Thursday, September 23, 2004
Biosciences "investment" a risky scheme
[John A. Dvorak, "Kansas sets aim at leadership in bioscience," The Kansas City Star, 23 September 2004.]
When policymakers start out by justifying spending taxpayer dollars with the logic that "other states are doing it," you know you're in trouble. Unfortunately, this is apparently the motivation behind a new biosciences "investment" program in Kansas:
Saying “you can't succeed without a dream,” Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday kicked off a plan to make Kansas a pacesetter in bioscience.
The goal, she said, is nothing less than world leadership in an industry on the brink of possibly enormous growth.
A law passed by the Kansas Legislature earlier this year creates the Kansas Bioscience Authority, an 11-member group that will hold its first meeting today and will eventually allocate millions of dollars in an attempt to stimulate bioscience.
Sebelius met informally with nominees to the group, along with business and political leaders, at the headquarters of ScriptPro, a Mission-based company that typifies what can happen in the bioscience industry.
ScriptPro, which makes robotic dispensing systems for prescription drugs, didn't exist a decade ago, Sebelius said. Today, she said, it employs about 500 people.
“Our plan for Kansas will see many more successes like this one,” she said. “We're ready to roll up our sleeves.”
Bioscience refers to a broad range of activities, including the use of different kinds of research and manufacturing processes to promote health care and improve veterinary medicine, agriculture and the environment.
Money from new taxes paid to the state as the bioscience industry expands will provide a financial backbone for the effort, with estimates suggesting that as much as $500 million will be raised in the next decade.
So, the plan seems to be that government officials will tax successful companies in order to subsidize those that they hope will be successful. Rather than playing at Wall Street hotshots, a better approach to fostering bioscience investment is to create a business environment that encourages growth.
According to the Kansas Bioscience Initiative, "Numerous states are staking their claims on the future of the bioscience industry by dedicating hundreds of millions of state dollars to drive research and commercialization in their states including Georgia ($350M), Wisconsin ($317M), Texas ($850M), Ohio ($1.6B), Missouri ($190M), and Washington ($750M)."
Of the examples listed, Ohio is apparently spending the greatest amount on bioscience and high-tech jobs. Spending is one thing, though, and success is another. Should Kansas follow the example of a state whose investment efforts have largely been a failure?
Government intervention is not an incubator of business, the lack of intervention is.
[John A. Dvorak, "Kansas sets aim at leadership in bioscience," The Kansas City Star, 23 September 2004.]
When policymakers start out by justifying spending taxpayer dollars with the logic that "other states are doing it," you know you're in trouble. Unfortunately, this is apparently the motivation behind a new biosciences "investment" program in Kansas:
Saying “you can't succeed without a dream,” Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday kicked off a plan to make Kansas a pacesetter in bioscience.
The goal, she said, is nothing less than world leadership in an industry on the brink of possibly enormous growth.
A law passed by the Kansas Legislature earlier this year creates the Kansas Bioscience Authority, an 11-member group that will hold its first meeting today and will eventually allocate millions of dollars in an attempt to stimulate bioscience.
Sebelius met informally with nominees to the group, along with business and political leaders, at the headquarters of ScriptPro, a Mission-based company that typifies what can happen in the bioscience industry.
ScriptPro, which makes robotic dispensing systems for prescription drugs, didn't exist a decade ago, Sebelius said. Today, she said, it employs about 500 people.
“Our plan for Kansas will see many more successes like this one,” she said. “We're ready to roll up our sleeves.”
Bioscience refers to a broad range of activities, including the use of different kinds of research and manufacturing processes to promote health care and improve veterinary medicine, agriculture and the environment.
Money from new taxes paid to the state as the bioscience industry expands will provide a financial backbone for the effort, with estimates suggesting that as much as $500 million will be raised in the next decade.
So, the plan seems to be that government officials will tax successful companies in order to subsidize those that they hope will be successful. Rather than playing at Wall Street hotshots, a better approach to fostering bioscience investment is to create a business environment that encourages growth.
According to the Kansas Bioscience Initiative, "Numerous states are staking their claims on the future of the bioscience industry by dedicating hundreds of millions of state dollars to drive research and commercialization in their states including Georgia ($350M), Wisconsin ($317M), Texas ($850M), Ohio ($1.6B), Missouri ($190M), and Washington ($750M)."
Of the examples listed, Ohio is apparently spending the greatest amount on bioscience and high-tech jobs. Spending is one thing, though, and success is another. Should Kansas follow the example of a state whose investment efforts have largely been a failure?
Government intervention is not an incubator of business, the lack of intervention is.
Comments:
Post a Comment
