Science Business, What happened to biotech

by Gary Pisano
Pisano 教授指出，生技產業在過去三十年間，研發表現並沒有很大的進步，主要的原因在於系統缺失及科學與商業之間的張力，主要的概念如下： 1. 生技產業未如預期，卡在科學與商業之間的目標與需求的衝突
2. 生技產業需要重新調整經營模式、組織結構及資金的安排，讓他們可以著重於長期學習而非短期智財權的兌現
3. 給管理者的建言：避開進行許多小的交易，著重在關係的深化。

在Harvard Business Review 的專訪裏，訪問者問道，生技在過去的三十年間，並沒有給投資者太多的回報，但投資仍然源源不絕，這是什麼道理呢？
Pisano當下的回答是，好問題，這是個謎！他說，平圴報酬是很低，但獲得報酬的則是很大的報酬。大部份的人相信，在投入這麼多研發資源之後，未來應該是光明的。

「在回答『科學產業』的挑戰時，我們要先回答一個問題：『什麼是科學產業？』 本書中所指的科學產業指的是產業裏的企業本身就在參與科學的進展及創造。 例如：『Genetech在1976年成立之後，就專注於解決基礎科學問題，如何複製基因及在細菌細胞裏表現蛋白。Kary Mullis，Chiron顧用的科學家發明了polymerase chain reaction，研究基因最重要的技術之一，且因此得到諾貝爾獎。Celera和龐大的官方資助計畫競賽進行人類基因體的定序』..等。

[[但這令人想到貝爾實驗室等美國早期的實驗室，似乎也在做同樣的事情？]]

『當民間企業參與愈來愈多的基礎科學研究，大學及教學醫學中心則有參與愈來愈多跟他們研究有關的商業活動： 哥倫比亞大學的recombinant DNA技術專利在二十年間帶來3億到4億美金，最多曾經到一年1億美金的收益。 Massachusetts General Hospital，哈佛醫學院的同盟。在2003年因為授權得到4千3百萬的營收，其中一半來自於一個產品（Enbrel.2）的專利。』

Meta thought on the meta of objective meta

I am preparing something to be presented in some government related agency and initiated a discussion with a senior colleague who has worked with government agency for some years. While I was thinking methodologies to get things done more efficiently and correctly, he suggest me turning direction to "people issue".

I worked as project manager (of products) in electronic industry for some years. Our goals are generally clear. We have to make profits out of our projects considering time to market, cost and quality requirement. Very often I needed to have many conversations with different departments of the company, of the customers and sometimes of vendors several times just in one day. I used to think it's a complicated job requiring good personal skills to be able to move things around among many stakeholders, when their personal interests are not inline with cooperate interests. When I was promoted to a higher level, my boss put a line on my annual performance review card that I need to improve my personal skill. I was confused what personal skills she might really mean. I'd managed well, I thought.

Later on I realize there are some differences. The first thing is when you are at different hierarchical position, personal skills have different meanings. On the surface level, it's all about satisfaction of personal needs such as to be alive, to have achievements, to feel safe and so on. However when you move to a higher ladder, the tools and linking networks become complicated. In order to drive people, you'd need to understand the more complicated network people live within and tools they exercise. I realize later that it's still rather simple inside a cooperation. In the end of day, cooperate objective is to profit. Everything evolves within that framework.

It gets incredible complex when I left industry to work on some government related project. Suddenly I felt myself like a junior high (or even at elementary school level). The incentive systems in government agencies are complicated. There are multi-layers of hidden agendas. It's a complicated web of interest groups, political parties, governmental agencies and personal interests. The rewards are not only in one or two simple forms such as monetary or position power but in various forms.

The system becomes so complicated that it almost can't be described or taught in a systematic and explicit way. It has formed an intangible entry barrier. Those who have survived in the systems have developed huge implicit system knowledge, bureaucracy's know how. This implicit system knowledge has become their biggest and unbreakable valuable asset that prevents competition.

The thoughts organized in different way in this world. I thank God that I might not stay in this world forever. (or maybe I'd developed my personal implicit knowledge and create entry barrier for other people, wouldn't I?)

Some economic facts

I've been reading a report from TIER president about Taiwan's economic development experience and prospects and another article about Taiwan's innovation system. Both have interesting facts to look at. There are some of interest summarized below:

Technology investment

　High rank in innovation index (based on WEF)
　Taiwan US patent number rank world No 4 (2004)
　Taiwan patent number/per person rank No 2 (2004)
　R&D investment share of GDP ranks world No 10 (business R&D)
　LCD patents rank No 5
　R&D investment in service ranks low
　Patent mainly in semconductors, electrical devices, and consumer goods & equipment

Technology investment return

　TFT-LCD ranks world No 2
　ICT share of industry GDP: 35+
　HW industry ranks world No 4
　Semiconductor ranks world No 4
　Taiwan has many world No1 industry (in terms of economic scale)
　Low paid royalty/IPR income rate (lag behind 14 countries)

Others

　Trading amount ranks world No 15 (export + import)
　GDP share: Service>industry>mfg>agriculture (Real GDP share: 73.3%, 25%, 21.4%, 1.7%)
　High rank in enterprise efficiency (6 /IMD)
　Low rank in government efficiency (19/IMD)
　Increased IPO purchase
　Slowed GDP growth from 1995 - 2004
　Low labor productivity below OECD average (GDP/employment)

Google notebook and ads

I've been using Google notebook for some time even though I don't necessarily go back to all the notes I kept from reading stuff on web. Nevertheless I found it useful to save the source and information easily.

This morning I was reading an article about how New York Times and The Washington Post buy Google ads to put their coverage on searchers' search result page, I found it interesting and put it in my Google notebook for further reference.

Something to my surprise has happened. I saw a advertisement banner in my Google notebook thread, just right in the middle of the quote I copied from the article.


After all there's no free lunch in the world. I can understand Google develops its services and needs to profit from them. But I think Goolge can do a better job to have the ads in a nicer way.

Google had provided services changing how information gets distributed. We wouldn't know if that would had happened if Google hadn't done so. However I constantly think that Google might have become information monopoly. It archives conversations, publications, pictures and everything going on the web in every country in the world. It reads (supposedly the machine does this.. ) our readings, thoughts, exchanges with friends and family photos.

I used Flickr before but am gradually turning away from it now. Why do I need a Yahoo account to access a service I had used for long? What if I don't like to have a Yahoo account, what choice I have under this circumstance? If I had used Flickr for even longer time, with all my photos ALL in Flickr and no where else, what power I have to fight against the new policy?

This has made me thinking about what "market failures" and government intervention would really mean when there's no border in the Internet world.

閱讀福爾摩沙政經評論

北卡經濟系副教授林環牆教授的"福爾摩沙政經評論"中，常可以見到以較多事實與較完整的邏輯對台灣經濟問題進行論述，正是在網路開放空間裏少見的，只可惜沒有其它的經濟學者與之進行觀點的論戰。經濟成長理論、模型眾多而複雜，到底什麼樣的政府政策才是對台灣長期永續經濟成長有益，在台灣罕見經濟學者對此進行論辯，台灣的民眾只好每天被專業有限的名嘴與新聞媒體餵養偏頗的觀念。最常聽到的是因為執政黨的關係，造成台灣經濟成長趨緩。這樣的論點如果要成立的話，首先要假設不管哪個執政黨執政，台灣會維持之前的經濟成長率，這樣的假設很難符合經濟成長受到眾多內外在因素影響，且這些因素不停變動的事實。（台灣的選擇：談經濟需要知識與邏輯也有提到林的觀點）

林教授的反擊「中國熱」的台灣經濟發展藍圖提出了台灣經濟成長問題的有趣假說，他認為台灣的經濟發展藍圖應正面處理「中國熱」的問題。他認為台灣的經濟已步入「固定資本邊際報酬」的遞減階段，要將資源轉入「人力素質」與「技術創新」投資，才有可能為台灣建構創造高工資就業機會的經濟體。林同時認為，台灣對海外與中國進行投資，必須和島內的垂直創新取得動態平衡，「前者把台灣技術帶出去，後者則把先進國家的新穎技術帶進來，讓台灣在全球技術階梯，往上爬升。當島內資源過度不對稱地流向低成本導向的對外垂直整合時，中國，無論是做為世界工廠或市場，都是台灣的『威脅』，而不是『機會』」

不過在閱讀林教授的文章時，保持客觀與邏輯仍是重要的。在中國熱的文章裏，林教授提到的因為投資中國與海外，造成內部創新資源的排擠效用，需要有更多的證據來支持這個論點。另外他在技術創新，台、美、日最閃耀中以各國在美國申請專利件數為創新的指標，也有爭議之處。專利件數是否為好的創新指標，或是專利的引用為較好的創新指標，也有討論的空間。（Measuring innovation這裏有有趣的討論與聯結）

但林教授的政經評論blog仍是很值得閱讀的