CONTRIBUTORS

R&D bonds are critical for economic growth in Maine

Posted July 18, 2011, at 6:23 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this     

No one is a fan of household debt, so we understand the concerns of many Mainers about state government using bonds to purchase things that are considered wants, not needs. However, research and development bonds are debt for purchases that will benefit Maine families in the long run, like your house or education. It is appropriate for Maine to use bonds to fund R&D that leads to innovation for Maine companies and therefore create more jobs for Maine residents.

Innovation is the source of as much as 80 percent of economic growth, so states across the country are supporting innovation-based economic development in order to recover from the recession and to help their local companies grow. Maine is no different.

In Maine, we have had a strategy to support research and development for almost 15 years, and our science and technology sectors have maintained their strength as our traditional manufacturing industries have cut back. Almost 60,000 Mainers work in one of the targeted technology sectors, which contribute higher-than-average wages to Maine’s economy.

A key element of that strategy has been to support our research institutions and technology companies, including the University of Maine, with funding for research infrastructure (buildings and capital equipment) financed through bonds. Past bond investments have brought in $10 to Maine’s economy for every state dollar invested.

The Maine Technology Institute administers the $53 million of bonds invested since 2007 under a program called the Maine Technology Asset Fund. This is a competitive process where only the best proposals are funded. The criteria include scientific and technical excellence, collaboration with Maine companies, support for Maine’s technology clusters and impact on Maine’s economy.

These are some of those success stories from the asset fund.

Biovation, a Boothbay biotechnology manufacturer of anti-microbial formulations and nonwoven fiber products for food packaging and wound care, expanded, received outside funding through a federal grant and recently received the “Rising Star” award from the Small Business Association of New England, the first Maine company so recognized since 1994.

Bar Harbor Biotechnology, a Trenton company that is commercializing technology developed at The Jackson Laboratory, has seen sales expand dramatically and has hired several employees since its asset fund award in 2008.

The Bigelow Laboratory leveraged its 2009 award into several other major construction grants from two federal grants and now is constructing a new campus in East Boothbay, including incubator space to work with marine biotechnology companies.

The University of Maine’s Advanced Structures and Composites Center is building a new addition to its building on the Orono campus with its award and other funds secured from the federal government. Expected to open this summer, this new facility will allow for testing of extremely large composite wind blades, a unique resource for the emerging wind energy sector, and is helping the center expand its international reputation as a leader in composite materials.

Despite this progress, Maine continues to lag the country and our New England neighbors in R&D activity and innovation. New ideas, new processes and new products are what drive the economy. Maine’s low ranking in R&D activity hurts our economy and in turn our job growth and incomes.

Maine businesses need partnerships with state, federal and local governments to grow. R&D investments are one of the few economic development programs that Maine evaluates every year. Consistently for the past 10 years, the evaluation shows that firms that benefit from Maine’s R&D investments pay higher wages and have faster job growth than other firms. Those investments in R&D are paying off in firms all across the state.

Maine has real tangible opportunities, making windmill blades, creating biofuels from wood sugars and making bioplastics from potatoes. Bringing these ideas and products to market is more than possible if we are consistent in Maine’s support of research and development.

Maine’s Legislature needs to maintain a consistent and substantial investment in research and development through the Maine Technology Asset Fund process. The process has been proven through three rounds of competition; no special set-asides for one technology or sector are required that would deviate from the concept that only the best proposals should be funded. The asset fund, a national award-winner for investments in research capacity, continues to provide a mechanism for critical investments in Maine’s future. This is a need, not a want.

Catherine Renault is the principal of Innovations Policyworks and former director of Maine’s Office of Innovation. Lauralee Raymond is the sustainable economy program manager at the Environmental Health Strategy Center.

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    It’s nice to be able to make bets on technology with other peoples money, i.e the taxpayer. How much of the funds loaned have been repayed by the recipients? What is the default rate and amount of losses so far? What qualifies the politicians and bureaucrats to make such decisions? Do they have a successful track record in private industry? Who owns the technology if it is successful? Selecting winners amongst the best presented doesn’t mean any of them are worthwhile. They might all be losers but some are not as bad as the others. Government should focus its resources on creating a healthy business climate and not introjecting itself into private enterprise.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7ARBFNYJAE23QMOBALXD7FM4W4 gempaint

    winnig awards in this era are misleading……UMPI’s  famous wind turbine wins awards and i do not see how.  In reality UMPI and Saco and other experiments with WIND tell us it is a failure.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, bonding is a tried and true institution but we need to look at thyem on  case-by-case basis.
    Reynault ia a wind power advocate so evidently she will support ill advised projects. We shoul dbe alert to oppose bond issues that go to such boondoggles as Professor Dagher’s ill fated deep water turbines as well as the one at the University of Presque Isle and several that located on our mountain tops, So, let us support bond issues for productive and needed enterprises such as bridges made by Dagher’s marvelous composite materials.

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure that those stats (repayment, etc.) are available;  look for them.  Before becoming an expert on research investment, venture capital, etc., do a lot of research.  An enlightened process will produce a healthier business climate, especially with the downturn in manufacturing, etc.

  • Anonymous

    Took your  advice and visited their website. They basically give away the money, lay claim to all of the business’ success and tangential economic activity when the funds are just a  fraction of the business’ investment, and they don’t have any defined metrics to account for direct winners and losers. As I indicated before, it is doing business the government way in an arena they should not be involved in.

  • Anonymous

    Took your  advice and visited their website. They basically give away the money, lay claim to all of the business’ success and tangential economic activity when the funds are just a  fraction of the business’ investment, and they don’t have any defined metrics to account for direct winners and losers. As I indicated before, it is doing business the government way in an arena they should not be involved in.

  • Anonymous

    Took your  advice and visited their website. They basically give away the money, lay claim to all of the business’ success and tangential economic activity when the funds are just a  fraction of the business’ investment, and they don’t have any defined metrics to account for direct winners and losers. As I indicated before, it is doing business the government way in an arena they should not be involved in.

  • Anonymous

    Took your  advice and visited their website. They basically give away the money, lay claim to all of the business’ success and tangential economic activity when the funds are just a  fraction of the business’ investment, and they don’t have any defined metrics to account for direct winners and losers. As I indicated before, it is doing business the government way in an arena they should not be involved in.

  • Anonymous

    Took your  advice and visited their website. They basically give away the money, lay claim to all of the business’ success and tangential economic activity when the funds are just a  fraction of the business’ investment, and they don’t have any defined metrics to account for direct winners and losers. As I indicated before, it is doing business the government way in an arena they should not be involved in.

  • Anonymous

    Took your  advice and visited their website. They basically give away the money, lay claim to all of the business’ success and tangential economic activity when the funds are just a  fraction of the business’ investment, and they don’t have any defined metrics to account for direct winners and losers. As I indicated before, it is doing business the government way in an arena they should not be involved in.

  • Anonymous

    Took your  advice and visited their website. They basically give away the money, lay claim to all of the business’ success and tangential economic activity when the funds are just a  fraction of the business’ investment, and they don’t have any defined metrics to account for direct winners and losers. As I indicated before, it is doing business the government way in an arena they should not be involved in.

  • Anonymous

    Took your  advice and visited their website. They basically give away the money, lay claim to all of the business’ success and tangential economic activity when the funds are just a  fraction of the business’ investment, and they don’t have any defined metrics to account for direct winners and losers. As I indicated before, it is doing business the government way in an arena they should not be involved in.

  • Anonymous

    Took your  advice and visited their website. They basically give away the money, lay claim to all of the business’ success and tangential economic activity when the funds are just a  fraction of the business’ investment, and they don’t have any defined metrics to account for direct winners and losers. As I indicated before, it is doing business the government way in an arena they should not be involved in.

  • Anonymous

    Catherine- We have been funding groups like MTI for a long time, and for what,,,, certainly not for the abundant job creation they have done with all that money invested, or the objective and non-political views they bring to the table…

    If you haven’t noticed it, we are in financial trouble, the entire country is on a crash diet and I think you will find most Mainers are “not” in favor of continued funding— ya best start brushing-up on that resume of yours…!

    .

  • Anonymous

    The University of Maine has a disasrer and quite possibly a cover-up on its hands with its wind turbine. Two million dollars down the drain.

    See:
    http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/university-of-maine-wind-turbi

  • Anonymous

    The University of Maine has a disasrer and quite possibly a cover-up on its hands with its wind turbine. Two million dollars down the drain.

    See:
    http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/university-of-maine-wind-turbi

  • Anonymous

    The University of Maine has a disasrer and quite possibly a cover-up on its hands with its wind turbine. Two million dollars down the drain.

    See:
    http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/university-of-maine-wind-turbi

  • Anonymous

    More NIMBY hysteria.

  • Anonymous

    “UMPI’s  famous wind turbine wins awards and i do not see how”…

    You don’t see because you are blinded by your strident anti-wind ideology.

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business