L.A.'s biomed seeds must be nurtured to fruition.

The seeds of a next-generation biomedical industry have been planted in Los Angeles. Yet, without local nurturing, other regions could reap tomorrow's commercial fruit.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom - that this is a "company town" for show biz - more than 1,000 biomedical firms work in the five counties near world-leading research universities. Building on unique local assets, they are creating high-wage, global businesses ranging from drugs to diagnostic kits to surgical tools.

In coming years, however, local indifference to biomedical research and manufacturing could be costly. More and more biomedical firms and home-grown technologies could follow the already well-worn paths out of Los Angeles.

L.A. leads in biomedical research while lagging San Diego and the Silicon Valley in turning technologies into firms and jobs.

This is the leading county in the leading state by one measure of research: The level of grants from the National Institutes of Health. If L.A. County were a state, it would rank eighth in NIH grants. Researchers between 1991-95 won NIH grants of $1.6 billion, most of it for work at UCLA, USC and Caltech. L.A. County's NIH awards exceeded two-thirds of the combined total for eight Bay Area countless, a biomedical hotbed.

Other measures also reveal a competitive advantage. Since 1976, Southern Californians' medical patents - as a percentage of all California patents - rose from 2.9 percent to 6.8 percent. The region's share of California medical patents jumped from 43 percent to 54 percent. Medical patents issued to L.A. County residents rose from 442 in 1976-80 to 1,225 in 1991-95 - and dramatic trends also are apparent in Orange and San Diego counties.

Many of the new technologies have vast market potential.

Scientists at UCLA and USC are developing gene therapy for the fights against cancer, multiple sclerosis, blindness and AIDS. Researchers at Caltech are perfecting biomaterials for tissue regeneration and wound healing. UCLA teams are applying molecular transportation technology to drug delivery, AIDS vaccines and artificial blood.

Others at UCLA and USC are using neurotrophins and neurtrophic factors against strokes and neuro-degenerative diseases. The City of Hope is exploring new cancer treatments and Drew University is addressing the needs of the underserved. The result: a wealth of technologies that could seed future business.

Technology alone cannot create jobs. Research awaits the creative spark of entrepreneurial talent, fueled by investors and policy makers.

The "flash point" has been reached often enough here. Clinical Micro Sensors of Pasadena, led by Jon F. Kayyem of Caltech, is developing cost-effective biosensors to detect viral antigen. Or, at GenoMed in Beverly Hills, teams from UCLA and Cedars Sinai are applying genomic technologies to coronary arteries, inflammatory bowels, diabetes and obesity.

Yet, L.A. brings fewer biomedical firms to maturity than either San Diego or the Silicon Valley. It would be easy - but, probably, fruitless - to blame venture capital firms. They have invested little in L.A. County's biomedical firms, even as they pour tens of millions into firms in San Diego and Orange counties and hundreds of millions of dollars into Bay Area biomedical firms. But capital tends to find strong managements and great business plans.

It would be just as easy - and as wrong - to blame the local shortages of space suitable for biomedical research and manufacturing. A business park alone will not spawn powerful new firms. Nor should we assume new firms would blossom if freed from discouraging local regulation or the very real shortages of appropriately trained employees.

Each issue, however, may be more a symptom than a cause.

What can L.A. do to create tomorrow's winners? From San Diego to the Silicon Valley, biomedical industry leadership has grown out of the concerted - and coordinated - efforts of research centers, governments, investors, and entrepreneurs.

Elsewhere in California, and from Massachusetts to the Research Triangle, biomedical businesses often begin when universities transfer discoveries to the private sector. The next step comes when entrepreneurs - a resource in which California is unusually rich - find ways to marry technology, manufacturing and customers. Investors provide patient capital to sustain biomedical firms during the costly, risky and lengthy gestation periods that are peculiar to biomedicine.

Governments also play a role. They can offer positive inducements such as business parks. They can reduce negative influences such as silly regulation, inferior schools or poor quality of life.

Finally, biomedical fares, with their long start-up periods, can be crippled by dysfunctional political or business cultures that grow oblivious to the value or needs of entrepreneurs and their industry. And this is a very real threat in L.A.

In summary, if L.A. is to turn its research dominance into commercial leadership, it must begin by better networking and coordinating those who can nurture the new businesses: from research centers to entrepreneurs to investors to governments.

This is a challenge in a county where biomedical "actors" tend to be isolated from each other, and where institutional leaders remain largely unaware of the concentration of major firms in L.A. Yet, without the collaboration and focus that has helped create businesses in San Diego and the Silicon Valley, home-grown technologies are likely to continue the years-old trend of out-migration.

Ahmed A. Enany is executive director of the Southern California Biomedical Council. James B. Lucas, a Santa Monica-based investor relations consultant, is on the SCBC board.