How much money will it cost to achieve that long-sought dream of making the University of Minnesota a truly world-class research institution? How about $366 million? University officials released a 10 year plan Thursday they say would put the U among the leaders in the biotech field. MPR's Art Hughes quotes university president Robert Bruininks:

"Twenty other states, including California, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, are making enormous research investments. 'Reaching,' to use Senior Vice President Frank Cerra's words, 'for the brass ring of biomedical science,'" said Bruininks. "In order to be competitive, the university must add approximately five state-of-the-art buildings, and the researchers to fill them, over the next 10 years."

The $366 million over 10 years is in addition to more than $200 million in other bonding requests the university has made this year. That doesn't include the $100 million it wants for a new on-campus football stadium. The biotech money would be put into a special fund to bypass the every-other-year bonding process.

The Pioneer Press notes some skepticism among legislators:

"If this is their top priority, they should make it so," said Rep. Dan Dorman, R-Albert Lea, bonding committee chairman... "They're bringing this out pretty late in the game — they must realize they are behind the gun for this year," Dorman said.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty also hasn't signed on to the plan yet, even though he's been talking about the need for Minnesota to take a lead in biotech research. The chair of the bonding committee in the Senate, Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon, likes the proposal.

While the university considers the future of medicine, the House and Senate have started to argue over how to provide health insurance to people who need it now. They differ over how to spend a surplus in the state's health care access fund. MPR's Laura McCallum says that may mean folks without insurance will have to hang on for at least another year:

Given the opposing approaches, the stage appears to be set for partisan gridlock, with the House passing Bradley's plan and the Senate backing Berglin's proposal.

DFL Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson says it would be unfortunate if nothing gets done this year.

Speaking of partisan fights, Gov. Pawlenty and Attorney General Mike Hatch are fencing over how to protect your privacy. Hatch, of course, is one of many who wants Pawlenty's job. The Star Tribune notes there are some people who think both of them should keep their privacy plans... to themselves:

Don Gemberling, the former director of the state office that ruled on data practices disputes, said Pawlenty and Hatch are simplifying and exploiting concerns about privacy for political purposes.

"I see it as, 'Hatch is gouging me with this thing, and now I have to gouge back,' " Gemberling said. He said the law already provides sufficient safeguards.

Simplifying and exploiting for political purposes? Since when is THAT happening at the Capitol?