Well, I think it’s time to (finally) make it official: After nearly two years of posting on this site, this will be my final entry. I started StLBiotech.com in June of 2006 as a way to keep tabs on the scientific community my hometown. Since then, managing this site has taught me things I never would have dreamed of two years ago. None of it would have happened without the encouragement of many supportive individuals, especially Jay Delong, Kevin Buckley, Alex Eaton and the rest of MOBIO, and everyone else who’s commented on the site along the way.

It’s interesting to look back and see how much the region has changed since the summer of 2006. Back then, Missourians were preparing to vote on state constitutional protection of embryonic stem cell research, and well-funded forces were gathering on both sides of the issue. Stem cell research seems to be the issue that just won’t go away, though, as opponents tried (unsuccessfully) to place a repeal of the 2006 amendment on the fall ballot. Meanwhile, state funding for the life sciences has been repeatedly tied up by conservative opposition to anything resembling human life science.

It’s not all grim, however. This year, the Missouri General Assembly did manage to approve $21 million for the Life Science Research Trust Fund. This money will go towards a variety of plant and animal research, including some work geared towards human health. Also, recent legislation will make it easier for entrepreneurs to start and fund life science companies in the state. In all, it seems that state politicians are finally starting to realize some of the local economic benefits that can come from life science research.

The local incubators are going as strong as ever. At the Nidus Center, Akermin and Apath both announced big development deals this spring, and Divergence continues to grow its partnership with Monsanto. However, it remains to be seen how the Center will adjust to life without its founder Bob Calcaterra at the helm. Meanwhile, both the Center for Emerging Technologies and the upcoming Bio-Research & Development Growth Park at the Danforth Center are finalizing their plans for major construction projects to their midtown and Creve Coeur locations, respectively.

The region’s major universities are continuing to make major advances in the ways medical technologies are developed and commercialized. Earlier this year, SLU announced the creation of its Billiken Angel Network, geared towards funding companies started by its students, faculty, and alumni. Meanwhile, Wash U announced major new collaborations with Pfizer and AstraZeneca to advance research into a variety of human health conditions. In May, the school also awarded $150,000 in bear cub grants to four of its researchers to fund work towards commercializing their discoveries. All of this is in addition to the scientific advances that researchers at both institutions make on a daily basis.

The region has come a long way, but there is still work to be done. For every step our region takes towards becoming a major life science center, it seems that other areas across the country take two. Smaller regions in Wisconsin, Alabama, Colorado, and others are stepping up and providing incentives for companies to set down shop on their soil. Plus, the international scene is as strong as ever, with governments in China, Singapore, and Ireland making major investments in their life science sectors.

To keep up the pace, St. Louis and the surrounding region needs to identify life science as a top priority. Local universities need to offer courses in entrepreneurship and applied science to improve the way discoveries are tossed from the ivory towers. High schools need to devote resources to getting kids interested in science at an early age, and if they can’t spare the money local corporations need to step up to the plate. The state government needs to fall in line with the national trend towards increasing support for life science, and opponents of biotechnology need to stop demonizing doctors and scientists. However, supporters of such work need to realize just how diverse a place Missouri is, and that to garner public support they need to emphasize the benefits that life science can have in areas outside of St. Louis and Kansas City.

There’s a lot to work on, but the people I’ve met over the past 2 years have given me no doubt that they’re up to the task. Good luck, everyone. It’s been a blast.

Cheers,
Brian

Posted at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Imagine a high-tech ID tag for cows, one that's as permanent as a hot-iron brand but can be read at a distance by a computer. CET-Based Somark Innovations announced yesterday that they've moved one step closer to this goal with the successful field test of their chipless RFID technology. Radio Frequency Identification (RIFD) tags are a type of radio bar tag currently used by an increasingly large number of manufacturers to track shipments of goods. Since the RFID tags operate at a (short) distance, and don't require a direct line-of-sight, like traditional bar tags, shipments can be read and processed as soon as a truckful of goods pulls into a dock. In the past few years, RFID tags have shrunk down to increasingly small sizes, making them compatible with a wide range of package sizes. However, Somark hopes to push this trend even further by developing RFID-type ink that can be tatooed onto the skin of farm animals.

In yesterday's press release, Somark President Mark Pydynowski said that the company had successfully developed a prototype able to automatically apply a tattoo in 3 seconds, and then read the ID information in real time. This is an improvement over their previous, proof-of-concept systems that relied on a number of manual steps. In addition, the RFID ink doesn't seem to be susceptible to the same types of interference that other RFID tags are, such as metal environments. This is important, since many livestock processing facilities are full of the types of material that would normally drive traditional RFID tags crazy.

(...more from somarkinnovations.com)

Posted at 9:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Post-Dispatch had an article worth reading on Sunday describing a shift in the R&D focus of Creve Coeur ag-giant Monsanto. There has been a lot written recently about how, a few years back, the company decided to largely abandon its efforts in engineering crops you might find in a supermarket - wheat and produce. Instead, since about the turn of the century, Monsanto has focused mainly on agriculture for processed food and biofuels, especially corn. Not only are these crops are extremely prevalent in our consumption habits, but the shift away from fruits and vegetables has helped to reduce public outcry over "Franken-food".

Now it seems as though Monsanto may be shifting its research focus again. These days, the company's R&D pipeline is increasingly filled with soybean technologies - 12 projects, according to the Post-Dispatch, versus 9 for corn. The reasoning says a lot about CEO Hugh Grant's view of the future. The current emphasis on biofuels? Important, but not long lasting, according to Grant. Advances in cellulosic ethanol production, from weeds and plant husks, will eliminate the growing need to process corn. This, plus an exploding export market in China, means engineered soybeans are poised to become a major cash crop worldwide.

(...more from stltoday.com)

Posted at 9:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week's news that MO Governor Matt Blunt would not seek a 2nd term caught a lot of observers by surprise. Many pundits were expecting Blunt to put up a tough fight with MO Attorney General Jay Nixon later this year - a debate that was sure to bring up life science issues related to entrepreneurship, stem cell research legality and public funding for research.

Although Blunt was the Republican governor of a generally conservative state, many of his policies were actually pretty favorable to the state life science sector. Kelly Gillespie of MOBIO, speaking in his January newsletter, had this to say regarding the news:

Governor Blunt has been accessible and supportive of MOBIO, at times setting the bar high for the life sciences community. The Governor has attended MOBIO board meetings, traveled out-of-state twice to attend the international BIO conference in Chicago and Boston, and keynoted the Life Sciences Summit in 2006. He has formed advisory councils focused on life sciences and plant biotechnology, and been recognized by BIO for his leadership. Blunt made an early commitment to preserving our researchers' ability to pursue the same stem cell advances being pursued at top biomedical research institutions across the country, endorsing Amendment 2 on the day it was announced. The governor has increased the pathways for higher education and economic development to be more fully integrated.

MOBIO will continue to work with the Governor and his administration during the final "fourth" of his term. We know Missouri will have a new governor in January 2009. The 2008 campaign season has been turned on its head, and we must recognize that open election cycles typically attract many more contenders than do election years when a challenger is taking on an incumbent.

As we prepare our to-do list for the year, MOBIO leadership must prepare, brief and empower the next administration to leverage and enhance our research climate and assets, improve our state's commitment to science education, and improve our business climate to continue to grow our own technology-based economic development successes.

It will be interesting to see who steps up to receive the Republican nomination, and if he or she displays the kind of attitude towards the MO life science sector as their predecessor. As the gubernatorial election draws closer, I'll try and work out the contrasts between each candidate's opinions towards biotechnology.

(...more from themaneater.com)

Posted at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Wash U and Pfizer announced a five-year, $25 million collaboration yesterday that will utilize resources and scientists from both organizations to study immuno-inflammatory disease. Such agreements are not uncommon between industry and academia, but this one is turning some heads because of Pfizer's level of involvement. Previously, the pharma giant has been content to rain money down on researchers, then step aside to wait for whatever science results. In this new arrangement, however, Pfizer and Wash U will work together to identify, plan and carry out promising research projects.

The immuno-inflammatory focus seems like a natural one for this partnership. Many of the scientists at Pfizer's Chesterfield facility have a long history with inflammatory drugs from their Monsanto / Pharmacia days, and Wash U has been long been intent on establishing an expertise in translational medicine through its Biomed21 program.

Speaking of Biomed21, how will this new agreement fit into the planned research center the school announced back in November? That building was supposed to house facilities for a number of large-scale translational medicine groups, none of which were to be focused on immuno-inflammatory disease. Could this be a new focus for that center? Or will the Pfizer collaboration exist within already-existing departments at the school.

(...more from mednews.wustl.edu)

Posted at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

SLU Coach Rick Majerus

Since SLU remains a Jesuit university, his comments caught the attention of Catholic leaders in the area, including Burke. Asked by KMOV about the impact of the statement on Majerus's career, Burke replied that, "I think that's something that has to be dealt with at the university, but certainly these positions have to be clarified."

Majerus has had a history of supporting Democratic candidates for office, including publicly campaigning for John Kerry in 2004.

(...more from kmov.com)

(12:19 Update)

Oh please...

Posted at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, the leaders of several area entrepreneurship centers announced that they'd received a $600,000 grant from the NSF to help local researchers commercialize their technology. The "Innovation Acceleration Partnership", led by Ken Harrington at WashU's Skandalaris Center, will pair researchers with a specially trained cadre of postdoctoral fellows focused exclusively on tech transfer. Each fellow will focus on those aspects of the commercialization process that researchers may not have the time or expertise to focus on, all the while receiving mentoring from Harrington and others.

Besides Harrington, the other co-investigators named in the grant are Marcia Mellitz (CET), Michael Nichols (UMSL), William Peck (Innovate St Louis / WashU) and Samuel Wickline (Kereos / Wash U). The participating institutions include WashU, UM-Rolla, and SIUE, plus a number of local for-profit and non-profit organizations.

Cool idea, especially the regional focus, but is this something that could have been incorporated within the existing tech transfer offices already in place? Or are those still seen as needing reform? Also, there seems like these fellowships are pretty attractive for someone looking to gain experience in tech transfer (Hell, I'd do it), but are the more steady hands going to want more than a grant stipend? Plus, if the tech works its way out into a company, who gets the equity - The researcher? The fellow? Or the Partnership? Interested to see how this one turns out.

(...more from stltoday.com)

Posted at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It looks like a long-sought wet lab development project in Creve Coeur may finally be getting the go ahead. Baltimore-based Wexford Science & Technology, LLC announced early last year that it was interested in developing an 8-acre tract adjacent to the Danforth Plant Science Center. Since then, the firm has been campaigning for a package of public incentives, the last of which should fall into place in the coming weeks.

If everything falls into place, Wexford expects to complete a $36.1 million, 118,000-square-foot building by summer 2009. The new facility could become a new home for the Nidus Center, as well as a St. Louis Community College biotech training program. More established startups, such as Nidus Center client Divergence, could also receive their own space.

If Wexford manages to lease 65% of the first building, they claim they could begin work on a second, or possibly third facility at the same location.

(...more from stltoday.com)

Posted at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Do open hallways and glass walls = better science? The Post-Dispatch ran an interesting story at year's end describing how one architectural firm has started to test this assumption with some rigor.

Cannon Design, responsible for the new Doisy Research Center at SLU, has long been a proponant of designing scientific buildings with lots of open space. Knocking out the walls fosters collaborations between researchers, increasing creativity and minimizing the overlap of expensive resources. But do the finished facilities have the desired effect? To find out, Cannon just began a 3-year study to analyze how the outputs of research groups (publications, grants, etc.) have changed once they moved into one of these new structures. In the process, they hope to discover a new selling point for the open design (As well as not a little publicity for themselves).

What do you think? I know that I prefer working in the new green-glass buildings, but most of that can be chalked up to a combination of sunshine and bragging rights (ooh, green glass!). I've seen departments in brick basements share every resource they earn, and groups in newer facilities never leave their bench - it can really go either way.

By the way - I just got back from from vacation in Orlando, and I think that everyone with any interest in designing science buildings should visit the Land pavilion at EPCOT:

Maybe leave out the balloons, but everything else - gorgeous.

(...more from stltoday.com)

Posted at 8:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With the holidays next week, and my winter vacation the week after, I'll be away from the blog until Jan. 7. Posting will start back up after that.

Happy Holidays everyone! Thanks for a great 2007!

Posted at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)