Spellman, James David

Archive of European Integration

o 8,.uroya \o1' 7 Nc, L tY/2- 2'>/
BIOTECHNOLOGY: EI-IROPE
RACING T'O CATCH LIP
By JAMES DAVID SPELLMAN
Biotechnology within the European Community may go the vray
of Europe's microelectronics industry, msening that Amerien and
Japanese firms will dominate while European enterprises assume
zubsidiary positions in what is estimated to be a 950- to 9100-billion
market for biotech goods and services by the year 2000. This is the
prophecy of the U.S. Congress' Office of Technology Assessment,
some industry analysts, and an EC Commission report, aszuming
that present patterns of research development and commercializa-
tion continue.
Ten years ago, some assess-
ments of Europe's biotech future
wene optimistic 
- 
and with good
reason. The United Kingdom, for
eramplo, held 30 per cent of
the world's biotechnological pa-
tents between 1967 and 1971,
and the coirnhy was considered apioneer in several areas. The
Federal Republic of Germany's
Society for Biological Research
at Braunschweig, established in
the mid-1960s by the Volks-
wagen Foundation, w&s envied
worldwide. But economic, scien.
tific, political, and, to a lesser
extent, social obstacles combin-
ed to cause European research to
lag behind the dizzying pace set
by the United States and Japan.
According to the studies
mentioned above, research and
development expenditures by
European organizations 
- 
both
public and private 
- 
were in-
adequately expanded. The lack
of regional or state planning re-
sulted in ad hoc allocations ofgrants, which meant that re-
search duplication was at times
supported and the country's
shongest biotech capabilities
were not continually funded.
Dispersed, isolated centers of re-
search lacked coordination to
facilitate th6 systematic incor-
poration by the biotech comrnu-
nity of the disparate accomplish-
ments. National rivalries prevent-
ed cooperation among EC meru-ber Governments and private
Europa March-April '84
firms in both basic research andpatent law development. Fur-
ther, many European firms failed
to move aggressively to commer-
cialize their products and exper-
tise.
EC Member States, however,
have not been idle, particularly
since 1980. Government-indui-
try commissions have been con-
vened frequently in almost every
EC country to analyze how their
biotech enterprises ran aground
and to plan state incentive pro-
grammes and research prioritie's.
The EC and the national Govern-
ments have bolstered their finan-
cial support. Meanwhile, Ameri-
can and Japanese firms, encourag-
ed partly by the devaluation of
European currencies, have been
seeking out European firms for
research partnerships, licensedproduction arrangements, and
marketing assistance.
But are these efforts in
Europe too little too late? Dr.
John Walker, who selects the
biotechnology investments for
Technical Development Capital,
a venture capital fund in theUnited Kingdom, asserted in
The Economist that ',the field
is still open. It is not too late.,'
He believes that 95 per cent ofthe biotechnology expected to
be needed in the 1gg0s has yet
to be invented. But others voice
pessimism. A white paper pre-
'pared in 1983 for the Offic6 of
Science and Technology policy
within the White House con-
cluded: "The United States faces
the stiffest challenge from Ja-
pan."
The term biotechnology, &c-
cording to an Organization for
Economic Cooperation and De-
velopment (OECD) report in
L982, refers to "the application
of scientific and engineering
principles to the processing of
materials by biological agenLs
to provide goods and seryices."
Often the word 'hew" is used
with biotechnolory to differen-
tiate between the traditional re-
search efforts in the natural
breeding of animal and plant
species and the more recent
efforts in both genetic manipu-
Iation and the immobilization of
enzymes and cells.
The impact the breaking of
the genetic code will have on
post-industrial economies is ex-
pected to be as revolutionaly as
that of the computer and infor-
mation processing industries.
More than 40 per cent of the ma-
nufacturing output in developed
EARCH & DEVELOPME}
products
indushies,
count for
ways, of which the most im-
portant is through the deve-
lopment of new technologies.
Some $680 million is to be
allocated for this purpose, of
which the lion's share has been
reserved for Information Tech-
nology (S600 million) and the
balance for biotechnology. Ano-
ther $360 million is to be spent
techniques and
the conventional
ich together ac-
of the indus-
trial base of
The
sectoral
is on multi-
development of - 
e.g. the
techniquesfor shaping and
terials, using lasers in
Such techniques could adapt-
ed to the clothing i
competitiveness and agriculhrral
productivity. PrioritY is trr be
given to direct solar energy, bio-
mass and geothermal energY, fol'
lowed by wind and hydroelechic
power.
The ftamework programme
also provides for improvement in
the management of raw materials,
notably minerals and wood. In
the exploration of mineral dePo-
sits, the emphasis will be on the
prospecting of deposits at great
depths and the development of
offshore methods. The extrac-
tion and treatment of ores will
involve research into exploiting
lean and complex ores, making
marginal deposits workable, etc.
the EC imports over half its
requirements of wood and wood
products, resulting in a trade de-
ficit almost as large as the oil
deficit. The two-fold objective
therefore is to reduce depend-
ence on outside sources and im-
prove the economic viability of
EC's wood industries. Fi-
ly, research will focus on two
of making optimum use of
materials, one of which
is
to substitutes.
them, the other
Iti obvious that many of
theR& ties to be under-
taken over
interest the
and some
next 4 years will
countries,
million have
been allocated in to stepp-
Six areasing up aid to
have been selected,
"u"r" 
tt 
"y "r" "orri
y be-
Community policy on
ment aid. They are(with the emphasis on prom
ing food self-sufficiency); the
environment; health (nutrition;
hopical diseases); soil resources;
energy (especially renewable
sources suitable to subsistence
economies) and population (de-
mographic studies).
In the last analysis the goal
of scientific research strould be
the betterment of human wel-
fare. The framework programme,
not surprisingly, provides for
research into improving living
and working conditions. The
two broad objectives are (1)
improving safety and protecting
health and (2) protecting the
environment and preventing pol-
lution. The areas of research
therefore include not only healtlt
technology (diagrosis and treat-
ment) but also the interaction
between man and his environ-
ment (the effects of urban en-
croachment, tourism and inten-
sive agriculture, for example).
The success of the frame-
work programme, as indeed of
anyB&Dprogramme,will
depend to a large extent on the
effectiveness of the Community's
scientific and technical potential.
In fact the EC Council of Mi-
nisters adopted last June a 2-year experimental programme
aimed at seeing how best to
stimulate European scientific and
technical cooperation and ex-
change. The Commission is al-
ready working on a more de-
tailed 4-year plan, which it
hopes can be implemented from
next January.
The plan would seek to
increase the mobility of re-
searchers within the EC; deve-
lop cooperation between Eu-
ropeanR&Dteamsanden-
courage the training and launch-
ing into a career of young re-
searchers. To this end there are
to be gfants to encourage ex-
changes (particularly between
universities and industry); fi-
nancial support for laboratory
"twinning" and granLs for bring-ing people together from dif-
ferent disciplines and countries.
The aim of a common R & D
shategy, in the European Com-
mission's view, is not the "Euro-
peization" of scientific and tech-
nical activities; rather, it is to
and sustain the most fa-
conditions for jointh. Where Member States
well as stripbuilding. Ad
as
the
same time there is to be
tation of convergent techno
gtes (such as computer
manufacturing, new materials
and new joining techniques) to
specific industrial sectors. Priori-
ty will be given to those cur-
rently most vulnerable or of eco-
nomic or sfrategic importance.
COMNION ENERGY POLICY
The Community has been
facing up to the energy chal-
lenge since L974, with R & D
activities aimed at reaching the
following major objectives: inde-
pendence, long-term security of
supply, competitiveness and safe-
ty. Ttrese objectives are reflected
in the framework prograrnme,
whose goal is improving the
management of energy resouroes
and reducing energy dcpendencc.
To this end the sPecific
scientific and technical objec-
tives include (1) the develoP-
ment of nuclear fission energy(with the emphasis on reactor
safety); (2) controlled thermo-
nuclear fusion (essentially a long
and costly endeavout, unlikelY to
pay off before 50 years); (3)
the development of renewable
sources of energy and (4) the ra-
tional use of energy.
ln developing renewable
energy sources the EC is seeking
not only to promote energy in-
dependence but also industrial
to
with
have
have
nuclear
erated together they
able to keep up with
the comp\tion through innova-
tion ( fission, thermo-
. 
space). In the
absence of cooperation
(computer science biotech-
nology but also automobiles,
chemicals and materials). But
the Council of Ministers' deci-
sion of Febmary 28 launching
ESPRIT shows that the lesson
is being learnt in time.
Europa March-April'84
EARCH & DEVELOPMENT
,.
:
t', rb
countries is biological in nature
or Origin. In the U.S. market,
biotechdeveloped products willo
by 1995, constitute 26.6 per
cent of the $7O-billion health
care products market and 21.5per cent of the $4?O-billion
agficultural products market.
This projection is according to
Predicasts, a U.S. market re-
search firm.
In medicine, only insulin
and interferon are now commer-
cially available and the marketing
of a human growth hormone to
trat dwarfism is anticipated
shortly. By 1985, commercial
production of the human serum
albumin (a protein to replace
blood plasma), amino acids (the
building blocks of proteins which
in turn are the basic structural
and functional nraterials of cells),
antibiotics, vitamins, and both
therapeutic and diagnostic mono-
clonal antibodies is expected.
The trends in biotech re-
search, as indicated by the
patents granted in the United
States between 1963 and 1982
show the greatest activity in
enzlrmes (proteins which pro-
mote chemical change without
being consumed in the reaction)
and their production processes.
Japan gained most of its patents
in amino acids and the lowest
amount in tissue cultures, the
exact reverse of the American
position. Ownership of U.S. pa-
tenls by EC-based firms is more
extensive in mutation/genetic en-
gineering and enzymes than in
tissue cultures, starch hydroly-
sates (processes, for examPle, to
cause the enzymatic hydrolYsis
of starch to glucose), and amlno
acids. The patents that are held
by the United Kingdom, the
Federal Republic of GermanY,
and France constitute on average
three-fourths of the total num-
ber of U.S. patents granted to
EC-based firms. U.S. firms own
half of the 3,381 biotech-re-
lated patents issued. This amount,
however, may be exaggerated be-
cause the nationality of those
patents which are filed by U.S.
affiliates of foreign-owned cor-
porations is classified as Ame-
rican.
The EC Commission was
presented in January 1980 with
a five-year 
- 
1981 to 1985 
-proposal for R&D in biomole-
cular engineering. Adopted by
the EC Council of Ministers in
December 1981, the $7-million
programme's goal over five years
was initially to encourage inno-
vations in agri-food products.
Funds for research were made
available through cost-sharing
contracts with private and Public
organizations. The Commission
subsequently approved in June
1983 a $6-million budget to
pursue the programme's second
phase, that of expanding research
and training to all industrial
fields.
The Commission has been
progtessive in its thinking about
what policies could be imple-
mented to foster the commercial
nnturation of biotechnologies.
Its report urges:
. a Community-wide pro-
gramme to plan R&D;
o patent laws to betterprotect European inventors,
terming the existing system "em-
barrassing and far from satisfac-
tory;"
r harmonizing members'
regulations covering pharmaceu-
ticals and chemicals; and
o ameliorating the negative
effects of EC policies, such as
the Common Agricultural Poli-
cy (CAP) which hamPers market
access by EC-based biotech firms
selling agri-food products.
Prospects for the achieve-
ment of these goals seems dim
now, given that EC member
Governments at the Stuttgart
European Council summit in
June 1983, aS a report in Euro-
pean Tlends, a publication of
The Economist Intelligence Unit,
observed, "were especially suspi-
cious of the Commission's at-
tempts to move from research
to development of a more posi-
tive industrial programme."
European states have been in-
creasing their direct subsidies to
biotech research, but total public
R&D expenditure 
- 
estimated
by the Commission to be in the
range of $156 million to $300
million per year 
- 
is behind that
of the United States at between
$200 million and $500 million
per year. The EC outspends the
Japanese government at $50 mil-
lion a year.
More essential to Progress,
however, than Lhe comparative
levels of public support will be
the degree to which research
and commercial applications are
coordinated both within and
among states. "One of the cen-
hal challenges of biotechnolo-
gly," the magazine BiotechnologY
wrote in August 1983,'"is or-
ganizational: It is a boundarY-
crossing, multidisciplinary, statis-
tician's nightmare. " Within states,
governments have been encourag-
ing cooperation between univer-
sities and industries to commer-
cially exploit research frndings
and map directions for research.
But among states, desPite the
Commission's efforts, coopera-
tion has been minimal. Whether
the emergence of research and
production collaboration now
occurring among European firms
will facilitate political coordina-
tion, the argument of the func-
tional integrationists, it is too
early to tell.
Several political and econo-
mic differences are apparent in a
comparison between those Euro-
pean, American, and Japanese
factors which have conhibuted
to the emergence of biotechno-
logy in each state. The market
for venture capital is larger and
more sophisticated in the United
Please turn to Page 24
Europa March-APril '84
e
RI'SEARCH & DEVELOPM


Biotechnology: Europe racing to catch up. Europa Vol. 7 No. 2, March-April 1984

o 8,.uroya \o1' 7 Nc, L tY/2- 2'>/BIOTECHNOLOGY: EI-IROPERACING T'O CATCH LIPBy JAMES DAVID SPELLMANBiotechnology within the European Community may go the vrayof Europe's microelectronics industry, msening that Amerien andJapanese firms will dominate while European enterprises assumezubsidiary positions in what is estimated to be a 950- to 9100-billionmarket for biotech goods and services by the year 2000. This is theprophecy of the U.S. Congress' Office of Technology Assessment,some industry analysts, and an EC Commission report, aszumingthat present patterns of research development and commercializa-tion continue.Ten years ago, some assess-ments of Europe's biotech futurewene optimistic - and with goodreason. The United Kingdom, foreramplo, held 30 per cent ofthe world's biotechnological pa-tents between 1967 and 1971,and the coirnhy was considered apioneer in several areas. TheFederal Republic of Germany'sSociety for Biological Researchat Braunschweig, established inthe mid-1960s by the Volks-wagen Foundation, w&s enviedworldwide. But economic, scien.tific, political, and, to a lesserextent, social obstacles combin-ed to cause European research tolag behind the dizzying pace setby the United States and Japan.According to the studiesmentioned above, research anddevelopment expenditures byEuropean organizations - bothpublic and private - were in-adequately expanded. The lackof regional or state planning re-sulted in ad hoc allocations ofgrants, which meant that re-search duplication was at timessupported and the country'sshongest biotech capabilitieswere not continually funded.Dispersed, isolated centers of re-search lacked coordination tofacilitate th6 systematic incor-poration by the biotech comrnu-nity of the disparate accomplish-ments. National rivalries prevent-ed cooperation among EC meru-ber Governments and privateEuropa March-April '84firms in both basic research andpatent law development. Fur-ther, many European firms failedto move aggressively to commer-cialize their products and exper-tise.EC Member States, however,have not been idle, particularlysince 1980. Government-indui-try commissions have been con-vened frequently in almost everyEC country to analyze how theirbiotech enterprises ran agroundand to plan state incentive pro-grammes and research prioritie's.The EC and the national Govern-ments have bolstered their finan-cial support. Meanwhile, Ameri-can and Japanese firms, encourag-ed partly by the devaluation ofEuropean currencies, have beenseeking out European firms forresearch partnerships, licensedproduction arrangements, andmarketing assistance.But are these efforts inEurope too little too late? Dr.John Walker, who selects thebiotechnology investments forTechnical Development Capital,a venture capital fund in theUnited Kingdom, asserted inThe Economist that ',the fieldis still open. It is not too late.,'He believes that 95 per cent ofthe biotechnology expected tobe needed in the 1gg0s has yetto be invented. But others voicepessimism. A white paper pre-'pared in 1983 for the Offic6 ofScience and Technology policywithin the White House con-cluded: "The United States facesthe stiffest challenge from Ja-pan."The term biotechnology, &c-cording to an Organization forEconomic Cooperation and De-velopment (OECD) report inL982, refers to "the applicationof scientific and engineeringprinciples to the processing ofmaterials by biological agenLsto provide goods and seryices."Often the word 'hew" is usedwith biotechnolory to differen-tiate between the traditional re-search efforts in the naturalbreeding of animal and plantspecies and the more recentefforts in both genetic manipu-Iation and the immobilization ofenzymes and cells.The impact the breaking ofthe genetic code will have onpost-industrial economies is ex-pected to be as revolutionaly asthat of the computer and infor-mation processing industries.More than 40 per cent of the ma-nufacturing output in developedEARCH & DEVELOPME}productsindushies,count forways, of which the most im-portant is through the deve-lopment of new technologies.Some $680 million is to beallocated for this purpose, ofwhich the lion's share has beenreserved for Information Tech-nology (S600 million) and thebalance for biotechnology. Ano-ther $360 million is to be spenttechniques andthe conventionalich together ac-of the indus-trial base ofThesectoralis on multi-development of - e.g. thetechniquesfor shaping andterials, using lasers inSuch techniques could adapt-ed to the clothing icompetitiveness and agriculhrralproductivity. PrioritY is trr begiven to direct solar energy, bio-mass and geothermal energY, fol'lowed by wind and hydroelechicpower.The ftamework programmealso provides for improvement inthe management of raw materials,notably minerals and wood. Inthe exploration of mineral dePo-sits, the emphasis will be on theprospecting of deposits at greatdepths and the development ofoffshore methods. The extrac-tion and treatment of ores willinvolve research into exploitinglean and complex ores, makingmarginal deposits workable, etc.the EC imports over half itsrequirements of wood and woodproducts, resulting in a trade de-ficit almost as large as the oildeficit. The two-fold objectivetherefore is to reduce depend-ence on outside sources and im-prove the economic viability ofEC's wood industries. Fi-ly, research will focus on twoof making optimum use ofmaterials, one of whichisto substitutes.them, the otherIti obvious that many oftheR& ties to be under-taken overinterest theand somenext 4 years willcountries,million havebeen allocated in to stepp-Six areasing up aid tohave been selected,"u"r" tt "y "r" "orriy be-Community policy onment aid. They are(with the emphasis on proming food self-sufficiency); theenvironment; health (nutrition;hopical diseases); soil resources;energy (especially renewablesources suitable to subsistenceeconomies) and population (de-mographic studies).In the last analysis the goalof scientific research strould bethe betterment of human wel-fare. The framework programme,not surprisingly, provides forresearch into improving livingand working conditions. Thetwo broad objectives are (1)improving safety and protectinghealth and (2) protecting theenvironment and preventing pol-lution. The areas of researchtherefore include not only healtlttechnology (diagrosis and treat-ment) but also the interactionbetween man and his environ-ment (the effects of urban en-croachment, tourism and inten-sive agriculture, for example).The success of the frame-work programme, as indeed ofanyB&Dprogramme,willdepend to a large extent on theeffectiveness of the Community'sscientific and technical potential.In fact the EC Council of Mi-nisters adopted last June a 2-year experimental programmeaimed at seeing how best tostimulate European scientific andtechnical cooperation and ex-change. The Commission is al-ready working on a more de-tailed 4-year plan, which ithopes can be implemented fromnext January.The plan would seek toincrease the mobility of re-searchers within the EC; deve-lop cooperation between Eu-ropeanR&Dteamsanden-courage the training and launch-ing into a career of young re-searchers. To this end there areto be gfants to encourage ex-changes (particularly betweenuniversities and industry); fi-nancial support for laboratory"twinning" and granLs for bring-ing people together from dif-ferent disciplines and countries.The aim of a common R & Dshategy, in the European Com-mission's view, is not the "Euro-peization" of scientific and tech-nical activities; rather, it is toand sustain the most fa-conditions for jointh. Where Member Stateswell as stripbuilding. Adasthesame time there is to betation of convergent technogtes (such as computermanufacturing, new materialsand new joining techniques) tospecific industrial sectors. Priori-ty will be given to those cur-rently most vulnerable or of eco-nomic or sfrategic importance.COMNION ENERGY POLICYThe Community has beenfacing up to the energy chal-lenge since L974, with R & Dactivities aimed at reaching thefollowing major objectives: inde-pendence, long-term security ofsupply, competitiveness and safe-ty. Ttrese objectives are reflectedin the framework prograrnme,whose goal is improving themanagement of energy resouroesand reducing energy dcpendencc.To this end the sPecificscientific and technical objec-tives include (1) the develoP-ment of nuclear fission energy(with the emphasis on reactorsafety); (2) controlled thermo-nuclear fusion (essentially a longand costly endeavout, unlikelY topay off before 50 years); (3)the development of renewablesources of energy and (4) the ra-tional use of energy.ln developing renewableenergy sources the EC is seekingnot only to promote energy in-dependence but also industrialtowithhavehavenuclearerated together theyable to keep up withthe comp\tion through innova-tion ( fission, thermo-. space). In theabsence of cooperation(computer science biotech-nology but also automobiles,chemicals and materials). Butthe Council of Ministers' deci-sion of Febmary 28 launchingESPRIT shows that the lessonis being learnt in time.Europa March-April'84EARCH & DEVELOPMENT,.:t', rbcountries is biological in natureor Origin. In the U.S. market,biotechdeveloped products willoby 1995, constitute 26.6 percent of the $7O-billion healthcare products market and 21.5per cent of the $4?O-billionagficultural products market.This projection is according toPredicasts, a U.S. market re-search firm.In medicine, only insulinand interferon are now commer-cially available and the marketingof a human growth hormone totrat dwarfism is anticipatedshortly. By 1985, commercialproduction of the human serumalbumin (a protein to replaceblood plasma), amino acids (thebuilding blocks of proteins whichin turn are the basic structuraland functional nraterials of cells),antibiotics, vitamins, and boththerapeutic and diagnostic mono-clonal antibodies is expected.The trends in biotech re-search, as indicated by thepatents granted in the UnitedStates between 1963 and 1982show the greatest activity inenzlrmes (proteins which pro-mote chemical change withoutbeing consumed in the reaction)and their production processes.Japan gained most of its patentsin amino acids and the lowestamount in tissue cultures, theexact reverse of the Americanposition. Ownership of U.S. pa-tenls by EC-based firms is moreextensive in mutation/genetic en-gineering and enzymes than intissue cultures, starch hydroly-sates (processes, for examPle, tocause the enzymatic hydrolYsisof starch to glucose), and amlnoacids. The patents that are heldby the United Kingdom, theFederal Republic of GermanY,and France constitute on averagethree-fourths of the total num-ber of U.S. patents granted toEC-based firms. U.S. firms ownhalf of the 3,381 biotech-re-lated patents issued. This amount,however, may be exaggerated be-cause the nationality of thosepatents which are filed by U.S.affiliates of foreign-owned cor-porations is classified as Ame-rican.The EC Commission waspresented in January 1980 witha five-year - 1981 to 1985 -proposal for R&D in biomole-cular engineering. Adopted bythe EC Council of Ministers inDecember 1981, the $7-millionprogramme's goal over five yearswas initially to encourage inno-vations in agri-food products.Funds for research were madeavailable through cost-sharingcontracts with private and Publicorganizations. The Commissionsubsequently approved in June1983 a $6-million budget topursue the programme's secondphase, that of expanding researchand training to all industrialfields.The Commission has beenprogtessive in its thinking aboutwhat policies could be imple-mented to foster the commercialnnturation of biotechnologies.Its report urges:. a Community-wide pro-gramme to plan R&D;o patent laws to betterprotect European inventors,terming the existing system "em-barrassing and far from satisfac-tory;"r harmonizing members'regulations covering pharmaceu-ticals and chemicals; ando ameliorating the negativeeffects of EC policies, such asthe Common Agricultural Poli-cy (CAP) which hamPers marketaccess by EC-based biotech firmsselling agri-food products.Prospects for the achieve-ment of these goals seems dimnow, given that EC memberGovernments at the StuttgartEuropean Council summit inJune 1983, aS a report in Euro-pean Tlends, a publication ofThe Economist Intelligence Unit,observed, "were especially suspi-cious of the Commission's at-tempts to move from researchto development of a more posi-tive industrial programme."European states have been in-creasing their direct subsidies tobiotech research, but total publicR&D expenditure - estimatedby the Commission to be in therange of $156 million to $300million per year - is behind thatof the United States at between$200 million and $500 millionper year. The EC outspends theJapanese government at $50 mil-lion a year.More essential to Progress,however, than Lhe comparativelevels of public support will bethe degree to which researchand commercial applications arecoordinated both within andamong states. "One of the cen-hal challenges of biotechnolo-gly," the magazine BiotechnologYwrote in August 1983,'"is or-ganizational: It is a boundarY-crossing, multidisciplinary, statis-tician's nightmare. " Within states,governments have been encourag-ing cooperation between univer-sities and industries to commer-cially exploit research frndingsand map directions for research.But among states, desPite theCommission's efforts, coopera-tion has been minimal. Whetherthe emergence of research andproduction collaboration nowoccurring among European firmswill facilitate political coordina-tion, the argument of the func-tional integrationists, it is tooearly to tell.Several political and econo-mic differences are apparent in acomparison between those Euro-pean, American, and Japanesefactors which have conhibutedto the emergence of biotechno-logy in each state. The marketfor venture capital is larger andmore sophisticated in the UnitedPlease turn to Page 24Europa March-APril '84eRI'SEARCH & DEVELOPM

http://aei.pitt.edu/61316/2/Biotechnology_Europe_Racing_to_Catch_Up.pdf

Biotechnology: Europe racing to catch up. Europa Vol. 7 No. 2, March-April 1984

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive of European Integration

Archive of European Integration