Abstract
After breaking out from the confines of purely academic research, 3D bioprinting technology is quickly developing as a commercial industry and exhibiting the qualities of a mature market with immense potential. We are currently witnessing not only growth in the number of companies and their geographical reach, but also the market’s segmentation. The main models of 3D bioprinting technology commercialization seem to be selling bioprinters and bioinks, services of bioprinting 3D functional tissue constructs – including for drug discovery and disease modeling – selling software, and technological consulting. As the industry advances, so does the legal regulation of the relevant issues. A number of companies are already successfully monetizing the technology and are able to raise financing through various paths. In the near future, we should expect the start of industry consolidation. At this stage of the technology development, rivalries within the industry do not represent a significant threat. The industry is currently characterized by stakeholders joining efforts in order to expedite its advancement and reach the commercial application stage. To accomplish this, the industry must overcome a number of significant hurdles, including achieving the standardization of bioprinting methods, software, and materials.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
For a regular IPO, (initial public offering, the offering of a company’s shares to the public for the first time to raise capital) the financial advisers/investment banking firms hired by the company guide it through the process, assist in determining the offering price, the type and the amount of securities to be issued, the proper timing of the IPO, and help draw the markets’ interest to the offering. Despite all of the obvious benefits, the process is lengthy, complex, and quite costly. Meanwhile, a reverse IPO, a.k.a. reverse merger or reverse takeover, is a much simpler, speedier, and less expensive way for a private company to go public through buying a majority of the shares of a publicly traded shell company (normally, this shell company is in bad financial shape, dormant or fully defunct, while still maintaining its listing on a stock exchange) and merging it with their private company. The combined company ckeeps the public status (listing on a stock exchange) of the original shell company, while its business and assets are essentially those of the former private company. Obviously, unlike the case of a conventional IPO, the company using a reverse IPO does not immediately raise capital through this process, but rather changes its status to become public, thus allowing it the access to public capital markets through subsequent offerings, providing liquidity, etc. Some critics argue, however, that a reverse IPO has an important downside and should be considered a somewhat inferior alternative to a regular IPO – it misses substantial strategic guidance from experienced financial advisers and lacks a certain “stamp of approcval” from the investment community. This may lead to the company’s shares not being properly valued, add downward pressure on the valuation, and add to the stock’s volatility.
References
American Kidney Fund (2015) http://www.kidneyfund.org/assets/pdf/kidney-disease-statistics.pdf
Antoni D, Burckel H, Josset E, Noel G (2015) Three-dimensional cell culture: a breakthrough in vivo Int. J Mol Sci 16(3):5517–5527
Carlström V (2016). http://nordic.businessinsider.com/from-idea-to-nasdaq-in-less-than-a-year—cellink-is-swedens-newest-international-success-2016-11/
European Commission (2013) https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/cosmetics/animal-testing_en
European Renal Association – European Dialysis and Transplant Association (2016) http://eraedta.org/press/160104_CKD_Prevelance_Press.pdf
European Renal Care Providers Association (2015) http://ercpa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Infograph-final-version-updated.pdf
Fan J (2014) http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/can-china-stop-organ-trafficking
Hall N (2016) http://3dprintingindustry.com/news/nike-powers-olympic-champion-3d-printing-91474/
Hornick JF, Rajan K (2016) https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/3d-bioprinting-patent-landscape-takes-shape-ip-leaders-emerge-84541/
Huang G-S, Tseng C-S, Linju YB, Dai L-G, Hsu S-H (2013) Solid freeform-fabricated scaffolds designed to carry multicellular mesenchymal stem cell spheroids. European cells and materials 26:179–194
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (2017). https://www.qut.edu.au/institute-of-health-and-biomedical-innovation/facilities/herston-biofabrication-institute
Itoh M, Nakayama K, Morita S (2015) Bio-3D printer undergo Remodeling and endothelialization when implanted in rat aortae. PLoS One 10:1–15
Knowlton S, Onal S, Yu CH, Zhao JJ, Tasoglu S (2015) Bioprinting for cancer research. Trends Biotechnol 33(9):504–513
Kuo C-Y, Eranki A, Placone JK, Rhodes KR, Aranda-Espinoza H, Fernandes R, Fisher JP, Kim PCW (2016) Development of a 3D printed, bioengineered placenta model to evaluate the role of trophoblast migration in preeclampsia. ACS Biomater Sci Eng 2(10):1817–1826
Mironov V, Boland T, Trusk T, Forgacs G, Markwald RR (2003) Organ printing: computer-aided jet-based 3D tissue engineering. Trends Biotechnol 21(4):57–61
Mironov V, Visconti RP, Kasyanov V, Forgacs G, Drake CJ, Markwald RR (2009) Organ printing: tissue spheroids as building blocks. Biomaterials 30(12):2164–2174
Moldovan NI, Hibino N, Nakayama K (2017) Principles of the Kenzan method for robotic cell spheroid-based three-dimensional bioprinting. Tissue Eng Part B Rev 23:237–244
Murphy SV, Atala A (2014) 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol 32(8):773–785
National Kidney Foundation (2016) https://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/factsheets/Organ-Donation-and-Transplantation-Stats
Nguyen DG, Funk J, Robbins JB, Crogan-Grundy C, Presnell SC, Singer T, Roth AB (2016) Bioprinted 3D primary liver tissues allow assessment of organ-level response to clinical drug induced toxicity in vitro. PLoS One 11(7):e0158674
Ozbolat IT, Peng W, Ozbolat V (2016) Application areas of 3D bioprinting. Drug Discov Today 21(8):1257–1271
Porter ME (1979) How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1979/03/how-competitive-forces-shape-strategy
Sher D (2015). The Top 15 Bioprinters. https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/top-10-bioprinters-55699/
Skardal A, Atala A (2015) Biomaterials for integration with 3-D bioprinting. Ann Biomed Eng 43(3):730–746
Solomon SD (2017) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/business/dealbook/fewer-ipos-regulation-stock-market.html
Spanish Ministry of Health (2016) http://www.ont.es/Documents/PresentaciónDatos2016-17.pdf
Thornton PK (2010) Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 365(1554):2853–2867
Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine (2016) http://www.wakehealth.edu/Research/WFIRM/Research/Military-Applications/Printing-Skin-Cells-On-Burn-Wounds.htm
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Balakhovsky, Y.M., Ostrovskiy, A.Y., Khesuani, Y.D. (2017). Emerging Business Models Toward Commercialization of Bioprinting Technology. In: Ovsianikov, A., Yoo, J., Mironov, V. (eds) 3D Printing and Biofabrication. Reference Series in Biomedical Engineering(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40498-1_25-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40498-1_25-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40498-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40498-1
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences