Public vs Private: Knowledge Sharing in Advocacy

David Bell
3 days ago
13 min read

How cultivated meat progresses depends on how well knowledge is shared. Public institutions focus on transparency and open data, while private companies prioritise protecting innovations. These contrasting approaches shape the way knowledge flows, influencing consumer trust, regulations, and industry growth.

Key points:

Public sector: Shares open research, like the UK Food Standards Agency's £1.6 million safety programme launched in 2025, to address safety concerns and build trust.
Private sector: Protects proprietary knowledge to maintain a competitive edge, but selective sharing can hinder collective progress.
Challenges: Public bodies face legal and infrastructure barriers, while private firms struggle with internal silos and competitive pressures.
Collaboration opportunities: Shared facilities (e.g., The Cultured Hub in Zurich) and joint regulatory programmes can align efforts.

The future lies in bridging these approaches through partnerships and unified advocacy to reshape food systems effectively.

Government-Funded Research and Open Data

The public sector prioritises making knowledge accessible and transparent. For instance, in October 2024, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) received £1.6 million from the Engineering Biology Sandbox Fund. The agency committed to publishing all safety research findings on food.gov.uk. This initiative, which kicked off in March 2025, directly addresses consumer safety concerns [2]. By openly sharing research, the FSA creates a centralised evidence base that benefits researchers, industry professionals, and advocacy groups alike, promoting trust through shared information.

But this openness isn’t limited to safety testing. The FSA’s bi-annual "Food and You 2 Survey" examines consumer attitudes and has shown that trust in regulation plays a major role in whether people are willing to try cultivated meat. Interestingly, this factor often outweighs ethical considerations like "slaughter-free" claims [2]. Public organisations also manage intellectual property, data, and research to maximise both social and economic benefits [9].

This commitment to openness forms the backbone for broader collaborations in creating regulatory frameworks.

Collaborative Frameworks and Regulatory Guidelines

Knowledge sharing in the public sector flourishes through structured partnerships. A great example is the "Alternative Proteins Roadmap", published by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) in June 2022. This report brought together key players from industry, academia, and regulatory bodies to outline the UK's strengths and challenges in this field. It serves as a shared guide for investments and policymaking [8]. Similarly, the Food Data Transparency Partnership unites government, academia, industry, and civil groups to standardise how environmental impacts are reported across the food system [10].

These collaborative efforts, often referred to as "knowledge-policy interfaces", provide spaces where evidence can move freely between researchers, policymakers, and advocacy organisations. For instance, in December 2023, the FixOurFood and H3 research projects - funded by the Transforming UK Food Systems Strategic Priorities Fund - showed how Civil Society Organisations can use evidence to influence food policy [1]. By building these frameworks, the public sector ensures that knowledge isn’t confined to labs or government offices. Instead, it becomes a shared tool that informs regulations, shapes public understanding, and strengthens policy advocacy.

R&D and Proprietary Innovations

Unlike the public sector, where transparency is often prioritised, private companies focus on maintaining a competitive edge by carefully controlling how knowledge is shared. Intellectual property plays a key role here, safeguarding R&D efforts and protecting commercial investments [11].

"Commercial incentive can often only be achieved by providing access through protected, or defensible intellectual property which conveys a competitive market advantage."Knowledge Asset Commercialisation Guide, GOV.UK [11]

Take the cultivated meat industry as an example. It has already attracted over $3.1 billion in investments from around 100 companies [12]. With limited capital spread across so many players, firms are under pressure to protect their advancements. One critical area is amino acid culture media, which makes up a staggering 55%–95% of production costs. Unsurprisingly, any cost-reduction strategies in this space are tightly guarded [15].

Some companies, however, are finding ways to balance protection and collaboration. In 2025, Mission Barns achieved regulatory approval for its cultivated pork fat and began licensing its proprietary facilities and technology to other firms. This helped others launch pilot projects while Mission Barns retained its competitive edge [12]. On another front, over 30 companies in the Asia Pacific region signed a Memorandum of Understanding to standardise the term "cultivated" in their messaging. It’s a rare example of competitors coming together to align on advocacy goals [12].

Still, the competitive nature of the private sector often limits how much information is shared.

Competition naturally curtails transparency. Solutions to key technical challenges, such as the "Hayflick limit", are often treated as proprietary knowledge [13]. While this protects individual firms, it can slow down collective progress on improving safety standards and reducing costs [12][14].

The issue becomes even more pronounced in policy advocacy. Companies often share data selectively, aiming to influence regulations in ways that align with their commercial goals [1]. This selective approach can backfire, as it weakens the sector's ability to present a unified, transparent case to build public trust and secure regulatory support.

There’s a tricky balance to strike here. On one hand, openness fosters trust and credibility. On the other, it risks undermining the financial incentives that drive private-sector innovation. This paradox creates a tension between the need for transparency and the commercial realities of bringing innovations to market [11].

Key Differences Between Public and Private Approaches

Public vs Private Sector Knowledge Sharing in Cultivated Meat Industry

The way public and private sectors handle knowledge sharing couldn't be more different. Public institutions - like universities, government bodies, and civil society organisations - treat information as a public good, ensuring it is widely accessible. They are bound by rules that require transparency and disclosure. On the other hand, private companies see knowledge as a key resource for maintaining a competitive edge [16]. They carefully control what information is shared, prioritising confidentiality. These contrasting approaches highlight the distinct strategies each sector employs in advocacy.

Public sector advocacy often moves at a slower pace due to lengthy policy cycles and academic priorities, which tend to focus on securing grants rather than implementing practical solutions [17]. In contrast, private firms, driven by market demands and investor expectations, innovate quickly but guard their intellectual property fiercely [16].

Funding sources further illustrate the divide. Public institutions rely on government grants and public funding, whereas private companies depend on venture capital and revenue streams [16][20]. As Jim Mellon, Executive Chairman of Agronomics, succinctly put it:

"Generally, I think the whole space suffered from over enthusiasm at the time of the pandemic – high valuations, too much money being raised and money being spent like drunken sailors would have done."

Here’s a breakdown of how the two sectors differ:

Feature	Public Sector	Private Sector
Accessibility	High; open access and public dissemination [17][18]	Low; proprietary knowledge for differentiation [16][19]
Transparency	High; mandated reporting for lobbying [17]	Low; confidentiality protects IP [19]
Speed of Innovation	Slower; complex policy timelines [17]	Faster; driven by competitive pressures [16]
Funding Sources	Government grants, public funds [17]	Private investment, revenue [16]
Primary Audience	Policymakers, general public [19]	Internal stakeholders, target customers [19]
Key Challenges	Legal restrictions, misaligned incentives [17]	Competitive pressures, tacit knowledge barriers [16]

This comparison highlights how accessibility, transparency, and funding models differ significantly between the two sectors, shaping their advocacy strategies in unique ways.

Public institutions often share research findings openly to support policy changes. Private companies, however, must carefully balance the need for disclosure against the risk of losing their competitive advantage. Despite their differences, both models share a common goal: turning knowledge into action that drives effective advocacy.

Public Sector Challenges

Public institutions encounter several obstacles when it comes to sharing knowledge effectively. Political divisions and restrictive legislation are among the key issues. For example, in some regions, laws have been introduced that outright ban cultivated meat production. As UPSIDE Foods commented:

"Florida and Alabama criminalized cultivated meat. These laws do not protect consumers. It is 'food policing' to protect entrenched interests, defying free market principles." [21]

Beyond legal barriers, inconsistent terminology adds to the confusion. When policymakers and the public struggle to understand the language used, it slows down the development of effective policies [22][21].

Another major hurdle is infrastructure - or the lack of it. The UK, for instance, has no mid-to-large-scale biomanufacturing facilities. This absence creates what’s often called the "valley of death" for startups, making it hard for them to scale. The potential benefits of a cultivated meat industry in the UK are immense: it could add £2.1 billion to the economy and generate over 16,500 jobs by 2030. However, without proper infrastructure, innovative companies often relocate to countries where regulations and resources are more supportive [23].

Despite these challenges, public institutions are working to improve transparency and develop the necessary infrastructure.

Private Sector Challenges

Private companies also face their own set of internal challenges, many of which mirror the external difficulties seen in the public sector. One key issue is knowledge hoarding. Employees often withhold information, fearing it might diminish their value or competitive edge. As the Journal of Education and Health Promotion explains:

"People are more likely to be reluctant to share their knowledge (power) with others, because they may lose their values and competitive advantage." [24]

This behaviour is often reinforced by organisational silos and the dominance of specialised experts. Employees may focus on maintaining their own expertise rather than sharing knowledge for the greater good. Celina Sołek-Borowska from SGH Warsaw School of Economics highlighted this issue:

"In many cases employees believe that their future depends on their development as an expert, and so struggle to attain or maintain hegemony over knowledge instead of seeking to share it." [25]

The result is an uneven dynamic where a small group of individuals actively share knowledge, while the majority remain disengaged. Competitive pressures within organisations further discourage collaboration, making it harder to break down these barriers [25][24].

Opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships

Joint Campaigns and Shared Infrastructure

When public institutions and private companies combine their efforts, they can tackle challenges that neither could address alone. A great example of this is The Cultured Hub in Zurich, which provides shared facilities for startups, enabling them to grow without needing massive capital investments. Erika Georget, Managing Director of The Cultured Hub, puts it succinctly:

"There need to be hubs to enable efficient capital use for intermediate scales. There need to be places where companies can show investors that the process they're working on is viable at a scale." [20]

Another collaborative model is the use of regulatory sandboxes. For instance, the UK Food Standards Agency launched a two-year programme in March 2025 with £1.6 million in funding. This initiative brought together eight companies, including Mosa Meat, BlueNalu, and Hoxton Farms, for monthly workshops and consultations. The aim? To complete safety assessments while shaping industry guidelines [29][30].

In a related breakthrough, Mosa Meat published a paper in Nature Food in January 2022, outlining a method for producing cultivated beef without foetal bovine serum. This innovation tackled ethical and environmental concerns head-on while promoting standardised data sharing. Interestingly, research shows that over 80% of the components used in growth media for cultivated meat are shared across companies, proving that standardisation doesn’t have to come at the expense of protecting intellectual property [26][29]. As Dr. Mark Post, Chief Scientific Officer at Mosa Meat, shared:

"We are honoured to be one of the few included in this government-funded collaborative programme, and excited to contribute the knowledge of our 70+ scientists toward a co-learning process that benefits the Food Standards Agency and other cultivated meat and seafood companies." [28]

This kind of collaboration is setting the stage for more unified engagement with regulatory bodies.

Policy Influence through Unified Advocacy

Shared facilities are just one piece of the puzzle - unified advocacy also plays a key role in amplifying the sector’s influence. By aligning public and private efforts, these campaigns can shift public opinion and build trust. Consumer confidence in regulation is one of the strongest indicators of willingness to try cultivated meat [2][3]. When private companies openly collaborate with independent regulators like the FSA, they foster trust that goes far beyond traditional marketing. As Professor Robin May pointed out:

"Safe innovation is at the heart of this programme. By prioritising consumer safety and making sure new foods, like CCPs are safe, we can support growth in innovative sectors." [30]

These kinds of initiatives don’t just drive innovation - they also help navigate regulatory challenges. For example, on 27 June 2024, UPSIDE Foods hosted the "Freedom of Food Pop-Up" in Miami, Florida, just before a state-level ban on cultivated meat was set to take effect. The event, led by CEO Dr. Uma Valeti and Chef Mika Leon, offered free samples of cultivated chicken. Attendees were also encouraged to sign a petition opposing the legislation, blending advocacy with public engagement [7].

Opportunities for collaboration also extend to traditional agriculture. Between 2021 and 2023, the "Cultured Meat & Farmers" project at the Royal Agricultural University brought together 75 farmers, industry players like Cellular Agriculture Ltd, and policymakers. This project explored how conventional farms could work with the cultivated meat industry, such as by supplying raw materials for cell feed. It demonstrated that these two sectors don’t need to be at odds - they can complement and benefit each other [31].

Role of Non-Profits in Bridging Sectors

Non-profits play a critical role where academic research, government policies, industry advancements, and public understanding meet [1][5]. Take organisations like The Cultivarian Society - they simplify complex scientific concepts for policymakers, providing the evidence needed to shape effective regulations. By doing this, they connect different sectors and help lay the foundation for unified industry standards.

In 2024, the Good Food Institute (GFI) demonstrated this bridging role by sharing unpublished research with the UK Food Standards Agency. This collaboration supported a rapid review of consumer responses and terminology, which informed the launch of the £1.6 million Engineering Biology Sandbox Fund programme in March 2025 [2][3]. Such knowledge-sharing enables regulators to make informed decisions.

Non-profits also contribute to standardisation, fostering clarity across industries. For instance, in 2025, GFI facilitated a Memorandum of Understanding signed by over 30 companies in the Asia Pacific region, officially adopting "cultivated" as the standard term. Backed by GFI-commissioned consumer research, this agreement aligned global communication and reduced regulatory confusion [12]. As Elliot Swartz, a GFI scientist, explained:

"Many global regulatory agencies look to the United States Food and Drug Administration for their leadership in the safety assessment of new food. With this approval, we anticipate that many global regulators will accelerate the development of clear regulatory pathways."

Beyond terminology, non-profits bring a fresh perspective to policy discussions. Dr Rachael Durrant from the University of Sussex highlights how civil society organisations, unlike markets that often favour uniformity, use diversity to drive innovation [32]. Their independence allows them to focus on long-term systemic change rather than short-term profits.

The Cultivarian Society exemplifies this approach by blending advocacy with action. Through public awareness campaigns, policy engagement, and community-building efforts, they connect researchers, startups, and citizens. By producing detailed content and tailored insights, they address what Dr Christopher Yap refers to as the "conspicuous absence" of civil society voices in food policy debates [1][32]. These efforts ensure that non-profits remain vital players in bridging public and private knowledge.

Conclusion

Advancing knowledge sharing in cultivated meat advocacy relies on recognising the distinct strengths of the public and private sectors. The public sector contributes through regulatory frameworks and open research, while the private sector drives forward through proprietary innovations. To make meaningful progress, these sectors need to bridge their differences by fostering effective knowledge-policy connections [1][5].

At the heart of this collaboration lies co-production - a strategy that thrives when all forms of knowledge are valued and integrated. As Professor Huw TO Davies from the University of St Andrews explains:

"Knowledge mobilisation could be enhanced by providing support to enable cross-sector and interagency learning, reflection on the conceptual basis of approaches and increased evaluation of knowledge mobilisation activities" [27].

This calls for building relationships based on mutual respect, addressing power imbalances, and ensuring that all stakeholders - from startups to government bodies - play a meaningful role in shaping policy [6].

The importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration cannot be overstated. Organisations like the United Nations Environment Programme, FAO, and UNDP stress:

"Multi-stakeholder collaboration needs to be an essential pillar of the food systems approach and the transition to sustainable food systems" [33].

Practical measures to support this include establishing cross-sector taskforces, funding coordination hubs, and implementing formal systems to evaluate progress [4][27]. Non-profits play a critical role here by bringing diverse voices together.

For instance, The Cultivarian Society exemplifies how civil society can bridge gaps by connecting researchers, industry leaders, and the public. They simplify complex scientific ideas into actionable strategies, ensuring transparency while encouraging private sector innovation.

The cultivated meat industry is at a pivotal moment. As highlighted by the European Commission's High-Level Expert Group:

"Food system transformation must be better supported through more ambitious interlinked science-policy-society interfaces" [4].

To achieve this transformation, uniting public research, private sector innovation, and civil society advocacy is not just beneficial - it’s essential for reshaping the future of food systems.

FAQs

Effective collaboration between the public and private sectors can pave the way for meaningful knowledge sharing in the field of cultivated meat. By establishing platforms where policymakers, researchers, industry experts, and civil society can openly exchange ideas and expertise, these groups can tackle challenges and share practical insights, unbiased data, and innovative approaches.

One promising strategy is adopting co-production approaches, where stakeholders collaborate as equal partners. This method fosters trust, values diverse perspectives, and ensures that efforts are aligned with societal priorities. Such an approach not only strengthens relationships but also supports the responsible integration of cultivated meat into the food system, aiming for a future that's both ethical and sustainable.

What challenges does the public sector face in promoting awareness of cultivated meat?

The public sector faces several obstacles when it comes to increasing awareness and support for cultivated meat. One of the biggest challenges lies in navigating the regulatory approval process. Since cultivated meat is a relatively new concept, it must undergo rigorous safety evaluations and follow clearly defined regulatory pathways. This can significantly delay its entry into the market.

Another major hurdle is securing public funding. Cultivated meat often falls into the biotechnology category, which can make it ineligible for traditional agricultural funding. This lack of financial backing makes it difficult to advance research efforts and establish the infrastructure needed for large-scale production.

Speaking of production, scaling up to meet demand presents its own set of challenges. Producing cultivated meat on a large scale requires heavy investment in advanced bioreactors and cutting-edge food processing technologies, which are both expensive and complex to implement.

Finally, its novelty and the uncertainties surrounding regulations can create hesitation among policymakers and governments. This reluctance slows down the flow of information and support for cultivated meat, making it harder for the sector to gain traction and public acceptance.

Private companies often keep their data under wraps to protect their intellectual property, proprietary technologies, and maintain a competitive advantage. While this makes sense from a business perspective, it can create barriers to collaboration and transparency within the cultivated meat industry. These limitations may, in turn, slow down progress and the development of scalable solutions.

This guarded approach doesn't just affect innovation - it can also influence consumer trust and policymaking. Without access to open data, it's harder to independently verify claims about product safety, environmental impact, or public acceptance. This lack of transparency could delay regulatory approvals and slow down the broader adoption of cultivated meat, which is crucial for creating a more ethical and sustainable food system.