3. James Flanigan's article "Biotech Tries to Shrug off Setbacks," from the New York Times and found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/business/smallbusiness/17edge.html?_r=1 outlines the difficulties that biotech firms have had recently with respect to securing financing. The investment climate is different for several reasons. The first is that the traditional providers of venture capital to biotechs have seen their asset values plummet along with the stock market. As a result, industry insiders are pessimistic with respect to the availability of venture capital in the coming years. The remainder of the article explains that despite the gloomy outlook, there are players in the industry that are optimistic, in part because they perceive the industry as sufficiently strong to attract capital even in a tight VC environment.

The article's guardedly optimistic finish leaves the question unanswered as to the consequences of the current sluggish VC environment being sustained for the next several years. This is an important question to answer for the industry. While some firms may still receive financing, the apparent shortfall will reduce funding opportunities for many more. Most of these firms will go quietly into the night, taking solid leads and research with them. This will reduce opportunities for larger firms that would otherwise buy the leads or enter into partnership with smaller firms. There are profound implications for understanding what would happen if the optimists are proved wrong and the venture capital market for biotech firms remains weak for years.

An economic analysis could be conducted to help answer this question. Certain assumptions could be made with respect to the reaction of firms within the industry...

This would give the author an indication of the degree to which businesses would fold, the degree to which partnerships would not take place and other withdrawals of activity in the industry.
4. I would ask the question:

In light of reductions in venture capital from traditional sources (university endowments, pension funds, etc.) what new sources is the industry looking to in order to sustain growth?

I want to know the answer because this knowledge reflects on the long-term stability of the biotech industry. It provides an understanding of the degree to which non-traditional funding sources can be tapped in order to sustain development in the biotech industry. The current economic situation is relatively poor as traditional VC sources have lost significant equity value in the past couple of years. I am curious as to how the biotech industry as a whole intends to replace this sources in order to sustain growth. The value of knowing the answer is it can help to determine for prospective biotech startups what the market might be like in the coming months and years. This helps set hurdle rates and cost structures, and could have a strong influence on the timing of startups as well.

I would find that answer myself by discussing the issue with biotech venture capitalists -- who is providing them the money to invest? Also, it would be valuable to discuss the issue with some of the traditional sources of venture capital, to get an indication from them as to when the see their funding levels for biotech startups returning to pre-recession levels. Another source of insight would be biotech startups themselves, particularly the ones that are still receiving financing.