A way around a problem

Biotechnology has provided a solution to the problem of how to get science to the market without compromising research, writes editor-in-chief Iain Scott.

For evidence that Australia's research sector has embraced biotechnology as a way to get the most out of important science, look no further than former Walter and Eliza Hall Institute director Sir Gustav Nossal's recent comments in an opinion piece.

No one could ever doubt Sir Gustav's commitment to academic research. But as he points out, the private sector -- including Australian biotechnology companies Avexa, Virax and Starpharma -- is at the forefront of vital work in helping to develop a vaccine against HIV/AIDS, one of the deadliest of diseases.

Biotechnology has achieved many useful things in crop science, drug and device development, and other areas. But one of the most useful things it has done is to get around the awkward situation of the commercialisation of basic research.

Commercialisation is not the dirty word around the lab that it once was. But there are still issues that dog efforts to seamlessly translate research from the lab to the market. For example, patent attorneys rail at academics who are not commercially focussed, who insist on publishing their work without first protecting it with a patent. And the academic sector, meanwhile, is hostile to the idea of paying licence fees to private companies for access to patented technology. Many researchers are still very reluctant to consider a commercial outcome for their work.

But should research scientists be getting training in patents and the markets? We believe the onus should not be on the researcher. Increasing pressure on universities and institutes to generate more of their own income has led to a more professional technology transfer industry in Australia. Tech transfer offices and companies are getting more adept at working in the sensitive area between academic research on the one hand, and hard-nosed equity investors on the other. As a result, and helped in part by government programs like the Biotechnology Innovation Fund, tech transfer been a not insubstantial contributor to the growth of the local biotech industry.

As Pfizer's Peter Corr told the recent AusBiotech 2005 conference in Perth, we work within a very delicate biomedical ecosystem. Academic research, technology transfer, private equity, biotechnology, government policy and big pharma all have important roles to play, and if one is altered, the whole ecosystem can change.

And all sides are getting creative. At the BIO conference in Washington DC a few years ago, I spoke with a senior drug company exec about how big pharma could get around the peer review problem -- many high-ranking academic journals will not touch a paper if it is written by industry scientists. "We take the research up to a certain point, and then farm it out to a university or institute to finish," he said. "Then they publish it."