246 L. Scordato et al.
The development of new value chains requires investments in research
and innovation. A national strategy for research and innovation will
create the basis for an innovative industrial sector based on national
natural resources.… The role of the local municipality will be to connect
existing competences within biomass utilisation (R&D, industrial production, market) and other knowledge sectors/networks (e.g., oil, shipping, finance, defense, and ICT) with the objective to identify new
opportunities for value creation and job creation.
(Local government)
The biotechnology vision is represented by 23% of the submissions, emphasising issues related to biotechnology research and the commercialisation of R
and D within the life sciences and health. Unsurprisingly, it is essentially the
academics (universities and research institutes) who are leading the biotechnology/science push discourse. Notably, the issue of life sciences and healthrelated biotechnology is discussed as having the potential to become a
growing field. Their arguments clearly stress the need to develop biotechnology to prevent and treat different diseases, and at the same time, they highlight the many new business opportunities, which may come as a result of the
commercialisation of biotechnology. It is assumed that the market for biotechnology products is promising, and that it would be a missed opportunity
to neglect this field in a national bioeconomy strategy. A quote from the submission of an industry association illustrates this point:
Medical and health- related biotechnology needs to be a part of the
national bioeconomy strategy. New technology based on gene- and biotechnology has the potential to bring us large opportunities for treatment
and prevention of diseases, and at the same time create new business
opportunities.… The market for biotechnology products is large and will
become even larger in the years to come.
(Industry association)
Overall, these submissions express disappointment with the way the government at the outset has defined the scope of the bioeconomy, leaving
health- related biotechnology and life sciences out of the definition. An
example quote in this regard can be traced back to the submission from a
university, which states that:
Microbal biotechnology is a decisive research field if Norway is to
develop economically sustainable and competitive bioprocesses based on
Norwegian biomass in the future. Such investment will contribute to
increased industrial activity and create new jobs within the bioeconomy.
(University)
While the two first visions (i.e. the biotechnology vision and bio- resource
vision) share many similar aspects (the focus on technology development,
The development of new value chains requires investments in research
and innovation. A national strategy for research and innovation will
create the basis for an innovative industrial sector based on national
natural resources.… The role of the local municipality will be to connect
existing competences within biomass utilisation (R&D, industrial production, market) and other knowledge sectors/networks (e.g., oil, shipping, finance, defense, and ICT) with the objective to identify new
opportunities for value creation and job creation.
(Local government)
The biotechnology vision is represented by 23% of the submissions, emphasising issues related to biotechnology research and the commercialisation of R
and D within the life sciences and health. Unsurprisingly, it is essentially the
academics (universities and research institutes) who are leading the biotechnology/science push discourse. Notably, the issue of life sciences and healthrelated biotechnology is discussed as having the potential to become a
growing field. Their arguments clearly stress the need to develop biotechnology to prevent and treat different diseases, and at the same time, they highlight the many new business opportunities, which may come as a result of the
commercialisation of biotechnology. It is assumed that the market for biotechnology products is promising, and that it would be a missed opportunity
to neglect this field in a national bioeconomy strategy. A quote from the submission of an industry association illustrates this point:
Medical and health- related biotechnology needs to be a part of the
national bioeconomy strategy. New technology based on gene- and biotechnology has the potential to bring us large opportunities for treatment
and prevention of diseases, and at the same time create new business
opportunities.… The market for biotechnology products is large and will
become even larger in the years to come.
(Industry association)
Overall, these submissions express disappointment with the way the government at the outset has defined the scope of the bioeconomy, leaving
health- related biotechnology and life sciences out of the definition. An
example quote in this regard can be traced back to the submission from a
university, which states that:
Microbal biotechnology is a decisive research field if Norway is to
develop economically sustainable and competitive bioprocesses based on
Norwegian biomass in the future. Such investment will contribute to
increased industrial activity and create new jobs within the bioeconomy.
(University)
While the two first visions (i.e. the biotechnology vision and bio- resource
vision) share many similar aspects (the focus on technology development,