World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnotogy 7, 3
Guest Editorial
Biotechnology and the poor" partnerships or more poverty? Harvey Bialy
Harvey Bialy is Research Editor of Bio/ Technology, the international monthly for industrial biology, 65 Bleecker Street, New York, NY 10012-2467, USA.
© 1991 Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd.
Ten years ago the ability to manipulate D N A molecules in the laboratory was an esoteric art practised by relatively few biologists. Today one can purchase kits and devices to do almost everything necessary to clone and sequence a gene from a single cell and express it in a variety of forms, in a variety of heterologous cells, under a variety of conditions. Multi-gram amounts of once excruciatingly rare proteins with potent activities can be made for a few thousand dollars. This penetration of the newest tools of molecular biology into the biological sciences in general is the achievement of biotechnology in its first decade. During this time many promises about the ability of biotechnology to produce new medicines and more food, and of its subsequent benefits to the developing world, were made. To the extent that some of these promises have been kept, they have yet to have a positive impact on the world's poorer countries. This is the failure of biotechnology in its first decade. Turning this failure into a success depends critically on establishing a parity in the transfer of technology between countries in the north and the south. Since important results in biology today are more often patented before they are published, it is unrealistic to expect the companies that control the patents to give away these results freely, especially after they have spent large sums of money developing the basic discovery into a commercial product. And since the countries in the south are characterized by poverty, debt, technological incapacity and inadequate education, it is equally unrealistic to expect that traditional licensing agreements will work to move production capabilities from north to south. But without such movement, the south will remain in a state of underdevelopment and dependency. H o w then are these new joint ventures to be formed? One basis for real partnerships between biotechnology industries in the north and research institutions and fledgling companies in the south is the vast untouched pharmacopeia represented by the flora and fauna of the rain-forests. Tropical countries can utilize the enormous potential of this gene pool to negotiate cooperative ventures that provide income from royalties and sales as well as training the people who will initiate future indigenous proiects. :n line with proposals made by Daniel Goldstein, to make such agreements even more attractive, the International Monetary Fund could consider placing such joint ventures within its structural adjustment programs. Developing a high-valueadded commodity from the genes in the rain-forest is clearly preferable to debt service from exporting its timber. Improving education, a sustained impetus to developing technologically sophisticated industry and a source of hard currency are the real benefits biotechnology offers to the countries of the south. Realizing these benefits requires that partnerships--based on enlightened self-interest--replace paternalism and naive expectation as the guiding paradigms for its transfer.
Guest Editorial
Biotechnology and the poor" partnerships or more poverty? Harvey Bialy
Harvey Bialy is Research Editor of Bio/ Technology, the international monthly for industrial biology, 65 Bleecker Street, New York, NY 10012-2467, USA.
© 1991 Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd.
Ten years ago the ability to manipulate D N A molecules in the laboratory was an esoteric art practised by relatively few biologists. Today one can purchase kits and devices to do almost everything necessary to clone and sequence a gene from a single cell and express it in a variety of forms, in a variety of heterologous cells, under a variety of conditions. Multi-gram amounts of once excruciatingly rare proteins with potent activities can be made for a few thousand dollars. This penetration of the newest tools of molecular biology into the biological sciences in general is the achievement of biotechnology in its first decade. During this time many promises about the ability of biotechnology to produce new medicines and more food, and of its subsequent benefits to the developing world, were made. To the extent that some of these promises have been kept, they have yet to have a positive impact on the world's poorer countries. This is the failure of biotechnology in its first decade. Turning this failure into a success depends critically on establishing a parity in the transfer of technology between countries in the north and the south. Since important results in biology today are more often patented before they are published, it is unrealistic to expect the companies that control the patents to give away these results freely, especially after they have spent large sums of money developing the basic discovery into a commercial product. And since the countries in the south are characterized by poverty, debt, technological incapacity and inadequate education, it is equally unrealistic to expect that traditional licensing agreements will work to move production capabilities from north to south. But without such movement, the south will remain in a state of underdevelopment and dependency. H o w then are these new joint ventures to be formed? One basis for real partnerships between biotechnology industries in the north and research institutions and fledgling companies in the south is the vast untouched pharmacopeia represented by the flora and fauna of the rain-forests. Tropical countries can utilize the enormous potential of this gene pool to negotiate cooperative ventures that provide income from royalties and sales as well as training the people who will initiate future indigenous proiects. :n line with proposals made by Daniel Goldstein, to make such agreements even more attractive, the International Monetary Fund could consider placing such joint ventures within its structural adjustment programs. Developing a high-valueadded commodity from the genes in the rain-forest is clearly preferable to debt service from exporting its timber. Improving education, a sustained impetus to developing technologically sophisticated industry and a source of hard currency are the real benefits biotechnology offers to the countries of the south. Realizing these benefits requires that partnerships--based on enlightened self-interest--replace paternalism and naive expectation as the guiding paradigms for its transfer.
