Heard in Brussels

When science makes you smile
Enlarge image

When science makes you smile

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.

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.


As we all know, the European Commission is under intense pressure to reduce costs and shed the image of being a gravy train. This is a favourite topic at the national level in the ongoing fight against the reign of terror from Brussels.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

The irony is that the era of eye­watering salaries and mansions on leafy avenues actually ended some time ago. While there are still plenty of Commission people who live very well ­– courtesy of getting their feet under the table back in the old days – many new staff face short contracts, lower wages and substantially less sexy perks. I am all for the European Commission employing people on a realistic level (i.e. like the rest of us), but I am having problems with additional changes in structure that somebody thought was an 'efficiency'.

One cut too many?

The EC is a huge funding body, driving innovation and industrial development across Europe. To do that, it needs passionate and motivated staff who are integrated into the heart of the scientific process. Based on what I have seen myself and heard from plenty of others, the increased use of external agencies to administer project funding isn’t serving collaborative research well. Sure, the agencies come cheaper and let the EC talk about reducing costs, but the direct result is that you get people paid to administer – not to add value to – world­class research collaborations.

Another irony is that there is a queue of people 10km long wanting to work for the Commission, and it includes talented scientists and project managers. So why make them just administer project reports? Managing collaborative research is really hard, we all know that, so why not invest a bit more to ensure that it actually works? These guys would work on the same salaries as you pay external staff. In fact, I bet that those external staff would jump at the chance to stretch their brains beyond correctly completed personnel tables.

Investing in results

The fact is that the European Commission will always take the heat for national issues. It is a useful whipping boy on any aspect of money because its budgets are so huge, and it always looks shifty because its answers are necessarily complicated. The Commission is not going to win any debates at national level, regardless of how much it cuts budgets, so it should stand up and say that it is proud to have skilled Project Officers working as partners with the projects that it funds. Then those projects have the maximum chance of delivering the results that they were funded to achieve, while the Directorates delivering the funding can also see the fruits of their labour and assess the effectiveness of their policies.

01.04.2014 Shhhhh, is that the sound of a chicken coming home to roost in Switzerland? Worried? If you are a scientist working internationally, you should be – and not just because you want a job in Switzerland.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

The result of the recent referendum on quotas for immigrants to the alpine country sounded a lot like the usual grumblings of discontent about how Brussels ruins your life by letting foreigners steal your jobs. Usually things like this have little real fall-out. This time however, there was a potentially disastrous impact for science in Switzerland almost immediately. The failure of the Swiss government to sign a free movement deal with Croatia - a direct result of the referendum - suspended talks for Swiss access to Horizon 2020.

Unintended consequences

I'll bet my last euro that this was not a topic of conversation when Swiss citizens were weighing up how to vote, and it is a massive wake-up call for all of us. The Swiss debate reflects arguments going on in our own countries, and the frankly disgracefully low turn-outs in elections. Voter apathy leaves the floor clear for people with 'interesting' views to shout loudly, and as they also tend to be keen voters, they often win. The Brits reading this will recognise the booming call of the swivel-eyed loon as it stalks the marshes of the south, and know the danger out there in the mist. If you are a scientist anywhere in Europe, you need to stand up and fight for the amazing scientific platform that it brings, and do some shouting of your own on why it is essential to vote to protect it. Switzerland has in fact done us a favour before the impending European elections by providing an example of what happens when you can't be bothered to vote, think that a sensible result must come anyway, or that results won't affect you. European science has already been hit by the repercussions of the Swiss referendum, years before the idiots that drove the yes campaign manage to implement quotas of any description. I want you to promise me now that you will start telling people how the science they need to save their lives, reduce pollution, grow their food and drive their economies (and cars) is delivered by international partnerships - a benefit that greatly outweighs a perceived blight upon their lives from people with different accents who might need to go to the doctor once in a while.

Every voice of reason counts

I also want you to promise that you will cast your vote in the European elections in May. It is time for scientists to rule the world, we can't trust anybody else to do it. As the great popular music combo Faithless would say, "inaction is a weapon of mass destruction". So head for the polls, my fearless warriors, and let the world hear our voice.

17.02.2014 I am spoiled for choice this month on things that make me happy about biotech. Three things have happened across Europe that confirm the field has great people that work hard, recognise the truth when it is kicking you in the ankle and aren’t afraid to try something different.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Putting your money where your mouth was

The first was the news that the late Professor Sir Kenneth Murray, founder of Biogen, left £9m to the Darwin Trust of Edinburgh, and £2m to the Royal Society and various other organisations to support young biologists in doctoral studies. Here is a man who enriched the science and business of biotechnology throughout his career, and is now – even after his death – enabling promising scientists to follow his pathway in the best way … with hard cash. Professor Murray, we salute you and take a good hard stare at all those slightly less-deceased scientists who have made their money from mega-deals and exits. We know who you are, so if you are feeling both generous and perhaps slightly unwell, now is the time to reach for the quill and inkpot and make that gesture. Your kids won’t thank you, but we will.

A little ray of Golden sunshine?

Next is the great news that there is some positive spin in the press on GM crops, or at least something that moves the argument temporarily into a sphere of reality.  It is always welcome, even when both sides are masters of the PR (dark) art. People should think about the impact of crops such as Golden Rice on the health of people in economies far different from their own. Block this, actively denying nutrition to millions that need it based on your own principles – when you yourself have enough to eat – and what kind of person are you becoming? Someone who pushes over old people when they are indecisive in queues? Oh wait, that last one was me.

Good things come to those that mess about in labs

If proven to be replicable, the news that stem cells can be created just by dipping blood cells into acid is a great example of two things: (1) that it is critical to persevere with potentially great science, and (2) that you should always dream that you can have a breakthrough doing something really simple. Sometimes life is good like that.
So January was generous with great reports (apart from the being dead bit in the first story) and I have demonstrated all the impetuosity of a genius scientist by jamming them all into one test tube and heating it, rather than spreading them out over three sensibly planned columns. See you next time, and let’s hope that the gods of interesting science are as active in February as they were in January.

12.12.2013 Welcome to December, and a rather nautical analogy this month. I don’t mean the title of this piece literally of course – messing with nature is what biotech is supposed to do (in a well thought-out and good way, of course) and I stand up to be counted with all those people who mess about with what nature and evolution have so kindly provided.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

I’m referring instead to politicians who are seeking, with the best of intentions, to support the biotech sector and impose their own rather rosy view of what companies should look like. Trying to say what a biotech company should be is like trying to get a straight answer from a 10 year old to the question: “Why the hell did you do that?” You’ll get a different response every time, and it’ll be influenced by the least predictable of factors.

Navigating stormy seas

I have seen a number of politicians confuse high-risk, early-stage biotechs with 100-year-old engineering firms that have a Bentley parked outside. The mission of a biotech company is not to develop a firm with hundreds of employees (although that would be a nice side effect) but to deliver the firm’s technology to its destination. A company is a vessel for the precious technology that it holds. A firm is not the deliverable, but rather the small and leaky boat that must navigate a stormy sea. The current destination may not even be the final one. The goal might for example be a transfer to a larger boat, and a captain with a more luxuriant beard.

Too many politicians view a company’s size and age as the deliverable – but why would this be the case? You might keep your company afloat for 20 years, but if you delivered your product to its destination 10 years ago and you are now just bobbing about, then why does it still exist? If your technology is a platform rather than a product, that is a different question, of course – in that case, the technology is the very fabric of the company. But you can only continue to sail your boat if she is watertight, you have a good set of charts and there is a fair wind in your sails.

An eye on the Horizon

And this is where the politicians have to wise up. Don’t throw grant money at a company with your mission to attend its 20th Christmas party. Instead, give it to the company with a mission to celebrate the successful delivery of its cargo to its destination. And don’t worry about what happens to empty boats lost at sea. There are ZERO examples of successful entrepreneurs retiring and doing nothing. Most just end up building new boats, growing bigger beards and heading off on the next voyage.

So target the cargo, not the boat and those sunny shores of Europe’s biotechdreams won’t be far away. Leave the safety of the harbour and see where your voyage takes you.

19.11.2013 Hurrah for the news that a GM yeast has been developed that can convert crop waste into biofuel! Not just because this is an awesome thing in its own right (which it is), but also because it opens up the intriguing thought that we could start using those rascals to do lots of things that GM-doubters would like.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

This piece is not technically about something ‘Heard in Brussels‘ – rather a stream of consciousness from the inside of my head – but as my head is in Brussels, that will have to do.

What would we really like GMOs to be able to do? And what would instantly open the door to their warm embrace by people who previously thought that little Petronella would be intellectually stunted if a morsel of food sourced from a GMO passed her lips? Here I am specifically referring to the well-meaning monsters who feed their children organic beetroot-paste sandwiches (ignoring in the process their human rights by denying them actual food).

The brave new world of synthetic biology opens the door to any kind of GM capability that we like, so here‘s a few ideas on how we could sell it as the must-have middle class accessory for the following applications:

 By turning that supermarket T-shirt you guiltily bought for  Euro 2 into an organic, ethically-produced shirt, hand-woven by well-fed adults somewhere sunny that isn‘t falling down, war-torn or underwater

  By transforming your electric car from a mobile ‘rainforest resources on wheels‘ into something that has the energy footprint of a teenager on a sofa on a Saturday morning

  By enabling your local farming system to produce hummus, tahini, South American wine, and all those other things without which you can‘t have dinner parties, and so have to ship from the other side of the world, which rather rains on the ‘local produce only‘ parade embodied in that beetroot paste

  By converting fashionable gluten and dairy-free yoghurt from a habitat-destroying, palm-oil containing crime against food into something that makes you thin whilst containing ingredients that you have actually heard of

  By turning those delicious prawns from the product of a miserable, polluted swamp on the other side of the world into happy seafood that just fell asleep and was harvested by smiling artisan fishermen from the crystal waters of a tropical lagoon. That will probably do it. So boffins, rather than focussing on the undoubted evil of reducing use of pesticides and producing nutritionally superior rice, can you focus on all the critical things that blight the life of suburban Europeans? Then we can embrace GM technology, or at least add it to the list of stuff for which we ignore the production process. After all, we do so very much like the product.

21.10.2013 A recent interesting look at markets beyond Europe has given some interesting food for thought. You know, sometimes the EU is actually easier to do business in than many other places. Sounds a bit crazy, but compared with some emerging markets, Europe looks like a safe place to invest in the longer term.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Much is still said about sexy new emerging markets. A few years ago, we were packing up to go to India, and the South American economies were apparently just waiting to take over Europe's life sciences sector. But as ever with such stories, the reality of these markets makes them much harder to access for R&D than headlines suggest. Europe's tendency to regulate everything is certainly a pain in the backside, but it makes it much easier to know what is going to happen in the longer term. You just have to worry about having enough money to last the week ...little things like that.

News from India that clinical trials have been suspended by organisations as big as the NIH tells you that an awful lot of money is suddenly flying out the window and delaying approvals. The reason behind the suspension is the introduction of new liability rules for trial sponsors, which creates uncertainly following a dramatic and poorly defined shift in rules. How many more changes will come - and how long before agencies conduct trials elsewhere?

Brazil is another interesting example; plenty of money and a market comparatively untouched by global competition. In theory it's a great new target for innovation and R&D. However, a closer look finds a much stickier situation. South America's giant demands a 100% transfer of rights for government procurement of technology, and offers an opaque approvals process in return. It's a tough market to crack for all stages of R&D. Universities in Europe are already muttering about freedom to use research results, while SMEs don't have the clout or money to create partnerships or new entities. That leaves only the big global companies to sell products rather than the innovation chain behind them.

Europe has had a painful learning curve in the process of regulation. The challenge of creating legislation for more harmonised operation between countries has ensured that regulation is long-term, and that it has been argued from the perspective of 28 countries. The process might be complicated, but you know it isn't going to change while you are making your precious investment. Europe also knows the importance of enabling technology development. An enforced loss of rights does nothing to encourage innovation, and frankly, it can't shovel research out the door of universities fast enough. I used to worry about Europe's over-zealous regulation - and there's no doubt we do an awful lot. It might have taken long years of defragmenting regional and national activities, but it seems we've finally managed to create a stable European platform.

18.09.2013 Europe has a wealth of talent and skills embedded in its regions, skills which are highly diverse and usually associated with a long history of trade and culture.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

The latest regional development policy – one that will underpin future structural fund spending – is “Smart Specialisation” – and it is coming to a region near you soon. What does that have to do with me?” I hear you cry. “I’m a scientist and wouldn’t know a regional policy if it bit me!” However, this is likely to impact everyone in the sector, particularly if you are an SME and rely on regional funds as part of your income. In a nutshell, 'smart specialisation' is a strategy for building commercial strength through an integrated approach to regional development that draws on a region’s strengths. Regions have to submit a 'smart specialisation' plan to the EC, and you can bet your bottom dollar (or euro) that you are going to see changes to regional investment based on this.

Making the smartest move

Smart specialisation is intended to foster entrepreneurship and innovation around a topic important to the region. It's a winner for those who find their business close to the smart specialisation strategy, since regional investment and funding should become more accessible. In biotech, however, Europe has always struggled with regional specialisation. Instead, universities usually create clusters around diverse research output, and I can’t think of a single cluster with a technology or application that creates critical mass.

This is where the problem may lie for biotechnology development. If your region creates a smart specialisation strategy that doesn’t benefit you, regional investment could dry up rapidly. Regional funding for environmental technologies or ICT won’t fund an oncology start-up.

Bioeconomy is the obvious winner in smart specialisation – especially areas like food production, which encompasses high-tech to low-tech industries and impacts directly on local landscape and production chains. This makes sense for European regions, most of which have local specialities and significant employment around food production. It also ticks the boxes for regional politicians, as you can see results quickly and locally.

But what of healthcare biotech? It doesn’t tend to employ high numbers over a wide spectrum. Results are felt globally, and local public awareness is often limited to a headline in the regional paper rather than a new factory or locally recognised product. I suspect that where there are no existing commercial activities in healthcare, it won’t feature in specialisation strategies. That will impact on tech transfer in the region’s universities, as most start-ups fall close to the tree.

As regions publish smart specialisation strategies, serious money will follow. Will Europe be able to build on regional strengths without stifling innovation in other sectors? We just have to wait and see.

15.08.2013 As Horizon 2020 takes shape, I was keen to read about the new public private initiative that will target the bioeconomy. Public private partnerships mark a significant change in how collaborative research is undertaken in Europe, and they are a logical progression from the requirement to work across national borders.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

The need to work more effectively through the value chain is an unsolved challenge, and PPPs can help break down borders. The groundwork for partnerships bet-ween the public and private sectors has been in put in place over the last few years within the life sciences, while a healthcare equivalent - the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) - has provided interesting insights that could help teach us how to optimise a new generation of PPPs. One of the curious elements in the IMI is the fact that the 'private' side of the equation only includes large pharma companies, which collaborate with SMEs and academic researchers on the 'public' side. There was a noticeable gap in the company chain between SMEs and Big Pharma firms, as non-SMEs are not eligible for funding. This has always been odd, as many non-SME companies play a key role in the healthcare value chain, and also because you can't expect a smooth transition from the advanced technologies in academia and early-stage risk of SMEs into the close-to-market activities and structures demanded by companies at the other end of the chain.

A broader bioeconomy

The Biobased Industries Consortium (BIC) is behind the Bridge 2020 Public Private Partnership that aims to transform bioeconomy research and exploit-ation in Europe. Almost fifty companies - both large and small - have committed to the programme, giving it a budget of a2.8bn from the private sector boosted by a1bn from European Commission coffers. That's great news, as we know how fragmented life science value chains are. The bio-economy, which is trying to move cutting-edge tech into traditional and highly diverse sectors, poses a particular challenge. For a collaborative effort to truly deliver bioeconomy technologies to the market, you need to engage players at every stage of the chain. A clear market pathway that is defined by companies throughout the chain is going to be more effective than one defined by companies perched at the far end (and undergoing their own personal crises). I have high hopes for this Public Private Partnership. Europe is often slow and complex, but it is the only region in the world that makes a huge effort to cross difficult boundaries, and the rewards will come. Go bioeconomy - we're behind you all the way!

18.06.2013 Europe’s consumers have an often turbulent relatioship with science. Advice from scientists that clashes with lifestyle preferences finds governments reluctant to appear as over--zealous legislators, especially if it makes them unpopular with either groups of voters or the large companies that are often associated with the particular bit of lifestyle under threat.

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

Things like high fat foods, alcohol and tobacco all have their proponents – some very vocal.

Ironically, in a situation where scientists have generally said “it’s OK” – in the case of food from GM crops – people didn’t believe them. Of course, hysterical media reports and poor company management of the situation didn’t help. Now we have an interesting scenario where it could be the other way round: the question of accessibility in direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing without face-to-face counselling.

Caution from clinicians

A survey conducted by INSERM and the KU Leuven has revealed that the vast majority of clinicians would prefer such testing to be linked to face-to-face genetic counselling (see p. 12). Where the associated condition was untreatable or unpreventable, almost 100% of clinicians wanted this direct patient contact. Indeed, the German Ethics Council recently recommended to its government to lobby for international rules on DTC testing.

Of course, DTC is a growing business in Europe – a shift towards US healthcare models where patients receive direct marketing on all aspects of healthcare (OMG, have you seen the adverts?). The quandary for European governments is around their favourite catch-phrase, “consumer choice”. Should consumers be free to take genetic tests without clinical advice, and possibly make poor lifestyle or treatment decisions based on a meaningless result? We all know people who have had food intolerance testing, and subsequently decided to stop eating nine out of ten food groups because a nice man off the Internet said they would probably blow up and die if they continued to eat bread.

However, legislating on precautionary advice from clinicians risks annoying consumers who might like to take a test to see if they are special, as well as of course those nice (hopefully) tax-paying companies that provide such tests. I suspect that national governments will fail under pressure from them, so this is something that Brussels can step up to do. Because it is the right thing to do.

Being the bad guy

One thing Brussels is very good at doing is taking the blame for implementing legislation at the European level on nationally unpopular issues like pollution, water quality or human rights. So it might as well do the right thing on genetic counselling, and add it to the list for beleaguered national politicians to rant about.

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?

Claire Skentelbery, Secretary General of the European Biotechnology Network

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.

Vorherige Seite2/4Nächste Seite


Current issue

All issues

Product of the week


Stock list

All quotes


  • PLETHORA (UK)3.38 GBP12.67%
  • 4SC (D)3.25 EUR8.33%


  • RENEURON (UK)3.50 GBP-5.41%


  • GALAPAGOS (B)52.00 EUR31.0%
  • NICOX (F)10.91 EUR25.0%
  • GENMAB (DK)1183.00 DKK21.8%


  • MOBERG PHARMA (S)38.60 SEK-21.9%
  • BIONOR PHARMA (N)0.68 NOK-20.0%
  • BIOCARTIS GROUP NV (B)8.15 EUR-19.3%


  • CHRONTECH PHARMA (S)0.34 SEK3300.0%
  • KARO BIO (S)31.00 SEK1939.5%
  • NICOX (F)10.91 EUR480.3%


  • BB BIOTECH (D)43.82 EUR-84.7%
  • BIOTEST (D)17.14 EUR-78.0%

No liability assumed, Date: 27.05.2016


All Events



Biomedica 2016

Basel (CH)

Chemspec Europe 2016