Heard in Brussels

BIO: the synthesis of brilliance
Enlarge image

BIO: the synthesis of brilliance

13.05.2013 - Brussels – Greetings readers! The observant of you will note that I have strayed far from Brussels in my quest for knowledge – I was lucky enough to attend the BIO convention in Chicago in late April, and where better to listen out for sage advice? So what did I hear?

Well, apart from the great parties (Belgian café at Buddy Guy’s Legends Club) and my failed chance to win a motorbike in the exhibition hall, I learned something very thought-provoking from my favourite panel – a session focused on synthetic biology and its amazing potential.

I couldn’t possibly name the speakers, but it provided excellent insights into how much time large companies spend on processes that they would rather not have to do. If you run a large company producing novel crops, for example, you want to focus on the stuff you’re good at – producing the final crops themselves – rather than on time and money-consuming gene processing tasks. It’s not your speciality, nor is it your firm’s mission. So you have a list of the technologies that you wish existed to make your route to products faster and more effective.

And this is where it got exciting; synthetic biology opens up tremendous market opportunities for smaller companies that can deliver advances in tech tools for processes that large product companies would rather avoid. One such SME (Ginkgo BioWorks) was represented on the speaker panel, and they fill that gap precisely. Their technology can produce organisms to customers’ exact specifications. It was an eye-opening glimpse into how biology will soon be engineered from scratch, and why we will no longer just rely on tweaking existing genomes.

These companies are absolutely typical SMEs (Ginkgo was founded by PhD students). They had to beg, borrow and steal development funds to survive, and show the absolute necessity of genius. Only a bunch of fearless researchers would have founded this firm and invested in it for five years. I can’t see a large service provider investing the time, money and individual commitment required to bring this technology to fruition.

So the session reminded me of two things. The first is that behind every breakthrough product there is a whole pipeline of breakthrough technologies that enabled it. That’s the beauty of biotech of course. Every new field brings multiple commercial opportunities for other new technologies. The second thing – which governments everywhere need to remember – is that SMEs drive applications for inventions, and you ignore them at your peril. Ginkgo’s fantastic platform was enabled and supported largely through grants. Although it saw little private investment, the firm looks set to help power the next generation of bio-based products. The lesson? If you don’t support innovative SMEs, they can’t deliver.

I’m looking forward to BIO 2014 and hearing from a new wave of SMEs pursuing amazing technologies that will enable the next big product.

14.03.2013 The end of the FP7 process has been a busy one, with a rush to grab the last EC funds before we all get thirsty in the break between FP7 and the launch of Horizon 2020 in 2014.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

And my, hasn't it been a busy time for all you clever SMEs out there! The results are in for the part of the Health call targeting SMEs (Innovation 2), with proposals requiring 50% of funding going to SMEs. There were two main topics in the call: the first on anti-infective research and the second in translating work from previous framework projects.

The EC has put its money where its mouth is for SMEs, which is great to see, with a140m available for the call. As well as targeting funding to SMEs, it has also made great strides in bringing a business focus to evaluation, with 72% of the evaluators coming from companies.

And the results? Pretty good. 58% of all that lovely money went to SMEs, with Germany, UK, France and the Netherlands taking the four top spots (Italy used to be right up there, I recall from my distant youth, but is looking a little sorry for itself these days). The average pass rate is about 40% for the UK, France and Netherlands, which is pretty good, while Germany has gone for a 'pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap' approach, with loads of proposals but a pass rate of just 25%.

A nice fact is that the targeted time from deadline to contract signature is to be just five months. DG Research & Industry has worked to respond to critics on access for SMEs and slow time scales, and this should be remembered when you next moan about EC funding. We're still waiting for the results of the main programme in health - which had 35 topics and a679m to spend - but there's plenty to take home from this first result.

Europe knows that it has to monetise its innovative research. The fact that we have stopped buying cars and other stuff made in factories in Europe has turned slick political phrases about innovation into urgent reality. We need the money back from research, and we need it now.

It's fantastic to see that the largest funding programme in Europe is doing just that; money is being channelled to SMEs, the translators of research from a dream to commercial reality. While the market in Europe won't fund earlystage commercial work (you idiots), governments and the EC are stepping into the gap. It's also a relief to see funding of translational work from previous Framework projects. Funding a single part of the value chain will rarely push a product to market, but sustained funding on evidence-based progress is sensible and a good use of money, and it also strengthens productive partnerships that keep their eye on the market. FP7 has evolved over its lifetime, and the early signs from Horizon 2020 indicate that the focus on turning technologies into economic returns will continue. Keep up the good work, girls and boys of DG Research & Industry, and we look forward to enjoying the fruits of the Framework tree!

14.02.2013 All the hard work I invested in 2012 to rescue the Eurozone with biotechnology has reaped a new reward in 2013, as the European Parliament and Council finally approved the European patent in December.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

All the hard work I invested in 2012 to rescue the Eurozone with biotechnology has reaped a new reward in 2013, as the European Parliament and Council finally approved the European patent in December. We can now look forward to a revolution in the commercialisation of innovation, as a unified Europe opens the doors to lower cost and wider impact patents. Many accuse the EU of over-caution, like an old lady wrapped up warm on a summer’s day, but this is a glorious example of Europe going a bit mad and dancing naked in the street. Metaphorically, of course. It’s far too cold for that in reality right now.

My friend Steven Zeman  can give you the formal overview of what the unified patent means for Europe (as he actually knows what he is talking about) so I will just relax and enjoy the feeling of freedom that the patent gives to technology in Europe.

I am intrigued to know how Europe will score on innovation rankings worldwide now, as universities can afford to protect more great science and SMEs don’t have to sell their grandmothers to bring their precious technology to an investable stage. We can expect to see far more patented innovations from collaborative research and people bold enough to take risks, as you have to do in biotechnology. We can also expect to see many technologies hitting the market at an earlier stage. Now you don’t have to hide it in your pocket for 10 years until you can finally afford that patent, or know for sure that it will do something.

Will this help to liberate Europe from its traditionally cautious approach to early-stage businesses? Let’s hope so. I would love to see European entrepreneurs seize the day and investors take early-stage opportunities more seriously. We yearn for the bold investments seen on the other side of the Atlantic. But money talks very quietly on this side of the pond, often because it is still muffled in the pockets of VCs who, in the face of early-stage companies, increasingly resemble me when my children describe the latest ‘must-have’ game or gadget, without which they will surely die.

This is not just about the point of purchasing patents. It’s also about the fact that it changes the whole value chain of innovation, and makes a serious statement from Europe as a whole. And that statement is that there might be a defragmentation of finance through the unfortunate situation of there being no money out there, but there has now also been a defragmentation of innovation because that is the right and glorious thing to do. Europe should be very proud of itself. Vive la revolution! 

11.12.2012 It’s getting a little boring listening to conversations about the 2014-2020 budget. As citizens, we’re subjected to endless national bickering and point-scoring as national leaders look to secure their own positions through sounding ‘tough on Europe’, as if the EU was a strange alien beast designed to steal their money and straighten all their bananas.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

As a fugitive from the UK, I am particularly embarrassed, and can’t wait for them to have a referendum on in/out. At least the Brits will finally shut up afterwards.

But I digress. What people overlook is the impact of a big European freeze on national development. Europe has enabled the massive development of regions that would have been unlikely to see many benefits under purely national direction. This has created the infrastructure through which science is being delivered, and a consequence of reducing this now will be to throw away much of the progress and investment we’ve made to date.

Support on the Horizon

When not talking about biotech, I talk about cluster development (that’s right – I’m such a blast at parties) and right now we are witnessing a battle for survival. These precious structures are nurseries for economic returns on research. After 25 years of investment, they are creating SMEs that are coming through on promises, making the transition from discovery to clinical phases for new drugs – exactly what investment was intended to deliver.

However the market is moving further away from SMEs. The gap where they need support gets wider every year. So if investors won’t come unless you have a Phase III product, how do you get there? This is where the critical support from Horizon 2020 comes in. It must expand its reach beyond FP7, with cluster support, PPPs, later-stage trial funding, infrastructure creation, skills development and a relentless drive to support the commercialisation of great science. 

Savouring the fruits of innovation

If the funding falls away from Horizon 2020 as national governments reduce their input to Europe, then the countries themselves will pay the price. As national austerity reduces innovation support, Europe has in many places become the only source of assistance – both financially and strategically – when creating long-term plans as part of an international map. Kill it, and those clusters and regions that are at the cusp of economic delivery from biotechnology will shrivel, and the billions of euros invested thus far will be wasted.

Right now, Europe has an opportunity to seize the market. It would be a crime if short-term national political games prevented the strengths of 27 countries from finally delivering substantial economic returns in biotech.

12.11.2012 We all read with dismay – but not a huge amount of surprise – the October paper from French researchers led by Gilles-Eric Séralini on the two-year rat-feeding study looking at the effects of glyphosate-treated GM maize.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

It‘s almost boring these days when new headlines emerge saying we're all going to DIE HORRIBLY from eating GM food. This is despite a conspicuous lack of people DYING HORRIBLY from anything other than the usual human-inspired causes, which are not worthy of comment or action because they are 100% ‘natural’.

In the bad old days, scientists, companies and politicians would have been looking the other way when the report was published, and before long the headline would have been accepted as fact. Any response would have been far too late and far too weak to look like anything other than an evil corporate cover-up.

This time, however, I was pleasantly surprised. As they raced to hit deadlines, I heard journalists adding that an awful lot of people disagreed with the results, and that the science was actually a bit suspect – not enough animals, dodgy design, cancer-prone rats and less maths than my budget planning for shoes. They also added, in pensive tones, that the researcher was a long-time opponent of GM crops, and this might mean he isn‘t exactly unbiased.

Even more refreshing was the rapid response from researchers and politicians. The latter got it badly wrong when the GM farce first hit the headlines. But then the French research community itself bit back quickly. The country‘s national academies of agriculture, medicine, pharmacy, sciences, technology and veterinary studies signed a statement that not only are the conclusions unsupported by the presented data, but that the paper spreads fear in the public. 

This was rapidly backed up by the European Food Safety Authority, which published a statement pointing out that the author had been invited to supply the evidence missing from the paper, but had obviously ”forgotten” to post it before their deadline. The full review from the EFSA contained the damning phrase “the study has unclear objectives and is inadequately reported in the publication, with many key details of the design, conduct and analysis being omitted. Without such details it is impossible to give weight to the results.” Dark words for any scientist to hear, and I’ll bet the peer review process in Food and Chemical Toxicology is now undergoing an overhaul.

Bravo, I say. The scientific community needs to manage its scientists better. It has been too easy for too long to grab headlines with poor but sensationalist science, and the price is paid by everybody.

When science is bad, it should be the scientists who point it out and remind their own community and the rest of the world that to be science, it has to be scientific – you don’t start from the result, and you always show the maths. Obviously, that doesn’t apply to shoes.

12.10.2012 Hello readers! You know, when you view the biotechnology landscape from a Brussels perspective, you can very easily get stuck looking at the bad bits – meddling politicians, poor science reporting, insane funding decisions. Goodness knows I have had to solve the euro crisis already this year, and most months I have something or other to moan about.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

But no more. I was recently reminded of all the joy that science can bring. In fact, I had a grin on my face afterward for the rest of the day. Certainly takes your mind off explaining to your mother that hand cream doesn’t make you go blind, and that GMOs probably won’t turn you into a zombie.

I am referring, of course, to the Ig® Nobel Awards (www.improbable.com) – a cele-bration of ridiculous but excellent science, where the prizes are handed out by bemused Nobel laureates and where, if you outstay your welcome speech, a child shouts that you are boring. 2012 was no exception, as Europe demonstrated again that it leads the world in mad science. Not all of the winners were from biotech fields, but I want to share my favourites with you anyway because they will remind you of how much you love what you do. European researchers featured in most prizes, so we can be proud of the contribution we make to science that makes you smile.

When next in Paris, remember that leaning to the left can make the Eiffel Tower seem smaller. Scientists from the Erasmus University Rotterdam delivered this stunning revelation for the Psychology Prize. And how many tourists will be at an angle next time they visit?

My second favourite was the Neuroscience Prize, which demonstrated that, using complicated instruments and simple statistics, researchers can see meaningful brain activity anywhere – even in a dead salmon. How often have I thought that in a queue for train tickets, where the person holding it up at the front is clearly dead but exhibiting signs of life?

The forces that shape and move a pony-tail was an awesome one for the Physics Prize – a joint effort from Unilever UK, the Cambridge University and the University of Warwick for that. Thanks boys!

The Anatomy Prize was also highly relevant, with research suggesting that chimpanzees can recognise each other from photos of their rear ends. Indeed, there are some distinctive backsides in Brussels, although I could not possibly comment on who they are.

Finally, French researchers played a blinder for the Medicine Prize, with work on minimising the chances of patients exploding during a colonoscopy. That was a weight off my mind – and my large intestine.

The point of the Ig Nobels is that science is fun, not boring, and everything is relevant. Europeans helped fuel technological development through scientific investigation. And if your kids ask more questions after hearing about these prizes, then we are still pursuing just the kind of research we need.

13.09.2012 Well ladies and gentlemen of the biotechnology community, welcome back after the silly season. I hope you had a nice one, whether it was in the sunny bit, the rainy bit or the bits that were on fire. As usual, summer in Europe was quiet. I see we still have a Eurozone, which is nice, and shows that the revolutionary, biotech-driven solution I came up with earlier in the year is still working.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

But to business – what startling insights and wisdom can I provide from Brussels this month? Very little based on activity over the summer, so I shall instead turn once again to my crystal ball, and present a list of predictions based on my incurable optimism. 

European public funding: after a year of wrestling with the Framework pro-gramme and Innovative Medicines Initiative, my gut tells me that the agencies will at last start planning their funding together, finally allowing partners to plan an annual calendar of collaborative project applications without having to worry about deadlines all landing in the space of a single month.

National funding: countries in Europe will suddenly remember, in the midst of reducing funding for innovation, that it is innovation that drives economic growth. If all your scientists are fired, particularly those in SMEs, you throttle economic progress, making earlystage research pointless and large company growth in your country impossible.

Policymakers: these will return from their holidays miraculously alive to the fact that some things are not worth arguing about any more – I refer of course to GM technology in food crops (just say yes or no), the EU patent law (just get it finished for crying out loud) and consumer genetic testing legisla-tion (don’t let quacks and charlatans sell tests).

Big companies: my inner eye is particular focussed here, foreseeing that the pipeline crisis and continued shrinkage of R&D capacity will revolutionise the way that large companies work with others. There will be less of a ‘business on our terms’ approach to partnership and more quick movement, shared skills and earlier-stage partnerships.

Small companies: those rascals, they're taking up a lot of space in my crystal ball.  Biotech SMEs will certainly start working more closely together, rather than trying to nurse a single technology through to blockbuster status. And they will start to understand the strength brought about by partnership with other SMEs – that they are stronger together than alone.

That's it for my post-summer predictions  – and given my astounding success at curing the Eurozone crisis earlier this year, I'm sure they will all have come to pass by Christmas. See you next edition – by which time that holiday tan will have faded and the silly season will be a distant memory.

09.07.2012  Bioeconomy is the new health, and that is official. You only have to look at all the planning for Horizon 2020 and all the big words coming out of politicians at national and European levels to see that. But is Europe really ready or willing to embrace what it will take to replace existing technologies with new, bio-driven ones?

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Let’s look at one example: biofuels. We’re talking about a sector where the global players in fuel production and oil supply are not bit players. They dominate the global economy, and sit at the right hand of presidents and prime ministers. None of these organisations have made a significant shift into biofuels. A fraction of the money spent on discovery programmes transferred into bio-fuel production would revolutionise global production and supply. But do you think that they are going to make it easy for other organisations to change policy and start eroding market share?

There is also no escaping the fact that new technologies will need significant public funds to create a platform from which to grow. They are not going to make it on a purely commercial basis. Opponents already harp on this, forgetting the massive subsidies – disguised or otherwise – that other energy industries have soaked up over the years. Solar panels are the perfect example here. Look what happened to the sector when subsidies were cut by cash-strapped governments.

Are European governments going to create this funding? It will have to be big, sustained and commit to a new energy platform over others. Interestingly, biofuel production from crops will have to take place close to the source of the crops. The economics don’t add up to ship carbon sources long distance, so you are producing locally for local consumption. That changes the game for energy production, turning it from a global market into a national one, which makes for interesting prospects in Europe. Will we invest in national production infrastructure and realign our agricultural production to supply facilities? This goes far beyond nice words about reducing dependence on fossil fuels. It requires wholesale commitment.

It works in economies with massive crop waste supplies and little or no domestic oil/gas industry. This could point to regions other than Europe as the future for biofuel production. And the irony is that these countries will embrace GM crops that improve fuel production from crop waste, where Europe is still having hissy fits about potatoes for starch production.

This could be a revolution in Europe, but we will need to seize it with both hands and make major changes to the agricultural production system across all countries, expanding farm to fork to include farm to fuel-tank. Think we can handle that?

12.06.2012 Good news! After some thinking, I’ve solved the eurocrisis and saved national investment in biotechnology! As with most people who champion a single Europe, what is going to happen in the eurozone weighs heavily on my mind. Not just because of the surreal and seemingly uncontrollable debt crisis, but also because investment in growth in most European countries has stalled.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Governments are only going to invest again when there’s a market for the products that such investment will deliver. 

And governments aren’t investing in biotech, as it doesn’t produce large-scale employment or big shiny things, and it usually doesn’t deliver within an electoral cycle. A nagging voice at the back of my mind has been saying: ‘and why would they?’ If I were a regional government looking to rescue the economy, biotech wouldn’t be high on my list unless there was already significant commercial presence. 

You have no idea how guilty writing that just made me feel. But fear not, dear reader, that was just a dark turn of the soul, and now the relentless optimism that drives all people who love biotech has already returned. Here’s the deal. People aren’t buying things from shops, so governments aren’t investing in growth there. But what DO they always need to buy? Easy – medicine, food and energy. 

And this is why governments should be investing in biotech – it delivers all of these things and there will always be a market for it, even if people are not buying anything else. 

 – In medicine, the rush to manage diseases more effectively has huge market pull, and companies literally cannot get products through the pipeline fast enough. 

– In energy, Europe has the capacity to lead the world in sustainable, intelligent power generation at local and national levels. Any country leading on this has a global market at their fingertips.

 – In food, the easiest sell of all, there are demonstrable returns within an electoral cycle. The role of biotechnology in all steps of the food production chain is a winner, and oddly enough, the global demand for things to eat has not been damaged by the crisis.

So this is the message for national and regional investors in biotechnology: you should be investing each year at a local level to deliver products to a constant global market that gets hungrier as the cost of medicine, food and energy increases. By doing so, you will also establish your country as an intellectual driver behind these key sectors. Healthcare is already well-advanced, but in energy and food technologies, the leads are there for the taking.  Significant money advancing biotech delivery – translational centres of excellence, global partnerships with big business and placement of the sectors on the national policy agenda. It can’t fail. Phew – glad we got that sorted. The eurozone will be saved by
biotechnology, and I’ll have something to write about next time. See you then!

15.05.2012 I co-chaired a session at the Commission’s ‘Innovation in Healthcare’ conference recently, and learned a very interesting lesson there that is overwhelmingly obvious, yet overlooked in our continuing mission to become one Europe.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

The session looked at how business skills are developed in the EU – what we have, what we need and how we get it. I expected specific skills to be targeted as missing and needing to be developed. Wrong. The overwhelming conclusion from our panel of EC, pharma, university and SME geniuses was that Europe pretty much has all the skills that it needs, but each expert is kept in his or her own little world, creating exceptional skills within a very narrow space.

The researcher pushed to publish, the SME that must meet the next milestone, the clinician locked into the healthcare system, the pharma guy stuck in an antique drug-discovery process … the list is long. For the last 25 years, training has been poured into a multitude of areas to ensure that the researcher becomes an entrepreneur, an SME CEO knows everything about FDA approval, and TTOs are gurus of industry development. It hasn’t really worked. Applying a thin layer of knowledge does not guarantee absorption. Why should a researcher, measured by publication success, also become an expert on commercial implications and plan research now for exploitation in 10 years time? 

The blindingly obvious conclusion from the panel was not to train people a bit harder, but physically to get them into other worlds and bring other worlds to them. Entrepreneurs in residence at universities, academic researchers placed in SMEs and pharma, clinicians on the boards of companies, pharma people in universities and SMEs. It’s not going to happen on its own, and it hasn’t yet – so we need to make it happen. Horizon 2020 should make staff exchanges bet-
ween partners in collaborative projects compulsory, up numbers of industry-academia research fellowships, increase pharma staff working in small company partners – there is loads we could do.

It’s not going to cost more money. The price is instead in the mindset. Europe talks the talk, but does it really walk the walk on direct integration of different worlds in the healthcare chain? People are so insulated in their own worlds, and the disruptive technology/attitudes of people from other worlds are not welcome. However, the evidence from the panel and audience confirmed direct integration as the most effective way to bring new skills and knowledge into each step of the chain. 

So Europe – are you listening? Stop fretting about growing new skills through the age-old training and ‘have an MBA’ culture to create your vision of the perfect business mind, and start moving existing skills about between different bits of the healthcare sector. They don't bite, and it might prove the only effective way to help them integrate.

17.04.2012 If Jane Austen was writing in the early 21st century in Europe, she could well have begun one of her novels with: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a country in possession of a biotech sector, must be in want of a pharma company.“

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Europe is experiencing a contraction in overall pharma presence as the sector on the whole continues to downsize. Entire industrial sites, all shiny and lovely, are emptying, with experienced pharma scientists and managers returned to the wild to forage for nuts and twigs.

This is the horrible new reality for countries such as Sweden, which prides itself on a national environment of scientific innovation and big business. Site closures have been regularly making headlines across Europe, and every time they raise questions about the suitability of the countries concerned to retain such business.

But wait a minute…we’ve been here before, haven’t we? From my dim and distant youth in the Cambridge cluster, we watched large biotechs and pharma close doors as the first major funding crunch came. Biotech has taken quite a zigzag, crazy route to maturity, and the industry rarely repeats itself, but this is familiar and we should be learning from the past.

The notable outcome for the cluster as a whole was that scientists and managers turned to their own business enterprises, with IP and skills from big business being turned into new small business. That was really the making of the Cambridge cluster. Through this flux of new enterprises, it managed to reach critical mass before the finances really got chilly and start-ups got harder.

So the current round of closures needs to be channelling as quickly as possible to support more innovation and make use of the skills becoming available, before people retrain as lorry drivers or move to a commune in Peru. This time around, the big difference is that there is little or no start-up funding available privately, and this leads straight to the door of national governments.

So governments, it’s time to put aside the handwringing and the vague statements about creating a leading scientific environment, and put your money where your mouth is. Seize the day for your healthcare sectors and invest for a political and financial return! If pharma moving out is inevitable, make good use of what it leaves behind in the next phase of biotech industry development. They have already made it cheap for you by building world-class sites and training top-notch scientists – what more do you want, the moon on a stick?

Vorherige Seite2/3Nächste Seite

Image Gallery

Stock list

All quotes

TOP

  • GW PHARMACEUTICALS (UK)305.50 GBP39.3%
  • NEWRON (CH)15.60 CHF20.0%
  • TOPOTARGET (DK)3.52 DKK16.9%

FLOP

  • XENETIC BIOSCIENCES (UK)6.00 GBP-14.3%
  • WILEX (D)0.84 EUR-8.7%
  • GENFIT (F)22.42 EUR-8.1%

TOP

  • BIOTECH PHARMACON (N)18.80 NOK71.7%
  • WILEX (D)0.84 EUR47.4%
  • E-THERAPEUTICS (UK)27.75 GBP38.8%

FLOP

  • CYTOS (CH)0.17 CHF-93.8%
  • BIONOR PHARMA (N)2.11 NOK-47.3%
  • IMMUNICUM AB (S)16.60 SEK-36.2%

TOP

  • SILENCE THERAPEUTICS (UK)261.00 GBP6265.9%
  • IXICO (UK)68.00 GBP756.4%
  • PHARMING (NL)0.50 EUR733.3%

FLOP

  • CYTOS (CH)0.17 CHF-95.8%
  • EVOCUTIS (UK)0.22 GBP-91.8%
  • AGENNIX (D)0.04 EUR-77.8%

No liability assumed, Date: 23.04.2014

Current issue

All issues

Product of the week

Products

Events

All Events

Partner-Events

München

BioVaria 2014

Frankfurt am Main

7th DVFA Life Science Conference

White Paper