It’s time for another Boston tea party of sorts. Beantown maintained its distinction as the top U.S. life sciences cluster in a recent survey, while Greater Philadelphia edged out Greater San Francisco for the No. 2 spot. The City of Brotherly Love knocked the City By the Bay down a peg in the Milken Institute’s study—which uses more than 60 core measurements in life sciences competitiveness—because of Greater Philly’s advances in biotechnology R&D and other measures, says the non-profit think tank based in Santa Monica, California. The study entitled “The Greater Philadelphia Life Sciences Cluster 2009: An Economic and Cooperative Assessment,” was sponsored in part by organizations in the Philadelphia region, including Pennsylvania Bio and Greater Philadelphia Life Sciences Congress. The pharmaceutical trade organization PhRMA was also a sponsor of the study, which was last conducted in 2005.

 

Boston ranked first in the overall composite index, partly because the city enjoys a higher concentration of biotechnology and medical devices, the study says. What’s more, the city’s universities “are leading scientific research institutions with a long history of successful commercialization,” the report adds. The overall composite index is comprised by measures of the industry’s “current impact,” “innovation pipeline,” and “small business vitality” in each geographic area. Despite the rankings, all three cities are well positioned to build value in the life sciences, the study authors say.

 

“We’ve been saying for years that regions that cultivate their life sciences assets—including universities, hospitals, tech spin-off and start-ups—are best prepared to succeed in a changing economy,” says Ross DeVol, director of regional economics at the Milken Institute. “These top performers are well suited to ride out the recession and thrive in the recovery.”

 

Among some of the study’s findings, the life sciences sector in Greater Philadelphia generated 380,800 jobs, $20.2 billion in earnings, and $39.7 billion in output in 2007. The study says 15 percent of the region’s economic activity can be traced back to the industry. As for San Francisco, the city continues to show strength in the life sciences, “particularly in the availability of risk capital and in relative growth,” the study finds.

 

Breaking down the scores, Boston was ranked first in its innovation pipeline, which looks at the economic elements that facilitate the industry’s technological advances and production, while San Francisco ranked No. 2. Philadelphia took the top spot in current impact, which analyzes the economic impact and growth of the life sciences, and was followed by Greater New York, which ranked No. 4 in the overall composite index ranking.

 

In small business vitality, an assessment of how successful the regions are in creating entrepreneurial firms, the top honor went to Greater Los Angeles, followed by San Francisco. The report was released during the 2009 BIO International Convention in Atlanta, but The Big Peach, which is a growing life sciences center, did not make it into the Milken study’s top 10 overall composite index.

 

The study concludes that Greater Philadelphia has been able to offset its lack of an extensive network of sources of capital for the life sciences with “massive amounts” of investment in research and development, primarily by pharmaceutical firms. If the region attracts more biotech firms, which could absorb workers laid off by pharma companies, “Greater Philadelphia could evolve into the top life sciences cluster in the world,” the report says.