blackjacks100

22 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

Clustering has benefits for sure. But keep in mind Houston does not need to cluster like Boston and San Fran do. A lot of successful academic - bio-tech hubs are clustered across several counties and even states. See, NYC-NJ, DC-Maryland-Va, Research Triangle in NC, and Chicagoland, etc. Actually, Boston and San Fran are the only major hubs clustered so closely. 

 

 

Yes that's true but we already know clustering works. SF and Boston wouldn't be where they are, in regards to the amount of capital flowing, without clustering. Both Boston and SF have VC funding in the billions while the other "clusters" only have VC funding in the hundreds of millions. Why spread out the hub when we can consolidate like the two most successful biotech hubs.

14 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

I can assure you, this research in particular would never go to a professor in China. Cancer and heart disease are not funded in high numbers in China because, well, the Chinese don't get cancer and heart disease in the numbers Americans do. And even if it did. So what? If the research is published for the whole world to read, then great. The whole world benefits.

 

Also, It won't bring in a high income workforce. These are academic doctors not medical doctors. See my post above. They earn less than HISD teachers. My wife is a professor of medicine at Northwestern Medical School. One of the best medical schools in the world. She barley earns more than a Chicago public school teacher, with way fewer benefits. We need to do a better job of explaining exactly what medical research is and what it is not, I can see just from this thread there are a lot of misconceptions. 

I believe you keep thinking TMC3 is for academic research only. The goal of TMC3, as outlined and said repeatedly by McKeon, is to bring the life sciences industry into Houston. He wants Novartis, Roche, AbbVie, etc. to setup shop here like they did in Boston and SF. TMC3 is there so that the academics (UTHSC, MDA, BMC, etc.) can partner with these companies. The reason this is important is because before TMC3 was even conceptualized NO industry (for-profit) was allowed on TMC land. If you’re a biotech company and want to partner with MDA but have to walk across the bayou instead of next door you don’t want that. They had to change the TMC’s covenant so that private industry can setup shop on TMC land and thus be closer to the academics. 

1 hour ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

What is your source for that? Not doubting you. I just haven't seen that anywhere in the project highlights. Who is the private developer developing the hotel/residential buildings? Will it still be on TMC3 owned land? 

I believe McKeon talked about it in the State of TMC 2017 and 2018. There isn’t a name to the developer because they’re still in the planning stages. You’d think the board of regents for A&M, UTHSC, MDA, etc. would be on board if they had to pay for a hotel, residential tower, and convention space? And yes this is all on TMC land. 

27 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

TMC3 is comprised of Texas A&M University Health Science Center, The University of Texas Health Science Center (UTHealth) and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center which are all still public institutions funded courtesy of the Texas Taxpayer as far as I can remember. Baylor College of Medicine is private. The TMC is a special non-profit district funded via public and private dollars. So yes, TMC3 is tax payer funded. 

The entire TMC3 project isn't taxpayer funded. A&M, UTHSC, MDA, etc. pay for their own building (the one that's touching the DNA helix) within TMC3, but the convention space, the hotel, the residential parts are all privately developed.

6 hours ago, Twinsanity02 said:

I worked as a biomedical researcher for several years at UT Med- Houston. There are zillions of research labs spread out throughout  the TMC. I am somewhat confused about how this one will be set up.  Are there going to be a smattering of labs from UT Med, MD Anderson, Baylor Med, the Institute for Molecular Med, Texas A&M etc etc? 

 

I suppose the research will be focused on specific areas. Anyone know?

McKeon (TMC CEO) mentioned that these research buildings on the outside of the helix could house partnerships with industry. Like, for example, if Novartis partnered with MDA, it could be housed in MDA’s research building.

TMC3 is supposed to be a catalyst for letting the biotech/pharma industry into the TMC. I think, someone correct me if I’m wrong, there’s a clause or something within the TMC’s founding document that doesn’t allow industry/for-profit institutions on TMC land. 

1 hour ago, 102IAHexpress said:

Cool design. I'll add my 2cents, since my wife is a professor of medicne, who left the TMC for more advanced research opportunities elsewhere. I hope the TMC3 design (whatever it ultimately becomes) is able to help retain/attract top professors/labs. That should be the main goal (I think). What we, non-researchers think, is besides the point.

 

For all the talk about how big TMC is, which it is, the research is not that broad or advanced besides cancer and cardiovascular. There's a lot of similarities to the energy industry actually. Houston is -the- place to be for energy, but lags big time in other sectors. The TMC is one of the best places for cancer and cardiovascular (but not the best), but lags in pretty much every thing else.

 

So, how will this design, via our tax dollars, make research better in Houston? I have no clue. I asked my wife and she has no idea either. As of right now, US News and World Report has -1- medical school in Houston in the top 50, only 2 in the top 100 (3 if you count UTMB Galveston). If the design gamble pays off, then great. But If top labs/professors around the country don't show interest, within the next two years, of relocating to the TMC, then I would rather scrap the design all together and use the tax dollars to setup a scholarship fund for McGovern, and UTMB Galveston and make their tuition free of charge. Much better return on investment for society as a whole. 

The general idea is to foster research relationships with the other institutions in the TMC. The CEO of TMC stressed that, as of right now, all of the TMC institutions are very independent, aka, they don’t really work together towards a common goal. He mentioned this in State of TMC 2017 and 2018, I think.
 

The design of TMC3 is supposed to build those collaborative relationships. Instead of walking 2,3, or 4 blocks from one institution to another they’ll be right across from each other with the DNA helix in the middle. 

Does anyone know what happened to Massimo Dutti? The store front advertising its opening is gone. I can't find anything on it

With all due respect, UT and A&M are the premier public universities in this state. UH... Isn't. And both systems have schools spread all over Texas, making the schools more accessible to all Texans rather than just catering to one metro..

Exactly.. Rice doesn't get state funds, yet Rice manages to be one of the top ranked universities in the country with fantastic facilities and faculty (and quite the stockpile of cash), even with only a few thousand students.. Why can't UH take notes from the private schools on how else to collect money/improve the school instead of relying on the state?

Is what UT is doing illegal? Maybe, well see once it's determined wether it's a research campus or a full blown university.

I don't know...maybe it's because Rice charges 40k for its tuition????? UH depends on the state because it's a PUBLIC university. Anything PUBLIC (parks, roadwork, schools, etc.) receives funding from the government. You saying UH shouldn't get any money from the state because it's only in one metro is like saying HISD shouldn't get any funding from the state because it's only in Houston........