Joint Committee on Public Health; Hearing on Legislation Impacting Life Sciences Employers; Testimony of Chris Anderson, MHTC

Testimony of Christopher R. Anderson, President
Massachusetts High Technology Council, Inc.
September 21, 2005

Thank you, Chairwoman Fargo and Chairman Koutoujian for the opportunity this morning to discuss issues of importance to the state’s life sciences employers.

The Massachusetts High Technology Council was formed in 1977 by high tech CEOs whose mission was to help make Massachusetts the most competitive state in which to create, operate, and expand high tech businesses. That remains our mission today. Council members employ hundreds of thousands of skilled workers in all of Massachusetts’s key technology sectors, including computer hardware, life sciences, software, medical products, defense technology, semiconductor, and telecommunications. Our board includes the executive leadership of tech employers such as Biogen, Boston Scientific, Dynamics Research, EMC, Genzyme, Teradyne and Wyeth.

The state’s biopharmaceutical industry is a significant economic driver and current and potential employer for Massachusetts. The promise for the state’s life sciences economy is found in small biotech companies as well as large, international biopharmaceutical employers.

Massachusetts boasts a “Who’s Who” of global pharmaceutical leaders that in recent years have decided to invest in Massachusetts: Merck, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca and dozens of others have established research facilities here. Why? Because Massachusetts possesses the world’s premier life sciences research & development cluster, and these companies understand that to be competitive they must have a presence here.

There has been much hand wringing over the loss of corporate headquarters, including John Hancock, Gillette, Reebok and others. Research-based pharmaceutical firms and other life sciences employers could step into that vacuum. In fact, the state is currently speaking with Gillette’s new parent company, Procter & Gamble, in efforts to encourage the pharmaceutical giant to boost its research & development ties to Massachusetts.

But when you look at a vast majority of the bills before the Committee today, it’s crucial to ask the right questions: Are the proposed Massachusetts-only marketing regulations more or less likely to encourage companies like P&G to bring new research jobs to Massachusetts? Will the price control proposals make Massachusetts more competitive so life sciences manufacturers decide to expand their facilities in Massachusetts, rather than North Carolina? What will encourage Novartis to site its global headquarters here, adding to the nearly 1000 research jobs already planned?

The Legislature has done a good job of highlighting the need for streamlined permitting and investment in technology facilities. Hopefully we will see some real progress toward permitting reform this fall, as well as new investment in the state matching grant fund, which will help expand the state’s research & development base. However, many of the bills being heard today would undermine the state’s efforts to attract and retain life sciences employers – and the jobs that are so critical to our state’s future.

The marketing restrictions included in some of the bills heard today are redundant due to federal law and will not have an impact on drug safety. By creating Massachusetts-only regulations that are duplicative of federal law, pharmaceutical employers would be forced to devote company resources toward compliance issues, which would distract from drug development or job growth. Only a small percentage of drug compounds ever reaches the consumer, and the state should not impose duplicative red tape that