WHEN GOVERNOR Patrick announced his $1 billion initiative last year to promote the life sciences in Massachusetts, the explicit goal was to maintain and extend the Commonwealth's lead in a cutting-edge industry. But along the way, Patrick's bill got mugged by old-style politics. The versions that emerged from the House and Senate are weighed down with legislative earmarks, which may serve political ends but limit the state's ability to do what's best for the life sciences.
Patrick's team maintains that the issue is in flux and expects a good bill eventually will emerge from conference committee. Let's hope that optimism is justified. If it's not, Patrick should stand ready to veto the offending line items.
As the Globe recently reported, one version of the legislation before the conference committee earmarks $49.5 million for a science center at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in North Adams, even though the school has no graduate science programs. Other provisions steer money into special funds with ill-defined purposes.
Some earmarks, to be sure, are for initiatives - including a stem cell facility and RNAi program at the University of Massachusetts - that are worthy of support. But flexibility is vital. The life sciences initiative was supposedly modeled on the National Institutes of Health, in that all investment and grant decisions would be made through a rigorous process shaped by experts. It is in this spirit that Harvard President Drew Faust, MIT President Susan Hockfield, UMass President Jack Wilson, and Genzyme President Henri Termeer appealed in a recent letter to legislative leaders for a "less prescriptive approach."
Massachusetts has ample reason to use public dollars - in the form of tax incentives, research grants, and money for physical facilities - to support biotechnology. The industry is a good fit for this state's economy, and competitor states such as California and North Carolina have sought to lure away local firms. But when a state chooses to support specific research, the risk is that items will be funded for reasons besides economic and scientific merit.
The Legislature's approach has its defenders. The state shouldn't just give money to industry, argues Representative Dan Bosley of - wait for it - North Adams, and needs to ensure that public dollars serve public purposes. Fair enough, but whatever the merits of the college science center, it still doesn't belong in this bill.
The biotech world is waiting to see how the Legislature will handle the opportunity before it. The credibility of the initiative depends precisely on how and why the money is handed out.
