A “bold package” to be submitted to the 2004 Legislature would make life sciences research and development the fourth major segment of the Kansas economy, a state legislator said Tuesday.

“We think of agriculture, aviation and gas and oil as the three legs of the stool,” said Rep. Kenny Wilk, chairman of the House Economic Development Committee. “We want to create a fourth leg.”

Wilk, a Lansing Republican, said the Kansas Economic Growth Act would eventually benefit Kansans living far from research labs at the state’s major universities, including Kansas University.

“This is not about studying poetry,” he said. “This is about new discovery and creating jobs.”

He wouldn’t reveal financial details of the proposal.

“I can tell you it will be a bold package,” he said. “It is not a small package.”

Wilk said the plan being developed in consultation with Kansas legislative leaders, the Kansas Governor’s Office and other partners would complement a new $190 million proposal to boost the University of Missouri system’s ability to conduct cutting-edge research.

Missouri legislative leaders announced Monday they would submit to the General Assembly a plan to borrow the money to improve research in life sciences and create jobs.

Stowers Institute support

Plan would boost KU life sciences (11-11-03)Stowers Institute for Medical Research $1.1 billion added to Stowerses’ gift (5-11-03) Stowers Institute depending on KU’s help with research (4-8-03)

Kansas and Missouri are working to support activities of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Mo. The institute, founded by James Stowers, plans to build a second research facility — perhaps in the Kansas City metropolitan area — to augment its 10-acre building near University of Missouri-Kansas City.

“There is, if you will, an arms race to keep it in the Kansas City area,” said Rep. Tom Sloan, a Lawrence Republican who is chairman of the House Higher Education Committee. “Obviously, Kansas legislators would rather have it on our side of the line. Missouri legislators would want it on theirs.”

Allowing the second Stowers building to go up in a far-off research hub such as San Diego, Boston or Austin, Texas, would be a setback for the area’s economic development efforts, Sloan said.

In fact, the Stowers Institute has encouraged officials in Kansas and Missouri to invest in development of research facilities that would attract high-powered scientists capable of collaborating on projects at the institute.

‘Complementary’ work

In September, work began on a state- and private-financed $56 million biomedicine research building at KU Medical Center in Kansas City, Kan. That was part of a $130 million investment by the state in research facilities at KU, Kansas State University and Wichita State University.

About $43 million of Missouri’s $190 million proposal would be spent on new labs at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

“I see it not as competition, but as complementary,” Wilk said. “We help each other. By them moving forward and by us moving forward, that is exactly what the Stowers people envision.”

Wilk and Sen. Nick Jordan, R-Shawnee, have been working for months to piece together the 10-year economic development plan.

It would weave together human research undertaken at KU and KUMC, and animal research conducted at Kansas State University, Wilk said.

Creating jobs

The plan would include a policy framework for commercializing bioscience research findings and a mandate that rural areas of the state benefit from this economic-development investment through job creation.

Crafting a plan that spreads benefits throughout the state of Kansas may help give it political legs.

But convincing the cash-strapped 2004 Legislature to pass the bioscience plan for Kansas will be difficult, Sloan said.

“You’ve got an economy that still hasn’t come around,” he said. “You’re making a big investment today on the hope it will pay off in five to 10 years from now.

“For a lot of our legislative colleagues, they would say, ‘Yes, it would be a good thing to do if we had a lot of money, but we don’t.'”

Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, said the economic benefit of all the public investment in bioscience research wouldn’t be clear for many years.

“It’s the new wave,” he said. “Everybody is rushing to get on the bandwagon. Whether it actually pans is something that only history will tell.”