Startup firms

At its outset, the new technology was the province of a host of small companies that typically focused on one or a few potential products. Scriabiane (1999) estimates that there were 1,308 such firms in the United States in 1996 (p. 271). Of these, only 260 were public corporations. Many startup firms had their roots in university science. Another survey reported that fully 1,100 new biotechnology companies were created between 1980 and 1994 from licenses granted by universities (p. 272). 

However, small startup firms have cornered the markets here, while established companies are strugghng to maintain their innovative edge, and the same applies to the chemical industry. Innovations in e-commerce and in biotechnology have started to change the game completely in some chemical businesses, such as agrochemicals, but most of these originate with startups, and not with the big estab-hshed chemical companies. 

A startup firm with no products or processes on the market, and hence, no income, but with a growing R D budget financed by investment from sources outside the firm. 

For the startup firm, tax credits are not particularly useful since it usually does not pay income taxes. Such a firm is intent on identifying or moving a product or process to the point that investors may realize a return. To the extent that it can anticipate taxable income in the future, it can carry forward R D tax credits to subsequent years, but the value of these potential future credits is diminished because of the time value of money. While the possessions and foreign tax credits can also theoretically be carried forward, a firm can earn these credits only by generating income (either abroad or in a U.S. possession). 

The orphan drug credit has no carryforward or carryback provision at all. In practical terms, then, these credits are not useful to the startup firm. 

There is little evidence that the behaviors associated with these risks are at all widespread. Although one survey found that a minority of faculty has done some research in which the results could not be published without consent of the sponsor, the faculty who collaborate with industry tend to be among the most productive (53). They publish and teach more than their colleagues, so commitment to the academic institution appears not to be a big problem.10 As indicated earlier, the potential for conflicts of interest arising from faculty involvement in startup firms appears to exist in only a very small minority of cases. Furthermore, in the last 2 years, the Federal Government and the research community itself have taken steps to prevent researchers from having any financial interest in the outcome of research they conduct. 11... 

The individuals and firm most familiar with the technology should review the intermediate and final procedures to assure both safety and commercial interests are satisfied. In many batch operations the procedure(s) can be a substantial portion of the process technology package. The procedures represent both a major safety system as well as a propriety technology. The pre-startup review should assure both PHA related and other changes proposed to the procedures have been approved and implemented. 

The person in charge of this phase of the operation is often the person designated to become the plant manager. Some companies, however, have a startup division that is placed in charge. Others contract for this function with the construction firm. In any case, the person in charge should have had prior experience with startups. 

One of the ongoing challenges is the fact that most slurry delivery systems are designed and built for final steady-state use at full-scale manufacturing. Unfortunately the needs during startup may be very different from the needs at full buildout. Compromises must be made. There are no firm rules to... 

Many more biotech-based products are currently in the pipeline and expected on the market soon. Most pharmaceutical companies today admit that they are dependent on alliances with biotech startups for the development of new drugs and new ways of treating diseases. The value of collaborations formed between pharmaceutical firms and the biotech industry amounted to no less than USD 4 billion in 1998. 

Although this sounds like common sense, once the required resources for a startup are known, the most common management response is you don t need that many people. The Venture Manager must be firm in insisting on the required resources and keep reminding management of the old Irish saying ... 

Calcium Hydroxide System. A Ca( OH )a system is undergoing startup testing at Louisville Gas and Electric Co., Paddy s Run No. 6, on a 70 MW pulverized coal-fired boiler. This system uses carbide sludge, a waste calcium hydroxide material, as the additive for reducing SO2 emissions. The utility is obtaining the carbide sludge from a local industrial firm which produces large quantities of it in the manufacture of acetylene. 

An example is the Jupiter software from Abbie Gregg, Inc., a startup consulting firm. See www.abbiegregg.com. 

The smaller European companies evolved by concentrating on their home markets and European ones, and the Japanese likewise focused on their home market and other East Asian ones. These European and Japanese firms often licensed products from and had alliances with U.S. core companies and startup entrepreneurial firms, just as the American competitors did with European and Japanese pharmaceutical companies. Two of the Japanese companies developed from centuries-old roots. Indeed, Takeda began in 1781, and Shionogi nearly a century later in 1871. The third, Sankyo, was formed in the late nineteenth century as Japan began to industrialize and trade with Western nations. In 1898, Parke Davis penetrated Japan, employing Sankyo as its local marketer. The fourth firm, Yamanouchi, was the youngest, established in 1923. ... 

---