I wanted to add a comment here in support of your views, made publicly, about MaRS and the “Ontario commercialization system”. I don’t have a problem with MaRS only. It is the entire system of organizations, of which MaRS is just one, albeit the biggest and most expensive.

There are so many problems with this, I could write a list as long as yours. For now, let me just say that I agree with your points fully. If I have time, I will add to them in the near future by posting a few more comments.

Thanks for dropping by and for your support. As you noted, this is invaluable. The fact that you expressed it shows that it is definitely possible, especially by those who don’t get fed by MaRS, like you!

I am used to skeptical reactions when someone tries to change things. Those often give way to less skeptical reactions, until change happens and everyone wonders how we ever could tolerate such a system…

Do I expect to start a wave of change with this? I don’t know. Things take time. What I try to do here is to share the facts I know, point to reliable sources of information for others to build on, and present my story along with my opinion and emotions.

I also try to “go first” to make it easier for those who have opinions and facts to share, and might have more to lose than me. And frankly, the best outcome in my mind would be that the board of directors of MaRS, or even MaRS itself, listens and instead of trying to eradicate my ideas as a “virus” threatening them, incorporates them to change things. Now that’s utopian, but if they are smart they’ll review my points and think about them to improve their reporting, better support startups and their providers, stop adding to the advisory team etc… Far-fetched certainly, but not impossible. If their CEO did that, she’d improve the reputation of the institution tremendously.

My personal belief is that the world would be a better place if more of us did things because they feel like the right things to do, independent of the outcome and all the selfish calculations. Even if I am not effective with changing MaRS in the end, I did what I felt I had to and I believe that, in one way or another, is furthering the system.

On ROI, you’re entirely right. There is simply not enough data coming out of MaRS (I already asked for it and was told the only thing they disclose is that charity data report). In my next post I will make suggestions on how to go about measuring it and improving it.

Thanks again, and I hope the above makes sense.

The burning question that you haven’t been able to answer very well here is, “What is the return on investment?” I gather from your posts the data is not available. Maybe some freedom of information requests are needed.

For instance, it would be great to see some data points like:
- what % of revenue went into funding startups versus other MaRS costs
- how much money has each startup received
- how many of the initially funded startups are now defunct
- of the remaining startups, what are their trajectories towards profitability? (When do they have to become self-sustaining, in other words.)

In short, when and how will taxpayers be paid back?

On a related note, a quick scan of the tenant list shows that at least a quarter are professional service firms, venture capital companies, and global companies like GSK and Merck. [http://marsdd.com/aboutmars/marscentre/tenants.html] That leaves me scratching my head. Is that money well spent? Why not move some of these “helpers” offsite and fund a few more startups with the savings? The rent alone could fund my own startup for a year.

Greg, I hope other people step forward to thank you, support your claims and add more data to the picture of MaRS, but to be honest I am skeptical that many, if any, will. Nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them, and MaRS feeds many people and feeds them well.