BIO 2001 to Address Controversial Issues
With BIO 2001 just around the corner, the Biotechnology Industry Association’s top man recently took it upon himself to review plans for the industry’s largest annual event, which will bring some 12,000 biotech professionals to San Diego.
Carl Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Association, or BIO, returned to his headquarters in Washington, D.C., on April 26, seemingly content and expecting a successful event.
“I think everyone is underestimating what we will see here in San Diego for BIO 2001,” Feldbaum said during an interview at the Hyatt Regency La Jolla. “This is the best program we have ever had.”
Starting June 24, thousands of industry professionals from 45 nations will flock to San Diego to discuss contentious issues of genetically modified foods and stem cell research as well as new legislation, marketing trends and partnering opportunities.
More than 400 journalists from print and electronic outlets across the nation are expected to cover the event, Feldbaum said.
Thousands of protesters are expected, too.
Neither Feldbaum nor his San Diego-based associate, Joseph Panetta, president and CEO of Biocom, the local industry association, wanted to speculate on protestors’ plans.
But recent demonstrations at the World Trade Organization, World Health Organization, and at the last two BIO events in Boston and Seattle allude to a strong presence of protesters here in San Diego, Feldbaum said.
Last year, some 4,000 industry opponents went to Boston to protest everything from genetically engineered foods to cloning and stem cell research.
“A lot of the protest was uninformed and confused on the part of the demonstrators,” Feldbaum said.
One local activist recently said various groups will make their way to San Diego to discuss safety issues of genetically modified foods in a forum.
Their target group, agricultural biotechnology firms, will be highlighted during the convention.
That includes companies such as Akkadix Corp. in San Diego and the Torrey Mesa Research Institute, part of Switzerland-based Novartis AG. They both develop products that continue to raise ethical questions and fears in people.
Feldbaum, however, rejects these concerns, pointing to the strict regulation of genetically modified foods in the United States by three federal agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture.
He also said the recall of StarLink, a genetically modified , and unapproved ,variety of corn developed by BIO member Aventis CropSciences, didn’t exactly help build consumer trust. But American consumers tend to put more trust in their regulators than Europeans, industry observers say.
The medical wing, too, has a host of bioethical issues to contend with. At the same time, these biopharmaceutical firms are seen as holding the key to innovative drug development.
Feldbaum touts their success: “There are over 350 drugs in late-stage development which are many more biologicals than have ever been in front of the FDA before.”
Granted, the majority of these drugs will not be approved, he said. But the highly publicized mapping of the human genome will open up a whole new frontier in medicine, he says.
The genome project revealed that there are about 30,000 human genes. These genes are estimated to make up to 300,000 proteins.
By showing how these proteins work and interact, companies hope to make therapies faster. A slew of “proteomics companies” are working on determining the structure of proteins.
Tom Dietz, an analyst with Pacific Growth Equities in San Francisco, projects today’s proteomics effort could translate into therapeutics on the marketplace in five to 10 years from now.
Panetta was more conservative. He projected it will take at least a decade.
But Feldbaum points out that the excitement over the decoding of the human genome sequence also has spawned other interests.
For instance, “comparative genomics” , comparing the genomes of different species, such as plants and bacteria to one another , has gained a higher profile.
“The goal is to find similarities, learn from them and apply the knowledge for human benefit,” said Laura Hansen, a biologist working for Susan E. Atkins & Assoc. in San Diego.
Research in the lesser known biotechnology sectors of forestry and aquaculture is then likely to intensify, Feldbaum said.
Panetta remained skeptical.
To produce genetically engineered trees takes years and it remains to be seen whether these types of trees will add enough value to become commercially viable, he said.
The marine biotechnology sector is also challenged. The sector produced a “genetically engineered salmon” by inserting a growth hormone. The fast-growing genetically modified salmon has yet to be approved for human consumption, he said.