In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

165 Conclusion Beyond the Developmental State The stage has been set, in the labs and government halls of several nations, many researchers say. In the future, no matter which group of scientists, states, or nations pulls into the lead or falls behind in the area of regenerative medicine, there will probably always be another group just behind it, to pick up the slack and carry on. Too many people, from too many different walks of life, have become besotted with the notion that the secret to curing the body has essentially been hiding within the body, all along. —Cynthia Fox, Cell of Cells: The Global Race to Capture and Control the Stem Cell The race is on. Ever since the rediscovery in the 1970s of the biological heuristic, which prompted the faint and distant hope for a new generation of cutting-edge health technologies, the world has focused tremendous attention on the promise of commercial biotech. And this preoccupation with biotech, broadly defined, has been truly global in scope. Rich countries expect innovative life sciences to be the next foundational pillar of the knowledge economy. Poor countries see biotechnology as the technological harbinger of low-cost medical miracles, alleviating their dependencies on expensive first-world drugs.1 It was initially believed, naively, that all it would take to realize the biotech revolution was some serious smarts in the lab, some investment savvy, a whole lot of government support, some patience, and a receptive public. Turns out, however, as we now know, that commercial biotech was a long-shot bet from the start, and that the current skepticism surrounding the sector and its underwhelming impact in terms of economic returns and health outcomes is not unwarranted. In a way, this book serves as a cautionary tale, a realistic wake-up call at the least, about the 1. Halla Thorsteinsdottir, Uyen Quach, Abdallah Daar, and Peter Singer, “Conclusion: Promoting Biotechnology Innovation in Developing Countries,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004). 166 BETTING ON BIOTECH tremendous uncertainties of biotech innovation and the commercialization of cutting-edge life sciences technologies. Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, three of the world’s most dynamic postwar economies,have bet large on the promise of commercial biotech. They were, in one sense,compelled to do so,as their earlier competitive and comparative industrial advantages had begun to erode during the 1990s in the face of competition in industrial manufacturing from other, later developers in the region and beyond. Their economies were gradually being hollowed out. In addition, the global economic crisis of 2008 emphatically underscored just how dependent Asia’s postwar export-led strategy had been on a buoyant American economy, which for the previous several decades had acted as the de facto purchaser of last resort. Absent a healthy American core of the global economy, the margins in price competition in industrial manufacturing sectors become even smaller. Industrial Asia’s dependence on cost-competitive manufacturing exports has proved to be its Achilles’ heel. As the Economist recently put it, “Asia’s sails have become anchors.”2 Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore thus had to become science and technology innovators, a direction echoed by the World Bank in 2003.3 Because they had already demonstrated their success as astute and creative technology absorbers and technology imitators , by the 1990s these dynamic industrial economies were positioned to climb the global technology value chain as creators and cutting-edge innovators . Biotechnology thus became a high priority for industrial planners in all three places. Notwithstanding the fact that Korea,Taiwan,and Singapore had little previous industry and R&D experience in the life sciences field, several factors seemed to suggest at the time that these economies would have a good shot at making it in biotech. They were not industrial technology laggards. They were plugged into the global economy and transnational R&D networks. Governments were committed to facilitating the growth of the industry. The private sector and industry were hungry for new investment opportunities in higher value-added sectors. And all three economies enjoyed what they saw as significant locational advantages as “hubs” and “gateways” for Asian markets and prospective bio-industry partnerships. Besides, the whole world—the rich and poor, the big and small—was getting into the business of commercial biotech. Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore would not be outliers in this regard, and they were most certainly not going to be left behind. 2. “The Export Trap,” Economist, March 25, 2009. 3. Shahid Yusuf, Innovative East Asia: The Future of Growth (New York: Oxford University Press...

Share