Ventria Bioscience Case Study
Michael Regan
Kaplan University
Corporate Social Responsibility
GB590
Dr. William Deskin
March 06, 2012

Introduction
Ventria is a biotechnology firm that developed a process to produce pharmaceutical proteins in the seeds of rice (Lawrence & Weber, 2011). Ventria was a small start-up company that received funding from venture capital. Ventria believed that its first product would be well received since it was a medicine that would lessen the severity of diarrhea in children (Lawrence & Weber, 2011). Plant-made medicines could be developed much cheaper than using mammalian or microbial cell cultures. Plant-made medicines were able to be developed without the extensive and expensive purification process which allowed them to be taken orally (Lawrence & Weber, 2011).
Problems Facing Ventria
Ventria had a few of issues that prevented it from being as successful as CEO Scott Deeter expected them to be. 1. Organization – When Scott Deeter succeeds Hagie as CEO he took the company down a different path as part of his reorganization to help the company be successful he narrowed the company’s projects down the a few that had the greatest chance at being successful (Lawrence & Weber, 2011). 2. The rice that was produces from their research had side-effects. Couple this with the regulation that California places on genetically engineered rice farms and it becomes an uphill battle to get their research successfully completed. Federal and state regulations aside, it was also difficult to complete research due to the regulation of the rice industry itself (Lawrence & Weber, 2011). 3. For their part government regulatory agencies made progress a very hard achievement. The FDA has the responsibility for the safety and effectiveness of food and medicine. They considered fields containing pharmaceutical crops as manufacturing facilities and being as such could be inspected by the agency. The EPA has the responsibility for the environment and the safety of foods crops that were engineered to contain pesticides that could be harmful to the environment. Plants that contained their own internal pesticides and could have no unreasonable adverse impact on the environment. The USDA has oversight responsibility of genetically altered crops being tested in fields. The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has to issue a permit for the growing of any plant that is genetically altered to produce pharmaceuticals (Lawrence & Weber, 2011).
The downside of this system of many regulatory bodies for biotech firms made getting any approved complex with many overlapping requirements.
Environmental Impact
The impact to the environment could be great and expensive if the precautions that the regulatory agencies establish is not followed early in the process. This would mean a costly clean up and loss of consumer confidence in the company. Failure to comply would also ensure that when they were to produce any future product that it would cost more since the previous land would not get government approval due to the possibility of contamination.
Economic Result
The economic implications associated with a biotechnology firm are high even when things are going as they should. However not addressing issues that regulatory agencies find can put a company out of business due to fines, and possible law suits over unsafe manufacturing of genetically altered plants. On the plus side, if all rules are followed and a company has developed a product that has a need in society the results could catapult the company into a league of a major pharmaceutical.
Social Well-being
The implication of non-compliance to the social well-being is extremely great. If a biotech company has a product that is needed by humans then non-compliance could delay or terminate this product before it can do any public good. Compliance on the other had will allow the company to produce many worthwhile products that may lessen human suffering and provide a safer, healthier society.
Recommendations
Ventria should consider the following recommendations to help ensure their future success. 1. Seek additional private sector funding 2. Initiate safe, non-environmentally threatening products that can come to market relatively sooner than other projects. 3. Realign goals and objectives to fit more with what will appeal to investors 4. Design an internal quality assurance team that would have standards as high as regulatory agencies.
Ventria must not allow initial setbacks in the early years of their existence to dictate their future success. Many companies do not usually succeed after only two years (Lawrence & Weber, 2011). They must allow the network of industry organization serve as mentors and partners to get them to the next level of research and later success.
References
Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2011). Business and Society: Stakeholders, Ethics, Public Policy (13th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.