Education + Training

Emerald Article: "Bioneering" - teaching biotechnology entrepreneurship at

the undergraduate level
Chris Collet, David Wyatt

Article information:
To cite this document: Chris Collet, David Wyatt, (2005),""Bioneering" - teaching biotechnology entrepreneurship at the
undergraduate level", Education + Training, Vol. 47 Iss: 6 pp. 408 - 421
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910510617033
Downloaded on: 30-10-2012
References: This document contains references to 13 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF MALTA
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

ET
47,6

Bioneering teaching
biotechnology entrepreneurship
at the undergraduate level

408

Chris Collet and David Wyatt

School of Life Sciences, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Purpose The authors have developed an educational model that operates at the undergraduate
level and aims to produce graduates who can comfortably operate in the gulf between the laboratory
bench and the commercial marketplace. The purpose of the paper is to describe the course, approaches,
activities and initial outcomes of the Bachelor of Biotechnology Innovation course at Queensland
University of Technology.
Design/methodology/approach Students undertake hard science subjects and business
subjects on entrepreneurship, innovation and market development. Synthesis of these disparate
disciplines is driven through formation of virtual companies that serve to contextualize subject content
and provide start-up company experience across the four-year course. Student companies design
biotechnology products and processes and can progress their product through initial research and
development phases or undertake an industry-based internship working as a team on initial concept
projects. This focused, team-based approach to learning is contrary to traditional science courses that
focus on the individual.
Findings Outcomes include graduates of high quality that have moved into positions associated
with commercialization and technology transfer where previously a PhD and MBA were required
qualifications. Other measures of course success include acceptance and promotion of the new course
by business, academia and government.
Originality/value Postgraduate courses provide the most common pathway for assisted
self-development of entrepreneurial skills in science and engineering graduates. In contrast, this
model aims to train entrepreneurs in technological disciplines at an undergraduate level in a
framework where innovation and enterprising behaviour are embedded in the fabric of the degree.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Innovation, Biotechnology, Undergraduates, Teaching
Paper type Case study

Introduction
Science and engineering graduates and postgraduates who are entrepreneurially
inclined and interested in commercialization and technology transfer usually follow a
career pathway that involves undertaking postgraduate courses in business,
commercialization and entrepreneurship, often after a few years in industry.
Entrepreneurship education through the traditional university-based business school
route has been argued to have an enabling and accelerating impact on the activities of
graduates already considering establishing businesses (Deakins, 2000; Galloway and
Education Training
Vol. 47 No. 6, 2005
pp. 408-421
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/00400910510617033

Implementation of the BBI degree was generously supported with funds from the Australian
Federal Government through the Science Lectureships Initiative and from the Queensland State
Governments Smart State Initiative. The authors would like to thank G. George and
A. Herington for critical review of versions of this manuscript.

Brown, 2002; Luthje and Franke, 2002). In many instances, however, the value of these
arguments is questionable as they do not show actual entrepreneurial outcomes but are
often based on surveys of future intentions at course exit (see, for example, Galloway
and Brown, 2002; Mitchell and McKeon, 2004). Recently, Gibb (2002) has argued that
the current business-school based approach to entrepreneurship education is slow to
react to current social, political and economic needs. Gibb called for new paradigms in
entrepreneurship education within a wider university context that focused on
enterprising behaviour. Universities are beginning to embrace the notion of
recognizing and developing enterprising behaviour within non-business disciplines
and are introducing subjects on entrepreneurship into engineering, bioscience, law and
music courses (Meyer, 2001; Mitchell and McKeon, 2004; Keogh and Galloway, 2004).
The results from these initiatives have not, however, been reported. Here we report a
model for teaching entrepreneurship in the context of an undergraduate science course.
Biotechnology is seen as a major pillar of economic growth in many countries. To
seize the opportunities predicted for the biotechnology century national
governments, including the Australian Federal Government (Backing Australias
Ability, 2001, 2003), are investing billions of dollars into strategies to enhance
biotechnology research, development and commercialization. In the development of
regional biotechnology industries, small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) will be the
driving force with start-up companies figuring predominantly in bringing
biotechnology products and processes to the global marketplace. New ventures such
as biotechnology start-up companies or projects in established SMEs require
champions with a sound knowledge of the relevant science and a familiarity of
business principles relating to product innovation, market development and venture
capital. Above all else, a strong entrepreneurial ability is required in an industry that is
in its infancy. Commercialization of research is essential to the development of local
biotechnology industry and there is a critical need for graduates who can drive this
process.
The traditional roles for the modern university include:
.
ideas generation;
.
research and development for transfer to industry; and
.
the training of graduates for industry.
The former two roles often lead to spin-off companies generally led by the academics
who generated the novel idea. The latter role is focused on established industry and is
targeted to producing graduates who can fill industry-based positions in narrow,
technically-focused job markets. University-trained biotechnology graduates may
generally possess a solid knowledge base but often lack real-world business acumen
and are often not entrepreneurially inclined, preferring instead to pursue careers
focused on science. As such, the average biotechnology science graduate is generally
not suitable or capable of operating in the commercialization environment between
research and the market that is the focus of start-ups and established SMEs.
An innovative approach to education in biotechnology entrepreneurship has been
implemented by the Science Faculty at the Queensland University of Technology
(QUT). The Bachelor of Biotechnology Innovation (BBI) was designed in accordance
with the philosophies of the Australian Federal Governments policies on innovation
(Backing Australias Ability, 2001, 2003) and the Queensland Governments Smart

Teaching
biotechnology
entrepreneurship
409

ET
47,6

410

State Initiative (Government of Queensland, 2003) in that it aims to produce graduates

who can drive commercialization of research outcomes. The course seeks to train
biotechnology entrepreneurs who could be business-savvy scientists, or could operate
in the gulf that is the commercial world between laboratory bench and global
marketplace or could start their own companies to bring their own products to the
marketplace. All of these potential roles serve to develop and strengthen the local
biotechnology industry.
The BBI challenges traditional concepts in science-based university learning
processes in a number of areas relating to:
.
active versus passive learning environments;
.
team-based approaches to learning;
.
accelerated rates of learning; and
.
self- and peer-based assessment.
The students in the course call themselves bioneers as they regard themselves as
pioneering a new era in biotechnology. This paper presents the course philosophy,
approaches, activities and initial outcomes as the first batch of graduates begin their
careers in industry.
Creating the bioneers 1 course design
The BBI was born out of an industry demand for scientists who had an appreciation of
the commercial imperative. Industry feedback, while generally satisfied with technical
skills in biotechnology graduates, noted a lack of understanding and skills appropriate
for the demands of a commercial environment. Industry priorities are fundamentally
different from the academic environment where training is undertaken. Skills in
product development and commercialization, business, intellectual property law and
management are considered desirable. The fledgling biotechnology industry has a
special requirement for entrepreneurial skills to facilitate recognition and development
of emerging technologies, thereby providing value-added opportunities for the local
industries.
In course design, it was considered essential to maintain the high level of technical
expertise and overlay this with skills in areas of business relevant to the
commercialization of research. The four-year undergraduate BBI course, covering 32
subjects (four subjects two semesters four years), contains the same hard-core
biotechnology science subjects as those undertaken in a normal three-year
science-based Bachelors degree (i.e. 19 subjects). Eight business subjects covering
management, accounting, marketing, innovation, entrepreneurship, venture skills,
business planning and research commercialization are included in the BBI course. The
basics of intellectual property (IP) law and contractual law are also dealt with in a
stand-alone subject. Four subjects cover a multi-year project related to the operations
and outcomes of virtual student companies (see below).
Creating the bioneers 2 a synthesis of disparate disciplines
Integral to the success of the BBI course is the ability of students to integrate the
seemingly disparate disciplines of science and business and to graduate as a complete
package. Double degrees involving science and business already exist within QUT as

at other universities. Within these four- or five-year double degree courses students can
focus on aspects of personal interest and obtain skills across broad areas. Feedback
from students undertaking double degrees is that they are often unsure of the
connection between the two disciplines; uncertain how to marry the skills into a
package that can be sold to potential employers. In this case, synthesis does not occur
until after a few years of industry experience. Feedback from industry was that new
graduate employees were not prepared for working in the chaordic environment (from
chaos comes order see www.chaordic.org) of SMEs or new project development in
larger firms where skills related to multi-tasking at different levels, initiative and
decision making in the context of equivocal situations are prized.
To drive the synthesis of disciplines, a unique and innovative concept was
introduced to the BBI degree course involving a multi-year project called the Student
BioEnterprise (SBE) Scheme. Students form companies (i.e. teams) or join existing
companies at the end of the first year of the course and work within that environment
through the duration of the degree. Students adopt recognized company roles that
allow them to focus on aspects of particular interest. Common to all companies is a
recognised CEO who coordinates company process, activity, communication and
outcomes. SBE companies are encouraged to think about potential biotechnological
products (real or unreal), research ideas and their potential in the marketplace. The
SBE companies are required to operate under normal company rules where hiring,
firing and changing companies are all part of the process and biannual reports on
progress towards a product are required. Running the SBE Scheme is handled through
whole-of-course weekly meetings throughout the teaching semesters. The weekly
meetings are used to facilitate the activities and events described below. Student
participation in the scheme is mandatory and the scheme accounts for four subjects or
one eighth of the assessment for the entire degree.
Other facets of the scheme facilitate professionalism. An annual presentation
evening, called Stellar Start Ups, is held where companies make a 6-10 minute pitch to
an audience comprising biotechnology industry representatives, research scientists,
venture capitalists, recruitment agencies and IP lawyers. With potential employers in
the audience, students are very aware of the need to present a mature professional
performance. Although attendance is not compulsory, over 90 per cent of the students
on the course attend and all bar one or two exceptions wear business attire. Companies
have pitched their science-based product seeking to find industry partners or business
investors amongst the audience. Companies have also presented themselves as
consultants, available to undertake projects on behalf of industry and bringing a set of
relevant skills to the industry problem. Students are also encouraged to partake in
industry events, local and national conferences and seminars where they learn about,
and network with, biotechnology industry. Many science students, including those
undertaking biotechnology courses, seldom get the opportunity to interact at a
personal level with industry. These exercises in a student-friendly environment
provide opportunities for students to meet industry and further reinforce the need for
professionalism when dealing with industry.
As part of the familiarization process, first-year students are introduced to the
concepts and expectations of the SBE Scheme, undertake a number of team-building
exercises, learn how to network and write resumes, and reflect on career aspirations.
After the introductory phase, first years are introduced to the later student cohorts and

Teaching
biotechnology
entrepreneurship
411

ET
47,6

412

course meetings are held on a weekly basis. Weekly meetings discuss the latest biotech
industry news, SBE company updates and reports, and other issues related to the
course and companies. Occasional guest lectures are given by visiting entrepreneurs,
industry representatives, recruitment agencies and even community activists.
The SBE company environment serves to develop team-based operations where
students apply the theoretical knowledge learned in mainstream subjects to their own
product and company development. For instance, in the business subject on product
development and innovation, students develop their own product ideas, and undertake
market and competitor analyses and feasibility studies. In the subsequent Venture
Skills business subject, students draw up comprehensive business plans around their
company. The biotechnology business subjects also allow SBE companies to explore
models in business finance, development and commercialization using industry case
studies. The biotechnology science units form the basis for ideas generation and
exploring potential products of real biotechnological worth. The students undertake
the various subject-based assignments and projects as the company team.
A team-based approach to learning in student companies
In this team-based environment the student and the company team immediately see the
relevance of the theory in each subject and gain the experience of putting theory into
practice. Mistakes in a virtual company environment bear no overt financial or
personal cost and the students learn quickly by their experiences. Those students with
an affinity for one discipline area instruct and mentor the others in the group on the
subject content because as a group they need to manage the company. This level of
theoretical reinforcement results in an overall higher understanding of disciplinary
conceptual framework. Lateral thinking and exploring innovative approaches are
always encouraged and in the virtual environment off-the-wall ideas can be safely
researched and implemented. The students very quickly began to challenge our own
ideas and proposed new ways of approaching problems. For example, rather than
undertake an expensive media-based advertising campaign for the course in 2003, we
opted to send, all expenses paid, two students from any level of BBI to the national
industry conference for AusBiotech in Adelaide, on the provision that the students
promote the course. The completing students countered with a proposal that the money
be used to fund all eight to the conference. The students hunted cheap flights and
accommodation in a single apartment near the conference centre. At the conference the
bioneers were armed with printed colour biographies, business cards and course
brochures, attended most sessions and networked the delegates. Comments filtered
back from conference delegates relating to the high-profile student presence and were
unanimous in their praise of the capabilities and professional standards of the
students. Some of these students are still in e-mail correspondence with delegates that
visited from New Zealand and the USA.
An impact of the SBE Scheme was apparent almost immediately in the student
attitudes and grades. QUT ranks students on a scale of 1-7, where 7 is the highest.
Within one year of operating within companies, the grade point average of students
began to climb. As each cohort proceeds through the course the individual student
marks increase to the upper levels and it is not uncommon for students to consistently
rate grades of 6 and 7. One female student, Anna, provides an example of the type of
comments received:

. . . before the SBE scheme came along, I was a very average student. The SBE provided a
reason for everything I learned and it turned me around and focused me.

Annas grades are now routinely 7. From being a quiet person who shunned the
limelight, Anna as representative of a student company has grown to be a confident
businesswoman. Her capabilities have led to an internship in QUTs technology
commercialisation office and one role is to deliver a seminar to postgraduate students
on IP law. Anna is yet to graduate from the course but she is being headhunted for
several vacancies in firms dealing with technology commercialization.
Since BBI students undertake mainstream science and business subjects,
comparisons can be drawn between course groups. Typical comments from fellow
academics delivering the course, whether in the faculties of Science or Business or Law,
revolve around the focus, intelligence, cohesiveness of the bioneers, friendly
competitiveness amongst the group and their ability to think differently than the
others. Business lecturers commented that the BBI students are operating at the
Masters level with an understanding of concepts far above the level that the subject
was delivered at. One business lecturer commented the students think quite
differently, represent a refreshing change and are considered quite frightening in
the level at which they operate. One conversation with an advertising academic
revolved around how the BBI students had negotiated the framework of the subject
content as the current content failed to meet the more advanced requirements of the
companies. Within the Science Faculty, the grades of the BBI students routinely fall in
the top third of the various classes.
Projects industry focused or student company oriented
Another approach to injecting real-world experiences into the degree program relates
to the research component of the course. While the SBE Scheme runs for the entire
duration of the course, student companies undertake a research project in the last
year of the course. SBE companies can elect to either develop their own product further
or undertake a project of interest to an industry partner. Projects can be team- or
individual-based where output reflects the number of students involved. Projects can
be science-based or business-based or along the continuum.
Industry-based projects focus on industry ideas or the student company may have a
proposal that falls within the industrys focus. Some examples where SBE companies
undertook industry projects are:
.
Agnis produced a business plan for a local biotechnology company on a
diagnostic kit designed to test microbial contamination of Australian meat
supplies destined for export. Agniss business plan proposed a product that
could be packaged with existing company products as part of a complete
approach to quality improvement and management of herds.
.
Genero examined the IP status of patents on blood testing held by a medical
organization and was able to recommend a pathway for product
commercialization involving strategic partnering and licensing other patented
technologies.
.
Innoteq 1 explored the feasibility of using patented growth factors in the
cosmeceutical industry and provided a Brisbane-based start-up company with a
new market focus. Although not initially considered by the start-up company,

Teaching
biotechnology
entrepreneurship
413

ET
47,6
.

414

cosmeceuticals as part of a growing industry in self-enhancement potentially

represents as large a market as the original post-operative market targeted by
the company.
Innoteq 2 examined the licensing market for another Brisbane-based spin-off
identifying established biotechnology companies that could potentially use the
Brisbane companys patented technology aimed at improving yields from
mammalian cell culture.

For any one project, tasks can involve review of the patent status and research status
of technologies, establishing IP position, SWOT analysis, identification of critical
success factors and risk assessment, identification of target markets, financial
planning, competitor analysis, production costing, identification of potential licensing
arrangements, examining venture capital arrangements and compiling documentation
for due diligence. The industry partner takes on the role of mentor and in practice this
has meant that a number of contact people in one organization may interact with a
student company to progress the different and diverse tasks. Industry partners are
encouraged to treat the SBE company as they would any consultancy firm but provide
a reasonable level of guidance to meet desired outcomes.
Projects with industry partners are initiated by the SBE company or the industry
partner; there has been no matching of SBE companies with industry partners. The
annual industry presentation provides a major opportunity for student companies to
meet real companies, to discuss common areas of interest and how SBE companies can
help the industry partner. Agnis, Genero and Innoteq secured projects following
pitches at the annual event. The success of the SBE companies in providing tangible
outcomes for real biotechnology companies has seen industry volunteer projects.
Existing industry partners continually affirm their commitment for more SBE
companies to work on their projects.
The success of the industry-based projects has also seen academics begin to use
SBE companies as a means to explore the commercial potential of university IP. A
program is evolving whereby SBE companies, in a mentorship/consultancy capacity,
identify and explore the commercialization potential in research programmes in the
QUT faculties. Three SBE companies are investigating commercialisation potential
and processes for science research projects, Agnis on Chlamydial vaccine opportunities
and Genesys on the potential of a synthetic polymer for healing generated by a
chemistry PhD student, while Bionyx are investigating the IP potential relating to
ureaplasmas. This arrangement with the QUT commercialization arm could only be
initiated because of the positive outcomes generated from previous interaction between
industry and SBE companies.
Since one aim of the course is to produce inventors, SBE companies may opt to
develop their own products further. Consultation with academics in the Science Faculty
is encouraged to ensure that the scientific basis of the invention is sound. Companies
that elect to advance products are required to develop a research and development plan
complete with some level of costings. For example, SBE Genesys proposed to develop a
simple point-of-care diagnostic kit for the early detection of cancer. As part of their
initial literature-based research, Genesys found that presence of elevated levels of a
single protein was common to early stage development of 95 per cent of all cancer
types. They obtained the services of an IP law firm, free of charge, to establish that

their IP position was secure and sufficiently different from others in the field targeting
the same protein. Further literature searching has refined their method of approach.
Genesys has broken the research and development of their product into a number of
business- and science-related tasks where individual members of the team are
reporting on IP law, market analysis, feasibility studies, and product costings. Others
undertake laboratory projects to determine the validity and sensitivity of the test in
different cancer types. Other SBE company examples include Nutrex, who are looking
at increasing the efficiency of ethanol production through yeast fermentation, while
InCell are exploring novel approaches to limit the side effects of adenoviral gene
therapy.
Ideas do not have to be high-tech. For example, SBE Xest is interested in
micropropagation of rare plant varieties for the ornamental flower industry. In such
species, methods of propagation of interesting clonal varieties may rely on seed and
division of plants, methods that are slow and labour-intensive. Micro-propagation of
tissue culture material and regeneration of plantlets greatly facilitates the marketing of
existing rare varieties throughout the world and would allow, through mutagenesis,
the creation of new varieties. Within three months of laboratory trials, Xest had
succeeded where many others had failed. Protection of the intellectual property is by
trade secret as any patent could be circumvented. Xest are currently examining
scale-up processes to be able to mass-produce plantlets and are negotiating with a local
nursery operation to annually supply 5,000 plantlets of one species at $30-50 each and
60,000 plantlets of a second species at $5 each. Given that Xest comprises two bioneers
in the third year of a four-year course, this represents a remarkable achievement.
Ideas for potential inventions are often derived from lecture material in
biotechnology science subjects. In each case, SBE companies approached the
academic in charge of the subject to provide advice and mentor the student company
on refining their idea. For further product development, SBE companies are
encouraged to seek industry support for development and have pitched their products
at the annual Stellar Start Up event. That SBE companies are coming through the
course committed to research and development of their own product augurs well for
the possibility of spinning companies out directly from the course. Such spin-out
companies will boost local biotechnology industry and encourage other SBE
companies to emulate their pathways to success. One of the stimulators behind the
process of the SBE Scheme and the accompanying research projects has been that the
ownership of the student IP remains with the students. QUT cannot lay claim to any
part of the IP other than that generated by staff or postgraduate students who have
assigned their rights to QUT. The idea is that the students should generate the IP. The
students are told that if they invent a product of real worth, they own the IP and the
product; they are the ones who will benefit.
A few paradigms challenged
The BBI challenges traditional paradigms in science-based approaches to teaching in a
number of aspects but most notably on the issue of teams. In traditional science-based
courses, didactic lectures are the norm and are coupled with laboratory sessions where
students work in small groups of two to four. By and large, team skills are not
formalised or recognized beyond perhaps a minor component of one or two higher-level
subjects within a degree. Unlike the whole-of-degree team-based environment of BBI,

Teaching
biotechnology
entrepreneurship
415

ET
47,6

416

support networks do not normally evolve. For students intending to progress to

postgraduate degrees, it is considered essential by Science Faculty academics to be
able to gauge the abilities, and thus suitability, of an individual student for the rigours
of a higher degree. The most intelligent survive the system and progress into an
environment that is even more remote from the real world. In postgraduate degree
programs, students often operate as individuals on very esoteric projects. In real world
companies, not just technology-based ones, problem-solving approaches and work
practices revolve around teams and completely different skill sets are required.
The learning environment engendered by the SBE Scheme does not fit into the
hierarchy of knowledge acquisition normally associated with university courses. In the
traditional model of university education, data acquisition is the focus of the early
years, gradually building to interpretation and analysis in the ultimate semesters. The
notion of research on a potential product means that specific knowledge may be
required before students have encountered the unit dealing with that particular
scientific or business disciplinary area. Students have to find and assimilate that
information in the product research. This leads to an accelerated rate of learning. At
the 2003 Stellar Start-Ups, Genesys claimed that university teaching was retarding
their learning process.
The SBE Scheme provides for an active learning environment, in contrast to the
normal passive environment associated with structured lectures, tutorials and
laboratory sessions, where students are empowered to drive their own learning
experience. The understanding of relevance drives a positive feedback loop. As a
consequence the students consistently drive the tempo of the experience to new heights
and are motivated to succeed. This contrasts the traditional passive-focused science
course where instilling and maintaining motivation is a major issue. In challenging the
students to realize positive outcomes consistent with the course goals, we have
maintained a requirement for outcomes of industry standard. We have not sought to be
proscriptive in any area of the SBE company activities other than the need to meet
normal company reporting requirements and ethical standards. Our approach has been
to continually challenge the students to achieve better outcomes. Continuous feedback
from the industry mentor and the student peer group serve to focus outcomes. Action
research-style surveys, written and oral, are routinely undertaken as a means of course
improvement. Implementation of student suggestions has impacted at all levels of the
course including design and assessment. The process of conducting the SBE scheme
has been continually refined by student suggestion.
Self- and peer assessment play a major part of the SBE Scheme and are divided into
the two components of process and outcomes. Assessment of the company processes
relates to roles in company reporting, ideas generation and exploration, focusing on
specific products of interest to the virtual company, management of the company
projects, and skills relating to a team-based culture including communication, setting
team goals, work sharing, conflict resolution and decision making. Assessment of the
project outcomes relates to the product realised, that is the quality and substance of the
project report itself. In both components, students within an SBE company rate their
own performance level and that of their team members on a scale of 1-7 (highest).
Internal company negotiations arrive at a mutually-determined performance ranking.
Individual team members are required to write reports on their individual contribution
and role within the SBE company and the research project that justify the ranking. If

all the evidence is provided that the company requirements are met, then the ranking is
converted to the grade. If the industry partner or academic supervisor agrees that all
the requirements are met and the ranking claim by the students reflects outcomes, then
the ranking is converted to a grade. The notions of self- and peer assessment depart
dramatically from the typical exam-centred appraisal of student performance normally
undertaken in science-based higher education. By and large, the rankings have been
regarded as appropriate and little moderation has been required.
Some negative aspects of the programme
While all bioneers recognize the value of the innovative SBE scheme, one recurrent
theme coming from the body of students relates to the importance of time management
skills. Specifically, this relates to the extra demands of undertaking mainstream
subjects overlaid with the requirements of the SBE scheme. Failure to recognize at an
early stage the need for strict time management impacts on all aspects of course
progression.
The requirements to think laterally and operate in an entrepreneurial fashion often
frighten students who entered the course but did not understand the nature or intent of
the degree. Many students entering university do so seeking graduate outcomes
leading to secure stable careers. Such students are more comfortable with a directed
and slow progression from data gathering to data interpretation rather than sifting
through a wealth of equivocal situations to derive unequivocal events. The chaordic
nature of biotechnology start-up companies as modelled in the SBE companies is
anathema to such students. Unfortunately, they do not realize that stability is often far
from reality in this age, even in Government. The SBE environment favours fast
thinkers and extroverts. Those that seek the comfort of set guidelines and rigid
structures do not cope well.
A safety net programme is in place to catch those SBE companies that
disintegrate through problems of incompatibility of team members. While conflict
resolution is an issue that many SBE companies deal with internally and survive, in
some instances conflicts lead to students being fired from a company or company
members going their own way. As in real-world companies, the common causes for
dissent reside in behaviours at the extreme of the norm such as the power-hungry CEO
or the team member who fails to contribute. Less than half of the SBE companies
would progress through the course without some form of restructuring. Within the
framework of the SBE Scheme there is scope for projects of an individual nature. Part
of the reflection undertaken during SBE process is recognizing why a company may
fail, as many SMEs in the real world do as a consequence of incompatibility problems
with founding team members.
Course outcomes and impact on stakeholders
Graduate destinations are a good measure of course success. The first cohort of eight
bioneers, representing students who transferred into the course or undertook an
accelerated programme completing the degree in three years instead of the normal four,
graduated in February 2004. Two of these bioneers are undertaking PhDs on projects
with commercial outcomes that have spin-off potential. The lack of science research
skills equivalent to the traditional Australian one-year honours research programme
was considered to be a minor issue in both appointments. Further laboratory training

Teaching
biotechnology
entrepreneurship
417

ET
47,6

418

was deemed easier to provide at this level than developing a start-up ready
entrepreneurial philosophy. The breadth of skills in science, business and IP law, the
ability to think laterally and the high level capacity to communicate were the
over-riding factors. Two bioneers have joined the offices of commercialization and
technology transfer arms of large research institutes. In the words of one employer:
We decided to interview your students to benchmark them against PhD graduates
with MBAs and commercial experience. We had no intention of employing them. Your
students were the youngest, the least experienced but were the most focused, the
sharpest and they could think laterally [. . .] They came out on top of the short-list.
One graduate sent his CV to one commercialization arm although they did not have a
vacancy: after an interview, a position was created. Two bioneers are business
development officers for Brisbane-based biotechnology companies, one established
and one start-up, and are involved in identifying opportunities for future growth. One
bioneer has been appointed policy advisor to the Minister responsible for promoting
biotechnology in the state. As the latter bioneer relates:
Three e-mails went out to three VCs of Brisbane-based universities seeking outstanding
biotechnology graduates [. . .] I was interviewed along with applicants with PhDs and MBAs
[. . .] I got the job, a mere graduate with a Bachelors degree.

The last bioneer decided to travel the world for a year. All employers have reported
nothing but positive comments concerning the high standard of graduate capability,
and some are looking for more graduates to join the organization. All graduates
consider they have their dream job.
Another important measure of course outcomes is the part-time and full-time
employment of students yet to graduate from the course. As a consequence of
industry-based projects and the industry recognition of the student capabilities, many
students graduating in February 2005 have already secured positions in biotechnology
organizations in Queensland, including positions in market research,
commercialization and business development. Interestingly, a network is developing
amongst the graduates and current students whereby graduates and students in paid
employment are preferentially hiring new workers, usually on a casual basis, from the
BBI student cohort to undertake projects. The graduates maintain a strong connection
with the course and each other, meeting socially once a month. As the current and
future graduates move into and higher within the Australian biotechnology industry,
the collegiate culture of BBI will transfer itself into strong business and alumni
networks.
The rapid uptake of the BBI graduates into positions in industry is probably the
best measure of the impact of the degree on industry. That the current undergraduates
are attaining work in the biotechnology industry before graduation can also be used as
a yardstick. A sound knowledge of a complex science and an understanding of
business principles have been fundamental to the keen interest shown by industry in
the BBI degree, especially in areas not strong in the science. One testament from a
principal of a venture capital firm who was keen to employ a bioneer goes: your
graduates talk-the-talk of business and science I am not a scientist.
An independent audit of BBI outcomes, involving interviews of students, academic
staff and industry, was conducted in late 2003 as part of the reporting processes for the
Australian Federal Government, and provides insights into industry perceptions about

the course (Clarke, 2004). A relevant excerpt from the Executive Summary of this
report is presented here:
The major outcomes of the industry representative perceptions were:
.

Industry representatives had a general appreciation rather than a detailed understanding

of the program, being more acquainted with the intent of the bioenterprise component
with which they were directly involved as mentors and supervisors.

Industry representatives had no preconceived expectations of students, preferring to rely

on industry norms to gauge the students actual performance on the projects.

They were impressed with the students, particularly their initiative on following up initial
industry contacts, their response to feedback and their inclination to see projects through
to a successful conclusion.

The industry representatives had limited exposure to the students written

communication skills but were very impressed with their oral communication skills,
their ability to manage time, to think creatively, critically and to problem-solve. Some
were a little concerned with the depth of scientific knowledge exhibited but acknowledged
the difficulty of developing such depth in two discipline areas. The extent of business
knowledge impressed them. As far as the industry representatives were concerned, the
students showed they could work both independently and as a cooperative team member,
could locate and evaluate relevant information and utilise technology effectively. There
was unanimous agreement that the students displayed various elements of
entrepreneurship.

What impressed the industry representatives most were the students working knowledge
of the biotechnology industry and their appreciation of the complete process of taking a
product through from its initial development to final commercialisation.

The industry representatives agreed that the biotechnology industry needed and was
ready for such graduates and indicated that they possessed an employable set of skills.

The BBI degree has achieved considerable State Government recognition and featured
prominently in an annual report as an innovative degree program helping to skill
students for jobs of the future (Government of Queensland, 2003). The degree also
features first amongst a group of State Government initiatives aimed at broadening
business skills and instilling entrepreneurial skills (Government of Queensland, 2003).
Recognition has also extended to meetings between successive new Ministers
responsible for biotechnology promotion in the State and the student cohort, and an
article in a high level State Government publication under the header The future face
of biotech (Government of Queensland, 2004).
Conclusion
The national and state governments of Australia, like those of many countries,
recognise the value of science and technology-led opportunities in building local and
regional economies and are committing billions of dollars to research in emerging
technologies (Backing Australias Ability, 2003; Government of Queensland, 2003).
Science-trained academics are, however, traditionally ill-equipped to navigate an
invention from the laboratory to the global marketplace. In establishing the BBI
degree, we aimed to produce bioentrepreneurs, i.e. graduates who would make a impact
on the local biotechnology industry as business-savvy scientists, agents of research
commercialization, or founders of their own start-up companies. Although the degree

Teaching
biotechnology
entrepreneurship
419

ET
47,6

420

has only completed its first cycle, the course certainly appears to be meeting its goals.
That the graduates and completing students are quickly finding positions within the
small Australian biotechnology industry where previously a PhD, an MBA and several
years of commercialization experience were required qualifications is justification for
experimenting with an undergraduate model that is very different from the traditional
science-focused biotechnology degree offered by most universities.
While many courses may include a subject or two on business planning, often
masquerading as entrepreneurship (see, for example, Mitchell and McKeon, 2004), the
concepts of innovation and enterprising behaviour are woven into the fabric of the BBI
degree. Success of the degree clearly derives from the over-arching synthesis of the
disparate disciplines driven through the concept of whole-of-course virtual companies
that facilitates student empowerment, accelerated learning, support networks, peer
assessment and industry projects that add value. All the approaches and activities
described in this paper instil a hands-on/real world applicable knowledge and skills
base required for a start-up philosophy. If the heart of entrepreneurship involves
action (Gartner and Vesper, 1994), then the most important enabling learning tool may
be the activities associated with the SBE Scheme. The SBE companies act as emerging
organisations and therefore the student learns, enjoys and becomes accustomed, at no
financial burden, to the consequences of turning equivocal situations into
non-equivocal events (Gartner and Vesper, 1994). Gibb (2002) laid down a challenge
for teaching enterprising behaviour, rather than entrepreneurship, in a non-business
school environment. The bioneers of the BBI are the first products of our experiment in
training entrepreneurs in a science-based environment and their current success
suggests that they may well add a new dimension to the growth of the local
biotechnology industry in Australia.
References
Backing Australias Ability (2001), Backing Australias Ability: an innovation action plan for
the future, available at: http://backingaus.innovation.gov.au/docs/statement/
backing_Aust_ability.pdf
Backing Australias Ability (2003), Backing Australias Ability: the Australian Governments
innovation report 2003-2004, available at: http://backingaus.innovation.gov.au/docs/
BAA03-04.pdf
Clarke, J.A. (2004), Audit of the Bachelor of Biotechnology Innovation, QUT Faculty of Science,
Brisbane.
Deakins, D. (2000), Twente University entrepreneurship and commercialisation programmes,
internal report, Paisley Enterprise Research Centre, Paisley.
Galloway, L. and Brown, W. (2002), Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the
creation of high growth firms?, Education Training, Vol. 44 Nos 8/9, pp. 398-405.
Gartner, W.B. and Vesper, K.H. (1994), Experiments in entrepreneurship education: successes
and failures, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 179-87.
Gibb, A. (2002), In pursuit of a new enterprise and entrepreneurship paradigm for learning:
creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of
knowledge, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 233-69.
Keogh, W. and Galloway, L. (2004), Teaching enterprise in vocational disciplines: reflecting on
positive experience, Decision Management, Vol. 42 Nos 3/4, pp. 531-47.

Luthje, C. and Franke, N. (2002), Fostering entrepreneurship through university education and
training: lessons from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, paper presented at the
European Academy of Management 2nd Annual Conference on Innovative Research in
Management, Stockholm, 9-11 May, available at: www.sses.com/public/events/euram/
complete_tracks/management_education/franke_luthje.pdf
Meyer, G.D. (2001), Major unresolved issues and opportunities in entrepreneurship education,
Coleman White Paper, USASBE/SBIDA Joint National Conference, 8 February, Orlando,
FL, available at: www.usasbe.org/pdf/CWP-2001-meyer.pdf
Mitchell, P.C. and McKeon, A.E. (2004), Importance of peer support and tutor involvement in
entrepreneurship education for overseas bioscience students, BEE-j, Vol. 3, May,
available at: http://bio.ltsn.ac.uk/journal/voln/beej-3.2.htm
Government of Queensland (2003), Queensland the Smart State. Investing in Science: Research,
Education and Training, Queensland Government Publication, Brisbane, available at:
www.sd.qld.gov.au/innovation/publications/smartstate/science.pdf
Government of Queensland (2004), The future face of biotech, Catalyst, Vol. 10, p. 10-11,
available at: www.smartstate.qld.gov.au/smartstories/catalyst/2004/10.pdf

Teaching
biotechnology
entrepreneurship
421