Producing Value or Responding to Valuation? SMEs’ Strategies for Commercialising Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell and Bioprinting Technology

• This study looks at how small biotech companies make money from new technologies like stem cells and 3D bioprinting.
• Although these technologies are often promoted as future medical treatments, companies currently focus on nearer-term uses such as research tools, laboratory services, and drug testing.
• Using interviews and market analysis, the study shows that value comes from specialist expertise, data, and access to patients, samples, and research networks rather than finished therapies.
• Companies also protect their knowledge through patents and secrecy to stay competitive.
• The findings suggest that decisions about what gets developed are shaped by investors, customers, and regulators, which may make it harder to develop more open or publicly driven approaches to innovation.

This paper focuses mainly on the United Kingdom, while also considering global developments in biotechnology markets. It is an interdisciplinary study combining sociology, science and technology studies (STS), and economic analysis.

The paper examines two emerging biomedical technologies:

• Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) – cells that can be reprogrammed to become many different cell types and are widely used to study disease and test drugs 
• 3D bioprinting – a technology that uses living cells to “print” experimental tissues in the lab 

The study concentrates on how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) commercialise these technologies, particularly in research and drug development rather than direct patient treatments.

This paper examines how new biomedical technologies are actually turned into viable businesses. Although induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) and 3D bioprinting are often presented as future medical breakthroughs—such as repairing tissues or printing replacement organs—the study shows that current commercial activity is focused on much nearer-term uses. In practice, companies are mainly developing research tools, laboratory services, and platforms for testing new drugs.

A common strategy is what is sometimes called a “picks and shovels” approach. Rather than trying to develop high-risk therapies, many companies focus on supplying the tools and services that other researchers and pharmaceutical firms need. This includes providing specialised cell lines, running drug testing services, or producing materials used in laboratory research. These activities generate more immediate and reliable income.

In this context, value does not primarily come from selling finished medical treatments. Instead, it comes from turning expertise, skills, and access into services. For example, companies may specialise in sourcing human tissue samples, creating customised stem cell lines, or testing new drugs on human-like cells grown in the lab. These capabilities depend on highly specialised knowledge and access to patients, samples, and research networks—resources that are not easy for competitors to replicate.

To maintain their position, companies work to protect what they know. This often involves patents, trade secrets, and proprietary techniques. By controlling access to their knowledge and methods, firms can offer something distinctive and charge for its use. This protection of knowledge is an important part of how companies remain competitive.

The study also shows that the two technologies are at different stages of development. iPSC is a more established field, with clearer and more stable business models, especially in drug testing and research services. In contrast, 3D bioprinting is still largely experimental. Most companies in this space focus on selling equipment and materials to researchers, while keeping an eye on potential future applications.

Importantly, companies do not make these strategic choices in isolation. Their decisions are shaped by how different external actors define value. Investors, for example, often prioritise strong intellectual property and future market potential. Customers—such as pharmaceutical firms or research labs—look for speed, reliability, and specialised capabilities. Regulators influence what is considered safe and acceptable. Together, these perspectives shape what companies choose to develop.

As a result, innovation follows particular pathways. Technologies that can generate revenue in the short to medium term, or that can be clearly protected and controlled, are more likely to be developed. More open or collaborative approaches, by contrast, may be harder to sustain within this system.

Overall, the paper argues that innovation in these fields is shaped not only by scientific possibilities, but also by how different actors judge what is valuable. These judgements influence which technologies move forward, how they are developed, and ultimately how quickly they may lead to benefits for patients

The paper is structured as follows:

• Introduction  
• Case studies and background 
  • Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) 
  • 3D bioprinting 
• Theoretical framework 
• Methodology  
• Results  
  • Commercialisation of iPSC 
  • Commercialisation of bioprinting 
• Discussion  
• Conclusion

For more information on biomodifying technologies, including a list of related publications see: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/biogov-governing-biomodification-in-the-life/biogov-governing-biomodification-life-sciences