Forget for a moment the million dollar studies that will be needed just to investigate the possibility, or getting the Federal Aviation Administration to reconfigure the flight patterns of the major carriers going to and from Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Orlando and even Miami international, or that Melbourne International Airport has struggled to find carriers willing to land on the technologically advanced Space Coast, or that there is already an airport in the county with international in its name.

I'm all for economic progress. But think about what this would do to the housing market where the airport is put down.

Recently Martin County had to get millions from the Federal Aviation Administration just to buy out 23 homes on a cul-de-sac at the northwest end of Witham Field. And they have plans to pay for sound insulation on other homes around the airport.

And that was for a general aviation airport.

Port St. Lucie is already looking to purchase 46 homes as part of the Crosstown Parkway's $105 million to $119 million river spanning link to U.S. 1. Someone is going to have to be moved for the thousands of acres needed for an airport, the roads leading to it and those who are lined up at the ends of the runways.

Also, imagine yourself having plucked down $500,000 for a home in western Port St. Lucie and now you have the prospect of 747s and 757s rumbling somewhere overhead as they arrive and depart.

You still have time to get out. This airport dream is a good two decades from realty, but now you’re going to be selling to people who, if they do their homework, may question logic of buying under potential flight paths.

If they want to do anything, build up St. Lucie International and establish a multi-space helipad at Tradition that can taxi people north to Fort Pierce if saving time on the road is driving this proposal.

Yes, California-based Burnman Institute opted for Orlando over Port St. Lucie, with one of the reasons given being that Orlando has an airport that can get its scientists and management quickly to San Diego.

But that should have only been a call to bulk up the local airport, to start talking to carriers - even if its just flights to the larger South Florida airports - about how to connect the Treasure Coast to its sister research cities of San Diego and Portland, Oregon.

What will it take for Port St. Lucie to build an airport?

Aid from statewide airport consultants, engineers, investors, businesses.

Commercial airlines to consider the Treasure Coast a lucrative hub.

A viable site location on the Treasure Coast.

Capacity at Palm Beach International Airport, Melbourne International Airport, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Miami International Airport, Orlando International Airport and Orlando-Sanford International Airport must reach 80 percent, something that is not expected to happen until 2025.


Building an airport will not be cheap.*

First studies must be undertaken:

Environmental assessment study - $200,000 to $500,000

Feasibility study - $500,000 to $700,000

Site selection study - $500,000 to $700,000

Purchase of land - $40 million upward Airport master plan study - $1 million to $3 million

Construction of airport: $100 million upward

*2005 numbers.

However, that's the view of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, which on Thursday published the "Business Tax Index 2008: Best to Worst State Tax Systems for Entrepreneurship and Small Business."

Florida came in fifth, behind South Dakota, Nevada, Wyoming and Washington.

The council used 16 different tax measures - including income, property, death/inheritance, unemployment, and various consumption-based taxes, state gas and diesel levies - into a single score to rank the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The 15 worst state tax systems are: 37) North Carolina, 38) Nebraska, 39) West Virginia, 40) Hawaii, 41) Idaho, 42) Vermont, 43) Massachusetts, 44) New York, 45) Rhode Island, 46) Maine, 47) Iowa, 48) California, 49) Minnesota, 50) New Jersey, and 51) District of Columbia. 

The rankings are based upon how tech-friendly national laws are, how ready people are to adapt to new technologies and how businesses, governments and people use technology.

The U.S. did get recognized for the most notable improvements, standing at 4th on the list this year, up three places from a year ago. The U.S. got credit for its research institutions, having the most patents, and marketplace. Our high tax rate and regulations were listed as negatives.

If you must know, here's the top 20 and bottom 10, with a few highlights.

Top 20

1 Denmark; 2 Sweden; 3 Switzerland; 4 United States; 5 Singapore; 6 Finland; 7 Netherlands; 8 Iceland; 9 Korea, Rep.; 10 Norway; 11 Hong Kong SAR; 12 United Kingdom; 13 Canada; 14 Australia; 15 Austria; 16 Germany; 17 Taiwan, China; 18 Israel; 19 Japan; 20 Estonia

Bottom 10

118 Cameroon; 119 Nepal; 120 Paraguay; 121 Mozambique; 122 Lesotho; 123 Ethiopia; 124 Bangladesh; 125 Zimbabwe; 126 Burundi; 127 Chad

Notables:

21 France; 29 United Arab Emirates; 31 Spain; 34 Chile; 42 Italy; 48 Saudi Arabia; 50 India; 57 China; 58 Mexico; 59 Brazil; 72 Russian Federation; 77 Argentina; 86 Venezuela.

There are reportedly dozens species who names are up for sale by Scripps.

(Scripps Institution of Oceanography is not linked with Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers or the La Jolla-based Scripps Research Institute that is setting up Scripps Florida in Jupiter.)

Bidding starts at $5,000.

The purchase is considered a tax-deductible donation that would benefit the Scripps Oceanographic Collections, which is a repository of ocean life and rock samples collected over the past 100 years.

And these names won't go unrecognized by the international naming group, which is unlike what happens to those who pluck down $50 to the StarRegistry.com for a star to be named after you or a loved one.

Lawrance Bailey, Scripps' senior director of development, told the San Diego newspaper, "Once someone's name is attached to a species, it should last as long as science continues to use scientific names."

Just don't expect your name to be crawling all over the planet.

Most of the species being found by Scripps are now on the deepest parts of the vastly unexplored ocean floor or in lab jars.

For that's essentially the proposal that the Republican-lead Legislature is moving towards with the latest state tax overhaul they intend to put before voters this November.

In exchange for landowners not having to pay property taxes for schools, education will be paid for through increased sales taxes.

For landowners, especially the elderly who came here to retire from up north, this is even better than the portability provision approved last November. Now you're talking about cutting 25 to 40 percent of your property tax bill in exchange for at the least a 1 percent increase in the sales tax.

That's a boon for those who argue that they've already paid for their kids to go through school and believe they've done their fair share.

Of course, the tradeoff is that almost all educational decisions will now come through Tallahassee, as all money for local schools would be earmarked by the state under the new proposal.

Not that the locals have the greatest track record, but I'd rather back them than any term-limited numbnut that is at the beck and call of any special interest lobbyists in Tallahassee when it comes to determining the educational needs of the kids growing up in my neighborhood.

Right off the bat I'm not encouraged by our state leaders as the proposal punches a $7.9 billion whole in the state's $18.9 billion education budget. And their initial solution is to just up the sales tax by 1 percent to generate $3.3 billion to $3.9 billion - depending upon our spending habits and tourism.

They could bump the sales tax 2 percent and add sales taxes to professional services such as lawyers, who have powerful business lobbyists.

But what you're going to get is the state ordering locals to cut back their services even further than they've been hit in recent revenue shortages.

Also, we'll be told we've wasted money for years on an education system that is miserable at best. What they need to do is streamline the process with this new tax shift, you'll hear.
This is the same short-term thinking from those who say we've spent $1 billion to lure giant life science efforts to the state and now expect to sit back and just wait for the grants and research spin-offs to start springing up across the landscape, filled with cures and jobs.

We could have taken the momentum of last November's Amendment 1 tax reform and continue to critically look at the inequity of the property tax system that is weighed unevenly against part-time residents, those who own more than one property and businesses.

But we won't. We'll go to the polls and roll the dice, betting heavily on greed, that we can craft a world class educational system that feeds into the life sciences and will keep our kids from joining the northern exodus.

Questions & Responses

1. What happened in April 2007?

In April 2007, Robert Smeaton, the managing director of the Company's wholly-owned Asian subsidiary, Puridet (Asia) Limited ("Puridet"), unexpectedly died of an apparent heart attack. Wayne Moor, then the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, flew to Hong Kong that same week to assist in finding a replacement managing director and to attend to related matters. Shortly after the death of Mr. Smeaton and Mr. Moor's arrival in Hong Kong, the Company received a series of "whistleblower" email communications (the "2007 Whistleblower Emails") directed to Mark Emalfarb, the then Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (the "Board") of the Company, alleging and describing certain fraudulent and improper activities that had been and were being perpetrated by Mr. Smeaton and other senior management of Puridet against Dyadic. These emails made allegations that Puridet's Dong Guan factory was riddled with corruption, such as value added tax ("VAT") fraud, kickbacks, product theft and skimming. When asked by the Audit Committee of the Board (the "Audit Committee"), Mr. Emalfarb said that he had received previous anonymous "whistleblower" e-mail communications alleging corruption in the Company's Dong Guan factory and the use of a company named "South Dragon" by Puridet management. Those emails were dated December 2003 and early 2004, and Mr. Emalfarb provided the Company with copies of them shortly after his discussion with the Audit Committee in April 2007.

a. What did the Company do in response and why?

The Audit Committee, consisting entirely of independent, non-management directors, upon the advice of counsel, initiated an independent investigation of the facts surrounding the possible fraud and improprieties involving Puridet. Because Mr. Emalfarb had previously received whistleblower email communications alleging similar fraudulent and improper activities and did not advise the Board (or any Committee of the Board) of these communications until after he received the 2007 Whistleblower Emails, the Audit Committee also asked Mr. Emalfarb to take a voluntary leave of absence from all of his officer, director and Board chairman duties pending the completion of the Audit Committee's independent investigation.

b. Who performed the investigation?

The Audit Committee selected and engaged Moscowitz & Moscowitz, P.A. ("Moscowitz & Moscowitz") to conduct the investigation. Following its investigation, Moscowitz & Moscowitz produced a detailed independent report of its findings and conclusions (the "Moscowitz Report"). Moscowitz & Moscowitz is a highly respected law firm based in Miami, Florida. Both of its partners, Jane W. Moscowitz and Norman A. Moscowitz, are former federal prosecutors. They both have conducted numerous white collar civil and criminal investigations, as well as internal corporate investigations, during their 30-year legal careers.

c. Why and how was Moscowitz & Moscowitz hired? What was the scope of their engagement?

The Audit Committee interviewed a number of law firms and, on May 14, 2007, engaged Moscowitz & Moscowitz based upon its independence, relevant experience and reputation. The Company, the Audit Committee and Moscowitz & Moscowitz performed an extensive conflict check to ensure that Moscowitz & Moscowitz was independent, had no prior attorney-client relationships or conflicts with respect to the Company, any of its officers, directors or employees, including Mr. Emalfarb, and the investigation. The Audit Committee, not Company management, supervised and oversaw the Moscowitz & Moscowitz engagement and the investigation.

Moscowitz & Moscowitz was engaged to conduct an independent investigation regarding the alleged improprieties concerning Puridet, including, specifically, to determine whether any officers or employees of the Company participated in these improprieties and/or failed to disclose them.

d. How did Moscowitz & Moscowitz obtain information for the investigation?

Prior to the engagement of Moscowitz & Moscowitz, the Company engaged Kroll, Inc. ("Kroll") to image the Company's computers, the personal computers of the Company's employees at its Asian operations and the computers at the Jupiter, Florida headquarters of the Company, as well as additional work computers provided by Mr. Emalfarb in order to collect and preserve evidence. Moscowitz & Moscowitz engaged Kroll to search the computer records and database established by the imaging performed earlier to facilitate the investigation.

Kroll is one of the world's leading risk management companies. Kroll, which was founded as an investigation firm with corporate internal investigations at the heart of its business, has many years of experience assisting businesses, financial institutions and major non-profit organizations in such matters as investigating internal fraud, as well as violations of law, regulations and corporate policies. Kroll's worldwide presence, including a number of Asian offices, allowed it to effectively and efficiently image and search the computer data base of the Company and Puridet.

Moscowitz & Moscowitz reviewed thousands of documents, including those found on the computers of the Company and Puridet with Kroll's assistance. Moscowitz & Moscowitz also interviewed many of the current and former officers, directors, employees and outside professionals of the Company and Puridet.

e. What facts were uncovered during the investigation?

During the investigation, it was discovered that Puridet's then largest customer, an entity called "Pui Shing," was in fact a dummy company, used by Smeaton and others to accumulate product sales to numerous small cash-paying Chinese customers who sought to avoid the required reporting obligations associated with the payment of VAT under the laws of China. Pui Shing represented approximately 25% of Puridet's reported net sales for 2006 (of approximately $6.1 million) and approximately 33% of the Company's net accounts receivable at December 31, 2006 (of approximately $1.7 million). Pui Shing was reflected on Puridet's books as a single customer (with the sales to the numerous Chinese customers reflected only on Pui Shing's books). In reality, Pui Shing was run out of Puridet: its blank letterhead and envelope formats, as well as correspondence and certain of its financial statements, were all found on Puridet's computers. In fact, Puridet's financial statements showed that an entity called "South Dragon," which previously had been Puridet's largest customer, stopped "buying" from Puridet in July 2004, the same month sales to Pui Shing began. The investigation also discovered that, prior to Pui Shing, South Dragon was another dummy entity similarly used to cover up numerous small cash sales from Chinese customers seeking to avoid the required reporting associated with Chinese VAT taxes.

f. What were the conclusions of the Moscowitz Report?

The Moscowitz Report concluded that, since 1998 (when Puridet was acquired), Mr. Emalfarb was aware of and condoned financial improprieties, such as off-book transactions, and was later involved in structuring one of the "dummy" customer entities (South Dragon), which was used by Puridet as the nominal purchaser and seller of the Company"s products to Chinese customers in a scheme designed to avoid reporting obligations regarding the payment of VAT under the laws of China on such transactions.

The Moscowitz Report further concluded that Mr. Emalfarb failed to report these facts to the Company's auditors and, when questioned by them, had characterized the whistleblower email communications he received in late 2003 and 2004 in a misleading and deceptive manner designed to avoid further inquiry or investigation into the allegations in the emails.

The Moscowitz Report also concluded that no other current officers or employees of the Company were aware of or participated in any of the improprieties investigated.

g. What did the Company do with the Moscowitz Report?

Moscowitz & Moscowitz provided a full report and presentation to the Audit Committee regarding its investigation and conclusions, including the written Moscowitz Report. Based upon this (and the advice of counsel and other facts and circumstances it deemed relevant), the Audit Committee recommended to the full Board that Mark Emalfarb be terminated for cause under his employment agreement with the Company. Based upon this recommendation (and the advice of counsel, the Moscowitz Report and other facts and circumstances it deemed relevant), on September 20, 2007, a Special Committee of the Board, consisting entirely of independent, non-management directors and designated specifically for this purpose (the "Special Board Committee"), after providing Mr. Emalfarb and his counsel with an opportunity to present his position on the matter, authorized Mr. Emalfarb's termination for cause as the Company's Chief Executive Officer and President under his employment agreement. The termination was effectuated on September 24, 2007.

h. Was Mark Emalfarb interviewed and permitted to respond?

Yes. Mr. Emalfarb was interviewed and submitted documents to Moscowitz & Moscowitz in connection with its investigation. He was interviewed by Moscowitz & Moscowitz on two separate occasions, was accompanied by his counsel in each interview and was provided with a full and fair opportunity to respond to questions and to present his understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged improprieties. Per the terms of his employment agreement with the Company, Mr. Emalfarb and his counsel appeared at a meeting of the Special Board Committee to present his position. Mr. Emalfarb's counsel requested a copy of the Moscowitz Report before that appearance and the Special Board Committee agreed to provide it to him on the condition that a confidentiality agreement first be signed to protect the Company and its stockholders. The Special Board Committee provided such an agreement, but it was not signed and, as a result, the Moscowitz Report was not delivered prior to Mr. Emalfarb's appearance before the Special Board Committee.

i. Can I see the Moscowitz Report?

For the reasons noted under question "j" below, the Company's Executive Committee of the Board (the "Executive Committee") has determined to make the Moscowitz Report available in its entirety (including all exhibits to the report) on the Company's website, at www.dyadic.com. In addition, the Moscowitz Report (without exhibits) has been filed as an exhibit to the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2008.

j. Why hasn't the Moscowitz Report been made publicly available before now?

The Moscowitz Report was prepared and presented as an attorney-client privileged and confidential report from Moscowitz & Moscowitz (as special counsel to the Audit Committee) to the Audit Committee (as the client of Moscowitz & Moscowitz). The findings and conclusions of the Report were considered and utilized by the Audit Committee in making its determinations and recommendations with respect to and as a result of the investigation. Over the past several months, as a consequence of audit inquiries, liability insurance questions, third party requests and the due diligence inquiries of certain interested parties in the Company's ongoing strategic value maximization process, the Company has made available all or certain portions of the Moscowitz Report to selected third parties subject to confidentiality obligations. Accordingly, counsel to the Company has determined that the attorney-client privilege with respect to the Moscowitz Report likely has been compromised.

The Company, by and through members of its Executive Committee and management, also has received numerous inquiries regarding the Moscowitz Report (including requests from stockholders to review a copy of the complete report). The Company is also concerned that there is significant misinformation in the market regarding the Moscowitz Report and related matters (including some of the matters addressed in the responses to the questions listed above). Accordingly, after due consideration, the Executive Committee, with the concurrence of the Audit Committee, concluded that it was in the best interests of stockholders to make the Moscowitz Report available for review by all of the Company's stockholders.

2. What lawsuits and claims have been brought by Mark Emalfarb against the Company?

As previously disclosed in the Company's Current Reports on Form 8-K filed on October 1, 2007, October 24, 2007, November 19, 2007 and December 28, 2007, Mr. Emalfarb has filed the following lawsuits and actions against the Company:

Arbitration Proceeding - In September 2007, Mr. Emalfarb commenced an arbitration proceeding against the Company seeking monetary damages based on his claims for wrongful discharge under his employment agreement and that the Company's actions defamed him. An arbitrator was recently selected but no schedule has been set with respect to this proceeding.
"Books & Records" Action - Mr. Emalfarb filed an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery the day he was terminated for cause seeking an order compelling the Company to give Mr. Emalfarb access to certain documents and information that he contends are books and records of the Company to which he is entitled in his capacity as a director of the Company. The Company responded that it has or will provide Mr. Emalfarb with all documents to which he is entitled as a director. On February 19, 2008, the parties settled this matter and the Court approved a Stipulated Order canceling the trial, which was scheduled for February 27, 2008. As part of the Stipulated Order, the Company agreed to (i) provide Mr. Emalfarb with certain documents to the extent it had not already done so, and (ii) allow Mr. Emalfarb to have an outside vendor perform searches of certain electronically stored materials. Both the Company and Mr. Emalfarb reserved certain rights under the Stipulated Order, including their rights to seek attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the action.
Petition to Order Annual Meeting - In November 2007, Mr. Emalfarb filed a petition in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking an order directing the Company to call and hold an annual meeting of its stockholders for the election of directors. Delaware law permits a stockholder to file a petition in the Chancery Court to compel a Delaware corporation to hold an annual stockholders meeting if an annual meeting has not been held in 13 months. The Company does not oppose a court order directing the Company to call and hold an annual meeting of stockholders to elect two directors. The Company, in its answer to Mr. Emalfarb's petition in this action, joined in his request that the Court enter an order requiring the Company to hold an annual meeting. The parties disagree about the number of classes of directors that should be elected at an annual meeting and about the appropriate date for such a meeting, and have recently completed briefing on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings with respect to those issues. The Court has not yet issued a ruling in this matter.
3. What lawsuits and claims have been brought by the Company against Mr. Emalfarb? Does the Company intend to pursue any claims against Mr. Emalfarb?

At this time, the Company has not brought any lawsuits or claims against Mr. Emalfarb (including counterclaims to the lawsuits brought by him noted above). The Company, by and through the Executive Committee with the advice and assistance of counsel, is investigating and considering what, if any, claims the Company may pursue and bring against Mr. Emalfarb.

Depending upon stockholder feedback regarding the information included in this press release, future events and other factors, the Company may provide additional information in a similar "Question & Answer" format in the future.

On March 4, 2008, the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Current Report on Form 8-K, which includes copies of this press release and the Moscowitz Report as exhibits and a discussion of certain other matters.

IMPORTANT NOTICES RE: THIS Q&A AND PRESS RELEASE

The foregoing Questions and Responses ("Q&A") constitute a summary only, do not purport to be complete and are subject to, and qualified (as applicable and appropriate) in their entirety by, the full text of the Moscowitz Report and the more complete disclosures, information and statements included in Current Reports on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") prior to the date of this press release.

Certain of the responses in this Q&A may be deemed to be solicitation material in respect of the election of certain persons who may be nominated for reelection or to replace certain of Dyadic's directors whose terms have expired. If Dyadic remains subject to the proxy rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") at the time any forms of proxy, consent or authorization are furnished by the Company to stockholders, such forms of proxy, consent or authorization will be accompanied by a definitive proxy statement and/or related materials. STOCKHOLDERS OF DYADIC ARE URGED TO READ ANY SUCH PROXY STATEMENT WHEN AND IF IT BECOMES AVAILABLE SINCE IT WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Investors and stockholders will be able to obtain such proxy statement/materials, and any other relevant documents, when and if filed with the SEC free of charge at the SEC's website, located at http://www.sec.gov, and Dyadic's stockholders will receive copies of such documents at an appropriate time from Dyadic free of charge. Dyadic and its directors and executive officers may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from Dyadic stockholders in respect of the election of certain persons who may be nominated for reelection or to replace certain of Dyadic's directors whose terms have expired. Information regarding the directors and executive officers of Dyadic is set forth in Dyadic's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, which was filed with the SEC on April 2, 2007, and Current Reports on Form 8-K subsequently filed with the SEC on April 25, 2007, June 1, 2007, July 9, 2007, September 24, 2007, October 1, 2007, October 24, 2007 and November 19, 2007. This communication does not constitute a request for a proxy. THIS DISCLAIMER SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS AN ADMISSION BY THE COMPANY THAT THIS COMMUNICATION (OR ANY PORTION OF IT) CONSTITUTES SOLICITATION MATERIAL OR THAT THIS COMMUNICATION (OR ANY PORTION OF IT) IS BEING FURNISHED TO SECURITY HOLDERS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES CALCULATED TO RESULT IN THE PROCUREMENT, WITHHOLDING OR REVOCATION OF A PROXY OR VOTE ON ANY MATTER.

About Dyadic International, Inc.

Dyadic International, Inc. is a biotechnology company that uses its patented and proprietary technologies to conduct research and development activities for the discovery, development, and manufacture of products and enabling solutions to the bioenergy, industrial enzyme and pharmaceutical industries.

It's the second time the price has been reduced from the initial asking price of $15 million two years ago. Reynolds bought the land for $700,000 in 1980.

The 3-acre property overlooking Jupiter Island includes the 5-bedroom main house with a billiards room and home cinema, large yacht dockage and a private two bedroom guest house.

The telescope, at a cost of $650,000, was installed this week on Florida Tech's F.W. Olin Physical Science Building.

Students in the school's astronomy and astrophysics courses will be able to use the telescope.

This isn't something out of the blue for the school. Florida Tech operates a telescope in Tucson, Ariz., and has been refurbishing one in Chile.

Port St. Lucie and St. Lucie County are courting the Santa Clarita, Calif.-based Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research.

The research firm's little brother, the biotech developer Alfred E. Mann Center, is now looking to buy 22 acres at the Florida Center for Innovation at Tradition, where it wants to build a five or six building complex.

The idea is purely a speculation that research firms will want to set up shop.

The Center has built only other project and that was for the Foundation. Yet we're told that any speculation about this complex leading to the Mann Foundation expanding to the Treasure Coast is also mere speculation.

Besides, they say, the Foundation would need tens of millions of dollars to make the move to Florida. Such money may not be readily available from city and county officials who have been forced to cut back on budgets and a year ago put up $50million - not including the land Core Communities gave - to sway Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies to Port St. Lucie, rather than Boca Raton.

Meanwhile, Palm Beach County, still smarting from the Torrey Pines rebuke, is now poised to put up $86.7 million for the German Max Planck Society. And the St. Petersburg Times reported this week that the next scientific research outfit in talks about expanding to Florida is New York University's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences.

The Institute, founded in the 1934, grew up as a think tank in World War II, before blossoming as a computer science research center.

Research leaders like Dr. Richard Lerner, president of Scripps Research Institute, and Richard Houghten, president of Torrey Pines, are calling for the state to set aside another $250 million in its Innovation Fund, the kindling to recruit research organizations to Florida.

We've already dished out nearly $1 billion in state and local funds, for Scripps, Torrey Pines, Burnham Institute in Orlando and SRI International in St. Petersburg.

In the next round, Max Planck alone wants $94.9 million from the state.

No price tag has been placed on Courant, nor is there word on which cluster in Florida it wants to be a part of.

Economically these latest developments are good and bad.

Good because it shows that the state's efforts into the research field, and the possibility for a high tech culture taking hold, one that will enhance the state's workforce and university system, is being taken seriously by the international science crowd.

Bad because we're still not at the stage where companies are willing to come to Florida simply because this has been the trendy research happening.

And that means if we want to keep the flames of the Florida biotech industry flickering, we have to decide how much currency we're willing to feed into the fire.

There were people excited about Wisconsin-based Kohl's coming to Jensen Beach a few weeks ago. But nobody was saying, "I thought it would be fun one day to tell my kids that I sat out for two days to get a couch," as one Fort Lauderdale woman said about the pending Florida arrival of Ikea.

A few months ago, when Target first opened in Tradition and Sam's Club did the same along U.S. 1 in Port St. Lucie, the local cops were called in to help direct traffic, but they didn't have to bring in four off-duty Florida Highway Patrol troopers to manually control stoplights along major roads near the stores. Nor was a trolley service set up to transport overflow parking.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for shiny, new fangled things, the latest technology, certain authors or musicians, and for saving a buck or more. But I really don't understand our compulsion to be the first in line.

We see it every year, with sales drawing hundreds to get up in the wee hours for Black Thursday sales.

The words inside Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows don't change if you bought the book at midnight or leisurely picked up the book after a good night sleep.

Okay, maybe for Duke-Carolina basketball tickets I can see camping out, but in the Triangle those lines are more festive at times than the actual games.

This is about furniture. Yes, it's more affordable furniture than others who display their wears twice a year at the High Point Furniture Market.

Yet Ikea for some reason is making people act like the couch taters who recently camped out across the Treasure Coast and country for the iPhone and the Nintendo Wii.

Actually, that wasn't fair, those kids, in their South Park shirts and with caches of Pringles, were no where as giddy as those I've encountered the past couple of days in Stuart and Port St. Lucie over the prospect of the Swedish retailer having two locations within only two hours of the Treasure Coast.

That's right, if you miss the grand opening Wednesday in Sunrise, there will be another next month in Orlando. And Ikea has on its Website that they will allow people to start waiting outside the Central Florida store at 8 a.m. Nov. 12, two days before the store opens.

It's like the royals have decreed this to be fresh bread day. Only these people are not wanting in the destitute sense, for the food inside is literally Swedish pancakes and meatballs with lingonberries.

Rather than rewrite the wording for the ballot item of this "super" amendment, lawmakers first said they would appeal the ruling. They were buried, they said, under the need to shave $1.1 billion from the budget.

So at $40,000-a-day they shuttled themselves to Tallahassee last week where they quickly dispatched the cuts with little fight. But before the ink is even scribbled across the bottom of any new budget documents, we hear we're again being offered alternatives that will be the salvation to our property tax problems.

The Save Our Homes portability idea apparently has again be risen from the dead. There are also offers to double the homestead exemption from $25,000 to $50,000 and new discounts for first time home buyers and commercial property owners.

Did I miss something?

If the "super" exemption was such a wonderful idea, one supposedly endorsed by some government approved economists, why the need to bring out the latest in covered wagon medicine show solutions?

Yes, the polls showed that it was going to be very difficult to muster the 60 percent needed to get the amendment approved on Jan. 29, regardless of any confusing ballot language.

And after talking to Martin County Property Appraiser Laurel Kelly, there doesn't seem to be real advantage for anyone who has been in their home for several years - or plans to remain in their current home for at least a decade - to opt out of Save Our Homes.

But if the backers of the "super" exemption are true to their convictions, if they believed the proposal as just and fiscally sound as they had proclaimed when first offering the tax remedy, why not simply rewrite the ballot language?

Was there a reason the language wasn't clear on what would eventually happen to Save Our Homes? Or were they not being honest and the "super" exemption will only have a 5 to 10 year lifespan before property owners - voters - realize the initially savings they were sold was a cheap elixir?