A decade ago in 1993, when there was just a handful of biotechnology drugs on the market and the sequencing of the human genome was estimated to be completed around 2005, two Washington, D.C.-based biotechnology trade organizations, the Industrial Biotechnology Association (IBA) and the Association of Biotechnology Companies (ABC) merged to create the Biotechnology Industry Organization, better known as BIO.

IBA primarily represented larger, established companies and federal regulatory agencies while ABC represented emerging companies and universities. The goal of BIO was to become the voice of biotech industry and biosciences on Capitol Hill, Washington D.C.

The summer of 2003 bought the world's largest gathering of biotechnology leaders to Washington D.C. to celebrate the 10th anniversary of BIO. Following close at heel with the April 2003 event of celebrating 50 years anniversary of the discovery of DNA structure, 2003 seems to be marked with major milestone events. BIO 2003 convention boasted a tenfold growth since its inception in 1993 and 47 percent just in the last two years. The Convention this year was marked with a total of 16,234 attendees of which 11,600 were from the U.S. and 990 were Canadian. The rest came from all over the globe. A total of 57 countries were represented. Media professionals present at this newsworthy event totaled 512.

The United States dominate the biotech industry accounting for more than 70 % of generated revenue (1). The contribution from European biotech companies on the other hand is approximately 20%. The gap between Europe and U.S. actually widened in 2002 as U.S. total biotech revenues grew 13.5%, whereas Europe declined by 2%. These statistics presented during BIO 2003, highlighted the importance of our favorite question - Why does U.S. biotechnology have such a strong leadership position?

A variety of factors are necessary for the success of biotechnology. They include top-notch science, capital, entrepreneurial abilities, trained workforce, developed infrastructure and reasonable legal environment, to mention a few. Carl Feldbaum, BIO President, in his speech "The Politics of Science vs. the Science of Politics" at the BIO 2003 Convention emphasized the importance of broad public and political support. The role of such a seemingly broad and vague intangible component should not be underestimated as it can be effectively transformed into money, infrastructure, friendly law and similar factors.

There is no doubt that for decades U.S. biosciences and biotechnology have enjoyed and greatly benefited from an unprecedented public support. R&D money provided by the society helped to establish US biosciences as world number one, to educate and train workforces and to develop a manufacturing base for newborn biotechnology. Broad based public health studies served to provide biotechnology with a required sense of direction based on patient needs and potential market size.

The presence of the US president as well as other top federal and state officials at the meeting demonstrates the understanding that exists at the top level of U.S. political and administrative power regarding the role and the tremendous importance of biotechnology. Words of praise and encouragement resounded in the atmosphere as President Bush applauded and commended US biotech. "Our biotechnology industry is the strongest in the world, and we need to keep it that way" he stated.

Doubling of the NIH budget in five years (1998-2003) from $13.6 to about $27 billions is a powerful illustration of the support that the biosciences enjoyed on the federal level. Small Business Innovative Research Grants distributed by governmental agencies such as NIH, Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration ($1.6 billions total) represent a direct federal contribution to high risk/high impact R&D of biotech startups.

Substantial support for biotechnology also comes from state and local levels. For example, Montgomery County, Maryland, with a population about 900,000, claims to have 200 cutting-edge biotech enterprises and is working hard on attracting new ones. The county provides grants for emerging biotech companies, low interest loans, helps to secure financing for startups, organizes meetings and courses to connect entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and scientists. The county established an incubator that provides office and lab space for growing biotech start-ups and plans to create more.

Robert Ehrlich, Maryland Governor is also well known for his support of biotechnology. He was cited by the Business Gazette as having said, "My goal is to make Maryland, the biotech capital of the nation."

Indeed biotechnology in the US enjoys solid political support. To promote biotechnology is a much easier job in the US than in any other country. To have the phrase "Congress shall have the power… To promote the progress of science and useful arts" in the U.S. Constitution from 1787 is definitely helpful. Technological orientation of the U.S. society and the historically successful use of technology during war and peace all go to prove the same point. Nevertheless to conclude that presenting bioscience and biotechnology to the US public and politicians is problem free would be an over-simplification if not error prone statement.

Carl Feldbaum stressed on the need and urgency for scientists to take an activists approach. He stated "Earning public support, and the support of those entrusted with the public good is why scientists must engage in politics.".…"You need to be here and make your case. Otherwise, instead of research grants, intellectual property protection and reimbursement that creates incentives for innovation, your government's attention and resources will go elsewhere." "Here is a fact that widens the gap between politics and science: only seven of 535 members of the current Congress - 1.3 percent - are scientists…Here's another fact that widens that gap: many scientists are simply uncomfortable with the rough and tumble, the decidedly unscientific messiness of public engagements…"

"One way to influence what happens in Congress is to influence the people who vote. To do this, we must turn to the media." -he continued. The relationship between science and journalists, however, is characterized by another well-known gap analyzed in depth in the report "Worlds Apart. How the distance between science and journalism threatens America's future"(2). According to the report, only 11% of scientists expressed a great deal of confidence in press whereas 22% said that they have hardly any confidence, with 67% having only some confidence. As for TV, which serves as the main source of information for the American public, 48% of scientists hardly had any confidence, 2% a great deal of confidence and 50 % had only some. 48% of scientists believed that the news media are more interested in selling newspapers or increasing viewership than in telling the public what it needs to know. 39% somewhat agreed with the notion. 52% of scientists strongly agreed that few members of the media understand science and technology, 39% somewhat agreed with this statement.

Unfortunately, the list of problems does not end here. How well is the general public prepared to receive information regarding biotechnology? The survey conducted for the National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators 1996 found that only 21% of surveyed adults new what DNA was and only 9% knew what is the molecule. However do not feel like this is a conspiracy against biotechnology. Only 47% could answer the question "How long does it take for the Earth to go around the sun: 1 day, 1 month or 1 year", and only 44% knew that the electron is smaller than the atom.

Is the situation different in other countries and is it improving dramatically over time? Consider the following data cited by Science & Engineering Indicators - 2002. Respondents were asked whether the following statement is true or false: "Ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do." Only 44 percent of Americans and 40 percent of Europeans gave the right answer, which is "false."

Limited knowledge demonstrated by general public did not prevent funding of biosciences, meaning that messages regarding biotechnology potential were communicated to the public and politicians effectively enough. For example, Human Genome Project was funded despite the fact that only 21% of the population knew in 1996 what exactly DNA was. Therapeutic molecules were engineered using DNA sequence information and recombinant DNA technology, were approved by FDA and now benefit equally both patients who do not know the definition of the molecule or DNA and the ones who do.

At the same time it must be clear that stable, reliable support from the society will be possible only if biotechnology is reasonably understood. Otherwise unpredictable waves of irrational fears and excitements may destabilize and distort the field. Efforts to educate the public continue and now include innovative approaches. For example, MdBio, private non-profit Maryland corporation launched a mobile bioscience laboratory this February. By the end of May MdBioLab had hosted more than 3500 students from 17 high schools. According to information provided at BIO 2003 Convention five such mobile laboratories are traveling around the U.S.

The take home message is very simple. Conditions for communicating science and technology to the public and politicians were never ideal and will never be. Politics remains the art of the possible. Problems shall not discourage the biocommunity from actions and hard work in these directions. Dedicated, persistent and professional efforts will bring desirable outcomes, but, as BIO President emphasized, "You can't win…if you don't play."

As the authors were passing a glass-enclosed room at the meeting that sported a BIO TV tag; one of the authors asked another what BIO TV meant. A gentlemen standing at the escalator nearby responded with pride. "This is a TV studio. We can translate interviews from here all around the world" .The gentleman was none other than the BIO president. A perfect communicator, he effectively used all levels of communications, from worldwide TV broadcast to conversation at the escalator to convey his message. Maybe scientists should try the same?

-- The authors are research scientists based in US and the above is their personal opinion and not that of the Institution they work for