218 G. Kozmetsky

states. To mitigate such hyperactive competition in the developments of
core sciences and methodologies, it will require newer collaborative ef-
forts, institutional relationships, and advanced developments of telecom-
munications. There is enough technology to network our research scien-
tists and engineers in our federal government laboratories, industry
research laboratories, universities and colleges, associated federally funded
R&D centers, and other nonprofit research centers to better disseminate
the results of the core knowledge and know-how. More importantly, we
must find ways to reduce the time and effort to transfer and diffuse our
biotechnologies. Most importantly, we must use the newer telecommuni-
cation technologies and supercomputer abilities to diffuse the biotechnol-
ogy knowledge and know-how to be utilized more expeditiously by me-
dium and small firms.
 Equally important to the success of commercializing U.S. biotechnolo-
gies is the improvement of communicating their impacts and benefits. To
wait too long to develop the necessary policies and regulations at the fed-
eral, state, and local levels results in confusion, unnecessary delays, and
increased investments and costs. It also threatens our competitive edge for
world-wide markets. The consequences on economic growth and job crea-
tion may be more detrimental than return on investment or short-term
profits to the private sector.
 In time, we must learn to expand the communication network for main-
taining our competitive edge in the U.S. biotechnology industries. Each
firm needs to have access to timely and accurate information ranging from
core scientific and methodological advances to domestic and global market
data and needs, to other information for enhancing its abilities to compete
and cooperate.
 Today's major U.S. public policy issue is how to most effectively develop
and improve our manufacturing abilities in biotechnology. Successfully
scaling up R&D applications is a critical barrier. To date, there are not
only technical limitations but also regulatory ones for manufacturing facil-
ities.


 THE JAPANESE APPROACH

 Such steps were taken by the Japanese in 1982. They increased their
recombinant DNA mass cultures from 20 liter capacity to 300 to 500 liter
tanks. They decontrolled microorganism containment standards from P3
(decompression of experimental room's internal atmosphere to lower level
than outside air) to P2 (airtight and constantly kept in a state of more