Eric S. Langer, President and Managing Partner, BioPlan Associates
"Twenty-five years has brought a lot of change in public perception of biotechnology. On one hand, we can point to facts like
the following: a disproportionate percentage of pharma pipeline products are now biotech products; biosimilars are seen as
key to healthcare reform; Big Pharma is now really Big Bio/Pharma; major university education programs in biotechnology around
the globe are growing far faster than many mainstream science curricula; and biopharma continues to be a strong growth segment
even in a down economy.
"Yet, cartoons continue to portray biopharma as creating genetically modified mice/tomatoes, and popular movies continue to
show biotech as a modern-day Frankenstein. So, although we may have replaced Jeremy Rifkin-style activism, we still have concern
for the future. This incredibly complex science has the potential to improve healthcare for each of us. So the tension between
optimism for the future, and fear of the unknown will keep policymakers, cartoonists, and everyday people on the edge of their
seats."
Krish Venkat, Principal, AnnVen Research
"Biotech companies do not have the time or appropriate resources to educate the public. A better approach would be to support
national and local biotech organizations to work with public and environmentalists to help them understand the immense benefits
of genetic engineering and biotechnology."
John Curling, President, John Curling Consulting AB
"The 1988 article is interesting. I believe it describes a steady-state between the biotechnology/medical science industries
and the general public. As science and technology probe deeper into our understanding of life, the complexity of our explanations
or models for biological existence increases. How, then can the public keep pace with the current thesis? The answer is that
we can't—we are always behind and the understanding gap is constant. To protect ourselves, we tend to live by the Precautionary
Principle, which notes that, 'When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible
but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm.' We are healthily skeptical. The press reports 'news'
but generally has a poor understanding of the timeline from breakthrough to medical product.
Our industry needs to be cognizant of the dynamics of R&D and its translation to the benefit to humankind. For example, gene
therapy was described as early as 1972, but it has taken scientific prowess until December 2011 to demonstrate beneficial
treatment of Haemophilia B. A possible conclusion is that 'new biology' is still just that."
REFERENCE
1. L. Anderson, BioPharm Intl.
1 (1), pp. 16-17 (1988).
|
