Three original NCEs develop strategies for surviving beyond 14-year funding cut-off

Beating the system

Three of the five original Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) are determined not to be casualties of the program’s highly controversial 14-year funding limit. Facing a financial crunch at the end of this fiscal year, they are working hard at securing new financial resources to allow their networking, training and collaborative research activity to continue. Each is developing a distinct survival strategy that they contend will allow them to continue conducting excellent research and contributing to the Canadian social and economic fabric.

Not surprisingly, each is targetting one or more sources within the federal government. They have learned — often the hard way — that the R&D they perform is primarily of interest to industry in the longer term, making it unfeasible to secure enough money from private sources to maintain Network activity. Yet they are showing varying degrees of flexibility to adapt to changing funding requirements and developments within their respective research spheres.

IRIS

Perhaps the Network with the most straightforward path beyond the NCE program is the Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems (IRIS). Its future is inextricably tied to the fortunes of Precarn Inc, a not-for-profit, member-based organization funded directly by Industry Canada. Precarn works in the same research space as IRIS but at the opposite end of the R&D spectrum, helping to fund industry-designed and led projects. Precarn is also the long-time manager of the IRIS Network, providing an integrated suite of programs that has proven extremely valuable to companies requiring or developing robotics and intelligent systems technology.

“We’re looking at total integration of the two beyond 2005. IRIS and university-based research are integral to Precarn and its future success,” says IRIS network manager Rick Schwartzburg. “We still have to look at how we will operate. We need expertise to review the different types of projects coming out of industry and out of universities.”

In the case of IRIS, the NCE program’s research management fund (RMF) will be a critical financial resource, giving the Network bridge funding until Precarn funds kick in. The major caveat is the uncertain status of Precarn’s future funding. Over the past two years it has embarked on a sophisticated campaign and re-branding as a 4th pillar organization, along with CANARIE Inc and the Canadian Microelectronics Corp. The government has yet to announce a new funding commitment, but the odds are in favour of a positive decision, which is expected later this year.

PENCE & CGDN

The road to survival for the other two health-related NCEs is more complex. Without a sister organization like Precarn, the fate of both the Protein Engineering Network of Centres of Excellence (PENCE) and the Canadian Genetic Diseases Network (CGDN) is dependent upon the success of their boards of directors in adapting their Networks and lobbying for new funding. And while both have separate strategies going forward, they are also exploring the potential for merging at least some of their activities in a new entity.

“There’s no sense in building up Networks and then blowing up the bridge. We need to examine bringing together elements of successful NCEs and taking them to the next level of research,” says PENCE scientific director Dr Steve Withers. “There’s something to be said for an academic-based drug discovery network which is also suitable for graduate students. The time is ripe to pursue it.”

Both CGDN and PENCE are well placed due to the federal government’s heightened interest in health innovation. Ottawa is currently in possession of several big-ticket proposals focusing on the commercialization of health R&D and investments in health care. And since the headquarters of both Networks are western-based, the efforts of the Paul Martin government to curry favour in the western provinces could also open up opportunities.

CGDN has enlisted the support of senator Jack Austin to identify potential public funding sources and match them to the various activities undertaken by the Network

“In the life sciences you need public money. If you look at the field of genetics between 1989 when the NCE program was created and 2004, it’s like comparing the Model T Ford to the Boxster Porche,” says CGDN CEO Dr Ron Woznow. “Along with senator Austin we’re trying to identify different partners for different aspects of what we’ve done, from research to commercialization. For instance, there may be an opportunity with WD (Western Economic Diversification).”

Woznow says CGDN wants to work with PENCE and has had ongoing discussions with its sister Network for the past four years. He adds that those discussions “may be consistent” with its work with Austin, but emphasizes that the primary thrust must be towards ensuring that CGDN continues to add value.

PENCE officials agree that a common road forward could ensure survival as well as offering considerable benefits. PENCE has displayed flexibility with the re-focusing of its research projects towards proteomics several years ago. And it gained considerable exposure last year with its prompt reaction to the SARS crisis.

According to Withers, PENCE favours the concept of a “graduated NCE” in which the Network’s various elements are preserved.

“We need to contribute to the interface between the physical and life sciences and Canada is missing boat. We need to put more money into this area,” he says. “There’s a gulf in Canada between (the support of) the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. The NCEs have helped fill this so second generation or a graduated NCEs would be a very positive driver for that.”

PENCE is also pursuing other options. It has applied to Genome Canada (GC) under its international consortia initiative and GC has agreed to fund an international workshop on emerging infectious diseases to flesh out the concept. GC has asked for a letter of intent on the proposal, which must be Canadian-led and large scale (at least $50 million) with GC providing 20% of funding.

It is also closely monitoring Ottawa’s reaction to the revived Canadian Biotechnology Commercialization Initiative (CBCI). Withers says the initiative — first proposed by Dr Fraser Mustard (R$, April 4/01) — has been resubmitted to the federal government and the initial reaction has been favourable.

R$