Being in the hub is not the same as being in the ecosystem

The why

Most pharma presence in leading life science hubs is built for validation. Companies scout, monitor, wait for de-risked assets, and then license or acquire. That model matters, but it is crowded: most large players fish in the same deal flow, often at the same valuations.

A larger opportunity lies further upstream, in formation: combining deep disease biology with emerging technology platforms to shape and create assets that would otherwise not exist. Formation cannot be done at arm's length. It requires being inside the right parts of an ecosystem, scientifically and physically, with an integration model built for co-creation rather than observation. The question is no longer whether to be present in a hub, but how deep that presence needs to go.

The challenge

A global pharma company was strengthening its early R&D pipeline by expanding into new modalities, technology platforms and therapy areas, with external innovation an increasingly central part of its R&D strategy. Its footprint spans several innovation hubs, among them Greater Boston and Greater Copenhagen. In both, its main research sites sit some distance from where much of the relevant science is concentrated.

The client faced a set of interlinked choices. Which scientific areas should it integrate into, with which institutions and research groups, and through what models? And what footprint would turn presence into genuine scientific partnership, rather than symbolic visibility?

How we helped

Over several projects, we mapped the Boston and Copenhagen ecosystems to identify where the client's scientific priorities met ecosystem strengths. We also worked out how integration could be designed to capture that value.

The work combined a structured analysis of research centres, research groups, funding flows, start-up activity and venture creation with more than 40 interviews. Interviewees spanned academia, incubators, investors, cluster organisations, urban developers and industry. The analysis looked beyond current strength to where each ecosystem is heading, and to what partners themselves value in a collaboration with pharma.

Outcome

Clarity on what integration requires beyond presence

Innovation in both ecosystems concentrates in a small number of places, typically around leading universities, institutes and research hospitals. Being in the region is not the same as being in the ecosystem. Partial set-ups at a distance tend to deliver visibility rather than partnership. Deeper integration requires deliberate choices on proximity, organisation, talent and value proposition.

Specific science integration opportunities

Rather than mapping ecosystems in general, we identified a focused set of scientific areas in each ecosystem where the client's R&D priorities meet emerging global leadership. In Boston, these included areas such as nucleic acid delivery, gene editing, regulatory RNA and advanced disease models. In Copenhagen, they included cardiometabolic research built on human data, AI-driven protein design and cell therapy. Each opportunity was linked to the specific institutions, groups and partners where integration would create the most value.

Integration models and footprint options with explicit trade-offs

We translated these opportunities into a hub-and-spoke logic, giving each location a distinct scientific purpose. Integration models were matched to the science and the partner, ranging from joint research and consortia to co-location and collaborative research facilities. Footprint options ran from low to high ecosystem commitment, giving R&D leadership a concrete basis for choosing how deep to integrate, and where.

What moved the needle

Science first, footprint second

We started from the science the client needed to access, not the sites it already had. That kept the work focused on areas relevant to R&D priorities rather than broad, generalist mapping. It also reframed footprint as a consequence of scientific choices, not a starting point.

Grounded in partner value and operational reality

Integration only works if it is attractive to the partner and feasible for the organisation. Recommendations reflected what leading researchers and institutions look for in a pharma collaboration: scientific partnership, not just funding. They also accounted for real estate, economics, timing and organisational readiness.

Partner

Jonas Karlsen

Jonas is a life science strategist supporting executives drive progress across the value chain. He is an expert in bridging strategy and execution via global operating model design and transformation rooted in strategic objectives. He engages with structured top-down thinking and a pragmatic and collaborative approach to mobilise organizations and make things happen.

Jonas holds a Ph.D. in biophysics from the Technical University of Denmark, DTU, and further studied at California Institute of Technology. Recipient of the Ministry of Sciences Elite Research Award.

Selected experience

Ecosystem integration and external innovation pipeline
Lab of the future capability building and operating model design
Global clinical operating model design and transformation
Pre-launch strategy for cardiometabolic TA development

Book meeting