Progess
In addition to securing resources—an unending challenge—Bill Duncan cited the need to “unite the community behind the overall life sciences initiative.” He asked his colleagues to give their perspective on just how far the initiative has come in the last six years.
Sandra Willsie cited “the instances of collaboration between institutions” that has markedly increased since the development of KCALSI. “We certainly see a lot more joint appointments,” agreed Duncan. “We see a lot more collaborative research efforts.”
In terms of new and renovated facilities, Duncan pointed to the progress at KCUMB, MRI, UMKC, and at KU. As Joan Hunt elaborated, KU has a gleaming new 207,000 square foot biomedical research building.
At MU, John Gardner noted, a new incubator is starting construction in May and there are two other facilities coming on line in the research park, including a new rodent diagnostic lab. “The facilities are unbelievable,” said Gardner.
Linda Cook cited the five new start-ups in the Kansas City area. Duncan noted that even though KCALSI is not in the funding business, fourteen companies approached him last year looking for early stage capital. “There is certainly increased activity,” he added, “and we are seeing venture capitalists nose around a bit.”
As Keith Gary explained there is a slow change underway in the culture among academics investigators. For their discovery to really have an impact on the human condition, they have got to get it out of the laboratory. Said Gary, “This is something that we have to continually work towards educating academics about.”
A good deal of discussion centered around SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) grants. “It is free money, said Lesa Mitchell. “That is the best way to look at the program.” The Kauffman Foundation will, in fact, be hosting the National SBIR Conference in May, “which will bring a lot of awareness and exposure of the SBIR program to Kansas City.
Amendment Two
In November 2006, Missouri Amendment Two, which granted constitutionally-based permission for embryonic stem cell research, won a narrow margin among Missouri voters after a heated campaign. Bill Duncan asked how the amendment’s passage affected the area’s reputation and its ability to recruit.
“There was a notice by national players,” said Kelly Gillespie, who shared his experience at a national Bio meeting, about what had happened here in the Midwest. “For the most part,” he said, “their message that they got was, ‘It passed, it’s resolved, and they have their act together’.”
“Obviously, the amendment passing,” said John Gardner, “we view as very positive.” But, he conceded, anyone who knows Missouri politics knows it was certainly no mandate. “As a public re-search institute,” said Gardner, “we have to be sensitive to what the public said in Amendment Two but we also have to be sensitive to what our lawmakers are saying in Jefferson City. We are sensitive to both.”
Gardner saw a role for the university in increasing science literacy among the public. On the Kansas side, Jim Guikema saw a parallel role for K-State. “The momentum that is created has to keep going in an educational sense,” said Guikema. “We need an informed citizenry or all our businesses can fold up.”
“I think the vote in Missouri has been a very positive aspect for Kansas,” agreed Joan Hunt. “If it had lost, it would have made our job much more difficult. But I think both states need to recognize that this is not a simple resolution. It is in fact an ongoing involvement.”
“Those of us who work in the life sciences, biotech arena have a responsibility to reach out and do the best we can to increase public understanding,” agreed Mike Chippendale.
David Franz cautioned that within the beltway, many people are still talking about the potential abuse of biotechnologies, about the harm researchers can cause either inadvertently or intentionally. As a result, one has to be conscious of “walking that line between regulation and freedom and progress.”
Sean Hart, President of United BioSource Corporation—Late Stage Group, argued that Amendment 2 helped shine the spotlight on the Midwest. “All of a sudden, people are talking about Missouri and what’s going on in Missouri,” he observed. “Whether that’s a good thing or not, at least it gets us noticed.”
In acknowledging that 49% of Missourians voted against Amendment 2, Kelly Gillespie conceded that the bond between the life science movement and a good percent of its citizens had been eroded. “It’s got to be repaired,” said Gillespie. “It’s got to be addressed. The battle did not end November 8th.”
Jeff Southard suggested one possible way to get beyond the current political friction. “Why not focus on something else that is a little more politically acceptable and generate success for the region,” said Southard. He referred specifically to peripheral or adult stem cell research. “Suffice it to say,” said Bill Duncan in summary, “the battle is not over.”
(...continued)