It vanished almost as quickly as it appeared -- legislation that would have provided about $3 million annually to each of the state's three biotech engines, known as Life Sciences Greenhouses.

The money, which was to have come from a portion of Pennsylvania's tobacco settlement funds, was an unexpected gift that many in Pittsburgh's biotech community said took them by surprise. Within days that surprise turned to shock as the gift was snatched away and replaced by a one-time allotment of $1 million for each greenhouse.

Biotech may not have gotten what it dreamed of in this year's budget, but in business you don't always get what you want.

Except that when it comes to the state's $11 billion tobacco payout, it isn't business, it's politics -- a battlefield onto its own.

At stake is how best to beef up Pennsylvania's biotech industry -- an age-old tug-of-war that often pits the academic institutions that spawn the technology and the companies that bring it to market against each other

It's a conflict illuminated by the behind-the-scenes wrangling that began in February when Gov. Ed Rendell introduced a plan to redirect $35 million of the tobacco settlement money set aside for biomedical research to float a $500 million bond to pay for biomedical buildings, labs and equipment.

Known as the Jonas Salk Legacy Fund, for the Pittsburgh doctor who discovered the polio vaccine, the proposal fell flat almost immediately.

Publicly, Republican leaders said they were worried about adding to the state's debt or shifting the focus of dedicated research money. Others weren't so polite, calling the plan the "election year special."

"We began hearing from the get-go from life science entrepreneurs about their concerns [with the Salk fund] that it wouldn't result in any short- or medium-term job creation," said Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-Montgomery, who chairs the state Senate's Life Sciences Caucus.

Dollars for bricks-and-mortar projects, added the biotech chiefs he spoke to, wouldn't likely deliver a quicker path to technology and jobs.

It's a claim that made Dennis Yablonsky, secretary of community and economic development, bristle. Research alone, he said, is a huge economic engine in Pennsylvania, with jobs that pay double the average wage in the state. "It has huge potential. The more research you do, the more research work force you're generating to potentially work in companies," adding that the state has several programs, including the greenhouses and tech support group Innovation Works, that funnel millions to tech startups.

Meanwhile, Mr. Rendell and his staff lobbied hard on the proposal's behalf, saying it was a speedy, surefire boost to the state's growing biomedical industry at no expense to taxpayers.

That is a claim that Mr. Wonderling dismisses.

"We had little formal communication from advocates on this initiative. I only received a handful of letters advocating [the Salk Legacy Fund]. They were letters from Western Pennsylvania real estate developers," he said.

Last month, a decidedly more tepid bill to use a portion of the tobacco settlement fund to provide an annual funding stream for the state's greenhouses emerged. The measure was introduced in the state House -- the product of pow-wow's between biotech industry leaders and Democrats in the General Assembly. It would have fueled the state's three biotech economic development engines with about $3 million each annually to pour into upstart biotech firms.

Approved by House legislators the last week in June, the bill hit a brick wall because another bill passed by the state Senate the same day maintained the status quo on the same stream of tobacco settlement dollars used for PACENET, the prescription drug program for senior citizens.

By the time Mr. Rendell and GOP leaders finally signed the budget agreement, both proposals were dead. The greenhouses -- one in Pittsburgh, another in the central part of the state and another in Philadelphia -- did manage to emerge each with a one-time allocation of $1 million.

Although the debate is stalled, it's far from over.

"We fully intend to keep bringing this up until we get it passed. We believe it's the right thing to do," Mr. Yablonsky said, noting that Carnegie Mellon University, Penn State and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center were among the research institutions that supported the Salk Fund. "Virtually everyone in the real estate community who builds these facilities" also supports the measure, he said.

Industry groups and biotech entrepreneurs have said they hope to see a portion of the Salk fund carved out to benefit the state's fledgling biotech companies. Pittsburgh Technology Council chief Steve Zylstra said the group is floating a proposal to use some of the tobacco dollars to provide matching funds for federally funded small business innovation research grants. Mr. Zylstra said the council, which represents more than 100 of the region's biotech firm would support finding annual money for the greenhouses too.

The sparring is expected to continue in the coming months as a seven-member bipartisan Senate committee, lead by Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless, holds a magnifying glass to the tobacco settlement with public hearings and a November report expected to shed some light on where the money has landed in the past five years.

In the end, the bickering could all be for naught if more tobacco settlement are overturned, such as last week's decision by the Florida Supreme Court to toss out a $145 billion judgment against five tobacco companies. There's also concern that Pennsylvania's yearly tobacco payout -- contingent upon the volume of tobacco sales -- could decrease.

In the meantime, Pennsylvania's research institutions and health-related companies, economic development groups and their lobbyists are readying for the next round when the General Assembly reconvenes in the fall.

Continuing the discussion is perhaps the only thing that's not a point of contention among the various camps.

There's always tension between economic development and research, said Richard Overmoyer, an economic development consultant who served as a deputy secretary on Mr. Yablonsky's staff. The question is, he said, "are we fulfilling our economic development mission the best way possible?"