Prof Chris Lowe, director of the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Biotechnology - Resources - Q10 - Business Weekly

HOME

Resources

Q10: Talking Heads

Prof Chris Lowe, director of the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Biotechnology

Written by Ben Fountain

Wednesday, 30 January 2008

Prof Chris Lowe, director of the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Biotechnology

"Naively, I thought British companies would bite my hands off to gain access to this technology – sadly, after several frustrating years trying to interest British companies, the technology was sold to a US company and, to this day, some 35 years later, the products are still being sold!"

The organisation:
Professor Chris Lowe is director of the Institute of Biotechnology and Professor of Biotechnology at the University of Cambridge. The principal focus of his biotechnology research programme over the last 30 years has been the high value-low volume sectors of pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals and diagnostics.

The work not only covers aspects of biochemistry, microbiology, chemistry, electrochemistry, physics, electronics and chemical engineering, but also the entire range from pure science to strategic applied science, some of which has significant commercial applications. In 2006, Prof Lowe was named the Most Entrepreneurial Scientist in the UK in a competition organised by UKSECs, the national network of Enterprise Centres, and Science Alliance.

The Institute of Biotechnology is a centre of excellence in biotechnology research. It was established in 1988 to meet growing demands for highly skilled research personnel, and the new knowledge necessary for continuing expansion of the science platform upon which biotechnology innovations are based.

1) How has an academic research institute come to win a major award for enterprise?
The Institute of Biotechnology was founded de novo in 1988 as a postgraduate research organisation but quickly became a leading centre of excellence conducting high quality biotechnology research, providing bioscience training and creating the academic, business and financial leaders of the future.

The Institute aims to create opportunities at the interface of several scientific disciplines and by integrating other business, teaching and training activities into an entrepreneurial culture, it promotes a seamless transition for exploitable research from bench to marketplace. The Institute was awarded a prestigious Queen’s Award for Technological Achievement in 1996, the first such award for Cambridge, and I was named ‘Most Entrepreneurial Scientist of the UK.’

More recently, the Institute has been recognised with The Queen’s Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Education. This prize honours “outstanding achievement and excellence” with the Awards Council looking for “initiative, innovation and originality.”

The University of Cambridge Vice-Chancellor said: “Research-based entrepreneurship is playing an increasing role in driving the UK’s economic growth. The choice of the Institute of Biotechnology for the Queen’s Anniversary Prize is testament not only to its success in putting research at the heart of entrepreneurial learning, but also to its status as a model for others.”

2) There is more to the Institute’s achievements than statistics, but what would you highlight as the headline facts and figures?
The key headline figures are 10 companies employing over 250 people and worth more than £250m spun out of the Institute following some £10m of public investment in 15 years. The lessons learnt in this process are now being used to inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs.

3) The concept of “research-based entrepreneurship” seems to be central to the Institute’s model. What does it mean and how does it work?
The Institute’s key concept is to gather together inter-related biological, chemical and physical sciences and medical and engineering disciplines to generate imaginative research at their boundaries and then use these advances to develop business activity and entrepreneurial training.
New research opportunities are patented, out-licensed or spun out to be developed further as commercial companies. Income is cycled back to support further promising research and thereby repeat the inventive cycle. This philosophy underpins our Master’s in Bioscience Enterprise (MBE) course where we train approximately 23-25 students, recruited from all over the world, in the principles and practise of bioentrepreneurship. We believe that this course is essentially unique in that it is managed from a biological sciences department and taps into the expertise of the Cambridge cluster.

4) Biotechnology is being applied in an ever widening range of research areas beyond medicine. How is it reflected in the work being carried out at the Institute?
The Institute has a research school of more than 70 postdoctoral research scientists and postgraduate students and supports a broad range of research in the biological sciences (plant biotechnology, anhydrobiosis, microbiology, enzyme and protein engineering, biopharmaceuticals) and medicine (neuropsychiatric disorders) and is at the forefront of research in the physical and engineering sciences (biosensors, holography, nanobiotechnology, downstream processing).
As examples of state-of-the-art research, we are active in plant cell cycle studies, holographic sensors in contact lenses for minimally-invasive glucose measurements, lactate sensors for sports use, methods for the expression and purification of therapeutic antibodies and studies on the fundamentals of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder for the development of novel diagnostics and therapeutics.

5) The so-called post-genomics revolution has not yet materialised. What’s the hold up?
Most disorders are known to have both genetic and superimposed proteomic and metabolomicomponents. Whilst there are a limited number of genes in the human genome, and the techniques for their study are relatively well established, the number of proteins and their post-translated variants is several order of magnitudes higher.
Complexities relating to their three dimensional structure and function, distribution in the cellular matrix, compartmentation and degradation, coupled with a limited array of techniques available for their study, means that the post-genomics revolution is still very much in its infancy.

6) It could be argued that the Cambridge biotech cluster has not realised the potential it showed 10 years ago. What has held it back?
The Cambridge biotech cluster is still one of the largest in Europe, alongside Munich and Medicon valley, and is by no means exhausted as you seem to suggest. The growth of the Cambridge cluster has stalled with a slight reduction in the total number of companies over the last 18 months and a reduced investment.
However, the companies have delivered solid returns to their investors; for example, over the last year or so, 12 companies have been listed on the public markets, 24 sold or merged and in excess of £1 billion has been created for shareholders or management teams. Cambridge is now the apex of the so-called diamond cluster, which incorporates London, Oxford, the Thames Valley and SE England.
Thus, the Cambridge cluster is merely taking a breather, ready for the next big push for companies in the newer technologies of bionanotechnology, biomarkers, synthetic biology, stem cell technologies etc. The cluster is a dynamic living system and is currently undergoing change - it is not being held back, but is facing stiffer competition from elsewhere, including the rapidly developing BRICSAM countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Mexico).

7) The Institute has already been responsible for the creation of a number of spin-out companies. Are there any more in the pipeline?
The Institute has created 10 spin out companies directly from its research portfolio, several indirectly via alumni, several jointly with Institute and MBE students and at least 20 have emanated directly from the MBE course itself. There are more in the pipeline, which shows little sign of abating.

8) What do the next 20 years hold for the Institute?
To date, the Institute has been uniquely successful in creating an entrepreneurial ethos in an academic environment. In the near term we plan to embark on a further ambitious programme of expansion coupled with the introduction of further novel concepts.
We plan to merge the Institute with the Department of Chemical Engineering to create a new Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, introduce a limited undergraduate curriculum, enhance our research profile with further staff appointments, engage in clinical translation via what we term Research-to-Patient (R2P), expand the MBE course, establish a small seed fund to support very early stage spin-outs and export our ideas worldwide. I believe that we have a unique model which could serve as an exemplar elsewhere in the world.

9) How important is technology transfer of the kind that goes on in the Institute of Biotechnology to the economic growth of the UK?
Creative and entrepreneurial research which is well protected with patents, copyright and trade marks, exploited through spin-out companies which are adequately funded by angel, VC or corporate investment leads directly to sustainable employment and the creation of wealth. To date, the companies spun-out of the Institute have raised substantial funding (more than £45m), collectively employ over 250 people and have a guesstimated market capitalisation of more than £250m. It is generally reckoned that each high technology job created supports 6 others in the service sector and adds about £1m per annum to the UK’s balance of payments. Two of the companies export almost all of their production.

10) What inspired you to want to become a scientist and from there an entrepreneur?
I have been interested in science since I was at primary school and still consider myself first and foremost a scientist. However, on completion of my PhD and whilst conducting postdoctoral research in the UK, I was involved in developing new technology which we subsequently filed patents on.
Naively, I thought British companies would bite my hands off to gain access to this technology – sadly, after several frustrating years trying to interest British companies, the technology was sold to a US company and, to this day, some 35 years later, the products are still being sold!
After that depressing experience, I vowed to take matters into my own hands and exploit technologies developed in my own laboratories myself. I have unique experience of this approach in the UK and hence my title “Most Entrepreneurial Scientist of the UK.”