It’s always a tough act to follow Howard Root, the sometimes volatile, always interesting CEO of Vascular Solutions Inc. But when you’re one of a gazillion candidates running for the governor of Minnesota, the challenge becomes even more daunting.
Which makes me wonder why organizers of the first annual Minnesota BIO forum, including LifeScience Alley, Minnesota High Tech Association and BioBusiness Alliance of Minnesota, even bothered to invite five candidates for governor since Root, the keynote speaker, displayed more command and candor of the state’s bioscience industry than all of them combined.
Of course, Root has the distinct advantage of running a medical device company. Still, I couldn’t help but wish that the candidates–Rep. Tom Emmer, public affairs consultant Tom Horner, Rep. Tom Rukavina, Rep. Marty Seifert and Rep. Paul Thissen–would have tried harder to woo the crowd with substantive proposals on how best to promote the state’s bioscience industry. (Throw in moderator KSTP political reporter Tom Hauser and myself, and it suddenly seemed there was not a Tom left in Minnesota).
When Investment Rhymes with Canada
Canada has a proud history of achievement in the areas of science and technology, and the field of biomanufacturing and life sciences is no exception.
It felt like the audience had to try real hard to figure out how to apply biotech issues to the usual sniping over big/small government, budget and taxes instead of the other way around. That’s not to say there wasn’t any meaningful debate. So I decided to divide this story into two main categories: What They Talked About and What They Didn’t Talk About, But Should Have.
And for something completely wild, I will grade each candidate on one and only one criteria: the ability to address issues most important to the bioscience industry.
WHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT:
Science and Technology Education–This was actually a pleasant surprise. The candidates devoted a significant amount of time debating how to boost science and technology education in the state to develop the highly skilled workers medical technology so desperately needs. Frankly, I don’t think the issue gets nearly enough attention that it deserves.
Unfortunately, there wasn’t a whole lot of meat there. Perhaps the candidates should have taken their cue from Root, who complained colleges in Minnesota, and the rest of the country for that matter, did not offer any degree in quality engineering for medical devices. Root, who called the lack of qualified workers “the No. 1 obstacle” facing Vascular Solutions, touted a two-year marketing analyst program the company created to train recent college graduates.
I would have jumped all over that. Could the state, which supplies most of the University of Minnesota and state college system’s annual budget, nudge the school to create degree programs that focus on training students in quality engineering and regulatory affairs, creating the kind of workers that Root wants? Or encourage other companies to offer training programs similar to Vascular Solutions?
Instead, we were treated to the usual dose of university bashing and off-point pontificating. Seifert, a Republican, decried how higher education institutions waste money on centralized bureaucracies.
‘We put money into demand where there isn’t any,” he said. “We need to put dollars where the instruction takes place. We have to prioritize. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority.”
You get the sense Seifert was just waiting for the right opportunity to use that catch phrase.
There was a little more creativity on K-12 education. Rukavina, a Democrat who spent more time joking with Republican Emmer instead of debating him, referred to a pilot program he started that partnered community and technical colleges with vocational high schools, but didn’t offer any details. Horner, an independent, spoke of an “alternative certification” pathway for people with professional backgrounds to teach in schools.
In somewhat of a head scratcher, Thissen said schools should not focus on training students for the workforce, but instead concentrate on turning them into “great citizens,” the only way to truly encourage innovative and creative thinking.
Ouch.
Medical Device Tax–OK, here you would think the two Republicans could really stand out. Not.
Seifert unconvincingly vowed “to use all of my power” to repeal the medical device tax contained in the health care law. First of all, I’m not sure how much power a governor would have to repeal a federal tax. Secondly, Seifert’s promise is empty political grandstanding since even the industry has accepted the realities of the tax.
If Seifert needs any ideas, how about going to LifeScience Alley’s Web site? The organization is trying to limit the impact of the tax by exempting smaller companies from it. So instead of “trying” to do something that practically can’t be done, why not help medical device companies manage what I like to call “reality”?
Emmer’s solution? “Send new representation to Washington,” he said.
Very constructive, Tom.
Democrats weren’t much better.
“I don’t think the state should protect any one industry,” Thissen said.
Maybe so. But politically not the smartest thing to say to people in the room that clearly belong to the state’s most lucrative, high-growth industry.
WHAT THEY DIDN’T TALK ABOUT, BUT SHOULD HAVE
Early Stage Venture Capital–It’s hard to believe, but not one candidate discussed this other than to praise the newly passed angel investment tax credit.
In some ways, the timing couldn’t have been more perfect for any candidate to step up because 1. it’s probably the No. 1 issue facing the local med tech industry, and 2. the latest MoneyTree report, released just last week, shows local start-ups attracted the lowest amount of venture capital in at least 14 years.
Is there anything else the state could be doing to encourage early-stage capital? Expand the angel credit? Invest part of Minnesota’s pension fund in promising start-ups?
Bueller? Bueller?
Big Projects–Not one mention of the university’s Biomedical Discovery District or the Elk Run BioBusiness Park, even though the state is helping to pay for both. At least someone should take credit for it!
Economic Development–I give Hauser, the moderator, full credit for even bringing this up. It never gets any attention.
Once again, mindless chatter about lowering taxes, cutting red tape and shrinking government.
Only Thissen had anything worthwhile to say. He argued the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) operated too many small programs and should be combined. That’s a start. I would say DEED needs a wholesale restructuring. I would also argue for more money but that’s not gonna happen.
GRADES:
Emmer–F
Horner–C
Rukavina–C
Seifert–D+
Thissen–D+
Root–A
OK, I know Root is not a candidate. But with such dismal grades, I needed to bump up the curve.
