MLSC Organizing Committee Meeting Minutes
March 30, 2007
MINUTES
MASSACHUSETTS LIFE SCIENCES COLLABORATIVE
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE MEETING
March 30, 2007
Hotel @ MIT
26 Sidney Street
Cambridge, MA
Attendees
Introductory Program
Governor Patrick’s Remarks
Monitor Survey Results
Priority Reports
Special Guests:
Deval Patrick, Governor
Daniel O’Connell, Secretary of Housing and Economic Development
JudyAnn Bigby, Secretary of Health and Human Services
Robert Travaglini, former Senate President
Jeffrey Sánchez, State Representative
Organizing Committee Members Attending:
Chair: Steven Hyman, Harvard University
Mitchell Adams, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative
Burt Adelman, Biogen/IDEC
Christopher Anderson, Massachusetts High Tech Council
Robert Anderson, Abbott Laboratories
Joseph Aoun, Northeastern University
Jamshed Bharucha, Tufts University
Michael Bleicher, Phase Forward Inc.
Abbie Celniker, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research
Aram Chobanian, Boston University
Charles Cooney, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Franklin Douglas, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John Erwin, Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals
Wendy Everett, New England Health Care Institute
Jonathan Fleming, Oxford Bioscience Partners
Gary Gottlieb, Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Michael Green, UMass Worcester
Robert Green, Lyme Properties
Jeffrey Grogan, Monitor Group
Paul Grogan, The Boston Foundation
Paul Guzzi, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
Lisa Lopez, Haemonetics Corporation
Robert Healy, City of Cambridge
George Langford, UMass Amherst
Patrick Larkin, John Adams Innovation Institute/MTC
Mark Maloney, Boston Redevelopment Authority
James Mandell, Children’s Hospital Boston
Kevin O’Sullivan, Massachusetts Biomedical Initiatives
Richard Packer, ZOLL Medical Corporation
Joyce Plotkin, Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council
Mark Robinson, Massachusetts Biotechnology Council
Thomas Sommer, Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council
Marilyn Swartz-Lloyd, Medical Academic and Scientific Community Organization, Inc.
Lex Van der Ploeg, Merck Research Labs
Jack Wilson, University of Massachusetts
Organizing Committee Members Unable to Attend:
David Fleming, Genzyme Corporation
Ansbert Gadicke, MPM Capital
Paul Levy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Peter Slavin, Massachusetts General Hospital
Guests/Other Attendees:
Peter Antonellis, Representative Rodrigues’ office
Kevin Casey, Harvard University
Mark Chalek, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Jansi Chandler, Boston Redevelopment Authority
Tom Chmura, UMass
Jessica Conaway, A Better City
Kurt Dassel, Monitor
Aaron D’Elia, Massachusetts Life Sciences Institute
David Forbes, Governor’s office
William Guenther, Mass Insight
Graham Jones, Northeastern University
Jim Klocke, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce
Terry Lane, The Boston Foundation
Evan Lewis, Monitor
Wyndham Lewis, Massachusetts High Tech Council
Jose Martinez, Governor’s office
Mary Jo Meisner, The Boston Foundation
David Morales, Governor’s office
Rosemary Powers, Senator Hart’s office
Eustacia Reidy, Massachusetts Biotechnology Council
David Trueblood, The Boston Foundation
Lisa Wittenhagen
MTC Staff/Consultants:
Joseph Alviani
Richard Asinof
Glen Comiso
Joseph Downing
Lydia de la Fuente
Neil Hambourg (photographer)
Christopher Kealey
Robert Kispert
Beth Nicklas
Judy Silvia
Greta Tinay
Welcome (link to the slide presentation)
The meeting commenced promptly at 8:00AM with opening remarks from Dr. Steven Hyman, Mr. Mitchell Adams, and Mr. Paul Grogan. Dr. Hyman indicated that Governor Patrick would be joining the meeting to make a very important announcement about stem cell research, previewed in the Boston Globe this morning. Dr. Hyman also acknowledged and thanked Secretary Dan O’Connell for joining the Collaborative. The meeting agenda consists of Monitor providing an update on their survey findings and presentations by subcommittees on the priority issues identified by the group. Mitch Adams emphasized that we will be considering the eight key priority areas today that the group has been working on since the December meeting. This work will inform the first phase of a strategic plan for the life sciences. Paul Grogan indicated how gratifying it is to see so many people across the sector working on issues of critical importance. He stressed that we do not have the option not to work together, and that we must exert world leadership in this area.
Discussion of LSC Priorities/Subcommittees
Dr. Hyman introduced the list of LSC priorities that came out of multiple conversations, originating at the plenary discussion and followed by subcommittee meetings and conference calls. He indicated that we would continue that discussion today, hone the list as we proceed, and perhaps add others. For example, Dr. Jamshed Bharucha mentioned to Dr. Hyman the absence of a priority that addresses globalization and the flow of students back and forth from India and China. Dr. Hyman indicated that we would need eventually to choose a finite list of priorities.
Glen Comiso then described the key elements of developing a strategic plan for the life sciences sector in Massachusetts. First, the group has identified an initial list of 8 priorities which may be supplemented by additional ideas. Then the group needs to determine who is already working on each of these areas and whether it is advisable for the LSC to serve in a leadership, or support, role. The goal is to narrow the LSC’s initial priority list to 2-4 areas where we can really make progress. The group’s input is key to select the right people to work on each priority, make a recommendation as to the LSC’s role, and develop an action plan. Mr. Comiso introduced Kevin O’Sullivan to provide a brief overview of the transportation and connectivity priority.
Transportation and Connectivity Priority
Mr. O’Sullivan began by emphasizing the burgeoning biomedical corridor in Worcester in addition to the epicenter in Kendall Square and the Longwood Medical area. The Massachusetts Biomedical Initiative in Worcester provides three life science incubators with 90 skilled employees from many parts of the state. Moving people around the state with effective transportation systems is essential. The presence of life science companies in Fall River, Springfield, Andover, and Fort Devens indicates the geographic reach of this sector. These companies rely on academic input to connect them to advances in biotechnology and bio-informatics.
Dr. Hyman noted the importance of improvements in transportation infrastructure for all parts of the state, including travel from Cambridge to the Longwood Medical area. Dr. Hyman then recognized and thanked JudyAnn Bigby, Secretary of Health and Human Services, for joining the meeting and supporting us with this important mission.
Downstream Manufacturing Priority
Jack Wilson reported next on the economic benefits of downstream manufacturing arising from life science discoveries and needs. Particularly in the biopharma industry, there is a growing recognition that we can do a better job in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth will never be a commodity manufacturer, but instead a high-end manufacturer. The MassBiotech 2010 report first directed our attention to the importance of growing this economy in the Merrimack Valley and other locations outside of the Greater Boston area. Other areas of importance to encourage manufacturing include permit streamlining and providing development assistance such as occurred with the Bristol-Myers decision to locate at Fort Devens. There also needs to be a concerted effort to support the smaller biotech companies from the R&D stage through the pilot process and into manufacturing. UMass, WPI, and other academic institutions statewide are pleased that the legislature approved capital investments last year for construction of a biomanufacturing center. We thank Senate President Travaglini for his efforts and are hopeful that the funding will soon be released so that we can get started.
Governor Patrick’s Remarks
Dr. Hyman welcomed Governor Patrick to the meeting and introduced the Life Sciences Collaborative as a group of accomplished leaders from all segments of the life sciences sector. Dr. Hyman then requested members of the LSC organizing committee to introduce themselves.
Governor Patrick expressed his pleasure in joining the meeting. He acknowledged his Cabinet members, Secretaries O’Connell and Bigby, former Senate President Travaglini, and Representative Sánchez. Governor Patrick commended Mr. Travaglini for his leadership in stem cell research and the Life Sciences Center as President of the Senate. Massachusetts is blessed with a concentration of brain power in its world-class private and public universities, its excellent teaching hospitals, a robust community of venture capitalists, abundant high tech expertise, and an entrepreneurial tradition that turns good ideas into commercial products.
The Governor explained that his administration is hard at work to meet special challenges within the Commonwealth including: streamlining permitting from 2-3 years to 6 months; working with local communities to expedite air permits and reduce property taxes; increasing investments in affordable housing to attract and retain workforce talent in collaboration with the Massachusetts Housing Partnership and private employers; and trying to meet the capital needs of our higher education institutions.
Massachusetts is a pre-eminent location for stem cell research. There is a humanitarian urgency, as well as an economic return, to ensuring the success of this research. The Governor recounted his personal familiarity with diseases that may well benefit from such scientific advances. The Governor stressed that current regulations could prevent scientists from conducting research; and that work in the life sciences should be guided by science, not politics. Researchers should not be competing under a regulatory cloud or have one hand tied behind their backs. Leaders in the Commonwealth must work together to seize our global place in the world. There will be competition for resources and researchers, and education reform must be taken to the next level, with Chris Anderson leading. The Governor committed to full engagement with the LSC and other stakeholders to share ideas and expertise so that government can get out of the way and allow imagination and creativity to have full range.
Dr. Hyman thanked the Governor for his inspirational, clear, and exciting remarks. Dr. Hyman then turned to Senator Travaglini for his remarks.
Senator Travaglini noted that the legislature envisioned a collaboration among life science talent, with a desire to attract the best and brightest from Massachusetts and around the world. Senator Travaglini applauded the Governor for recognizing the intent of the legislation to create the Life Sciences Center and then let the scientists make the decisions to build momentum and transfer good ideas to market. The objective is to help people and alleviate human suffering. Senator Travaglini then challenged members of the LSC to deliver scientific breakthroughs in order to sustain funding levels and to provide the legislature with clear evidence that state investments are paying off.
Dr. Hyman then opened the meeting to questions for the Governor.
Dr. Bharucha stressed the importance of global collaborations and inquired as to how the Governor planned to engage the state with international partners.
Governor Patrick mentioned the importance of the upcoming global BIO2007 conference that the Mass Biotechnology Council is hosting in May. The Governor plans to personally participate to demonstrate his commitment and leadership in this field. The Governor is keenly aware of the importance of forming international connections and asked LSC members to let him know where to focus his energies and those of his Administration.
Mr. J. Fleming emphasized that the federal government is a critical partner for the life sciences industry. There are issues that need to be addressed, particularly with Senator Kennedy’s office and his sophisticated staff.
The Governor seconded Mr. Fleming’s observation that Senator Kennedy and his staff have shown leadership in health care for a long time. In addition, Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt has requested that labor unions, companies, and some states sign on to a federal response to health care. His Administration is assessing this request and also examining Medicare fraud with Senator Kennedy’s office.
Secretary Bigby noted that we are looking to change certain federal regulations and seeking momentum to work with Congress.
Mr. J. Fleming emphasized that many of our initiatives depend upon NIH funding and are critically impacted by what occurs at the federal level. Another example is the SBIR eligibility rules that have negatively affected Massachusetts companies. We need support for basic research and drug development here in Massachusetts to help emerging companies.
The Governor then solicited questions from the press.
A member of the press asked the Governor about a meeting held at Gardener Auditorium where many people were opposed to stem cell research.
The Governor replied that it is important to take politics out of scientific decisions. While there are undoubtedly ethical boundaries, the Governor is confident that these issues can be managed.
A member of the press inquired whether the Governor was implying that Governor Romney’s decision was politically motivated?
Senator Travaglini indicated that he was involved in those negotiations and there was no doubt that the former administration took into consideration the political ramifications of that decision.
Governor Patrick agreed with Senator Travaglini. There was a political debate in the legislature and a vote in which Governor Romney’s position did not prevail. Despite this vote, Governor Romney re-imposed the regulations.
A member of the press inquired as to how the review of existing regulations would take place?
The Governor responded that the public health council would solicit input from many stakeholders on both sides of the question. In addition, the Governor indicated that there should be some news in early summer regarding the state’s 5-year capital plan and funding for stem cell research.
A member of the press asked whether the Governor drew a personal line as to the ethical boundaries of stem cell research?
Governor Patrick responded by saying that he was not sure that he was qualified to make that determination.
A member of the press asked the Governor how urgent it was to propose a level of funding in the context of other states’ support such as Connecticut and California’s $3 billion bond issue?
The Governor replied that the figures would be available at the latest as part of the bond bill in July.
A member of the press asked whether the Governor could give a dollar amount at this time?
The Governor indicated that there would be a discussion in the fullness of time.
Dr. Hyman thanked the Governor on behalf of the LSC Collaborative for joining the meeting and making such an important announcement regarding stem cell research. The group gave the Governor a standing ovation as he departed.
Monitor Survey Results (link to the slide presentation)
Mr. J. Grogan introduced the Monitor survey and thanked MassMEDIC and the Massachusetts Biotech Council for their assistance in providing membership lists to compile respondents. The survey asked a number of key questions to understand the drivers of competition for the life sciences sector in Massachusetts.
Mr. Dassel presented the results of the survey. Monitor received a total of 102 responses to the survey from medical device, biotech, and pharmaceutical companies as well as hospitals and higher education institutions. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents were owners, presidents, CEOs, chairmen, board members, or senior executives. More than one-half of the companies are small (i.e., 1-50 employees). Seventy percent of these companies sell more than 75% of their products to non-Massachusetts customers, indicating that their market reach extends beyond local demand for their products.
According to 84% of respondents, Massachusetts is a good place to innovate in their line of business. This is good news and represents a 12% increase compared to past responses from Massachusetts life science leaders. Life science leaders in New Jersey and the Research Triangle area in North Carolina are similarly positive, with 82% and 84% respectively. Life science leaders in San Francisco, Shanghai, and San Diego lag behind Massachusetts, 70%, 65%, and 60% respectively, in responding to the same question.
Mr. Dassel then set out the strengths and challenges of the region as perceived by Massachusetts life sciences leaders. Strengths in the region include the local education (PK-12 and higher), the availability of specialized labor, access to risk capital, access to universities and research centers, interaction with customers, and collaboration with suppliers. Challenges in the region include the cost of living, the cost of doing business, the regulatory environment, taxes and incentives, and the lack of a regional vision and strategy for the sector. Massachusetts’ executives rank the region’s PK-12 and advanced education programs, pool of skilled labor, ample supply of scientists and engineers, and high quality of life significantly above Monitor’s survey of non-Massachusetts global leaders in the life sciences. Not surprisingly, however, only 8% of Massachusetts respondents agree that the region’s cost of living is low, and only 3% agree that the cost of doing business is low relative to other regions. Regarding the quality of the region’s transportation infrastructure, 35% of respondents concur that the region has a high quality transportation infrastructure. This percentage is comparable to other global leaders’ responses to this question. In contrast, the presence of a high quality communications infrastructure is reported by 77% of Massachusetts respondents and 71% of other global respondents.
Contrary to popular wisdom about the ability of Massachusetts firms to collaborate, the life sciences community reports a frequency of interaction among partners that is significantly greater than in other life science regions or other clusters. A large percentage of Massachusetts’ respondents believe the government could streamline and improve the efficiency of regulations, encourage R&D investments with tax and other incentives, provide more support for R&D investment, and be more responsive to the needs of business. Respondents in other life science regions believe government is one third more responsive to their needs and interests. Life science leaders in Massachusetts rank government priorities as follows: expedite regulatory approval processes (73%); enforce intellectual property protections abroad (72%); simplify compliance procedures with government regulations (69%); promote world-class primary and secondary education (66%); support the needs of startups (64%); promote specialized education and training programs (57%); reform liability laws to stimulate innovation and safety (52%); increase funding for specialized research institutes (48%); catalyze partnerships among government, industry, and universities (48%); increase funding for university-based research (41%); and improve transportation and other physical infrastructure (40%).
Dr. Hyman opened the floor to some brief questions regarding the survey results.
Mr. Van der Ploeg asked if the survey revealed the greatest benefit that the LSC could provide to the life sciences sector? Is it in the area of support for incubators or sustained VC funding?
Mr. Dassel responded that the key take-aways from the survey include rationalizing and streamlining regulations, cutting taxes, investing in people and R&D, lowering the cost of housing, and continuing to invest in education.
Dr. Hyman inquired as to how government can help to provide skilled workers at the masters-degree level who are suitable for jobs in the major hospitals and have the necessary IT skills?
Mr. Anderson responded that the shrinking pool of skilled workers is a critical issue. There needs to be a closer alignment between sector labor needs and a sustained delivery of public education improvements. In addition, government must be predictable in its regulatory policies in order for companies to remain competitive. The state can not assert its support for the biotech industry and then turn around and advocate for the lifting of drug importation price controls.
Ms. Swartz-Lloyd asked about the connection between the quality of life and transportation questions. She expressed surprise that transportation issues did not rank higher on the government priorities list, but also noted that this result may be related to the fact that senior executives were the respondents. With better transportation systems, cost of housing issues can be mitigated.
Mr. Adelman provided an example of industry and government working together to solve the skilled worker shortage. North of Copenhagen, Biogen is building three large facilities and also providing a training facility to educate workers.
Mr. Gottlieb stressed the importance of state investments in higher education to counter low population projections and increase the retention rate of qualified, skilled workers who are likely to remain in the region.
Mr. Mahoney noted that many skilled workers earn incomes that disqualify them for moderate income housing. Perhaps there are other housing programs that could provide the right incentives.
Mr. Mandell referred to Senator Travaglini’s comments about meeting with three young researchers from around the world; and noted that they made the trade-off between a highly intellectual environment and access to high-quality affordable housing.
Mr. P. Grogan concurred with Mr. Mahoney’s comment and noted that the Commonwealth has started down the correct path with the passage of sections 40R and 40S expedited permitting processes and incentives for communities to build more housing. There are currently 7,000 units of moderately-priced units in Massachusetts, but The Boston Foundation is also working with the Massachusetts Housing Partnership on creating more single-family starter homes.
Dr. Hyman also recommended working on creating a more family-friendly environment by finding work for spouses in two-earner families.
Ms. Celniker remarked on the long-life cycle for drug development, and the importance of creating a state, rather than an administration, agenda. Massachusetts is at risk of losing momentum and losing companies without a long-term, strategic approach.
Secretary O’Connell emphasized that it is a priority of the Patrick administration to partner with life science employers and to maintain the momentum initiated by the LSC. The governor recognizes the importance of the regulatory challenges and convenes his development Cabinet members every week to work together to solve problems.
Mr. Alviani recommended connecting the housing and transportation priorities together, as suggested by Ms. Swartz-Lloyd, in order to think of the life sciences sector from a state, and not exclusively Boston-centric, perspective.
Mr. P. Grogan commended the Patrick Administration for building on the good work that preceded them such as the $100 million infrastructure fund and the legislative advances in expedited permitting.
Mr. Larkin urged the members of the LSC to take responsibility for sustaining support for the life sciences sector and for owning this major challenge.
Senator Travaglini commended Barry Bluestone’s work as the Director of Northeastern University’s Center for Urban and Regional Policy. The message is that all communities need to share the responsibility for improving the quality of life and affordability of housing in the Commonwealth. With respect to public higher education, a major infusion of capital is needed to support academic programs, new science labs, and the modernization of the physical infrastructure. Governor Patrick understands this and his capital plan will reflect this understanding.
Dr. Langford noted the University’s strong interest in meeting the workforce needs of the life sciences community through the education of qualified students, and urged more dialogue between industry and universities to achieve this goal.
Dr. Hyman added that hospitals are large employers that also have significant workforce needs.
Ms. Everett urged that we must meet the housing needs of our recent graduates, because our labor force is aging and the percentage of immigrant workers is increasing.
Mr. Alviani thanked the Monitor Group for their valuable ‘pro bono’ contribution to the work of the LSC.
Valley of Death/Funding for Innovation Priority
Mr. J. Fleming reported that the success and profitability of young, biopharma companies can be enhanced through support from VC and business development mentors. A number of excellent programs such as The Deshpande Center, MIT’s Entrepreneurship Center, BU’s Ignition Awards, and the Harvard Medical School/Sloan School all provide valuable training and resources to young entrepreneurs. The money is there through angel funders and venture philanthrophy, but the demand by young entrepreneurs to connect to funding sources and business knowledge is not being met. The federal SBIR progam used to be terrific. An initial $1.5 million was provided to successful applicants to develop the innovation based on a peer-review process. With a modest amount of money, we could create a state SBIR program.
Clinical Trials Priority
Mr. Alviani reported that most clinical trials are being done out of state despite the high concentration of life science companies in Massachusetts. There are smaller companies in the state that are qualified to conduct these trials, but which do not have connections with the major research institutions. The LSC needs to explore ways to increase the number of clinical trials that occur in Massachusetts. Dr. Hyman stressed the importance of this issue and particularly in the context of Phase II trials. Ms. Swartz-Lloyd noted that community health centers may be able to play a role with their higher incidence of patients with disease.
Workforce Development and Education Priority
Mr. Anderson described two areas of focus for the K-12 leadership initiative: capacity building among teachers to improve their recruitment, training, and retention with an emphasis on middle schools; and the aging infrastructures of many of the Commonwealth’s schools. Ms. Plotkin noted that there are no requirements in Massachusetts to have four years of math and science in high school. Mr. Anderson added that 23 states have a mandatory 4-year curriculum and that the Education Committee has just proposed a curriculum revision to require three years of science labs.
Life Sciences Business Environment Priority
Mr. Adelman stressed the need for the life sciences industry to integrate better with the university-based, scientific research enterprise. The development and marketing of drugs and medical devices is very expensive, but people recognize the value that these products bring to the practice of medicine every day. There is a critical need for a better business model. In 2006, the US-based pharmaceutical industry spent $40 billion and only 22 medical products were approved by the FDA, most of which were not entirely new. For every dollar spent, 75 cents is wasted on R&D costs that do not bring products to market. The pharmaceutical industry needs to improve the likelihood of success in the discovery, development, commercialization, and viability of products in the marketplace in collaboration with our university partners.
NIH/FDA Funding Issues Priority
Mr. Casey began by emphasizing that support for an increase in NIH funding is at a critical juncture and requires collaboration with nation-wide partners to make the case. There is a need for intellectual and financial backing for efforts across the country. First-time NIH applicants have a virtually impossible task in securing funding, and this lack of support is having a real institutional impact. Harvard University joined with nine other research institutions to re-tool the messages for Congress as to the importance of NIH funding. The group has identified scientific fields that were transformed when NIH doubled its funding, and fields that are currently at a critical inflection point for answering signature questions and delivering actual therapies. The group testified in March before the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Committee and provided materials to Senators Specter and Harkin and our own Congressional delegations to make the case.
Housing Issues Priority
Mr. Maloney noted that the group has already recognized in its comments the importance of housing issues and recommended that we be strategic in thinking about how to solve specifically the housing needs of the life sciences sector, rather than having our energies diluted.
Wrap-Up of the Meeting
Mr. Adams summarized how the subcommittees would proceed with work on the priorities to identify who is working on which issues already and whether the LSC should provide a supporting, or leadership, role. This will enable development of the sector’s strategic plan.
Dr. Hyman concurred with this approach and recommended that we need to make sure to capture new ideas expressed at this meeting, and that it is too early to be in the winnowing process.
Mr. Alviani noted that the meeting materials contained a first cut at recommending subcommittee members, and urged members to offer further suggestions.
Mr. Bleicher urged the LSC to identify interconnections between priorities.
Dr. Hyman indicated that there would communication across committees to ensure an integration of priorities. He then closed the meeting promptly at 10:00 am and thanked the committee for their participation.
