CBAC showing signs of life with release of annual report and plans for special projects

After quietly toiling away for 18 months developing a work plan and commissioning studies, the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (CBAC) has issued its first annual report and is planning public consultations on two of the five special projects identified last year as priority items. Set to begin this spring, CBAC will lead public discussions on the two issues it contends are at the top of the biotechnology agenda at the dawn of the 21st century - the protection and exploitation of intellectual property and the regulation of genetically modified (GM) foods.

A consultation document on GM foods has recently been posted on the CBAC web site (www.cbac-cccb.ca).

Moving towards the front burner are three more projects which have yet to be assigned a timetable for implementation: development of a framework for incorporating ethical considerations into public policy formulation, the use of novel, genetically based interventions and genetic privacy.

Heralded at the time of its formation as one of four key pillars of the federal government's revamped biotechnology strategy, CBAC's low profile has left many observers wondering whether it would ever live up to its advance billing. There is some speculation that when CBAC members meet with the Biotechnology Ministerial Coordinating Committee (BMCC) (chaired by the Industry minister) in June, it will be as much to justify its continued existence as to report on ongoing initiatives and future plans.

Dr Arnold Naimark, CBAC's chair and director of the Univ of Manitoba's Centre for the Advancement of Medicine, says the absence of deliverables during the Committee's short life is more a reflection of the complexity and time-consuming nature of its mandate rather than a sign of inactivity.

"We did a fair amount in terms of organizing because in essence we were creating an agency from scratch," says Naimark. "We decided on special projects, issued a couple of advisory memoranda on the patenting of higher life forms and GM foods for a meeting of the G-8 ministers, commissioned groups and established links with other organizations."

CBAC was created in the fall of 1999 to replace the disbanded National Biotechnology Advisory Committee (NBAC), reporting to seven departmental ministers instead of just the Industry minister (R$, September 29/99) and providing advice leading into the formulation of public policy. It is also distinguished from its predecessor by its make-up - members were chosen through broad public consultation for their expertise rather than who they represented - resulting in a composition that's largely university-based, but with strong representation from industry and research institutes.

The scientific base underpinning GM food regulation has already been the basis of a major report recently released by the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) (see page 3), leaving CBAC to focus on governance, organization of the regulatory apparatus and social dimensions. Naimark says some of the RSC expert panel's findings will be incorporated into the final CBAC report.

"Our role is integration so we'll tease out the report's key issues," he says, adding that clarification is required between the recommendations of the RSC expert panel and the role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. "The report represents a significant contribution although it's uneven in some respects, and some areas got less attention than they deserved. Some people have criticized the report as self-serving."

As part of its recommendations, the RSC report recommended that CBAC be tasked with reviewing problems related to the increasing domination of the public research agenda by private sector interests. Naimark says that while CBAC may consider the issue "to some extent", he points out that the increasing involvement of commercial interests in university-based research has been promoted as part of public policy under the Liberal administration.

"There are two aspects to this. First is the extent to which the regulatory process relies upon research done in the private sector where the applications for approval come from. Secondly, if all the research comes through the private sector, will important aspects of GM foods research that don't have commercial applicability be passed over," he says. "Tensions and issues arise from the growth in industrially-related research. In some ways it's a discreet question and we will treat it as such."

ADVISORY MEMORANDA

In addition to undertaking special projects, CBAC also advises government on specific issues upon request. That role resulted in two memoranda last year when government required rapidly formulated policies issues in which it had to take a stand. The first was to advise the BMCC in preparation for a Carnegie Meeting of G-8 Science Ministers in Bordeaux France. At issue was Canada's participation in an international panel of scientists to assess GM foods and crop safety. CBAC supported Canada's participation.

More contentious was the Harvard Onco Mouse case which Harvard Univ was attempting to patent. CBAC examined the issue and court rulings surrounding Harvard's transgenic mouse and advised the government on its options.

It also urged government to undertake a Parliamentary review of the issue of patenting of biological products and processes. While doing so CBAC said it was desirable for government to "stop the clock" while the review process was undertaken. (a full description of CBAC's advice on this issue can be found in Appendix D of its Annual Report on their web site).

R$