Conversation with Willie Brown

Former Mayor, San Francisco
Former Speaker, California State Assembly

“In my lifetime of public policymaking and policy executing, nothing has been more energizing than the business of ‘How do we heal people using new science?’”

So explains Willie Brown. He is passionate about the transformation that medical research and innovation has brought to the San Francisco Bay Area and his state. He has seen firsthand the dramatic economic impact. And he challenges governments to understand the role they may play in cultivating an environment in which the burgeoning sector may flourish and American ingenuity may be channeled to improve peoples’ lives.

How did medical innovation take root in Northern California?
In the late 1970s, organizations like Genentech and others came to me and others involved in state-level public policy-making and said, “We’re attempting cutting edge research to address severe illnesses like Alzheimer’s. And we’re looking at how to address comparatively ordinary ailments like hearing or vision problems, or factors that affect children’s ability to learn.” They said, “If you’ll extend to us a measure of immunity, we’ll give back to California and the nation astonishing new products and innovative treatments that will result in a dramatic saving of public dollars. More importantly, it will change the ability of people to live and relate.”

Why Northern California as opposed to anywhere else?
The University of California was already in the research business. Silicon Valley and the marvel of electronic technology was just next door – some of its pioneers wanted to see advancements in the medical field as well. California leaders engaged, and California voters put up money. We had all the factors to invite entrepreneurs to engage in the sort of creativity that ultimately would make our region a leader in this sector.

How did it all strike you?
I was instantly fascinated. So fascinated, in fact, that when I became Mayor, I helped bring a whole new research campus for the University of California in the Mission Bay are, which has become our city’s hotbed of medical innovation.

Did the state play a role?
As state-level policy-makers, what we heard resonated. Gov. Gray Davis pursued capital investments for medical research buildings and equipment throughout California. San Francisco was one of the locales that benefited.

It sounds like the medical innovation advances that have taken place in the Bay Area are a great source of pride for you.
The brainpower that’s being assembled now in Mission Bay, the activities they are engaged in, and the business of translating that research into hard product – treatments, diagnostics, procedures, pharmaceuticals, and the like – is making this the medical innovation capital. Right here in San Francisco, we are leading the nation and maybe even the world in relieving the misery of people.

Can medical innovation reverse U.S. decline in global competitiveness?
I think because of what’s happening in Northern California, the U.S. will bridge the gap, if there is truly a gap, between America and countries like Singapore and Hong Kong that show increasing gains in global competitiveness measures. Certainly, if the U.S. takes advantage of the opportunity before us, people will look to us as number one when it comes to producing cost-saving, life saving medical innovations.

Does life sciences change local economies?
The whole business of what happens to economies in the areas where life sciences establishes a presence is dramatic. You see quality of life, as a rule, dramatically increase for those in and around the sector. Just getting people on their feet, healthy and working, has a profound impact on economies. We’ve seen it in the Bay Area. I think we’ll really see evidence as recent healthcare reforms are implemented. It will encourage innovative research. Hopefully, those changes can be scored so we can really recognize cost savings and economic impact.

You mentioned public-private partnership. Is that a necessity?
Marrying academia, private sector venture capital, and public sector support creates the perfect storm for inviting entities to engage in medical innovation. That is how we innovate our way to new treatments, new diagnostics and new procedures. Without such partnerships, it’s often too risky for investors to take the plunge because the return is typically so far in the future.

When local leaders in other states ask you, “How do I bring medical innovation jobs to my region?” what do you say?
I believe it has to come from a university presence interested in this area, married to some sort of private sector investment. It then requires public-sector willingness to apply resources and create the right environment for a five- or ten-year odyssey, maybe even longer.

What can the federal government do to spur medical innovation?
State, local, and in particular the federal government need to understand the critical role they can play. The medical-innovation world is starved of resources because the return on investment is so distant. The federal government is not yet into real, exotic, innovative things, but it should be, because we’re talking about peoples’ health. If the federal government set aside a huge pot of money, but made it available only when matched by state, local and private sector involvement, it would spurn innovation that would cement our leadership in global competitiveness.

What does the future hold?
I’m looking forward to the day I hear, “Based upon all the things that have been done in the world of medical science, and all the innovations, you can live 140 years and run for mayor again.”