One of the most talented technical people I’ve worked with lives quietly in South Lyon. He graduated from Lawrence Technological University, served as my chief software architect for years, and is sought after by firms from New York to San Francisco. He is a quiet, yet extraordinary talent.
I’ve lived in Seattle and Chicago, and spent years working in Connecticut and with New York City firms. There are extraordinary people in all those places, but one thing I especially value about Michigan is how often I meet smart, grounded people who are more interested in doing good work than getting attention for it.
The challenge is that our technical talent pool is far thinner than it needs to be. We educate remarkable people and then struggle to offer enough of them compelling reasons to stay. A few exceptional individuals aren’t a substitute for a deep bench of engineers, experienced operators and ambitious young companies.
So what should we be building that would make more talented people want to spend their careers in Michigan?
I think Michigan needs a deliberate, long-term effort to develop industries that will be in high demand twenty years from now. That means choosing where we can compete and connecting the specialized people, facilities and customers those industries need.
Start with what Michigan knows, then build beyond it
Michigan’s automotive experience gives us a place to begin. Bring engineers and people who understand production together with AI developers and manufacturers willing to be early customers. While there are already small efforts in these areas, we need to deeply invest in difficult, valuable problems: detecting defects, anticipating equipment failures and managing complex operations.
But the second customer matters as much as the first. An inspection system developed with an auto supplier could be adapted for food packaging or medical devices, diversifying revenue beyond automotive. Equipment reliability tools could serve utilities and logistics. Bring customers and experienced people from those industries into the work early; the product and expertise will need to evolve.
That expansion has to be intentional. Help firms build products they can sell repeatedly, retain the expertise they create and reach buyers outside automotive. In ten years, I’d want an AI industry with its own products, talent and customers across several sectors. Its advantage would be making AI reliable inside complicated operations. Growing revenue outside automotive should be a measure of success.
Building an AI industry isn't the same as attracting large data centers. Where Michigan considers that infrastructure, I support many of Abdul El-Sayed’s conditions: no higher electricity bills for residents, protection of our water, investment in grid reliability and binding community benefits agreements. Michigan should pursue it on terms that protect the people who live here.
Genetic medicine offers a second opportunity to turn Michigan’s existing research strengths into an industry. AI could help, but the bigger challenge is connecting the capabilities needed to develop treatments.
Imagine being the place people come to
Ten years from now, imagine a parent learning that their child has a rare genetic disorder. They are lost on what to do. Eventually they navigate to researchers who have an idea for a treatment, but no drug company is likely to take it forward. The family faces infuriating years of building understanding, assembling scientists, labs, manufacturers, regulatory expertise and capital.
Now imagine they’re told: Go to Michigan, the genetic drug development capital of the world. A team here assesses the science and takes responsibility for a development plan, with laboratories and manufacturing partners already connected. The family can see what needs to happen next, what it will cost and who is working on it. No promise of a cure, but clarity, momentum and effort.
This is personal for me. Through the ADLD Center and a spin-off effort to commercialize its research, I’ve spent years assembling those relationships for an ultra rare disease. We’ve made exciting progress, but even with an incredibly strong network, the process is far harder and slower than it should be. Some barriers are scientific and regulatory. Others come from having to assemble those capabilities from scratch.
A clear example from that work comes from a deep partnership with Mayo Clinic. Rochester, Minnesota, shows what can grow around that kind of expertise. Mayo has helped launch biotech companies, while Discovery Square brings young businesses together with its researchers, clinicians and laboratory facilities. That gives companies a reason to build there and talented people a reason to stay. Michigan should pursue that same connection between scientific strength and the businesses that can grow around it.
Could Michigan become known for making the development of genetic medicines more practical? U-M’s Nucleic Acid Therapeutics Core already designs, synthesizes and tests potential treatments. I’d connect expertise like that with shared development teams and standing testing and manufacturing arrangements available to multiple organizations.
Why now? NIH is developing shared methods for parts of gene-therapy research and manufacturing, while the FDA issued draft guidance this year for certain individualized treatments. Organizations such as n-Lorem are already developing experimental medicines for individual patients. Michigan wouldn't invent this approach; it could connect research, clinical, manufacturing and regulatory expertise into a more dependable pathway that additional patient organizations can use.
AI should be part of that capability. Laboratory research has used deep learning to prioritize candidates for a type of gene targeted medicine. A shared team could help scientists evaluate such tools as they continue to advance in the coming years, compare experimental results and prepare evidence for review. Each project should leave better methods for the next, with scientists validating the work.
That would give Michigan something worth traveling here for, and manufacturers, testing services and software companies a reason to grow around it. The financing must make that route accessible to patient organizations, rather than leave families to figure it out alone.
Build industries, not just individual projects
The AI and genetic medicine opportunities share something important: investments in expertise, facilities and customer relationships can benefit many companies, not just one. That should be a central test of Michigan's economic development strategy.
We still need to compete for major factories, and Governor Whitmer was right to do so. But Michigan's Strategic Outreach and Attraction Reserve (SOAR) fund has exposed the risks of betting heavily on individual deals. By October 2025, roughly $720 million had been spent on company incentives and another $590 million on site preparation; recipient companies reported 1,846 new jobs against commitments for 14,559 over several years. Site work is not tied directly to those hiring pledges, and the reported jobs await contractual verification. Still, failed and scaled-back deals raise a serious question: what lasting expertise, suppliers and businesses are we building with public money beyond the individual project?
Michigan has tried versions of industry building before. Engler’s Life Sciences Corridor supported research and commercialization before its planned twenty-year investment was cut back. Granholm’s 21st Century Jobs Fund helped finance emerging companies, and research found benefits for some startups, but state audits also exposed weaknesses in reporting results. Those efforts weren't worthless. The unfinished work is sustaining a coherent strategy and showing how public investment creates lasting advantages for an entire industry.
That’s what I’d ask of Jocelyn Benson’s proposed sector innovation hubs. Each should start with partners committing to specific work. Manufacturers could commission AI applications from Michigan teams, with buyers outside automotive helping shape products they could also purchase. Universities and industry partners could give treatment developers dependable access to testing, manufacturing and regulatory expertise, rather than leaving each team to negotiate everything separately.
State investment should expand those shared capabilities, backed by partners contributing money, people or facilities. The benefit should carry forward: the next company gains access to an experienced team, a testing facility or a customer relationship that would otherwise take years to assemble.
Make a bet people can hold us accountable for
I'd start with customers and partners willing to commit their own money, expertise or facilities, and a problem that several companies would benefit from solving. That helps distinguish an investment in an industry from another subsidy for an individual business.
MEDC has relationships that could help assemble those partnerships. But given the problems with SOAR and recent scrutiny of its grant oversight, public trust needs to be earned. We should publish how projects are selected, disclose conflicts of interest, and independently verify results before committing additional funding. Are treatment programs advancing? Are AI companies winning repeat business? Are those gains producing better jobs? If the results aren't there, change course rather than keep funding the same approach.
I'd like the class of 2030 to see several companies here doing work they would be proud to join, and a genuine chance to build one of their own. That's a more meaningful test of economic development than the numbers in a press release.
