Having easily overridden Mitt Romney’s veto of the stem cell research bill, the state legislature will shortly turn its attention to the possibility of using state funds to support stem cell research in Massachusetts.
The Globe story indicates that both Senate President Travaglini and House Speaker DiMasi are interested in creating incentives, but are leery of setting up direct state funding of research. That seems about right to me. I disagree with the Bush administration’s policy of refusing to fund research on embryonic stem cells, but it seems unlikely to me that Massachusetts could replicate the federal government’s procedure for evaluating and funding research proposals. Better, it seems to me, to spend the money on tax breaks and other incentives to encourage research here (as opposed to, say, California), in the hope that private money will fill the gap created by the lack of federal funding.
I don’t know. Connecticut is ready to spend $100 million over 10 years on this kind of research. I’m generally not one for corporate welfare, but if a firm can get a couple of million dollars by opening up their offices a few miles down I-84, why wouldn’t they?Now, I’m not saying we should bend over backwards to get these companies to come (or stay) here, but we’ve got to give them a good reason to pass up all that free money. I’m not sure tax incentives are going to do it.
I don’t think that MA should go the CA route, or even the sco route.Fund public university research within MA a bit, to be sure. In other words, if applicable, send UMASS a check.But, I don’t think tax incentives are a good idea. MA is already a natural fit with all of the bioengineering going on in Boston-metro, and with the tremendous scientific and medical communities nearby. Companies simply don’t need tax incentives, and I don’t believe its appropriate for my taxes to fund research who’s long term financial benefits are over 90% held outside of MA — after all, the results will benefit all 50 states, plus any nation with advanced and available medicine.If companies choose MA, they’ll do it because of the infrastucture and personel already here. That’s their incentive. Otherwise, they can go to CT or CA or anywhere else. MA will do just fine without them, and in the big picture, it continues down a road of very bad state public policy IMO.
SORRY!By sco, I meant David. Apologies to all parties involved.
I agree, direct funding should go to the public universities. It used to be all the best research was done in the university setting. That seems to me to be the best use of funding – it’ll attract the best science students from around the country, boost our university system, and ultimately, the discoveries will be ours.
Unfortunately, UMass is simply not in the same league as the private universities around here, or the public universities elsewhere (CA, MI, lots of others). The bill passed yesterday means that researchers no longer have to get the local DA’s permission to conduct research, which is nice, but really all that does is bring MA up to sea level. And while MA may have an advantage in terms of “personnel” now, that is simply not going to last. There’s a good chance that the brain drain to other states and countries will be startlingly fast. And as for “infrastructure,” again, money is everything, and money elsewhere will mean better infrastructure elsewhere.What to do? Like I said, I’m not persuaded that MA should try to become a mini-NIH (that is, copy the California model). But I think we do need to literally put our money where our mouth is in some fashion. If tax incentives won’t do it, and grants to UMass won’t do it (which they won’t), are there other options?
Step one is to streamline the permitting process for new facilities. The fewer hoops that they have to jump through to get lab space built to spec, the better. Romney promised to do something about this years ago, but as usual he just threw together a powerpoint presentation and forgot about it.Once we can assure these people that we can break ground on these facilities days after the ink is dry (rather than months or years), then we can talk about other incentives. I know there are a bunch of new labs that are mostly empty around Kendall Square in Cambridge, and there’s a bunch of empty labs on Pleasant St in Watertown. There has to be some way to encourage life-science researchers to settle in there.
sco has a great point about streamlining the process.I do think that funding research at UMass is productive. If nothing else, it will facilitate more PhDs in the area, and they’ll inevitably work with the private Univs in the Boston metro area.On top of those two initiatives — I’m not sure what else to do…
I think it is great to now know that life begins at 14 days.
I am glad we have the stem cell law now. I was afraid Harvard and MIT were going to pack up and leave town.
I think it is great to now know that life begins at 14 days.As opposed to “at conception,” which is where it used to begin, according to the Great and General Court.I was afraid Harvard and MIT were going to pack up and leave town.Nah. Only the scientists will leave. The buildings will still be here.