Biotechnology
Presentation schedule
On 28th December:
Time: 2.00 PM
Genetic Engineering for More Food, Cleaner Environment
Dr.S.K.Apte
Molecular Biology Dvision
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
Trombay, Mumbai-400085
Time: 2.30 PM
Energy Efficient and Green Practices by a Corporate
Mr Debraj Sengupta
Paharpur Business Centre & Software
Technology Incubator Park
21, Nehru Place Greens, New Delhi-110019
End at 3.00 PM
On 29th December:
Panel discussion on Open Source Biotechnology – An Idea
Yet to Take- off in India
Time: 2.00 PM
Chair: Dr. MC Arunan (Sophia College for Women, Mumbai)
Panel:
Dr. Satyajit Rath (NII, New Delhi)
Dr. G. Nagarjuna (HBCSE, TIFR, Mumbai)
Dr.T. Jayaraman (TISS, Mumbai)
Dr. C. K. Raju ( Inmantec & Centre for Studies in Civilizations,Delhi)
Dr. N. Raghuram ( New Delhi)
On 30th December:
Time: 2 PM
MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN
HEALTH
K.B. SAINIS
Director, Bio-Medical Group, Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre, Modular Laboratories, Trombay, Mumbai
Time: 2.30 PM
Genetically Engineered Vaccine Against Anthrax : “ From Clone to
Clinic”
Prof. Rakesh Bhatnagar
School of Biotechnology, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi-110067, India.
Time: 3.00 PM
Cytoskeletal Dynamics and Human Diseases
Dr.Dulal Panda
Department of Bioscience, IIT,
Mumbai
Time: 3.30 PM
Biotechnology in Municipal Solid Waste Management
Dr. Amiya Kumar Sahu
President
National Solid Waste Association of India
Mumbai
Time: 4 PM
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE CHALLENGE OF CANCER
Dr. L. C. Padhy
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India
Time: 4.30 PM
Title and abstract awaited
Prof. B.C.Tripathy
School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi-110067
Time: 5.PM
Selecting Cognate Pairs of Molecules in vitro: Lessons in
Molecular Evolution and Possible Applications
Prof. Pramod Yadav
Dean, School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi-110067
Time: 5.30 PM
Title and abstract awaited
Dr. Dilip kumar
Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Education
Versova, Andheri West- Mumbai- 400 061
End at 6 PM
On 31st December
Time: 2 PM
Radiation technolgy for the development of genetically improved
crops and post harvest processing of agro products
Dr. S. F. D'SOUZA
Biomedical Group
Nuclear Agriculture and Biotechnology Division,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Trombay, Mumbai-400085, India.
Email: sfdsouza@ barc.gov.in
Time: 2.30 PM
Immunotherapy of Cancer: Issues and Challenges
Dr. S. V. Chiplunkar
Advanced Center for Treatment, Research & Education in Cancer
Tata Memorial Center, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai
Time:3.00PM
Social
Impact
of
Modern
Biotechnology:
Developments
in
Biomedical Research
Santosh K.Kar
School of biotechnology, Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi-110067
End at 3.30 PM
ABSTRACTS:
"Genetic Engineering for More Food, Cleaner
Environment"
S.K.Apte
Molecular Biology Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay,
Mumbai - 400 085
Concerted efforts by plant breeders all over the world have produced a large number of
high yielding crop varieties and led to green revolutions in different parts of the world.
However, the actual yield potential of most crops is never realized in the field due to
adverse impact of environmental stresses, such as nutrient deficiencies (N, P, and K), soil
salinity, drought, heat and cold and a plethora of bacterial, viral, fungal and insect
pathogens. Conventional ways of alleviating these stresses cause pollution in the form of
chemical fertilizers or pesticides and other biocides. In future, the agriculture is likely to
become even more stressful. Genetic engineering facilitates incorporation of novel traits
from any living organism into plants and its expression at will. Using this technology
several high yielding, insect / herbicide tolerant crops have been engineered and are in
use in many parts of the world. Many more with improved nutritional quality or delayed
ripening and other desirable characters are in the offing. These transgenic crops or
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have raised several technical, environmental,
biosafety and ethical concerns, which need to adequately addressed before this becomes a
successful and sustainable technology. Some of these technological advancements and
concerned issues will be discussed
MEDICAL RADIOISOTOPE TECHNOLOGY
AND HUMAN HEALTH
K.B. SAINIS, Ph.D., FNASc, FMAS,
Director, Bio-Medical Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Modular
Laboratories, Trombay, Mumbai – 400 085
The discoveries of radiation and radioactivity have proved to be a great boon to
medical science. Interestingly, in a world where radiation is generally considered bad or
hazardous irrespective of the dose, its use as a diagnostic or therapeutic tool has been
thriving, nay, showing increasing spread across the globe.
The availability of
radioisotopes and labeled compounds (including radiopharmaceuticals) on a commercial
scale facilitated the widespread applications of Nuclear Medicine that include
radiodiagnosis, imaging and radioisotope-therapy of several diseases including cancer.
While x-rays found diagnostic application in the early 20th century, computerized
tomography (CT) a three dimensional x-radiographic technique is used today even in
small towns of some of the developing countries for imaging and diagnosis of cancers
and other diseases and even for obtaining biopsies. Cobalt (Co)-60 teletherapy and
localized brachytherapy using iodine (I)-125 or cesium (Cs)-13 are also in widespread
use for treatment of cancers. Radioimmunoassay (RIA) technique permits estimation of
very small quantities of biomolecules like hormones, proteins, narcotics and other drugs.
The discovery of an artificial element technetium (Tc)-99m in 1938 and subsequent
availability of Tc-99m
generator have revolutionized medical investigation through
scintigraphic techniques. In recent years the availability of short-lived radionuclides,
especially, fluorine (F)-18 generated in a cyclotron, in the form of F-18 labeled
deoxyglucose (FDG), is being extensively used for detection, follow-up and imaging of
tumors, their metastases, inflammation, neurological disorders etc. by the positron
emission tomography (PET) technique.
In India, Radiation Medicine Centre (RMC) of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
in association with its Isotope ( now Radiopharmaceuticals) Division pioneered the use of
radioisotopes and nuclear techniques for medical purposes. Radioiodine therapy for
thyroid cancer is a well established modality and radiation synovectomy holds promise
for the arthritis patients. Board of Radioisotope Technology (BRIT) of the Department of
Atomic Energy makes and markets several RIA kits and radiopharmaceuticals.
Radiolabelled biomolecules are also available for biotechnological applications. India’s
first medical cyclotron was installed at RMC in 2002. Our country needs at least a
thousand Co-60 teletherapy machines.
The indigenously developed Bhabhatron by
BARC and its commercial production hold a strong ray of hope in meeting this goal in
the coming years. A new digital medical imaging system developed at BARC will
considerable reduce the radiation dose to the patient and at the same time improve the
quality of the images obtained. Some of these facilities are available at no cost to the
poor and weaker sections of the society. In conclusion, medical uses of radiation and
radioisotopes have certainly improved the quality of human life
Genetically Engineered Vaccine against Anthrax:
“From Clone to Clinic”
Prof. Rakesh Bhatnagar
School of Biotechnology, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi-110067,
India
Ph # 011-26704079, 26742040 (Telefax)
rakbhat01@yahoo.com, rakeshbhatnagar@mail.jnu.ac.in
The nature of bio-terrorism resulting from anthrax attack is such that an aggressor is
likely to strike at a time and place calculated to induce maximum terror through mass
casualties. In the absence of specific intelligence in terms of medical suveillance and
integrated real-time detection systems, the unpredictable nature of such events compels
the development of medical countermeasures, which will enable the authorities to treat
the exposed individuals. Early treatment is essential, when the disease reaches a point at
which antibiotics are no longer effective owing to the accumulation of a lethal level of
toxin, even though the organism is sensitive to the agent. The currently recommended
postexposure treatment is a combination of an antibiotic (ciprofloxacin) and a licensed
human vaccine AVA (Highly toxic with side effects).
We have PCR-cloned and overexpressed the anthrax protective antigen gene. Bioprocess
optimization was done to improve the yields of the genetically engineered protective
antigen. The total yield of genetically engineered vaccine obtained was 25 g from a 5liter bioreactor, which is equivalent to 1 million shots. The genetically engineered
protein was found to be functionally and biologically identical to its B. anthracis antigen.
Toxicity studies conducted on this protein indicated that the protein is devoid of any
toxicity and can be safely used for the development of a safe and effective genetically
engineered vaccine against anthrax. Phase II clinical trials are being done as per
guidelines of Drug Controller of India and US FDA. Technology for making genetically
engineered vaccine against anthrax has already been transferred to Panacea Biotec Ltd.,
New Delhi, a pharmaceutical company already in the business of making polio and
Hepatitis B vaccine.
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE CHALLENGE
OF CANCER
L. C. Padhy
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research,
Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India.
The challenge of cancer has engaged the best human minds for more than a century and a
satisfactory solution to problems, related to various aspects of this disease type, is yet to
emerge. In the past several decades, we have learnt that normal cells may become
cancerous after they are exposed to biological agents such as bacteria and viruses,
chemical agents such as carcinogens and mutagens or physical agents such as UV- and
X-rays. In the last two and half decades, the possible roles of oncogenes and tumour
suppressor genes in cancer have been unraveled. More recently, cancer has been linked to
abnormalities of stem cells. In this talk, I shall briefly discuss how new ideas and
methods in modern biotechnology may help us to conquer the scourge of this disease.
Selecting Cognate Pairs of Molecules in vitro:
Lessons in Molecular Evolution and Possible
Applications
Jyoti Bala, Chanchal Kumar and Pramod Yadava*
School of Life Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067
The pre-cellular evolution of life-like assemblies of molecules depended on cognate pairs
of molecules staying together for longer than non-cognate molecules. In the process, they
might have influenced each others structure and function. A large number of such events
would have lasted for a transient while some might have found super-assemblies with
defined self-propagating form and function. Most of the life processes can be visualized
as cascades of interactions among mutually cognate molecules e.g., substrate enzyme,
ligand-receptor, signal-signal transduction intermediates, antigen-antibody, and drugdrug target etc. all illustrate interaction among cognate molecules in organized living
systems. However, the probability of finding cognate structures in a randomly generated
pool of variants is rather low and one depends on a vast pool of such molecules
to find such pairs.
RNA has emerged as a molecule of significance in terms of its catalytic potentials and in
terms of its regulatory roles with reference to several pathways. RNA can interact with
other molecules within cells based either on sequence complementarity or on its
structural compatibility with them. With the advent of technology to synthesize and
amplify random sequences of oligonucleotides by replicative or transcriptional reactions
in vitro, it has become possible to generate such pools and affinity select molecules
recognizing a chosen ligand. We make use of this possibility for selecting RNA
molecules binding with glutathione (a molecule of significance in keeping cellular health)
and calcium (one of the earliest signaling molecules in the living world). Visualization of
secondary structures of these molecules reveals a polyphyletic origin although there are
signs of conservation of some motifs among different classes. We propose to use these
RNA molecules for modulating availability of their cognate ligands in biological
situations regulated by these ligands.
(*Corresponding authors email: pky0200@mail.jnu.ac.in ; Financial support
received from UGC and CSIR is gratefully acknowledged)
Radiation technology for the development of
genetically improved crops and post harvest
processing of agro products
Dr. S. F. D'SOUZA
Biomedical Group
Nuclear Agriculture and Biotechnology Division,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Trombay, Mumbai-400085, India.
Email: sfdsouza@ barc.gov.in
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) is playing an important role in addressing
various national needs through the peaceful applications of radiations and radioisotopes
aiming towards self sufficiency and better life for our large population, in terms of energy
production, health and food security.. Use of radioisotopes in agriculture for increasing
crop yields and minimizing post-harvest losses is one of the most important fields of
peaceful applications of atomic energy for societal benefit.
Availability of wide range of genetic variability is the main stay of plant improvement.
Improvement of economically important plants can be achieved by cross breeding,
somaclonal variation, recombinant DNA technology or mutation breeding. Mutation
breeding is one of the important tools for creating the genetic variability in a short period
of time. The novel genes identified in induced mutations can play an important role for
preserving and upgrading biodiversity. Mutations may alter one or more of the yield
contributing factors leading to higher yields and / or impart resistance to biotic and
abiotic stresses and improve quality parameters such as oil and protein quality and
quantity, low antinutritional factors, seed size, colour etc
At BARC, radiation induced mutation techniques were successfully used for creating
genetic variability in important crops. Using radiation induced mutation and crossbreeding, 32 improved crop varieties developed by B.A.R.C. have been released and
notified for commercial cultivation by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
These include : 12 groundnut, 2 soybean, 2 mustard, 4 blackgram (urid), 7 greengram
(mung), 2 pigeonpea (tur) and 1 each in cowpea (chowli), rice and jute. Some of these
varieties especially in groundnut, mung and urid are popular throughout the country and
have made good socio-economic impact. Mutation breeding is also complimented with
various molecular techniques.
Though India is the leading producer of food in the world, ironically it also registers high
post-harvest losses. Thus strategies to increase food production must be complemented
with appropriate post-harvest practices and value addition. Issues related to shelf-life,
quality and quarantine are the major stumbling blocks to trade, both national and
international. Radiation technology offers multidimensional solutions to these problems.
The technology can complement and supplement existing and emerging techniques of
value addition. The country has the necessary know-how and expertise with the
department of Atomic Energy to build and operate radiation-processing plants. Food
preservation using radiation involves controlled application of energy of radiations such
as gamma rays, X-rays, and accelerated electrons to food and agricultural commodities. It
provides an effective alternative to fumigants, which are being banned and phased out
due to their deleterious effects on human health and environment. This technology can
thus complement and sustain agricultural productivity
Immunotherapy of Cancer: Issues and Challenges
Dr. S. V. Chiplunkar
Advanced Center for Treatment, Research & Education in Cancer
Tata Memorial Center, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai
schiplunkar@actrec.gov.in
Activating the immune response against resident cancer cells has been ‘dream’ of
immunologists since Ehrlich originally proposed his ‘magic bullet’ strategy for targeting
cytotoxic agents to tumor cells via tumor-specific antibodies. During the past 10 years,
cancer immunotherapy has undergone a renaissance and there are now numerous
experimental strategies that have demonstrated the efficacy in experimental animal
models and are being used in clinical settings. Therapeutic antibodies have become a
major strategy in clinical oncology owing to their ability to bind specifically to primary
and metastatic cancer cells with high affinity and create antitumor effects by
complement-mediated cytolysis and antibody-dependent, cell-mediated cytotoxicity
(naked antibodies) or by the focused delivery of radiation or cellular toxins (conjugated
antibodies).The recent clinical and commercial success of anticancer antibodies such as
rituximab and trastuzumab has created great interest in antibody-based therapeutics for
hematopoietic malignant neoplasms and solid tumors.
The cost of currently available monoclonal antibody therapies is far higher than that of
conventional therapies. It is therefore imperative to develop indigenous novel monoclonal
antibodies .The future of such a ‘knowledge based’ industry depends on the protection
and commercialization of the outcome of these innovations through strong Intellectual
property laws. Forging strategic alliances between the academia and big pharma
companies will make the ‘bench to bedside’ dream of cancer immunotherapy a reality.
Social Impact of Modern Biotechnology:
Developments
in Biomedical Research
Santosh K Kar
School of Biotechnology
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi-110067
Modern Biotechnology is having significant impact on biomedical research today. This is
very clearly evident not only in basic research that are being carried out to understand
various disease processes but also in our efforts to develop diagnostic tools and vaccines
for them. Inspite of intense efforts we do not have effective vaccines for diseases like
Tuberculosis, Malaria and AIDS. By using information and tools that are available today
rational designing of vaccine for these diseases are possible.
For example we can now find out how Mycobacterium tuberculosis survives inside an
immune competent host and causes the pathological manifestations attributed to
tuberculosis. Once we know the mycobacterial genes that regulate the process then
suitable therapeutic interventions can be designed not to allow those genes to be
expressed so that the pathogen can not survive. For this the availability of sequence
information of M. tuberculosis and human genome has become helpful. Once we know
what enables a vast majority of the individuals who are infected with M. tuberculosis to
protect themselves by mounting protective immune response we can design vaccines that
can induce such responses in humans in a population .Thus a vaccine can be rationally
designed. Various aspect of all this will be discussed.
Biotechnology : Panel Discussion
Open Source Biotechnology- A Movement yet to
Take-off
M.C.Arunan, Co-Chairperson, Biotechnology Research Committee, Indian
Academy of Social Sciences.
Brain Research & Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Department of Life
Sciences, Sophia College for women, Mumbai, India.
e-mail: mcarunan@gmail.com
A Convenient Introduction:
Dramatic recent expansion of intellectual property protection in the field of
biotechnology has led to concerns that ongoing innovation will be blocked unless action
is taken to preserve access to and freedom to operate with those tools that are important
for further research and development.
The ”open source” approach to technology licensing, development and
commercialization evolved out of the free software movement, initiated in the early
1980s in response to restrictive copyright licensing practices adopted by commercial
software developers. This approach offers a means of reconciling the public interest in
broad access to software development tools with the economic self interest of intellectual
property owners.
Building on discussions with public and private sector industry participants,
funding agencies, leaders of the free and open source software movement and scholars in
a range of disciplines, we propose to assess the desirability and feasibility of extending
open source principles to biotechnology research and development.
Some argue that ”open source biotechnology” is both desirable and broadly
feasible, and demonstrates that many of the essential elements of an embryonic
open source movement are already present in this field.
The tragedy of the anticommons:
Where property rights on multiple components of a single technology are owned
by a number of separate entities, the development and commercialisation of new
products requires co-ordination among many different actors. In a transaction
cost-free world, where everyone has perfect knowledge and there are no impediments or
costs associated with negotiation, this would pose no problem because property rights
would be transferred through private bargaining to the entity that values them the most.
But in reality, transaction costs are positive, and the greater the number and complexity
of negotiations, the higher the transaction costs. Michael Heller has described the
situation where multiple owners each have a right to exclude others from using a scarce
resource as a ”tragedy of the anticommons”: if owners are unable to negotiate
successfully for the bundling of rights so that someone has an effective privilege of use,
the resource may be underused and the total potential value of the rights (private and
social) may not be realized.
Heller’s theory of anticommons tragedy is not a new idea, but a restatement
of a problem familiar to economists – that of co-ordinating complementary assets in a
high technology setting. The concept of asset complementarity (possession of one asset
has an effect on the marginal value of another asset) is highly relevant to biotechnology
research and development because effective co-ordination can be particularly valuable
during times of rapid technological change or in complex systems industries – both
characteristics of the biotechnology industry – yet is made more difficult by additional
uncertainty or complexity.5 It is therefore unsurprising that it appears frequently in
discussions of the likely impact of intellectual property rights in biotechnology.
The first application of Heller’s theory in biotechnology was in the biomedical
context. In a 1998 paper in the journal Science, Heller and Eisenberg pointed to
the proliferation of small-scale intellectual property rights in biomedical research
since the 1980s as an example of the tragedy of the anticommons: when users
need access to multiple patented inputs in order to create a single useful product, granting
too many property rights upstream stifles socially valuable innovations further
downstream in the course of research and product development. ”Anticommons”
terminology has since been applied to similar concerns regarding agricultural
biotechnology and Biomedicine for three reasons. The first is that biomedicine and
agriculture are the most advanced (in terms of product development) and economically
significant sectors of the biotechnology industry to date. The second is that the two fields
are interesting to compare because they are closely related in terms of both the
technology and the types of institutions involved, yet distinct in that they are differently
funded, commercial products are aimed at different end consumers, and they are
supported by different research and development communities. Finally, the legitimate end
goals of biomedical and agricultural research – health and food security – are by far the
most pressing concerns of the poor, who make up a large majority of the world’s
population.
Further,the concept of ”scientific progress” was originally intimately
connected with an ideal of science pursued as a public good in the public
interest.
To the extent that privatisation of life sciences research and development undermines the
global public interest, even a rapid rate of technical innovation could therefore not be
described as ”progress” in this sense.
Ref: Hope, J.E., (2004) Ph.D Thesis, Australian National Univ.
A Community Agenda for Sci-Tech
Innovation
Satyajit Rath , National Institute of Immunology , Aruna Asaf Ali Road , New
Delhi 110067, E-mail: satyajit@nii.res.in
In the context of India's accession to the WTO regime, a great deal of heated
discussion has been generated in public discourse. Opinions both emphatically
for and against the product patent regime have been aired at length, and both
ideological and pecuniary motives have been alleged and disparaged with
exemplary vim. Yet, a major issue for science and society, - one that has, like the
poor, always been with us and should have, like the poor, come to the forefront
of public concern in the present context of the market-driven state, - is notable by
its complete absence from the arena. This issue is the design of policies that
would foster scientific creation. It is assumed by all sides in the present debates,
if for a disparate variety of often somewhat dubious reasons, that scientific
creativity forms the bedrock on which long-term societal progress depends, and
yet, little thought has been given to looking afresh at the ways and means by
which scientific creation may best be promoted today.
Societal support of scientific research has two separate and distinct, although
linked, objectives. The first objective is the acquisition of sufficient understanding
of issues and problems to provide inputs into the making of public policy. This
objective is fulfilled by public-sector and/or non-profit autonomous organizations
such as universities and research institutions. Examples would be, say, a
sophisticated understanding of biodiversity so that sustainable management of
the biosphere can be better designed for the continued public good, a detailed
understanding of the ways in which climate changes occur so that food and
agriculture policies may be optimally designed, or the comprehension of causeand-effect relationships in health and disease so that policies of public health,
nutrition and workplace management may be best suited to public needs. For the
fulfillment of this objective, it is necessary that the results of such research
possess a high level of predictive credibility. As scientific understanding
improves, it has become more and more apparent that purely reductionist
paradigms, in which small problems could be examined in isolation, are unlikely
to be adequate for this purpose. It is therefore essential that cooperation in the
scientific community on a far wider scale than has been the case so far is critical
if major advances are to be expected. Yet, the current contours of the scientific
enterprise are defined by competitive notions of exclusive discovery. Are there
spaces to be found in which new, more intimately cooperative modes of scientific
enquiry can be initiated?
The second objective of societal support for scientific research is the generation
of new or usefully altered technologies for the public good. Newly developed
technologies are meaningful only if they are manufactured and become available.
Since a dominant pathway for manufacture and wide distribution is via the
marketplace, successful development of new technologies can bring in profits.
Manufacture and distribution are undertaken because they bring in profits, and in
the process stimulate the economy, generate jobs, and contribute to national
economic development. However, this avenue is entirely dependent on a market
economy, and provides little if any significant benefit for those citizens who
cannot effectively participate with dignity in the marketplace because of
limitations such as poverty, lack of employment, and/or lack of empowerment.
How are research and innovation policies to be designed so that technologies
providing substantial benefit to the underprivileged are created and used? This is
a crucial question since the bulk of innovative research on which technologies
are based is still carried out the world over in public sector research institutions
(especially in the expanding biotech sphere).
It is certainly possible to take such a discussion into pathways for 'combating' the
more reprehensible effects of, say, product patents. Formal efforts at 'patentbusting' would come to mind in this connection. But this would be a reactive
approach in the main though not entirely, and would not properly explore the new
strengths of the globally interconnected scientific community. What is needed is
to explore new ways of establishing 'innovation commons', in which new
technologies and methodologies are developed by cooperative communities.
Information technology provides a stellar example of this kind. Yet, IT is
somewhat unique in being an area where the artifacts to be used take relatively
little capital-intensive manufacture. Is it possible to design such approaches for
other areas of the scientific enterprise such as, say, the life sciences and
biotech? What sort of shapes might such efforts need to take in order to
succeed? Indeed, what would 'success' mean for such endeavours? Is it possible
to envisage ways by which artifacts can be developed and reach the community
without industrial mediation? Is it possible that such efforts may lead to entirely
new ways of discovery? It is essential that public discourse begins to grapple
with such questions and possibilities.
A possible example in this context would be the development of useful crop
varieties in the agribiotech sector. The bulk of 'innovative technology' in this
arena currently appears focused on making genetically modified crops (GMOs,
so to say), a technology that is patent-protected by the MNC sector. An
interesting step away from this corporate model of agribiotech development has
been the establishment of an 'open source biology' platform, centered around
new, unpatented microbes useful for making transgenic plants. However, such a
'free source' approach still depends on the manufacturing sector for market
delivery of products. Also, it still involves making transgenic crops, which is a
technology replete with implementation difficulties of both the political and the
environmental kind.
One alternate possibility that is being discussed globally is to take advantage of
the growing ability to sequence the entire genetic sequence of individual
organisms at steadily declining expense. The incorporation of such a step in
traditional plant breeding for advantageous traits can allow the breeding
programmes to overcome some of the major obstacles to creating crop varieties
with advantageous traits that breed true so that seed can be re-used. It would
allow the identification of combinations of genes that confer a particular trait and
thus allow reliable selection of varieties with combinations of many advantageous
traits, and it would even allow the creation of carefully engineered crops in which
the introduced gene form providing advantage is not from some other species but
from the host crop itself. Such a programme would be of relatively little interest to
the mega-profit-sector since farmers can re-use seed. It would require little by
way of a manufacturing intermediary, since experimentally generated seed can
simply be handed out to be bred by farmers themselves. And it is a programme
that would demand a large-scale cooperative global effort between farmer
groups, breeders and scientists. Farmer groups would need to provide the
necessary inputs critical for prioritization of focus, as well as participating in the
field trials involved. Breeders would need to collect and maintain source varieties
and carry out careful breeding. Scientists must, on the other hand, generate new
ways of handling and interpreting the large mass of data that sequencingassisted breeding would yield, - essentially, cutting-edge science would result
from the enterprise as well. This is not to say that there are no difficulties with this
approach, or that it is a sure recipe for success, - it is neither. Rather, it is to
suggest a possible example of ways in which the framework of present-day
science and technology can be re-cast and used in innovative ways for
cooperative generation of useful knowledge.
Do similar possibilities exist in the area of drug discovery? Clearly, there is a
sense of impending doom about the currently mainstream model of drug
discovery, in which large pharma (or small entrepreneurial biotech) use largescale drug search methods that are still mostly empirical although the component
of molecular biological causality has gone up in recent years. The output of new
drugs is steadily declining. This is in part due to a version of the 'worked-over
field' problem, and in part due to the empirical nature of the process which
mandates very large-scale efforts, leading major pharma to 'not bother' about
drugs that will not provide large-scale, enduring sales and profits over the entire
duration of the patent protection and beyond.
Thus, a globally collaborative public domain model of drug discovery would be
attractive. However, unlike IT, or even the agribiotech example earlier, both the
discovery process and the dissemination of artifacts are currently capitalintensive processes. One way of making the discovery process less capitalintensive is to distribute costs by using parallel processing, in which the efforts of
large numbers of public-domain centres would generate the actual data. A
reduction in the empirical nature of the process can be imagined using the
growing ability noted earlier to generate large amounts of global-scale genomicproteomic data couple to the steadily growing (though still inadequate) predictive
power of open-source in silico modeling. None of these components of the
discovery process are available in ready-made fashion. Once again, prioritization
of focus will depend critically on patient, consumer and public-health activist
groups in civil society, as well any successful transparent clinical trials of the
outcomes. Thus, the approach can result in the creation of both cutting-edge
science and of a public-interest transparent approach to drug discovery and
validation. However, drug production for dissemination will require access to the
capital-intensive industrial process that is currently not available in the publicsector, public-interest domain. New ways of non-exclusive licensing, possibly
coupled to ways of addressing the issue of costs, will need to be explored. Thus,
none of these possibilities in public scitech innovation can be addressed by a
single process model, making it imperative that the issues involved be discussed
in detail in public discourse if outcomes favorable to social empowerment are to
result.