Five questions for Trudeau’s leadership
The last couple of weeks, I’ve been poring over internal documents leaked by former employees at Trudeau Institute, including more memos and studies provided this week to NCPR and the Adirondack Daily Enterprise.
They provide new detail and clarity on the turmoil and lingering uncertainty at the biomedical research laboratory, which employs about 100 people in Saranac Lake.
It appears that for the last half decade, the lab’s leadership has been painfully divided, with some board members and staff secretly pursuing a plan to relocate some or all of the institute without buy-in from other board members.
When the relocation plan was vetoed by the full board in January 2011, the organization entered into a period of unprecedented disruption, losing key administrators and faculty.
Trudeau’s national reputation has clearly suffered. Eighteen months after the decision was made to stay, the institute still lacks a permanent director, and the community has no clear understanding of what the new plan is for moving forward.
Trudeau is a private institution. But it is also a vital part of the North Country’s economy, culture and history, and it relies for the lion’s share of its funding on taxpayer dollars.
Saranac Lake has staked a significant part of its future on emerging as a biomedical research cluster, with Trudeau at its heart. It appears that state and Federal officials are willing to help by investing significant funds in that vision.
So as the public discussion moves forward — and it appears that the timeline for solving some of Trudeau’s “structural” problems will need to be fairly swift — here are the questions Trudeau’s leadership needs to answer.
1. In simple terms, what is the plan? Has the board accepted that Trudeau can no longer serve the mission of conducting fundamental research into the human immune system, as it has done for half a century? If so, what’s next?
2. Whatever the plan is, how much money do you need? Trudeau executives hoped to garner roughly $88 million in subsidies, grants and philanthropic donations to relocate to Florida. What kind of public support is needed to sustain your vision in Saranac Lake?
3. Is the current board of trustees up to the task of guiding this institution, or does there need to be a substantial change? A survey conducted of Trudeau staff and faculty in April 2011 revealed a lot of fear, anxiety and distrust. Is it time for a shake-up at the top?
4. Is there a way to better engage and communicate with the community? Trudeau Institute relies on public support for its operations, but the organization often operates invisibly. The result has been deep distrust between some local leaders and Trudeau executives, and a remarkable level of detachment and apathy among the public. Do you think that needs to be fixed and if so how?
5. Exactly what is the situation now? How much money is left in Trudeau’s endowment? What are the most pressing, short-term needs, financial and otherwise, that will keep Trudeau afloat while bigger questions are answered? And why has it taken so long to hire a permanent new director?
Trudeau chairman Benjamin Brewster declined to be interviewed on tape for our reporting. And he didn’t return phone calls after the most recent Trudeau board meeting last Friday.
But in the absence of a permanent director at the lab, someone needs to step forward soon to speak bluntly about the institute’s next steps.
Tags: adirondacks, economy, health, science
.png)
Mervel, Trudeau‘s mission is to “make breakthrough discoveries that lead to improved human health; Trudeau scientists work to discover the basic rules governing immunity (the body’s natural defense system).”
The aim of basic research to increase understanding of fundamental principles– it is not intended to yield immediate commercial benefits. In the long term it is the basis for many commercial products and applied research. What Paul describes as getting “lost” on its way to “practical use” is critical to its success: if you try to direct it toward final utility too soon, you risk losing discovery of underlying principles without which further discoveries are impossible. “Pure research generates new ideas, principles and theories, which may not be immediately utilized; though are the foundations of modern progress and development in different fields.”
Trudeau is fine right where it is if it can come up with funding for basic research, which has traditionally been its strength. This could come from one or more angel investors, or from the NIH returning to sanity.
If NIH funding priorities continue to foolishly discount basic research, it will lead eventually to incalculable losses to the nation.
Walker, these are good comments. But the reality is that there isn’t as much money there for pure basic research right now (actually it depends on the field). What the funding agencies want for biomedical research is a mix. Several of the scientists that left Trudeau recently had very good NIH funding, which they took with them elsewhere, how does that fit with your comments Walker?
“that lead to improved human health” Yes, if you want to have what you do lead to real differences it has to be done at a clinical level. What we are seeing today is a push to move back to the day where science was more focused in this way. When the french silk industry came to Louis Pasteur and asked him to help them determine what was ruining a business vital to the french economy, or when a mom came to him with a boy that had just been bitten by a “mad dog” for a new vaccine, he did all he could. When EL Trudeau came to SL and discovered that the climate made his disease go into remission he quickly packed his belongings in NYC and headed into the wilderness.
Yeah Walker I totally agree. I mean basic research into the areas that the Institute is studying IS very important. What you see happening in health care today is a lot of research that is too focused on commercial success. Commercial success does not mean better health for our nation, it is why coming up with new vaccines is not profitable, what is profitable. So the mission of this institute would seem to be pretty important, the question is could that mission be better served somewhere else? If it could than the institute must move, if SL is the best place for the mission than of course it must stay. Hard questions to answer I am sure, but then based on the 990 these guys make pretty good bucks they should be able to come up with an answer.
Paul writes “the reality is that there isn’t as much money there for pure basic research right now.” It is also a reality that the Weills gave $250 million to Cornell University.
“The goal of NIH research is to acquire new knowledge to help prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and disability… The NIH mission is to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better health for everyone.” That sounds to me like they ought to be focusing on basic research, not pushing the labs they fund towards applied research. The NIH is funded by Congress. Congress is presently in the thrall of business lobbyists. Perhaps this is why NIH is deviating from its mission?
Mervel, the main reason Woodland and others wanted the institute to move to a more populous area is that it is difficult to carry out clinical trials in a rural area. Clinical trials are not needed for basic research.
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.
Steve, to get a 2 million dollar draw (with a sustained endowment) you are talking about a very large increase from where you currently are. What you need is a mix, of grant funding, commercial partners, and growth of the endowment.
Walker, I know that you don’t like such an idea (I wish there could be more funding for basic science as well) but to wait and hope that NIH will change its priorities isn’t going to cut it.
Steve, what amount of the institute’s funding comes from industry? Most places like Trudeau are facing this same dilemma. You are not alone up there!
Paul I wasn’t advocating waiting for NIH to rediscover its proper funding priorities, though I was suggesting that it might be possible for the Institute to limp along until that happens.
No, clearly the quickest solution would lie in a substantial gift from a donor with very deep pockets; there are a number of people who live or summer within ten miles of the Institute who could make a significant difference to the institution, and thus to the community.
Paul, Thanks for your comments. The Institute has never received large sums of funding from industry. Over the past decade we have put in the place the intellectual property safeguards that industry expects. Nevertheless, the “time-to-market” for our basic research discoveries typically is too protracted to attract substantial industry support. Our newly launched contract research arm will aim to attract a different type of industry funding. However, it will take time for that effort to grow into a revenue-generating entity. What I think we need now is philanthropic help to bridge us through the current crisis, and a sustained all out effort to re-grow the endowment.
Steve, I would think that some of the mouse models that you have at Trudeau could be leveraged. Perhaps you could do this working with a firm like Taconic. That is a NY company so that helps with political support.
Patenting and technology transfer are expensive and long-term strategies. The amount spent in that regard in the last few years looks as if the institute is really not taking that very seriously. But, like you say, they are key to making sure that the research that you do will someday benefit the institute. Also, without that type of strategy industry will not be able to translate your research for you and part of the mission cannot be fulfilled. I am telling you something that you already know.
Do you have a development person and a technology transfer person on staff?
Paul, I appreciate your insightful comments.
Our newly launched contract research effort aims, in part, to leverage our mouse models. Our staff have been in contact with Taconic, among others. However, a key problem with funds of that nature is that they do not address the primary funding deficiency. They can pay for research and much of the indirect support required for that research but they do not bring in funds for hiring and starting-up new research teams, they do not pay for repairs to aging infrastructure, they do not pay for new equipment, etc. For these types of critical expenses we need unrestricted revenue of the sort that typically comes from endowments and philanthropic donors. In time, if the contract research arm is wildly successful, we may be able to charge a premium and use that excess revenue to cover those other costs. But that will take time.
With regard to the technology transfer person on staff I must convey that you are speaking to our resident “expert.” Given our financial limitations, Trudeau relies on its scientists to contribute more than just research. All of the senior scientists have additional responsibilities that we volunteer for. One of mine is technology transfer. As I lack formal training, I rely on consultants and board members for guidance.
Does the Trudeau institute have a Development Director/VP etc and staff in this area?
The Institute does not currently have a Director/VP of Development. The Institutional Advancement department is current staffed by a coordinator who works closely with a consultant fundraiser.
Steve, Thanks for the info. The model you have is probably workable. You can always work with some outside firms when you have more IP activity and then move to a full time person if it warrants it. This is one of the challenges not being affiliated with a university you don’t have those other departments to help you. But sometimes you are glad you are out there alone!!
This whole scenario reminds me of the travails of the Alton Jones Cell Science center that was in Lake Placid. I hope that this one turns out differently.
My mention of industry money is not only from the perspective of commercial collaborations but as in corporate philanthropy. For example the Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis recently received a 30 million dollar “fund” dedicated to Bio-fuels research from the man who founded the Avis car rental company. This is for research and would not solve an endowment issue but this kind of thing doesn’t hurt. I would think that an equivalent type of thing for Trudeau related to immunology research would certainly help (it is already bringing in new faculty), and this is what donors are looking for.
Paul, I understand and agree. Hopefully, the publicity resulting from these articles and blogs will help Trudeau connect with philanthropists of that type.
I do hope more happens. In my experience in leadership in a NFP in the North Country however, philanthropy is something that is developed over time and with people who are passionate about the mission of the agency. I never view it as a means to get through next year, because in general it won’t happen. I have worked for a long time at our agency to reduce the amount of government contacts that we are dependent on. We have indeed moved from 75% government to around 60 % government but it has taken us around 10 years to do that and we are a small organization compared to the Trudeau Institute. It sounds as if you need increased funding in the next fiscal year, it may happen but I just cannot see counting on it happening that fast.
Mervel, I agree it will be difficult – made even more difficult by newspaper stories quoting disgruntled former employees who favored relocation and leaked reports from the consulting group hired by proponents of relocation. My understand is that the board as a whole ultimately rejected that report noting its many factual inaccuracies and obvious bias. What we need now are a handful of “friends” with deep pockets who can help us through this crisis and then help us launch a sustained fundraising campaign.
It has been my experience that consultants are good at telling management exactly what they want to hear. One would hope that anyone reading these accounts would recognize that Trudeau senior management was signaling that they were looking for a report to justify their plan to relocate.
Paul – the question should be what can we do to keep them here by making sure they see themselves as having a viable future without having to move somewhere.
The money we are talking about is millions and millions. That almost has to be the NIH. It almost surely means that the Trudeau scientists have to be able to form consortium alliances with major research groups with access or pathways to clinical trials. It can be done.
Peter, personally I would like to see the institute remain in Saranac Lake, but I think that the board should have that as only one thing they take into consideration (if at all). If the institute can only survive and thrive by being somewhere else than that is something that they will just have to deal with. If I were a potential large donor I want my board doing what is best for the institute and it’s mission.
For example they might be more able to re-focus on basic science if they were to affiliate (and move) to a university campus. If that were the case than I think many who have commented here would support that decision.
Steve if you are still following this, what is the overhead rate at Trudeau?
Sorry to jump back into this thread so late, but why not push for an alliance with SUNY upstate. They have a good immunology department, a research hospital, and a huge increase in medical students. They need (or would like to) to expand their clinical presence, and the president has talked about providing health care to the Adirancacks. There may be some way to leverage the NY State support for health care in rural areas etc.
Paul – I agree that they should be thinking first about survival and not about where they survive, but we should think about how to keep them here.
Paul, The overhead rate is 88%. I believe that an unstated, but deeply felt, component of Trudeau’s mission is to do the best science we can here in Saranac Lake. Frank Trudeau had the opportunity to put the institute in the NYC area. He chose to put it in Saranac Lake. Others may disagree but I think some of the key characteristics that made Trudeau what it is, such as the collegiality that results from having to rely on a relatively small cadre of colleagues, will be difficult to replicate in the competitive environs of a big university campus or medical center. In my opinion, if Trudeau were to move it would not really be “Trudeau” anymore. It would be a new institute with the Trudeau name. It may or may not be more successful that way, but it would have lost its connection to its roots – a collegial group of scientists working together in relative isolation at an institute populated by the people of Saranac Lake. For many of those locals, working at Trudeau is not just a job. It is a career at a place they care for deeply. That attitude permeates the Institute and contributes to the success of its science.
Peter, Collaborations/partnership opportunities with SUNY Upstate (and others) have been discussed and are being pursued. As I mentioned in my original comments above, I just don’t think that a partnership will suffice. But certainly I could be wrong about that…
It seems to me, that as a research institution, you have to establish NIH viability first and then go for the donors. Its still a rich get richer game anyway you look at it.
Steve, thanks again. Maybe I am familiar with other types of research but this overhead rate seems really high. It has got to be hard to attract faculty at this rate. Or is this the norm for this type of work?
Paul, High overhead rates are common at private institutes. I don’t understand why you think it would affect recruiting. To my knowledge, this has never been viewed as a negative. The overhead is added to the award so it does not reduce the funding that goes to faculty for research.
Steve, I know of several examples of independent research institutes that are affiliated with universities that allow them to retain much of their independence. But you will have MORE independence they way you are set up now.
If you look at Trudeau historically it is an example of an institution in a clinical setting (the sanatorium period) that was performing very applied research.
I served on the Trudeau board for ten years, 1996-2005, and was Finance Chair for much of that time. My brother does serve on the board now, but I get no more information from him than I do from any of my other friends there, which means precious little. I did get very involved in late 2010, along with many other former trustees and officers, in pressuring the board to make a firm decision to stay in Saranac Lake, a decision that I hope they will not regret. I learned a lot about how the consideration of a move developed at that time.
As Steve Smiley points out we had a nearly $40 mm endowment back in my era that let the Institute draw $2mm per year which supplemented the NIH grants and made the Institute cash break-even. Since then, lab expansion, a re-done mouse facility, and reduced grant success have all taken a toll on the endowment, creating a chicken-egg situation that with less earnings on the endowment comes greater negative cash flows.
The current problems go back a long ways, in my opinion, and a lack of non-NIH funding is high on the list. Trudeau has never cultivated Ford, Hughes, Packard, Gates, Rockefellor, or any of the other rich grant-making insitutions, so as the competition for grants at NIH increased Trudeau had no fall-back and thus suffered. The right person to create these linkages was and is the CEO, but Trudeau has always had a scientist running things, always with a major lab to run as well. Making non-NIH alliances never seemed to get to a high priority.
A second reason for current problems, as a number of bloggers here have pointed out is that the murine (mouse) model has become suspect as a analog for humans, and the NIH is pressing for science that has more demonstrable human benefits (i.e, “translational science”). While we share most of our genes with mice, the ones we don’t can make a trial worthless. Fortunately, the mouse and human genomes are now fully mapped, and a science called bio-informatics lets the differences and some of the tests that formerly had to be done in vivo be done in a computer, then mapped to the set of genomes to see if further testing in mice will have the potential to help humans. Trudeau does not have a bio-informaticien, a major failing in my opinion, as that field reduces or eliminates the need to be co-located with a human research facility. And, with high-speed broadband much of the co-location argument goes away. Trudeau does not want to leave basic science, or shouldn’t, and “translational science” is just another way of saying “applied science”, a very slippery slope, since most applied science is for profit and therefore done behind closed doors to protect proprietary secrets while most basic research is done with publishing and sharing results the goal.
And, Trudeau also needs WAY more in the way of collaborative links to other academic and medical research centers.
All of this screams for a CEO who has outreach, governance, fund raising, political, and management skills, not just deep experience in some branch of science or in running a lab. Once on board, I think our community and political leaders will rally around a new CEO and Trudeau should have a vibrant future once new strategies, operational controls, affiliations, and fund raising efforts are in place. A tallorder, but entirely possible in my opinion.
Paul, It is true that our roots go back to E.L. Trudeau and the sanatorium. But E.L.’s grandfather, Frank Trudeau, opened the research institute in 1963, several years after the sanatorium shut down.
……..I think some of the key characteristics that made Trudeau what it is, such as the collegiality that results from having to rely on a relatively small cadre of colleagues, will be difficult to replicate in the competitive environs of a big university campus or medical center.
For many of those locals, working at Trudeau is not just a job. It is a career at a place they care for deeply. That attitude permeates the Institute and contributes to the success of its science.
Thanks Steve, a couple of great points that many do not consider.
Steve, on O/H yes that is true about how it is managed, but it is a good measure of how the institution is managed financially.
Steve, yest thanks I grew up in Saranac Lake and was pretty close with Dr. Trudeau. I was just saying that the institute has a long history that has had it adapting for many years to changes in the world.
I was lucky to have had many dinners with the good doctor and Ursula when I was growing up. It would be very interesting to hear what his opinion would have been now.
Paul, I can see the logic but I’ve never viewed our higher overheard as a consequence of poor financial management. I view it as a consequence of the fact that small and large institutes both need to maintain administrative functions and infrastructure but larger institutes can spread that financial burden over a larger number of grants.
Lee, I appreciate your response, value your many years of service to Trudeau, and am glad that you remain interested in our future.
I would not disagree with any of your points but think it worth noting that, particularly for immunology research, the mouse is still a valuable model. Yes, mice and humans differ in many important ways. But it is not yet possible to fully model the complexities of the human immune system in tissue culture or in silico. Our “clinical” colleagues lament that with all the new genetic and bioinformatics tools they can identify too many molecular distinctions between healthy people and those with a disease or inability to fight some infection. Those differences allow them to hypothesize (speculate) as to why some people are healthier than other. But currently, they still need animal models like the mouse to manipulate the immune system and test their hypotheses. That is why they ask me to be a collaborator on their “translational” grants. Someday mouse models may be dispensable, and Trudeau’s strategic plan should prepare for that day, but that day has not yet come.
Paul, It’s my understanding that Ursula and others who new Frank well think he would have wanted the Institute to stay here. Do you think otherwise?
Steve, I think that he would have wanted the institute to stay where it is. I also think he was a very practical man. So I doubt that he would have wanted it to stay here at all cost. The family has strong ties to SL but I also got the impression that they have/had very strong ties to NYC. Maybe a satellite that does more clinical work could be in the city. That could have a very positive impact on fundraising as well.
“I’ve never viewed our higher overheard as a consequence of poor financial management.”
Steve, sorry that is not the point I was trying to make. By “managed financially” I mean what you describe above as far as being able to spread out cost.
Paul, I agree completely with your comment about satellite sites. In fact the Institute’s current “strategic vision” is precisely that. The idea is that Saranac Lake will become the hub to a series of satellite sites. The hub will remain home to our mouse modeling and infectious disease infrastructure and will also be a primary site for conferences, teaching/mentoring and sabbaticals. The hubs will be located at clinical centers and field sites (think global outposts) that will be connected virtually to the hub by state of the art telecommunications. The only real impediment is money. But perhaps that where Lee’s view comes into play that we need to tap into “Ford, Hughes, Packard, Gates, Rockefellor, or any of the other rich grant-making institutions.”
I heard SUNY Buffalo and SUNY Stony Brook have been getting some pretty heavy public and private endowments. Perhaps looking into these donors would be helpful, as well as some interaction with their universities for students to come here and see what amazing work can be done up here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2011/12/14/billionaire-hedge-funder-donates-150-million-to-suny-stony-brook/
I totally agree, however in my experience in working with and applying to private foundations, you are looking at a 3-5 year process. In addition personal connections are critical, the best written grant in the world won’t have an impact if they don’t already want to give you money.
From the Forbes article:
“first-class medical research building.” Dubbed the Medical and Research Translation building”
This is what we are talking about above. The focus right now is on “translational research” like it or not.
Steve,
Speaking on behalf of Historic Saranac Lake, we want to commend your attempt to focus the attention to the future of Trudeau Institute. Your initial post asked for community support and involvement and we want to just say “What can we do to help?”. We represent a lot of people who are concerned about Saranac Lake and anything with the name Trudeau associated with it. We are prepared to help in any way possible.
What can we do?
Rich, I can only speak for myself and express my own thoughts. They do not reflect those of management or the board. What I think would be most helpful is for people who care about Trudeau to think hard about who they know. Do you know people who have the capacity to contribute substantially to our philanthropic needs? Do you have the ability to get the ear of people with that capacity and talk to them about Trudeau – it’s importance to the community, to the region, to science. Use whatever angle might work. I am happy to meet with potential donors, as are many others at Trudeau. But what we seem to lack is access to the right people. We hope to have a new CEO hired very soon, and this will certainly help to provide a conduit for interactions. But in the meantime you can begin by courting people you know and helping them understand why Trudeau is such a worthy cause.
Paul, I understand the buzz word s “translational” right now. And Trudeau really is contributing to translational research. As I mentioned in my original statement, Trudeau will be announcing two new awards in the upcoming weeks that both entail translational research.
I really enjoy the well-thought out comments and observations. Sadly, research does require a talent pool to tap into. Also, as mentioned, a university, for cheap labor and additional research. Is it too impossible to consider SUNY affiliation in some way with either NCCC or even Paul Smiths in terms of a biotech degree? The Weills are amazingly supportive of Paul Smiths =- maybe that’s an approach to consider? Don’t shoot the messenger, please!