Moving Beyond Commercialization: Strategies to Maximize the Economic And Social Impact of Genomics Research

1. Moving Beyond Commercialization:Strategies to Maximize the Economic And Social Impact of Genomics Research Commentators: Eileen Raymond and Maureen O’Connor-McCourt September 27, 2011

2. Perspective and Experience Previous twelve years: • GRDI funds were distributed within NRC through GHI (Genomic and Health Initiative) funding mechanisms. • Goal oriented multi-institute programs were established (peer reviews and expert panel reviews were used during the selection process). • Progress towards deliverables was closely monitored and managed. • Commercialization end-points were achieved. Previous four years: • Institute business plan 2008-2012 : Canadian industry relevance, revenus generation and Key performance indicators Previous two years-current: • Program based with Business Cases and Business Plans submission process: Return on Investment approach: NRC is now requesting multi-institute programs with not only commercialization end points, but also impacts related to Canadian prosperity and social benefits, e.g. reduced health care costs.

3. Comments on the Brief • Completeness: Yes and No. The context, the issue and policy background are strong sections and very well documented (tremendous work). The Policy options represent the most challenging part but those presented can be seen as a good starting point, same as for the rest of the document. • Success in meeting objectives: Yes. Good assessment and paving the way to improve guidance for future policy. Excellent understanding of the current situation, available means and presenting good starting points for options for further discussion.

4. Comments on the Brief (cont’d) • Omissions: • Market pull (needs) versus Technology push Model is key to increase ROI success rate. The brief is building strongly on the research approach which is technology push only. To create more value, the business-like approach suggests to prepare a business plan approach with pre-defined deliverables which may include social benefits. This is a mind set and a culture shift. • Successful models or emerging examples of innovative research valorization such as CCRA Canadian inventory of cancer research to avoid duplication and favor collaboration between key national players; AmorChem in Quebec VC approach to mature projects instead of too early lauched spin offs; and CQDM industry/public joint funding for development of pre-competitive tools for drug development. • Qualifications, Assumptions: No specific comments

5. Practical Considerations 1. Unite stakeholders behind a common broader innovation strategy • Survey to assess Canadian competencies/expertise and gaps; R&D funds could then be directed to avoid duplication and encourage consolidation and complementarity, e.g. Canadian Cancer Research Alliance • Intramural federal R&D and regulatory expertise could complement early stage university research in order to add value, e.g. for drug/diagnostic development scale-up, prototyping, toxicology, knowledge of regulatory affairs are often lacking; e.g. for new biomaterials formulation and prototyping. • In some situations, federal leading organizations can play a pivotal role due to the ability to have a continuum of efforts as compared to the university granting 2-3 years model

6. Practical Considerations (cont’d) 2. Improve open information sharing to promote harmonization • Catalogue knowledge to avoid unnecessary patenting and leave more open sharing of knowledge: • Products that need to be protected can be e.g. potential therapeutics. • However, more broadly applicable technologies could be more openly shared, e.g. discovery tools such as algorithms for biomarker identification • Establish a national strategy for information sharing: patient data, genomics data, pan Canadian study, InfoWay, MedCo model, voluntary Google Parkinson IT data base, Army of women. • Again, avoid duplication of efforts • Harmonization is nice but integration towards common goals is the next step • Time is right to combine two hot areas in Canada: IT and Genomics • Pilot projects needed such as Tomorrow Project (blood samples collection)

7. Practical Considerations 3. Reshape the mandate of TTOs • TTOs are torn between $$ and social benefits. • Funds should be granted with a clear vision of who should benefit – then the mandate of the TTO would be clear. • New grant criteria are needed and TTOs should have an extended mandate • jointly develop business cases with scientists to provide measurable deliverables and identified high potential for Canadian economical impact and social benefits. • Canadian due diligence prior to international transfer • Road map and follow up on deliverables and impact • Overarching Canadian plan is needed • TTOs should participate on identifying niches for Canada • Once we have determined where we can add value, TTOs can leverage these assets with other countries with similar behaviors to Canada

8. Possible Future Research Questions A balanced model? Canadian Social Benefits Canadian Prosperity Revenue for IP owner

9. Possible Future Research Questions (cont’d) Three Basic Best Practices: • Granting criteria – justifications In place • Discipline in control and follow up Emerging • Reports • Deliverables kept focused • Extended mandates of OTTs To be done • Assistance in business plan preparation • Assistance for follow up requirements • Due diligence in Canada • Overarching visionary of Niches for Canada

10. Possible Future Research Questions (cont’d) Becoming more strategic? Basic Best Practices • Criteria • Control and follow up • OTTs extended mandate Strategic (goal oriented) Integrated (complementary efforts) • Funding distribution 50:50 • Identified Canadian needs (culture shift) – Niches for Canada • Research opportunities (current model)