CIHR should get new funding for commercialization: Senate report

A Senate committee is recommending that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) receive new funding for an innovation strategy for increasing commercialization of federally funded health research. The recommendation is one of several aimed at enhancing the commercial output of health research in Canada. If the recommendation for a CIHR innovation strategy is implemented, it would expand the scope of the granting agency beyond its current mandate and forge stronger links with university industry liaison offices.

The committee’s thinking on the future of health research was inspired by several sources including the Western Canadian Task Force on Health Research and Economic Development (chaired by Dr Henry Friesen) and Dr Kevin Keough, Health Canada’s chief scientist. Both advocate a more collaborative, multi-sectoral approach to health research as a means of achieving better research outcomes by all players within the health care system.

“This overarching goal can only be met if the role of the federal government continues to adapt to the changing health research environment,” states the report. “In addition to being a performer, funder and user of health research, the federal government must become more active as a catalyst and a facilitator.”

The report — entitled The Health of Canadians: The Federal Role — is the fifth in a series of reports produced on the health care system by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. But it is the first time the committee has examined the principles of health research and recommendations for reform. It also includes sections on the restructuring and financing of the health care system, health care technology, health infostructure and human resources. Chaired by Michael Kirby, the committee plans to issue a subsequent report which will further examine commercialization of health research.

“Economic development has not been a top priority for CIHR although we feel there has been some change in this area,” says Dr Yves Morin, a Senate committee member and a former dean of Laval Univ’s medical faculty. “This is a completely new area and one of the ways to get new money from the government is to have a good commercialization strategy … Discoveries of health research should be developed in Canada.”

New funding to implement a CIHR innovation strategy would be in addition to the funding level already committed. The committee reinforces the government’s commitment to increase its support of extramural health research to an amount equivalent to 1% of total health care sending. The report also backs CIHR’s contention that a far longer budget time horizon is necessary to provide stability and predictability for those receiving funding from the granting agency.

The situation has become increasingly acute since CIHR is the long-term source of research funds for a variety of new research funding bodies, including Genome Canada, Canada Foundation for Innovation and Canada Research Chairs. It calls on the establishment of a five-year planning horizon for the CIHR budget, which would enhance the attractiveness of the Canadian health research milieu for those already in the system and foreign-based researchers Canada hopes to recruit.

The committee also calls on the government to provide permanent support for the indirect costs of research and provide additional resources to universities targeted towards their industry liaison offices (ILOs), research ethics boards and protection of human subjects. Morin says that while universities prefer funding for indirect costs to be open-ended, they should be encouraged to earmark at least some of the money to commercialization and make researchers accountable for the use of those funds.

Nearly 80% of federal health research funding is extramural and conducted by universities and affiliated hospitals, private, non-profit organizations and businesses. Yet that funding flows through nine separate organizations that have a primary or secondary health research mandate, resulting in what CIHR president Dr Alan Bernstein has described as “nine-stop shopping”. The proliferation of funding bodies places unnecessary stress on health researchers, and acts as a detriment to research performance and recruiting. The report seems to concur, stating that many believe that “there are too many federal funding organizations” devoted to health-related research. But the committee stops short of calling for any reductions through elimination or amalgamation, and Morin acknowledges that the issue requires further study and discussion.

The remainder of federally funded health research (21%) is spent in-house, which is primarily performed by Health Canada. Morin says the department is the only federal organization whose health research budget declined last year. The committee argues that more funding is required for Health Canada to properly discharge its mandate of setting policy and enforcing regulations, but other changes must also be encouraged.

“There’s a problem of insularity. We have scientists which have to move out into the research community. A good example is the proteomics research centre at the University of Ottawa,” says Morin. “Does Health Canada require more funding? Definitely, but as a condition there should be linkages to universities and research institutes.”

Ensuring that advances in health care services and delivery reach health care providers also accounts for another of the committee’s recommendations. It asks the government to devote additional funding to CIHR, Health Canada and the Canadian health Services Research Foundation for Health services and clinical research.

The reports also calls on Health Canada to develop an ethics governance system for research involving human subjects, in collaboration with other stakeholders.

R$