| Keywords: | Policies/Programmes; India; Switzerland; Participatory approaches; Technology transfer; Human resources; Relation public-private sector. |
| Correct citation: | Jenny, K. (1999), "The Indo-Swiss Collaboration in Biotechnology in Search of New Directions." Biotechnology and Development Monitor, No. 39, p. 10-13. |
The ISCB initiative
The ISCB programme was initiated in 1974 by a bilateral agreement between
the Indian government and the Swiss government represented by the Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) to explore ways of cooperating
in various areas related to biotechnology. In the first phase, collaboration
started between the Institute of Biotechnology at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology (ETH) and the Biochemical Engineering Research
Centre of the Indian Institute of Technology. Emphasis was put
on the development of curriculum, infrastructure, and human resources in
the area of biochemical engineering.
The main goal of this project was to attain academic and educational
standards meeting international levels, thus providing highly-trained scientists.
However, from the beginning it was realized that a top quality biotechnological
research centre must also develop techniques that are applicable for developing
a biotechnology industries. Thus, capacity building was closely linked
with applied aspects and resulted in the development of a pilot plant for
technology transfer demonstration. After ten years, the Biochemical Engineering
Research Centre was independent and became a prototype for the Indian government
in establishing future biotechnology R&D centres. However, the basis
for biotechnological development was still small at that time, and, equally
important, it was very difficult to get the Indian industries interested
in applying the products. Therefore, the Indian government decided to extend
the programme.
After 1988, four Indian research institutions were selected for the
second phase of the programme and after a project review in 1995, two more
partners were added. This second programme phase did not differ in objectives
and goals, but in the size and the number of different partners and activities,
the competition in the selection of projects, and the increased size of
its management unit. As before, the main objective was to strengthen
the scientific and technological capabilities of Indian R&D institutions
in biotechnology and to establish a network for product development and
technology transfer. Within this network, different collaborations were
projected: North-South R&D cooperations between public institutions;
product
development, for instance, biopesticides for agricultural pests, by private
companies; product development, for instance, foot and mouth
disease
(fmd) diagnostic kits for the government-controlled Indian market. Projects
were selected by a joint project committee, with representatives from the
Indian Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and SDC, and an ISCB chair.
The selection was based on relevance for the development of the respective
institute, the region, the potential for technology transfer and future
commercialization. These criteria explain the broad range of ISCB-supported
biotechnology projects, including research on human health, animal husbandry,
and microbial processes and products for agricultural purposes as well
as for the pharmaceutical industry (see table). In
principle, projects were approved for a period of three years by the joint
project committee.
Over the last 10 years, the ISCB programme has received some US$ 8.04
million of funding, of which the DBT and SDC contributed 20 and 80 per
cent respectively.
Strategy for capacity building
Biotechnology development requires a variety of different inputs such
as biological resources, human, financial and technical capacities. Therefore,
without the background of a multidisciplinary team and an adequate infrastructure,
successful results can hardly be achieved. Moreover, technology routes
cannot be exploited without proper linkages to producers and an established
legal framework.
In order to enhance such multifaceted capacity building for R&D
in the Indian partner institutes and to promote technology transfer, the
ISCB supported not only the actual research activities, but also the steps
alongside of the research. For instance, project proposals and annual action
plans were assessed in collaboration with the scientific partners and,
if required, with external experts. Moreover, specialized short- or long-term
training events were organized at the Swiss partner institutes to strengthen
knowledge and skills in newly emerging technologies. The ISCB also supported
the purchase of essential laboratory equipment and other research tools,
if this was necessary for training or research activities.
The programme facilitated joint research activities between the Indian
and Swiss institutes. Workshops and seminars with guests invited from public,
private, and government institutions enabled the researchers to discuss
the potential routes for product development and to establish contacts
with producers.
The ISCB also encouraged its partners to establish contacts with private
institutions and offered the partners specific expertise, for instance
validation of products such as biopesticides and FMD diagnostic tools.
Projects were regularly monitored, which ensured coherence with national
and international technology policies, for example on biosafety and risk
management issues. For individual projects, guidance in biosafety issues
was offered, such as consultancy in the establishment of a high-level safety
laboratory for the work with FMD viruses. If required, policy questions
were discussed at government level.
Biotechnology projects supported by the ISCB
|
General
output
infrastructure
technology transfer
research and training
|
Accomplishments and limitations of the cooperation
The external review of the programme in 1997 gave an overview on the
achievements of the programme (see table), but also
highlighted some of the restraints of the ISCB initiative.
At the outset of the programme, the socioeconomic status of biotechnology
in Switzerland and India was different from today. R&D capacity building
used to be the major focus of development collaboration, but today the
DBT has developed considerable capacities for R&D in biotechnology.
As a matter of fact, India and the ISCB programme face new problems in
retaining well-trained human resources in technical sciences.
For instance, many PhD students leave their mother institutions for
post-doctoral positions elsewhere, and university institutes generally
have a high turnover rate of scientists. Therefore, to make Indian institutes
profit from trained capacity, the programme made sure that PhD students
following special courses abroad had to do this at least one or two years
before they were supposed to finish their studies. On the other hand, the
training of permanent faculty staff has its complications too. Although
the programme ensured that all the trainees remained at their institutes,
careful evaluation of the trainee’s real involvement in daily laboratory
business must be made. Depending on the topic of the training, chances
for technology transfer are low if techniques are taught to candidates
that would not have to carry them out in their general work practice. Finally,
the Indian industry can still not offer enough jobs that are sufficiently
attractive scientifically, and therefore well-trained scientists often
take the opportunity to leave the country.
Another important challenge for the programme is caused by the social
and economic changes that have taken place in India: market liberalizations
have facilitated the import of biotechnological products. Although Indian
industry has shown interest in such products (see box),
linkages between researchers and connections for technology transfer are
still under-utilized. For instance, during the course of the programme,
a heterologous protein expression system in non-conventional yeasts was
developed. However, this has not fully been commercialized, because product
development suffered from the missing link in validation between R&D
and industry.
Today, therefore, the development of biotechnology products and processes
is regarded as the core of the collaboration. This shift entails an approach
that aims to integrate more partners, for example from the private sector,
and to address transsectoral issues. Such an approach depends on institutions
that do not only have a good track record in science but also a high management
capacity, and where fast and flexible decisions are not hampered by hierarchic
structures.
Although the ISCB tried to respond to the competitive environment in
biotechnology, it proved to be difficult to foster the shift from scientific
capacity building towards development of commercial products and processes
within an ongoing programme. Several workshops were held under the heading
‘From an idea to a product’, to tackle the various phases of a product
development process prior to the successful launch of a product on the
market. This process requires knowledge on diverse subjects, ranging from
R&D and technical development to registration and regulation.
However, these activities did not fully cover the programme premise
that projects ought to move towards application and product development.
There was still a need to involve new partners that were either capable
of developing the research results and products up to the market level,
or of giving advice regarding the management of Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR), regulatory issues, technology transfer, and biosafety.
A clear concept for creating these partnerships was never developed, which
was partly due to a lack of regulations at the government level on both
sides, as well as to the ISCB’s lack of guidelines on IPR.
Given the broad range of projects and partners within the ISCB, it
is not surprising that it was sometimes difficult to reach agreement on
a common goal. Applied research projects that had a limited time frame
could reach the production stage within a set period. Other projects envisaged
product development only on a long-term basis; for them, the building of
scientific competitiveness and research capacity had first priority. However,
the given organizational structure did not support the building of effective
and strong research units between Indian and Swiss institutes. Project
funds were allocated mainly for Indian activities and projects were defined
by the Indian research partners. Therefore, the Swiss partners felt that
they were not equally involved in planning and sharing of the results.
| From research to commercial product
In 1988, a scientific collaboration was initiated between the Centre
for Biotechnology, Chennai, the Institute of Biotechnology at ETH in
Zurich, and the Laboratory of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering
at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) in Lausanne.
The main focus of this project lay on the production of biopesticides from
Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) and B. sphaericus. In the Indian partner
institute, research had already reached a stage at which large scale
production for field trials was required. The joint research enabled the
development of quantitative analytical techniques and an understanding
of the factors responsible for limiting growth in defined media, which
is important for the industrial production of Bt pesticides. At the same
time, isolation of new Bt strains using molecular biology based techniques
and the study of the mode of action of the insecticidal crystal proteins
were supported.
|
Towards a new ISCB programme
The external programme evaluation in 1997 led to the formulation of
a new perspective for the ISCB. Based on these comments, it was decided
that in the future more stakeholders should be involved. Negotiating and
planning of the project should be done jointly with: research institutions;
potential future users such as small-scale farmers; producers (industries);
regulating state agencies or other official institutions; authorities dealing
with safety matters; and organizations or individuals dealing with ethical
questions. Moreover, project preparation should focus on the managerial
capacities and flexibility of the research institutions concerned.
For the new ISCB programme a set of premises was defined:
| • | Relevance of development issues. The new ISCB should address fundamental development concerns in India, including poverty alleviation for rural and urban populations and sustainable management of natural resources. |
| • | ‘Integrated value chain’. The value chain concept is widely used for analysing trends in the biotechnology industry, but also applied as a planning and management instrument to move research activities to product development and diffusion. The concept is best understood as a chain of events that starts with the definition of a problem and ends with sustained market penetration of a new product, process, or service. A case-by-case evaluation is necessary to determine whether the needs of the resource-poor target group can be promoted by biotechnology and whether they will be able to afford products developed by the industries. The integrated value chain concept prevents unrealistic planning, strengthens synergy, supports innovation, integrates economic and social aspects from the outset, and gives valuable information on the amount of time needed to transfer a technology. Furthermore, it builds on already existing capacities and thus increases the chances for end-users to benefit from the new technology. |
| • | ‘Transsectoral’ topics. A third important premise in the preparation process was that the new ISCB should focus on topics such as technology assessment and transfer, biosafety, ethics of biotechnology, and intellectual property management are to be given due importance in an area that is as innovative as it is controversial. |
| • | Funding for Swiss partners. To foster sustainable R&D partnerships, in the future the ISCB will also allow for funding of Swiss partners involved in the projects. |
In September 1999, India and Switzerland signed a five-year bilateral
agreement, which defines the framework for the future collaboration. A
Joint
Apex Committee consisting of eight representatives of SDC, DBT, universities,
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and industry will assume
overall responsibility for the programme.
It is expected that the ISCB programme will profit from the joint definition
and management of individual projects by Indian and Swiss institutes or
companies. This ownership and accountability at project level will be adequately
reflected in the project implementation contracts.
New challenges ahead
The main task for the future ISCB programme will be to combine product
development and commercialization with poverty alleviation. While the ISCB
has already gained some experience in the former, achievements in the latter
remain to be seen. This goal can be achieved only if ISCB will be able
to develop capacities and strong partnerships along the entire biotechnology
value chain.
In a first phase, the ISCB has now started to build up collaborative
research partnerships following a systemic crop-based approach with specific
focus on wheat and pulses. For full realization of the integrated value
chain concept, however, a step-wise integration of more projects and partners
who will accomplish the activities along the chain is planned. As such
the ISCB must also ensure that appropriate technology transfer will take
place at all phases and also takes into account newly emerging safety and
regulatory issues. A permanent challenge will be not to lose track of the
needs of resource-poor end-users. Towards this end, commercialization
and distribution routes for delivery of the products have to be negotiated
with the respective public and private stakeholders.
Katharina Jenny
ISCB, Institute of Biotechnology, ETH Hönggerberg, 8093 Zürich,
Switzerland. Phone (+41) 1 633 21 95; Fax (+41) 1 633 10 76;
E-mail jenny@biotech.biol.ethz.ch
Sources
Jenny, K. and Schaltegger, E. (1999), "Ten Years of Indo-Swiss Collaboration
in Biotechnology: Lessons learned and strategy for the future." In: Managing
Agricultural Biotechnology-Addressing research program needs and policy
implications. Wallingford, UK and The Hague, The Netherlands: CABI/ISNAR.
Nayak, A. (1999), "Point of View - Biotechnology in India." Genetic Engineering News, 19:(5)6, 1 March, pp. 6/30/48.
Rorke, M. (1993), Technology Transfer Manual for Research Institutes
in Developing Countries. UNIDO, IPCT. 187. Austria, Vienna: UNIDO.
|
![]() |
| back to top |
|
|
|
|