As the biolab world turnsBiolab bid loser U Missouri supports Kansas State

After losing a bid to land a federal animal disease lab, University of Missouri-Columbia (MU)ers are throwing their weight behind a proposal to build the lab in Kansas. MU officials had hoped that DHS would pick Columbia for the $450 million National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility, but that dream ended yesterday when the federal agency announced it was only considering sites in Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas. Despite the loss, “We are not totally out of the picture,” said George Stewart, professor and chairman of the MU Department of Veterinary Pathobiology.

Columbia Tribune’s Jacob Luecke writes that MU is a member of the consortium of university and business interests pulling for the lab to be built at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas. Conversely, Kansas State was also a member of the failed MU consortium. The two universities, both of which with prominent veterinary colleges, are the outer poles of what is known as the KC Animal Health Corridor. The corridor is anchored by the Kansas City area, which boasts many veterinary- and animal-related businesses. The area aims to bring in businesses and research dollars, with the goal of being the global leader in the animal health field.

Stewart said having the lab at Kansas State would give a positive jolt along the entire corridor to MU. “If the NBAF goes to Manhattan, there still will be some opportunities for some collaborative research,” he said. “It’s just that the opportunities won’t be as great as if it was here in Columbia.” Missouri Economic Developmentchief Greg Steinhoff said in a news release yesterday he is now pulling for Kansas State: “Having the facility in Kansas will have a tremendous economic impact on the Kansas City region.”

When Missouri was in the run for the lab, Steinhoff and others touted the facility as a major development prospect for the state. As was the case in other locations, though, the lab faced stiff opposition from some residents who feared the facility would invite terrorist attacks and present the risk of a deadly disease outbreak here. “It always seemed such a terrible idea to put a facility studying some of the deadliest avian and bovine pathogens in the very middle of the No. 2 cow-calf state in the union,” said farmer Don Mayse, who raises cattle about five miles south of the proposed site along New Haven Road. When federal site inspectors visited Columbia in May, Mayse and dozens of Columbia residents were there with picket signs.

Jim Coleman, MU’s vice chancellor for research, said although he is disappointed the university is not a finalist, he is glad to see an end to the contention between citizens and the university. “I was certainly a little disconcerted that if we made the finalists list, given the angst in the community, that it could have led to a lot of conflict in Columbia,” Coleman said. MU leaders said yesterday they thought their bid failed because other states could offer more money and gave the project overt political support.

To get the site here, MU offered to give the site 100 acres. The state also freed up about $3.3 million as an enticement. Other states pledged much more. “In raw numbers, my read was that we were sort of an order of magnitude less in the resources that we could bring to the facility than some of the other states,” Coleman said. Likewise, politicians in some other states, particularly Kansas, were more vocal in their support. “The Bioscience Authority in Kansas really promoted this. The senators and congressmen were very public in their backing of it,” Stewart said. “So that may have tipped the scales a little bit toward them.”