DOCSLIB.ORG

External Review of the Collaborative Research Agreement Between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
External Review of the Collaborative Research Agreement Between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc External Review of the Collaborative Research Agreement between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. and The Regents of the University of California Lawrence Busch, Principal Investigator Richard Allison, Co-Principal Investigator Craig Harris, Co-Principal Investigator Alan Rudy, Co-Principal Investigator Bradley T. Shaw, Co-Principal Investigator Toby Ten Eyck, Co-Principal Investigator Dawn Coppin, Research Associate Jason Konefal, Research Assistant Christopher Oliver, Research Assistant And James Fairweather, Advisor July 13, 2004 Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards (IFAS) Michigan State University 422 Berkey Hall East Lansing, MI 48824-1111 External Review of UCB-N © 2004 by the authors. The University of California has a non-exclusive license to use, publish or republish, or otherwise disseminate this document. The research reported in this document was supported with funds generously provided by the Regents of the University of California. Suggested Citation: Busch, Lawrence, Richard Allison, Craig Harris, Alan Rudy, Bradley T. Shaw, Toby Ten Eyck, Dawn Coppin, Jason Konefal, Christopher Oliver, with James Fairweather. 2004. External Review of the Collaborative Research Agreement between Novartis Agricultural Discovery Institute, Inc. and The Regents of the University of California. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards, Michigan State University. 2 External Review of UCB-N Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. – President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961) 3 External Review of UCB-N Table of Contents Acknowledgements 8 Glossary of Acronyms 9 Executive Summary 10 I. Introduction 15 Central Principles 16 Tests and Trials 19 II. Chronology of Events 22 Plant and Microbial Biology’s Strategies 22 Auction Process 24 Enter Novartis 25 Negotiations 28 Emerging Opposition 30 Involvement of the Academic Senate 32 Signing of the Agreement 33 Continued Questioning 34 External Study 35 Reconfiguration of Novartis Agricultural Discovery 38 Institute, Inc. University of California, Berkeley Internal Review 39 Implementation of the Agreement 40 Aftermath 41 III. Points of Contention 45 Process 46 Substantive Concerns 49 Local Conditions 52 Broader Issues 53 Conclusion 55 IV. Overview and Analysis of the Agreement 55 V. The Agreement and the Public Stage: The Role of the Media 64 in Framing the University of California, Berkeley – Novartis Agreement The Two Roles of the Media 64 The Public Relations Campaign 66 Newspaper Coverage 69 Comments on the Coverage 74 Conclusions 76 4 External Review of UCB-N VI. The Effects of the University of California, 77 Berkeley – Novartis Agreement on the Department Plant and Microbial Biology Views on the Partner Selection Process 77 Justifications for Entering the Agreement 78 Reasons for Novartis’s Interests 79 Views on the Negotiation Process 82 Implementation of the Agreement 85 Benefits of the Agreement 90 Concerns Regarding the Agreement 94 Consequences of the Agreement 95 Intellectual Property Rights 105 Surrounding Controversy 116 Conclusions 117 VII. Impact and Significance of the University of California, 118 Berkeley – Novartis Agreement on the College of Natural Resources and the University of California, Berkeley as an Institution of Higher Education, Research, and Outreach The University of California and the College of Natural Resources 118 at the University of California Berkeley The Agricultural Sciences and the College of Natural 121 Resources at UCB Academic Freedom and Diversity 126 Collegiality 129 Reputation 130 Public Mission 131 Land Grant Mission 134 Conclusion 137 VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations 138 Rethinking the Role of Public and Land Grant Universities 138 in the 21st Century Future of the Land Grant Mission at the University of 141 California, Berkeley Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Mission 142 Visions of the University 147 Recommendations 152 References 157 Methods Appendices 173 Interview Methods 173 Media Data and Analysis 174 Consent Letters 176 Sample Interview Schedule 179 5 External Review of UCB-N Appendices 182 A. Project Title and Amount of Funding by Faculty Member 182 from the University of California, Berkeley – Novartis Agreement B. Plant and Microbial Biology Graduate Program Numbers 184 C. Number of Undergraduate Majors in Comparable Departments 185 to Plant and Microbial Biology D. Summary of Provisions of the University of California, 186 Berkeley – Novartis Agreement 6 External Review of UCB-N List of Tables Table 1. Syngenta Financial Highlights, 1999-2003 38 Table 2. Chronology of Events 44 Table 3. News Frames, 1998-2002 70 Table 4. Coverage Characteristics 71 Table 5. Number of Passages Coded as Justifications for Entering 78 UCB-N by Interviewee Position Table 6. UCB-N Funding by Faculty Member per year, 89 Ranked by total received in $1000 Table 7. Number of Passages Coded as Benefits from Entering 91 UCB-N by Interviewee Position Table 8. Funds Received by Selected Bioscience Departments, 98 1995-1998, 1999-2002 Table 9. Combined PMB Graduate Program 184 Table 10. Plant Biology Division Graduate Program 184 Table 11. Microbial Biology Graduate Program 184 Table 12. Undergraduate Majors (Fall-Spring Average) 185 List of Figures Figure 1. Number of UCB-N Grants Awarded Each 96 Year by Funding Amount Figure 2. Expenditures for Life Science Academic R&D, 100 1990-2001, Millions Constant Dollars Figure 3. PMB Graduate Student Applications, Admissions, 101 Matriculation, 1995-2004 Figure 4. Number of Regularly Scheduled Undergraduate 102 PMB Classes, by AY Figure 5. Number of PMB Undergraduate Majors, by AY 103 7 External Review of UCB-N Acknowledgements A study of this sort is always the result of the support and help of a wide variety of people. We wish to take the space here to thank those who enabled this report to be much more than it otherwise might have been. Dr. Anne MacLachlan of the Center for Studies in Higher Education was our designated contact at the University of California, Berkeley and she more than lived up to her role. Anne provided us with help in locating persons and documents, in identifying paths to go down that might otherwise have been missed, and with amazing insights into the workings of the University. Dr. Jean Lave’s willingness to provide space in which to house our Research Associate, Dr. Dawn Coppin, is greatly appreciated, as is her tenacity in ensuring this project went ahead. We also had the good fortune of working with a Liaison Committee at the University of California, Berkeley who sought to smooth any bumps we might encounter in conducting this study. In this capacity our thanks go to Dr. Bob Spear, chair; Dr. Jim Evans; Dr. Jean Lave; Dr. Steve Lindow; Dr. Anne MacLachlan; and Dr. Karen de Valois. It almost goes without saying that this study would not have been possible without the willingness of so many people at Berkeley – faculty, students, staff, administrators – as well as people off campus to take the time to talk with us about their concerns and involvement with, and thoughts about, the University of California, Berkeley – Novartis agreement itself. We are deeply grateful for their participation and hope we have not misinterpreted their comments, although the conclusions we draw may not be entirely to their liking. Dr. Daniel Kleinman and Dr. Jim Fairweather provided helpful detailed comments on various parts of the manuscript. We thank them for taking the time to review a rather lengthy document. We would also like to thank Dr. Ann Austin for her assistance in the development of this project. Finally, we are grateful to the University of California, Berkeley for the funds that made this study possible. Without their generous support, the study would never have been conducted. Of course, the findings, interpretations, and conclusions drawn here remain the responsibility of the authors. East Lansing, Michigan July 13, 2004 8 External Review of UCB-N Glossary of Acronyms ARE Agriculture and Resource
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Patentability of Synthetic Organisms
    Creating Life from Scratch: The Patentability of Synthetic Organisms Michael Saunders* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 75 II. PATENTING MICROBIAL LIFE—CHAKRABARTY ................................ 77 III. PATENTING MULTICELLULAR LIFE—HARVARD ONCOMOUSE .......... 80 IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY .......................................... 83 A. Single-Celled Synthetic Organisms ......................................... 83 B. Multicellular Synthetic Organisms .......................................... 86 V. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 88 I. INTRODUCTION Published in May 2007, U.S. application no. 20070122826 (Venter patent) describes a minimally operative genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium consisting of 381 genes, which the inventors believe to be essential for the survival of the bacterium in an environment containing all the necessary nutrients and free from stress.1 However, the team of inventors from the J. Craig Venter Institute is trying to accomplish something more than just the usual patenting of genes; they intend to create and patent the world’s first artificial organism. The team has already cleared two of the three major hurdles on its way to constructing this first synthetic organism. In January 2008, they announced completion of the second step, the laboratory synthesis of the entire 582,970 base pairs of the genome described in the patent above.2 What remains is the third and final step of inserting this human-made genome into a bacterial cell chassis and “booting up” the organism.3 Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith, lead researchers on the team have been discussing the creation of synthetic life since 1995, when their team published the first complete genome sequence of a living * © 2008 Michael Saunders. J.D. candidate 2009, Tulane University School of Law; B.S. 2003, Bucknell University. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY Sign Offv7
    Syngenta Event GA21 Page 1 of 29 PART II: SUMMARY Application for import and use of genetically modified herbicide tolerant maize Event GA21 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 PART II: SUMMARY Syngenta Event GA21 Page 2 of 29 PART II: SUMMARY A . GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Details of application a) Member State of application UK b) Application number Not available at the time of submission c) Name of the product (commercial and other names) Maize Event GA21 In the USA, GA21 is marketed under the product name Agrisure GT Advantage (http://www.nk-us.com/infosilo/seedguide/agrisure.asp) d) Date of acknowledgement of valid application Not available at the time of submission Syngenta Event GA21 Page 3 of 29 PART II: SUMMARY 2. Applicant a) Name of applicant Syngenta Seeds S.A.S on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Basel b) Address of applicant Syngenta Seeds S.A.S. 12, chemin de l'Hobit BP 27 F-31790 Saint-Sauveur On behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Basel Switzerland and all affiliated companies Schwarzwaldallee 215 CH 4058 Basle Switzerland c) Name and address of the person established in the Community who is responsible for the placing in the market, whether it be the manufacturer, the importer or the distributor, if different from the applicant (Commission Decision 2004/204/EC Art 3(a)(ii)) Event GA21 maize will be imported and used as any other maize in the EU by operators currently involved in these processes. 3. Scope of the application x GM plants for food use x Food containing or consisting of GM plants xFood produced from GM plants or containing ingredients produced from GM plants xGM plants for feed use x Feed containing or consisting of GM plants x Feed produced from GM plants x Import and processing (Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC) o Seeds and plant propagating material for cultivation in Europe (Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC) Syngenta Event GA21 Page 4 of 29 PART II: SUMMARY 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Era of Corporate Consolidation and the End of Competition Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-Dupont, and Chemchina-Syngenta
    Research Brief October 2018 The Era of Corporate Consolidation and the End of Competition Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-DuPont, and ChemChina-Syngenta DISRUPT ECOSYSTEM ACCLERATE MONOPOLY THE EFFECTS OF CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION UNDERMINE FOOD SECURITY HARM SMALL PRODUCERS HAASINSTITUTE.BERKELEY.EDU This publication is published by the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at UC Berkeley This research brief is part of the Haas Institute's Shahidi Project from the Global Justice Program. The Shahidi Project (Shahidi is a Swahili word meaning “witness”) intends to demystify the power structures and capacities of transnational food and agricultural corporations within our food system. To that end, researchers have developed a robust database focusing on ten of the largest food and agricultural corporations in the world. See more at haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/shahidi. About the Authors Copyeditor Support Elsadig Elsheikh is the director Marc Abizeid Special thanks to the Food of the Global Justice program and Farm Communications at the Haas Institute for a Infographics Fund, which provided the seed Fair and Inclusive Society at Samir Gambhir funding for the Shahidi project. the University of California- Berkeley, where he oversees Report Citation Contact the program’s projects and Elsadig Elsheikh and Hossein 460 Stephens Hall research on corporate power, Ayazi. “The Era of Corporate Berkeley, CA 94720-2330 food system, forced migration, Consolidation and The End of Tel 510-642-3326 human rights, Islamophobia, Competition: Bayer-Monsanto, haasinstitute.berkeley.edu structural marginality and Dow-DuPont, and ChemChina- inclusion, and trade and Syngenta.” Haas Institute for development. a Fair and Inclusive Society at the University of California, Hossein Ayazi, PhD, is a Berkeley, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Release Syngenta Group: Growth of Sustainability- Enabling
    Media Release Syngenta Group: Growth of sustainability- enabling products and services drives record H1 2021 Syngenta Group’s focus on helping farmers adapt to climate change and be part of the solution is creating growth opportunities • H1 Group sales at $14.4 billion (+$2.8 billion), +24 percent year-on-year • Q2 Group sales of $7.4 billion (+$1.6 billion), +28 percent year-on-year • H1 EBITDA at $2.7 billion, +22 percent year-on-year • Q2 EBITDA at $1.2 billion, +25 percent year-on-year • First half performance shows strong demand from farmers for sustainable products and services • Growth driven by Group’s innovation in seeds and crop protection products that enable regenerative agricultural practices • The Modern Agriculture Platform (MAP), which provides farmers with access to market-leading products and services, more than tripled sales year-on-year • Syngenta biologicals sales, including Valagro, grew 27 percent in H1, strengthening the Group’s leading position in this high growth segment 26 August 2021, Basel / Switzerland Syngenta Group today reported strong financial results for the second quarter and first half ended June 30, 2021. Group sales in second quarter were $7.4 billion, up 28 percent versus Q2 2020 (+25 percent at CER). EBITDA increased in the second quarter 25 percent (+38 percent at CER) to $1.2 billion. Group sales for the first half of 2021 were $14.4 billion, up 24 percent year-on-year (+18 percent at CER). EBITDA for the first half of the year was $2.7 billion, 22 percent higher year-on-year (+25 percent at CER).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2008
    Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2008 Czech Republic, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia, Poland, Romania and Spain Submitted by MONSANTO EUROPE S.A. Dept. Regulatory Affairs Avenue de Tervuren 270-272 Tervurenlaan 270-272 B-1150 Brussels BELGIUM VOLUME 1 OF 1 July 2009 Data protection. This application contains scientific data and other information which are protected in accordance with Art. 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. © 2009 Monsanto Company. All Rights Reserved. This document is protected under copyright law. This document is for use only by the regulatory authority to which this has been submitted by Monsanto Company, and only in support of actions requested by Monsanto Company. Any other use of this material, without prior written consent of Monsanto Company, is strictly prohibited. By submitting this document, Monsanto Company does not grant any party or entity any right to license, or to use the information of intellectual property described in this document. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2008, Bt maize was planted in the EU on 107,719 hectares across seven countries (James, 2008). As part of stewardship of the technology, industry has implemented an Insect Resistance Management (IRM) plan to proactively avoid and/or delay the potential development of pest resistance to the Cry protein, as well as a voluntary general surveillance monitoring program. The adherence to these stewardship measures in the context of the cultivation of MON 810 maize in Europe is detailed in the Annual Monitoring Report on the Cultivation of MON 810 in 2008. The planting of MON 810 in the 2008 season was accompanied by a rigorous IRM plan involving three main elements: refuge implementation, monitoring and farmer education.
    [Show full text]
  • Doomsday Seed Vault” in the Arctic - Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO Giants Know Something We Don’T by F
    “Doomsday Seed Vault” in the Arctic - Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t By F. William Engdahl Global Research 4 December 2007 http://www.globalresearch.ca/doomsday-seed-vault-in-the-arctic-2/23503 (PDF at http://dickatlee.com/issues/gmo/doomsday_seed_vault.pdf) One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates can’t be accused of is sloth. He was already programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while still a student at Harvard. By 1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the world’s richest man from being the largest shareholder in his Microsoft, a company which his relentless drive built into a de facto monopoly in software systems for personal computers. In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest ‘transparent’ private foundation as it says, with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable status. A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in 2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway put the Gates’ foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire annual budget of the United Nations’ World Health Organization. So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Harvard Mouse
    The Harvard Mouse or the transgenetic technique Term Paper Biology Georgina Cibula, 4e LIST of Contents Preface What is my motivation to work on the chosen topic? What is especially interesting? What are our questions with respects to the chosen topic? Introduction What is the context of the chosen topic? What is the recent scientific history? Where and why is the technique used? Are there alternatice treatments? Description of engineering technique No institution visited Discussion What progress was made with the application of the chosen technique? What future research steps? Ethical aspects Summary References PREFACE What is my motivation to work on the chosen topic? There are many reasons. One of them is that it’s a very interesting topic. It is fascinating, how you can increase or decrease the functionality of organisms. What is especially interesting? The intricacy. And that you can use the method not only for mice but for every organism. For example in the Green genetic engineering (to make plants more resistant) or for pharmaceuticals like human insulin. Some genes are responsible for the aging process. So if we can find those genes and deactivate them we would life longer. First successful experiments with animals where already made. What I also like about this topic is the big ethic question behind it. I mean in the end we use animals, often mice because of their similarity to our genes, to benefit of them. We intentional make them ill and lock them into small cages. But on the other hands medicaments can be tested or invented which can save many human lifes.
    [Show full text]
  • GMAC Malaysia RA Report MZIR098 Corn.Pdf
    RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE GENETIC MODIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (GMAC) FOR AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL FOR RELEASE OF PRODUCTS OF MZIR098 CORN FOR SUPPLY OR OFFER TO SUPPLY NBB REF NO: JBK(S) 602-1/1/42 APPLICANT: SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION SDN. BHD. DATE: 4 APRIL 2018 I - Summary of Assessment Process On 16 January 2018, the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee (GMAC, please refer to Appendix 1 for details of GMAC), received from the Department of Biosafety an application for the approval for importation for release [sale/placing on the market for direct use as food, feed and for processing (FFP)] of a product of a Living Modified Organism insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant MZIR098 corn. The application was filed by Syngenta Crop Protection Sdn. Bhd. (hereafter referred to as “the applicant”). After an initial review, GMAC requested for additional information from the applicant. A public consultation for this application was conducted from 1 December 2017 to 30 December 2017 via advertisements in the local newspapers. Comments were received from Third World Network (TWN). GMAC took into consideration comments regarding molecular characterization, safety assessment and glufosinate herbicide toxicity concerns in imported MZIR098 corn. GMAC had four (4) meetings pertaining to this application and prepared the Risk Assessment Report and Risk Assessment Matrix along with its recommended decision, for consideration by the National Biosafety Board. II - Background of Application This application is for approval to import and release products of a Living Modified Organism insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant MZIR098 corn. The aim of the import and release is to supply or offer to supply for sale/placing on the market for direct use as food, feed and for processing (FFP).
    [Show full text]
  • University-Industry Partnerships and the Licensing of the Harvard Mouse
    PATENTS Managing innovation: university-industry partnerships and the licensing of the Harvard mouse Sasha Blaug1,Colleen Chien1 & Michael J Shuster DuPont’s Oncomouse patent licensing program continues to cause a stir in academia and industry. ver the last several decades, technology restructuring in the 1980s resulting in optimized for mutual near- and long-term Oand technological innovation have reduced industry R&D spending and scarcer benefits to the parties? Recently this dialog gradually replaced manufacturing and agri- federal R&D funding. Increased technology has been focused on DuPont’s licensing of culture as the main drivers of the US econ- transfer has sparked a debate on univ- the transgenic ‘Harvard mouse,’ subse- omy. The unparalleled system of American ersities’ roles in the national economy: on quently trademarked as the Oncomouse6. research universities1 and their association the extent to which these relationships affect http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology with industry are important drivers of the the mission of universities to carry out The Oncomouse patents new economy. The relationship between and disseminate the results of basic DuPont’s patent licensing program for universities and industry is multifaceted, research, and on how universities can man- ‘Oncomouse technology’ has caused a stir in encompassing exchanges of knowledge, age their partnerships, collaborations and academia and industry for over a decade7. expertise, working culture and money. technology transfer without compromising These patents broadly claim transgenic Whereas the transfer of technology from their mission. nonhuman mammals expressing cancer- universities to industry has been going on In the basic research paradigm, inves- promoting oncogenes, a basic research tool for more than a century, ties between uni- tigators’ inquiries are directed toward dev- widely used in the fight against cancer.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Friday Notes
    Friday Notes is designed to enhance communication among various agricultural sectors, educators, students, and the public who are interested in a variety of plant, animal, food, and environmental issues. Friday Notes advocates the pursuit of credible, unbiased, science- based information. Material contained in linked articles is from the original authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the CAST organization. In This Issue...... Click to Read August 4, 2017 August Is "Celebrate CAST Members Month"--P. 2 Do We Have the Wisdom? Amazing gene editing advances Animal Agriculture News and challenging questions Food Science and Safety News Plant and Environment News An international team of researchers used CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing to International News correct a disease-causing mutation in dozens of viable human embryos. The General Interest News study represents a significant Astronomy Photographer of improvement in efficiency and accuracy the Year over previous efforts. This video shows how scientists successfully repaired the genetic mutation--a process that has the This video interview features potential to prevent a human birth defect. Jennifer Doudna, a scientist and coinventor behind the gene- According to many, this breakthrough editing technology. raises questions. Public policy and the field of bioethics have trouble keeping up with the science of genetic intervention--some think the technology is advancing more rapidly than society's discussions about From the northern lights to human genetic engineering, the specter of eugenics, and even the noctilucent clouds, the range of seemingly mundane topics of who will own the patents. subjects in this year's competition covers all things astronomical.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Biotechnology 2008
    guide to biotechnology 2008 research & development health bioethics innovate industrial & environmental food & agriculture biodefense Biotechnology Industry Organization 1201 Maryland Avenue, SW imagine Suite 900 Washington, DC 20024 intellectual property 202.962.9200 (phone) 202.488.6301 (fax) bio.org inform bio.org The Guide to Biotechnology is compiled by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Editors Roxanna Guilford-Blake Debbie Strickland Contributors BIO Staff table of Contents Biotechnology: A Collection of Technologies 1 Regenerative Medicine ................................................. 36 What Is Biotechnology? .................................................. 1 Vaccines ....................................................................... 37 Cells and Biological Molecules ........................................ 1 Plant-Made Pharmaceuticals ........................................ 37 Therapeutic Development Overview .............................. 38 Biotechnology Industry Facts 2 Market Capitalization, 1994–2006 .................................. 3 Agricultural Production Applications 41 U.S. Biotech Industry Statistics: 1995–2006 ................... 3 Crop Biotechnology ...................................................... 41 U.S. Public Companies by Region, 2006 ........................ 4 Forest Biotechnology .................................................... 44 Total Financing, 1998–2007 (in billions of U.S. dollars) .... 4 Animal Biotechnology ................................................... 45 Biotech
    [Show full text]
  • MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC
    MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC In Case of Emergency, Call Post Office Box 18300 1-800-888-8372 Greensboro, NC 27419 1. PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION Product Name: ACTARA INSECTICIDE Product No.: A9584C EPA Signal Word: Caution Active Ingredient(%): Thiamethoxam (25.0%) CAS No.: 153719-23-4 Chemical Name: 3-(2-chloro-1,3-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-5-methyl-1,3,5-oxadiazinan-4-ylidene(nitro)amine Chemical Class: Neonicotinoid Insecticide EPA Registration Number(s): 100-938 Section(s) Revised: 1 2. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION Health and Environmental Harmful if inhaled. May be harmful in contact with skin. Causes mild eye and skin irritation. May form flammable dust-air mixture. Hazardous Decomposition Products None known. Physical Properties Appearance: Beige to brown granules Odor: Musty Unusual Fire, Explosion and Reactivity Hazards During a fire, irritating and possibly toxic gases may be generated by thermal decomposition or combustion. See also Sec. 7. 3. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS OSHA ACGIH NTP/IARC/OSHA Material PEL TLV Other Carcinogen Crystalline Silica, Quartz and 10 mg/m³/(%SiO2+2) 0.025 mg/m³ (respirable 0.05 mg/m³ IARC 1; ACGIH 1 Cristobalite (respirable dust) silica) (respirable dust) ** Diatomaceous Earth 80 mg/m³/%SiO2 (20 Not Established 6 mg/m³ TWA ** IARC 3 mppcf) TWA Starch 15 mg/m³ (total) TWA; 5 10 mg/m³ TWA 10 mg/m³ (total) No mg/m³ (resp) TWA TWA; 5 mg/m³ (resp) TWA ** Thiamethoxam (25.0%) Not Established Not Established 3 mg/m³ TWA *** No ** recommended by NIOSH *** Syngenta Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) Ingredients not precisely identified are proprietary or non-hazardous.
    [Show full text]