Should The Canadian Biotech Industry Fear "Brain Drain" To The US?

---

Across Canada

Recently the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate agreed on a $787 billion stimulus package. In announcing the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, House speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the bill contained the promises of the President, to ‘harness the sun, and the wind, and soil to fuel our cars and run our factories’, and to make American people healthier, and innovation to make the U.S. competitive, through investments in health and science.

Although the science and technology community was expecting to receive funding, this final amount is much more than they expected. In fact, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that the bill contains $21.5 billion for federal research and development. One of the organizations receiving the most money is the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the three agencies contained in the America Competes Act: the National Science Foundation, the DOE Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

In the next 18 months billions of dollars in research will be spent.

So how does this affect Canada? Well it’s quite simple, this is the ideal time to be creating partnerships with U.S. counterparts. Now is the time for Canadian universities and the private sector to share ideas and collaborate with the U.S.
With all this money flowing in the U.S., one begins to naturally question if the Canadian biotech industry should be fearing ‘brain drain’? Biotechnology Focus decided to pose this question to some of our editorial advisory board members and have them weigh in on the topic. Here’s what they had to say:

Colette Rivet
Executive Director
BioTalent Canada

In fact, BioTalent Canada’s Board of Directors was discussing this very item recently.

Since the economic downturn there are significant retention issues in Canada’s bio-economy workforce. Industry wants to keep those skilled people on board for the comeback. However, the decrease in research funding in Canada poses a “hold” on creativity as these firms are just trying to survive.

In addition, with little employment opportunities in the Canadian bio-economy, graduates are going to the United States (US) to try and find work. Even with their lack of experience they may have a better chance for employment in the US. These firms can be more flexible on graduates’ lack of “job-readiness” if they have the human and financial resources to develop their talent.

Even though Canada currently has a leading group of stem cell research scientists, if there is no funding in Canada, there is a significant risk that our brightest minds will be going to the US. Some US funding may trickle to Canada but with the US policy changes in this area, US organizations are eager to make a breakthrough and will need the talent to make the discoveries – they see Canada as a source for this critical talent.

So yes, there is significant concern of a “brain drain” from the Canadian bio-economy workforce. The bright light is that this sector’s broadness, diversity and multi-sectoral approach will help sustain the industry. Our 2008 labour market survey “Splicing the data” indicated that only 23.8% of our companies were working in just one sub-sector; however, the reverse is that about 76% of the companies work in more than one sub-sector – this strengthens the industry’s sustainability. Canada’s bio-economy will survive. In fact, opportunities continue with Canada’s emerging bioenergy / biofuels sub-sector which is seeking the talent needed for a sustainable growth.

Ulrich J. Krull
VP-Research
University of Toronto Mississauga

The economic pendulum for science appears to be swinging favourably for our colleagues in the US. This naturally will stir thoughts about consequences to Canada’s international positioning in the competition for scientific leadership. There is cause for concern in the life sciences on two fronts; financial and opportunity.

The Canadian federal budget contains positive signals that there is a perception that the future of this country is entangled in creativity and innovation, yet there is the reality of escalating cuts to the federal granting agencies, a lack of interest in the “big science” programs of Genome Canada, and little new to address the reality of the extent of mismatch of indirect costs of research. Thankfully the CFI program is once again funded, although this does little to address the operating costs of doing leading research.

The most significant change south of the border beyond the potential of funding more research is opportunity to explore and pursue a wider range of stem cell research. This should help equalize the playing field between Canada and the US.

The reality is that Canada remains well placed with some leadership position in stem cell research, and this could be maintained if the costs of operating and infrastructure renewal can be addressed.
Will there be a “Brain Drain” to the US? – some colleagues will feel a longing for ‘home’, and with barriers to research removed, one can expect some level of migration. Given the momentum and resources in place in Canada, the key to retention is rapid development at the federal level of a comprehensive scientific framework that signals investment using all the major tools that are available. The piecemeal selectivity seen in the latest budget does not provide one with confidence – this is where the US may just leap ahead.

Brad Thompson
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Oncolytics Biotech Inc.

The ban on federally funded stem cell research in the US resulted in many restrictions on academic research. It had very little effect on industry sponsored research in academia and in the companies themselves, as there were no restrictions on stem cell research unless it was federally funded. The lift of the ban will however enhance basic research at the University level in the US. In a broad sense the US plan to inject more research dollars into the system will have a similar short term effect on research generally. However most of the research support for industry research has been and will remain from private sources of capital and the industry itself. The current restrictions in the capital markets on both sides of the border, is resulting in a reduction of industry research in both countries. My fear is not a “brain drain” but a shift of skills of these valuable people from science to other activities outside of science. When this happens they are lost for good.

Carol Reynolds
Director Corporate Development
Genome Prairie

In Canada’s current strong economic position among G7 countries, it is a desirable nation to live and work in.

However, Canada’s recent decline/stagnation in research funding has prompted concern of a “brain drain”. The picture is larger – our nation could fall behind and perhaps be left out of international research collaborations due to lack of funding commitment. As such, Canada could lose its reputation as a leader in areas such as genomics research if competitive funding levels are not maintained.

The additional infusion of funds in research in the US could be positive for Canada, as we have many key scientists and research infrastructure here. However, this also increases our reliance on the US and now is an opportune time to flex our own muscles in this community to show our country’s dedication to the scientific research and in particular, the life sciences.

Canadian researchers already spend excessive time writing grants and “finding” funds to continue their research. This is not the best use of their time. Writing additional proposals for US funds will take up even more of their valuable time. Organizations like Genome Prairie and other genome centers across Canada help researchers with such proposals and provide an important link to Genome Canada. Perhaps additional funding for the operations of genome centres across Canada is an answer – this would enable centres to provide more research grant writing assistance and free up Canadian researchers to do what they do best – their research.

The Canadian federal government is supportive of research and technology and, in this difficult time, is being cautious. However, officials must heed the warning signals from the research community and factor increased research funding into subsequent budgets if Canada is to maintain its position in the global community. Caution is good, but let’s not wait too long.