional biotech setting. I’ve posted on my website a summary of Seattle area biotech layoffs starting in 2002 with Amgen’s acquisition of Immunex. Some of the figures are rough estimates since the companies wouldn’t release the actual number of displaced employees. The total number of biotech jobs lost in the Puget Sound region in the past dozen years: about 5,200. The numbers are actually a bit worse than that because final layoffs were not announced when many companies (e.g. Corixa, Targeted Genetics, Allozyne) shut their doors.

The Washington state life sciences industry just surpassed the $1 billion mark, which is great news. Unfortunately, tracking hiring is problematic in the biotech sector. Jobs are filled in drib and drabs, and many are ambiguously classified as “life science” positions. This term encompasses agricultural science, medical devices, academic faculty jobs, and a great many others. We can’t readily see how biotech is faring compared to other parts of the sector, such as medical devices or academic positions, which is why I’ve suggested the term “life sciences” should be retired. I believe there are fewer biotech jobs now than there were a dozen years ago, even as other bioscience sector employment has grown. Seattle does have a lot of biotech companies, but most of them could hold an all-employee meeting in your average sized living room without needing to rearrange the furniture. This is not likely to change substantially in the near future. If you didn’t find the layoff numbers convincing, take a look at Luke Timmerman’s national geographic analysis of biotech companies that had, as of December, at least $100 million in cash and short-term investments. Seattle was the only city on the list that had fewer such companies in 2013 than it did in 2003. Many of the other cities, such as Boston, San Diego, and San Francisco, have expanded their biotech sectors greatly during this time.

What Happens To The People When Biotechs Get Acquired?

There are some patterns that are repeatedly seen:
1) Keep all of the employees and add additional resources. This rarely seems to happen; I don’t recall seeing many (any?) examples of this in Seattle.
2) Keep “key” employees and send the rest packing (e.g. Immunex, ZymoGenetics).
3) Strip out the assets and close the doors (e.g. ICOS, Corixa).

The fate of the employees generally depends on the motives for the acquisition. These principally occur for the following reasons:
1) Acquire marketed drug(s) to expand offerings in an already strong product area, or a new pipeline of medicines in development to add revenue later.
2) Diversify the larger company into a new therapeutic area.
3) Control a key platform technology that can be used to build into new products as well as bring in licensing fees.
4) Acquire a company to keep its technology out of the hands of competitors.

How this all works out depends on the acquirer’s ability to accurately evaluate the assets of the company they’re buying. Sometimes this works out well, other times not so much. It often takes years to figure out if an acquisition was worthwhile, although sometimes these deals blow up quickly when diligence is not done as carefully as it should be.

There are three current outcomes for most young biopharma companies: they fold, get bought out, or live in the middle ground long enough until they drift one way or the other. This explains the appeal of “semi-successful” companies that survive and thrive. As noted above, there’s no practical way to identify companies that are going to be “semi-successful” at an early phase of their growth and development. I use the term to illustrate the somewhat idiosyncratic nature of the biopharmaceutical business. It may be hard to imagine how one could lure a “semi-successful” company into moving to Washington state, since most of its value is contained in the collective skillset of its employees, and not the revenues produced by its drugs. However, it can happen, as evidenced by Sarepta Therapeutics’s (NASDAQ: SRPT) move from the Puget Sound region to the Boston area. The announced rationale for that move was the unavailability of workers in the Washington state region with experience in developing drugs for orphan diseases. Why such individuals couldn’t be recruited here was left unexplained.

We do have a number of collective science skill sets here that are strong, including immunology, cancer research, diabetes, gene sequencing and genomics, and world health. These may be areas that we want to focus future investments on for competitive reasons. One issue that we need to come to terms with is dealing with Amgen’s departure from Washington state. What does it mean for our biotech community? I’ll share my thoughts on that in tomorrow’s post.

Single PageCurrently on Page: 1 2 previous page

Stewart Lyman is Owner and Manager of Lyman BioPharma Consulting LLC in Seattle. He provides strategic advice to clients on their research programs, collaboration management issues, as well as preclinical data reviews. Follow @

Trending on Xconomy

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

3 responses to “What Seattle Needs (Part 1): “Semi-Successful” Biotech Companies”

  1. eaustin says:

    I gave Seattle a good 12 years of my life but after getting laid off yet again I had to pack up and move to the Boston area…far more job opportunities and at least the impression of some degree of stability. I went from mid-size biotech (ICOS) to a consulting group, then private consulting, and finally a small biotech which had to dump 35% of its workforce when it lost a contract. I just got tired of the constant downturns in the region despite my love of the area. Just hope my friends at Novo and Amgen can figure out a way to keep the flame alive. Me…I have bills to pay.

  2. David Miller says:

    You can actually lure biotechs to Washington, provided the Legislature is willing to play along. Texas is having a stream of biotechs move to their state via the rules of their CPRIT grants.

    The CPRIT program is something we could easily achieve here in WA if the Legislature gets on board. The grants are reviewed by expert teams.

    CPRIT grants are MATCHING grants, which adds another check & balance. If VCs/Angels aren’t going to invest alongside the state, the biotech doesn’t get the money. CPRIT grants are staged, with specific success milestones that must be achieved to unlock the next tranche of cash. Significantly, the funded company must move its management team and substantially all its operations to Texas to get the money.

    The CPRIT money is meaningful enough, especially with the match, to get companies to move from all over the US and Canada. It also fills a badly-neglected niche, namely cash for very early-stage companies. These are the companies least-served by traditional VC firms.

    I’ve been saying for years we focus to much on R&D biotechs in terms of creating “anchor” companies. Widening one’s view towards manufacturing — device or drug — would allow us to feel better about our entire biotech ecosystem here. Manufacturing plants do get bought all the time, but rarely are closed. They have location-specific assets that are not easily moved. So even if they are acquired, the jobs and companies tend to stay here.

    And these manufacturing companies, especially those who develop the ability to handle all sorts of manufacturing-related development from small biotechs who badly need such expertise, can be home to many of the same biotech/science jobs “at risk” for layoffs when pharma buys our smaller biotech companies. If we can attract a broad variety of thee manufacturing companies, we will develop a place for scientists to move laterally even if we can’t manage to retain large, successful biotech companies in the face of pharma’s desire to acquire. Almost every small biotech I review for our fund needs manufacturing/CMC expertise on an outsourced basis. Building a core “anchor” manufacturing base here in the state will pay many benefits for our entire biotech ecosystem. And we’re on our way already with some nicely growing manufacturing companies already here.

    Finally, don’t underestimate how buyouts and even layoffs contribute to our biotech economy. Our firm has certainly seen an uptick in inquiries from scientists looking for early-stage funding for their great ideas after the recent layoff announcements. We look forward to reviewing more and helping create the next generation of Washington-based biotechs — successfu, “semi”: or otherwise.