Sean Parker, the billionaire tech entrepreneur who calls Los Angeles home, took a big symbolic step in the fight against cancer earlier this month when he put up $250 million to form the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy.

Drawing from what he called an “all-star team” of researchers at the leading cancer centers in the world – UCLA among them – the new institute would bust the current “silo” model of research to unify all aspects of the process, from research and data collection to management of clinical trials.

The effort will be housed at the San Francisco headquarters of his foundation.

On the heels of that news came word that Biocom, a San Diego biotech trade group, would set up an L.A. office this summer. The move, said Joe Panetta, its chief executive, was an effort to tap the “enormous potential” of the region’s life science cluster.

Indeed, there is much here to take advantage of: L.A.’s richest man, Patrick Soon-Shiong, built his vast fortune developing pharmaceuticals and has since turned the attention of his Culver City NantWorks to an array of health care-related enterprises. There are 15 public biomed-biotech firms in Los Angeles and hundreds more clustered around innovation centers at UCLA and USC. Los Angeles County has about 40,000 people working in the industry.

And yet Parker’s center will be based in San Francisco and a San Diego group feels there is an opportunity to build something here even though an incumbent organization, the Southern California Biomedical Council, has been around for 20 years.

Ahmed Enany, SoCal Biomed’s president, didn’t want to talk about Biocom’s entry into the market, but he can’t be pleased.

As much money as there is sloshing around the field, Los Angeles has been woefully under-represented, especially given the training many get here.

In a piece for the Times in advance of hosting the L.A. Biotech Summit in February, USC President Max Nikias laid out the brutal truth: More than 5,000 people graduate from local institutions with degrees in biotech-related fields each year, nearly twice the number that come out of Bay Area schools. At the same time, biotech investment in San Francisco-area companies hit $1.15 billion in 2013. L.A.? $45 million. Nikias called that a “paltry” number, but that insults paltry.

There are myriad reasons we have a biotech brain drain, among them inadequate training for the entry-level workforce that would staff companies that took root here.

But there’s also blame to be laid at the door of local investors, many of whom simply don’t see the value in what are generally long-term investments. When the shiny object that is the next consumer app comes knocking, why pass in favor of a 10-year drug development cycle that may or may not end in regulatory approval?

So the fact that Biocom is on its way should be seen as encouraging. L.A.’s biotech-biomed sector is flanked to the north and south by more successful clusters. If a group from one of them sees value here and is able to extract it, let ’em in.

• • •

Speaking of going public, there’s talk that one of the local tech darlings may well forego a public offering and simply sell itself to a larger corporate parent.

Honest Co., the Playa Vista maker and seller of “eco-friendly” baby and beauty products, sports a valuation of $1.7 billion and was said to be preparing to exit via an IPO at some point this year. But the market has softened and tech darlings, even ones headed by a successful actor (Jessica Alba) and serial entrepreneur (Brian Lee), aren’t necessarily as darling as they used to be.

Which leaves one less option for investors looking to take some money off the table.

The roster of public companies in Los Angeles has been eroding – corporate headquarters move, businesses are bought by out-of-towners or taken private – and it is always nice to see it replenished.

But is it such a bad idea for Honest to sell itself to the highest bidder? Sure, if for example Proctor & Gamble buys it and packs everyone off to Cincinnati. But otherwise, could you blame Alba and Lee for not wanting to deal with the pressure of quarterly reports, activist shareholders, and hedge fund managers targeting you as a short sale?

Cash may be cash, but cash without a headache somehow feels a little greener.

Jonathan Diamond is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at [email protected].