Click for next page ( 98


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 97
Technological Trends and Applications in Biotechnology RITA COLWELL President, University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute Webster's defines biotechnology as "applied biological science.") The U.S. government, however, employs a more comprehensive definition: both the old and new biotechnologies comprise "any technique that uses living organisms (or parts of organisms) to make or modify products, to improve plants or animals, or to develop microorganisms for specific uses."2 The "new" biotechnology has been defined by the U.S. government as "the industrial use of rDNA, cell fusion, and novel bioprocessing techniques."3 This being said, the definition that in the long run may be the most descriptive relative to the world economy was produced by Vivian Moses and corporate biotechnology pioneer Ronald Cape: "making money with biology."4 Biotechnology already has been employed successfully to manufacture new medicines, improve agricultural production, and produce drugs from metabolites of marine organisms, and it shows great promise in such other areas as re- mediating environmental pollution. But its most rudimentary applications are in fermentation that is, the use of microorganisms such as molds and bacteria to produce food products. This application is as old as the history of human civiliza- tion. Fermentation technology originated in ancient China, where foods were fermented by molds, and in Egypt, where beer brewing and bread-making were combined enterprises.5 Bread, cheese, yogurt, vinegar, soy sauce, bean curd, beer, and wine are a few examples of the modern products of fermentation. The unique characteristics of microorganisms have only begun to be ex- ploited to improve life on this planet, taking into account, of course, the role of microorganisms in the cycling of nutrients and in global climatic processes. But the new methods and technologies are only emerging from old ones. For ex 97

OCR for page 97
98 Marshaling Technology for Development ample, by the end of the eighteenth century, farmers had learned to rotate crops in order to plant crops that restored nutrients to nutrient-poor soil. And even before the science of genetics was understood, new varieties of crops and animals were being bred by selection for desired qualities. Some milestones in the history of science indicate the source of this new technology. In the field of medicine, Edward Jenner, who in the last decade of the eighteenth century observed that milkmaids did not succumb to smallpox, began inoculation with cowpox, or Vaccinia virus, to prevent smallpox infec- tion. About the same time, Louis Pasteur, best known for his work that led to the process of pasteurization and the identification of microorganisms as causative agents of disease, studied fermentation in wine and wrote an important book on winemaking. And around the turn of the century, German bacteriologist and physician Robert Koch identified microorganisms as the causes of anthrax and tuberculosis. The first industrial use of a pure culture of a bacterium was accomplished by Chaim Weizmann in 1917 when he developed the fermentation of cornstarch by the bacterium Clostridium acetobutylicum, thereby producing acetone for explo- sives manufacture. Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk whose studies on the pea plant elucidated inheritance of traits via hereditary factors, conducted seminal work in genetics in 1865. Although Mendel's work was ignored until 1900, his findings, once rediscovered, fit well with what was by then known about chromo- somal activity during cell division, or mitosis. The first half of the twentieth century was an exciting time, with major gains in knowledge of genetic inherit- ance. Thomas Hunt Morgan of Columbia University, working with the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, showed that genes, or the units of heredity, were the constructs of chromosomes. His student A. H. Sturtevant, who later joined him when he moved to the California Institute of Technology, made a number of breakthrough discoveries showing genes were linked, comprising chromosomes.6 He thus began the science of genetic mapping, a technique essential to the new genetics. In the 1930s and 1940s, genetics research was moving inexorably in the direction of the upcoming explosion of knowledge at the molecular level. Re- searchers such as Barbara McClintock7 and Marcus Rhoades~ studied linkage and mutable characteristics in maize (corn), providing a view of genes as more mutable and variable than the simple Mendelian genetics allowed. Meanwhile, research on what comprised genetic material moved forward rapidly. In 1928, Frederick Griffith had found that a "transforming principle" was able to alter traits in the bacterium Streptococcus pneumoniae.9 By 1944, Oswald Avery, Colin MacLeod, and Maclyn McCarty of the Rockefeller Institute had identified the "transforming factor" as deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA.~ From that mo- ment, scientists in many laboratories labored to determine the chemical structure of the DNA molecule. Finally, in 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick's short paper described the breakthrough for which everyone was waiting.

OCR for page 97
RITA COLWELL GENETIC ENGINEERING: A NEW WORLD 99 Twenty years after Watson and Crick's paper, the first stones were laid in the path to commercial genetic engineering. Stanley Cohen of Stanford University, Herbert Boyer of the University of California (San Francisco) Medical School, and their teams succeeded in cloning a gene into a bacterial plasmid-the first recombinant DNA (rDNA)-and in 1980 they received a patent for this tech- nique.~2 Alsoin 1980,theU.S. Supreme Court ruledin Diamond v. Chakraba'^~ that microorganisms could be patented, opening a new commercial avenue for genetic engineering.~3 The first U.S. biotechnology company, Genentech, was founded in 1976. By 1994, it had been joined by more than 1,300 other companies in the United States alone (Figure 1~.~4 The years 1981-1987 were watershed ones for U.S. biotech- nology: an average of 90 companies were formed annually, for a total of 631 companies established during this period.iS In 1981, the first U.S.-approved biotechnology product reached consumers: a monoclonal antibody-based diag- nostic test kit. The following year, the first recombinant DNA pharmaceutical, Genentech's Humulin (recombinant human insulin), was approved for sale in the United States and Great Britain. Humulin's 1993 sales were $560 million. The same year, the first recombinant animal vaccine for colibacillosis was approved . ~ In Europe. Although most biotechnology companies are still not consistently profitable, more and more products are entering the market.~7 In 1993, Amgen's Neupogen, 500 400 ._ E 300 o a 200 of 97 100 , . .... , , . . ....... ....... ............................................................................ ................... .............. .................... ~ . _ _ o 120 1.""""' ~1 . ............................................................. _ ___ 396 369 ...................................... ................................................................ ........................................................................... . ....................................................................... .......................................................................... ............................................................................ ............................................................................ ::.::.::::~::::.:::~:~:~:~:~:::~::::::~:::::::::: ......... . : ::. - - Before 1970 1970-1974 1975-1979 1980-1984 1985-1990 Year FIGURE 1 Evolution of the U.S. biotechnology industry.

OCR for page 97
100 Marshaling Technology for Development TABLE 1 Top Ten Biotechnology Drugs, 1993 1993 Net Sales Product Developer/Marketer (millions) Neupogen Amgen/Amgen $ 719 Epogen Amgen/Amgen 587 Intron A Biogen/Schering-Plough 572 Humulin Genentech/Eli Lilly 560 Procrit Amgen/Ortho Biotech 500 Engerix-B Genentech/SKB 480 RecombiNAK HE Chiron/Merck 245 Activase Genentech/Genentech 236 Protropin Genentech/Genentech 217 Roferon-A Genentech/Hoffman-La Roche 172 Total sales $4,288 SOURCE: Ernst and Young LLP. human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, was the best-selling U.S. biotech- nology drug, netting $719 million (Table 1~.~8 In 1994, at least four new drugs were approved in the United States, along with a recombinant "housekeeping" enzyme and diagnostics. One new product in another area was Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato, engineered for better taste and shipping tolerance through the addi- tion of a "backwards" gene that induces the tomato to produce only small amounts of the ripening enzyme, polygalacturonase. Thus the tomato can be picked before ripening and left to ripen slowly without adding artificial ripeners.~9 Although it did not need approval at the time of its development, the recombinant tomato underwent review and was approved in 1995 by the U.S. Food and Drug Admin- istration (FDA). In 1994, U.S. biotechnology companies had a market value of $41 billion, R&D expenditures of $7 billion, and 103,000 employees this in an industry that did not exist 20 years ago. By comparison, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, which has invested heavily in biotechnology, had R&D expenditures of $13.8 billion in 1994. Poor economic markets and policy questions in the United States held down the number of companies formed in 1994, but instead of being in a downturn, the U.S. biotechnology industry may be maturing, to eventually take on a new role in the global economy. And instead of being aggressively entrepre- neurial, with the intention of becoming the next Merck, the newly emerging companies may well serve in the future as a reservoir of corporate research for large pharmaceutical firms, which, in turn, will develop and market the output. Today, however, because most of the U.S. biotechnology industry is cen- tered on health care products and many of the companies were started on the basis of licensing agreements or research from the university community, the decrease ,

OCR for page 97
RITA COLWELL 101 in corporate start-ups, as well as financing, is causing a basic change in the structure of the industry. Smaller companies are merging; large companies, such as the major pharmaceutical companies, are acquiring smaller biotechnology ventures; and, because there is little money available in the investment market for corporate growth, companies are looking to strategic alliances, both in the United States and abroad, to shore up finances and financial opportunities. This develop- ment may prove beneficial for Asian pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies looking for products in return for allowing access to the Asian market. But many of the developing countnes, lacking homegrown pharmaceutical giants, will have to look elsewhere for role models for their own fledgling biotechnology indus- tries. The United States is not the sole benefactor of biotechnology growth. In 1993, 386 biotechnology companies were located in Europe, most in Great Bnt- ain, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands (Figure 2~.20 From 1986 to 1992, about $657 million was pumped by venture capitalists into the European biotech- nology industry. The major biotechnology players in Western Europe are Bel- gium, Denmark, France (whose 1991 market for biotechnology products was $115 million, $29 million of which were imports), Germany, Italy (with a 1995 biotechnology market estimated at $1.5 billion), the Netherlands (whose 1991 biotechnology product and process sales equaled $220 million,, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In 1993, Canada had 310 biotechnology companies, with rev- enues of $1.67 billion and 61 percent of total sales from exports.2i Ten percent of Canada's biotechnology exports go to Japan, while an additional 10 percent go to China, India, South America, and the Caribbean. A handful of companies are 20 15 c' 10- a) ...~......... -...... it.' 11~ _ ~.. Before 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 980 l ~; _ l .....,:.~.,;...... l ,, ,,,,,,f,,,,<) _ . _ _ 1~>'~ FIGURE 2 Evolution of European biotechnology industry (percent of companies found- ed in each year). SOURCE: Ernst and Young LLP.

OCR for page 97
102 Marshaling Technology for Development scattered in South and Central America (mainly in Brazil and Mexico) and Asia (excluding Japan). Approximately 200 biotechnology companies are located in Australia and an additional 40 in New Zealand. Japan's biotechnology industry differs from the entrepreneurial industry in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia in that much of Japan's biotechnology R&D is carried out by universities and research institutes or in cooperation with its large pharmaceutical firms, food corporations, brewing companies, or electronics giants. The R&D outlays of Japan's top ten pharmaceutical companies are only one-fifth of similar outlays by U.S. companies.22 In most developing nations, there is little in the way of commercial biotech- nology, but governments and researchers acknowledge the importance of the field, and government and nongovernmental organization support have led to establishment of biotechnology-related centers. For example, the International Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), initiated by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) but now sup- ported by Italy and India, has two laboratories: one in Trieste, Italy, and the other in New Delhi. Research groups from 32 member countries are affiliated with ICGEg 23 The M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation in Madras is a leader in the promotion of biotechnology at the village level in India. Other prominent bio- technology research institutes in India are New Delhi's Energy Research Institute and a national institute of cellular and molecular biology in Hyderabad. Hindustan Lever, a subsidiary of Lever Brothers, has a large corporate biotechnology divi- sion in India (Kamaljit Bawa, University of Massachusetts, personal communica- tion, October 28, 1994~. In the Far East, the Hong Kong Institute of Biotechnology, under the aus- pices of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, was established with the help of overseas Chinese scientists.24 Hong Kong also has a Biotechnology Research Institute. Of the many biotechnology-related research departments and institutes in the People's Republic of China, one of the oldest and best known is the Shanghai Institute of Biochemistry.25 The International Vaccine Institute being established in South Korea is receiving financial assistance from the United Nations Development Fund and the Japanese government.26 Thailand's National Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, which has a marine biotech- nology laboratory, was begun with support from the U.S. Agency for Interna- tional Development (USAID). Aquaculture is a major theme of other biotechnol- ogy research centers and university departments in Thailand. Worldwide, many national and international organizations maintain labora- tories that carry out research in biotechnology, mostly related to agriculture. One example is the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. Another is the Biotechnology Centre for Animal and Plant Health, established by the Euro- pean Union, in partnership with the Queen's University of Northern Ireland in Belfast, which focuses primarily on disease control.27 /

OCR for page 97
RITA CoL~L 103 In Africa, the French molecular genetics researcher Daniel Cohen and his organization, Association Ifriqya, are planning to establish the Institute for Ge- nome Research for Developing Countries (IGRDC) in Hammamet, Tunisia, in 1996.28 The Agricultural Genetic Engineering Research Institute (AGERI) in Cairo, Egypt, is cooperating with Michigan State University's Agricultural Bio- technology for Sustainable Productivity (ABSP) project, supported by USAID.29 The African network of Microbiological Resources Centres (MIRCENs), al- though not a research group per se, is organized to support research projects in soil microbiology, biotechnology, natural resources management, vegetable pro- duction and protection, and food and nutritional technology at research organiza- tions and universities throughout Africa south of the Sahara.30 The International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases (ILRAD) is located in Nairobi, Kenya. MARKET SEGMENTS AND RESEARCH AREAS In the United States, and to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe, the bulk of the biotechnology industry is in the biomedical field: therapeutics and diagnos- tics make up 68 percent of the U.S. industry, 43.7 percent of the Canadian industry, and approximately 43 percent of the European industry. From 1993 to 1994, therapeutic product sales in the United States increased 24 percent, for a total of nearly $20 billion. Agricultural biotechnology also represents a growing segment of the indus- try: 8 percent in the United States, 20 percent in Europe, and 28 percent in Canada. The U.S. agricultural biotechnology market increased its sales by 158 percent in 1993, with aquaculture the most rapidly growing sector.3i The chemical, environmental, and services segment, which makes up only 9 percent of the U.S. biotechnology industry, increased its sales by 81 percent in 1993, totaling $70 billion.32 This segment comprises 10 percent of the Canadian industry. Biomedical Medical biotechnology mainly includes recombinant drugs and enzyme-me- diated diagnostic kits, but the rational design of drugs, where a drug is modeled to fit a particular molecule, yielding a limited response that can result in control of the disease process, has become a significant part of this field. By learning more about the basic biochemistry of normal and abnormal cellular function, scientists eventually will produce drugs that will prevent the abnormal growth of cancer cells, or will permit detection of the abnormalities in the DNA that signal the onset of cancerous changes, thereby preventing cancer from occurring. Another intent is to circumvent the immune response to one's own tissue that occurs in such autoimmune diseases as multiple sclerosis and lupus erythematosus. The

OCR for page 97
104 Marshaling Technology for Development hope also is to use small molecules to combat degenerative neurological diseases or to induce neurological cell regrowth in such conditions as Alzheimer's dis- ease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, head and spinal injury, and cerebrovascular accident or stroke.33 Some of the already successful recombinant drugs include recombinant human insulin, growth hormone, interferons, tissue plasminogen activator, erythropoietin, and other blood cell-stimulating factors. Thus biotech- nology and pharmaceutical companies legitimately have high hopes for the eco- nomic and medical potential of the next generation of drugs. Among the most successful of the antibody-based diagnostics are pregnancy test kits, which now are so simple that in the United States they can be purchased over the counter and used at home. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) test kits are being sold worldwide and are manufactured in many parts of the world. The U.S. market for monoclonal antibodies, the majority of which are used in such test kits, was estimated at $1.2 billion this year and to be nearly $4 billion by the turn of the century. As test kits become both more accurate and easier to use, test kit manufacturers foresee wide applicability, even in rural settings, by techni- cians with minimal training. Some companies, for example, have sent personnel to China and South America to train technicians in the proper use of their test kits. Monoclonal antibodies were expected to become major tools for the treat- ment of a variety of diseases, but recent problems with monoclonal antibody- based septic shock treatments caused several companies such as Xoma, Centocor, Chiron, and Synergen to abandon drugs in clinical trials.34 Recombinant vaccines are expected to make a major contribution to the health of the world's population. Recombinant hepatitis B vaccine already is used worldwide. Although an HIV vaccine would have enormous use, especially in those countries where HIV is widespread, little success has been achieved and not much is on the horizon, at least at present. Research on HIV vaccines that would be beneficial to those people outside the developed nations, who suffer from a different strain of HIV than that found in the United States and western Europe, is not being pursued aggressively.35 In contrast, vaccines against malaria, respira- tory syncytial virus (RSV), rotavirus (which causes severe, life-threatening diar- rhea in children), Streptococcus pneumonias (which causes bacterial pneumo- nia), and cholera, are being pursued actively and will have an immediate impact on global health.36 Although new vaccines and vaccine combinations could im- prove the health of many children worldwide,37 a recent study showed that the world vaccine market stands at a mere $3 billion,38 a relatively insignificant value when compared to the $1.2 billion world sales of just one new biotechnol- ogy drug, recombinant human erythropoietin (Amgen's Epogen).39 Drug delivery systems are an important segment of the biomedical compo- nent of the biotechnology industry.40 New methods of administering vaccines- by injection, intra-nasally by spray, time-release methods, and others still under development and even drugs, could revolutionize health care in developing nations and in poor or rural communities in developed countries.4i

OCR for page 97
RITA COLWELL 105 Other, much smaller and more specialized medical biotechnology markets include treatment regimens, such as gene therapy. In gene therapy, which cur- rently is employed for research purposes only, a normal gene is put into abnormal cells using a carrier such as a virus. In "cellular therapy" a patient's cells are treated. An example of this is autologous bone marrow transplants, where a patient's bone marrow is removed, cleansed of cancer cells if they are present, grown in tissue culture, then reinfected into the patient who usually has an advanced cancer after the patient undergoes therapy to destroy the remaining bone marrow. Because such techniques are prohibitively expensive, they are used sparingly. Gene therapy requires high-technology medical centers and a high level of training for all staff members involved in patient care. Clearly, even in developed nations these treatments are available only to the very wealthy, the very well insured, or enrollees in sponsored clinical trials. Agriculture Agricultural biotechnology is expected to become the predominant applica- tion of biotechnology in developing countries. In Africa,42 Asia, Central and South America,43 and the Middle East,44 development of transgenic plants, biological pest control, tissue culture techniques for agriculture, microbial prod- ucts for nutrient cycling, pathogen diagnostics for crops, and genetic mapping of tropical crops are major concerns. In developed nations, the term value added is used to denote the economic value of agricultural biotechnology products. Thus agricultural biotechnology in the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan, and Aus- tralia aims to produce products, such as fruit, vegetables and grains, whose ge- netic manipulation will provide new products that will cost more or bring greater profit to commercial entities than the standard hybrid product. Today in the United States the best-known commercial agricultural biotechnology products include Calgene's Flavr Savr tomato; Monsanto's recombinant bovine somato- trophin (B ST) or growth hormone, which yields increased milk production by cows; frost-resistant strawberries; and biological pest control, which may include the introduction of genes from Bacillus thuringiensis and other bacteria, fungi, or viruses into plants, rendering the plants pest-resistant,45 and the production of biopesticides via gene isolation and fermentation. Less well known is the produc- tion of recombinant rennin, an enzyme used in cheese manufacture, approved by FDA in 1990.46 Transgenic plants are those in which foreign genes have been introduced to improve a specific quality or characteristic of the plant. In the case of the Flavr Savr tomato, transportability is improved, an important factor in areas where fruits and vegetables must be transported long distances to market. Since the developed nations such as the United States are dependent on Central and South American countries for fruits, especially during winter and early spring, before the harvests in Florida and California, these technologies could increase

OCR for page 97
106 Marshaling Technology for Development the marketability of imported crops. Moreover, the introduction of foreign DNA could improve the protein quality of some foods, an important consideration for developing countries not only for human foods but also for animal feeds. Re- searchers also are working on improving the nutritional qualities of food starches and oils. Biological pest control, a technique used in Asia for several millennia, has made great strides since the United States began to import B. thuringiensis into the United States from China in the late 1970s.47 B. thuringiensis is engineered for inclusion in many plants, including grains, and it also is manufactured by recombinant techniques for use as a spray. Other means of biological pest con- trol include virus resistance incorporated into the plant genome.48 A virus- resistant squash is being reviewed by the USDA for approval in the United States; China is marketing a virus-resistant tomato; and potatoes resistant to virus are undergoing testing in Mexico. Scientists in Costa Rica are working to introduce virus-resistant genes into the criollo melon.49 Recently, investigators identified a number of genes within crops themselves that confer disease resis- tance.s Thus it is only a matter of time until such genes are introduced into nonresistant species. An important field in agricultural biotechnology will be the use of marker or "reporter" genes within transgenic species.si These genes are attached to func- tional genes introduced into plant cells, where their presence will indicate if the functional genes are working. Recently, researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and University of Wisconsin inserted a gene for green fluorescent protein, derived from the jellyfish, Aequorea Victoria, into orange tree cells.59 This is a unique melding of agricultural and marine biotechnology and is an early example of more unique genetic introductions to come. Much of the improvement in crops depends on improved plant tissue culture techniques and techniques for plant micropropagation. In tissue culture, indi- vidual cells are separated, genetically modified for desirable traits, and grown on nutrient media. Hormonal growth enhancers, nutrients (some of which are pro- duced by tissue culture), and other additives determine the viability of the cells maintained in culture. In micropropagation, tiny plantlets are grown from cells started in tissue culture, all genetically the same, for distribution to farmers. Agricultural production can be increased not only by direct manipulation of plants, but also by the addition of naturally occurring or genetically manipulated microorganisms.53 Some of these organisms can be grown in batch fermenters; others require nurturing on host plants. Agricultural products do not necessarily result in food products for the con- sumer market. Better plastics and biodegradable disposable items may be pro- duced from plant extracts or refuse. Plant refuse, such as corn husks and stalks, also can be used to produce alcohols and other fuels such as ethanol. Finally, plants and animals can be genetically engineered to produce drugs and other biologically active molecules. In fact, the entire tobacco program of the USDA is

OCR for page 97
RITA CoL~L 107 now funded only for research on production of bioactive compounds from trans- genic tobacco plants. Not to be forgotten, plants, like humans, become diseased. Thus it is essen- tial that simple diagnostic tests be developed for early detection of disease. Marine Biotechnology Marine biotechnology, which represents a small segment of the biotechnol- ogy industry in the United States, approximately 85 companies or about 7 percent of all biotechnology companies has applications in medicine, agricul- ture, materials science, natural products chemistry, and bioremediation. Because of the proximity of most of the world's tropical nations to the oceans, as well as their climates, these nations are particularly well suited to pursue marine biotech- nology. Aquaculture, a branch of marine biotechnology, is closely related to agricul- ture and is often included under that classification. Worldwide, marine aquacul- ture produced 14 million metric tons of fish in 1991,54 with a market value of approximately $28 billion.55 Demand for seafood worldwide is expected to in- crease by 70 percent over the next 35 years,56 but this increase comes at a time when the world's fisheries are overexploited or "commercially extinct."57 Thus world aquaculture will need to increase production sevenfold by the year 2025 in order to meet the demand. USDA has predicted that biotechnology will aid in the improvement of captive management and reproduction of species, leading to more efficient species that make better use of food supplies and the production of healthier organisms with improved food and nutritional qualities. Furthermore, aquaculture can produce organisms for use as biomedical models in research, reservoirs for bioactive molecule production, and agents useful in bioremediation. Aquaculture is no longer a means of producing luxury foods, such as lobsters; it is a critical solution to the world's fisheries problems. Algal aquaculture, an ancient art in Asia, produces not only seaweeds, but also food supplements, such as the omega-3 fatty acids and beta carotene, through microalgal cultivation.58 The polysaccharides of algae are a valuable commodity and a much sought-after natural product. Animal Husbandry One of the first approved biotechnology products offered on the market was an rDNA vaccine against colibacillosis. Thus animal husbandry was among the first sectors into which a commercial biotechnology product was introduced. Transgenic animals, such as pigs and cows, can be engineered for traits allowing better survival in marginal habitats, the production of more meat of higher qual- ity, or even the production of recombinant pharmaceutical molecules for the human health care market.

OCR for page 97
RITA COLWELL 117 researchers and corporations that later develop these materials into drugs believe they should be rewarded for their information, in some cases with a patent. A recent review of patent law, however, concluded that this information cannot be protected by patents.~33 Likewise, it has been suggested that unique, indigenous plants be patented, but, again, naturally occurring organisms that are not products of breeding programs or any scientific genetic manipulation are not now patent- able.~34 At the very least, however, these plants may be eligible for protection by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) under newly proposed IUCN categories.~35 Although this conven- tion imparts no economic rights, it gives originating countries some degree of control over who takes the plants, where the plants are sent, and what uses will be made of them. One recently published book suggested that a radical change is needed in the concept of intellectual property, putting value on culturally trans- mitted knowledge as well as discoveries,~36 but this is unlikely to occur in the near future. Some of these issues were addressed at the Convention on Biological Diversity (also known as the Rio Convention), but they were not spelled out clearly and none of the current agreements fully address them.~37 In dealing with biological prospecting, also called accessing, all sides have to consider both what is fair and what is workable. Recently, a group of interna- tional Pew Charitable Trust scholars met to write ethical guidelines for bio- accessing that cover the behavior of and interactions with scientists, gene banks, and intergovernmental organizations. The guidelines propose that scientists treat indigenous peoples with respect, have local people serve as co-researchers, and ensure that the local communities receive equitable compensation for any prod- ucts derived from locally collected and documented plant, microorganism, or animal-derived resources. Such guidelines will be effective only if there is a way to enforce agreements. Although the Pew scholars may ask professional organizations to enforce member compliance, they also will append guidelines to an enforceable interna- tional treaty such as the Rio Convention. Janzen et al. have explained what a biodiversity research agreement between a researcher and "in-country biodiversity custodians" should include, but currently such arrangements vary.~38 The agree- ment between INBio and Merck gives the Costa Ricans cash in advance, trained personnel in the form of "parataxonomists" who can identify plants, and a per- centage of sales of any products derived.~39 In contrast, the director of a her- barium in a southeast Asian country that has many unique plant species was approached by a large university from outside the region requesting that the herbarium provide it with local plant materials in exchange for vehicles and funding to pay for collecting the plants. The herbarium director, believing quite rightly that the university was taking advantage of his institution's impoverished condition, asked for a cooperative agreement between his institution, local uni- versities, and the organization that requested the plant material, as well as some control over the material. The university was never heard from again and the

OCR for page 97
118 Marshaling Technology for Development herbarium director was roundly criticized by his colleagues for letting a "golden opportunity" pass. Although guidelines cannot cover all situations one scholar involved in drafting the Pew guidelines admitted they do not cover his research situation they may aid in reaching fair and equitable agreements. The Brazilian government is now considering an industrial property bill that could be used as a model for determining compensatory agreements between the accessors and the sources of biodiversity.~40 An added problem in dealing with biodiversity accessing is enforcement of the Rio Convention. For example, the United States is one of the major forces for worldwide conservation, but it is not yet an official signatory of the convention. President Bill Clinton, without congressional approval, signed the treaty but with interpretative statements on Articles 16 (technology transfer) and 19 (biosafety protocols).~4i A Republican-dominated Congress is not likely to approve the . . . . n~t~at~ve. Safety and Ethical Issues Although problems are associated with the public's perception of the safety of GMOs, i42 numerous field trials have been carried out worldwide, t43 and since 1987 field tests of more than 860 transgenic crops have been approved in the United States; at least another 250 tests have been approved in Europe since 1991.~44 Regulation and safety protocols may be accomplished with the assis- tance of international oversight organizations and by agreements, or through national or local laws. UNIDO's "Voluntary Code of Conduct for the Release of Organisms into the Environment" was conceived as a basic document from which a more specific code could be built.~45 Governments lacking internal expertise can call on advice from the Stockholm Institute for Environment, funded jointly by the Swedish government and the Rockefeller Foundation. Perhaps a new international nongovernmental commission on GMOs could aid countries that need assistance in formulating regulations and evaluate projects being considered for implementation within their borders. There is concern that biotechnology-based products may lead to pressure on consumers to purchase value-added products they may not need. The Rural Ad- vancement Foundation International worries that the addition of genetically engi- neered human proteins, produced by transgenic cows, into infant formula may lead the infant formula industry to undertake aggressive marketing techniques, especially in developing countries.~46 Other questions about safety and efficacy revolve around new medical technologies. Clinical trial requirements are more complex in some countries than in others, and review may be shorter in some countries, allowing a drug to enter the marketplace in Europe, for example, earlier than in the United States.~47 This in itself is not a problem, but it will become one if a drug or vaccine is unavailable in the location with the greatest need. For example, in the recent bubonic and pneumonic plague epidemics in

OCR for page 97
RITA COLWELL 119 India, a major problem was obtaining vaccine. An effective vaccine against pneu- monic and bubonic plague had been manufactured in the United States by Cutter Laboratories, but in 1992 Cutter sold the rights to the vaccine to another com- pany. Because FDA regulations required that the vaccine be treated as a new product and undergo testing, it was not available when urgently needed.~48 Inter- national cooperation, and some foresight on the part of governments, should have been able to resolve this problem long before it became an urgent one. Compa- nies may opt for testing a product in a country with fewer controls. For example, because the U.S. National Institutes of Health are delaying tests of a HIV vaccine that many fear will not be effective, the manufacturers are considering carrying out trials in Thailand.~49 Other Obstacles Other obstacles to the universal adoption of biotechnology projects and prod- ucts are cultural, educational, economic, governmental, and infrastructural in nature. If, for example, difficulties are encountered in delivering agricultural products to market, no change in the qualities of those products will overcome the infrastructural problems. In other words, there is no reason to introduce geneti- cally engineered apples that ship better in a region where the apples rot on the trees because they cannot be shipped to market. Introducing a complicated test kit for clinical use by marginally trained employees will not yield the expected public health benefits, especially if requirements such as a "cold chain" are involved. A recent attempt to introduce clinical test kit panels into China failed because the enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) tests, although relatively simple to use by U.S. standards, were deemed too complex and time-consuming by the Chinese distributor. When introducing new crops, one must be able to distribute the starter mate- rial and explain to the farmers how best to plant and grow the crops.~s In order to vaccinate people against disease, an infrastructure must be in place to ensure that the vaccine reaches the people who need it. The introduction of sophisticated technology into an area where the supply of electricity is erratic will not lead to progress unless changes are made in the way electricity is supplied. Moreover, complicated regulations or corrupt governments can inhibit the flow of new technologies. For example, recently an act of the Romanian parliament was re- quired to import a biotechnology product needed by a local area. And the INBio-Merck agreement is successful in part because the Costa Rican government is not corrupt, but many governments foster corruption or look the other way.i52 Finally, as noted earlier, unless the public understands both the value of and need for advances in biotechnology, problems of acceptance of biotechnology products will persist.i53 Thus biotechnology products and processes, even those discovered and proposed for use in developing nations, should include not only the introduction of the technology but also public education.

OCR for page 97
120 Marshaling Technology for Development What Technologies Will Work in Developing Countries? What will work? In 1990, a National Research Council committee produced a list of 98 plant biotechnology projects for USAID support in developing coun- tries. The list ranged from the development of restriction fragment length poly- morphism (RFLP) maps of such plants as sorghum, cowpea, and potato, to tree tissue culture and studies of the role of-biotechnology in plant agriculture.~54 Fruits, vegetables, and grains with improved nutrient content and disease resis- tance will add significant value to agriculture. Integrated pest management, a form of the "old" biotechnology well known in some of the developing nations, could be expanded. Marine biotechnology, including aquaculture of fish, algae, and microalgae, is a genuinely viable area for wide application in developing nations, especially in light of the severe overfishing that is occurring today. Many countries, espe- cially those in the Pacific Rim, already have some expertise in this area, and in others expertise could be developed with the appropriate training. Marine bio- technology programs and aquaculture not only will provide food for the table, but also can develop products from natural resources. Vaccines and pharmaceuticals that improve public health and decrease infant mortality, as well as test kits that permit screening of large proportions of at-risk populations for transmissible, even hereditary, disease will be welcomed into the markets of developing nations. In fact, nations should be encouraged to form the infrastructure necessary to develop their own vaccines, especially "orphan vac- cines" for tropical diseases specific to their country. Thailand, for example, is developing its own vaccine production capability. Programs for alternative energy sources, especially for countries that are dependent on imported fossil fuels, should be encouraged. Methane gas produc- tion, as well as the production of bioethanol and other fuels, may be an economi- cally advantageous means of augmenting the use of fossil fuels, hydroelectricity, and nuclear power. Environmental bioremediation can be used to introduce or upgrade public sanitation, clean polluted soil and water, and clean up toxic environments. Finally, the development of databases, especially related to depositories of biological material, also may be important projects for international cooperation. The establishment and use of germplasm banks not only will help to preserve biodiversity but also will save food resources for future use. CONCLUSION Because science is international, international advisory panels, oversight groups, biodiversity consortia, research and granting organizations, and scientific societies are agents for problem solving on a global level and pooling resources across national boundaries. International organizations such as the World Bank

OCR for page 97
RITA CoL~L 121 and the United Nations, together with international treaties such as the biodiversity treaty, can sponsor the establishment of databases and networks that will allow greater international communication and cooperation. The technologies are ready for exploitation; it is the financing and the will to put these technologies into place that are needed. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The excellent and critical assistance of Dr. Myrna Watanabe in preparation of this manuscript is gratefully acknowledged. NOTES 1. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1984). 2. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Commercial Biotechnology: An Interna- tional Analysis, OTA-BA-218 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1984). 3. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Biotechnology in a Global Economy, SIN 052-003-1258-8 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991). 4. Vivian Moses and Ronald E. Cape, eds., Biotechnology: The Science and the Business (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1991). 5. M. J. R. Nout, "Upgrading Traditional Biotechnological Processes," in Applications of Bio- technology to Traditional Fermented Foods (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991), 11 19. 6. Lily E. Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). 7. Barbara McClintock, "A Cytological Demonstration of the Location of an Interchange be- tween the Non-homologous Chromosomes of Zea mays," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 16 (1930): 791-796; Harriet B. Creighton and Barbara McClintock, "A Correlation of Cytological and Genetical Crossing-over in Zea mays," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 17 (1931): 492-497. 8. M. M. Rhoades, "The Genetic Control of Mutability in Maize," Cold Spring Harbor Sympo- sia in Quantitative Biology, Vol.9 (1941): 138-144. 9. F. Griffith, "The Significance of Pneumococcal Types," Journal of Hygiene 27 (1928): 113 159. 10. O. T. Avery, C. M. MacLeod, and M. McCarty, "Studies on the Chemical Nature of the Substance Inducing Transformation of Pneumococcal Types. Induction of Transformation by a Deox- yribonucleic Acid Fraction Isolated from Pneumococcus Type III," Journal of Experimental Medi- cine 79 (1944): 137-158. 11. J. D. Watson and F. H. C. Crick, "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids," Nature 171 (1953): 740-741. 12. S. Cohen et al., "Construction of Biologically Functional Bacterial Plasmids in vitro," Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 70 (1973): 3240. 13. U.S. Congress, OTA, Biotechnology. 14. Kenneth B. Lee, Jr. and G. Steven Burrill, "Biotech 95: Reform, Restructure, Renewal," Ernst and Young, Palo Alto, Calif., 1994. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. Unless otherwise noted, amounts are given in U.S. dollars. 17. U.S. Congress, OTA, Biotechnology. 18. Lee and Burrill, "Biotech 95."

OCR for page 97
122 Marshaling Technology for Development 19. Peter J. Russell, Fundamentals of Genetics (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 313. 20. Pieter Lucas et al., "European Biotech 94: A New Industry Emerges," Ernst and Young, Brussels, Belgium, 1994. 21. Tony Going and Peter Winter, "Canadian Biotech '94: Capitalizing on Potential," Ernst and Young, Thornhill, Ont., 1994. 22. James Manuso, report given at the annual meeting of the New York Biotechnology Associa- tion, New York, N.Y., October 21, 1994; Will Mitchell, Thomas Roehl, and John Campbell, "Trends in Pharmaceutical Sales, R&D, and Profitability in the Japanese Pharmaceutical Industry before and after Ministry of Health and Welfare Pharmaceutical Reimbursement Price Adjustments, 1981-1992," unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan School of Business and Kelo University Medical School, Tokyo, revised February 14, 1994. 23. Anonymous, "World Biology Center," Science 266 (1994): 222. 24. M. E. Watanabe, "Hong Kong Expands Its Biotech Effort despite Eventual Chinese Take- over," Genetic Engineering News 10 (1990): 23. 25. Dean H. Hamer and Shain-dow Kung, Biotechnology in China (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989). 26. Jon Cohen, "Bumps on the Vaccine Road," Science 265 (1994): 1371-1373. 27. Anonymous, "New UK Biotech Center," Biotechnology Notes 7 (1994): 5. 28. Rachel Nowak, "Plans for Tunisian Institute Move Ahead," Science 266 (1994): 359-360. 29. BioLink: The Quarterly Newsletter of the Agricultural Biotechnology for Sustainable Prn- ductivity Project, Vol. 1, no. 3 (1993). v ~ 30. E. DaSilva, African Network of Microbiological Resources Centres (MlRCENs). Biofertilizer Production and Use (Paris: UNESCO, UNDP, June 1993). 31. U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Marine Biotechnology and Aquaculture," draft report, USDA, Washington, D.C., February 7, 1994. 32. Lee and Burrill, "Biotech 95." 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid. 35. Jon Cohen, "AIDS Vaccines: Are Researchers Racing toward Success, or Crawling?" Sci- ence 265 (1994): 1373-1375. 36. Cohen, "Bumps on the Vaccine Road." 37. N. Regina Rabinovich et al., "Vaccine Technologies: View to the Future," Science 265 (1994): 1401-1404. 38. Cohen, "Bumps on the Vaccine Road." 39. Jules Musing, speech given at the annual meeting of the New York Biotechnology Associa- tion, New York, N.Y., September 21, 1994. 40. Lee and Burrill, "Biotech 95." 41. Ann Gibbons, "Childrens' Vaccine Initiative Stumbles," Science 265: 1376-1377. 42. Symposium on Science and Technology in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, February 14-15, 1994. 43. National Research Council, Plant Biotechnology Research for Developing Countries (Wash- ington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990). 44. BioLink. 45. Lee and Burrill, "Biotech 95." 46. U.S. Congress, OTA, Biotechnology. 47. Jack R. Coulson et al., "Notes on Biological Control of Pests in China, 1979," in "Biological Control of Pests in China," China Program, Scientific and Technical Exchange Division, OICD, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1982. 48. Anonymous, "Virus Resistant Plant Remains on the Court," Biotechnology Notes 7 (1994): 1-2. 49. Ibid. 50. Anne Simon Moffat, "Mapping the Sequence of Disease Resistance," Sclence 265 (1994): 1804-1805.

OCR for page 97
RITA CoL~L 123 51. John Lee Compton, speech given at the annual meeting of the New York Biotechnology Association, New York, N.Y., October 20, 1994. 52. Jocelyn Kaiser, "Lighting Up New Genes," Science 266 (1994): 735. 53. K. Mulongoy et al., "Biofertilizers: Agronomic and Environmental Impacts and Economics," in Biotechnology Economic and Social Aspects. Issuesfor Developing Countries, ed. E. J. DaSilva, C. Rutledge, and A. Sasson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 55-69. 54. Raymond A. Zilinskas et al., "A Draft Report on the Global Challenge of Marine Biotechnol- ogy: A Status Report on Marine Biotechnology in the United States, Japan and Other Countries," National Sea Grant College Program and Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, Md., 1994. 55. Food and Agriculture Organization, "Aquaculture Production 1985-1991," Fisheries Circular No. 815, Rev. 5, FAO, Rome, June 1993. 56. U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Marine Biotechnology and Aquaculture Report." 57. Tony Emerson, "It's Over for Fishing, Here," Newsweek, April 25, 1994, 31-35; Anne Swardson, "Net Loss: Fishing Decimating Oceans' Unlimited Bounty," Washington Post, August 14, 1994, A28. 58. Zilinskas et al., "A Draft Report." 31. 59. Kathryn Barry Stelljes, "Diagnosing the Tough Ones," Agricultural Research 42 (1994): 31. 60. Anonymous, "Promising Biotech Vaccine to be Tested," Agricultural Research 42 (1994): 61. I. Y. Hamdan and J. C. Senez, "The Economic Viability of Single-Cell Protein (SCP) Produc- tion in the Twenty-First Century," in Biotechnology: Economic and Social Aspects, 142-164. 62. Anna Maria Gillis," Bringing Back the Land," Bioscience 41 (1991): 68-71. 63. National Research Council, In Situ Bioremediation: When Does It Work? (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993). 64. Lee and Burrill, "Biotech 95." 65. National Research Council, In Situ Bioremediation. 66. David T. Gibson and Gary S. Sayler, Scientific Foundations of Bioremediation: Current Status and Future Needs (Washington, D.C.: American Academy of Microbiology, 1992). 67. Marlise Simons, "East Europe Still Choking on Air of the Past," New York Times, November 3, 1994, Al, A14. 68. Going and Winter, "Canadian Biotech 94." 69. Lucas et al., "European Biotech 94." 70. Ronald M. Atlas, "Bioaugmentation to Enhance Microbial Remediation," in Biotreatment of Industrial and Ha ardous Waste, ed. Morris A. Levin and Michael A. Gealt (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1993), 19-37. 71. Daryl F. Dwyer, "Development of Genetically Engineered Microorganisms and Testing of Their Fate and Activity in Microcosms," in Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Biosafety Results of Field Tests of Genetically Modified Plants and Microorganisms, Goslar, Germany, May 11-14, 1992, ed. R. Casper and J. Landsmann (Braunschweig, Germany: Biologische Bundesanstalt fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft). 72. Steven D. Aust, "Degradation of Environmental Pollutants by Phanerochaete ch7ysosporium," Microbial Ecology 20 (1990): 197-209; David P. Barr and Steven D. Aust, "Mechanisms White Rot Fungi Use to Degrade Pollutants," Environmental Science and Technology 28 (1994): 78A-87A. 73. P. H. Pritchard, "Effectiveness and Regulatory Issues in Oil Spill Bioremediation; Experi- ences with the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Alaska," in Levin and Gealt, Biotreatment of Industrial and Ha ardous Waste, 269-307. 74. Daniel Owen, "Bioremediation of Marine Oil Spills: Scientific Validity and Operational Constraints," in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program Technical Semi- nar, June 12-14, 1991 (Vancouver: Environment Canada, 1991), 119-130. 75. Ibid. 76. Morris A. Levin and Michael A. Gealt, "Overview of Biotreatment Practices and Promises,"

OCR for page 97
124 Marshaling Technology for Development in Levin and Gealt, Biotreatment of Industrial and Hazardous Waste, 1-18; Ronald M. Atlas, "Bioaugmentation to Enhance Microbial Remediation," in Levin and Gealt, Biotreatment of Indus- trial and Hazardous Waste, 19-37. 77. Atlas,"Bioaugmentation." 78. D. J. Roberts et al., "Field-scale Anaerobic Bioremediation of Dioseb-contaminated Soils," in Levin and Gealt, Biotreatment of Industrial and Ha ardous Waste, 219-244. 79. Don Comis, "Farming Ragweed and Other Plants to Clean Up Toxic Metals," Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., May 1994. 80. Anonymous, "Used Sea Sweep Being Recycled," R&D Magazine, October 1994, 13. 81. Anonymous, "Ag Byproducts Could Clean Wastewater," Agricultural Research 42 (1994): 23. 82. Jo Thomas, "Sludge Still Causes a Stink in Sunset Park," New York Times, October 3, 1994, B 1, B8. 83. Piero M. Armenante, "Bioreactors," in Levin and Gealt, Biotreatment of Industrial and Haz- ardous Waste, 65-112. 84. Simons, "East Europe." 85. "Envirogen Awarded NSF Innovation Contract for Biodegradation of Ozone-depleting Chemicals," press release, Envirogen, February 15, 1994. 86. Geoffrey Lean and Don Hinrichsen, WWF Atlas of the Environment, 2d ed. (London: HarperPerennial, 1994). 87. Ibid. 88. M. D. de Jong, P. C. Scheepens, and J. C. Zadoks, "Risk Analysis for Biological Control: A Dutch Case Study in Biocontrol of Prunus serotina by the Fungus Chondrostereum purpureum," Plant Disease 74 (1990): 189- 194. 89. Robin Lambert Graham, Monica G. Turner, and Virginia H. Dale, "How Increasing CO2 and Climate Change Affect Forests," BioScience 40 (1990): 575-587. 90. Ibid. 91. "Effects of CO2 and Climate Change on Forest Trees," Environmental Research Lab, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Ore., April 1993. 92. Anonymous, "Halophytes May Offer Many Environmental Benefits," R&D Magazine, Octo- ber 1994, 124. 93. Zilinskas et al., "A Draft Report." 94. Colin Ratledge, "Biotechnology: The Socio-economic Revolution: A Synoptic View of the World Status of Biotechnology," in DaSilva et al., Biotechnology: Economic and Social Aspects, 1- 22; F. Rosillo-Calle et al., "Bioethanol Production: Economic and Social Considerations in Failures and Successes," in DaSilva et al., Biotechnology: Economic and Social Aspects, 23-54; M. Watanabe, "Thermophilic Biodigestion Yields a Keratinase Enzyme," Genetic Engineering News 12 (1992): 13. 95. "Fossil Energy Biotechnology: A Research Needs Assessment Final Report," Office of Pro- gram Analysis, Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., Novem- ber 1993. 96. M. Watanabe, "Molecular Motors Drive Multidisciplinary Research Quest," Scientist 7 (1993): 14. 97. National Research Council, STAR 21: Strategic Technologies for the Army of the Twenty-first Century (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992). 98. Michael Freemantle, "Antigen Monolayer Electrode May Lead to Reusable Immunosensors," Chemical and Engineering News 72 (1994): 16-17. 99. Zilinskas et al., "A Draft Report." 100. Ibid. 101. National Research Council, STAR 21. 102. Ibid. 103. Ibid.

OCR for page 97
RITA COLWELL 125 104. Watanabe, "Molecular Motors," Scientist 7 (1993): 14. 105. David M. Barbano, "Fact Sheet on BST," Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., undated; Dale E. Bauman, "Human Health Aspects of Bovine Somatotropin," Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 1994. 106. Keith Schneider, "Despite Critics, Dairy Farmers Increase Use of a Growth Hormone in COWS," New York Times, October 10, 1994, 26. 107. Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, Perils amidst the Promise: Ecological Risks of Transgenic Crops in A Global Market (Washington, D.C.: Union of Concerned Scientists, 1993). 108. Julie Ann Miller, "Biosciences and Ecological Integrity," Bioscience 41 (1991): 206-210. 109. Rissler and Mellon, Perils. 110. Casper and Landsmann, Proceedings. 111. UNIDO, "Voluntary Code Of Conduct for the Release of Organisms into the Environment (with Annotations)," UNIDO Secretariat for the Informal UNIDO/UNEP/WHO/FAO Working Group on Biosafety, April 1992. 112. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "Interim Guidance on the Voluntary Labeling of Mild and Milk Products from Cows that Have Not Been Treated with Recombinant Bovine Somatotro- pin," Docket No. 94D-0025, February 7, 1994. 113. Richard Stone, "Analysis Questions BST's Safety to Cows," Science 266 (1994): 355. 114. Thomas Hoban and Patricia Kendall, "Public Perceptions of the Benefits and Risks of Bio- technology," in Agricultural Biotechnology: A Public Conversation about Risk, ed. June Fessenden MacDonald (Ithaca, N.Y.: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, 1993), 73-86. 115. Will Erwin, "Risk Assessment: A Farmer's Perspective," in MacDonald, Agricultural Bio- technology, 65-72. 116. Beena Pandey and Sachin Chaturvedi, "Vermiculture: Nature's Bioreactors for Soil Improve- ment and Waste Treatment," Biotechnology and Development Monitor 16 (1993): 8-9. 117. Dennis W. Stevenson, "Cycad Specialist Group," Species 21-22 (1993-1994): 102. 118. Anonymous, "Technical Training on Tissue Culture," Biotechnology and Development Moni- tor 16 (1993): 9. 119. "New Malaria Vaccine Is Effective in Mice," New York Times, October 11, 1994, C7; Cohen, "Bumps on the Vaccine Road"; Ruth S. Nussenzweig and Carole A. Long, "Malaria Vaccines: Multiple Targets," Science 265 (1994): 1381-1383. 120. Musing, speech to New York Biotechnology Association. 121. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, "Science and Society" (newsletter), Nos. 40, 41 (1994). 122. Lean and Hinrichsen, WWF Atlas. 123. Simons, "East Europe." 124. David E. Sanger, "World Bank Approves Loan to Help Russia Clean Up Pollution," New York Times, November 9, 1994, A6. 125. Ratledge,"Biotechnology." 126. R. Barker, "Scientific, Social, and Economic Implications of Biotechnology for Developing Countries," in Biotechnology: Enhancing Research on Tropical Crops in Africa, ed. G. Thottappilly et al. (Ibadan, Nigeria: CTA/IITA, 1992), 331-336. 127. Anonymous, "Genetic Engineering of Pyrethrins: Early Warning for East African Pyrethrum Farmers," RAFI Communique, June 1992. 128. National Research Council, Applications of Biotechnology to Traditional Fermented Foods. 129. Barker, "Scientific, Social, and Economic Implications of Biotechnology"; Andrew Pollack, "U.S. Is Shifting Trade Emphasis Away from Japan: A Focus on Rest of Asia, Latin Nations," New York Times, November 4, 1994, D1, D2. 130. Gabrielle Josephine Persley, "World Bank Supports Agricultural Biotech," in Biotechnology Report 1994/95 (London: Campden Publishing Ltd., 1994),38-39. 131. International Development Research Centre, The Crucible Group, People, Plants, and Pat

OCR for page 97
126 Marshaling Technology for Development ents: The Impact of Intellectual Property on Trade, Plant Biodive7 sity, and Rural Society (Ottawa: IDRC, 1994). 132. Christopher Joyce, Earthly Goods: Medicine Hunting in the Rainforest (Boston: Little, Brown, 1994); Kelly J. Kennedy and Charles Zerner, "What Is Equity in Biodiversity Exploration? Institu- tional Approaches to the Return of Benefits to Developing Nations, Communities, and Persons," paper presented to the Symposium on Biological Diversity (SWISSAID, WWF Suisse, and VVWF International), Berne, October 20-21, 1994. 133. Josephine R. Axt et al., "Biotechnology, Indigenous Peoples, and Intellectual Property Rights," Congressional Research Service Report to Congress, 1993. 134. IDRC, "The Crucible Group." 135. Georgina Mace and Simon Stuart, "Draft IUCN Red List Categories, Version 2.2," Species 21-22 (1993-1994): 13-24. 136. Joseph Henry Vogel, Genes for Sale: P7^ivati ation as a Conservation Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). 137. Lyle Glowka et al., "A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 30," IUCN-World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland, 1994; Kennedy and Zerner, "What Is Equity in Biological Diversity?"; UNCED, "Biological Diversity Convention: A Statement of Principle," International Bioindust7~ Forum, August 1993. 138. Daniel H. Janzen et al., "Research Management Policies: Permits for Collecting and Research in the Tropics," in Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development, ed. Walter V. Reid et al. (Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute, 1993), 131-157; Kennedy and Zerner, "What is Equity in Biodiversity Exploration?"; Daniel M. Putterman, Trade and the Biodiversity Convention," Nature 371 (1994): 553-554. 139. Sarah A. Laird, "Contracts for Biodiversity Prospecting," in Reid et al., Biodiversity Pros- pecting, 99-130. 140. Silvio Valle, "Enabling Biodiversity," Bio/Technology 12 (1994): 1040. 141. Russ Hoyle, "Unfortunately, the Biodiversity Treaty Is Dead," BiolTechnology 12 (1994): 968-969; Vogel, "Genes for Sale." 142. "UNCED Biological Diversity Convention"; Harold A. Mooney and Giorgio Bernardi, eds. Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment. Scope 44 (Chichester, En- gland: John Wiley, 1990); Rissler and Mellon, "Perils amidst the Promise"; M. Sussman et al., eds., The Release of Genetically-engineered Micro-organisms (London: Academic Press, 1988); UNIDO, "Voluntary Code of Conduct." 143. Casper and Landsmann, Proceedings. 144. Mike Ward, "Analyzing EU and U.S. Agbiotech Field Trials," BiolTechnology 12 (1994): 967-968. 145. UNIDO, "Voluntary Code of Conduct." 146. Anonymous, "Biotechnology Company Will Sell Bio-engineered Human Proteins to Infant Formula Manufacturers," RAFI Communique, June 1993. 147. Roderick C. T. Scheffer and Dorine Mulder, "Regulatory Affairs," in Biotech Opportunities in Europe: Establishing and Operating a Health Care Biotech Venture, ed. Rene V. van der Kwaak and George J. M. Hersbach (The Hague: Publimarket Communications Management, 1993), 103- 116. 148. Steve Sternberg, "Bottleneck Keeps Existing Vaccine Off the Market," Science 266 (1994): 22-23. 149. Constance Holden, "Weighing HIV Vaccine Trials," Science 265 (1994): 735. 150. Bertus Haverkort and Wim Hiemstra, "Differentiating the Role of Biotechnology," Biotech- nology and Development Monitor 16 (1993): 3-5. 151. Nick Raby, speech given at the annual meeting of the New York Biotechnology Association, New York, N.Y., September 21, 1994.

OCR for page 97
RITA CoL~L 127 152. Daniel M. Putterman, Trade and the Biodiversity Convention," Nature 371 (1994): 553-554. 153. Hoban and Kendall, "Public Perceptions"; Anonymous, "Canadians Delay Using BST!" Bio- technology Notes (U.S. Department of Agriculture) 7 (1994): 2. 154. National Research Council, Plant Biotechnology Research for Developing Countries (Wash- ington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990).