Do you favor a $10,000,000 bond issue, to be awarded through a competitive process and to be matched by $11,000,000 in private and other funds, to build a research center and to discover genetic solutions for cancer and the diseases of aging, to promote job growth and private sector investment in this State, to attract and retain young professionals and make the State a global leader in genomic medicine?
It’s hard to believe all the promises packed into the language of Question 4 on November’s ballot, but the initiative in mind behind the ballot question deserves Maine voters’ support. Neither the bond issue nor the process that led to it is ideal — overall, the research and development-oriented bond questions on the ballot next month fall well short of the investment Maine needs — but Maine can’t afford not to make this investment.
It’s been more than four years since Maine voters have had the chance to sign off on an investment earmarked for research and development activity. Question 4 offers one of the state’s only chances to do that now.
The $10 million proposed in the bond issue would be awarded competitively to an entity that offers the most compelling proposal “to expand the state’s research capabilities in the areas of mammalian genetics and murine biometric analytics.” The only Maine entity conceivably suited for the murine (as in mouse) competition is The Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, which has set itself apart for its research into human diseases using mice.
With the bond issue, the lab plans a one-of-a-kind biometric analysis lab that uses cutting-edge technology to help researchers identify changes in individual mouse cells that signal the presence of disease.
Such a facility would further distinguish the non-profit Jackson Laboratory in its field, and Maine would benefit from hosting the facility. After the lab’s construction, The Jackson Laboratory says it would add 150-200 high-quality jobs to its Maine staff of 1,300.
In the Legislature, the bond started off as a $15 million allocation specifically for The Jackson Laboratory. Lawmakers later made the bond award ostensibly competitive but so narrowly defined that The Jackson Laboratory will likely be the only entity to compete for the funds.
By so narrowly defining the goal, it could prevent the state from realizing the maximum return on its research and development-oriented investment. Plus, prescriptiveness in a bond question can also be a better demonstration of which entities have the greatest political pull rather than those with ideas that are most deserving of state support.
Despite our reservations about Question 4, we urge a “yes” vote. This is Maine’s chance to restart a pattern of research and development investments that can yield future dividends.