Backers cry foul on science legislation

Say measure weaker, laden with earmarks

As the Legislature finally prepares to produce a $1 billion life sciences bill more than a year after it was conceived, some of the industry's most ardent advocates are losing enthusiasm, saying the legislation has been watered down and larded with earmarks.

The result, those industry executives said, is likely to be a law stripped of much of Governor Deval Patrick's original intent, one that could fall short of its promise to lure thousands of well-paying jobs to the state and to cure diseases around the world.

"We've missed an opportunity," said Christopher R. Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council, a business advocacy group. "We've really undermined the effectiveness on what is otherwise a terrific concept for a long-term economic growth initiative."

The governor's initial proposal sought to empower a panel of industry specialists and academic leaders to decide how to spend $1 billion over 10 years in several targeted areas, much like a similar program in California. But lawmakers in the Senate and House decided how and where to dole out large portions of the $1 billion that would be spent in the bill, which could emerge from a conference committee as early as this week, earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for specific projects, even giving names to individual buildings and grants.

House lawmakers earmarked $49.5 million to build a science center at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in North Adams, though the school currently has no science graduate programs. The college is, however, the alma mater of Representative Daniel E. Bosley, a North Adams Democrat who wrote the House legislation and has frequently joked at press conferences and legislative hearings that "spending $1 billion doesn't go quite as far as it used to."

In addition, legislators have designated $12.6 million for a highway interchange near Andover, and $12.9 million for a sewage treatment plant in Framingham, money designed, they said, to spur local development for life sciences companies. The University of Massachusetts system also gets a windfall for new buildings, with $95 million going to the Amherst campus, $90 million to Worcester, and $10 million to Lowell.

In a pointed letter to top legislative leaders last month, three university presidents - Drew Faust of Harvard, Susan Hockfield of MIT, and Jack Wilson of UMass - criticized the bill's emphasis on individual earmarks and called on lawmakers to give industry and academic specialists on the governor's proposed panel greater voice in how the state's money is invested.

"A peer-reviewed, strategic approach to these challenges is critical to the success of these programs and affords consistency and accountability," the university presidents said in their letter, which was also signed by Henri Termeer, chief executive of Genzyme Corp.

Lawmakers defend the earmarks, saying it is their job to protect taxpayer money.

"We are responsible for the public dollars," said Representative Michael J. Rodrigues, a Democrat from Westport and cochairman of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Caucus. "Our job is to spend money where we as legislators feel [it] is necessary."

Because the House and Senate passed different versions of the bill, a group of legislators is hammering out a compromise bill in a conference committee. If the Legislature approves the bill, the governor could also return the bill if he disagrees with the changes.

Critics say the Legislature's approach could prevent Massachusetts from remaining competitive with states like California, North Carolina, and Texas, where large infusions of public money are driving innovative, targeted scientific research.

"It's critically important that the money is not broken up into a lot of small parts with earmarks," said William Guenther, president of Mass Insight Corp., a Boston-based think tank. "We fund a lot of little stuff, which may be admirable, but it doesn't get us to the scale we need to be a national and global player."

Three years ago, California voters backed a ballot measure providing $3 billion in funding for stem cell research at universities and research institutions. The agency created by that initiative - overseen by a 29-member board of research institutions, hospitals, and biotechnology specialists - awarded $271 million this month to help build 12 stem cell research facilities across the state. Last year, Texas approved $3 billion for cancer research, and New York approved $600 million for stem cell work. Washington State is using tobacco settlement money to guarantee $350 million over 10 years for life science research.

Other states are pouring resources directly into research and tax breaks.

"We help bootstrap companies," said Jim Shamp, a spokesman for the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, a publicly funded economic development agency that has helped give the state the third highest concentration of biotechnology businesses, with 450 companies. "We do virtually nothing with bricks and mortar."

Those kinds of efforts are putting increasing competitive pressure on Massachusetts, which has long had a robust life sciences industry based on the wealth of Boston-area research hospitals and universities. The state is the nation's second-ranking recipient of grants from the National Institutes of Health, trailing only California, which has a population six times larger.

In Massachusetts, the life sciences sector employs 60,000 to 75,000 people, a robust industry that is not immune to raids by other states. A December survey by the Massachusetts Life Sciences Collaborative found that 3 in 4 life sciences companies would consider leaving the state and that 63 percent had already been contacted by other states about moving. Most said they would be more likely to stay for increased tax credits and other financial incentives.

Proponents say a package of tax breaks and research grants will help attract scientists and new companies to the state, preserving its preeminence in the field.

"We have this incredible foundation, and it's a huge competitive advantage," said Glen Comiso, director of life sciences and health at the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, an economic development agency that is largely supportive of the life sciences legislation. "It's crucial to cultivate that."

That was exactly Patrick's intent last year when he filed the legislation, a proposal that rivals only his casino initiative as the biggest piece of his legislative agenda since taking office. Patrick has estimated his $1 billion initiative could produce as many as 250,00 direct and related support jobs (an estimate that has been disputed by critics).

The House and Senate versions mirror Patrick's plan in broad measures, designating $500 million in bonds for capital projects, $250 million in research grants, and $250 million for tax credits to Massachusetts-based companies. But they differ widely on how the money would be spent and on who makes spending decisions.

The governor wanted to give a panel of doctors, academics, and industry executives the ability to spend the money. But while lawmakers kept the panel in place, they reworked the legislation to earmark money for their own projects. Now, before the legislation has been finalized, the bulk of the funds has been committed.

Senate President Therese Murray declined to comment, other than to say the bill was making progress in conference committee.

"The bottom line is simple," said David Guarino, spokesman for House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi. "We're going to have a $1 billion life sciences bill that will be a significant investment in important industries, and we're going to have agreement with the Senate and have it on the governor's desk in a matter of weeks."

Administration officials have said in the past that they were frustrated with the result of the Legislature's earmarks, which they said is much narrower in scope than the broad vision the three leaders had in mind when they unveiled the bill.

But in trying to promote compromise with lawmakers after a series of clashes over issues such as casino gambling, Patrick is now trying to strike a more conciliatory tone.

"We are very pleased with the progress that has been made," said his spokesman, Kyle Sullivan.

Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com; Schworm at schworm@globe.com.