The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported yesterday that Steven Burrill, a California venture capitalist, is close to raising a $1 billion venture fund to promote biotechnology startups in Minnesota. Burrill is also building a biotech research park near the Mayo Clinic in Rochester.
This is huge news for Minnesota, especially in this time of dried up biotech investing. I hope the Texas Legislature takes note of this development while they consider reauthorizing the Texas Emerging Technology Fund this summer.
It’s also interesting that Burrill raised this money for a Minnesota project and not for California. Does anybody know the reason for this choice? There has certainly been a lot of press lately about how it’s becoming prohibitively expensive to start a business in California.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s in Minnesota because of the proximity to Mayo.
Thanks for your comment, Andrew.
The reason for my question is that VCs are notorious for limiting their investments to companies that are within 30 minutes of their house. Even if they want to invest in a company that’s in another state, the company will have to move as a requirement of the financing. So raising a huge fund in another state is really unusual.
I’m also asking the question from the point of view of a Houstonian, who wants to see greater biotech growth in his home town. We’ve got M.D. Anderson, an institution whose prominence equals that of Mayo, and we’ve got organizations who have been working for years to attract this kind of VC investment. So I’m curious how Minnesota was able to pull it off?