1ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

Biotechnolgy in Sub-Saharan Africa:
An IntroductionT

he role of modern biotechnology in the economic transformation of developing
countries has become the subject of intense academic inquiry and public policy
discourse. There is increasing debate about the potential contributions that the technology can make to these countries. Today this debate has stayed at two extremes: one thatperceives biotechnology as the source of solutions to many of the economic, social andenvironmental problems that developing countries are confronted with, and the otherextreme that treats the technology with considerable suspicion—as a technology that willbring more ills to the countries. While those in the former position espouse thedevelopment and application of biotechnology, the latter group calls for its demise. It isin the context of these two extremes that Africa has to find its own place in thebiotechnology revolution.
It is not our task here to argue for or against either of the two positions—which we findsimplistic and misinformed of the nature of biotechnology. We shall be concerned withstrategic policies and institutional arrangements that would enlarge Africa’s prospects ofmaximizing benefits from biotechnology while at the same time minimizing its risks.
Biotechnology has no inbuilt logic to cause harm to or to generate benefits for humanity.
It is a social construct whose development and application largely rely on human beings.
Indeed, what is crucial is to establish systemic and long-term measures that will enable
society to reap benefits from the technology and to address any negative impacts it may
cause.
The overall objective of the paper is twofold: to identify and analyse public policy
issues that confront African countries in their aspirations or efforts to effectively enter thebiotechnology revolution, and to propose a regional programme that would generate newknowledge and information for the formulation and implementation of policies topromote the safe development and application of modern biotechnology. The paper also
discusses ways and means of building and/or strengthening capacities of Africancountries to engage in the international policy debate on biotechnology and its impacts.
The first section of the paper focuses on international trends in biotechnology. It maps
out the technology landscape and describes the different actors in the evolution and rapid
development of modern techniques. This section also analyses the different strategies andpolicies that countries of the industrialized world have instituted to engage in biotechnology competitively. Lessons for developing countries, particularly those of Africa, aredrawn.
The second section is an overview of the status of biotechnology in Africa. This section
describes current research and development (R&D) efforts of some African countries and2identifies their strengths, constraints and national policies to promote the technology’s
development and application.
The third section focuses on public policy issues for safe development and applicationof biotechnology in Africa. It identifies the range or clusters of policy questions
researchers and policymakers need to explore in their research programmes and in themaking of policies.
The last section proposes a regional policy research programme on biotechnology. It
identifies specific issues or questions, activities, and benchmarks that should form thecore of the programme. In addition, the paper erects a conceptual framework andmethodology for the proposed activities. Emphasis is placed on those activities thatwould enlarge the knowledge and information base for public policy making in Africa.

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

3

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

1. Global Trends in Modern Biotechnology
1.1 Evolution and Growth of Modern BiotechnologyModern biotechnology1 has its antecedents in scientific endeavours of the late 1960s
and early 1970s, with discoveries in such areas as molecular biology, biochemistry
and microbiology forming the foundation for the technology’s rapid growth into a global
industry. Genetic engineering revitalized the application of the scientific knowledge
generated in university departments in the USA, Japan and Europe in the 1970s. It has
revolutionized the way humanity perceives of and uses living matter. Research anddevelopment in the area of genetic engineering are now a source of new products that are
improving agricultural production, human and animal health, the environment, andindustry in general. In sum, according to the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment(OTA, 1992:3):
Biotechnology provides potential to produce new, improved, safer, and less expensive
products and processes. Pharmaceuticals and diagnostics for humans and animals, seeds,
entire plants, animals, fertilizers, food additives, industrial enzymes, and oil-eating and otherpollution degrading microbes are just a few of the things than can be created or enhanced
through the use of biotechnology.

The development and application of modern biotechnology, and particularly thecluster of techniques associated with genetic engineering, are also posing new challenges
to humanity. The challenges are around ethical concerns emerging from the use of thetechnology to manipulate and transform nature. There are also growing concerns about
possible human health, environmental and socioeconomic risks that modern biotechnology may cause. For example, concern has been raised about the potential ecologicalimpacts of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment. There is fearthat such organisms would erode genetic diversity and thus undermine socio-economic
and cultural security of many households in the developing world.
The technology and its development are characterized by uncertainty. There is
uncertainty about the potential of biotechnology—its promises and risks. There is also
uncertainty surrounding industrial investment in genetic engineering. This is largely aresult of the build up of activist campaigns against the development and commercialization of genetically modified products.
_____________________
1Modern biotechnology is a cluster of techniques that are used to modify and/or use living organism to produce goods

and services. It encompasses such scince - intensive techniques as recombinant DNA and gene splicing andsequencing.

4
Another important feature of modern biotechnology is its pervasiveness—in terms of
the wide application of its techniques as well as the potential effects it has on national andglobal economic systems. Indeed, the impacts of biotechnology on socioeconomic
systems are widespread. Given this pervasiveness a large number of diverse actors—
policy makers, environmental activists, financial institutions, industry and religious
groups—are involved in deciding on the future technological change and developments
in biotechnology. What is clear is that it is public perception of the benefits and dangers
associated with the technology that will greatly influenced the choices policymakers andindustry will make.
Three mainstream technological trajectories or aggregate technological pathways
have emerged in biotechnology (Sharp, 1989). These are pharmaceuticals, agriculture
and diagnostics. There are, of course, other trajectories such as mineral leaching andpollution control, but these constitute fairly small or limited areas of technological andindustrial activity.
The pharmaceutical sector is the leading and most economically prominent trajectory,
though agricultural biotechnology has also witnessed rapid industrial growth in the past
five years or so. Pharmaceutical sector growth was pronounced in the mid 1980s and wasstimulated by the new technological opportunities to reduce the costs that are associatedwith traditional chemical drug production. The use of chemical entities to produce drugs
was yielding few new drugs and was proving too costly. With biotechnology thepharmaceutical industry has acquired capacity to relocate from the use of chemical
entities to natural products—particularly plants and microorganisms.
There are other factors that account for the growth of biotechnology-based innovations in the pharmaceutical sector. First is the enormous scientific information andknowledge base created by universities and public research bodies in the USA. A
considerable portion of USA government funding to biotechnology has targeted biomedical research in universities and such public bodies as the National Institutes of
Health. By 1991 more than US$2.5 billion was available to public biomedical research(Avramovic, 1996). Second, in contrast to agriculture there has been less controversy on
the application of biotechnology to develop drugs. There is enormous and growing
demand for high value drugs to treat such fatal diseases as acquired immune deficiency
syndrome (AIDS) and cancer. Third, the pharmaceutical sector has also benefited fromthe existence of companies with enormous financial and industrial capability to exploit
the scientific information generated by universities.
Agriculture—one of the world’s largest economic sectors—is being rapidly transformed by biotechnology. The discovery of gene splicing in the early 1980s opened up
enormous scientific and industrial opportunities. In 1995 genes that control the ripening
process in tomatoes were identified and the genetic basis for enlarging plants’ resistanceto weedkillers was discovered. Cloning of plant genes has become another area of majorinterest of big agro-chemical companies, all of which have bought up seed companies

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3
5
with a view of developing varieties with immunity to their own brands of herbicides.
Between 1996 and 1998 Monsanto, a leading science-based biotechnology company,
generated several genetically improved crops: Newleaf insect-protected potatoes, Roundup
Ready soybeans, Roundup Ready cotton, insect protected corn, Roundup Ready corn,
Roundup Ready sugar beets and delayed ripening tomatoes. Monsanto’s annual net salesof agro-products are at least US$4 billion.
On the whole, the commercial potential of agricultural biotechnology is growing
rapidly. In 1995 about US$312 million was generated by agro-biotechnology companies
from the development and sale of products and processes. By early 1999 the companies
were making net sales of at least US$2.5 billion. This considerable growth in market salesof agricultural biotechnology products and processes is accounted for by the following
factors among others. First, the scientific information base for the development andapplication of agricultural products and services has been enlarged enormously in thepast five years. Science in such areas as recombinant DNA has grown. Knowledge about
genetic structures and functions of plants and livestock is growing rapidly, making it
possible to exploit a wide range of undiscovered and underutilized traits in plants andanimals.
The growth of agricultural biotechnology has been affected by a variety of factors
however. There is greater environmental concern and regulatory uncertainty. The
introduction of genetically engineered agro-products has met growing public opposition.
In the absence of sufficient knowledge base to predict adequately the environmental andhuman health impacts of these products, regulatory uncertainty and public opposition
have intensified.

There are uncertainties surrounding each of the risk factors, rendering it impossible to state
precisely how small the risk is. Furthermore, the uncertainties will become larger as the kindand number of introduced genes grow, and as more organisms are altered and released intoa wider range of environments. The reasons for these uncertainties are, first, that there is very
little in the way of a historical or scientific database of the behavioral characteristics ofgenetically engineered organisms introduced into the environment; and second, that there is
no standard ecological methodology for predicting the outcome of such introductions(Avramovic, 1996:21).
Another factor determining growth of agricultural biotechnology is public attitude

toward genetically engineered foods. There exists reluctance on the part of consumers—
mainly in Europe and the developing world—to eat genetically engineered foods. Led bysuch environmental lobbies as Greenpeace, consumers are concerned about possible
health risks. This is affecting net sales of agro-biotechnology products generally and isa disincentive to corporate investment in agricultural biotechnology R&D.

6
The third area of intense and growing biotechnology activity is diagnostics. The
development of monoclonal antibodies constitutes a separate technological trajectory.
Monoclonal antibodies are derived by fusing an antibody with a myeloma (or cancer) cellto combine the growth characteristics of the cell with the specificity of the antibody. The
production of diagnostic kits based on monoclonal antibodies is a fast growing industry
because of the substantially lower capital costs involved. It also demands less scienceintensive skills than the development of a therapeutic drug through genetic engineering.
Thus barriers to entry are lower. Many advanced developing countries (including such
African countries as Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Ghana) havethe capacity to enter and exploit the technological trajectory.

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

1.2 Innovation Activities Across Countries: An Overview
National competitiveness in biotechnology is largely defined as the ability of a country(its private firms and public agencies) to research, develop and trade in new biotechnology goods and services. It is gauged by assessing such factors as geographical distributionof biotechnology firms and their investment, availability and quality of personnel
deployed, nature and volume of biotechnology products exported and net income, andpatent intensity. However, there is no authoritative comparative analysis of different
countries’ competitiveness in the technology. This notwithstanding, the USA is theleader in biotechnology R&D and its commercialization. Indeed, nowhere in the world
are there major deliberate efforts to commercialize biotechnology stronger than in theUSA. The USA has the largest number of companies engaged in the development andcommercialization of biotechnology, ranging from pharmaceuticals to petrochemicals.
It has more than 50 public universities actively engaged in the generation of scientificinformation and knowledge in biotechnology and more than 200 big and small biotechnology companies.
The USA has organized its biotechnology R&D system in such a way as to mobilize
and enlarge its commercial capabilities and to shape the character of its competitivenessat the international level. On the public R&D front deliberate policy measures wereintroduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s to stimulate and/or enrich the active
involvement of universities in biotechnology. Significant federal funding was allocatedto basic research (mainly biomedical) in the universities. Such public research bodies as
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have also allocated considerable funding to basic
research. In 1987 the US government spent US$2700 billion supporting biotechnology
research, whereas combined Western Europe and Japan official support for such research
was not more than US$1.5 billion. By the mid 1990s US government support averaged
US$3 billion per year (Avramovic, 1996). The UK and Germany have tended to provide
more support to applied research.

7

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

The US Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-502) was established to promote the transfer of public-developed technology in general and biotechnology in particular into the private sector. The law forms the basis for the Cooperative
Research Development Agreement (CRADA) under which university and federal
laboratories and private sector companies conduct joint research and the collaboratingcompany acquires patent rights at the outset of the collaboration while the university and/or government inventors share royalties from the licensing of inventions (OTA, 1992).
In the USA, Europe and Japan private companies play a major role in the development
and application of modern biotechnology. In general, three categories of private companies have been responsible for the rapid growth of the technology. First are thosecompanies that had already accumulated substantial capabilities in second-generation
biotechnology, e.g., in fermentation and products like antibiotics, vaccines and enzymes.
The second category is those companies that were specifically created to engage inmodern biotechnology and had to build capabilities in such areas as genetic engineering.
The last category comprises companies that had no prior engagement in biotechnology
but perceived the potential of the technology and were willing to invest in its development, sometimes with the aim of diversifying their products. What is common to all ofthem is that each had direct association with university R&D. The companies that were
established to deliberately engage in the technology were in fact born out of university
departments by university professors. The other categories relied on universities assources of scientific knowledge and information. For example, the traditional nonbiotechnology companies contracted universities to develop and provide to them basic
scientific information and principles in genetic engineering.
US competitiveness has been based on the emergence and rapid growth of the second
category of companies—the new small companies dedicated to commercial exploitationof modern biotechnology. Indeed, “[t]he proliferation of small firms exclusively dedicated to commercializing biotechnology is basically and overwhelmingly a USA
phenomenon” (Avramovic, 1996:50) Fairly recent assessment and analysis by Ernst &Young demonstrate the USA’s intensifying hegemony in modern biotechnology. In 1997
Europe had 1,036 biotechnology companies investing US$2.2 billion in R&D, employing more than 39,000 people and generating $3.1 billion in revenue while US companies
invested US$9.4 billion in R&D, employed 140,000 people and posted total revenues of
US$18 billion.
In Western Europe the mid 1980s saw the emergence of biotechnology programmes
to foster national competitiveness in the development and application of the technology.
These programmes were established and managed in national public agencies responsible for research in agriculture, environment, mining and human health. Cross-sectoralcommittees were formed to ensure that there was coherence and synergy in national
biotechnology activities. Austria, Denmark and Italy were among the first countries toform national biotechnology coordinating committees (OECD, 1998). Germany devel-8
oped the first organized government strategy for biotechnology R&D. Its institutionalarrangement consisted of a variety of leading science bodies such as the Max Planck
institutes and Frauenhofer institutes. The institutions have dedicated biotechnology
research programmes, and some have accumulated considerable technological capabilities in the area. They are major sources of scientific knowledge in various aspects ofbiotechnology.
Switzerland has an impressive record of national engagement in the development andcommercialization of biotechnology. It has a strong private sector biotechnology R&D
with concentration in pharmaceuticals. Most of the funding for biotechnology comesfrom private companies. By 1998 private financing of biotechnology R&D constituted
at least 65% of the total with a large portion of this going to such areas as recombinant
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (rDNA) and exploitation of monoclonal antibody technology todevelop diagnostic kits.
Unlike in the USA where small dedicated companies have been at the forefront ofbiotechnology research and commercialization, in Japan it is such big and establishedcompanies such as Mitsubishi Chemical and Takeda Pharmaceutical. Japanese private
investment has largely focused on pharmaceuticals with increasing rDNA related R&D.
One of the key features of Japan’s policy regime is the fairly restrictive guidelines for
rDNA research. The process of obtaining approvals for the research is strictly regulated.
In most other countries of Asia biotechnology R&D is largely conducted by public
sector bodies though there is increasing involvement of local and foreign privatecompanies. In countries such as Taiwan and Korea overall government spending on R&D
forms a relatively high percentage of gross national product. These countries havetargeted pharmaceuticals and agriculture (Acharya and Mugabe, 1996). China has
focused its biotechnology efforts on the development of two-line hybrid rice, transgenic
cotton and recombinant drugs for a number of critical diseases. A target-directed nonviral vector system, which can transfer exogenous genes into tumor cells in vivo toefficiently and significantly inhibit the growth of the tumor has been developed,
achieving a major breakthrough in the area of gene therapy. Most of this R&D is in the
public sector with heavy government involvement.
The State Science and Technology Commission (SSTC) of China is responsible forthe country’s planning and policy for biotechnology R&D in the country. There are four
programmes under the SSTC: the 863 Programme, Key Technologies Research andDevelopment Programme, and the Torch and Spark programmes. The 863 Programme
was launched in March 1986 with the objective of enhancing China’s international
competitiveness and capabilities in science and technology general and biotechnology inparticular. The 863 Programme has focused on genetic engineering for animals and plants
for high yields/improving quality, development of vaccines, gene therapies, protein
engineering for food industries, and agriculture.

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

9ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

In addition to the national activities by private and public sector agencies, international
public research bodies are playing a major and growing role in biotechnology R&D.
Some are conduits for the transfer of scientific knowledge and information aboutbiotechnology. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) made significant contributions
in facilitating the transfer of knowledge and information on biotechnology. They
facilitated international cooperation and development in biotechnology. For example,
UNESCO and UNEP established the international network of microbiological resources
centres (MICRENS) that were instrumental in training Third World scientists in
microbial aspects associated with biotechnology.
In the 1980s UNIDO spearheaded the creation of the International Center for Genetic
Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB) with headquarters in Trieste, Italy. The ICGEB
is engaged in building national capacity in industrial, agricultural, pharmaceutical,
animal and human health biotechnology. The ICGEB has now more than 30 affiliatedcentres around the world some of which have emerged into centres of excellence2.
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) has anumber of centers that are engaged in agricultural biotechnology R&D. The International
Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Colombia, the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) based in Mexico, the International Potato Center (CIP)in Peru, and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) based in Kenya areamong the leading international public biotechnology R&D institutes.

2

See below description of centres of excellence affiliated to ICGEB.

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

10

2. Biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Status
Overview
2.1 Research and development (R&D) Initiatives

T

he past two decades have witnessed increased investment in biotechnology researchand development (R&D) by a number of African countries. Public research
institutions and a few private companies in the region have established projects orprogrammes on biotechnology R&D. The nature of activities and levels of investment in
the technology vary from one country to another and from one sector to another. These
initiatives are also managed by a variety of institutional forms—from laboratories inestablished national agricultural research bodies and national biotechnology centres, tonational biotechnology programmes managed in sectoral research agencies and international research bodies such as those of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
African countries’ entry into biotechnology has been stimulated by many interrelated
factors. First is the cumulative nature of the technological change in biotechnology.
While there have been radical innovations in the technology based on prior scientificknowledge and the associated research, institutional arrangements have removed knowledge related barriers to entry. In agriculture, for example, some African countries (Kenya,
South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt and Zimbabwe are some examples) have a long tradition ofscientific research conducted in mature institutions. Their knowledge base and accumulated expertise have made it possible for them to leap into the second generation of
biotechnology.
There are generally three categories of countries in biotechnology: (a) those that are
generating and commercializing biotechnology products and services using thirdgeneration techniques of genetic engineering; (b) those that are engaged in thirdgeneration biotechnology R&D but have not developed products and/or processes yet;and (c) those that are engaged in second-generation biotechnology (mainly tissue
culture). In the first category are Egypt, Zimbabwe and South Africa, while Kenya,
Uganda and Ghana are examples of the second. Tanzania and Zambia are in the third
category. Most of the biotechnology activities have focused on enhancing agricultural
productivity.
South Africa and Egypt are biotechnology leaders in the region. With considerable
scientific infrastructure and clear programmes on biotechnology, the two countries havefocused on cutting-edge biotechnology areas and have commercialized some of theirproducts. South Africa’s biotechnology R&D focus is on genetic engineering of cereals(maize, wheat, barley, sorghum, millet, soybean) lupins, sunflowers, sugarcane, vegetables and ornamentals, as well as on molecular marker applications. These include

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3
11
diagnostics for pathogen detection; cultivar identification for potatoes, sweet potato,
ornamentals, cereals, cassava; purity testing of cereals seedlots; marker assisted selection
in maize and tomato; and markers for disease resistance in wheat. Egypt has invested
considerably in genetic engineering of potatoes, maize and tomatoes. Field tests andcommercialisation of genetically modified potatoes are under way in the country.
Biotechnology R&D are largely undertaken by departments at universities andnational agricultural research bodies. Some of the universities have established units orprogrammes that are now dedicated to biotechnology R&D. The University of CapeTown, South Africa, has a number of internationally cutting-edge research activities inbiotechnology conducted within its Department of Biochemistry, which qualifies as acentre of excellence in biotechnology R&D. Having started biotechnology R&D activities in the early 1980s, the Department has extensive experience in such areas asthermodynamic and spectroscopic investigation of protein folding, and protein Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)/(Ribonucleic acid) RNA interactions, regulation of gene expression during the sea urchin embryogenesis, cloning of vertebrate gonadotropin-releasing
hormone receptors, and isolation of genes responsible for certain nutritional characteristics of crop plants with a view of producing transgenic plants. Its teaching and training
activities are at doctoral and MSc levels. By 1995 the Department had generated two
specialized doctoral degrees in biotechnology and at least eight MSc degrees. The 27member scientific staff had by 1999 published its biotechnology research in several
international and local journals. It has links with private sector (e.g., Monsanto) and otherpublic research bodies in the country and engaged in several contract research activities
for local crop companies.
In collaboration with the Agricultural Research Council (ARC), the University ofCape Town Department of Microbiology in 1997 developed and released for field-testing
the first transgenic potato in the country. The potato has been engineered with CP genesthat confirm resistance to potato virus Y and leafroll virus. In addition, the Department’s
research efforts have generated tobacco that is resistant to cucumber mosaic and tobacco
necrosis viruses, via expression of both CP and CP gene antisense Ribonucleic acid(RNA). It also developed maize streak virus (MSV) as a high yield vector for maize cell
culture systems and is now engaged in research to develop MSV-resistant maize.
Zimbabwe has made significant efforts to define target areas of biotechnology. The
Department of Crop Sciences at the University of Zimbabwe has been applying tissue
culture to develop disease-free varieties of coffee, potatoes and tomatoes. Elite coffee
bushes have been cloned using the leaf disc technique of Staritsky. The Tobacco ResearchInstitute in Zimbabwe has over the last decade used pollen culture to incorporate
resistance to two troublesome diseases in a new variety of tobacco. Research is under way
to introduce resistance to other diseases in tobacco using somaclonal variation. It isnotable that tobacco has been a model plant for biotechnology research and Zimbabwean
scientists have had access to the latest techniques. This is also the most important export

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

12crop for the country and therefore it has received special research attention.
The Biotechnology Research Institute (BRI) of the Scientific and Industrial Researchand Development Centre (SIRDC) was established by the Government of Zimbabwe in1992 with funding from the Government of Zimbabwe and the Royal Government of theNetherlands. Its mandate is to consolidate and coordinate as well as provide scientificleadership to Zimbabwe’s biotechnology R&D activities. It had built a considerable
scientific infrastructure and expertise in tissue culture and genetic engineering.
In Kenya, most of the agricultural biotechnology R&D activities focus on improving
the yield potential of cereals and some export crops such as coffee and pyrethrum.
Institutions engaged in agricultural biotechnology R&D in Kenya include the Kenya
Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), the Department of Biochemistry of the University of Nairobi, the National Potato Research Centre (NPRC), and the Jomo Kenyatta
University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT). Research at the Biochemistry
Department of the University of Nairobi focuses on genetically modified organisms(GMOs) such as capripox virus and rinderpest recombinant vaccine production, andproduction of transgenic sweet-potato which are at the moment in field testing.
Africa hosts several international research bodies active in biotechnology. A good
example is the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) based in Nairobi, Kenya.
ILRI is one of the centres of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR). Its remit is to conduct research on tropical diseases of livestock andto develop techniques for the management of such diseases. ILRI has exploited biotechnology techniques to obtain antigens that can be used in specific and sensitive diagnostic
tests for tick-borne diseases of livestock. Compared with conventional techniques, these
new generation tests are cheaper, easier to use and better suited to national programmesof tropical countries.
With more than 65 scientists, ILRI is the world’s leading institute in tropical livestock
diseases research. Its Biosciences Research Programme has accumulated a critical massof scientific expertise in animal genetics, and its activities are at the cutting-edge ofscience. The programme’s research in quantitative and molecular genetics has focusedon the identification of markers to help identify and exploit desirable genetic traits. In
1996 ILRI released a recombinant vaccine (designated p67) against East Coast fever(theileriosis) for field trials. The vaccine is based on a protein found on the surface of theorganism that causes East Coast fever (ECF) and stimulates an antibody-based immune
response to the parasite as it invades the host. Research is now going on to develop thesecond-generation vaccines that target a later stage of the parasite, once it has invaded thehost’s white blood cells and stimulates a response from cytotoxic T cells.
In the area of diagnostics, ILRI is applying molecular biology technology to identify
unique proteins for four parasites: Babesia bigemina, Theilleria parva, Theileria mutans
and Anaplasma marginale. These proteins have been used to develop improved ELISA(enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) tests specific to each parasite and thus improve

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3
13
the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis of diseases caused by these parasites.
On the whole, African countries are at different stages in the development ofbiotechnology. Some have moved up the technology ladder and are applying moresophisticated techniques such as molecular markers, but others are still in the tissue
culture level of application. For example, Egypt and South Africa have moved rapidly
into such areas as gene sequencing, characterization of pathogens and gene promoters,
while Tanzania and others are still at rudimentary levels of biotechnology development
and application. Table 1 summarises selected biotechnology research in Africa

Table 1: Agricultural biotechnology in Africa: Some selected cases
Country Area of research
Egypt
MoroccoGenetic engineering of potatoes, maize and tomatoes
Micropropagation of forest trees, date palms
Development of disease-free and stress tolerant plants
Molecular biology of date palms and cereals
Molecular markers
Field-tests for transgenic tomato

Cameroon Plant tissue culture of Theobroma cacao (cocoa tree), Hevea brasiliensis (rubber tree),
Coffea arabica (coffee tree), Dioscorea spp (yam) and Xanthosoma mafaffa (cocoyam)
In vitro culture for propagation of banana, oil palm, pineapple, cotton and tea
Cote d’Ivoire

In vitro production of coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) and yam

Virus-free micropropagation of eggplant (Solanum spp)
Production of rhizobial-based biofertilizers
Ghana

Micropropagation of cassava, banana/plantain, yam, pineapple and cocoa
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) facility for virus diagnostics

Nigeria

Micropropagation of cassava, yam and banana, ginger
Embryo rescue for yam
Transformation and regeneration of cowpea, yam, cassava and banana
Genetic engineering of cowpea for virus and insect resistanceMarker assisted selection of maize and cassava
DNA fingerprinting of cassava, yams, banana, pests and microbial pathogens
Genome linkage maps for cowpeas, cassava, yams and banana

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3
SenegalWell established MIRCEN programme
Production of rhizobial and mycorhizal-based biofertilizers for rural markets
Well established in vitro propagation of tree species in cooperation with several international

agencies
Ethiopia

Tissue culture research applied to tef
Micropropagation of forest trees

Kenya

Production of disease free plants and micropropagation of pyrethrum, bananas, potatoes,
strawberries, sweet potato, citrus, sugar cane
Micropropagation of ornamentals (carnation, alstromeria, gerbera, anthurium, leopard orchids)
and forest trees
In vitro selection for salt tolerance in finger millet
Transformation of tobacco, tomato and beans
Transformation of sweet potato with proteinase inhibitor geneTransformation of sweet potato with feathery mottle virus coat protein gene
Tissue culture regeneration of papaya
In vitro long-term storage of potato and sweet potato
Marker assisted selection in maize for drought tolerance and insect resistanceWell-established MIRCEN providing microbial biofertilizers in the East African region

UgandaMicropropagation of banana, coffee, cassava, citrus, granadella, pineapple, sweet potato
In vitro screening for disease resistance in banana
Production of disease free plants of potato, sweet potato and banana

South Africa

Genetic engineering of cereals: maize, wheat, barley, sorghum, millet, soybean, lupins,

sunflowers, sugarcane; vegetables and ornamentals: potato, tomato, cucurbits, ornamental
bulbs, cassava and sweet potato; fruits: apricot, strawberry, peach, apple, table grapes, banana
Molecular marker applications of: diagnostic for pathogen detection; cultivar identification—
potatoes,sweet potato, ornamentals, cereals, cassava; seed-lot purity testing—cereals; marker

assisted selection in maize, tomato; markers for disease resistance in wheat, forestry crops
Tissue culture for: production of disease free plants—potato, sweet potato, cassava,
dry beans, banana, ornamental bulbs; micropropagation of potato, ornamental bulbs, roserootstocks, chrysanthemum, strawberry, apple rootstocks, endangered species, coffee, banana,
avocado, blueberry, date palm; embryo rescue of table grapes, sunflower and dry beans; invitro selection for disease resistance—tomato nematodes, guava wilting disease; long term
storage—potato, sweet potato, cassava, ornamental bulbs; in vitro gene bank collections—potato, sweet potato, cassava, ornamentals; forest trees, medicinal plants, indigenous
ornamental plants

14

15

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3
Zimbawe

Genetic engineering of maize, sorghum and tobacco
Micropropagation of potato, cassava, tobacco, sweet potato, ornamental plants, coffee
Marker assisted selection

ZambiaMicropropagation of cassava, potato, trees (Uapaca), banana
Hosts SADC Nordic-funded gene bank of plant genetic resources

Source: Brink, Woodward and DaSiva, 1998 in Juma, 1999b.

2.2 Constraints to Biotechnology R&D in Africa
Governments have a fundamental role to play in the promotion of biotechnology, its safe
development and its application. The role of government is crucial, particularly in Africa
where national economies are weak and the private sector’s abilities to promotetechnological innovation are constrained by the fragmented nature of markets. As wehave already observed many African countries face problems of scarce resources forallocation to technological activities in general and biotechnology R&D in particular.
This makes it crucial to institute strategic policies for mobilizing financial resources andenlarging private engagement in biotechnology R&D.
Some African countries (e.g., Egypt, South Africa and Zimbabwe) have set national
goals and priorities in the area of biotechnology. In many other countries of the region,
however, there are no explicit biotechnology policies and defined priorities. In addition,
little effort has been made to integrate biotechnology considerations into overall national
development policy and planning. Implicit policy regimes such as science and technology policies make only general reference to the role of biotechnology and national
aspirations to engage in the development and application of the technology. Nevertheless, some countries (e.g., Kenya and South Africa) have industrial property laws thatmake reference to the protection of biotechnology innovations through patents.
The role of biotechnology and its management are also being referred to in biosafety
regulations being developed by some African countries. In Zambia and Cameroon theestablishment of such regimes has preceded national engagement in modern biotechnology, while in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Egypt and Kenya the regimes are largely
associated with efforts to develop and apply the technology. Kenya’s biosafety guidelines are founded on its desire “to benefit from the development and use of modern
biotechnology given that none of the existing regulations and acts are geared towards
addressing specifically biosafety in the development and use of biotechnology
products”(NCST, 1998). The proposed framework describes national biotechnology
R&D efforts and states that risk assessment and management regimes should promotethese efforts in ways that ensure they generate products and processes that are safe for the

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

16

environment and human health.
Mauritius’s biosafety framework focuses on measures for the safe development andintroduction of genetically modified organisms. The country has already applied modern
biotechnology to generate a herbicide resistant traits in sugarcane. The framework
articulates the country’s aspiration to extend the application of the technology to othersectors like aquaculture and recommends practices and procedures for the safe use ofmodern biotechnology.
There are a number of policy challenges that hinder the development and applicationof biotechnology in many countries of Africa. First is the lack of clear priorities andinvestment strategies. As we have stated above, most African countries have not
identified specific areas or technological trajectories in which to invest to meet specificgoals. Biotechnology policies need to be based on or informed by clearly articulated
national priorities and goals. In the absence of identified priorities it is difficult for thesecountries to make informed and long-term policies. Perhaps it is because of this lack ofidentified priorities that in some countries (e.g., Tanzania) biotechnology R&D is now
spreading across the institutional terrain with increasing duplication and strain on
resources (Kasonta, 1999). Indeed, many African countries tend to spread thinly theirlimited financial and human resources across biotechnology sectors and research
agencies. While many countries have recognized the importance of setting biotechnology priorities and consolidating resources in a few research institutions that have thepotential to grow quickly into centres of excellence in biotechnology, the countries havenot established and applied strategies for identifying such institutions and ways of setting
priorities. They continue to operate with isolated, competing and often scientificallyweak research agencies. As we have observed elsewhere, the countries have stand-alone
institutions “established in anticipation of funding rather than out of genuine interest inpromoting the use and conservation of biodiversity—[and] are unlikely to yield longterm benefits unless they are part of a broader institutional and policy framework” (Jumaet al., 1994)
The second set of policy issues pertains to the short-term and low level financing of
biotechnology R&D in many African countries. While authoritative or reliable estimates
are unavailable, in most countries of Africa government funding to biotechnology is lessthan US$250,000 per year, the exceptions being Egypt, Mauritius and South Africa. Nor
have most countries instituted specific policies to ensure adequate and consistent fundingof biotechnology R&D. The main challenge for public biotechnology R&D in Africa isincreasingly how to find investment capital to sustain basic research and to bringlaboratory findings to commercial use. Government policies to stimulate venture capital,
contract research, partnerships with the corporate sector and other forms of financing aremuch needed. Research is also needed to identify specific policies on financial mechanisms for biotechnology R&D.
The third category of policy issues relates to the role of intellectual property protection

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3
17
and its impact on the acquisition, development and diffusion of biotechnology. In mostAfrican countries institutions for administering industrial property rights (particularly
patents) are still in their infancy. While a good number of the countries have establishedpatent offices, the utility of these as sources of scientific and technological information
has not been adequately exploited. In many countries of the region intellectual property
laws are in a state of flux with increasing demand from the international community,
particularly the World Trade Organization (WTO) to revise them to meet requirementsof the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
There are increasing concerns, particularly from environmental and health groups, that
harmonization of national laws with the TRIPS agreement will undermine prospects ofachieving environmental sustainability and human health security in Africa. There is alsoa growing debate on the impact of intellectual property protection on the transfer ofmodern biotechnology to African countries. Concern on this issue is largely based on theview that intellectual property protection is a barrier to transfer of technology. There is,however, no empirical evidence of this.
In addition to the foregoing policy considerations, the development and growth ofbiotechnology in Africa face a number of structural constraints. First, current institutionalarrangements are inimical to effective biotechnology R&D. In many countries (with the
exception of South Africa, Egypt and Zimbabwe) biotechnology R&D is merely an addon to other broad national research agendas. There are no specific and institutionallyorganized biotechnology programmes and many of the R&D initiatives are efforts of a
few isolated scientists. There are no dedicated biotechnology research departments or
institutions in most of Africa. In addition, most of the current biotechnology R&D isdonor funded and coordinated and managed in the public sector with very few, and weak,links with the private sector. Second, in many of the countries scientific and technologicalinfrastructure for sustained biotechnology R&D may be lacking and where it exists it islocked in isolated agricultural research bodies working on a few crops. Much of thecurrent research in agricultural biotechnology, for example, is being undertaken in older
established agricultural research institutions. The obvious advantage of this is that
institutional memory and history can provide major benefits to the research infrastructurein the country as a whole. This places even greater pressure on these institutions, however
and their ability to provide adequate attention to the new technology becomes crucial. It
is not clear from this evidence that sufficient skills and funding are available for theseolder institutions in African countries.
Although there has been significant growth in the level of funding to agricultural
biotechnology R&D in most countries, the available financial resources are still comparatively low to allow the countries to engage effectively in cutting-edge activities. An
assessment by Falconi (1999) showed that Indonesia’s total expenditure for 1985–1996
was just US$18.7 million. Mexico’s expenditure was $20.4 million and Kenya spent justabout $3.0 million. Overall, Falconi’s 1999 assessment showed that private expenditures

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

18

in agricultural biotechnology in developing countries constitute a mere 8% of the total.
It is likely to be lower than 5% of the total investment in Africa.
In addition to the institutional financing constraints that many countries face, there isa shortage of scientists in new areas of biotechnology in general and agricultural
biotechnology in particular. However, the pool of scientists in such areas as molecularbiology is growing. For example, Falconi’s survey showed that the number of researchersin agricultural biotechnology doubled in Indonesia and Kenya between 1985 and 1996.
It quadrupled in Mexico and Zimbabwe, with at least a fivehold increase in PhD holders.
However, the level of expenditure per researcher or scientist declined in most countries.
In addition to the institutional constraints that many countries face, there is a shortageof scientists in new areas of biotechnology in general and agricultural biotechnology inparticular. However, the pool of scientists in such areas as molecular biology is growing.
For example, Falconi’s survey showed that in the number of researchers in agricultural
biotechnology doubled in Kenya between 1985 and 1996. It quadrupled in Zimbabwe,with at least 5-time increase in PhD holders. However, the level of expenditure per
researcher or scientist declined in most countries.

19

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

3. Public Policy Issues for Africa

Increasing public interest in and attention to biotechnology have generated a varietyof complex, interrelated policy issues that governments are now expected to address.
These issues fall in three broad categories. The first category comprises those policy
issues associated with how to enlarge national competitiveness in biotechnology. In thiscategory are such key policy concerns as the nature of national public institutions and how
they are configured to achieve a system of innovation, the role of private firms inbiotechnology research and development, and the different mechanisms of establishingand sustaining articulation within the firms and between the firms and public researchbodies. Other concerns include the role of intellectual property protection in stimulating
innovation in biotechnology, innovative financing of biotechnology R&D, and ways andmeans of facilitating the acquisition and/or transfer of biotechnology.
Private–public sector cooperation or partnership in R&D has over the past two
decades become a prominent form of organizing and managing technological innovation
mainly in developed countries. It is starting to take root in the newly industrializedcountries (NICs) as well as in the economies in transition. The pressure of international
competition, increased diffusion of information and communication, declining publicfinancing of R&D, and the opening up of national economies—including liberal foreign
direct investment and trade regimes—have facilitated the enlarging of private industry
engagement in R&D. In the area of biotechnology, industry is perhaps the holder of thelargest volume of technological information and knowledge. It is thus crucial that Africancountries tap into this pool in order to build their technological competence in biotechnology.
A significant portion of the body of scientific information on modern biotechnology
is in the private domain, within large biotechnology firms and in small but dedicatedbiotechnology companies in the industrialized world. For public research institutions in
Africa to access this information they will need to create strategic links to the privatecompanies in the industrialized countries. Furthermore, commercialization of biotechnology is most effectively achieved through the participation of the private sector. The
economic history of public R&D in many parts of the world demonstrates that publicagencies have limited capacity to engage in the commercialization of new innovations.
They often require private entrepreneurs to take their innovations into the economic
domain (Kenney, 1986). As some of the public agencies in Africa start to generate new
biotechnology products and processes they will require private entrepreneurs. Private
biotechnology companies already have the basic technological and organizational
abilities to assist them in commercializing products and/or processes.
Another good reason is that private biotechnology companies are potential new
sources of financial resources for biotechnology R&D in Africa. The historical evolutionof biotechnology in such countries as the United States, Germany and Japan vividly

20
demonstrates the role of companies as sources of finance for biotechnology R&D. In
Japan, biotechnology companies have financed biotechnology R&D through sucharrangements as venture capital. In the USA they have provided finances to university
departments and scientists to undertake specific research on contract basis. Countries ofAfrica may wish to explore and exploit financial opportunities associated with partneringwith private companies.
The second category of policy issues is about the management of risks generated by
the development and application of biotechnology. Such issues include technology
assessment, liability and redress, regulation of trans-boundary transfer of living modified
organisms, and socioeconomic impacts or consequences and how to assess and manage
them. Risk assessment and management are now high on the agenda of national policy
making with the adoption of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. It is likely that many
African countries will ratify the Cartagena Protocol. By doing so they will incur legal
obligations to domesticate its provisions into their national policies, administrative
measures and laws. The Protocol gives its parties leeway to use some of the existing
domestic measures to ensure “an adequate level of protection in the…safe transfer,handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that
may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity…specifically focusing on transboundary movements”(UNEP, 2000). The Protocol also
allows parties to establish new biosafety regimes, and certain parties may, on certain
provisions, decide to do nothing so long as doing so does not impinge on the rights of otherstate parties to the Protocol.
Three key considerations that countries must not ignore in their efforts to implement
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety are: (a) the need to emphasize the establishment ofa long-term programme of work that treats biosafety as an integral part of biotechnology
development, with emphasis on Article 19 of the Convention and Article 22 of theProtocol; (b) the use of the Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH) established by Article 20of the Protocol as an international source of scientific information on biotechnology
products, particularly those derived from genetic modification, rather than merely as a
facility with information on risks associated with LMOs; and (c) the need to have acommon regional approach to implementation of the Protocol in order to maximize
information sharing and regional learning.
The last category comprises those issues pertaining to the biotechnology–biodiversity
nexus. These include regulating or facilitating industry’s access to genetic resources forbiotechnology R&D, rights of farmers and the potential impacts of the technology on
their traditional gene pool, and generally the impact of biodiversity prospecting on theconservation of ecosystems. Key challenges relate to the establishment of policies thatwill enable the region to regulate access to their genetic resources and share benefits inthe form of biotechnology: Essentially, what kind(s) of policies and legislation would
enable them to acquire biotechnology in exchange for genetic resources? African

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3
21countries should carefully explore this issue as they develop regulations on access togenetic resources. They will need to institute policies and measures that will enable themto maximize benefits in the form of biotechnology capacity. But the search for the
relevant and necessary policy regimes should be informed by international agreements
such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspectsof Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the International Undertaking on Plant
Genetic Resources.
As part of the ongoing review of the TRIPS agreement, African countries have raised
a number of concerns that are directly related to their technological interests. These
concerns include access to technology, regulation of access to genetic resources inaccordance with the Convention on Biological Diversity, protection of plant varieties ina way that supports research and the interests of local communities, and the option ofdeveloping or unique systems for the protection of local biological resources and theassociated traditional knowledge. What is clear is that the countries should adopt policies
that explicitly link trade in their genetic resources to the enhancement of their technological competency in biotechnology. Training in biotechnology as well as participation of
local scientists in biotechnology R&D conducted by firms that would have access togenetic resources are some of the benefits that the countries may derive from biodiversity
prospecting activities.
While governments of Africa are expected to confront these and other sets of complex
issues, their capacity to engage in policy analysis and policy making on biotechnology
the issues is fairly limited. Thus the enhancement of these should be treated as a priority
by national and international programmes. The nature of policies that would stimulate
and enlarge biotechnology R&D in Africa is going to be a subject of study for several
years to come. Technology policy groups and institutions in Africa have not really
established coherent policy analysis programmes on these issues. Demand for policy
analysis is growing, however, as many countries show interest in the technology.

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

22

4. A Research Agenda: Activities andMethodology
4.1 Programme Objectives

T

he complexity of issues raised above calls for an understanding of the relevant
technical aspects and an adequate empirical foundation for policy-making andimplementation. Thus that policy research on the issues should be conducted throughinterdisciplinary approaches that involve both natural and social scientists. We propose
the establishment of a regional programme to conduct comparative research on specificscience and technology policy issues that influence or determine the capacity of Africancountries to effectively engage in biotechnology. Such research would generate thenecessary empirical foundation for the formulation of systemic biotechnology policies.
Its specific objectives would be to:∗ Understand and compare the factors that influence the rate of technological change
in the area of biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa.
∗ Conduct technology foresight and monitor international trends in biotechnology to
inform regional and national technology procurement efforts.
∗ Identify and analyse policies that determine the acquisition or procurement ofmodern biotechnology from the industrialized countries, and the specific opportunities and constraints influencing its adoption in Africa.
∗ Promote information exchange and use in technology policy formulation andimplementation.
∗ Build capacity of African researchers to engage in comparative analysis ofbiotechnology policies.
The proposed programme would be implemented through networking, that is aimed
at sharing information and experiences, exchanging staff, training in specific areas ofresearch, and providing technical assistance. The programme would be designed in sucha way as to ensure continuous interaction and information flow through the ATPS
network of institutions and individuals. The results of the programme will go towards
helping African countries to formulate and implement policies that would enable themto reap benefits from biotechnology while at the same time managing any risks.

4.2 Programme Activities
To achieve the objectives of the proposed programme, an interrelated set of activities
comprising country studies, symposium and dissemination would be undertaken over a
period of three years:

23

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

4.2.1 Comparative Country Studies
In order to get a detailed understanding of the status of biotechnology in Africa, it is
proposed that country studies focusing on selected sectors and firms as well as policy
themes be undertaken in ATPS network member countries. The studies would be
guided by a coherent conceptual framework Specific key policy issues to be explored
include:Innovative mechanisms for financing biotechnology R&D: Country studies on thistheme would identify existing national mechanisms (e.g., venture capital, credit facilities, tax relief and contract research) and the nature of policies that either promote orhinder the growth and application of such mechanisms. The studies would also provide
a comparative analysis of financing of biotechnology R&D in a non-African country,
where possible. Details of the scope of the studies would be elaborated upon in a separate
background paper on financial mechanisms for biotechnology: a global overview ofapproaches and strategies.
National systems of innovation in biotechnology: Studies or assessments of the natureand level of interactions among actors involved in national biotechnology R&D would
be conducted. Such studies would focus on linkages or intensity of interaction within theoverall system of biotechnology innovation in the country. Methodological and conceptual frameworks developed by such agencies, as the United Nations Conference on Tradeand Development (UNCTAD) would be explored used if where appropriate. The
emphasis would be on promoting policy makers’ understanding of their national systems
of innovation.
Intellectual property protection and technology transfer: As stated above, issues ofintellectual property protection and how such protection affects national efforts to
procure biotechnology are increasingly moving to the mainstream of public policy
discourse in Africa. However, there is a paucity of empirical information and data on
whether and how intellectual property protection affects technology transfer. Comparative country studies would be undertaken to establish, on the basis of empirical evidence,
the intellectual property protection–technology transfer nexus in African contexts. The
countries would be selected on the basis of the nature and strength of their protection
regimes and level of biotechnology R&D. A detailed conceptual and methodologicalframework for such country studies would be developed.
Technology risk assessment and management regimes: As African countries get into
new biotechnology trajectories and as they become parties to the Cartagena Protocol on

24
Biosafety, they will be required to establish or strengthen their existing policies,
procedures and institutions for risk assessment and management. This proposed programme
would be a vital source of information on specific areas of capacity building. We proposethat some detailed assessments of country regimes and capabilities in technology risk
assessment be undertaken. A number of African countries would be selected for theassessments, which would be guided by or based on clear and common methodology thatwould be developed in detail.
For each of these clusters of research issues a specific paper with detailed conceptualand methodological approaches would be commissioned. These papers would lay the
epistemological basis for the comparative country studies.

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

4.2.2 Regional Annual Symposia on Biotechnology in Africa
To promote networking, exchange of information and review of the country studies,annual regional symposia on biotechnology would be organized. These would bring
together ATPS network researchers, policy makers and donors to discuss specific issues
emerging from the country studies. Each symposium would be organized around aparticular theme (i.e., a symposium on each of the themes suggested above). It would be
open to foreign researchers who wish to share experiences with African experiences fromother parts of the world.
4.2.3 Publishing, Dissemination and Networking
The central form of information exchange would be through the series of publishedmonographs , policy briefs and edited volumes. The publications would be disseminated widely to make the results of the programme available to policy makers, entrepreneurs, scientists, donors and practitioners. They would also be circulated throughspecialized networks as African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF) andwould be made available through ATPS website.
A key feature of the proposed programme is networking. Networking would bethrough the regular exchange of information, collaborative research, network research,data management, training and exchange of researchers. In addition to the main ATPS
network, sub-networks on biotechnology policy may be established to deal with specificareas of research or regions with special needs.

4.3 Conceptual Foundations
Establishing a common conceptual framework for such a set of complex policy issues tobe analysed through diverse teams of scholars/researchers in a heterogeneous group of
African countries is not an easy task. It is for this reason that we propose to prepare an

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3
25
overview concept and methodology paper for each cluster of policy issues suggested
above. Nonetheless, there are some common conceptual strands applicable to the pursuitof all of the above research issues and two conceptual metaphors obtain for their analysis.
The first is a concentration on a set of issues/questions pertaining to technologicalcapability to procure, diffuse, assess and manage risks, undertake research and development, and generally manage biotechnology. Without taking a linear and reductionist
approach, technological capability is best assessed and understood within a conventional
input-output model and the extent to which tacit and non-tacit elements of the inputs areinterlinked. Emphasis will be placed on linkages—policy and organizational—in thesystem in which the capability is created, mobilized and articulated.
The second concentration would be the conceptual basis for understanding technological change as a cumulative evolutionary process. Here there are well establishedtheoretical and methodological bases for analysing the issues we have suggested
above. The emphasis using this theoretical axis would be on examining technologicalconvergence—how the evolution and development of biotechnology in any systemdepends on the existence and growth of other technological systems such as information technology. This would also provide a basis for looking into the social context ofinnovation in biotechnology and the socioeconomic as well as environmental externalities generated by the technology.
On the whole, the conceptual foundations that would be developed and/or adopted forthe research would need to recognize the dynamics of policy analysis and management.
First that in policy analysis we are dealing with a wide range of strategic actors who shapethe direction of policy. Such actors operate through an institutional environment that is
conducive to the adoption of their ideas. Policy formulation is thus part of the dynamics
of social learning and should not be viewed in the conventional sense of a linear
relationship between policy formulation and implementation.

4.4 Institutional Arrangements for Programme Implementation
Projects to be implemented under the proposed programme would fall into the four
categories of issues suggested under section 4.2.1. This categorization should be seen as
basically organizational. Though some of the projects would have distinct theoretical andpolicy features, many cannot fit into pigeonholes. It should be noted that the programmeshould be open to new issues and projects, some of which may not necessarily conformto the outlined framework. Thus the management of the programme should be built on
the principle of openness to new ideas and approaches. It should aim at promoting
synergy with other initiatives of other networks (e.g., African Biotechnology Stakeholders’ Forum (ABSF) and institutions in the region. Its key value should be to add new value
to current efforts.
The implementation of activities under the programme will be through ATPS

26
members and institutions working on some of these issues. Emphasis should however beplaced on ensuring that the network is made of researchers and institutions willing toadjust their current research efforts and approaches for efficient implementation of the
programme.
The execution of the programme would be co-coordinated by the ATPS Secretariat
and the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS). The main activities would
include:ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3∗ Coordinating project development and fund raising,∗ Developing/commissioing background (conceptual and methodology papers),∗ Selecting proposals for support,∗ Organizing symposia,∗ Publishing and disseminating findings,∗ Maintaining a documentation unit on international biotechnology R&D
worldwide,∗ Identifying and facilitating research activities in the network,∗ Overseeing the use of funds, and∗ Generally, providing intellectual leadership to the programme.

4.5 Expected Outputs
If the proposed programme is carefully developed and its activities efficiently implemented the following results would be generated:∗ The understanding of factors that determine the rate of technological change in thearea of biotechnology in sub-Saharan Africa would be increased.
∗ The body of information and knowledge on which to base policy making on
biotechnology would be enlarged.
∗ National capacity to formulate biotechnology policies would be enhanced.
∗ African researchers’ skills in biotechnology policy analysis would be built.

27

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

Bibliography
Acharya, R. and J. Mugabe (1996). “Biotechnology in developing countries: Criticalissues of technological capability building,” Annual Review of Biotechnology.
Avramovic, M. (1996) An Affordable Development? Biotechnology, Economics and the
Implications for the Third World. London: Zed Books
Brenner, C. and J. Komen, (1994). International Initiatives in Biotechnology for
Developing Country Agriculture: Promises and Problems. Development Centre
Studies Paris: OECD.
Dembo, D. and W. Morehouse (1987). Trends in Biotechnology Development andTransfer. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), Technology Trends Series No. 6.
Falconi, C. (1999). “Agricultural biotechnology research indicators and managerial
considerations in four developing countries”. In J.I. Cohen, ed. Managing Agricultural Biotechnology—Addressing Research Program Needs and Policy Implications.
CAB International.
Farrington, J. (1989). Agricultural Biotechnology: Prospects for the Third World.
London Overseas Development Institute.
Fransman, M. (1991). Biotechnology: Generation, Diffusion and Policy, An Interpretive
Survey. UNU/INTECH Working Paper No. 1.
Juma, C., J. Mugabe and P. Kameri-Mbote, eds. (1994). Coming to Life: Biotechnology
in African Economic Recovery. Nairobi: Acts Press.
Juma, C. (1999a). Intellectual Property and International Trade: International Policy
Options for Developing Countries. Centre for International Development at Harvard
University.
Juma, C. (1999b). Science, Technology and Economic Growth: Africa’s Biopolicy
Agenda in the 21st Century. UNU/INRA Distinguished Annual Lecture, Addis
Ababa, November 15-18, 1999.
Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The University-Industrial Complex. New Haven,
Yale University Press.
Komen, J. (1999). “International collaboration in agricultural biotechnology” In J.I.
Cohen, ed., Managing Agricultural Biotechnology—Addressing Research Program
Needs and Policy Implications. CAB International.
Kasonta, J. (1999). “Recent Biotechnology Research and Development in Tanzania”.
Background Paper prepared for the Regional Workshop on Biotechnology Assessment: Regimes and Experiences, organized by ACTS, September 1999.
Mugabe, J. (2000). Biotechnology in Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition. Paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment (UNCTAD), Geneva.

28
Mugabe, J. (2000). From Cartagena to Nairobi: Towards An African Agenda on the
Biosafety Protocol. Nairobi: ACTS.
NCST (1998). Nairobi: Biosafety Framework for Kenya. Prepared under the UNEP/GEF Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activity Report.
OECD (1989). Technology and Global Competition: The Challenge for Newly Industrializing Countries. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Orsenigo, L. (1989). The Emergence of Biotechnology. London: Pinter Publishers.
OECD (1998). Biotechnology and the Changing Role of Government. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
OTA (1992). Biotechnology in a Global Economy. Office of Technology Assessment of
the United States of America, Washington, D.C.
Sasson, A. (1988). Biotechnologies and Development. Geneva: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

Sharp, M. (1989). Technological Trajectories and Corporate Strategies: The Case of Biotechnology.
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.

United Nations (1992). Agenda 21. Report of the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development.
United Nations (1992). Biotechnology and Development: Expanding the Capacity to
Produce Food. New York: United Nations
Warhurst, A. (1989). New Directions for Empirical Policy Research in Biotechnology.
Paper presented at the International Symposium on Biotechnology for Sustainable
Development, March 1989, African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi.
UNEP (2000). Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological
Diversity. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
Wiegele, T. (1991). Biotechnology and International Relations: The Political Dimensions. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

29

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES NO. 3

PrefacePublications under the Special Paper Series are commissioned by ATPS as concept
papers, think-pieces, leading conference papers or keynote addresses. In keeping with
the network's knowledge brokerage function, ATPS publishes published or unpublishedpapers from distinguished academics and researchers addressing policy issues relevantto the work of ATPS in support of the Southern voice or an African perspective.
Theoretical papers advancing knowledge of technology policy issues are also publishedunder this series.

For more information on ATPS, please contact Dr. Osita Ogbu, Executive Director,
African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS), 3rd Floor, The Chancery , P.O.
Box 10081, 00100 General Post Office, Nairobi, Kenya.
Email: oogbu@atpsnet.org
Telephones: 254-2-723800/ 714168/ 714498 Fax: 254-2-714028

Dr John Mugabe is the Executive Director of the African Centre for Technology Studies(ACTS) in Nairobi, Kenya. He is a former Programme Officer of the International
Diffusion of Biotechnology Programme at the International Federation of Institutes ofAdvanced Study (IFIAS), Maastrich, The Netherlands. He can be reached at the African
Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), P.O. Box 45917, Nairobi, Tel 254-2-524713;
Fax 254-2-524701; E-mail j.mugabe@cgiar.org

Biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Towards a Policy Research Agenda

John Mugabe

ATPS SPECIAL SERIES PAPER NO. 3

Biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Towards a Policy Research Agenda

John Mugabe

February 2002

Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS), P. O.
Box 10081, 00100 General Post Office, Nairobi, Kenya.

© 2002 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS)

Formatted by Magayu K.Magayu
School of Journalism
University of Nairobi
P. O. Box 30197
NairobiKenya

Printed by Mung'etho Consult, P. O. Box 57227, Nairobi

ISBN 9966-916-51-2

For more information on this series and ATPS, please contact:
The Executive Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery
Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081
00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya.
Telephones: 254-2-714168/092/498
Fax: 254-2-714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org

ISBN 9966-916-51-2

Contents
Biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Introduction

1

Global Trends in Modern Technlogy

3

Biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Status Overview
Policy Issues for Africa

19

A Research Agenda: Activities and Methodology
Bibliography

2227