Bio-Colossus 3-David Mach
It is stimulating (Please not to confuse with stimulus plans or whatever) to discover the strength of new approaches to the progress of economy and the human being in general terms. This is the case of the biomedical field, which is opening a new frontier to the extension of life and to the development of a economic sector with a huge future. Far from expired economic recipes recommending to insist in public expenditure, financial engineering or real state, this sector shows that the next economic lanscape will be linked to serious Research, Development and Innovation, where science plays a major role. In a similar way than the renewable energy sector (but with less protectionism and ideological bias), the biomedical field is emerging in several developed countries and obtaining big investments from entrepreneurial institutions. In fact, many Governments are working desperately to set up biomedical clusters in their areas, but it is not only a matter of money and facilities. Highly educated human capital has the key to success in this sector and a long experience in medical sciences and engineering are also needed. You cannot improvise.
Nevertheless, the topic is so popular on the block and strategists are looking for the best roadmap to create a biomedical matrix to compete in the new economic league. It is understandable, because as members of The Stockholm Network point out,
“Biomedical innovation, including advances in biopharmaceuticals, medical devices and diagnostics, is at the heart of human society, not least because this type of innovation helps to save lives and to improve the quality of life. Furthermore, it is one of the major drivers of the modern market economy”.
In From Test Tube to Patient –National Innovation Strategies for the Biomedical Field, authors offer several recommendations to those public policy officials who want to create or improve their opportunities to establish a proper environment for the development of the biomedical sector. We can summarize the main ones:
1. To set up a quality research and development infraestructure, in terms of human capital, technology and facilities.
2. To promote R&D in the biomedical field and to favour basic research and technology transfer.
3. To protect Intellectual Property and provide a legal framework which do not constrain the work with hard regulatory procedures or public intervention.
4. To promote private investment in R&D on the biomedical field. Authors believe public support should not restrain entrepreneurs and researchers free initiative.
I could add another one: do not think about celebrating any Copenhagen Summit over the global development of the biomedical sector.
However, the crisis has showed that a public protection model works to assure the basic services to all citizens. The costs of the system grow and grow but it is evident its value in hard times. Solidarity organised through the State helps to facing better the negative consequences of the crisis. I cannot argue that it is the best way to maintain a social protection network, but nobody has invented anything better in the las fifty years.
