Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Feature
  • Published:

Sustaining agbiotechnology through lean times

Nature Biotechnology volume 21, pages 996–1002 (2003)Cite this article

Most life science investors have historically shied away from supporting agbiotechnology, but changing consumer acceptance and refinements in infrastructure, intellectual property management and regulations may make the sector more attractive in the coming years.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Worldwide area cultivated with transgenic crops.

©Rebecca Henretta

Figure 2: A comparison of the main activities and the timelines associated with the research, development and commercialization steps for product development in biotechnology.

References

  1. Gompers, P.A. & Lerner, J. The Money of Invention (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Weck, E. The transgenic plant market: profits from new products and novel drugs (Drug & market development report no. 9070) (Westborough, MA, 2002).

  3. Andersson, R. & Mynahan, R. The protein production challenge. In Vivo: The Business and Medicine Report 5, 1–5 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  4. McElroy, D. Moving agbiotech downstream. Nat. Biotechnol. 17, 1071–1074 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Myers, S.C. & Howe, C.D. A life-cycle financial model of pharmaceutical R&D (MIT Program On the Pharmaceutical Industry working paper no. 41-97) (MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA, 1997).

  6. Demasi, J.A., Hansen, R.W. & Grabowski, H.G. The price of innovation: new estimates for drug development costs. J. Health Economics 22, 151–185 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fischhoff, B. & Fischhoff, I. Publics' opinions about biotechnologies. AgBioForum 4, 155–162 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gianessi, L.P., Silvers, C.S., Sanuka, S. & Carpenter, J.E. Plant biotechnology: current and potential impact for improving pest management in U.S. agriculture (National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy, Washington, DC, 2002).

  9. Marra, M.C., Pardey, P.G. & Alston, J.M. The payoffs to transgenic field crops: an assessment of the evidence. AgBioForum 5, 43–50 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe. Economic impact of crop biotechnology (Issue Paper 5) http://www.abeurope.info/images/files/abe_issues_paper_5.pdf (AgBiotech Europe, 2002).

  11. Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe. The environmental impact of agricultural biotechnology (Issue Paper 3) (AgBiotech Europe, 2002).

  12. Carson, D.D. Agricultural chemicals report (Merrill Lynch Research & Economics Group, New York, NY, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Graff, G.D., Rausser, G.C. & Small, A.A. Agricultural biotechnology's complementary intellectual assets. Rev. Econ. Stats. 85, 349–363 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brennan, M.F., Pray, C.E. & Courtmanche, A. in Transitions in Agbiotech: Economics of Strategy and Policy, Ch. 8 (ed. Lesser, W.H.) 153–174 (Food Marketing Policy Center, Storrs, CT, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fulton, M. & Konstantinos, G. Agricultural biotechnology and industry structure. AgBioForum 4, 137–151 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Phillips, P.W.B. & Corkindale, D. Marketing GM foods: the way forward. AgBioForum 5, 113–121 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Graff, G.D. & Newcomb, J. Agricultural biotechnology at the crossroads. (Bio-Era report) http://www.bio-era.net/be_index.php (Bio Economic Research Associates, Cambridge, MA, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Plant Genetic Systems v. Dekalb Genetics Corp., 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 447 (Fed. Cir, Feb. 20, 2003).

  19. Atkinson, R.C. et al. Public sector collaboration for agricultural IP management. Science 301, 174–175 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank John Bedbrook, Mike Lassner, Ken Moonie, Julie Geenty and Scott Thenell for their helpful comments and suggestions in reviewing drafts of this publication.

Author information

Author notes

  1. The views expressed here are those of the author and not the author's current employer.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Verdia, Inc., 200 Penobscot Drive, Redwood City, 94063, California, USA

    David McElroy

Authors
  1. David McElroy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McElroy, D. Sustaining agbiotechnology through lean times. Nat Biotechnol 21, 996–1002 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0903-996

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0903-996

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing