From butts to beakers: Washington's tobacco settlement money gets to work

From a public policy standpoint, boosting financial support for small businesses is one of the most efficient jobs generators up and down the educational and financial spectrum. I'd typically support such financial incentives well before yet another tax break for larger corporations. However, the Governor swung and missed with the LSDF using this model as this is an example of one of the few instances where tax breaks for larger organizations would actually be a better approach for the average Washingtonian.

A better use of this money would be to duplicate the astonishing success Ireland has in attracting manufacturing businesses. Extensive tax breaks targeted large drug and device manufacturing facilities to areas in Ireland particularly hard-hit by employment downturns (analogous to SW and NE Washington).

The projects identified by the LSDF, while scientifically worthy, will have no discernible lasting economic impact on our state simply due to the ephemeral nature of biotech startups. Creating a robust manufacturing infrastructure would. It would also simultaneously address a central problem for recruiting top biotech talent to the state by providing a fall-back infrastructure (employment base) in case a job at a development-stage biotech doesn't work out.

Boosting manufacturing is also plenty more egalitarian than funding clinical trial or lab research. Folks with a high school diploma can, with a moderate amount of on-the-job training, staff most positions at manufacturing facilities. There are far fewer opportunities for those without advanced college degrees in the items funded.

(FYI, in my day job I write research on development-stage biotech companies for professional and independent investors. I know what biotech startups look like inside and out, as well as how often they fail.)

• Reply 
• Post a new comment