Environmental Biotechnology Initiative

The Environmental Biotechnology Initiative sprang from a series of faculty discussions in the Summer and Fall of 1997. In response, Deans Leinen and Brownell wrote to President Carothers in November 1997 to propose “a coordinated approach to the improvement of facilities for biological sciences at the University.” On December 3, an open forum entertained discussion of the desirability of advancing Environmental Biotechnology as the second major initiative (in addition to the Coastal Institute) of the Marine and Environmental Focus. Nearly four dozen faculty attended to convey enthusiastic support for the concept.

In January 1998, Dean Leinen formally charged a Committee of faculty, whose names are on the cover of this proposal, to “organize their thoughts about an environmental biotech initiative and identify the actions that are necessary to begin such an initiative.” In a parallel development, in February the University Space Allocation Advisory Committee received a preliminary report from me that outlined major aspects of the Environmental Biotechnology Initiative and the feasibility of using Ranger Hall for centralized facilities for the Initiative. In a series of several open meetings during January through May 1998, the Environmental Biotechnology Initiative Committee met to refine their ideas. On June 16, 1998, the proposal was formally endorsed by the Marine and Environmental Focus committee. It was approved by the U.R.I. Faculty Senate in September 1998.

The document was written by Dr. Dellaporta, with significant input from the full committee. I produced it, using PageMaker 6.5. Provost Swan received the report and responded to the committee on June 29, 1998, with these words:

"I have yet to read Environmental Biotechnology Initiative: A Proposal from the Marine and Environmental Focus but never underestimate the power of good visuals and formatting. I am quite sure Mr. Gutenberg is tilling the soil as he twists and turns with envy. In point of fact, the proposal is so beautifully presented that I am half—only half—tempted to endorse it without further discussion. I am very supportive of this initiative.   ...your presentation is a symbol of the quality of your work and I want you to know that I recognize your commitment to excellence."

The Provost and Dean Leinen presented the EBI to the Board of Governors later that year, using an abbreviated outline of the Concept paper (see PDF). The proposal was well received, viewed as being consistent with the Provost's Academic Plan to move URI into Carnegie Research University I status.

The EBI proposal was timely. It appeared just as the RI Economic Policy Council was surveying all Rhode Island colleges and universities for potential centers of excellence from which to draw on the strengths of university scientists and engineers as a source of new wealth for the RI economy. It was directly responsible for the EPC's creation of a new Slater Center of Excellence in Environmental Biotechnology at URI (I was one of the 3 founders who signed the papers creating this as a corporation). As one of its first actions, the new Center assembled leading turf grass seed developers and biotechnology firms interested in turf genetics at an April 1999 meeting at the Narragansett Bay campus. The EBI proposal was presented as a symbol of the University's new commitment to biotechnology. Nearly $750 million in corporate interests attended the meeting. One company established a small transgenic's research program (currently Hybrigene, Ltd) in West Kingston as a result.

Wm. Holland, Commissioner of Higher Education, attended the Slater Center meeting and heard my presentation on the EBI. He invited meeting organizer Dr. Sullivan and me to repeat it for the Board of Governors in May. We focused on the EBI as an example of an extension of URI's land grant role beyond the traditional tripartite teaching-research-extension mission into a 4th dimension of economic development (a modernization of the century old core philosophy behind the land grants).

As faculty began work on a new document to flesh out the concept paper—detailing the types of equipment and support personnel needed, outlining research, teaching, and economic development opportunities based on current and hoped-for strengths of the University's faculty, and solidifying ideas about needed laboratories and a new building—EPC interest similarly focused. EPC Executive Director Christopher Bergstrom was struck by the need for a core biotechnology facility at the University, which we jointly envisioned as a $50,000,000 entity of some 70-80,000 square feet.  (It amazes me today to have this figure, loosely tossed around for purposes of discussion in 1999, stuck so fast that it endures as a bond target for 2004. Meanwhile, Brown University has announced plans for its $95,000,000 life sciences building (ProJo, March 4, 2004), reflecting Brown's relatively more substantial (and realistic) commitment toward becoming a research university.

In 2000, under interim Dean Wright, the RI Congressional delegation expressed an interest in assisting the State by helping URI.  The EBI proposal was instrumental in channeling support for a USDA initiative ("pork," if you will), "RI Environmental Biotechnology Initiative," started in 1998 by Senator John Chafee (working with RI State Senator Michael Sullivan), and realized in 2000 by Senator Lincoln Chafee. Also in 2000, a contract was prepared establishing a relation between Hybrigene and the University (although completed in October 2000, the contract was not actually signed until over two years later).

2001 saw promulgation by the EPC of "Building Rhode Island's Technology Pipeline Through Investment in Research at the University of Rhode Island" (based on my report), which emphasized investment in environmental biotechnology as a way to begin reversing RI's last place per capita support for university research.

EPC involvement led to support for a new biotechnology building at URI by President Carothers and Governor Almond. In 2003, Governor Carcieri continued Almond's support for a 2004 bond initiative for a $50million biotechnology building at URI, in his 2003 State of the State address, juxtaposing the building with a declaration that Rhode Island must do better than its last place support for research, a remark based on the EPC Pipeline statement.

Although it was broad faculty initiative (nurtured by Yale Professor Dellaporta, Dean Leinen and me) which created the EBI and gave it initial strength and credibility, EBI can no longer be characterized as a grass roots effort. The Initiative has dropped much of its former environmental hallmark; it is now simply referred to as the Biotechnology Initiative. Symbolically, in the State of the State speech, Governor Carcieri sandwiched support for URI's Biotechnology Building between acknowledgment of a Brown University biomedical startup and an announcement of an increased presence of Amgen pharmaceutical in Rhode Island, representing a shift toward new emphasis on pharmaceutical and medical biotechnology at URI. This places the Initiative in a much more crowded and competitive grants arena, up against Universities and firms with biotechnology programs established years ago (e.g., Genetech, the first firm to be based explicitly on genetic engineering, was created by UC San Francisco scientist Herbert Boyer in 1976). More significantly, it placed biotechnology at URI on the same medically-focused stage as Brown University, which in early 2004 announced the construction of a $90 million life sciences building, a $23 million renovation for genomics research, and a $450 million 10-year campaign to enhance biomedical research at Brown.

In June 2004, the RI House Finance Committee formulated its proposal for the FY05 state budget. In doing so, the HFC dropped the governor's proposal for a $50 million bond issue for a biotechnology building. Given the EBI's broad faculty base and environmental focus, ingredients key to its original promise, and the strong support of the RI Economic Policy Council and two governors, it is not clear why this happened. URI administrators pointed to political infighting between the legislature and the governor. Legislative insiders accused the University of failing to make a "cogent argument" for the building. When it became clear that the building was not going to make it to the bond, President Carothers, Vice President Weygand, and SK Rep. Patrick Shanley visited House Speaker Fox, portraying the building as URI's top priority. Speaker Fox was able to move the appropriate agents and the building was added to the bond at the last minute.

There was limited publicity for the bond, including a website and a flier. The referendum was one of four from URI, pitched as "the right combination for URI." The Providence Journal coverage was limited, focused on problems within the business community and RIEPC with legal limits on ability to lobby. The Journal endorsed the bond, citing it as a component of the Governor's economic development plans. The voters approved the bond by 58%. The College estimates that it will be ready for occupancy in 3 years, although by whom and for what mission no-one has said. (related).