BIOTECHNOLOGY
The economic crisis has caused companies and governments alike to reassess their spending. Jim Greenwood explains why imperilling intellectual property protection for the biotechnology industry would be the worst possible outcome.
In a world in constant turmoil, it is worthwhile to reflect on the things that give us hope. Among the greatest of these is the limitless human potential for innovation.
Te last century was replete with inventions and technology that impacted virtually all of our lives. Te world became a much smaller place as transportation advanced from ground to air travel. Even in the most poverty-stricken areas of the world, people can communicate through cellular technology. Diseases that invariably resulted in death at the turn of the last century have either been eradicated or can now be managed through prevention, detection and treatment.
Te impact of this innovation was global and liſted many populations out of poverty. India and China are economic powerhouses in large part due to the innovations of the last century. In the United States, the innovative biotechnology industry employs 1.3 million workers and is a centrepiece of virtually every state’s plan to jumpstart a lagging economy. Tere’s a good reason for such efforts: it’s estimated that each new biotech job creates 3.5 jobs in other sectors. Te biotechnology industry supports more than 7.5 million jobs in the US alone.
With the protracted global recession resulting in millions of lost jobs, it may seem as though the 21st century has gotten off to a bad start. Yet it is precisely at times such as these that human
ingenuity and creativity are most needed, with the biotechnology industry leading the way. Te world is looking to biotechnology to help alleviate the challenges of a planet expecting 38 percent more people by 2050, an ageing population in the developed world, the plague of disease, dwindling supplies of traditional energy, an environment facing unprecedented stress and a need to maximise food production.
We can successfully overcome these challenges only through innovation, and innovation can reach its full potential only when public policy supports it.
Developing innovative discoveries that revolutionise society is no task for the faint of heart. Te biotechnology industry is full of innovative risk-takers. It has commercialised more than 300 drugs and hundreds of diagnostics, benefiting more than 325 million people worldwide. Another 400 or so biotech treatments are in the development pipeline.
Developing a biotechnology product is a lengthy and expensive endeavour. On average, it takes $1.2 billion over a period of more than a decade to bring a new biopharmaceutical to market.
Tis commitment is made with absolutely no guarantees of success. Indeed, the vast majority of biotech research and development projects fail. No company can afford to take such risks if its investment in ultimately successful products
cannot be protected as it struggles through the arduous product development process.
Intellectual property is oſten the main asset of start-up companies. To raise the significant investment they require for research and development, companies must be able to assure investors that their patent portfolios are secure.
Prior to 1980, industry confidence in the value of US patents was low as various federal appeals courts seemingly developed their own standards of patentability. Te federal government was supporting 50 percent of all US research, but didn’t permit those conducting such research to protect their inventions and transfer intellectual property rights to the private sector for commercial development. As a result, private investment in innovation lagged, and more than 28,000 government-funded inventions languished, undeveloped, on laboratory shelves.
Fortunately, a few leaders in the US Congress—and a far-sighted ruling by the US Supreme Court—opened the way to a wave of unprecedented innovation that liſted the economy, creating important new products benefiting human welfare.
A turning point for the industry began when Ananda Chakrabarty developed a modified bacterium that could break down spilled oil. When his employer filed for a patent, the application was denied by the US Patent and
www.worldipreview.com
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2010
23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108