Submissions and consultations

18.60 In response to IP 27, submissions generally recognised the importance of the biotechnology industry in fostering innovation and facilitating the delivery of healthcare benefits from genetic research.^[82] Submissions and consultations also recognised that patents are vitally important for the biotechnology industry to stimulate technological innovation and attract investment.^[83]

18.61 A variety of comments were received on the operation of the biotechnology industry in Australia generally. It was suggested that the Australian biotechnology industry is somewhat risk averse in commercialising technology, preferring to license patented inventions to overseas firms rather than developing them to product stage.^[84] AusBiotech Ltd suggested in consultations that the Australian biotechnology industry suffers from an inward looking culture.^[85]

18.62 In addition, the Department of Health and Ageing noted that the commercial sector is not skilled at research into gene function, which requires access to patient data and longitudinal studies.^[86] Linkages with research institutions and health departments are therefore necessary to undertake this research.

18.63 Others commented that Australian biotechnology companies face difficulties when attempting to move from the proof-of-concept stage to the commercialisation stage. This may be due to the lack of a well-developed venture capital industry in this country.^[87] In one consultation it was suggested that companies need to be more aware that for the value of technology to be increased, the risks in developing it into a commercial product need to be reduced by developing the technology to a more advanced stage, to make it more attractive to venture capitalists.^[88]

18.64 Submissions and consultations suggested measures to address some of the problems raised by gene patents for the biotechnology industry, while others made more general comments about how these problems might be approached. For example, the Department of Health and Ageing suggested that concerns about gene patents have arisen from the way patent holders behave, and that there needed to be policy solutions to control ‘rogue players’.^[89] The Human Genetics Society of Australasia cited a need to collect data about the impact of patents and licensing practices on the biotechnology sector.^[90]

18.65 One suggested solution to the problem of inadequate venture capital was for government to provide investment-equity schemes, like the Biotechnology Innovation Fund.^[91] In relation to patent thickets and overlapping licences, patent pools were also suggested as a possible solution.^[92] Patent pools are discussed in Chapter 22.

18.66 DP 68 proposed that lack of experience within the industry could be addressed by continuing to provide assistance programs for biotechnology companies. Specifically, the ALRC proposed that Biotechnology Australia, in consultation with state and territory governments and other relevant stakeholders, should:

(a) develop further programs to assist biotechnology companies in commercialising inventions involving genetic materials and technologies; and

(b) develop strategies to ensure widespread participation of biotechnology companies in these programs.

18.67 This proposal received widespread support in submissions.^[93] The Queensland Government commented that a number of assistance programs are already in place.^[94] In particular, the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources noted that the Australian Government is aware of the need for continuing support to the industry and strongly agreed with ‘the need to maintain policy and program thrust to achieve better results in this area’.^[95]

18.68 As noted in Chapter 17, submissions were divided over the appropriate body to carry out the proposed programs. For example, the Centre for Law and Genetics considered that Biotechnology Australia was the appropriate organisation, although it would require increased resources.^[96] However, the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources suggested that the proposal would be better directed to government generally ‘to enable more comprehensive government consideration’.^[97] Others commented that Biotechnology Australia might currently lack the capacity to develop and implement programs of this kind.^[98]