Abstract
In some cases, biotechnology may not be the only solution. The energy problem is one example, and I do not think there will be only one sustainable energy technology that will solve all of the problems. I expect that outcomes from the industrial biotechnology research community will provide one of multiple solutions needed to address the need for sustainable energy solutions.
In terms of how biobased innovations are helping to drive the global bioeconomy, I view it in two ways. In some cases people are developing processes and technologies to solve a very specific problem. If it is a relatively straightforward problem and there are relatively mature technologies in place, then those solutions and technologies will have a positive impact on economies. In other cases, I think it will be important and necessary to do more exploration of the underlying science and technology to begin to address complex and emerging problems. Such work may take place in the for-profit arena, government laboratories, academic laboratories, or in strategic partnerships among these groups. In these cases, collateral discoveries may lead to innovative solutions for a wide variety of technological challenges in society and lead to substantial, positive, economic impact. I believe experience has shown that increasing the investment and effort in science and technology both solves specific problems and proves to be a worthwhile investment in terms of economic impact and growing economies, not only in any one country, but globally. I anticipate that continued growth in the industrial biotechnology community, provided it is done in a reasonable, strategic way, will help power various aspects of the world economy going forward.
Our community needs to reach out in a more effective way to policy-makers. Beyond this, I think we need to do a better job of communicating with the broader public. There are two main reasons for wanting to do that, the first being to engage the next generation of scientists and engineers to become part of the community and to see participation in these fields as a way to contribute to the solutions; not to mention that these are well-paying careers. There are not enough scientists and engineers in this country relative to the need. The other reason to invest effort in engaging the public is that some of the solutions the community comes up with may be more broadly accepted by the public if they are better understood. I think that will also feed forward to policy-makers and help convince them of the value of the biotechnology community to society.
These comments are somewhat limited in scope to North America and Europe, and less relevant to some countries where there is already a commitment to more strategic investments. So my comments may be specific to certain regions of the world. With that in mind, I think the solutions to challenges faced by science and engineering lie largely in better communication. Scientists generally do not do a good job of communicating their work to the public or to policy-makers because we are not trained to do so. We are trained to talk to our peers, not to the public.
I have a lot of confidence that science and R&D advances will continue to be made, and that when there is a big problem and scientists put their minds to it, a solution will be found. It might take time, money, and other resources, but society needs to make the commitment. Depending on the scale of the problem—and I am focusing more on the academic community here than the for-profit sector—there are problems that are so challenging that you need very large and diverse teams of people to come up with innovative and creative solutions.
On another note, historically, there has also been a lot of science, engineering, and technology development that has happened on a much smaller scale, in which individual groups or small teams of people have come up with solutions. In contrast, there are also major initiatives that involve many teams working together to solve a problem. I think it is important to have the balance of both of these going forward. People often call it “big science” vs. “little science.” I don't know if these names are the best characterization, but I think that there is value in continuing a range of scales of projects and teams. Efforts that provide out-of-the-box solutions that might come from small teams, as well as the technological advances that can be made from larger teams working on problems that small teams cannot tackle.
Totally unrelated to the scientific aspect of industrial biotechnology, but returning to what we discussed previously, the biggest negative change I have seen is the growing disconnect between the public/policy-makers and science/engineering, at least in parts of the world. I worry about that locally (within the US) because it relates to our ability to compete with other countries; and I worry about it broadly because if scientists and engineers do not find a way to communicate the value of their role in society, then we will have even fewer students interested in studying science and engineering, further shrinking the community. Think of where our world would be without scientific innovation.
Increasingly, I have started to pay more attention to the need to reach out to policy-makers and, when they have to make very difficult decisions, to help them understand that there is value in investing in science, technology, and engineering, even when it might require a longer-term investment. Most that I have communicated with seem to appreciate the value both from an educational perspective in terms of preparing the next generation of scientists and engineers, and from a societal perspective in terms of solving important problems as we move forward.