杏吧原创

A MORE unlikely basis for a drug than carbon monoxide is hard to imagine. But vascular biologist Roberto Motterlini is working on it. In the right dose, CO has many powerful health benefits, such as preventing damage to heart tissue after a heart attack. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a totally new class of molecules, and a totally novel approach,鈥� he claims. So when Motterlini realised there was nothing on the market for delivering the gas within the body, he set about inventing it.

Working with his boss Colin Green at Northwick Park Institute for Medical Research (NPIMR) in London, Motterlini spent a long time working out what to do with his discovery. 鈥淚n the end we decided it was best to run the risk of founding a company ourselves.鈥� And in April they set up HemoCORM in London to exploit Motterlini鈥檚 new CO-releasing molecules.

Motterlini is far from alone in taking this path. The number of UK spin-offs has increased rapidly in the past five years, and now forms a higher proportion of research expenditure than in either the US or Canada. In 2000-2001, 248 companies were spun off from the UK鈥檚 higher-education sector, an increase of 22 per cent on the previous year. British universities created one spin-off for every 拢12 million of research expenditure, compared with one for every 拢46 million in the US. But in the five years from 1994 to 1999 the total had only been 338.

So how does an academic researcher go about turning a discovery into a commercial enterprise? What are the ingredients for a successful company, and what challenges will those budding biotech Bransons meet along the way?

A good idea is the sine qua non of course. But venture capitalists and biotech entrepreneurs listen to brilliant ideas from researchers all the time, and they reckon that it is other factors that make the difference. 鈥淭here is no lack of good ideas, but the things that are most lacking are good management teams to make it happen, and good early stage funding,鈥� says Andy Richards, a Cambridge-based biotech entrepreneur and founder of Chiroscience, now part of Celltech. 鈥淎nd good funding follows good management teams.鈥�

HemoCORM鈥檚 founding scientists had to go about putting together the right mix of people the hard way. Because the NPIMR is a charity rather than part of a university, they were not able to tap into the university-level support network.

Instead, the lucky break came when Motterlini met Philip Ledger, who had worked for 20 years as a business development and general manager in the pharmaceutical industry. He became the fledgling company鈥檚 business manager and is now helping it get onto a secure financial footing.

University researchers have access to more support for this key commercialisation process, especially through their technology-transfer units. 鈥淲e spend a lot of time helping academics understand the value of their results, so when they have a bright idea, they come and talk to us about it,鈥� says Tony Raven of the Centre of Enterprise and Innovation (CEI) at the University of Southampton.

The technology-transfer office weighs up the commercial potential of an idea, and then helps protect it with a patent. The technology can then be licensed to an external company, or spun off into a company in its own right. 鈥淚f something is suitable for a spin-off,鈥� Raven says, 鈥渨e put a lot of work into developing a business case, putting together financial backing to enable them to set up as an individual entity.鈥�

Many universities have seed funds for spin-offs, and the government offers early-stage funding too. Between 1998 and 2001, the Department of Trade and Industry allocated 拢174 million for 鈥渒nowledge transfer鈥� through various schemes: the University Challenge Fund, the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), the LINK programme and Faraday partnerships. From next year such knowledge-transfer schemes will all come under the umbrella of the HEIF.

A new player has recently entered the field. IP2IPO is an Oxford-based intellectual property business that helps universities commercialise their intellectual property, in return for a stake in any resulting business. It has partnerships with the universities of Oxford and Southampton, and with King鈥檚 College London.

Stephen Holgate, world-renowned asthma specialist based at the University of Southampton, received support from both his university enterprise centre and IP2IPO when he wanted to set up a company. 鈥淚P2IPO and the CEI helped get us through all the legal loopholes and contracting. Otherwise I wouldn鈥檛 have had a clue,鈥� Holgate says. The resulting company, SynAirgen, was launched in August.

Its plan is to develop new ways to treat chronic lung disease and asthma. Holgate wants to reproduce the disease process in cultures of lung cells that would then be used to test new therapeutic agents before these were tested on humans. An enviable leg-up for the company is the commercial links SynAirgen is currently forging with five biotech and pharmaceutical companies. This will generate income at the vital early stage which can then be ploughed back into fundamental research projects.

At present, Holgate and the two other co-founders are employed as consultants to SynAirgen, and still work for the university. So would he jump ship? 鈥淚f the business is a brilliant success, I might do,鈥� he laughs. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 something to think about.鈥�

The hard choice between business and academia must preoccupy anyone embarking on the spin-off process. Fortunately, there do seem to be ways of accommodating both. 鈥淭here are all sorts of structures, from being on the scientific advisory board of the company and just turning up to board meetings, to working one or two days a week as a consultant, or being on a one-year sabbatical as the company is being set up,鈥� Richards says.

Possibly the toughest challenge is persuading tough-minded external investors to put their money into the new company. 鈥淵ou have to have a thick skin,鈥� says Paul Goldsmith, founder of Cambridge based drug-discovery company DanioLabs (see Box). And as more and more companies are spun off, competition for funds becomes harder. 鈥淭here isn鈥檛 enough money to go round and underfunded companies will almost always fail,鈥� Richards says.

Government seems aware of this. A recent report for the Treasury highlights concerns that the spin-off process has become a victim of its own success, and that in the rush to set up companies, there has been too much emphasis on quantity rather than quality. In the US, for example, the smaller numbers of spin-offs per research dollar per university are much better financed. So the spin-off system may need some fine-tuning if the UK wants to end up with truly sustainable companies in the future. But at last the message of the value of discoveries is getting through.

And remember the high-tech sector. It may be in the middle of a downturn, but at its most powerful, every other company seemed to be a spin-off. And some of them even lived to tell the tale.