Covering the latest news and developments in Biotechnology, I am inclined to believe that biotech really is what futurists would say "the next big thing". And governments believe it, too, if my last recent posts were anything to base on. Apart from the U.S., Canada, Europe and Asia, Israel and even Argentina spruce up their biotechnology sectors.

So reading an economist's lack of confidence on the potential of biotechnology, claiming that it's more hype than fact, comes as a surprising contradiction. Contesting the claim of Walt Plosila, vice president of Battelle Memorial Institute's technology partnership practice, Joseph Cortright, an economist from Protland, Oregon says:

Unlike information technology, for example, biotech advances "are not systematically cheaper than the things they replace," he says. New drugs, for example, tend to be expensive. Biotech also won't produce economywide productivity improvements like computers have.

He continues with this caveat:

Economic developers' fascination with biotech also could lead them to neglect other strategies that could pay off better for their communities.
DeRocker says the "blocking and tackling" of Economic development - things like work force retraining and helping existing businesses grow - "could be lost for the sake of trying to reach the end zone with one pass" via biotech.

What do YOU think?

Pointer from: Infectious Greed