Search

The article discusses how countries such as India and China have shown they can move beyond western imitation to homegrown innovation in certain fields, such as telecommunications and information technology. The same is increasingly true of biotechnology, argues a report just published in Nature Biotechnology by a group at the University of Toronto. The study looks at the state of medical biotechnology in six developing countries--Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt, India and South Africa--and one recently industrialised one, South Korea, to understand what it takes to build a healthy biotech sector. Many of the countries studied, which began investing in biotech in the 1980s, are starting to see the fruits of their labour. The number of scientific papers on health biotechnology published by researchers in Brazil and Cuba, for example, more than tripled between 1991 and 2002. Much of the biotech industry in the developing world is based on copying western innovation. But such generic manufacturing can be a springboard to more innovative activities. India's pharmaceutical firms are playing an important role in the global fight against AIDS by selling generic versions of anti-retroviral drugs at a fraction of the price charged by their western inventors in the rich world. There are plenty of other hurdles that the countries studied in the report need to tackle before their biotech blossoms fully. Brazil needs better links between academia and industry. Egypt's budding biotechnologists are short of cash from both government and private sources. India's regulatory system is slowing down product development. South Africa needs to do more to reverse its brain drain, and train more researchers to boost their ranks.

The article discusses how the countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICS) have helped poorer nations emerge from the global recession. According to the article, the study "Global Financial Crisis Discussion Paper Synthesis (phase 2)" by Dirk Willem te Velde from the Overseas Development Institute found that emerging powers affect the growth prospects of poorer ones. How the BRICS' deals have affected trade and foreign direct investment from the West to Africa are discussed.

The article examines whether the BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India, and China, deserve supergroup status. The acronym BRIC was introduced by Goldman Sachs in 2001, which refers to the world's most-dynamic developing economies. There have been mixed opinions on the countries' prospects for preeminence as the global financial crisis signalled an end to the dominance of the U.S. Economist Nouriel Roubini favors the inclusion of South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia, while Mark Mobius does not.

Medicinal Plants of Brazil. Medicinal Plants of India. Medicinal Plants of Indonesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an overview of the history of the acronym BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) which was coined by Jim O'Neill, a research director for the financial firm Goldman Sachs in 2001. It emphasizes the status of these countries in terms of their economic and political development, relative to the rest of the world. O'Neill is quoted commenting on the popularity of his idea, which he did not expect, and denies that he included Brazil merely for the sake of creating a memorable acronym. A timeline of various significant economic events in the BRIC countries is also provided, beginning with the end of military rule in Brazil in 1989.

The article reports on the goal of Toyota for growth in the Brazil, Russia, India and China automobile markets. Toyota says its market share rose to 5.5% during the first five months of 2006, helping it ascend to fifth in the sales rankings. Toyota is also planning a one-liter global car by 2010 that will cost around $7,500 and be developed alongside Daihatsu, Toyota's mini-car subsidiary.