|
House passes 'Life Sciences'
bill before answering critical questions
The House of
Representatives adopted Senate Bill 5581 today, Gov. Gregoire’s proposal
to use the state’s tobacco settlement monies to fund private sector
research efforts. Two key Republicans – who had originally supported the
measure – expressed concerns that six critical accountability questions
were not addressed before moving ahead with the proposal.
Senate Bill 5581 would
create a Life Sciences Discovery Fund Authority and direct the
Legislature to appropriate $35 million a year for the next 10 years to
private firms for “life sciences” research conducted within the state.
Reps. Skip Priest and
Glenn Anderson expressed their support of research and the discoveries
it can bring, but raised concerns in the form of an amendment to the
bill. The amendment would have created a Life Sciences Discovery Task
Force to answer key questions before moving forward with what Priest and
Anderson described as a major policy decision for the state.
“We all support basic
research and welcome the discoveries it can achieve,” said Priest,
R-Federal Way. “But the Legislature should do this in a responsible way.
These are public funds, and it’s our job to make sure they are being
spent appropriately. We also need to make sure there are accountability
measures built in. It’s up to us to make sure the public
is getting a good return on its investment. That’s what our amendment
would have achieved.”
Anderson agreed.
“What’s in this for
taxpayers?” Anderson asked. “Doing research is a good idea. But the
public also deserves accountability. We are lending the state’s credit,
yet there is nothing here that ensures taxpayers will get anything in
return, whether it is jobs, key scientific discoveries or even royalty
income. We also don’t know if this bill is legal. We’re about to give
away public money to private firms. At the very least, we should ask the
Attorney General to make sure that doesn’t violate our state’s
constitution. It’s also important to ensure that whatever measure we
pass doesn't damage the scientific community by politicizing scientific
research.”
The six questions posed in
the amendment introduced by Reps. Priest and Anderson are:
1. What is the scope of
the research we’re interested in? It is the responsibility of the
Legislature to decide how we invest these public funds. These funds have
typically been directed toward health care, but the bill has been
broadened to use them for any type of research. The Legislature should
be clear whether this effort will be limited to health care or broader
research.
2. What is the
mechanism by which we will fund this effort? Lawmakers should define
the legislative involvement in the decisions over what projects get
funded, how they are funded and for how long. We believe there should be
a discussion as to whether this is the most appropriate use of tobacco
settlement monies or whether this should be paid out of the general fund
or somewhere else. Are we prepared to hand over $35 million a year for
the next 10 years to the governor to do as she wishes? Or should
lawmakers reauthorize the expenditures to provide accountability to
taxpayers?
3. What is the
appropriate governance structure for allocating public money for private
venture? How does the state meld the private sector approach with
what would virtually be a public venture capital fund dealing with
private company information? How does that fit with the public interest
for full disclosure? If private companies are subject to public
scrutiny, will they use the fund?
4. Is this
constitutional? This is, in effect, a gift of public funds to
private firms. At the very least, an Attorney General’s opinion is
needed to make sure this bill does not violate the state’s restriction
on lending the state’s credit and gifts of public funds.
5. What about
taxpayers’ return on investment? These funds belong to the public,
yet there is no mechanism in this bill for measuring intended outcomes.
The Legislature should define the outcomes that meet the public interest
– whether that is jobs, important discoveries or recapturing
expenditures in the form of royalty income.
6. Have we fully
addressed the ethical issues? No matter what side of the issue you
are on, lawmakers cannot ignore the social and ethical implications of
genetic research. The decision must be made whether to put up sideboards
on the types of research that the state funds.
House Democrats rejected
the amendment and voted 53 to 40 to pass Senate Bill 5581, which now
goes to the governor for her signature.
# # #
For more information, contact:
Bobbi Cussins, Public
Information Officer - (360) 786-7252
|