Treasures of Biotechnology, Democracy and Bio-entrepreneurship

The members of the UN General Assembly have adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development along with the set of global goals. These goals such as “zero hunger”, “no poverty” “sustainable cities and communities” seem ambitious as the problems we are facing today are huge. For example, more than 700 million people still live in extreme poverty -surviving on less than US$1.90 a day. Almost 40 million people globally were living with HIV in 2017. Indeed, AIDS is the second most common cause of death among adolescents. 5 billion people are projected to live in cities by 2030 and this will make a pressure on the resources and public health. It is expected that by 2050, the equivalent of almost three planets could be required to provide the natural resources needed to sustain current lifestyles.

Yet, we have the opportunities as well: Science and technology. Now we are going through the fourth industrial revolution, which is characterised by "the fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between physical, digital and biological spheres", as described by Klaus Schwab. For example, Internet of Things (IoT) will lead to the real-time connection of objects to internet through sensors and cameras to collect, send and act on data for sustainability and personalization. The availability of Internet of Skills systems such as virtual reality and augmented reality (VR/AR) will help reduce the need for human travel for work and business. Quantum computing will foster the efficiency in processes and organizations. 3D printing is already on its way of revolution in commercial and medical fields but its impact on science will likely boost new discoveries in the future (Walker & Humphries, 2019).

In the meanwhile genetic engineering and biotechnology will expand its borders to fuel heal and feed the world. The central dogma is universal, and once we crack the genetic code, the genomic sequence of diverse species have been exposed. Let’s take human genome for example. The first draft of the human genome sequence has been released in 2000. The Human Genome Project (‘HGP’) cost $3.8 billion, and this may sound expensive until we realize that it ultimately led to $796 billion of economic impact (Economic Impact of the Human Genome Project, 2011, Battelle Memorial Institute). Well this is not new, we all know that biotechnology is something good, right? But the question is: Do we really benefit from these advancements as desired?

Let’s start this with a very concrete example, but let me tell you: I will not choose this example from the developing world, where the lack of biotechnology is obvious. I will choose a very concrete example from the US and that is the case of Insulin. Before that let me explain the first discovery of insulin. When inventor Frederick Banting discovered insulin in 1920s, he objected to put his name on the patent as he thought it was unethical for a doctor to profit from a discovery that would save lives of the patients (Hegele (2017), Insulin affordability, Lancet). Following this, 60 years later, the genetically engineered version of insulin has been produced in bacteria and marketed in the 1980s: Developed by Genentech, Humulin is the first genetically engineered drug. Despite these, now after 100 years, the prices of Insulin continue to the rise (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Reimbursement trends for insulin products from 1991 to 2014 (Luo et. al., 2015, JAMA Internal Medicine ).

Why? Long story short: The treasures of biotechnology -mostly restricted to big-budget academic labs and big pharma companies. But not everybody is willing to accept this: For example, Counter Culture Labs, developing the first open source protocol to produce insulin. This will help make affordable insulin available.

In parallel, thanks to the increasing trends which will likely boost the democratization of science (Figure 2). Thus, not only big-budget academic labs or large companies but everyone should be able to practice biotechnology. In this context, the question is what can be done to further promote these mostly bottom-up movements and thus democratisation of biotechnology?

Figure 2. Increasing trends will likely contribute to democratization of science and biotechnology

I believe one way to promote the democratisation of biotechnology is to foster entrepreneurship in biotechnology. But following the first biotech revolution which started in the Bay Area in 1970s, we need a next generation biotech start up and this should come from the youth, the undergrad students of life sciences- but not only PhD students, postdocs or senior scientists. Indeed, it seems like today we may expect a biotech entrepreneur anybody other than an undergrad life science student. For example, listed among the top innovators under 35 (MIT Technology Review, 2016), Sandra Rey, the founder of the biotech start up company Glowee, is a young woman who does not have solid background in biotechnology. This is the moment we have to think twice. Perhaps, in the current academic settings and curricula for life sciences, we are doing something wrong. Perhaps there is a too much emphasis on the technique than thought and thus we are missing opportunities, blocking innovation and creativity. Awareness is weak and opportunities are very limited. Indeed I have the impression that biotechnology entrepreneurship is still perceived as post-graduate training, when I review the following article. Most of the time in the stage of masters or doctorate is considered for such training and that stage is too late. Not only a Harvard (BS) graduate such as Anne Wojcicki, the co-founder of 23andMe, but basically much more young life scientists with a BS degree who are into biotech start up are required. And this would be possible by an encouraging university curriculum to sculpt an entrepreneurial student mind in the undergrad level of life science and biotechnology education.

Now let’s remember the computer hackers, the promoters of digital revolution in 1970s. They were young. Indeed quite young. Even Bill Gates said, according to Wired magazine in 2010, if he were a teenager today, he’d be hacking biology. Thus, it is time for the next generation biotech start up revolution which should come from the youth and we have to promote it for democratic and sustainable world.