- Email: [email protected]
The spinks sphinx
The Spinks sphinx
The latest report from ACARD (Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development) jointly published in April with the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Royal Society on UK biotechnology,* portrays predictably the sad story of Britain again failing to take full commercial and industrial advantage of new technologies to which she has contributed so successfully at the primary research level. Under the chairmanship of Dr Alfred Spinks, a former Director of Research at ICI, the report quite rightly points to the difficulty in identifying a source of funds to propel research projects to the stage where commercial development can begin, the so-called 'predevelopment gap'. The working party report identifies some of the special problems in the field of biotechnology, such as the absence of a traditional industry, differing requirements for bulk chemicals and high value-added fine chemicals, a disparate set of constituent disciplines, the division of responsibilities between so many government departments and Research Councils, and a lack of sufficient venture in the UK. A number of recommendations are set out for the UK government if it is to overcome the national dilemma of fully exploiting new technologies. Many of the proposals are highly sensible but will inevitably lead to questions as to why they were
*'Biotechnology: Report of a joint working party', Her Majesty's Stationary Office (HMSO), London, £3, ISBN 0116308168.
not proposed earlier. Both West Germany and Japan launched major industrial programmes for biotechnology a decade ago. Much time therefore has already been lost. It is proposed that nearly £40M of public money should be spent on development over the next 5 years, since the working party concluded that private industry was unlikely to be able to make this investment unaided. £3M per year is the minimum amount envisaged, to be funded through a Joint Committee for Biotechnology from the Research Councils under a coordinating Director to stimulate new research projects in universities. A further £2M of capital expenditure would be required at a number of centres of excellence. In addition to this, the report also recommends the establishment of an interdepartmental Steering Group for Biotechnology, costing £2.5M annually, to coordinate the activities of government departments and to develop a programme of industrial research and development. The third major proposal requiring government finance is for the National Enterprise Board, in conjunction with the National Research and Development Corporation, to establish a research-oriented biotechnology company similar to the entrepreneurial ones recently established in the USA and Europe which have private venture capital. It is envisaged that such a company would employ 50 scientists and cost £2M per year to run, at least initially for a period of 5 years. This suggestion will surely start a hot debate within political circles since the present UK government is reluctant to fund public enterprises of this kind. There
is a suspicion too that the working party is not too clear about its own aims. It dismisses copying the German federal biotechnology research centre GBF (Gesellschaft fur Biotechnologische Forschung mbH) at Braunschweig-St/Sckheim because: 'Large centres can become very conservative, may not focus adequately on commercial value and far from encouraging multidisciplinary work may become rigid in their internal disciplinary boundaries.' However, elsewhere in the report it states: 'We have been impressed by the way private venture capital has supported the establishment of companies such as Cetus in the USA and are disturbed to find that there are no similar initiatives in the United Kingdom.' But biotechnology is going to be big business, if we believe everything else in the Spinks report. Since several US venture companies, such as Cetus, and GBF each employs 250 people, shouldn't the UK biotechnology enterprise be more ambitious and far-sighted? The rest of the report makes interesting reading and contains other useful suggestions. As with other high technologies, politicians will make or break this one. Let us hope the errors of the EEC over levies on isoglucose
(Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 1979, 1, 66) are a thing of the past and the opportunies presented to UK biotechnology are fully capitalized for the ultimate benefit of the international growth in biotechnological ideas and developments. The Spinks report would then be remembered like the Harmaklis sphinx, personifying the rising sun and as a symbol of resurrection.
Chris J. Rawlins
Enzyme Microb. Technol., 1980, Vol. 2, July 253
The latest report from ACARD (Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development) jointly published in April with the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Royal Society on UK biotechnology,* portrays predictably the sad story of Britain again failing to take full commercial and industrial advantage of new technologies to which she has contributed so successfully at the primary research level. Under the chairmanship of Dr Alfred Spinks, a former Director of Research at ICI, the report quite rightly points to the difficulty in identifying a source of funds to propel research projects to the stage where commercial development can begin, the so-called 'predevelopment gap'. The working party report identifies some of the special problems in the field of biotechnology, such as the absence of a traditional industry, differing requirements for bulk chemicals and high value-added fine chemicals, a disparate set of constituent disciplines, the division of responsibilities between so many government departments and Research Councils, and a lack of sufficient venture in the UK. A number of recommendations are set out for the UK government if it is to overcome the national dilemma of fully exploiting new technologies. Many of the proposals are highly sensible but will inevitably lead to questions as to why they were
*'Biotechnology: Report of a joint working party', Her Majesty's Stationary Office (HMSO), London, £3, ISBN 0116308168.
not proposed earlier. Both West Germany and Japan launched major industrial programmes for biotechnology a decade ago. Much time therefore has already been lost. It is proposed that nearly £40M of public money should be spent on development over the next 5 years, since the working party concluded that private industry was unlikely to be able to make this investment unaided. £3M per year is the minimum amount envisaged, to be funded through a Joint Committee for Biotechnology from the Research Councils under a coordinating Director to stimulate new research projects in universities. A further £2M of capital expenditure would be required at a number of centres of excellence. In addition to this, the report also recommends the establishment of an interdepartmental Steering Group for Biotechnology, costing £2.5M annually, to coordinate the activities of government departments and to develop a programme of industrial research and development. The third major proposal requiring government finance is for the National Enterprise Board, in conjunction with the National Research and Development Corporation, to establish a research-oriented biotechnology company similar to the entrepreneurial ones recently established in the USA and Europe which have private venture capital. It is envisaged that such a company would employ 50 scientists and cost £2M per year to run, at least initially for a period of 5 years. This suggestion will surely start a hot debate within political circles since the present UK government is reluctant to fund public enterprises of this kind. There
is a suspicion too that the working party is not too clear about its own aims. It dismisses copying the German federal biotechnology research centre GBF (Gesellschaft fur Biotechnologische Forschung mbH) at Braunschweig-St/Sckheim because: 'Large centres can become very conservative, may not focus adequately on commercial value and far from encouraging multidisciplinary work may become rigid in their internal disciplinary boundaries.' However, elsewhere in the report it states: 'We have been impressed by the way private venture capital has supported the establishment of companies such as Cetus in the USA and are disturbed to find that there are no similar initiatives in the United Kingdom.' But biotechnology is going to be big business, if we believe everything else in the Spinks report. Since several US venture companies, such as Cetus, and GBF each employs 250 people, shouldn't the UK biotechnology enterprise be more ambitious and far-sighted? The rest of the report makes interesting reading and contains other useful suggestions. As with other high technologies, politicians will make or break this one. Let us hope the errors of the EEC over levies on isoglucose
(Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 1979, 1, 66) are a thing of the past and the opportunies presented to UK biotechnology are fully capitalized for the ultimate benefit of the international growth in biotechnological ideas and developments. The Spinks report would then be remembered like the Harmaklis sphinx, personifying the rising sun and as a symbol of resurrection.
Chris J. Rawlins
Enzyme Microb. Technol., 1980, Vol. 2, July 253