New developments in biotechnology : U.S. investment in biotechnology.

  • United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Date:
1988
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: New developments in biotechnology : U.S. investment in biotechnology. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    12/308 (page 4)
    Agency National Institutes of Health: Agency for International Development: *NA: Not available. FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 ce epee 1,208,229 1,202,094 1,388,337 Each sd Bea are 638,916 678,003 887,614 Mas A Es 1,847,145 1,880,097 2,275,951 men GE a aie Bi 44,100 51,600 60,800 beans i 48,500 49,000 ~ 58,000 coe eer oe 92,600 100,600 118,800 We ineat eink ae 81,570 84,072 93,800 Be Ce ee 45,500 45,000 50,100 Lees ary or 9,600 10,900 11,300 eine SRRAREER 55,100 55,900 61,400 .» dapete eee 48,000 46,000 49,000 Wage Oi eth ea 24,500 27,000 35,000 DAS 8 9 2b NA* 46,854 43,756 eae) NA 14,332 6,082 Oe ENE A NA 6,400 7,200 2 lg ede a be 5,400 6,365 9,400 med RAS ee 3,000 3,400 5,666 Rah hn oan a 850 3,300 3,300 MPa Sey art ask 3,000 4,700 5,800 mene ees 2,144 2,215 2,680 Mig Oy 12,000 NA 12,033 4 SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988. is also being made by the Department of Defense, $119 million; the National Science Foundation, $93.8 million; and by the Department of Energy, $61.4 million. The Department of Agriculture ex- pects to fund some $84 million in biotechnology research, divided between the Cooperative State Research Service and the Agricultural Research Service. Federal support of biotechnology research and development has increased minimally every year since 1984. Although one reason for these in- creases may be its political attractiveness to agency officials, a more likely explanation is that biotech- nology comprises a set of tools that have become fully integrated into the life sciences. Some 33 States are actively engaged in some form of promotion of biotechnology research and development. These efforts are seen as a means to achieve academic excellence in their col- leges and universities or as a path to economic development, or both. State investment totaled $147 million in fiscal year 1987 (1/16th the Fed- eral investment), with three States—New Jersey, f New York, and Pennsylvania—making up more than half of that amount. The States employ vari- ous funding mechanisms to reach their goals, in- cluding issuance of bonds, direct legislative ap- propriations, allocation of State lottery funds to biotechnology, and mandatory industry and gov- ernment matching funds. With the oldest State program, that of North Carolina, only in its sixth year, it is too early to judge the success of State efforts. The only avail- able measures of success are indirect ones, namely, the size of the budget, the number of biotechnol- ogy companies within a State’s borders, and the extent of involvement by universities and private industry. Although long-term, stable funding runs counter to the pattern of State investment, it is vital in the area of biotechnology. State programs with strong support from their governors appear to hold an advantage, as do those that can man- age to avoid fiscal duress, severe unemployment, and educational insufficiencies. States that have an existing base of strong research universities hold the greatest advantage.