Special Interest Group
ABLE Election 2012, on 2nd March 2012 IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER–Unauthorized and Wrongful Use of ABLE Logo
 
 
About the Authors:

 

Dr. Anand Anandkumar serves as the Managing Director and Chairman of the BOD of the India operations of Cellworks.
Anandkumar received his MS and PhD in Biomedical & Electrical Engineering from George Washington University, Washington DC. He is a veteran of the Semiconductor Industry with more than 18 years of experience, specializing in Electronic Design Automation (EDA) Software products, IC design and in setting up and running global operations in Emerging markets India and China. Before joining Cellworks, Anandkumar was the founding Managing Director of the India operations of Magma Design Automation, where he was responsible for setting up and driving many aspects of the Operations including RD, Product Engineering, Business Development and links to Government/Academia. The India operation of Magma which Anandkumar founded in 2003 is Magma's largest subsidiary with roughly 25% of the worldwide headcount.

Dr. Santanu Datta, Head of Science, BugWorks
Before joining Cellworks in 2009 he was the Principal Research Scientist in AstraZeneca India, where he spent more than 2 decades working in Infectious diseases, with a focus on Malaria and MTB. His current interest is in anti-infective drug discovery and recombininat DNA technology and its application in Industrial Biotechnology. He has published widely and has over ten international patents. Dr. Santanu, received his PhD from Calcutta University in Biophysics in 1981 and was trained as a molecular biologist during his post doctoral stint in Baylor College of Medicine USA and Karolinska Institute Sweden.

Date : 01-May-2011
"Virtual Molecular Biology" and its role in Industrial Biotransformation
  • Santanu Datta PhD
  • Anand Anandkumar PhD
  • Cellworks Research India Pvt Ltd.
There seems to be a gradual paradigm shift in experimental molecular biology. From individual gene cloning and expression, the science has now moved to 'pathway engineering' and beyond. The point of inflexion was brought to limelight when Craig Venter and his group synthesized the first functioning synthetic bacteria. However, what is not always appreciated is that the back end of such endeavours is supported by virtual molecular biology. This branch of science which is still in its infancy is driven by large scale genome information. Till date about 188 individual organisms and over 2000 species have been completely sequenced. Following the annotation of the genes, large scale pathways networks are being stitched. At present most of these networks are static, akin to road maps of a city. Just as road maps of a city in absence of data on traffic flow, handicaps a city planner entrusted in building new roads to ease traffic flow, a static pathway of an organism is of limited use to when one intends to 'engineer' recombinant bugs that can generate products of high value to Industries ranging from Pharmaceutical to Nutrition to Cosmetics to Agro.

To bring life to these static networks one needs to add on kinetic parameters of enzymes its substrates and ligands. However the values of these parameters like Km, Vmax and Kd are minimally available. The problem then is how does one generate a kinetic model in absence of these values. There are two distinct ways that can initiate this process. One is the popular FBA ( flux balance analysis) technique and the other process championed by Cellworks is of reverse engineering. The former assumes that for a given carbon source the flux through various pathways are balanced such that the cellular biomass is maximized. In contrast the technique of reverse engineering is to intelligently plug in values of kinetic parameters such that the platform produces alignment with experimental data. Cellworks is pioneering the creation of Dynamic maps of various Organisms, that allow for these Organisms to be 'engineered' to partake in various functions of interest to the Industrial Biotransformation segement.

Engineering Whole cell Hosts that drive Biotransformation:
The kinetic platform developed for the bacteria like E.coli and Pseudomonas putida can be leveraged in Industrial Biotechnology (IBT) specifically in the area of green chemistry. Environmental awareness in general populace has resulted in tougher regulations leading to drastic changes in industrial practice. This has resulted in pharmaceutical industry slowly moving from traditional synthetic chemistry to environmentally friendly processes of biotransformation. Though biotransformation have been traditionally used for ages to make alcoholic beverages, its use to generate metabolites and chiral compounds of pharmaceutical value is in its infancy. With over 70% of drugs being chiral and the FDA guidelines preventing future use of racemic compounds, there is a major push to use biotransformation to generate these molecules. Enzymes by its inherent nature are not only safer but superior to metal catalyst used for chiral synthesis. However one of the major roadblocks in this area is that many metabolite and chiral synthons require stochiometric amounts of cofactors like NADH, NADPH for its synthesis. Any large scale synthesis of specific metabolite thus require large scale production of these expensive molecules. Hence invitro based biotransformation techniques have a scalability limitation.

However these molecules (NADPH, NADH) are part of the energy currency of a cell. If a bacterium is driven to produce these metabolites it is starved of energy causing an energy imbalance that may lead to death, stasis or stunted growth. The kinetic platform of E.coli gives for the first time an understanding of the energy flow (flux of NAD, NADH, NADP, NADPH, ATP and ADP ) such that one can redistribute and optimize the energy flow in a way that cellular biomass increases as also the production of metabolites. This is somewhat similar to how there are many time zones in countries of large land mass. Time zones are in effect to redistribute electricity when necessary (lighting and heating) for optimising work efficiency. In the same way we would like to optimize the gene network in E.coli (by knocking out some, overexpressing others and bringing in new pathways from other organisms) such that the metabolite production is simultaneously maximised while keeping the cell healthy. We should remember that a normal bacterium has not evolved to do this job. It is true that this is not only a challenging task but also it will not be a "one size fits all" approach. Each metabolite will have its own optimum circuit. This is where virtual molecular biology will be executed. From a possible of thousands of combinations, in-silico simulations will predict a small set of optimum rewiring possibilities of gene network. These will then be experimentally constructed to produce the desired remodelled bacteria. We are at the cusp of such a dawn.

 
 
About the Author:

 

Dr. Taslimarif Saiyed is Director and COOat the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms (C-CAMP), a Dept of Biotechnology initiative. His initial training has been in neuroscience where he received his PhD from Max-Planck Institute for Brain Research, Germany and followed up by postdoctoral training as a Scientist at University of California San Francisco (UCSF). At the same time, he also took training in management for Biotech and Innovation from UCSF. In his role as Director and COO, Dr. Taslimarif Saiyed manages C-CAMP's strategies, operations, and business worldwide. This includes establishment, management, and promotion of technology facilities, education and training programmes, and innovation accelerator unit. Additionally, he also oversees the Intellectual Property Management Office (IPMO) and Technology Transfer Office (TTO) at C-CAMP.

Date : 06-May-2011
Cutting-edge Technology Platforms in India and Genesis of C-CAMP
Importance of cutting-edge core technology platforms
In life science research today, high-end technology and tools are becoming key components in conducting laboratory experiments. Hence, accessibility to these high-end technologies can determine the success of any scientific laboratory, organization, or community. In general, accessibility to advanced technology depends on individual Principal Investigator's funding availability. Additionally, sharing these advance technology from individual laboratories has been a challenge through out the world; however, western countries have tried to address this by establishing core facilities accessible to all researchers. Several universities in the US and some institutions in Europe like EMBL, Marie Curie etc. have created state of the art technology platforms with technology champions as the head of each facility.

Need in India for cutting-edge core technology platforms
In the Indian Bioscience research community, there is currently a lack of high-end technologies being made available to the majority of scientists. This is not due to the lack of funds but the absence of professional expert-run facilities, focused on providing timely advice and services to scientists. In some places, these expensive technologies become infrequently used and the full potential and capabilities of the technologies are scarcely realized.

In countries like the US, the burden on individual researchers has been lifted to some extent with the introduction of many centralized, high-end technology facilities that specifically cater to multiple institutions and organizations. These organizations also have dedicated facility managers and support staff to ensure the smooth running of the facilities and proper maintenance of equipment.

Genesis of C-CAMP
Given this contrasting scenario, it was felt that India needed a dedicated organization with the aim of giving Indian researchers access to high-end technologies through a centralized medium, allowing them to compete on the world stage and at the frontier of biological science. Thus, in 2009-2010 Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms (C-CAMP,www.ccamp.res.in) came in to as a part of the Bangalore BioCluster, which also consists of National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS,www.ncbs.res.in) and The Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine (inStem,www.instem.res.in). C-CAMP has been created as collaboration between NCBS and inStem with vision is to act as an enabler of success in bioscience research and entrepreneurship by providing research, development, training and service in state of the art technology platforms.

Technology Development
New technologies, depending on the specificity of the technology, take time to migrate (in terms of access) from the place of its origin to its place of application. This means that users in technology creating countries get to access the technology first, however, users in technology chasing countries only get to use the technology after a certain lag time. This can sometimes, be years depending on the exclusivity of the technology. Hence, apart from providing access to current bioscience platform technologies, C-CAMP is also involved in the development of new technologies in collaboration with scientific partners both in India and abroad. It is very important that a country like India is involved in technology creation to not only ensure timely access to technologies for its scientific community but also allow India to compete on the world stage in terms of technology advancement. A significant focus is hence on Research and Development of new technologies.

Technology Services
C-CAMP through NCBS has successfully established state-of-the art technologies in 1) Confocal and Fluorescence Microscopy, 2) Flow Cytometry, 3) Mass Spectrometry, 4) Transgenic Fly Facility, 5) High Throughput Screening, and 6) Next Generation Genomics (Deep Sequencing.Within a year, C-CAMP services have been used by almost all major academic and industry organizations for different technologies e.g. IISc, IITs, IISERs. The pie chart below suggests the segment distribution among C-CAMP facility users.

Technology Education and Training
One challenge that the scientific community is facing today: availability of Expert Manpower to efficiently use the high-end technology available in the country. Keeping this in mind, C-CAMP is hands-on providing education/training programs to generate a pool of experts who can proficiently utilize high-end scientific technologies available in scientific organizations and hence, helps in scientific developments.

 
 
About the Author:

 

Dr. Binay Panda has a Ph.D. from University of Oxford, UK and was an American Cancer Society postdoctoral fellow at the Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, USA. Before returning to India to set up Ganit Labs, he co-founded a molecular diagnostics startup company in the San Francisco bay area with focus on early detection of cancer. Prior to that, he worked at Affymetrix's Santa Clara, California and Tokyo, Japan offices where he was instrumental in building the company's operations in Japan. Binay was a visiting researcher at the University of Tokyo and teaches molecular diagnostics at the University of California, Santa Cruz extension. He has research and commercialization interests in genomics, molecular diagnostics and personalized medicine.

Date : 06-May-2011
Next-generation DNA sequencing and India
The field of sequencing has grown leaps and bounds since the days of Fred Sanger & Wally Gilbert in the late ‘70s and Craig Venter in the ‘90s. The field has attracted much attention from all corners, starting from innovators, investors and government bodies. The development in the field holds tremendous potential to change the way we live, to revolutionize medicine, agriculture and finding solutions in the alternate energy space. With the advent of next-generation sequencing technologies, biology has changed forever.

The concept behind next-generation sequencing is simple, take the existing sequencing assays and parallelize those to read hundreds of millions of growing chains of DNA rather than tens or hundreds as done with capillary Sanger sequencing. And the idea is to do this without adding cost proportional to the throughput. Development in the field in the last 5yrs, either in the sample preparation or in enzyme re-engineering, was not free of challenges and required innovations in multiple areas. The areas where most striking changes have taken place are, making the DNA synthesis machine, e.g., the enzyme that copies DNA (DNA polymerase) more robust to elongate the chain with minimum error and with maximum fidelity, making the reader compatible with the speed at which the synthesis machine adds incoming nucleotides and inventing analysis tools that can handle large (terabytes) amount of data flawlessly. With the chemistry to generate sequence data using high-throughput assays largely taken care of, the challenge is shifted from ‘data generation’ phase to ‘data management and analysis’ phase. Data management and analysis remains one of the difficult challenges in the next-generation sequencing field. For example, a single Illumina’s HiSeq instrument can generate about 200 gigabytes of data from a single run in less than 10 days. Managing this data deluge along with the complexity of data storage, archival, sharing and security combined with biological interpretation and follow up validation studies remain the talking points in key nextgeneration sequencing meetings. The fierce competition among instrument vendors providing ‘more data at less cost’ has benefited scientists to perform more experiments at reduced costs. But for sequencing to become ubiquitous and an effective tool in clinic, the cost needs to be far lower than the current level and the accuracy and run time have to be vastly improved. Additionally new methods need to be invented to generate haplotype information and to getting more difficult parts of the genome sequenced.

Since the first commercial next-generation sequencing instrument’s arrival in 2004 by 454 Life Sciences (which has since been acquired by Roche), many other companies have entered the space. Current forerunners, in terms of number of commercial systems placed worldwide, are Illumina and Applied Biosystems (Lifetech). A number of other companies also have entered the space with either a combination of different business model plus proprietary assay (Complete Genomics), single molecule approach (Helicos Biosciences) or tabletop lower-throughput system with quick turn around time (Iontorrent, which has recently been acquired by Lifetech). With second generation technologies getting mature, third generation single molecule technologies like one from Pacific Biosciences are getting ready to be placed at the hands of researchers.  Future technologies, using biological or non-biological nanopores, electron micrographs and mass spec, are under development and will take time to mature and become commercially available. Only time will say which one of these commercial instruments become the de facto standard but early indications suggest that there might be space for multiple technologies catering to multiple applications.

As sequencing technologies and instruments became more accessible and affordable in the last five years, large genome centers emerged around the world to reap the benefit. The Broad institute of MIT & Harvard at Cambridge, USA; Washington University at St Louis, USA; Sanger Institute at Cambridge, UK and BGI in Shenzhen, China, are some of the large genome centers that house hundreds of next generation sequencing instruments and produce terabytes of raw sequence data per day. Some of these genome centers have become so large, like the BGI in China with nearly 90 next generation sequencing instruments, they have attracted nicknames as ‘sequencing factories’. Along with instruments, BGI has more than 2500 scientists (out of which 1500 are bioinformatics specialists) and 1.5 billion US$ line of credit from Bank of China, making it the largest genome centre in the world.

That brings us to the point, where are we in India in genome sequencing? Efforts in this field in India are largely restricted to a handful of institutes and researchers. We don’t have large genome centers in the same league as Sanger, Broad or BGI. Many view this as a lost opportunity. But I would argue that not much is lost for us and the key is to use the data to come up with biologically relevant results rather than producing data alone. The winners are not going to be chosen from the ‘who did it first’ list but from the list of ‘who came up with new applications and analysis tools to improve human heath and agriculture’. And this is where I see a huge opportunity and potential for India to make a real difference.

With precisely this in mind, I returned to India recently to build Ganit Labs in Bangalore. Ganit labs, a public-private partnership initiative between Institute of Bioinformatics and Applied Biotechnology and Strand Life Sciences, work exclusively in the area of DNA sequencing. Our aim is focus on downstream applications R&D, function as a hub for next-generation sequencing training & entrepreneurship activities and as a core-lab in providing services. The services sector in next-generation sequencing will see future growth in India, primarily in the bioinformatics field but success won’t come easy to companies. Unlike past projects with lower data complexity and quantity, next generation sequencing data analysis service will require in-depth knowledge of genomics and computational biology. Companies will struggle finding solutions to the ‘needle in the haystack’ problems and answering biological questions and providing biological interpretation to customers. Success will come to those who understand inventions in the field, invest in research, have expert knowledge in genomics and computational biology and pay meticulous attention to quality control. Cost arbitrage alone will not work for companies in this sector and the winners have to be inventive and innovative with deep knowledge of the field to design custom solutions for each customer.

 
 
About the Author:

 

Bharathi Sriram is a professional with experience in preclinical research and development of bio-therapeutics and working in the Indian Biotech industry environment. She is Vice President R & D, at Gangagen Biotechnologies Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore, India which focuses on development of novel therapies for bacterial indications relevant locally and globally. Previously she worked at Dr.Reddy's laboratories, Hyderabad in the areas of Diagnostics and recombinant human protein therapeutics. Her previous associations include AstraZeneca, formerly Astra Research Centre India.

Date : 01-Jun-2011
Superseding the Superbugs : Antiinfectives against drug resistant bacteria
The NDM1 superbug has been making headlines, since June last year when the first report of its detection was published and the danger of its spread is a world-wide concern. In the wake of emerging antibiotic resistance linked to overuse and abuse of antibiotics, the NDM1 threat may lead to implementation of rigorous antibiotic policy in our country. The typical 'hospital smell' of disinfectants does not mean 'clean' anymore as it is now generally accepted that the hospital setting fosters resistance development. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) that causes life threatening infections is another superbug that has been in the limelight. This pathogen is found to have emerged from hospital as well as community environments.

Antibiotic resistance is not unexpected, but is growing at an alarming rate among many pathogens. The spread of drug resistant bacteria in the community and across the globe is therefore an impending disaster. Behind the fear of this danger lies the discomfiting fact that our antibiotics armoury does not contain any weapon against these bugs. We desperately need new effective antibacterial agents. The situation is in fact being referred to as 'catastrophic' by most opinion leaders.

If we look back in time, bacterial infection has been a problem to the human race since ancient times, leading to morbidity and mortality. Ayurvedic, Homeopathic, Unani, Siddha and various other alternate systems of medication that originated then, continue to be used even today. These compositions are mostly orally or topically applied and considered to be quite effective. Honey, tree-tea oil, turmeric are examples of simple house-hold items recognised to possess antibacterial properties.

It is systemic bacterial infection that has been a challenge all along, which requires modern medicine and is also to be 'regulated' for human use. Many different classes of antibiotics have come into clinical use since the first discovered antibiotic, Penicillin. However, in the last several years we have not seen any new antibiotic developed. While it takes years of hard work to develop a new drug, bacteria have become so adept at countering them within a very short time of use. It is not surprising therefore that the prospect of developing new antibiotics is a daunting one. If most big pharma companies that have the money-power balk at taking on antibacterial discovery programs citing high investment in time and money, what next ??

New targets are being researched and several new approaches to antimicrobial therapy are under evaluation all over the world in research groups and in smaller companies. One of such options is cationic antimicrobial peptides that are basically components of innate immunity. Examples are Magainin, which is present in the skin of an African species of frog, Protegrin from Pig leucocytes, human defensins and antimicrobial human proteins. Several antimicrobial peptides from a host of sources including plants, amphibians and mammals are at various stages of evaluation and development. The major challenges for this class are toxicity on one hand, as they are membrane-targeting and feasibility of economical production on the other. Antibodies against bacteria is another approach which is still 'on the way' as it has so far has not met with the success expected. Antibacterial peptides and proteins that bacteria produce and use to control the competition in their environment are also being researched for the purpose.

Bacteriophages are natural antibacterial entities that have coevolved with bacteria and present the most attractive of options. They appear to be so 'savvy' in controlling bacteria, having learned to adapt and prey on them over billions of years. Bacteriophages invade and take over the bacterial cell, replicate themselves by utilizing the nutrients within and kill the cell in the process. They finally they burst open the cell to release their progeny, which are then ready to invade other cells. Phages are specific to bacteria and cannot infect human cells.

It is a very interesting that the bacteriophage was first discovered in the waters of river Ganga. The antibacterial capability of phage was realized immediately upon its discovery and utilized effectively in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe in the past and are being used at present as well. There is sufficient proof of efficacy of phages in humans against bacteria that are resistant to multiple drugs from the above countries. There are also many well-designed animal studies reported from all over the world that support consideration of phage for therapy. However, phage for human use in the western world requires that it goes through the established regulatory path of the safety and efficacy clinical trials. In the backdrop of the serious difficulty in controlling bacterial infection today, we can hope that regulators will enable phage based therapeutics in the near future. The fact that regulation of bacteriophages is actually covered in the 'Schedule C' of the Indian Drugs and Cosmetics Act is an advantage to Indian Biotech companies interested in antiinfectives and wishing to explore opportunities beyond generics and biosimilars. What may hamper rapid development of these as therapeutics are concerns of potential immune response, as these are proteinaceous entities; or the release of toxins from the bacterial cells they target. Another concern relates to setting the dose of phage to be administered, as they replicate exponentially in the cells before killing them. Gangagen has pioneered development of innovative solutions to counter these concerns by genetically engineering phages and disabling some of these undesirable properties. There are about 12 companies internationally, working in the field of bacteriophage technology and products. Many are into food processing, environment, plant and veterinary applications and a few, including Gangagen are focusing on human therapies. A combination or 'cocktail' of phages may be required for most applications, which makes it a complex composition in the view of regulators, but it is heartening that the US FDA has approved a bacteriophage preparation composed of 17 phages. This is for decontamination of meat of the Listeria species, - these bacteria cause serious illness and may even be fatal especially in infants, elderly and the immunocompromized. There is also the viable option of customized preparations, especially for topical and oral use, whereby the particular infective bacterium in a patient can be targeted using the 'right' phage. Thus bacteriophages and bacteriophage-based products are excellent weapons to combat antibiotic resistant bacteria.

 
 
About the Authors:




Kamesh Janakiraman has over 10 years experience in IT, Informatics, Consultative Sales and Business Development within the lifescience informatics space. During that time he has worked with several clients & customers for their varied informatics needs. He is currently a Business Development Specialist for India at PerkinElmer Informatics.

 


Steve Bolton
has over 20 years experience in Sales and Marketing within the laboratory informatics field. During that time he has authored and co-authored several articles, provided input to discussions on current and future trends in informatics and produced webinars on the topic. He is currently a Marketing Specialist at PerkinElmer Inc. with a focus on Customer Communications.
Date : 11-Nov-2011
Requirements and Benefits of 21 CFR Part 11 Compliance

In 1997 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a regulation that provides criteria for acceptance by the FDA of electronic records, electronic signatures and handwritten signatures. With the introduction of this regulation, titled Rule 21 CFR Part 11, electronic records can be considered, under certain circumstances, as equivalent to paper records and handwritten signatures.

The rule applies to all industry segments regulated by the FDA including Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) and has an impact on all FDA regulated industries that use computers for regulated activities.

Requirements of Part 11 include:

  • Use of validated existing and new computerized systems.
  • Secure retention of electronic records and instant retrieval.
  • User-independent computer generated time-stamped audit trails.
  • System and data security, data integrity and confidentiality through limited authorized access to systems and records.
  • Use of secure electronic signatures for closed and open systems
  • Use of digital signatures for open systems.
  • Use of operational checks.
  • Use of device checks
  • Determination that the persons who develop, maintain or use electronic systems have the education, training and experience to perform their assigned task

21 CFR Part 11 has high visibility and is the subject of discussion not only in the United States but also in many other countries for two main reasons:

1. Many pharmaceutical companies located outside the US export drugs to the US market, and as such they have to follow US regulations. The FDA can inspect these companies according to US regulations. In case of non-compliance, the company is not allowed to export pertinent drugs to the United States, which can have a tremendous business impact.
2. Other countries have similar issues with electronic submissions and may use the US rule as a guideline for their local regulation. For example, in Japan a regulation on electronic signatures and records was released in April 2005.

Currently the use of electronic records as well as their submission is voluntary. Despite this voluntary character, pharmaceutical companies are already trying to implement the rule as quickly as possible because of three primary reasons:

1. In many situations using computers is a necessity, for example in analytical laboratories where instrument data systems are used for automated data acquisition and evaluation. In this case the laboratories must comply with Part 11.
2. There may come a time when the FDA will no longer accept paper records
3. Electronic records have some significant advantages vs. paper records: tangibly lower space requirements and easier retrieval are just two of those advantages.

Implementing systems within the framework of Part 11 will have a significant impact on the instrumentation, the work processes and on the people in operations such as quality control laboratories and manufacturing operations.

The use of electronic records is expected to be more cost effective for both the industry and the FDA. The approval process is expected to be shorter and access to documentation will be faster and more efficient. Fully electronic data acquisition, evaluation, management and archiving promises to deliver major improvements in laboratory workflow.

What are the industry best practices for achieving this? What are the recommended systems?

First of all it is important to understand that no application can ensure regulatory compliance by itself. Compliance with the ruling requires that applications be run under the definition of a closed system. This is an environment where there is controlled access to the PCs upon which the applications are running and where there are procedures in place that define the activities of the users on those PCs. The PCs need to have controls and operating systems loaded that restrict access and identify the users of the systems.

Electronic Laboratory Notebooks are an example of systems that, when implemented in the proper environment, will help laboratories achieve 21 CFR Part 11 compliance while introducing significant benefits to laboratories across the spectrum from R&D through to QA/QC and manufacturing.

In R&D, an application like E-Notebook from PerkinElmer Informatics makes it possible for scientists to record and manage diverse types of data in an electronic format. The organization of the data can be customized to match scientists workflow, and maintaining the data in an electronic format provides many advantages over a paper format. For example, E-Notebook can be integrated with other computer systems, users can conduct searches over the E-Notebook database, and they can easily share data amongst multiple people.

In the QA/QC and manufacturing sectors, where organizations need to ensure that sample testing follows rigorous and repeatable processes, an ELN can provide a controlled and structured platform ensuring all standard operating procedure (SOP) requirements for testing are met every time. Nexxis ELN from PerkinElmer Informatics is an example of an ELN that can be integrated with other informatics systems to ensure and document that SOP requirements (instrument calibration, use of appropriate materials, analyst training, etc) are rigorously followed each and every time.

Laboratories that introduce Electronic Laboratory Notebooks can realize immediate reductions in costs by simply moving from paper to electronic documents.

  • The on-going cost of purchasing paper notebooks is eliminated
  • The long-term costs of on-site and off-site physical storage of notebooks and paper forms are replaced with cost-effective storage on electronic media
  • Direct on-line access to electronic documents reduces the time and costs required for document retrieval during an audit situation or for internal problem resolution
  • Electronic documents, with supporting audit trail and electronic signatures, present auditors with a clear and accurate picture of the results, simplifying audit procedures

For Indian laboratories, the decision to implement informatics applications that support compliance with 21 CFR Part 11 delivers multiple benefits. They are protecting their access to regulated markets in the US and other countries while implementing electronic processes and procedures that can reduce costs while enhancing their ability to deliver world class results.

 
 
 
About the Author:

 

David Gill is Managing Director of the St John's Innovation Centre in Cambridge. From 2005 to 2008, he served as a director of ETCapital Limited, a venture firm specialising in early-stage, technology-based investments. He previously set up and ran the Innovation & Technology Unit at HSBC Bank in London, during which time he was oversaw HSBC's funding of two professorial chairs of innovation and the creation of a national network of technology banking managers.

Educated at Cambridge, he qualified as a barrister before working in corporate finance for US and UK banks. He was a Sloan Fellow at the Stanford Graduate School of Business in California (2005). David is the co-author of several country-based reviews of the commercialisation of innovation and a recent analysis of the impact of incubation on growth firms.

He is an Official Visitor at the University of Cambridge Institute for Manufacturing, a non-executive director of UK Business Incubation Ltd and a member of the UK Government Department for Business Access to Finance Expert Group. He is also Treasurer of Westcott House theological college. He was made Master of the University by Brunel University in June 2002; and in March 2011 he won the UKBI award for Outstanding Contribution to Business Incubation.

Date : 20-Nov-2011
 
St John's Innovation Centre - Cambridge
St John's Innovation Centre is a property-based incubator designed for knowledge-intensive enterprises in their early stages. It offers flexible accommodation and assistance with growing and running a business, especially the commercial exploitation of technology. Over 100 units are available, with individual spaces designed for two to twenty-five people. Simple leases, typically terminable on one month's notice, provide significant flexibility.
The Innovation Centre was opened in 1987 as part of St John's Innovation Park, which now hosts a number of other buildings occupied by knowledge companies and professional services firms. It is an EU-accredited Business & Innovation Centre (BIC) and a founder member of UK Business Incubation. The site (wholly-owned by St John's College, Cambridge, since 1534) provides a campus setting close to both the city centre and major transport arteries.

Tenants are not required to have any connection with the University of Cambridge, though in practice a high proportion of resident entrepreneurs are Cambridge graduates, often at PhD level.

Over the years, numerous prominent start-ups associated with the Cambridge Phenomenon have commenced their careers at the St John's Innovation Centre, including Autonomy Corporation plc, Jagex Ltd, Zeus Technology Ltd, Owlstone Ltd, Breathing Buildings Ltd, Scientia Ltd and Datanomic Ltd, among many others. Some tenants ‘graduated’ to other buildings on the Innovation Park, though a few – such as Red Gate Software Ltd –started in the adjacent Jeffreys Building rather than in the main Innovation Centre.

When it began in 1987 as the long-planned vision of Dr Christopher Johnson, the then Senior Bursar of St John's College, the Innovation Centre was one of the first of its kind in Europe. Ahead of its 25th anniversary the following year, the Centre was refurbished in late 2011, which was also the 500th anniversary of the foundation of St John's College.
Some Lessons form the Incubation Ecosystem in Cambridge
 
If it's Wednesday, it Must be Cambridge

Another week, another overseas visit to the St John's Innovation Centre, and another chance to reflect wistfully not only on what lessons can be derived from the Cambridge experience but also on the minimal extent to which our visitors seem to absorb such wisdom, rather that merely stop by to have their prejudices reinforced.

We are part of the international circuit (Silicon Valley, Boston, Helsinki, Sophia Antipolis, Munich, Tel Aviv, Bangalore) visited by economists and government ministers looking for chimerical short-term fixes to embedded long-term problems of stagnant GDP, low productivity and faltering levels of innovation. But experience of over 100 such visits to St John's has left me wondering whether this multitude of learned eminences understands less when they leave us than when they arrive, despite our best endeavours.
 
The Cambridge Cluster in 30 Seconds···

To explain fully what I mean, as so often we need a little history.

The Cambridge cluster is by most measures a success story of putting to practical use wide-ranging research (in computing, life-sciences, physics or engineering) associated with a University, now in its ninth century, and other leading centres such as the Wellcome Trust at Hinxton Hall or Addenbrooke's Hospital. As a result of decades of cooperation among scientists, entrepreneurs, investors and advisers, our small city of some 115,00 souls in the midst of flat East Anglian farmland is associated not just with more Nobel prize-winners than any other university but has also produced some of the most dynamic and transformative modern businesses:

  • Chips designed by ARM are in most mobile handsets now sold.
  • Autonomy, which started in St John's only in the later 1990s, was acquired last month for over $10bn by Hewlett Packard.
  • Other leading technology firms as diverse as Cambridge Silicon Radio (Bluetooth pioneers), Jagex (electronic games) and Red Gate (professional SQL server tools) started on the Innovation Park in the last dozen years - and still have their offices within a few hundred yards of here. The cycle continues into a new decade.
Let there be Clusters

From a policy wonk's perspective, Cambridge is almost too good to be true: public funding for education is leveraged by private investment in start-ups to create high-growth businesses, generating substantial exports and thousands of high-value jobs and tax revenues. And it's a virtuous circle, as the international talent drawn to our fenland outpost enhances the University's output (and endowment) and widens the entrepreneurial talent pool.

So far, so good; it's not difficult to see why every week delegations from round the world come to study ‘Silicon Fen’, arguably the largest shard of the true ‘innovation cross’ outside Northern California.

But as the adage goes, if the odds are good, the goods are odd. And three years of hosting visits to St John's from just about every continent have left me with an uncomfortable feeling that most visitors arrive - and despite our caveats, leave - with two or three related misconceptions so fundamental that they cannot be removed without completely undermining the bases on which innovation policy is founded in many countries, bases such as the linear model of innovation, ‘creating’ a cluster and mistaking symptoms (innovation centres) for causes (entrepreneurship).

Let's tease out a couple of these.
The Linear Model and its Ugly Cousins

After spending 4 hours in Cambridge between stops in London and Oxford, most visitors notice that the city's innovation infrastructure contains a university, an incubator, a science park and a few seed funds – often set up with government backing. The relationships among these and many other components are complex, even contradictory; recognising this frustrating fact takes time (which visitors don't have) and certainly does not make for a compelling, newsworthy policy to be issued by the visiting minister (or her officials) on her return home.

Instead, a simplifying narrative is often used along the following lines:
1. The University produces research and employs specialist teams of technology transfer officers to identify projects with significant commercial value.
2. As a result, the University engenders many spin-outs, which are then incubated in innovation centres and science parks owned by the University.
3. Spin-outs are run by academic entrepreneurs and invested in by purpose-built venture funds run by panels of sages acting in the public interest.
4. After a few short years of serene progress, these spin-outs are floated on a stock exchange, enabling the University and the founding scientists to collect a crock of gold to reinvest in teaching and research···and the whole cycle commences anew.
5. And in the process, national departments of education or technology can draw up coloured maps showing how government policy has created dynamic scientific clusters all over the country –good material for uplifting speeches by the minister in an election year.

Compelling? Maybe. But simply not true, either in Cambridge or – in my experience of visiting similar successful clusters in the US and Europe – anywhere else to a significant degree. With five identified factors, it's probably 5-factorial wrong.

For a start, each region is different but I doubt whether a sustainable cluster could be created simply by policy – deciding that in an empty space on the map where jobs are needed, public investment and planning will result in a dynamic, science–based commercial ecosystem to engage with whatever issues are deemed to be du jour, such as nanotechnology or cleantech or personalised medicine or food security. At the very least, some rudimentary interaction between researchers and firms is required for policy to build on.

And to use the hallowed phrase, the dogs must eat the dog food: other people and firms must want to buy what you've made, generally because it meets a point of pain they recognise. This is market pull as opposed to technology push. Multiple policy objectives (award–winning science and job creation on top of commercial success) often mean that start-ups lack clarity about their mission and achieve no single target well.
Soft Issues are Tougher

Linear models fetishize tangibles and neglect intangibles. Budgets are certainly required to put up university Entrepreneurship Centres, Incubators and Science Parks – and venture funds – and I do not discount either this financial contribution or the importance of well-designed buildings to house essential activities and embody aspirations, as bearers of normative order. “First we shape our buildings, then they shape us,” as Churchill put it.

But policy makers seeking to encourage innovation should resist developing an edifice complex. Across the globe, half empty incubators, and science parks slipping back to the status of ordinary industrial zones, bear witness that the ‘software’ (people, culture, institutions) matter at least as much the hardware – and the latter without the former will be mere vanity projects, ephemeral photo opportunities as they are declared open.

Ongoing human effort, incremental changes to policies and premises, and revenue budgets to provide training and advice matter as least as much as architects plans and capital for buildings.

Fifteen years of working with the Cambridge cluster has brought home to me that though we are lucky in our basic infrastructure of research laboratories, incubators and business parks, we are more fortunate still in the people and institutions who make the buildings work.

A common collegial culture facilitates high degrees of trust and sharing. Almost anyone who might help a new entrepreneur can usually be reached in two or three phone calls.

Superordinate goals of supporting the Cambridge cluster and the imperative of disseminating software or medical devices that can change millions of lives matter to a remarkable extent to most players.
The Meta Level

After 40 or 50 year of slow emergence – generally organic but often assisted by visionary individuals (and Colleges!) prepared to put their money where their mouth was – the Cambridge cluster has acquired enough depth (serial entrepreneurs, regular infusion of new firms, attractiveness as a place to work for young knowledge workers, specialist consultancies) and a broad enough range of domain specialisms (IT, engineering, bio, inkjet printing, cleantech) to be a safe place in which to undertake risky projects.

A shelf full of academic research backs up what experienced practitioners already know: no two clusters are the same and it is unwise to copy practices from an existing, successful cluster when seeking to gear up a newer one. Policymakers must be able to move up a level: to consider the overall context, from strength of research base to availability of risk funding, to more fundamental issues such as effectiveness of property rights and the absence of red tape.

That much may seem reasonable to the point of tedium. But institutions and regulation are but the stage on which the play of innovation and entrepreneurship takes place. For this performance to be a success, its leading actors must by contrast be quite unreasonable. To update George Bernard Shaw, reasonable people adapt themselves to the world; unreasonable people persist in trying to adapt the world to themselves. Therefore all progress depends on unreasonable people.

I've yet to meet a visiting minister happy to recruit unreasonable people.
David Gill
St John's Innovation Centre
20th November 2011
 
 
 
Copyright ABLE 2011