This is the first of what we hope will be several e-interviews with leading experts from around the world on the topic of Biotechnology development. Send your e-mailed comments or questions to this address.

Daniel H. Farkas has a Ph.D. in cellular and molecular biology and has been running DNA Diagnostics Laboratories since 1989, first at St. Barnabas Medical Center in New Jersey, and since 1991, at William Beaumont Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan. Dr. Farkas has dual board certification in clinical molecular biology. Dr. Farkas has lectured internationally on molecular diagnostics and has written extensively on the field including several books; his latest is "DNA Simplified: The Hitchhiker's Guide to DNA". Dr. Farkas is involved in molecular diagnostics through his work with the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, the Association for Molecular Pathology, the College of American Pathologists, the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and through multiple clinical advisory boards. He has organized a yearly educational symposium at Beaumont Hospital since 1992, entitled "DNA Technology in the Clinical Laboratory".

In what concrete ways will Biotechnology change our lives? It is clear that it is not the second coming of the semiconductor industry for the '90s. Rather it appears that Biotechnology, while making significant contributions, will provide more subtle changes for the good. Will we have effective anticancer gene therapies? Can we reverse or retard aging? Will genetic manipulation of animals and plants make inroads in eliminating world hunger? Will we be able to effectively groom replacement "cloned" organs, limbs, etc.? As a society, will we be able to deal with all the financial and ethical ramifications? I know you said one question but it's not everyday one gets an audience with an oracle.

I am reminded of what is happening in China. They are bypassing an entire technology when it comes to telephone service. No need to string telephone poles and wire across that huge country. They are merely acquiring tens of millions of cellular phones. In the same way, I think it is too much effort for underdeveloped countries to start from the beginning. New companies like Clinical Micro Sensors in Pasadena, California, Visible Genetics in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Gamera Biosciences in Boston, Massachusetts are developing chemistries and platforms that are amenable to quick implementation for diagnostics and research. Of the three only Visible Genetics is actually selling anything right now but the others are only a year or two away. In the scenario you describe, I would partner with the newest technologies and smallest, nimblest companies to bypass the ponderous bureaucracies of the Roches, Abbotts and Boehringer Mannheims of this world.

I think we agree. What I am saying is that there is no need to re-invent the wheel. Take advantage of DNA chips and other high technologies that are available from Affymetrix, Hyseq, etc. to advance the field of Pharmacogenetics in South America. The model is described in the 2 February issue of the Wall Street Journal, page A1, the article in the right hand column, called "Genetic Giant: Cost of Drug Research is Driving Merger Talks of Glaxo, SmithKline."

I think that the alliance type method that you propose is a prudent and efficient way to proceed.

This is a tough one. I believe that part of the reason that Biotechnology has not been the financial success many anticipated is because it is designed towards improving quality of life, healthcare, longevity, etc. These are broader term goals than building a better microprocessor or fabulous piece of software. So while biotech has been modestly successful (at least relative to computers, for example), it has not been the second coming of the computer revolution and all of its associated financial implications to the good. So I guess the answer is that biotech is something that could directly impact on the quality of life in South America and at the same time help promote modest, but not trivial, financial gains. If viewed though as something that could improve quality of life, then the lack of giant financial gains would not be viewed so much as a negative but rather as a small bonus in the face of the humanitarian gains biotech can bring to a society (also realizing biotech can have great implications to agriculture and hunger).

In a nutshell, my advice would be: "how can you not proceed?" Biotech could become a profitable endeavor but in any case would improve quality of life and some things are at least equally important to money. As to more practical advice, don't reinvent the wheel. Take advantage of robotics, chips, electron sensors, automated devices and established technologies upon which to build your endeavors.