Australia's growing support for women in Life Sciences |
In Life Sciences, there is, regrettably, a glass ceiling. If you are involved in the Life Sciences in any country where the sector is strong, you'll have noticed a push in recent years to increase the number of leadership positions that are held by women. Usually there's regular networking events for women in all the biotech hubs around the country, and if you attend a conference there'll likely be a booth for the national 'Women in Biotech' organisation. And no wonder. Emma Walmsley may have become the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline in 2017, putting a woman in charge of the world's eighth-largest pharmaceutical company, but only three other pharma companies in the Top 50 globally have a female in the top job. Meanwhile, a mere 5.7% of companies currently represented in the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index - the generally accepted benchmark for the leading biotech and medical device companies globally - have a female CEO. That's right, 5.7%, which is amazing when you consider that close to 40% of those companies are headquartered in two ostensibly liberal places - the San Francisco Bay Area in California and the Boston-Cambridge axis in Massachusetts. Indeed, the current picture could be said to be even bleaker for women who aspire to global leadership in our sector. Of the three other women beside Emma Walmsley in peak leadership positions at Big Pharma, two of them - Menarini's Lucia Aleotti and Lupin's Vinita Gupta - are in their jobs in part because they are daughters of the respective founders. That doesn't diminish the achievements or qualifications of these women in any way, but it makes you wonder if a female non-family member would have a chance. As for the 149 Nasdaq Biotechnology Index companies that are not one of the Top 50 Pharma companies (ie excluding Mylan, run by Heather Bresch, and other established companies like Amgen, Gilead and Celgene), the eight companies with female CEOs only represent 3.5% of the total combined market capitalisation of the 149. Why is it so? Well, science has always been something of a boy's club, as evidenced by the fact that, of the 130 living Nobel laureates who have won the Prize for either Medicine or Chemistry (click here), 122 are men and only 8 are women*. Combine that with male dominance of venture capital when the biotech industry was getting started in the 1970s and 1980s and it's not particularly surprising that women remain under-represented even in the much more mature 2010s.
A 13% female CEO rate - Australia does considerably better than its global peers in terms of breaking the Life Sciences glass ceiling. Given the apparently low representation of women in the C-Suite of the world's leading Life Science companies, we asked the question as to whether or not Australia was more 'woman-friendly' in terms of appointing women to the top jobs in our Life Sciences sector. We took the 123 ASX-listed Life Science companies we follow (click here) and then compared the 112 companies from that list that are based in Australia or New Zealand to a cross section of in excess of 800 Life Science companies from 25 Life Science clusters in other parts of the world**. What we found was encouraging. 15 Australia-based companies, or 13% of the total from Australia and New Zealand, had female CEOs. For the comparator companies based elsewhere in the world, the female CEO rate was only 7.5%. For the two cities that set the global tone for Life Sciences - Boston and San Francisco - the figure was 9%. That said, even 13% is not good enough.
Why has Australia done better than most in terms of female leadership in the Life Sciences? Australia has the usual issues that most advanced industrial countries have in terms of under-representation of women in corporate leadership positions. Only 11 of the Top 200 companies across all industries on the ASX today have female CEOs, while the boards of those companies are only about 25% female (click here). However, if you know something of our country's history you'll appreciate that we're more advanced than most in terms of welcoming women into leadership roles. We were, after all, the second country in the world, in 1902, to grant voting rights for women at a national level (New Zealand was first, in 1893) and the progress towards gender equality has been reasonably steady since then (click here). We have even had our first female Prime Minister - Julia Gillard, from 2010 to 2013. In terms of opportunities for women today, US News and World Report's 2017 list of the Best Countries for Women ranked Australia as No. 8 on the list (click here). Throw in the fact that Life Sciences flourished here slightly later than it did in the US and Europe and you have an environment where Australia does better than most countries in terms of female CEOS of Life Science companies. Put simply, the people who start and oversee companies in our country are slightly more open to female candidates than their overseas competitors. We can, however, do significantly better.
Why there will be more female CEOs of Life Science companies in Australia in the years ahead. Women make up a sizable percentage of the most creative segment of the Life Sciences workforce in Australia - the people named as inventors on patent applications. We looked at every PCT patent application published by an Australia applicant with an A61K classification between January 2014 and December 2017 and found that 30% of the inventors were women. Even when weighting each application by the number of co-inventors (ie only 0.2 of an application where there are five co-inventors) the female participation rate in the effort of creating new technologies for our sector was still 25%. That 25-30% provides a large potential pool of future female CEOs, without even looking at the women currently working as patent attorneys, clinical trial associates, business development executives, tech transfer officers and so on. When we counted the list of attendees at this years Bioshares meeting in Queenstown, New Zealand, we found it was 23% female.
Where can Australia do better? As with any country with a significant Life Science sector, there are various measures that industry players can take to increase the number of women in senior leadership positions. A key one is for entrepreneurs forming new companies to actively seek women for their boards and their leadership teams. There are plenty of suitable candidates out there just waiting to be asked, and they can be found by tapping into the networks that women have formed in recent years. Basically, the guys doing the choosing should ask around in a circle slightly wider than the one that includes their golfing and fishing buddies. At the same time, they should have a look at themselves to check whether they have a conscious or unconscious bias against women as leaders (or merely a blind spot for this issue). One glaring deficiency in the Australia Life Sciences sector at the moment is female representation at board level. Of the 112 ASX-listed Life Science companies that we track that are based Down Under, only 11% of their directors are female. Again, it should be higher.
Why should Australian bio-entrepreneurs forming and building new companies deliberately seek women to run them? We can think of several reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, we think it's fair to say that female CEOs will, in many instances, be smarter and work harder than their male counterparts, because they know that gender equality isn't something you can take for granted, even in a more enlightened country or era. Hiring women today harnesses what we call the 'Margaret Thatcher Effect', after the way the Iron Lady (who was once a research chemist), having elbowed her way forward in that boy's club of boy's clubs known as Parliament, ended up in a position to radically change her country. We think that being contrarian and picking a female candidate for a leadership position in a Life Science company makes it more likely that the shareholders will make money in the long run. In addition to their technical ability, women are more likely to be collaborative and team-oriented than men, and are arguably better at multi-tasking. And let's face it - there are few companies more in need of multi-taskers than early-stage biotech and medical device companies. If that's not enough reason to look for female candidates, consider that investors might pay more attention if your company is one of the few with a female CEO, and that might make it easier to raise capital and get media attention.
Wasn't there a female CEO of an Australian Life Science company who went to gaol? There was. Click here for that unfortunate episode. We can tell you that she was well regarded by the industry and investors alike prior to her fall from grace, and if her defalcations hadn't been uncovered she would likely still be well-regarded today. Women may make great Life Science CEOs, but boards are well advised to set up good internal controls whether their CEO is male or female. It's also worth mentioning that a lot more men than women have been imprisoned due to crimes that involved biotech/medtech companies in Australia (click here and here for a couple of notable examples).
Some final thoughts. One influential female leader in our sector commented to us: 'We will know we have reached equality when as many mediocre women are in leadership positions as mediocre men!'. That same woman also observed 'When I see a conference speaker list, an award nomination list, a board of directors, a group of invited people at a consultation etc. – I will always be aware of the presence or absence of women. The fact that there are still people out there who can’t understand the importance of visibility and presence and contribution of women in our sector as an issue astounds me. It’s a reputational risk for our sector. Other industries are getting savvy and proactive around women in leadership… let’s not get left behind'. Amen to that.
Feedback? Please get in touch. Please let us know anything you think we’ve overlooked or wrongly evaluated.
A 13% female CEO rate - Australia does considerably better than its global peers in terms of breaking the Life Sciences glass ceiling. Given the apparently low representation of women in the C-Suite of the world's leading Life Science companies, we asked the question as to whether or not Australia was more 'woman-friendly' in terms of appointing women to the top jobs in our Life Sciences sector. We took the 123 ASX-listed Life Science companies we follow (click here) and then compared the 112 companies from that list that are based in Australia or New Zealand to a cross section of in excess of 800 Life Science companies from 25 Life Science clusters in other parts of the world**. What we found was encouraging. 15 Australia-based companies, or 13% of the total from Australia and New Zealand, had female CEOs. For the comparator companies based elsewhere in the world, the female CEO rate was only 7.5%. For the two cities that set the global tone for Life Sciences - Boston and San Francisco - the figure was 9%. That said, even 13% is not good enough.
Why has Australia done better than most in terms of female leadership in the Life Sciences? Australia has the usual issues that most advanced industrial countries have in terms of under-representation of women in corporate leadership positions. Only 11 of the Top 200 companies across all industries on the ASX today have female CEOs, while the boards of those companies are only about 25% female (click here). However, if you know something of our country's history you'll appreciate that we're more advanced than most in terms of welcoming women into leadership roles. We were, after all, the second country in the world, in 1902, to grant voting rights for women at a national level (New Zealand was first, in 1893) and the progress towards gender equality has been reasonably steady since then (click here). We have even had our first female Prime Minister - Julia Gillard, from 2010 to 2013. In terms of opportunities for women today, US News and World Report's 2017 list of the Best Countries for Women ranked Australia as No. 8 on the list (click here). Throw in the fact that Life Sciences flourished here slightly later than it did in the US and Europe and you have an environment where Australia does better than most countries in terms of female CEOS of Life Science companies. Put simply, the people who start and oversee companies in our country are slightly more open to female candidates than their overseas competitors. We can, however, do significantly better.
Why there will be more female CEOs of Life Science companies in Australia in the years ahead. Women make up a sizable percentage of the most creative segment of the Life Sciences workforce in Australia - the people named as inventors on patent applications. We looked at every PCT patent application published by an Australia applicant with an A61K classification between January 2014 and December 2017 and found that 30% of the inventors were women. Even when weighting each application by the number of co-inventors (ie only 0.2 of an application where there are five co-inventors) the female participation rate in the effort of creating new technologies for our sector was still 25%. That 25-30% provides a large potential pool of future female CEOs, without even looking at the women currently working as patent attorneys, clinical trial associates, business development executives, tech transfer officers and so on. When we counted the list of attendees at this years Bioshares meeting in Queenstown, New Zealand, we found it was 23% female.
Where can Australia do better? As with any country with a significant Life Science sector, there are various measures that industry players can take to increase the number of women in senior leadership positions. A key one is for entrepreneurs forming new companies to actively seek women for their boards and their leadership teams. There are plenty of suitable candidates out there just waiting to be asked, and they can be found by tapping into the networks that women have formed in recent years. Basically, the guys doing the choosing should ask around in a circle slightly wider than the one that includes their golfing and fishing buddies. At the same time, they should have a look at themselves to check whether they have a conscious or unconscious bias against women as leaders (or merely a blind spot for this issue). One glaring deficiency in the Australia Life Sciences sector at the moment is female representation at board level. Of the 112 ASX-listed Life Science companies that we track that are based Down Under, only 11% of their directors are female. Again, it should be higher.
Why should Australian bio-entrepreneurs forming and building new companies deliberately seek women to run them? We can think of several reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, we think it's fair to say that female CEOs will, in many instances, be smarter and work harder than their male counterparts, because they know that gender equality isn't something you can take for granted, even in a more enlightened country or era. Hiring women today harnesses what we call the 'Margaret Thatcher Effect', after the way the Iron Lady (who was once a research chemist), having elbowed her way forward in that boy's club of boy's clubs known as Parliament, ended up in a position to radically change her country. We think that being contrarian and picking a female candidate for a leadership position in a Life Science company makes it more likely that the shareholders will make money in the long run. In addition to their technical ability, women are more likely to be collaborative and team-oriented than men, and are arguably better at multi-tasking. And let's face it - there are few companies more in need of multi-taskers than early-stage biotech and medical device companies. If that's not enough reason to look for female candidates, consider that investors might pay more attention if your company is one of the few with a female CEO, and that might make it easier to raise capital and get media attention.
Wasn't there a female CEO of an Australian Life Science company who went to gaol? There was. Click here for that unfortunate episode. We can tell you that she was well regarded by the industry and investors alike prior to her fall from grace, and if her defalcations hadn't been uncovered she would likely still be well-regarded today. Women may make great Life Science CEOs, but boards are well advised to set up good internal controls whether their CEO is male or female. It's also worth mentioning that a lot more men than women have been imprisoned due to crimes that involved biotech/medtech companies in Australia (click here and here for a couple of notable examples).
Some final thoughts. One influential female leader in our sector commented to us: 'We will know we have reached equality when as many mediocre women are in leadership positions as mediocre men!'. That same woman also observed 'When I see a conference speaker list, an award nomination list, a board of directors, a group of invited people at a consultation etc. – I will always be aware of the presence or absence of women. The fact that there are still people out there who can’t understand the importance of visibility and presence and contribution of women in our sector as an issue astounds me. It’s a reputational risk for our sector. Other industries are getting savvy and proactive around women in leadership… let’s not get left behind'. Amen to that.
Feedback? Please get in touch. Please let us know anything you think we’ve overlooked or wrongly evaluated.
Australia's female Life Science CEOs
- Megan Baldwin, CEO, Opthea (ASX: OPT). Megan Baldwin, who was named CEO of Opthea in February 2014, was previously a researcher at Genentech where she worked with Napoleone Ferrara, whose lab first isolated and cloned Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) in 1989 and led to the monoclonal antibody drugs Avastin and Lucentis. Megan later spent time in Genentech’s commercial division, working on corporate competitive intelligence. At Opthea, Megan is now going one better than Genentech with new drugs that have more anti-angiogenic power than the blockbusters she helped create.
- Leslie Chong, CEO, Imugene (ASX: IMU). Leslie Chong, a relatively recent US import to Australia, was previously a Senior Clinical Program Lead at Genentech, where she most recently oversaw clinical operations for Cotellic, a MEK inhibitor FDA approved in 2015 for the treatment of BRAF-mutated melanoma. Before Genentech, Leslie was a clinical operation head at the San Francisco cancer drug developer Exelixis, and before that she had held clinical operation roles at GSK and PPD. At Imugene Leslie has put her clinical operations skills to good use getting the HER-Vaxx B cell peptide vaccine into the clinic.
- Samantha Cobb, CEO, AdAlta (ASX: 1AD). Sam Cobb, who joined AdAlta in 2007 shortly after its founding, brought to the company technology development and commercialisation skills initially gained at Uniquest, the University of Queensland’s tech transfer arm, and honed through roles such as Business Development Director at the Co-operative Research Centre for Diagnostics. Under Sam’s leadership AdAlta has refined its position as a next generation antibody-type platform play and showed that AdAlta's 'i-body' scaffolds can be used for hitting targets that are yet to be drugged with antibodies.
- Elaine Darby, CEO, AusCann (ASX: AC8). Elaine Darby, who holds both Science and Law degrees, has been a winemaker in the Margaret River region of Western Australia; a media flack for her father, Federal Liberal MP Dr Mal Washer; and a lawyer with top tier firm Clayton Utz. This unusual portfolio of roles has prepared Elaine for the multi-faceted challenge of building one of Australia's first medicinal cannabis companies.
- Karen Duggan, CEO, Vectus Biosystems (ASX: VBS). Karen Duggan founded Vectus in 2005 as an outgrowth of her work on Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide, which she had discovered and showed to be capable of reversing fibrosis. Prior to Vectus Karen ran the hypertension service of a Sydney-area public health system. This medical background has proved invaluable as Karen and her team have prepared their products for the clinic.
- Jackie Fairley, CEO, Starpharma (ASX: SPL). Jackie Fairley, originally a veterinarian, in the early and mid 1990s held various senior positions at CSL involved in clinical and regulatory as well as business development. At CSL she established that she was smart and could work hard. By the late 1990s she was running a 120-person team responsible for product development, global regulatory and business development for Faulding Hospital Pharmaceuticals’ international business. Four years as CEO of a VC-backed biotech that didn’t work out helped Jackie build resilience and gave her further valuable experience dealing with commercial partners. Since becoming CEO of the dendrimer company Starpharma in July 2006 Jackie's focus on commercial outcomes and deal-making has led to a range of valuable products and collaborations.
- Michelle Fraser, CEO, RHS Ltd (ASX: RHS). Michelle Fraser became RHS's foundation CEO in September 2007 and has persevered tenaciously in the decade since to secure the capital and grants to grow what she thinks can be a world-leading provider of whole genome amplification tools for genetic testing. Before RHS, Michelle was Business Development Manager at Bio Innovation SA, where she helped to grow the valuable Adelaide Life Sciences cluster, in part through the establishment of a venture capital fund called Terra Rossa Capital. In her career Michelle has also run two other biotechnology startups.
- Maria Halasz, CEO, Cellmid (ASX: CDY). Maria Halasz, a native of Hungary, has been CEO of Cellmid since April 2007. She brought to the company decades of experience in Australia advising Life Sciences investors, including some time as a venture partner at the Emerging Technology Fund of the venture capital firm Allen & Buckeridge. Under Maria's guidance Cellmid has commercialised some new generation hair growth products. It has also positioned itself as the world leader in therapeutics and diagnostics involving Midkine, a protein known to contribute to cancer, heart disease and inflammation.
- Kathy Harrison, CEO, Dimerix (ASX: DXB). Kathy Harrison, CEO of Dimerix since November 2016, brings to the company a background in IP law honed as a patent attorney, as well as more generalist skills gained at two Australian biotech companies – Cytopia and Phosphagenics. Under Kathy Dimerix has secured a solid IP position for the its GPCR drug discovery platform, as well as moved its lead DMX-200 product into the clinic, with highly favourable Phase 2a results in 2017.
- Leearne Hinch, CEO, Bard1 Life Sciences (ASX: BD1). Leearne Hinch is the executive one brings into a Life Science venture at an early-stage of development to do everything from general management, strategy, fundraising, business development and commercialisation. Leearne, who took the top job at Bard1 in November 2016, has previously held executive positions in a number of ASX-listed companies including Immuron, OBJ and Holista CollTech.
- Michelle Miller, CEO, Biotron (ASX: BIT). Michelle Miller, Biotron CEO since 2002, started her career developing gene therapy products for J&J, and then worked in the management of early stage biotech ventures at a Sydney VC company. At Biotron Michelle brought discipline to the technology development process, overseeing the company’s transformation from an ANU-associated technology incubator into a drug developer focused on infectious diseases.
- Deborah Rathjen, CEO, Bionomics (ASX: BNO). Deborah Rathjen, as a benchtop researcher in the late 1980s at the Sydney-based antibody engineering pioneer Peptech, helped characterise some of the first antibodies to the cytokine TNF-alpha. This provided intellectual property that would prove company-making for Peptech a decade or so later after the rise of the anti-TNF drugs to treat Rheumatoid Arthritis, but only after Deborah, as Peptech's Business Development Manager, had vigorously championed the prosecution of the IP. In 2000 Bionomics was primarily a genomics play, but with genomics rapidly becoming old hat, Deborah proceeded to steer the company into the ultimately more commercial game of drug development, and under her leadership Bionomics has built or acquired the drug development technologies as well as the superior drug candidates to position the company in cancerf and CNS disorders.
- Jenny Swain, CEO, Allegra Orthopaedics (ASX: AMT). Jenny Swain brought to Allegra a background in orthopaedic sales and support at J&J and for a smaller company that is now Lifehealthcare. Before that she was a Registered Nurse with experience in orthopaedic units Unit Manager.
- Stephanie Unwin, CEO, Phylogica (ASX: PYC). Stephanie, who was named CEO of Phylogica in June 2017, was previously General Manager Commercial of Synergy, the Perth-based energy retailer. She had joined the Phylogica board in January 2016 and become the Chairman in April 2016. On the Phylogica board Stephanie brought considerable governance skills through her background in corporate law.
- Rosalind Wilson, CEO, Factor Therapeutics (ASX: FTT). Rosland Wilson, who was named CEO of Factor Therapeutics in May 2017, brought to the company a range of experiences gained in both small to large companies. At Roche Rosalind led the team that developed Perjeta, the second drug for HER2-positive cancers. Also at Roche, she was also 'lifecycle leader' for Orlistat, the weight loss drug.
Notes
* These female-led companies were Compugen, Editas Medicine, Genomic Health, Halozyme Therapeutics, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Trevena and United Therapeutics.
** The clusters were Atlanta, Ga; Boston-Cambridge, Ma.; Central New Jersey; Chicago, Il.; Dallas-Fort Worth, Tx.; Dublin; Greater New York City; Greater Philadelphia; Houston, Tx.; London; Maryland-Virginia-DC Metro; Medicon Valley; Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Fl.; Minneapolis-St. Paul, Mn.; Montreal; Paris; Raleigh-Durham, NC; Salt Lake-Provo, Ut.; San Diego, Ca.; San Francisco Bay Area; Seattle, Wa.; Stockholm-Uppsala; Tel Aviv-Jerusalem; Toronto; and Vancouver.
** The clusters were Atlanta, Ga; Boston-Cambridge, Ma.; Central New Jersey; Chicago, Il.; Dallas-Fort Worth, Tx.; Dublin; Greater New York City; Greater Philadelphia; Houston, Tx.; London; Maryland-Virginia-DC Metro; Medicon Valley; Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, Fl.; Minneapolis-St. Paul, Mn.; Montreal; Paris; Raleigh-Durham, NC; Salt Lake-Provo, Ut.; San Diego, Ca.; San Francisco Bay Area; Seattle, Wa.; Stockholm-Uppsala; Tel Aviv-Jerusalem; Toronto; and Vancouver.
Copyright © 2017 NDF Research