ВУЗ:
Составители:
Рубрика:
sure that Sorona, his firm’s new biofibre, will be a multi-billion dollar product and "the next nylon". DuPont expects its sales of
industrial biotechnology products to grow by 16…18 % a year, to reach $1 billion by 2012.
Perhaps the biggest worry is that today’s industrial-biotech boom is an artefact of the soaring price of oil. If the oil price plunged
and stayed low, the boom would surely turn to bust. Short of outright collapse, however, even a sharp price drop need not burst the
biotech bubble. Mr Riese has scrutinised the economics of sugar and oil – the chief rival feedstocks – and concludes that the "bio-
route" will be cheaper even at an oil price of $50…60 a barrel. Brent Erickson of BIO, an industry lobby, argues that "this was
happening long before the oil-price spike – $100 oil is just gravy." Industry bosses agree, noting that the flurry of projects now
approaching commercial use were deemed viable and initiated a few years ago, when the oil price was closer to $40 a barrel.
For proof that industrial biotech is ready for the big time, look to Brazil. The country already has a large and efficient industry
producing ethanol fuel from sugar cane. Now rival consortia are rushing to build plants to turn sugar cane into bioethylene. This is
striking. Unlike many other industrial biotech efforts which target niche markets, this is an assault on the $114 billion market for
ethylene, the most widely produced organic compound of all.
Erin O’Driscoll of Dow, a chemical giant now investing in Brazilian bioethylene, says the firm is confident the technology is
ready for commercialisation. The chief reason for such optimism is that industrial biotechnology is better and cheaper than it was back
in the heyday of chemurgy. Dow has even come up with a material made from soyabean oil that it plans to sell to carmakers to replace
oil-based foam. Ford and his friend Carver would be proud.
T a s k O n e. Answer the following questions.
1. What is meant by better living through chemistry?
2. What does the term chemurgy stand for?
3. What has led to a revival of interest in using agricultural feedstocks?
4. What improves laundry detergents?
5. What was the problem of early bioplastics?
6. What is the pace of innovations in new technology?
7. What is the biggest worry of today’s industrial-biotech boom?
8. What is Brazil famous for now?
9. Where may soyabean oil be used?
T a s k T w o. Write a brief summary of the article.
A R T I C L E 8. From across the divide.
Jun. 12
th
2008
From
The Economist
print edition
Europe's biotech firms need to think big if they are to prosper, says Lisa Drakeman of Genmab
IS EUROPE'S biotechnology industry finally ready for the big time? For decades the continent's scientific elite watched as
boffins in America fled academia to start biotech firms. European governments poured billions of euros into "technology corridors",
"pôles de compétitivité", and other top-down schemes to create biotech clusters. But most of the venture capital still went to American
firms, and Europe failed to produce a rival to America's Amgen or Genentech. Defenders of Europe's efforts to promote innovation in
biotechnology noisily object to this view. To show that Europe's efforts may at last be paying off, they point to a recent uptick in
investment – and to Genmab, a Danish firm led by Lisa Drakeman. And what does she think? Hers is an unusual perspective, for as
well as being boss of one of Europe's biggest biotech firms, Ms Drakeman is American.
Ms Drakeman calls herself an "accidental CEO" because she came to her job via an unusual route. After a doctorate at Princeton
in the history of religion, she went to work at Medarex, an American biotech firm that her husband was just getting off the ground in
the 1980s. It went public in 1991, and Ms Drakeman moved into business-development in 1993. She spotted an opening, based on the
work of a Dutch scientist who was advising Medarex, and proposed to set up a company. But American venture capitalists were
unwilling to back the idea. Instead a Danish investor, BankInvest, came forward – and proposed that Ms Drakeman herself should
lead it. So Genmab was set up in Copenhagen, though its research facilities are in the Netherlands.
The company went public in 2000, and is listed in Copenhagen. Today it has a market value of some $2.5 billion, making it one
of the world's top 20 biotech firms. What makes this valuation even more striking is that Genmab has spent some $300 m – 400 m of
investors' money, but still has no products for sale – and therefore no reliable stream of revenues. Ms Drakeman says its value is a
sign that investors believe in the drugs it has in clinical trials – such as ofatumumab, a cancer and arthritis drug in late-stage clinical
trials, which she reckons could eventually have annual sales of $5 billion. In late 2006 GlaxoSmithKline, a British drugs giant, agreed
to a record-breaking licensing deal for the drug, paying $357 m for a 10 % stake in Genmab and offering "milestone payments" worth
up to $1,6 billion provided the drug meets expectations as it inches towards the market.
All this comes as broader investment trends also seem to favour Europe's biotech firms. Ernst & Young, a consultancy, estimates
that the total value of mergers and acquisitions in Europe's biotech industry leapt from €2 billion ($2.5 billion) in 2006 to nearly €15
billion last year. Listed firms have also been doing better, "suggesting that after years of lacklustre growth the European sector is
sustaining robust financial performance."
Unfortunately, Ms Drakeman's experience says as much about the failings of European biotech as it does about its potential.
Indeed, Genmab's success arises from her willingness to thumb her nose at European chauvinism and to position Genmab as an
embryonic global powerhouse, with aspirations in all big markets. "Genmab is not a European biotech firm, we are a global firm," she
Страницы
- « первая
- ‹ предыдущая
- …
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- …
- следующая ›
- последняя »
