In the June 7, 2004 Issue:

Copyright State Science & Technology Institute 2004. Redistribution to all others interested in tech-based economic development is strongly encouraged — please cite the State Science & Technology Institute whenever portions are reproduced or redirected.

Subscription to the SSTI Weekly Digest is free. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue and would like to receive your own copy each week directly, please subscribe at http://www.ssti.org/Digest/digform.htm. Requests to unsubscribe also may be completed at http://www.ssti.org/Digest/digform.htm.

California to Vote on $3B Stem Cell Initiative
California voters will be at the forefront of a highly controversial issue this November when they are asked to decide on a $3 billion bond issue to fund stem cell research.

The initiative, if passed, would provide $295 million annually to California researchers over the next 10 years. Under the proposal, priority for funding would be given to stem cell research that does not qualify for federal funding, and up to 10 percent could be used to build research facilities for nonprofit research organizations.

The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative is an implicit referendum on an executive order by President George Bush, according to a recent article from the Los Angeles Times. In 2001, Bush restricted the use of federal funds for stem cell research to a small number of cell colonies that already existed. Earlier this year, however, 206 members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter urging President Bush to rescind his policy on stem cell research and allow for the use of existing embryos donated by couples from fertility clinics.

Supporters say more than 400,000 embryos in storage would otherwise be destroyed. And, Republicans and Democrats alike are joining the effort to expand stem cell research, it seems. Of the 206 signatures sent to the President, 36 were from fellow Republicans.

The willingness of outspoken conservatives such as former first lady Nancy Reagan and California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, an anti-choice leader, backing the issue encourages hope that the President will adjust his policy, according to a recent Washington Post article.

Concerns about the voter referendum's price tag have been raised over borrowing more money, given that California already is in debt. However, initiative proponents say new revenue and royalties from patents that may result from research breakthroughs would pay off the cost of the bonds. Aside from paying back the debt, supporters say the state’s economy would also benefit by drawing more researchers to its universities and laboratories.

The specific language for California's stem cell research initiative is available at: http://www.curesforcalifornia.com/site/PageServer?pagename=facts_initiative

return to the top of this page

New BIO Report Profiles States' Life Science Initiatives
The importance states are placing on the biosciences to fuel future economic growth is clearly evident in a monumental study released today at the annual international convention of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). Laboratories of Innovation: State Bioscience Initiatives 2004 is the most comprehensive analysis ever done to quantify the scope and impact of bioscience employment in all 50 states.

Prepared for BIO by Battelle Memorial Institute and SSTI, the 450-page study examines programs and policies in each state to promote the development of bioscience companies. The state-by-state analysis, which expands on a 2001 study that looked at activities in 42 states, reveals states are learning that success means specializing in specific sub-sectors.

Other key findings include:

While there are many reasons states are focusing on the biosciences, the fact the biosciences cut across manufacturing, services and research and are not limited merely to medicine or agriculture appears to be a significant factor. States and regions that are promoting bioscience development are focusing on the activities best suited for the area.

For example, North Dakota is focusing on bioprocessing in value-added agriculture, while Missouri is seeking to become a leading center in plant and animal health. States such as Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Utah are working in the area of medical devices, while other states are devoting their attention to research and testing.

Partly as a result of economic development programs, 15 states have at least 5 percent employment in at least one bioscience sector, and 24 states have at least 3 percent employment in one or more sub-sectors, according to the report. Twelve states ­ California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia ­ have both large employment bases in the biosciences and are specialized in at least one industry sub-sector.

Factors that appear to influence a state’s ability to grow bioscience employment include the degree of involvement by research institutions, available capital, access to facilities and equipment, a stable and supportive tax and regulatory environment and a long-term perspective. That long-term perspective is reflected in every state’s renewed emphasis on science and math education, including programs throughout the K-12 school years aimed at preparing students for bioscience careers.

The BIO report uses a definition of biosciences that incorporates a range of industry sectors relying on insights into the way living things work. The five major sub-sectors are: agricultural feedstock and chemicals; drugs and pharmaceuticals; medical devices and equipment; research and testing; and academic health centers, research hospitals and research institutes.

Laboratories of Innovation: State Bioscience Initiatives 2004 is available at: http://www.bio.org/speeches/pubs/battelle2004.pdf.

return to the top of this page

Milken Ranks Regional Biotech, Life Science Clusters
Only a handful of metropolitan areas have the critical mass necessary to ensure sustainability of their local biotech communities, according to America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters, a new study from the Milken Institute. At the top of the list is San Diego, followed closely by Boston and the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill metro area. Only another nine are in the running, the report contends.

According to the Institute’s 2004 Biotech Index, the top 12 metros (and their composite scores) are:

1. San Diego (100)
2. Boston (95.1)
3. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill (92.5)
4. San Jose (87.8)
5. Seattle-Bellevue-Everett (83.8)
6. Washington, D.C. (79.4)
7. Philadelphia (76.5)
8. San Francisco (75.8)
9. Oakland (74.3)
10. Los Angeles-Long Beach (66.5)
11. Orange County, CA (54.1)
12. Austin-San Marcos (47.8)

If life sciences (which includes pharmaceuticals and medical devices) is included in the measurements, Boston would rank first, followed by: San Diego (2), San Jose (3), Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill (4), Philadelphia (5), Seattle-Bellevue-Everett (6), San Francisco (7), Washington, D.C. (8), Oakland (9), Los Angeles (10), Orange County (11) and Austin-San Marcos (12).

The rankings are based on two broad factors:

Overall, researchers used 44 different measurements, from biotech venture-capital funding to the number of biotech scientists working in the region. It is the most comprehensive measurement of regional biotech centers ever conducted. Among the study’s firsts: use of data from smaller, better-defined Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) instead of Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs); more sophisticated weighting by population, employment or gross metro product, rather than using absolute numbers; and a unique biotechnology and life sciences data set providing detailed employment estimates through 2002 for recent growth comparisons.

The study measures each metro’s strength in five categories: R&D inputs, risk capital, human capital, biotech workforce and current impact. San Diego places first in R&D inputs and current impact. San Jose is first in the risk capital category, while Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill is first in the human capital and biotech workforce categories.

America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters, prepared in cooperation with Deloitte & Touche LLP, focuses closely on the index’s top metro, San Diego, whose life sciences industry is directly and indirectly responsible for 55,600 jobs and $5.8 billion in income – 5.3 percent of output – in the metro. It offers a case study of what it takes to form and nurture a biotech cluster.

The 107-page report is available at: http://www.milkeninstitute.org/pdf/biotech_clusters.pdf

return to the top of this page

PPI: U.S. Must Adapt, Innovate to Overcome Offshoring Woes
Anxiety over offshoring is an increasingly prevalent issue among Americans and a hot button issue for the upcoming presidential election. With concerns looming from all sectors, it can be difficult to assess which ones hold the most validity. According to a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), the real threat to offshoring is it could alter the occupational distribution of the economy and, particularly, squeeze the middle class.

Understanding The Offshoring Challenge does not attempt to solve the complex issue of offshoring, according to PPI. Rather, it seeks to describe the phenomenon and its causes, to put it into proper prospective, and to define the economic stakes for Americans and policymakers. The main issues causing the angst, according to the report's author, Rob Atkinson, are the loss of particular jobs and its impact on specific individuals, and the weak nature of the U.S. employment market.

Atkinson, the vice president of PPI, tries to resolve several myths regarding offshoring that are often misunderstood by the public. Both optimists and pessimists are making claims and arguments based on erroneous assumptions and faulty analysis, he contends, with one side focused on the interests of workers and the other on the interests of consumers.

Three main factors are driving the trend, the report argues, including:

Throughout the report, Atkinson analyzes trends of the past, comparing offshoring with other issues that caused concern for the workforce. For example, similar fears occurred in the late 1950s and 1960s when automated factories began replacing human tasks and companies moved operations to the lower-cost southeastern states, which in turn increased unemployment in the north.

Of the many opinions that have emerged regarding how to handle offshoring, Atkinson argues for the need for the country to adapt and innovate: create new public policies to help firms become more productive and workers more skilled. In particular, he calls upon policymakers to enhance the nation’s ability to specialize in innovative high-value-added work, get tough about practices by other countries that distort free trade, and boost aid to workers and communities hurt by global competition.

Understanding The Offshoring Challenge is available from PPI at http://www.ppionline.org.

return to the top of this page

Website, Reports Stress Importance of States' Fuel Cell Incentives
While the federal government supports fuel cell research, nearly every state across the country has taken a more active role in advancing the development and commercialization of fuel cell and renewable energy technologies, according to two recent reports from the North Carolina State University Solar Center. A web-based directory of more than 875 state and federal initiatives managed by the center helps prove that point.

In order to expand the market for stationary fuel cells in the U.S., the center feels, it is important for industry leaders, policymakers and researchers to be aware of the existence, scope and depth of state-level incentives and polices. The Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) was established in 1995 through funding from the U.S. Department of Energy to track financial incentives, programs and policies to promote the use of renewable energy.

Financial Incentives for Stationary Fuel Cells: A Report on State-Level Policy in the United States provides a summary overview of the state-level incentives and policies that are listed on DSIRE. Such incentives include: industry recruitment incentives; corporate tax credits; net metering; grant, rebate and loan programs; production incentives; personal tax credits; tax exemptions; and other state-level policies. Each category provides a listing of states that offer corresponding incentives as well as an outline of how the incentive or program works.

To update a March 2003 report from the Solar Center, which catalogues states’ efforts regarding fuel cell technology, Developments in State-Level Financial Incentives for Stationary Fuel Cells in the United States, 2003-2004 highlights newly formed state programs and incentives in 2003 and early 2004. Summaries are given for 10 new incentives for which fuel cells are eligible. States with added programs or incentives include Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania and Wyoming. Three of the states' programs also expired during this time period and two states restructured their existing programs. Since the previous report, the author notes, there has been a net increase in fuel cell incentives created by the states, which is encouraging considering the unstable condition of most state budgets.

The creation of the Public Fuel Cell Alliance (PFCA) also was noted as a significant effort in 2003. The coalition of state, federal and international stationary fuel cell programs were joined to collaborate on the acceleration of widespread adoption and commercialization of fuel cell technologies, the report indicates.

Among recommendations from the author is a call for PFCA to conduct research to determine and analyze the success of state-level programs promoting stationary fuel cells and renewable energy resources. The author also suggests that agencies conducting future research on state-level policy regarding fuel cells should consider partnering with PFCA for maximum results.

Both reports are available from the North Carolina State University Solar Center at: http://www.ncsc.ncsu.edu/news/news_story.cfm?ID=155

return to the top of this page

More Women Specializing in Biomedical, Environmental Engineering
Overall retention rates for female engineering graduates has remained steady over the last few years, and according to the latest survey from the American Society for Engineering Education, a significant percentage of women are focusing on the less traditional fields of engineering.

A New Look At Engineering reports that in 2003 women accounted for 20.4 percent of all Bachelor degrees in engineering, a slight decline from 2002, which reported 20.9 percent. In 2001, women represented 19.9 percent of engineering graduates, a slight decrease from 20.8 percent in 2000. Tennessee State University had the largest percentage of female engineering graduates with 41.6 percent, followed closely by Alabama A&M University with 41.2 percent. The report also indicates women accounted for 22.3 percent of all Master’s degrees and 17.4 percent of all Doctoral degrees in engineering.

Of the many fields of discipline within engineering, the highest percentage of female graduates was found in environmental engineering with 42.1 percent. Biomedical engineering graduates were the next highest with 40.4 percent, followed by chemical engineering graduates with 37.8 percent. The fields with the fewest female graduates were engineering technology with 11.7 percent and computer engineering with 12.8 percent.

Speculation as to why women are opting for the relatively newer fields of biomedical and environmental engineering is that these particular areas offer the ability or opportunity to be creative while also allowing for social and personal impact. Several female biomedical engineering graduates interviewed for a 2001 Whitaker Foundation study stated they chose the field because it had more of a direct impact on people’s lives, whereas traditional engineering tends to focus on a specific technology without social interaction. Some women view the field as more welcoming, because it is relatively newer, and one with room for advancement opportunities as well, the study cites.

According to a recent article from the Associated Press, women still make up only about 12 percent of the engineering workforce, although all the universities generating the large numbers of female graduates have continuous outreach and mentoring programs in place, including scholarships and prizes to retain female students. William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, suggested engineers should promote the creative aspect of their fields that seem to be more attractive to women.

A New Look At Engineering is available from the American Society for Engineering Education at http://www.asee.org/colleges/.

return to the top of this page

Rural America Grant Commemorates Kellogg Foundation Anniversary
To commemorate its 75th Anniversary, the Kellogg Foundation along with the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) is funding a project to foster entrepreneurship across rural regions of the country. The project, Entrepreneurship Development Systems for Rural America, will provide grants to support traditional areas of interest including health, food systems and rural development, youth and education, philanthropy and volunteerism, as well as new opportunities that build on existing programs.

Under the initiative, four projects will be selected for funding of up to $2 million each to conduct research on the state of rural entrepreneurship development and to assist in identifying statewide and regional collaboratives that show potential for creating Rural Entrepreneurship Development Systems. According to CFED, these collaboratives will provide effective practices in building development systems that integrate policy, education, training, technical assistance, financing, networks, culture and social entrepreneurship strategies.

To be eligible, applicants must be a private or governmental public agency; community-based, tribal or nonprofit organization; or educational institution. Proposals should demonstrate how projects will serve distressed communities in rural or disadvantaged regions.

The submission deadline for proposals is Aug. 13, 2004. Finalists will be selected in December and final awards will be announced in March 2005. For more information and guidelines on how to apply, visit CFED at: http://www.eshipsystems.org/index.html

return to the top of this page

State Science & Technology Institute
5015 Pine Creek Drive
Westerville, OH  43081
Phone: (614) 901-1690
Fax: (614) 901-1696

© 2004 State Science and Technology Institute. All rights reserved.