Even in today’s world of multi-billion dollar university endowments and generous research grants, $1 billion can still make a tremendous splash in the life-sciences pool. A new bill in the Massachusetts legislature will provide $1 billion in public funds to life-sciences research. This bill—released by Mass. Gov. Deval L. Patrick ’78 in May of 2007—would allocate $500 million for the construction of research facilities, $250 million for fellowships and grants, and $250 million in tax incentives over the next 10 years. Aimed at promoting Massachusetts as a center for biotechnology and furthering stem cell research at universities in the Commonwealth, this initiative has the potential to greatly benefit Harvard and Massachusetts.
By providing $250 million for fellowships and grants for research, the bill will hopefully serve to help retain more of Harvard’s junior faculty. Often, the temptation to migrate to states where research funding is greater is a strong pull for junior faculty members at schools and institutes in Massachusetts. Losing promising young researchers is an unfortunate byproduct of underfunding specific initiatives. Increasing funding and therefore keeping this valuable resource at Harvard will only benefit the University and its students.
Along with funding the construction of research facilities, the bill’s tax incentives should prove to be an invaluable catalyst for the continuing growth of the state’s already-booming biotechnology industry. These incentives will encourage those companies currently situated in Massachusetts to expand or further develop and will motivate other companies to start building here. With both of these outcomes, the increase in the sciences in Massachusetts will be able to provide numerous opportunities for students—including those from Harvard—looking for experience in this field. Furthermore, Massachusetts residents will undoubtedly benefit from the increase of industry in the state.
The Massachusetts bill comes on the heels of a bill passed in California in 2004, which targeted its $3 billion at stem cell research and other biomedical initiatives. In California, however, legal and logistical difficulties slowed the distribution of funds, and opposition of publicly funded stem cell research stalled allocation. Massachusetts, however, should not experience this same public opposition to funding this branch of controversial research because of its more consistently liberal political constituencies. If the state takes advantage of its current strengths in the biomedical field, it should not experience the same delays that California did. The thriving of biotechnology in Cambridge’s own Kendall Square is one such example of a strong scientific base that this bill can build upon.
Not only are we pleased to see Harvard and its students benefiting from this new bill, but Patrick and the state legislature should be lauded for continuing to make science and technology a priority in the Commonwealth. As long as biomedical research remains a crucial scientific avenue, the government of Massachusetts should do all it can to make sure that the state stays utilizes all of its resources and stays at its forefront.