BRENT ERICKSON: The World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology is 15 years old this year. What changes have you seen in the last 15 years?
VONNIE ESTES: That's a very broad question, but I would say a lot of the changes have been around the technology. I've been to 14 of the 15 World Congress meetings. The first one was much smaller. I was working at Syngenta and Diversa. And at the time, I felt I was very much alone working on cellulosic biofuels. I came to the World Congress and realized that there was this larger community also working on this technology.
So from that beginning, all of us focused on fuels, trying to build something that didn't exist. A lot of money was spent. A lot of careers came and went. But I think that was the foundation. And even though cellulosic biofuels will come around again, I believe, those companies were the foundation of a lot of investment in industrial biotech.
I've seen this evolution in technology and in business models. We've gotten a lot smarter about how to build a market. I think John Melo [Amyris CEO] says that his first molecule costs $240 million to get to market. I'm advising a company right now that is about to raise their Series A. They've done some seed funding, and they already have a product in the market. They already have revenue. That's one of the biggest changes that I've seen is just how much smarter we've gotten and how much better we've gotten about getting biotechnology products to market.
PAT GRUBER: I remember when we started this group, and it's grown a bit, I'd say. And of course the diversity of the products we're working on has changed a lot. We've had a shift in focus from biofuels primarily, went to commodity chemicals, and now we're seeing flavors and fragrances and other specialties. One of the things that is fascinating is the amount of really good people here. That is a fundamental difference from those first meetings and it's going to continue to grow. These technologies have matured along the way. And I think people are starting to work out what works and what doesn't.
There's only a few types of technoloiges that have conservation of yield and energy efficiency that work well at large scale, make sense from an agricultural perspective, and produce fuels and chemicals.
And I think these biotech tools, as Vonnie mentioned, are astounding at how fast they can get things done. So those are some of the major changes, I'd say.
KRYSTA HARDEN: There have been a lot of mergers that have changed the complexion of the agriculture sector. But at the same time I think there has been an enhanced commitment to innovation. At Corteva, we are looking at what new possibilities are coming, whether it's through gene editing or CRISPR. Nothing stays static, there's always change. There's always new opportunities, and I think innovation is really at the forefront, as it should be. When you think about agriculture and the problems that farmers, ranchers, and land owners are facing, they are going to need new tools. And as an industry, we're going to have a hard time keeping up and finding solutions faster for them.
SANG YUP LEE: Fifteen years ago leaders of the world would say, biobased products and environmentally sustainable products are great, but it's not my business… yet. But of course from several years back, everyone agreed that biotechnology is the only way the future chemical industry can survive. And that's where the industry is moving to.
Technology is another big change. Let me give you one example. Fifteen years ago, when we sequenced a microbial genome for metabolic engineering purposes, it took 18 months and about $1 million. To sequence one simple, small bacteria's genome. Now, it takes 18 hours to get the complete genome sequence and about $10,000. And of course, the cost is still dropping. That clearly showcases a drastic change over the last 15 years.
ERICKSON: The business models have changed, we've seen mergers and acquisitions, and the technology has rapidly improved. I can remember DuPont saying it took 18 years and many partners to commercializa PDO [1,3-propanediol], and we're seeing those times be reduced. Let me ask you a different question. How do you see policy helping or hindering the industry going forward in terms of incentives or regulations?
HARDEN: I think consumers are suffering a little bit from a lack of understanding or awareness and a mistrust of science. We all need to make sure that there is better trust of all institutions, whether it's government, large companies, or science. I think we have work to do, and the size of the task shouldn't be underestimated. We need to listen more to the public's questions and concerns, and recognize that we don't always have the answers. We do make mistakes and we want to be more responsible. To be trusted, you have to be trustworthy. I think that's a challenge for all of us. We have to think about the roles that we play in consumer decisions and where they are going to put their faith.
That I still have to have discussions about GMOs after all this time? Well it takes all my good raising not to roll my eyes and say, “Why are we still having this conversation!?” But we are. And so I think we have a lot to learn from the agriculture industry and mistakes that we have made in the past. And I think we're going to do better this time, but I think it is still a challenge.
GRUBER: When you think about the megatrend decarbonization—or pushing to low carbon and reducing greenhouse gas emissions—that requires the use of renewable resource-based raw materials as the carbon source. But that means you are using products, raw materials, that are grown on land. And of course, if you talk about using a piece of land, that raises the question, what's important? Food is really important. And so we run into this issue of food versus fuel still. Food is important. It's most important. We should grow protein on the land. But when you grow protein, you get other things that are useful for guys like me, and my company—carbohydrates. That's the right context. And now it's a question of how efficiently can you do it.
Alex Clayton from Agrisoma reminded me to mention that in the future we will even be able to sink carbon into that land. That's part of the story that has to get incorporated. Now where it shows up in the public policy is things like the RFS, where I see them trying to exclude whole classes of raw materials. Corn sometimes gets that, but that disregards that corn it's a huge generator of protein. One of the biggest. Carbohydrates are the side product in many ways. It's a symbiotic relationship between the carbohydrate and the protein. We need them both and we're going to see systems evolve to add more and more value toward fractionating corn. For example—getting protein, value-added oils, etc. That will happen and you'll see agricultural systems optimized and made more sustainable.
But that needs to be reflected in policy. Where it shows up, is that as efficient as we are in generating these carbohydrates, it takes three pounds of a carboyhydrate to make one pound of a hydrocarbon product. That's just math. That's reality. That means that it is at a cost disadvantage compared to petrochemicals. And we're held to a higher standard, generally, than petrochemicals. We get our whole value chain scrutinized from start to finish: How something is grown, all the way to the life cycle end of the product. All of this requires that a value be put on the carbon in order for it to be adopted widely. You can't match petrochemical prices easily. Not without some sort of a carbon value. And that's what's really important in the policy.
ERICKSON: Dr. Lee, how important is policy in Asia?
LEE: Policy is very important. Let me again give you an example. I think mutally agreeable regulations will become more and more prevalent to meet the United Nations' 17 Sustainable Development goals. Let's take an example on plastics. Two years ago, France became the first country to ban all one-time use plastics by year 2020. That is just two years away. The European Commission, a couple of months ago, also announced an outright ban on one-time use plastics made of fossil-based raw materials. And the president of India—a country consuming a lot of plastics—announced a one-time use plastics ban by 2022. So this kind of regulation is increasing, but again it's not going to demolish the plastics industry either because there will be some time to prepare—to change, including switching to a more sustainable way of production.
ERICKSON: There are a lot of changes around the world, not just in the United States. Government policy has an impact on every country. I think it's gratifying, at least in my view, to have seen in the last 15 years that the biobased economy is growing worldwide. It really started off in US, Canada and Europe, but we have seen it really spread.
Dr. Lee, you talked a little bit about systems metabolic engineering and strain development and how that is changing the landscape. Can you talk a bit more about that?
LEE: Systems metabolic engineering is basically a strategy for developing microbial strains and bioprocesses employing all the tools at a systems level, as a typical chemical engineer would use to make the whole system optimized. And by doing so you can actually speed up the process of developing the plant. And in this particular case the plant is a microorganism. So you tweak tens of hundreds of genes at the same time and a lot of new tools are coming out as well. We have been combining in silico tools to predict flux values, and also, using wet tools, we are targetting multiple genes and gene regulations and putting them together. This is a powerful way of manipulating the whole microorganism in a multiplex manner.
Now, we are adapting all these great tools around artificial intelligence. So we use the digital network to decipher where the flux actually has to be modified, etc. It even speeds up the process so there are several companies emerging now around the world who are trying to use these advanced technologies to automate strain development to significantly reduce the cost of developing biofactories.
ERICKSON: Krysta, you talked a little bit about your experiences as a woman in industry, and Vonnie you have as well. So this question is for both of you. What are your thoughts on how women are transforming the landscape of corporate America. What positive impacts are they having and what can we do more to create more awareness?
HARDEN: I think we are making great strides. Corteva, for example, is making sure there is better balance on the company's leadership team. A third of us are women. It cannot be a token number, either. It can't just be a corporation saying, “We're going to do this because someone is pressuring us or because of the optics.”
I hope the younger women in Corteva will see role models and believe they can do this because women before them have. I didn't really have that when I was coming up in agriculture. There were very few women. So I think we are doing a better job of creating those atmospheres. A lot of women at certain ages hit a block where it is hard for them to go to the next level. You have to create situations where they feel comfortable, they know there's a path or track—although it may differ from their male colleagues because they are taking care of young kids or an aging parent. But you need to create an atmosphere where that is ok and there will still be a place or path for you. It has to be intentional and there has to be conscious discussion. It takes enlightend men. It takes bright women giving their time and energy to make this happen.
I feel a lot better than I did even a decade ago when I started having this conversation in agriculture. But it is not solved, it is still an issue. And it is something we need to continue to talk about. I appreciate BIO raising the profile of women in science. It is easy for women to be overlooked and have their contributions not be valued as often as their male counterparts.
ESTES: I think even from a year ago things have gotten better just because of what has happened around the #MeToo movement shining a light on the issues and giving women a voice—the feeling that they can stand up and say something and not be alone. Organizations like BIO make a huge difference. It's not just having a woman on stage, it's giving a woman a voice and the opportunity to have a seat at the table.
Things are getting much better in that way. In the beginning of our careers, there weren't women in these positions to look up to. So I mentor women as much as I can. I have been able to open doors younger women just because I'm here. We're getting women into places where they can open those doors and there can be an “Old Girls” network.
One thing that I will close with, I have a 22-year-old activist daughter who keeps me very honest. And she says to me, things are better for you but where are you not looking? Women who have had an education have had some success, but where are we not looking? There are women on farms or in other industries who still don't have a voice. We need to keep asking, “Where are women not being heard?”
ERICKSON: Industry is evolving and seeing more and more production of food ingredients, flavor ingredients, flavors, cosmetics, etc, which are much more consumer-facing than products of the past. How can industry better communicate to consumers the benefits of biobased technologies and products to increase the market?
GRUBER: That's a hard one, because the broad public seems to get their information in snippets from whatever is convenient to click. Someone told me a story yesterday about a PLA (polylactic acid) cup. PLA has been commercialized since 2001. And they were talking about broadening its distribution into the Midwest. But the people were reluctant to do it because it was made from GMO corn. How does that make sense?
But that cuts to the issue: It is still a brand problem that people consider. So the only way to deal with it is to lay out the facts, get better information, and communicate it. Food and protein matter. Growing food matters. People don't understand these crops—corn and beans make protein. They make it cheaper, they make it more available. And so it is this constant education. Getting that message out in a hypersensitive political environment is really, really difficult at times.
People just have to continue to work together and bring more information forward. We can sequester carbon in the soil. You'd think that would be relevant. We can actually take CO2 out and put it in the ground and keep it there, if we choose to.
HARDEN: If you ask people of a certain age where they get their information and who they trust, the first thing they say is myself or people like me. So I think we also need to think about the messenger. Who is talking about these issues?
For instance, in food, women still make most of the decisions on food purchases. If they're not doing the groceries, they're making the grocery list. They're deciding what their kids eat. So we need to think about who women trust. Women trust women. We listen to each other and we're networkers. We need to think about that messenger.
And I also think we need to very consciously listen to the public. Ask them: where do they get their information? How do they want their information? Who do you trust and how can we connect better? And that takes time and resources that alot of us think we don't have, but if we want customers in the future, we need to make time and money available. We need to do things differently. We've made mistakes and we can't make them again—we need to learn from them.
LEE: Don't ever, ever use the term public perception. Rule number one is: the public is always right. Rule number two? If public is wrong, see rule number one. You always need good communication. Always try to communicate with science-based, evidence-based information. Share information with all the stakeholders transparently and try to communicate more often than you want to. That's the only way to improve the situation. This isn't a complete solution, but it is going to make the situation better.
ESTES: I agree with all these points, but I would like to add that there needs to be a focus on consumer benefits and really developing products that just, beyond a doubt, are better. Then you are talking more about the product and less about the technology. That has been a failing point around GMOs. Consumers weren't seeing the value there. With technologies like gene editing in agriculture, I'm hoping companies are going to use it to create the something like the best-tasting strawberries. Where people think it's so good that they're not going to ask questions, they are just going to eat them.
One company that I have worked with has developed a collagen product from an edited yeast that they are putting into cosmetics. Everyone already knows what collagen is, and it works so well that nobody is even questioning it. All of these points about the messenger and delivery are true, but we need to continue to really deliver products are so amazing that there is a reason to get over the debate or there is a reason to try to understand it and accept the technology.
ERICKSON: To wrap up, I'd like to do a lightning round, where each person can have 20 seconds. And the question is: What do you see as the big breakthrough in ag or industrial biotech in the next five years?
LEE: I think a lot of one-time use plastics will be replaced with biobased plastics. That's my five-year prediction.
HARDEN: I think it will be using CRISPR for consumer-facing products.
GRUBER: I think we're finally going to see commercialization of hydrocarbons like jet fuel and isooctane.
ESTES: I have to go with CRISPR and consumer products as well.
