Evaluation of CIHR's Commercialization Programs

Final Report 2015

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
160 Elgin Street, 9th Floor Address Locator 4809A Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0W9

Acknowledgements

This report was authored by Carmen Constantinescu, Senior Evaluation Analyst.

The evaluation was carried out by an Evaluation Working Group which, during the different phases of the evaluation, included: Carmen Constantinescu, Krista Davidge, Kim Ford, Joanne Tucker, Michael Goodyer, David Peckham, Martin Rubenstein, Kwadwo Bosompra, Fazila Seker, Karen Dewar, Janet Scholz, Michelle Peel, Bert van den Berg, Étienne Richer, and Nicolay Ferrari.

Cover photo courtesy of National Research Council of Canada (NRC)

Table of Contents

  1. Executive Summary
  2. Evaluation Scope & Purpose
  3. Profile of CIHR's Commercialization Programs
  4. Knowledge Translation & Commercialization
  5. Collaborations & Partnerships
  6. Capacity development
  7. Program Design & Delivery
  8. Program Relevance 
  9. References
  10. Appendices

Executive Summary

In 2005, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) developed its Commercialization and Innovation Strategy to provide a framework for transforming health research into action, improving the quality of life and stimulating economic development through discovery and innovation.

The Strategy was implemented through a number of programs and initiatives that addressed one or more of the strategic components, including: Industry-Partnered Collaborative Research Operating Grants (IPCR), Collaborative Health Research Projects (CHRP), Science to Business (S2B), Proof of Principle Phase I and Phase II (POP I and POP II).

Evaluation Purpose, Scope and Approach

The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the relevance and performance of the commercialization programs to identify best practices and lessons learned to inform future programming and meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury Board of Canada's Policy on Evaluation (2009). The following aspects of CIHR's commercialization programs were examined: knowledge translation and commercialization; knowledge creation; collaboration and partnership; capacity building; design and delivery; and relevance.

The evaluation covers the time period from the creation of each of the programs until the end of fiscal year 2012-13. The evaluation methodology included literature and document review, key informant interviews and a survey of funded researchers. To better contextualize the performance of the commercialization programs, where feasible, comparisons were made with CIHR's Open Operating Grants Program (OOGP), Regenerative Medicine and Nanomedicine Initiative (RMNI) and Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR) Program.

Key Findings

Knowledge Translation and Commercialization

Knowledge translation (KT) and the application of research results into practice are necessary activities for the commercialization of health research.

The evaluation identifies a number of best practices in developing a strong culture of innovation including: movement from "commercialization" to "innovation" as a guiding philosophy; encouraging entrepreneurship and industry-pull programs; and newer models of commercialization where resources are pooled to undertake research and commercialize multiple discoveries in a given field.

Collaborations and Partnerships

Collaborations and partnerships are central objectives for CIHR commercialization programs to ensure the stakeholders are involved early in the project so that "research uptake" increases.

The best practices identified for enhancing partnerships were: promote grants that are specifically designed to strengthen engagement and partnership (e.g., Natural Science and Engineering Research Council's Interaction and Engage grants); involve multinational companies and have research and development (R&D) agreements with partners early on; offer programs in partnership with other relevant organizations; and increase the awareness of new discoveries by organizing workshops and seminars, so that researchers can find "takers" for their good ideas and create demand within user sector (e.g., industry).

Capacity Development

Training in the field of commercialization has been the main objective of the S2B program and has been encouraged through the other CIHR commercialization programs (CHRP, IPCR, POP I & II).

In terms of the best practices for capacity development in the area of health research commercialization, facilitation activities are seen to be more important than offering training opportunities; other international granting agencies facilitate the recruitment of specialists that assist the TTOs and researchers throughout the commercialization process and experts within the organizations who are in touch with companies.

Design and Delivery

All five programs were received well by stakeholders and are delivering the intended outcomes at the program level:

Nevertheless, the following improvements to design and delivery were identified:

The following best practices were seen for other international funders: the approach to fund the entire spectrum from early research to SMEs (offer a wide range of programs); assistance programs that support the main programs and assess market readiness; having the right skill set in the peer review process; and implementing a stage-gate model based on performance milestones.

Program Relevance

A number of trends were identified for the Canadian health research commercialization landscape that indicate an ongoing need for health research commercialization funding: a lack of venture capital/angel investors; downsizing of internal R&D by industry, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry; a perceived lack of clear government strategy on innovation and commercialization; challenges related to intellectual property (IP) law and policies; pressure on TTOs to be very productive with fewer resources; and a lack of funding for early stage health research commercialization.

Although it is recognized that funding is required for each stage of the commercialization pathway, funding early stage commercialization research is the most critical role that CIHR can play, especially given limited resources. The majority of funded researchers surveyed (94%) identified "early stage funding" as a priority area that CIHR should focus its commercialization programs on.

CIHR could play several other roles to enhance commercialization of health research in Canada:

Conclusions

This evaluation finds that CIHR commercialization programs have generated many positive contributions to the Canadian health research commercialization landscape. Each of the programs has its merits:

However, the scale of the impacts of these programs is small and needs to be understood in the context of programs' investments. To significantly shift the landscape of Canada's health research commercialization there is a need for a bigger vision, more support, and bolder actions as were identified in the best practices presented in this report.

Recommendations

Findings from the evaluation indicate that establishing a strong, innovative culture is a key preliminary step for Canada to achieve more success in the area of health research commercialization. For CIHR, an important first step to further foster an innovative culture within the agency as well as the health research community is to understand commercialization as part of a broader innovation continuum or ecosystem. Findings from the environment scan reveal that the term "innovation" and "valorization" are being used by most of the comparable international organizations consulted to capture the value created and the broader societal benefits that result from the translation, application, or extension of new or existing knowledge.  

Recommendation 1: CIHR should adopt a definition of innovation that captures the broader social, economic and health benefits resulting from the use of health research to develop or improve goods, services, processes, organizations and systems. 

Findings from the evaluation identify a number of trends that point to the continued need for CIHR funding to foster innovation and facilitate the commercialization of health research, including: a lack of venture capital, reductions in private sector R&D, and a need for funding to support early stage health research commercialization. In light of the available resources, the performance of existing programs, and other federal government investments in innovation, the most critical role that CIHR can play is to fund early stage commercialization of health research.

Recommendation 2: CIHR should continue to fund early stage commercialization research to support this critical phase in the commercialization process to test and validate the commercial potential of discoveries that addresses a key funding gap and unmet need among researchers and TTOs.  

The evaluation findings underline the importance of collaborations and partnerships between researchers and potential research users to support the promotion of scientific discoveries to the commercialization pathway.

Recommendation 3: CIHR should play a brokering role in the area of innovation and commercialization in order to: facilitate interactions between researchers and the potential users of the research results to increase awareness, demand and uptake; and partnerships with other innovation and commercialization programs and intermediaries to coordinate and leverage investments across the innovation continuum. Specifically, CIHR should focus on: 

Findings from the evaluation identify a number of areas of improvement to the design and delivery of existing as well as future programs to better enhance performance.

Recommendation 4: Specifically, CIHR should incorporate the following into the future design and delivery of commercialization and innovation programs:

Management Response and Action Plan (MRAP)
Recommendation Response
(Agree or Disagree)
Management Action Plan Responsibility Timeline
1. CIHR should adopt a definition of innovation that captures the broader social, economic and health benefits resulting from the use of health research to develop or improve goods, services, processes, organizations and systems. Agree CIHR will adopt this broader definition as it develops a new strategy. Vice-President External Affairs and Business Development Develop Strategy - 2015-16
2. CIHR should continue to fund early stage commercialization research to support this critical phase in the commercialization process to test and validate the commercial potential of discoveries that addresses a key funding gap and unmet need among researchers and TTOs. Agree Through the design of the new Open funding schemes, CIHR has taken measures to remove barriers and encourage innovative research.  CIHR is committed to ensuring that this type of research continues to be well supported through the transition to the new Open funding schemes. Chief Scientific Officer/Vice–President, Research, Knowledge Translation ad Ethics Portfolio Through the implementation of the Project Scheme Pilot - 2016-17 and on-going

3. CIHR should play a brokerage role in the area of innovation and commercialization and focus on:

  • 3.1 Enhance partnering, strengthen engagement, and create partnerships between researchers and potential users;
  • 3.2 Increase awareness of CIHR-funded discoveries by facilitating an organized exchange of ideas to promote and enhance industry "pull" of CIHR funded research results; and
  • 3.3 Prioritize and focus investments to capitalize on existing investments and infrastructure in health research commercialization
Agree CIHR will develop a new strategy, which will appropriately define CIHR's brokering role in this regard. Vice-President External Affairs and Business Development Develop Strategy, including definition of CIHR's brokering role - 2015-16

4. CIHR should incorporate the following into the future design and delivery of commercialization programs:

  • 4.1 Involve more industry experts in the peer review process to better evaluate the projects' commercial potential and to give researchers the opportunity to present their proposals;
  • 4.2 Increase the ability to flow funds in a timely manner to meet researchers' needs, shortening the time it takes for peer review, decision, and communication of the decision;
  • 4.3 Offer grants with longer duration (or at least more flexibility with duration); and
  • 4.4 Researchers in collaboration with partners need to establish clear timelines, milestones, tracking/monitoring systems and improve overall adherence to timelines and reaching milestones (e.g., reporting guidelines to capture the commercialization impact)
Agree

CIHR, through the implementation of the new Open schemes and the college of reviewers, is implementing an application focused review that will ensure that the appropriate expertise is assigned to each application. Further, CIHR is taking steps to engage more industry experts in the peer review process. Finally, by rolling the existing open programs into the new Open schemes applicants conducting this type of research will benefit from increased flexibility with respect to funding limits and grant duration. 

Any new programming developed as part of CIHR's new strategy will appropriately incorporate these design considerations.

Chief Scientific Officer/Vice–President, Research, Knowledge Translation and Ethics Portfolio and Vice-President External Affairs

and

Business Development

Through the implementation of the Project Scheme Pilot - 2016-17 and on-going.

and

Incorporating of design elements into new programs if required to support strategy - 2016-17 

1. Evaluation Scope & Purpose

In 2005 CIHR developed its Commercialization and Innovation Strategy (CIHR, 2005) with the goal to provide a coherent framework for transforming health research into action, improving the quality of life and stimulating economic development through discovery and innovation. The strategy had specific objectives developed in four strategic areas: research, linkage, talent, and capital, and it was implemented through a series of programs, initiatives, national platforms, and other activities.

Evaluation scope

Following consultations with senior management and the strategic leads of the CIHR commercialization programs, the scope of this evaluation focused on the following current CIHR commercialization programs:

The evaluation covers the period of time since each of these programs started until 2012/2013.

Evaluation purpose

The evaluation measured the success CIHR's commercialization programs in terms of: knowledge creation, knowledge translation and commercialization outcomes, collaboration and partnership, and capacity building, design and delivery. To better understand CIHR's commercialization programs' achievements and when suitable, comparisons were made with the following programs:

A set of best practices and lessons learned for health research commercialization were captured during the discussions with the various stakeholders interviewed: Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs)' representatives, partners, investors and representatives of seven international funding agencies that support commercialization of health research (see Appendix I for details on methodology). They will be presented in each section when applicable.

2. Profile of CIHR's Commercialization Programs

Each of the CIHR commercialization programs covered by evaluation address one or more of CIHR's commercialization strategy's four strategic areas: research, talent, linkages, capital:

While each of these programs are focused on different stages in the commercialization process, it is recognized that commercialization is not a "linear" process, and each of them contribute to the overall strategic areas that CIHR wanted to influence though its commercialization strategy. While CHRP and IPCR focus on building collaborations between researchers and research users and generating research with potential for commercialization, they are not limited to only early stage commercialization processes. The research funded by these programs could also generate advanced stage commercialization outcomes such as patents and spin-offs.  POPI and POPII were designed to address the more advanced commercialization outcomes. S2B was designed to enhance training; although, it should be noted that training was encouraged in all commercialization programs. Appendix II provides the Logic Model of the CIHR commercialization programs.

In 2012-2013 the total budget spent on the evaluated commercialization programs ($13,872,115) represented 1.7% of the total CIHR grant and awards expenditures. If we consider the other commercialization programs that CIHR delivers together with NSERC and SSHRC (Business-Led Networks of Centres of Excellence (BL-NCE) and CECRs), CIHR total expenditures on commercialization programming represented 2.9% ($28,193,643) of all expenditures, including flow-through programs mentioned above.

Figure 2: CIHR's investments in current commercialization programs since their creation*

Source: CIHR Electronic Information System (EIS) database

*CIHR commercialization programs have different durations; see program description for details.

  • Long description
    CIHR Commercialization programs Financial investments
    IPCR $86,069,230
    CHRP $61,381,749
    S2B $3,311,078
    POP I $51,499,554
    POP II $7,926,525

3. Knowledge Translation & Commercialization

To what extent have the CIHR commercialization programs facilitated the application of health research, accelerate the commercialization of IP and promoted the establishment and growth of small businesses?

To what extent have the CIHR commercialization programs funded research that generates discoveries with potential for commercialization?

Key findings

Introduction

This section addresses two of the CIHR commercialization programs' objectives: knowledge translation (KT) with the application of health research results into practice (i.e., accelerate the commercialization of IP) and funding of research that generates discoveries with potential for commercialization.

Although all the programs were expected to contribute to both objectives, CHRP and IPCR were designed to address the early stage of health research commercialization by funding of research that generates discoveries with potential for commercialization, while POP I and POP II were designed to address the KT and more advanced stage of health research commercialization.

The performance of these programs was measured by looking at the following indicators for:

Findings

KT activities conducted to advance knowledge

Most of the commercialization program funded researchers provided presentations to other researchers (72%) and to industry and other partners (79%). The next most common KT activity pursued by the funded researchers was participation in conferences, symposiums and workshops (74%) (See Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: KT activities conducted to advance knowledge
Commercialization Programs (n= 72)
Type of Outcome % of projects that produced at least 1 Average produced per project
Presentations provided to researchers 72% 5.00
Presentations provided to industry and other partners 79% 3.75
Conferences, symposiums & workshops 74% 5.03
Prizes/Professional awards 31% 0.61
Newspaper articles 31% 4.25
Magazine articles 17% 0.47
Radio reports/ interviews 21% 0.67
Television reports/ interviews 25% 0.69
Internet articles 17% 2.60
Facebook pages 0% 0.00
Youtube postings 8% 0.18
Blogs 4% 0.13
Webinars 1% 0.03

Commercialization outcomes

Many of the CIHR commercialization funded researchers reported various IP protection activities: provisional patentsFootnote 4 (74% of funded researchers), patent applications filled (64%), non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements (64%), invention disclosures (61%), and patents granted (41%) (See figure 5.2). The most common IP protection activities reported were non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements (an average of 2), and patent applications filed (1.5), which would lead to an average of 0.9 patents granted per researcher (See figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Percentage of IPCR/POPI/POPII funded researchers surveyed (n= 59) reporting IP protection activities and average number of IP protection activities that have been pursued (survey data)

  • Long description
    IP protection activities Percentage of funded researchers reporting IP protection activities Average number of IP protection activities
    Copyright(s) or trademark(s) granted 0% 0
    Copyright(s) or trademark(s) filed 2% 0.12
    Industrial design application(s) filed 2% 0.02
    Industrial design registration(s) granted 2% 0.02
    Other 5% 0.05
    Licenses granted 27% 0.29
    Option agreement(s) 31% 0.36
    Technology transfer agreements 37% 0.57
    Patent(s) granted 41% 0.93
    Invention disclosures 61% 1.1
    Non-disclosure or confidendiality agreement(s) 64% 2.07
    Patent application(s) filed 64% 1.56
    Provisional patent 74% 1.14

Most of the patent applications related to the projects funded under IPCR/POPI/POPII have been granted in the USA followed by Europe and Canada (See figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2: Number of patent application related to the projects funded under IPCR/POPI/POPII by jurisdiction

  • Long description
    Number of patents Filed Granted
    Other  29 9
    China 15 2
    Australia 17 4
    Japan 23 7
    Canada 42 15
    Europe 35 20
    USA 59 32

Assessing the programs separately, researchers funded under POP I reported higher percentages for filling patent applications, obtaining patents, non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements, invention disclosures and creating spin-offs compared to the other programs. OOGP researchers successful in commercialization, and researchers funded under CECR and RMNI programs, reported higher percentages for these commercialization outcomes compared to the IPCR and CHRP programs. (See Figure 3.3 and Table 3.2)

Figure 3.3: Percentage of researchers achieving the reported indicators; comparison with open and strategic funding

♦ OOGP-RRS-Patents filed or granted are reported together

‡  RMNI- includes new patents and new product license together, source : RMNI Evaluation

§  CECR data souce: Summative Evaluation of Network of Excellence – Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research program , June 2012, survey with 17 Centres, of which 12 Centres have Health as a priority area.

  • Long description
      POP-I (n=46) CHRP (n=79) IPCR (n=20) CECR §(n=135) RMNI ‡(n=26) OOGP succ in comm. (n=27) OOGP RRS♦   (n=982)
    New patent  filed and/or granted  70% 25% 25% 33% 46% 48% 11%
    New product licenses  24% 14% 0% 5%   26% 4%
    Spin-off company 28% 6% 0% 16% 8% 11% 4%
Table 3.2: Percentage of researchers reporting commercialization outcomes by program
POP-I (n=46) POPII (n=6) CHRP (n=79) IPCR (n=20) CECRFootnote i
(n=135)
RMNI (n=26) OOGP success in comm. (n=27) OOGP RRS   (n=982)
Patent application filed 70% 83% (5) 25% 25% 33% 46%Footnote ii 48% 11%Footnote iii
Patent granted 37% 83% (5) 23% 10% 7% 22%
Licenses granted 24% 83% (5) 14% 0% 5% 26% 4%
Non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement 65% 67% (4) 9% 20% 44% NA 11% NA
Spin-off company 28% 50% (3) 6% 0% 16% 8% 11% 4%

Spin-offs

Spin-off companies may have been established to license a discovery, fund research in order to further develop a discovery that will be licensed to the company, or provide a service. 28% (n=54) of the researchers funded under POP I program and 4 researchers funded under POP II program established a spin-off company with the funding obtained from CIHR.

Analysis of POP I and POPII progress reports, along with survey data, revealed that a minimum of 42 different spin-off companies have been created or benefited using commercialization program funding from POPI and POPII since 2001. 

Qualitative data derived from the progress reports provides more in-depth information on the success stories behind the spin-offs, of which a few examples are presented below in Table 3.3.

One of the important factors in assessing the impact of moving a discovery to commercialization is the long time lag that it takes a discovery to materialize into concrete economic benefits.  According to Heher,(2006) it can take up to 10 years for an institution/company, and 20 years nationally, to attain a positive rate of return from an investment in research and technology transfer. The time lag differs between disciplines, therefore "in the field of nanotechnology for example, the patent time lag was found to be approximately five to six years" (Daim et al., 2007). As such, some of the impacts generated by the CIHR commercialization funding are still to be discovered in the future.

Table 3.3. Examples of spin-off companies that have been created or benefited using commercialization program funding from POP I and POP II since 2001
Company Name Principle Investigator Area of Research Impacts

Xagenic

Prof. Shana Kelley, University of Toronto

Rapid detection system on known cancer biomarkers in prostate tumor tissue as an indication of disease progression

Developing the Xagenic X1 platform - a revolutionary diagnostic system that allows the user to perform molecular diagnostic lab-quality assays in the physician office.

Large market opportunity created by significant unmet medical need for point-of-care diagnostic solutions

Employs more than 40 people

Revenues from worldwide sales of molecular diagnostics are estimated to be $6.2B in 2014.

Tissue Regeneration Therapeutics (TRT)

Dr. John Davies, University of Toronto

Progressive biotechnology with a focus on the commercial development of patented Human Umbilical Cord PeriVascular Cell (HUCPVC)

TRT has shown that the tissue around the vessels of the umbilical cord is the richest source of mesenchymal stem cells ever described

2014- TRT and Héma-Québec enter a definitive licensing agreement for the first human clinical trial of TXP-1

2013 - TRT raises $3.25 Million to accelerate the development of its Mesenchymal Cell therapeutics platform

Attodyne

Dr. Dwayne
Miller, University of Toronto

Novel laser surgery technique

A picosecond laser surgery IP has been developed by the Miller Group at the University of Toronto, and Attodyne has been incorporated and is the intended vehicle for commercialization of this IP.

Attodyne manufactures state-of-the-art picosecond lasers for micromachining, material processing, and research.

Picosecond Lasers are used in a variety of industries, from the manufacturing of displays and mobile electronics, to medicine and bio-diagnostics.

Colibri Technologies

Dr. Stuart Foster and Dr. Brian Courtney, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

3D forward looking scanning mechanism for intravascular and intracardiac imaging.

The technologies developed under the CIHR POP program have been licensed to Colibri Technologies Inc, which is a spin-off company from Sunnybrook.

Colibri raised over $8.9MM of private investment, another $9MM of non-dilutive (mostly public) funding, created 25 full time jobs at Colibri, 6 full time research personnel positions at Sunnybrook and issued 10 US patents.

Knowledge creation

Overall, of the CIHR commercialization programs funded researchers who responded to the surveys (n=72), 79% published at least one journal article, 28% published books/books chapters and 25% produced reports/technical reports; 45% of the IPCR funded researchers and 30% of the POPI funded researchers produces a joint publication with private sector. (Data not shown.)

However, it should be underlined that publications are not traditional commercialization outputs for these types of programs. The increased use of intellectual property rights (IPR) in scientific research has sparked a vigorous academic and policy debate over what is known as the "anti-commons effect." Specifically, the anti-commons hypothesis states that IPR may inhibit the free flow and diffusion of scientific knowledge and the ability of researchers to cumulatively build on each other's discoveries (Murray & Stern, 2007). Yet, other studies found that inventors publish significantly more and both activities actually reinforce each other (Van Looya et al., 2006).

Comparison of journal articles between CIHR commercialization programs and OOGP

In order to compare average publications per grant we have to consider not only the differences in terms of the programs' objectives, but also the different durations and amounts of grants. Table 3.3, presents the average number of journal articles published normalized by the grant duration in years and the average grant amount for each program. Considering the very small number of POP II researchers who responded to the survey, these results are shown for information only.

Table 3.3: Comparison of journal articles published between CIHR commercialization programs and open and strategic funding; normalization of the results by grant duration and average grant amount.
Program type CHRP (n=145) NORMALIZED DATA by individual projects
IPCR (n=19) POP-I (n=46) POP-II (n=6) OOGP RRS (n=983) OOGP successful in comerFootnote vi (n=27) RMNI (n=26)
Averages for overall program Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
Average grant duration in years 3 2.8 ± 1.3 1 ± 0 1 ± 0 3.7  ± 1.3 3.7 ± 1.4 3.5 ± 1.5
Grant average $320,676 $288,290  ± $728,206 $133,957±
$27,613
$192,291 ± $88,280 $437,260± $279,900 $ 462,179 ± $251,464 $855,302 ±
$676,673
Journal articles published 5 5.5 ± 5.6   2.1 ± 2.5 5.3 ± 3.4 9.2 ± 12.5 11 ± 10.8 12.1
Journal articles published /year 1.6 2.1 ± 1.7 2.1 ± 2.5 5.3 ± 3.4 2.3 ± 2.6 2.8 ± 2.2 2.8 ± 2.6
Journals/ $100K expended 1.6 4 ± 3.7 1.8 ± 2.5Footnote v 4.2 ± 4 2.2 ± 2.6Footnote v 2.7 ± 2.3 1.5 ±1.9Footnote iv

The OOGP Evaluation report (CIHR, 2012) states that publication of OOGP researchers peak in their third year of funding. CHRP has an average duration of 3 years and IPCR 2.6 years; however, POP I grants are one year in length. The results show that POPI and IPCR funded researchers produce 2.1 journal articles published per year, CHRP produced 1.6, compared with OOGP funded researchers who produced 2.3 journal articles per year. Due to the sample size and data availabilityFootnote 5, the comparison for the statistical difference was made for POP I and OOGP funded researchers. The only statistical difference between POP I and OOGP was found for journals articles produced per $100K: 1.8 for POP I and 2.2 for OOGP, but with a small difference Footnote 6 (See Figure 3.4). Although the sample size of the OOGP researchers successful in commercialization is small (n=27), they seem to produce more publications (2.7 journal articles per $100K) compared with the overall OOGP researchers (2.2) and POP I researchers (1.8).

Figure 3.4: Comparison of journal articles published between POP I, OOGP and RMNI; normalized results by grant duration and average grant amount.

*Due to the sample sizes, the statistical significance was tested only for POPI and OOGP RRS programs, and only these two values were found statistically significant, Mann-Whitney non-parametric test, p<0.05.

  • Long description
    Program type POP-I (n=46) OOGP RRS (n=983) OOGP successful in commer(n=27) RMNI(n=26)
    Journal articles published /year 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.8
    Journals articles published/ $100K expended 1.8 2.2 2.7 1.5

Challenges faced by researchers in commercializing their research

The interviews with TTO representatives, partners, and investors revealed some of the challenges that researchers face when publishing and commercializing their discoveries. Some TTO representatives mentioned that some researchers gather support for grant applications, licenses, etc. regardless of the assessed commercialization potential of the research. Others reported cases where researchers receiving CIHR grants solely focused on their publishing needs as opposed to patent considerations, which resulted in severely diminished outcomes for key stakeholders.

Some participants noted that researchers may feel that commercialization poses a greater risk than reward.  Further, they noted that this is inherently a cultural issue that needs to be altered at the institutional level in order to enable greater facilitation of health research commercialization. The idea of a renowned researcher is still closely linked to those who dedicate their time to fundamental research and have their findings published in esteemed academic journals.

"…it's not all the investigators who are willing to accept to do translational research involved; the concept of doing applied research is sometimes badly perceived; it's not well promoted and encouraged in the academic setting – but if you really want to be a renowned researcher, it's not to do some applied research but you do fundamental basic research and get it published." (Investor/Valorization)

One of the partners also noted that academic researchers are under tremendous pressure to be successful in their field, by publishing and being "renowned" and this discourages them from taking risks.

Also related to the challenges that researchers face in commercializing their research, Caulfield (2012) draws attention to the inconsistencies between open science and commercialization policies in the case of three countries: Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. He discusses the increasing pressure on university researchers to commercialize their work and collaborate, share data and disseminate new knowledge quickly in order to foster scientific progress, meet humanitarian goals, and maximize the impact of their research. Caulfield argues that commercialization and open science are not necessarily irreconcilable and could instead be envisioned as complementary elements of a more holistic innovation framework. This is something that needs further attention in the future (Caulfield, 2012).

Best practices for Enabling a Culture of Innovation

Establishing a strong, innovative culture was recommended as one of the preliminary steps if Canada would like to achieve more success in the area of health research commercialization. Best practices in developing a strong culture of innovation include: movement from "commercialization" to "innovation" and "valorization" as a guiding philosophy; encourage entrepreneurship and industry-pull programs; and "aggressive commercialization".

4. Collaborations & Partnerships

To what extent have the CIHR commercialization programs facilitated interaction between people and institutions throughout the commercialization process?

Have CIHR commercialization programs generated sustainable partnerships?

Key findings

Introduction

Partnership and collaboration are central objectives for CIHR commercialization programs to ensure the stakeholders are involved early in the project so that "research uptake" increases. They are often used inter-changeably, but for the purpose of this study we used the following definitionsFootnote 10:

Some of the CIHR commercialization programs, such as IPCR and POP II, had as a requirement, the involvement of a partner from the very beginning of the application stage. Applications are submitted jointly by the applicant and partner with the partner matching CIHR funds at a specified ratio designated by program.  In the past, both IPCR and POP II required an Applicant Partner to contribute two-thirds of the funding for the grant. Since 2010 the minimum partner contribution (including eligible in-kind) must be at least a 1:1 ratio. In 2011, CHRP made partner contribution a mandatory requirement.

Findings

The majority (68%) of CIHR commercialization funded researchers (IPCR, POP I and POPII) had collaborations with other researchers/academics, 32% of them with health system/care practitioners and 21% with industry. The evaluation of CHRP shows that a majority of CHRP funded researchers (80%) had established new relationships with an average of 1.5 researchers as a result of their project.  The relationships between health and NSE researchers have also often been maintained following the completion of the projects (73%).Footnote 11

Figure 4.1: Percentage of researchers with other collaborations

  • Long description
    Stakeholders OOGP Commercialization survey (n=27) Commercialization Programs (n=72)
    Other Researchers/Academics   70% 68%
    Health System/Care practitioners 19% 32%
    Patients/Consumers of Health System/Care 15% 17%
    Health System/Care Managers 7% 5%
    Health System/Care Professional Organizations 15% 3%
    Federal/Provincial Representatives 11% 1%
    Industry 15% 21%

Figure 4.2: Percentage of researchers with other formal partnerships

  • Long description
    Styakeholders OOGP Commercialization survey (n=27) Commercialization Programs (n=72)
    Other Researchers/Academics   19% 14%
    Health System/Care practitioners 7% 4%
    Health System/Care Managers 0% 3%
    Health System/Care Professional Organizations 4% 1%
    Federal/Provincial Representatives 4% 3%
    Industry 22% 46%

Industry was involved to a higher degree during all stages of CIHR commercialization research compared to OOGP research; 81% of commercialization funded researchers said they involved industry for end of grant KT activities, compared to 60% for OOGP funded researchers.

Partnerships

Although not a requirement, 65% of the POPI funded researchers involved partners during their funded projects. POPII funded projects involved more partnerships per project, (average of 2.5) partnerships compared to other programs (1.0). IPCR had the longest partnership duration (range: 12-120 months). This may be because the average duration of IPCR grants was 2.6 years compared to one year for POPI and POPII grants. For the majority of POP II funded researchers (83%), and almost half (48%) of POP I funded researchers, these partnerships existed prior to the funded projects. (See table 4.1)

Table 4.1: Summary of CIHR Commercialization programs partnerships statistics
IPCR
(n=10-20)Footnote vii
POPI
(n=29-46)Footnote vii
POPII
(n=6)
OOGP successful commercialization
(n=10-27)Footnote vii
At least one partner  on the project 100% 65% 100% 37%
Average # of partnerships/ project 1.0 1.0 2.5 0.7
Average partnership duration (months) 48Footnote viii 20 37 24
Average partner contribution $947,404 $143,256 $1,644,444 $191,428
Partnerships existing prior funding 15% 48% 83% 40%
Maintained links with their partners after their CIHR grant ended 60% 90% 83% 80%
"In-kind" contributions Footnote ix 25% 46% 83% 19%

The majority of POP II funded researchers (83%), almost half (46%) of POPI funded researchers and 25% of IPCR researchers reported receiving in kind contributions from their partners. These contributions were: access to expertise, equipment, personnel, time spent together developing a business plan, assistance making a commercial version of the product, conducting clinical surveys to assess product needs; estimating marketing and production costs for product, drug synthesis, preliminary toxicity experiments, technical support and analytical procedures, test kits and reagents, etc.

For the CHRP program, for the period of 1999-2008, while partnerships were encouraged, they were not a program requirement. The results of CHRP evaluation for the period specified above show that although only 16% of the projects identified a partner at the application stage, 40% of the researchers responding to the survey indicated that their projects involved partners.

Many of the POPI funded researchers (69%) considered their relationships with partners successful and most of them (90%) maintained links with them after the grant ended. These relationships were in most cases research collaborations, of being part of a formal or informal network.

Table 4.2: Types of relationship(s) that funded researchers maintained with partners since CIHR grant ended
  OOGP Comm. Survey (n=10) IPCR (n=6) POP-I (n=29) POP-II (n=6)
Research collaboration 60% 83% 62% 50%
Consulting contract 0% 17% 17% 50%
Part of a formal network 20% 17% 7% 0%
Part of an informal network 0% 33% 17% 0%

Importance of partnerships

The majority of the funded researchers under IPCR (70%) and POPI (69%) declared that the funding through CIHR commercialization programs was an incentive to work with a partner. The importance of having a partner on the project is highlighted by the fact that these funded researchers, 66% for POPI and 60% for IPCR would still have chosen to work with a partners if the dedicated funding through the CIHR commercialization programs would have not been available.

The main reasons for working with a partner included: partners' expertise and knowledge, and to ensure increased knowledge transfer and use. IPCR stressed the importance of financial contributions from partners as a reason to include them in research. (See figure 4.3)

Figure 4.3: Reasons for partnering

  • Long description
    Reasons for  partnering IPCR (n=10) POP I(n=29) POP II (n=6)
    Because of partner's willingness to collaborate 50% 55% 67%
    Because of partner's desire to increase the use of research in their context 50% 55% 67%
    Because of partner's financial contribution to the project - cash and/or in-kind 90% 62% 83%
    Because of skills and expertise of the partner 50% 66% 83%
    To ensure increased knowledge transfer and use 50% 69% 67%

Attracting international partners

During the stakeholder interviews, there were a few participants who perceived that their work was not eligible for CIHR commercialization grants because they could not attract a Canadian partner. It seemed to be a misconception that the CIHR commercialization programs restrict international partners. Participants felt that there is a definite need to acquire more international partners from the large pool of skills and resources available. One TTO felt strongly that Canada is not doing enough to tap into this pool of resources and help institutions to build their internal capacity to match external capacity.

Partner matching fund requirement (1:1)

The current ratio requirement for the matching funds (1:1) was seen as appropriate by the majority of researchers. However, some stakeholders interviewed had mixed feedback on this issue, identifying it as an ongoing challenge especially in the case of the POP-II. This was of particular problem when the partners are of small or medium size enterprises (SMEs). Still, several participants indicated that the matching funds allowed for a more robust budget for the research and should be continued.

In order to meet the diverse needs of the commercialization endeavors covered by CIHR's suite of grants, respondents suggested that CIHR take a case-by-case approach to determine the most appropriate matching fund requirements. This approach could take into account partner size and estimated costs for product development and commercialization.

Challenges identified for partnership

Cultural Differences between Academia and Industry

One recurring themes from the interviews with stakeholders was that researcher and industry agendas do not always align. One of the TTOs pointed out how industry is not interested in sponsoring research that is purely academic; there is no advantage or incentive for them to be involved. Additionally, sometimes industry hesitates to engage with universities/research centers because of the slow research administration bureaucracy coupled with the high risk associated with early stage discoveries.

On the other side, one of the partners also noted that academic researchers are under a tremendous pressure to be successful in their field, by publishing and being "renowned" and this pressure does not allow them to take a lot of risks (i.e., make mistakes). TTOs were also noted by partners to not always provide the right advice, suggesting "think they know it all". Although, it was recognized that the value TTOs bring is very much dependent on the individuals who make up the TTOs. One partner went as far as to say that without the funding incentive, industry would likely not choose to work with academics because of the many constraints.

"So I think the reason why people have looked to work with academics is because it has created another funding source. If all things were equal funding-wise, I think that the amount of work that industry would do with academics would be a small fraction of what it is now, unless it was to secure funding that is non-dilutive….Good early on, because the projects are small enough, you need the funding badly enough and you see that as a route to go, but then after you go through the kind of pain and hardships managing those relationships and deal with the funding aspects. I think, if people had the choice they wouldn't do it" (Partner, POP grant).

Industry Perceives Lack of Control over the Actual Work that is Being Done

Another hindrance to Industry, which prevents them from engaging in work directly with researchers, is the lack of control the companies feel that they have on the actual work that is being done. The participants voiced that once researchers receive CIHR grants, POP I for instance, they will revert to their curiosity driven mindset, diverting from the translational or commercialization needs of the company. This is widely seen as an ongoing issue.

Monitoring Performance – Differences in Practices

Partners who participated in both POP and IPCR projects discussed the differences in culture in academic versus industry. Part of the differences was related to the nature of how projects are managed, controlled and accounted for (contractual and financial obligations) particularly in terms of deliverables against resources. Projects that are solely industry sponsored are viewed as having greater oversight and accountability. Projects that are partly public funded and partly industries funded are difficult to manage because the investigators get mixed messages (industry focuses on performance or milestone based funding). Overall, industry partners find that where the funds are administered and how the cash flow occurs is not very attractive. It was suggested that the idea of paying according to performance is something that CIHR could consider and this could also act as a way to measure success.

Other differences are related to how public versus corporate funds are used – e.g. level of risk that can be applied. By nature the POP projects tended to have greater risk and partners noted that these projects required greater public funding.

CIHR Competition Frequency

Having the CIHR competitions twice a year for some of the grants does not align well with industry needs and timelines. One stakeholder identified the challenge that if a company misses out on one competition, they have to wait up to six months for another opportunity to apply.

"This was an issue right from very start, so initially there was going to be a competition every two months so that companies would be slowed down and we wouldn't lose funding windows. Now, over the years because of the effort involved with the peer review became twice a year. So if you miss one of the competition, you have to wait, sometimes five or six months till the next competition and then you have to wait, sometimes up to eight or nine months, for the peer review process and transmission of result, approval, all that stuff. So it can over a year, and by then the company has gone cold, the ideas are not hot anymore." (Partner, IPCR)  

Best practices for Enhancing Partnership:

The following best practices and lessons learned were suggested to address the cultural disconnect between academia and Industry during the interviews with various stakeholders:

5. Capacity development

Have the CIHR commercialization programs contributed to training highly qualified people in collaborative and interdisciplinary research with management expertise and in careers that support commercialization in Canada?

Key findings

Introduction

Training in the field of commercialization has been the main objective of S2B programFootnote 12  and has been encouraged through the other CIHR commercialization programs (CHRP, IPCR, POPI & POP II). S2B was specifically designed to build capacity of business-trained scientists in Canada by "encouraging individuals with a PhD in health research to pursue an MBA."

To assess these programs' performance in capacity development, the following indicators were studied: number of HQP involved in the projects and trained in the area of commercialization, extent to which the training contributed to relevant experiences in their field, and HQP career trajectory. Since the objective of the S2B program was mainly focused on training, comparing with the other CIHR commercialization programs, the findings will be presented separately for this program.

Findings

Initially S2B program was offered as a grant to Canadian business schools with health or biotechnology stream MBAs to enable them to recruit PHD scientist in health research. As of 2010, following the advice of Commercialization Advisory Committee, the funding is provided directly to the applicant as an award. The maximum award value is $30,000 a year for 2 years. Also the program expanded to include all Canadian MBA programs. The following results refer to the awards portion of the program.

Of 31 awardees, 17 responded to the evaluation survey, representing a 55% response rate. 41% of the awardees have already completed the MBA program and the remaining 59% are still pursuing their degree. The top reported reasons the awardees applied to an MBA through the S2B program were: to obtain additional training and experience in management (76%), to increase their employability (76%), for networking opportunities (i.e. industry organizations) (71%) and to obtain additional training and experience in entrepreneurship (59%).When asked how the MBA program met their expectations in term of contributing to the development of their management/entrepreneurial/commercialization skills/knowledge, 35% of the awardees said it exceeded their expectations, 41% declared that it fully met their expectations and 18% that it only partially met their expectations.

The reasons most of the awardees were content with how their MBAs contributed to the development of their commercialization skills/knowledge were: it helped them gain new knowledge in the field of commercialization (92%), they were exposed to networking opportunities with industry organizations (92%), they acquired business/entrepreneurial skills (92%) and they felt more "job-ready" (92%). For the awardees who declared that the MBA partially met their expectations for contributing to their commercialization skills (18%), the majority (75%) declared that they had not had enough exposure to industrially relevant projects. 

The majority of the S2B awardees (76%) declared that they would not have been able to participate in the MBA program without the financial award received from CIHR. 

In terms of career development, at the time of the survey (April-May 2013), 24% of the awardees hold a management position, 18% a technology transfer position, and the rest hold various positions in the following fields: health research, finance, technology development, and entrepreneurship. Most of the awardees (41%) were working for industry and the rest (18%) for universities (technology transfer, industry liaison or other office). The remaining worked at not-for-profit organizations and other organizations (18%). Most of them were located in Canada (88%), in the following provinces: Ontario (36%), Alberta (21%), British Columbia (21%), Saskatchewan (14%) and Quebec (7%).

In assessing IPCR, CHRP, POPI and POPII capacity development, funded researchers were asked to report the number of HQP involved in their projects as well as the ones trained in the area of commercialization. Commercialization funded researchers involved a variety of HQP and research personnel in their projects, however the number of HQP and research personnel trained in the area of commercialization were low across the commercialization programs, and also for the OOGP comparison group, as depicted by table 6.1.

Table 6.1: HQP Involved and HQP trained (average per program)
  OOGP Comm. Survey n=26 CHRPFootnote x IPCR n=20 POP-I n=45 POP-II n=6
  Involved Trained Trained Involved Trained Involved Trained Involved Trained
Researchers 2.71 0.07 2.2Footnote xi 3.30 0.10 2.68 0.61 3.40 1
Research assistants 1.95 0.11 0 2.80 0 1.38 0.25 1.80 0.20
Research technicians 1.46 0.08 0 1.60 0.10 1.42 0.25 3.25 0
Postdoctoral fellows (post-Ph.D.) 2.08 0 1 1.42 0.17 1.53 0.62 2.67 0.67
Post health professional degree 2.50 0 0 4.33 0 1 0 1 0
Fellows not purs.  Master's or PhD 2.00 0 0 3.75 0 0 0 1 0
PhD students 2.30 0.05 1.7 2.42 0.17 1.81 0.52 1.75 0.50
Master's students 2.44 0.06 2.3 2.62 0.08 1.78 0.11 3 0
Undergraduate students 4.29 0 2.1 3.63 0 2.07 0.21 4.67 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0

According to funded researchers, HQP and research personnel benefited from participating in commercialization projects were: gaining new knowledge and skills, gaining practical experience, being involved in multidisciplinary research training, and having access to the cutting age technology and research facilities. The majority of POP I researchers (70%) reported that trainees benefited from being exposed to industrially relevant research projects, compared to  50%  of IPCR funded researchers and 44% of OOGP funded researchers (n=27). (Data not shown.)

In terms of employment, approximately half of the researchers reported that their HQP and research personnel involved in the project have been hired by academia or are in academic training. 40% of IPCR and POP I researchers reported HQP that was hired by industry, which could be their partners (10%), or other than their industrial partners (30%).

Table 6.2: Number of HQP who participated in the project and have since been hired, according to funded researchers
  IPCR n=20 POP-I n=45 POP-II n=6
  Unique researcher Average Unique researcher Average Unique researcher Average
Hired by Industrial Partner 10% 0.05 7% 0.11 17% 0.83
Hired by Industry (other than industrial partners) 30% 0.55 30% 0.43 0% 0
Hired by Government 10% 0.10 7% 0.11 33% 0.50
Hired by Academia 50% 1.20 48% 0.80 50% 0.66
In Academic Training 50% 1.05 33% 0.83 83% 2.50
Other (please specify) 10% 0.10 2% 0.02 0 0

The importance of expertise in the area of commercialization was underlined by all parties involved in this evaluation, including funded researchers and the other stakeholders, TTOs' representatives, partners, and investors.

Researchers' lack of experience in the area of commercialization

Thirty percent of funded researchers surveyed reported a lack of commercialization skills as a challenge in moving their discovery/innovation toward commercialization. Feedback received from the stakeholders interviewed was that researchers are not well versed with commercialization work in Canada.

"…nowadays you have to take a project way farther than you ever used to, to get the risk tolerance to the right point for some potential partner to step in; finding the resources at play to allow you to do that is a hard job; not only finding the resources it's finding the people that can actually plan and execute on a development program as opposed to a research program to get to the answers that are needed by the pharmaceutical partners before you actually have something that they're going to pick up; the difference between the research program and the development program, the interest of the research community to actually participate in a development program or know what has to be done for a development program – so there's that kind of gap…knowledge gap, expertise, experience gap." (TTO, POP-I/POP-II)

Entrepreneurship gap

Interview respondents also commented on the entrepreneurship gap in Canada. One participant highlighted that there are programs which are set-up to support Canadian entrepreneurs; however, the real concern is that there is a shortage of entrepreneurs in Canada:

"Well, my opinion about this gap is that we have an entrepreneurship gap; so we have a lot of programs, like your program, […], we have all this to coach and to support the entrepreneurs, but we don't have entrepreneurs…" (Investor/valorization, POP-I/POP-II)

Also S&T Strategy recognized the need for educating, attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel (HPQ) into Canadian businesses landscape in the People Advantage Priority.

Talent Gap in TTOs

Almost all participants voiced the need for TTO staff to have commercialization backgrounds and expertise. It was noted that TTOs should be staffed by those who have industry experience and are supported on an ongoing basis to develop greater knowledge, skills, and expertise. A strategic asset then is locating the right people that can actually plan and execute a development project as opposed to solely a research program. Having a commercial expert on board was viewed as a worthwhile facilitator/enabler. This individual in particular could assist in adapting projects as data and findings were made available and could offer PIs better commercial guidance. Although there are more experts available due to the restructuring and downsizing in pharmaceutical and venture capital organizations, it is still very difficult for TTOs to entice and sustain the involvement of these experts who may be readily available but come with a high-ticketed price tag. One of the TTOs expressed that the ongoing challenge to secure a facilitator is providing sufficient and stable funding to make it attractive for high quality personnel. It would also be ideal for the TTO to have an experienced individual or entrepreneur with strong project management skills that is knowledgeable of the industry, can help design a simple set of terms industry can comply with around transfer of technology, can act as a strategic ally when it comes to partnering with industry and is good at securing financing for projects.

Best practices for Capacity development:

6. Program Design & Delivery

To what extent have the CIHR's commercialization programs been designed and delivered efficiently?

Key findings

Program performance and awareness

Areas for improvement

Best practices for design and delivery:

Program Performance and Awareness

According to the stakeholders interviewed, the CIHR commercialization programs are well received and are delivering the intended outcomes of the grant programs. Specifically, the POP I program, the most highly used and sought grant, was considered the best practice in supporting early stage research in the commercialization pathway. According to the stakeholders interviewed, without this grant program, projects would have extreme difficulty in getting started or taking shape. Objectives of the POP-I program were met; teams were accessing the funds to determine the potential for commercial viability, to strengthen the value of the IP, to attract investors for downstream investments, to stimulate interest in health research commercialization (e.g. conducting second generation projects even if the project did not move forward), support job creation (e.g. technicians, graduate students, post-graduate students, junior researcher, translation staff) and ultimately to support important applications of health research to improve health of Canadians.

The POP II program was also well received and its objective to support projects to move further along the commercialization pathway was being met. There were some challenges in accessing this program (see section on barriers). The most important contribution of the POP grants is that these programs are responding to the key challenges in commercialization by: providing funding to validate early discoveries when the projects are at their highest risk and investors are not interested yet (i.e. de-risking the project); addressing the lack of funding available for early stage commercialization when it is important to advance the knowledge and examine its viability or potential for commercial value; and responding to broader environmental trends such as downsizing of R&D in Industry (particularly in the pharmaceutical sector).

Similarly, the IPCR program was also well received by many of the interview participants; particularly those who were partners in CIHR funded projects. They were highly appreciative of this grant scheme. The projects funded with the IPCR grant were able to: establish strong collaborations in health research between universities and industry, including establishing better understanding of each other's needs and priorities; build capacity including a better understanding of the commercialization processes, and appreciation of the challenges in conducting research; support health research studies; as well as supporting job creation and ultimately moving the research towards eventual application. Most projects funded through IPCR had not moved to the stage of commercialization where there were actual products and services in the market place. It is apparent that commercialization projects take time, require funding support from a highly engaged set of players. IPCR funding acts as both an incentive and a catalyst for industry and academia to relate to each other; but, it is most important that there be a strong invention or discovery around which they are engaging. All parties must agree and have sufficient evidence to support the commercial value of the research. Industry, in particular, requires solid proof of concept and validation to have a longer term engagement with the project. This is an "almost given" factor for success.

The CHRP program was not discussed in great detail by interview participants and the majority did not have experience with the program. For example, of the 10 TTOs, only 3 participants indicated having dealt with the CHRP program. Those who either had experience with the CHRP program or knew about the program were very enthusiastic about it. The objectives of the program were met: interdisciplinary collaboration, capacity development of stakeholders (training, learning and sharing), and most importantly translating the research in the context of commercialization. Several participants noted that they liked the longer term duration of the CHRP grant and that it did not have a set date for applications.

Application and review process

Regarding the application and review process, data available from the survey of CIHR commercialization funded researchers shows that funded researchers were satisfied with the time given to prepare and submit their applications, the time taken by CIHR to process their applications, as well as the length and the clarity of the application. The frequency of the competitions and the promptness of the CIHR program staff responding to the questions related to the application and decision process were areas that require some improvement.

Table 7.1: Percentage of researchers that somewhat or strongly agree with the following statements about the application process:
  IPCR (n=20) POPI (n=46) POPII (n=6) S2B (n=17)
I was given enough time to prepare and submit my application 90% 94% 83% 88%
My application was processed by CIHR within the stated timelines 85% 100% 100% 94%
The application guidelines provided by CIHR were clear 85% 98% 83% 76%
The application form was an appropriate length 85% 96% 84% 76%
The forms were easy to understand and complete 75% 100% 84% 71%
The information requested in the application was relevant to my evaluation 65% 100% 100% 94%
CIHR program staff responded promptly to my questions related to the application process 60% 63% 83% 82%
I was satisfied with the frequency of competitions 47% 89% 100% n/a
Figure 7.2: Percentage of researchers that somewhat or strongly agree with the following statements about the decision process:
  IPCR (n=20) POPI (n=46) POPII (n=6) S2B (n=17)
The feedback received from the reviewers of my application was useful 75% 87% 84% 88%
The feedback received from the Scientific Officer's notes was useful 75% 78% 83% n/a
The feedback received was consistent between the reviewers of my application 80% 70% 84% n/a
The reviewers of my application had appropriate content and methodological expertise 75% 67% 84% n/a
The peer review process was transparent 65% 79% 83% 82%
The peer review process was fair 75% 85% 83% 88%
The decision regarding my application was released within the posted timelines 85% 96% 83% 88%
CIHR program staff responded promptly to my questions related to decision process 70% 52% 84% 82%
My funding was released within a reasonable period of time 85% 98% 83% 71%

The stakeholders consulted during the interviews suggested areas for improvement related to the application and decision process. Many TTOs stated that one of the largest impediments to their potential success is timelines around the POP programs. It was widely felt that CIHR tends to align its timelines with the academy as opposed to industry. Barriers arising from the POPI grants commence at the outset as universities have one year to complete the preliminary results necessary to file a patent. However it takes two to three months to complete a POP grant application and upwards of six months to receive a response and/or funding. By this time, industry interest is waning or withdrawn altogether and the patent clock is ticking away; these are two major obstacles for universities to compete with.

"I should say my big concern with the POP program is the length of time it takes between applications and funding is kind of slow; we're looking at almost a year depending on how things go; now with the patent clock ticking we need to find a way to speed that process up."(TTO, POP-I/POP-II)

In order to overcome these challenges, it was suggested to have more than two competitions a year, perhaps adopting the NSERC model which holds quarterly competitions (also discussed in the partnership section). Shorter timelines from application submission to grant allocation was recommended for improvement. One suggestion for POPII: develop a 3 months framework from application submission to fund allocation to ensure potential investors stay committed.

Another suggestion from interviews was to involve more industry experts, investors and end-users of products in the peer review process to better evaluate the projects' commercial potential and mitigate the risk for investors. For example, the applications for the CECR and BL-NCE programs are reviewed by an expert panel, the Private Sector Advisory Board and the Steering Committee.Footnote 14 One stakeholder underlined the importance of giving the researchers the opportunity to present their proposals, an approach that is used more commonly in the industry environment.

There are some suggestions on considering proposals that may not have any preliminary data but have good potential. Some participants felt that they have had multiple applications rejected by the reviewers on this very basis. However, this brings to light that CIHR is discounting the whole point of explorative research by setting up these overly scrutinized procedures. According to one participant, the process is backwards and counterproductive if researchers are more concerned with spending money received to develop preliminary results for their next grant as opposed to working on their current grant. Essentially, if a company and a researcher come together for the first time to head a commercialization project on something new, how useful are preliminary results going to be? Some of these components are a direct hindrance to potential commercialization.

Grant amount and duration

Table 7.3: Grant amount and duration
Program type CHRPFootnote xii
(n=145)
IPCR
(n= 20)
POP-I
(n=46)
POP-II
(n=6)
Average grant duration in years 3 2.6 1 1
Grant average $320,676 $288,290 $133,957 $192,291

Most funded IPCR researchers were satisfied with the duration of their grant (70%) and the amounts received (80%).  POPI and POP II funded researchers had concerns regarding the amounts and in particular the duration of their grants. POP I funded researchers commented that one year is a very tight timeline and a two or three year timeline would be more appropriate given the nature of the research funded by this program. POP II funded researchers reported that a one-year period was insufficient to do the work proposed, particularly when the work involves a high degree of interaction with an industry partner. 

Figure 7.4: Percentage of researchers that found the duration of their grant was adequate to support their research

  • Long description
      POP II POP I IPCR
    Percentage of researchers that found the duration of their grant was adequate to support their research 33% 39% 70%

Some of the stakeholders interviewed echoed that CIHR-POP programs are under-funded. It was pointed out that if the end-goal is commercialization then CIHR's funding pool is not large enough.

Figure 7.5: Percentage of researchers that found the amount received through CIHR commercialization programs adequate to support their research

  • Long description
      POP II POP I IPCR
     Percentage of researchers that found the amount received through CIHR commercialization programs adequate to support their research 50% 67% 80%

When asked about what type of activities/expenses should be eligible towards the implementation of a project's commercialization plan, the funded researchers reported:

Table 7.6: Type of activities/expenses should be eligible towards the implementation of a project's commercialization plan
  IPCR (n=20) POPI (n=46) POPII (n=6)
Patenting costs 40% 85% 83%
Consulting fees, where services and expertise are not available on the research team 45% 57% 100%
Market studies to determine market potential 25% 48% 100%
Communication and networking costs 40% 48% 33%
Expenses associated with creating partnerships 45% 61% 67%
Collaborative trips 40% 65% 67%
Other 30%Footnote xiii 2% 17%Footnote xiv

Allocation of funds for patent application/protection

In terms of the percentage of the project budget that should be eligible for commercialization activities, the responses given by the funded researchers were grouped in the following ranges:

Table 7.7: Allocation of funds for patent application/protection
Program Range of percentage of the project budget that should be eligible for commercialization expenses
IPCR (n=20) 0-25%
POPI (n=46) 0-60%
POPII (n=6) 2-45%

Stakeholders interviewed appreciated that the allocation of the funds for patent application /protection should occur on a case-by-case basis.  It was also suggested that the IPCR and CHRP grants should have funding allocation for licensing/patenting as 3 years is a long time period without addressing this component.

Monitoring and accountability

Partners who received POP and IPCR both discussed the cultural difference between the academy and industry, including how projects are managed, controlled and accounted for (contractual and financial obligations). Projects that are industry sponsored are viewed as having greater oversight and accountability. Projects that are partly public funded and partly industries funded are difficult to manage because the investigators get mixed messages (industry focuses on performance or milestone based funding). Overall, industry partners find that how the funds are administered and how the cash flow occurs is not very attractive. It was suggested that the idea of paying according to performance is something that CIHR could consider and this could also act as a way to measure success.

"So if the money was controlled by the industry partner and the milestones were set out through some kind of contract with two or three different investigators, the projection was well documented and CIHR could look for the accountability in the activity tracking, I think that would be the best thing" (Partner).

TTOs also raised these concerns and suggested a co-managed system (between CIHR and TTOs) in regards to CIHR funding allocation. They also mentioned the need for a higher degree of responsibility and accountability (e.g. funding to be released based on achievement of specific milestones).

Suggestions for improvement - S2B:

The recepients of S2B awards were very entusiasrtic about this program and described it as an advantageous bridge between academia and industry. 59% of awardees declared that the amount of funding was adequate to support their MBA. 41% declared it did not cover the entire cost of their MBA programs.

These are some of the suggestions for improvement given by the awardees:

"The application could be more streamlined and relevant to the program; it seemed like a research proposal with some minor modifications, but this is not what the program is about. My application to business school was much shorter!" (S2B awardee)

"Extending the 7 year max eligibility requirement.  Work experience help students benefit more from their MBA, however the 7 year range post PhD limits this possibility." (S2B awardee)

"More advertising of the program and more industry engagement to recruit the graduates." (S2B awardee)

"S2B could provide further help beyond financial aides. For example, as a government organization, CIHR S2B could help students connect to commercialization centers within and out of the universities across county." (S2B awardee)

Program costs

CIHR commercialization program operating costs calculated as a percentage of the program grant expenditures incurred by CIHR during the fiscal years in question, varied in the range of 4.7% to 5.3% for the fiscal years 2001/02 - 2011/12. See Appendix III, for details on direct and indirect Costs for CIHR Commercialization programs, fiscal years 2001/02 - 2011/12.

Best practices for design and delivery:

7. Program Relevance

What role should CIHR play in funding commercialization programs?

Key findings

Need for health research commercialization funding

CIHR role in funding health research commercialization

Continued need for CIHR's commercialization programs

Over the last years, a series of studies repeatedly documented that Canada is falling behind other highly developed countries when it comes to innovation.

The Council of Canadian Academics (the Council) has since 2006, completed seven expert panel assessments analyzing Canada's performance in science and technology (S&T) and innovation. The latest report: "Paradox lost: Explaining Canada's Research Strength and Innovation Weaknesses" synthesizes the findings of the previous reports in what is called the "paradox": the fact that Canadian academic research is strong and well rewarded internationally, however, Canadian business innovation is weak by international standards and is the primary cause of Canada' poor productivity growth. The reports attribute this paradox to two factors: "(i) the fact that most innovations do not work according to a "linear" model in which academic research yields a pipeline filled with ideas that, following some research and development (R&D) are commercialized by business and (ii) business strategy in Canada is powerfully influenced by many factors besides those that motivate innovation." (CCA, 2013)

More specifically, one of the previous studies conducted by the Council, The State of Science and Technology in Canada, 2012 concludes that Canadian S&T is healthy and growing in both output and impact: "with less than 0.5% of the world's population, Canada produces 4.1% of the world's scientific papers and nearly 5% of the world's most frequently cited papers." However, Canada performs poorly in patents and related measures: "despite producing 4.1% of the world's scientific papers, Canada holds only 1.7% of world patents, and in 2010 had a negative balance in nearly five billion dollars in royalties and licensing revenues." (CCA, 2012)

The Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC), the Canadian Government's advisory body in the domain of science, technology and innovation (STI) also produced a series of reports, including State of the Nation 2008, 2010, 2012. These reports measured Canada's STI performance against international standards of excellence on key indicators related to business innovation, knowledge development and transfer, and talent development and deployment (STIC, 2012). Reinforcing the findings of the previous two reports, State of Nation 2012 concludes that "Canada has much to celebrate with respect to the high quality of our talent and our strength in generating new knowledge"; however it highlights particularly important STI indicators on which Canada should aspire to join the ranks of the world's top five performing countries (STIC, 2012).

Specifically for CIHR, the International Review Panel Report (IRP) (June 2011) identified commercialization as an area of concern noting that it remains a largely underdeveloped part of knowledge translation at CIHR. IRP highlighted that relationships with industry are relatively weak and should be a stronger focus for the organization. The IRP report also mentioned that there was a lack of clear policies or sufficient incentives for scientists to generate or own IP to enhance the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Canada.

Recent trends for Canadian Health Research Commercialization Landscape

In order to better understand the factors that influence the health research commercialization in Canada and the need for CIHR commercialization programs, this evaluation also looked at the recent trends for the Canadian health research commercialization. The following themes recurred in the literature, this survey with funded researchers, and the interviews with relevant stakeholders:

Many stakeholders interviewed raised concerns about the lack of funding in the area of early stage commercialization research. Early stage commercialization research does not receive enough attention in Canada, according to many of the TTOs. Yet more funding in this area is imperative in determining what research is worth focusing on and what has the most potential for further development and commercialization. In Canada the CIHR-POP programs are among the only grants that focus primarily on early stage research and it is nearly impossible for many TTOs to attract investors without it.

Initiating an additional proof of concept fund before the POP-I was also regarded as an area where CIHR could make more headway. It is at this early stage where TTOs highlighted the key to commercialization truly lies; the ability to assess the potential efficacy of pursuing a technology for commercialization. Many TTOs would like to see CIHR design smaller POP–like funds that would allow for one or two commercialization experiments identifying which projects are worth investing in.

Representatives of the non-partners organizations also underlined the lack of funding prior to the POP-I, but also they draw attention on the fact that CIHR should try to concentrate their resources more in-between the POP-I and the POP-II grants if they can. However, if they cannot extend their resources any further, it was suggested that in order to close this gap, CIHR could help to identify Canadian labs and or companies that could assist in the area of proof of concept funding and perhaps build a collaborative system or consortium to pool more resources into this area.

Alternative Sources of Funding

Stakeholders interviewed were asked to identify other sources of funding for health research commercialization. The following sources of funding outside of the CIHR programs were mentioned most commonly by the stakeholders interviewed:

Survey results also indicate that there are few alternative resources for commercialization funding in Canada. The great majority (89%) of survey respondents reported that they would not have achieved the same results, stating that the research would not have taken place whatsoever in the absence of CIHR commercialization funding.

Less than half of the commercialization survey respondents (45% IPCR, 33% POPI and 50% POPII) received awards or other additional financing to commercialize their research during and/or within two years after their CIHR grant's finishing date. The other sources of funding mentioned by researchers responding to the survey were: provincial government, Canadian private organizations (industry), NSERC, NCE, and CFI. (Data not shown.)

CIHR Commercialization grants trajectory

Looking at CIHR commercialization programs funded researchers grants' trajectory will help us understand how the funded researchers take advantage of the different programs for commercializing their research. This analysis looked at the number of IPCR and CHRP funded researchers who obtained subsequent funding from CIHR POP I and POP II programs for the period 1999/2000-2010/2011. The results show that only a small percentage of the CIHR CHRP funded researchers (2%) received a subsequent POP I grant and 8% of the IPCR funded researchers received a subsequent POP I grant. 15% of the IPCR funded researchers had 2 or 3 IPCR grants and 13% of the POP I funded researchers had two or three POP I grants. Most of the POP II researchers (68%) had a POP I grant before.  Only two researchers crossed the entire CIHR commercialization program spectrum having: an IPCR, a POPI and POPII grants. 23% of the CHRP funded researchers got other subsequent funding, mostly through OOGP.

Also should be noted that 3.6% of the OOGP researchers received a subsequent commercialization grant from CIHR (excluding CHRP) (OOGP Evaluation report, 2012).

Figure 8.2: CIHR Commercialization grants trajectory

  • Long description

    N - Represents the number of CIHR funded researchers for the period 1999/2000-2010/20

    IPCR (N=175) 15% IPCR researchers had multiple IPCR grants
    8% IPCR researchers had also a subsequent POP I grant
    POP I (N=298) 13% POP I researchers had multiple POP I grants
    POP II (N=40) 68% POP II researchers also had a POP I grant
    CHRP (N=171) 23% CHRP researchers got other CIHR subsequent funding, mostly OOGP
    2% CHRP researchers had also a subsequent POP I grant

Alignment of CIHR commercialization programs with Federal Government plans and priorities

CIHR's mandate is to "excel, according to internationally accepted standards of scientific excellence, in the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products and a strengthened Canadian health-care system."Footnote 15

Innovation and commercialization are important aims of CIHR and stated in the CIHR Act: "encouraging innovation, facilitating the commercialization of health research in Canada and promoting economic development through health research in Canada" (CIHR Act, 2000)

In 2005, CIHR developed its Commercialization and Innovation Strategy (CIHR, 2005) with the goals of providing a coherent framework for transforming health research into action, improving the quality of life and stimulating economic development through discovery and innovation. The strategy had specific objectives developed in four strategic areas: research, linkage, talent and capital. It was implemented through a series of programs and initiatives, national platforms and other activities. Some of these programs and initiatives were provided solely by CIHR, some were delivered in collaboration with other government departments and agencies.

In 2007, the Government of Canada (GOC) launched Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada's Advantage (commonly referred to as the S&T Strategy) a framework set "to make Canada a world leader in science and technology and a key source of entrepreneurial innovation and creativity." The Strategy identified three S&T advantages: entrepreneurial advantage, knowledge advantage and people advantage.

CIHR Commercialization Programs were directly aligned with the S&T Strategy and its three advantages. The Entrepreneurial Advantage refers to the "translation of knowledge into practical applications to improve the wealth, wellness and well-being." POP programs were aligned with this Advantage program, through the provision of "a platform to better enable the academic institution/researcher to move the discovery/invention further down the innovation pipeline"Footnote 16.   The S2B program aligned with the People Advantage through the development talent by providing funding for individuals with a PhD in health research to pursue an MBA.  Finally, CHRP and IPRC programs aligned with the Knowledge advantage through building productive partnerships, advancing discoveries towards commercialization, and translating results to knowledge users. 

In 2014, the Government of Canada launched an updated strategy: Seizing Canada's Moment: Moving Forward in Science, Technology and Innovation 2014Footnote 17 which builds on the foundation laid out in the 2007 framework but goes further to ensure that Canada remains well positioned in the global arena for research excellence, talent and wealth. The strategy will make it easier for businesses to work with partners, including government, in the innovation system and foster collaborations based on industrial-demand that encourage newly emerging as well as established industries to look for solutions from Canada's research institutions.

Assessment of the Federal Roles and Responsibilities

Although it is recognized that funding is required for each stage of the commercialization pathway, the many of stakeholders interviewed believe that funding early stage commercialization research is the most critical role that CIHR can play, especially given limited resources. As mentioned earlier in the report, the majority of the funded researchers surveyed (94%) identified "early stage funding" as a priority area that CIHR should focus its commercialization programs.

Besides the funding role that CIHR has, the interview participants also noted several other roles for CIHR to play in order to enhance commercialization of health research in Canada:

8. References

Brush, C. G., Kolvereid, L. & Widding, L. O. (2010). The life cycle of new ventures: Emergence, newness and growth.

Edward Elgar Publishing: United Kingdom.

Bubela, T., Caulfield, T. (2010), Role and reality: technology transfer at Canadian universities, Trends in Biotechnology, Vol. 28, Issue 9, 447-451

Caulfield T., Harmon s., Joly Y. (2012), Open science versus commercialization: a modern research conflict?, Genome Medicine, 4:17

CIHR (2005) - Commercialization and Innovation Strategy

CIHR (2012) - Evaluation of the Open Operating Grant Program

CIHR (2013) - Evaluation of Regenerative Medicine and Nanomedicine Initiative

CIHR (2011) -The International Review Panel Report (IRP)

Daim, T., Monalisa, M., Dash, P., Brown, N. (2007), Time lag assessment between research funding and output in emerging technologies, Foresight, Vol. 9, No.4, p33-44.

Canada's Economic Action Plan, 2013, Venture Capital Action Plan

Heher A.D. (2006), Return on Investment in Innovation: Implications for Institutions and National Agencies, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 31, No4, p 403-414.

Review of Federal Support to Research and Development – Expert Panel Report (2011) – Innovation Canada: A Call to Action

House of Commons (2013) – Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU), Intellectual Property Regime in Canada

Murray F., Stern S. (2007) Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 63, Issue 4, p. 648-687

Networks of Centres of Excellence of Canada (2012) - Summative Evaluation of the Networks of Centres of Excellence - Centres of Excellence for commercialization and Research Program- Evaluation Report

The Council of Canadian Academics (CCA) (2013) - Paradox lost: Explaining Canada's Research Strength and Innovation Weaknesses

The Council of Canadian Academics (CCA) (2012) - The State of Science and Technology in Canada

The Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC), (2008, 2010, 2012) – State of Nation Reports

Van Looya, B., Callaertb, J., Debackerea, K. (2006) Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?, Research Policy, Vol. 35, Issue 4, p. 596-608 

Wood, M. S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 54, 153-161

9. Appendices

Appendix I: Evaluation Methodology

To ensure that the study findings were robust, credible, and consistent with Treasury Board Secretariat policy and recognized best practices in evaluation (McDavid et al., 2006), this evaluation used multiple lines of evidence, involving both quantitative and qualitative data.

Administrative data analysis

Administrative data analysis included analysis of the CIHR EIS (Electronic Information System) data, POP progress reports data and RRS data. In particular, the EIS data analysis covered areas such as program application pressure, characteristics of the funded researchers, program's financial commitments, researchers' CIHR funding trajectory, information about partnership agreements, etc. POP progress reports data analysis address indicators related to researchers' scientific productivity. RRS data was used for comparison with OOGP program.

Literature review

A literature review of academic, grey literature and professional documents was undertaken to provide the context and issues related to the facilitators and barriers of commercialization process in Canada and internationally. Findings from the literature review helped inform this evaluation design as well.

Organizational scan

The purpose of the organizational scan was to develop an understanding of what other research funding organizations are doing to support the commercialization of health research. The environmental scan included a purposeful sample of 13 national, international and provincial health research funding organizations that support the commercialization of health research. The scan involved internet search of all identified organizations' websites and 7 key informants interviews with representatives of international organizations.

The organizational scan offered a review of various approaches that are used in Canada and around the world for funding health research commercialization programs in terms of programs' design and delivery, beneficiaries, ownership, as well as the best practices.

Survey

An online surveys with IPCR, POP I and II funded researchers were used to collect data on program rationale, delivery and achievement of short and medium-term outcomes corresponding to a range of indicators across all the evaluation questions. A sub-sample of the OOGP researchers that reported commercialization outcomes in the RRS was also surveyed for comparison and to better understand the extent of their commercialization activities.  The following response rates have been obtained:

Response rate for commercialization surveys:
  IPCR POPI POPII S2B- awards OOGP successful in commercialization CHRPFootnote xv
Invitations sent 103 237 34 31 226 416
Completed Responses 20 46 6 17 27 113
Response Rate 19% 19% 18% 55% 12% 27%

Based on the survey response rates and the population and sample characteristics, the survey samples were representative for the POP I and IPCR. The survey responses rate for POP II was too small (n=6), so the results for this program are presented for information only.

The distribution of researchers by CIHR pillars was similar across all comparison groups:
Pillar Commercialization programs – population (N=670)Footnote xvi Commercialization programs – survey
(n=72)
OOGP RRS researchers (n=982) OOGP successful in commercialization (n=27)
Biomedical 76% 79% 74% 85%
Clinical 14% 18% 10% 11%
Health systems/services 2%   7%  
Social/Cultural/Environmental/Population Health 2% 3% 9% 4%
Not applicable/Specified 6%      

Survey data was analyzed using a combination of SPSS and Excel software.

Key informants interviews

Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to gather information on stakeholders' perceptions about commercialization programs, barriers and facilitators for commercialization, alternative funding sources for commercialization and to add context to the information collected through the other lines of evidence. Interviews lasted approximately 30-45 minutes and were conducted in person or over the phone with the following stakeholders:

The interview guides were tailored to each stakeholder group. The interviews tried to capture different stakeholders' experiences and perspectives on the issues pertaining to this evaluation.
A theme-based analysis of the qualitative data coming from interviews was done using the NVivo software.

Limitations

The survey responses rate for POP II was too small (n=6), so the results for this program should not be interpreted as representative of the population of POP II grantees. The results for this program are presented for information only.

Since the CHRP program was evaluated by NSERC, this evaluation used the results and data collection from NSERC evaluation; however the data was limited to the design of CHRP evaluation.

Qualitative data reported in the POP progress reports had limited information about the commercialization outcomes. Most of the qualitative data was reporting about the actual research conducted.

Appendix II: CIHR Commercialization Programs Logic Model

  • Long description

    Description of the CIHR Commercialization Programs Logic Model

    In 2005 CIHR developed its Commercialization and Innovation Strategy (CIHR, 2005) with the goal to provide a coherent framework for transforming health research into action, improving the quality of life and stimulating economic development through discovery and innovation. The strategy had specific objectives developed in four strategic areas: research, linkage, talent, capital and it was implemented through a series of programs, initiatives, national platforms, and other activities. For the scope of this evaluation, only the current CIHR commercialization programs were studied: Industry-Partnered Collaborative Research Operating Grants (IPCR), Collaborative Health Research Projects (CHRP), Science to Business (S2B), Proof of Principle Phase I (POP I) and Proof of Principle Phase II (POP II).

    The following components describe the CIHR Commercialization Programs logic model:

    Inputs (resources used by the program to provide its activities) – Funding, staff, grants and awards applications, reviewers, partners.

    Activities (services or events delivered by the program) - Programs design, planning and promotion/ Competition and peer review process/ Post award administration and reporting.

    Outputs (products, services that are produced through program’s activities) - Program plans and strategies, Media releases (website, interviews, press)/ Grants and training awards/ Client services (contact with applicants, institutions, and partners), Evaluation & performance reports.

    Outcomes (changes or benefits for individuals, groups, communities or organizations that result from the program):

    Immediate outcomes:

    • Knowledge creation: Research to translate discoveries that will demonstrate the potential for commercialization;
    • Training and Mentorship: Trained heath scientists with industry, entrepreneurial and interdisciplinary experience;
    • Collaboration: Strengthened collaboration between researchers and with knowledge users from different research fields/communities;
    • Partnership: Sustained partnerships (both CIHR’s and funded researchers’) with industry and other knowledge users.

    Intermediate outcomes:

    • Knowledge advanced: Advancing discoveries/ inventions towards commmercializable technologies, products and services;
    • Capacity building: Developing Canadian expertise in research, technology transfer, entrepreneurship and interfacing with industry;
    • Knowledge translation: Use of discoveries/ inventions within the research community, health system, industry and government;
    • Commercialization: An improved culture of entrepreneurial academics and growth of start-up businesses.

    Long-term outcomes: Accelerate the Capture of Health and Economic Benefits of Health Research

    Reach (stakeholders involved in the programs): Industry, Public sector, Universities, Not-for- profit organizations, other research partners: university affiliated hospitals, community –based organizations, private research organizations.

    Tri-council programs that are related to CIHR Commercialization Programs: Tri-Council College and Community Innovation Program, Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR), Business-Led Networks of Centres of Excellence (BL-NCE).

Appendix III: Direct and indirect Costs for CIHR Commercialization programs, fiscal years 2001/02-2011/12Footnote 19

  • Long description

    Canadian Institutes of Health Research

    Direct/Indirect Costs for SME, Rx&D, CHRP & S2B

    2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
    IPCR
    Direct Costs - Grants 2,498,812 4,565,932 5,556,881 4,392,579 3,702,909 5,582,389 6,254,426 8,130,188 8,190,579 6,963,591 7,564,675
    Indirect Costs - Salaries 57,678 124,281 166,135 132,864 113,827 176,785 195,435 286,460    299,287 275,893 329,789
    Indirect Costs - Non-Salary 81,982 123,698 145,277 112,911 74,258 98,018 92,931 132,417    131,278 110,083 81,565
    TOTAL 2,638,471 4,813,911 5,868,293 4,638,354 3,890,994 5,857,192 6,542,792 8,549,065 8,621,144 7,349,567 7,976,029
    POP
    Direct Costs - Grants 4,330,097 3,323,588 3,062,031 2,873,564 6,804,332 6,452,260 6,650,497 4,427,559 1,809,033 5,367,426 5,951,297
    Indirect Costs - Salaries 99,947 90,466 91,546 86,918  209,164  204,333 207,812 156,001 66,103 212,654 259,453
    Indirect Costs - Non-Salary 142,063 90,041 80,052 73,865 136,454 113,291 98,816 72,112 28,995 84,850 64,169
      4,572,107 3,504,095 3,233,629 3,034,347 7,149,951 6,769,884 6,957,125 4,655,672 1,904,131 5,664,931 6,274,918
    CHRP
    Direct Costs - Grants - - - 960,364 2,071,651 3,038,386 3,073,925 4,294,276 5,849,815 6,956,011 8,735,518
    Indirect Costs - Salaries - - - 29,048 63,682 96,221 96,053 151,305    213,754 275,593 380,833
    Indirect Costs - Non-Salary - - - 24,686 41,545 53,349 45,674 69,941 93,761 109,963 94,189
    - - - 1,014,099 2,176,878 3,187,956 3,215,651 4,515,522 6,157,330 7,341,567 9,210,541
    Science to Business
    Direct Costs - Grants - - - - 534,000 345,585 485,964   5,000    485,529 203,750 232,500
    Indirect Costs - Salaries - - - - 16,415 10,944 15,185   176 17,741   8,072 10,136
    Indirect Costs - Non-Salary - - - - 10,709   6,068   7,221 81   7,782   3,221   2,507
    - - - - 561,124 362,597 508,370 5,258 511,052 215,043 245,143
    OPERATING RATIO 5.29% 5.15% 5.31% 5.30% 4.83% 4.69% 4.41% 4.90% 4.99% 5.25% 5.16%
Date modified: