Pathways to Bioeconomy and Bioconvergence Perspectives from Serbia and Israel 2025

Conclusion This paper explores the bioeconomy and bioconvergence through the lens of Serbia and Israel, providing a roadmap for other countries looking to harness ICT, AI, engineering and life sciences to fuel economic growth. The key takeaway is that, despite differing starting points, both nations have focused on building strong bioeconomy foundations, and their unique paths offer valuable lessons for other regions. These examples show that countries can adapt and implement similar strategies by building on their own strengths, resources and institutional frameworks. They demonstrate that there is no one-size-fits-all model, but rather a set of adaptable principles that can guide national bioeconomy development. Serbia thoughtfully integrates ICT infrastructure with its bioeconomy vision. The BIO4 Campus, for instance, symbolizes Serbia’s dedication to attracting investment and spurring innovation within a bright ecosystem. By putting a focus on education, creating a business-friendly atmosphere and making substantial investments in AI and digital infrastructure, Serbia is laying a solid foundation for lasting success in the bioeconomy. What’s more, the nation’s focus on data governance and public- private partnerships illustrates its proactive stance in tackling the complexities of this field. With the same goal, Israel has adopted a more concentrated and diversified model by emphasizing bioconvergence as a strategic national priority. The country’s substantial investments in multidisciplinary research and human capital development distinguish it as a global leader. Israel’s approach demonstrates how a clear national strategy, supported by significant government funding, can rapidly accelerate growth in bioeconomy sectors. Collaboration between academia, industry and government is central to Israel’s success. This highlights how aligning these sectors can unlock vast potential. Although Serbia and Israel have taken different approaches, shaped by their distinct economic contexts and starting points, this diversity strengthens their shared message. Their experiences demonstrate that, regardless of a country’s size or economic power, strategic vision and targeted investments in ICT and life sciences can drive meaningful bioeconomic development. Serbia and Israel both showcase how tailored national strategies supported by smart policies and cross-sector collaboration can unlock the potential of the bioeconomy. This paper serves as a roadmap for countries at various stages of development, demonstrating how both small and large nations can harness ICT and life sciences to boost their bioeconomy. It draws on the experiences and strategies of Serbia and Israel, harnessing these stories to provide a roadmap for a sustainable, innovation-driven, bio-based future. Policy directions Both Serbia and Israel exemplify a valuable lesson: when governments make smart investments, they can significantly boost their bioeconomy and bioconvergence efforts. Even though they approach it differently, both countries emphasize three key areas that can drive progress: 1) making sure there’s equitable access to infrastructure in order to promote excellence, 2) creating flexible policies that support research and innovation, and 3) transforming education systems to develop future- oriented professionals. A few key policy directions come to light from the comparative analysis of Serbia and Israel: –Investments: Ongoing investment in both fundamental and applied research is essential, especially in AI and data science. This should reach various bioeconomy sectors, focusing on areas that can generate major economic impact and societal benefits. –Interdisciplinary collaboration: Strong collaborations between academia, industry and government are critical for successful bioeconomy and bioconvergence initiatives. It’s crucial to address barriers like bureaucratic red tape and funding constraints to support this cooperation. –Human capital development: Encouraging a skilled workforce capable of navigating multiple disciplines is essential. Education programmes should mirror the interdisciplinary nature of bioeconomy and bioconvergence, balancing theoretical knowledge with practical skills. –Data governance and ethics: Establishing clear, strong frameworks for data governance is necessary to ensure the ethical and responsible use of sensitive health and genetic data. Regulations should prioritize data privacy, security and interoperability while supporting data use for research and innovation. –Regulatory harmonization: Simplifying regulations and the approval process for innovative technologies and businesses will catalyse participation in the bioeconomy ecosystem. Pathways to Bioeconomy and Bioconvergence 29