From Mr A. Zahra

Pierre Schembri Wismayer’s Opinion (TMIS, 16 December) entitled “Innov-Nation: Some of the Problems” made for very interesting reading. I must say that it is indeed refreshing to have such a detailed analysis of the issues and problems that continue to hamper this country’s ambitions and capabilities in terms of its creative and innovative potential. We are typically regaled daily with so many platitudes and optimistic forecasts or generalizations that realistic, balanced arguments are few and far between.

Nevertheless, I would like to correct one of Dr Schembri Wismayer’s views on the local pharmaceutical industry as well as to suggest another reason why we lag so badly behind the richer EU countries in terms of creativity and innovation.

In the second part of the article, Dr Schembri Wismayer made reference to the generic pharmaceutical industry risking being a legal-loophole-based flash in the pan. Although it is true that international pharma now patents (some of its) drugs locally, patents are not retroactive and the local industry is still guaranteed at least a further 15 to 20 years’ worth of new product development. Hardly what most people would call a flash in the pan! I would remind Dr Schembri Wismayer that Pharmamed Ltd, Actavis Malta’s predecessor, was set up in 1975 or more than 32 years ago – the original employees are now retiring whereas those employed in some more recent, hi-tech or service companies such as banks, financial services or electronics companies have long since moved on. In leading European countries such as the UK, France and Germany, where no legal loophole exists, the generics pharmaceutical industry has nevertheless been growing at a rate of between 7-17 per cent (depending on the country) over the last 10-20 years. The “legal loophole” Dr Schembri Wismayer refers to, is what initially attracted these pharma companies to Malta (a small, resource-less island at the southernmost edge of Europe), not what keeps them here. It simply guarantees a safer return on their investment and faster entry into the market.

What will keep them here is a high-skilled, adaptable and creative workforce operating with a high productivity within a competitive economy. This is a golden opportunity for Malta to transform its reliance on low-cost, low-value-added products and services to high value and high technology derivatives while solidifying our new position in Europe and the Near East as a centre for foreign direct investment and technology transfer. The strategy that Dr Schembri Wismayer proposes – using generics as a stepping-stone to biogenerics and eventually to groundbreaking research is perfectly correct – but ill timed and unplanned. One cannot run before one can actually walk and it is still early days – albeit exciting ones – for Malta’s pharma industry. If we continue to build on our successes – and the companies that have set up shop here like Arrow, Actavis, Siegfried and Medichem, which are indeed considered among the leaders in their respective sectors – then I am sure that our reputation for on time delivery of quality pharmaceuticals will attract biogeneric companies in due course. We should be using the 15-20 years of the “legal loophole” to convince companies to continue to solidify their presence here through further investment and R & D. It would be foolhardy to expect biogenerics companies to come at this early stage because biogeneric investment is generally much riskier and more financially-demanding while Maltese biotech research is still puny and unproven to provide sufficient peace of mind – one must keep in mind that there are very few international biotech companies that are profitable even today, most being sustained by public or private loans. Examples of this slow but successful transition can however be seen abroad where companies like Teva, Pliva (now Barr Laboratories) and Merck Generics started out as conventional generics companies but then branched out into biotech and into developing their own original products. Indeed, an early and rash move into a still-struggling biotech sector – without the necessary infrastructure having been put in place – is probably what could cause many people to lose their jobs in the near future! The local pharmaceutical industry requires better-quality services, excellent air/sea transportation links, a growing supply of technically-competent and enthusiastic employees, and good local suppliers together with efficient / effective government service-providers before it gets where we would like it to be.

This brings me to what I consider to be the real reason why science-based innovation is still so undeveloped locally. The fact is that we tend to talk too much and do too little – we still talk about starting to tackle the Lisbon Agenda seriously when it is now patently obvious to all but the most optimistic that we’re years behind. The number of science students at all levels is pitifully small compared to that of other countries, compounded by a continuous siphoning off of students with science qualifications into “easier” and financially-rewarding but limited career paths. We have invested our tax revenues together with foreign funds in buildings, schools/institutes, laboratories and equipment but not in people (such as the teachers of science and the technicians required to operate the laboratories) and programmes. It is nonetheless an open secret that most of these facilities are being allowed to gather dust or are being used as offices / lecture rooms since the will to coordinate and implement practice-based science education is simply not there. Interested readers would do well to read the annual reports of the Malta Council for Science and Technology over the last 20 years and try to quantify the net effect of our national science and technology policies since Independence.

It is true, as Dr Schembri Wismayer says, that research funding is today still largely insufficient but, at the same time, I do not fault Dr. Alfred Sant for stating that the university would do well to focus on teaching rather than research. He is merely stating the obvious – if you do not succeed in developing a sufficient number of good, technically-competent science undergraduates who are pragmatic, hands-on and at ease in laboratories, you do not even stand a small chance of finding rising stars to spearhead your university’s research and development programmes. Our country, despite its many limitations, has poured millions of liri into its university and student funding since the 1970s and we do boast one of the oldest faculties in Europe. Yet the university still cannot attract sufficient research funding or create solid foundations for the required critical mass to sustain its programmes over the long-term. The criticism is often voiced that we are sacrificing quality for quantity when we speak about the ever-increasing student numbers at Tal-Qroqq but the real pity is that in the sciences, we are not even successful in doing that! Furthermore, the research currently carried out at University seems very often dependent on the researcher’s preference or short-term interest; it is uncoordinated with other research being performed locally and typically has little local or practical application (i.e. research but not development). The legal and financial infrastructure to facilitate academic / industry interaction (such as trusts, venture capital funds, spin-off companies, satellite industrial parks, research incubation centres, patent registration support) is also lacking. The tax and financial incentives that draw in the type of funding required to support research in the medium-to-long-term are still quite inadequate. At the same time, Malta University Services Ltd, which was originally intended as a vehicle for this sort of interaction, has been reduced to little more than a training services-provider. Graduate students are therefore discouraged from pursuing research since they see no future in it: once they finish their postgraduate studies, there is no place for them at university but they are simply turned loose into the job market and are (to top it all!), often considered “over-qualified”. The exceptions of course are those who are persistent enough to obtain a research placement abroad – but not everyone is willing to pull up stakes and move away from home, nor should they be obliged to. Why should our university be so bureaucratic, so uncoordinated and so wasteful of its human potential? Like many others, I too have studied abroad and can easily compare our alma mater with other leading centres of learning.

So rather than focus on the problems - since these are well-known and have been with us for far too long, I ask Dr Schembri Wismayer to join forces with those of us who are, in their own small way, trying to make a difference locally and get going with the Innov-Nation project. Those of us in the generic pharmaceutical industry who truly believe in Malta’s future, have already made small but significant steps forward working with university staff who are willing to set aside petty rivalries or personal pipedreams and actually achieve something concrete. As just one example, my own employer, Arrow Pharm (Malta), has sponsored students, retrained ex-textiles workers, released trained professional staff to lecture and advise on technical subjects, supervised student research projects ever since its inception in 2003, donated equipment, worked with MCAST as well as university and lobbied government incessantly through Malta Enterprise to develop or fund new / established courses. We would like to do more but we need more support from more well intentioned academics at university who are motivated and committed to the future of research and development in Malta.

I would like to conclude by genuinely wishing Dr Schembri Wismayer well in his efforts to finally stimulate a discussion on this particular topic and I also hope that our joint suggestions find the necessary public and institutional support to take off.

Adrian Zahra