Ventria Bioscience and the Controversy over Plant-Made Medicines
Essay Preview: Ventria Bioscience and the Controversy over Plant-Made Medicines
Report this essay
Ventria Bioscience and the Controversy over Plant-Made Medicines
Tyrone Croutch
Lawrence Cox
Business475
November 30, 2011
Ventria Bioscience and the Controversy over Plant-Made Medicines
Describe the problem facing Scott Deeter and Ventria.
Scott Deeter is the CEO of Ventria Bioscience, a small Sacramento, California based Biotechnology firm. Deeter became Ventrias CEO on April 2002. Ventria Bioscience was founded in 1993 by Dr. Rodriguez, a molecular biologist on the faculty of the University of California-Davis. Dr. Rodriguez wanted to embark on many ambitious projects, including improving the productivity of rice; which is known to be of great importance to human nutrition.
Ventria developed an innovative process to produce pharmaceutical proteins in the seeds of genetically modified rice. Ventria believed that their first medicine; that was designed to lessen the severity of childhood diarrhea, would be of great use to the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, many did not think so. Ventria wanted to begin commercial scale production of their first product and in order to do that they intended to plant 120 acres of genetically modified rice. They faced vigorous opposition from many different sources such as the California Secretary of Agriculture, environmentalist, rice farmers, consumer advocates and food safety activists. Deeter needed to figure out a way to overcome this opposition.
Describe the relevant stakeholders and for each, state its interest and sources of power.
The relevant stakeholders in this case were environmentalist, rice farmers, consumer advocates and food safety activists. The California Secretary of Agriculture had an obligation to the people to thoroughly review and analyze Ventrias proposition to understand the benefits and the potential risks. Some of the benefits of plant based medicines especially those derived from rice, were that it was too expensive to chemically synthesize anything but the smallest proteins. Most proteins were produced in mammalian or microbial cell cultures. The problem with that is that at times animal tissues could transmit viruses or prions. Secondly, plant based medicine could be produced at a lower cost. Third, Rice could be stored at room temperature for months or even years. Finally, medical proteins produced in food crops could be delivered orally without extensive purification.
On the other hand, there were also risks. Most plant based medicines were grown in crops that were also used for food posing the potential risk of contamination of the animal or human food supply. There is also the potential risk of pharmaceutical plants being crossbred with wild plants or food crops, creating unwanted hybrids, which can also pose a threat to insects. With ethical issues being in question, there was no doubt to be a public outcry. For these reasons the Secretary of Agriculture had an obligation to take note of all of the parties involved in order to reach a fair and informed decision.
Environmentalist, rice farmers and consumer advocates came together to object. Four advocacy organizations, Friends of The Earth, The Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union and