2
Global Drivers and Trajectories of Advanced Life Sciences Technologies

Advances in science and technology with biological dual-use potential are materializing worldwide at a very rapid pace. Over the next five to ten years, the United States, followed by the European Union and Japan, will likely remain the most powerful global players in the life sciences. Yet, many other nations and regions are developing new and strong scientific and technological infrastructures and capabilities, and some states are emerging as regional and global leaders in their respective fields of specialization. Brazil, China, India, and Russia are among those expected to become stronger economic, political, scientific, and technological global players in the future.

A multitude of complex and interacting economic, social, and political forces drive innovation in life sciences-related technologies and the rapid global dispersion of these technologies (e.g., the technologies described in Chapter 3). These forces, or drivers, include:

  • economic forces (i.e., labor costs,1 national investment in research and development, and shifting geographic trends in consumerism and purchasing power, as detailed in this chapter);

  • social forces (e.g., efforts by developing countries to utilize health and agricultural biotechnology and nanotechnology to improve the well-being of their populations, as well as efforts to make agricultural and other practices more environmentally “friendly”); and

  • political forces, such as the Canadian government’s commitment to devote at least five percent of its research and development investment



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences 2 Global Drivers and Trajectories of Advanced Life Sciences Technologies Advances in science and technology with biological dual-use potential are materializing worldwide at a very rapid pace. Over the next five to ten years, the United States, followed by the European Union and Japan, will likely remain the most powerful global players in the life sciences. Yet, many other nations and regions are developing new and strong scientific and technological infrastructures and capabilities, and some states are emerging as regional and global leaders in their respective fields of specialization. Brazil, China, India, and Russia are among those expected to become stronger economic, political, scientific, and technological global players in the future. A multitude of complex and interacting economic, social, and political forces drive innovation in life sciences-related technologies and the rapid global dispersion of these technologies (e.g., the technologies described in Chapter 3). These forces, or drivers, include: economic forces (i.e., labor costs,1 national investment in research and development, and shifting geographic trends in consumerism and purchasing power, as detailed in this chapter); social forces (e.g., efforts by developing countries to utilize health and agricultural biotechnology and nanotechnology to improve the well-being of their populations, as well as efforts to make agricultural and other practices more environmentally “friendly”); and political forces, such as the Canadian government’s commitment to devote at least five percent of its research and development investment

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences to a knowledge-based approach to develop assistance for less fortunate countries,2 the Mexican national agenda to become a regional leader in genomic medicine,3 Singapore’s plan to make biotechnology the “fourth pillar” of its economy (the other three being electronics, chemicals, and engineering),4 and the U.S. government’s current investment in biodefense. These drivers operate globally but at varying levels of intensity, depending on national priorities and the strength of local and regional economies. This variability is particularly true of the social and political forces that drive this development. Moreover, the relative importance or strength of the different social, economic, and political drivers changes over time. Within the United States, for example, this country’s response to the anthrax mailings following the 9/11 terrorist attacks has emerged only recently as an economic driver. While biodefense spending is still tiny in comparison with the pharmaceutical market forces, it is currently contributing to the shaping of national priorities related to life sciences research. The U.S. focus on 9/11 and biodefense research has also resulted in new immigration and other policies that impact international collaborative scientific research and technological exchange and thus could have a broader impact on science and technology in this country (as discussed in Chapter 4). In Mexico, a relatively recent national aspiration to become a regional leader in genomic medicine is driving a strongly supported effort to bolster the scientific and technological capacity to do so.5 In addition to the public health and social benefits expected of personalized health care, the Mexican government perceives the issue as one of national security and sovereignty. A Mexican-specific genomic medicine platform would minimize the country’s dependence on foreign technological aid in the future. Meanwhile, in Singapore, where similar efforts are focused on building a national genomic medicine platform, the value of genomic medicine lies in its economic potential. The country is investing billions of dollars in biotechnology, much of the money coming from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, rather than the Ministry of Health.6 Inseparable from the diverse economic, social, and political drivers described thus far, another driver—or “mega driver”—of the rapid growth and global dispersion of advanced technologies is globalization itself. In the National Intelligence Council’s most recent report on future global trends, globalization is referred to as a “mega-trend … a force so ubiquitous that it will substantially shape all the other major trends in the world of 2020.”7 Globalization encompasses the expanding international flow of:

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences capital and goods, as reflected by the growing number of multinational business collaborations and global firms in the life sciences industry, global trends in biotechnology-related patents, and the globalization of consumerism and purchasing power; knowledge, as reflected by the changing higher education landscape, the intercontinental movement of students, researchers and technology experts, the growing number of scientific publications authored by researchers outside of the United States, and trends in biotechnology-related patents; and people, again reflected by the changing nature of the intercontinental movement of students, researchers, and life science professionals. The following discussion is based on these three broad categories of drivers, or mega drivers, rather than on whether a driver is classified as economic, social, or political. Accordingly, the first half of this chapter summarizes evidence and patterns that reflect the increasingly important roles of the global expansion of capital and goods, knowledge, and people in shaping the global technology landscape. In particular, we survey the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, nanobiotechnology, agricultural, and industrial sectors of the global life sciences industry (which reflect the expanding global flow in capital and goods, knowledge, and people); summarize global scientific productivity, in terms of publication and citations in international journals and other indicators and recent biotechnology patent activity (both of which reflect the expanding global flow in knowledge and people); and highlight foreign student enrollment in U.S. graduate science and technology programs (which reflects the expanding global flow of knowledge and people). The second half of this chapter includes a snapshot of the rapidly evolving global landscape for the creation, adoption, and adaptation of the advanced technologies discussed herein. This section is not intended to be comprehensive, but to illustrate the extent to which advanced technologies are being developed and disseminated worldwide, well beyond the borders of the G88 (i.e., Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States, and the Russian Federation). Highlighted regions and countries were selected on the basis of recent known investments in life science research and applied technologies, obvious indications that the countries are expanding their science and technology foundations, and publicized country efforts to become regional centers of excellence in technologies of interest to this study.

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE One of the most significant factors fueling the global dispersion of advancing technologies is the quest for profit and the desire to enter and succeed in the international marketplace. Over the next five to ten years, all sectors of the life sciences industry—most notably health care and agriculture but also food production, the industrial and environmental sector, and homeland defense and national security—are expected to continue to benefit from and thus drive the rapid growth of new biological knowledge and advanced technologies (Table 2-1). The predictions in Table 2-1 are not comprehensive but are illustrative of the wide range of future market-driven applications, or trends, and key technologies that will enable these applications. Of note, information technology stands out as being common to all sectors, trends, and goals. The dual role of information technology as an advanced technology, in and of itself, and as a driver of other advanced technologies is discussed later in this chapter. Although North America, Europe, and Japan currently dominate the global marketplace, several other countries are poised to become regional or global leaders in the near future. Not only have new globalization strategies emerged over the past few decades, encouraging increased international collaboration and resulting in a greater number of firms operating in the global arena, but a growing number of new businesses are originating in countries outside North America, Western Europe, and Japan. The latter is evident by current trends in the number of biotech companies in Australia, Brazil, Israel, and South Korea, as detailed below. With regard to increased international collaboration, the number of technological cooperation agreements in biotechnology rapidly grew from near zero in 1970 to almost 700 in 1985-1989 (more recent data are not yet available).9 Technological cooperation agreements between firms in different countries, focusing on either production or research and development (sometimes both), provide the benefits of collaboration without the contentious issues associated with changes in long-term ownership. Although most of those agreements were between U.S. firms (34 percent), nearly as many U.S.-Japanese (10 percent) or U.S.-Western Europe (19 percent) agreements were formed during this same time period. Other agreements were between Western European and Japanese firms (3 percent), between Western European firms (24 percent), and between Japanese firms (5 percent). International contracting among biotech and pharmaceutical firms has also increased in recent years.10 These contracts extend across national borders between firms for the production of components, supplies, and products, made possible by advances in transportation and communications technologies. Following its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the national strengths possessed by India in process engineering

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences TABLE 2-1 Current and Near-Future Applications of Advancing Technologies Sectors Trend Goal Key Enabling Technologies Pharmaceuticals Development of designer drugs (“personalized medicine”); genotype profiling Individual and genome-specific drugs Gene and protein chip (i.e., microarray), biomedical databases (i.e., information technology), computing Improved drug delivery Alternative routes for drug administration Nanotechnology, aerosol technology, microencapsulation, transdermal delivery technologies Medicine Improved diagnosis Automated genomic tests Databases, gene and protein chips Better treatments for infectious disease Provide cures for difficult-to-treat or untreatable infections Biomedical and genome databases, high-throughput screening of compound structural libraries, nanotechnology Gene therapy Identify and treat defective genes Databases, gene chip, high-performance computing Xenotransplantation Develop rejection-free tissues and organs for transplantation Databases, animal models, recombinant methods Agriculture Transgenic crops Development of disease, pest, and environmental insult-resistant crops; manufacture of biological products Genome sequencing methods, databases Biomaterials Artificial tissue and organs Develop tissue, stem cell, and other engineering methods Databases, transgenic crops/animals, nanotechnology Biopolymers New materials for biological and industrial applications Databases, computing, transgenic crops/animals, nanotechnology Biodefense Strengthening biodefense capabilities Improvement and production of vaccines and prophylactics, rapid diagnostics, pathogen detectors, and forensics Gene chips, databases, nanotechnology, detector hardware Computing Performance improvement Faster computing for intensive analysis and filtering; convergence of technologies Grid computing and supercomputers Expansion of biotech-specific applications Develop and strengthen biotech-specific software Advanced software and search algorithms   SOURCE: Adapted from presentation by Terence Taylor, Cuernavaca workshop.

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences and information technology have made it a potentially very powerful partner for collaborative and outsourcing drug development and other biotechnology applications. So too is China, following its recent accession to the WTO. According to one account, over the last five years, more than 100 global companies have established research and development centers in India.11 An industry analysis by the business consulting firm Frost & Sullivan, estimated India’s pharmaceutical market to be $5.1 billion in 2004, ranking it 13th globally by value and 4th by volume.12 Industry, government, and science news reports point to recent activities throughout Asia, particularly China’s rapid entry into the global economy, as some of the strongest evidence of the global expansion of biotechnology and related businesses. According to a recent Intercontinental Marketing Services (IMS) Health report, pharmaceutical sales in China reportedly increased 28 percent to reach $9.5 billion annually. Although that figure is relatively small compared to the global pharmaceutical market of $400-450 billion, industry analysts predict that China’s large population size and flourishing economy will push the figure even higher in the future.13 Asia also boasts the emergence of several major stem cell research centers—in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan—promising not only exciting opportunities for expatriate students and scientists, but also future commercial success. At Taiwan’s Academia Sinica, most of the Ph.D.-level stem cell researchers are Taiwanese or Chinese scientists who have returned home from the United States, United Kingdom, or Australia.14 ES Cell International (Singapore), a regenerative medicine company, is banking on developing a method for transforming stem cells into insulin-producing cells for transplantation into patients with diabetes. The Pharmaceutical Industry Worth approximately $400-450 billion and with an annual growth of about nine percent, the pharmaceutical industry dominates the global life sciences landscape and plays a major driving role in technological development.15 (Compare this figure to those presented in Table 2-6 for the telecommunications industry, where the total telecommunications market revenue for services and equipment was estimated at U.S. $1,370 billion in 2003.) Although North America and the European Union occupy about 75 percent of the current global pharmaceutical market and enjoy annual growth rates of approximately 12 and 8 percent, respectively, the Asian, African, and Australian markets together are worth about $32 billion and enjoy an annual growth rate of 11 percent.16 According to a pharmaceutical industry overview by Frost & Sullivan, in the next 5 to 10 years

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences TABLE 2-2 Analysis of the Global Pharmaceutical Market Region Annual Worth Market Share Annual Growth North America $204 billion 51% 12% Europe $102 billion 25% 8% Japan $47 billion 12% 1% Asia, Africa, Australia $32 billion 8% 11% Latin America $17 billion 4% −10%a aThis figure reflects past trends. According to a Frost & Sullivan report, the Latin America market is expected to grow significantly in the next 5 to 10 years. SOURCE: Terence Taylor, Cuernavaca workshop, September 21, 2004. the Asia-Pacific and Latin American markets should grow significantly and increase their presence in the global marketplace.17 The majority of the global market is targeted toward chronic diseases among the elderly (i.e., people over the age of 65). The best-selling pharmaceuticals (and their annual market value in parentheses18) are antiulcerants ($22 billion), cholesterol reducers ($22 billion), antidepressants ($27 billion), antirheumatics ($12 billion), calcium antagonists ($10 billion), antipsychotics ($10 billion), and oral antidiabetics ($8 billion). The figures in Table 2-2 represent worldwide trends and include purchases in both developed and developing countries. The developing world market for these best-selling pharmaceuticals is expected to expand in the future, even as resource-poor countries continue to face serious public health problems associated with emerging infectious diseases. Over the next 20 years, the aging population in northwestern Europe is expected to increase by 50 to 60 percent.19 In the developing world, the same demographic is expected to increase 200 percent over the same time period. Two likely future major pharmaceutical market trends are the use of genome-specific “designer drugs” (i.e., as part of “personalized” health care) and the use of new and improved modes of drug delivery. These trends will depend on and drive the development and global dissemination of a range of technologies, including gene and protein chip technologies, biomedical databases, computing, nanobiology, aerosol drug delivery applications, and other technologies. Global Growth of the Biotechnology Industry Biotechnology companies are enterprises that use a variety of tools and technologies—recombinant DNA, molecular biology and genomics,

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences live organisms, cells, or biological agents—to produce goods and services. In contrast to “large pharma,” the biotech industry is dominated by small to medium-sized companies. According to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the principal U.S. trade organization for this sector, there are currently 1,473 U.S. biotech companies, of which 314 are publicly held. Corporate membership in BIO is currently over 1,000, compared to 502 in 1993. In contrast, the World Nuclear Association, a global industry organization promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy, has about 125 members, mostly companies. Canada ranks second in terms of the number of biotech companies and third, behind the United States and United Kingdom, in terms of generating biotech revenue, according to BIOTECanada. Although California and Massachusetts host the two largest biotechnology industries among all U.S. states and Canadian provinces, Quebec and Ontario follow with 158 and 137 companies in each province. The next largest biotech industries are in North Carolina (88), Maryland (84), British Columbia (78), and New Jersey (77).20 The number of European biotech companies grew from 720 to 1,570 between 1997 and 2001.21 EuropaBio, the principal European trade organization for bioindustry, currently represents about 1,500 small and medium-sized businesses involved in research and development, testing, manufacturing, and distribution of biotechnology products. According to the BioIndustry Association (BIA), the principal trade association for the U.K. biotech sector, the United Kingdom has about 550 biotech, or bioscience, companies, employing over 40,000 people. There are about 350 BIA members. Growth in the biotechnology sector outside the United States, Canada, and the European Union is equally remarkable. For example: the number of biotech companies in Brazil grew from 76 in 1993 to 354 in 200122; the number of biotech companies in Israel increased from about 30 in 1990 to about 160 in 200023; the number of publicly listed South Korean biotechnology firms grew from one in 2000 to 23 by 200224; the Japan Bioindustry Association has about 300 corporate members, 100 public organization members, and 1,300 individual members (from universities)25; AusBiotech, the industry body representing the Australian biotechnology sector, boasts nearly 2,400 individual members; and, 59 countries were represented at the BIO 2005 annual conference, which drew nearly 19,000 attendees to Philadelphia in June 2005.

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences According to the most recent BIO report on the industry, the total value of publicly traded biotech companies (U.S.) at market prices was $311 billion as of early April 2005.26 Total U.S. revenues for the biotech industry at large increased from $8 billion in 1994 to $46 billion in 2004 (Table 2-3); the number of U.S. biotechnology patents granted per year increased from 2,160 in 1989 to 7,763 in 2002; and the number of biotech drugs and vaccine approvals per year increased from two in 1982 to 37 in 2003.27 Currently, there are 370 biotech drug products and vaccines in clinical trials in the United States.28 The Fledgling Nanobiotechnology Industry Nanotechnology—which includes, but is not limited to, biotechnological applications—is expected to become a $750 billion market by 2015.29 Nanotechnology has been defined in many ways, including the science involving matter that is smaller than 100 nanometers,30 anything dealing with “human-built structures measuring 100 nanometers or less,31 arranging molecules (atoms) as precisely as possible so as to perform a designated function,32 and doing with real molecules what computer graphics does with molecular models.33 For the purposes of this discussion, “nanotechnology involves the manipulation of molecules less than about 100 nanometers in size. (One nanometer is one-billionth of a meter; a hydrogen atom is about 0.1 nanometers wide.)”34 Semantics aside, an intriguing feature of nanotechnology is that it operates on the scale upon which biological systems build their structural components, like microtubules, microfilaments, and chromatin.35 In other words, biochemistry, genomics, and cell biology are nanoscale phenomena. Even more intriguing, a key property of these biological structural components is self-assembly. The most successful biological self-assembler is, of course, the DNA double helix. In their quest to emulate these biological phenomena, scientists have created the field of DNA nanotechnology, or nanobiotechnology,36 as well as the closely related field of DNA-based computation by algorithmic self-assembly.37 Although nanotechnology remains a fledgling field, according to a 2005 report published by NanoBiotech News, 61 nanotech-based drugs and drug delivery systems and 92 nano-based medical devices or diagnostics have already entered preclinical, clinical, or commercial development.38 For example, in January 2005 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of the nanoparticle-based Abraxane, a solvent-free form of the breast cancer drug Taxol (paclitaxel).39 The reformulated drug consists only of albumin-bound paclitaxel nanoparticles (i.e., made possible by American Bioscience’s proprietary nanoparticle albumin-bound nab™ technology) and is thus free of the toxic solvents that cause

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences TABLE 2-3 U.S. Biotech Industry Statistics, 1994-2004a Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Salesa 7.7 9.3 10.8 13 14.5 16.1 19.3 21.4 24.3 28.4 33.3 Revenues 11.2 12.7 14.6 17.4 20.2 22.3 26.7 29.6 29.6 39.2 46.0 R&D Expenses 7.0 7.7 7.9 9.0 10.6 10.7 14.2 15.7 20.5 17.9 19.8 Net loss 3.6 4.1 4.6 4.5 4.1 4.4 5.6 4.6 9.4 5.4 6.4 No. of public companies 265 260 294 317 316 300 339 324 318 314 330 No. of companies 1,311 1,308 1,287 1,274 1,311 1,273 1,379 1,457 1,466 1,473 1,444 Employees 103,000 108,000 118,000 141,000 155,000 162,000 174,000 191,000 194,600 177,000 187,500 aAmounts are U.S. dollars in billions. SOURCES: Ernst & Young, LLP, annual biotechnology industry reports, 1993-2005. Financial data based primarily on fiscal-year financial statements of publicly traded companies.

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences certain side effects associated with Taxol. As another example, in February 2005, Angstrom Medica, Inc. (Woburn, MA), received FDA clearance for its nanoengineered synthetic bone material, NanOss™ Bone Void Filler, which can be used in the treatment of bone fractures or as an alternative to the use of donor bone and metallic medical implants.40 Outside the biomedical arena, nanobiotechnology advances are being used to improve cosmetic and sunscreen products, among others. For example, Microniser Pty Ltd (Victoria, Australia) has used nanobiotechnology to develop its proprietary nano-sized zinc oxide powders and other products. Zinc oxide, a common ingredient in many cosmetic products, normally has a white appearance. Microniser’s nano-sized zinc oxide (Nanosun™) is transparent.41 Many developing countries are making efforts to harness the potential of nanotechnology, and several have launched nanotechnology initiatives. The Indian government plans to invest $20 million over the next five years (2004-2009) in the country’s Nanomaterials Science and Technology Initiative42; researchers at the University of Delhi are commercializing two U.S.-patented nanoparticle drug delivery systems; scientists at Panacea Biotec, in New Delhi, are conducting novel drug delivery research using mucoadhesive nanoparticles; and Dabur Research Foundation, located in Ghaziabad, is participating in Phase-I clinical trials of nanoparticle delivery of the anticancer drug paclitaxel.43 In China, researchers have tested a nanotechnology bone scaffold (with the ability to repair damaged skeletal tissue caused by injury resulting from car accidents) in patients.44 The number of nanotechnology patent applications from China ranks third in the world behind the United States and Japan.45 It is estimated that China’s central and local governments will invest the equivalent of $600 million in nanotechnology and nanoscience between 2003 and 2007.46 Strikingly, scientists in China published more papers in these fields in international peer-reviewed journals than American scientists during 2004.47 In Brazil, the projected 2004-2007 budget for nanotechnology is the equivalent of $25 million; and three institutes, four networks, and about 300 scientists are working in the field. In South Africa, investigators and institutions active in the field of nanotechnology banded together to form the South African Nanotechnology Initiative (www.sani.org.za), with the goal of establishing a critical mass in nanotechnology research and development to improve industry-university links, increase nanotech R&D spending, develop projects that benefit South Africa, and generally strengthen South Africa’s position as a regional and global player in what is predicted to become the next great wave of technological innovation (i.e., nanotechnology). Thailand, the Philippines, Chile, Argentina, and Mexico are also pursuing nanotechnology initiatives.48 A 2005 study in PLoS Medicine identified the top 10 potential benefi-

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences 1.6 percent, the number of poor is expected to continue to rise as well (from 313 million in 2001 to 340 million by 2015). A few countries, such as Uganda and Ghana, have sustained remarkable progress in terms of poverty reduction, despite the many social, economic, and political challenges facing the region. Below, South Africa’s recent success in biotechnology is highlighted. South Africa Despite its many social and health challenges—including HIV/AIDS, poverty, and crime—South Africa’s economy is expected to grow by about 4 to 5 percent per year over the next 10 years, propelling the country even further ahead than it already is in relation to its sub-Saharan neighbors. By focusing on arms, textiles, and mining, South Africa has developed a strong scientific and technological base over the past several decades, even while remaining relatively isolated from the international community while under the apartheid regime.177 South Africa’s industrial success in these areas led to a confidence that has fostered more recent huge strides in agricultural and health biotechnology. In terms of health biotechnology, the government has established initiatives to encourage international partnerships in the life sciences industry; biotech start-ups, like Shimoda Biotech (with a focus on cyclodextrin drug delivery) and Bioclones (with a focus on monoclonal antibody technology testing for use in diagnostics and immunohistology), are emerging from universities and preexisting generic product companies; diagnostic testing and clinical trials are expanding; and recent controversy over HIV/AIDS national policy has raised awareness about recombinant vaccine trials. In addition to developing its own national biotech sector, South Africa is hoping to use regional initiatives—such as the New Partnership for African Development—to export its products to other sub-Saharan countries and to use its biotechnological strength to address HIV/AIDS and other regional public health problems. The University of Cape Town and University of Stellenbosch are currently evaluating six different potential novel HIV/AIDS vaccine candidates; in 2002, two Phase I trials were launched, making South Africa the first country with multiple HIV vaccine trials and the first country to have executed a trial on a preventative vaccine against the HIV-1 C subtype.178 Elsewhere in Africa, in January 2005 a group of African scientists, engineers, and educators announced plans for an African Institute for Science and Technology, with the aim of strengthening sub-Saharan Africa’s tertiary education and research. Currently, the region has only about 83 scientists or engineers per million residents, which is one-sixth of the ratio

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences for all developing countries. Modeled on the Indian Institutes of Technology, the first institute is expected to open in Tanzania in 2007 and will offer undergraduate and graduate degrees in science, engineering, economics, and management. The aim is to attract as many African Ph.D.s working abroad as possible.179 SUMMARY Although providing no more than a high level survey of current trends in the globalization of advanced technologies in the life sciences, the data provided in this chapter do provide evidence that both basic and cutting-edge life sciences technologies are highly dispersed worldwide, and will continue to become more so in the near-term future. The drivers for this are several and vary by nation and region. Developing countries recognize the potential of novel technologies to boost their economies, promote their development, and enhance their regional standing. Turner T. Isoun, Nigeria’s minister of science and technology, has observed that “developing countries will not catch up with developed countries by investing in existing technologies alone. [In order] to compete successfully in global science today, a portion of the science and technology budget of every country must focus on cutting-edge science and technologies.”180 This statement, echoing the aspirations of many lesser developed countries, has important implications for the future dispersion of knowledge in the global life sciences community. The trends are profound and well rooted. ENDNOTES 1   For most of the core reagents for DNA synthesis, there are no longer any significant U.S. suppliers. As a result, DNS synthesis technology is being “off-shored” to countries with lower labor costs at least as fast as the technology is being developed. This trend can only be expected to escalate in the coming years. 2   See www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news.asp?id=277. 3   Jimenez-Sanchez, G. 2003. Developing a platform for genomic medicine in Mexico. Science 300(5617):295-296. 4   www.biomed-singapore.com/bms/sg/en_uk/index/newsroom/speeches/2000/minister_for_trade.html. 5   Institute of Medicine/National Research Council. 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 6   For more detailed discussion of the national genomic medicine initiative in Mexico and Singapore’s genomic medicine and other biotechnology initiatives, see Institute of Medicine/National Research Council. 2005. An International Per-

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences     spective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 7   National Intelligence Council. 2004. Mapping the Global Future, Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. Available online at www.cia.gov/nic/nic_globaltrend2020.htm#contents [accessed April 26, 2006]. 8   It should be noted that article X of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), and Article XI of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), mandate peaceful cooperation among nations in biology and chemistry. 9   Hoyt, K. and S.G. Brooks. 2003/2004. A double-edged sword. International Security 28(Winter):123-148. 10   Dicken, P. 1998. Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy, Third Edition. New York: The Guilford Press. 11   Mashelkar, R.A. 2005. India’s R&D: reaching for the top. Science 307(5714):1415-1417. 12   See www.inpharm.com/External/InpH/1,2580,1-3-0-0-inp_intelligence_art-0-307722,00.html [accessed May 9, 2005]. 13   See www.ims-global.com/insight/news_story/0503/news_story_050330.htm [accessed May 9, 2005]. 14   Normile, D. and C.C. Mann. 2005. Asia jockeys for stem cell lead. Science 307(5710): 660-664. 15   Although $400 billion was quoted at the Cuernavaca workshop by Terrence Taylor, a Frost & Sullivan analysis puts the figure at $447.5 billion for 2004. See www.frost.com/prod/servlet/vp-further-info.pag?mode=open&sid=2850225 [accessed May 5, 2005]. 16   From Terence Taylor’s presentation at the Cuernavaca workshop, September 21, 2004. National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; Table 3-2, pg. 38. 17   See www.frost.com/prod/serv/vp-further-info.pag?mode=open&sid=2850225 [accessed May 9, 2005]. 18   Supra, note 16. 19   Kinsella, K. and V.A. Velkoff. 2001. An Aging World: 2001. U.S. Census Bureau, Series P95/01-1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 20   See www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/statistics.asp [accessed May 6, 2005]. 21   Berg, C. et al. 2002. The evolution of biotech. Nature Reviews 1(11):845-846. Although these figures may not seem remarkable at first glance, they are impressive in light of the fact that this time period covered the dot-com crash. 22   Ferrer, M. et al. 2004. The scientific muscle of Brazil’s health biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC8-DC12. 23   See www.larta.org/lavox/articlelinks/2004/040510_usisrael.asp [accessed May 9, 2005]. 24   Wong, J. et al. 2004. South Korean biotechnology—a rising industrial and scientific powerhouse. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC42-DC47. 25   See www.jba.or.jp/eng/jba_e/index.html [accessed May 9, 2005]. 26   Biotechnology Industry Facts, 2005, http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/statistics.asp.

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences 27   Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), 2005. Guide to Biotechnology. Available online at www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/er/ [accessed May 5, 2005]. 28   Ibid. 29   Cutiss, E.T. 2005. Nanotechnology—Market Opportunities, Market Forecasts, and Market Strategies, 2004 to 2009. Research Report # WG8270, electronics.ca publications, January. Available online at www.electronics.ca/reports/nanotechnology/opportunities.html [accessed January 3, 2006]. 30   Blumenstyk, G. 2004. Big bucks for tiny technology. The Chronicle of Higher Education 51(3):A26. Available at chronicle.com/free/v51/i03/03a02601.htm [accessed January 4, 2006]. 31   Monastersky, R. 2004. The dark side of small. The Chronicle of Higher Education 51(3):A12. Available online at chronicle.com/free/v51/i03/03a01201.htm [accessed January 4, 2006]. 32   As defined by N. Seeman at the Cuernavaca Workshop; Institute of Medicine/National Research Council, 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 50. 33   Ibid. 34   DiJusto, P. 2004. Nanosize me: nebulous naming-nano knack not needed. Scientific American (December). 35   Seeman, N.C. and A.M. Belcher. 2002. Emulating biology: building nano-structures from the bottom up. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(Suppl. 2):6451-6455. 36   Seeman, N.C. 1999. DNA engineering and its application to nanotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology 17(11):437-443; Fortina, P. et al. 2005. Nanobiotechnology: the promise and reality of new approaches to molecular recognition. Trends in Biotechnology 23(4):168-173. 37   Nanobiotechnology is an emerging area of scientific and technological opportunity. Nanobiotechnology applies the tools and processes of nano/microfabrication to build devices for studying biosystems. Researchers also learn from biology how to create better micro-nanoscale devices. www.nbtc.cornell.edu/. 38   2005 Nanomedicine, Device & Diagnostic Report, available online at www.nhionline.net/products/nddr.htm. 39   www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=APPX&script=410&layout=6&item_id=660605 [accessed May 9, 2005]. 40   www.angstromedica.com/images/NanOss%20Clearance.htm [accessed May 9, 2005]. 41   www.micronisers.com [accessed May 9, 2005]. 42   newdelhi.usembassy.gov/wwwhpr0812a.html [accessed June 23, 2005]. 43   Bapsy P.P. et al. 2004. DO/NDR/02 a novel polymeric nanoparticle paclitaxel: Results of a phase I dose escalation study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 22(14S): 2026; Salamanca-Buentello, F. et al. 2005. Nanotechnology and the developing world. PloS Medicine 2(5):383-386. 44   Court, E. et al. 2005. Will Prince Charles et al. diminish the opportunities of developing countries in nanotechnology? Available online at www.nanotechweb.org/articles/society/3/1/1 [accessed February 21, 2005].

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences 45   Salamanca-Buentello, F. et al. 2005. Nanotechnology and the developing world. PloS Medicine 2(5):383-386. 46   Hassan, M.H.A. 2005. Small things and big changes in the developing world. Science 309(5731):65-66. 47   Ibid. 48   Salamanca-Buentello, F. et al. 2005. Nanotechnology and the developing world. PloS Medicine 2(5):383-386. 49   Ibid. 50   It should be noted that with the application of any new technology to the consumer market there is often controversy. This is no less so for “genetically modified” foods. It is beyond the scope of this report to provide an in depth treatment of the debate over the safety and ethical use of GM crops and commodities. For an overview of this issue, please see, Department of Energy, 2005. Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms, on the Human Genome Project Information Website, www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml [accessed January 4, 2006]. 51   These production differences are likely due to geographic differences in sunlight, temperature, nutrients, and water. 52   Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2004. Available online at www.isaaa.org/ [accessed February 21, 2005]. 53   Information on China presented by Luis Herrera-Estrella to committee at Cuernavaca; Institute of Medicine/National Research Council. 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 21. 54   Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2004. Available online at www.isaaa.org/ [accessed February 21, 2005]. 55   Based on presentation by Luis Herrera-Estrella to committee at Cuernavaca; Institute of Medicine/National Research Council. 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 21. 56   Ibid. 57   Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2004. Available online at www.isaaa.org/ [accessed February 21, 2005]. 58   Asian Development Bank. 2001. Agricultural biotechnology, poverty reduction, and food security. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Available online at www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Agri_Biotech/default.asp [accessed February 9, 2005]. 59   Asian Development Bank. 2001. Agricultural biotechnology, poverty reduction, and food security. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Available online at www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Agri_Biotech/default.asp [accessed February 9, 2005]. 60   Arntzen, C.J. and M.A. Gomez-Lim. 2005. BioPharming: plant-derived vaccines to overcome current constraints in global immunization. Institute of Medicine/National Research Council. 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 19.

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences 61   Vinas, T. 2004. Making waves. IndustryWeek.com (August). Available online at www.bio.org/ind/pubs/IndustryWeek_81704.pdf [accessed January 4, 2006]. 62   International Association of Soaps, Detergents, and Maintenance Products, 2002: Poster; An Overview of the major European and international developments, the key association activities, and the main technological innovations of the industry. See www.aise-net.org/PDF/ar_2002_poster.pdf. 63   See www.natureworksllc.com/corporate/nw_pack_home.asp. 64   See www.iogen.ca/. 65   See www.bio.org/ind/background/SummaryProceedings.pdf. 66   It should be noted that these figures are most likely underestimates of the total expenditures in “biodefense” in the United States since what constitutes biodefense spending has never been consistently defined either within or across government departments and agencies. 67   Schuler A. 2004. Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2001-FY2005. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 2(2):86-96. A more recent article is: Schuler A. 2005. Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense budgeting, FY2005-FY2006. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 3(2):94-101; Enserink, M. and J. Kaiser. 2005. Has biodefense gone overboard? Science 307(5714):1396-1398. 68   Hoyt, K. and S.G. Brooks. 2003/2004. A double-edged sword. International Security 28(Winter):123-148. 69   Ibid. 70   King, D.A. 2004. The scientific impact of nations. Nature 430(6997):311-316 Feature. 71   Paraje G., R. Sadana, and G. Karam. 2005. Public health. Increasing international gaps in health-related publications. Science 308(5724):959-960. 72   OECD, Eurostat. 1997. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. Paris: OSLO Manual. 73   This sub-section is text that has been adapted from Thorsteinsdottir, H. et al. 2004. Introduction: promoting global health through biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC3-DC9. 74   All of the data presented in this section is from the OECD 2004 Compendium of Patent Statistics Report. Available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/24/8208325.pdf [ accessed January 4, 2006]. 75   OECD Compendium of Patent Statistics 2004. Available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/24/8208325.pdf [accessed January 4, 2006]. 76   Triadic patent families are sets of patents registered at the world’s three largest patent offices: the European Patent Office, EPO, the Japanese Patent Office, JPO, and the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office, USPTO. 77   Anton, P.S. et al. 2001. The Global Technology Revolution: bio/nano/materials trends and their synergies with information technology by 2015. RAND Corporation. Available online at www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1307.pdf [accessed January 4, 2006]. 78   A Survey of the Use of Biotechnology in U.S. Industry, 2003. Available online at www.technology.gov/reports/Biotechnology/CD120a_0310.pdf [accessed January 4, 2006].

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences 79   The word “broadband” is a generic term. It refers to the wide bandwidth characteristics of a transmission medium and its ability to carry numerous voice, video or data signals simultaneously. The medium could be coaxial cable, fiber-optic cable, UTP Media Twist or a wireless system. See www.unt.edu/telecom/Services/broadband.htm [accessed January 4, 2006]. 80   See www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/top20_broad_2004.html [accessed June 15, 2005]. 81   See www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/Internet03.pdf [accessed June 15, 2005]. 82   See www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/cellular03.pdf [accessed June 15, 2005]. 83   Ibid. 84   National Research Council. 2005. Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 85   Ibid. 86   Kernodle, K. 2005. Combating Continued Drops in Foreign Student Enrollment—U.S. Driven to Increase Appeal of Colleges and Universities. Frances Kernodle Associates. Available online at www.fkassociates.com/Combating%20Continued%20Drops%20in%20Foreign%20Student%20Enrollment.html [accessed January 6, 2006]. 87   National Research Council. 2004. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; this may be changing, since the United States announced, in February, 2005, that it had changed its visa rules to make it easier for foreign scientists and students working on “sensitive technologies” to reenter the United States after overseas trips (e.g., to attend conferences or visit their home countries). 88   See www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/international/intlstrategy.pdf [accessed May 10, 2005]. 89   Science and Engineering Indicators—2004. Available online at www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/ [accessed January 4, 2006]. 90   National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2001, NSF 03-300, Susan T. Hill, Project Officer (Arlington, VA 2002). 91   See www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf03300/pdf/secta.pdf: 53 [accessed January, 2006]. 92   See www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c2/c2s4.htm [accessed January 6, 2006]. 93   From National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. 1998. Statistical Profiles of Foreign Doctoral Recipients in Science and Engineering: Plans to Stay in the United States. NSF 99-304, Author, Jean M. Johnson (Arlington, VA). 94   Cited in Zhenzhen, L. et al. 2004. Health biotechnology in China—reawakening a giant. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC13-DC18. 95   Breithaupt, H. 2003. China’s leap forward in biotechnology. EMBO Reports 4:111-113. 96   Morel, Carolos M. et al. 2005. Health Innovation Networks to Help Developing Countries Address Neglected Diseases. Science 309(5733):401-404. This term

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences     was first proposed by Charles Gardner of the Rockefeller Foundation, based on the 2003 Zuckerman Lecture delivered at the UK Royal Society by R.A. Mashelkar. 97   Data in the overview of this section is from World Bank data www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/eap_wdi.pdf 98   Zhenshen, L. et al. 2004. Health biotechnology in China—reawakening of a giant. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC13-DC18. 99   National Intelligence Council. 2004. Mapping the Global Future, Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. Available online at www.cia.gov/nic/nic_globaltrend2020.htm#contents [accessed April 26, 2006]. 100   Huang, J. et al. 2002. Plant biotechnology in China. Science 295(5555):674-677. 101   Ibid. 102   Huang, J. et al. 2002. Plant biotechnology in China. Science 295(5555):674-677. 103   BT plants carry the gene for an insecticidical toxin produced by the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, reducing the need for chemical insecticides. 104   Ibid. 105   Huang, J. et al. 2005. Insect-resistant GM rice in farmers’ fields: assessing productivity and health effects in China. Science 308(5722):688-690. 106   Yu, J. et al. 2002. A draft sequence of the rice genome (Oryza sativa L. ssp. indica). Science 296(5655):79-92. 107   Chien, K. and L. Chien. 2004. The new Silk Road. Nature 428(6979):208-209. 108   This figure refers only to health biotech papers, not all Chinese–authored scientific papers in international peer-reviewed journals, nor does it include papers published in local journals not covered by ISI. 109   This figure does not reflect trends in non-U.S. patents and does not cover all health biotech patents. 110   Zhenshen, L. et al. 2004. Health biotechnology in China—reawakening of a giant. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC13-DC18. 111   Ibid. 112   Ibid. 113   The Beijing Genomics Institute was unable to obtain SARS samples from Guandong, despite efforts, due to safety regulations banning the transfer of viruses. 114   Ibid. 115   Harding, A. 2005. The politics of Science. The Scientist 19(2):37-40. 116   National Intelligence Council. 2004. Mapping the Global Future, Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. Available online at www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020_s3.html [accessed January 4, 2006]. 117   Based on materials presented to Committee by Tan Boon Ooi. See Institute of Medicine/National Research Council. 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. 118   See www.med.nus.edu.sg/lilly/ [accessed October 21, 2004]. 119   See www.lsb.lilly.com.sg/ [accessed October 21, 2004]. 120   See www.nitd.novartis.com [accessed October 21, 2004]. 121   Institute of Medicine/National Research Council. 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences 122   Ibid. 123   Wong, J. et al. 2004. South Korean biotechnology—a rising industrial and scientific powerhouse. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC42-47. 124   Ibid. 125   Hwang, W.S. et al. 2004. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science 303(5664):1669-1674; Hwang, W.S. et al. 2005. Patient-specific embryonic stem cells derived from human SCNT blastocysts. Science 308(5729):1777-1783. 126   Wong, J. et al. 2004. South Korean biotechnology—a rising industrial and scientific powerhouse. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC42-47. 127   Swinbanks, D. and D. Cyranoski. 2000. Taiwan backs experience in quest for biotech success. Nature 407(6802):417-426. 128   The latest USPTO patent statistics for 2003 reveal that Taiwan’s 6,676 patents place it fourth in the world behind the U.S., which posted 98,598 patents, Japan (37,250) and Germany (12,140). See investintaiwan.nat.gov.tw/en/news/200406/2004062501.html [accessed January 4, 2006]. 129   Ibid.; and Cyranoski, D. 2003. Biotech vision Taiwan. Nature 421(6923):672-673. 130   Taiwan aims to become sci-tech island. Nature 394(6693),1998:603. Available at www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v394/n6693/full/394603a0_fs.html&content_filetype=pdf [accessed January 4, 2006]. 131   Data in the overview of this section is from World Bank www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/eca_wdi.pdf. 132   Private capital flows refer to investments by the private sector into a sector of a country’s economy. Foreign direct investments are investments made to acquire a lasting interest by a resident entity in one economy in an enterprise resident in another economy. See www.nscb.gov.ph/fiis/default.asp. 133   National Intelligence Council. 2004. Mapping the Global Future, Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. December. Available online at www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020.html#contents [accessed May 3, 2005]. 134   See www.inpharm.com/External/InpH/1,2580,1-3-0-0inp_intelligence_art-0-305987,00.html [accessed May 9, 2005]. 135   See The Biologically Active Food Supplement Market in Russia. Available online at www.bisnis.doc.gov/bisnis/bisdoc/0401food.htm [accessed May 10, 2005]. 136   Unless otherwise indicated, data in the overview of this section is from the World Bank www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/lac_wdi.pdf. 137   National Intelligence Council. 2004. Mapping the Global Future, Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. Available online at www.cia.gov/nic/nic_globaltrend2020.htm#contents [accessed April 26, 2006]. 138   Ferrer, M. et al. 2004. The scientific muscle of Brazil’s health biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC8-DC12. 139   Simpson, A.J. et al. 2000. The genome sequence of the plant pathogen Xylella fastidiosa. Nature 406(6792):151. 140   Ferrer, M. et al. 2004. The scientific muscle of Brazil’s health biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC8-DC12. 141   Ibid.

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences 142   See www.adunicamp.org.br/noticias/universidade/leideinova%E7%E3o.pdf [accessed February 7, 2005]. 143   See www.ctnbio.gov.br/index.php?action=/content/view&cod_objeto=1296 [accessed May 10, 2005]. 144   For more details, see the description in Institute of Medicine. 2005. Scaling Up Treatment for the Global AIDS Pandemic. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 156-157. 145   Viols, V. et al. 2000. Promoting the rational use of antiretrovirals through a computer aided system for the logistical control of AIDS medications in Brazil. Presentation at the 13th International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa. 146   Lima R.M., and Veloso, V. 2000. SICLOM: Fistruicao informatizada de medicamentos para HIV/AIDS. Acao Anti-AIDS 43:6-7. 147   Thorsteinsdottir, H. et al. 2004. Cuba—innovation through synergy. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC19-DC24. 148   Verez-Bencomo,V. et al. 2004. A synthetic conjugate polysaccharide vaccine against Haemophilus influenzae type b. Science 305(5683):522-525. 149   See www.ymbiosciences.com/presspop.cfm?newsID=3024 [accessed February 7, 2005]. 150   Thorsteinsdottir, H. et al. 2004. Cuba—innovation through synergy. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC19-DC24. 151   See www.inmegen.org.mx. 152   Jimenez-Sanchez, G. 2003. Developing a platform for genomic medicine in Mexico. Science 300(5617):295-296. 153   National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 154   Information in the overview of this section is from World Bank www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/mna_wdi.pdf. 155   Abdelgafar, B. et al. 2004. The emergence of Egyptian biotechnology from generics. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC25-DC30. 156   Ibid. 157   See www.who.int/csr/disease/hepatitis/whocdscsrlyo2003/en/index4.html [accessed May 9, 2005]. 158   Ibid. 159   Ibid. 160   Ibid. 161   Soreni, M. et al. 2005. Parallel biomolecular computation on surfaces with advanced finite automata. Journal of the American Chemical Society 127(11):3935-3943. 162   See www.larta.org/lavox/articlelinks/2004/040510_usisrael.asp [accessed May 9, 2005]. 163   Ibid. 164   The information for this section is from Bohannon, J. 2005. From pariah to science powerhouse? Science 308(5719):182-184. 165   The ALJ business was founded by the late Sheikh Abdul Latif Jameel in 1945. In 1955 he was granted the sole distributorship for Toyota vehicles in Saudi Arabia which the ALJ Group has maintained ever since. On March 8, 2005 Abdul

OCR for page 79
Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of the Life Sciences     Latif Jameel Company Limited commemorated 50 years of successful and fruitful partnership with the Toyota Motor Corporation. www.alj.com/about03.html. 166   See www.astf.net/site/news/news_dtls.asp?news_id=1015&ogzid=0 [accessed May 10, 2005]. 167   Kumar, N.K. 2004. Indian biotechnology—rapidly evolving and industry led. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC31-DC36. 168   Bagla, P. 2005. Prime minister backs NSF-like funding body. Science 307(5715):1544. 169   Cited in Kumar, N.K. 2003. Biotech Consortium India Ltd. Directory of Biotechnology Industries & Institutions in India. New Delhi: BCIL. 170   Again, as cited in the Kumar paper: Ernst & Young. 2004. On the threshold. The Asia Pacific Perspective Global Biotechnology Report. SF. 171   See www.shanthabiotech.com/shantha-west.asp [accessed February 9, 2005]. 172   Jayaramam, K.S. 2002. India promotes GMOs in Asia. Nature Biotechnology 20(7):641-642. 173   Institute of Medicine/National Research Council. 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 174   www.icgeb.org. 175   Institute of Medicine/National Research Council. 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use Risks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 176   Ibid., 98. 177   Motari, M. et al. 2004. South Africa—blazing a trail for African biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 22(Suppl.):DC37-DC41. 178   Ibid. 179   Normile, D. 2005. Fundraising begins for network of four African institutes. Science 307(5709):499. 180   Cited in Hassan, M.H.A. 2005. Small Things and Big Changes in the Developing World. Science 309(5731):65-66.