Models of Technology Transfer for Genome-Editing Technologies

Can genome editing help transitioning to agroecology?

Meeting the challenges of agroecological transition in a context of climate change requires the use of various strategies such as biological regulations, adapted animal and plant genotypes, diversified production systems, and digital technologies. Seeds and plants, through plant breeding, play a crucial role in driving these changes. The emergence of genome editing presents a new opportunity in plant breeding practices. However, like any technological revolution involving living organisms, it is essential to assess its potential contributions, limits, risks, socio-economic implications, and the associated controversies. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of scientific knowledge on genome editing for agroecological transition, drawing on multidisciplinary approaches encompassing biological, agronomic, economic, and social sciences.

Current situation and future development of the biopharmaceutical industry in China: A mixed-method study

Introduction: The biomedical industry has grown significantly both globally and in China; however, there are still challenges. This study aimed at evaluating the biopharmaceutical sector of China, in terms of ability to innovate, current sales volume, investment, and R&D expenditure, as well as providing a case study detailing the progress and challenges of the industry in Shaanxi province.

Method: A cross-sectional mixed-method study design was used to generate a comprehensive profile of the nature of biopharmaceutical innovation capacity and development in China by triangulating country-wide survey and interview data from Shaanxi province. Only biopharmaceutical companies that are currently marketing or conducting research and development were eligible for inclusion, and Shaanxi province was selected for conducting the interviews. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed descriptively. Interviews were thematically analyzed by using NVivo version 12.

Results: The analysis includes responses from 77 biopharmaceutical enterprises; the majority (36, 46.8%) are in Eastern China, followed by 26 (33.8%) in Central China. In 2018, the total sales of biological products amounted to 26.28 billion yuan, and in 2019, a slight increase was observed (30.34 billion); the amount doubled in 2020 to about 67.91 billion yuan. The top three biopharmaceutical products on sale in 2020 were Camrelizumab (5.14 billion yuan), human albumin (4.56 billion yuan), and human immunoglobulin for injection (3.78 billion yuan). Expenditure on R&D has also increased; it amounted to 1657.7 million yuan in 2018, which more than doubled in 2019 to 3572.1 million yuan and further increased to 5857.7 million yuan in 2020. Nonetheless, the progress is not uniform across all provinces, as shown from the results from Shaanxi province, because of lack of local government policies that will impact on the funding, incentives, and market share that motivate the producers.

Conclusion: China’s biopharmaceutical industry has expand significantly. The increase in sales indicates that there is an increase in demand for biologicals; moreover, R&D funding is increasing. These are key indicators that influence innovation and development. However, the sector’s capacity to innovate and develop needs to be improved, particularly in the western region, where research and production are relatively weak.

The Emergence of Genome Editing—Innovation Network Dynamics of Academic Publications, Patents, and Business Activities

Transformative societal change can both be triggered and influenced by both macro-level political means and the emergence of technologies. Key enabling technologies and therein biotechnology hold the power to drive those changes forward, evolving from breakthrough academic discoveries into business activities. Due to its increasing empirical relevance, we picked genome editing as an example for an emerging technology and extracted publication, patent, and company data from the years 2000 to 2020. By drawing upon social network analysis, we identify major networks and clusters that are dominating the respective time and layer. Based on these networks, we draw vertical connections between scientific knowledge, patented technologies, and business activities to visualize the interlevel relationships between actors through technological development. Thereby, we identify network dynamics of the emergence of genome editing, the most important actors and clusters evolving, and its spread into different areas.

Governance Choices of Genome Editing Patents

There are a variety of governance mechanisms concerning the ownership and use of patents. These include government licenses, compulsory licenses, march-in rights for inventions created with federal funding, government use rights, enforcement restrictions, subject-matter restrictions, and a host of private governance regimes. Each has been discussed in various contexts by scholars and policymakers and some, in some degree, have been employed in different cases at different times. But scholars have yet to explore how each of these choices are subject to-or removed from-democratic control. Assessing the range of democratic implications of these patent governance choices is important in understanding the social and political implications of controversial or wide-ranging technologies because their use has a significant potential to affect the polity. This paper seeks to unpack these concerns for genome editing, such as CRISPR, specifically. Patents covering genome editing make an interesting case because, to date, it appears that the polity is concerned less with certain kinds of access, and more with distribution and limits on the technology's particular uses, such as human enhancement and certain agricultural and environmental applications. Here, we explore what it means for patents to be democratic or non-democratically governed and, in so doing, identify that patents covering many of the most controversial applications-that is, ones most likely to gain public attention-are effectively controlled by either non- or anti-democratic institutions, namely, private restrictions on licensing. This may be effective-for now-but lawmakers should be wary that such restrictions could rapidly reverse themselves. Meanwhile, other choices, like compulsory licenses, more broadly touch on democratic deliberation but, as currently structured, are aimed poorly for particular applications. Insofar as the public wants, or perhaps deserves, a say in the distribution and limits of these applications, illuminating the ways in which these governance choices intersect-or fail to intersect-with democratic institutions is critical. We offer some concluding thoughts about the nature of patents and their relationship with democratic governance as distributed claims to authority, and suggest areas for scholars and policymakers to pay close attention to as the genome editing patent landscape develops.