bioeconomy outlook: 2023 and beyond.

With far-reaching implications for supply chains and manufacturing, the recently launched National Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Initiative has the power to reshape America’s “bioeconomy” — a term defined as any economy in which materials, chemicals, energy and more come from renewable biological resources. 

What’s the outlook for America’s bioeconomy in light of this landmark initiative? Josh Vesely , SVP, life sciences growth strategy at Randstad, and Kelly Kester, MSc, MBA, RD , Director, Advanced Therapy Solutions at Cardinal Health, weigh in. 

What will be some of the biggest impacts from the initiative for employers and employees moving forward?

Josh: My immediate reaction is that this is long overdue. Because how great would it have been if we had this in place maybe five years ago, prior to the pandemic? It would have allowed us to be a lot more resilient in that situation, for starters. Beyond that, I think our ability to keep pace with the technologies being developed in the pharmaceutical and biopharma spaces is something to keep in mind. It isn't just a matter of, say, expanding the processes and procedures involved in the production of small-molecule drugs, something that has been done for decades and decades at this point. There are so many genuinely new therapeutic areas requiring totally different manufacturing processes, not to mention new skills and expertise from a human capital standpoint — and these are skills and expertise that only a finite number of people have. So alongside the plethora of innovation, which is the exciting part, there needs to be a deliberate, intentional strategy around how we plan to scale these capabilities up.

Kelly: We saw a number of vulnerabilities exposed in the early days of the pandemic directly related to biotech, biopharma and manufacturing, not only domestically but globally as well. So, I think what we’ll see with the initiative is not only increased support in terms of funding to correct those areas, but also much more attention from legislators and policymakers across different branches of government in general. On the employer side, there will also be a greater push for those who have the expertise today to collaborate with others, in part reflecting the broad-based need to upskill the life sciences workforce at large.

I also agree that the initiative is overdue, and the reasons are complex, because it’s not as visible as, say, the deterioration of a bridge or crumbling physical infrastructure. But when you have personal protective equipment shortages, for example, or limited active pharmaceutical ingredients available for life-saving medications, these kinds of things are obviously unacceptable going forward.

How crucial is data to driving innovation in the life sciences or pharma sectors? 

Kelly: A couple of things come to mind right away. The first is: How are we approaching data from an infrastructure standpoint, from an ownership standpoint and from a collaborative and sharing standpoint? These are critical questions to answer, because a massive amount of data is currently being produced throughout the biotech industry, particularly in the context of supply chain and manufacturing, but it’s often not aggregated into or translated in ways that are understandable, usable or valuable. Yet, we know that data will advance technology and science, while improving our ability to treat patients as well. 

Keeping different end users and beneficiaries in mind will also be very key going forward. As the amount of data that’s produced per patient, or even per therapy, continues to grow exponentially, it's going to be essential to have the appropriate infrastructure in place from a data standpoint. 

How does the passage of the initiative impact private equity (PE) or venture capital (VC) funding?

Josh: There’s been a recent cooling of retail or private sector investment from PE and VC, and I don't think the initiative really does much to offset this initial cooling period. But I also think it’s a very, very temporary challenge — there’s just too much momentum and effort being put forth by different parties toward, for example, research and development for it to be a long-term trend. Plus, there’s a tremendous amount of investment now coming back from the National Institutes of Health, and a lot of the larger pharma organizations came out of the pandemic with sizable investment strategies in their portfolios, too. 

Kelly: In the early days of the pandemic, it’s true that we were seeing record levels of funding in this space. Today, we're still seeing a healthy funding environment — it may be a little bit more conservative, but there’s consistent funding in the space. What’s further emphasized today is the accountability piece: How do you demonstrate that your plan is being executed? What KPIs and metrics are you working toward and being held accountable for? There’s going to be an important expectation of results from players in the space.

From a geographic standpoint, will the initiative have a more pronounced impact in some parts of the country compared to others? 

Kelly: There are areas of the country that are more established in this field, mostly through the historic presence of academic institutions or large health systems within  major East Coast and West Coast cities. But as a Midwesterner myself, I want to highlight that hubs are emerging across the U.S., and the initiative  is really building on that existing enthusiasm, momentum, and passion for innovation. We've seen, for example, the emergence of innovation hubs, incubators and beyond in Columbus and Chicago, bonding scientists and industry together. 

Any advice for life sciences companies that are trying to enter the bioeconomy or grow that area of their business? 

Kelly: Collaborate early and often, first and foremost. Get clinical and commercial people together at the outset, and bring in supply chain and operations from the proof of concept stage. From there, it’s about really working through challenges, modeling and simulating together. Pending intellectual property limitations, I encourage industry to collaborate externally as well. Bring in key opinion leaders and subject matter experts. Learn from them. We hear a lot about “failing fast” and getting to answers quickly in the context of innovation, but truly, even if you have the world's greatest idea, if it doesn't work in the clinic or in the real world, then maybe it's not the right solution or time.

There is so much room and appetite for innovation in this space, especially if you put yourself in the shoes of different stakeholders — patients, payers, regulators, investors and more. Consider the contrast with innovations in food delivery, for example: I’m able to track my pizza from the second it leaves the oven to the second it arrives at my door, and since it's a contactless delivery, I’ll get a picture of the pizza right there on my porch. But in life sciences, there isn’t real-time tracking or visibility in place for biopharma or biotech to view where a life-saving therapy is at any point in the supply chain, let alone for patients or other stakeholders. So that’s just one example of an area that’s ripe for innovation. 

Further, our current supply chains aren’t very well designed to suit the needs of cell and gene therapies specifically, which is one of the biggest supply chain conundrums we've seen in decades. And so, industry leaders really need to think about how well fit-for-purpose the supply chain for cell and gene therapies as well as manufacturing, which is part of the reason why the initiative is so exciting to me.