Search

Synthetic biology is revolutionising the biotech industry and is increasingly applied in previously unthought-of markets. Here, we discuss the importance of this industry to the bioeconomy and two of its key factors: the synthetic biology approach to research and development (R&D), and the unique nature of the carefully designed, stakeholder-inclusive, community-directed evolution of the field., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Since the early 2000s, numerous publications have presented major scientific opportunities that can be achieved through integrating insights from the area of nanotech into biotech (nanobiotech). This paper aims to explore the economic significance that nanobiotech has gained in the established pharmaceutical industry (big pharma). The empirical investigation draws on patent data as well as product revenue data; and to put the results into perspective, the amounts are compared with the established/traditional biotech sector. The results indicate that the new technology still plays only a minor role - at least from a commercial perspective.

Exploitation of the world's oceans is rapidly growing as evidenced by a booming patent market of marine products including seaweed, a resource that is easily accessible without sophisticated bioprospecting technology and that has a high level of domestication globally. The investment in research effort on seaweed aquaculture has recently been identified to be the main force for the development of a biotechnology market of seaweed-derived products and is a more important driver than the capacity of seaweed production. Here, we examined seaweed patent registrations between 1980 and 2009 to assess the growth rate of seaweed biotechnology, its geographic distribution and the types of applications patented. We compare this growth with scientific investment in seaweed aquaculture and with the market of seaweed production. We found that both the seaweed patenting market and the rate of scientific publications are rapidly growing (11% and 16.8% per year respectively) since 1990. The patent market is highly geographically skewed (95% of all registrations belonging to ten countries and the top two holding 65% of the total) compared to the distribution of scientific output among countries (60% of all scientific publications belonging to ten countries and the top two countries holding a 21%), but more homogeneously distributed than the production market (with a 99.8% belonging to the top ten countries, and a 71% to the top two). Food industry was the dominant application for both the patent registrations (37.7%) and the scientific publications (21%) followed in both cases by agriculture and aquaculture applications. This result is consistent with the seaweed taxa most represented. Kelp, which was the target taxa for 47% of the patent registrations, is a traditional ingredient in Asian food and Gracilaria and Ulva, which were the focus of 15% and 13% of the scientific publications respectively, that are also used in more sophisticated applications such as cosmetics, chemical industry or bioremediation. Our analyses indicate a recent interest of non-seaweed producing countries to play a part in the seaweed patenting market focusing on more sophisticated products, while developing countries still have a limited share in this booming market. We suggest that this trend could be reverted by promoting partnerships for R and D to connect on-going efforts in aquaculture production with the emerging opportunities for new biotech applications of seaweed products., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article reviews the current economic crisis as it impacts upon European biopharma SMEs and their ability to secure investment and funding. In particular it presents an analysis of a broader, pre-crisis structural problem in Europe related to the lack of institutional investors for Europe's life sciences venture capital funds and the impact this has both on the funds available for investment by VCs into Europe's biotech companies, and the effect on the type and stage of biopharma companies able to raise money. This article also presents an overview of an on-going stakeholder dialogue to address these issues and the proposals raised so far for possible solutions., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that intellectual property rights were crucial to scientific advancement. Yet, the framers also recognized the need to balance innovation, privatization, and public use. The courts' expansion of patent protection for biotechnology innovations in the last 30 years raises the question whether the patent system effectively balances these concerns. While the question is not new, only through a thorough and thoughtful examination of these issues can the current system be evaluated. It is then a policy decision for Congress if any change is necessary.

Today biotechnology is perhaps the most important technology field because of the strong health and food implications. However, due to the nature of said technology, there is the need of a huge amount of investments to sustain the experimentation costs. Consequently, investors aim to safeguard as much as possible their investments. Intellectual Property, and in particular patents, has been demonstrated to actually constitute a powerful tool to help them. Moreover, patents represent an extremely important means to disclose biotechnology inventions. Patentable biotechnology inventions involve products as nucleotide and amino acid sequences, microorganisms, processes or methods for modifying said products, uses for the manufacture of medicaments, etc. There are several ways to protect inventions, but all follow the three main patentability requirements: novelty, inventive step and industrial application., (© 2010 The Authors; Journal compilation © 2010 Society for Applied Microbiology and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

The research and development of innovative new therapies are expensive and risky processes, and companies require substantial resources if they are to translate basic science into modern biomedical products. When resources are limited, as in the current economic climate, biotechnology start-up companies are often among the first casualties in the fight for assets. Policy-makers can play an important role in bolstering these important innovators.

Context: The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which gave federal grantees and contractors the right to patent and license inventions stemming from federally funded research, was intended to encourage commercial dissemination of research that would otherwise languish for want of a patent incentive. The case of Columbia University's Axel patents, which claimed a scientific method to introduce foreign proteins into nucleated cells, illustrates a secondary outcome of the Bayh-Dole Act: the incentive for federal grantees and contractors to pursue royalty revenues from patented research, even for inventions for which commercial use did not require patents., Methods: This article describes oral interviews with two of the three inventors and a former high-ranking administrator at Columbia; correspondence with several faculty members at Columbia to obtain key royalty figures and information about Columbia's licensing strategy; patent searches; examinations of legal records of court proceedings; and analysis of citation trends for the seminal papers disclosing the invention of cotransformation., Findings: Columbia University and the inventors profited handsomely from the Axel patents, earning $790 million in revenues through licensing arrangements that tapped profits from end products made by biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. Columbia's aggressive effort to extend the patent duration also led to considerable legal expenditures and fierce controversy. In particular, obtaining and enforcing a 2002 patent proved costly, politically difficult, and financially fruitless and attracted intense criticism for behavior unbecoming a nonprofit academic institution., Conclusions: This case study raises several important questions about the logic and future revisions of the Bayh-Dole Act: Are revenue generation and financial rewards for inventing valuable technologies legitimate goals for this act? If so, does the federal government need credible mechanisms for oversight of, or checks and balances on, the rights conferred?

The sour global economy has left many small public firms gasping for air.

In the face of patent expirations on blockbuster drugs and declining innovation in the industry, pharma/biotech companies are restructuring their research and development operations and are pursuing an aggressive strategy of acquisitions, licensing deals and research collaborations in an attempt to fill the gaps in their product pipelines., (Copyright 2009 Prous Science, S.A.U. or its licensors. All rights reserved.)

In the face of patent expirations at a time of declining innovation across the industry, companies are restructuring their research and development operations and are pursuing an aggressive strategy of acquisitions, licensing deals and research collaborations to boost their drug pipelines.

Achievements and problems in both the studies on natural bioactive compounds from the Far-Eastern higher plants and marine invertebrates and development of the corresponding biotechnologies concerning new drugs and food supplements, as well as pharmaceutical leads are discussed. Special emphasis is made on recent results from the Far-eastern Institutions belonging to the Russian Academy of Sciences, and their application in both medicine and the food industry, as well as on peculiarities of biological and chemical diversity in the North-Western part of Asia and adjoining seas.

In the face of patent expirations at a time of declining innovation across the industry, companies are restructuring their research and development operations and are pursuing an aggressive strategy of acquisitions, licensing deals and research collaborations to boost their drug pipelines., ((c) 2007 Prous Science. All rights reserved.)

In 1976, Genentech, the first biotechnology company, was founded by a young venture capitalist and a university professor to exploit recombinant DNA technology. Thirty years and more than 300 billion dollars in investments later, only a handful of biotech firms have matched Genentech's success or even shown a profit. No avalanche of new drugs has hit the market, and the long-awaited breakthrough in R&D productivity has yet to materialize. This disappointing performance raises a question: Can organizations motivated by the need to make profits and please shareholders successfully conduct basic scientific research as a core activity? The question has largely been ignored, despite intense debate over whether business's invasion of basic science-long the domain of universities and nonprofit research institutions- is limiting access to discoveries, thereby slowing advances in science. Biotech has not lived up to its promise, says the author, because its anatomy, which has worked well in other high-tech sectors, can't handle the fundamental challenges facing drug R&D: profound, persistent uncertainty and high risks rooted in the limited knowledge of human biology; the need for the diverse disciplines involved in drug discovery to work together in an integrated fashion; and barriers to learning, including tacit knowledge and murky intellectual property rights, which can slow the pace of scientific advance. A more suitable anatomy would include increased vertical integration; a smaller number of closer, longer collaborations; an emphasis by universities on sharing rather than patenting scientific discoveries; more cross-disciplinary academic research; and more federal and private funding for translational research, which bridges basic and applied science. With such modifications, science can be a business.