Bioscience, Bioinnovations, and Bioethics

  • Matti LeisolaEmail author
Part of the Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology book series (ABE, volume 107)


Biosciences and their applications, which we call biotechnology, have affected human society in many ways. Great hopes have been set on future biotechnology. The future depends on three key issues. First, we need good science. Recent developments in biosciences have surprised us in many ways. I shall explain in this article how. Secondly, we need structured innovation systems in order to commercialize our discoveries. Europe is slow in this respect compared to our Japanese and American competitors and may lose in the competition. I shall describe the Finnish innovation chain using the rewarded Otaniemi model as an example of how commercialization can be done in a systematic way. Thirdly, we need norms to guide what to do and where to go. Bioethics is probably the most neglected of the three key issues. With modern biotechnology we are able to do things that should worry every citizen, but the ethical discussion has been largely neglected or the discussion in our pluralistic society is leading nowhere. I shall finally discuss these problems from a historical perspective.

Biosystems Biotechnology Commercialization Otaniemi model Bioethics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Popper K (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, New York zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heisenberg W (1971) Physics and beyond. Harper and Row, New York, p 63 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feyerabend P (1975) Against the method. Humanities Press, New Jersey Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gould SJ (2002) Nat Hist 3:42 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haeckel E (1868) Jenaische Zeitschrift für Medicin und Naturwissenschaft, Vierter Band. von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, p 64 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freeland SJ, Hurst LD (2004) Sci Am 22 March 2004 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shapiro JA, von Sternberg R (2005) Biological reviews. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 1 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rolland F, Winderickx J, Thevelein JM (2002) FEMS Yeast Res 2(2):183 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ho Y, Gruhler A, Heilbut A, Bader G, Moore L, Adams S, Millar A, Taylor P, Bennett K, Boutilier K et al. (2002) Nature 415:180 PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gitai Z (2005) Cell 120:577 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shapiro JA (2002) Ann NY Acad Sci 981:111 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giot et al. (2003) Science 302:1727 PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berg H (2003) Ann Rev Biochem 72:19 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dembski W, Ruse M (eds) (2004) Debating design: from Darwin to DNA. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brumfiell G (2005) Nature 434:1062 CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Silverman PH (2004) Scientist 24:32 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ojala PJ, Vähäkangas JM, Leisola M (2004) Jahrb Eur Wissenschaftskult 1:1 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Editorials (2005) Nature 434:681 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruse M, Wilson EO (1985) New Sci 108:50 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rorty R (1995) New Repub 31 July 1995:32 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thornhill R, Palmer CA (2000) Natural history of rape. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weikart R (2004) From Darwin to Hitler: evolutionary ethics, eugenics, and racism in Germany. Palgrave MacMillan, New York Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fenel F, Leisola M, Turunen O (2002) Finnish patent FI108728 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mellman I, Warren G (2000) Cell 100:99 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shapiro JA (2002) Ann NY Acad Sci 981:111 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Department of Chemical TechnologyHelsinki University of TechnologyHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations