Biology First: How Does a Good Idea Become a Product That Works in the Field?

Written by Prof. Dr. Umut Toprak
Chief Technology Officer, MPPI

Biological crop protection is not short of ideas. Quite the opposite—the table is becoming crowded. Effective microorganisms, target-specific RNA molecules, proteins, peptides and new modes of action inspired by nature are opening fresh scientific possibilities almost every day.

Yet not every exciting laboratory result becomes a product in the field. A microorganism may perform beautifully in a Petri dish. An RNA molecule may silence its target gene. A protein may show remarkable biological activity. All of that matters, but a reliable product in the hands of a grower requires much more.

The journey does not end with discovery. In many ways, that is where it begins.

We say “biology first.” So, what comes next? 

How do we turn good science into a product that can be manufactured, stored, applied and trusted in the field?

There is no single hero in this story. Laboratories, investors, governments, growers and society each write a different part of it. Let us take a closer look at these five links.

1. Good Science Is Only the Beginning of a Product

Seeing strong biological activity in the laboratory is exciting. Product development, however, immediately brings a new set of questions. Can the active ingredient be produced at scale? Can a formulation protect it? How long will it survive sunlight? Will it perform just as well after six months in storage? Can a grower apply it easily with existing equipment?

This is where research and product development must sit at the same table. Formulation, scale-up, quality control, shelf life and field trials are not details to be added at the end of a project. From day one, they shape what the product can become.

For a scientist, “it works” may be a powerful result. For a grower, it must work at the right time, at the right dose and with every application. That is the distance between scientific discovery and a real product.

2. Biology Needs Patient—and Intelligent—Capital

Biological technologies often create early excitement: a strong dataset, a new mode of action, an interesting patent. Then the quieter and more expensive work begins—validation, pilot manufacturing, stability, registration, scale-up and market access. 

Investors naturally ask, “When will it become a product?” Scientists know that biological systems do not always follow a spreadsheet. Both sides need to understand each other. Science cannot explain every delay as simply “the nature of biology,” and capital cannot expect biological development to move at the speed of a software update.

What we need is not blind patience. We need intelligent capital tied to realistic milestones, able to recognise risk early and provide the right resources at the right stage. Biology can be accelerated, but when it is rushed, it is often weakened.

3. Let Us Not Force New Technologies into Old Boxes

An RNA product, a living microorganism and a recombinant protein do not share the same biology, mode of action or risk profile. If we force all of them into a regulatory drawer designed for conventional chemical products, we cannot evaluate them properly.

The aim is not to relax safety standards. It is to build science-based, predictable pathways that ask the right questions. An assessment shaped by what a product is, how it works and what risk it actually presents can protect safety while preventing good technologies from waiting at the door for years.

Public support also has another role: building domestic capability. Without pilot manufacturing, intellectual property, entrepreneurship and skilled people, a country may become a market that uses biological products—but not one that develops biological technology.

4. If Growers Enter Last, the Product Starts Incomplete

A solution that looks perfect in a greenhouse faces a very different test under commercial conditions. Application time, water quality, equipment, labour, weather and cost all enter the picture. A detail that appears minor in the laboratory may decide whether a product is adopted in the field. That is why treating growers as end users alone is a serious mistake. Dose, timing, ease of application and field performance should be tested with growers during development. Knowledge from the field must return to the laboratory, and the laboratory solution must evolve in response.

A good product is not simply one that performs well in a trial. It is one the grower wants to use again next season.

5. Trust Is Not Built After the Product Launch

Terms such as RNA, microorganisms and recombinant proteins may create a clear picture in a scientist’s mind. For society, the same words can produce uncertainty alongside curiosity. If we do not fill that space, it will be filled either by miracle claims or by fears with no scientific basis.

Science communication is therefore not a promotional extra; it is part of technology development. We need to explain a product’s limitations as clearly as its advantages. We should be open about what it does—and what it does not do. Trust grows from precisely that kind of clarity.

Scientists, companies and the media share a responsibility here: make complex biology understandable without emptying it of meaning.

The picture is now clearer. Discovery, formulation, investment, regulation, field experience and public trust may look like separate subjects, but they belong to the same product journey. If one link breaks, good science remains in the laboratory, investment remains on hold and products remain on the shelf.

The next generation of crop protection will not be shaped by the strongest molecule alone. The systems that carry that molecule most effectively into manufacturing, the field and public trust will lead the way.

Biology first. Then manufacturing, formulation, regulation, the field and trust. The future of crop protection will emerge not only from new active ingredients, but from the strong ecosystems that make them work.