Commercialization models abound as Martin government moves towards complex task of creating a new mechanism

When the new Liberal government gets down to the task of crafting an effective national mechanism for stimulating commercialization, it will have no shortage of models to chose from. Two recent proposals for the commercialization of health research and technology research in general are only the latest bids to secure federal support for a new national commercialization initiative.

Health Innovation Canada (HIC) and Innovation Canada (I-Can) envision integrated national networks designed to assist and accelerate the development of promising technologies into products and services. Both require hundreds of millions of dollars to build and operate, although they are distinguished by major differences in approach and funding. HIC, for instance, features a major fund and includes hospital administrators within its governance structure. I-Can places greater emphasis on research infrastructure to underpin a range of contract research services. Articles describing these initiatives in greater detail can be found in recent issues of RE$SEARCH MONEY (R$, January 28/04 & December 11/03).

The National Research Council (NRC) is also moving into the field, emboldened by recent statements by the prime minister in key addresses and the Speech From the Throne. Along with its Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP), the NRC is examining commercialization mechanisms used by other countries, including but not limited to the Battelle Corp (US), the Fraunhofer Institutes (Germany) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia). The NRC proposal will almost certainly opt for a Made-in-Canada solution, incorporating aspects of other models where appropriate. At a minimum, the NRC proposal would call for:

• a national backbone utilizing its extensive reach in every province;
• an emphasis on the dynamics of regional clusters; and,
• a range of services including the IRAP network and incubation centres.

The Innovation Strategy and accompanying consultation phase initiated by the Chrétien government also generated several proposals that jockeyed for position and were backed by some of Canada’s most influential research manager and policy makers.

Several of these proposals focussed on biomedical research and its applications — not surprising given the huge amounts of public funding being allocated to this sector.

The first out of the gate was the Canadian Biotechnology Commercialization Initiative (CBCI), spearheaded by Dr Fraser Mustard. It was joined by the Biopharmaceutical Drug Development Accelerator (BDDA), which was driven by several large Canadian biomedical firms. Biotech CEOs also banded together for a proposal of their own — Bio Canada Connect — designed to deal with the consolidation of the biotech industry to retain the value of firms in Canada.

On a regional level, commercialization was a primary motivating force behind the creation of the Medical and Related Sciences (MaRS) project in Toronto.

Another regional vehicle that aims to expand nationally is Inno-centre Canada, which uses a mentoring model and rigorous selection process to build technology-intensive companies. But after three years of effort, the organization has little reach beyond Quebec, establishing a collaboration with the NRC in Ottawa and the modestly funded Inno-Alberta.

From Western Canada, WestLink also has national aspirations. The non-profit organization was founded by technology transfer pioneer Dr Jim Murray and has already launched programs to train business and technology professionals. It has also developed an extensive database of spin-off and commercialization activity and is viewed as an effective agent of technology bundling. WestLink was singled out by Paul Martin in his September 18/03 speech, praising it for its ability to pool functions relating to tech transfer.

R$