Category Archives: Biotechnology

Photo: Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Glamour

Two years after the $9 billion start-up unicorn Theranos crumbled, Silicon Valley still appears to be struggling to learn its lesson when it comes to health and medical start-ups. Improbable-sounding companies continue to turn up with tens of millions of dollars in funding, no published research to back them up, and nothing but criticism from scientists. Last week, BuzzFeed News examined a new set of start-ups promising to detect cancer early via a simple blood test Freenome, Grail, and Guardant and found them on paths dangerously similar to the one Theranos was on just a few years ago. A year ago, Freenome promised to publish about its product in a scientific journal very soon to Fast Company, and still hasnt. Cancer researchers told BuzzFeed very plainly that such a simple test would be miraculous but seemed improbably advanced beyond our current technology, which was also the case with Theranoss miniature blood tests and Freenome made its lofty promises only months after Theranos started to fall apart. Like a Kickstarter project well over its anticipated delivery date, one begins to wonder if it was all fake.

Silicon Valley has a kind of blind spot when it comes to biotechnology, health-related start-ups, and other medical pursuits. The Theranos hype train was only stopped when The Wall Street Journal surfaced evidence that Theranos had misrepresented how far along it was in its research process to its investors, passing off mediocre test results as much more conclusive than they were. Venture-capital firms insist that the standard that needs to be met for investment is much higher for medical start-ups, which must prove that their technology works with data, not just a pitch. And yet somehow, when these start-ups finally surface to public consciousness, they dont appear to pass even the most basic smell test with literally any experienced researcher in the field.

There are some confounding factors to take into account: venture capitalists invest in ambitious businesses and expect a high failure rate; health start-up failures are highly visible in part because biotechnology businesses are more unusual, and because they tend to be involved with actual life-or-death human experiences. No one really cares about another Uber-alike (just as no one really cared about Uber until it had established itself) but almost everyone has a personal relationship with cancer, and everyone wants a solution to it as soon as possible.

But the fact that we all have bodies, and all need doctors may also be why Silicon Valley seems unable to avoid dabbling in medical technology. The intersection of future tech and health has become crowded with some of the countrys richest hobbyists. They love biohacking (theres even a subscription box). They believe, almost to a man, that the singularity is a question of not if, but when. Elon Musk is very seriously investing in arming biological humans against computers; Peter Thiel takes human growth hormone, a popular practice among transhumanists, and has expressed interested in getting blood transfusions from young people as a way of reversing aging (to his credit, there is some published scientific evidence this might actually work, however fundamentally sinister it sounds). Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Sean Parker, and Martine Rothblatt have all sincerely expressed interests in similar pursuits. They often seem less concerned with protecting humanity than their own consciousnesses, designing brain-machine interfaces that will both preserve their own copious knowledge reserves and merge them with the larger internet, turning each tech CEO, investor, and founder into an army of IBM Watsons, but smarter.

There is a pervasive sense in Silicon Valley, bolstered by ten years of world-conquering success, that any sufficiently intelligent, sufficiently driven person can will what they want. The only thing slowing the unrelenting forward march of medical tech is funding. Solutions are an inevitability, and the realities of the human body are simply a set of inefficiencies that can, with enough time and attention, be brought to heel. The culture of Silicon Valley meritocracy affords its practitioners cynicism when confronted with realities other than their own: If you were dumb enough to trust new tech, or too poor to have more options, you deserve what you had coming.

Health tech is certainly valuable and ripe for profit. Machines and medical tests used in hospitals for treatment and diagnosis are wildly expensive, but their cost is determined both by demand (high; no one wants to die, and enough people have insurance) and research (expensive, very costly to get right and get through all the hoops of being brought to market). For further evidence, look at the pharmaceutical industry. Investors who sense a rich potential for profit if only they can insert themselves at the right place in the process are not wrong, in that sense.

But the move fast and break things mantra that has helped Silicon Valley disrupt countless industries over the last two decades is more dangerous when applied to medical science. The roadblocks that health tech companies run into are not qualitatively different from the ones that all tech companies run into. But when Uber or Airbnb run afoul of their respective laws, the result is abstracted lost money out of someones pocket the government, independent contractors, independent businesses, other segments of the market. When Airbnb keeps viable apartments off the market so they can be rented short-term to its users, the money can theoretically be remanded if someone determines that Airbnb is doing something wrong. The things being broken by the current generation of unicorns are regulatory regimes. (Valuable, useful regulatory regimes, to be sure.) The things being broken by health start-ups are laws of science and ironclad guidelines for research. When a health start-up moves fast and breaks things, it can directly result in the death, dismemberment, and injury of real people. You cant un-kill someone who died thanks to a bad diagnosis (at least, theres no start-up hawking that yet).

Theres always room to be wrong in business. But theres less of that room when it comes to medical treatment. That it appears all the same to even the highest-profile venture capitalists actually turns out to make a lot of sense.

The Snapchat 101: The Best, Coolest, Smartest, Weirdest Accounts on the Hottest Social Network on Your Phone

F**k.

The News Feeds enormous audience wont solve its waning relevance.

If Snapchat wants to be the Apple of augmented reality, Facebook is more than happy to be its Microsoft.

We give it three months before Facebook rips off the idea.

Move fast and break things doesnt work when those things are research procedures, laws of science, and human bodies.

A day in the life of YouTubes reigning teen queen.

Cabana lets you watch videos with your friends in real time.

You may be able to give a five-star review, and tip a dollar or two, at the end of an Uber ride in the near future.

Cant keep a good content farm down.

F**k.

How Robert Taylor, who passed away Thursday at the age of 85, essentially created the internet as we know it.

It is kind of contagious, the optimism. I guess it just becomes a part of you.

Add a little pinch of electoral participation.

As YouTube becomes big business for families willing to film everything, are the kids adequately protected?

This is bad news for a lot of PC owners.

Some assembly required.

Everything you need to make the best slime at home.

Lemme up there to hang out with these good boys.

True art takes courage.

When product placement goes wrong.

Follow this link:
Why Silicon Valley Keeps Getting Biotechnology Wrong - New York Magazine

Technical traders have a large inventory of technical indicators they may use when doing technical stock analysis. After a recent look, the 14-day ATR for Powershares Dynamic Biotechnology and Genome Portfolio (PBE) is resting at 0.47. First developed by J. Welles Wilder, the ATR may help traders in determining if there is heightened interest in a trend, or if extreme levels may be indicating a reversal. Simply put, the ATR determines the volatility of a security over a given period of time, or the tendency of the security to move one direction or another.

Some investors may find the Williams Percent Range or Williams %R as a helpful technical indicator. Presently, Powershares Dynamic Biotechnology and Genome Portfolio (PBE)s Williams Percent Range or 14 day Williams %R is resting at -43.44. Values can range from 0 to -100. A reading between -80 to -100 may be typically viewed as strong oversold territory. A value between 0 to -20 would represent a strong overbought condition. As a momentum indicator, the Williams R% may be used with other technicals to help define a specific trend.

Investors may use multiple technical indicators to help spot trends and buy/sell signals. Presently, Powershares Dynamic Biotechnology and Genome Portfolio (PBE) has a 14-day Commodity Channel Index (CCI) of 19.2. The CCI was developed by Donald Lambert. The assumption behind the indicator is that investment instruments move in cycles with highs and lows coming at certain periodic intervals. The original guidelines focused on creating buy/sell signals when the reading moved above +100 or below -100. Traders may also use the reading to identify overbought/oversold conditions.

The Average Directional Index or ADX is a popular technical indicator designed to help measure trend strength. Many traders will use the ADX in combination with other indicators in order to help formulate trading strategies. Presently, the 14-day ADX for Powershares Dynamic Biotechnology and Genome Portfolio (PBE) is 12.77. In general, an ADX value from 0-25 would indicate an absent or weak trend. A value of 25-50 would indicate a strong trend. A value of 50-75 would signal a very strong trend, and a value of 75-100 would indicate an extremely strong trend. The ADX alone was designed to measure trend strength. When combined with the Plus Directional Indicator (+DI) and Minus Directional Indicator (-DI), it can help decipher the trend direction as well.

Taking a peek at some Moving Averages, the 200-day is at 41.15, the 50-day is 42.54, and the 7-day is sitting at 41.87. The moving average is a popular tool among technical stock analysts. Moving averages are considered to be lagging indicators that simply take the average price of a stock over a specific period of time. Moving averages can be very useful for identifying peaks and troughs. They may also be used to help the trader figure out proper support and resistance levels for the stock.

Read the rest here:
Investor Update on Shares of Powershares Dynamic Biotechnology and Genome Portfolio (PBE) - Baxter Review

Market.Biz: Research Report on Biotechnology Separation Systems Industry 2016 provides the analytical view of the Biotechnology Separation Systems industry globally, focusing on main regions like North America, Europe, and Asia. Amongst these continental Biotechnology Separation Systems market, the report focuses on Biotechnology Separation Systems market by countries like United States Biotechnology Separation Systems market, Germany Biotechnology Separation Systems market, Japan and China Biotechnology Separation Systems market.

In the first part, the Biotechnology Separation Systems market report lists the fundamental details of Biotechnology Separation Systems industry elaborating Biotechnology Separation Systems definition, classification, wide range of applications and Biotechnology Separation Systems industry frame structure. The report further includes Biotechnology Separation Systems industry policies and plans, Biotechnology Separation Systems product specification, cost structures and manufacturing process on Biotechnology Separation Systems market scenario. The report then studies the global Biotechnology Separation Systems market in terms of growth rate, Biotechnology Separation Systems consumption volume, Biotechnology Separation Systems production capacity, supply and demand ratio etc.

Do Inquiry Before Purchasing Report Here: https://market.biz/report/global-biotechnology-separation-systems-market-2017-9dimen/70115/#inquiry

1) Report on Biotechnology Separation Systems industry covers growth rate (forecast). 2) Worldwide Biotechnology Separation Systems market 2017 estimated at USD XXXX in 2016. 3) Global Biotechnology Separation Systems industry 2017 projected to reach USD XXXX million at forecast period. 4) Worldwide Biotechnology Separation Systems market projected to grow at CAGR XXXX % During forecast period. 5) Continental Biotechnology Separation Systems Market: (North America, Europe and Asia) Biotechnology Separation Systems market expected to grow at CAGR of XXXX % over the forecast period. 6) 2017 Biotechnology Separation Systems Market Segment by Manufacturers, which covers all details related Biotechnology Separation Systems industry Manufacturers/Companies.

Lastly, 2017 Biotechnology Separation Systems industry report adds the feasibility study related to the futuristic Biotechnology Separation Systems market scenario, SWOT analysis of Biotechnology Separation Systems industry and investment return analysis. The report introduced Biotechnology Separation Systems new project SWOT analysis, investment feasibility analysis, and Biotechnology Separation Systems industry investment return analysis and Biotechnology Separation Systems growth aspects of the industry.

Request For Sample Report Here: https://market.biz/report/global-biotechnology-separation-systems-market-2017-9dimen/70115/#requestforsample

This Biotechnology Separation Systems market study consists of 6 parts, in the 1st part the basic information about Biotechnology Separation Systems , in the 2nd part analysis of the Asia Biotechnology Separation Systems industry; in the 3rd part analysis of North America Biotechnology Separation Systems industry is done; in the 4rth part analysis of the Europe Biotechnology Separation Systems industry is done; 5th part does the analysis of feasibility study and scope of Biotechnology Separation Systems market future investment; in 6th part research conclusions are offered.

Thus, this research report on Biotechnology Separation Systems industry provides the insightful knowledge on current Biotechnology Separation Systems market trends.

More:
Home Market Research Worldwide Biotechnology Separation Systems Market Projected to reach USD XXXX million at... - Edition Time

All three benchmark US indexes closed lower on Friday after fluctuating throughout the session.

ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (NASDAQ:BIB) performed nicely this week, continuing its impressive near-term upward movement. The stock has moved north1.52% over the past week of trading.

Looking further out, over the past twelve months, ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnologys stock was -0.08% and 7.76% over the last quarter and 12.38% for the past six months.

There are many reasons why a stock might advance so much, so quickly. The total market, including country, continent, or global, might have gone up due to macro reasons. The company might have reported better than expected (consensus) earnings results. A sell-side firm might have issued a buy report on the company. The company might have announced a major change in the business, such as a buyout, M&A, spin-off, R&D results or the acquisition of a new large client. The company might have announced its involvement in a lawsuit. The company might have changed its yearly guidance. The institutional investors might have bought a large chunk of stocks of the company.

Over the past 50 days, ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (NASDAQ:BIB) stock was -8.62% off of the high and 9.22% removed from the low. Their 52-Week High and Low are noted here. -10.28% (High), 39.45%, (Low).

ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (NASDAQ:BIB) may have great momentum, but how has it been performing relative to the market? The stocks price is $47.37 and their relative strength index (RSI) stands at 48.31. RSI is a technical oscillator that shows price strength by comparing upward and downward movements. It indicates oversold and overbought price levels for a stock.

Disclaimer: The views, opinions, and information expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any company stakeholders, financial professionals, or analysts. Examples of analysis performed within this article are only examples. This is not a recommendation to buy or sellProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (NASDAQ:BIB).

Original post:
ProShares Ultra Nasdaq Biotechnology (NASDAQ:BIB) Carving out ... - The Herald

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Research and Markets has announced the addition of the "Separation Systems for Commercial Biotechnology" report to their offering.

The market for bioseparation systems is growing rapidly across all regions. Bioseparation purifies biological products on a large-scale. The report focuses on the global market of bioseparation systems and provides an updated review, including basic design and its applications, in various arenas of biomedical and life science research.

The bioseparation techniques that are covered in this report are chromatography, centrifugation, electrophoresis, membrane filtration, flow cytometry, microarray, lab-on-a-chip, biochip, and magnetic separation. Among chromatography techniques, liquid chromatography is the most active market.

Also included in the report are relevant patent analysis and comprehensive profiles of companies that lead the bioseparation systems market. Key players include Thermo Fisher Scientific, Agilent Technologies Inc., Bio-Rad Laboratories, Danaher Corp., Qiagen N.V., Merck KGaA GmbH, and Waters Corp. among others.

Key Topics Covered:

1: Introduction

2: Summary and highlights

3: Overview

- History of biotechnology

- Classification of biomolecular separation systems in biotechnology

- New methods of biomolecular separations

- Molecular classes of biomolecular separation

- End users of biotechnology separation systems

4: New Developments

- Mergers and acquisitions

5: Market Analysis

- Market by type

- Market by region

6: Industry Structure

- Chromatography

- Centrifugation

- Electrophoresis

- Membrane filtration

- Flow cytometry

- Magnetic separation

- Microarrays

- Biochip

- Lab-on-a-chip

7: Patent Analysis

- Patents by year

- Patents by type

- Patents by company

- Patents by country

- Patents by assignee

8: Current Situation

- Factors affecting bioseparation system market

- Market opportunities

9: Company Profiles

- 3M Company

- Abaxis Inc.

- Abtech Scientific Inc.

- Agilent Technologies Inc.

- Alfa Laval Group

- Alfa Wassermann Separation Technologies

- Arrayit Corp.

- BD BioSciences (Becton, Dickinson and Company)

- Biocept Inc.

- Biodot Inc.

- BioMerieux SA

- Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc.

- Boston Microfluidics

- Customarray Inc.

- Danaher Corp.

- DNAmicroarray Inc.

- Falcon Genomics Inc.

- Flottweg Separation Technology

- GE Healthcare Life Sciences

- Hitachi Koki Co. Ltd.

- Illumina Inc.

- Luminex Corp.

- Merck KGaA

- Microarray Inc.

- Nanostring Technologies Inc.

- Novasep Inc.

- PerkinElmer

- Qiagen Gmbh

- Randox Laboratories Ltd.

- Sartorius Corp.

- Shimadzu Scientific Instruments

- Spectrum Chemical Manufacturing Corp.

- Sysmex Partec Gmbh

- Thermo Fisher Scientific

- W. R. Grace & Company

For more information about this report visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/npn5zk/separation

View source version on businesswire.com: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170414005169/en/

Read more from the original source:
Separation Systems for Commercial Biotechnology Market 2017 ... - Yahoo Finance

Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle)

M3 Biotechnology raises $1.4 million to launch Alzheimer's trial Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) M3 Biotechnology has raised $1.4 million in funding from the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF) to launch human trials of its Alzheimer's drug this year. M3's drug helps re-establish lost connections between brain cells and may halt the ... and more »

Link:
M3 Biotechnology raises $1.4 million to launch Alzheimer's trial - Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle)

WASHINGTON Overly cautious regulations that contravene decades of academic research and ignore the lessons from massive real-world experience are stifling innovation in plant and animal improvement, said the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

The Trump administration should roll back overly precautionary regulations to encourage much-needed innovations that produce safer and more sustainable crops and livestock while still preventing unreasonable risks to public and environmental welfare, argues the science- and tech-policy think tank in a recently released report.

"From reducing the need for pesticides to increasing crop yields, genetically modified crops have already made farming more safe and environmentally friendly," said L. Val Giddings, a senior fellow at ITIF and the report's author. "Researchers are discovering ever more precise, predictable, and easy-to-use techniques derived directly from nature. But despite decades of evidence on the safety of genetically improved crops, unfounded fears and politically driven opposition have led to regulations that chill innovation. It's time to rethink these policies and allow and enable a new generation of discoveries that can feed the world even more safely and sustainably."

Giddings explains that in the 1980s, the U.S. government decided to regulate biotech-improved crops using the same principles and methods it would for any other crops, because expert bodies repeatedly found no unique or novel hazards that made these crops and livestock any different than those derived from the classical plant and animal breeding that has occurred for millennia. But since then, Giddings says the disparity between the minimal risk associated with these innovations and the major regulatory hurdles they must clear has widened from a gap to a chasm.

This discordance between the degree of regulatory oversight and the actual hazards is posing economic and environmental costs, as innovative new products are delayed from reaching the market, Giddings said. To overcome these barriers and unleash a new generation of innovation in agricultural biotechnology, the report recommends that:

The Trump administration should enforce the mandate from the Office of Science and Technology Policy that agencies update their regulations and policies for innovative agricultural-biotechnology products, and that the revised regulations should be effective in preventing unreasonable risks while still encouraging and enabling innovation;

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service should set aside its proposal for process-based revisions to existing regulations;

The Food and Drug Administration should enforce the federal law prohibiting misleading food labels;

The FDA should revise its current proposal for regulating gene-edited animals, withdraw its proposal for gene-edited plants, and develop new proposals to exercise its discretion in preventing unreasonable risks;

The Environmental Protection Agency should not prematurely obstruct gene-silencing technologies;

The Fish and Wildlife Service should immediately withdraw the prohibition on planting biotech-improved seeds on national refuge lands; and

The Trump administration should pursue efforts through the World Trade Organization to hold China and the European Union accountable for continuing to discriminate against crops improved through biotechnology, despite being obligated otherwise.

"Biotechnology innovations have improved the lives of farmers around the world, enhanced their stewardship of the land, and benefitted consumers and the environment," Giddings said. "The principle obstacle to even greater and more widespread benefits is regulatory hurdles that aren't grounded in the facts. Setting these barriers aside will unshackle innovators to solve challenges impeding our ability to meet the food, feed and fiber needs of a growing population while reducing undesirable environmental impacts."

Read the full report at http://www2.itif.org/2017-unshackle-agricultural-innovation.pdf?_ga=1.155989245.717142650.1491235245.

More here:
Trump Administration should unshackle further innovation in ag biotechnology by rolling back undue regulations - Fence Post

April 13, 2017 20:00 ET | Source: M3 Biotechnology

SEATTLE, April 13, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- As the first investor in M3 Biotechnology, the Alzheimers Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF) helped validate the therapeutic potential of M3s drug candidate for Alzheimers disease. With a second investment of $1.4 million, the ADDF is now providing key funds to support the launch of human trials this year.

While current drugs for Alzheimers disease only provide symptomatic relief, M3s small molecule therapeutics have the potential to be truly disease-modifying. By re-establishing lost connections between brain cells, these therapies may halt the course of the disease. M3 is now in the process of planning a first-in-humans Phase 1a clinical trial for its lead candidate, NDX-1017, to evaluate its safety and determine optimal dosing range.

ADDFs first investment spurred others, including many private investors and Washington state-based venture groups W Fund and WRF Capital. These investments evidenced the faith in our potential, which helped us make it past the valley of death for drug development and raise nearly $14 million in additional funding, said Leen Kawas, M3s CEO.

The most noteworthy new investor in M3 is Dolby Family Ventures, which invests in technology and life sciences. The fund makes early stage investments in the most promising Alzheimer's-specific therapeutics which require funding for the critical phase of translating successful animal therapies to human clinical trials. The fund honors the late inventor, Ray Dolby, who died in 2013 and who lived with Alzheimer's disease.

The relationship with the ADDF has been vital to our progress as they have fostered a dynamic, collaborative biotech ecosystem, Kawas said. By providing early funding and connecting us with potential partners and investors, the ADDF has helped us reach the clinic.

Howard Fillit, MD, Founding Executive Director and Chief Science Officer of the ADDF, says, We are excited by the promising therapeutic approach of Dr. Kawas and her team at M3 Biotechnology. By helping neurons survive, NDX-1017 may restore cognitive function for Alzheimers patients. The ADDF looks forward to the results from this first human trial.

Alzheimers Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF) Founded in 1998 by Leonard A. and Ronald S. Lauder, ADDF is dedicated to accelerating the discovery of drugs to prevent, treat and cure Alzheimers disease. The ADDF is a public charity solely focused on funding the development of drugs for Alzheimers, employing a venture philanthropy model to support research in academia and the biotech industry. Through the generosity of its donors, ADDF has awarded over $100 million to fund more than 500 Alzheimers programs in 18 countries.

M3 Biotechnology, Inc. M3 Biotechnology is a therapeutics company with a novel platform of disease-modifying regenerative small molecules, particularly relevant to neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimers. M3s lead asset is being advanced as a first-in-class, disease-modifying treatment with the potential to restore lost connections between brain cells, turning degeneration into regeneration. Total financing of $14M to-date is used to prepare for and conduct Phase I clinical trials.

Related Articles

Excerpt from:
Funding From Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation Advances M3 Biotechnology Toward Human Trials - GlobeNewswire (press release)

When it comes to getting biotechnology innovations to market, with commercial protection, it can be tough. Around three quarters of patent applications normally fail to cut it. Although biotechnology is recognised as being important for the economy and society, it can also be highly controversial attracting public protests

The European Patent Office (EPO) has faced opposition in the past, for instance, over patents relating to processes for re-engineering genes, for use in medical research into cancer treatment. These processes could apply to various animals, including great apes and that became a magnet for criticism from animal rights campaigners.

The number of patent filings for biotechnology increased by 0.3 percent in 2016, to 5,744 making it the tenth largest sector in its field.

Youris.com spoke to Benoit Battistelli, President of the EPO, about the role of patent protection and how it can aid biotechnology innovation and the wider bioeconomy despite the obstacles faced by some.

How much of a focus is the bioeconomy for patents and what are some of the key developments?

Biosciences play an important role in patent applications at the EPO, given the growing convergence of technologies, which is widely responsible for technical progress in a wide number of sectors. Such inventions are mainly found in industrial biotechnology, for instance, in the development of novel products such as new detergents, functional food or even new eco-friendly material in construction, such as pollution-eating concrete and self-healing concrete.

The area of clean energy production is also very important. For example, when it comes to using biomass as an energy source [editors note: In 2011, a Danish inventor won a European Inventor Award organised by the EPO for developing a system which increases the types of biomass fuels that can be used. Typically, biomass materials have to be dried before they can be used as fuel, but Jens Dall Bentzens furnace design can also burn materials with a moisture content of up to 60 percent. Hes since reported to have attracted interest from Europe and the US, selling the furnace to an American manufacturer, as well as building two others for use in Denmark].

Is the bioeconomy an increasing sector?

Biotech is among our top ten technical fields and it has increased. At the end of the patent granting process, its about 50 percent on average that become a patent. Its only 26 or 27 percent in the case of biotech. Why? Because it is a very sensitive issue and we are applying the patentability criteria very rigorously. There are huge European capacities in biotech and we have seen that we must find a good balance between the regulatory constraints and the economic capacities that this sector represents.

The position of the EPO is very clear and simple. There is an EU directive concerning biotech, which we respect and which we have integrated in our own legal framework, the European Patent Convention. Then you have the interpretations of the Directive by the European Court of Justice and we adapt our practice to these judgements.

Overall, how complicated is it to obtain a patent, and is it expensive?

I would not say that it is complicated, but it is a difficult process, because we always start from the basis that a patent is an exception to the principle of free trade, free industry, free competition. Globally, for around 20 to 25,000 euros, you can obtain a patent as the EPO. For this amount, 5,000 euros are the EPO fees and the rest is the fees of those who helped to draft a patent and then discuss it with the patent office.

So, with a patent, you are giving the holder the exclusive right of commercially exploiting his invention, for a certain period of time, a maximum 20 years.

By Damon Embling

Read this article:
Biotechnology: navigating a minefield - Cordis News

Dr Vinay Rale shares his thoughts with BioSpectrum on current biotech education and the academia-industry gap

Dr Vinay Rale, Director, Symbiosis School of Biomedical Sciences (SSBS)

Brief recapitulation of genesis of Biotechnology in India A quick recapitulation of the genesis of Biotechnology in India will not be out of place to apprise the lay public. We essentially (and blindly) followed the USA in 1985 in initiating Biotechnology programs at Master's level at six select universities across India. In the 1970s, the ability to modify DNA molecules and the realization of the power of genetic engineering led prominent universities in the US to convince their Government to allocate huge funds to start

Biotechnology' - a term newly coined by them. The Indian model, first at Masters level, to cater to the need for trained manpower for the anticipated boom in the Biotechnology industry was supported by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT). Very soon a large number of institutions both in private and public sector followed suit to attract students. The wildfire spread to undergraduate programs equally rapidly. However, this led to two major disadvantages - the relegation of basic courses in Life Sciences such as Microbiology, Biochemistry, Zoology and Botany and severely inadequate infrastructure and untrained faculty. As a matter of fact, the first Masters programs supported by DBT at six prominent institutions in the country were turned to the advantage of the then faculty expertise, e.g., developmental biology turning a blind eye to the basic essentials that the students have to be proficient in.

A rough estimate of the students enrolled in Biotechnology at undergraduate and postgraduate levels suggests a number exceeding 100,000 at any given time. Also, some institutions offer a bouquet of 8 to 9 allied courses in Biotechnology. Naturally the demand-supply ratio is skewed. The curricula in Biotechnology tries to accommodate' as many subsets as possible with little attention to the fundamentals - especially at the undergraduate levels. Moreover, to overcome the infrastructure deficiency, a good number of students (especially at postgraduate level) are encouraged to bank upon either research institutes or industries to undertake dissertations.

Unfortunately, both categories of organizations take little interest in the welfare of such dissertation research; more so due to the unavailability of mentors from either side. Therefore-, little research done at such levels goes unnoticed. As a consequence-, it is estimated that well over 70 percent of Biotechnology students are considered as unemployable by industries. This is the net result of a large number of factors contributing to the creation of unfit student mass. Reliable sources indicate that industries now prefer to hire students trained in conventional Life Sciences like Microbiology and Biochemistry (also Chemistry) to meet their stringent requirements. The general complaint is that the Biotechnology students lack fundamentals. This is also the observation of this author over the decades.

Considering the seriousness of the Government to increase funding for the DBT and the intiative of the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) coupled with those of SIDBI and MSME to strengthen research in academia and foster strategic alliances between academia and industry, one can only expect better things to happen. However, like Biotechnology, Microbiology and Biochemistry programs too need nourishment.

Read more from the original source:
Biotechnology Education vs Industry Requirements: Where - BSI bureau (press release)