Committee hears TEDCO bills to boost Maryland manufacturing; researchers press MSCRF role
Loading...
Summary
SB905 and SB763 would expand TEDCO‑backed grants and a Maryland Growth Initiative to scale advanced manufacturing and keep startups in state; researchers and the Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission urged amendments giving MSCRF authority over regenerative medicine manufacturing programs.
Senator Zucker told the Economic Matters Committee that SB905 would provide funding through TEDCO to support advanced manufacturing in areas including quantum computing, aerospace and life sciences, and to help early‑stage companies scale production without leaving Maryland. "This allows us to be able to provide grants and resources to manufacturers so they get to that scale so that these entities that we're funding at the early stages don't leave the state," he said.
TEDCO CEO Troy Lamell Stovall and several executives testified in support, saying the bills create tools and capital to bridge the gap between lab prototypes and scalable manufacturing. "TEDCO supported n5 at every critical stage from inception to growth," said Abhishek Mathai, founder and CEO of n5 sensors. Jorge Diaz Schneider of Ion Storage Systems and Mustafa Adame of Aztec Diagnostics described grant and technical support as critical to recent expansions and investor interest.
Multiple witnesses urged that the regenerative‑medicine manufacturing track in SB905 be run by the Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission (MSCRF). Professor Rachel Brewster, who identified herself as chair of the Maryland Stem Cell Research Commission and a University of Maryland Baltimore County professor, said the bill as written relegates the commission to an advisory role and recommended two amendments: give the commission authority to run the program and narrow or allocate funding for regenerative‑medicine manufacturing to preserve technical and ethical review capacity. "We have a system that's working," she said, arguing the change would avoid duplication and leverage existing review infrastructure.
Committee members asked technical questions about governance and whether TEDCO and MSCRF are independent. One member asked whether the bill would circumvent TEDCO’s board procedures; witnesses clarified that MSCRF is administered through TEDCO but has an independent review mission and structure.
Supporters asked the committee for a favorable report; no vote was recorded in the transcript. The record includes multiple in‑person and virtual testimonials that the committee may incorporate in future amendments.
