FEATURE Who’s who in biotech K S Jayaraman, Sabine Louët, Kendall Powell, John Ransom, Cormac Sheridan, Brian Vastag & Emily Waltz Nature Biotechnology’s readers select some of biotech’s most remarkable and influential personalities from the past 10 years. As part of its 10th anniversary celebration, United States, Canada and Europe. Nevertheless Nature Biotechnology has gathered here a gal- personalities appear on the list from territories, lery of portraits of the most notable personali- such as Japan, Israel, India, Australia and China. ties in biotech in the past 10 years. Rather than Curiously, the winner of the ‘Biobusiness in the focusing on personalities that have commonly rest of the world’’ category, Biocon’s CEO Kiran featured in the mainstream press, our intention Mazumdar-Shaw, seems to be more popular on http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology was to identify thought leaders and technology the global scene than she actually is at home. pioneers known within the industry to have Below, we profile those individuals voted by made significant contributions to the science our readers the most influential in a particular and business of biotech. To accomplish this biotech category; we also highlight those indi- task, we turned to those who know best: our viduals who came close (in some cases very readers. close) to winning a particular category. At the During the month of January, Nature end of the article, we present a list of individuals Biotechnology’s e-mail registrant list and website nominated for their contribution to shape the visitors were asked to vote for the people they world of biotech as we know it today (Box 1). viewed as most influential in eight categories Productions/NewsCom Burke/Triolo The diversity of personalities listed reflects of biotech. These categories were: society and what is unique about this industry: the mix of Nature Publishing Group Group Nature Publishing 6 ethics; policy and regulations; biopharmaceuti- because it bears a certain level of subjectivity, individuals across a wide range of expertise, and cals; agricultural, environmental and industrial the final list should not be scrutinized with the the importance of the interface between busi- 200 © biotech; technology; US biobusiness; European rigorous mind that our readers apply to peer- ness and science. Indeed, biotech is a sector biobusiness; and biobusiness in the rest of the reviewed papers. Instead, it should be consid- where it is not unusual for venture capitalist to world. The poll, posted online from January ered more like a very informal who’s who of discuss business models with a Nobel laureate 12 to 31, 2006, included 291 nominees, short- biotech. over coffee. listed by the editors of Nature Biotechnology Hence this list bears several caveats. Clearly, Finally, you may feel that we omitted some (Box 1). In some cases, multiple individuals the shortlist was not definitive and the number people from the initial shortlist. Our read- were grouped for a particular scientific contri- of people suggested for each category is far from ers already made some interesting sugges- bution or business activity. Readers also had the complete. Second, the shortlist highlights only tions for other nominees. Among them were opportunity to suggest additional nominees for those individuals considered by the editors to Garth Cooper, discoverer of the recently inclusion in the poll. have made a ‘positive’ contribution to progress commercialized synthetic analog of human Including people in the nominee’s list was in the field (prominent opponents of biotech amylin (pramlintide acetate) and a leading a question of definition and judgment. And were not included, although their contribution industry figure in New Zealand. Hiroshi to the debate about the use and uptake of new Masumoto from Nagoya University in Japan K S Jayaraman is Nature’s India correspondent technology is a given). Many of the personalities was also nominated for his work on human and is based in Hyderabad. Sabine Louët is were selected because they had been highlighted artificial chromosomes. In the category ‘US the news editor at Nature Biotechnology and in Nature Biotechnology’s pages over the past biobusiness,’ we received several votes for Una is based in Dublin, Ireland. Kendall Powell 10 years. What’s more, because we considered Ryan, who is the longtime CEO of AVANT is a regular contributor to Nature based in only personalities who have made a contribu- Immunotherapeutics and a central figure in Broomfield, Colorado. John Ransom is a tion to the industry in the past 10 years, many Massachusetts biotech circles. freelance writer based in Lone Tree, Colorado. of the founders—(e.g., Herb Boyer, Stanley Nature Biotechnology would welcome further Cormac Sheridan is a regular contributor to Cohen, Concepcion Campa Huergo, Arthur suggestions for additions to the list. We hope Nature Biotechnology based in Dublin, Ireland. Kornberg or Kary Mullis) of the field are not that in the next 10 years, the individuals high- Brian Vastag is a freelance writer based in included. Lastly, the poll results themselves lighted here will inspire many of our readers to Washington, D.C. Emily Waltz is an intern were influenced by the geographic location of follow in their footsteps. within Nature Biotechnology’s news section. our readers—the majority being located in the Sabine Louët, News Editor NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 24 NUMBER 3 MARCH 2006 291 FEATURE Society and ethics measures of society,” Melinda told Time maga- Policy and regulations zine in November 2005. Individuals nominated for their contributions Individuals nominated for their contributions The couple used their knowledge and com- to biotech’s public image or to the to legislation promoting biotech innovation/ passion to endow their foundation with $29 advancement of ethical debates about industry growth or to the debate about the billion. The Gateses specifically intended that biotech applications regulation of biotech products the types of drug developed by the founda- Winner: tion would not be the typical blockbuster Winner: Bill and Melinda Gates. Through their produced by the pharmaceutical industry. Rita Colwell. Former president of the foundation, they promote biotech by funding Large disease markets like obesity and heart University of Maryland Biotechnology research on neglected diseases and diseases disease don’t particularly interest them. “The Institute and former director of the US affecting poorer countries. world is failing billions of people,” Bill said National Science Foundation, who has long Honorable mentions: in a speech to the World Health Assembly in campaigned for the benefits of biotech, Christopher Reeve. The now-deceased Geneva in 2005. “Rich governments are not especially in environmental applications. actor who turned patient advocate and fighting some of the world’s most deadly Honorable mentions: proselytizer for the use of stem cell research diseases because rich countries don’t have Janet Woodcock. The US Food and Drug in biomedicine. them.” Administration’s deputy commissioner for Michael Fernandez. Executive director of the For this reason, their money targets operations, and the brains behind the FDA’s Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, neglected diseases such as malaria, HIV and ‘Critical Path’ initiative to modernize tools which has sought to stimulate and showcase tuberculosis. In fact, the Gateses will only and methods for evaluating biotech drugs. diverse viewpoints on the application of sponsor research for diseases that meet three Mark McClellan. FDA commissioner for a agbiotech. criteria: widespread, neglected and represen- short stint between 2002 and 2004, who tative of the public health disparities between introduced an efficient risk-management Bill and Melinda Gates developed and developing countries. Over the approach to reduce delays and costs of product approvals. http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology past decade, their Seattle-based foundation has given more than $6 billion in public health Robert Klein. Instrumental in the grants. So far, research programs for new vac- introduction of Proposition 71 by which cines, clinical drug studies and programs that California was able to use its own taxes try to prevent the spread of infectious diseases to finance stem cell research that is not have benefited from the Gates’ monies. allowed at the federal level. The couple often delves into the science behind projects and they personally approve Rita Colwell every grant over a million dollars. Bill also taught himself some basic biology by talking with researchers and devouring books on sci- Nature Publishing Group Group Nature Publishing 6 Jim Ruymen ence. Some of his light reading includes AIDS in the Twenty-First Century by Tony Barnett, 200 © Bill Gates is the kind of person who, when and Molecular Biology of the Gene by James attending the World Economic Forum, will Watson. pass up a dinner with foreign dignitaries to Although Bill and Melinda are trying to sit down with a bunch of scientists. Although tackle some of the world’s most intractable he sometimes contends that science research public health issues, they take a business is only a hobby, the founder of Microsoft approach to their philanthropy. They know (Seattle, WA) is fascinated with biotech. And that third-world afflictions aren’t the most University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute he has decided to spend some of the wealth he attractive arenas for biotech. They also know accumulated through