THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPANY AND INCUBATOR FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
Ana
Paula Ferreira Alves
Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
E-mail:
anapfalves@gmail.com
Gabriele
Volkmer
Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
E-mail:
gabrielevolkmer@gmail.com
Tania Nunes da Silva
Universidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
E-mail:
tnsilva@ea.ufrgs.br
Submission: 08/09/2013
Revision: 26/09/2013
Accept: 01/10/2013
ABSTRACT
The biotechnology
activities development demands an intense academic and scientific basis, a
productive sector capable of transforming academic research in scientific
products and services, and the creation of an institutional environment to
promote the sector’s development. Moreover, many biotechnology companies
establish formal partnerships with Universities (by technological incubator) to
expand innovative capacity coming into the market. The importance of
biotechnology for developing countries is perceived by its ability to promote
national development based on knowledge and innovation. In Brazil, the
government establishes technological incubators to accelerate the company
consolidation. In this way, it is important to study the relationship between
the actors involved. In this context, this article aims to analyze the
relationship between a technological incubator and a biotech company. To do so,
the qualitative approach was adopted to reach the objective. Interviews with
incubator’s employees of a Brazilian University and biotechnology company’s
managers were conducted. The results show that the company-incubator
interaction promoted projects approval which were able to support new
researches development and to purchase production equipment. Incubated
companies have higher chances of survival in the market from the interaction
with University, through the technological incubator. The relationship between
the incubator and the biotech company is considered a fundamental condition for
biotechnology activities development.
The
use of sequencing genes technique of living organisms is making significant
advances in cellular and molecular biology in the past decades. Such progress
allowed the development of biotechnology, which led the biological sciences
segment to be considered a business initiative, with the transformation of
scientific and technological knowledge into technologies or products. In this
sense, biotechnology represents a group of technologies that employ biological
basis to make or modify products and processes, as well as to generate new
services of high impact on various sectors (BRASIL, 2007). From manipulation of
smaller structures that compose living organisms, biotechnology operates,
mainly, in the fields of food, energy generation, environmental pollution
prevention and bioremediation (ZECHENDORF, 1999).
The
biotechnology tools are useful for creating innovations and contribute to a
more sustainable development, such as the reduction of pollution in the
environment (ZECHENDORF, 1999; VALLE; SANTOS, 2008). Regarding the treatment of
contaminated areas, for instance, bioremediation is one of the alternatives
more ecologically balanced, with faster results and less costly to industries (ZECHENDORF,
1999). More specifically, bioremediation can be defined as the utilization of
living organisms to decontaminate or reduce the pollutants content in the
environment (SCHENBERG, 2010).
The
importance of biotechnology for developing countries is illustrated by the
capacity to promote national development based on knowledge and innovation,
generation jobs and supporting economy (VALLE; SANTOS, 2008). Besides that, its
applications have contributed to the structuring of new social and economic
systems. Therefore, the biotechnology development has strategic importance in
the consolidation of a knowledge-based economy and sustainable development (BRASIL,
2007). Biotechnology has been pointed as a great new promise to the Brazilian economic
development, highlighting the significance of studies in this subject (CUNHA;
MELO, 2006).
In
this context, there should be a channel between knowledge production and its
transformation in product and process, where the result of this articulation is
the creation of technological innovations that will provide better conditions
for economic and social sustainability (FREITAS et al., 2012). It should be
noted that the term innovation involves not only the creation of new products
or services in companies, but also the creation of new institutional
arrangements between institutional spheres that provide the necessary
conditions for innovation (ETZKOWITZ, 2003). Thus, the development of the
biotechnology sector requires a complex system of interaction among different
agents (large and small companies, universities, research centers, technology
incubators, financial institutions, regulators, government, consumers, public
agencies) establishing a diversity of integrations due to the cooperation needs and the market competition
forms (DRUCK, 2011).
Particularly,
technological incubators appear in the convergence of public and private
interests seeking to systematize the transition from the development of new
technologies to its commercialization, which exemplifies the emergence of a
science politics, technology and innovation (ETZKOWITZ, 2002). Therefore, this
article aims to analyze the relationship between a technological incubator and
a biotechnology company. To achieve this goal, we used a qualitative approach.
We believe that is relevant to recognize and to correlate the perceptions
around the relationship between the actors involved in order to generate a
better understanding about the biotechnology activity development in the
country.
This
article is divided into five sections, besides its introduction. At first, we
performed a review of biotechnology and bioremediation. In the second, we argue
about business incubators. In the third, we described the methodology used in
this research. The next part presents the analysis of data, structured into
categories. Finally, in the fifth part, finals considerations are made as well
as study limitations and possibilities for further research.
The
term biotechnology can be defined as the science and technology application to
the biological basis for change, improve, develop or develop products, process
or organisms, as well as to provide services and knowledge production (VAN
BEUZEKOM; ARUNDEL, 2009). In other words, the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD, 1999) considers biotechnology the application of
technical and scientific principles to treatment of materials by biological
agents in order to obtain products and services.
Biotechnology
is not characterized as a discipline, but presents a complex multidisciplinary
basis, where the main subjects are basic science, involving molecular and
cellular biology, biochemistry, genetics, microbiology, engineering, chemistry,
computer science, among others (CANCHUMANI, 2006; DRUCK, 2011). Thereby,
biotechnology is formed by a set of technology skills, produced by scientific
and technological knowledge developed in these various disciplines (KREUZER;
MASSEY, 2002). Therefore, it is an activity which is characterized by high
dependence of research in basic sciences, by multidisciplinarity and
complexity, by applying in different production sectors, by high risks involved
and by research high costs of its products or services (DRUCK, 2011).
Biotechnology
has occupied a prominent role in the world market, since its tools are useful
in resolving scientific issues, in developing new products and services, and in
achieving goals desired by society (e.g. the pollution reduction in the
environment) (ZECHENDORF, 1999; VALLE; SANTOS, 2008). In this sense, it has
great potential in the development of more sustainable alternatives, especially
in the food, energy production, environmental pollution prevention and
bioremediation segments. Biotechnology is able to disseminate new and clean
sources of recyclable energy, new methods to detect and treat environmental
contamination as well as develop innovative products and processes more
environmental friendly compared to the ones used nowadays (KREUZER; MASSEY,
2002). Zechendorf (1999) argues that the application prospects of
biotechnological methods are excellent, because these methods are often less
expensive than conventional technologies, for instance, in detoxification of
effluents.
A
biotechnology company is the one that presents technological application, using
living organisms as major commercial activity in biological systems or
processes, in research and development, in the production process or in the
provision of services (HODGSON, 2006). Then, Science begins to be understood as
a business initiative, from the scientific and technological knowledge
transformation into technologies or products. One of the features that
differentiate the biotechnology industry – from other high-tech industries – is
the activities intensity in research and development, and the period required
for an innovation to reach the market. These characteristics forces companies
to establish more flexible strategies for innovation, growth and survival (HALL;
BAGCHI-SEM, 2001; CANCHUMANI, 2006).
In
this context, biotechnology has been used as support for technological
innovations, contributing to a high turnover of products in the market, for
business competitiveness and socioeconomic development (SCHENBERG, 2010). In
Brazil, the Biotechnology Development Policy was approved in 2007 as an
initiative to biotechnology activities. This policy aims to provide an
environment conducive to creation of innovative biotechnology products and
processes, as well as to foster greater efficiency in national productive
structure; the increasing capacity to innovate of companies; the study of new
technologies; the business generation; and the Brazilian exports expansion (BRASIL,
2007). Biotechnology is, then, presented as a promising opportunity to
accelerate national development based on knowledge and innovation, job
creation, regional development, increase exports, reduce imports, and clean
production with less environmental impact (BRASIL, 2007; VALLE; SANTOS, 2008).
In
the past years, the Brazilian scientific community developed a capacity to
handling new techniques of biotechnology (e.g., recombinant DNA technology and
genomics and proteomics research). Currently, biotechnology integrates the
productive base of different national economy sectors, affecting approximately
3% of gross domestic product (DRUCK, 2011). According to an Overview of
Biotechnology in the World and in Brazil, produced by the Brazilian Agency for
Industrial Development (ABDI, 2010), the country’s Southeast region is
responsible for almost half of total national biotechnology research. The
Brazilian South region, in turn, owns 23.5% of the research and overcomes the
Southeast concerning the diversity of subjects studied. Still, according to the
scenario, 57% of research in biotechnology is directly financed with funds from
the Federal Government – 46% of these linked to federal universities (ABDI,
2010).
2.1 Bioremediation
An
industrialization consequence is the waste release, accidentally or
intentionally, improperly in the ecosystem, contaminating the atmosphere, the
hydrosphere, the soil and the groundwater and aquifers (WHITE; CLAXTON, 2004;
SILVA-JUNIOR; VARGAS, 2007). Among the techniques that are been developed for
waste management and areas decontamination, it is possible to apply physical,
biological and chemical processes together in order to minimize contamination
of organic compounds in security acceptable levels, according to the each
country legislation (REDDY et al., 1999). Though, the technique selection
varies with the contaminant, the local characteristics, regulatory
requirements, operation costs and time constraint (RISER-ROBERT, 1998; REDDY et
al., 1999). Khan et al. (2004) say that the choice of effective remediation
techniques is complex, however, is crucial to the decontamination success to
the impacted area.
Considering
that conventional technologies for environmental remediation are generally
inadequate to minimize heavy metal concentration in contaminated effluents,
bioremediation is presented as an interest alternative (SCHENBERG, 2010). Bioremediation
is a remediation technique developed by biotechnology, characterized by
presenting a decontamination technique, where the degradation of toxic
contaminants is accomplished mainly by the use of microorganisms (that have
physiologic and metabolic ability) to degrade such substances (ATLAS, 1981).
This phenomenon occurs due to the presence of degrading microorganisms in most
ecosystems, where contaminants may serve as a source of organic carbon.
Bioremediation uses the physiological competence with degrading potential of
these microorganisms. It may be considered as a low-cost-effective and
environmentally acceptable alternative (JACQUES et al., 2007).
Bioremediation
has several strategies to biodegrade the contaminant on the presence of
microorganisms. We can highlight the bio augmentation among them. It is a
strategy that helps to improve the capacity of a contaminated matrix in order
to remove contaminants by addition of an isolated strain or consortia of
microorganisms potentially degrading. The inoculum to be used can be selected
directly from the contaminated area, as well as from other impacted
environments (FANTROUSSI; AGATHOS, 2005). Gentry et al. (2004) believe that the
basic premise for bioaugmentation success, besides the inoculums added to the
system, would be the metabolic capacity of the population introduced to
assimilate the genetic diversity from the contaminated area, leading to an
expansion of its biodegradation competence.
In
this context, it is clear that biotechnology can assume a very important role,
mainly regarding prevention of pollution and bioremediation of contaminated
areas. Bioremediation is widely used, comprising degradation of pharmaceutical waste,
biotransformation of paper into ethanol, decontamination of mining wastewater
contaminated with heavy metals, and oils, among others. Zechendorf (1999)
argues that, in 1999, bioremediation already had significant economic
efficiency when compared to decontamination traditional technologies,
representing a reduction of 65% to 85% in the final cost. In fact, bacteria,
microalgae, fungi, yeasts, and plants (considering industrial fermentation
wastes) can, in principle, serve as a cheap material for water contaminated by
metals bioremediation. Also, the aqueous and solid wastes treatment of
industrial, agricultural and domestic origin offers a number of opportunities
to apply a wide range of bioremediation techniques (ZECHENDORF, 1999).
The
biotechnology projects require that companies of this sector conduct ongoing efforts
aiming the modernization of productive activities, human resource capacity and
accumulation and flow of knowledge from the cooperation with knowledge
producing institutes (CANCHUMANI, 2006). The development of biotechnology
activities demand a strong academic and scientific basis, a productive sector
capable of transforming the academic and scientific production into products
and services and the creation of an institutional environment that offers, at
the same time, reliability to the entrepreneur and to all society, against the
risks involved in investigative and productive activities in the biotechnology
field (DRUCK, 2011). Moreover, the institutional environment must provide the
necessary conditions to formation of cooperation nets and interaction for
generation, transfer and use of knowledge and/or technology. The main
motivation for creating these relationships is the complementation technique,
since its search is required in activities involving varied and in-depth
knowledge (CUNHA; MELO, 2006).
According
to Biotechnology Development Policy (BRASIL,
2007), companies currently in the country using biotechnology to develop their
technological chain to generate their products, process and services rely on
technical and scientific support offered by higher education institutes, state
institutes, research institutes, active in
generation of technologies, goods and biotechnological services. In
2009, Brazil had 108 private biotech companies; most of them had formal
partnership with scientific and technological institutions, highlighting the
importance of university-industry interaction to expand the innovation capacity
that comes to the market (DRUCK, 2011). The universities, research centers,
science and technology parks and business incubators begin to act as science
business active participants (PISANO, 2006).
From
this perspective, Vedovello and Figueiredo (2005) argue that technological
business incubators with small and medium companies operating incubated in a
productive segment and sharing a similar cultural and socioeconomic environment
may constitute a new approach to public policies in favor of innovation and
industrial competitiveness. According to the National Association of Promoting
Entities of Innovative Enterprises (Anprotec), business incubators are
innovative enterprises promoters, aiming to support entrepreneurs so they can
develop innovative ideas and transform them into success companies (graduated
companies). Some companies, after leaving the incubator, will be creating
direct and indirect employment with incomes and assets that will contribute to
the economic growth (LALKAKA, 2002) as successful graduated companies. In this
sense, the business incubators are playing increasingly important roles in the
innovation scenario, bringing together different political and actors, and
channeling efforts and resources to promote a more proactive economic
environment, supporting a more sustainable and competitive socioeconomic
development (VEDOVELLO; FIGUEIREDO, 2005).
Regarding
biotechnology, Canchumani (2006) identified that incubators and universities
are considered a facilitating factor for formation and development stage of
biotech companies. According to the author, incubators and universities are
seen by the incubated company owners as training resources for the
technological base of companies, both concerning human resources, as technical
resources. All companies that were surveyed recognize the importance of
research and development, and the cooperation with institutions that produce knowledge,
as well as the strategic value of qualified human resources from these
institutions.
This
research aims to analyze the relationship between an incubated biotechnology
company and a biotechnology technological incubator linked to a University.
Thus, it is classified as a qualitative research, which is an exploratory
methodology that enables better insight and understanding of the problem
context (MALHOTRA, 2006). According to Roesch (1999), the exploratory study is
characterized as a research strategy which aims to examine a phenomenon present
in its own context. The technological incubator choice was by convenience,
because of the access ease to primary data collection. On the other hand, the
company’s choice was intentional, due to its representativeness to the
incubator and in the bioremediation field. The company is incubated since its
formation in 2003, and even beyond the incubation period, the company maintains
its status as incubated, as well as projects with the incubator and the University.
Interviews
were performed as data collection technique, and developed with aid of a
semi-structured script with open questions. The script had questions about the
interaction between University-company, the relation between incubator and
incubated and from the perspective of biotechnology activity in the country for
the next years. The initial contact with the incubator happened on a technical
visit. After this visit, we conducted the interview with the technological
incubator manager, who provided information about the incubated company. Later,
we get in touch with the company by telephone in order to invite their managers
to participate of this study. The interviews were conducted at the company
administrative department.
The
incubated company administrative and financial manager, the marketing manager
and the production manager were interviewed, as well as the incubator manager.
The interviews were granted in June/July 2012, and each one lasted
approximately 30 minutes. The interviews were recorded by audio recording and
then, they were transcribed. After these procedures, we used the technique of
content analysis for data processing. The data collected in the interviews are
reported and compared with the literature chosen. To preserve the incubator and
the company identities, we chose to use fictitious names on the results
analysis. So, the participants were called as G1, G2, G3 and G4 to preserve
their identity, where G1, G2 and G3 represent the incubated company and G4 the
incubator.
The
studied company develops and sells biotechnology based products as an
alternative to the treatment of municipal and industrial sewage, animal manure
and domestic sewage. Biosul (a fictional name) has a collection of over 2,000
selected microorganisms isolated and identified. Associated with knowledge and
domain on conducting biotechnological production processes, these are their
greatest asset and differential. The company is located in Southern Brazil and
it distributes its product in Brazil, Argentina and Spain. Biosul was founded
in 2003 originated from PhD thesis, in order to apply the biotechnology
concepts in practice, as well as bring scientific knowledge to everyone. Since
its foundation, the company is tied to a technological incubator from a Federal
University. By the relationship with the incubator, it has submitted and
approved projects to support research and development of new studies, and to
purchase machinery and equipment to the new production process.
Nowadays,
Biosul has five employees in it staff, working directly at the company
headquarters, plus a net of distributors and technical assistance spread in
Brazil and in the foreign countries. Considering staff, the managers
interviewed are: administrative and financial (G1); production (G2); and,
marketing (G3). G1 is the Biosul founder and he has Ph.D. in cellular and
molecular biology. G2 is studying Ph.D. in biotechnology developing a product
for contaminates soil by hydrocarbons treatment. G2 is a company employee since
2009. G3 is a chemical technician, with degree in chemistry and management. G3
is company employee since 2005; since 2008, G3 is also a Biosul partner.
At
this point, it is possible to notice that employees have a career in
biotechnology, in academic research or market research, and professional
experience involving environmental impacts minimization through biological
treatment. This trajectory can justify employees identification with the
company goals. As the speech of G3, “I see the company today, we got this
structure, setting up a new team and we see a huge potential […] I believe in
the product and see opportunities to the company.” G2 claims that he has
pretentions to continue working on Biosul, as we can see in this interview
passage: “the company has a small staff, but we cheer for this team to grow and
continue to be a team part”.
Biosul
products reduce the degradation time of contaminated areas, without releasing
chemicals in the environment (as observed in traditional remediation techniques).
According to G2, “what you have is more chemical […] it can be used but, sooner
or later, may cause damage. Bioremediation is a clean technology of
remediation”. Unlike other bioremediation companies, Biosul products are
developed using microorganisms from the native biota. Such fact can be
confirmed from the report of G2: “hence, we always try to work with local
microorganisms, so there is no damage when it is added to the environment”.
The
use of Biosul’s products accelerates the waste degradation, reducing the
degradation time, minimizing the costs and, consequently, generating greater
affordability to their customers. The technical assistance available from the
product purchase is highlighted as a fundamental element of the company’s
strategy, since it is necessary to make the application accurately and follow
up the residue degradation. This fact is corroborated by G3: “the analysis that
we follow is a job that requires 100% of post sales; it [the bioremediation] is
the kind of job that monitoring is essential to make it work”. Therefore,
orientations are made to customers so they can understand how the product
works. Distributor’s teams are spread in the country and they are trained to
pass this information to customers, as well as to know how to evaluate the
products results.
The
technological incubator of biotechnology (TIB) is located in the Brazil
Southern region and it is linked to a Federal University. The TIB started its
activities in 1992, with two incubated companies. In a general way, TIB seeks
to establish, develop and strengthen small business and technological projects
in biotechnology and related sectors. The incubator goal is to stimulate the
creation and strengthening of companies, offering a suitable environment and promoting
technical and managerial skills, by training and teaching activities of human
resources highly qualified in their areas. The TIB is installed within the
University, designed to stages of development and production up to eight
companies incubated simultaneously. Also, the incubator offers a meeting room
for shared use and an amphitheater with capacity for 115 guests.
The
incubator installation at the University promotes potential research activities
as job and resources generators encourage new companies in the biotechnology
segment by furthering interaction among University and companies, create jobs,
train human resources, and promote the direct connection between scientific and
technologic development with its incorporation to production means. Furthermore,
the incubator has a team, coordinated by a university teacher and managed by a
university employee (G4). It also has a secretary, internships and external
consultants. G4 has a degree in biology and, since 2000, works directly at
incubator. About the beginning of the incubator, G4 says:
“it was a year [reference to 2000] of courses and selections, business
plan course, management techniques, visits to incubators, strategies, planning,
and they select 10 employees that could be reallocated to the management of the
University’s incubator and to support technology transfer issues, so I went to
the biotechnology incubator”.
The
company incubation process has three steps: selection of companies,
pre-incubation and incubation. Periodically, the incubator opens a call for
companies to select those who will join the incubation process. These
candidates must prepare a business plan submitted with proper documentation for
proposal submission to the incubation call. After analyzing the business plan,
the approved one joins the TIB for the pre-incubation phase. The pre-incubation
is intended to improve the business plan, with support from the incubator, and
to formally build the biotechnology company. G4 explains that, during this
phase, the entrepreneur “spends six months with our consultant, consulting one
hour per week, and the guy will be focused on those parts of the business plan
that required more attention, needed more information. He will learn how to
make a market assessment and how to use financial spreadsheets”.
At
the end of pre-incubation phase, the business plan is assessed in terms of its
technical, economic and market feasibility and moves to the incubation phase
(or the company will be disconnected from the incubator). G4 says: “at the end
of six months if [ ] the business viability is proven with as much data as
possible and the company was created, because it needs a national register of
legal person, then [the entrepreneur] signs the incubation contract”. During
the incubation phase, the company develops, produces and sells its products.
The incubation time is tree years, and it can be extended for more three years.
This time is longer than the incubation time of other incubators, however,
according to G4, “who knows some incubator will say [ ] six years, this is
nonsense! Actually, it is not. If you think that in biotechnology sector, the
average time to get into the market is about ten years, six years is nothing
extraordinary. In some cases, we have to extend it a little bit.”
Currently
the TIB has eight companies incubated and it is preparing a call to select four
projects. The incubated companies operate in the health segment, agribusiness
and environment. The services offered by TIB to incubated companies includes:
support to prepare the business plan; orientation for seeking funding and
research and development project management; business management consulting;
training for specialized technical development; assistance in finding new
technologies; encourage on interaction with external sources of capacity and
knowledge; access to laboratories of the University’s biotechnology center;
and, supportive administrative services, such secretarial, reception, internet
access and cleaning services. Moreover, G4 complements: “we [the incubator] are
now seeking the certification for business incubators [ ] today are a few
hundred items that are selection, evaluation, a series of items, business plan
that the incubator has to be structured. This certification will give a minimum
quality pattern to incubators”.
Using
the content analysis technique, some elements were identified from respondent’s
reports. These elements are considered most relevant and frequent to the
studied circumstance: the interaction between University and company; the
relation between the incubated company and the technological incubator; the
government role in the biotechnology development; and, the biotechnology sector
perspective in the country for the next years. Business incubators had become incorporated
into Brazil policy agenda from the late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s (VEDOVELLO;
FIGUEIREDO, 2005). The Federal University linked to the studied incubator has
others incubators divided into sectors. The proximity to specific laboratories of
each sector allows a greater synergy among staff training, the research and the
incubated companies. G4 explains that in early 1990s,
“the University realized that there was a trend of
sectorial incubators [ ], the biotechnology incubator was being created, the
computing one, the medicine one, the University was structuring its strategy of
incubators, with normalization of the University so each one won’t make
different things. Why results are better in terms of sectorial incubators?
Because, in biotechnology, I have to offer a laboratory module, I have to
consider the characteristics of biotechnology. So the incubator being sectorial
suits better for the incubated company. So, we can work better for
characteristics of the sector”.
Also,
G4 states: “the incubator was created especially because the interaction lack
between the biotechnology center and the productive sector”. This statement
confirms the argument from Valle and Santos (2008). Those authors pointed out
that the biotechnology development demands a strong academic and scientific
base creation as well as a productive sector capable of transforming this
academic and scientific production into goods, processes and services. From
this perspective, it is understood that the TIB has the goal of facilitating
the integration of the products, processes and services that were developed in
biotechnology researches in the University with the biotechnology industry.
According to G4: “our incubator’s mission is to fund and support the
development of biotechnology companies, where the business matter comes… That’s
the reason why it exists and works until today”.
The
interaction University-company is shown as an essential condition for the
biotechnology activities development by company managers. G3 argues: “the
interaction with the University ends up being beneficial to the company, the
fact of being a company with the University helps with credibility, especially
for a startup, with a new service in the market, it is important to have this
support”. G2 complements saying: “information is critical, what is happening,
trends, on the innovation field, everything goes through the University, so it
is good to have this bond. And the University is very well regarded”.
Accordingly, from the reports, it is possible to notice that the incubator aims
to assist and support the incubated companies in product development and in the
company’s organization itself.
Biosul
maintains patents for its products with the University. Pisano (2006) says that
much of the interaction discussion between universities and biotechnology
industries is about the patents, when, in fact, the central issue should be the
knowledge in this patent. The main problems caused by the technological
development of companies focus on the difficulty of managing the knowledge
inherent on research activities (CUNHA; MELO, 2006). Still, the authors suggest
that the incubators should encourage the creation and development of companies
through the further entrepreneur training in their technical and managerial aspects.
G4 indicates: “entrepreneurs [from biotechnology companies] are good
technically, but they don’t know how to sell the product, or even how to
approach a customer, nothing about finances, or market, they don’t know how to
do it”. Further, G4 complements:
“the entrepreneurship at the
University begins with someone [the entrepreneur] having a good idea, but we
have to elaborate it. There is a strategy for each level. This person has to
make a business plan, the University has a program that teaches how to do it,
he has consulting, he will reach the end, with a business plan, then he can go
to an incubator where he will develop that business plan, where he will use the
research and development laboratory. He will be around the place where
innovation happens; he got a better success chance this way.”
In
this way, we can verify that incubated companies have higher chances of
survival in the market from the interaction with University, through the
incubator, as reported by G1: “outside the incubator is complicated. The
biotechnology interaction with the University is essential”. In turn, G2
comments: “we had support from economists, consultants, business plan; they
taught us how to do it. I used to work only on research and after this training
I learned from how to issue a note to how manage the company”. The Biosul
managers agreed that incubation was necessary for their company and for
products development. The incubated company performance can be improved by the
existence of a services package and financial resources provided to or by
technological incubators (VEDOVELLO; FIGUEIREDO, 2005). G1 ensures: “the
company incubation is necessary, [ ] so biotechnology won’t develop outside the
incubator, it simply does not happen”.
It
is possible to notice that company incubation is essential due to some
characteristics of the sector, such as high costs of research and
commercialization of products or services, necessity of qualified people, and
necessity of adequate infrastructure. G4 exposes: “the sector characteristics
are: ‘the high costs of equipment, long developing time, also the physical
areas that need to be appropriate to the operations’”. From the recognition of
the sector characteristics, G4 adds that “this [the sector characteristics] we
as incubators need to know, the hardest bottlenecks for companies, we as
incubators need to attend”.
Due
to the high cost to create and structure the company and the product maturation
period, G1 claims: “biotechnology grows slowly, because biotechnology demands a
lot of research and very expensive equipment”. This report is supported by
Canchumani (2006), because the author considers the consolidation of
biotechnology companies on the market slow. Hall and Bagchi-Sem (2001) follow
the same line by state that one of biotechnology industry characteristics is
the long period required for the innovations developed in research laboratories
come available in the market. Thus, G1 ensures: “the researches in
biotechnology could last 15 years until it results in a product […] the incubation
time has to be bigger too”. G4 reinforces: “10 years is, in average, the normal
time for biotechnology, but the incubator has the function to accelerate the
processes. So, if everyone works straight, it is possible to develop in less
time”.
According
to Vedovello and Figueiredo (2005) and Lalkaka (2002), the incubators must
provide to companies a proper infrastructure and a supportive environment
needed to foment new ventures. The studied incubator is located in a permanent
spot inside the University. There are labs for products research and
development, meeting rooms, reception room, as well as rooms for the
administrative sector of each incubated company. G1 says that this
infrastructure facilitates the biotechnology activities development, since
“public universities are well structured and got more equipment already”.
However, the incubators should not be considered just as a shared enterprise
space, but as people and organizations nets (HACKETT; DILTS, 2004).
Regarding
human resources, G4 informs that incubated companies entrepreneurs are highly
educated, “80% has masters or Ph.D. degree, and the team is not composed 100%
of doctors because the ones with master degree are still studying for Ph.D.,
but it is really an entrepreneur with high qualification”. Nonetheless, the
Biotechnology Panorama in the World and in Brazil (ABDI, 2010) has pointed
bottlenecks related to attracting and fixing those professionals to the sector,
including low wage and incipient training in management. This fact can be
explained by G1’s report: “the researches have to keep up. After finishing the
Ph.D., it is very hard to develop a product, so they have to find other ways to
make money. They end up not being able to develop the product and abandon it
[the idea]”. Biosul emerged from the G1’s Ph.D. thesis, and it only managed to
grow because, as G2 said, “it was born incubated”.
The
company’s relationship with the University is extremely important. According to
G4, “given the number of companies, there is low number of employees for
companies involved with biotechnology”. G2 states: “most of the staff working
with us [at Biosul] came from there [the University]. It is a proof”. G3 tells
that he is doing his Ph.D. in biotechnology area, and got a project approved
linking his job and his studies. G2 claims:
“when Biosul leaves the
incubator, we want to keep the research and development with the University,
because the University is the best source for information and human resources.
The connection with the incubator and the University allows our company to
submit projects to finance machinery, equipment, supplies, researches, human
resources etc.”
Regarding
incentives, the government has provided significant amount of resources to
promote the research and development in biotechnology, through agencies as the
Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), the National
Council of Science (CNPq) or another governmental agency. According to G2, “all
equipment was acquired through public money, using projects”. The resources
devoted to research and development in biotechnology were, somewhat,
sufficient. However, according to G3, “if you look the calls, resources aren’t
for bioremediation. It is for other biotechnology areas… biotechnology
sometimes is focused on cellular and molecular biology, nanotechnology,
transgenic. Nowadays, the environmental treatment is still unknown”.
Moreover,
the relationship with governmental agencies as pointed as paradoxical, because
it presents lots of incentives and, at the same time, innumerous obstacles. It
should be noted that one of the Biotechnology Development Policy objectives
established in 2007 includes “the establishment of appropriate environment for
the development of innovative biotechnological products and processes” (BRASIL,
2007, Art. 1º). Nonetheless, G1 says:
“the relation with the govern is
paradoxical. At the same time that they give a lot of resources for research
and development for biotechnology, the State structure forbids the
commercialization, there is no normative, no regulation for our biological
products […] at the same time everyone thinks that it is genius to use
biotechnology to develop the country, there is no legislation for it, and that
prevent us to sell what we produce”.
The
main difficulties identified to biological products development were the laws
related to products manufacture and commercialization. The animal, industrial
wastewater and sanitary and domestic areas force the company to comply the
legislation of three environmental government agencies: Agriculture, Livestock
and Supply Ministry (MAPA), Health Surveillance National Agency (ANVISA) and
the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources Brazilian Institute (IBAMA).
According to G1,
“the legislations are conflicting, because IBAMA demands some tests to
approve the product while ANVISA demands others. So? IBAMA claims that if you
do not register it with them, you cannot sell. ANVISA claims that registering
it with them, allows you to sell. The legislation for biological products is
the biggest obstacle in this country”.
The
respondents maintain a positive view when asked about the expectation of
biotechnology activity in Brazil, as G1 says: “the future is very promising”.
G3 says: “biotechnology is an area that will grow a lot in this country”. This
argument can be justified by the Biotechnology Development Policy. This
Brazilian legislation aims to provide appropriate conditions to the development
of innovative biological products, processes and services (Brasil, 2007).
Concerning bioremediation, G3 claims: “the bioremediation is still unknown, but
it is getting better. There is always a new project with governmental funds to
biotechnology. I think that this segment is growing and has huge potential”. G2
says that the segment future belongs to the ones that are studying at the
University and that put their ideas into practice, betting that it will come
true in the incubated companies. He adds that for the biotechnology activity
development, “we must take the knowledge to everyone, the scientific knowledge,
to really perform applied biotechnology”.
This article
aimed to analyze the relationship between the technological incubator and a
biotech company. To this end, we conducted interviews with the coordinator of a
technological incubator for biotechnology sector and managers of a
biotechnology company incubated. It was found many gaps in scientific knowledge
production and biotechnology application, since biotech companies face
technical-scientific, productive, financial or commercial problems that still
cannot be fully solved. However, respondents agree that the incubator
represents a possibility to overcome these gaps and ensure greater longevity
for the company in the market. The relationship between Universities and
biotechnology companies is considered a fundamental condition for development
of these activities, due mainly to high initial capital necessary for company’s
opening and the long time required developing the product.
The
technological incubator represents a notorious way for Biosul to keep in touch
with the Federal University. This institution is an important source of
information, trends, innovations and human resources. Respondents stated that
the connection with the University allowed the company to submit and approve
projects to support and develop new researches as well as to purchase machines
and equipment for production process. However, it was considered consensus that
government agencies stimulate the research and biotechnology development, and,
at the same time, end up creating barriers and contradictions for companies in
this sector. Furthermore, it was found that the main obstacles to create
biotechnology companies are difficulty in raising resources, lack of
infrastructure necessary to manufacture the products, government heavy
regulation and lack of skilled managers.
We
believe that the sample size is the central limitation of this research. Data
collected represents only views, opinions and perceptions of the respondents.
Thus, other participants from other companies in the biotechnology industry and
other technological incubators could assign different answers to the questions.
Therefore, this study does not intend to generalize the achievements. For
future research, we suggest researching the opinions and the perceptions of a
larger number of experts; to analyze the relationship of incubators and
incubated companies in other regions of Brazil or other countries; to interview
experts from other knowledge areas; or still, to analyze publication level in
national and international journals to verify if there is indeed a research
increase on the topic.
REFERENCES
AGÊNCIA
BRASILEIRA DE DESENVOLVIMENTO INDUSTRIAL (ABDI) (2010). Panorama da Biotecnologia no Mundo e no Brasil. Available
from: <http://www.abdi.com.br/Estudo/Panorama%20Setorial%20Biotecnologia.pdf>.
Accessed
in 2012 Jun 25.
ANPROTEC
(2012). Associação Nacional de Entidades
Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores. Available from:
<http://anprotec.org.br/site/incubadoras-e-parques/>. Accessed in 2012
Jul 29.
ATLAS,
R. M. (1981). Microbial Degradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: an Environmental
Perspective. Microbiological Reviews,
v. 45, n. 1, p. 180-209.
BRASIL.
Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia (2007). Política
de Desenvolvimento da Biotecnologia. Decreto nº 6.041. Brasília. Available
from: <http://www.mct.gov.br/upd_blob/0016/16386.pdf>. Accessed in 2012
Jun 29.
CANCHUMANI,
G. A. L. (2006). Capacidades
Tecnológicas de Empresas de Biotecnologia: o estudo de quatro casos.
Dissertation (Masters in Business Administration). Porto Alegre: UFRGS.
CÔRTE-REAL,
M. (2002). Perfil da Indústria
Brasileira de Biotecnologia focado nas Relações com o Mercado. Porto
Alegre: AGE.
CUNHA,
C. R., MELO, M. C. O. L. (2006). Confiança nos Relacionamentos
Interorganizacionais: o campo da biotecnologia em análise. RAE-eletrônica, v. 5, n. 2, art. 18, jul./dez.
DIAS,
V. V., MENEZES, U. G., PALMA, E. P., GROHMANN, M. Z. (2009). A percepção dos
gestores sobre as ações de sustentabilidade e sua relação com as estratégias
organizacionais. In: XI ENCONTRO NACIONAL E I ENCONTRO INTERNACIONAL SOBRE
GESTÃO EMPRESARIAL E MEIO AMBIENTE. Proceedings…
Fortaleza: ENGEMA, 2009.
DRUCK,
S. (2011). Quem é Quem em Alimentação,
Agricultura, Pesca e Biotecnologia: competências e pesquisas desenvolvidas no
Brasil. Brasília: IBICT. Available from:
<http://bbice.unb.br/media/publicacao/6f0a49f71e99541baff8e51e467ff281.pdf>
Accessed in 2012 Jun 27.
ETZKOWITZ, H. (2002). Incubation of incubators: innovation as a triple
helix of university- industry-government networks. Science and Public Policy, v. 29, n. 2, p. 1-14.
ETZKOWITZ, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of
university-industry-government relations. Social
Science Information, v. 42, n. 3, p. 293-337.
FANTROUSSI, S., AGATHOS, S. N. (2005). Is bioaugmentation a feasible
strategy for pollutant removal and site remediation? Current Opinion in
Microbiology, v. 8, n. 3, p. 268-275.
FREITAS;
C. C. G., MAÇANEIRO, M. B., KUHL, M. R., SEGATTO, A. P., DOLIVEIRA, S. L. D.,
LIMA, L. F. (2012). Transferência tecnológica e inovação por meio da
sustentabilidade. Revista de
Administração Pública – RAP, v. 46, n. 2, p. 363-84, mar./abr.
GENTRY, T, RENSING, C., PEPPER I. L. (2004). New Approaches for
Biosegmentations a Remediation Technology. Critical
Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, v. 34, n. 5, p. 447-494.
HACKETT, S., DILTS, D. (2004). A Systematic Review of Business
Incubation Research, Journal of
Technology Transfer, v. 29, p. 55-82.
HALL, L, BAGCHI-SEM, S. (2001). An Analysis of R&D, innovation and
business performance in the US biotechnology industry. Internacional Journal of Biotechnology, v. 3, n. 3.
HODGSON, J. (2006). Private biotech 2004 – the numbers. Nature Biotechnology, v. 24, n. 6, jun.
JACQUES, R. J. S., BENTO, F. M., ANTONIOLLI, Z. I., CAMARGO, F. A. O. (2007). Biorremediação
de solos contaminados com hidrocarbonetos aromáticos policíclicos. Ciência Rural, v. 37, n. 4, p.
1192-1201.
KHAN, F. I., HUSAIN, T., HEJAZI, R. (2004). An Overview and Analysis of
Site Remediation Technologies. Journal
of Environmental Management, v. 71, n. 2, p. 95-122.
KREUZER, H., MASSEY, A. (2002). Engenharia
genética e biotecnologia. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
LALKAKA, R. (2002). Technology business incubator to assist a innovation
based economy. Journal of Change
Management, v. 3, n. 2, dec.
MALHOTRA, N. K. (2006). Pesquisa
de Marketing: Uma orientação aplicada, 4 ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman,
brazilian translation in 2006.
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) (1999). Modern Biotechnology and the OECD. OECD
Paris: Policy Brief OECD, June.
ORSATO, R. J. (2006). Competitive Environmental Strategies: when does it
pay to be green? California Management
Review, v. 48, n. 2, p. 127-143.
PISANO, G. P. (2006). Can Science Be a Business? Lessons from Biotech. Harvard Business Review, oct.
REDDY, K. R., ADMAS, J. F., RICHARDSON, C. (1999).“Potential
technologies for remediation of Brwnfield. Practice
Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management, v. 3, n. 2,
p. 61-68.
RISER-ROBERTS, E. (1998). Remediation
of Petroleum Contaminated Soil: biological, Physical, and Chemical Processes.
Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.
ROESCH, S. M. (1999). Projetos de
estágio e de pesquisa em administração, 2 ed. São Paulo: Atlas.
SCHENBERG,
A. C. G. (2010). Biotecnologia e desenvolvimento sustentável. Revista de Estudos Avançados, São
Paulo, v. 24, n. 70.
SILVA-JUNIOR,
F. M. R., VARGAS, V. M. F. (2007). Avaliação de áreas de influência de uma
termelétrica a carvão através de ensaio de genotoxicidade. Journal Brazilian of Ecotoxicology, v. 2, n. 2, p. 197-199.
VALLE,
M. G., SANTOS, M. S. (2008). A biotecnologia como instrumento de desenvolvimento
econômico e social. Universidade de
Relações Internacionais (Brasília), v. 6, n. 1, jan./jun.
VAN
BEUZEKOM, B., ARUNDEL, A. (2009). OECD
Biotechnology Statistics 2009. Paris. Available from:
<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/23/42833898.pdf> (accessed in 2012 Jun 29).
VEDOVELLO,
C., FIGUEIREDO, P. N. (2005). Incubadora de Inovação: que nova espécie é essa? RAE-eletrônica, v. 4, n. 1,
jan./jul.
WHITE, P. A., CLAXTON, L. D. (2004). Mutagens in contaminated soil: a
review. Mutation Research, v. 567,
n. 2-3, p. 227-345.
ZECHENDORF, B. (1999). Sustainable development: how can biotechnology
contribute? Trends in Biotechnology,
jun.