State Support of Tech is Better, But Must Work Jointly (Mass High Tech)

by Christopher R. Anderson

The recent BIO 2007 convention was by all accounts a success for Massachusetts, capped off with Gov. Deval Patrick outlining a $1 billion life sciences initiative. Gov. Patrick's plan, though bold and innovative, on its own will not achieve sustained growth for the state's entire biopharmaceutical industry -- or the state's economy in general.

The plan contains some of the critical elements of a long-term, tech-based economic development strategy, but that is not enough. Massachusetts needs a cohesive strategy and lack of such a plan has held us from our full economic potential. Four key proposals are:

- Create policies that benefit the entire biopharmaceutical industry. While the investment in biotech and stem cell research is important, at least of equal value is a state agenda that protects the leading economic generators of the state, including large biotech and pharma employers. As a recent council report revealed, the state's pharma employers' investments in small biotechs far outpace that of VC firms.

Without the relationships between pharmas and biotechs, many drugs would fail and biotech jobs would be lost. But some state politicians take these deep connections for granted, as evidenced by proposed drug-price controls and duplicative marketing requirements. If the state implements policies that hurt biopharma, it will irreparably damage the state's highly touted biotech cluster.

- Create strategies that benefit all sectors. Biotech jobs are important, but they represent a small part of the state's tech work force. The state has strengths in IT, telecom, med devices, clean energy, defense and more. We aren't a one-technology economy.

- Support major R&D. Commit $100 million in state funds to enable our research institutions to collaborate with our tech firms to compete for large-scale federal R&D awards. This approach warrants more financial support from the state Legislature.

The last economic stimulus bill included only $10 million for the matching grant fund of the John Adams Innovation Institute, which helps the state's universities land federal research funds. We applaud that, but to keep up with R&D investments of other states and nations, we must focus on bigger awards and a larger center.

- Address the cost climate. Massachusetts must maintain a stable, competitive tax structure to help employers compete globally. In particular, we must reform the state's unemployment insurance system, which saddles local employers with the nation's highest UI burden. House Speaker Sal DiMasi's effort to review the state's corporate tax structure is a positive sign.

The initiatives listed above will be wasted if we fail to address our greatest challenge: the slowing pipeline of talent needed to support an expanding tech economy, and the critical transformation needed in the public schools.

The primary factor for companies expanding and relocating in Massachusetts is access to talent. But other nations are far outpacing Massachusetts in the generation of engineers and scientists, and fewer Bay State students are pursuing math and science careers.

In order to remain a premier global technology cluster, Massachusetts must transform itself into a premier global center of math and science education.

More than ever, the state's technology community is committed to working in a collaborative way to meet the challenges and opportunities of the new global economy.

Christopher R. Anderson is president of the Waltham-based Massachusetts High Technology Council and chairman of the state Board of Education. He can be reached at chris@mhtc.org.