It is not just enough to have a National Biotech Policy. There should be a consensus on which areas the nation should concentrate to leverage the strengths. Here is a list of suggestions from some of India’s top biotech practitioners and policy makers.

“There are three segments which can be identified as niche areas for biotechnology. Medical Biotech: Its value in 1997 was $ 3 billion and is expected to rise to $9 billion by 2005. The subdivisions under this segment are: 
a) Generic based drugs 
b) Vaccines 
c) Biotherapeutics 
d) Diagnostics; Agri-biotech: 

The subdivisions under this segment are: 
a) Nutraceuticals 
b) Genetically engineered seed market 
c) Marine resources; Industrial Biotech: 

The subdivisions under this segment are: 
a) Enzymes, 
b) Instrumentation 
c) Bioprocess; Bio Services: Bioinformatics is the biggest and most lucrative service area.”

 — Dr Villoo Morawalla-Patell, CEO, Avesthagen, Bangalore

“India has a vast diversity in population. Coupled with this India is endowed with a large coastline with rich marine resources. The Indian pharmaceutical industry has proved that it can develop and manufacture world class products. However there are some gaps which needs to be plugged.

The government must extend its support to the various projects it has funded to ensure commercial success. The curriculum must be upgraded to meet international standards. The talent emerging from our colleges must be trained to handle state-of-the art equipment. Infrastructure problems like the high cost of power must be addressed. A single-window approval of biopharmaceuticals (like Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in USA) will cut down on the time to market and costs. Laboratories to analyze biopharmaceuticals products in their entirety must be set up. On its part the industry must explore more aggressively opportunities of striking strategic alliances with academic institutions for finding cost-effective solutions. The time has also come to create our own Intellectual Property Rights,” 

—Varaprasada Reddy, MD, Shantha Biotechnics, Hyderabad

“I feel that India should concentrate on two niche areas—drug discovery design system and clinical trials—in biotechnology both domestically and internationally. Locally the country has to stress more on the drug discovery design system. Already three Indian pharma companies, namely, Wockhardt Ltd,  Dr Reddy’s Lab and Torrent Gujarat Biotoech Ltd, have come up with a molecule each for the drug discovery processing system. And internationally, India has to look at clinical trials. Instead of government initiating the move in biotechnology, I appreciate the more participation from the private sector. The end result is amazing in this sector,”

—DA Prasanna, CEO, Wipro Healthcare and Lifesciences Ltd, Bangalore

“The niche areas for India are agrigenetics, improved diagnostics for genetically based diseases particularly relevant to India and the exploitation of Indian medicinal plants. The current opposition to genetically modified food crops and farmyard biotechnology should largely disappear in the next few years, once it is realized that these technologies have not led to any major catastrophies or produce monsters. As regards what the government could do, the most important contribution would be to not try and duplicate (or compete with) what some of the successful Indian pharma and biotech enterprises ( Bharat Biotech, Shantha, Biocon, Dr Reddy’s, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt, to cite a few) are already accomplishing. 

Where the government can play a most useful role in providing long-term capital and managerial assistance to new start-up companies (e.g. Avesthagen in Bangalore) who would have difficulty in raising long-term capital support from the usual banking sources and venture capitalists. Such a public-private partnership would be invaluable for India to face up to the coming WTO-led competition. In this case the government would be justified in establishing its presence on governing and scientific boards of ventures based on such partnerships,” 

— Dr Jamshed R Tata, National Institute for Medical Research, London, and member, Scientific Advisory Committee –Overseas, DBT, India

“The current policy seems to encourage entry of big foreign biotech companies with huge resources to operate from here. Domestic entrepreneurs do not get adequate support from venture funds. Ideas are more important than collaterals in biotechnology industry. Venture capitalists should change their mindset on this. On the human resources front, most of the qualified, competent people are either working for the top companies or are abroad. For local companies, locating expatriates is an option. The quality of education is also an issue. Our biology education is not very analytical. This mentality has to change. There are enough top class educational institutions but their orientation has to change to suit the requirements of the industry. High marketing costs is also a hurdle. We should, like the Singapore government does, sponsor the stalls taken up by the companies at major biotech industry shows abroad to promote the country’s industry. This will reduce our marketing costs. “ 

— Subash Lingareddy, director, Ocimum Biosolutions Ltd, Hyderabad 

“We should not look to biotech industry for overnight success. The industry is going through many changes. Entry of venture funds is a new thing. India should stop work on basic research. We should concentrate on drug molecule discovery. Also agri-biotech sector, where results can come much faster. Work on monoclonal antibodies is too expensive. Volumes are not there yet. Contract manufacturing is an area where India has the strength in terms of technical manpower and resources. Very few biotech parks have taken off. To attract more companies to invest here, especially abroad, a strong IPR regime is a must.”

 — Dr Anil Paul Kariath, COO, Sartorius India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore