The difference between Boston and SF for biotech is so interesting. SF has a lot of future-tech looking biotech companies, super cool DNA sequencing, longevity, synthetic biology, whereas the Boston area is much more pragmatic. It is so funny how west coast vs east coast biotech really is--romantic futurism vs pragmatic present.
The other way to look at the divide is protein vs nucleic acid. A lot of very interesting MAb and designer protein companies are in the bay area, but all the major CRISPR, mRNA, siRNA companies are in Boston. Sure you have Ionis and Caribou in CA, but that's really it.
If you believe the future is in the digital information nature of nucleic acid, Boston is the center of gravity by a huge margin.
Are you sure? I think synthago is critical to crispr technology across the world. I think they are expanding into new fields and are no longer just sending supplies to universities. That story is the old story
Just chiming in from the perspective of a medical technology company guy, I think biotech talent in the bay area is second to none. My own startup was in Wisconsin, but the guys and gals out in San Fran knew... their... stuff!
That said, I would agree that Boston was right up at the top with the bay area in that respect. We always thought of it as Boston for depth, and the bay area for breadth.
The rest of the country was lagging way behind as I remember it, but this was a while ago. I mean there were a few bright spots. Places like Maryland-NOVA-DC area believe it or not, but they didn't shine like Boston and the bay area.
The other way to look at the divide is protein vs nucleic acid. A lot of very interesting MAb and designer protein companies are in the bay area, but all the major CRISPR, mRNA, siRNA companies are in Boston. Sure you have Ionis and Caribou in CA, but that's really it.
If you believe the future is in the digital information nature of nucleic acid, Boston is the center of gravity by a huge margin.