Biotech of Russia: catch up with Nigeria, overtake Egypt

Making unique discoveries, we are catastrophically lagging behind in production

Alexander Sitnikov, "Free Press"

From September 20 to 23, 2016, Kazan hosted the II All–Russian Scientific Forum "Science of the Future - the science of the young", which was attended by 400 scientists and 90 reputable experts. Reports on 320 projects were heard. The composition of the organizing committee speaks about the representativeness of this site: Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Nobel Prize laureate Zhores Alferov, Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Olga Vasilyeva (chairman of the organizing committee), President of the Republic of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov and many other famous people.

The work was carried out in ten scientific sections, each of which is of great practical interest. And yet, I would like to focus on biotechnology, whose development in Russia is the most controversial: on the one hand, it is extremely promising, but on the other, it certainly does not correspond to the time. Actually, it is in this direction, as in a drop of water, that the most acute problems of the entire Russian science are reflected.

Russian microbiologists, apparently, are alive not only by "state bread" – grants, but also by contracts with companies and holdings. This is evidenced by the topics discussed, which are mainly tied to production specifics. In particular, the reports of venerable scientists concerned "Fertility without "chemistry": the basics of biologization of agriculture", "Prospects of genetically modified trees in Russia", etc. This position allows specialists to earn money, but it does not always correspond to strategic goals.

Of course, biotechnology in our country is presented more widely than these reports. By the way, the tone at the forum was set by a new generation, and not by the invited "wedding generals" – doctors and candidates of sciences.

Recall that this format proved itself well in Soviet times, when young scientists through their vision told about the projects of the teams in which they worked. Thus, research continuity was being developed. Plus, the ministerial staff, who regularly attend conferences and symposiums, listened to the heated arguments of specialists competing with each other. It was easier to make a correct assessment on such forums than on the basis of documents cunningly compiled by lobbyists.

Of course, it's too early to talk about tradition, but there is an attempt to take the best from the USSR. The fact that the top officials of the Ministry of Education and Science participated in the planned event "Science of the Future – science of the young" speaks about the understanding of the deep crisis of the model proposed by Chubais at the time. In any case, I would like to believe that the time of intermediaries-talkers who independently distribute government finances is running out.

Apparently, even the current government has realized that the money for science allocated for technoparks is disappearing like a black hole. By the way, today the share of domestic biotechnology in the world market does not exceed 0.7% and does not meet the current needs of the country, although in 1980 it was 5%.

Another indicator of the evaluation of the scientific productivity of microbiologists is the so–called profile H-index, which also indicates a serious lag in the domestic biotech. Thus, in the ranking of countries according to this index, which the Scimago Journal & Country Rank calculated for 1996-2015, our scientists in the section "Biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology" occupy a modest 25th place.

America is ahead by a large margin, which expects to earn about two trillion (!) dollars a year on biotechnology by 2025. It is with the help of biotech that the United States plans to restore its shattered economic greatness, growing annually by 15-30%. For your information, in 2015, the pharmaceutical market of the United States alone was estimated at $ 350 billion, of which about half were medicines. This knowledge-intensive business is characterized by a frenzied profitability of hundreds of percent.

As for the commercial application of microbiologists from third world countries, there are leaders here too. "The most dynamically developing biotech is India, China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Brazil and Cuba, which have approved this direction as a state priority, – sums up the expert of the scientific portal Preserve Articles. – Of the African States, the United Arab Republic (Egypt), Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa dominate. Looking at the leap in the achievements of biotechnology in these countries over the past 10-15 years, looking at the huge potential for application and commercialization, we can safely say that in the medium term, the revenues from biotechnology will exceed their entire traditional commercial business."

Take China, for example. Microbiology in the Middle Kingdom has been declared the central theme of the 13th Five-year plan (2016-2020). Apparently it will be so, because in the previous period the government stimulated subsidies in the amount of $ 2 billion. creation of national electron microscopes and spectrometers. By the way, China is currently impressive, first of all, with low contract risks. There are practically no examples of projects where the money invested by the state has not paid off, and this despite the fact that local biotech is developing from top to bottom – based on directives. CNBG (China National Biotech Group), in particular, already controls 80% of the domestic market of all vaccines known in the world, although imports prevailed in the country 10 years ago. In general, China's pharmaceutical market is approaching $ 150 billion, of which a third, or $ 50 billion. accounts for innovative drugs.

Or take the Egyptians, who have focused their efforts on genetic engineering in the production of vegetables and fruits without pesticides. These programs are being developed at the University of Alexandria, Damanhur University and Ain Shams University. It is to their success that we owe the appearance of potatoes from the Land of Pyramids on the shelves of our stores. The fact itself can be attributed to a phenomenon. True, Egyptian bulba cannot be compared with the delicate taste of boiled Tambov or Ryazan potatoes, nevertheless, they take it from us. Especially in the off-season. Buying non-traditional vegetables from Egypt for these latitudes, we pay, first of all, for the work of microbiologists from Cairo or Alexandria.

The Egyptian example shows that even developing countries are able to commercialize their microbiological developments.

In other words, the backlog in biotech can throw Russia far back. This, of course, cannot be tolerated. Of course, in our country, as the forum "Science of the Future – the science of the young" showed, there are talented young people and experienced personnel who are able to fight on equal terms even with Americans. For example, the Yankees from the state universities of Illinois, Nebraska and Connecticut themselves offered the All-Russian Research Institute of Veterinary Virology and Microbiology a joint project to combat the African swine fever virus.

And the Russian biopharmaceutical company "BIOCAD" became the first company in the country that began importing drugs based on monoclonal antibodies to a number of countries. We are talking about a high-tech biosimilar of rituximab, intended for the treatment of certain types of blood cancer. Thus, the Russians, offering a more competitive drug, moved the Swiss from the leading international pharmaceutical company F. Hoffmann-La Roche, who previously dominated the market for this drug.

So it turns out that unique drugs can be made in Russia, but still even the domestic drug market is critically dependent on imports. There is also no full-fledged national production of laboratory and diagnostic facilities. In particular, our microbiologists buy 80% of chromatographs, biochemical analyzers, genetic analysis equipment, and almost 60% of the necessary reagents abroad. Scientists warn of the danger of a Western supply boycott.

Until 2014, the Russian authorities did not pay attention to this problem, they say, we will get everything we need abroad, calling the global distribution of labor the collapse of domestic production of devices for microbiologists.

From now on, the government simply has no right to be an ineffective organizer of science. The experience, for example, of China and Egypt, shows that it is quite possible to do without intermediaries from various funds that have "stuck" to the budget. Huge amounts of money should be saved through direct financing of the national biotech, while at the same time identifying priorities for its development.

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru  06.10.2016