Health research advocacy in flux after lobbying group loses major supporter

Canada’s primary organization for health research advocacy is teetering on the brink following the withdrawal of support by its primary backer. The Ottawa-based Coalition for Biomedical & Health Research (CBHR) was informed last November that it would no longer be receiving $80,000 in annual financial assistance from the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges (ACMC), accounting for nearly 60% of its annual budget. ACMC represents the deans of Canada’s 16 medical colleges and affiliated institutions.

The unexpected decision by ACMC to cut off funding and revoke office space closely coincided with the departure of Charles Pitts, CBHR’s latest executive director, leaving the organization without the means to sustain itself. If alternative backing cannot be secured quickly, CBHR will have little option but to cease operations. CBHR president Dr Barry McLennan called a stakeholders meeting in Ottawa last month to explore future options, and a follow-up meeting is planned for April. He says he is mystified by the ACMC decision.

“I don’t understand why the deans have made this decision. The ACMC spent the past year reflecting on this and I’m disappointed we weren’t given any warning,” he says. “I have put my blood, sweat and tears into this organization for 10 years so I’m very disappointed. They seemed happy with the work we had done in the past.”

For the past decade, CBHR has been an aggressive advocate for increased health research funding on behalf of biomedical, clinical and health researchers and was a vocal supporter for the creation of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The ACMC — one of two founding members of CBHR — is also a strong supporter of additional health research funding. But its advocacy interests are broader, hence the decision to yank its support of CBHR and formulate a new advocacy strategy.

“CBHR has been de-linked from ACMC and our board of directors has decided to do its own advocacy,” says ACMC executive director Dr David Hawkins. “We have some advocacy issues that have nothing to do with research, such as the lack of physician resources. But we have not diminished our enthusiasm for research at all.”

Hawkins acknowledged that there were other reasons for severing ties with CBHR but he would not elaborate.

With the future of CBHR very much in doubt, other organizations are expressing an interest in assuming its role. One is the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies (CFBS), the other founding member of CBHR and an advocate for disciplines comprising the life sciences. CFBS withdrew its support from CBHR years ago when the group was experiencing financial difficulties. Now the organization is growing and seeking new advocacy opportunities.

“If CBHR is not going to reflect the voices of the deans of medicine and they want a voice, we could do it,” says CFBS executive director Dr Bruce Sells, adding that he plans to speak with several medical deans. “We’re already taking to the deans of agriculture and veterinary medicine because health doesn’t end with the medical schools. But if we also had the deans of medicine, that would give us much more lobbying clout.”

CBHR has a dramatically different approach to advocacy, issuing frequent press releases and making regular appearances before the finance and industry standing committees. The CFBS, on the other hand, seems to prefer a lower key approach, holding symposia and meeting with politicians behind closed doors. It also exerts influence by participating in other organizations such as Canadian Consortium for Research and the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering.

McLennan says a broad discussion of the future of health research advocacy is urgently required, which is why the Ottawa stakeholders meeting had a theme of optimizing health research advocacy. He says it’s possible the CFBS could represent Canada’s medical colleges but suggests that groups like the Council for Health Research for Canadians may be more appropriate.

“There are lots of groups anxious to invade the territory we held and they have a right to. It’s not a closed shop, but I have to recommend to my board what to do next,” says McLennan. “ We’re at a crossroads so we have to reconfigure and retool or close our doors.”

R$