Nordic Life Science 1
BUSINESS // INTERVIEW “WE’RE NOW IN A UNIQUE SITU
ATION WHERE MUCH OF THE FOREVER GLOBALIZATION TREND HAS STAGNATED, TO SAY THE LEAST. PERHAPS WE ARE RETURNING TO A MORE REGIONALIZED WORLD.” up here in the 1970s, we had really big companies, such as shipyards. We didn’t have the 1,600 smaller companies that we have now. That's really the best thing that has happened in the last decade and a half.” What cultural trait typical of Nordic companies is the key driver of performance? “First of all we should note that the life science industry is a data and science-driven industry, and I believe that the collegiality that we often have in academic circles also spills over into life science companies. And when we are good, we are able to get what I call reasonable consensus around building companies. Reasonable consensus means that you cannot allow a small minority to stop decisions but it's also always good to have a consensus-building process. I believe we are reasonably good at that, but most of all I am particularly proud of the last decade when we have opened up companies to academia and to small and mediumsized companies. This is how we are building a complete ecosystem of science, entrepreneurship, and the ability to take products to patients.” So we know that Sweden punches above its weight. What one change would help the next wave of startups? “What I would argue for, since we are a data and science-driven industry, is that the government should increase their spending in R&D, which right now is about 1% of GDP. Most of the 3.6% that we spend on science and R&D is company and industry-driven so I would argue that we should double the government funding from 1% to 2% of GDP. That would have an enormous impact on basic science and academic science. In turn, this is going to translate into companies developing real science. I think that would be the most effective thing that we could do in Sweden right now.” You are a member of the board at the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW), what has KAW meant for Sweden’s innovation capacity? “The Foundation has some brilliant people and I think the impact has been tremendous. It has been relatively free money in a system that otherwise is very structured on the university side. KAW provides researchers at Swedish universities with funds, often greater funds and with longer duration than what most public systems do. We are now heading towards SEK 3 billion per year. We've been able 64 | NORDICLIFESCIENCE.ORG to help in providing really good, basic science opportunities for the best researchers both from Sweden and from abroad. On top of that the Foundation has been able to, for example, contribute to SciLifeLab, a successful intellectual and actual physical infrastructure.” One of the projects at KAW is the Proof of Concepts Grant in Life Science, which bridges the gap between academic research and innovation. In addition to this initiative, are there any other types of support that would help increase innovation? “We have been punching above our weight in academic science, and I think we could actually double that. But I also believe that we don’t have as good of a track record when it comes to transferring that basic science into companies. The Proof of Concept Grant is one initiative that addresses that, but we also need to help young entrepreneurs build companies, by promoting for example entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial schools, and building a culture of entrepreneurship. I'm seeing this at many universities and also at many companies.” What’s your advice to academics who dream of taking a molecule or idea to clinical impact? “Perhaps the best advice I can give is to actually take the step and go through a proof of concept, become an entrepreneur if you want to, or seek out entrepreneurs. There are lots of young people who have good entrepreneurial skills and, given the right setup, are able to run and develop companies. Gothenburg University, Uppsala University, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Chalmers University of Technology, and many more, all have venture houses today, which I believe are very useful to get over that first barrier. In Sweden we have a problem of getting (past) the first round of financing and then we have even more trouble to get the second round of financing. It takes a couple of rounds.” Why is that? What is Sweden lacking compared to the US, for example? “We are not so bad. We are not as good as the US, but the US is the best. That said, you should always compare yourself to the best, so if you look at what's available in the US for research-based companies, there are a number of incubators, a number of funds, and free and intelligent capital. Intelligent in the sense that they know what they