One session at the BPI Conference this year (Raleigh, NC, 12-16 October 2009) covered the topic of so-called “disruptive technologies.” According to the speaker line-up, that includes cell-free production and single-use technology, among other things. But I say not really. And here’s why.

dis•rupt
tr.v. dis•rupt•ed, dis•rupt•ing, dis•rupts
1. To throw into confusion or disorder:
Protesters disrupted the candidate’s speech.
2. To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of: Our efforts in the garden were disrupted by an early frost.
3. To break or burst; rupture.

A bull in a china shop is disruptive (although Mythbusters fans may argue with me about that). Children in school can be disruptive to their teachers’ lesson plans by talking too much, passing notes, using their cell phones, and so on. People marching in butterfly costumes at the BIO Annual Convention want to be as disruptive as they can be. The word carries with it negative connotations of disorder and interruption, even grinding things to a halt.

The most recent and glaringly obvious example of its appropriate use came this past summer in US Congressional town-hall meetings. With half a dozen people in a crowded room yelling insults and accusations non-stop, the chance for actual discussion of options and possibilities was destroyed. And that was, of course, the intention. Guidelines provided to many protestors encouraged them to "cut off" and "shut down" anything said in support of health-care reform. Now that’s disruptive.

Destructiveness is also implied by the word. And even though my musical taste can tend in that direction (or maybe partly because I love punk rock), I find myself strongly resisting this business application of it. Apparently the term was coined for this use by author and Harvard professor Clayton M. Christensen in his 2003 book, The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book That Will Change the Way You Do Business. (Here’s Wikipedia’s entry on it.) He contrasted the idea with revolutionary/discontinuous and evolutionary innovations, which respectively offer radically new ways to do something or improve existing products in an expected way. He called those sustaining innovations — as opposed to disruptive innovations, which create a new/unexpected market by applying a completely new set of values.

But that’s not destruction, nor is it confusion, disorder, or an impedance of progress. (Does Professor Christensen own a dictionary?) On the contrary: What he’s describing is creation in its purest form. What he’s describing should be a good thing. He could have used a nice Harvard-sounding word like originative — or maybe something more down-to-earth like seminal.

Within the biopharmaceutical industry, I see the idea of disruptive technologies applied to concepts that could completely transform the industry: e.g., truly cell-free glycoprotein production and fully disposable manufacturing trains. About a decade ago, transgenic plant/animal developers were claiming they would completely replace current cell-based methods and stainless steel plants as well — but so far, they’ve failed to even come close. True cell-free processes (which I would argue aren’t likely to appear anytime before, say, humans set foot on the planet Mars) might put a lot of bioengineers out of work, they might make things difficult for the segment of the fermentor market that focuses on biopharmaceutical companies, and they might greatly simplify downstream processes. But they’re neither going to destroy the biologics business nor “create a new/unexpected market by applying a completely new set of values.” What they would do — besides perhaps helping pigs fly — is completely revolutionize the way protein drugs are made. They might make proteins faster, cheaper, and cleaner, but they’re still making proteins. In fact, gene therapies — should they ever reach their full potential — could well be far more “disruptive” to the protein drug market than cell-free production ever could hope to be. Why make proteins when you can simply convince your patient’s body to do so for you? No fuss, no muss. (Hmmm... or not.)

If you worked for a company that made glass or stainless-steel bioreactors, single-use technology might appear to be about as disruptive as it gets. Some people are asking whether wave-style and other disposable bioreactors will make those big tanks a thing of the past. But most industry experts say there will always be a bioprocessing market for stainless steel even as plastics take over some of its business. Meanwhile, the smarter companies are getting involved in both — hedging their bets, perhaps, or simply moving with the times. In other words, they’re not giving up the ghost. No destruction here — so I would argue, no disruption.

If you think a change means you’ll be out of a job, you’re probably inclined to think disruptive is just the right word to apply. Heck, I’m one to talk: I’m an editor for a print magazine. Talk about fearing for your livelihood... How often do you hear about the Internet killing print publishing, streaming video killing text, open-source killing gatekeeper-controlled distribution of scientific/technical information? In my world, we’re not convinced. Sure, these things may take my career in whole new directions, they may add avenues for communication — but kill the printed word? I don’t think so. I’m with those bioreactor makers who add plastics to their materials of construction. Whichever way things go — hopefully both — we plan to be ready.