BiODialogues

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
J. K. Galbraith

""Science" means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always successful. All the rest is literature.""
Paul Valéry

EuroBiO 2008 is the opportunity for Europe’s life science community to make its collective voice clearly heard; to bridge the gap between the pro innovation rhetoric and the reality of the struggle to create and maintain life science businesses.

The higher intellects of Europe appreciate that it must be a hotbed of innovation. Yet the engines of that innovation seem designed only to maintain the status quo: a fiercely independent academia, patchy technology transfer, an absence of institutional risk-taking, preeminence of protocol and status, government schemes to help business overcome government bureaucracy (rather than removal of the bureaucracy or, indeed, the government), support for uncompetitive, dying industries … Are these not the signs of a continent playing to lose at innovation, a continent destined to lose its innovators?

The BioDialogues at EuroBiO define the debate and seek near-term solutions based on real needs and achievable actions. The BioDialogues are not about blue-sky navigating but about fixing the potholes that prevent European biotechnology from competing in the race.

Wednesday October 08 th, 2008 09:00 - 11:00 | BiODialogues Health BioDialogue I: "Biosimilars: Europe must follow, not lead, in the use of biological therapies" Although Europe's medicines regulator believes that “follow-on” biological drugs cannot be regulated as generics, this approach creates cost barriers for manufacturers and healthcare services, trade barriers for some European producers, and reinforces the impression that the products of biotechnology have to be expensive drugs of last recourse. This debate asks whether the science that has led to the current position in the EU is complete and defensible, and it will explore the relationships between the cost and the patterns of use of biologicals. Speakers Gerald Keusch | Assistant Provost and Associate Dean for Global Health, Boston University; Former Director, Fogarty International Center, NIH Ingrid Kossler | President of EUROPA DONNA Theodore Roumel | Vice President for Research Innovation and Commercialization at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute The Food Chain: “From Fork to Farm” Traceability along the entire supply chain is a key concern for those involved in the food industry. Recent food scares, where products have been found to be unsafe, have led consumers to demand full traceability in order to have confidence in the safety of foods that they have purchased. Consequently food traceability is a key component of any quality management system. Companies with effective traceability systems have tight control over their supply chains and are more productive and efficient. Essentially, such systems enable manufacturing without waste thereby adding more value. Food traceability systems facilitate the instant recall of defective products ensuring that the brand integrity of the products is not compromised. In essence, food traceability is a risk management tool that can protect the food organization from negative fallout if unfavourable situations arise. Traceability gives reassurance to the customer and gives confidence to the food industry. It should be welcomed by the food industry as another step forward in protecting the consumer. Biofuel or food: is there a dilemma? Over the course of 2007, the huge enthusiasm for biofuel around Europe was replaced by doubts and cynicism about the motivations of those who back this “green” approach to fuel production. There is an uncomfortable feeling of déjà vu. Questions are being asked about the real economic, energetic, and environmental benefits of biofuels. What contribution can they make to energy needs? And do they provide value for money relative to other solar energy capture methods. Even more fundamentally, some groups question any approach that only increases energy supply without reducing energy demand. On the other hand, to what extent is the venom being directed at biofuels only because biotechnology has been an easy scapegoat? This debate starts from the facts of energy needs and examines how society and technology will dictate the choices around biofuels. 14:00 - 16:00 | BiODialogues White BioDialogue II: "Engineering Green Chemistry: Towards a New Eco-industry" Moving towards “greener” solutions in the chemical industry requires standardization of production and the reconcilation of new biological feedstocks from sources with the products that industry and consumers demand. This will require the evolution of a large set of technical and infrastructural measures. It is not clear that all the technical challenges can be met or that politicians recognize the need to integrate green chemistry all the way from the crop to the finished product, as they have done for biofuels. This debate will ask whether there is a need for investment and incentivisation to promote the R&D on the technical hurdles or to favour biological sourcing, a form of market security. Perhaps an amended Common Agricultural Policy in Europe, for instance, can align the capabilities of farmers, breeders, and engineers alike. Speakers Brent Erickson | Vice President of the Industrial and Environmental Section at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Health BioDialogue II: "Can European Institutions Help Defragment the Market in Healthcare, and Hence Promote Innovation?" Huge amounts of “innovation” are needed in European healthcare just to overcome market barriers. This deflects effort, and investment, away from new diagnostic or therapeutic approaches that are desperately needed to reinvent European health systems in the 21st century. Why can European and national governments not harmonise regulations and health practices, or simply buy into innovation rather than outmoded, ineffective medicine? Would a government role in market creation help or would it be enough for politicians simply to send the right signals. This debate is not about whether market access is a fundamental barrier to the life sciences in Europe: it almost certainly is. To overcome that barrier, however, it is necessary to identify who benefits from the current system (or believes they do). By addressing their losses and reducing the inherent resistance, it may be possible to move more quickly to solutions that mean that innovative approaches are not systematically obstructed. Speakers Rolf Stahel | Non-executive Chairman, EUSA Pharma Health BioDialogue II : Fragmentation to be released soon Speakers Johan Vanhemelrijck | Former Secretary General, EuropaBio Traceability along the entire supply chain is a key concern for those involved in the food industry. Recent food scares, where products have been found to be unsafe, have led consumers to demand full traceability in order to have confidence in the safety of foods that they have purchased. Consequently food traceability is a key component of any quality management system. Companies with effective traceability systems have tight control over their supply chains and are more productive and efficient. Essentially, such systems enable manufacturing without waste thereby adding more value. Food traceability systems facilitate the instant recall of defective products ensuring that the brand integrity of the products is not compromised. In essence, food traceability is a risk management tool that can protect the food organization from negative fallout if unfavourable situations arise. Traceability gives reassurance to the customer and gives confidence to the food industry. It should be welcomed by the food industry as another step forward in protecting the consumer.