Resentment resurfaces over NCE program’s 14-year funding limit

RE$EARCH MONEY Special Feature

The 14-year limit on financial support from the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) program is coming under fire again as five original Networks face a funding cut-off at the end of this fiscal year. Only three of the five have applied to the program’s research management fund (RMF) for transitional funding, meaning that more that research for key areas such as proteomics, bacterial diseases and microelectronics will be lost or significantly reduced. To date the five Networks have received more than $300 million in public money.

The funding limit is intended to encourage Networks to attain self sufficiency or secure other sources of funding and clear the way for new NCEs to come on stream. But several officials managing successful NCEs say the rule, however well intentioned, is counterproductive both to their areas of research and the social and economic objectives of the nation.

A concerted effort two years ago to convince government to drop the sunsetting provision failed, so as the clock ticks down to April 1/05, the affected five networks must choose to pursue alternative funding strategies or simply fold.

Among the three which have opted to continue by developing distinct strategies is the Canadian Genetic Diseases Network (CGDN), which has established strong and varied relationships with industry and other elements of the health research community. It has solicited the assistance of senator Jack Austin to identify new public funding sources and is also pursuing a possible collaborative strategy with another NCE that hopes to continue — the Protein Engineering Network of Centres of Excellence (PENCE).

“It’s inconceivable that we would be in a position to have our federal funding terminated. No other country would do this. I never thought they would keep the 14-year rule. It’s based on a decision made many years ago,” says CGDN CEO Dr Ron Woznow. “Our network has catalyzed spin-offs of new companies that have raised $300 million in risk capital. The criteria should be merit and to demonstrate that we add more value for Canadians.”

In order to buy time until new funding can be arranged, CGDN has applied to the NCE’s RMF program, which provides up to $500,000 over two years.

Like CGDN, PENCE has also struggled to reinvent itself and find new strategic partners to ensure its survival. Resubmission to the NCE for a modified Network was disallowed, while an application to Genome Canada was also turned back. According to PENCE scientific director Dr Steve Withers, frustration among researchers and Network officials is tempered by enthusiasm for the future potential of its research.

“There’s both a sadness and a passion for the future — a determination to find a new direction. People haven’t given up on PENCE,” says Withers. “We want to find a way to make it work but it’s a matter of working within the system and the system is rigged against us.”

The Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems (IRIS) is the third Network to apply for RFM funding. Inextricably linked to Precarn Inc, IRIS’s future is tied to Precarn ‘s funding submission to Industry Canada, which is proposing a complete integration of the two organizations. Since its creation, the number of Canadian companies has grown to more than 400, many of which owe their existence and/or success to IRIS.

“I was in the NCE program when we brought in the 14-year rule so I understand the political thinking, but on the other side it doesn’t work that way,” says IRIS network manager Rick Schwartzburg. “We’re creating activity and you want to end it? Government funding helped to create a collaborative mindset so that people are used to it and students also have this mentality.”

The three Networks applying for RMF funding recently met with the program’s review committee in Vancouver to make their cases. Decisions will be delivered in June with announcements expected in late July. While their fate is to be determined, there’s no future for the other two original Networks.

TWO NCES FOLDING

Micronet and the Canadian Bacterial Diseases Network (CBDN) have both concluded that struggling to work within the framework of NCE rules is more trouble than it’s worth and have opted to wind down operations. Up until last year, the Canadian Bacterial Diseases Network (CBDN) was actively pursuing options beyond NCE funding. It had applied to the NCE program with a modified networking proposal that was rejected, and was also pursuing joint activity with CGDN and PENCE.

But events in recent months have outstripped the desire to continue. Increased funding opportunities for bacterial research have emerged elsewhere and the federal Budget announced a new NCE that overlaps with a portion of CGDN’s research focus. The CBDN board ultimately decided that applying for RMF funding and pursuing new funding sources for the Network was futile.

“We had 14 years and our scientists made great linkages, but it’s too much work to create a new NCE. There are no regrets but things will be lost for sure,” says Dr Ying Gravel, CBDN’s CEO and managing director. “Many of our members have gone in directions other than a network. The wind-down process has already started.”

The 14-year limit and a lack of alternative funding sources have also frustrated researchers with Micronet, a highly successful NCE with strong industry backing and a stellar international reputation. Following a rejections for a modified NCE and by the Collaborative Research and Development program at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Micronet’s board made the tough decision to close down the Network.

“It’s unfortunate to lose all these connections and networking. It doesn’t make sense,” says Dr André Salama, Micronet’s scientific director and the driving force behind its creation. “We tried very hard to continue but there are not very many options. And it’s not very good for the research community.”

Like CBDN, Micronet rejected the option of applying to the RMF fund.

“It’s useless unless there’s something to put together. We can’t expect industry to pay 100%,” says Salama. “Why is all this going down the drain? Is this an effective way to spend taxpayers dollars? We feel we’ve done an excellent job but there are no options to transition to.

R$