A little while ago, I had the honor of traveling to Beacon Hill, where I testified before the joint committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. The matter at hand was House Bill number 4238, a.k.a. Governor Patrick’s Life Sciences Initiative. The hearing began just after lunchtime with a kick-off address from Gov. Patrick that ended with an enormous wave of cheering and applause…from outside of the building, as the hearing was scheduled at the same time as the Red Sox World Series victory parade, which was just rolling by.

Nevertheless, Gov. Patrick struck a fine tone with the group, and at the conclusion of his remarks Senator Hart (the committee chair) observed the overall importance of biotechnology to the future of jobs and healthcare in the Commonwealth. It was a good start, and a far cry from the media circus I found under the golden dome during the stem cell hearings in 2003.

I was part of a small contingent from academia and, wearing my one and only suit, delivered testimony urging the legislature to give serious consideration to the Governor’s plan. As an aside and for the record, I specifically pushed for two areas: bridge funding for young faculty (see my post elsewhere on this at “The New Valley of Death”) and money for stem cells.

That said, it took some three hours or so to be recognized, as one after another, various executive branch folks and other elected officials took their turns at the podium—including Representative Koutoujian and Secretaries Bigby (Health and Human Services), O’Connell (Housing and Economic Development), and Bump (Labor and Workforce Development). One by one, each provided remarks urging support for the $1 billion plan. The day was truly remarkable from my perspective as there seemed to be no naysayers (save for one disgruntled citizen in the gallery). Various committee members had serious questions for the speakers, though mostly for Secretary O’Connell, as he also chairs the seven-member Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC) and thus controls the checkbook for the whole enchilada.

The most direct questioning came from Senator Tucker (Second Essex and Middlesex), when she asked O’Connell, “What are the non-negotiables in the bill?” She pressed O’Connell further by asking him to detail what he would cut from the Governor’s plan if only one-half the requested funding was available. The Secretary stuck to his guns by observing that the whole package was important and that a good expenditure of effort would not be to find ways to shave programs but, rather, to convince the taxpayers that the entire bill was worth it. Some other lines of questioning and commentary seemed to revolve around a bit of discomfort with the large degree of centralized authority within the bill—meaning positions under the Governor’s control and beyond the reach of the legislature. I would be surprised if the final version of the package, which seemed on the fast track to me, didn’t spread responsibility and authority around a little more. Certainly, there are some kinks to be ironed out in this, but it was my impression that the committee felt it was a very good project overall.

The bill looked promising from where I was sitting, and I can have a grant proposal ready in 24 hours if anyone on Beacon Hill is reading this. That said, I’d like to know how good this bill looks to the private sector. My own point of view is narrow; that of an academician interested in funding and regulations that control laboratory research. Grants get the attention of everyone in research universities and hospitals. However, the bulk of Gov. Patrick’s plan seems to revolve around incentives to life sciences businesses—things like tax breaks, write-offs, and expedited permitting. How attractive are these carrots? As a person who has worked on finding ways to stimulate the interest that life sciences companies have in state research funding, I wonder if research grants are as attractive to the private sector as these other, non-cash components in the Governor’s plan? Are the states that are hoping to lure companies within their borders by giving grants alone even in the same ballpark with others like Massachusetts, which are offering different incentives? I’m certainly interested to find out, though I think I already know the answer.

Comments | Reprints | Share:        

On Thursday, Governor Patrick handed his Beacon Hill colleagues the long awaited Life Sciences Initiative Bill (about which I have previously written on Xconomy.com). I am eager to see the bill though as yet I have been unable to obtain a complete version. Instead, I got a stripped-down, piece-by-piece summary of all 23 sections of the legislation along with a “Legislation for Amateurs” version of the entire proposal. I’m not much of a tax lawyer so the majority of its contents are lost on me.

The measure contains a wealth of tax exemptions, extensions, and refunds all intended to stimulate the private sector’s interests in making the Commonwealth home, especially in areas beyond Kendall Square (so-called “Economic Opportunity Areas”). A big part of the buy-in here relates to R&D or manufacturing businesses’ ability to be listed as a “certified life sciences project” by the state’s Department of Business Development. Getting this stamp means that they have to do some hiring of new, full-time employees within Massachusetts and in return, the company gets up to seven tax breaks/incentives including a full credit of the application fees paid to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for products stemming from in-state R&D. Another break allows certified projects to extend their Net Operating Loss exemption as long as 15 years (it’s currently five). I’ve no way to know how tantalizing these carrots are going to be for businesses looking to relocate or expand in Massachusetts. What did get my attention was grant money for science.

Governor Patrick has said a great deal in the run-up to the bill about promoting basic life sciences in Massachusetts. There’s talk of a centralized stem cell bank as well as support for UMass-Worcester’s Professor Craig Mello’s Nobel prize-winning work with RNA-interference or RNAi. As yet I’ve seen no firm amounts described for either of these projects but as a scientist, it is at least encouraging to hear the buzz. The five member Massachusetts Life Sciences Center (MLSC), the group controlling the purse strings, would be increased to a membership of seven by adding two new gubernatorial appointees; one a venture capitalist and the other a researcher. The MLSC is chaired by the Secretary of Housing and Economic Development and will be advised by a yet-to-be-appointed ten-member committee drawn from the ranks of the Massachusetts Life Sciences Collaborative. The goal of all of this will be to craft a process in which the “MLSC has the authority to build capital projects, award grants, and expend funds consistent with the plan articulated by the Governor.” My own experience in helping to build a grants-awarding process drawing on state funds tells me that it is going to take a lot of work to get this off the ground.

That said, it’s also been my experience that things usually get done if people want them to. At this point, everyone involved (including the Governor) is waiting to see how this all flies in the 185th General Court of the Commonwealth. I would encourage folks under the gold dome to remember that now is not the time to rest on laurels. California has the green light on its $3 billion dollar stem cell package and development in the for-profit sector plays a significant part therein. The Massachusetts Life Sciences Initiative Bill is less money, but is broader in scope. Doing more with less is certainly challenging, but given the flexibility of being able to promote a wider-variety of life sciences companies and projects, it may ultimately prove to be a wiser approach.

Comments | Reprints | Share:        

I attended a small meeting of the minds yesterday at the Charles Hotel in Harvard Square. Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick invited potential stakeholders to suggest what his proposed $1 billion Life Sciences Initiative should actually look like. I must admit that I am usually skeptical when leaders ask how they should do their jobs, but this was different. I think that requesting input from the key sectors (including biotech, pharma, VC, public and private academia, health-care institutions, and various Beacon Hill folk) is a good move here, not to mention refreshing. Having been to the session, I’m not certain that I know much more about what the plan is going to look like than I did before, but some interesting things were said.

First, the plan is to be honchoed by the Massachusetts Life Science Center, a group described by housing and economic development secretary Dan O’Connell as being “a creature of the legislature.” The group’s five-member board (perhaps to be enlarged in the days ahead) will be responsible for the implementation and execution of the program.

Also, when Gov. Patrick took the stage, I could have sworn that he said he hopes to see 250,000 jobs created through the initiative over the next 10 years. That’s a lot of people, and while a portion of the day was dedicated to brainstorming about workforce issues, my big question was how these folks would afford condos in Cambridge. The apparent answer has to do with a push to spread the wealth around the commonwealth via a network of “Innovation Centers.” The plan will likely involve a lot of investment in and around Boston and Cambridge but also looks to other locales within the state where commercial interests might get a boost from things like quick permit-granting processes and a lower cost of living for employees.

Next, there will be funding for research. Exactly how that process comes together—what types of grants will be funded, who decides on the recipients, and other important questions such as how IP will be handled—remains to be seen. Here, I would urge Gov. Patrick not to reinvent the wheel. Several states (including Connecticut, where I serve, and California—the gorilla in the room) have already established funding programs and done a great deal of thinking (and in some cases litigating) to figure out what works and what does not. At least, that’s true for stem cell research, admittedly only a small part of the governor’s plan. Last month at the National Academies of Sciences’ Beckman Center in Irvine, CA, representatives of nine states (including one from Massachusetts) gathered under the working title “The Interstate Alliance for Stem Cell Research.” Their goals were simple: to initiate dialogue that might assist states seeking to establish stem cell grant programs and to do whatever was possible to craft/massage/tweak states’ existing initiatives so they don’t actually impair the ability to collaborate across state lines. More on this to come.

Finally, one thing really made an impression on me. Of all the state programs to promote the life sciences that I’ve heard about, the Massachusetts plan sounds the most commercial. Other states that have gotten into the game have done so in part due to a need to promote translational science that leads to the development of improved therapeutics. Flat National Institutes of Health funding levels and two presidential vetoes around stem cells have told the people, “Do it yourself.” To quote Gov. Patrick, “Scientific research should not be held hostage by politics.” Bravo sir, well said, but it’s about more than funding translational science.

All the state initiatives I have seen have an element of economic development/stimulus, but the Massachusetts plan appears to be built around it. The five working groups from yesterday were (roughly speaking) workforce and education, business development (taxes), innovation and infrastructure (the aforementioned statewide “innovation centers”), promoting ideas and innovation (grants), and implementation. The breakout groups met for about two hours each in order to generate “wish lists” to be passed along to the governor’s staff. (I was in the grants session and had a lot to say.) Each group then gave a 15-minute summary at the end of the day, and without exception, the presentations were geared toward one question: how will Massachusetts maintain its lead in the life sciences in a global market containing players like Singapore, China, and even California? It’s a big question, and there is not a lot of time to figure out the answer. Yesterday, more than 100 smart people (and at least one who was simply glad to be there) took a few moments to provide what sounded to me like very good advice. If even a fraction of those in attendance are willing to help with a bit of follow-through, the governor will have a lot to smile about in the days ahead.

Comments | Reprints | Share: