When The New York Times published a story in 2002 about the nation’s hubs for biotechnology research, Kansas City wasn’t even mentioned.

Instead, the newspaper highlighted efforts in 19 other locales it said were vying to become “Bio Town USA.”

And the snub came despite some business leaders’ assertions — stepped up significantly in the previous three years — that life science research would become a cornerstone of the region’s economy.

Why the omission? Possibly because leaders in 40 other states are saying the same thing — and some of them have been saying it a lot longer than those in Kansas City.

Here’s what’s at stake:

• The Federal Reserve Board says from 15 percent to 18 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product will be in the areas of health care and life science activities during the next 20 years.
• The average bioscience salary is, on average, 85 percent higher than for jobs requiring similar educational backgrounds in other fields, according to one report.
• For every $1 million of federal research brought to a community, the U.S. Department of Commerce estimates 40 jobs are created.

Legislative issue

The debate about what role life sciences will play in the future of the state’s economy will be a central issue as the Kansas Legislature convenes Monday for its 2004 session.

Legislators will consider bills that would use additional tax money to boost biotechnology research at universities and tax incentives to entice investors to support fledgling biotech companies. The Missouri Legislature also is considering a plan that would pump $190 million into its universities’ life sciences research.

The proposals are part of an effort to help convince the Stowers Institute for Medical Research — a Kansas City, Mo., facility with an endowment of $1.6 billion — to build its second campus in the Kansas City area.

Area biotech companies seek venture capital Legislators to push life sciences plan (12-31-03) Pharmaceutical company lands $15 million deal (12-19-2003) Boosting life sciences efforts (12-30-03) Plan would boost KU life sciences (11-11-03) Task force aims to spur life sciences (11-05-03) Start-up firm builds $1.5 million in funding (4-17-03) Regional Technology Center gaining high-tech momentum (4-12-03) Pharmaceutical firm to relocate to Lawrence (4-12-03) J-W Editorial: The right idea (2-12-03) Lawrence lands drug firm (2-11-03)

But with other states already doing similar programs and others considering them, some are wondering how much of the life science pie Kansas and Kansas City will be able to cut for themselves.

“The bandwagon,” said KU researcher Russ Middaugh, “may have already passed.”

But others say the time is ripe for investment in biotechnology.

“I truly believe we have an unprecedented economic opportunity here, and we need to capitalize on it or it will go away,” said state Rep. Kenny Wilk, R-Lansing, who is proposing the Kansas investments.

What it is

There may be as many facets to life science research as there are species on the planet.

The federal government defines life science as any scientific technique that uses living organisms, or parts of living organisms, to manufacture new products. It can involve plants, animals or humans.

Most in the scientific community agree the biotechnology industry was born in 1978, when the federal Food and Drug Administration approved a cloned version of insulin for use in diabetic patients.

Now, with the average human life expectancy continuing to creep upward, diseases continuing to plague the population and the Silicon Valley technology boom more of a bust, economic prognosticators say life sciences will be the major focus of the economy of the future.

The National Institutes of Health last year completed a five-year doubling of its budget, giving universities, states and cities new reason to bolster their science research programs.

Some of the KU and Kansas City focuses will include proteomics, which is the study of proteins and how they affect an organism’s structure and health; and bioinformatics, the use of computers to analyze scientific data.

Third-tier

Boston and San Francisco have long been the nation’s leading biotech centers. But many other communities also are pursuing a life sciences niche.

A study completed in 2001 by Battelle, a science research firm, found that 41 states were working to increase their research rankings in the area. A 2002 study by the Brookings Institute said 41 of the country’s 51 largest metropolitan statistical areas had at least some biotech research and commercialization under way.

The Kansas City area — which for the study included parts of Johnson County but not Lawrence — was included in the third tier of 28 cities called “median metropolitan areas” for research and commercialization.

A third study, released last year, used the Brookings Institute data to show Kansas City ranked 39th out of the 51 largest cities.

“Kansas City certainly has some challenges in front of it,” said Nelson Mann, a lawyer and vice chairman of the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. “We are certainly not the first in the game. We’re going to have to decide if we’re going to commit the resources necessary to become a player and define what our role is in the national spectrum.”

Big money

Leaders in other cities and states already are putting money where their mouths are. Some recent examples include:

• Florida last fall offered the Scripps Research Institute $310 million in tax incentives to build a research facility in West Palm Beach.
• South Carolina in 2002 offered Pilot Therapeutics Inc. an estimated $16 million to relocate its labs to Charleston, S.C., from Winston-Salem, N.C.
• Ohio created the Third Frontier Project, a $1.1 billion economic development program that lists medical technology and curing children’s diseases among its priorities.

In contrast, the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corp. (KTEC), a state-operated nonprofit funded through state lottery and racing money, has spent about $2.3 million on life sciences projects this year, said Tracy Taylor, KTEC’s president and CEO. That includes support for university research and start-up companies.

Middaugh, the KU researcher who works on stabilizing vaccines for travel, said that level of investment isn’t enough.

“There needs to be commitment on the part of the state,” he said. “I’ve never seen any evidence of that, but that’s not to say it might not be there. It’s going to take several hundred million dollars from the state and the commitment of individuals (investing in biotech firms). The world isn’t sitting out there waiting to come to Kansas City and give it these things.”

St. Louis success

Four hours east of Kansas City on Interstate 70, St. Louis has emerged as a biotech center, especially in the area of agriculture. Officials at Kansas State University are hoping to replicate success in the same area. In the Brookings Institute study, St. Louis was listed among the top 13 biotechnology centers.

Dick Fleming, president and chief executive of the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Assn., said he attributed the success, in part, to Washington University, which consistently ranks in the top five medical schools, and to having agriculture giant Monsanto in town.

But he said the effort really took off with a plan the chamber commissioned in 1998. Back then, research group Battelle pinpointed the key areas for growth in St. Louis’ research and gave it keys for success, including a marketing brand name (“Biobelt”), establishing a locally managed venture capital fund that has raised $100 million and creating an umbrella organization that involves the key players in its biotechnology efforts.

“We didn’t want to fall into the trap of saying, ‘We’re the optimistic chamber who wants to be the next biotechnology center,'” Fleming said.

Kansas City efforts

Kansas City hasn’t commissioned a similar “road map” study, but it does have an umbrella group of seven institutions that conduct research, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute.

The group’s goal, institute president Bill Duncan said, is to have the Kansas City area conduct $500 million a year in biotech research by 2009. It conducted $201 million in 2002, and Duncan said last year’s numbers — which are not yet available — were expected to have increased significantly.

“Are we making progress?” he said. “You bet we are.”

Duncan said a key for success in Kansas City would be getting researchers from various institutions working together.

“Let’s face it. We don’t have a Johns Hopkins or a Washington University in our midst,” he said. “If we collaborate, we’re in a much better position.”

With locations such as the “research triangle” in North Carolina reporting it took 20 years to see a return on its investment, it will take years to know whether Kansas City will be a national leader — even if millions are pumped in starting in the next few years.

“I’m sure the San Franciscos and the Bostons were apprehensive before they poured huge resources into this,” Middaugh said. “But it’s paid off big-time.”