One scientist’s vision for Trudeau Institute’s future
Dr. Stephen Smiley (Source: Trudeau Institute)
Last week, NCPR and the Adirondack Daily Enterprise reported on the internal debate over the future of Trudeau Institute, the immunology laboratory in Saranac Lake.
Among the comments to the In Box was the following essay, written by Dr. Stephen Smiley, who joined Trudeau’s faculty in 2000 and has served as the Institute’s director of corporate relations.
I’m reposting Dr. Smiley’s perspectives, because I think they warrant wider attention.
I have been a scientist at the Trudeau Institute for 12 years. I love the Institute and I love the community it resides within. The following words reflect my personal opinion, not the official positions of Trudeau management.
To my knowledge, the Trudeau Institute has never sustained itself on NIH grants alone. One can argue about whether it might be more successful obtaining NIH grants if it was located elsewhere but that does not change the fact that NIH grants alone are unlikely to suffice. Institutes like ours do not exist on NIH funds alone.
Our other funds historically came from the Institute’s endowment. When Bob North was director, he built that endowment to nearly $40M. At that level, one can expect ~$2M per year (presuming a 5% return) in extra income. Those extra funds are essential for covering the cost of operating expenses that NIH grants do not cover. With the Board’s approval, the Institute’s subsequent directors used more than $2M per year of the endowment year after year. They built programs and built buildings that improved the science and helped to make Trudeau the world-renowned institution it is today. In the process, they also eroded the endowment and created substantial new expenses, such as loan/bond repayments.
The original plan was to rebuild the endowment and pay off loans/bonds with philanthropy, but that never occurred. Then, in recent years, the Institute experienced increased competition for NIH funding, an ailing economy, the loss of its director and several (funded) investigators partly as a result of the relocation debate, and a continued failure to raise the necessary amounts of philanthropic funding. These circumstances all contributed to the current crisis.
What is needed is a plan to pay off our debt and rebuild the endowment – quickly. Then, the scientists can return to their work, return to bringing in grant funds to cover most expenses, and know that the $2M revenue from the endowment is there to cover the shortfall. I believe the “translational problem” can be addressed by partnering with nearby institutes with clinical facilities (e.g. Univ of Vermont, SUNY Upstate) who value our stellar reputation and scientific strength in basic infectious disease research. In fact, Trudeau will announce new grant awards over the next few weeks that demonstrate our ability to perform translational studies by partnering with others. However, I think it highly unlikely that partnering will suffice to overcome our revenue shortfall – most businesses are struggling in the current economy and I don’t think any partner will commit to providing Trudeau with the extra $2M per year in operating funds that we need.
So I urge the community to help us rebuild the endowment. I am a scientist. I don’t know how to raise an endowment. Our Board doesn’t seem to know how to either. If there are people in the community who care and truly have the capacity to help, then I urge you to get involved now. How? I’m not sure. We may need a grass roots effort to figure out how. Or maybe there are a few key “champions” in our community who can come to the rescue philanthropically, or take the lead on a vigorous fundraising campaign.
Why should you care? First of all, Trudeau Institute has brought $138M in revenue to Saranac Lake over the past 10 years. Those funds come mostly from NIH grants. A very large percentage of the dollars we obtain from NIH are spent paying the wages and benefits of the 100+ people employed by Trudeau who live and work in this community. On average, we infuse the local economy with more than $6M per year. Our employees spend much of that money locally – they eat in the local restaurants, shop at the local stores, pay local taxes, contribute philanthropically to local efforts, etc.
Second, the community should be proud of this jewel of an institute and use it as a means to sustain and build our regional economy. As our mayor is trying to do, we should use it as an example of the kind of future this region can look forward to. This is a wonderful place to live, work, and raise a family. In a modern economy, rural locations like Saranac Lake should have less trouble competing, not more. We have a good infrastructure – we can communicate with anyone instantly by internet and we can get supplies delivered overnight. It is far easier to work here now than in the days when Frank Trudeau originally set the Institute here. I applaud Mayor Rabideau’s efforts and I believe wholeheartedly that, with a strong sustaining endowment, Trudeau can stabilize and help to anchor the growth of a high tech economy in this region.
But I think Trudeau’s future is currently dependent on the good will of this community. Trudeau needs substantial philanthropic assistance now. It needs to rebuild its endowment very quickly. I hope my contribution to this blog will help to turn the conversation away from a rehash of who is to blame for what. Certainly with hindsight we can identify past mistakes by well intentioned individuals, including myself. But what we need now is a discussion of how a community that cares about Trudeau Institute can help to ensure it survival for another 127 years.
Tags: adirondacks, economy, health, science
Dr. Smiley makes some very important points about how valuable the Trudeau Institute is to the local economy and the local culture. The scientists are good people to have in any community and everything possible should be done to try to keep them. .But the kind of money you are tailing about is pretty hard to raise locally. I have seen a number of local fundraisers in the past year or two pull in as much as a couple of thousand dollars. Is all the $40 million endowment gone? Thats a lot of rummage sales. You need a professional fund-raiser to contact wealthy donors.
I appreciate Brian Mann’s re-post of my essay as a means to reach a wider audience. However, I encourage interested readers to also review the follow-on dialogue at the original post: http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2012/05/11/five-questions-for-trudeaus-leadership/comment-page-2/#comments. I think several of the other respondents also made important contributions to the discussion. For example, Lee Keet and Paul both proposed other sources of funding that could be very helpful if we can learn how to access them.
Steve, also your comments about the vision for the SL “campus” having a number of satellite sites is important. That is the kind of model that I think you can sell to donors (both private and corporate).
Perhaps an open house with invitation out to the local medical community to bring their needs, questions, and ideas forward. Immunology is an amazing field to learn about, as immunotherapy becomes part of fight against cancers and other dieases.
We for one in urology at Adirondack Surgical Group are using Provenge (prostate cancer immunotherapy) yet Dendreon does not have any lab tests or panels to tell the patients that their treatment is working. Just an example.
Thomas, I suspect the reason Dendreon lacks the tests you desire is because there hasn’t been sufficient basic research to determine precisely how dendritic cell based vaccines (of which Provenge is the first FDA approved example) actually work.
This is precisely the type of basic research that Trudeau contributes to the world. It is extremely challenging and requires tremendous dedication and patience. It could be many years before our basic research findings translate into clinical utility at your office. But your example is just one of many that demonstrates how basic research remains a critically important step in the drug development pipeline. While our work may not lead to immediate application, it should help your children and grandchildren live much healthier lives.
Also, since Provenge is a patient specific late stage treatment for prostate cancer that extends life (on average) about 4 months, and costs almost $100,000, you don’t want to add too much more to the cost!
But Provenge is a great example of the importance of basic research to later clinical developments. For example Provenge is made in insect cell culture using the baculovirus cloning system (BEVS). The insect cell cultures, the recombinant protein techniques, the BEVS system were all discoveries from labs doing basic research.
Steve had mentioned that the development team was made up of one coordinator at this point working with an outside consultant. If you want to take development seriously it has to be one of your top three people at the Institute. Even then you are looking at 2-5 years to see real results, there are no quick fixes in this area but I think and hope that it can be done, you have an excellent team.
Mervel, I think the Institute recognizes the importance of a good development team. We have had Institutional Advancement VP’s and their teams have included as many as 5 people. I believe the plan is to let the next CEO/director determine the right size/makeup of the development team.
That makes sense.
Steve as you look forward are you optimistic? I know that is a very general question.
I think we are at a critical juncture. I believe wholeheartedly that there can be a future for Trudeau Institute in Saranac Lake. I believe that the type of science we do here is still of great value to society, and that it will be so for years to come. I believe that already there are many university campuses and clinical centers around the world where a different type of research can be done, and what makes Trudeau special is its focus on the basic end of the translational continuum, its relatively small size, and its location. If the institute can get through this current crisis, and rebuild a strong endowment, then I think it will survive for many years to come.
So, am I optimistic? Yes, I am eternally optimistic about things I believe strongly. I think that is a key criteria for a scientist. You have to keep trying and trying and trying, because you never succeed by giving up. But I have a family and I need to also be a realist. At some point I may need to acknowledge that good will is not enough to pay salaries and run research labs. I have not reached that point, and I see the community involvement in this blog as yet another new avenue for hope, so I remain optimistic.
The overall contribution that Trudeau has to the region economically and culturally cannot be understated, however to ask the community to come to your rescue because of what can only be called mis-management is a stretch.
How do you raise money? By paying professionals to ask for it. The Foundation at CVPH Medical Center raised nearly $8 Million to build new surgical suites.
The development person should also focus on external communications. It is key to a successful fundraising plan these days. You have to get on Facebook and Twitter and whatever replaces them when they get old. Perhaps things have changed in SL. But generally speaking the Trudeau needs to have more community outreach. For many years it was kind of this secret lab on the outskirts of town. I knew what was going on there because of my contact with the Trudeau’s and having been fiends with some of Robert North’s kids, but otherwise it seemed like the town had no contact with the place. They had a nice float in the WC parade each year! Steve, do folks in Saranac Lake today have a good handle on what is going on at the institute?
Dale Andersen-
I’m going to disallow discussion of Steve Smiley’s personal finances in the context of this conversation.
I realize the documents you cite are public. But we avoid personal stuff here.
If you want to make a wider point (Trudeau scientists are overpaid, or whatever) go for it.
But in the context of this blog, please don’t single out individuals.
–Brian, NCPR
I don’t believe Mr. Smiley is asking the community to come to the rescue.
The fact is and from what I can tell just by looking at their public documents; the long term financial support will not come from the local community but likely come from people who have both significant resources and a passion for basic research of the sort that the Institute conducts. Forty million dollars is not going to come from local fundraisers and 5k runs, its going to come from wealthy individuals and foundations who have a connection to the institute.
You might be able to raise the 2 million per year in local giving, but for significant endowment growth of that magnitude it takes relatively unique giving. In addition endowments are HARD to raise money for. I try to grow our little endowment, and usually people just want to give directly to our work, not our bank account, even when they understand the importance of an endowment.
While it’s sort of an apples to oranges comparison, I can’t help but think of the direct investment the State of New York has made with similar science and technology parks, institutions, etc. Specifically the Nano Park just outside of Albany which recently received national attention as a result of President Obama’s visit and tour of this state of the art center which is basically a “joint venture” between public and private resources. It seems to me that a similar approach could be undertaken with regard to the Trudeau Institute.
Given the State and Feds. made some sort of commitment to help Trudeau solve its financial problems just a year or so ago, why couldn’t that commitment be the seed that could lead to the type of arrangement the Nano park enjoys? Does not the private sector benefit from the research and advancements Trudeau advances now? If so, how can those benefits be leveraged in such a way that combined with direct state and federal aid, Trudeau’s future is secured?
I don’t think that Institute is asking for any kind of “rescue”. The point is that even in the local area you can begin to develop some of the network connections that will lead to successful fundraising. Their are lots of folks that keep a close eye on what is happening in the area. When there are positive things happening and folks know about it, and they help to spread that information, things can happen very quickly. This is also an area where many “outsiders” (myself included) come in and leave and talk about what we see up there. It is isolated but has many links to other areas, capitalizing on this is a must do thing.
I don’t know what the comment was, but as far as pointing out that the institute has good paying jobs can only be viewed as a positive thing.
In followup to Rick’s previous reference to the $8M raised by CVPH, I could not help noting how ironic it is that last year when the Adirondack Medical Center in SL was raising funds for the construction of a new wing, they held an extravagant gala on the Trudeau Institute Property, and the main guest of the event was none other than Gary Trudeau. Which begs the question, Where is Gary Trudeau when his namesake institution in need of their own fundraiser??
Matt, my guess is that Gary and his wife have probably made substantial donations to the institute and may even have them in their estate plans. A comment like this is exactly the kind of thing where you do a good job of alienating a potential donor. The whole “community”has to work together.
Like many have said here the institute doesn’t need a “fundraiser”. They need a sustained capital campaign a very different thing.
In the case of an AMC fundraiser this is another great example of how the institute has had a very positive effect on the community.
I should add to my above comment by mentioning that I had the opportunity to tour the Nano Park in May of 2009 while attending a conference in Saratoga Springs, NY.
What I found most interesting about the tour (which was somewhat limited due to the proprietary nature of the research conducted there and the fact that the facility is ultra clean and outside contamination can be a BIG problem) was that the facility, while owned by the tax payers of New York, is utilized by dozens of high tech companies from all over the world. In one area you have scientists from Intel, right next door, scientists from a competing chip maker. Then in other areas, multiple companies working together to solve a technical problem that would benefit all of them. All of this overseen by scientists and administrators who are employed by the state of New York.
Spun off from this success, we now have the huge chip manufacturing facility in Malta, NY which received roughly a Billion dollars in direct state aid, tax breaks, etc. which will eventually create thousands of jobs. Some of which have already been created in Utica, NY to supply the facility in Malta.
I mention all this to add to my point above that perhaps Trudea can follow this model with the hope that the spin off benefits might be enough to entice both the public an private sector in to invest substantial dollars in its future. That is to say, why can’t the Trudea Institute, and Saranac Lake in general, become a mini research triangle much like Chapel, Raleigh, and Durham, NC? An ambitious goal for sure, but a worthy one I say.
We are not that far from Albany.
“If Clapton,” Ideas similar to what you propose are under serious consideration. Saranac Lake’s mayor has been working to recruit biotech companies to the area with the goal of building regional strength in that sector. I believe he thinks that maintaining Trudeau here is an important component of that strategy. There also have been discussions about building a small bio-park in Saranac Lake, perhaps on the Trudeau campus.
Mr. Smiley,
Can you offer any information about where the State and Feds. stand with regard to providing direct tax payer money to advance the strategy you mentioned above?
“If Clapton,” Sorry, no, I really don’t have any information along those lines.
Dr. Smiley,
Thanks for the reply. I only ask as I recall both our federal Senators promising to do anything they could to keep Trudea in Saranac Lake and was wondering what “anything” meant. I would bet that with enough political pressure and publicity, the feds could commit some money to begin the process mentioned above.
Clapton, that would be nice. But I seriously doubt that will ever happen in the near term. There is lots of unused biotech space at lots of new incubators. Building more in a remote location like this is going to be so far down on the priority list that there will be no support for it. Private investment (maybe with some matching public funds) is the most likely scenario.
The whole point of places like RTP in NC and biotech clusters you see in places like Boston (to some extent in Albany) is that they are strategically located where there are universities (and other companies) and all the infrastructure that this brings. They are also located near VC firms that want to keep a close eye on their investments.
A biotech cluster, if it were to be located near just one isolated institute, would have to be based on technology that is laser focused on what that institution is doing. There would have to be a very good reason to not be near big universities and not to be closer to sources of capital.
In this particular case do you not have this. In fact Trudeau has a CRO that will actually be competing with “would be” local biotech companies in some regard. One example of a good idea for a biotech company in SL would be a company that provides lab animal services. Animals and housing and have Trudeau as a client. But there they have also built a new facility to do that in-house. They have already adapted to do all these things for themselves.
Steve, what would the per-Diem rate be if you calculated it for mouse housing per animal? On average I mean. I know that you probably have many different levels of isolation that you are using. Do you do this as a service also? Do you have a link for rates?
Paul, I agree with most of your views on clusters but I can offer a few reasons that some might consider this area attractive despite the drawbacks you mention.
One is the relatively low cost of rent. My understanding is that low-cost space can be hard to find in some of the big clusters. The regional airport provides direct access to Boston, so companies in the Boston area may be open to locating some of their workforce up here. Trudeau, Bionique, Rules Based Medicine and Active Motif already have demonstrated that it is feasible to operate high tech bioresearch and bioservice facilities in the region. I’ve been told there also has been interest from companies in the Montreal area, though I personally have no knowledge of the advantages/disadvantages of operating a Canadian company in the US vs Canada.
Another potential advantage is the local workforce. Our experience at Trudeau is that there is a good pool of well qualified technical staff that are eager to work in this location. It seems that many of the people who grow up here get a solid education in the good school system, go off to college for higher degrees, and then want to return here to live and raise families. It is also my sense that there is an excellent pool of hardworking, reliable, non-scientific personnel.
Of course I realize these few potential advantages do not fully overcome the deficiencies you mention, but they may provide a counterbalance for some companies. I suspect the mayor has thought about these issues in more depth than I and may be able to offer a variety of other advantages.
As to per diem rates for animal housing it is very complicated and I prefer not to discuss them in this forum. We have many levels of housing and pricing. I encourage interested readers to check out our website and write to our contract research department at [email protected]
Steve,
Thanks. I was just curious about the per diem rates as a measure of the cost to do that work in the area. It is a big issue for scientists doing that type of work around here and if there are the cost advantages up there it should be reflected in those rates and be an important draw for the institute. As you know this type of research is very expensive if you can do it cheaper that is to your advantage and a good reason for a donor to feel like they will get the most bang for their buck.
Thanks again.
“Private investment (maybe with some matching public funds) is the most likely scenario.”
Paul, that’s what I’m suggesting….Direct Federal and State money as seed money to encourage private investment. And not necessarily for exclusively building new facilities, but to also build the endowment.
Clapton, that would be nice but you will never see public money simply flow into a private endowment (even with a match).
Paul, Donors definitely get good value for their investment here.
First, the cost of the mouse work at Trudeau is significantly less than at many other institutions.
Second, almost every scientist at Trudeau works with mouse models of infectious diseases. This means that our animal use protocol committees and biosafety committees are very comfortable with this type of work. As such, it is relatively straightforward for scientists to get their research plans approved. I suspect you know that the red-tape involved in research approvals can be a huge headache for scientists elsewhere.
So, prospective donors get more for their money here in that the cost of the research is relatively low and more of the scientists time is devoted to performing research, rather than struggling to get research plans approved.
Steve, great point. That is why I asked about the costs specifically. If the costs are lower as you say that is a great selling point. In many places it is over the top. You have a pretty small place and a resident Animal Vet that is a good selling point.