It is of concern that farmers and consumers are not being told the truth about genetically modified crops but are being told whatever is needed to gain support by organisations that are normally trusted. The following report is a summary of the lies, corruption and vested interest behind this controversial technology.

Historically, the bulk of research and development of crops was undertaken by governments as a "public good" service. Varieties were freely traded and the key reward for scientists was public acclaim through peer reviewed papers.

The UPOV ’91 International Treaty was introduced to encourage investors to plant breeding by introducing a plant breeder right over newly produced varieties. A royalty was to be paid back to breeders but farmers did not lose the right to replant their own seed.

Living organisms have historically been excluded from patent laws as life forms were considered natural, not man-made. In 1980 a Supreme Court case Diamond v Chakrabarty narrowly decided that a strain of bacteria that had been modified to insert genes was patentable. In 1988, a Harvard University biologist was granted a patent for a mouse used for cancer research and it became the first animal to be considered an invention by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Corporate patent attorneys lobbied the Patent office that these "products of nature" are patentable once they have been isolated to produce a form not found outside of a laboratory. This triggered a global gold rush for entrepreneurial scientists to apply for patents in order to claim exclusive rights to research and profits from thousands of different gene sequences. Interest has been sparked to patent genes from around the globe but international unity was required to recognise the patents.

International adoption of patented genetically modified crops was promoted by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) based on the "common good" principles of the "Life science concept" and the regulatory systems were to be "science based". International farming organisations signed a similar agreement to promote biotechnology and GM technology through the Cairns group.

Two GM traits were commercially released, herbicide tolerance (the crop is resistant to a specific chemical owned by the same company) and Bt (the plant produces its own Bt insecticide to kill bollworm and budworm). Despite numerous promises of new opportunities, after 13 years since commercial adoption of GM crops, the commercial varieties are still limited to the same two traits. Herbicide tolerance accounts for 68% of commercial varieties, Bt 19% and both traits 13%. The most popular trait is transferring resistance to the chemical glyphosate to crops but this trait is an unwanted trait developing in weeds and obviously very easy to introduce by non-GM means.

The GM industry recognised the shortfalls of GM crops in delivering the promised traits.

"In 1995 the private sector viewed crop biotechnology, prior to the commercialization of the first GM crops in 1996, as an important new opportunity for markets that would contribute to lowering crop production costs, increasing productivity, provide a safer environment and a more sustainable system for ensuring global food, feed and fiber security. Later in the 1990's the private sector judged the life science concept to be an inappropriate strategy for the future. There followed a series of spin-offs and mergers culminating in consolidation that resulted in six transnational North American and European based crop protection/biotechnology entities." ISAAA "Global Review of Commercialized Trangenic Crops: 2001" section 5, page 22. "Global R&D expenditures in Crop Biotechnology and future GM crop markets."

The drive for GM crops was redirected at forming alliances with plant breeding institutes rather than producing beneficial "life science" traits but no acknowledgement of the change of stategy was noted by WTO, OECD or the Cairns group.

Genetically modified crops were unique as it allowed the patent of a crop where the introduction of a single gene to an existing variety gave ownership of the crop and its progeny. Farmers were denied the right to save their own seed and paid a "user fee" to use the patented variety. Monsanto was a key investor in GM crops with the introduction of their Roundup Ready gene. The patent rights have been rigorously pursued and farmers have been sued for possessing GM genes either intentionally or unintentionally. A legal defence by Percy Schmeisser (Canadian farmer) challenged this assumption and the Supreme court ruled that the GM patent only covered the gene and if the trait (ie resistance to glyphosate) was not used, the patent was not enforceable.

Since adoption of GM crops, there has been an escalating consumer rejection of the products causing serious market issues for farmers. Farmers wishing to market as non-GM faced the responsibility of trying to keep GM crops from contaminating their non-GM crops. This problem was exacerbated with the contamination of non-GM seed stocks. All farmers marketed as GM unless special steps were taken.

US, the largest GM crop nation pays massive subsidies to farmers to counter higher costs and lower commodity prices. 80% of these subsidies are allocated to soy, cotton and corn (their GM crops). After Canada adopted GM crops, their net farm income plummetted to well below zero. After 7,000 farmers marched in the streets demanding subsidies (with particular reference to canola farmers plight) subsidies were increased to a massive Can $4.9billion. Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay do not recognise the GM patent and have mainly benefited by the introduction of infrastructure to handle bulk GM soy. The remaining countries growing GM crops are limited to cotton. This is a clear indication that farmers can not manage to pay the additional costs involved for the introduction of a GM food crop.

Currently, the patented technology is limited to crops used for fuel/oil (soy, corn, cotton and canola) but there is a major drive to introduce this patented technology to all food crops. The degree of control the owner of the patented gene owns is dependent on the contractual agreements covering the seed for one year. As choice is removed, contracts could become more demanding to lock farmers into becoming contract growers for a particular supply chain. In order to retain choice, farmers must retain the rights to replant our own seed rather than allow the seed supply sector to dictate the varieties released.

With international pressure, a joint State-Commonweatlth Regulatory System was agreed by the Council of Australian Governments. The Australian Federal Government signed a biotechnology strategy in 2000 promising a path to market for GM crops.

In response, All public service employees are bound by the Australian Public Service values including the requirement to be: "responsive to the Government ...in implementing the Government's policies and programs" http://www.apsc.gov.au/values/index.html

What followed was a series of pro-GM information released by governments and any institute funded by government.

Sue Meek, with a history of promoting biotechnology, was appointed as the Gene Technology Regulator. http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=278&page=M

After motions I had passed by WAFarmers was endorsed by Senate (by  Senator Cherry) there was an attempt to reverse these by the Minister for Agriculture and the President of WAFarmers Federation). Risk management was proposed as a result.

Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry "Biotechnology Strategy for Agriculture, Food and Fibre. " August 2003.Appendix 1 Context. 1. Government Approach to Biotechnology in Agriculture, Food and Fibre. http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/biotechnology/daff/bsaff "The Commonwealth Government's approach to biotechnology in the agriculture, food and fibre sectors can be broadly summarised as follows":... . "Considering the application of biotechnology in the agriculture, food and fibre industries should not jeopardise market opportunities or impose unreasonable costs on existing producers."

 Included in Appendices:(PIMC=The Primary Industries Ministerial Council and is the state Ministers and Federal Minister of Agriculture.) "PIMC recognises the need for commercial flexibility to meet market demands. In May 2002 it determined that industry should self-regulate risks posed by gene technology to agricultural production supplemented by government monitoring. The Commonwealth maintains this position."

All government funded organisations became committed to uphold the policy to provide a "path to market" for GM crops under industry self-management.

"The Australia Institute's survey of 290 NGOs suggests the PRIA event is part of a wider campaign to silence dissent. Seventy-four per cent of NGO respondents believe they are being pressured to make their public statements conform with government policy. Ninety-two per cent said they disagree with the view that dissenting voices are valued by government as part of a robust democracy. Ninety per cent believe that dissenting organisations risk having their funding cut. "You toe the line or you risk getting defunded," one respondent said. Another said: "It is clear from our funding contract with Government that it sees our role not as a peak body in a democratic society but as a mechanism to help the Government 'get its message out' and help the Government implement its policy objectives." Katherine Wilson. Overland 183, pp.13–17 http://www.overlandexpress.org/183_wilson.html

Farmers and consumers were faced with a barrage of misleading information from sources that are usually trusted. Organisations such as Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) were dependent on government funding and adopted the principle of providing a path to market as a key objective. GRDC funded $100,000/year to fund Agrifood Awareness to provide policy advise to farm lobby groups but Agrifood Awareness represents the chemical companies that owned the patents of GM crops (Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience). GRDC also provides funding for both state and national farm organisations. Pro-GM policies were promoted by the National Farmers Federation (NFF signed the International Cairns Group agreement) and the Grains Council of Australia (GCA) and their submissions ignored the cautious policies of the member states.

My personal experience in Grains Council of Australia (as WA’s seed subcommittee delegate and a brief time on policy council) confirmed the underhanded tactics used to silence opposition against GM. Presentations claiming "unanimous" support ignored my vote opposing accepting a GM tolerance level in seed stocks. Deliberate attempts to publicly humiliate me included a statement at the well-attended National Grains Week conference "Not you Julie, anybody but Julie Newman can ask a question". At the time, I was vice president of WAFarmers grains council.

I was threatened with legal action when I publicly commented that GCA acted against the policies of the organisations they represent.  http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2346

Individuals within GCA were extremely pushy in promoting GM crops. The CEO of GCA held a previous pro-GM position in Agribusiness and enthusiastically promoted the profitability of developing intellectual property over GM and being the "first to market" GM.

"Australia could… expand its current links with global biotech leaders, become more active in jointly funded research, develop institutions for experimentation into agri-biotechnology and take a lead in commercialisation of second and subsequent waves of agri-biotchnology." Agribusiness Perspectives Paper 54 by David Ginns 2002.

The previous Chairman of Grains Council of Australia, Keith Perrit has recently accepted a lucrative position as chairman of GRDC.

The GCA representatives pushed a pro-GM agenda within State farming organisations. WAFarmers GCA delegate and Grains Council President, Peter Wahlsten, continually tried to promote pro-GM motions and caused an outcry when minutes were manipulated to incorrectly claim that the failed motions supporting GM had actually been approved and well supported motions supporting risk management strategies had failed.  I sent a copy of passed motions to Senate detailing the risk management required and subsequently Senate endorsed the motions.  WAFarmers President Colin Nichol, wrote to the Minister for Agriculture, Warren Truss claiming that these motions were policy but not really policy and Mr Truss tried to reverse these motions. This caused conflict at the Annual General Meeting where the President of the organisation claimed WAFarmers was being publicly humiliated and, although originally denied, due to public pressure, I was given a right to explain what had happened. All GMO issues were transferred away from Grains Council (where I had a position) and into General Council.

Individuals that were outspoken against GM were pressured by colleagues and their organisations. CSIRO scientist Maartin Stapper was sacked for repeatedly speaking up against GM crops in his own time.

Research organisations such as the CSIRO were faced with serious problems as government funding was reduced and corporate funding was to be found. The insecurities of ongoing funding for research projects led to "half the divisional chiefs looking elsewhere for jobs." Max Whitten from the Age, exposed the problems within CSIRO and the lack of confidence of employees and top management staff.  
"Little wonder that then science minister Nick Minchin and CSIRO chairman Charles Allen saw in Garrett an opportunity to transform the CSIRO from Australia's public leading good research agency into an enterprise focused on short-term issues and to reduce its dependency on government funding.
Garrett promised to "grow CSIRO" into a global research enterprise eventually attracting about 60 per cent of its funding from external  sources. His attempts have proved to be costly failures, in monetary and human terms. Had the Senate last week acted in the public interest, it would have supported the motion calling for an inquiry into the CSIRO. Instead the Government used its numbers to prevent the inquiry."
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2006/02/14/1139890735049.html
February 15 2006

The ABC 7.30 report (28.11.07) revealed the vested interest of Jim Peacock, head scientist in Australia.

Monsanto donated funding of approx. $5million to major universities to establish biotechnology laboratories. Monsanto owned many of the patents and intellectual property of biotechnology techniques and collaborated with institutes such as CSIRO to enable them to use their technology free of charge in exchange for confidential alliance arrangements. The Federal government withdrew from funding pre-breeding at universities and this was taken over by GRDC (mainly funded by farmers).

The Federal government was responsible for assessing health and the environment but the assessment and submission-based exercise appeared little more than a public relations exercise. The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator claimed that GM canola was "safe" for consumption after "rigorous testing", however, the OGTR does no health testing and rely on Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) for the health testing. FSANZ does no testing and relies on the GM industry to provide their own data on safety testing. The GM industry does no testing on the oil which is the food consumers eat from canola production. They do however do testing on the meal which is used for stock feed but FSANZ has no authority over feed, only food. In effect, the GM industry has self-regulated health testing to exclude health testing.

Due to National Competition Policy requirements and legislative changes to intellectual property, State governments have altered their research priorities from "common good" to profit-driven. Alliances and mergers are paramount to research and development but those investing in the technologies are very profit driven.

As States had authority over land use, States had the ability to impose moratoria based on market issues. As there was serious unresolved issues surrounding markets, segregation and economics, canola growing states imposed a blanket moratoria as soon as the Federal OGTR approved GM canola in 2003.

Those supporting the GM industry were outraged and soon after, a far more aggressive campaign was launched to promote GM and to gain industry acceptance. Misleading information regarding GM canola (only modified to be resistant to a different chemical than non-GM chemical resistant canola) claiming improved yields and drought tolerance was promoted more aggressively.

Numerous government reports have been released promoting benefits that were not there and ignoring problems associated with GM crops. The recently released GRDC "industry" coexistence report failed to provide a path to market for non-GM crops. I contacted the chairman prior to its release asking why non-GM farmers have been deliberately excluded by the committee and was advised that our views were represented by ex Monsanto manager, David Hudson. http://farmacule.com/our_people/david_hudson/ . I was recently contacted by Mr Hudson claiming that although he was the consultant, he did not represent our views and therefore, nobody was representing the views of non-GM farmers.

The canola industry representation was often provided by the Oilseed Federation, its membership consisting of beneficiaries of GM crops. http://www.australianoilseeds.com/about_aof/our_members

Monsanto pulled out from Australia when the moratoria was announced. Ausbiotech released a paper "The impacts of state-based moratoriums on investment, innovation and Australia’s future in biotechnology" in 2004 detailing the importance of investment to the research sector. The market capitalisation of Ausbiotech firms listed on the Australian Stock Exchange was $7.132billion and $968million was spent on biotech research by public and not for profit organisations. Ausbiotech stated that the moratoria resulted in an end to "collaboration between Monsanto’s scientists and the Department of Primary Industries."

Monsanto sold the rights to Roundup Ready canola to Nufarm, the sole Australian distributor of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical. Nufarm and Graincorp have an alliance company Nugrain http://www.seedquest.com/News/releases/oceania/Nugrain/n2189.htm

Many of the Graincorp directors are also directors of the Grain Growers Association, a farm organisation pushing GM. Director David Trebeck is a director of the Institute of Public Affairs (funded by companies such as Monsanto to counter anti-GM activism) and the former managing director of ACIL Consulting (a consulting company regularly engaged to provide government reports.)

http://www.graincorp.com.au/bins/content_page.asp?cid=3-125

The Victorian Farmers Federation is particularly pro-GM and their interests have been exposed in media.

Geoff Strong, The Age, April 2003 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/04/1048962934158.html

Similar pressure was exerted by other farm lobby groups, particularly from the President and Policy advisors of each organisation. The first I realised the policy advisor and President were not following policy was when I followed the WAFarmers presentation to WA parliament. I made a statement reminding government that WAFarmers had not followed policy.

I attended the annual GM policy day of WAFarmers almost every year and constantly countered the misleading pro-GM propaganda. Farmers were being told benefits ranging from turning wheat into a legume to drought tolerant varieties. I missed one year when I was advised of the date and arrived after a 420km drive to find they had rescheduled the session to the night before. The policy of WAFarmers was very cautious insisting on fair risk management. Earlier this year, WAFarmers adopted an unconditional pro-GM policy (excluded risk management). I was unconstitutionally sacked as Senior Vice President of WAFarmers Grains Council only two weeks before policy day for supposedly breeching media protocol (warning farmers about the additional liabilities associated with pooling with AWB) when I had written evidence to prove I had followed policy and protocol to the letter. Although the motion of no confidence stating I was guilty was via email and not constitutional, I had no right of reply and there was no recourse.

New South Wales Farmers Federation is currently having serious debate to recall submissions with members claiming legal advise has shown the unconditional supportive GM policy is unconstitutional as it has ignored the risk management previously adopted as a requirement to be addressed prior to release. "The Land" 8.11.07 . The NSW Farmers Federation Biotechnology committee is primarily made up of the biotech industry but there have been no meetings since the Network of Concerned Farmers (NCF) member, Arthur Bowman joined. Neither Mr Bowman or exectutive council were given the submission to State government for comment prior to release. Interestingly, the NSW Farmers Federation has recently had approval for a million dollar grant from Federal government to research "woody weeds" which has raised questions regarding possible links to policy change.

Hugh Roberts is the main promoter of GM technology within NSW Farmers. The NSW Farmers Federation lobbied the NSW Minister for Agriculture to remove NCF representative Juliet McFarlane, from the Ministers advisory committee. Juliet McFarlane is the only canola grower on this committee and, as a NCF member was stipulated in the legislation of the committee makeup, retained her seat.

Despite this, moratoria were imposed in each canola growing state.

After the moratoria were imposed, the Institute of Public Affairs funded a pro-GM anti-activist activist to promote a ruthless campaign against those opposing GM technologies. Ross Irvine, (www.epublicrelations.can) a public relations advisor for the GM industry visited Australia in April 2005 to promote unity for a more active campaign supporting GM crops.

Katherine Wilson. Overland 183, pp.13–17
http://www.overlandexpress.org/183_wilson.html

His message was very controversial and confrontational and while no details are available of the Australian meetings, Ross Irvine’s presentation made to the CropLife Canada Annual Meeting in September 2004 is similar to reports. http://www.bernsteincrisismanagement.com/nl/crisismgr041101.html

"Public relations is war…Winners gain public, media, and regulatory acceptance and support for their products, services, and organizations." Mr Irvine explains the necessity to gain cross industry concensus quoting how significant the words of Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher are to business:

Mr Irvine promotes a sample of the proposed debate tactics to obtain concensus "Pesticides have done much to feed the world; DDT has saved millions of lives; and, biotechnology has many proven and potential benefits for mankind." Part of the strategy is to mislead and identify the opposition and attack their motives.

The top three actions recommended:

These strategies have been adopted widely by pro-GM activists without explaining the vested interests involved in their push for GM.

For example, one of the most aggressive pro-GM activists are "Independent Agronomist" Bill Crabtree of West Australia and Mr Ian Edwards (Edstar Genetics). Mr Crabtree aggressively confronts those that expresses concerns against GM and regularly confronts media if any GM concerns are reported. He regularly writes damning letters to the media slamming those opposing GM crops (www.no-till.com.au) and is well promoted by the media making outrageous statements such as stating that I and the Network of Concerned Farmers should be "wiped from the face of the earth." (ABC News). Supporting GM crops is obviously more lucrative than not supporting them.

Mr Crabtree was paid by WA Liberal Party politicians to write their pro-GM policy and used himself as the key reference link. GRDC not only presented Mr Crabtree with a prestigious award but have funded Mr Crabtree and his wife to visit Canada and USA  http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2854  However, his key vested interest has recently been revealed in the issuing of a prospectus for his company that has the rights to GM salt tolerant wheat. He is trying to raise funds from farmers to invest up to $2million to this technology. His prospectus can be downloaded at http://www.no-till.com.au/pdfs/GreenBlueprint/GrnBluePrint_Prospectus-Sep07-9.pdf and reveals the extend of the collaboration with the research sector alliances.

The Directors of Green Blueprint International (GBI) are Ian Edwards, Bill Crabtree and John Stone but Mr Crabtee is the sole shareholder. The prospectus is calling for investors (aimed at farmers) for a share release of up to $2million (originally raise $1,750,000 with a possibility of a further $250,000). GBI have the exclusive license to use the genes (IP and patents owned by Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics ACPFG) identified in antarctic hair grass and aim to produce frost tolerant wheat. Their research partner and technology provider is Molecular Plant Breeding Pty Ltd which is co-located with the Victorian Department of Primary Industries and they are the exclusive commercialisations agent for Molecular Plant Breeding Cooperative Research Centre. GBI will require a strategic commercial partner which may be why Bill and Ian are so friendly with Bayer Cropscience.

GBI pay a royalty of 20% of proceeds from sales to ACPFG. A sublicense can be granted to the University of Adelaide, the University of Melbourne (Rick Roushes report now makes sense), University of Queensland and the Victorian DPI.

It mentions that the agreement can be terminated if the commonwealth agreement (I presume it is the biotechnology strategy promising a path to market for GM crops) is terminated. In the first 3 year development stage, Ian (as chairman) is to receive up to $20,000/year and his company Edstar Genetics Pty Ltd is to receive $20,000/year for consulting advise. Bill Crabtree Agricultural Consulting is to receive $50,000/year for consulting for the first 3 years. In the first 3 years Mr Crabtree, Mr Edwards and his company absorb $270,000 yet it will probably take 10-20 years to produce.

The aggressive cross-industry pro-GM campaign has resulted in a supposed "consensus" of opinions in support of GM. What has not been realised is that those opinions have been manipulated and the outcomes are the result of a very misleading, very professional and very underhanded campaign.

The Moratoria on GM canola was lifted in Victoria this week following a notice of intention by the Minister for Agriculture in NSW that NSW will grow GM canola next year.  Minister McDonald however must gain approval from parliament before such a decision is made.

Mr McDonald, NSW Minister for Agriculture stated in the second reading of the proposed amendment bill that "There is general agreement between New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Queensland that legislation, regulation or other constructs in each State should provide a clear path to market for GM food crops."

While GM crops may be lucrative for many investors, it needs to be realised that farmers can not afford to fund the additional costs and can not pass the costs down to consumers when consumers and markets are rejecting the products.

Currently Australian farmers pay very well for research, development and commercialisation. We are the only farmers in the world to pay a compulsory Grains Research and Development levy (1% of our value of our produce before it leaves the farm - without any costs), plus we pay a significant price for buying new seed, plus we pay a cost to the research company when we deliver the seed that has been produced from the new crop we planted. Farmers do not own the intellectual property over the research and development they pay for. Government also pays for public research and development but government institutes do own the intellectual property. GM companies have started investing in research and development and government is withdrawing their funding.

When GM is commercially released, the GM companies want significant return on their investment. Government also is planning on making money from the intellectual property they own in plant breeding. Unfortunately, consumers do not want to pay more for GM and in fact markets are paying less for GM or GM contaminated produce. Farmers are the only sector of the supply chain that is expected to pay more for GM in order to fund all those planning to profit from its introduction.

In the future, farmers can not survive with the funding vacuum created by paying more and getting less for our produce and will need to rely on subsidisation from governments. Pyramid selling diagram (here)

It is not unreasonable for farmers to insist on fair risk management to prevent adverse economic impact from the introduction of a GM crop we do not need or want. Neither genuine consumer or farmer concerns should be ignored.

The public should be outraged that a pro-GM government decision will be in the best financial interests of government and vested interests rather than what is in the best interests of the people.

--------------END--------------

The following has been provided as additional information following the release of this report. Thank you for those that have forwarded it:

1. Sir Gustav Nossal (chair of the "independent panel" advising the Victorian Government:

http://www.cluniesross.org.au/index.php?sectionid=129

Gustav Nossal
Lifetime Contribution Awardee


 Sir Gus' influence has formed and shaped the scientific affairs of Australia for three decades, and continues to do so. He has played a role in the birth of many Australian institutions including:
   €     the Cooperative Research Centres Scheme
    €     VicHealth which he then chaired for a decade;
    €     AMRAD, now one of our most prominent biotechnology companies

Sir Gus has exerted strong influence on government policy especially in his years as President of the Australian Academy of Science.

 As a communicator of science he is unparalleled - inspiring future generations of scientists through lectures, radio and television.

----------------------------------------

2. http://www.biomelbourne.org/848.0.html

More to AMRAD than meets the eye. David Langsam, Editor Biotech Daily.

Zenyth (formerly AMRAD) may have made losses for most of its existence, but its story is more than it first seems.
At the BioMelbourne Network September BioBreakfast entitled ‘Lessons from the evolution of AMRAD's business model’ Bioshares co-editor David Blake said that in 20 years Zenyth has more than repaid the Victorian State Government’s $15 million seed capital.
Founded in 1986 as the Australian Medical Research and Development Corp, Mr Blake said AMRAD not only paid back $20 million to the Victorian taxpayer, but also paid $5.2 million for the land it was given in Burnley and the State government retains a 16 percent holding in the $103 million company.
Professor Emeritus Sir Gustav Nossal described the history of the company formed to commercialize the intellectual property of 13 of Australia’s leading institutions at a time when there were few venture capitalists, discovery was “publish or perish” and “profit was a dirty word”. Prof Nossal told the 180 member audience at the Melbourne Town Hall that the 1980s Labor Government of Premier John Cain established the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, which provided the seed funding to AMRAD. Prof Nossal was the director of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, one of the first of the 13 institutes on board with AMRAD. He said AMRAD signaled a change in scientific research in Australia with the development of business plans, milestones, patents and some early successes. Prof Nossal said if he had to “do it again” he would ensure that the company was started with more than $15 million and more rights would be retained for research staff.
Zenyth Chief Executive Officer Dr Andrew Nash joined the company 1996 and described the agglomeration of divisions including pharmaceuticals research and development, biotechnology, discovery and a rapid diagnostics section. He said the business model was overly complex and there was a lack of focus. The company was hard to understand for investors and there was little or no value seen in its research and development activities. Dr Nash asked “Was it a good idea at the time?” and responded with a robust “Yes” saying there was no internet and no manual on how to establish a biotechnology company. He also pointed to a number of “hugely successful deals and collaborations”.
In eight years from 1995 to 2003 AMRAD brought in $58.1 million in deals. The refocusing of the company meant the spinning off of most of its units leaving AMRAD Pharmaceuticals Research and Development with three divisions. The biologics and cytokines section continues as Zenyth; the virology and infectious diseases sections became Avexa in 2004 and the neurology division which joined CNS-Bio in 2005.
Dr Nash said Zenyth was now clearly focused on antibody therapies for inflammation and cancer and this was the target of the CSL takeover.
Bioshares’ Mr Blake showed several methods for evaluating AMRAD and noted revenue from property deals was as important as revenue from research and development. He said there were years that the company made a small profit, but overall losses tallied $89 million from inception until 2006. Mr Blake said total revenue tallied $826 million but the company had “only been to the market twice” for funds.
Mr Blake also said the key messages from the AMRAD experience were to be focused rather than diversified, that the market wanted to see motivation and discipline and “skin in the game”. He said a biotechnology company needed to set “reasonable expectations of failure, not unreasonable expectations of success”.
David Langsam, Editor, Biotech Daily
5th September 2006
www.biotechdaily.com.au
editor@biotechdaily.com.au