IN the early 1990s, the idea of Germany leading Europe in biotechnology would
have been laughable. Memories of the Third Reich鈥檚 fondness for eugenics
lingered on, making life hard for an industry that is founded on the idea of
genetic improvement. Green activism and the peace movement held sway, and
matters weren鈥檛 helped by the 1986 Chernobyl accident, which graphically
demonstrated how high technology can go horribly wrong.
Ten years on, the picture has been transformed. According to the latest
annual report on Europe鈥檚 life sciences industry by the consultancy Ernst &
Young, Germany now has more biotechnology companies than any other European
country. Last year the count was 279, bouncing Britain, with five fewer, into
second place (see Table). 鈥淕ermany can now
claim to be Europe鈥檚 most densely populated biotech kindergarten,鈥� says the report.
鈥淕ermany is a little miracle,鈥� agrees Paul Muys, head of communication at
EuropaBio, the biotech industry鈥檚 pan-European lobby group. The blooming of
biotechnology in Germany after its angst-ridden beginnings contrasts sharply
with the increasing unease about biotechnology in Britain. Some British
researchers claim that public opinion even threatens the country鈥檚 hitherto
unassailable position as the leader of European biotech.
Advertisement
Large sections of the British press have reported on genetically modified
鈥淔rankenfoods鈥� and cloning technology with near hysteria. Last month it emerged
that British honey and some European oilseed rape had been inadvertently
contaminated by GM pollen. Then Prince Charles entered the fray with an
impassioned speech against science, urging us not to treat the entire world as a
鈥済reat laboratory of life鈥�.
While scientists in Britain fear a public backlash against their activities,
their German counterparts are forging ahead with new technology and inventions.
鈥淭here鈥檚 lots of enthusiasm and optimism,鈥� says Christine Bohner, a spokeswoman
for Medigene in Munich, Germany鈥檚 largest biotechnology company. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not that
environmental issues are not important, simply that people are now more
pragmatic, less dogmatic and less idealistic,鈥� she says.
So how did Germany claw its way back into biotechnology after making such an
unpromising start? And can the rest of Europe learn any lessons about how to
strengthen its biotech industry without losing the trust of the public?
In West Germany, public suspicion about genetic engineering reached its
height in the 1980s as plans were drawn up to build factories where genetically
engineered bacteria would generate bucketloads of life-saving hormones such as
insulin and the blood-enricher erythropoeitin (New 杏吧原创, 26 August
1989, p 26). Things came to a head in 1988 when, in response to public pressure,
the government introduced legislation forcing drugs companies to win local
approval before producing genetically engineered medicines. The Greens seized on
the law as a way of obstructing biotech projects, and interminable public
hearings delayed the opening of a factory built in 1988 by Hoechst in Frankfurt
to make genetically engineered insulin. It stayed in mothballs for almost a
decade. An even stiffer law restricting gene technologies was introduced in
1990, just as West and East Germany were reunified.
This was the last straw for many talented biologists and companies. They gave
up on Germany and decamped to other countries, including the US and France.
BASF, for example, moved its biotechnology labs to Boston, Massachusetts.
Boehringer Mannheim sited a factory for making recombinant proteins in
Ireland.
But soon afterwards the tide turned. Encumbered with the East鈥檚 sclerotic
industries, the newly reunified country fell into recession. 鈥淲ith rising
unemployment in the 1990s, people realised you must do something to stay
competitive and that we were missing out on this new industry,鈥� says
R眉diger Marquardt, head of the information secretariat at Dechema,
Germany鈥檚 trade association for the chemicals and biotechnology industries.
By 1993, support for biotechnology had spread to both major political
parties, the conservative CDU in power and the social-democrat SPD in
opposition. A relaxation of the restrictive laws followed, putting an end to the
public hearings, speeding up the approval process for field tests of GM
organisms, and easing lab safety rules.
The trickle of returning biotech refugees became a flood towards the end of
1995, following the championing of the biotech cause by J眉rgen
R眉ttgers, the minister for education. He introduced a scheme called the
BioRegio competition, under which the regions bid for money to kick-start local
biotechnology companies.
The effect was startling. By 1997, 173 companies had been formed. The figure
rose to 222 the following year and to 279 in 1999. 鈥淵ou could see the federal
government was really backing it and people really wanted something to happen,鈥�
says Marquardt.
R眉ttgers 鈥渁lmost single-handedly turned it around鈥�, says John Sime,
chief executive of the BioIndustry Association, which promotes the biotech
industry in Britain. 鈥淚鈥檓 not sure we have a champion who matches in stature and
fervour what R眉ttgers did.鈥�
The opening in 1997 of the Neuer Markt dealing in high-tech shares encouraged
more researchers to try their hand at being biotech entrepreneurs. Even the
Greens now accept that 鈥渞ed鈥� biotechnology aimed at advancing medicine is
beneficial. But 鈥済reen鈥� agricultural biotechnology is still opposed in Germany,
although not with quite the hostility seen in Britain.
Realists are also quick to admit that while German biotech companies now
outnumber those in Britain and France, their better-established foreign rivals
are way ahead in other ways. Germany is on the right track, says Friedrich von
Bohlen, chief executive of Lion Bioscience in Heidelberg. 鈥淏ut the gap between
Germany and particularly the US and Britain is still there.鈥�
The Ernst & Young report corroborates this, noting that of the 80 or so
European drugs in the final stages of clinical trials, three-quarters are
British. Sime expects eight British products to reach the market this year. And
in terms of market value, British companies account for a whopping 60 per cent
of Europe鈥檚 biotech industry. No German company yet has drugs in the final
clinical trials, though Medigene hopes to have two of its drugs at this stage by
the end of this year.
For Britain, events in Germany should be seen as a wake-up call, says Sime.
鈥淣ext year, Germany鈥檚 numerical lead could be even greater.鈥� Worse still, some
think the British industry could begin to totter if public hostility to science
deepens. 鈥淚ncreasingly, science is facing opprobrium. That鈥檚 a relatively new
thing, and is also happening in France,鈥� says John Durant, a researcher in
public attitudes to science at Imperial College, London.
Even in the US, which has by far the biggest biotech industry of any country,
companies are starting to face opposition. Farmers and major food manufacturers
such as Heinz and Frito-Lay are turning their backs on GM ingredients because of
a growing consumer opposition. Activism has increased, too. Some 4000 protesters
rallied against biotechnology in March during the annual meeting of the US
Biotechnology Industry Organization in Boston. But so far, the American
media鈥攁nd possibly as a result, the public鈥攈aven鈥檛 appeared to be
anything like as hostile to gene science and technology as their British
counterparts.
鈥淚n Britain, media attacks on biotechnology are fostering a worrying attitude
in the general population,鈥� says Jeremy Curnock Cook of International
Biotechnology Trust, a London-based specialist investment company. 鈥淎t the
moment it鈥檚 restricted to the agricultural side, but it鈥檚 only a matter of time
before critics will find it just as easy to focus on the health-care arena.鈥�
The Germans recognise that Britain has a lot to lose. 鈥淚 think the UK is in a
good way, and has a riper industry,鈥� says von Bohlen. 鈥淭he UK should keep the
momentum going.鈥�