Biotechnology Focus September 2010

INSIGHTS FOR THE LIFE SCIENCE INDUSTRY

SEPTEMBER 2010 VOLUME 13, NUMBER 8

Also:

GOVERNMENT FUNDING:

Publication Mail Registration Number: 40052410

How to make the most of funding opportunities

One source for biological safety cabinets Fisher Scientific is proud to offer the Thermo Scientific 1300 Series Class II, Type A2 Biological Safety Cabinets.

Less energy consumption and heat output deliver unparalleled cost savings; energy-efficient DC motor technology provides savings in excess of 65% over competitive units. The sleek design is loaded with class-leading features.

Fisher Scientific is pleased to be your one source for the most trusted names in science.

Think Green When the 1300's sash is closed, the night set-back function reduces energy consumption by more than 75% and allows quick recovery to the working mode in minutes.

Special Limited Time Offer Purchase a Thermo Scientific 1300 series BSC cabinet and receive FREE accessories (includes adjustable stand, UV light and armrest.)

To place an order or for more information, please call your Fisher Scientific Sales Representative at 1-800-234-7437 and quote Promo Code LED1203.

Reply Card #4763

ONE SOURCE. INFINITE SOLUTIONS.

contents SEPTEMBER 2010 – VOLUME 13 – NUMBER 8

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

SPECIAL SECTIONs

10 AND THE SURVEY SAYS

Readers respond and share their views on the industry’s hot button issues.

(Compiled by Shawn Lawrence)

16

GOVERNMENT FUNDING Taking advantage of government funding opportunities.

(By Neal Madan)

HOT BUTTON ISSUESOF CANADA’S 18 THE FUTURE

SCIENCE POLICY Building bridges to form Canada’s future science policy.

(By Shawn Lawrence)

20 FIGHTING ARTHRITIS THROUGH CAN

DEPARTMENTS

The Canadian Arthritis Network is working hard to find a cure for the disease.

(By Tonya Costoff)

6

Research news

8

Business corner

22

BIOTECANADA COMMENTS ON CANADA’S POSITION

27 product news 28 Calendar of events

9 Business CORNER

DiagnoCure Oncology Laboratories receives HOT New York State lab BUTTON permit ISSUES

S. www.bioscienceworld.ca

Q&A with BIOTECanada’s president and CEO, Peter Brenders.

(By Shawn Lawrence)

24 CANADA’S BIOTECH ECOSYSTEM A look at Canada’s intricate biotech ecosystem.

(By Robert Ford, Michael Herman, Dan Polonenko and Marc Richard)

SEPTEMBER 2010 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS 3

PUBLISHER’S NOTE PUBLISHER/ EDITOR-IN-CHIEF SENIOR WRITER STAFF WRITER

Canada and Ontario to become a world leader in sustainable chemistry innovations?

W

ell if GreenCentre Canada has anything to say about it, Canada and Ontario will most definitely become a world leader in sustainable chemistry innovations.

In fact, GreenCentre Canada has signed a collaboration MOU with Sarnia, ON, Bioindustrial Innovation Centre (BIC) and Sustainable Chemistry Alliance (SCA). The collaboration memorandum of understanding leverages their expertise, facilities and services with a common goal of moving green chemistry discoveries to market.

GreenCentre Canada works on transforming green chemistry research breakthroughs into clean, sustainable products and processes, focuses on product and application development and intellectual property management. Meanwhile, the Bioindustrial Innovation Centre and the Sustainable Chemistry Alliance foster the growth of renewable, bio-based industries, focus on large-scale investment attraction, process development, and the design and commissioning of continuous pilot manufacturing and demonstration units.

Their common goals have been recognized and will now be built upon by promoting one another’s services and resources to their respective networks; they will also provide commercialization services to selected technologies that each party believes will benefit from the other’s expertise or resources.

“Our organizations share some common goals while bringing complementary talents and resources to the table,” commented Dr. Rui Resendes, executive director of GreenCentre Canada. “It makes enormous sense to support each other’s mandate, and to boost each other’s commercialization efforts. We’re very excited about the potential for this kind of collaborative effort.”

“We realized that by working together we offer a commercialization strategy that overcomes the ‘valley of death’ that threatens many promising Green and sustainable technology discoveries,” said Dr. Murray McLaughlin, executive director of the Bioindustrial Innovation Centre and President and CEO of the Sustainable Chemistry Alliance. “We believe that this reciprocal approach will put Canada ahead of the pack in terms of pushing green, sustainable technologies to market.”

This seems to be a partnership that makes sense and we’ll look forward to watching it flourish.

Terri Pavelic Tonya Costoff Shawn Lawrence

Chris Rogers

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

Neal Madan

Robert Ford

Michael Herman

Dan Polonenko

Marc Richard

National Account Manager

Patricia Bush

GRAPHIC DESIGNER CONTROLLER MARKETING MANAGER SUBSCRIPTION INQUIRIES

Elena Pankova John R. Jones Mary Malofy circulation@promotive.net Fax 905-727-4428

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Najla Guthrie, KGK Synergize; Pierre Bourassa, IRAP, Montreal; Brad Guthrie, Alberta Advanced Education and Technology; Carol Reynolds, Genome Prairie; Ulli Krull, UTM; John Kelly, Erie Innovation and Commercialization; Peter Pekos, Dalton Pharma Services; Brad Thompson, Oncolytics; Darrell Ethell, CanReg; John Hylton, John H. Hylton & Associates; Robert Foldes, Mentis Partners; Colette Rivet, BioTalent; Grant Tipler, RBC; Randal R.Goodfellow, P.Ag., Senior Vice President, Corporate Relations, Ensyn; Bob H. Sotiriadis, LLB,a partner with Leger Robic Richard; Dale Patterson, The Bourton Group; Darcy Pawlik, Syngenta Seeds Canada Inc; Gail Garland, OBIO; Barry Gee, LifeSciences British Columbia Biotechnology Focus is published 10 times per year by Promotive Communications Inc. 24-4 Vata Court, Aurora, Ontario L4G 4B6 Phone 905-727-3875 Fax 905-727-4428 www.bioscienceworld.ca E-mail: biotechnology_focus@promotive.net Subscription rate in Canada $35/year; USA $60/year; other countries $100/year. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Publications Mail Registration Number: 40052410 Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: circulation dept – 24-4 Vata Court, Aurora, Ontario L4G 4B6 National Library of Canada ISSN 1486-3138 \ All opinions expressed herein are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher or any person or organization associated with the magazine.

If you would like to order hard copy or electronic reprints of articles, contact Sandra Service 905-727-3875 x221 reprints@promotive.net

4 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

liberase

Liberase Enzyme Blends

Leading Performance in Tissue Dissociation Mammalian Tissue Free (MTF) GMP Grade and/or sterile according to the European Pharmacopoeia Custom sizes and blends available, according to your specifications For more information please visit: custombiotech.roche.com/liberasegmp

Human Islets isolated by using Liberase MTF

Liberase Enzyme Blends are for further processing only.

LIBERASE is a trademark of Roche. © 2010 Roche Diagnostics GmbH. All rights reserved.

Your Roche Custom Biotech Customer Service Europe, Middle East, Africa, and Latin America: Phone +49 621 759 8580 Fax +49 621 759 8610

Asia Pacific: Phone +65 6371 6638 Fax +65 6371 6601

Japan: Phone +81 3 5443 5285 Fax +81 3 5443 7934

Canada: Phone +1 450 686 7050 Fax +1 450 686 7012

United States: Phone +1 800 428 5433, ext. 14649 (toll-free) Fax +1 317 521 4065

Roche Diagnostics GmbH Roche Applied Science Werk Penzberg 82372 Penzberg, Germany

Reply Card #4764

liberase_ad_biotechnology_focus_206x276.indd 1

19.08.2010 16:49:44 Uhr

R & D NEWS

Four PhD researchers receive serious funding

Clinical Trials & Patents Aegera Therapeutics Inc. (Montreal, QC) releases encouraging survival data from the Phase 1 portion of its Phase 1-2 Study of the novel targeted therapeutic, AEG35156, given in combination with sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer). The study, entitled “A Phase 1-2, Open-Label Study of The X-Linked Inhibitor of Apoptosis (XIAP) Antisense AEG35156 in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma,” is being conducted exclusively in Hong Kong. The interim data, derived from the analysis of the 13 patients treated in the Phase 1 portion of this trial indicates that AEG35156 not only appears to be well tolerated when given in combination with sorafenib but may also prolong progression-free and overall survival when compared to historical data where patients were treated with sorafenib alone.

Median progression-free survival of the Phase 1 patients was about four months and overall survival about 10 months. This data compares favorably with the median progression-free survival of 2.8 months and overall survival of 6.5 months noted in the sorafenib Phase 3 registration trial performed in the Asia Pacific region in a similar patient population.

n

Keith Huynh’s research involves hydrogen gas and fuel cells Four recent PhD graduates receive $70,000 each to apply their research and innovation skills at Queen’s University.

Keith Huynh, Azadeh Moghtaderi, Farhana Zulkernine, and John Lam are among 80 Ontario researchers to receive funding through Mathematics of Information Technology and Complex Systems (MITACS), which provides PhD holders with fellowships to partner with Ontario companies and carry out complex research on real-life projects.

Dr. Huynh is working with the Queen’s chemistry department on projects involving new chemical methods to deliver hydrogen gas to portable fuel cells for transportation applications.

Dr. Zulkernine from the School of Computing is planning to investigate

Farhana Zulkernine is doing research with the Queen’s School of Computing the challenges of storing and analyzing performance management data in large data warehouses. She is doing collaborative research between the School of Computing, Queen’s University and IT management software company Computer Associates.

Farhana Zulkernine is doing research with the Queen’s School of Computing.

Ensuring that Ontario’s PhD holders are retained and equipped for future careers locally, MITACS enables highlyskilled individuals to gain valuable research experience, as well as training in non-technical professional skills.

Studies show that, traditionally, PhDs leave the province in large numbers in pursuit of greener pastures in the U.S. or abroad.

New partnership formed between Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Genome Canada Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) announce a partnered program called “Advancing Technology Innovation through Discovery”.

This program will link next generation sequencing technologies within Genome Canada-funded Science & Technology (S&T) Innovation Centres with gene discovery projects to help speed the translation to clinical medicine and to advance the adoption of new technologies. The focus of the program is on childhood diseases for which genes can be identified in a short time frame and with a small number of subjects to ensure the greatest impact.

“We are excited by this new collaboration with CIHR”, said Dr. Thomas Caskey, Chair of 6 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

Genome Canada’s board of directors, “It’s a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the positive impact that genomics technology can have on our individual health and the role Canada can play in this area.”

CIHR and Genome Canada will each contribute up to $2 million. Additional funding will be sought to help augment the scale of the program and speed development of results.

The first stage of the program will establish national disease consortia to bring together clinicians, geneticists and the S&T Innovation Centres to allow the rapid assembly of patient resources across Canada and the development of an application for the funding.

Oncolytics Biotech Inc. (Calgary, AB) receives a No Objection Letter from Health Canada to conduct its Phase 3 trial examining REOLYSIN in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with platinumrefractory head and neck cancers. This is the same trial that was agreed to by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), under the Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) process, the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the Belgian Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products (FAMHP). As previously disclosed, the randomized, two-arm, double-blind, multicentre, two-stage, adaptive Phase 3 trial will assess the intravenous administration of REOLYSIN with the chemotherapy combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin versus the chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, or squamous cell cancer of the nasopharynx, who have progressed on or after prior platinum-based chemotherapy.

All patients will receive treatment every three weeks (21 day cycles) with paclitaxel and carboplatin and will also receive, on a blinded basis, either intravenous placebo or intravenous REOLYSIN.

n

S:7”

STEM CELLS.

WE DISCOVERED IT’S TIME TO DISCOVER US.

Ontario is home to one scientific breakthrough after

another. From 1963, when James Edgar Till and Ernest Armstrong McCulloch discovered stem cells, to just last year when Dr. Andras Nagy and his team developed a safer way to generate them. With Ontario’s 16% cost advantage over the United States, plus tax credits that can reduce $100 spent on R&D to less than $37, isn’t it time you made a discovery of your own?

Ontario. The world works here.

investinontario.com /research

S:10”

Paid for by the Government of Ontario.

Reply Card #4765

BUSINESS CORNER

Contract awarded for the provincial diabetes registry project eHealth Ontario and Infrastructure Ontario announces that with the awarding of a contract to CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc., a subsidiary of CGI Group Inc. (TSX: GIB.A), work can begin on a chronic disease management system (CDMS) that will be used initially as a Diabetes Registry to manage diabetes care.

The number of Ontarians with diabetes has doubled over the last 10 years - and has grown to more than one million people in 2010. A CDMS to manage diabetes treatment and prevent the onset of related conditions such as heart disease, stroke and kidney disease, will save lives, improve the quality of life for Ontarians, and will contribute to more sustainable health care by reducing a significant burden

on the healthcare system in Ontario. It will also form an essential part of electronic health records.

A system for health care providers to manage diabetes care is one of the key deliverables of the province’s Ontario Diabetes Strategy and a top clinical priority for eHealth Ontario. The CDMSDiabetes Registry will be an interactive, real-time information tool to help providers develop care plans and monitor clinical results to improve care.

The CDMS-Diabetes Registry will build on the foundation of eHealth Ontario’s provincial identification and access systems infrastructure to ensure the secure identification of patients, providers and relevant diabetes health care services, based on common informatics standards and access technology.

Health Canada approves HERCEPTIN® for patients with HER2-positive advanced stomach cancer

After priority review, Roche announces that Health Canada has approved HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab), in combination with XELODA® (capecitabine) or intravenous 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin, for the first-line treatment of patients with HER2-positive metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach (gastric cancer) or gastro-esophageal cancer.

This approval will drive a significant change in the treatment of this devastating disease, allowing patients with stomach cancer to benefit from this life-extending treatment.

The approval is based on the results from the international ToGA trial, which showed that HERCEPTIN significantly prolongs the lives of patients with this aggressive cancer 8 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

without compromising quality of life. HERCEPTIN is the first targeted biological therapy to show a survival benefit in advanced stomach cancer. In patients with high levels of HER2 expression, the overall survival was 16 months in the group receiving HERCEPTIN versus 11.8 months (on average) for patients receiving chemotherapy alone.i Advanced stomach cancer is associated with a poor prognosis; the median survival time after diagnosis is approximately 10 to 11 months with currently available therapies.ii Approximately 15 to 19 per cent of stomach tumours show high levels of HER2.iii,iv “The approval of HERCEPTIN for patients with advanced stomach or esophageal cancer represents a significant advance in personalized medicine,” said Dr. Catherine Streutker, director of Surgical Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital and Assistant Professor, University of Toronto. “HER2 testing these patients enables physicians to quickly optimize treatment outcomes, as it allows healthcare resources to be directed towards those patients who are most likely to benefit from HERCEPTIN, while those who are not can be redirected to other treatment options.”

DiagnoCure Oncology Laboratories receives New York State lab permit DiagnoCure, Inc. announces that the New York State Department of Health has issued a Clinical Laboratory Permit to DiagnoCure Oncology Laboratories, the company’s CLIA-approved and CAP-accredited laboratory in West Chester, PA. The permit allows the lab to test commercial samples originating in New York for the Previstage GCC™ Colorectal Staging Test.

Earning the New York State Permit requires successful completion of a meticulous evaluation program. The program includes on-site inspections, proficiency testing and assessment of personnel qualifications to ensure the accuracy and reliability of laboratory test results. In addition, authorization to accept specimens from New York opens a significant market for Previstage™ GCC. Valerie Palmieri, president of DiagnoCure Oncology Laboratories, commented on this achievement. “This licence, coupled with the rollout of our colorectal cancer disease management program, is a considerable milestone in bringing our proprietary Previstage(TM) GCC test to colorectal specialists nationwide. Previstage™ GCC is the only molecular test available to help better identify whether colorectal cancer has spread to regional lymph nodes. Physicians and patients depend on this information for critical treatment decisions, and it is a top priority to implement the highest quality standards in our laboratory. We are very pleased that this commitment to quality has been recognized by New York State.”

BUSINESS CORNER

Dealmakers Viterra Inc. (Calgary, AB) has priced a private placement of US$400 million aggregate principal amount of 5.95% senior notes due 2020.

The notes, which will be guaranteed by certain of Viterra’s subsidiaries, were issued at a price of 99.481%, will pay interest semi-annually on Feb. 1 and Aug. 1 of each year beginning February 2011, and will mature on Aug. 1, 2020. The private placement of the notes is expected to close on or about Aug. 4, 2020, subject to the satisfaction of customary conditions. Proceeds from the private placement of the notes will be used to reduce borrowings under Viterra’s Global Credit Facility and for general corporate purposes.

n

n Advitech Inc. (Quebec City, QC) announces its intention to complete a non-brokered private placement with AgeChem Venture Fund, LP and Avrio Ventures Limited Partnership, each an insider of the corporation, for a total gross proceeds of $1,500,000.

As part of the private placement, each of

AgeChem and Avrio will acquire from the corporation a total of 15,000,000 units of Advitech at a price of $0.05 per unit for respective aggregate amounts of $750,000. Each unit will be composed of one common share of Advitech and one common share purchase warrant. Each warrant will entitle its holder to purchase one common share at a price of $0.10 until the date that is 24 months after the date of issuance of the warrants. The corporation will use the proceeds of the private placement for its working capital and general corporate purposes.

Amorfix Life Sciences Ltd. (Toronto, ON) enters into a licensing agreement granting Biogen Idec exclusive worldwide rights to Amorfix’s lead amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) monoclonal antibodies. The antibodies have shown efficacy in animal models of ALS and Biogen Idec will now, at its expense, complete the development and prepare for clinical trials.

Under the agreement, Biogen Idec will receive

n

exclusive worldwide license to develop and commercialize Amorfix’s Disease Specific Eptiopes (DSETM) anitbodies for ALS while Amorfix retains all rights for vaccines and diagnostics.

Amorfix will receive an up-front payment of US$1 million and is eligible to receive milestone payments and royalties on sales. Other terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Medicure Inc. (Winnipeg, MB) reaches an agreement with the lender under its secured debt financing agreement dated Sept. 17, 2007 to a further deferral of required payments of approximately US$2.3 million currently owing and an additional $2 million due as of July 15, 2010 (together approximately US$4.3 million) until July 23, 2010. The company is in discussions with the lender regarding its payment obligations in an effort to reach a mutally satisfactory resolution thereof in conjunction with any transaction that may result from the ongoing strategic review process, as previously announced on Jan. 13, 2010.

n

Reply Card #4770 SEPTEMBER 2010 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS 9

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

Canadian Life Science //Compiled by Shawn Lawrence

Survey says: Lack of cash still an issue for Canadian biotech HOT

This marks our fifth Hot Button Issue where BUTTON we ISSUES turn to you, our readers to get a better insight into the happenings in and around the biospace. This time through we upped the number of surveys from two to three with each survey targeted to its own unique group.

The categories were 1) C-Level Executive, Entrepreneurs, Biotech Companies, Contract Research Organization’s and Contract Manufacturing Organizations; 2) Academia, Research Organizations and Institutions; 3) “Other”, a broad category where we hoped to get the rest of our readership involved in

the Hot Button Issue dialogue.

From your answers the consensus among all of you is that everyone from industry, to research institutions and governments and at all levels, needs to be more active in promoting our scientific achievements and explaining to the public and investor communities both the need and benefits of biotech and the life sciences.

Moreover, from your answers you all have expressed, despite your affiliations, that you share many of the same concerns, face the same challenges albeit in different parts of

the research and development spectrum and most importantly are looking for solutions that will make Canada’s biotechnology sector stand out globally.

As such, the results of our latest Hot Button Issue should be taken as an opportunity for the Canadian biospace to dig deeper into the real problems, challenges and hopefully to find some solutions.

Here’s a round-up of what you had to say:

C-Level Executives, Entrepreneurs, Biotech Companies, CRO and CMO Results

W

e asked the biotechnology industry, everyone from C-Level Executive, Entrepreneurs, SME’s, CRO’s, CMO’s and service providers 13 questions to get an understanding of the state of the industry. In addition to giving their feedback on the current state of the industry, they also proposed a series of recommendations.

The first question we posed to our readers was how is the business of biotech faring in Canada? The overwhelming majority in this category saw it as faring poorly. For starters, readers gave Canadian companies a failing grade in terms of commercialization and what financing does exist, is too focused on discovery research. As such, there is minimal commercial biotech in Canada beyond the multinationals.

The companies that struggle the most are our start-ups and SME’s due to an overall capital and financing shortage. Alarmingly 77.3 10 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

per cent of our reader that took the survey stated that financing is harder to come by.

“Financing an early stage life science company in Canada is harder than walking on water,” stated Robert Foldes, Mentis Partners. Theresa Kennedy, vice president communications Resverlogix Corp. expanded on this with her own colourful comments; “Considering the absolute beating it has taken it is remarkable that it is still standing. The public markets can be a lethal trap for those caught up in the grips of some hedge funds while those private companies who cannot become public will die. It’s like a scene from a Stephen King novel but with a touch more cruelty.”

The next question to our readers was how they would rate Canada’s innovation performance. The conference Board of Canada recently gave Canada a D on its innovation performance, ranking it 14th among 17 countries. Our readers seemed to agree.

“Canada is place where good ideas can be developed and more importantly the talent to make the ideas tangible, but proof of concept is dying at the commercialization stage,” stated our own editorial board member and head of the Erie Agri-Food Innovation Initiative John Kelly “Our Innovation record is good, our inven-

tion record is abysmal. There are lots of good ideas and talent to make these ideas tangible, but no carry through because the support systems are not there,” was one response we got back while another was that it’s not from a lack of good ideas and talent, but rather an ability to capitalize.”

The driving factor of this failure according to our readers is that companies in Canada simply don’t have access to enough capital or the resources to generate it.

The fact biotech is itself a high risk sector has left the investor landscape barren.

So what types of programs, government funded, venture based or other would help to alleviate the situation? Some solutions our readers gave were Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants and flow through shares (shares that are currently issued by Canadian oil and mineral exploration companies who pass the tax breaks for exploration onto their investors and thus making the industry attractive to investors).

“An SBIR program to help companies move technology through is imperative. They can help companies mature with some protection,” states Grant Tipler, head of the Life Sciences & Health Services team of the Knowledge Based Industries group at RBC Royal Bank.

Many current funding or financing oppor-

Canadian Life Science

tunities have too many strings attached or are limited by certain conditions, which may not be favourable to the business long term.

This is a big reason that IPO’s are not being explored by Canadian private companies, because they lead to the loss of alternative funding opportunities.

Our readers agreed that the SR&ED program has been a boom for biotech in this country, but it too is bogged down by bureaucracy.

Too much time is wasted on reviewing the funding. “I think we have to do more than just the continuation of the SR&ED Tax Credit Program, we have to expand the SR&ED program to small public companies and equalize the program provincially across Canada,” stated Tipler. Another suggested improvement made by our readers was to make the SR&ED Tax credit payable quarterly.

Our readers are also looking for a new venture capital vehicle with deep sector knowledge. Current vehicles committed to providing such funds are considered too bureaucratic and inconsistent by our readers, moreover, many of these organizations offering these funds seek to leverage their investments to meet multiple and diverse goals that are not always conducive to the biotech’s seeking them.

“The U.S. has a better understanding of the sector and specialized VC’s who understand the long cycle of products, its regulatory pathway and time it takes to get the product on the market, that’s the type of vehicle we’re

looking for,” states Bojana Turic, president and CEO, PMI Labs.

Another suggestion to improve the venture capital situation was to create a reward program which encourages multinationals to invest in R&D in Canada, rewarding them for partnerships with small Canadian companies and universities. Whether it’s accomplished by rewarding investors, or providing grants that match invest funds or tax incentives, more needs to be done to make the industry attractive to investors.

On another front, the shortage of capital has had a direct effect on current job outlook for Canadian biotech. Approximately 30 per cent that took our survey called the outlook below average while another 39 per cent called the current situation poor. On top of this 65 per cent commented that the industry as a whole wasn’t doing an adequate job of recruiting and retaining its talent. CEO’s were quick to point out that this was more than just an HR-related issue. Specifically, because companies are struggling so intensely on surviving there is no focus on retaining talent. The lack of capital has also lead to loss of jobs on two fronts.

1) Through mergers of companies that have left people on the outside looking in, and 2) Investment issues are making it tough for companies to keep their workforce. As such job security in biotech is at an all time low.

It should be noted here, that the suggestions for improving the financing landscape for Canadian biotech have always been a recurring

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

theme in all our Hot Button Issue surveys to date. But are these suggestions making any headway with government? We posed this question to our readers and more than 76 per cent responded that government wasn’t listening to what the life sciences field was telling HOT it. If nothing else, industry needs government BUTTON to get the message that government ISSUES can be of assistance in three ways: through the aforementioned funding solutions, through supporting the development of permanent scientific infrastructure in Canada and through more friendly tax policy.

This leads into the debate on scientific infrastructure with Canadian Science Policy and how it compares with other developed countries. In this area the majority of CEO’s in their responses were looking for more direction from government. While the majority (56.2%) rated Canada’s science policies as average, more than a quarter (30.4%) felt it was poor in comparison to other developed countries. All agreed that things could be done to improve the situation beginning with the appointment of a chief Science Advisor for Canada.

Senior people in government tend to be lawyers and economists without an understanding of science. Owing to the absence of scientist in government and at the cabinet level, government just doesn’t understand the importance of the industry and the role it could play in the provincial and national economies in the very near future, or the role it is already playing.

C-Level Executives, Entrepreneurs, SME’s, CRO’s, CMO’s, Service Providers 1. Do you feel that government is listening to what the life sciences field is telling it?

2. How does Canadian Science Policy compare with other developed countries?

Yes: 22.7% No: 77.3%

Canadian Science Policy is: Excellent 0.0% Above Average 12.5% Average 58.3% Below Average 25.0% Poor 4.2%

3. What is the current job outlook for Canadian biotech?

Excellent 0.0% Above Average 4.2% Average: 29.2% Below Average 29.2% Poor 37.5%

4.2%

77.3% 22.7%

25.0% 58.3%

12.5%

4. Do you feel that the Canadian Biotechnology and Life Science sector is doing an adequate job of recruiting and retaining talent?

5. Do you find financing opportunities: Harder to come by: 78.3% Easier to come by: 8.7% The Same: 13.0%

Yes 37.5% No 62.5%

4.2% 8.7% 37.5% 29.2%

29.2%

62.5%

13.0%

37.5% 78.3%

SEPTEMBER 2010 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS 11

HOT HOT BUTTON BUTTON ISSUES ISSUES

Canadian Life Science

Public sector researchers also feeling the pinch

I

HOT

n our third survey we posed questions BUTTON ISSUES to individuals involved with Academia, HOT Research Organizations and Research BUTTON Institutions ISSUES to gage what they viewed as priorities in improving the sector.

The first question we posed to them was what is the state of research and innovation in Canada? Surprisingly, just 20 per cent felt research and innovation was performing at an above average clip, while 31.4 per cent of respondents felt that research and innovation was performing below average. The rest, 45.7 per cent, rated Canada’s research and innovation performance as merely average. For a country that has prided itself on its scientific achievements, these responses were somewhat discouraging.

So what was the reasoning behind these responses? Firstly, insufficient funding has forced research and development efforts into neutral. At the same time, other jurisdictions, such as the U.S. are pressing ahead. Funding is playing a major role as due to the recent economic downturn; Canada chose to hunker down while other nations forged ahead.

Not surprisingly, the most staggering number to come from our surveys was perhaps the 82.9 per cent of researchers that felt the priorities of funding agencies were out of sync with what the Canadian biotechnology and life science industry needs. Just 14.3 per cent said

that found it the same as in the past but they were also quick to add that the funds available were not monetarily enough to survive on.

Additional administrative burdens in the grant application process are definitely being seen, and because of the recent economic downturn, early stage R&D and gap funding (Technology transfer stage) have already been particularly weakened in Canada.

Respondents commented that the size of grants have not kept pace with the increased cost of labour and supplies.

The suggestions for rectifying the problem ranged from increasing the average grant size, to taking funds and allocating them directly into human resource development, thus addressing recruitment challenges through training programs that give candidates with right experience and skills to work in the bio-economy.

Moreover researchers suggested that the current funding practices by government agencies are too short term, and thus recommended that for funding to truly work, funding agencies need to commit stable funding so that recipients can plan for longer term research and development, and actually have a chance at finishing what they started.

Government still not getting the message When asked whether they felt that government recognized the important role science, technology and innovation could play in the economy of the future, 57.1% of our readers felt that government didn’t recognize it, nor is it committed to improving the situation.

Many were appreciative that commercializing research was the focus of the govern-

4.2% 77.3% Academia, Research

1. What 22.7% is the state of research and innovation in Canada?

Excellent: 2.9% Above Average: 20.0% Average: 45.7% Below Average: 31.4% Poor: 0.0%

12.5% 25.0% Organizations

2, Do you 58.3% feel that

government recognizes the important role science, technology and innovation can play in the economy of the future?

29.2%

29.2% 3. Do you find granting and financing opportunities:

Harder to come by: 82.9% The same: 14.3% Easier to come by: 2.9%

62.5%

42.9%

Excellent: 0.0% Above Average: 11.8% Average: 29.4% Below Average: 52.9% Poor: 5.9%

12 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

78.3%

5. Do you feel that the Canadian Biotechnology and Life Science sector is doing an adequate job of recruiting and retaining talent?

Yes: 36.4% No: 63.6%

5.9% 11.8% 52.9%

82.9%

37.5%

4. How does Canadian science policy compare with other developed countries?

14.3%

45.7%

13.0%

37.5% and Research Institutions

2.9%

57.1%

Like the “C-level” and “Other” survey groups, 63.6 percent stated that the Canadian biotechnology and life sector wasn’t doing an adequate job of recruiting and retaining talent.

“We recruit actively and with success, however, market conditions and investment in Canada are likely to fail in retaining talent as it is often attracted abroad by better investments, or the talent is required to relocate following de-investment from international companies closing Canadian subsidiaries or limiting their Canadian activities,” stated manager, business development Univalor, Louis Provencher.

One senior scientist perhaps summed it up best stating that Canada is not going to attract the best and brightest minds when there is little job security and even less renumeration.

“A fresh PhD graduate as a post-doc earns $40,000 per year. Smart people are not fools to choose such a career when the job prospects are very limited with no long term future.”

8.7%

Yes: 42.9% No: 57.1%

20.0%

Human Resources

4.2%

2.9% 31.4%

ment’s current science and technology policy, but questioned the implementation of this policy.

“They still need to recognize the needs, as in what should be funded. Funding basic science for the sake of doing science and claiming they are supporting the industry is just not enough, especially when funds are not allocated properly.”

Canada’s efforts in establishing a sound science policy didn’t score too highly on our survey either as the majority (52.9%) called Canada’s science policy below average in comparison to other developed countries.

“We are the only G8 country without a government scientific lead,” said one respondent.

29.4%

36.4%

63.6%

Reply Card #4766

HOT HOT BUTTON BUTTON ISSUES

ISSUES

Canadian Life Science

Non C-level and Academic Researcher Responses

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

HOT BUTTON or those who didn’t fall under the cateISSUES

F

gory of academic researcher or C-level executive surveys, this time around we offered a third option. This category included venture capitalists, life science bankers, angel investors and others. Not surprisingly, where the questions didn’t differ from the other categories, the results were quite similar.

Like the CEO category, the first question posed to this group was how the business of biotech was faring in Canada. In response 50 per cent said that business is performing below average while another 20 per cent said it was performing poorly.

Once again the lack of capital is the key issue behind the lag in business, and many survey takers indicated their feelings that while other industries are enjoying 4.2% a bit of a bounce back from the economic down12.5% turn, for biotech and the life25.0% sciences, the 77.3% worst is not over. Many small biotechnology 58.3% 22.7% are too busy just scampering companies to survive as opposed to maximizing returns to their shareholders, while the larger ones are scaling back. There is also a feeling in the

industry that a short term vision of survival has set in and it is a mode the industry can’t get out of it.

However, research and innovation graded highly with these respondents with 40 per cent rating Canada’s performance as above average and 10 per cent calling it excellent. But while they graded Canada’s research capabilities well, they also felt that Canadians have limited success in getting the fruits of our research into the marketplace. Worse still, when Canadians do manage to get their products into the marketplace, often they have sold off commercial rights to their products in order to sustain themselves.

“It’s a brutal cycle,” said one respondent.

“The industry is starved for equity capital because it has not generated a track record of returns.”

Like the C-level survey, to alleviate the situation or aid biotech SMEs this group called for more tax incentives to both the companies, and to investors as a means to get risk capital flowing back into the coffers of these 4.2% companies.

As with the other two survey categories, we posed 37.5% the question does government 29.2% 37.5% 62.5% recognize the important role science, technol29.2% ogy and innovation can play in the economy of the future? Approximately 60 per cent said yes, but that while they’re listening, the actions are minimal. They felt that there

were many ways that government could take a role, beginning with the aforementioned investment and tax incentives and also easing the strain regulatory agencies put on cash strapped biotechs during the patent process.

We also posed two human resource related questions in this category of, the first, what is the current job outlook for Canadian biotech and second whether they felt Canadian Biotechnology and Life Science sector was doing an adequate job of recruiting and retaining talent.

In terms of job outlook, 55.6 per cent said it was below average and another 11.1 per cent gave it the lowest grade as poor. In response to the latter question 60 per cent said no.

A major priority this group wanted to get in front of government was the lack of senior management and addressing the lack of commercialization expertise by encouraging programs that focus on commercialization in academic institutions to compliment the focus on discovery. Both are considered major barriers to growth in the industry by this group.

8.7%

13.0%

For more TO MARKET information visit our 78.3% COMMERCIALIZATION Web Portal at www.bioscienceworld.ca

Other 2.9%

1. How is the business of biotech 31.4% 20.0% faring in Canada?

45.7% 0% Excellent Above Average 1% Average 29% Below Average 49% Poor 21%

2. What is the state of research and innovation in 42.9% 57.1% Canada?

Excellent 10% Above Average 40% Average 20% Below Average 10% Poor 20.0%

1%

Yes: 60% No: 40%

5.9%

4. How does Canadian Science 11.8% Policy compare with other 52.9% developed 29.4% countries?

Excellent: 0.0% Above Average 10% Average: 50% Below Average: 30% Poor: 10%

10.0%

10.0%

10.0%

5. What is the current job outlook for 63.6% 36.4%biotech?

Canadian Excellent 0.0% Above Average 11.1% Average 22.2% Below Average 55.6% Poor 11.1%

11.1%

6. Do you feel that the Canadian Biotechnology and Life Science sector is doing an adequate job of recruiting and retaining talent?

Yes: 40% No: 60%

11.1%

20.0%

21.0% 29.0% 49.0%

2.9%

3. Do you feel that government 14.3% recognizes the important role 82.9% technology science, and innovation can play in the economy of the future?

40.0%

10.0% 20.0%

40.0%

14 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

30.0% 60.0%

22.2% 50.0%

55.6%

60%

40%

Bringing research to market A scientific discovery sitting on a lab bench can’t diagnose or treat cancer. We can help turn it into something that will benefit cancer patients and generate economic activity.

The Ontario Institute for Cancer Research provides expertise and funding for cancer-related discoveries, to help move them to market. Our cutting-edge technologies include next-generation genomics, high-throughput screening, bioinformatics, imaging, pathology and medicinal chemistry.

We offer translational resources. The Ontario Tumour Bank provides high-quality tumour-related specimens and data. The Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board provides a centralized ethics review for multi-centre trials that provides oncology expertise and enables trials to open more quickly.

Our commercialization team has a solid track record in helping projects advance to commercially important milestones such as venture investments, licensing agreements, clinical development strategies and sales initiatives.

Pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies looking for a low-risk investment and novel R&D partnerships that provide access to world-class science collaborate with us. Together we can create value for cancer patients, researchers, industry and investors.

FOR MORE INFORMATION Please visit the website at www.oicr.on.ca/commercialization

Funding for the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research is provided by the Government of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation.

Reply Card #4767

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

Canadian Life Science // by Neal Madan

Need more incentive?

Taking advantage of government funding opportunities in the life sciences sector

What funding options are available?

Government assistance can come in many forms -- grants, loans (on commercial or preferential terms), equity investments, guarantees, cost reimbursements, in kind services, etc. So it’s important to think about the option that makes most financial sense to your organization and its stakeholders. This may depend on your ability to take on debt, the urgency of cash flow needs, appetite for equity dilution, and a variety of other factors.

It’s also important to consider the specific business activities that might be eligible for funding assistance. Depending on your circumstances, a number of options are available.

For example, there are various programs which provide funding to support R&D and innovative technologies. ach year the federal and provincial governments While many people are aware of the Canada Revenue provide millions, if not billions, of dollars to We are seeing many Agency’s Scientific Research and Experimental DevelopCanadian industries to encourage economic de- programs specifically ment (SR&ED) tax incentive program, there are also nuvelopment. In response to the recent economic designed to build merous non-tax funding opportunities out there as well. crisis, we have seen even more programs introduced in an formal partnerA good example is the Industrial Research Assistance attempt to retain jobs and ensure Canada remains competi- ships within the life Program, funded by the National Research Council of tive in the global marketplace. sciences ecosystem Canada. This program, whose key industry sectors do While certain stimulus programs were introduced to – namely the private include biopharma and medical devices, provides finansimply stop the bleeding during the downturn, many other sector, researchers, cial assistance and other support to enterprises for R&D programs exist as a tool to push forward certain desired academic institutions projects, to help these companies develop technologies economic or societal outcomes. A good example is the large and healthcare for competitive advantage. number of incentives available to encourage clean energy organizations.

As well, various HR-based subsidies exist to facilitate activities, as countries begin to tackle global warming.

Collaboration is the job creation, skills training and partnering between the Similarly, more and more programs are designed to name of the game. companies and academic institutions. A few of these position us for the 21st century economy. Recognizing programs exist at the federal level -- for example through that a purely manufacturing or resource-based market can Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and have its vulnerabilities, government fiscal policies appear Service Canada. Additionally, there are even more opportunities to reflect an agenda focused on steering Canada towards a more through provincial/regional governments, depending on the location knowledge-based economy. This includes making significant investof your employees. ments in the life sciences sector.

Interestingly, what many people may not know is that the governAs a result, life science organizations are well positioned to take adment can also provide (or work with private lending institutions to vantage of government funding opportunities. But one has to wonder facilitate) more traditional financing products that companies may whether these programs are being utilized to their full potential? While the use to support working capital needs, exporting activities, expansion, political mandate exists to invest in the sector, many funding programs are acquisitions and other normal business operations. The Business Denot well publicized or well understood. Now if you search long enough, velopment Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada offer an the information is out there in the public domain. But it can be a challenge assortment of options that fall under this category. to navigate your way through the detail. So while companies are generBut help doesn’t just have to come in the form of dollars and cents. ally aware of the existence of government opportunities, they are often Many programs exist to provide services and resources which can unsure of specific programs and whether they qualify for them.

E

16 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

Canadian Life Science

help propel your organization forward. For example, Industry Canada offers free access to its Canadian Company Capabilities database, which can be searched to locate information on Canadian suppliers, distribution channels, competition, partnerships, etc. Other non-cash assistance can come in the form of access to technical expertise, industry networks, research tools, and more.

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts Obviously when considering how and where to inject money into an economy, a key strategic goal for any government is to stretch the benefit to as many parties as possible. As such, we are seeing many programs specifically designed to build formal partnerships within the life sciences ecosystem -- namely the private sector, researchers, academic institutions and healthcare organizations. Collaboration is the name of the game.

As an example, the Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council has a Collaborative Research and Development Grants program, which provides financial support for projects undertaken by university researchers and private-sector partners. It’s intended to be mutually beneficial by giving companies access to the knowledge and educational resources available at post-secondary institutions, while also providing training to students in the necessary technical skills required by industry.

This idea also extends to cross-border collaboration. In an effort to promote and enhance Canada’s international innovation efforts, the government has programs to support Canadian participation in bilateral research projects via partnerships with other nations. A good example of this is the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s Global Commerce Support Program, which provides financial assistance to Canadian companies and/or researchers pursuing international R&D opportunities with players in other countries.

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

financial position of your company. Some programs can possibly facilitate new initiatives that you might not otherwise have the resources to undertake. Or they might simply provide some financial breathing room, to weather the storm during a tough economic period.

Given our current environment, government incentives are plentiful right now. The question is how long and to what extent will they continue? While certain stimulus programs introduced specifically in response to the economic crisis do have a shelf life, that doesn’t mean government involvement in the private sector will disappear anytime soon. In order to manage the ebbs and flows of industry cycles, emHOT ployment levels and political priorities, governments will always conBUTTON tinue to have a hand in Canada’s economic developmentISSUES in some form or another. At the end of the day, it can pay off to do your homework and ensure that cash isn’t being left on the table.

Neal Madan is a Director in the Transaction Services group within PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Consulting & Deals practice. He provides advisory services in respect of mergers & acquisitions, business reviews and other special projects. Neal also leads a PwC offering which assists companies in making the most of government incentive opportunities, by identifying programs clients may be eligible for and guiding them through the funding application process. neal.madan@ca.pwc.com

For more TO MARKET information visit our COMMERCIALIZATION Web Portal at www.bioscienceworld.ca

Making it happen Here’s where the work begins. The first step in the process of obtaining government funding is to research and identify what programs are available and the funding/services they provide. Government websites can be a good start. This can be challenging and it’s important to monitor this regularly, as programs are continually emerging and expiring.

Next, it’s important to evaluate the suitability of your organization’s activities for a particular program, to determine if there’s a logical fit. It’s important to consider what the government’s macro priorities might be for a given program -- for example, job creation, climate benefits, advancing research, etc. Think about what the stated mandate of the program is, and whether your activities align with those goals.

If you decide to move forward with a program, it’s then necessary to drill down to the specific eligibility criteria. These parameters will vary by program, and can include things such as the size of your revenue base, geographic location, number of employees, eligible project costs and various other factors.

Finally it’s time to submit the proposal. While certain applications can be a quick and straightforward form, other programs can have a more involved application process, requiring you to produce a business case, financial forecast, market analysis, etc. The depth and coverage will vary by program, but the ultimate goal here is to satisfy the government that your organization is sound, and those tax dollars are being well spent on your venture.

When opportunity knocks Answer the door. Government programs can bring great untapped value to organizations in the life sciences sector. Taking advantage of funding can make good business sense, and may help improve the

LAWSONRESEARCH.COM

Research, collaboration, and finding answers...

Lawson is one of the largest hospital-based research institutes in Canada. Our 'bench to bedside' approach to medical research means our researchers focus their efforts on the development of new knowledge that can be applied directly to patient care within the hospitals.

Through collaboration and the sharing of their discoveries, Lawson researchers make a difference in patients lives every day.

Reply Card #4768

As the research institute of London Health Sciences Centre & St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, and working in partnership with The University of Western Ontario, Lawson Health Research Institute is committed to furthering scientific knowledge to advance health care around the world.

SEPTEMBER 2010 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS 17

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

Canadian Life Science // by Shawn lawrence

Building Bridges for the Future of Science Policy at the Canadian Science Policy Conference

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

Canada’s national forum on science policy is back for another year, with the goal of “Building Bridges for the Future of Science Policy”.

Building on the immense success of the inaugural Canadian Science Policy Conference held last fall, the 2nd annual Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC 2010) is set to take place October 20-22 in the heart of downtown Montreal.

Born out of growing perception that current Canadian science policy has limited external input from academic scientists and other stakeholders, last years event brought together more than 400 scientists, policymakers, senior government officials and other stakeholders, with the common goal to better science policy in Canada. It was initiated by young researchers and has subsequently received a groundswell of support from prominent members of the science community which has led to it becoming an annual event.

According to conference chair Dr. Mehrdad Hariri, this year’s event is designed to facilitate collaboration and networking amongst diverse groups including scientists and researchers from academia; senior representatives from industry, government, research granting agencies/ 18 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

funding bodies, and NGOs; science policy-makers; science writers and journalists; communications and government relations professionals; CEOs; R&D managers; heads of scientific associations; science studies scholars; students and trainees; and others with an interest in the intersection of policy with science and technology.

Spurred on by a belief that Canada deserves an annual forum dedicated to science policy issues, the 2010 Conference’s motto of “Building Bridges for the Future of Science Policy” seems fitting.

“CSPC’s annual meeting is Canada’s most comprehensive, multisector, multi-disciplinary event devoted to science policy. With this year’s conference we continue our collective efforts to build a robust science policy network in Canada,” said Dr. Hariri.

CSPC 2010 features more than 50 speakers, 14 panels and two workshops, branded across five themes on critical issues in Science and Technology policy in Canada – many of which have never been discussed at a forum on this scale.

The five themes are: 1) Increasing the Productivity of Canada’s Economy using Science and Technology; 2) Global Perspectives on Science and Technology; 3) Creating and Retaining Scientific Talent in Canada; 4) A Glance at BioScience in Canada; 5) Major Issues in Canadian Science Policy. There will be panel discussions on each theme as well as workshops, including two workshops on creating and retaining scientific talent in Canada.

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

Under the theme of Increasing the productivity of Canada’s economy usUnder the theme of ing science and technology, the emphaIncreasing the sis will be on the importance of science, productivity of technology and innovation in driving Canada’s economy the economy through tough times. using science and Likewise, the panel discussions under technology, the the Global Perspectives on Science HOT emphasis will be on and Technology theme BUTTON will delve into the importance of how Canada ranks in terms of science ISSUES diplomacy, global research infrastrucscience, technology ture, as well as focusing on what other and innovation in countries are doing right. One of the driving the economy more interesting additions to this year’s through tough times. agenda is the panels under the glance at bioscience in Canada stream. These panels will give industry a chance to raise its concerns as well as come up with its own recommendations in steering science policy.

All panel discussions will have two main objectives, to identify and discuss current Canadian science policy and where it ranks, and secondly to forge stronger links between all stakeholders and policy makers.

“What we hope to achieve this year is to continue this energy that has built up in the science community, to discuss the issues the science community faces, most importantly to provide a solution oriented conference,” explains Dr. Hariri.

With a new venue and a different theme for 2010, Dr. Hariri and other event organizers are excited by what is expected to be an even larger turnout, estimated at 500 attendees.

“Toronto was great for us last year, but even when we started the planning for this event, we had it in our minds that we didn’t want this conference to be in the same city every year. It came down to several possibilities and we chose Montreal not just because it’s home to one of the largest scientific communities in the country, but also because of the high density of universities, the very large pharma presence, and most importantly because we wanted to reach out to the francophone scientific community, and have them involved in this dialogue to better science policy in Canada.”

Additionally, due to Montreal’s close proximity to Ottawa, Dr. Hariri expects individuals from both provincial and federal governments to be in attendance.

While much was accomplished through the inaugural event, Dr. Hariri hopes this event will do more than just build on the themes discussed from last year.

“The message last year was that we needed new channels of communication among various stakeholders in setting science policy. There were lots of ideas and discussions generated, many of which are being followed up on. Our goal is to renovate our science policy landscape and make it advanced and progressive according to the changes of the world, of the time, of science, of innovation and of the era.”

@

For information on CSPC 2010, visit www.sciencepolicy.ca.

Liquids to Value

We Deliver Your Product. Safely.

When it comes to manufacturing biologicals, there can be no compromise.

You need a centrifuge that efficiently delivers the purest, safest product.

Hydrohermetic centrifuges, only from GEA Westfalia Separator, offer benefits other centrifuges can’t match. The design eliminates seals from the product contact area, where seal abrasion can lead to contamination. Add our exclusive fullsterilization feature, including SIP of the entire installation, and you’ll see just how seriously we take product safety.

To learn more about our centrifuges, contact Dan Van Damme at 289-288-5516 or Dan.VanDamme@geagroup.com.

GEA Mechanical Equipment

GEA Westfalia Separator Canada, Inc. 835 Harrington Court · Burlington, ON L7N 3P3 Phone: 289-288-5500 · Fax: 289-288-5501 Toll-Free: 800-722-6622 24-Hour Technical Help: 800-509-9299 www.gea-westfalia.ca

Reply Card #4769

1305Hc

Canadian Life Science

SEPTEMBER 2010 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS 19

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

Canadian Life Science // by TONYA COSTOFF

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

Canadian Arthritis Network bringing the arthritis community together Canada’s arthritis community is hard at work all year long as it works towards a cure for the debilitating disease. Nearly 4.5 million Canadian suffer from arthritis and that number is expected to increase to six million by 2026. Each year the economic burder of musculoskeletal conditions (mostly arthritis) in Canada is about $16.4 billion. Many people believe arthritis is a disease of the elderly, which is a gross misconception. In reality, most arthritis sufferers are under 65 years of age.

The Canadian Arthritis Network (CAN) has a mission to improve the quality of life of people with arthritis; decrease the personal, societal and economic burden of the disease; and promote the growth of the Canadian economy through research projects in osteoarthritis, inflammatory joint diseases and bioengineering to restore the mobility of joints.

CAN’s resources support its mission in three key areas: the early development of potential treatments, sharing research results that may lead to new treatments and devices, and supporting the work of Canadian scientists.

It acts as the single point of contact that links nearly 200 leading Canadian arthritis researchers and clinicians, 45 Canadian academic institutions, The Arthritis Society, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and government. CAN is also a member of the federal Networks of Centres of Excellence.

With researchers and investors spread out across the county, it can make it hard to share information, create partnerships and ultimately, cure the disease. The Annual Scientific Conference acts as a forum to get people together and take things to that next level.

The 2010 Annual Scientific Conference (ASC), taking place Oct. 28-30 in Gatineau, QC, will offer a fresh format and content to attendees. The ASC acts as an opportunity to understand how the arthritis community is moving towards a cure for the disease, with such critical topics as: pain in inflammatory diseases; patient-oriented outcomes; stem cell and regenerative medicine; and an intensive workshop session on osteoarthritis. Rounding out the conference is the ever-popular trainee day, networking events, scientific poster competitions and a gala dinner with a host of award presentations.

With so many conferences held around the globe, sometimes it’s 20 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

SOME OF THE CURRENT CAN LICENSING/PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDE: Biologic Inhibitor for Treating Inflammation and Leukemia Key Features • Validated novel target with preclinical proof-of-concept for inhibitor efficacy at least equivalent to gold-standard (anti-TNF).

• Multiple therapeutic areas: Inflammation (Crohn’s and Rheumatoid Arthritis) and Oncology (leukemia).

• Strong patent portfolio, dedicated scientific expertise and early phase not-for-profit financing.

Market Opportunity • Anti-TNF therapeutics have been among the best selling classes of biologics, with sales of $16.4 billion in 2007, dominating the treatment of inflammatory disease.

• Although anti-TNFs have widespread use, they have side effects and are ineffective in a large patient population; an antibody with more specific anti-inflammatory activity and a better safety profile is needed.

Stage of Development • Validated target • Technology protected in the US and Europe • Monoclonal antibodies in late stage pre-clinical testing; ready for humanization in 2010 Ideal Partner Interested in licensing this technology as part of a development partnership? The ideal partner will have: • Expertise in antibody development.

• An active inflammatory disease development program.

• A track record of success and expertise in pre-clinical and toxicology studies for biologics.

Contact Brian Bobechko Director of R&D, CAN

Tel: (416) 586-4800 ext. 4117 Email: bbobechko@mtsinai.on.ca

Canadian Life Science

hard to pick and chose the ones worth attending. The ASC sets itself apart by offering different perspectives on each topic by inviting clinical investigators, basic scientists, students, patients, industry and government representatives. In fact, ASC attendees often walk away with new partnerships and collaborations thanks to such a mix of people all being in the same place at the same time. In 2009 there were 330 attendees, but numbers continue to grow each year.

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

At CAN, research is encouraged to be multi-provincial in an effort to prevent silo-type research from taking over. It sees networking as the most important aspect of the entire conference.

For more information on CAN’s programs, visit www.bioscienceworld.ca

Biomarker Based Diagnostic Method and Prognostic Tools for Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis HOT BUTTON ISSUES

Key Features • Statistically robust biomarker-based clinical diagnostic.

• Key biomarker not effected by critical confounders (eg. MTX, orther treatments).

• Rapid clinical diagnostic, requiring small clinical sample volumes.

• Highly amenable to treatment progression monitoring.

Stage of Development • Preliminary proof-of-concept established • Technologies protected as a Method of Use patents • Refined clinical protocol is under development • Large scale clinical validation is required

Market Opportunity • Predicting the clinical outcomes of diseases, such as RA, is still one of the most significant unmet needs. There are currently no predictors of treatment response that are clinically useful.

• The impact of HER2/neu in Oncology suggests that biomarkers have great potential in Rheumatology.

• The regulatory environment in biomarker-diagnostics remains irregular, creating a wider range of competitive opportunity.

Ideal Partner Interested in licensing this technology as part of a development partnership?

The ideal partner will: • Be actively involved in conducting large scale clinical trials on RA and OA patients.

• Provide access to biological samples.

• Partner in leveraging publically available funding to advance the development in the context of clinical testing.

Contact Brian Bobechko Director of R&D, CAN

Tel: (416) 586-4800 ext. 4117 Email: bbobechko@mtsinai.on.ca

BERESKIN & PARR_Biotechnology Focus_May2010.qxd

 

GENES & GENIUS Protect your biotechnology and pharmaceutical innovations and discoveries with the proven expertise of Bereskin & Parr LLP. From securing patents to enforcing intellectual property rights, we have earned the trust of original thinkers on the leading edge.

www.bereskinparr.com 1.888.364.7311 TORONTO

MISSISSAUGA

WATERLOO

MONTRÉAL

Reply Card #4781 SEPTEMBER 2010 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS 21

web ad

COMMERCIALIZATION

Q&A

with Peter Brenders Incorporated in 1987 as the Industrial Biotechnology Association of Canada, BIOTECanada serves as the national voice for industry leadership for Canada’s biotechnology sector. Through its national network of partner organizations, it works to provide solutions to the challenges faced by biotech firms today. As part of our special September Hot Button Issue, Biotechnology Focus sat down with BIOTECanada president and CEO Peter Brenders on the eve of National Biotech Week to get his views on the current state of the industry and what we should expect at Canada’s annual week-long celebration of the industry.

Biotechnology Focus: How is the business of biotech faring in Canada?

Peter Brenders: The signs are positive as we’re seeing biotech rebound from the lows of 2009 with financings returning to more normal levels. Not to say that it’s been easy in any way, shape or form but biotech is on track to exceed last year’s numbers. Generally, we’re seeing a little more optimism in the field that money is out there and our good companies are certainly getting access to it. We’re seeing a number of mergers and acquisitions that are up, that’s leading to new life. Companies that adapted, that found ways to adapt are the ones surviving because they’ve come up with new business models to succeed and are finding creative ways to take their products to the next step.

BF: How would you rate Canada’s current innovation performance?

PB: We have a very strong history and record of innovation and certainly great potential.

There’s very strong support in place for basic research in Canada, but I think our challenge becomes taking it to that next step and capturing the full return on that investment. We have the innovation, but it comes down to financing and being able to make sure that we can get the capital our companies need to be able to finish the job in Canada.

BF: What are Canada’s strongest attributes when it comes to biotech, and its weakest?

PB: Our strength is our science but we also have a strong entrepreneurial culture within our emerging companies. There is a real desire to create start-up companies in Canada. Our biggest weakness really comes down to early stage financings. Financing an early stage life science company in Canada is certainly not for the weak of heart. Venture 22 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

money, and risk capital for biotechnology in Canada is virtually non-existent. In 2009, we saw the lowest levels for financing in over a decade. A lot of that venture money goes to other sectors, forcing biotech to go abroad to find money. Thankfully, we have many companies that have continued to fight the fight and are very successful at it. As tough as all the messaging is out there, we mustn’t lose sight of some of the great successes we’re having. There are successful companies in biotech and; there is money to be made in biotech, and big deals are being closed. The money is coming in, our companies are getting to milestones and we are seeing success, and we need to focus on highlighting this success and remind investors of the ongoing and long-term potential for growth of our sector and remind them that they’re missing out on this.

BF: Are biotechs taking advantage of the programs available to them, and if not, what can be done to improve accessibility or communication of these programs?

PB: For some of the really early stage programs like IRAP, sure companies are taking advantage of those. They’re accessing them.

Would they like more? Absolutely. Would they like the funds to come faster? For sure.

And that’s what we’re pushing for, that opportunity to be a little bit quicker, more flexible, to get cash back into the hands of Canadian biotech companies. What can be done to improve it, simply speed of execution and a focus on the objective not the bureaucracy and paper work.

BF: Do you think Canada’s science policies are hindered by a lack of leadership from the top?

PB: Being without a chief science officer is one factor, but not necessarily the only factor that helps develop science policy. The federal government did come out with a science and technology strategy and they’ve announced in their budget earlier this year that they want to look at stimulating more domestic research and development. We laud the interest in the space.

Part of the responsibility also comes back to us as an industry to clearly show what the future that can be, as we discuss in our Beyond Moose and Mountains Blueprint. We can be a world leading bio-based economy; we just need to have that goal in the forefront. Do we need leadership sure, but we need leadership all around. We need to be taking the message out to Canadians that biotechnology, this biobased economy, is Canada’s future. We need to show our government partners our value as an industry so that they can put the programs in place to help us with capital formation, to help us with people development, to help us with an operating environment.

BF: What are some of the key hot button issues that BIOTECanada is lobbying both government and the industry for right now?

PB: We’re continuing to focus on the three areas laid out in the Blueprint: finance, people and operating environment. If you take the sub-specifics within each, our pre-budget submission to the finance committee of the House of Commons examines the need to expand the flow-through shares into the biotechnology industry. Flow-through shares have worked well in oil and gas, and mining, and expanding this program for our small biotechs would assist in creating a more stable financing environment in Canada.

Our second focus is how to keep the continued on page 30

web ad 2.qxp

12/23/2005

10:43 AM

Page 1

ca

The Targeted Choice For News And Information On The Canadian Life Sciences Sector

ON TARGET

Read insightful articles on the latest deals, hot button issues, technologies, products and research in Canada and abroad from Canada's premier life sciences publication Biotechnology Focus magazine.

Read articles from Laboratory Focus, the magazine for the latest in lab products and technology.

Go deep and read our thought-provoking articles that touch on specific topics of interest.

• Subscribe to personal e-mail newsletters and keep up-to-date on the news and information that affects your career.

• Keep current with our daily newsfeed service.

• Network with your colleagues.

• View the latest products and technology.

ca

Visit: Insights for the life sciences industry

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

Canadian Life Science //

by By Robert Ford, Michael Herman, Dan Polonenko and Marc Richard, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP

Canada’s biotech ecosystem: HOT BUTTON ISSUES

One does not often consider how all the intricate parts of our car, television or washing machine work together until something malfunctions. An ecosystem operates in much the same way.

By looking at three main components of Canada’s biotechnology ecosystem: protecting new intellectual property, transferring new technologies to industry, and financing new commercialization ventures, we will examine if Canada’s life sciences ecosystem is functioning in harmony and evolving to respond to new pressures to keep pace with the international biotechnology community.

Protecting innovation The patent system is often described as a bargain between the public and inventors. In return for disclosure of an “invention”, a government through its Patent Office grants time-limited exclusive rights to inventors for exploitation of their inventions. Within this part of the ecosystem, the question of what is required of an inventor to meet the “disclosure” requirements has been the recent subject of considerable jurisprudential discussion.

In Canada, patent applications are prosecuted and issued according to the terms of the Patent Act. A primary requirement is the specification must describe the invention in sufficient detail to permit another skilled person to reproduce the invention.

Recent court decisions impose obligations that go beyond the statutorily defined requirements. In Eli Lilly v. Apotex (2009), the Federal Court of Appeal held there is a “heightened” disclosure requirement for sound prediction in patent specifications. The claim at issue related to the use of a compound to treat osteoporosis. Actual data supporting human efficacy had been outlined in an abstract prior to the filing date, but the data itself was not included in the specification. The Court concluded that even though the specification met the first two elements required to establish a sound prediction (a factual basis and sound line of reasoning) since the data was not included in the specification, the patent lacked the third element of “disclosure of the basis for the sound prediction.”

Patents are often challenged on whether their specifications satisfy the Patent Act’s disclosure requirement for sound prediction. This, notwithstanding that the Court of Appeal in Pfizer v. Ranbaxy (2008) clearly held the disclosure requirement under the Patent Act is not concerned with whether sufficient data is provided to substantiate the claims. Nonetheless, in Eli Lilly v. Novopharm (2009), the Federal Court held the disclosure requirements for sound prediction and sufficiency of disclosure, in the case of a selection patent, were “coextensive.” However, the recent appeal judgment firmly rejected this notion and confirmed that Pfizer v. Ranbaxy ought to be followed. In 24 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

another recent decision, the Court declined to opine on a contentious issue relating to sufficiency (PfizerLimited v. ratiopharm Inc. 2010). In the Court below, the Judge had concluded one may look to evidence of what the inventor had contemplated as the invention in determining whether the disclosure was sufficient (ratiopharm Inc. v. Pfizer Limited 2009). This seemingly expanded on the statutory obligation to describe the invention and how it works.

There remains some uncertainty in Canada with respect to the disclosure requirements for a patent specification. Heightened disclosure requirements could also put Canada out of step with other jurisdictions and disadvantage Canadian entities. This is of particular concern in the Canadian biotech sector, which is primarily comprised of early-stage research companies.

Requirement to generate more data for disclosure in patent specifications imposes a burden on smaller entities that have less capacity to conduct capital-intensive work required for commercialization.

Such entities may not have assets to monetize if their primary innovations cannot be protected. This trend will be monitored and innovators will be required to adapt to changes in this part of the ecosystem.

Taking the idea to the next level: The role of academia in the ecosystem Universities are key producers of ideas, research and potential products, and it’s their Tech Transfer Offices (TTO), also known as University-Industry Liaison Offices or Industry Liaison Offices, that work to drive this success.

A primary source of research funding for Canadian university professors is the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Recent reviews by the Conference Board of Canada of Canada’s performance in creating, protecting and commercializing innovations suggest Canadian institutions are under-performing in reference to those in other G20 countries (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/default. aspx). NSERC has proactively taken steps to stimulate commercialization and dissemination of NSERC-sponsored university research through its recently concluded three-year “Intellectual Property Mobilization” program and by revising its IP Policy to allow for more flexible access to IP developed as a result of NSERC funding (http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/ NSERC-CRSNG/Policies-Politiques/ip-pi_eng.asp).

Traditionally, commercialization of university research is the responsibility of an administrative office within a university proper or alternatively, resides in a university-owned subsidiary company.

nko LLP

Canadian Life Science

Regardless of where they reside within the university organization, TTOs are the primary point of contact for companies that wish to acquire universities’ patented or patent-pending technologies under various forms of license agreements and related business arrangements. TTOs are also the primary contact for university researchers who wish to know if their research results are patentable, or to seek guidance in responding to business inquiries regarding collaborative or sponsored research. Additionally, TTOs have responsibilities for making patenting decisions and managing patenting processes for IP generated at universities.

While most universities expect TTOs will be self-funded by revenues generated through licensing-out their IP and/or negotiating sponsored research contracts and programs, the reality is almost all Canadian TTOs require significant subsidies for staff salaries and operating budgets. The consequence is these TTOs are typically under-funded, under- or inappropriately-staffed, and have inadequate funding available for properly protecting IP. Are TTOs, therefore, viable players in a well-functioning biotech ecosystem? Despite dealing with issues such lack of internal expertise, limited ability to assess potential commercial value of inventions, working in a reactive mode to emergency requests for patent filings prior to public disclosures, a successful TTO can be a powerful force.

Because patenting costs represent a significant component of annual TTO costs, most focus on reducing and controlling expenditures on new patent filings by placing emphasis on filing U.S. provisional applications to protect new technologies, and then on using a U.S. provisional application as filed to secure an exclusive license agreement with a company within a year of filing. The license agreements typically require licensees to take over financial responsibility for subsequent prosecution and related patent filings. If a license has not been secured or if there is little commercial interest in the technology, then often no further steps are taken to protect the technology and it enters the public domain as a consequence of inventors’ disclosures at conferences and in technical publications.

In many cases, TTOs request their IP service providers to file U.S. provisionals based on minor revisions to draft manuscripts or technical summaries provided by the inventors, in attempts to reduce the

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

patent filing costs. Some are now putting new invention disclosures out for bid to selected IP service providers to secure the lowest price for preparing and drafting their applications.

These “minimize IP cost” approaches, however, do not take into account what companies are looking for in technologies they license in.

Companies use IP to protect and expand their current areas of business activities, and to capture new business opportunities. Therefore, focusing patent applications on identification and protection of the business opportunities created by the new IP and the related revenue-generating streams (e.g., devices, compounds, compositions, manufacturing or HOT processing methods, use, etc.) will result in creation of licensable patent BUTTON applications. The reality is patent drafting and prosecution require conISSUES siderable interaction between inventors, IP service providers, and TTO staff to ensure creation of licensable patent applications. Fortunately, there is an emerging trend in some TTOs on focusing patenting decision processes and allocating their IP budgets to filing fewer, but much higher quality U.S. provisional patent applications that not only read similarly to regular applications, but satisfy business objectives.

Commercialization – Where is the money?

The interplay between various entities within a TTO is similar to those players in the next stage of development: commercialization.

In the Conference Board of Canada report referenced earlier, Canada received a “D” for its innovation performance over the past three decades. In particular, Canada was criticized for not having taken the steps to ensure science can be successfully commercialized and used as a source of economic advantage.

The dilemma is particularly acute in the biotechnology sector where commercialization of innovative research requires a healthy ecosystem coordinated between industry, the financial community, government, academia, and research institutions. A healthy ecosystem reveals the mutual dependencies and collective responsibility of all involved constituencies to create conditions for successful commercialization.

However, the current environment reveals an overriding fundamental problem. Canadian companies do not have access to capital required to facilitate new commercialization. Estimates of the capital needed annually vary between $1 billion to $1.5 billion; the amount of capital actually

Life Sciences Eco System Note: based in part on ideas and concepts contained in Science Business, The Promise, The Reality and The Future of Biotechnology

by Greg Pisano, Harvard Business School Press.

Universities & Government Research Labs

Grants

Government Funding Agencies

Technology Transfer

Intellectual Property Big Pharma Companies

Investment, M&A Licensing/Alliances

Health Canada Regulations/FDA Drug Pricing Regulations/Policies

Venture Capital

Biotech Companies

Customers Doctors Insurers On-line purchasers

Government Patients Hospitals/Clinics Export markets

Large Pension Funds/Endowments/ Investors

Device Companies

Public Investors Corporate Governance

SEPTEMBER 2010 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS 25

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

Canadian Life Science

dustries. While other parts of the ecosystem, including better development of entrepreneurial and senior management skills, can be improved, these issues pale in comparison to the broken biotechnology financing ecosystem.

We need to find ways to actively stimulate capital formation for the life sciences industry.

We need a strong domestic venture capital industry with active participation by financial institutions. Without a stable and credible domestic base, the potential to attract U.S. and

available to the Canadian biotechnology sector falls woefully short. Unless funding solutions are found, it will be virtually impossible to strengthen the ecosystem as a whole.

Over the past few years, federal and provincial governments have introduced programs to improve the capital formation environment, with disappointing results. Other competing countries including the U.S., the UK, Israel, Australia, Taiwan and Singapore, have actively HOT enhanced their domestic biotechnology inBUTTON ISSUES

SRC101

I wish to receive/continue to receive a complimentary subscription to

Yes

BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS

print

Format Preference:

digital

No

both

Signature:____________________________________Date: ___________________________

Name:_________________________________Title: ____________________________________ Company: ______________________________Dept: ___________________________________ Business Address : _______________________________________________________________ City:_____________________________Prov: __________Postal Code: ____________________ Telephone: ___________________________Fax: ______________________________________ E-mail: ________________________________________________________________________ On occasion, BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS will send third-party information on products & services related to the lab and life science industries. These may be cancelled at any time. Please check here if you do NOT wish to receive these.

TITLE 50 51 52 53 54 55

Executive Mgmt.

Academic Research Quality Control/Assurance R&D Mgmt.

Lawyer Student

COMPANYs PRIMARY BUSINESS ACTIVITY 50 Private Industry 51 University/College 52 Hospital/Medical Centre 53 Research Institute/Foundation

56 Financial Management 57 Business/Corporate Development 58 Consultant 59 Lab Technician/Research Assistant 60 Sales/Marketing 61 Regulatory Affairs/Validation 99 Other (Specify): ______________________ 54 Pharmaceutical Co. 55 Government 56 Financial Services 99 Other (Specify): ______________________

B Recommend

A B C D E F G

Analysis Instruments Basic Lab Equipment Chemicals/Biochemicals Chromatography – Gas Chromatography – Liquid Filtration, Water Purification LIMS

H I J K L M Y

Liquid Handling & Sample Prep Microscopes, Optics, Cameras Safety & Hygiene Spectroscopy Testing Systems/Equipment Vacuum Equipment None of the Above

C88 Product Development Stage (check all that apply) A Research/Development B Pilot/Scaleup

C86 Buying Influence A Authorize

C87 Which products are used in your lab?

C Production/Manufacturing D Tech Transfer E Not applicable

C Specify

PLEASE ENTER THE READER SERVICE CARD NUMBER TO RECEIVE INFORMATION

C89 Are you building a new lab?

Yes

No

C90 We have the following enewsletters: Numbers for advertised products can be found on the ad and in the advertisers’ index

1 Biotechnology Focus Weekly 2 Laboratory focus Weekly 3 Drug Discovery

4 Commercialization 5 Bio-energy 6 Nutritional Products

For a quick response please fax: 905-727-4428 or e-mail: circulation@promotive.net 26 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

other foreign venture capital is very much limited. Our governments’ role must be to create the conditions for investment, instead of making direct investments.

Venture capital investment in Canada did improve slightly in the first half of 2010 compared to the same period in 2009, although it remains far below historical levels. In the life sciences sector, venture capital investment in the second quarter of 2010 increased year-over-year by 13 per cent to $91 million.

However venture capital fundraising remains fairly anaemic and the overall outlook for significant growth and improvement in the VC sector is not positive.

It is time for bold action to improve access to capital for the industry before it is too late.

Possible solutions such as enhanced tax credits for qualified investments (similar to those introduced by the B.C. provincial government in its Small Business Venture Capital Act), enhancements to the Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax credit program, including the removal of the “Canadian controlled private corporation” restriction on eligibility for refundable tax credits, capital gains tax exemptions for investments in biotechnology companies, and a modified flowthrough share program for the biotechnology industry, integrating the venture capital sector into the program, should be carefully analysed and considered. The industry is too important to Canada’s economic future and the country has invested too much time and money developing a global leadership position in its research capabilities, to squander our potential and advantages by failing to provide optimum conditions for the commercialization of these essential products and technologies.

While an ecosystem is a complex machine, ensuring its parts are working effectively results in a successful innovation environment. Adapting to changing patent trends, working effectively with support organizations such as a TTO and improving Canada’s economic programs for effective commercialization are all ways to help Canada’s ecosystem function in harmony.

Robert Ford and Michael Herman are business law partners and co-chairs of Gowlings’ Venture Capital group. Dan Polonenko is a partner and patent agent in our Vancouver office. Marc Richard is an IP litigator based in Ottawa. www. gowlings.com

For more TO MARKET information visit our COMMERCIALIZATION Web Portal at www.bioscienceworld.ca

NEW PRODUCTS Mixer stands Sharpe Mixers introduces a line of portable mixer stands that eliminate the need for multiple mixers in a wide range of applications, especially where the mixing requirements vary. Sharpe Portable Mixer Stands feature all stainless steel construction and eliminate the need for several mixers in applications where the number of tanks being mixed varies. Providing power assist raising and lowering of the mixer’s shaft into the tank, it comes in an electric series (ELS) with a remote control or in a compressed air-operated series (ALS). Available with a 36”, 48”, and 60” stroke length, Sharpe Portable Mixer Stands meet USDA paint-free equipment mandates and can be supplied with a variety of options such as counterweights, adjustable leveling guides, and locking casters. The ELS-Series includes a 1/2 HP motor with a worm gear drive and can be electro-polished and provided with ASME-BPE validation.

perspectives of molecules, not available in computer simulations.

Reply Card #4773 Anaerobic chamber Sheldon Manufacturing, Inc. announces the release of its new BacBASIC Anaerobic Chamber.

The BacBASIC is ideal for environmental and incubation work in microbiology and cell biology applications. The new Shel Lab BacBASIC Anaerobic Chamber is designed with the clinical/research laboratory scientist in mind by providing bare-handed access for delicate procedures without compromising the required desired hypoxic atmosphere. The new ergonomically designed Quick-Entry Glove-Less arm ports provides maximum reach and comfort.

The BacBASIC chamber is 32.5” wide, 19.5” deep and 22” high providing storage capacity for up to 150 petri dishes. The user-friendly LCD control panel offers a temperature range from ambient to 45°C.

Thermometres Omega’s new line of handheld metres are high accuracy thermocouple, RTD or combined input data logging thermometres. There are three display locations on the large, easy-to-read LCD that displays the temperatures and differences of the two inputs as well as the specific function when in use. The front of the device features MAX/MIN/AVG/REL/ HOLD functions. The HH100 logs data in real time PC monitoring and each channel is capable of storing up to 9999 data records per channel in the data logging mode. Also included with the product is a protective rubber boot over the device and PC software. Ideal for R&D, food, and all types of lab temperature experiments.

Reply Card #4774

Reply Card #4772 CPK models Harvard Apparatus features CPK atomic models. The accuracy, scale and ease-of-use of the CPK atomic models make it one of the best model systems. It can be assembled, disassembled and reassembled easily using simple construction tools. CPK atomic models are offered in three different formats: as individual atoms, connectors and accessories; as sets for construction of specific molecules; and as pre-assembled molecular models, e.g., amino acids, purine and pyrimidine bases, nucleosides, nucleic acid helices, fatty acids and derivatives, enzyme cofactors, water and fat soluble vitamins and many more. CPK models are effective teaching tools, great tools for new drug presentations and allow the user to visualize chemical structures for enhanced understanding. It is also extremely durable and provides true 3D and spatial

Incubator Sanyo North America Corporation Biomedical Solutions Division launches its CytoGrowTM GLP series of cell culture CO2 incubators that include the 6.0 cu.ft. MCO-18AC, MCO-18AC(UV) and the 12.0 cu.ft. MCO-36AC and MCO-36AC(UV).

Ideal for research and clinical microbiology, CytoGROW™ CO2 incubators offer a precise control and contamination resistance solution when most critical for mainstream cell culture applications. The CytoGROW™ GLP CO2 incubator series is designed to accommodate a variety of microbiological and cell culture protocols used in various laboratory settings. Exclusive SANYO inCu saFe™ copper enriched stainless steel interior surfaces provide constant germicidal protection against cross contamination among specimens or contaminants introduced during routine door openings.

Reply Card #4775

Reply Card #4776 Syringe pump KD Scientific’s new Legato 270 Syringe Pump has an optimized user configurable syringe mechanism designed to deliver a full volume in infuse and withdraw modes whether using small or large syringes. The reconfigurable mechanism allows the user to change the syringe clamping mechanism to hold from 0.5 ul up to 140 ml syringes. Two removable pins adjust the syringe mechanism to allow full stoke of the larger syringes. The Legato 270 features a continuous push and pull pump. When used with check valves, the unit will draw fluid from a reservoir while the opposite side is dispensing fluid and after the user selected volume is dispensed, the pump will automatically switch through the check valves and refill the empty syringes while dispensing from the other side. This will continuously dispense as long as there is fluid in the reservoir.

Reply Card #4777 SEPTEMBER 2010 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS 27

CALENDAR Company & Advertiser Index SEPTEMBER 2010 September 15 BioPharm America Venue: Boston, MA Tel: (760) 930-0500 Email: hmersy@ebdgroup.com

September 17 IMAGENENATION-National Biotechnology Week Web: http://www.biotech.ca

September 19-23 HUPO 2010 Venue: Sydney Convention & Exhibition Centre, Sydney, Australia Tel: +61 (0) 9254 5000 Fax: +61 (0) 0251 3552 Email: info@hupo2010.com Web: www.HUPO2010.com

September 21 BIO India International Partnering Conference Venue: Hyderabad, India Email: tdalal@bio.org Web: http://www.bioindia.bio.org/ opencms/bioindia/2010

October 12 CONNECT: Next Happens Here Venue: Vancouver Convention Centre – West, Vancouver, BC Tel: (604) 683-2724 or 1-800-665-7222 Fax: (604) 683-6567 Email: info@bcic.ca Web: www.connectnext.ca

October 20-22 Canadian Science Policy Conference 2010 Venue: Montréal, QC Email: dsiele@sciencepolicy.ca and Melissa@sciencepolicy.ca Web: http://www.sciencepolicy.ca/ cspc2010

COMPANY

Page

RC

Advitech Inc............................................. 9..................................

AgeChem Venutre Fund, LP..................... 9..................................

Aegera Therapeutics Inc.......................... 6..................................

Amorfix Life Sciences Ltd......................... 9..................................

Avrio Ventures Limited Partnership......... 9..................................

Bereskin & Parr.............................................21............................ 4781 BIOTECanada.......................................... 22.................................

BioTalent Canada.........................................31............................4779 Canadian Institutes of Health Research... 6..................................

October 28-29

Canadian Science Policy Conference......13............................4766

British Columbia Preclinical Research Consortium (BCPRC) Inaugural Symposium Venue: SFU Harbour Centre, Vancouver, BC Web: www.bcprc.ca

CGI Information Systems and......................................................

NOVEMBER 2010 November 16-17

Management Consultants Inc.................. 8..................................

Children’s Miracle Network....................... 9.............................4770 DiagnoCure, Inc....................................... 8..................................

Eppendorf.................................................... 32............................4780 Fisher Scientific............................................ 2.............................4763 GEA Westfalia Separator Canada, Inc......19............................4769

BCSLS Annual Congress Venue: Vancouver, BC Tel: (604) 714-1760 Fax: (604) 738-4080 Email: bcsls@telus.net Web: www.bcsls.net

9th Annual Market Access Summit Venue: Four Points Toronto Airport, Toronto, ON Contact: Jennifer Mirara (ext. 253) Tel: 1-866-298-9343 Fax: 1-866-298-9344 Email: mirara@strategyinstitute.com Web: www.marketaccess.ca

OCTOBER 2010

DECEMBER 2010

Medicure Inc............................................ 9..................................

October 5

December 5-7

Omega.................................................... 27.........................4776

CanBio National Conference Vancouver, BC Web: http://www.canbio.ca

BioPartnering China Venue: Renaissance Shanghai Pudong Hotel, Shanghai, China Web: www.techvision.com/bpc

September 30

October 6 BioContact Quebec City, QC Web: http://www.biocontact.ca

October 11-13 Translational Research Excellence 2010 Venue: Brisbane, Australia Web: www.trx10.com.au

December 11-14 Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy Venue: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA Email: pacrim@bio.org Web: www.bio.org/pacrim

Genome Canada...................................... 6..................................

Harvard Apparatus.................................. 27........................ 4773 Health Canada......................................... 8..................................

KD Scientific............................................ 27........................ 4777 Lawson Health Research Institute...........17............................4768

Oncolytics Biotech Inc............................. 6..................................

Ontario Institute for Cancer Research....15............................4767 POI................................................................. 29............................4778 Province of Ontario..................................... 7.............................4765 Queen’s University................................... 6..................................

Roche............................................................. 5.............................4764 Sanyo North America Corporation...............................................

Biomedical Solutions Division................. 27........................ 4775 Sharpe Mixers......................................... 27........................ 4772 Viterra Inc................................................ 9..................................

28 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

media:scape™

furniture and technology merged to help teams access and share information www.steelcase.com/cometogether

expect more

Contact us to learn more

·media:scape™ creates a collaborative destination ·Everyone can share their digital information instantly ·Information is visible by all participants

POI Business Interiors has more than 50 years of experience in providing knowledge, products and services that help people work more effectively.

We understand the issues facing organizations today.

T 888 296 9967, F 905 479 6941 www.poi.ca info@poi.ca

Reply Card #4778

Final

COMMERCIALIZATION continued from page 22 money here, and the jobs here and that speaks to things like the SR&ED credit.

In Canada, the scientific research and experimental development tax credit has two arms. There is a 35 per cent refundable tax credit, that’s cash back, 35 cents on every dollar you spend, but it’s only available to Canadian controlled private companies, or CCPCs. So any company that does an Initial Public Offering (IPO) loses those credits.

Any company that gets large non-Canadian investment and loses its Canadian controlled aspect, they too lose the refundable credits.

And if they lose the refundable tax credits, they fall to the second level which is just the 20 per cent investment tax credit.

So, if you’re a company looking for investment, you find that there isn’t any investment in Canada, you go abroad and get your foreign investment, all of a sudden you lose that 35 per cent, it effectively goes to 0, and you are losing the business case to keep your jobs here. And when foreign investors look at this situation from the outside, they say why are you staying in Canada?

In biotech, a lot of these companies are pre-commercial, and don’t pay taxes. The refundable credit is real cash and that gives companies money to reinvest and maintain job sustainability. As such, it doesn’t make any sense to limit the refundable credits only to private companies, rather, these should be anyone who is doing in research and development, public or private, here.

It doesn’t matter who owns the company, it’s about the work being done in Canada.

We’ve been talking about this for awhile, Ontario used to have this restriction on a provincial level and they withdrew it back in 1999, and provinces that have since implemented SR&ED credits don’t have this restriction. Really, the CCPC restriction is a throwback to a different time, before free trade when there was a belief in protectionism and that Canadian controlled companies were much harder done by.

Another focus is the renewal of funds for vaccines, its one thing to develop it, the next thing we need to do is have a market for it, and then the last one is to recapitalize the sustainable development technology Canada fund, to make sure that’s available for not just biofuels, but next generation fuels and next generation biochemicals as well.

That speaks to the financing environment; we continue to work within our policy committees on a range of areas that involve the operating environment. Everything from working with the government in terms of the introduction’s of new crops for food and biomass, improvements to the regulatory 30 BIOTECHNOLOGY FOCUS SEPTEMBER 2010

environment, to make sure that the backlog that they’ve slipped into disappears quickly, establishing a framework for orphan products for example. So there’s a litany of things that can be changed to allow companies to compete more effectively.

BF: Turning our attention to National Biotech Week, what are the major themes of this year’s event?

PB: Overall our theme this year is “powered by the bioeconomy.” We’re also focusing on our Beyond Moose and Mountains industry strategy. We want to show the integration of biotechnology in all aspects of our economy.

One of our partnerships this year is with Genome Canada and the regional genome centres. That network is part of our launch.

Just as the draft code of the human genome and the study of genomics opened the door to new avenues and approaches within biotech research, so now we can also show how biotech is changing how we understand and develop a traditional economy. We can see its footprint into industries like forestry, it’s footprint into materials, into bio-based chemicals and into so many other aspects of our traditional economy beyond just health.

That’s where we’re trying to direct people’s attention, that biotech is more than just medicines.

BF: What’s new this year in terms of the broad range of cross-country events?

PB: We have a cross-national launch planned this year with a series of virtual and real and video launches in place on September 16, 2010. It’s the first time we’ve done a cross country launch and so we’re excited by the opportunity to show the breadth of involvement of communities across Canada right from the kick-off. We continue to see the week grow, with a lot more education events and innovative formats that are being put in place. In Nova Scotia for example, they’re doing rock star scientists this year to

get students excited about careers in biotech.

New Brunswick is working with provincial partners on the industrial biotechnology side.

Ontario is doing a youth policy forum down at MaRS. Saskatchewan is going to have a strong launch again this year coming right on the heels of the ABIC agricultural conference held in Saskatoon just days before. Winnipeg has workshops at its inner city science centre throughout the week. These are just some of the events. What I’m always impressed with is just to see how much each of the communities having going on, how creative the events are, and how engaging. The London ON Bio Olympics is always entertaining to see how many schools get involved, they sell out every year.

BF: How has the event changed over the years?

PB: If you think about where this started, the first National Biotechnology Week was very inwardly focused. It was us talking to ourselves; and we’ve come a long way from there to engage our local communities so they can see how biotech companies are working in the economy in very real terms.

One of the challenges with biotech is that you don’t see the companies; you don’t see the work in your community as much as you would think. Part of this is because biotech is in many different places in terms of the research. It is in the labs, in the small offices and in places you would least expect. It’s not until you start to shine the light on what our companies are doing and where their products are do you start to see community appreciation. I think that’s where we’ve gone with this, we’re going deeper into our communities now, we’re not just talking to ourselves, we’re talking to schools, local chambers of commerce, and the broader regional governments. They’re all starting to have a greater appreciation for the footprint, not just of biotech, but of the companies that develop it and use it, and how much more it has become part of our economy.

Final Skills Rec ad:Layout 1

1/14/10

12:48 PM

Page 1

Who’s BioReady? Have your say.

BioTalent Canada’s BioSkills Recognition Program addresses skills shortages by identifying people who are ready to join Canada’s bio-economy workforce. We need industry experts like you to help us recognize individuals’skills and experience in the context of real-world biotechnology sector requirements.

Give your seal of approval: join our Competency Committee and help shape the future of the bio-economy.

What’s in it for you?

• Learn to recognize the skills that meet your organization’s HR needs • Get early access to the best and brightest talent • Create your own personal BioTalent Canada ePortfolio—for free • Leave your mark on the bio-economy

We all have a role to play in strengthening Canada’s biotechnology sector. Share your insights.

BioTalent Canada is a registered trademark of BioTalent Canada.

Join our Competency Committee now by emailing portfolios@biotalent.ca or learn more about the BioSkills Recognition Program on our website at www.biotalent.ca.

Funded by the Government of Canada's Sector Council Program

Reply Card #4779

C011.A1.0136.A © 2010 Eppendorf AG

011.A1.0136.A.US © 2010 Eppendorf AG

Centrifugation redefined.

Silence | Speed | Simplicity™

The new line of Eppendorf microcentrifuges delivers product performance that goes far beyond speed and capacity to benefit you and your work environment.

Eppendorf Microcentrifuges � Centrifuge 5418—for medium throughput needs in molecular biology and clinical laboratories.

Speeds up to 16,873 x g (14,000 rpm).

In addition to the speed, capacity and versatility you need for all your applications, our new Eppendorf microcentrifuges offer unparalleled ergonomic operation, superior temperature management for maximum sample protection and the Eppendorf quality you’ve come to expect.

�

Centrifuge 5424—the laboratory standard with 24-place capacity and speeds up to 21,130 x g (15,000 rpm).

�

Centrifuge 5430/5430 R—microcentrifuge with multipurpose performance. In a compact size— just over a foot of bench space—these unique models accommodate rotors for tubes from 0.2 to 50 ml as well as MTP and PCR plates.

Speeds up to 30,130 x g (17,500 rpm).

Some say that it’s the little things in life that make a difference. We couldn’t agree more.

Reward yourself with an Eppendorf centrifuge.

For more information visit www.eppendorfna.com/micro

www.eppendorf.com Þ Email: info@eppendorf.com In the U.S.: Eppendorf North America, Inc. 800-645-3050 Þ In Canada: Eppendorf Canada Ltd. 800-263-8715

Reply Card #4780 C011.A1.0136.A.CA-BFO.indd 1

Full page journal ad Biotechnology Focus – BFO

7/30/10 3:35 PM