GEN BiotechnologyVol. 2, No. 3 EditorialFree AccessThe Potential of Public–Private Partnerships for the BioeconomyHana El-SamadHana El-SamadE-mail Address: helsamad@altoslabs.comEditor-in-Chief, GEN Biotechnology.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:19 Jun 2023https://doi.org/10.1089/genbio.2023.29097.editorialAboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, is betting on an imminent $1-trillion bioeconomy, with the potential of growing to multiple trillions in the next 10–20 years. Last year, a task force on synthetic biology and the bioeconomy, commissioned by Schmidt Futures, produced a remarkably detailed and actionable report, with five strategic areas and many recommendations to deliver a resilient and competitive bioeconomy.1 The recommendations ranged from growing a diverse talent pool to building a national infrastructure for bioproduction scale-up capacity, to changing regulatory funding and practices, and to modernizing data sharing infrastructures.In an interview with Forbes in May 2023, Schmidt augmented this list with some additional elements.2 First, he commented on his excitement about “the prospects for AI to accelerate many sectors of the bioeconomy—biomedical, agricultural, and industrial—as well as to drive new basic research discoveries in biology broadly.” He also highlighted the critical need to increase public trust in new biotechnologies by applying them responsibly and increasing confidence that these technologies will ultimately improve lives.He then reiterated the need for reformulating commercialization and regulatory processing, emphasizing “a deliberate focus on moving engineering biology discoveries from lab to market, helping new technology developers through new loan programs for biomanufacturing infrastructure, as well as through newly streamlined, clear regulatory processes.”Of particular interest was Schmidt's emphasis on the need for public–private partnerships (PPPs), using as an example BIOMADE (see below), where Schmidt Futures has made an important investment. PPPs are R&D networks that involve a range of stakeholders, including traditional academia and industry stakeholders, charities, patient organizations, and even national regulatory agencies. In the context of biomedical research, PPPs have typically been leveraged for initiatives targeting diseases that are more common in the developing world, the one notable example being Sanofi's development of fexinidazole for treating sleeping sickness.This project was a PPP, including seven European countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) as well as private foundations including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Medecins Sans Frontieres.BIOMADE is a particularly compelling initial example for a bioeconomy-focused PPP. It is a Manufacturing Innovation Institute sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense and a member of Manufacturing USA®, a national network of public–private collaborations created to secure U.S. global leadership in advanced manufacturing. BIOMADE membership includes an impressive array of companies, universities, and national laboratories, community and technical colleges, nonprofit and K-12 education, as well as venture capital.As an example of its many activities, BIOMADE announced in April 2023 a roster of five projects (supported by Schmidt Futures) to advance bioreactor design and development. The membership of these projects includes both universities and for-profit companies. Commenting on these projects and the prospect of success of the BIOMADE model, Schmidt brings up three points that merit contemplation and discussion.First, these projects are a meaningful coinvestment, leveraging the opportunity for the total being more than the sum of its parts with enhanced capabilities compared with private-only or public-only enterprises.Second, the BIOMADE ecosystem surrounding these projects is purposefully constructed for sharing technologies created by any team with other BIOMADE members, while preserving proprietary information. This seems like a strategy tailored to promote the public's interest.Third—and this gave me reflective pause given that I am a San Francisco dweller—BIOMADE has a site in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. This location in the nation's heartland, Schmidt argues, is “important because a thriving future bioeconomy depends on distributing production evenly across the country, not just in the known coastal hubs of biotechnology such as Boston and San Francisco.”Broad research on the topic has generated some understanding of additional benefits of PPPs, including amalgamation of unique skills, expertise, and resources of multiple players, reduced costs, and diversified risks among stakeholders, as well as increased project efficiency owing to clear timelines and goals.3,4 At the same time, PPPs, including BIOMADE, have many documented challenges.5Nonetheless, for all the reasons mentioned above, it is clear that PPPs are a model worth considering at scale for biotechnology. This discussion would be interesting to follow as the footprint of the bioeconomy continues to grow and as governments scrutinize the role of the bioeconomy in both societal and national security challenges and solutions. The opportunity to forge synergistic partnerships across sectors through BIOMADE and other similar PPPs is very meaningful. It is one where public sector players can work productively as partners to balance the public interest, including equity, fair access, inclusion, and environmental considerations with the market pull.