Public biotechnology 2005--the numbers

Although investors remained cautious of public biotech companies in 2005, acquisitions and research partnerships were on the up.     

Private biotech 2004--the numbers

Compared with the plethora of financial information about the publicly traded elite of the biotech world, little is known about the multitude of private biotech firms. Here, Nature Biotechnology's Editor-at-Large provides an analysis of the financial performance of the privately held biotech sector.     

Public biotech 2007--the numbers

Record profits and financing in the public biotech sector may be unsustainable in the coming years as economies falter.     

Public perceptions of biotechnology

The very term ‘Biotechnology’ elicits a range of emotions, from wonder and awe to downright fear and hostility. This is especially true among non-scientists, particularly in respect of agricultural and food biotechnology. These emotions indicate just how poorly understood agricultural biotechnology is and the need for accurate, dispassionate information in the public sphere to allow a rational public debate on the actual, as opposed to the perceived, risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology. This review considers first the current state of public knowledge on agricultural biotechnology, and then explores some of the popular misperceptions and logical inconsistencies in both Europe and North America. I then consider the problem of widespread scientific illiteracy, and the role of the popular media in instilling and perpetuating misperceptions. The impact of inappropriate efforts to provide ‘balance’ in a news story, and of belief systems and faith also impinges on public scientific illiteracy. Getting away from the abstract, we explore a more concrete example of the contrasting approach to agricultural biotechnology adoption between Europe and North America, in considering divergent approaches to enabling coexistence in farming practices. I then question who benefits from agricultural biotechnology. Is it only the big companies, or is it society at large – and the environment-also deriving some benefit? Finally, a crucial aspect in such a technologically complex issue, ordinary and intelligent non-scientifically trained consumers cannot be expected to learn the intricacies of the technology to enable a personal choice to support or reject biotechnology products. The only reasonable and pragmatic alternative is to place trust in someone to provide honest advice. But who, working in the public interest, is best suited to provide informed and accessible, but objective, advice to wary consumers?     

Winning the numbers game in enzyme evolution – fast screening methods for improved biotechnology proteins

1. Download : Download high-res image (166KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Chemical biotechnology pharmaceutical biotechnology. Web alert

A selection of World Wide Web sites relevant to papers published in this issue of Current Opinion in Biotechnology.     

Public opinion toward the first,second, and third generations of plant biotechnology

Summary This paper considers public attitudes toward genetically modified plants in the fields or those soon to be planted. Analyzing a regional public opinion survey of 680 respondents in Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma carried out in the Spring—Summer of 2004, we look at the importance of public attitudes toward the three generations of agricultural biotechnology in light of the changing regulatory environment. Specifically, we ask questions concerning the first generation of plants with agronomic qualities, comparing our findings with previous studies, then look at perceptions of the second generation of crops with product quality characteristics, and the third generation, which expresses industrial products and pharmaceutical drugs. We look at perceived benefits, the likelihood, that these plants might accidentally enter the food supply, the likelihood that these plants might be eaten by the respondent, as well as how worried and angry the respondent would be as a result. Findings suggest that the public is still largely unaware of food biotechnology and genetically modified food products in their life. When compared with the first and second generation agricultural biotechnology products, survey respondents indicated that third generation products are not only likely to provide greater benefits, but are also potentially the source of more worry and anger if accidentally eaten.     

Pharmaceutical biotechnology, Chemical biotechnology: Web alert

A selection of World Wide Web sites relevant to papers published in this issue of Current Opinion in Biotechnology.     

Pharmaceutical biotechnology: Chemical biotechnology: Web alert

A selection of World Wide Web sites relevant to papers published in this issue of Current Opinion in Biotechnology.