Science and Technology Panel - Clip 5: Transcript

HENRY GOLDMAN

My name is Henry Goldman. I'm a reporter with Bloomberg News. My question has to do with the role of government in fostering biotech facilities, biotech companies. This is an area I know a little bit about.

When I look at biotech companies in the San Francisco area, maybe Massachusetts or Maryland, they really started without government aid. They started with an idea. They started with some venture capital, even the successful companies in New York.

And I'm wondering, considering how risky this sector is, and it's incredibly risky - it's very rare that one of these companies makes it - should government really be an investor in this enterprise? Does government do this better than the private sector, the venture capitalists, the investment banker?

Part 2
JERRY HULTIN
It seems to me that would agree science, National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, use a basic science approach, primarily a certain amount of what's called developmental fundraising, but they certainly don't get into the companies in terms of the investments companies make.

But there is a structure that subsidizes - we all know what it is - and it seems to increase the amount of activity. But there's certainly a question of whether it gets the return - and I'm not advocating companies be investing. CIA, you know, has got a venture capital fund and they do invest, but they haven't found it to be real successful.

The issue, though, partly, is California raised, what, three billion dollars to support genetics research, so you may be at a competitive disadvantage if you don't step up. State of New York put, what, 600 million dollars into the Nano Centre at Albany.

So you have these plays that you seem to have to make because you're worried about losing competitive advantages, and they're pretty risky plays because you may be wrong.

The more you focus on basic science and let someone else bring it to the market, probably the greater the likelihood you'll get the return you want out of it. That's why we ought to create an innovative culture.

GARRICK UTLEY:
Jonathan.

JONATHAN BOWLES:
I think it's a great question, Henry, and I personal am opposed to the idea of local government picking winners, picking individual companies and deciding to providing grants or subsidies. I don't think that's a good idea.

Several years ago, you probably know the city created a fund called the Emerging Industries Fund, and it was a disaster. It ended up not making a lot of investments because it kind of threw up its hands and didn't know how to do it. It wasn't equipped to do so.

But I think that, as Jerry was saying earlier, there's a real need for New York to diversify its economy. We can't rely on Wall Street alone, and we have all of these ingredients, all of these assets, that leads us to believe that we have the ability to really grow this into a sector. This is a growing sector nationally in a lot of places. There are things that the city and state can do.

And, you know, I think one thing, at a very simple level, is to really work with the institutions, the academic institutions. If possible, pull them together. Mix them with money, with venture capital, with business. Get the business schools to meet with the science aspects of these institutions. That's one level.

The city, by pressuring, by bringing real estate interests to the table with the East River Sciences part, there is city subsidies there. It's not to one individual company, but bringing together this research park incubator is something has long been the stumbling block for New York City. There was not an incubator and there was not a graduation space for companies that were here in New York and ready to grow to the next level.

And so, you know, I think things like research parks and incubators will have a far greater economic benefit in the long run for New York City than things like the Javitz Center or baseball and football stadiums.