Good for the Gov. He’s copying Gabrieli’s $1b biotech plan. Nothing wrong with taking your opponent’s best ideas.
BMGers discussed (in the comments) this back in August. MRigney, for example, said:
Regarding stem cells as a job issue, I’d like to respectfully disagree. Therapeutic use of stem cells means understanding cell differentiation and that looks like the work of a generation of scientists, not a 5 year project at Genzyme.
If you want to create good jobs in Massachusetts, where employees pump money back into the local economy you would be better off using state funds to send more people to college, especially in engineering and business (rather than on a stem cell initiative, added for clarification).
Some dude responded:
1. Your narrow point – basic research doesn’t generate immediate job creation – is valid.
I think the reason Mass Biotech Council disagrees with your larger point is that they see it one of a few policies that lead to significant industry growth here. They see it as: how does MA compete versus, say, CA and NC to land the next Novartis R&D site? And if we can land more of those, then perhaps we can land more pharma manufacturing, because there is some advantage to having scientists nearby. And can we HQ the next Biogen?
Ten-year job creation is not going to come from stem cell research itself, of course; it’s going to come from attracting start-ups; attracting Fortune 500 biotech; and retention of growing firms we already have.
Gabs’ proposal is one plank in a larger strategy. We have MIT/Harvard; Mass General et al; VC. Our natural advantage can be better leveraged.
I’m in total agreement. And glad our Gov is on board….hope he stands next to Chris Gabrieli at the press conference.
UPDATED:
Gov announces this in combo with the new Senate President as an Op-Ed.
a. No credit to Gabrieli, alas.
b. The House Speaker notably absent. See PP’s commnent below…Dimasi may not support raising the bond cap. Anyone care to comment on the political alliances being formed?
c. Most of this cash goes to higher ed. Is this a way to give $$$ there under a different name? Two birds with one stone? Clever.
I don’t think we should compete with other states by offering bond money or promising tax breaks. If there is a need for a R&D site somewhere, let the company decide if some state’s desperate attempt at luring them there is worth it, and let them go there if it is. We have tons of biotech industry here already, it is skewing our economy and our politics, and why not diversify a little more by supporting farmers or textiles?
<
p>
And bonds are sucky – if an investor wants to invest in biotech, there should be a private VC firm to do that. Unless we could come up with a bond that pays zero interest, and the investors buy purely because they love biotech so much. I hate the idea that they plan on taking my tax dollars in ten years and paying back the people who built an industry I didn’t ask for and don’t like, and those people are going to make money whether they found any cures or not.
since MA is already first in the nation for same-sex marriage, don’t you think it would be a disappointment if some other state beat us to the same-sex conception punch? A big investment in biotech is the only way I can see to avoiding that kind of crushing defeat for MA researchers.
And the sooner it is enacted, the more money would be spent on actual health care. This has to get to the federal stage, we need the candidates to explain why they support civil unions instead of marriage, and if they support same-sex conception being legal.
<
p>
I was the ONLY person demonstrating outside the Bio conference at the convention center yesterday (until I was told to either stand all by myself on the other side of the street or bike home), and it struck me that all the biotech researchers and investors would welcome a ban on genetically engineered babies, since they are all working on treatments and cures, not on germline engineering new people, and researchers like having clear boundaries to work in, so they know they aren’t about to get scooped by some marginally more unethical researcher in another lab. If any of them were investing in same-sex conception, they were in the minority, they looked at my sign like it was completely irrelevant to their work, which it hopefully was.
<
p>
My sign says “Support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise” on one side, and “Equal Protections, but NO G.E. Conceptions” on the other. I wish I had two signs, so I wouldn’t have to keep turning it around for people.
<
p>
(And could the 6 raters explain what is so excellent about David’s post? David has no time to bother explaining his position on same-sex conception except to make snide dismissive jokes, like he’s the Queen of England or something. I think that is the opposite of excellent, especially from someone weiling so much infulence. He should explain why equal conception rights are essential for gay couples, and explain why he doesn’t think federal recognition of civil unions is more important. Here’s a thought question: if same-sex conception is made safe, is a gay person obligated to use it with the person they choose to marry, or could they have children naturally without incurring the wrath of the Neovictorian moralists out there?)
He excelled in humor.
is shared shame.
would even think of that connection. certainly it never occurred to me!
i find hilarious for some reason.
<
p>
So, uh, what does this tell you?
I already knew from BioDev2000 that most protesters would be protesting GMO food (and only unlabeled GMO food, at that), or the BU BioLab. Those are the topics that the media has said are the topics, along with Greenpeace andn MassPirg. Very few people would be protesting cloning or genetic research. I felt those topics were kind of boring, and apparently so did all the protestors.
<
p>
The stem cell debate and the gay rights debate and the abortion debate have effectivley forced all the would-be protesters to be on the side of biotech and transhumanism and eugenics. People like the liberals and progressives here at BMG, all pro-eugenics, pro-genetic engineering misanthropic asshats. And meanwhile the republican crowd tends to be for big biotech and jobs and a new industry (like Peter Porcupine, I think), so they aren’t going to bother either.
<
p>
What that tells me is that we have a big problem, the biotech industry and Massachusetts and Boston governments and the media have set things up really well for themselves, and no one cares about posterity or human dignity. But actually I think that is just among the would-be protesters, the demographic of young activists are all caught up in eugenics and hate natural conception, but there is still a huge lot of rational normal people who are against transhumanism and eugenics and same-sex conception, but also think same-sex couples should have equal protections but not marriage. So I just gotta keep getting the message out by myself, I guess.
<
p>
What does it tell you?
Did you really just call anybody who disagrees with you a “misanthropic asshat”?
all we have to do is reinstate slavery down south, so we can get cheap raw materials up here. let’s offer the blacks* down there this great deal, a la John Howard: if they agree to give up their right to live, roam, work, profit and reproduce at will, we’ll get the federal government to pass a new law saying that they’re the very best second-class non-citizens in the land! a good thing about reinstating slavery too is that rape is a key component of plantation personnel management and recruitment, so no worries about biotech babies being needed. i suggest we leave it to john to refine the rhetoric – he’s the master at splicing together legal non-isms and ethical wheretofores.
<
p>
* in case you’re wondering, yes, the one drop rule will most certainly apply.
And once again, you impute a racism to me that goes entirely against every thing I have ever stood for. Let me give you the number of David Wedge’s lawyer.
but bigotry? oh yeah.
It doesn’t rule us. Textiles are a proud legacy of Massachusetts, and part of our self-sufficient green future. We shouldn’t be shipping cotton to China for them to ship us back pants. Not only is that exploitive of people in China, it wastes fuel, and it spreads harmful organisms all across the oceans, causing irreparable damage to the environment and extinguishing species.
<
p>
A green future is going to include local sustainable agriculture and a local sustainable textile industry. Biotech can fit into this, but we shouldn’t cum all over it like it’s Britney Spears and we’re dumb-ass hicks that want to be on TV or something. We shouldn’t give tax breaks to it or take money from our taxpayers at the expense of our farmers and every other industry in this state. We should be imposing extra responsibilities on biotech companies here: “If you want to locate here, where we have billions of NIH dollars and millions of trained workers, you have to pony up. Commit to be green and contribute to a vibrant and varied local economy.
If there are some, then sure, give them a factory =p
<
p>
I’d be with you on redeveloping a manufacturing community in the Bay State: we need more blue collar jobs for sure. Not everyone can go to college and there are only so many sales positions before they run out of people to sell things to. However, textiles isn’t exactly where I’d invest my money. The fact that they died out in the 50s should tell you something. A lot of other manufacturing (like the GE) didn’t really die out till the 80s at least… and in some capacity, still exists (Lynn still has a few thousand GE jobs).
<
p>
However, as to many points other people have made… yes, your posts are funny. Yes, David’s poke at you was funny too. Your obsessed over an issue that isn’t a problem. It’s like Conan’s complainer-on-the-armchair skit.
<
p>
To be nice, I’ll tell you what. No one is going to artificially produce in the way you are afraid of for a very, very long time. It’s time to officially drop your pet issue, because it isn’t an issue at all. If people ever do it, it will be because it’s been studied and proven safe – and if that happens in my lifetime, I’d be mildly surprised.
I used to vanpool to Cambridge with a person involved in goat cloning there (also in on Dolly, which was at a Scottish facility they were involved with). Ryan, what John describes COULD be done now. Genzyme-esque companies have CHOSEN not to do so, but the procedure he describes is actually viable. However, they have no interest in doing so.
<
p>
That said, a LONG time ago, I said to John that IMHO the first person to break this scientific protocol would just be somebody with a lot of money. Not liberal, not conservative, just rich and narcissistic (conditions which cross party and ideological lines).
<
p>
I do not think human genetic engineering is a good thing for the species, or for science. I am a big believer in the law of unintended consequences. So, while John may appear obsessed, he isn’t actually off-base.
It’s a way to get federal equal protections to same-sex couples. It is how all of the candidates can explain what the difference would be between civil unions and marriages.
<
p>
And TWO of the leading researchers working on this, one in Britian and one in New Jersey, both said it was only “three to five years” away before we might see children born from GE’d gametes. Three to five years means it would happen in this next president’s term. Three to five years puts it a lot closer than the ice caps melting or running out of oil or clean water.
<
p>
And sure, other manufacturing might be better than textiles. I like the idea of localized self-sufficient, green manufacturing, serving the Massachusetts area, rather than manufacturing for export.
If people ever do it, it will be because it’s been studied and proven safe
<
p>
Who decides when it has been “proven safe”? It is certainly proven to be unsafe now, and logically can never be proven safe. And safety isn’t the only issue by any means. The decision on whether or not to allow same-sex couples to conceive is the same decision as whether or not to allow same-sex couples to marry. If Congress enacts the egg and sperm package now, it is saying that same-sex couples cannot be given marriage rights by any state. If Congress decides in 20 years to repeal the egg and sperm law and allow labs to attempt creating a person for same-sex individuals, that would be the day state civil unions became marriages. Nothing else would change about the couple’s rights, but it would be a very significant day, whether the couple intended to pursue same-sex conception or not.
<
p>
Congress should be in charge of deciding if we should allow genetic engineering or same-sex conception, not rogue doctors or exploited couples.
On New Year’s eve, I do predictions for the forthcoming year. (And I’m doin’ pretty good so far!)
<
p>
One of them was tht DP would eliminate the bond cap – which is voluntary, and put in place by Weld.
<
p>
I thought it would be because it was the only way to redeem local aid campaign promises, but hey, when you got a new credit caard, who cares what the first charge on it is?
When Gabs proposed $1b last August, he had a crucial detail that I don’t yet see in the coverage of the Patrick proposal.
<
p>
<
p>
I hope some of the DP-and-Terry proposal speaks to this issue.
the national press has picked it up too From MarketWatch:
As early as I was paying attention (March 2006) Deval was calling for a bond to fund stem cell research and increase public university funding, so this plan looks like partially the original plan and partially other elements from Gabrieli’s plan, both of which are in part based on what the Governator did in California. I know you were a Gabs fan, but he wasn’t the only one talking about this in the campaign. Regardless, good plan all around.
If we are going to raise the bond cap why dont we fix some roads and bridges instead of government money going to one specific industry?
Watch the lobbyists go into action on this one.
I’m very glad DP picked up on Gabrieli’s proposal. There’s a key difference that was a subject of contention in the primary debates. CG argued that to maximize return (scientific and, for the state, financial), the money had to be open to all comers on a meritocratic basis. DP argued that the private institutions don’t need that kind of help and such a huge public investment should be targeted to the UMasses. It sounds like DP has followed through on this belief, while also supporting a structure, in the stem-cell bank, that opens the investment up to all the state’s scientists who work in this area. It also sounds, from the article, like the governor’s office itself was involved in getting private-sector buy-in for this structure before going public. But I’m not clear on the details. Anyone know more?
<
p>
Also, the lawyers in the room may know what portion of a patent and its industry returns are retained by a university versus the scientist. That may factor into how fruitful this could be, in a direct sense, for the public higher ed system.
<
p>
Not to mention the real possibility of curing diseases.
<
p>
And for those on the right saying gov’t. should not be in the VC business, I wonder whether you’d support scrapping the NSF, NIH etc.?