Genome Canada seeks solution to criticism of competition criteria and procedures

Dr Martin Godbout is criss-crossing the country for a series of one-on-one meetings with members of the scientific community in an attempt to defuse a growing protest over Genome Canada’s criteria for project approvals. Many researchers have banded together to push for changes to a process they contend ranks co-funding and business plans ahead of scientific excellence.

As Genome Canada’s president and CEO, Godbout is aiming to arrive at a solution that will placate the growing number of scientists in Canada who object to its procedures. More than 1,200 have added their names to a petition that will be presented to a group within Industry Canada currently reviewing the nation’s funding of genomics.

The petition is being orchestrated by the Canadian Society of Biochemistry, Molecular and Cellular Biology (CSBMCB) and marshalled by Dr David Thomas, a professor with McGill Univ’s department of biochemistry and a Canada Research Chair in molecular genetics. Several other scientific organizations are also involved.

Earlier this year, a smaller group of scientists submitted a letter to Science Magazine, prompting a critical response from national science advisor Dr Arthur Carty who characterized the attack on co-funding as “misleading and inaccurate” (R$, September 2/05).

“BEST SCIENCE” LEFT UNFUNDED

According to Thomas, the most recent competition by Genome Canada left many excellent project proposals on the table because of an undue emphasis on co-funding and accountability compounded by a lack of transparency. He contends that many excellent proposals focusing on proteomics were left unfunded, resulting in immeasurable loss in an area in which Canada is considered strong. Thomas says he favours a hybrid model in which Genome Canada is aligned with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to ensure excellent genomics research is supported.

“The mechanism of delivery (Genome Canada) is the problem … The best science is not getting funded,” says Thomas. “They should come up with a strategy and then contract out the review and reporting requirements to CIHR and NSERC (Science and Engineering Research Canada).”

Godbout says such a scenario underscores a lack of appreciation for Genome Canada, both as an organization and a mechanism for participating in large international projects with hefty price tags. He acknowledges that the criteria were changed for the third and latest major competition and says there is always room for improvements in how the agency operates. But he asserts that the conditions and criteria were known upfront.

“Genome Canada didn’t invent co-funding … With big projects, no one organization can fund them alone and that includes governments,” says Godbout. “In the last competition, we asked scientists to provide feasible plans for co-funding. In competitions one and two the problem was always management … The best proposals are by those who spend a lot of time on their applications. We provide a lot of money and we need to be accountable. It’s public money.”

Dr James Woodgett was a signatory to the original letter published in Science Magazine and he says the response by Carty failed to address the core contention that the competition review process has placed scientific excellence on the back burner.

“Dr Carty’s letter was an unfortunate response. If he’d taken the time to consult with higher ranking scientists in Canada, we would have been backed up. All he was doing was shooting the messenger,” says Woodgett. “(It) was a step backwards.”

Woodgett was part of a functional genomics proposal that failed the due diligence review in the last competition. As a result, he says he likely won’t apply again for Genome Canada funding.

“The current structure that doesn’t put science as a primary consideration for funding is a waste of taxpayers’ money. The only criterion that’s an effective predictor of future results is good science,” he says “KPMG did the review of the last competition’s proposals and that rankled many people.”

One scientist who has been on both sides of the debate is Dr Alex MacKenzie. Currently director of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, MacKenzie spent about one year as VP research at Genome Canada before returning to the lab.

“I observed it first hand and my feeling is that a little bit of flexibility in this regard would have gone a long way … There was a rigidity there that I didn’t see the necessity for, which may account for the brevity of my stay at Genome Canada,” says MacKenzie. “I was there to speak for the scientists and I wasn’t getting much traction. I want a re-assessment of the co-funding policy.”

MacKenzie says that while he is a signatory to the petition being submitted to the Industry Canada review of genome funding, he continues to support the concept behind Genome Canada and the opportunities it offers to the scientific community.

“Genome Canada is a wonderful program and does excellent work. I would like to see it modified and harmonized with CIHR, but this seems to be untenable for various reasons,” he says. “I welcome the government review which is very useful and helpful. I just hope that the reaction to one aspect of Genome Canada doesn’t lead to the dismantling of the whole thing.”

Despite the criticism, Godbout says he’s confident a compromise can be found that will satisfy all parties, adding that Genome Canada has already agreed to a significant change subject to board approval.

“We will not repeat the sequence we used in the last competition (due diligence followed by scientific review). We’ll do the same thing but in parallel,” he says. “(I’m) on a Genome Canada tour (and) I will listen to scientists looking for the solutions. But when the Auditor General comes into our office, we want a to have a clean bill of health because we want to raise more federal funding.”

Woodgett says he welcomes Godbout’s overtures but says the co-funding issue isn’t going to go away.

“Scientists are stepping up to the plate with the intent to improve the way funding is distributed and the quality of research is maintained,” he says. “But Genome Canada has dropped the ball and it’s poisoning many aspects of the research enterprise.”

A list of the signatories to the petition can be found at www.sciencefunding.ca.

R$