States line up to woo the Biotech Industry

June 22, 2003

mmmmmmmm!mmmmmmmm!! feel the love coming from our would be masters???

States Line Up to Woo Biotech

By Kristen Philipkoski | Also by this reporter Page 1 of 1

02:00 AM Jun. 21, 2003 PT

Every state in the nation seems to want to be the biotech capital of the United States.

The largest biotechnology conference in the world starts Sunday, and state and local governments are vying for recognition as the place to bring your biotech company.

Story Tools

See also

Shocking Cells Into Submission Souped-Up Rice Goes Against Grain Biotech Inventor Wins Big Bucks Check yourself into Med-Tech

Today's Top 5 Stories

States Line Up to Woo Biotech Developing World Needs Linux New World Disorder Happy Birthday, Dear DNS Hatch Site Hides X-Rated Link

Representatives from 19 states have rented booths, in most cases several of them, at $4,000 a pop for the Biotechnology Industry Organization annual meeting. They all see an opportunity for economic boost, and rightly so.

Biotechs attract PhDs and pay them well. A drug or diagnostic that makes it to market can rake in billions. Biotech might be risky for the individual investor, but drugs can take $600 million and up to 12 years to get to market, making biotech a long-term, high-quality business for a state to host. And with the biodefense budget raised to $6 billion following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, biotech is an attractive industry for any state.

But some citizens say the people who will have biotech in their backyard aren't getting enough information from state and local leaders about the possible hazards the industry might present.

"We found out they were trying to put a (level 4) biolab in our community and really hadn't asked for citizen input," said Samantha McCarthy, director of Stop the UCD BioLab Now, a group trying to prevent the University of California at Davis from building the lab, which would contain the most dangerous infectious substances on Earth, such as anthrax and Ebola. "A number of us were simply outraged."

University representatives say they did inform the public about the lab, knowing that a level 4 lab -- which requires the highest level of protection and security (labs range from level 1 to level 4) -- likely would draw public scrutiny.

They attended city council and other community meetings, distributed a newsletter and created a website where they post answers to individuals' questions.

"I just will not accept that we have not been open about this, but I recognize that's one of the accusations they have," said Marjorie Dickinson, vice chancellor of the University of California at Davis.

The $200 million lab would be built with $150 million from the National Institutes of Health, with the rest supplied by the university. A handful of other locations in the United States are vying for the level 4 lab; protest groups have popped up in each of them.

University and city leaders argue they'll be meeting a public health need.

"I think there is an element of 'not in my backyard,' but unfortunately many of these agents are already in our backyard," Dickinson said.

She noted that the state of California shuts down campgrounds every summer because of hantavirus, anthrax occurs naturally in the soil, and California public health officials expect West Nile virus to arrive in the state this summer for the first time.

"These are, in fact, dangerous organisms, but … the purpose of this facility is to develop better diagnostic technologies for new and emerging diseases, to develop vaccines and therapeutics," Dickinson said.

This may all be true, critics say, but the explanations are too little, too late.

Beth Burrows, president of the Edmonds Institute in Edmonds, Washington, said she believes citizen outrage could be avoided if the entities building potentially dangerous biotech sites were more forthcoming about their plans. By the time many citizens find out what's happening in their own backyard, they feel it's too late to have any meaningful impact on the situation.

"City panels can really work quite well … but they really only work well beforehand, and when everyone really believes their input is going to be of use," said Burrows, who has worked on environmental issues for more than 20 years.

Georgia state officials, for example, hold informational summits for legislators, but don't offer information directly to the public, according to Carol Henderson, senior project manager for biosciences in Georgia. State officials as well as representatives at companies such as BresaGen, which works on stem cell and cloning technologies, are open to public comment and questions.

"We don't get a lot of (protesting), maybe because when we tout (biotech), we of course talk about the quality of the jobs, and we talk about the benefits of biotech," Henderson said.

At the risk of progress moving more slowly, Burrows said, communication between the public and the biotech industry needs to start sooner in the decision-making process.

"I think it can be done," Burrows said. "It takes time and it slows the process, but we all have to have the good will to let those panels and discussions be done honestly and not be weighted. It's really hard to do."

Have a comment on this article? Send it

More stories written by Kristen Philipkoski

Page 1 of 1