Milestones 2004

Industrial & Environmental Biotechnology >

OUTREACH: STATES

In 2003, the state of Florida overnight became a major player in biotechnology by luring a new branch of the Scripps Research Institute to Palm Beach County with $510 million in incentives. Although BIO played no role in the agreement, its origins can be traced back to the spring of 2000, when a group that included BIO Vice President for State Government Relations Patrick Kelly and regional biotech executives was granted a 15-minute appointment with Florida Governor Jeb Bush to discuss biotech opportunities in the state.

"An hour later we were still discussing stuff," recalls Kelly. "The hook was that Florida's universities are a major engine, but they're graduating students who migrate to other areas." The governor's interest in developing a biotech industry was keen, and BioFlorida — a BIO state affiliate association — maintained the momentum. By the time Gov. Bush visited San Diego–based Scripps three years later, he was ready to make a bold move.

BIO's state strategy has centered on developing such gubernatorial champions. In 2003, gubernatorial outreach efforts included a briefing at the National Governors Association and publication of the Governor's Guide to Biotechnology. Nine governors attended the BIO 2003 convention in Washington, D.C.

Like Gov. Bush, most are attracted to biotech's economic development potential. Althougheconomic development activity overall has slowed as budgets have shrunk, states continue to support biotechnology initiatives. In 2003, Iowa, for example, approved $503 million to develop high technology, including the life sciences.

BIO and the Battelle Memorial Institute have collected data on state biotech incentives for a report due in mid-2004. The report also will capture other state biotech data such as employment, revenues and the regional benefits of biotechnology.

As the scope of the report indicates, biotechnology is a widely dispersed industry. Many state strategic plans call for life-sciences development, and BIO now has 39 state affiliate members — up from 36 in 2002 and 15 in 1995.

BIO works with state affiliates on the full gamut of biotechnology issues, including reimbursement, economic incentives, bioethics and agricultural issues. BIO's state government relations team reviews more than 1,000 pieces of state legislation each year and mobilizes state affiliates to weigh in on federal issues.

In 2003, cloning was the number one biotechnology issue in state legislatures, thanks to the Raelian UFO cult's claim of a human reproductive cloning success in December 2002. Eighty-three bills on cloning were subsequently introduced, but only North Dakota passed legislation. BIO supports a ban on human reproductive cloning, but opposes banning therapeutic applications of the technology.

Food and Agriculture
The first challenge of 2004 will come in March, in Mendocino County, Calif., where voters will decide on Measure H, an effort to ban the planting of biotech crops in the county. An industry legal challenge to the wording of the measure as misleading failed; it will be on the ballot and may be an indicator of what other communities may initiate.

Also in California, the state's fish and wildlife officials in 2003 voted to ban the sale of GloFish, the first biotech pet, in their state on the grounds that it was a "frivolous" use of technology. Intended for home aquariums, the zebra fish has a gene that makes it glow fluorescent red. Executives at Yorktown Technologies, which markets the fish, report that demand in the other 49 states has outpaced their expectations.

In Colorado and Texas, bills were introduced in 2003 to ban the planting of plant-made pharmaceutical (PMP) crops. Both bills were defeated through the joint efforts of patient advocacy groups and BIO state affiliates.

In Hawaii, the anti-biotechnology activist group EarthJustice, on behalf of the Center for Food Safety and others, filed suit in July against the Hawaiian Department of Agriculture, seeking public release of information pertaining to field trials of plant-made pharmaceuticals. BIO moved to be recognized as a party to the suit on behalf of its members, citing the need to protect this information as confidential business information. In November, the groups filed a second lawsuit, this time against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, asking for stronger regulation of PMP field trials and alleging that the USDA's PMP permit approvals violated the National Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Importation and Reimbursement Drug importation erupted as a hot state and local issue in 2003. Among the states and local governments that considered drug imports from Canada to cut costs for state employee and retirement insurance programs were Boston; Burlington, Vt.; California; Illinois; Iowa; Minnesota; Montgomery County, Md.; New Hampshire; New York City; and Springfield, Mass. BIO is working closely with state affiliates to explain to state and local leaders the value of biotech innovation in their regions and the safety risks of imported drugs. (See Health Care for further discussion of importation.)

States have also taken action to cut Medicaid expenditures through restrictive formularies, and some have sought to expand Medicaid rebate programs to cover patients who are not Medicaid-eligible. Even though these programs often do not affect biotech drugs — because they are administered in hospitals and clinics — BIO and its affiliates weigh in on potentially harmful measures.