Regenerative Medicine Rising in the East

Asian markets at the forefront of regenerative medicine advancements.

Across the pharmaceutical industry, the Asia-Pacific has grown in importance, attracting big pharma to the region with its easy access to patient populations and low manufacturing costs.  In addition, generic drug manufacturing has massively boosted the market. However, one area in which the Asia-Pacific has really been forging its own path is in regenerative medicine. Encompassing stem cell therapy, gene therapy and tissue engineering, this innovative area of science offers the chance to repair damaged tissue and restore proper functioning to cells. It is an area of increasing interest globally, with massive potential, as demand for novel curative and reparative therapies soars as a result of the growing aged populations and rising incidence of cancers and chronic diseases. However, to date, regulatory bodies have been unwilling to approve gene therapies and stem cell therapies in the west, because of the unproven nature of the science. Instead, Asia-Pacific countries have emerged at the forefront of the commercial clinical use of these pioneering approaches.

China has led the way in gene therapy approvals to date, with Gendicine and Oncorine hitting the market in 2003 and 2005 respectively. These approvals demonstrated an important fact – that China was serious about developing regenerative medicine, sensing an opportunity to enter a young, growing market at an early stage and attract industry attention with favourable approval mechanisms. This has been replicated across other Asia-Pacific countries. In South Korea, the world’s first approved clinical stem cell treatment is Hearticellgram-AMI from FCB-Pharmicell, which uses a stem cell transplant from the patient to improve heart function. This was approved in 2011 and was followed by two other stem cell therapies in 2012. Their long-term success in the market has yet to be determined, but they represent important milestones in regenerative medicine commercialisation. Singapore, meanwhile, has made a deliberate effort to set itself up as a hub of regenerative medicine research.

It isn’t just local companies that are getting in on the action in the Asia-Pacific – US company Epieus Biotechnologies commercialised its cancer gene therapy Rexin-G in the Phillippines, and US companies such as Vical and Genzyme have entered into collaborations with Asian companies.

Some of the same advantages that make approval easier in countries such as China also damage the country’s chances of leading the industry, however. Regulations governing approval are less strict, which has led to the early approvals of therapies such as Gendicine and Oncorine. This lack of stringency in the requirements for approval has meant that without extensive further testing, the therapies cannot enter other markets such as the US and EU. In addition, there is general scepticism as to the actual benefit of therapies approved without detailed clinical trial data. In addition, despite China having a high number of patients with head and neck cancer who could benefit from the approved therapies, reimbursement and insurance coverage limitations for Chinese citizens mean that access is severely restricted. Consequently, the revenues of therapies such as Gendicine, previously predicted as having blockbuster potential, have remained stubbornly disappointing. Benda Pharmaceuticals, who own the rights to the product, was worth only $4.1m in 2010.

The unproven and unfamiliar nature of the science has led to caution from regulatory bodies and has been a frustrating deterrent to R&D by industry in the US and EU, but high patient populations, more permissive approval processes and a desire to gain a competitive advantage in a developing area with high growth potential have given the Asia-Pacific a head start in regenerative medicine. Western governments and industry are paying increasing attention to the region, attempting to ensure that they are not losing ground in the regenerative medicine market but also keen to leverage the opportunities offered in the Asia-Pacific as acceptance, demand and expertise flourish there. 

Amy Baker is a Life Science Analyst at GBI Research

Photograph: Getty Images

Amy Baker is a Life Science Analyst at GBI Research.

Getty
Show Hide image

Gender pay gap: women do not choose to be paid less than men

Care work isn’t going anywhere – and it’s about time we recognised which half of the population is doing it, unpaid.

Is it just me, or does Mansplain The Pay Gap Day get earlier every year? It’s not even November and already men up and down the land are hard at work responding to the latest so-called “research” suggesting that women suffer discrimination when it comes to promotions and pay. 

Poor men. It must be a thankless task, having to do this year in, year out, while women continue to feel hard done to on the basis of entirely misleading statistics. Yes, women may earn an average of 18 per cent less than men. Yes, male managers may be 40 per cent more likely than female managers to be promoted. Yes, the difference in earnings between men and women may balloon once children are born. But let’s be honest, this isn’t about discrimination. It’s all about choice.

Listen, for instance, to Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs:

“When people make the decision to go part time, either for familial reasons or to gain a better work-life balance, this can impact further career opportunities but it is a choice made by the individual - men and women alike.”

Women can hardly expect to be earning the same as men if we’re not putting in the same number of hours, can we? As Tory MP Philip Davies has said: “feminist zealots really do want women to have their cake and eat it.” Since we’re far more likely than men to work part-time and/or to take time off to care for others, it makes perfect sense for us to be earning less.

After all, it’s not as though the decisions we make are influenced by anything other than innate individual preferences, arising from deep within our pink, fluffy brains. And it’s not as though the tasks we are doing outside of the traditional workplace have any broader social, cultural or economic value whatsoever.

To listen to the likes of Littlewood and Davies, you’d think that the feminist argument regarding equal pay started and ended with “horrible men are paying us less to do the same jobs because they’re mean”. I mean, I think it’s clear that many of them are doing exactly that, but as others have been saying, repeatedly, it’s a bit more complicated than that. The thing our poor mansplainers tend to miss is that there is a problem in how we are defining work that is economically valuable in the first place. Women will never gain equal pay as long as value is ascribed in accordance with a view of the world which sees men as the default humans.

As Katrine Marçal puts it in Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner?, “in the same way that there is a ‘second sex’, there is a ‘second economy’”:

“The work that is traditionally carried out by men is what counts. It defines the economic world view. Women’s work is ‘the other’. Everything that he doesn’t do but that he is dependent on so he can do what he does.”

By which Marçal means cooking, cleaning, nursing, caring – the domestic tasks which used to be referred to as “housework” before we decided that was sexist. Terms such as “housework” belong to an era when women were forced to do all the domestic tasks by evil men who told them it was their principal role in life. It’s not like that now, at least not as far as our mansplaining economists are concerned. Nowadays when women do all the domestic tasks it’s because they’ve chosen “to gain a better work-life balance.” Honestly. We can’t get enough of those unpaid hours spent in immaculate homes with smiling, clean, obedient children and healthy, Werther’s Original-style elderly relatives. It’s not as though we’re up to our elbows in the same old shit as before. Thanks to the great gods Empowerment and Choice, those turds have been polished out of existence. And it’s not as though reproductive coercion, male violence, class, geographic location, social conditioning or cultural pressures continue to influence our empowered choices in any way whatsoever. We make all our decisions in a vacuum (a Dyson, naturally).

Sadly, I think this is what many men genuinely believe. It’s what they must tell themselves, after all, in order to avoid feeling horribly ashamed at the way in which half the world’s population continues to exploit the bodies and labour of the other half. The gender pay gap is seen as something which has evolved naturally because – as Marçal writes – “the job market is still largely defined by the idea that humans are bodiless, sexless, profit-seeking individuals without family or context”. If women “choose” to behave as though this is not the case, well, that’s their look-out (that the economy as a whole benefits from such behaviour since it means workers/consumers continue to be born and kept alive is just a happy coincidence).

I am not for one moment suggesting that women should therefore be “liberated” to make the same choices as men do. Rather, men should face the same restrictions and be expected to meet the same obligations as women. Care work isn’t going anywhere. There will always be people who are too young, too old or too sick to take care of themselves. Rebranding  this work the “life” side of the great “work-life balance” isn’t fooling anyone.

So I’m sorry, men. Your valiant efforts in mansplaining the gender pay gap have been noted. What a tough job it must be. But next time, why not change a few nappies, wash a few dishes and mop up a few pools of vomit instead? Go on, live a little. You’ve earned it. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.