The Massachusetts Life Sciences Center cuts a high profile these days. Created by the state Legislature in June 2006 to foster research and economic development in the Commonwealth’s substantial life science sector, the center has money to burn, thanks to the Life Sciences Act the Bay State passed last year.
Led by Susan Windham-Bannister, a former healthcare policy wonk turned business strategy consultant turned state life sciences czar, the quasi-public agency is charged with dispensing a mix of public and private funding to cultivate the state’s medical device, biotech and pharmaceutical sectors.
But juggling the not-always-mutual interests of those constituencies, along with the political exigencies of a 70-year economic trough and the competing needs of the public and private sectors, is no mean feat.
MASSDEVICE sat down with Windham-Bannister, the woman charged with keeping all those balls in play.
In Part II of the interview, Windham-Bannister — “Dr. Sue” to her colleagues at the center — touches on the center’s public-private partnerships, her vision for the center’s future and the miles she’s logged on the odometer touring the state.
Click here for the first portion of the interview.
MASSDEVICE: You call the center a “quasi-public” agency. What does that really mean, in terms of how you do business?
SWB We’re looking to plug some holes, without having to go back to the state and say, “Can you give us some money in this very difficult time?” We’re looking to find capital to work with that’s not just the state — we’re looking for creative ways to match dollars. One of the things we’ve done is the corporate consortium program, in which large corporations with VC arms can put dollars into a fund that the center can use to match investments.
Our charter member is Johnson and Johnson. They committed half a million, but there are two other parts of J&J that have reached out to us, and we’ve contacted many other companies.
Participating companies get no right to [intellectual property] and they get no vote on what the center funds, but what companies realize is that Massachusetts is very strong in innovation and that we’re going to look at a lot of the ideas that are percolating here.
The other thing is the statute enables us to take an equity position to give loans. We could be in a position to be an “evergreen” fund. I would love to have the center make very significant investments, but release state dollars to go off and be targeted to other segments. We’d like to be around for the long term.
MASSDEVICE: What is your approach to cultivating the medical device sector here?
Susan Windham-Bannister: We’ve formed partnerships with organizations like MassMEDIC [the Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council], like M2D2 [the Massachusetts Medical Device Development Center at UMass Lowell], that are very focused on devices. But at the same time, we have very close collaborations with the Massachusetts Biotech Council, so that’s the second way we’ve tried to do this. We’ve really adopted a very strong partnership strategy. We vet our programs and initiatives with these industry partners to see if they make sense.
{IMAGELEFT:http://www.massdevice.com/sites/default/wp-content/uploads/headshots/Sommer_Thomas_100x100.jpg}We try to be broadly involved. I’m very pleased to say that I got an email from [MassMEDIC president] Tom Sommer asking if I would be the co-chair of the BIOMEDevice forum here in Boston in April.
So part of it is being out, being visible, it’s talking with companies. I’ve mentioned I’ve been to Springfield, Agawam, Leominster and Gardner and Clinton. All of those trips were to meet with device companies.
MASSDEVICE: Are there quotas for the types of companies the center will assist? For example, six biotech, six device, six pharma…
SWB: We’re looking for good ideas, good science and good business opportunities. If a disproportionate share is coming from one part or another, then so be it. That being said, we’re being very inclusive of all parts of the life sciences community, as well as the geographies of the state.
MASSDEVICE: The Springfield Republican quoted you as saying, “The initiative was not necessarily something to turn the economy around.” Given the shape of the state and national economies, is there more pressure to focus on job creation?
SWB: We have not been given any external pressure to change our focus. I would say any pressure we put on ourselves, because we recognize that we have been given a share of state dollars, which are hard to come by these days. We realize that there are programs that provide direct services that are very constrained right now, so we feel a responsibility to use these dollars wisely.
That means finding the right balance between the long and the short term. We’ve got to develop a good pipeline, so we’ve got to make investments in very early-stage companies that are forward-looking and focused on technology and innovation.
At the same time, we are looking to find ways to use dollars that will create jobs. That said, small companies make jobs and those [goals] are not inconsistent. Often, small companies create jobs at a proportionately greater rate than large companies. A small company that goes from two people to 10 people is growing at a much faster rate than a company that has 1,000 employees and adds 10 or 100 employees.
We’re very proud to say that in eight months we have created over 100 jobs a month, when you look at the expected job creation estimates of the investments that we’ve made. So we’re moving along at a good clip.
MASSDEVICE: Those are expected jobs. Are there any data on the number of people working today because of a grant made by the center?
SWB: Keep in mind, the initiative was signed in June and we made our first rounds of grants in July, so to some extent we’re just getting started. But we have a number of projects that are scheduled to come online very quickly.
Give us a month or two and I think we’ll be able to tell you exactly how many jobs we have created. The projects in which we’ve invested are slated to create jobs very quickly, so we’re not saying in three years or in five years. The Genzyme project is expected to create 300 jobs by September. The Marine Biology Laboratory will create 200 union jobs in the building trades; that project is expected to hit its peak in April. The Organogenesis buildout(PDF) is expected to create 200 jobs.
That’s why I say give us a month and we’ll be able to point to jobs.
I’ll add this: With every one of our grants, we’re asking companies to make a commitment. This money doesn’t come with no strings attached. Every grant or loan has milestones the companies have to hit, in terms of revenue creation and job creation, in addition to milestones for proof-of-concept or moving down the runway towards commercialization. If companies are not meeting those milestones, the center by statute can withdraw our investment. Not only are we holding ourselves accountable for the use of these dollars to create jobs, we’re holding companies accountable for creating jobs.
MASSDEVICE: Massachusetts lobbied hard for more money from the National Institutes of Health during the wrangling over the federal stimulus package. Did the center have a role in that lobbying effort?
SWB: We worked very closely with the Massachusetts delegation. We’ve actually reached out directly to the N.I.H. to better understand where the [Small Business Innovation Research] grants are housed, what they’re receptivity is to matching, would they see that favorably.
The notion of matching grants was very appealing to them and what they agreed to do was a mass mailing to all of their grantees to make them aware of the Massachusetts initiative. We were extremely appreciative and impressed.
MASSDEVICE: From textiles to the shoe business to software, Massachusetts seems to let industries leave or die on the vine. Why are the life sciences any different?
SWB: First of all, this initiative was put in place while the industry is still on the upswing. I think states don’t look at their thriving industries; they assume everything will take care of itself and that all is well and will stay well.
This is a case where the governor and the Legislature said, “Let’s not have that blind spot, let’s invest to keep this industry strong and growing.”
We are investing for both the short and the long term. We view the investments as a portfolio and we’re looking for that portfolio to yield very short term results, but we are, in a steady fashion, looking to make some investments that are longer-term bets.
We think that’s important for job creation over the long term, but a big part of this initiative was the mission aspect of life sciences.
I think that’s why those of us who are in life sciences get up and come to work every day, because we’re doing some good things. Not just doing well financially with investments, but doing some good things for people. That’s an important part of what we at the center are supposed to sustain, the good science, the therapies, the cures. We’re being held accountable for that as well, although that will take a considerably longer time.
That’s the great thing about medical devices. They can be commercialized quicker and their impact can be noted certainly a lot more quicker than a molecule or a pharmacologic.
MASSDEVICE: I’m sure they’re not shy about telling you that.
SWB: Well, the good thing is they don’t really have to. We’ve demonstrated that we understand the value of all parts of the life sciences cluster — what they need, what their challenges are.
We found some that resonate with everyone. Workforce development is an area that everyone would benefit from and we plan to invest heavily in that. The device companies tell us that they less often need the PhDs and the post-docs. They need skilled workers at the bachelor degree level, or even skilled workers who can oversee complex processes, with excellent attention to detail and quality. That’s what’s critical for a device company, so we’re really focused on generating more of those types of workers, making sure that they’re well-distributed.
All these things that we’re doing that are really longer-term, even the infrastructure build-outs that we were talking about. When you have companies in bio-manufacturing, many of them are device companies, they’ve moved to the parts of the state that make sense for them. They’ve moved where there’s land available, but maybe they need infrastructure in terms of roads, or they need water, or they need a workforce at their fingertips that’s not miles away. It’s incumbent on the center to deal with those issues.
One of the reasons I get in my Saab and I drive around the state is that then I can see it. I’m there. I can see the issues, I can see what these companies are doing, and because of my own background I understand what they’re doing, where it fits into the bigger picture.
MASSDEVICE: So you’re putting these miles on your own car?
SWB: Absolutely, and glad to do it, honestly. It didn’t even occur to me to ask for a company car.
MASSDEVICE: So you’re learning it intimately at this point.
SWB: The Saab, or the state?
MASSDEVICE: The Saab and the state.
SWB: Both. It’s a good car to have in the winter. It’s a good car to get around with, too.
Click here for Part I of our chat.