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.

    14/308 (page 6)
    ample supply of scientists trained in molecular biology, biochemistry, cell biology, and immunol- ogy as a result of the traditionally strong support for those fields by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH, by far the largest Federal source of fellowships and training grants, is also the largest supporter of such training for biotechnology. NIH estimates that $70 to $80 million of its training funds support graduate students working in areas either directly or indirectly related to biotechnol- ogy, approximately 6,000 students. At the same time, the share of NIH’s research budget devoted to training has shrunk from 18 percent in 1971 to a low of less than 4 percent in 1987. The National Science Foundation sponsors roughly 150 predoctoral fellowships, totaling about $8 million, in the biological and biomedical sciences. Only 20 fellows are funded at the post- doctoral level; these are all in plant biology and environmental sciences, at a total cost of $2.2 mil- lion. Other Federal agencies, notably the Depart- ment of Agriculture and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, support varying smaller numbers of students in areas related to biotechnology. Based on a 1984 survey, biotechnology compa- nies provide between $8 million and $24 million for training grants and scholarships. Industry funding is estimated to account for about 10 to 20 percent of all money for biotechnology train- ing programs. Combined with the contributions made by industry to the research and salaries of trainees at research universities, industry provides financial assistance to about 20 percent of bio- technology trainees. Colleges and universities have responded fairly rapidly to advances in biotechnology, by creat- ing a range of new programs in biotechnology training and education. OTA has identified 60 such programs at 49 different U.S. colleges and univer- sities. About three-fourths of these programs are based at State institutions. Seventeen States reported funding university and college training programs in biotechnology. But complexities in accounting procedures and disbursement of such funds mean that few can provide exact dollar figures. For those that did ~ report spending on specific programs, the figures for fiscal year 1987 ranged from a high of $1.3 million in Georgia to a low of $40,000 in Penn- sylvania. Campus-Industry Collaboration Collaboration between industry and academia has always played an important role in biotech- nology research. The industrial contribution to academic research is approximately four to five times greater in biotechnology than in other fields; per dollar invested, industrially supported univer- sity research in biotechnology generates four times as many patent applications as does com- pany sponsorship of other research on campus. Nearly half of biotechnology companies support university-based research. Although small com- pared to the contribution made by the Federal Government, that support has grown by an aver- age of 8.5 percent annually in the first half of the decade. The nature of this commitment appears to be changing. Few biotechnology companies are plan- ning to invest large sums over long periods for undirected research, as was done in the early 1980s by Monsanto at Washington University. An increasing number of cooperative arrangements represent consulting and contract research rather than long-term partnerships. The debate over the impact of such collabo- ration on academic science remains unre- solved. With the exception of isolated studies, little evidence exists to either substantiate or re- fute the claims that such cooperative efforts are undermining the university’s mission and inde- pendence. As this debate continues, two trade- offs bear watching: ¢ whether losses to science or to university values that result from increases in the level of secrecy in universities are offset by net ad- ditions to knowledge that result from infu- sion of industry funds into university labora- tories; and e whether shifts in the direction of the univer- sity research agenda toward more applied and commercially relevant projects have benefits for human health and economic growth that far outweigh the risks to basic research.