Genome Canada has announced the results of its third major competition and responded forcefully to recent criticism of its funding model and selection process for successful projects. The $167.2 million in funding for 33 new projects commits all of the new money the agency received in the last federal Budget, setting the stage for an extended period of lobbying and business development to determine a new course for the future.

The competition leveraged $179.3 million by other — largely public — partners, for a total of $346.5 million. That brings the total dedicated to Canadian-based genomics and proteomics research projects and technology platforms since 2000 to $1.2 billion. The agency’s success in attracting co-funding has generated detractors among scientists who were unsuccessful in the latest competition.

A group of 40 prominent researchers from some of Canada’s most prestigious research institutes and research-intensive universities wrote a letter to Science Magazine, which was published in its June 24/05 edition. They attacked co-funding programs of the federal government as inherently biased against funding the best science, and point to Genome Canada as a prime culprit.

“Of the 93 proposals allowed to go forward (in the recent competition), almost one-third were eliminated by a panel of accountants based on ambiguous financial criteria and without any consideration of scientific merit,” states the letter. “Co-funded programs imperil scientific credibility and fail to engage the breadth and depth of national scientific expertise.”

The charges brought a pointed response from National Science Advisor Dr Arthur Carty, who refuted the scientists’ claims in a letter also published in Science (August 5/05), as well as blunt words from Industry minister Dr David Emerson. In an August 25 speech made in Winnipeg and coinciding with the Genome Canada funding announcement, Emerson said Genome Canada has supported far more research with its co-funding model than the federal government could have mustered or justified using 100% dollars.

“(Critics) like to leave the impression that somehow evil corporations are driving the research agenda, that our scientists are forced to spend all their time coming up with new forms of orange Jell-O to satisfy corporate masters,” said Emerson. “These critics are ill-informed, or perhaps they choose, for their own ends, to ignore the facts.”

Genome Canada president and CEO Dr Martin Godbout says the criticism of the agency’s funding procedures doesn’t bear serious scrutiny, particularly suggestions that the industry is undercutting the bar for scientific excellence. He points to the results of the latest competition, noting that the bulk of co-funding was contributed by provincial governments, with only 11% provided by the private sector.

“It’s never been our goal to get 50% co-funding from the private sector. Genome Canada has to raise co-funding but the source has never been an indicator for us. There’s no target for us in the percentage and that’s what took us off guard,” says Godbout. “We had 93 requests in the latest round and after due diligence 27 were cut. But only two were cut because of co-funding. It’s also about management. Genome Canada has the right to ask about management and due diligence, especially in the wake of the Gomery commission.”

NEW DIRECTION

With the financing of a host of new projects, Genome Canada will not hold a new competition this year and won’t issue a call for new applications until the middle of 2006. Godbout describes the intervening year as one of consultation and change within the organization. Longtime chairman Dr Henry Friesen has stepped down, replaced by Dr Calvin Stiller who will work with a board of directors containing many new faces (see below). Godbout says the change in oversight will also bring about a change in approach at Genome Canada that will include the introduction of strategically targeted competitions.

“If we foresee a major change, it is now time to look at what genomics can do for society. It will be a more top-down approach. We already did this on a pilot basis with a competition on BSE and it worked very well,” he says. “This approach will attract more industrial partners and provincial government involvment from day-one instead of waiting for Genome Canada all the time. For the next two or three years there will be targeted competitions before we go back to a more general competition.”

For any new competitions, however, Genome Canada must develop a suitable business case and convince government that further investment is warranted. For government relations – an area previously handled largely by Marc Lepage - Godbout will solicit Stiller’s assistance in making the case for new funding.

“Cal and I will be very much involved in the strategy of how to maneuver in Ottawa,” he says, adding that they will be aiming for a positive response in the next federal Budget if it’s held at its usual time in late February or early March.

R$