“为什么选择这个特定问题？”马萨诸塞州生命科学行业对参议院缩减的提案感到担忧
【中美创新时报2024 年 7 月 10 日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）马萨诸塞州参议院通过的一项全面的经济发展法案让该州强大的生命科学游说团体感到不安，行业领导人警告说，参议院民主党削减数亿美元的拟议资金和税收优惠的举动可能会让马萨诸塞州失去在该行业的领先地位。《波士顿环球报》记者马特·斯托特（Matt Stout ）和萨曼莎·J·格罗斯（Samantha J. Gross ）对此作了下述报道。
州长莫拉·希利（Maura Healey ）也罕见地谴责了立法领导人的做法，周三通过发言人表示参议院的计划“没有达到所需的水平”。
两院对该行业的处理方式之间的巨大差异出现在敏感时期。众议院和参议院正忙于在 7 月 31 日正式会议结束之前完成一系列立法，这意味着法案中的任何重大分歧都必须迅速达成一致，否则会议时间一到，法案就有可能夭折。这些谈判完全是闭门进行的，也可能充斥着立法讨价还价，包括不相关的法案之间的讨价还价。
参议院 28 亿美元的经济发展一揽子计划大幅缩减了希利和众议院为生命科学寻求的资金。参议院立法者提议在五年内为该行业借款 2.25 亿美元——不到希利和众议院立法者要求的十年内 5 亿美元的一半。
在上个月通过的经济发展法案版本中，众议院还试图将对生命科学公司的税收优惠增加 2 亿美元。参议院领导人在他们的提案中跳过了这项措施，而是提议将税收优惠保持在当前水平。
“现在不是小题大做的时候，”马萨诸塞州医疗器械行业委员会主席布莱恩·约翰逊说。 “我们正处在一个转折点，我们可以决定我们是否将引领这个行业走向下一代，或者我们是否会因为在错误的时间采取保守立场而逐渐失去领先地位。”
参议院准备在周四通过其版本的法案——三天前，参议院民主党领导人首次发布了这份长达 124 页的法案。
参议院的变化让埃德·科平格 (Ed Coppinger) 感到困惑，他曾长期担任州议员，现在是马萨诸塞州生物技术委员会的政府事务负责人。
“你是不是为了与众不同而与众不同，然后再谈判你知道每个人都想要的东西？”科平格若有所思地说道。当被问及他是否认为参议院试图在未来的谈判中与众议院领导人建立贸易筹码时，科平格没有停顿。
“百分之百，”他说。科平格说，鉴于立法者仍在谈判的一系列法案，他质疑参议院决定如此大幅度地偏离州长、众议院和行业都支持的东西。 “为什么选择这个特定问题？”
他并不是唯一一个提出批评的人。在最初表示希利相信立法者“与她一样致力于”帮助生命科学部门之后，州长办公室周三发布了一份修订后的声明，指出该州已成为行业领导者“因为州政府的大量投资。”
“参议院的提议没有达到继续发展这个拯救生命的尖端行业所需的水平，”希利发言人卡丽莎·汉德说。
参议院领导人周三为他们的法案辩护。参议院议长凯伦·斯皮尔卡的发言人格雷·米尔科夫斯基表示，她“相信这项立法对包括生命科学在内的所有经济部门的投资都是强劲的。”
州参议员、立法机构经济发展委员会参议院主席巴里·芬戈尔德在接受采访时表示，该商会“非常致力于”生物技术和生物制药行业。
“和其他任何事情一样，请求的数量是无限的，而资源的数量是有限的，”这位来自安多弗的民主党人说。
费恩戈尔德说，目前还不清楚最终版本的法案中资金是否会增加。马萨诸塞州生物技术委员会正在推动一项修正案，该修正案将在几项修改中将资金提案增加到 5 亿美元。
“一切都摆在桌面上，”费恩戈尔德说。
可以肯定的是，经济发展立法并不是立法者可以用作通过其优先事项的唯一法案。还有许多提案仍在闭门讨论中，其中包括一项价值数十亿美元的住房债券法案、全面的枪支立法，当然还有 7 月开始的财政年度的年度预算。
民主党领导人长期以来一直强调马萨诸塞州作为生命科学创新温床的重要性。全球前 20 大制药商中有 18 家在该州运营，前州长德瓦尔·帕特里克 (Deval Patrick) 于 2008 年发起的一项计划，在 10 年内拨款 10 亿美元，这在很大程度上帮助巩固了该州作为全球行业中心的地位。
随后，该州在帕特里克的继任者查理·贝克 (Charlie Baker) 的领导下，于 2018 年为生命科学部门增加了 5 亿美元的资金。希利也将推动该行业发展作为自己议程的重点，将她的政府努力称为“生命科学 3.0”，并将其作为保持该州与其他州竞争力的关键方式。
今年早些时候，希利在罗马将这一信息带到了国际舞台。在毕马威办公室与全球商界领袖会面时，她表示，世界不应忽视马萨诸塞州作为生命科学、应用人工智能和气候技术创新中心的作用。
虽然马萨诸塞州已经被认为是吸引生命科学企业和投资的前沿，但众议院和州长希望该州能够领先于加利福尼亚州、纽约州和北卡罗来纳州等竞争对手。
罗利-达勒姆地区尤其对波士顿的主导地位构成了威胁，该地区拥有一流的大学、可用的土地和较低的经商成本。据《波士顿环球报》报道，大波士顿生命科学领域的大多数主要房地产公司要么在北卡罗来纳州的研究三角区设有办事处，要么正在考虑设立办事处。
然而，这种竞争力需要资金支持。
马萨诸塞州医疗器械行业委员会的约翰逊表示，如果没有适当的资金，马萨诸塞州可能会失去其在生命科学领域的领先地位，而且在贝克政府批准的资金支持下，马萨诸塞州的投资“几乎跟不上”其他州的投资。
“2018 年，我们投资了五年。我们看到纽约投资了数十亿美元。我们看到新罕布什尔州获得 [资金] 来建立他们的生命科学生态系统，”他说。 “他们就在我们边境，他们来这里就是为了我们的生意。他们不是来和我们合作的。”
题图：马萨诸塞州议会大厦的圆顶，背景是建筑物的窗户DAVID L. RYAN/GLOBE STAFF
附原英文报道：
‘Why choose this particular issue?’ Mass. life sciences industry frets over Senate’s scaled-back proposal.
By Matt Stout and Samantha J. Gross Globe Staff,Updated July 10, 2024
A sweeping economic development bill barreling through the Massachusetts Senate has unnerved the state’s powerful life sciences lobby, with sector leaders warning that the Senate Democrats’ move to slice hundreds of millions in proposed funding and tax incentives could cost Massachusetts its pole position in the industry.
Governor Maura Healey, too, offered a rare rebuke of legislative leaders’ approach, saying through a spokesperson Wednesday that the Senate’s plan “falls short of what’s needed.”
The stark differences between the chambers’ treatment of the industry emerged at a sensitive time. The House and Senate are scrambling to finish a host of legislation before formal sessions end July 31, meaning any major differences in bills must be reconciled quickly or risk dying when the session clock runs out. These negotiations, which occur exclusively behind closed doors, can also be rife with legislative horse-trading, including between unrelated bills.
The Senate’s $2.8 billion economic development package dramatically scaled back what Healey and the House sought for life sciences. Senate lawmakers propose to borrow $225 million over five years for the sector — less than half of the $500 million over a decade that Healey and House lawmakers sought.
In its version of the economic development bill, which passed last month, the House also sought to increase tax incentives for life sciences companies by $200 million. Senate leaders skipped that measure in their proposal, instead proposing to keep the tax incentives at their current level.
“This is not a time to think small,” said Brian Johnson, president of the Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council. “We’re at an inflection point here, where we can decide [if] we are leading this industry for the next generation or if we’re going to slowly evaporate our lead because we’re conservative at the wrong time.”
The Senate is poised to pass its version of the bill Thursday — three days after the chamber’s Democratic leaders first released the sweeping 124-page bill.
The Senate’s changes mystified Ed Coppinger, a former longtime state representative who is now head of government affairs at the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council.
“Are you being different just to be different and negotiate something later that you know everybody else wants?” Coppinger mused. Asked if he believed the Senate was trying to create a trade chip with House leaders in future negotiations, Coppinger didn’t pause.
“One hundred percent,” he said. Coppinger said with the array of bills lawmakers are still negotiating, he questioned the Senate’s decision to veer so widely from something the governor, House, and industry all support. “Why choose this particular issue?”
He wasn’t alone in his criticism. After initially saying Healey believes lawmakers “share her commitment” to helping the life sciences sector, the governor’s office released a revised statement Wednesday, noting that the state has become an industry leader “because of significant state investment.”
“The Senate’s proposal falls short of what’s needed to continue to grow this life-saving, cutting-edge industry,” said Karissa Hand, the Healey spokesperson.
Senate leaders defended their bill Wednesday. Gray Milkowski, a spokesperson for Senate President Karen E. Spilka, said she is “confident that the investments that this legislation makes across all sectors of the economy, including life sciences, are strong.”
State Senator Barry Finegold, the Senate chairperson of the Legislature’s economic development committee, said in an interview that the chamber is “very committed” to the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical sector.
“Like anything else, there is an infinite amount of requests and a finite amount of resources,” the Andover Democrat said.
Finegold said it’s still unclear whether the funding could increase in a final version of the bill. The Massachusetts Biotechnology Council is pushing one amendment that would, among several changes, increase the funding proposal to $500 million.
“Everything is on the table,” Finegold said.
To be sure, the economic development legislation is not the only bill lawmakers could use as leverage to get their priorities passed. There are a number of proposals still being hashed out behind closed doors, among them a multibillion-dollar housing bond bill, sweeping gun legislation, and, of course, the annual budget for the fiscal year that began July.
Democratic leaders have long touted the importance of the state’s place as a hotbed for life sciences innovation. Eighteen of the world’s top 20 drugmakers are operating in the state, and an initiative launched by former governor Deval Patrick in 2008, allocating $1 billion over 10 years, is largely credited with helping cement the state’s standing as a global industry hub.
The state then extended funding for the life sciences sector in 2018 under Patrick’s successor, Charlie Baker, with another $500 million. Healey, too, has made boosting the industry a focus of her own agenda, dubbing her administration’s effort “Life Sciences 3.0″ and pitching it as a key way to keep the state competitive with others.
Earlier this year in Rome, Healey brought the message to an international stage. At a meeting with global business leaders at KPMG offices, she said the world should not ignore Massachusetts’ role as a hub for life sciences, applied artificial intelligence, and innovations in climate technology.
While Massachusetts is already considered to be at the forefront of drawing life sciences businesses and investments, the House and the governor seek to elevate the state ahead of rivals such as California, New York, and North Carolina.
The Raleigh-Durham region in particular has emerged as a threat to Boston’s dominance, offering top-notch universities, available land, and lower costs to do business. Most of the major real estate players in Greater Boston’s life sciences world either have a presence in North Carolina’s Research Triangle area or are considering one, the Globe has reported.
That competitiveness, however, takes financial backing.
Johnson, of the Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council, said without proper funding, Massachusetts could lose its position as a leader in life sciences and is “barely keeping pace” with investments in other states with the funding that was approved under Baker.
“In 2018, we invested for five years. We watched New York invest billions. We watched New Hampshire get [funding] to build out their life sciences ecosystem,” he said. “They’re right on our border and they’re coming right for our business. They’re not here to work with us.”
