Life sciences, education and the economy
Last week, the vast majority of the House, including many Republicans, voted to approve a Life Sciences Bill that contemplates the spending of $1 billion over 10 years to enhance the life sciences industry in Massachusetts.
The Governor had sought general legislation of this type and the Committee
on Economic Development had spent many months crafting a specific and
complex bill supporting the Governor’s objectives.
The Committee did some very careful work and the bill is responsive to
concerns that all of us share — how to keep the Masschusetts economy
vibrant with good jobs in the face of automation and international
competition, and how to support the advancement of the basic life sciences
as the federal government pours our national treasure elsewhere. I voted
for the bill.
But I think that the bill raises two deep strategic questions:
The first is about the role of government in supporting private
development. The major components of the bill are as follows:
- A little under $400 million for life sciences related public sector
infrastructure. Over half of that infrastructure is in the form of
buildings and equipment in the University of Massachusetts. We have
a Nobel Prize winning life sciences researcher at U.Mass. and much of
this investment will build capacity around his leadership. Additionally the
bill will support site improvements for industrial sites, like highway and
sewer. There are a couple of major earmarks, but most of the site money
will be allocated over the next ten years by the executive branch.
- Roughly $200 million in education and research investments
supporting life sciences, including work force training grants, equipment
for vocational and technical schools, a graduate and post-doctoral
fellowship program for life sciences scholars, and support for a K12
teaching initiative for science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
- A little under $100 million for two new investment funds to support
life sciences companies — one will make small startup grants, under
$250,000, and the other will make bridge loans to facilitate growth for
companies that are a little further along. Both funds are set up as
revolving — the grants will be made in return for small equity investments
that may pay off over time.
- $250 million in tax credits for life sciences companies that make a
substantial commitment to growing jobs in Massachusetts.
All of the grant programs, and even the tax credit program, are set up under
a new structure of oversight that it is designed to bring very qualified
people to make the awards. The specific criteria for grants and credits are
very stringent and designed to assure a return to the public on the
investments.
It is hard enough for government to regulate the spending of money for
familiar purposes like education, health care and public safety. And I
generally believe that government should stick to what it knows well and let
the private sector do what it does best.
But that those involved in drafting the bill seem to recognize and share
these concerns about the scope of governmental competence. The oversight
structures created within the bill are as good as they can be. Given the
oversight, and given the vacuum being created by the waning of federal
leadership, and given the fact that many other states and countries are
working very hard to attract life sciences businesses which are presently a
valuable part of our economy, I swallowed my concerns.
The other major question that the bill raises is one of expectations. The
life sciences are a very finite and elite sector, currently only a tiny
fraction of our labor force. It seems unrealistic to expect that the life
sciences or other emerging technology industries will ever employ a broad
segment of our work force. All of these industries are very integrated
globally, and to the extent fabrication jobs are created for those beyond
the scientific elite, they will go to the cheapest place they can be done,
which is unlikely to be Massachusetts. Certainly, the spinoff activity that
the labs generate does help many in the labor force, but this is hard to
quantify.
Most of our effort in education improvement today is designed to bring
students to a level of basic proficiency. Basic high school proficiency –
or even proficiency plus some college — does not position our students to
enter life sciences development roles. We need to look at how to identify
and inspire the kids that might succeed in those roles.
And we need to consider strategies that will create more good permanent jobs
for people without the most advanced and specialized skills. Green jobs –
low and medium skill jobs involved in energy conservation and adaptation to
climate change — are one promising direction, but we need to do much more
if we are to restore the economic security that so many families feel that
they have lost.