J . Chem. Tech. Biotechnol. 1990, 47, 171-177
Support for Biotechnology This one day meeting organised by the Society of Chemical Industry and co-sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of British Biotechnology held on 24 May 1989, at the SCI in London, aimed to review Department of Trade and Industry schemes for fostering U K biotechnology. EC biotechnology support was also reviewed.
Recognising the commercial potential for the exploitation of modern biotechnology, the Department of Trade and Industry has initiated a series of schemes designed to foster biotechnology development in the UK. In particular, the schemes aimed to encourage and assist precompetitive development and commercial exploitation of ideas. The development of the initial support scheme was described by the former chairman of the now dissolved Biotechnology Advisory Committee (BAC), Dr David Jones. He commented that the BAC forsaw that supported projects might experience problems, particularly with respect to project management, knowledge of other work in the same area and protection of intellectual property. The validity of these predictions became apparent in subsequent presentations describing actual experience of supported projects. The current policy of DTI towards fostering UK biotechnology innovation was addressed by Dr Peter Baker, Head of the Biotechnology Unit at the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The policy aims to encourage innovation by industry without creating or perpetuating distortions in the economy. Its objectives are to encourage industry to increase expenditure on and application of R&D, to encourage more and better technology transfer between academia and industry and within industry, to encourage academia to make better application of its resources and to encourage new firms. In summary, the policy is aimed at building bridges. Dr Baker emphasised that the DTI had a role in ensuring that there was an appropriate climate for innovation in biotechnology. In this respect it was important that there was a balanced regulatory framework which did not stifle biotechnology development. It was also important that the financial climate was encouraging and that due attention was paid to ensuring that patent laws were appropriate to encouraging development. Finally, it was of major and increasing importance that attention be paid to improving the public perception of biotechnology. The overall support given by DTI falls into five areas: Innovation Schemes. Including the SMART and Teaching Company schemes run jointly with SERC, and various regional initiatives all with emphasis on helping small firms. 171
J . Chem. Tech. Biotechnol. 47 (1990)-0 1990 Society of Chemical Industry. Printed in Great Britain
172
Support for hiotrchnoloyy
Coordinating actioities. These are effected via DTI Biotechnology Unit representation on government interdepartmental committees such as the Biotechnology Joint Advisory Board, on the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) Biotechnology Directorate, and various other organisations including the Advisory Committee on Genetic Manipulation, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, the Department of the Environment, etc. Collaboration schemes. The DTI LINK programme is of major significance at this time with over 360 projects up and running. At the international level the DTI interacts with and supports major European initiatives such as EUREKA, BRIDGE, FLAIR and ECLAIR, and bilateral programme exchange visits. Clubs are very much a UK phenomenon whereby industrial members can, for a relatively moderate fee, obtain access to a considerable value of information exchange of current awareness and R&D activities. Dr Baker cited the activities of the UK Biotransformations Club as a successful example of this type of scheme. Several examples of past and present fostering initiatives were described. Dr Mike Turner- Programme Manager of the Inter University Biotransformation Centretalked about the realities of the LINK scheme. The aims of LINK are to stimulate collaboration between industry and academic science and to accelerate the commercial exploitation of government funded research. Promising areas have been selected and priority topics within these areas chosen. The scheme covers a wide range of areas other than just biotechnology, e.g. advanced semiconductors, molecular electronics and asymmetric synthesis. The basic rules pertaining to the LINK scheme are:
no government funding without industrial support, at least two industrial companies must collaborate (except where small firms are involved), public funding limited to 50% of the total budget, SERC cooperative grand conditions apply, all intellectual property rights belong to the participating companies. In the area of Biochemistry a number of promising areas have been identified viz. biotransformations, eukaryotic genetic engineering, protein engineering, food processing science, biochemical engineering, control of plant metabolism, selective drug delivery and targeting. Progress on the LINK Biotransformations programme was specifically described. The total programme budget was f4m (f2m from public and f2m from private sources). One specific project within the programme was the Inter Unioersity Biotransforrnations Centre. This has a budget of €1*02m.In all, eleven companies and three universities are participating in research projects in areas, such as C-C bond formation, redox enzymes, low water systems, etc., which are of particular interest to the industrial partners and having an ultimate aim of commercialisation. Despite the desire to target support at small firms, in the main it is large companies that are involved in the project. Funding of €2.7m remains to be allocated in the biotransformations programme and applications for support for relevant projects are still being sought. Management is considered to be an important part of the scheme and takes place at several levels. All LINK programmes as they arise are vetted by the LINK
Support for biotechnology
173
Steering Group. Each programme has a Programme Management Committee with management committees for each project. That for the Inter University Biotransformations Centre comprises representatives of DTI, SERC, Industry, Universities together with the programme manager. LINK programmes are likely to interact with each other and with non-link programmes, all of which requires careful and effective monitoring. The DTI also contributes some €8m to foster general collaborative projects. An example of such a collaborative scheme is the Industrial A T P Consortium described by Brian J. McCarthy of the British Textile Technology Group. This two-and-a-half year programme has established a consortium to research and develop adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-based techniques for detecting and enumerating microbial contamination for application in industry. The programme, costing some f499k, is lead by the British Textile Technology Group and includes the Water Research Centre, the Brewing Research Foundation, Thames Water and the University of Nottingham. DTI support is for 50% of the cost. The Industrial ATP Consortium may be regarded as a temporary cooperation of several interests to effect a common purpose, with a group of workers from diverse fields, but having similar aims, working together. The programme has achieved major successes in the following areas: the development of novel ATP extractants, instrument evaluation, development of standard method protocols, production of high quality reagents (e.g. luciferase, luciferin), genetic engineering of luminescent organisms, a major scientific conference (ATP '88). The programme has been run with a central administration/finance function based at BTTG. Free and ready interchange of information has been facilitated by the signing of a confidentiality agreement by all parties and by regular threemonthly technical meetings. The project has shown clearly that the adoption of a multi-sponsor approach has unquantifiable benefits both to the project itself and to the individual participants. The DTI SMART (Small Firms Merit Awards for Research and Technology) programme has somewhat different criteria from those schemes already mentioned, being aimed at sponsoring more competitive development. SMART is intended for firms having less than 50 employees, having an expert team but having a genuine financial need to enable technical development of a new product to take place. SMART is a competitive scheme having two stages, about 50% of the companies in the scheme are selected for continued funding at stage two. The scheme aims to inject seed capital to allow the start up of technical development. The programme for support should have a novel aspect i.e. a patentable design and ideally should be in a specific R&D area selected by the DTI e.g. advanced technology, advanced materials, biotechnology, information technology. Julio Faria of April Computing Executive Ltd recounted how the SMART scheme had been utilised to support development of biotechnology products. Thus, the company, which was set up to develop and bring to the market a management
I74
Support jor hiotechnoloyy
training software package, was able to get support to develop a silage effluent control system. SMART filled in for venture capital and allowed ACE to get into the biotechnology market several years earlier than would otherwise have been possible. Typically financial support had been, in year 1-75 % of the development costs, in year 2-50% of the commercialisation costs. The permitted areas of expenditure were very wide including salaries, overheads, equipment purchase, licencing, etc.-in no way restricting. The SMART scheme had helped bring forward biotechnology product development and helped the early growth of the company which now had good prospects for job growth and new business potential. ACE have applied for a second SMART scheme to support development of a continuous aseptic biological sampler, the project being a collaborative one involving ACE, UMIST and a small engineering eompany. SMART had proved here to be highly interactive and beneficial and an excellent programme for small companies. Two past DTI supported programmes were then reviewed with particular reference to their management. The Plant Gene Tool Kit (PGTK)was described by Mr R. F. Norman. This was a major consortium comprising eleven companies and four universities together with the DTI. The objective of the three year programme was to encourage the application of basic research on plant gene transfer. The programme contained four projects and cost some f3m over three years. It was intended that specific gene sequences should be provided to facilitate gene transfer and expression and to provide a user’s manual for the use of such sequences. The achievements of the programme were varied. Certainly useful gene sequences, including a number of marker and reporter genes and key promoters have been made available, also in the area of oilseed rape there is some evidence of transgenic plants. However, in the wheat and barley studies no transformed plants were obtained and many techniques were shown not to work. There were clearly some management difficulties, however. The period from conception to birth of the project was about a year, longer than expected. There was some strain within the consortium which arose from an initial lack of defined specific objectives and attempts to combine scientific and financial management. Consequently a separate scientific subcommittee was set up to bring together the industrial and academic scientists. This proved a much better way of achieving effective scientific exchanges and reporting. Very similar experiences were described by Dr Peter Rodgers in respect of the DTI sponsored programme on Extended Use of Biocatalysts. This was a five year research programme started in 1983, conducted on three university sites and sponsored by seven companies plus the DTI, having a total budget of f1.2m 50% from industry and 50% from government. The aim of the project was to create a centre of expertise and knowledge in the UK on the extended use of microorganisms as catalysts, especially in immobilized form, in order to assist participating companies in the evaluation of future commercial processes. In particular, genetic stability problems associated with the extended use of microorganisms for multistep biosynthetic processes were investigated. The project had a number of key achievements, not least that it was a pioneering scheme for LINK and for the establishment of a multi-academic research centre.
Support fbr biotechnology
175
From the point of view of academia, many scientific objectives were met and fifteen papers published. As with the PGTK, the scheme took about one year to get on the road. A management committee, comprising representatives of the three academic institutes, the sponsoring companies and the DTI, applied industrial project management techniques to defining and achieving the programme objectives. However, as with the PGTK, it was apparent that separation of the strategic and scientific representation was necessary to achieve the most efficient all round management of such projects. Other lessons learned were the need to ensure the active involvement of all parties and that the programme should have genuine common interests to all participants. Although the benefits of such programmes are generally long term, there is a need to ensure the short term commitment of all participants. Above all such projects need committed management and a project manager. European Commission programmes in biotechnology were reviewed by Mr Mark Cantley of DGXII, CUBE, Brussels. The increasing impact of biotechnology in all aspects of life is shown by the increasing involvement of EC Directorates General other than just DGXII in biotechnology activities. The coordination or, to use Eurospeak, concertation of these activities is the function of CUBE. To this end, opinions on previous EC support programmes have been reviewed and future support strategies evolved. The most imminent of these is the BRIDGE (Biotechnology Research for Innovation, Development and Growth) programme which is planned for 199g1994 with a total budget of IOOMio ECU. The probable deadline for the call for proposals is October/November 1989. BRIDGE is subdivided into two actions: Action 1 for Research and Training and Action 2 for Concertation. Ninety percent of the funding will be for Action 1 and 10% for Action 2. The main tasks of Action 1 will be thedevelopment ofcooperative transnational research and training schemes targeted at the long term needs of the European Community. The programme is divided into four sectors: information infrastructures, enabling technologies, cellular biology and prenormative research. These should aim to remove bottlenecks by filling gaps in basic knowledge and to reinforce and extend existing networks of European Laboratories Without Walls. Larger targeted projects will aim to remove bottlenecks originating from scale or structural constraints. A substantial effort will be put into prenormative research particularly for assessment of risks associated with the release of genetically manipulated organisms, Action 2, concertation, will cover a range of monitoring, information and collaborative activities to facilitate effective application of biotechnology within the Community. Particular examples of these activities include culture collections, genome data banks and development of standards applicable in the single European Market for 1992. European support for biotechnology is not restricted to the EC. The EUREKA programme, described by Dr P. Newport of the DTI, is a framework for promoting collaborative projects in fields of advanced technology throughout Europe having the aim of increasing European competitiveness in world markets. The twenty member states include the EC countries together with Scandinavia, Turkey, Switzerland and Austria. Biotechnology is but one of several areas of high
176
Support for hiotrchnology
technology covered by the scheme. Projects within EUREKA should give rise to products, processes, and services with potential for profitable sales worldwide, using the European market as a springboard. To achieve EUREKA status projects should involve cooperation between participants in more than one EUREKA country, use advanced technologies, have qualified technical and managerial input, have adequate financial commitment from participants and have results exploited for the benefit of EUREKA countries. Many projects have a definition phase for which UK participants may receive grants of 50 %, with decreasing support for later stages nearer the market. The scheme is, however, not intended primarily for R&D funding and EUREKA status does not guarantee financial assistance. The main advantage of participation would appear to be in various market-opening measures such as the removal of disadvantaging barriers in areas including standards, purchasing, regulations, etc. There are currently six UK EUREKA biotechnology projects of which four are receiving public funding and three are small or medium size enterprises (SME). EUREKA projects can be nearer the market than LINK projects. A company view of EUREKA was given by Professor Mike Fowler of Plant Science Ltd. His company and their present Danish collaborators had come together as the result of a EUREKA forum-recognising that they had common goals in the production of fruit flavouring components by cell culture techniques. After overcoming initial concerns a successful venture was established which was now running well and showing benefits beyond the merely commercial aspects. Important aspects of establishing a successful partnership were to know one another’s businesses, to have a single responsible person, to recognise that personalities matter, to understand the respective bureaucratic processes. It is essential to define the programme in respect of its aims and objectives, the time scales involved, the ownership of rights to intellectual and other products and the technical, financial and management contributions of each side. Ultimately the success of such projects depends on regular contact exchanges and reporting and a free and full exchange of data, good and bad. The meeting concluded with a review of the protection of intellectual property rights by Mrs Pamela Castle of McKenna & Co. She highlighted a point referred to by many of the speakers, namely the need to pay careful attention to protecting rights to intellectual property rights at the earliest stages of setting up any collaborative venture. This is needed to ensure that valuable knowhow is protected and is clearly controlled, that trade secrets are identified and protected and that a company’s patent portfolio is conserved. Joint ownership and exploitation of intellectual property should be avoided as the law is unclear in this area. Agreements on intellectual property rights should be clearly restricted to those arising only as a result of the collaborative programme. The discussion sessions served to allow delegates to make specific queries about individual support programmes but also highlighted a degree of uniformity of views. There was clear commonality in the basic requirements for success in collaborative schemes be they between industry and academia, transnational industrial collaboration, or any combination of all these. The first need was to plan well-define project aims, financial and technical contributions of participants,
177
Support ,/or hiotechnoloyy
ownership of rights-and to do this early on. Skilled management was essential, with some separation of scientific and general management. Finally, regular and completely open communication is needed, without which severe problems could develop. There was some concern that the various schemes might not necessarily be providing support in areas really needed by industry. For example some key questions were highlighted regarding the LINK scheme viz. Since the choice of topics for selection is crucially important, how good is industry at identifying long-term development areas? Is the scheme a good means of training scientists for industry? Can the scheme work if there is disparity between the resource bases of industry and academia? Why are so few small to medium size enterprises involved in the scheme? This latter point might well reflect the emphasis of some schemes on support for precompetitive development whereas many small firms were more concerned to be much nearer the market, since their survival depended on selling products rather than speculative development of new technologies. The meeting proved to be a successful forum. One delegate commented that one problem with the various fostering schemes was finding out what was on offer and how to participate. In this respect the meeting was clearly well targeted and the need for similar meetings in the future demonstrated. Peter Hambleton
Support for Biotechnology This one day meeting organised by the Society of Chemical Industry and co-sponsored by the Association for the Advancement of British Biotechnology held on 24 May 1989, at the SCI in London, aimed to review Department of Trade and Industry schemes for fostering U K biotechnology. EC biotechnology support was also reviewed.
Recognising the commercial potential for the exploitation of modern biotechnology, the Department of Trade and Industry has initiated a series of schemes designed to foster biotechnology development in the UK. In particular, the schemes aimed to encourage and assist precompetitive development and commercial exploitation of ideas. The development of the initial support scheme was described by the former chairman of the now dissolved Biotechnology Advisory Committee (BAC), Dr David Jones. He commented that the BAC forsaw that supported projects might experience problems, particularly with respect to project management, knowledge of other work in the same area and protection of intellectual property. The validity of these predictions became apparent in subsequent presentations describing actual experience of supported projects. The current policy of DTI towards fostering UK biotechnology innovation was addressed by Dr Peter Baker, Head of the Biotechnology Unit at the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The policy aims to encourage innovation by industry without creating or perpetuating distortions in the economy. Its objectives are to encourage industry to increase expenditure on and application of R&D, to encourage more and better technology transfer between academia and industry and within industry, to encourage academia to make better application of its resources and to encourage new firms. In summary, the policy is aimed at building bridges. Dr Baker emphasised that the DTI had a role in ensuring that there was an appropriate climate for innovation in biotechnology. In this respect it was important that there was a balanced regulatory framework which did not stifle biotechnology development. It was also important that the financial climate was encouraging and that due attention was paid to ensuring that patent laws were appropriate to encouraging development. Finally, it was of major and increasing importance that attention be paid to improving the public perception of biotechnology. The overall support given by DTI falls into five areas: Innovation Schemes. Including the SMART and Teaching Company schemes run jointly with SERC, and various regional initiatives all with emphasis on helping small firms. 171
J . Chem. Tech. Biotechnol. 47 (1990)-0 1990 Society of Chemical Industry. Printed in Great Britain
172
Support for hiotrchnoloyy
Coordinating actioities. These are effected via DTI Biotechnology Unit representation on government interdepartmental committees such as the Biotechnology Joint Advisory Board, on the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) Biotechnology Directorate, and various other organisations including the Advisory Committee on Genetic Manipulation, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, the Department of the Environment, etc. Collaboration schemes. The DTI LINK programme is of major significance at this time with over 360 projects up and running. At the international level the DTI interacts with and supports major European initiatives such as EUREKA, BRIDGE, FLAIR and ECLAIR, and bilateral programme exchange visits. Clubs are very much a UK phenomenon whereby industrial members can, for a relatively moderate fee, obtain access to a considerable value of information exchange of current awareness and R&D activities. Dr Baker cited the activities of the UK Biotransformations Club as a successful example of this type of scheme. Several examples of past and present fostering initiatives were described. Dr Mike Turner- Programme Manager of the Inter University Biotransformation Centretalked about the realities of the LINK scheme. The aims of LINK are to stimulate collaboration between industry and academic science and to accelerate the commercial exploitation of government funded research. Promising areas have been selected and priority topics within these areas chosen. The scheme covers a wide range of areas other than just biotechnology, e.g. advanced semiconductors, molecular electronics and asymmetric synthesis. The basic rules pertaining to the LINK scheme are:
no government funding without industrial support, at least two industrial companies must collaborate (except where small firms are involved), public funding limited to 50% of the total budget, SERC cooperative grand conditions apply, all intellectual property rights belong to the participating companies. In the area of Biochemistry a number of promising areas have been identified viz. biotransformations, eukaryotic genetic engineering, protein engineering, food processing science, biochemical engineering, control of plant metabolism, selective drug delivery and targeting. Progress on the LINK Biotransformations programme was specifically described. The total programme budget was f4m (f2m from public and f2m from private sources). One specific project within the programme was the Inter Unioersity Biotransforrnations Centre. This has a budget of €1*02m.In all, eleven companies and three universities are participating in research projects in areas, such as C-C bond formation, redox enzymes, low water systems, etc., which are of particular interest to the industrial partners and having an ultimate aim of commercialisation. Despite the desire to target support at small firms, in the main it is large companies that are involved in the project. Funding of €2.7m remains to be allocated in the biotransformations programme and applications for support for relevant projects are still being sought. Management is considered to be an important part of the scheme and takes place at several levels. All LINK programmes as they arise are vetted by the LINK
Support for biotechnology
173
Steering Group. Each programme has a Programme Management Committee with management committees for each project. That for the Inter University Biotransformations Centre comprises representatives of DTI, SERC, Industry, Universities together with the programme manager. LINK programmes are likely to interact with each other and with non-link programmes, all of which requires careful and effective monitoring. The DTI also contributes some €8m to foster general collaborative projects. An example of such a collaborative scheme is the Industrial A T P Consortium described by Brian J. McCarthy of the British Textile Technology Group. This two-and-a-half year programme has established a consortium to research and develop adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-based techniques for detecting and enumerating microbial contamination for application in industry. The programme, costing some f499k, is lead by the British Textile Technology Group and includes the Water Research Centre, the Brewing Research Foundation, Thames Water and the University of Nottingham. DTI support is for 50% of the cost. The Industrial ATP Consortium may be regarded as a temporary cooperation of several interests to effect a common purpose, with a group of workers from diverse fields, but having similar aims, working together. The programme has achieved major successes in the following areas: the development of novel ATP extractants, instrument evaluation, development of standard method protocols, production of high quality reagents (e.g. luciferase, luciferin), genetic engineering of luminescent organisms, a major scientific conference (ATP '88). The programme has been run with a central administration/finance function based at BTTG. Free and ready interchange of information has been facilitated by the signing of a confidentiality agreement by all parties and by regular threemonthly technical meetings. The project has shown clearly that the adoption of a multi-sponsor approach has unquantifiable benefits both to the project itself and to the individual participants. The DTI SMART (Small Firms Merit Awards for Research and Technology) programme has somewhat different criteria from those schemes already mentioned, being aimed at sponsoring more competitive development. SMART is intended for firms having less than 50 employees, having an expert team but having a genuine financial need to enable technical development of a new product to take place. SMART is a competitive scheme having two stages, about 50% of the companies in the scheme are selected for continued funding at stage two. The scheme aims to inject seed capital to allow the start up of technical development. The programme for support should have a novel aspect i.e. a patentable design and ideally should be in a specific R&D area selected by the DTI e.g. advanced technology, advanced materials, biotechnology, information technology. Julio Faria of April Computing Executive Ltd recounted how the SMART scheme had been utilised to support development of biotechnology products. Thus, the company, which was set up to develop and bring to the market a management
I74
Support jor hiotechnoloyy
training software package, was able to get support to develop a silage effluent control system. SMART filled in for venture capital and allowed ACE to get into the biotechnology market several years earlier than would otherwise have been possible. Typically financial support had been, in year 1-75 % of the development costs, in year 2-50% of the commercialisation costs. The permitted areas of expenditure were very wide including salaries, overheads, equipment purchase, licencing, etc.-in no way restricting. The SMART scheme had helped bring forward biotechnology product development and helped the early growth of the company which now had good prospects for job growth and new business potential. ACE have applied for a second SMART scheme to support development of a continuous aseptic biological sampler, the project being a collaborative one involving ACE, UMIST and a small engineering eompany. SMART had proved here to be highly interactive and beneficial and an excellent programme for small companies. Two past DTI supported programmes were then reviewed with particular reference to their management. The Plant Gene Tool Kit (PGTK)was described by Mr R. F. Norman. This was a major consortium comprising eleven companies and four universities together with the DTI. The objective of the three year programme was to encourage the application of basic research on plant gene transfer. The programme contained four projects and cost some f3m over three years. It was intended that specific gene sequences should be provided to facilitate gene transfer and expression and to provide a user’s manual for the use of such sequences. The achievements of the programme were varied. Certainly useful gene sequences, including a number of marker and reporter genes and key promoters have been made available, also in the area of oilseed rape there is some evidence of transgenic plants. However, in the wheat and barley studies no transformed plants were obtained and many techniques were shown not to work. There were clearly some management difficulties, however. The period from conception to birth of the project was about a year, longer than expected. There was some strain within the consortium which arose from an initial lack of defined specific objectives and attempts to combine scientific and financial management. Consequently a separate scientific subcommittee was set up to bring together the industrial and academic scientists. This proved a much better way of achieving effective scientific exchanges and reporting. Very similar experiences were described by Dr Peter Rodgers in respect of the DTI sponsored programme on Extended Use of Biocatalysts. This was a five year research programme started in 1983, conducted on three university sites and sponsored by seven companies plus the DTI, having a total budget of f1.2m 50% from industry and 50% from government. The aim of the project was to create a centre of expertise and knowledge in the UK on the extended use of microorganisms as catalysts, especially in immobilized form, in order to assist participating companies in the evaluation of future commercial processes. In particular, genetic stability problems associated with the extended use of microorganisms for multistep biosynthetic processes were investigated. The project had a number of key achievements, not least that it was a pioneering scheme for LINK and for the establishment of a multi-academic research centre.
Support fbr biotechnology
175
From the point of view of academia, many scientific objectives were met and fifteen papers published. As with the PGTK, the scheme took about one year to get on the road. A management committee, comprising representatives of the three academic institutes, the sponsoring companies and the DTI, applied industrial project management techniques to defining and achieving the programme objectives. However, as with the PGTK, it was apparent that separation of the strategic and scientific representation was necessary to achieve the most efficient all round management of such projects. Other lessons learned were the need to ensure the active involvement of all parties and that the programme should have genuine common interests to all participants. Although the benefits of such programmes are generally long term, there is a need to ensure the short term commitment of all participants. Above all such projects need committed management and a project manager. European Commission programmes in biotechnology were reviewed by Mr Mark Cantley of DGXII, CUBE, Brussels. The increasing impact of biotechnology in all aspects of life is shown by the increasing involvement of EC Directorates General other than just DGXII in biotechnology activities. The coordination or, to use Eurospeak, concertation of these activities is the function of CUBE. To this end, opinions on previous EC support programmes have been reviewed and future support strategies evolved. The most imminent of these is the BRIDGE (Biotechnology Research for Innovation, Development and Growth) programme which is planned for 199g1994 with a total budget of IOOMio ECU. The probable deadline for the call for proposals is October/November 1989. BRIDGE is subdivided into two actions: Action 1 for Research and Training and Action 2 for Concertation. Ninety percent of the funding will be for Action 1 and 10% for Action 2. The main tasks of Action 1 will be thedevelopment ofcooperative transnational research and training schemes targeted at the long term needs of the European Community. The programme is divided into four sectors: information infrastructures, enabling technologies, cellular biology and prenormative research. These should aim to remove bottlenecks by filling gaps in basic knowledge and to reinforce and extend existing networks of European Laboratories Without Walls. Larger targeted projects will aim to remove bottlenecks originating from scale or structural constraints. A substantial effort will be put into prenormative research particularly for assessment of risks associated with the release of genetically manipulated organisms, Action 2, concertation, will cover a range of monitoring, information and collaborative activities to facilitate effective application of biotechnology within the Community. Particular examples of these activities include culture collections, genome data banks and development of standards applicable in the single European Market for 1992. European support for biotechnology is not restricted to the EC. The EUREKA programme, described by Dr P. Newport of the DTI, is a framework for promoting collaborative projects in fields of advanced technology throughout Europe having the aim of increasing European competitiveness in world markets. The twenty member states include the EC countries together with Scandinavia, Turkey, Switzerland and Austria. Biotechnology is but one of several areas of high
176
Support for hiotrchnology
technology covered by the scheme. Projects within EUREKA should give rise to products, processes, and services with potential for profitable sales worldwide, using the European market as a springboard. To achieve EUREKA status projects should involve cooperation between participants in more than one EUREKA country, use advanced technologies, have qualified technical and managerial input, have adequate financial commitment from participants and have results exploited for the benefit of EUREKA countries. Many projects have a definition phase for which UK participants may receive grants of 50 %, with decreasing support for later stages nearer the market. The scheme is, however, not intended primarily for R&D funding and EUREKA status does not guarantee financial assistance. The main advantage of participation would appear to be in various market-opening measures such as the removal of disadvantaging barriers in areas including standards, purchasing, regulations, etc. There are currently six UK EUREKA biotechnology projects of which four are receiving public funding and three are small or medium size enterprises (SME). EUREKA projects can be nearer the market than LINK projects. A company view of EUREKA was given by Professor Mike Fowler of Plant Science Ltd. His company and their present Danish collaborators had come together as the result of a EUREKA forum-recognising that they had common goals in the production of fruit flavouring components by cell culture techniques. After overcoming initial concerns a successful venture was established which was now running well and showing benefits beyond the merely commercial aspects. Important aspects of establishing a successful partnership were to know one another’s businesses, to have a single responsible person, to recognise that personalities matter, to understand the respective bureaucratic processes. It is essential to define the programme in respect of its aims and objectives, the time scales involved, the ownership of rights to intellectual and other products and the technical, financial and management contributions of each side. Ultimately the success of such projects depends on regular contact exchanges and reporting and a free and full exchange of data, good and bad. The meeting concluded with a review of the protection of intellectual property rights by Mrs Pamela Castle of McKenna & Co. She highlighted a point referred to by many of the speakers, namely the need to pay careful attention to protecting rights to intellectual property rights at the earliest stages of setting up any collaborative venture. This is needed to ensure that valuable knowhow is protected and is clearly controlled, that trade secrets are identified and protected and that a company’s patent portfolio is conserved. Joint ownership and exploitation of intellectual property should be avoided as the law is unclear in this area. Agreements on intellectual property rights should be clearly restricted to those arising only as a result of the collaborative programme. The discussion sessions served to allow delegates to make specific queries about individual support programmes but also highlighted a degree of uniformity of views. There was clear commonality in the basic requirements for success in collaborative schemes be they between industry and academia, transnational industrial collaboration, or any combination of all these. The first need was to plan well-define project aims, financial and technical contributions of participants,
177
Support ,/or hiotechnoloyy
ownership of rights-and to do this early on. Skilled management was essential, with some separation of scientific and general management. Finally, regular and completely open communication is needed, without which severe problems could develop. There was some concern that the various schemes might not necessarily be providing support in areas really needed by industry. For example some key questions were highlighted regarding the LINK scheme viz. Since the choice of topics for selection is crucially important, how good is industry at identifying long-term development areas? Is the scheme a good means of training scientists for industry? Can the scheme work if there is disparity between the resource bases of industry and academia? Why are so few small to medium size enterprises involved in the scheme? This latter point might well reflect the emphasis of some schemes on support for precompetitive development whereas many small firms were more concerned to be much nearer the market, since their survival depended on selling products rather than speculative development of new technologies. The meeting proved to be a successful forum. One delegate commented that one problem with the various fostering schemes was finding out what was on offer and how to participate. In this respect the meeting was clearly well targeted and the need for similar meetings in the future demonstrated. Peter Hambleton
