By the year 2000, the word “biotechnology” had started to acquire a new weight in economic and policy circles. The Human Genome Project was cresting toward its completion, and suddenly there was a sense—sometimes anxious, sometimes breathless—that the future would be written in genes and proteins as much as in silicon. For anyone trying to track the actual emergence of biotech firms at this moment, ISIC 7210—Research and development on natural sciences and engineering—was both a resource and a puzzle. The code covered everything from climate modeling to chemical engineering, so identifying the true shape of the biotech sector called for more than a single pass through the registry.
The first step is to extract the set of organizations classified under ISIC 7210 in a given country or region. Business registries, innovation agency lists, or even university spinout directories are helpful starting points. But the label “biotech” wasn’t always embraced or even clearly defined—some firms styled themselves as “life sciences,” “bioinformatics,” or simply as research companies. For that reason, it’s important to supplement raw registry data with additional evidence. Archived company websites, press releases from the time, and mentions in trade publications can help distinguish which organizations were genuinely focused on biotechnological innovation and which were pursuing other branches of research.
Patent activity becomes a vital signal at this stage. Early-stage biotech firms, especially those chasing new diagnostics, therapies, or platform technologies, were often prolific filers. Patent databases, searchable by technology class and applicant, allow for clustering: companies with multiple filings in genetic engineering, monoclonal antibodies, or recombinant DNA are more likely to fit the intended profile. Yet, this is not foolproof. Some firms filed in the names of subsidiaries or research consortia, while others focused their IP strategy on trade secrets or licensing. It takes time—and often more patience than one would expect—to piece together who’s who.
Venture funding provides another lens. The boom in biotech venture capital around 2000 left a record in the form of announced funding rounds, investor newsletters, and sometimes even SEC filings for the more ambitious firms. By cross-referencing the ISIC 7210 list with news archives and VC databases, analysts can flag which organizations secured outside investment. Not all biotech startups managed to attract funding, and some with significant scientific bona fides nonetheless struggled to convince investors. Still, those that did tend to show up repeatedly in the public record—listed as recipients of Series A, B, or even C rounds, often with brief descriptions of their intended product or research focus.
Merging these data streams—registrations, patents, venture rounds—requires care. Company names are notoriously variable, and in the churn of the sector, mergers and rebrandings were common. Documenting the logic of each match is as important as the match itself. If a company changes names but maintains a stable patenting record and is referenced in funding disclosures, it likely merits inclusion as a continuous entity. Yet, this is the sort of detail that can trip up an analyst working too quickly.
Some firms, despite being registered under ISIC 7210 and active in patenting, operated as contract research organizations or platforms for others, rather than as classic product-focused startups. Deciding how to treat these hybrid entities is a judgment call. For some studies, their presence in the sector is vital, reflecting the outsourcing model that would later define much of biotech’s workflow. For others, the focus remains on firms pursuing their own proprietary technologies.
Ultimately, the goal is not so much to produce a single, static list of “biotech firms” as to map a sector in flux—growing, fragmenting, and periodically coalescing around new discoveries and commercial models. By layering ISIC 7210 registration data with patent and venture funding records, it’s possible to see the outlines of the sector as it actually was: busy, ambitious, sometimes chaotic, and unmistakably on the rise. The true challenge is not in finding the firms, but in keeping pace with the speed at which they—and the very notion of biotechnology—were evolving.