With the theme "Biotechnology Opportunities for Developing Countries," the formal conference started off with Dr. Edgar DaSilva reading a backgrounder on Asian Biotechnology Conferences written by Dr. Nagesh Kumar, director-general of Research and Information system for Developing Countries (RIS).
The first two Asian biotechnology conferences were held under the aegis of RIS in India. At the end of the backgrounder, Dr. DaSilva unveiled and distributed Vol. 9, No.1 of RIS’ Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, entitled "Bioethics in Asia."
In his welcome message, Dr. William Padolina, deputy director-general of the International Rice Research Institute, said that although we are making headway in biotechnology, we must not forget that we are confronted by legal, ethical, political and commercial issues. These demand a high level of accountability and transparency.
Dr. Hubert Gijzen gave an idea of UNESCO’s interest in biotechnology. In her keynote speech, Science and Technology Secretary Dr. Estrella Alabastro spoke on the growing importance of biotechnology all over the world. She pointed out that although the United States is presently the acknowledged leader in biotechnology, and that in 2005 the EU had the highest ever increase in biotechnology revenue growth, the Asia-Pacific region showed the highest percentage revenue growth in biotechnology. Citing a UN report, she said biotechnology offers unparalleled growth opportunities. With regard to success factors, she pointed out that information dissemination and partnerships at many levels are crucial for success in biotechnology endeavors.
Enabling policies are crucial for biotechnology initiatives to take off. Dr. Gurinder Shahi, session chairman on "World Perspectives on Biocommercialization," gave an overview of global trends and opportunities on biobusiness, a term he and his colleagues coined. He pointed out that keys to success in biobusiness are smart people, smart ideas, smart money and smart alliances. Although Asia is well-placed to be a major player for value creation, the most difficult part of the success equation seems to be finding smart money, i.e., funding of start-ups before the rest recognizes the potential.
Dr. S. R. Rao, adviser to the Department of Biotechnology of India’s Ministry of Science and Technology, who works day-to-day on creating value through biotechnology in India, presented an evaluation of Indian policies and implementation strategies. He said that for policies to be effective, they must be backed up with coherent implementation strategies.
Atty. Peter Tabor, an international economist of the US Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, described the oversight of biotech crops in the United States. This oversight is based principally on the concept of substantial equivalence.
Dr. Saturnina Halos presented the Philippine government’s policies which guide the science-based approach in the utilization of biotech crops in the Philippines. Crucial to the Philippine system is the role of its Committee on Biosafety. The policies in place have permitted the Philippines to become the first country in Asia to commercially grow a biotech crop for food and feed, Bt. corn.
Dr. Patricio Faylon, executive director of the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development of the Department of Science and Technology, presented enabling mechanisms for the promotion of agricultural biotechnology in the Philippines.
For all its potential, biotechnology must be utilized in a safe and responsible manner. Dr. Edgar DaSilva, session chairman on Essential Issues, pointed out the need for sustainable development emerging from the use of ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just and culturally appropriate policies and practices. Although "biosafety" is not defined in the text of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, Dr. Wendy Craig, of the Biosafety Unit of the International Center for Genetic Bioengineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB), presented a comprehensive set of questions to help assess the safety/risk of biotech crops.
In addition, by giving a summary overview of biosafety policies around the world, Craig demonstrated how GMO labeling is likely to be the next battleground in the arena of international trade, and further, how ICGEB is providing assistance to developing countries in this and many other biosafety issues.
A program to assist developing countries develop regulations and policies which are practical, workable, appropriate and science-based involves the International Food Policy Research Institute, the Danforth Center, Michigan Sate University and Western Michigan University.
Dr. Hector Quemada presented ongoing activities and challenges facing this Program for Biosafety Systems. In particular, one component – the biotechnology/biodiversity grants – generates data that should be useful for risk assessments in developing countries, but the design and interpretation of these experiments, as well as their impacts on regulatory policy, should be thoughtfully and judiciously applied. Pollution from oil spills, distillery wastes, landfill leachates, etc. must be addressed. Dr. Ernesto del Rosario and his colleagues at the University of the Philippines in Los Baños described potential solutions using biotechnology to address these problems.
Medical biotechnology took center stage in the session chaired by Dr. Jaime Montoya, executive director of the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. A huge percentage of the global gross national product is spent on healthcare.
Citing 2001 figures, Dr. Gurinder Shahi presented numbers showing that globally, healthcare accounts for 9.1 percent of GNP. Biotechnology claims an increasing percentage of this sector. But the growth is not in medical biotechnology alone.
An optimist, who sees a half-full glass instead of a half-empty glass, Dr. Shahi sees potential in many aspects of biotechnology. He sees the spinning off of agricultural biotechnology into pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, cosmeceuticals, specialty foods, industrial feedstocks, etc. To maximize potential, he described a game plan whereby the objective is to create "summit opportunities" (high-value products) from "cloud opportunities" (ideas which have not yet been converted to commercially viable products) rather than compete based on price alone in ubiquitous well-known commodities.
In the hunt for converting cloud opportunities into summit opportunities are Dr. Nina Gloriani Barzaga and her colleagues at the University of the Philippines and Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences who are into the creation of plant-made pharmaceuticals. Dr. Barzaga described the group’s ongoing quest to make edible vaccines to control Salmonella typhimurium, HIV and rabies.
Also in the same hunt for summit opportunities is the group of Dr. Filipinas F. Natividad. Dr. Natividad quoted a 2002 report from the University of Toronto which lists molecular diagnostics as number one in approaches to improve health. She discussed the utility, advantages and disadvantages, and the regulatory approval process for molecular diagnostics and shared her group’s experience while working on a polymerase chain reaction-based test for the dengue virus. She also pointed out the huge growth potential in the use of molecular diagnostics in pharmacogenetics.
Two major issues, intellectual property rights and ethics, were covered in the session on Enabling Issues run by Dr. Reynaldo Ebora, executive director of the Philippine Council for Advanced Science and Technology Research and Development. Dr. Sachin Chaturvedi brought out major concerns regarding plant variety protection, patents, protection of traditional knowledge and folklore, access to biodiversity and benefit sharing.
With respect to patents, there is concern that patents granted may be too broad. In some instances, patents which cover research tools wield an extremely large influence on downstream products.
With respect to seeds, Dr. Chaturvedi reported that seed firms in India find it difficult to access relevant genes as their sequences have been patented. Since licensing fees are not regulated and can be incredibly expensive, the combined lack of access to desired gene sequences and high licensing fees place constraints on wider utilization of the technology.
With respect to biodiversity and benefit-sharing, groups such as the Like-Minded Groups of Mega Diverse Countries (LMMC) may need to pursue legally binding instruments at appropriate international fora. The issues raised by Dr. Chaturvedi’s presentation suggest that this area may need to be discussed in more detail at the Fourth Asian Biotechnology Conference, or at some earlier forum, if possible.
(To be concluded)