Schism is the new normal for the bioeconomy concept. Since its proliferation in governments, the concept has been adapted to fit national or regional exigencies. Earlier this century the knowledge-based bioeconomy (KBBE) in Europe was seen as a technical and knowledge fix in the evolving sustainability landscape. At the OECD, the concept was further honed by imagining a future where biotechnologies contribute significantly to economic growth and development. Countries started to make national bioeconomy strategies. Some countries have diverged and made the bioeconomy both much larger and more general, involving a wide variety of sectors, such as industry, energy, healthcare, agriculture, aquaculture, forestry and fishing. Whatever the approach, what seems to be consistent is the need to reconcile environmental, social and economic sustainability. This paper attempts to establish one schism that could have ramifications for the future development of the bioeconomy. Some countries, including some of the largest economies but not exclusively so, are clearly following a biotechnology model, whereas others are clearly not. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, biotechnologies offer outstanding potential in healthcare, although this sector is by no means included in all bioeconomy strategies. The paper also attempts to clarify how biotechnologies can address the grand challenges and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The communities of scientists seem to have no difficulty with this, but citizens and governments find it more difficult. In fact, some biotechnologies are already well established, whereas others are emerging and more controversial.
Institutional obstacles to Brazil’s economic growth and development