ISIS Report 22/09/05
India’s Biotech Future
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Public-private partnership is the cornerstone of India’s
National Biotechnology Development Strategy, according to an article in the
“bioentrepreneur” section of the journal Nature
Biotechnology (May 2005). The aim is to create a million jobs
and an annual turnover of $5 billion in the biotech industry by 2010. Science
minister Kapil Sibal released the draft for comment at the end of March until
May 2005. The document was then to be submitted to the cabinet for approval
and to be implemented later this year.
The new strategy has already aroused strong criticisms from
civil society organisations, coming as it were in the wake of three successive
years of failed GM cotton crops that have driven farmers into debt and suicide
(“India’ GM cotton fraud”, SiS
26), and independent scientific evidence from all over the world are now confirming
those failures (“Scientists confirm Bt crop failures”, to appear).
Vandana Shiva, director
of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, accuses the
government of effectively deregulating the hazardous of biotechnology and
nanotechnology and turning Indian scientists into corporate slaves (“Outsourcing
ecological and health risks”, accompanying article).
Criticism has also come
from the Indian biotech industry because the proposed strategy will allow
100 percent foreign direct investment, thereby threatening the local industry.
The draft policy envisages that by 2010, biopharmaceuticals – mostly vaccines
and bio-generics – will be contributing $2 billion to the biotech sector in
India. Clinical development services are predicted to reach
$1.5 billion and outsourced research services estimated at $1 billion. Agricultural
and industrial biotechnology will contribute the remaining $500 million.
This ambitious target is
apparently supported by the government’s strong growth data, showing that
the biotech industry grew by 39 percent between 2003 and 2004 to a value of
$705 million, and total investment in the sector also increased by 26 percent
to $137 million.
The new policy will allow public funds to be spent on
industrial projects, while scientists employed by public research institutions
can be seconded to private firms. It also stipulates that at least 30 percent
government-funded programmes must have a commercial partner who will be responsible
for directing research and development towards commercialisation. This is
welcomed by Varaprasada Reddy, managing director of Shantha Biotechnics in
Hyderabad, which pioneered recombinant vaccines in India in
the 1990s. But Reddy wants at least a 25:75 local/foreign partnership instead
of allowing a 100 percent direct foreign investment.
The new policy dispenses
with the need for government approval for equity investment in the biotech
sector, unlike other sectors such as telecommunications or energy. “What this means is multinational companies can come
with suitcases full of money, buy up plots, build plants, hire our scientists
at low salaries and create wealth for themselves,” Reddy is reported
to have said.
But Bhimsen Bajaj, president
of the southern chapter of the All India Biotechnology Association in Hyderabad
sees nothing wrong in having 100 percent foreign-owned companies, as they
will bring new technology and generate jobs.
Sources
“India’s strategy to bridge the public-private divide”,
K.S. Jayaraman, Nature Biotechnology
2005, 23, 523.
New Biotechnology Development Strategy, 31 March 2005, http://dbtindia.nic.in/biotechstrategy.htm
| 
