Kendall Square in Cambridge has undergone a remarkable transformation over the years, evolving from a center for manufacturing soap and vulcanized rubber, to a desolate area marked by deindustrialization, and finally, into the booming heart of America’s biotech industry.
This revitalization has attracted numerous firms eager to capitalize on Kendall Square’s status as a global leader in biotechnology, significantly altering the local economic landscape.
As companies increasingly vie for a place in this dynamic region, the city’s influence has shifted from investing in infrastructure development to requiring companies to enhance nearby infrastructure as a prerequisite for establishing their ventures in the area.
Tom Evans, director of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, noted, “We’ve actually been able to flip the formula.”
Kendall Square’s rise coincides with the burgeoning field of biotechnology, which took root in the 1970s. This industry has flourished due in no small part to its proximity to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a cornerstone of research that has significantly contributed to the foundation of the biotech sector in the United States.
Dr. George M. Church, a Harvard professor of genetics, and other industry leaders have acknowledged the importance of MIT in launching many biotech innovations.
However, while MIT thrived in the biotech boom, Harvard University’s relationship with this revolutionary market has been more complex, rooted in its historical emphasis on theoretical research over commercial engagements.
During the early 1980s, when biotechnology was just beginning to emerge, Harvard had hesitations about the commercialization of scientific research, which ultimately led to its retreat from the field.
Notably, Harvard’s biological department, once home to a slew of Nobel Laureates, significantly contributed to molecular biology advances, particularly with recombinant DNA technologies that enabled groundbreaking applications in medicine, such as insulin production for diabetes management and novel cancer treatments.
The initial breakthrough in recombinant DNA was achieved by Paul Berg at Stanford University in 1971, which subsequently spread to major research institutions like Harvard and MIT. During this transformative period, Walter Gilbert and Philip A. Sharp emerged as prominent figures at Harvard and MIT, respectively, making significant contributions to the field.
As concerns around the safety of recombinant DNA research developed, public anxiety surged, leading to the establishment of the Cambridge Recombinant DNA Technology Ordinance in 1977. This piece of legislation was crucial in ensuring a stable environment for the burgeoning biotech companies, making Cambridge an attractive choice for research and investment.
The ordinance was prompted by Harvard’s need to expand its recombinant DNA facilities, a request met with some opposition from local government officials due to safety worries.
This episode demonstrated the city’s commitment to creating conditions conducive to cutting-edge research while also addressing public concerns — a feat that would not have been possible without the cooperation of local scientists.
Biogen, founded in 1978 by Gilbert, Sharp, and Kenneth Murray, marked a pivotal moment for Cambridge, becoming the first company to secure a commercial license for DNA recombination. Their decision to locate in Cambridge was influenced by the favorable regulatory landscape established by the city.
Sharp expressed that the environment allowed Biogen to maintain the vital connections with researchers at Harvard and MIT, which played a significant role in the company’s ongoing development.
As other biotech startups emerged in the 1980s, the industry began to evolve rapidly, reigniting conversations within academia around the commercialization of scientific research. While Biogen would eventually secure its first drug, Avonex, the initial enthusiasm led to an influx of new ventures throughout the region.
With this growing interest came a realization among faculty at MIT and Harvard that research could be translated into marketable products. However, that realization did not come without controversy.
When two Harvard professors sought to establish the Genetics Institute with the university’s backing in exchange for equity, it ignited significant backlash from faculty concerned about the implications of such a venture.
Harvard’s then-President, Derek C. Bok, faced mounting pressure and ultimately withdrew the proposal. This event signaled a critical divergence in the trajectories of the two institutions.
Whereas MIT leaned into the commercialization of biotech, Harvard stepped back, remaining primarily focused on theoretical research and preserving academic integrity.
MIT’s proactive stance produced significant advantages for its faculty, allowing for the establishment of organizations that fostered entrepreneurship and secured vital land supplies for emerging biotech firms.
Unlike Harvard, which struggled with limited available land and a cautious approach to commercialization, MIT’s strategic real estate initiatives played a pivotal role in shaping Kendall Square into a thriving biotech hub.
By the 1990s, MIT had notably eclipsed Harvard in biotech endeavors, overshadowing its historical contributions to foundational research in life sciences.
However, in the early 21st century, new leadership at Harvard recognized the need for a paradigm shift. Harvard began investing heavily in efforts to catch up to MIT, reflecting a renewed commitment to applied science and collaboration with the private sector.
In 2001, President Lawrence H. Summers articulated the need for the university to evolve its practices to ensure that academic research translates effectively into practical applications.
In the following decade, Harvard founded a series of new initiatives aimed at transforming biomedical research into commercially viable products, including the Broad Institute and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering.
The latter represented an effort to integrate engineering and life sciences, acknowledging the need for interdisciplinary cooperation in achieving significant advancements in biotechnology.
In 2009, Harvard took progressive steps in establishing the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, demonstrating a long-term vision to bolster its capabilities in fields that intersect with biotechnology.
The creation of the Enterprise Research Campus in Allston represents Harvard’s latest endeavor to carve a niche within the competitive biotech landscape, aiming to establish an innovation district similar to Kendall Square.
As these ambitious projects unfold, the challenge remains whether Harvard can indeed reclaim its position within the biotech sector, given the decades it allowed itself to drift during a critical era of commercial development.
With significant investments in Allston poised to create new opportunities, industry insiders speculate whether Harvard can transform its historical legacy into a flourishing future in biotechnology.
As noted by stakeholders, the spatial divide between Harvard and Kendall Square continues to be a point of discussion, emphasizing the importance of proximity in attracting biotech firms and fostering collaborations.
As Harvard endeavors to bridge this gap over the next two decades, the ongoing evolution of Kendall Square remains a reflection of the intricate interplay between academia, industry, and innovation in shaping the future of biotechnology.
image source from：https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/4/25/biotech-hub-expands/
